Anyone like to shoot?

[merolpn]

-You can see that the article I linked was from the Washington Post, redistributed by the Tribune. And these facts are not new. I encourage you to do your own research.

That was my point. I don't think that Tribune has ever picked up any article that had any sort of pro-gun slant. Every article seems to blame the NRA or gun owners for something. Same goes for the Huffington post, Mother Jones etc. Like I stated in my earlier post, I look to these websites FOR the anti-gun spin. I read both sides.

-If you think your links about lobbying $ from the NRA represents the extent of their pull then you clearly have forgotten about that little Supreme Court case allowing unlimited spending by corporations on federal elections. What's more: The Gun Lobby: Why The NRA Is The Baddest Force In Politics

You only mentioned the NRA and their lobbying power. I linked those as a comparison to highlight that on a comparative basis the NRA is NOT a huge lobbying power. The NRA is very small in comparison. What it does have is 4+ million members that are all passionate about their rights.

-The Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment was at a ruling of 5-4. This can be repealed. Our country needs some interpretation of this part of the constitution and this is what we concluded at this time. It does not make it right or relevant today. Also, note the flexibility:

This is not the first supreme court decision to be split 5-4. Just because it was not a 9-0 decision does not mean that it is not valid.

-"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

I agree with the first sentence. But you missed the last sentence which says: "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

So, What determines "COMMON USE"? Since there are millions of guns like the AR-15, wouldn't that make the AR-15 common? How about GLOCK handguns? They are common since 90% or so of police departments issue them. "In common use" is PROTECTED. What the first sentance means is that driving to a bank with an anti-aircraft missle battery or rocket launcher would not be protected by the second amendment. Because having a trailer with anti-aircraft missles would be "unusual."

I set out to open a discussion on the problem with gun violence and research; not constitutional rights. Hopefully we can reopen a discussion on constitutional rights once we get the right government organizations to conduct the much needed research on firearms!

There has been alot of research done on this. Most crime involving guns occurs in large cities perpetrated by criminals who have obtained their guns through stealing them or straw purchasers. (Stealing and Straw Purchases are already illegal) in connection with gang wars, drugs and alcohol impairment...etc. I don't think any more research would prove any different, so I am not opposed to it.