Question about American gun laws.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

Which is exactly what it was designed to do as the use of dumdum, fragmenting and explosive rounds in war was banned under the Haig convention.

Understood.

[Tank]

Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No. The constitution wasn't written for some absure view of bullet range, accuracy and lethality.

Good answer. From the founding fathers point of view I would agree completely. But do you think that the founding fathers had in mind weapons the like of which could lead to the Columbine shooting? Do you think this knowledge would have made them adjust the concept they were driving at?

[Big Mac]

I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

That's actually a misunderstanding. They don't tumble like people claim. They will, under certain conditions, yaw and fragment in the body. Depends on the rate of twist in the barrel (1:9 and 1:7 have different affects) as well as length of barrel, bullet weight (62 grain vs 55 grain in the case of 5.56mm) and distance the target is engaged.

Muzzle Velocity isn't the same as the actual velocity of the bullet once it has left the barrel. Given that down range it will lose its energy (some rounds doing so very rapidly depending on the weapon and type of ammo used) and make the muzzle velocity a moot consideration.

[Davin]

Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No. The constitution wasn't written for some absure view of bullet range, accuracy and lethality.

Good answer. From the founding fathers point of view I would agree completely. But do you think that the founding fathers had in mind weapons the like of which could lead to the Columbine shooting? Do you think this knowledge would have made them adjust the concept they were driving at?

The founding fathers seemed to like freedom over a few dangerous incidents. I'm sure they knew people could and would use guns to murder each other, it's not like that kind of thing didn't exist back then, but instead of trying to limit a freedom they thought was necessary for some kind of painful illusion of security, they protected the right to bear arms. Yes people can use a gun to kill someone, but they can also use knives, swords, brooms, rocks, cars, baseball bats, ice picks, nail files, poisons, household chemicals... etc.. Trying to prevent people from owning guns for the fear that they may use it for something bad is a poor reason, of course in my opinion.

[Big Mac]

The founding fathers seemed to like freedom over a few dangerous incidents. I'm sure they knew people could and would use guns to murder each other, it's not like that kind of thing didn't exist back then, but instead of trying to limit a freedom they thought was necessary for some kind of painful illusion of security, they protected the right to bear arms. Yes people can use a gun to kill someone, but they can also use knives, swords, brooms, rocks, cars, baseball bats, ice picks, nail files, poisons, household chemicals... etc.. Trying to prevent people from owning guns for the fear that they may use it for something bad is a poor reason, of course in my opinion.

I agree. Humans were adept at killing each other well before guns made it to the scene. Swords, spears, maces, bows/arrows, etc. did a great job at killing/maiming people. In fact, I'll wager people were more predisposed to violence (there's a great video with Steven Pinker that talks about this) than they are today. Now we have a lot more to lose in a society where one mistake can easily haunt you worse than in the days where there were no photo ids and databases.

[pinkocommie]

Ben Franklin said it best - They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[dogsmycopilot]

When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

[Davin]

When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

Yes, but I don't see anything that needs to be changed, maybe add some things, but overall it's good enough.

[dogsmycopilot]

When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

Yes, but I don't see anything that needs to be changed, maybe add some things, but overall it's good enough.

I disagree. I think it's pretty silly to think you can protect yourself from the government anymore and beyond that the only other use for weapons is self protection which is a whole different story. i think we need to seriously revisit gun laws in this country.

[Davin]

Yes, but I don't see anything that needs to be changed, maybe add some things, but overall it's good enough.

I disagree. I think it's pretty silly to think you can protect yourself from the government anymore and beyond that the only other use for weapons is self protection which is a whole different story. i think we need to seriously revisit gun laws in this country.

Then what do we change?

[Gawen]

Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No. The constitution wasn't written for some absure view of bullet range, accuracy and lethality.

Good answer. From the founding fathers point of view I would agree completely. But do you think that the founding fathers had in mind weapons the like of which could lead to the Columbine shooting? Do you think this knowledge would have made them adjust the concept they were driving at?

Do I think the founding fathers considered that future baseball bats could cause mayhem, death and injury in singular or riotous cases? No. The idea the FF's had was to protect the people from tyranny. It doesn't matter if you have an armed populace. What matters is that the government outguns it's people so much that an UNDERarmed populace is rendered insignificant.  
Take for example...well, your example of Columbine. Let's say the perpetrators were armed as 17th Century pirates. Six primitive grenades, a blunderbuss, four single shot pistols, a large knife, a boarding axe and a cutlass. How much damage could they have done? How many could these asshats kill or severely injure with weapons commonly used in the times of the American forefathers? Quite a few I wager.
How many could they have killed if they had driven trucks through a line of kids walking out of school at the end of the day?
Firearms are tools, useful for protecting lives and recreational use. And I want a high capacity battle rifle when the Canadians decide to invade....*laffin*

Columbine is the root of a fallacious argument used by anti-gun people. I know a lot of people that have firearms. I know several, not in law enforcement, that have silencers and machine guns. None of them have committed a crime with their firearm.

That's about the end of me discussing firearms/politics. All it does is piss me off...*grinnin*

[Gawen]

I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

That's actually a misunderstanding. They don't tumble like people claim. They will, under certain conditions, yaw and fragment in the body. Depends on the rate of twist in the barrel (1:9 and 1:7 have different affects) as well as length of barrel, bullet weight (62 grain vs 55 grain in the case of 5.56mm) and distance the target is engaged.

Muzzle Velocity isn't the same as the actual velocity of the bullet once it has left the barrel. Given that down range it will lose its energy (some rounds doing so very rapidly depending on the weapon and type of ammo used) and make the muzzle velocity a moot consideration.

This is true, Thump. In the early M16 days, the twist and bullet weight in these early rifles were not good enough. Actually, it was good enough, but there were several things wrong with the rifle before the government took it. Other than the bullet* itself, most of those things have been rectified.
* My opinion is that 5.56mm bullets are not heavy enough for combat. The .308/7.62 should never have been shoved aside. AND soldiers should be taught how to shoot accurately, not carry more ammo and spray the countryside hoping to hit something.

[Gawen]

Ben Franklin said it best - They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

"Hear hear!"...*standin up an clappin"

[Gawen]

No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

If the constitution is changed so much from the original intent of the framers, then one does not have the country in which they envisioned.

[Tank]

No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

If the constitution is changed so much from the original intent of the framers, then one does not have the country in which they envisioned.

Just a thought but if one applied the logic of what our ancestors wanted for their country was what it should be now then there would be no progress as such would there?