Streams

How Much is 6,000 Rounds? Not Much, Gun Advocates Say

Monday, July 23, 2012

When suspected gunman James Holmes was apprehended following a deadly shooting spree at the midnight showing of the “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colo., Friday, police also recovered four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition at the scene.

The amount of ammunition, while large, may not be that uncommon according to some area gun owners and gun rights advocates.

“That’s nothing,” said Jacob Rieper, vice president of Legislative & Political Affairs for the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the New York State affiliate organization of the NRA.

Rieper said boxes of ammunition vary based on the caliber of the bullet. For example, he said rifle ammunition is often sold in a 20 round box, but bulk packages can have anywhere from 200 to 1,000 rounds.

“I know people who have so much more than that,” said Rieper, who lives upstate in Columbia County and owns eight different guns.

Al Tompkins, a journalist who works for the Poynter Institute, said 6,000 rounds is a large amount but said “it’s not at all unusual for an avid gun owner to have that many rounds.”

“My son and I sometimes go to the gun range and it would be nothing for us to burn off maybe 200 to 300 rounds in a very short period of time while we’re shooting at targets,” said Tompkins, who an article on Poynter’s website Saturday entitled What Journalists need to know about guns and gun control.

The rules for buying and possessing ammunition are a bit different in New York City, compared with the rest of New York state.

Gun owners must have a gun license issued by the New York City Police Department.

Under the New York City Fire Code (NYC Admin Code Section FC 105), a person must also have an explosives permit to own or sell 200 or more rounds.

The city Fire Commissioner also issues “storage permits” to dealers who store and sell more than 200 rounds of ammunition.

The Firearms Policy Coordinator for New York City, Janey Rountree, rejects the idea that 6,000 rounds of ammunition is an insignificant amount.

“To put in a different context, most U.S. soldiers carry 100 to 400 rounds if they are ‘light and mobile’- meaning carrying their own weapon for combat,” said Rountree in an email. “That can vary quite a bit by the mission, the person, and where they are fighting, but it's clear that 6,000 rounds is a huge number. He had enough ammunition to kill hundreds if not thousands of people.”

Gun control advocates argue this latest incident shows the danger of current ammunition sales policies, specifically the lack of mandatory background checks.

“When James Holmes walked into the Century Aurora movie theater, he was prepared for war. No civilian should ever be able to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition--online or otherwise--without undergoing some type of background check,” said Ladd Everitt, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Some states have started to regulate the online sale of ammunition.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, pointed to a law passed in 2009 in California, which requires handgun ammunition sales or transactions, sold over the Internet to be completed through a face-to-face transaction with a licensed ammunition vendor.

The buyer must present identifying information and also provide their thumbprint.

“There are things that can be done to regulate ammunition that seem reasonable, that would seem like they have nothing to do with the fundamental right to bear arms,” Gross said.

On Friday and again Sunday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg pushed President Barack Obama and his expected Republican challenger Gov. Mitt Romney to go beyond statements of sympathy and really explain how they will tackle the issue of gun control.

On Sunday night, the Brady campaign petition posted an online petition calling on the candidates to address the issue.

 

Tags:

More in:

Comments [56]

Chris from ancram, ny

First off, all of these people making comments about how we should have flintlocks, i have 2, and i can reload in under 30 seconds. second, it was not an assault rifle or shotgun he used, by definition an assault weapon has a choice of semi auto, or fully automatic which are illegal to begin with. i hunt with an ar, and it has a tactical setup, but that does not make it an assault weapon, the constitutional right to free speach, gives you the right to your informed opinion, not ignorance. he could have done just as much damage with a 17 or 1800's era replica, my blunderbuss can shoot almost 50 buckshot pellets in a huge spread and pepper a 12 ft long piece of plywood. so please, learn your subject before you open your mouth so you do not sound like an idiot. p.s. I posess 10000 rounds of 22 caliber ammo alone, walk into walmart. they have buckets of 5000 rounds, i own 2. i can go through 1000 in a few hours at the range.

Dec. 06 2012 11:49 PM
dano

If ammo kills,then spoons make people fat.

Oct. 13 2012 06:18 PM

I love the cowards who think that guns keep them safe. The truth is, there are millions of people with firearms in the United States, and yet every single shooting that takes place, the only people who are ever useful with their firearms is the police. Why is this?

The answer is simple: These idiots think they're heroes, but they're just NPCs. The truth is that if someone had tried to shoot back at him, they'd probably be dead. In reality, an armed society is no safer than an unarmed society - look at places like Iraq, where the fact that tons of people own guns makes the country actively less safe. Even here in the US, you find that gun control laws make no difference in gun crime - criminal activity appears to be almost entirely regulated by population density, meaning that big cities have lots of crime, small rural towns have a lot less.

The odds of shooting someone to protect someone else or yourself are incredibly low. You are far more likely to shoot someone else out of malice, or to shoot YOURSELF, either in a suicide attempt or because you are an idiot with a gun and you have an accident, than you are to ever use it to help anyone.

No, the myth of the gun is pervasive, but it is wrong. Indeed, it is that very myth - that guns give you power to change the world - that the criminals buy into. That's why they feel so brazen and bold to do the things they do - they think the guns give them power.

No so different.

Sep. 07 2012 02:35 PM

I wish the cowardly Libtard-no-nuts would grow a pair, get an education, and stop basing their all cowardly beliefs on emotions instead of reality.

Let's make a few points really simple: Name the last 5 massacres where the intended victims were *ARMED*. Columbine? Virginia Tech? Fort Hood? Luby's? Red Lake High School?

THINK COWARDS: How are laws that disarm only the law-abiding, suppose to affect those willing to commit rape, robbery and murder?

The *POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS*:
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to YOU and YOU ALONE to provide it.

But ask yourself this question, in your heart of hearts: Why should a cop risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?

Jul. 28 2012 11:30 AM

@tmuir
"6000 rounds of ammunition, depending on caliber is enough to fill a shoebox."
You're wrong. Assuming all of the ammo was for the .40 Glock, it would take several shoe boxes. However, the killer also had a shotgun and an AR-15 assault rifle, which use ammunition 2 to 4 times the size of the Glock.

Jul. 26 2012 08:54 AM
kevin from upper LS

gee...does it really take an "advocate", to understand that 6,000 rounds is really not that much,given the extreme velocity of automatic and semi-automatic guns?! are we city slickers that dumb,or is the math just too complex....

Jul. 25 2012 12:49 PM
ResponsibleGunowner from Lower 48

Jen from NYC: At the time the Second Amendment was written, "well regulated" meant "well equipped" according to the Federalist Papers. It doesn't mean "well controlled," by government or anti-rights activists like you.

Jul. 24 2012 10:54 PM
IdahoMan from Idaho


The government's ability to track people's firearms and weaponry via background-checks(Sarah Brady's & the NRA's "NICS") has long been a threat to US citizens and needs to be done away with. It is why many of us prefer using face-to-face sales.

A person must be able to maintain their anonymity when it comes to obtaining, buy and selling firearms, ammunition and all related equipment. And the government is the very last entity that should ever know what a citizen owns.

Gun-Control has one only purpose: To disarm prey so they can be assaulted. It is the tool of tyrannical corrupt governments. It has never, never, never, NEVER been about stopping wrong-doing and everything to do with perpetrating it. It leads to the following:

1.) A defenses society in general - where the honest and law-abiding are set to the wolves, wrongdoers only have the guns.
2.) Government abuse & Genocide - Look up "JPFO" and you'll many great historical examples where governments used registration/confiscation of firearms prior to abuse, terror and genocide.

Do away with the NICS and permit systems.
Get rid of all bans/licenses.
Place common-sense law at a state level that ensures police departments cannot use/receive weapons/equipment that it not available to the public.

As much as you socialist regressives hate it: We have rights.

Jul. 24 2012 09:46 PM
tmuir

6000 rounds of ammunition, depending on caliber is enough to fill a shoebox.

Jul. 24 2012 04:26 PM
BambiB

Sort of misses the point. If he had ordered a billion rounds of ammunition, how many more people would have died?

Zero.

Assuming he missed twice for every time he hit someone, that would mean he fired 3x70=210 rounds. That's about 1/3 of a case (or less) of ammunition for most rifle calibers, and less ammunition than one might reasonably fire in a day at the range. .22LR comes in boxes of 400-500 rounds.

Put it another way: If Holmes had ordered 1000 gallons of milk, 10 cases of paper or 100 pounds of cayenne pepper, would the idiot gun grabbers be calling for controls on those items? Because while Holmes may have had milk on his cereal in the morning, written his plan on paper and use some cayenne pepper in his grenade, most of the stuff he ordered (like over 5700 of the 6000 rounds of ammunition) wasn't involved in the Cinemark Massacre.

The only thing that would have stood a chance of ending the butchery sooner is an armed citizen returning fire.

6000 rounds is a fair amount of ammunition. About a year's supply for a single person who is an active shooter.

Jul. 24 2012 10:20 AM

All these noted incidents, oldest dated May 20th 2012 collated at just one website, Keep & Bear Arms

• 73 Year Old Detroit Man Shoots and Kills 1 of 2 Home Invaders With Derringer (MI)
• Tacoma homeowner shoots man trying to break into home (WA)
• Alleged burglar shot in left leg (TX)
• Taos County Sheriff's Office reports shooting following intrusion (NM)
• 66 Year Old Michigan Woman Shoots Home Invader Twice (MI)
• Pizza Delivery Driver Fires Shots At 2 Would-Be Armed Robbers (OH)
• Pennsylvania Gun Owner Claims Self-Defense in Fatal Shooting (PA)
• Charges unlikely against man who shot robbers (FL)
• Topeka, KS Homeowner Shoots and Kills 1 of at Least 2 Home Invaders (KS)
• Woman Fires Shots At Man Who Was Breaking Into Her Office (FL)
• Arrest made in burglary where suspect was shot (FL)
• Woman Fires Shot At Burglar During Power Blackout (OH)
• Homeowner Shoots Naked Intruder With a .22 (ID)
• Woman Shoots Man She Has Restraining Order Against When He Attempted To Break In (NC)
• Homeowner Detains Burglar at Gunpoint (TX)
• Texan Shoots Drunk Man in Self-Defense (TX)
• Woman accused of shooting at intruder (OH)
• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Virginian Standoff Edition (VA)
• Suspect Shot In Tulsa Home Invasion (OK)
• Woman shot by owner of Georgetown flea market (KY)
• Unidentified Man, 20, Burglary Suspect Shot By Owner, Bayou Body Count No. 91 (TX)
• Home intrusion leads to shooting in Arcata (CA)
• Neighbors react to would-be intruder killed by homeowner (GA)
• Store Clerk Fires at Two Armed Robbers, Hits One in the Chest (PA)
• Homeowner Shoots 1 of 3 Home Invaders Who Was Armed With an AK Style Rifle (TX)
• Would-be robber gets ambulance ride but no cash (TX)

Jul. 24 2012 10:02 AM


Here are 4 websites that collate self defense incidents reported by the police and media, since the NRA is not in charge of the police or media reporting these, sucks for the antis, they are true.

kc3.com/self_defense/Self_Defense.htm
thearmedcitizen.com/wp/category/armed
gunowners.org/self-defense-corner.htm
keepandbeararms.com/

On avg. 80 incidents reported per month, yet these are just the ones reported as 70% of all violent crimes are never reported as per USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

Jul. 24 2012 10:00 AM

Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois University, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded

Gun Free Zone 5 incidents

Defenseless victims murdered: 86
Defenseless victims injured: 117

December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have enough bullets to do the job. One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off.

Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 5 incidents

murdered: 7
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 14

Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus times higher body count.

Yep, a higher body count is morally superior to a lower body count based on anti gun extremists beliefs.

Jul. 24 2012 09:56 AM

More, same website

• Couple Shoot Late Night Intruder Who Entered Their Bedroom (CO)
• Store Clerk Shoots 1 of 3 Armed Robbers In The Chest (TN)
• Store Clerk Shoots Two Robbers Who Attacked Him (NC)
• Father Shoots 1 of 3 Armed Home Invaders Who Were Holding His Son Hostage (TX)
• Grabbed from the 'throne': Man on camping trip survives outhouse bear attack (Canada)
• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: May Queen Edition (IL)
• Homeowner Fires Shots At, Scares Off Intruder (CA)
• Drug-Crazed, Nude Man Breaks into Marine's House, Welcomed by Three Bullets (NC)

Jul. 24 2012 09:54 AM


More, same website

• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Don’t Bring a Hatchet to a Gunfight Edition (WA)
• Woman Shoots Intruder After He Tries To Break In For Second Time (WV)
• Homeowner Shoots 1 of 3 Teenage Home Invaders (KY)
• Police: Pharr tenant shoots 1 burglar, holds 2nd at gunpoint; 3rd arrested after manhunt (TX)
• Bend homeowner shoots and kills intruder (OR)
• Man holds teen burglary suspect at gunpoint in Santa Rosa (CA)
• Georgia Tech Student Shoots Intruder (GA)
• Athens, GA Gun Carrier Saves Woman From Violent Attack by Career Criminal (GA)
• Man With Permit to Carry Stops Restaurant Robbery (CA)
• 11-Year-Old Boy Heroically Stabs Mom's Abusive Boyfriend as He Chokes Her (NY)
• 14-year-old Phoenix boy shoots, nearly kills armed intruder (AZ)
• Homeowner Shoots At Suspected Burglar (TX)
• Gold Store Owner Shoots Armed Robber (FL)
• Man Shoots To Frighten Dogs Attacking Woman (OH)
• Lima jury finds gunman acted in self-defense (OH)
• Homeowner Shoots Burglar in the Face (WA)
• Pizza Delivery Driver in VA Shoots Man Who Tried to Rob Him With a Stun Gun (VA)
• Was Shooting Involving Security Guard Self Defense? Avoidable? (NY)
• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: A Tale of Two Home Invasions (OR)
• Couple Shoot and Kill Violent Home Invader Who Assaulted Them (TX)
• 'Dude, you need to get out of my house' (OR)
• Resident Shoots 2 of 3 Violent Home Invaders – Both in Intensive Care (VT)
• Teenager Shoots Daytime Burglar (OH)
• 75 Year Old Business Owner in GA Shoots Violent Career Criminal in the Head (GA)
• Homeowner Gets Pepper Sprayed by Home Invader, but Still Manages to Retrieve Gun and Fire at Intruder (CA)
• Guilderland man pulls out shotgun for self protection (NY)
• One dead after attempted robbery in Hudson (FL)
• Resident Shoots and Kills Armed Robber (TN)
• College Student Saves 10 Lives by Opening Fire at Armed Intruders (GA)
• Arizona Homeowner Shoots Daytime Intruder In The Head In Self Defense (AZ)
• 72 Year Old Alabama Homeowner Shoots Late Night Home Invader (AL)
• Soldier in NC Shoots 1 of 2 Daytime Home Invaders (NC)
• Homeowner Shoots Home Invader Who Was Climbing Through His Child’s Bedroom Window (CA)
• Homeowner Struggles with Home Invader Over Gun, Shoots Intruder Multiple Times (OH)
• Bullet Intended For Robber Goes Into Neighbor's Apt (TN)
• Convenience Store Clerk Shoots and Kills Armed Robber (AL)
• Two Texas Store Clerks Shoot Armed Robber (TX)
• Dolton police: Man wounded while trying to rob off-duty railroad officer (IL)
• Homeowner jailed for firing warning shot (TX)
• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Classic Case Edition (FL)
• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Small Caliber Edition (TN)

Jul. 24 2012 09:54 AM

Why is it, that the police, whose best response times are 4 minutes, avg 15-20 minutes can only solve 8.06% of all violent crimes committed on a yearly basis?

FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.htm

But oh wait, we have to remember those 4.8 million violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2224
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2008/tables/D04Mar08.pdf
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf

So based on that (1.38 mil x 45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

Uh since the police are not legally liable to protect you, and they realllly suck at doing so, what exactly are your plans/methods for defending yourself as obviously puking on your attacker and playing dead really dont work.

After all, being prepared for a worst case scenario and not needing it means none of you anti gun extremists should have home, life, car, or medical insuranceas being prepared is absolutely insane right?

Jul. 24 2012 09:48 AM

The absolute nerve of those people wanting to defend themselves.

The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

Jul. 24 2012 09:45 AM

Lets see, todays military service 3 mil active duty between the 5 branches of which only 1/3 are combat vs 80 mil law abiding gun owners, hmmm, care to do the odds?

By the way, what about those 30-35 mil former military personell in the civilian population, guess they just had their minds erased and remmebr nothing eh, lol!

During our civil war, there was a 40% desertion rate out our military to the south, explain again what you have done to eliminate such an occurrence from happening again, oh wait, you havent done didley.

How exactly are you going to pull our entire military forces back on US soil and then what would be the effect globally where our forces are more a policing prescence? Yeah there wouldnt be ANY effect on the global economy much less the US economy would there?

Uh how are you going to pay for such an act, oh thats right, add more taxes to the US subjects.

Wow, what will it take to control travel and such at the township, county, state or federal border as we do such a fantastic job alread allowing 12 mil illegal aliens in from Mexico and $52 bil a year in drugs.

Yeah and noooo other country that wishes us ill will would EVER supply technical and logistical assistance like they dont do in Iraq & Afghanistan eh, lol.

Wow, the US public has REALLY been desensitized to collateral damage from the unleashing of massive military firepower upon US soil eh, lol.

Why is it, that history shows that over 20% of the time, the insurrectionists win?

Why is it that our massive technological advantage hasnt stomped out the Iraqi or Afghan rebels after 10 + years?

Right, US soldiers will enmass open fire on US civilians. See unlike some fantasies, US troops are indeed taught to think for themselves and anyone who beleieves they would blindly enmass follow such illegal orders is a delusional drug addict.

By the way, how many of the nazi's that would enact such a thing on American soil would it take getting shot/taken out before they reconsider as frankly it is a 80 mil gun owners to maybe 200k anti gun nutjobs ratio?

Oh so many other factors the unintelligent who have no clue about reality have thought of.

Jul. 24 2012 09:42 AM

The second amendment as RATIFIED by the state’s, hence any review of the other version is irrelevant.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause, a complete sentence capable of conveying a clear meaning, and must first exist for a dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)

Yet some now infer the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, incapable of conveying a clear meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.

Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.

http://www.rain.org/%7Ekarpeles/

Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today. Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted? Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.

original proposed draft 
of 
the right to keep and bear arms 
of the 
BILL of RIGHTS 
(17 TH of 20 amendments)
on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library 
Santa Ana, California

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

http://www.wemett.net/2nd_amendment_(original_draft).html

Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail to prove, that the miltia existed before the armed individual.

Funny how all that was before the 2008 rulings eh?

Funny how in the 2008 Heller ruling all 9 justices agreed that bearing arms was an individual right. That 5-4 vote was on the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. gun ban, read it, you will see!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Jul. 24 2012 09:26 AM
DavidT from New Hampshire

To those who say that the second amendment allows for firearms of the time it was written, please destroy your computer and smart phone and buy a quill pen, inkwell and parchment for future statements. After all the first amendment was written at the same time and those are thewriting implements of the day.

For those who are saying that firearms for resisting a tyrannical government because of the army keep the following in mind: There are about 2,000,000 members of the military, not all of whom are combat troops, while there are, conservatively, 80,000,000 firearms owners in this country. Of the 2M military more than half would refuse an order to fire upon American citizens, some would actually turn on the officers giving the orders (rightfully so) and, being out numbers that badly the rest would soon be brought down.

Gun control laws will never affect criminals because criminals, by the very definition of the word, ignore laws meant to control their actions. These laws only disarm the law-abiding, making it easier for the criminals to work safely.

Jul. 24 2012 08:53 AM
Mark

I wish these naive hill billies would realize the NRA don't give a damn about freedom they're just gun salesmen trying to get you to buy a bunch of crap you don't need.

Jul. 23 2012 02:32 PM
kirani from Queens, NY

The notion that having personal arms to resist an oppressive army coming tyrannize and kill all isn't logical. One person with some guns might take out a few soldiers, some people might be able to resist a little. But when you have the force of an army, with all the resources, weapons, and arms at their disposal, personal gun ownership doesn't matter. Like most things in the world, having people organized and ready to collectively resist (armed or through improvised weaponry) is what makes a difference. Sitting alone in your house with a closet full of gadgets matters not.
And for the folks who think having other people with guns in that theater would make a difference, think again. You'd probably have more innocent people dead since it was dark, smoked up and you have people running and screaming. Another gun would most likely take out other innocent people and multiple guns would probably shoot at each other instead of the shooter since people wouldn't know if multiple shooters were part of the "plan" to cause mayhem. It's easy to be some armchair hero, but serious rational thought would be better.

Jul. 23 2012 11:51 AM
Liz from Brooklyn

To the last caller: Do you think it was worth sacrificing people's lives so that you can have peace of mind? If you think about it, it doesn't matter how many guns you personally have, if the US military wanted to take over this country, it would happen in an instant. I think you're just living in a dream world. It's not worth people's lives so that you can have your toys and your imaginary revolution. You are living in denial.

Jul. 23 2012 11:49 AM
susanne v from Omaha

Someone calling in to the show stated that had he been in the theater he would have liked to have had a gun to shoot back with... the idea of dozens of people with guns shooting them off in a crowded theater makes me shudder - you can imagine the many more people wounded or killed by people shooting off their weapons in a panic. For sure we need stricter gun control laws, esp. in regard to assault weapons, and ordering ammunition or any type of weapon over the internet should be outlawed.

Jul. 23 2012 11:47 AM
mikebigtoe52 from NJ

The 2nd amendment allows guns of the time: 1770. All modern guns should be restricted to police only.

Jul. 23 2012 11:46 AM

To Nick from UWS: Jefferson was making an astute observation on the nature of crime and society's ability to dissuade those inclined to do harm at the expense of the weak. With all due respect, that is not outdated because it is 200 years old, nor is it irrelevant because of the type of firearm. The predator will always attack his victim if s/he thinks he can get away with it. That has not changed since Jefferson. Even more relevant, the exponential increase in firepower permits one person to now withstand many better than with a single shot musket.

Jul. 23 2012 11:44 AM
Nick from UWS

Chris Garvey's post below is the one thing preventing me from being completely supportive of government gun control. He is correct, and members of the general populace are BY FAR more trustworthy than national governments which are by nature administrated by narcissistic and insane people with power lust problems.

Jul. 23 2012 11:35 AM
Ed from North Salem, NY

A lot of the debate tends to bring out polarized viewpoints. People are currently entitled to their beliefs and interpretations.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Can we bring up a discussion about some pertinent underlying issues that are so prevalent in our society...that is, violence, anger, isolation, financial disparity.

What is it that contributes to the increase of these negative aspects in the US mentality?

Look to the underlying cause. Thanks you for your analysis.

Jul. 23 2012 11:34 AM
hmi from Park Slope

To Nick from the UWS:

Myself, I'm sick of hearing what the Constitution said about freedom of the press and what Thomas Jefferson said about free speech. All that stuff was written in the 18th century where publishing meant laboriously setting type and then slow distribution to a small number of readers. Their thoughts on free speech are today completely meaningless and irrelevant in the world of instant internet publishing and blogging.

Jul. 23 2012 11:32 AM
Chris Garvey

registration, then confiscation, then genocide
In the 20th Century, governments killed about 180,000,000 of their own people.
For 65 to 110 million victims of governments, the pattern was:
1. Register the guns;
2. Confiscate the registered guns;
3. Kill the unarmed victims.

Fewer than 200 national governments killed 180,000,000 of their own people = average of 900,000 murders per government.
About 10,000,000,000 people killed 18,000,000 = average of 0.0018 murders per person.
Is it safer to trust individuals, or governments, with the means of defense?
Is it safer to trust others, or yourself, with the means of defense?

Partial genocide list:
Gun Control - Country - extermination dates total - victims
1911 Turkey 1915-17; 1.5 Million Armenians
1929 Soviet Union 1929-53 KGB records 65 Million dissidents
1928 Germany 1935 confiscate, 1939-45 killed 13-28 Million Jews, gypsies, etc [Before the Nazis, Germany was a very civilized and tolerant nation.]
1935 Red China 1948-52 killed 20 to 100 Million
1964 Guatemala 1964-81 killed 100,000 Mayan Indians
1970 Uganda 1971-79 killed 300,000 Christians
1956 Cambodia 1975-77; killed 1 to 2.5 Million "educated"
East Timor, 1975-99 Indonesian rulers killed 100,000 to 200,000, perhaps 1/3 the population.

Jul. 23 2012 11:29 AM
Sick Of It All from United States of Dumberica

600?! ONE round is too much when a bullet hits a 9 year old girl in a movie theater.

Jul. 23 2012 11:20 AM
Nick from UWS

I'm sick of hearing what the Constitution said about arms and what Thomas Jefferson said about arms. All that stuff was written in the 18th century where being armed meant a flintlock firearm that took five minutes to reload one round. Their thoughts on personal armament are today completely meaningless and irrelevant in the world of automatic assault weapons etc. So stop with the crap of equivalence between arms of all eras.

Jul. 23 2012 11:16 AM
Nick from UWS

The supreme court is in the pocket of the NRA, just as it's in the pocket of corporate America and was paid off to pass Citizens United. The supreme court being in support of the 2nd Amendment is completely meaningless. They are worthy of zero trust and respect from the US people.

Jul. 23 2012 11:12 AM
Jon from Manhattan

Sadly, it would take an event like that which occurred in Aurora, CO to happen every week with even more massive loss of human life before this nation engages in any serious discussion about the regulation of firearms. The arguments, some specious, that arise on both sides of the argument are purely academic since it seems that neither side is serious about avoiding needless deaths from from firearms.Eg., Obama on the issue of firearms regulation: crickets.

Jul. 23 2012 11:02 AM

why can't we have national gun depositories, where guns are deposited and checked out when the owner wants to use them, like banks or libraries. then everybody walking around with a gun without the accompanying checked out card, other than peace officers, could be considered criminal. new industry, new jobs, 24hr depositories. the depositories would keep track of the number of guns and ammo owned by any one person, how often guns are purchased how much ammo is purchased at one time. just as red flags go up when to much money is charged to a credit card so would red flags go up when one person begins to stockpile weapons or ammo.

Jul. 23 2012 10:51 AM
autto3535 from Miami

To Jen from nyc: You can purchase a 500 round box of .22 caliber bullets for $19.99, but it will take you one afternoon at the range to go through that box. You don't know a damned thing about guns. However, your melodramatic math clearly demonstrates the irrationality of the gun control zealots.

In Thomas Jefferson’s "Commonplace Book," a quote from Cesare Beccaria reads, "[L]aws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." [Taken from the Wikipedia article on "gun control".]

Jul. 23 2012 10:38 AM
Leo from Queens

The NRA (and no one wants to talk about their financing and where they get all the money to go after all politicians) has all politicians in fear and has made it so that no one can question anybody about amassing a huge arsenal.
Has anyone stopped to ask why we can't buy a pack of cigarettes or a six pack of beer without having to show valid ID? Or why we are limited to how many gallons of milk or turkeys we can buy when on sale? yet we can buy unlimited rounds or magazines and ammunition and semi-automatic weapons and we can't question it?
I understand there is a constitutional right to own guns, but each right comes with limitations. I don't get to vote as many times as I want just because it's my constitutional right. Nor do certain people on parole or convicted of a right are allowed to vote. Let's have the same limitations on guns and ammunitions.

Jul. 23 2012 10:34 AM
Sherin Mohamed from brooklyn, ny

Well having as much ammunition as you want is not a crime, as long as you are storing it in a safe manner. This was not the frist nor the last time that this sort of thing will happen. It is also would impossible to stop. That have been said taking guns from people is not going to make things any better or worst. There always people who are going to loose their cool and do things that when they wake up from the state they are in will not believe that they have done it. The only way to guarantee a quit safe life is to put everyone on drugs that turns them into bodies with no soul. That won't happen earthier. we have those highly emotional reactions because it happens to us and we can see it. this sort of things happens to a lot of peoples all over the worlds yet we fail to react.

Jul. 23 2012 10:25 AM
Jen from nyc

- 6,000 rounds of ammunition.
- The average semi-auto handgun can hold anywhere from 9 to 30 rounds in a single clip
- Doing the math a gun owner could load and fire their weapon to empty a minimum of 200 times
- a 30 round clip can be emptied in a matter of seconds with a semi-auto handgun
- If the gun owner had all those shells preloaded into clips it basically means they own a machine gun or multiple machine guns
- 2nd amendment was written when guns could shoot a single round
- 2nd amendment states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The words that begin that clause are "A well regulated." The ability to buy high caliber assault weapons... to buy unlimited quantities of weapons and ammunition... the ability to buy weapons that are designed only to kill human beings... the ability to buy weapons - such as .50 rifles - that can pierce metal and concrete... that does not sound well regulated.

People have the right to own guns, they have the right to be a part of a well regulated militia. They don't have the right to become their own militia.

Jul. 23 2012 09:42 AM
greg from United Kingdom

@HipHopSays

You forget that gun control while generally shoehorned into a left/right debate in America it isn't actually a left/right partisan matter. You can be left or right and pro or anti gun restrictions. This is particularly noticeable on the international scale where many of the nations enacting strict gun control laws have had those laws instated by right wing parties. To mind the Conservatives in the UK and the Liberals (liberal in the traditional not American sense) in Australia bought in handgun restrictions and they are both the leading right wing parties in their respective countries.

Jul. 23 2012 09:33 AM
HipHopSays from Brooklyn (Fort Greene/Clinton Hill)

@bcortez...i hope you do realize the constitution is well over '100 years' old and that there's nothing 'pre-historic' about the very historic document that is the foundation of our nation-state. i say this with all sincerity as someone who has been shot, grew up in a city with a predilection for gun violence, and as a progressive who believes there needs to be a different conversation around guns and individual citizens right to guns....your argument mirrors the NRAs all-or-nothing fallacy. the NRA (and others who advocate for 2nd amendment rights)are quite aware that hunters/law enforcement individual do not 'need' automatic weapons but because the equally ridiculous left's position of 'no guns' leaves the reactionary space of advocating for all types of weapons to insure access to the weapons that hunters/ranchers/law enforcement need.

munitions is a cornerstone of the US's wealth (along with tobacco) and sensible conversations need to happen that will create policy prescriptives that aren't as ridiculous as 'one gun a month'(creates a space for everything to be the exception to the rule) or no guns (which creates a thriving black market).

sadly, while i grieve for those in colorodo ... here in nyc (which is locale with 'stern' no gun sales laws) this weekend a 4-year old was shot (in the head) while playing at a playground...both colorado and nyc are at different ends of the policy spectrums and clearly neither of these communities have managed to 'protect' the community from gun violence.

Jul. 23 2012 09:19 AM
nancy from New York

We need a national data base to track purchasing...I know that won't be popular with the "gunnies" but thats the only way you can have visibility to what might happen. If you can purchase a gun in one state one day and another state the next there is no visiblity. If people what to keep their guns this must be put in place.

Jul. 23 2012 09:14 AM

The militia according to law. 10 US Code §311:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males at least 17 years…and under 45 years of age who are…citizens….
(b) The classes of the militia are-…
(c) ...the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia."

Jul. 23 2012 09:12 AM

The only reason why the NRA even exist is because of the pre-historic constitution, which they believe stands today, even though it was written ~100 years ago. If these people realized that no-one, but law enforcement and hunters in rural areas (perhaps), then we would probably have better control. When you can buy related stuff online, and no one cares why a civilian wants this stuff, then we really have a problem.

For all those people who think this was UN-avoidable (or whatever other ridiculous reason they have), put yourself in the shoes of those families who lost a loved one - it could have been you or your child, brother, sister, mom. Get real!!! This stuff is unacceptable, but the NRA has enough money to lobby for no change, so we need to speak up to have these senseless laws changed.

Jul. 23 2012 09:01 AM
Chris Garvey

The Aurora Colorado Theater was a Gun-Free Zone. The "No Guns" signs deterred all, except the mass murderer, from being armed.
The Texas Restaurant, where Suzanna Gratia-Hupp watched her parents and 21 others executed, while her gun sat, as required by law, in her car, was a gun-free zone.
Columbine High School; Virginia Tech; The Empire State Building; The Flights of 9/11 - - all Gun-Free Zones.
Hitler's Germany, for all but government Nazis, was a gun-free zone.
Parts of the South were gun free zones, But only for slaves.
East Timore was a gun-free zone. And was helpless to resist Suharto's invasion, and 25 years of Indonesian genocide.
The death toll of gun-free zones: Thousands, Millions, and it accrues,
Massacres at shooting ranges, gun shows: none. But that's not news.
Copr. 2000, 2012 Chris Garvey

Jul. 23 2012 08:56 AM
Peg from Upstate NY

Today we have the news that a young child was killed in a crossfire in a NY playground. I would not feel any more comfortable knowing that an armed populace could catch people in a crossfire than a single disturbed person could massacre with a gun. Both scenarios are horrible.

Many comments have suggested that we need better mental health care. But how do you get those who need it to access it? Holmes apparently didn't act 'very' crazy, so how could he have benefited from better mental health access?

Many have suggested that we need better gun laws and just as many disagree. As a gun owner myself, I certainly wouldn't want my hunting and varment "tools" taken away from me. On the other hand, I would never carry these tools off my land.

Our culture is so entwined in violence that we think it's ok for children, even infants to attend very violent media and entertainment. Cartoons, video games, TV shows, internet, movies, books, on and on... all chock full of violent images that we accept as the unnoticed medium in which we live.

Truly, I don't know where to start.

Jul. 23 2012 08:31 AM
drora kemp

Talking heads say there is no hope for anything to happen regarding gun control until after the elections. We don't believe anything will be done afterwords.

So can't the bereaved families just sue them all? I mean starting with the theater and ending with the President and the Congress, the lobbies - well, everyone who has a hand in the genocide going on in our most democratic of nations, where money strangles basic common sense?! Maybe the International Court in the Hague can do something. Our leaders are recklessly indifferent to the murders committed in this country while wasting gazillions and more - many more - lives on wars that do nothing to increase our security.

Jul. 23 2012 08:22 AM
rlg from ny

I'm sure this guy wasn't carrying 6000 rounds on him, thats too much weight.

Jul. 23 2012 07:57 AM
Ed Stephan from Pennsylvania

Mark, Background checks ARE mandatory for every firearm purchase.

John from Madison, NJ, Is killing people against the law? Then why didn't the law stop this guy? It was illegal to take a firearm into a theater. That law should have stopped him. Get a brain John, you live in a fantasy world

Jul. 23 2012 07:26 AM
TNC from QNS

"These latest 12 NRA martyrs are apparently the periodic price we are willing to pay to maintain our increasingly insane gun laws."

Those "insane laws" as you put it (actually rights) are enshrined in our Constitution. No matter how many times NPR, NYT, or the rest of the liberal establishment repeat the mantra that the Second Amendment only applies to militias, the Supreme Court decided otherwise.

Jul. 23 2012 07:07 AM
Bezel

There is a mandatory federal background check at dealers have to do on every firearm sold called a NICS check. Unfortunatly, due to privacy concerns mental health records are not included in these instant checks. 20000 gun laws in this country, enforce those as opposed to passing more.

Jul. 23 2012 07:07 AM
John from Madison, NJ

These latest 12 NRA martyrs are apparently the periodic price we are willing to pay to maintain our increasingly insane gun laws. Since President Kennedy was gunned down in 1963, the number of people gunned down here is 1 million – all martyrs to the NRA. James Holmes must be a huge fan of the NRA – surely he is in its debt for ensuring easy access to his weaponry.
The rest of the advanced world, with homicide rates a tiny fraction of ours – and with at least as much freedom – rightfully shake their head in wonder at our bizarre acceptance of the recurring mass murder of our own people.

Jul. 23 2012 06:15 AM
Ed from Larchmont

We are all in mourning. But I'm in mourning every day: every day 4,000 human beings (and more) are killed in abortion, and no one remembers those children or weeps for them.

Jul. 23 2012 06:03 AM
eric

Its obvious background checks or getting ammo in person would not have stopped this madman.

Figure out his motive, and then what pushed him over the edge then dedicate resources to prevent other people from getting to that same breaking point.

Treat the problems in society (his mentality), not the side effects (guns).

Jul. 23 2012 06:00 AM
Phillip from Los Angeles

Mayor Bloomberg should stick with outlawing sugar. I am sure he has 24/7 protection of him and his entire family with money he has. Regular people can't seat and wait 15-30 min for police to arrive if our life and life of our kids are in danger. Gun control wont solve anything, example is Norway killing. Didn't stop that maniac to kill much more people. 6000 rounds were for 4 weapons. What if he had only 50, does it matter in this case? I don't think so. He did kill many innocent people, because of the gun controls, nobody was there with the gun to stop him. 9/11 terrorists didn't even have guns. You can't stop maniacs by outlawing guns. Majority of gun owners don't walk around killing people. Crazy people do. People like Bloomberg should worry about improving human condition and economy, until they do that crazy things like that probably will keep happening.

Jul. 23 2012 05:39 AM
Mark

The only problem is even if background checks were mandatory this guy would have passed them easily!

Jul. 23 2012 05:35 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Sponsored

Latest Newscast

 

 

Support

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public

Feeds

Supported by