So, why are guns necessary?

[spankythehippo]

So far, I've seen a lot of Americans defending their right to own a firearm. Before I start my tirade on gun control, I'll just ask a few questions. My question is, why do you need a firearm? For protection? Fine, let's say that you need it for protection http://forum.alzheimers.org.uk/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif. But why do people need assault rifles with high capacity magazines? Why wont a simple Glock suffice?

The 2nd amendment states "Protects the right to bear arms". So, why doesn't America recall of its firearms and issue everyone with an 18th century musket, since that's basically what America had when this amendment was made?

And why is this the 2nd amendment, while the amendment regarding the right to a fair trial is 6th? Both amendments were written on the same day, but the one about guns was given priority?

This makes no sense to me. The nation that has the highest homicide rate of any developed country is so wrapped up in the affairs of other nations, and hardly makes an attempt at rectifying their own. To be fair, America is protecting their "assets", not playing the role of "moral" arbiter they would like the rest of the world to believe. Well, that's a completely different issue.

[Fragony]

Let's turn that around, why shouldn't be allowed to own an assault-rifle. Not something you can easily put in your pocket if you are going for a walk. A pistol is much more dangerous, it can be concealed.

[Husar]

Guns are a purely defensive tool and therefore should be allowed for everyone, just like landmines.

[Fragony]

If you have no criminal record I don't see the problem. Laws in the US are kinda strange though, in some states a blowpipe is illegal but you can have an AK. If it was allowed here to have an AK here it would proudly hanging on my wall just because it's awesome. What is not to like about a gun, it's noisy and it makes holes in things.

[Fragony]

Editing is too hard for an iPad it doesn't unerstand it.

But shooting at things is just fun. I am not allowed to have one but you can make a mess with a bow as well. I killed my Smeg fridge, and many bottles.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/image_zpsdaafe936.jpg

Gimme that AK I can do better

[Husar]

You're really wondering why a blowpipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowpipe_(missile)) is illegal? ~;)

[Fragony]

You're really wondering why a blowpipe (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowpipe_(missile)) is illegal? ~;)

Link doesn't work. But they are legal here as long as you are on your own turf.

[HoreTore]

Why do you hate freedom and support terrorism and communism, spanky?

[Pannonian]

You're really wondering why a blowpipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowpipe_(missile)) is illegal? ~;)

Exactly. Blowpipes are illegal because they're crap and don't work, and have been superseded by more modern weaponry like javelins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin_surface-to-air_missile).

[Fragony]

Exactly. Blowpipes are illegal because they're crap and don't work, and have been superseded by more modern weaponry like javelins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin_surface-to-air_missile).

Not working are you kidding me, a mini-broadhead shoots through 2 centimers of wood, it will be broken but it will get that far into it. These darts will go right through you

[Husar]

Not working are you kidding me, a mini-broadhead shoots through 2 centimers of wood, it will be broken but it will get that far into it. These darts will go right through you
Oh yes, a blowpipe would go right through you even though it's bad as Pannonian says. I fixed the original link, suppose the forum linkage wizard was naughty and added an extra "http://".

But a really important issue I want to discuss is trespassing. Often dogs are allowed to enter private property and poop on it. This can be very hard to fight but landmines would take care of this as well as roaming robbers and other people trying to break in. Landmines are a purely defensive weapon unless you throw them into someone's face, but even that you would only do if that someone tried to attack you.

There is really no reason why people can't have landmines and yet they can't. Why is that?

[Vuk]

How about so we don't end up like Russia? They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. The commies disarmed them and from there on out they had no means to resist tyranny.
As far as saying that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets, that is retarded for several reasons. First of all, if I was to be a horse's arse like you (no offense) I would point out that cannons existed back then too.
Second of all, they obviously knew that weapons were going to advance, and did not intend people to be limited to the weapons of the time. They wanted their people to have small arms on par with the military. Now adays, that includes assault rifles. If we are going to say that when writing the amendments they meant only things that existed back then, then speech on the internet would not be protected by the third amendment as the internet did not exist back then. You are just being absurd.

Even in WWII, during a time of huge tanks, chemical weapons, massive bombs, battleships, etc, etc., an armed populace was a massive deterrent to foreign invasion. An army cannot control a country if the populace is heavily armed and motivated. Us owning guns protects us from enemies, foreign and domestic.
They also allow us to hunt and to defend ourselves, as well as providing a great deal of fun as a sport.

Let me ask you something mate, why should someone be allowed to own a truck if they do not have a business that has been verified by the government? Isn't that a lot of power to be putting in people's hands? People have ran down a lot more than 14 people with a truck before. Why does someone need a vehicle that big and powerful? What about pointed knives? Does the point on your kitchen knife really make slicing easier? Why should we allow you to have that dangerous of an object in your home and around your kids?

[Goofball]

How about so we don't end up like Russia? They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. The commies disarmed them and from there on out they had no means to resist tyranny.
As far as saying that the 2nd amendment only protects muskets, that is retarded for several reasons. First of all, if I was to be a horse's arse like you (no offense) I would point out that cannons existed back then too.
Second of all, they obviously knew that weapons were going to advance, and did not intend people to be limited to the weapons of the time. They wanted their people to have small arms on par with the military. Now adays, that includes assault rifles. If we are going to say that when writing the amendments they meant only things that existed back then, then speech on the internet would not be protected by the third amendment as the internet did not exist back then. You are just being absurd.

Even in WWII, during a time of huge tanks, chemical weapons, massive bombs, battleships, etc, etc., an armed populace was a massive deterrent to foreign invasion. An army cannot control a country if the populace is heavily armed and motivated. Us owning guns protects us from enemies, foreign and domestic.
They also allow us to hunt and to defend ourselves, as well as providing a great deal of fun as a sport.

Let me ask you something mate, why should someone be allowed to own a truck if they do not have a business that has been verified by the government? Isn't that a lot of power to be putting in people's hands? People have ran down a lot more than 14 people with a truck before. Why does someone need a vehicle that big and powerful? What about pointed knives? Does the point on your kitchen knife really make slicing easier? Why should we allow you to have that dangerous of an object in your home and around your kids?

Exactly. A truck is a weapon. You get a licence you have to pass a test and register your vehicle with the government. Not so with guns. In Colorado, two legislators just lost recall votes because they voted for a law that would require a criminal record check before you could buy a gun.

That's insanity.

I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.

Convicted criminal? Sorry, no gun for you.

History of mental illness? Sorry, no gun for you.

Get caught with an unregistered weapon? Off to jail for you, see you in eight to ten, with time off for good behaviour.

Commit a crime using a firearm? See you in twenty.

But with the NRA throwing so much money around politicians are too terrified to take any common sense measures.

[Lemur]

I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.
Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

[Vuk]

Exactly. A truck is a weapon.

lmfsbo



You get a licence you have to pass a test and register your vehicle with the government. Not so with guns. In Colorado, two legislators just lost recall votes because they voted for a law that would require a criminal record check before you could buy a gun.

Is your right to own trucks protected by the constitution? Therein lies the difference. Regulation is control. There is a fine line between obeying the constitution and protecting people, and violating the constitution and giving a dictator all the tools he needs to rule your country unopposed.




I'm okay with private gun ownership. But given the danger involved, I think it should be thoroughly regulated.

It already is regulated (way too regulated in some respects)




Convicted criminal? Sorry, no gun for you.

I mostly agree with you here. If your crime is not paying taxes or getting in a barroom brawl when you were in college though, then it is ridiculous. With proper and reasonable excepts being made, I agree with you on this.




History of mental illness? Sorry, no gun for you.

Again, agreed with logical exceptions. If you are a child who loves to play and cannot sit still, and you doctor diagnoses you with ADHD, it makes no sense that you should no longer be able to own a gun when you grow up. We classify so much as mental illnesses, and we over-diagnose so many of them that you would have to be reasonable with exceptions again.




Get caught with an unregistered weapon? Off to jail for you, see you in eight to ten, with time off for good behaviour.

Here is where we cease to agree. You should not need to register your weapon. What the government does not know can save your life. We should perform background checks, and if someone fails one we should keep the record of that in a registry. If they pass, than the record should be thrown out and the government should not record that they had the background check done or purchased the weapon.




Commit a crime using a firearm? See you in twenty.

Again, I disagree. For most gun crimes (armed robbery, murder, attempted murder, etc) I would say death. That would stop repeat offenders and put the fear of God into the hearts of those who would be criminals.



But with the NRA throwing so much money around politicians are too terrified to take any common sense measures.


I agree that sometimes the NRA has been misguided and stood in the way of good legislation, but before you condemn them for it you should keep several things in mind. First of all, for the most part the policies they advocate and good. Second of all, the knee-jerk reaction they have to gun control legislation has been trained into them by decades worth of rabid gun grabbers trying to disarm the country. (all in the name of saving children and stopping crime, of course) Gun grabbers for the last few decades have stopped going for broke and turned to a policy of incrementalism. The NRA knows that if it gives an inch, they will take a foot.
People talk about compromise, but look at how many times gun owners have compromised. Look at the absurd number of gun control laws already on the books, including absurd and outdated ones like those that put a limit on barrel length. Freedom is not something to compromise.

EDIT: And BTW OP, contrary to what the left may be telling you, the shooter did not have an assault rifle in the naval yard shooting. He had what you thought was reasonable: a pistol. (as well as a shotgun) He apparently came there with just the shotgun (you remember the thing Joe Biden said was the reasonable gun for home defense, and not the scary military one), shot guards with pistols and took their pistols, and shot a guard with an AR-15 and took that. That is right, a dude with a pistol got in a shoot out with a dude with an AR-15, and the all-mighty, bullet spitting AR-15 did not win the day.

[Papewaio]

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

[Pannonian]

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

"A well defended sea being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to be surrounded by lots of water shall not be infringed."

[Vuk]

Are warrants required on the Internet?

As for why the US wasn't invaded in WW II, its because it is similar to the UK. Not an anglosaxon thing, water and lots of it.

Invasions by water are difficult. There is a reason amphibious units are expensive to maintain and train and why those types of units are often seen as better.

I don't think an armed populace worries an invading army. It's a policing issue post occupation to deal with.

That is just the thing. You can march an army onto enemy soil, but in order for you to do anything there you need to control the population. That is much less possible when they are armed.

As far as it not being a deterrent in WWII, there is good evidence that Isoroku Yamamoto said:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

There is no proof that he said it, but Douglas McArthur's chief biographer claims he did. It is one of those things that is likely, but not provable.

[BroskiDerpman]

Why not have a gun? I don't have one but I honestly don't mind. I find it funny how nobody came up with a compromise or something yet in the USA.Not too sure as to me politics is a annoyance in life most of the time to bother with. Imo. :shrug:

Though of course I read up on politics, so I'm not too dull.

(I'm American just so you know)

Plus with a gun I'll feel less paranoid about those monsters in the closet. :creep:


Still I wonder what's with all these gun politics... All these gun deaths reminds me how everyday in the news somebody dies in Roxbury MA in some sort of fight and later on the news stopped reporting that stuff since it's like everyday.


I think pistols are more deadly in a urban environment with civilians where you can sneak it around without being caught unlike slugging around a Mosin Nagant or something.

Perhaps it's just the ideology of many Americans is screwed up compared to other countries which have a lot of guns. I know Switzerland has state armed militia but not much people run around blasting each other. Probably because before they can they'd get shot or perhaps Switzerland is smaller and the population has more similar ideology thus less violence.

Don't know much on these matters, enlighten me. :2thumbsup: :bow:

I know where I live now the gun laws are less strict and I check out some shops once in a while and eat some ribs while I'm at it.

[Sp4]

Switzerland is a very different country. You can't really compare it, even if a lot of people try to.

[BroskiDerpman]

Yeah I know and I tried to explain some differences in an extremely simplified manner. :clown:

[Husar]

What the government does not know can save your life.

And that is one reason why the dictator argument is ridiculous given how little outrage the NSA scandal has caused.

As for the whole thing about Russians, how often did the population even try/want to get rid of the communist government?

[Strike For The South]

Because the law says we can own firearms....

Why do we need to vote?
Why do we need worker protections?
Why do we need free assembly?

I'm for certain restrictions on firearms. I also own and shoot firearms. I also think most of you are idiots.

[Brenus]

“They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over” Under the Reign of Autocrat and Tsar Nicolas? Where do you find this kind of absurdities?
“What about pointed knives?” If you run faster than you aggressor, you survive the aggression by knife. Not a chance against a rifle, even the biggest of the obese get you.
“an armed populace was a massive deterrent to foreign invasion” When and where?

[BroskiDerpman]

I honestly don't get why some people are really against guns... The media perhaps?

[Pannonian]

“They were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over” Under the Reign of Autocrat and Tsar Nicolas? Where do you find this kind of absurdities?


You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. Although the fact that they were fighting a world war at the time may have had something to do with it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. Although the fact that they were fighting a world war at the time may have had something to do with it.

Tsk...tsk. Couldn't resist could you?


Regarding the OP:

The first ten amendments were promulgated as one document. That document was generated in order to assuage the concerns of numerous critics of the Constitution who had noted -- correctly -- that the Constitution in its original form does rather little to spell out the limitations of the government vis-à-vis individual rights. There was an agreement made that 1st Congress would put forward this Bill of Rights among its first items of business -- without that assurance, the Constitution would likely not have been ratified. The language of each amendment was much argued at the time. The prominence of the right to bear arms reflected the then-common belief that an armed citizenry was its own best defense against tyranny by the federal government.

I would assert, as a personal belief, that "arms" was viewed as an all-inclusive category at the time. Moreover, that the ultimate purpose of said arms was not personal defense -- though this was respected -- but the defense of the local community against federal tyranny. While there were extant views at the time that dispute my interpretation, I believe a majority of the primary source material available supports that view.

[rvg]

You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over...
This is mostly incorrect.
Cossacks, yes, those guys were armed to the teeth, Siberian frontiersmen, yes. Everybody else -- hell no.

[PanzerJaeger]

It should be noted that the shooter did not use an 'assault rifle'. Reports yesterday to the contrary were blatant efforts by select media organizations to create a false narrative. In any event, I do not really understand the fascination with assault rifles among the fearful sheeple that push gun control. As has been mentioned, pistols are far less expensive and more concealable, and are thus used in upwards of 95% of gun related crimes. Of course, if one is ignorant enough to believe that a gun ban would work in the US, one likely doesn't have a complete understanding of the situation. :shrug:

[ICantSpellDawg]

No ar-15 involved, bandwagon riders! Assembled shotgun and 2 handguns. Non law enforcement was barred the use of firearms on premises and it took police 3 minutes to arrive - 3 minutes where 11 innocent, defenseless people were killed. Firearm ended the assault. Perp held a secret clearance with the DoD with recent investigation, yet people believe that the background check law would have prevented the shooting.... Oh, and also he had a background check a few days before the shooting - in the gun store where he legally purchased the shotgun.

Keep sacrificing the sheep and the monster will keep eating.


PS - this is why the NRA keeps it's mouths shut for 48 hours - while antigunners are grasping at any straw possible, we come in after information has been vetted and don't sound like we've been writing a fantasy novel. Anti-gunners are pathetic manipulators of truth, but fortunately Americans arnt buying their crap on this issue.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

Where is the "well-ordered bit"? Do you mean the "well-regulated" bit? Where "regulated" means equipped and the founders protected our right to have a serious arsenal and be equipped for battle?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Lemur]

It should be noted that the shooter did not use an 'assault rifle'. Reports yesterday to the contrary were blatant efforts by select media organizations to create a false narrative.
FWIW, the AR-15 ID is reported to have come from a local Fox affiliate, which was grabbing info off police scanners and putting it out without secondary (confirming) sources. Bad reporting. Not a "blatant effort by select media to" blah blah blah.

Rather, it was cops on the radio saying it was an AR-15, and a local news station repeating it without confirming.

Also, I'd be cautious about using the term "sheeple." It's kind of a marker for conspiracy nuts. As in, it's one of their go-to words. You don't want to throw discredit on an argument through a simple word choice.

-edit-

Didn't follow this story closely, but it appears "senior law enforcement officials" were also announcing the AR-15 as a weapon (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?hp&_r=0). So ... yeah. Media conspiracy is kinda off the table as a talking point. Sorry. "Despite statements on Monday from senior law enforcement officials — which were widely reported in the news media, including in The New York Times — that an AR-15 had been found at the scene, no such gun has been found. The authorities say they do not believe the gunman used one."


"regulated" means equipped and the founders protected our right to have a serious arsenal and be equipped
Can't find any etymological source that confirms that "regulated" had this meaning in the 18th century. It certainly doesn't mean that today. Your source?

In fact, glancing at the etymology of the word, it has derived directly from synonyms for "control," which puts it in line with today's meaning. Here's a source. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Regulated)

"[F]rom Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare 'to control by rule, direct,' from Latin regula 'rule' (see regular). Meaning 'to govern by restriction' is from 1620s."

[Papewaio]

And I thought a well regulated militia had a high fibre diet.

[ICantSpellDawg]

FWIW, the AR-15 ID is reported to have come from a local Fox affiliate, which was grabbing info off police scanners and putting it out without secondary (confirming) sources. Bad reporting. Not a "blatant effort by select media to" blah blah blah.

Rather, it was cops on the radio saying it was an AR-15, and a local news station repeating it without confirming.

Also, I'd be cautious about using the term "sheeple." It's kind of a marker for conspiracy nuts. As in, it's one of their go-to words. You don't want to throw discredit on an argument through a simple word choice.

-edit-

Didn't follow this story closely, but it appears "senior law enforcement officials" were also announcing the AR-15 as a weapon (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?hp&_r=0). So ... yeah. Media conspiracy is kinda off the table as a talking point. Sorry. "Despite statements on Monday from senior law enforcement officials — which were widely reported in the news media, including in The New York Times — that an AR-15 had been found at the scene, no such gun has been found. The authorities say they do not believe the gunman used one."


Can't find any etymological source that confirms that "regulated" had this meaning in the 18th century. It certainly doesn't mean that today. Your source?

In fact, glancing at the etymology of the word, it has derived directly from synonyms for "control," which puts it in line with today's meaning. Here's a source. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Regulated)

"[F]rom Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare 'to control by rule, direct,' from Latin regula 'rule' (see regular). Meaning 'to govern by restriction' is from 1620s."

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-5.htm

Most regulations in the 18th century were not merely rules and punishments for soldiers, but also standards of minimal armament and food/supplies. Either way, this wording is in the prefatory clause and is not binding on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am not someone who believes that background checks are unconstitutional, or even permits for carrying weapons outside of your home, but I do recognize that most attempts to push these winnable strategies are Trojan horses; attempt to poison the tree and disarm most, and subsequently all Americans. The ulterior motive is clear. Most people who push these things would disarm all law abiding Americans if they could get away with it. I am reluctant to accept any amount of poison from the enemy.

Lemur, as an example, if you and I were going to negotiate on an increase in oversight on gun sales, we would probably increase individuals ability to attain carry permits - with proper training or law abiding background. I would talk to you and agree to a compromise. I trust that your agenda isn't to disarm me, but to come to a better result. I don't believe most people have a fair and reasonable agenda. You might, but unfortunately there are too many who would piggyback on your good diplomacy to nail us to the wall. Plus, no co promise has ever been suggested, merely a brutal war of attrition where we must simply lose in order for them to win. Compromise is when both of us win.

Also, to illustrate my point of trustworthiness in negotiation - I will never again by an insurance policy from Allstate, because the company is untrustworthy. I will, however, buy insurance policies from countless other insurers because either a)they ARE trustworthy or b) they are not known to be untrustworthy.
Democratic leadership cannot be trusted on this issue at this time. At another time? Perhaps - when we hold the Executive and one of the 2 houses, compromise may be in our interest.

[Lemur]

Most regulations in the 18th century were not merely rules and punishments for soldiers, but also standards of minimal armament and food/supplies.
Yes, and the rules defining these minimums were called ... regulations. Sorry, man, but calling your re-definition a "stretch" is an insult to elastic.


I am reluctant to accept any amount of poison from the enemy.
If you define reasonable people who have slightly different takes on governance your "enemy," then ... what will you call people who actually want to harm you? Exaggeration, overstatement, and a tendency to the melodramatic ... this leaves you rather boxed-in.

Also, I think we're all clear that you are using a Nexus 7 with Tapatalk 4. You might want to look at a way to turn that notification off.

[Papewaio]

Meh, if you are going to have a tool then proper training is necessary.

As for minimizing casualties I would add in better designed buildings ie multiple safe escape routes, OH&S training and proper mental health care.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, and the rules defining these minimums were called ... regulations. Sorry, man, but calling your re-definition a "stretch" is an insult to elastic.


If you define reasonable people who have slightly different takes on governance your "enemy," then ... what will you call people who actually want to harm you? Exaggeration, overstatement, and a tendency to the melodramatic ... this leaves you rather boxed-in.

Also, I think we're all clear that you are using a Nexus 7 with Tapatalk 4. You might want to look at a way to turn that notification off.

I can't. Also, read my edited post. There should be about 4 notifications of tapatatatatalk usage

Edit: yes I can, thank you, it is now off. But I am using tapatalk, and I'm on my nexus 7, btw

[a completely inoffensive name]

And why is this the 2nd amendment, while the amendment regarding the right to a fair trial is 6th? Both amendments were written on the same day, but the one about guns was given priority?

That's not how laws work.

[Pannonian]

Regarding the OP:

The first ten amendments were promulgated as one document. That document was generated in order to assuage the concerns of numerous critics of the Constitution who had noted -- correctly -- that the Constitution in its original form does rather little to spell out the limitations of the government vis-à-vis individual rights. There was an agreement made that 1st Congress would put forward this Bill of Rights among its first items of business -- without that assurance, the Constitution would likely not have been ratified. The language of each amendment was much argued at the time. The prominence of the right to bear arms reflected the then-common belief that an armed citizenry was its own best defense against tyranny by the federal government.

I would assert, as a personal belief, that "arms" was viewed as an all-inclusive category at the time. Moreover, that the ultimate purpose of said arms was not personal defense -- though this was respected -- but the defense of the local community against federal tyranny. While there were extant views at the time that dispute my interpretation, I believe a majority of the primary source material available supports that view.

If we go by this reading of the amendment, surely it's in need of an update? Arms available to the average militiaman aren't likely to be effective against a federal force. So the states should sit down together and look at the main drivers of increased federalisation, and work to restrict those factors. Because AFAICS armed force isn't what's driving the greater federal state.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Probably a good idea. However, we 'Muricans have decided to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment. We kinda glide past the "well-ordered" bit.

Well I don't think Feinstein and the Brady Bill folks really want an established "well-regulated militia". Historically it meant that white male property owners in good legal standing were required to keep and bear arms and train with them regularly. I mean, if that's what you want, as a white male (renting counts for property these days right? :sweatdrop:) I'll just have to go buy a scary black rifle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Buy one! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C1O2RuEe3o)You'll love it! It's only going to get harder in NJ - NY has already made it very difficult. Not difficult enough for me not to have one legally, though.

In NJ you can still get an AR-15 that looks like an AR-15. You can still buy an ar-15 in NY, it just cant bear more than a passing resemblance to an AR-15.

CA has recently discussed banning all detachable magazine semi-automatic firearms and passed a bill in assembly doing so. I'm actually glad that they have made a consistent argument, as their piecemeal argument was more politically savvy and used divide and conquer tactics in the gun community. An outright assault on gun owners wholesale by attempting to outlaw the majority of firearms is much harder to sell to even the most timid and feckless gun owners. Gun control only moves forward when they make absurd and seemingly pointless argument after absurd and seemingly pointless argument. Over time, they've smuggled enough tiny parts into the law to build a serious weapon against us. Consistency of their message may aid us to a greater extent.

[Lemur]

White male property owner here. Where do I report for drills and training?

Ugh. Like my weekends aren't booked full already ...

[spankythehippo]

That's not how laws work.
I'm not saying that the 2nd amendment trumps the ones below it. I'm just questioning the ordering. The 1st amendment is freedom to do yadda yadda yadda, understandable. But immediately after it is the right to bear arms. Is it because they were so excited about instilling the right to bear arms, that they immediately wrote it down? Or was the order randomised? There is a lot to be scrutinized about a a society from the small things that they do. All I'm doing is making small observations.


Why do you hate freedom and support terrorism and communism, spanky?

I'm a pacifist. That does not make me less of a man (I'm looking at you Vuk). I try to live my life with as little impact on other people as possible. I go out of my way to help others when I see them. Every time I see a hobo, I buy them a burger. That's a lot of burgers. Why do I do this? Because I happen to live a privileged life. If I can make a contribution in any way to some one else's life, then I feel like I've accomplished something greater than something that is personal to me.

I guess you could say I'm a dreamer. A few years ago, I was questioning a few people on the gun laws in America. In true American fashion, they avoided the main points and justified their insanity with the same word. Protection. A word that took me a while to understand. Having lived in a country where I've never been assaulted (well, I have. But I beat the 3 attackers with words, not bullets or knives), I never understood why you would need to protect your house or your self with deadly force. So one poster mentioned 1 word that changed my view on gun control in America. That word was "Detroit". I finally understood. "Alright, given your circumstances, I can see why some of you are carrying guns" was my response to Detroit. But why has Detroit deteriorated so much?

When I was constantly hearing the same phrase, "Gun control will never work", I had to redirect them to what happened to the small and insignificant country where I reside. In 1996, one of the most deadliest mass shootings occurred in Port Arthur, Tasmania. 35 people were killed. What did Martin Bryant use as his tools for destruction? An AR-15 and an L1A1. Both rifles, by the way. After this massacre, the Australian government " banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavily tightened controls on their legal use." This led to public outrage. Well, outrage from 15% of the population. They were clearly the most vocal about keeping guns legal, and we all know "The empty can rattles the most". Nonetheless, the law was still passed. To this day, there has never been a mass shooting after Port Arthur. Hang on, did gun control actually work? But all of you 'Muricans are spouting how it'll never work. Before you get into a hissy-fit, yelling at me that "America is not the same as Australia", I would like to remind you that nothing works if you never try.

Let's look at some graphs (we all love looking at graphs)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/4905120/data/chart3a-deaths-resulting-from-firearms-data.jpg

Here are some stats on the Australian gun deaths. Seems reasonable. Fewer guns, fewer deaths. Very simple concept to understand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

Notice how the countries with heavy gun control have the least murders? I wonder why that's the case...

Now let's look at your points about handguns.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png

I see. Handguns are responsible for more deaths, due to their concealable nature. If handguns were removed entirely, that would be 8,000 lives saved every year. Maybe that doesn't sound like a lot, but every life lost is one too many.

When backed into a corner, I see a typical response from pro-gunners. "If guns were illegal, criminals would still get them anyway." Drugs are illegal. Criminals still get their hands on them. Does that mean that drug laws are completely pointless and should be scrapped?

Asking for complete gun bans in the US is asking for a lot. To begin the weaning process, you have to slowly remove the breast milk from the baby's diet. So to have complete gun control, you have to slowly implement gun regulation measures.

To the people who say that removing guns also removes their freedoms... I will hold back my response due to the rules of this forum. If sacrificing a very minuscule portion of your freedom ensures that thousands of lives will be saved, then it's a very small price to pay.


You know what, I take everything back. MOAR GUNS! MOAR GUNS MEANS DARWIN WINS! WOO HOO!

[ICantSpellDawg]

White male property owner here. Where do I report for drills and training?

Ugh. Like my weekends aren't booked full already ...

NY actually has a militia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Guard)that is separate from the National Guard and has line item funding in the State budget. They can only be called into action within the State of NY, unless ordered by the Governor. I tried to join, but the website is ghetto and nobody got back to me.


Hey, where is Russia in that "global homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Guard)" chart? I don't trust somebody who would list Chile but exclude the Russian Federation, Eastern European countries, or Brazil.
On my link, if you go down to murder rate and assort them by high to low, you will find the United States at #103, below Ukraine, Estonia, way below Russian Federation, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, and 97 others.

[Papewaio]

Suppose you could swap it out for longbow session as a Yeoman.

[spankythehippo]

Hey, where is Russia in that "global homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Guard)" chart? I don't trust somebody who would list Chile but exclude the Russian Federation, Eastern European countries, or Brazil.
On my link, if you go down to murder rate and assort them by high to low, you will find the United States at #103, below Ukraine, Estonia, way below Russian Federation, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, and 97 others.

There's a very crucial word you are missing. "Developed" countries. Honduras has 20 times the murder rate of the US, but it's not a developed country.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There's a very crucial word you are missing. "Developed" countries. Honduras has 20 times the murder rate of the US, but it's not a developed country.

We also own more than 50% of civilian owned firearms and have the highest levels of immigration from developing nations of any country. Surely you would consider the Russian Federation a developed country? Why wasn't it on your list?

[spankythehippo]

We also own more than 50% of civilian owned firearms and have the highest levels of immigration from developing nations of any country. Surely you would consider the Russian Federation a developed country? Why wasn't it on your list?

Who's we? It has the highest levels of immigration because people seek the American Dream. It's not my graph. It's not up to me to judge whether a country is developing or developed. Apparently, Russia isn't developed, according to other people.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not saying that the 2nd amendment trumps the ones below it. I'm just questioning the ordering. The 1st amendment is freedom to do yadda yadda yadda, understandable. But immediately after it is the right to bear arms. Is it because they were so excited about instilling the right to bear arms, that they immediately wrote it down? Or was the order randomised? There is a lot to be scrutinized about a a society from the small things that they do. All I'm doing is making small observations.

I guess white lies make us all devils.

Ordered By Day of ratification
Amendment 1: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 2: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 3: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 4: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 5: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 6: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 7: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 8: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 9: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 10: Dec 15, 1791

And if you try to ask why did they ratify guns at 3pm instead of 9pm I am going to tell the judge, "Your honor, his face was in bad need of an accident."

[ajaxfetish]

Can't find any etymological source that confirms that "regulated" had this meaning in the 18th century. It certainly doesn't mean that today. Your source?

In fact, glancing at the etymology of the word, it has derived directly from synonyms for "control," which puts it in line with today's meaning. Here's a source. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Regulated)

"[F]rom Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare 'to control by rule, direct,' from Latin regula 'rule' (see regular). Meaning 'to govern by restriction' is from 1620s."

Confirming that the OED does not include a definition for "regulated" meaning well equipped. If it had had such a sense, I'd expect their editors to have found evidence of it. Here's the two they do have:


1. Properly controlled, governed, or directed; subject to guidance or regulations. Also: adjusted in response to, or in order to conform to, a principle, standard, set of circumstances, etc. Freq. with modifying word, as badly-, best-, ill-, well-regulated, etc.

†2. Of troops, an army, etc.: properly organized; formally constituted into a professional body. Also fig. and in figurative contexts. Obs. Cf. regular adj. 7.


As for why guns are necessary? I'm not strong enough to throw a bullet at lethal velocity. I need a little help.

[spankythehippo]

I guess white lies make us all devils.

Ordered By Day of ratification
Amendment 1: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 2: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 3: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 4: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 5: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 6: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 7: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 8: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 9: Dec 15, 1791
Amendment 10: Dec 15, 1791

And if you try to ask why did they ratify guns at 3pm instead of 9pm I am going to tell the judge, "Your honor, his face was in bad need of an accident."

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that they made a bunch of amendments on the same day. You know what, forget that I mentioned the order thing. It's too much work to explain this.

I don't need an explanation for your gun obsession either. I'll just accept the fact that America loves guns. If the American population is content with their high murder rates, that's cool. I'll make a mental note not to feel any emotion when there is a mass shooting.

/thread

[Montmorency]

Does that mean that drug laws are completely pointless and should be scrapped?

Well, yes. :wacko:

[ajaxfetish]

I don't need an explanation for your gun obsession either. I'll just accept the fact that America loves guns. If the American population is content with their high murder rates, that's cool. I'll make a mental note not to feel any emotion when there is a mass shooting.


It might be worth keeping in mind that that "high" murder rate is only relative. It may be higher than for many other developed nations, but your own chart has it listed as barely over 3 per 100,000. Compared to most of history, that's pretty damn low. We're looking at 110 per 100,000 in 1340's Oxford, 36 to 52 per 100,000 around the same time in London. And 9.3 per 100,000 right here in the US back in 1992. (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html). As for being content with our murder rate? It's been steadily dropping for the last few decades, and is as low as it's been in a century, so we don't seem too content with it ourselves (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-19/lifestyle/35929227_1_homicide-rate-randolph-roth-gun-control). And somehow it's dropping even though we still have guns. Funny that. Up to you how you feel after a mass shooting, but at the end of the day, they're statistical anomalies. We've got much bigger problems to worry about as a society than the very occasional unhinged person going on a killing spree.

[Brenus]

“You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. Although the fact that they were fighting a world war at the time may have had something to do with it.” Yes I do.
I suggest studying the Battle of Tsushima and Port Arthur Campaign (against Japan) to see if your assertion is right, and then the start of WW1 and the reason of the Russian Defeat. The Russian Empire was under-armed or equipped with old weapons, no match for the Germans.

What I don’t understand from the pro-guns: if guns are needed for protection, why no one in the crowd shoot at the killer. It looks like only killers have weapons when they shoot in the crowd. With so many guns sold, you should have at least one other armed person able to kill the killer but it never happen, or it is never reported. So are guns really a guarantee of safety and self-defence as, actually, there is no showing of self-defence in all these killings?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that they made a bunch of amendments on the same day. You know what, forget that I mentioned the order thing. It's too much work to explain this.

I mean, whats the point in asking why Americans 200+ years ago put guns at #2. Even if they did it because guns were super important to them, that doesn't say anything about the attitudes of modern Americans.

My original one liner was supposed to tell you that the order laws are passed in has nothing to do with how popular they are.

[Husar]

Brenus, that's because guns are a defensive tool just like landmines. Just like a landmine, a gun does not go to where the killer is, it waits until the killer comes to its home-turf.

And DawgyDawg already said that guns were not allowed in the premises where the latest killing spree happened.

The real problem, as usual, is not whether the people have blowpipes, assault rifles or, wait for it...landmines, the problem is that every American child grows up learning that every evil needs to be shot or blown up.

It's all about the attitude.

As for trucks, they kill more faster than a gun does: http://jalopnik.com/dashcam-captures-terrifying-truck-crash-that-killed-27-1263118652



I mean, whats the point in asking why Americans 200+ years ago put guns at #2. Even if they did it because guns were super important to them, that doesn't say anything about the attitudes of modern Americans.

Yes it does. Just like all Australians are the descendants of criminals and we all know that says a lot about Australians.

[Major Robert Dump]

The law-abiding American public would take too long to disarm, which leaves them defenseless against criminals. It would take years to get the guns from the criminals, and we might actually have to secure the border for once to stem the black market, which so far no one seems willing to do.

In other words, most people do not want to weather the storm

[Ironside]

I honestly don't get why some people are really against guns... The media perhaps?

For the rest of the west, claiming that you'll need guns for self defense is similar to saying that you live in the wild west. I mean sure you'll need it if there's armed robbers running around everywhere or worse, but that's a pretty big sign of societal breakdown.

Roughly you can say that's it's a trade for having a gun that might protect you in some situations, vs having more criminals with guns and a higher willingness to use them.

I can understand why the cops wants the guns to go away. It's a big part on why being a cop in the US is more than 10 times as deadly than in the UK.

[Pannonian]

“You can't deny that the Russians were some of the most heavily armed people on earth before the commies took over. Although the fact that they were fighting a world war at the time may have had something to do with it.” Yes I do.
I suggest studying the Battle of Tsushima and Port Arthur Campaign (against Japan) to see if your assertion is right, and then the start of WW1 and the reason of the Russian Defeat. The Russian Empire was under-armed or equipped with old weapons, no match for the Germans.

I make this the rankings in terms of how heavily armed their country's peoples were in 1917/18.

1. Germany
2. France
3. Britain
4. Russia
5. Austria-Hungary

You might want to swap in Italy, Japan or the Ottoman empire for Austria-Hungary.

[Husar]

I don't even think there is a country that is actually devoid of guns or that has an actual gun ban.
At least in Europe you can own a gun in most countries, you just have to fulfill certain criteria such as being an active member of a gun club or having been seriously threatened recently. It would be rather insincere and silly to think or demand that all Americans surrender all their guns, rendering the country completely devoid of all guns.

[Pannonian]

I don't even think there is a country that is actually devoid of guns or that has an actual gun ban.
At least in Europe you can own a gun in most countries, you just have to fulfill certain criteria such as being an active member of a gun club or having been seriously threatened recently. It would be rather insincere and silly to think or demand that all Americans surrender all their guns, rendering the country completely devoid of all guns.

The main difference is, in European countries, there isn't a general culture of a right to have guns. In the US, the question is, why can't I have a gun? In Europe, the question is, why do you need a gun? The law matters less than the nature of the question your average citizen asks. That's why I respect the merkan view on their right to guns, because I know that we have opposite approaches on the subject and we'll never agree on common ground.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This situation is paradigm shiffting. The facts of this case are so frustrating for the enemy .

Obviously, as with most mass shootings, the perpetrator was white, right?
-Nope, black

Well, even so, he probably was some sort of Christian curmudgeon or Islamic jihad I, right?
-Nope, practicing Buddhist, mild mannered

Well, either way, this points to the heart of the problem in that he used an AR15 full auto assault murder cannon, at the very least?
-Nope, pump action Remington 870 which he assembled in the bathroom.

Even still, he never would have been able to purchase it if the background check law would have passed
-well, actually, he purchased it in a store and had a federal NICS background check at the time of purchase. Also, he had a revolving secret clearance with the DoD with a recent investigation,which is much harder to pass than a NICs check

But, at least admit that, since he attacked a naval base where everyone is armed - this harms the argument that people can stop a shooting with their own firearm.
-actually, the occupants are barred the use of firearms by federal regulation. Only the guards at the "high security" gate and police have access, and it took them 3 minutes to do anything at their own building, resulting in so many deaths. Also, the assault was ended by firearm.

Well, maybe he was disaffected by government and hated B.O?
-maybe, as Bullsh*t Orator is a terrible sack of President, but it is more likely that the fact that he heard commanding angry voices and was being tormented by them that precipitated this action


Nothing that you could have done barring banning all firearms or denying gun purchases to civilians with active secret security clearances could have altered this outcome. It is precious that the libtards and their devoted sheeple have jumped "the gun" and leapt into this corner. I'm sorry for all of the people who have lost their lives, but policies suggested by the gun control crowd of disarming good people are deadly, and these cowards should be ashamed for suggesting it.

BTW - before any one says "why is this guy calling us the enemy?"
- it is because when you talk about passing laws which encourage police to bust open gun owners doors who have committed no crime, you are endangering their lives and the lives of their families. Police use SWAT raids to bust low level marijuana offenses and shoot people, kill animals, and destroy property. If you think they would hesitate to kill me over my guns if I were no longer "authorized" to have them, even though I would have committed no crime, you are out of your mind. Your policies are deadly in many ways and I oppose them to the end. Make no mistake: your political agenda results in me being assaulted and my life endangered. My agenda results in people being able to defend themselves with property that they own.

[Husar]

I think it's enough to take away the firearms of people who jump through many hoops to get guns and then start to call others "enemies" for not sharing their view on firearms, sounds like people who are about to do something dangerous.

[The Lurker Below]

The order to which they put the first few amendments does have relevance. I'm NOT saying they valued one more than the other, but that some issues were of priority consideration at the time.

First, regarding guns, let me offer you this. Every year Ford's UAW workers vote to strike. They nearly never strike. IF they don't give their union the authority to strike, then the union walks into their annual negotiations with no real bargaining power. Consider that strike option the same way the founders considered their first two amendments.

1st Amendment - these are the values we wanted that were denied and/or hindered by our previous overlords and the reasons we picked up the guns to begin with.

2nd Amendment - this keeps the new overlords from considering removing the 1st.

Consider the founders recent history and motivation when they were developing a new government. Guns were not about hunting, sporting, or self defense. Several posters have already mentioned the tyranny abroad and within thing. That's why guns. Those guys were just humans. They didn't create a perfect government. Thankfully they created something very difficult to change. Does anybody believe that today's lobbyist centered government would care at all to protect the rights of common individuals? In two months the worlds largest army takes the field to harvest God's innocent creatures. Show me the lobbyist willing to pilot his drone in their direction.

[drone]

Inspiration for some of the first 10 amendments comes from the English Bill of Rights act of 1689, including the rights of the people to carry arms. The crown cannot take arms from the people, you Brits just let Parliament do it instead. :tongue:

[Goofball]

Some interesting factoids in this article:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/30/u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown-exceed-iraq-war-deaths/

I was truly amazed to learn that there have been more gun deaths in the US since the Newtown killings THAN THERE WERE TO US FORCES OVER NINE YEARS OF WAR IN IRAQ!

Sorry, about the shouting, but COME ON! :rolleyes:

I was also amused to see that gun deaths have been steadily rising in proportion to traffic deaths. I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusions in the article, but here are two of my own:

1) If you want to lower your risk of being shot, join the US army
2) Over the last ten years Americans have become both better drivers and better shots

:yes:

[drone]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/30/u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown-exceed-iraq-war-deaths/

I was truly amazed to learn that there have been more gun deaths in the US since the Newtown killings THAN THERE WERE TO US FORCES OVER NINE YEARS OF WAR IN IRAQ!

Sorry, about the shouting, but COME ON! :rolleyes:

I was also amused to see that gun deaths have been steadily rising in proportion to traffic deaths. I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusions in the article, but here are two of my own:

1) If you want to lower your risk of being shot, join the US army
2) Over the last ten years Americans have become both better drivers and better shots

A biased news source that lumps suicides in with gun violence and does not state that fact. ~:rolleyes:

On traffic deaths: Drunk driving is down and vehicles are safer, hence fewer deaths on the roads.

The latest CDC report, 2010. Table 10 is the one you want.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

Motor Vehicle accidents - 35,332
Accidental firearm deaths - 606
Suicide by firearm - 19,392
Suicide by other means - 18,972
Homicide by firearm - 11,078
And for grins, Falls - 26,009. When the missus tells you to clean the gutters, she is really just trying to kill you. :yes:

[Brenus]

“I make this the rankings in terms of how heavily armed their country's peoples were in 1917/18.” This is the rank of ARMIES, not people.

Because you can be sure that the Autocrat Tsar of all the Russia didn’t want his newly freed slaves be armed when they realised HE was the cause of THEIR sufferings. We speak of the Tsar who order the crowd that his Secret Police gathered in order for him to show how good and nice he was to shoot at the crowd coming to ask for bread.

Well tried.

[rvg]

Because you can be sure that the Autocrat Tsar of all the Russia didn’t want his newly freed slaves be armed when they realised HE was the cause of THEIR sufferings. We speak of the Tsar who order the crowd that his Secret Police gathered in order for him to show how good and nice he was to shoot at the crowd coming to ask for bread.

It wasn't really a matter of legal prohibition as much as an economic one: most people were too poor to afford, say, a hunting rifle.

To put it into perspective: the cheapest Berdan hunting rifle cost about 12 rubles.
You could buy a cow for 3-5 rubles.

10854

[Husar]

A biased news source that lumps suicides in with gun violence and does not state that fact. ~:rolleyes:

On traffic deaths: Drunk driving is down and vehicles are safer, hence fewer deaths on the roads.

The latest CDC report, 2010. Table 10 is the one you want.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

Motor Vehicle accidents - 35,332
Accidental firearm deaths - 606
Suicide by firearm - 19,392
Suicide by other means - 18,972
Homicide by firearm - 11,078
And for grins, Falls - 26,009. When the missus tells you to clean the gutters, she is really just trying to kill you. :yes:

It's amazing how people are afraid of guns but take no precautions when they climb a ladder or a hill or summing.

As for being less likely to die by joining the army, I'm not sure that still holds true if the total number of dead soldiers in Iraq and gun deaths the US are relativized with the total number of soldiers in Iraq and the total number of people in the US.

[Goofball]

A biased news source that lumps suicides in with gun violence and does not state that fact. ~:rolleyes:

On traffic deaths: Drunk driving is down and vehicles are safer, hence fewer deaths on the roads.

The latest CDC report, 2010. Table 10 is the one you want.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

Motor Vehicle accidents - 35,332
Accidental firearm deaths - 606
Suicide by firearm - 19,392
Suicide by other means - 18,972
Homicide by firearm - 11,078
And for grins, Falls - 26,009. When the missus tells you to clean the gutters, she is really just trying to kill you. :yes:

Shooting yourself in the head on purpose with a gun certainly qualifies as "gun violence" in my book. I see nothing wrong with that including the suicide numbers. I want to know how many people died by gun. What it's leaving out are all of the other deaths from guns that are not a suicide or a homicide. For example, a "legal" shooting to death of a person where the killer is not charged or not convicted. George Zimmerman, for example. If anything, the gun violence number is understated as far as I'm concerned.

[Goofball]

It's amazing how people are afraid of guns but take no precautions when they climb a ladder or a hill or summing.

As for being less likely to die by joining the army, I'm not sure that still holds true if the total number of dead soldiers in Iraq and gun deaths the US are relativized with the total number of soldiers in Iraq and the total number of people in the US.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek with those conclusions. :clown:

[a completely inoffensive name]

At this point gun violence is an entirely media manufactured problem. Was it serious in the early 90s? Probably. But all interactions I have had with gun owners had indicated to me that the gun culture is now exceedingly emphasizing safety and responsibility, if only to make sure the legislators don't come down upon them.

I mean, when falls account for more 2x more deaths than deliberate firearm homicides, you need to step back and ask what we could be focusing on instead.

It's a wedge issue, politicians know that, media knows that. You are all falling for it.

The reason these threads are always started by non-Americans is because they do not understand how American media operates. They hear from their media which takes the narrative from what American media manufactures.

I have never visited Germany. But I am sure if I bought a major news station and mandated that they report on Neo-Nazis once a week, I could convince all of Germany that the 4th Reich is rising.

[Husar]

I have never visited Germany. But I am sure if I bought a major news station and mandated that they report on Neo-Nazis once a week, I could convince all of Germany that the 4th Reich is rising.

I just supported the pro-gun argument and you bring up Nazis, that's despicable and unfair.

Also I'm sorry for the war.

Now what about landmines? Why does noone want to discuss the benefits of landmines?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I just supported the pro-gun argument and you bring up Nazis, that's despicable and unfair.

Also I'm sorry for the war.

Now what about landmines? Why does noone want to discuss the benefits of landmines?

I wasn't attacking you. I am making a point about the degree to which this entire subject is generated by a media narrative.

The example I chose is to highlight the ridiculousness of it all. the US probably has more neo-nazis right now than germany in 1933. But the fact is that I could alter the view of Germans regarding the status of neo-nazis if I pushed a media narrative that would not shut up about them.

[rvg]

I just supported the pro-gun argument and you bring up Nazis, that's despicable and unfair.

You sound surprised. Nazis make their way into every thread. It's the law.

[Husar]

I wasn't attacking you. I am making a point about the degree to which this entire subject is generated by a media narrative.

The example I chose is to highlight the ridiculousness of it all. the US probably has more neo-nazis right now than germany in 1933. But the fact is that I could alter the view of Germans regarding the status of neo-nazis if I pushed a media narrative that would not shut up about them.

I was actually just curious whether you knew I am not entirely for a ban on guns in the US or not. But asking directly is boring.

We Germans aren't really that touchy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCQ4oBcuTBY

[spankythehippo]

I mean, when falls account for more 2x more deaths than deliberate firearm homicides, you need to step back and ask what we could be focusing on instead.

Yeah, because deliberate falling is a big issue. I'm assuming most of the falls would be in domestic circumstances, which would mean their death was caused by conscious decision not to use safety equipment or yoloswagging. In both cases, stupidity is the major cause of death.

[Montmorency]

Nope.

Workplace.

Elderly.

Cool empathy, bro.

[spankythehippo]

Nope.

Workplace.

Elderly.

Cool empathy, bro.

So we need to attach harnesses to people who work and the elderly at all times? Puh-lease. Falling down is an accident. Shooting someone in the face is not.

I should be dead right now from all the injuries I have sustained through stupidity. So yeah, I guess I can empathise. I just don't show it.

[Montmorency]

Shooting someone in the face is not.

(Let's leave out suicide here, as I am a strong supporter of the Right to Death.)

10,000 die in one year from firearm homicides, many of them in criminal-on-criminal violence. The marginal cost to reduce this figure via "gun control" grows very quickly, soon reaching the point of enormous social and fiduciary upheaval for microscopic - or perhaps even negative - benefit.

25,000 die in one year from falls, and millions more are rushed to the ER in the same period for the same category. Massive reduction in deaths and injuries can follow from introducing minor new safety measures, or stringently upholding old ones - never mind introducing actual new legislation.

Which is the low-hanging fruit here?

[spankythehippo]

(Let's leave out suicide here, as I am a strong supporter of the Right to Death.)

10,000 die in one year from firearm homicides, many of them in criminal-on-criminal violence. The marginal cost to reduce this figure via "gun control" grows very quickly, soon reaching the point of enormous social and fiduciary upheaval for microscopic - or perhaps even negative - benefit.

25,000 die in one year from falls, and millions more are rushed to the ER in the same period for the same category. Massive reduction in deaths and injuries can follow from introducing minor new safety measures, or stringently upholding old ones - never mind introducing actual new legislation.

Which is the low-hanging fruit here?

I said "Shoot someone in the face". That "someone" is not yourself. I'll change it to "Shoot someone else in the face". There. Much better.

So, saving 10,000 people from homicidal maniacs is a "microscopic or negative" benefit? Since when is a life merely a statistic? And people say I have no morality because I'm an atheist.

I come from a 3rd world country. Most of you live in a privileged society/environment (I'm assuming). I'm also assuming you haven't witnessed an execution with shots to the knees, elbows and then head. Or even a hanging or beheading? These were not carried out by the police or the government. These were carried out by street thugs. I witnessed these things at the ripe age of 5. Did it leave an impact? Sure did (especially since I was on holiday at the time). Has a family member of mine been killed? Most certainly. To be fair, I never even met that family member. But to see such sadness and grief expressed by my family was disturbing, to say the least. Now, before some of you say "those executions could have been prevented with a gun", let me make this clear. Violence breeds more violence. Hate breeds more hate, which ultimately leads to violence. So I do not hate. I do not wish death upon a single person (kind of). There are several people in this world that I ever so slightly wish death upon. And they're people like this:

http://www.eutimes.net/2009/11/book-about-killing-gentile-children-becomes-bestseller-in-israel/

Why do I wish death upon this man? Because he wishes death upon many more.

I'm not saying to ban guns, since it seems the American population is too inept at parting with their inanimate objects. Just control it. It's very simple to do. If you desperately want a gun, submitting to a background check is hell of a lot easier than obtaining it illegally.


I don't particularly care anymore about the American gun debate. It's your choice, and if someone kills you or any of your family with a legally obtained firearm... well, I won't say anything. I'll just live in my world doing what I want to do peacefully, until I leave this hellhole of a planet.

[Montmorency]

So, saving 10,000 people from homicidal maniacs is a "microscopic or negative" benefit? Since when is a life merely a statistic?

Did you not get the part about marginal cost vs. marginal benefit? Gun control is not like a binary switch.


I come from a 3rd world country.

I thought you were ethnic Japanese living in Australia?


It's very simple to do. If you desperately want a gun, submitting to a background check is hell of a lot easier than obtaining it illegally.

Sure - but again, it's marginal cost vs. marginal benefit. The cost of such measures is very low; however, the benefit (in terms of "lives saved") is also very low.

That's the point.


and if someone kills you or any of your family with a legally obtained firearm... well, I won't say anything.

Why would that change my view on things? Personal tragedy should not cloud one's judgement.

Anyway, I live in New York. :grin:

[Goofball]

Why would that change my view on things? Personal tragedy should not cloud one's judgement.You didn't answer the question. Let me put it to you (and everyone who is against background checks for gun purchases) another way: If someone you love was shot and killed by someone who had no business owning a gun (registered history of mental illness and violence, for example) with a gun that they had obtained legally at a gun show by doing nothing more than showing up with the cash, no questions asked, would you not then maybe, just maybe, think that background checks might have some value?

[spankythehippo]

I thought you were ethnic Japanese living in Australia?

Yeaaaaah. About that. That was a ruse. When I first started frequenting the internet, I was slightly paranoid about identity theft. So I created a new identity. The only fabrications I made were regarding my physical appearance, age and race. Don't ask me why I did it. I just did. After a while, I realised that identity theft wasn't that big of a threat that I imagined, but I stuck with the gimmick. It soon became "I wonder how long it'll take until someone confronts me?". Turns out, over the internet where your face isn't exactly published on every conceivable website, no one confronted me. I even left clues to my identity on a forum I frequented on (not this one). No one picked up on it. If they did, they didn't question it. So consider me impressed to see that someone remember's where I stated I was from on this forum. The other forum I was on was filled with stoners and metalheads, with all the threads ultimately leading to masturbation techniques, porn, Skyrim or pooping etiquette.

Why did I choose to make my new persona Japanese? I didn't. I had those spinny globe things, and quite literally spun it, closed my eyes and pointed. "Where ever my finger points is going to be my nationality". My finger was pointing at the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and the closest country was Japan.


Sure - but again, it's marginal cost vs. marginal benefit. The cost of such measures is very low; however, the benefit (in terms of "lives saved") is also very low.

That's the point.

But how can you know if the number of lives saved will be low? Even if it saves 1 life, I'd say it's worth it. But since people are very stingy with their cash, I doubt the value the life of a fellow human being over their money. Yeah, I can see your point.


Why would that change my view on things? Personal tragedy should not cloud one's judgement.

Anyway, I live in New York. :grin:

Of course. Personal tragedy should not cloud one's judgment, since it can lead to bad things. Since you live in New York (and I listen to a podcast based in New York, who often talk about local news), remember Lieby Kletzky? After he was found butchered, all the Hasidic Jews were yelling "LET'S ROUND UP THE BLACK PEOPLE! THEY DID IT!". Turns out, it was another Hasid. I can only imagine the tension if they started accusing ALL the black people (since Hasidic Jews are paranoid like that, apparently).

I am not swayed by my emotions in my judgment. I don't know how this may sound, but if I had to choose between the life of my mother and a random woman, I wouldn't be able to choose. What right do I have to dictate this random womans death? That should give you a little insight into how my mind works, or lack thereof.

[Montmorency]

would you not then maybe, just maybe, think that background checks might have some value?

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I already do think that background checks have value - just not a very huge amount, in terms of preventing that sort of scenario. Most gun-crime is with illegally-obtained weapons.

As I said, the marginal cost is low, but the marginal benefit is as well.

There is no cure-all for gun-crime within gun regulation, even within the realm of the fantastic: e.g. full-on confiscation and proscription of all privately-owned firearms. For sure, even stringent checks would not prevent the thousands of deaths some seem to imagine it could. I doubt the effect of any increases to check-stringency would be beyond the magnitude of 1%.


someone you love

Does not compute.

:robot:

As for spanky, I'll get to yours in 10 hours or so.

[Husar]

There is no cure-all for gun-crime within gun regulation, even within the realm of the fantastic: e.g. full-on confiscation and proscription of all privately-owned firearms. For sure, even stringent checks would not prevent the thousands of deaths some seem to imagine it could. I doubt the effect of any increases to check-stringency would be beyond the magnitude of 1%.

That depends on a lot of factors including time. I would suspect in about 300 years the first matchlock muskets should fail and need to be replaced. Now if plasma blasters are harder to get then, the number of guns should decrease "naturally".
And since you claim to be a robot, please share your algorithm for calculating the magnitude of 1%.


Does not compute.

:robot:


Would you say you're more a Bijo or a worse version of Dr. Cooper?

[drone]

Shooting yourself in the head on purpose with a gun certainly qualifies as "gun violence" in my book. I see nothing wrong with that including the suicide numbers. I want to know how many people died by gun. What it's leaving out are all of the other deaths from guns that are not a suicide or a homicide. For example, a "legal" shooting to death of a person where the killer is not charged or not convicted. George Zimmerman, for example. If anything, the gun violence number is understated as far as I'm concerned.

The CDC report is some of my favorite annual government reading, and Table 10 has it all:
Legal Intervention - 412, I'm assuming this is both police shootings and self-defense, but it is not broken down by firearm/other means. It's such a small number that assuming it's all firearms doesn't matter. Cops tasing people with heart conditions probably goes here as well. ~;)
Events of undetermined intent, firearms - 252

So firearms accounted for 606+19392+11078+412*+252 = 31740 deaths in 2010, which is still lower than traffic accidents.

Also included in Table 10 is Injury by firearms - 31,672. Table 10 is broken down by age groups, old people tend to get wounded a lot more than the gangbanger ages. :inquisitive:

Other fun stats:
Suicides by other means - 18,972, so roughly half of successful suicides are by firearm
Drug-induced deaths - 40,393
Alcohol-induced deaths - 25,692

Seriously, read the report. We like to think we are a modern nation, but 2,790 people died of malnutrition in 2010. Next time the media gets all in a tizzy about salmonella food poisoning or the trendy influenza de jour, look at the numbers (28 and 500, respectively). Cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, and accidents are the main causes of death in this country, firearm homicides are in the noise, but pictures of a pnuemonia victim dying in a hospital doesn't sell papers.

[a completely inoffensive name]

2,790 malnutrition deaths in a nation of over 300 million with over 14 million being illegals immigrants. At this point, how many of those are college students who don't realize that you are not actually supposed to live solely off of ramen noodles?

[drone]

2,790 malnutrition deaths in a nation of over 300 million with over 14 million being illegals immigrants. At this point, how many of those are college students who don't realize that you are not actually supposed to live solely off of ramen noodles?

Judging by the age breakdown, it's actually older folks starving.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You forgot the 3rd, GC. We gotta take that back as well.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Judging by the age breakdown, it's actually older folks starving.

Than it is not a matter of personal stupidity, but collective lack of responsibility. An easily fixable problem, unlike the gun issue which is what people seem determined to focus on.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Judging by the age breakdown, it's actually older folks starving.

But the hunger/malnutrition isn't just limited to the elderly, though -- just that the elderly are relatively unprotected from the worst consequences. For example school kids still get that one school meal every school day, which provides some relief...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Than it is not a matter of personal stupidity, but collective lack of responsibility. An easily fixable problem, unlike the gun issue which is what people seem determined to focus on.

Until you actually try to. At which point it is unfixable, 'cause "free market capitalism rules OK".

[Montmorency]

Now if plasma blasters are harder to get then, the number of guns should decrease "naturally".

That would be a good point, except:

1. It assume such weapons are or will be technologically viable as small-arms.
2. It assumes modern civilization will survive up to the point where such weapons will exist.
3. It assumes that such weapons will render traditional solid-projectile guns obsolete.
4. It assumes that such weapons will ever be released to the public.
5. It assumes the character of modern civilization will remain almost unchanged up to that point.

As it turns out, it's a very bad idea to plan 300 years ahead unless you have a One World Government.

[drone]

But the hunger/malnutrition isn't just limited to the elderly, though -- just that the elderly are relatively unprotected from the worst consequences. For example school kids still get that one school meal every school day, which provides some relief...

True, the CDC report only reports deaths. The age ranges that spike on malnutrition are 70+, maybe malnutrition is getting credit when loss of appetite is a symptom of another disease. :shrug:

[Husar]

That would be a good point, except:

1. It assume such weapons are or will be technologically viable as small-arms.
2. It assumes modern civilization will survive up to the point where such weapons will exist.
3. It assumes that such weapons will render traditional solid-projectile guns obsolete.
4. It assumes that such weapons will ever be released to the public.
5. It assumes the character of modern civilization will remain almost unchanged up to that point.

As it turns out, it's a very bad idea to plan 300 years ahead unless you have a One World Government.

Those would be good points, except:

1. They assume I meant plasma blaster literally.
2. They assume I meant 300 years literally.
3. They assume that muskets will actually last exactly another 300 years.
4. They assume that my assumptions are actually wrong.
5. They assume that a One World Government could not dissolve within a timespan of 300 years.

As it turns out, it's not a good idea to make random assumptions about someone else's post unless you have a forum where a hive mind discusses with itself.

[Montmorency]

I meant plasma blaster literally.

"Such weapons" deals with that nicely.


2. They assume I meant 300 years literally.


Even 50 years fits.


They assume that muskets will actually last exactly another 300 years.

So, no projectile weapons whatsoever? Maybe we will return to bow and arrow? See #5.


They assume that my assumptions are actually wrong.

I assert this.


They assume that a One World Government could not dissolve within a timespan of 300 years.


Not at all. It merely assumes that One World Governments would deal better with very-long-term goals than 200 opposed and constantly-fluctuating governments.


it's not a good idea to make random assumptions about someone else's post

1. If no one assumed anything about anyone else, guess what: there would be no communication between humans!

2. You acknowledged that these were indeed your assumptions.

[spankythehippo]

I'd rather live in the third world and be allowed to protect myself than live in a first world country that's gone that soft.

Wut. If you want to protect yourself, why don't you wear Kevlar instead of carrying a weapon? If someone truly wanted to kill you, they wouldn't make it obvious. So they might shoot you in the back. Would a gun save you in that circumstance? Since when is a weapon a form of protection? Instead of trying to fix a societal problem (which I understand will be hard to fix), America just tackles it with brute force.

Common people that act "hard" are often aggressive. Aggression is a result of lack of self-control. I'd rather live in a society where people have self-control. I'd rather live in a society where men weren't obliged to appear tough, just for the sake of not going soft. As it turns out, men that try to appear masculine to impress others are one of the most obnoxious people on the planet. People can still be masculine without guns. Bruce Lee is tough. A gun-crazy redneck is not.

[Xiahou]

Yes, and the rules defining these minimums were called ... regulations. Sorry, man, but calling your re-definition a "stretch" is an insult to elastic.Frankly, if you substitute "equipped" for "regulated" in the amendment, it makes alot more sense.

How does the uninfringeable right to bear arms help to constitute a well regulated militia? However, if you take it to mean a well equipped militia- the dependent clause makes sense. :yes:

It's an interesting thought- but largely irrelevant since it is a dependent clause.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Aggression is not inherently bad. For every emotion there is a right time, with a right place, directed towards the right person, to a right degree.

If the US lacks self control than I call the UK meek for having garbage bins to stash those dangerous knives away.

[Papewaio]

You're not American, so you don't get an opinion.

That said, its not about anything so crass. Guns are the basic unit of self defense in the world. I am not willing to cede that right to the state. I think those that are, or those that already have, are coming from an alien mindset that I do not understand and cannot relate to.

*I mean, you can hypothesize about situational scenarios all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you lose any kind of initiative when you give up the right to meaningful force. You are totally submitting to the will of the state, and putting your faith in the system. I don't like my state enough or have enough faith in my system to do any such thing.

As a former tanker don't you think that the force ratio is asymmetric? Aren't you at some level putting faith in the military to be on your side?

Possibly the best defence against a state actor would be learning how to wage asymmetric warfare. So should IEDs be part of the right to bear arms.

[Montmorency]

So should IEDs be part of the right to bear arms.

The state knows what it's doing when it moves to restrict or eliminate private drone-'hobbyism'.

In a few years, your 3D-printed guns and AR-whatevers will be small-fry in the face of autonomous drone-hordes firing heat-seeking bullets.

[Papewaio]

An armed people have to be taken seriously. I'm sure our rights would be even more eroded if the people had no guns.

I agree wih most of what you have written, however I do not believe this section nor do I think it is factual accurate.

There are plenty of countries with lots of firearms that are less free and plenty more with less firearms that are more so.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Every time that I hear things like "JP Morgan Chase has paid 920 million as a fine for financial irregularities" followed by "this represents 14 days of profit for the multinational" I recognize how important owning firearms is. Every time Walmart opens in an area and has a downward impact on wages in that area, I recognize how important owning firearms is.

The right to bear arms is the recognition that there is a gravitational pull for power to coalesce and become greater power, and for that power to view your rights jealously. If the peaceful, progressive compact that we have with established interests is ever broken - woe to those who believe that they live as powerful mortals in a world where a 3.38 Lapua Magnum cannot punch through the steel on their helicopter or that all of the gold in the world can protect them from mobs no longer armed with pitchforks, but rather AR-15's and tannerite.

I support the right to bear arms for the same reasons as Jefferson, John Brown, George Orwell. Your government seeks to protect entrenched interests and keep the populace at bay. The only ones who will protect the interests of the everyman are the everymen. There is danger implied in the recognition of this right, akin to the danger implied by a police force or standing army.

[Husar]

So, no projectile weapons whatsoever? Maybe we will return to bow and arrow? See #5.

Is a ball of plasma not a projectile? What about an arrow makes it not a projectile?


I assert this.

And that is wrong.


Not at all. It merely assumes that One World Governments would deal better with very-long-term goals than 200 opposed and constantly-fluctuating governments.

That is correct. However, you do not have 200 opposed and constantly-fluctuating governments within the USA, yet you seem to think long-term planning would be a bad idea for the USA?


1. If no one assumed anything about anyone else, guess what: there would be no communication between humans!

Sounds good.


2. You acknowledged that these were indeed your assumptions.

You found out my secret, oh noes!

[PanzerJaeger]

FWIW, the AR-15 ID is reported to have come from a local Fox affiliate, which was grabbing info off police scanners and putting it out without secondary (confirming) sources. Bad reporting. Not a "blatant effort by select media to" blah blah blah.

Rather, it was cops on the radio saying it was an AR-15, and a local news station repeating it without confirming.

Also, I'd be cautious about using the term "sheeple." It's kind of a marker for conspiracy nuts. As in, it's one of their go-to words. You don't want to throw discredit on an argument through a simple word choice.

-edit-

Didn't follow this story closely, but it appears "senior law enforcement officials" were also announcing the AR-15 as a weapon (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/state-law-stopped-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html?hp&_r=0). So ... yeah. Media conspiracy is kinda off the table as a talking point. Sorry. "Despite statements on Monday from senior law enforcement officials — which were widely reported in the news media, including in The New York Times — that an AR-15 had been found at the scene, no such gun has been found. The authorities say they do not believe the gunman used one."

Humble pie isn't any better with milk. My mistake and thank you for the correction. With media outlets jumping to post things like this [http://www.mediaite.com/online/ny-daily-news-splashes-ar-15-across-navy-yard-shooting-cover/], it's hard not to believe an agenda is being driven in the face of facts and rationality.

[Lemur]

Frankly, if you substitute "equipped" for "regulated" in the amendment, it makes alot more sense.
Only if you have a preconceived notion of what you want the Second Amendment to mean.

If you read the language for what it is, rather than what you think it ought to mean, it's pretty clear. "Well-regulated" means under some sort of organization and control, rather than a bunch of angry dudes in a mob. The founders' intent is pretty clear in this case. They want the state protected, and they want it done by a "well-regulated militia," as opposed to a disorganized bunch of shooters. (And it's clear from letters and speeches of the time that the founders were leery about having a standing army, so the "well regulated militia" was clearly being posited as an alternative to a permanent military force.)

"The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter."—George Washington, August 25, 1776

"The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this Province, makes it necessary for me to inform you... your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law."—George Washington, January 24, 1777

"The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor... carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."—George Washington, Address to Congress, November 19, 1794

[Goofball]

An armed people have to be taken seriously. I'm sure our rights would be even more eroded if the people had no guns.

That is the biggest fallacy I have ever heard. Do you think politicians in any first world, democratic nation ever shy away from a decision because they are afraid of the populace shooting them?

The only reason they ever shy away from a decision is if they think it will prevent them from getting reelected.

Case in point: American politicians don't shy away from gun control because they think somebody will kill them. They shy away from it because when they vote for it the NRA shows up in their district, outspends them on television, and gets them booted out of office. Sometimes they don't even wait for the nest election, they just spend enough to recall their ass.

[rvg]

Case in point: American politicians don't shy away from gun control because they think somebody will kill them. They shy away from it because when they vote for it the NRA shows up in their district, outspends them on television, and gets them booted out of office. Sometimes they don't even wait for the nest election, they just spend enough to recall their ass.
It's a thing of beauty. When those two clowns in CO got their asses recalled I was one happy camper. Don't mess with our guns.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I mean, if we are going to be honest. There was a time when politicians were right to be afraid of being shot. The US has not had a lack of important politicians being shot at.

RIP in peace McKinley

[Husar]

It's a thing of beauty. When those two clowns in CO got their asses recalled I was one happy camper. Don't mess with our guns.

The problem is that guns are apparently the only topic that ruins political careers in this way. It's apparently easier to get away with mass murder, murder, corruption, ruining the country and what not than with voting to introduce even the smallest bit of gun legislation.
And with these priorities you wonder why your country is not doing well in certain areas such as schools...

[rvg]

And with these priorities you wonder why your country is not doing well in certain areas such as schools...

Public schools in prosperous counties do quite well. My daughter goes to a public school, it's one of the best schools in the state.

[Montmorency]

Is a ball of plasma not a projectile? What about an arrow makes it not a projectile?

Specifically: "muskets" > nothing > still no 'sci-fi' pistols > still nothing? > return to prehistoric projectile-weapons

Yes, the idea is that this makes no sense.


And that is wrong.

It's wrong 'cause it's wrong, right? :wink:


That is correct. However, you do not have 200 opposed and constantly-fluctuating governments within the USA, yet you seem to think long-term planning would be a bad idea for the USA?

To be more precise, 200 national governments. With the current state-federal structure, and still suspended within an international system, there might as well be no difference though, compared to the potential stability of Policy in a World-State.

[Goofball]

It's a thing of beauty. When those two clowns in CO got their asses recalled I was one happy camper. Don't mess with our guns.

Except "those clowns" were not trying to take anyone's guns away. The law they voted for only limited the size of magazines and implemented background checks for gun sales. The only people in the country that are "harmed" by this law is gun manufacturers and retailers, as they would lose a little bit of business by no longer being able to sell to criminals or mental cases. So the NRA stepped in and managed to whip up such a frenzy that enough single issue voters recalled them, regardless of the rest of their political platforms.

I can't believe you can't see this. The NRA doesn't do this kind of thing because they are such patriotic defenders of liberty, they do it because they want to sell as many guns and make as much money as possible.

[Goofball]

Whatever. The NRA didn't donate the most money in Colorado, the mayor of New York did. To the other side. Backlash is a bitch.Actually, no, it was about even. Straight from Fox News, in case you are worring about anti-gun bias:"The recall drew national attention and became a proxy fight between gun control and gun rights forces. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an advocate for stricter gun laws with his group Mayor's Against Illegal Guns, contributed around $350,000 to the two Democrats. The NRA spent roughly the same amount opposing them."http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/14/gun-control-advocates-say-colorado-recall-stifling-effort-in-congress/
Its a RIGHT! The same would be expected to happen if a politician came out and tried to repeal free speech. When the people repeatedly demonstrate that they don't want one of their RIGHTS taken away, the government should listen. The more politicians keep trying to beat this dead horse instead of doing, as you suggest, other meaningful things the bigger the backlash will be.I don't know abou that reasoning. Americans don't seem to care quite as much about having their emails monitored by the guv'ment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Only if you have a preconceived notion of what you want the Second Amendment to mean.

If you read the language for what it is, rather than what you think it ought to mean, it's pretty clear. "Well-regulated" means under some sort of organization and control, rather than a bunch of angry dudes in a mob. The founders' intent is pretty clear in this case. They want the state protected, and they want it done by a "well-regulated militia," as opposed to a disorganized bunch of shooters. (And it's clear from letters and speeches of the time that the founders were leery about having a standing army, so the "well regulated militia" was clearly being posited as an alternative to a permanent military force.)

"The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter."—George Washington, August 25, 1776

"The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this Province, makes it necessary for me to inform you... your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law."—George Washington, January 24, 1777

"The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor... carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."—George Washington, Address to Congress, November 19, 1794

Ok, point made - yes, if you read the prefatory clause (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/prefatory) as the sole reason for the right to keep and bear arms, a well regulated (managed and outfitted) militia is the reason for the amendment. This is not the way we or most, read the amendment. Your interpretation would suggest that personal self defense, hunting, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with our protected right, but rather that our right is solely dictated by the desires of the government for it's own security. In fact, hunters have no right to their firearms, neither do individuals in high crime areas? No one but the National Guard and Police have a "right" to firearms, and even then their ability to arm themselves would be regulated solely by what the government believes is best to promote "the security of the State"?

This is absurd historically and even more absurd when faced with the reality of American expectations. You are suggesting that a commonly believed, used, and valued right is merely a figment of our imaginations and it was only a glitch that allowed Americans to keep their guns after the Revolution/early years had ended.

If you believe that the rationale that you are describing would have caused the Supreme court to "divine" the right to an abortion and other open ended verdicts from the oracle, the you need to go back to school. The rights which we had no idea that we had, few had ever asked for, and where no protections had ever existed are "self-evident and inalienable" while those which are protected in code, commonly held and protected nearly everywhere are "an illusion". Your understanding is that the 2nd amendment forces the government to have an army and the right of the people stuff is, what the "succeeding clause" of 2A?. Congrats on your decimating and progressive judicial argument.


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a separate and individual right. It is is a self-sustained right, unconstrained by merely one of it's myriad purposes. The most important function is to secure a FREE state, not just A state. It is useful for many other things and is a right of the people, not to be infringed by any government.
There are purposes behind the right to speak freely, but you wouldn't make the argument that we may only speak freely in areas that keep government honest, would you? The prefatory clause is a statement of fact, not a qualifier for the right.

Additionally, rights not enumerated to the 3 branches are reserved to the State or to the People. There is no enumeration, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is specifically protected constitutionally from "infringement", the right is "incorporated" to the States, protecting the States from "infringements" - we are good. Start lobbying for another amendment if it bothers you that badly, or just focus on innocuous background checks and permitting -which may "abridge", but do not "infringe" on our rights.

[Montmorency]

Wow, that was one circular post there, Dawg.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow, that was one circular post there, Dawg.

In what way?

EDIT: did I fix it?

[Montmorency]

Imagine four statements, A, B, C, and D.

C follows from A.

D follows from B.

You are arguing that because some E never had any relevance to B and D that A > C is canceled.

That makes no sense to me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wait, since I've re-organized it, please re-read and address inconsistent points.

Doesn't circular logic look something like this - "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because whatever is less dense than water will float". If you are saying that my post is illogical you may have a point, but I'm pretty sure that I wasnt attempting to prove that Lemur was correct by agreeing with him, which was my starting suggestion.

[Montmorency]

Let's put some language into that schema, then.

1. No depriving privileges or liberties without due process of law > women and their physicians have at least some right to private/personal medical decisions involving abortion

2. Well-regulated militia > state-organized paramilitaries

3. Private citizens have at least some right to own firearms

Perhaps you've been trying to fit (3) into the wrong place?

[ICantSpellDawg]

IMy point was that it is hard for some people to find a right of the people to keep and bear arms, but have no problem finding a right to most other stuff which isn't spelled out in the text.

Read it this way if you'd like:

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

But you have to know that we are all members of the militia and that the implication that the national guards and the like are not what the founders meant by "the militia". They meant - the people have guns and we call them up in emergencies to act as a security force. Also, this supports ownership of weapons which have a State Security role to play - AR-15's absolutely have a role in that, so do bombs and full-auto weapons.

You should attempt to change wording if you disagree with it. If you think it would be better if the wording read "the right of the government to have a fighting force" you should push for it to change. I like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

[Montmorency]

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The thing is, we are no longer in the days when pretty much every adult male was or could be militia, and might have been called to defend their localities from criminals, bandits, and Injuns.

A better understanding is that there is no special (i.e. "spelled out") right to private gun ownership for its own sake, but that it follows modestly from the 14th Amendment. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment has more relevance to, say, police forces than to Joe Blow.

A good application of the 2nd would be to require every prospective gun owner to take extensive safety/training courses? :sneaky:

[ICantSpellDawg]

The thing is, we are no longer in the days when pretty much every adult male was or could be militia, and might have been called to defend their localities from criminals, bandits, and Injuns.

A better understanding is that there is no special (i.e. "spelled out") right to private gun ownership for its own sake, but that it follows modestly from the 14th Amendment. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment has more relevance to, say, police forces than to Joe Blow.

A good application of the 2nd would be to require every prospective gun owner to take extensive safety/training courses? :sneaky:

Well, tell that to the Heller decision. And the McDonald decision. And the appellate decisions citing and building the foundation of those decisions. Listen, I would gladly give up my right to keep and bear arms and the Supreme judicial decisions which officially incorporated those decisions to the States if you guys give up the false foundation of Roe v Wade and the fruit of that poisonous tree which has considerably less textual legitimacy, knowing what we know about progressive developments in fetal viability. No guns for no abortions - even trade and I'm good for it.

Also, if times and people's interest in their basic rights have changed, argue that with people and repeal the 2nd amendment. If the government could just say "this right is no longer protected because we don't feel it should be protected any longer", what was the point of the enumerated amendment process or the Bill in the first place?

[Montmorency]

this right is no longer protected

You seem to persist in interpreting the 2nd Amendment as granting an individual right to "arms", period. It does so only in the context of state-regulated and sanctioned contexts, is the point that has been made several times now.

Again, there is an individual right to bear arms for one's own purposes; however, it extends not from the 2nd, but rather the 14th, Amendment.

It's as simple as that.


considerably less textual legitimacy

To put it another way: "guns for every1" has as much textual legitimacy as abortion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No - I can point out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", Which you suggest doesn't protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms from being infringed. Can you point out "the right of the people to abort their unborn children shall not be infringed" or anything mentioning anything close?

When I say "text" I mean "written language". There is no such written language in the amendments protecting the health decisions of an individual at the expense of the life of another. There is, however, written language stating that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To suggest that your preferred right exists, you must go beyond the text, into the "apocrypha" of common law in order to determine whether this is an un-enumerated right of the people. If you venture forth regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you find the final State law denying it crumbling and the city of Chicago forced to eat muzzle.

You seem to misunderstand what I mean when I say "textual legitimacy" to suggest that the 2 rights are textually equivalent.

[rvg]

Except "those clowns" were not trying to take anyone's guns away. The law they voted for only limited the size of magazines and implemented background checks for gun sales. The only people in the country that are "harmed" by this law is gun manufacturers and retailers, as they would lose a little bit of business by no longer being able to sell to criminals or mental cases...
Like I said... Don't mess with our guns.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Like I said... Don't mess with our guns.

The same people who are saying "nobody is coming for your guns" will shortly thereafter say "which you have no protected right to keep or bear, BTW".

[rvg]

The same people who are saying "nobody is coming for your guns" will shortly thereafter say "which you have no protected right to keep or bear, BTW".

Yep, it's a slippery slope. they won't hesitate one bit to castrate the 2nd Amendment if the opportunity presents itself. Thus, I give them nothing as a matter of principle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yep, it's a slippery slope. they won't hesitate one bit to castrate the 2nd Amendment if the opportunity presents itself. Thus, I give them nothing as a matter of principle.


Every movement towards more government oversight of our basic right, or completed attempt to ban "only these limited types of guns" moves us closer to more restrictive oversight, "now only these less limited types of guns" when the mini movements completely fail to work. We know this. The playbook is apparent. Even those who are in favor of moderate approaches know that this is the agenda of many of their allies.

I believe that there are better options to reduce crime and control illegal guns. The law just signed today by Chris Christie in NJ didn't suggest anything I've overly opposed to. Permit's to carry concealed/open I don't oppose, unless they are priced unattainable,then it is another story. I believe that the government can abridge the right for public safety or any other reason, but not infringe it.

When the government starts going after weapons which have the primary function of opposing tyranny and have very little to do with violent crime or they attempt to stop law abiding citizens from attaining CCW permits - this is an infringement.
It is arguable that fully automatic weapons are more harmful than necessary in civilian life - even to oppose tyranny. Most troops hardly ever use full-auto due to the waste and innacuracy. Limitation of this feature could make a minimally trained civilian population more effective in battle and wouldn't allow for 30 rounds to fire in 3 seconds in a crowded subway station. This is an abridgment of the right, banning ar-15's, AK's and the like would eliminate the number 1 and 2 small arms weapons used to fight tyranny worldwide, hobbling our ability to do so if needed. Zany? maybe

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

While I am not even going to attempt to address any later legislative decisions (my knowledge of them is severely lacking), I would like to voice my support for Montmorency's position.

The text reads:


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.

Now the disputes regarding the intent of the amendment demonstrate ipso facto that this text is ambiguous. However, the most natural way (for me) to read the text is: since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people as a body to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It seems clear the the logical connection between the two clauses is one of consequence. The right to bear arms is necessary because a militia is necessary. The right to bear arms flows from the necessity of a militia to a free state. More pertinently, 'the people' seems to be referred to as a collective, similar to 'the states' or 'the executive': ie. 'the people in assembly' or 'the people as the foundation of the body politic'. Given this, the right applies to 'the people' in contrast to 'the state'. If one takes the definition of 'militia' as meaning a civilian force organised on a local level without official state involvement, then the wording of the Second Amendment seems to indicate that local militias are protected explicitly from government interference.

The individual right, then, would seem to be implicit, resting on the suggestion that a civilian militia requires arms to be effective. A la Lemur's suggestion...

An explicit individual right would read: ...the right of each person to keep and bear arms... (cf. Fifth Amendment).
Montmorency: Which section of the Fourteenth Amendment do you read as upholding an individual right?

[Montmorency]

No - I can point out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",\

Seriously? We just went over this.

To reiterate: there is no specifically-enshrined right for individuals to possess weapons. It just does not exist. There is a specifically-enshrined right for localities up to state-level to organize armed bodies of men. "The people", not "persons", may "keep and bear" arms.

So just as there is no textual right for you to own an AR-15, there is no textual right for a woman to have an abortion. They must both flow substantially from the 14th Amendment.

Or cf.


More pertinently, 'the people' seems to be referred to as a collective, similar to 'the states' or 'the executive': ie. 'the people in assembly' or 'the people as the foundation of the body politic'.


Which section of the Fourteenth Amendment do you read as upholding an individual right?


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

For all this talk of fighting tyranny, by the way, Dawg fails to realize something crucial: a fight against the State or states would not be a battle of government against thousands of individual lone wolves.

Such a struggle would be spearheaded by small communities and segments of communities, bands of dozens and hundreds coalescing around their geographic core, defending themselves and their neighborhoods against the encroachment of the governments' coercive arm, establishing a new system which they would find suitable for themselves. That's what the Second Amendment is meant to provide for. That's what it would be about, not Rambo storming the White House with his 3D-printed gun to defeat the evil executive and restore the True America.

Dawg's extreme individualism defeats not only his 'freedom-fighting' aspirations but the spirit of the 2nd Amendment he so cherishes as well.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have no fear of extremism. I am most certainly an extremist on this and a few other issues. Remember when people had always been ruled by tyrants and colonials decided that minimal tax increases just couldn't be tolerated, since they didn't feel as though they had an representative in government? That was not a "reasonable" response to government. Those people had much greater freedom from the red tape of government than we do today.

Extremism makes the world go round. Since the effectiveness of pump action shotguns in a room full of unarmed people has been proven, it is only a matter of time before people begin using them for an increasing number of attacks. This goes to the heart of our point that all guns are deadly, so the false assumption that you can somehow ban the "most dangerous" ones is faulty. It is just a piecemeal attempt to bam all of them over time by divide and conquer.

Also, please address the "right of the people" as a collective but not individual right in the 4th amendment. Do people have a right to petition their government as individuals, or merely as a group? The reality is - individuals have rights - groups do not have rights beyond those of the composite individuals. You have quoted the question, but failed to address it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Also, I fail to understand your criticism of my supposed strategy for a hypothetical insurgency. Is the government telling us how we must rebel now? What are you talking about?

Here is my fictional, non planned idea of how it would break down
Maybe in some areas it would be a traditional coalescence of like minded individuals to resist and break away. In other areas, where fewer people shared similar sentiments, individuals would engage in a clandestine insurgency. Small groups and individuals with minimal hierarchy would drive this. The US government is best at confronting united and visible targets. It is poorer at fighting forces which integrate into the surrounding culture and cannot be distinguished from friend.

Secession, BTW is the worst possible option. During the civil war, the only reason that slavery was outlawed was because the South broke away. Once they had, antislavery legislation was passed by a Federal government consisting of Northerners who no longer had to consider the voting power of Southern Democrats. I'm glad it was, but federal government opponents don't want something like that to happen on the issues that we hold dear. It is always folly to quit a body which will still control you after your departure, especially when you think that they aren't paying you enough deference as it is. The likelihood of successful secession is low, so don't consider it until the governing body has been carved out to a point where it is hollow. The army has sappers to first undermine their expected enemy.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, in your conception of the Constitution, within the privileges and immunities of citizens, as bolded above, is the individual right to bear arms. This would happen since this amendment seems to reframe the more general points of the Constitution regarding the 'people' and 'state' into individual rights of citizens...

But since this, once again, is implicit, 'the privileges and immunities' are nowhere specified: they must be supplied by inference. If the Second Amendment allows for the right of the 'citizen body' to bear arms, then, by the time of the Fourteenth, it must be regarded as an individual privilege conferred by citizen status in order for it to be strengthened by the change.

Now, this may or may not be the case: I do not know enough about the circumstances of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to be sure (dated to the Civil War? - in which case this would probably not be the case...) but this merely points out that the Constitution cannot be read as a complete legal document without supplying a lot of information by inference. The question must then be raised: should we follow the perceived intent, or adapt it to the current circumstances?

If you are following the intent of the text, by following the historical context as closely as possible in cases of ambiguity, it seems clear that an individual right to bear arms was not passed in 1791, nor does it seem that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, was to confirm or strengthen such a right. Strictly, the text itself allows for the interpretation of a right to personal arms, from the Fourteenth Amendment, but this in itself is, in my opinion, open to question if one considers the intent of the lawmakers...

[ICantSpellDawg]

In fact, in reading the text, if the people have a right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment, and it can be abridged but not infringed by the Federal government; the 14th amendment prevents the States from even modifying the right to keep and bear arms, as the words "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge any privileges or immunities" is included. This is the basis for incorporation to the States that the Supreme Court used in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

It is also the basis by which they will strike down the bans in my home state and many other urban areas. The "inference" that you speak of is based on the 9th amendment and the 14th together with stare decisis. The Second amendment is great, but the 9th:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

And 14th, as you had posted, have been helpful in demolishing other Federal laws, some bad and others good. My interest, honestly, is to overturn as many laws as possible that don't specifically protect the rights of the people. I have minimal respect for government, except for where it protects the rights of people.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

In fact, in reading the text, if the people have a right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment, and it can be abridged but not infringed by the Federal government; the 14th amendment prevents the States from even modifying the right to keep and bear arms, as the words "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge any privileges or immunities" is included...

Not 'any', but 'the' according to the text which I have been consulting. A small, yet important, difference. 'Any' implies that 'privileges or immunities' outside of those explicitly outlined within the constitution exist, which the states cannot abridge. 'The', which is more sensible, suggests only those rights already guaranteed within the constitution are extended to individuals.

While I acknowledge the point raised, that if the Second Amendment provides for an individual right, then the states would be prevented from infringing upon it, this merely reiterates, in my eyes, the wider point that the Second Amendment only provides for the collective right of 'the populus' to bear arms rather than 'quisque civis'.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not 'any', but 'the' according to the text which I have been consulting. A small, yet important, difference. 'Any' implies that 'privileges or immunities' outside of those explicitly outlined within the constitution exist, which the states cannot abridge. 'The', which is more sensible, suggests only those rights already guaranteed within the constitution are extended to individuals.

While I acknowledge the point raised, that if the Second Amendment provides for an individual right, then the states would be prevented from infringing upon it, this merely reiterates, in my eyes, the wider point that the Second Amendment only provides for the collective right of 'the populus' to bear arms rather than 'quisque civis'.

OK, sorry I added any - I was typing it rather than cut paste.

But you will acknowledge that the 2nd amendment as an individual right is not merely my opinion at this point but settled case law? That it is the commonly held belief codified in laws throughout most of the country? This question may have held more weight 10 years ago, but now the right has become even clearer. Do you expect this court to reneg?

Even if the right to individually keep and bear arms wasn't implied by 2a (which it was) - it would still clearly be a right, non-enumerated, literally retained by the people. At this point are there more firearms than people in the US? To suggest that a right which literally and materially exists does not exist would be disparaging. It is fine if we do it academically, but to do so as a matter of Federal, State or Local law would be unconstitutional, then according to the 9th and 14th amendments. 3 amendments protect this radical right. Many other s further support it.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Oh, to be clear, I am not suggesting that any court would uphold/raise the objections or claims which I have made. I am merely making observations regarding the text itself and its apparent intent. I think that it is important that a legal text be assessed on those two points, and if, when interpreted, it is deemed inadequate for its purpose then it should be amended.

From my perspective, it seems clear that the text of the Bill of Rights does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms, and that, following this, the Fourteenth amendment cannot reinforce an individual right that is not attested earlier. Given this, in my opinion, it would be incorrect to cite the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an inalienable right to bear arms.

To reiterate: While I accept that, for practical purposes, in the USA, it may be settled as case law to the contrary, I am interested in the text and intent of the original document, neither of which protect individual gun rights.

[Montmorency]

So, in your conception of the Constitution, within the privileges and immunities of citizens, as bolded above, is the individual right to bear arms. This would happen since this amendment seems to reframe the more general points of the Constitution regarding the 'people' and 'state' into individual rights of citizens...

But since this, once again, is implicit, 'the privileges and immunities' are nowhere specified: they must be supplied by inference. If the Second Amendment allows for the right of the 'citizen body' to bear arms, then, by the time of the Fourteenth, it must be regarded as an individual privilege conferred by citizen status in order for it to be strengthened by the change.

Bearing arms was always an "individual privilege". The amendment merely makes it so that this privilege, among other imaginable ones, can not be arbitrarily restricted or abolished.


should we follow the perceived intent, or adapt it to the current circumstances?


Too many concepts and privileges exist that are too novel. It is better to accept that the authors of the 9th, 10th, 14th, and other amendments made them specially extensionable, so as to give them a longer shelf-life.


the 14th amendment prevents the States from even modifying the right to keep and bear arms, as the words "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge any privileges or immunities" is included.

Without due process, mind you. If states can move to nearly heavily restrict and corral legal abortion, then it should be perfectly within the rights of states to do the same with legal (private) gun ownership.


The US government is best at confronting united and visible targets. It is poorer at fighting forces which integrate into the surrounding culture and cannot be distinguished from friend.


As it happens, it is extremely easy to isolate and destroy lone wolves who do not cooperate with like-minded fighters and who have no plans other than to attack the government until it collapses or they die. Everyone we've fought in Iraq and Afghanistan - not to mention Vietnam - was a "united" target.


It is just a piecemeal attempt to bam all of them over time by divide and conquer.

No one important wants to ban all guns everywhere. Not even Bloomberg would really want to disarm rural folk and people living on the edge of wilderness. This is entirely in your imagination.


Also, please address the "right of the people" as a collective but not individual right in the 4th amendment.

You can not conceive of a distinction between communal and individual?


Do people have a right to petition their government as individuals, or merely as a group?

Private individuals own guns. These private individuals are militia members or are potential militia members. The point is that the highest levels of government do not monopolize coercive force away from the lowest-level units. What's not to get?

Once "the people" and "the militia" are no longer interchangeable...

[Husar]

Like I said... Don't mess with our guns.

A magazine is not a gun and neither is it necessary for a gun.
A tank and an artillery piece also have a gun but the NRA does not defend your right to have those.

Further, what about all your constitutional rights that were violated due to the few deaths a year caused by terrorism? Where are the large advocacy groups getting politicians out of office over those?

[rvg]

A magazine is not a gun and neither is it necessary for a gun.
A tank and an artillery piece also have a gun but the NRA does not defend your right to have those.
Being able to shoot fewer bullets directly affects the functionality of the gun. End of story. If more politicians are willing to skewer their political careers over this, they're welcome to try. We'll send them all home packing.


Further, what about all your constitutional rights that were violated due to the few deaths a year caused by terrorism? Where are the large advocacy groups getting politicians out of office over those?
This is an entirely different issue that doesn't have a thing to do with guns or gun rights. Wanna discuss this? Let's start a new thread.

[Husar]

Being able to shoot fewer bullets directly affects the functionality of the gun.
So does having only a 7.62mm instead of a 120mm caliber gun.
How many politicians were sent home over that?


This is an entirely different issue that doesn't have a thing to do with guns or gun rights. Wanna discuss this? Let's start a new thread.
It is important in terms of priorities, which are skewed IMO. You say you need guns to defend your liberties and because they're a right, but at the same time you give up a lot of liberties and rights over some terrorist attack that was pretty much a once-in-a-lifetime event. If you continue to focus on guns, so many other liberties and rights might be taken away that the guns won't be of much help anymore.

And what if an employer does not want to hire you if you own or at least bring a gun? Is that fair because it's a private business and what if most employers adapt such policies?

[rvg]

So does having only a 7.62mm instead of a 120mm caliber gun. How many politicians were sent home over that?
You can actually own artillery, provided that it was manufactured before 1901 (or is it 1899, something like that). Plenty of people own fully functioning cannons, mortars, etc. As for why nobody raises an issue over not being able to buy a new Howitzer? I guess not enough people want that for it to become a hot topic. America is all about the will of the people and if enough people decide that they want to own artillery, then I can assure you that you'll be seeing AA guns in people's driveways.


It is important in terms of priorities, which are skewed IMO. You say you need guns to defend your liberties and because they're a right, but at the same time you give up a lot of liberties and rights over some terrorist attack that was pretty much a once-in-a-lifetime event. If you continue to focus on guns, so many other liberties and rights might be taken away that the guns won't be of much help anymore.
It might look skewed to you, because it's difficult to put a value on a right that you've never had. Here guns are a tradition, a way of life. Banning guns here is like banning alcohol: bad idea. I work for a U.S. branch of a German manufacturing company, and we get German folks coming here from the HQ on a regular basis. Invariably, when they come here they want to do two things: shopping and shooting. They loooove going to the range and unloading a bunch of rounds. They can't do that back in Kaiserslautern.


And what if an employer does not want to hire you if you own or at least bring a gun? Is that fair because it's a private business and what if most employers adapt such policies?
What kind of moron would bring a gun to work? As for owning one, in that case the state of Michigan should have a 70% unemployment rate. Every busboy here is a hunter.

[Idaho]

I was in Atlanta this week. I watched daily stories of shootings, as well as the big story about the shooting in the Navy Yard.

On the way to the airport I stopped off at a shooting range and fired some guns for the first time in my life. It was great fun. I really enjoyed it.

You have too many guns already, the stable door is open, and the horse long since bolted. You have a country with huge wealth disparities and huge social problems that you seem unable to address or even take responsibility for as a society. You are just going to have to accept a very high rate of gun violence.

While I'd love to do some more shooting in this country, I'd rather have a safe country.

[Husar]

You can actually own artillery, provided that it was manufactured before 1901 (or is it 1899, something like that). Plenty of people own fully functioning cannons, mortars, etc. As for why nobody raises an issue over not being able to buy a new Howitzer? I guess not enough people want that for it to become a hot topic. America is all about the will of the people and if enough people decide that they want to own artillery, then I can assure you that you'll be seeing AA guns in people's driveways.

Yes, my point was that if you don't need military-grade anti-tank weapons then you probably won't need military-grade magazines either.



It might look skewed to you, because it's difficult to put a value on a right that you've never had. Here guns are a tradition, a way of life. Banning guns here is like banning alcohol: bad idea. I work for a U.S. branch of a German manufacturing company, and we get German folks coming here from the HQ on a regular basis. Invariably, when they come here they want to do two things: shopping and shooting. They loooove going to the range and unloading a bunch of rounds. They can't do that back in Kaiserslautern.

I've said before that I think about this much like Idaho just said.
And they can shoot in Kaiserslautern (link (http://www.sgk-1849ev.de), link (http://www.ljv-rlp.de/kaiserslautern/)) or close to there. It's just that most Germans don't seem to want to join a sport shooting club or similar and go there regularly because that is a prerequisite to owning a gun if you're not a hunter or being seriously threatened. Then again our rate of gun ownership isn't as low anyway, I just found this interesting link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany
I had a teacher who was a registered hunter and owned several rifles. You just can't own a gun legally and do whatever you want, you could say with the right also come several responsibilities.


What kind of moron would bring a gun to work?

Ahem...funny you mention that... ~D
See:

Non law enforcement was barred the use of firearms on premises and it took police 3 minutes to arrive - 3 minutes where 11 innocent, defenseless people were killed. Firearm ended the assault.

If that doesn't read like "People should have been allowed to bring their own firearms to work" then I don't know what it means...
A gun for self-defense should always be in arm's reach and even then seeing a gun as a defensive tool is quite illusory.

I also just found this gem:

And BTW OP, contrary to what the left may be telling you, the shooter did not have an assault rifle in the naval yard shooting. He had what you thought was reasonable: a pistol. (as well as a shotgun) He apparently came there with just the shotgun (you remember the thing Joe Biden said was the reasonable gun for home defense, and not the scary military one), shot guards with pistols and took their pistols, and shot a guard with an AR-15 and took that. That is right, a dude with a pistol got in a shoot out with a dude with an AR-15, and the all-mighty, bullet spitting AR-15 did not win the day.
You can ambush someone armed with a minigun and kill him with a stone under the right circumstances. That's why a gun is not a defensive tool while a bullet proof vest or an armored suit is. It's also good that you mention how he could pick up the guns of some of his victims, maybe he couldn't have gotten in as easily if he had had to carry a lot of ammunition himself.

[rvg]

Yes, my point was that if you don't need military-grade anti-tank weapons then you probably won't need military-grade magazines either.
But that's the thing: it's not up to you to decide what I need. It's up to me.


I had a teacher who was a registered hunter and owned several rifles. You just can't own a gun legally and do whatever you want, you could say with the right also come several responsibilities.
That's the thing: you put in lots of regulations, and gun ownership stops being fun. The guys just wanted to go and empty a couple of magazines. They could easily do that here even without buying a firearm or joining a club...


You can ambush someone armed with a minigun and kill him with a stone under the right circumstances. That's why a gun is not a defensive tool while a bullet proof vest or an armored suit is. It's also good that you mention how he could pick up the guns of some of his victims, maybe he couldn't have gotten in as easily if he had had to carry a lot of ammunition himself.
You can ambush and kill someone with a fork. That's not really an argument against guns.


While I'd love to do some more shooting in this country, I'd rather have a safe country.
And you have it. I'd like to keep mine exactly the way it is now. At least as far as firearms go.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I support bringing guns to work. You have to be extremely careful and recognize that you could do more harm than good, but it is not smart to have 150 people completely helpless. Im not against a permit and training requirement for this. My last job had security doors. This implies that we were believed to be a greater target than, let's say, a plumbing company. The doors were crap, anyone with a will could enter with whatever they wanted and rampage unopposed.

[Husar]

You can ambush and kill someone with a fork. That's not really an argument against guns.

:laugh4:

I never said it's an argument against guns. Don't ask me to quote anyone but I often read the argument that a gun is a defensive tool and I just felt like arguing that it is in fact an offensive tool that can be used in defensive situations but does not offer protection by merely being worn on your body or being close.


That's the thing: you put in lots of regulations, and gun ownership stops being fun.

Yeah, but deadly weapons aren't supposed to be fun. I thought it's a serious issue of rights, self-defense and being able to overthrow the government and/or resist a Chinese invasion. ~;)

Despite that most gun owners follow safety regulations becuse they know that a gun is not a fun toy and can kill them or others if they don't follow certain rules while they handle it. Those who don't often actually do harm others like the guy who shot his own wife trying to use his gun as a drill or the one who got shot by a little child that was playing with his gun.
Our regulations have a very similar purpose, which is to make sure that only responsible people handle guns responsibly. It's not a guarantee of course.

[rvg]

Yeah, but deadly weapons aren't supposed to be fun.
That takes us back to the fact that you do not get to decide what I consider to be fun. In Germany the situation must be to your liking while here the situation is to my liking. So what's the problem? Note that anti-gun arguments die a horrible death here, and congressmen who introduce them often pay with their careers for that. We do not want regulation. Period. I'm not suggesting that Germany should de-regulate gun ownership, so why are you suggesting that America should regulate it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not going to lie, I got lost when reading Dawg original argument and I don't know whats happening anymore.

[Husar]

That takes us back to the fact that you do not get to decide what I consider to be fun. In Germany the situation must be to your liking while here the situation is to my liking. So what's the problem? Note that anti-gun arguments die a horrible death here, and congressmen who introduce them often pay with their careers for that. We do not want regulation. Period. I'm not suggesting that Germany should de-regulate gun ownership, so why are you suggesting that America should regulate it?

I don't know, maybe your country is a good example for telling other countries how to conduct their politics.

And deterrence is a threat of a powerful retaliation with offensive capabilities, a strong wall doesn't deter a lot if it's not lined with archers and catapults.

[rvg]

I don't know, maybe your country is a good example for telling other countries how to conduct their politics.
I'm not talking about my country or your country, I'm talking about you specifically. I don't hear Chancellor Merkel asking Obama to curb our gun rights.

[Husar]

I'm not talking about my country or your country, I'm talking about you specifically. I don't hear Chancellor Merkel asking Obama to curb our gun rights.

That's because she only does what Obama tells her and tells us she can't do anything if he collects our data. So yeah, how does it feel if people from other countries meddle in your internal and personal affairs?

[rvg]

That's because she only does what Obama tells her and tells us she can't do anything if he collects our data. So yeah, how does it feel if people from other countries meddle in your internal and personal affairs?
Meddling implies action... we're just having a conversation.

[Husar]

Meddling implies action... we're just having a conversation.

Yes, and what was the issue again then? I didn't ask Obama to curb your gun rights, I just said that some restrictions may not hurt in my opinion and that I think some of the arguments brought forth to support the notions that everyone should have unlimited access to unregistered guns make no sense in my opinion.

And now that I was backtracking a bit I noticed yet another nice flaw in your argument:


Note that anti-gun arguments die a horrible death here, and congressmen who introduce them often pay with their careers for that. We do not want regulation. Period.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

~;)

Basically a minority seems to be preventing laws that a majority is in favor of, your point that the majority of Americans want gun laws to be as they are now is thus null and void. Somewhere around 70% - 80% support background checks for gun sales, yet the laws are struck down by a lobbyist group...

[rvg]

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Basically a minority seems to be preventing laws that a majority is in favor of, your point that the majority of Americans want gun laws to be as they are now is thus null and void. Somewhere around 70% - 80% support background checks for gun sales, yet the laws are struck down by a lobbyist group...

According to your link around 50% want to keep the guns laws exactly as they are now or loosen them. Which is why anti-gun legislation dies.

[Husar]

According to your link around 50% want to keep the guns laws exactly as they are now or loosen them. Which is why anti-gun legislation dies.

Yes, when asked about gun laws in general.

When asked about a specific law that would've required background checks before gun purchases at gun shows and everywhere else, about 80% were in favor of it and the law still died. Does that mean 30% of Americans are schizophrenic or maybe they wouldn't mind background checks but oppose any further limitations?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, when asked about gun laws in general.

When asked about a specific law that would've required background checks before gun purchases at gun shows and everywhere else, about 80% were in favor of it and the law still died. Does that mean 30% of Americans are schizophrenic or maybe they wouldn't mind background checks but oppose any further limitations?

Americans are OK with background checks on all sales for the most part. They won't do much good, but I don't see them as a threat and they could help a bit. The Democratic Senate bill was a threat due to the likelihood of bad faith negotiation. They could not be trusted to put a law through that was not a poison pill for gun rights, creating databases, bureaucracy and attempting to discourage gun ownership and increase punishments for otherwise law abiding gun owners. With this legislation, only damage was done to the movement, and it is important that we never accept legislation from the opposition which moves their ball forward and ours back. We can both move our agenda forward simultaneously. Create background checks while increasing ease of concealed carry reciprocity. Require digital pre-screening keys to be coupled with all sales, but make it easy to do for the law abiding.

Lemur thinks that I don't mean this, but I do. We can tighten gun accessibility at the same time as we loosen it in other areas. It is called compromise. Many Republicans and Democrats don't know what that is, but it isn't purely the fault of the gun rights, crowd, but rather the hubris of the gun control crowd in rather having a bill fail than attempt to create a winnable coalition. They though New town would be kryptonite for us, and it was admittedly terrible, but it won't be stopped by any legislation and, of course, we have considered the likelihood of these things happening where people are completely disarmed - or even where they are armed as well. Senate Democrats wasted a good moment for something to get done. They lost Coburn and many others who were interested in drafting a good bill that could pass the house.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Just thought I would share one of the worst things I have ever read. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter)

The Guardian seems determined to turn itself into some sort of liberal Daily Mail, if you want to be taken seriously this bile has to stop.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Any time Anti-gunners want to get extreme in the "take rights away from people" department, I welcome it. When we get extreme, it usually comes across as "most people are responsible, don't take away their rights and property". When they do it, it sounds like people who want to stop gay people from getting married because they don't understand it. I'm still against gay marriage, but I'm not unaware that it is an inherently unpopular argument.

[Goofball]

Well, tell that to the Heller decision. And the McDonald decision. And the appellate decisions citing and building the foundation of those decisions. Listen, I would gladly give up my right to keep and bear arms and the Supreme judicial decisions which officially incorporated those decisions to the States if you guys give up the false foundation of Roe v Wade and the fruit of that poisonous tree which has considerably less textual legitimacy, knowing what we know about progressive developments in fetal viability. No guns for no abortions - even trade and I'm good for it.

Also, if times and people's interest in their basic rights have changed, argue that with people and repeal the 2nd amendment. If the government could just say "this right is no longer protected because we don't feel it should be protected any longer", what was the point of the enumerated amendment process or the Bill in the first place?I think we can make a deal here. How about I give you "no abortions after twelve weeks (unless there is a clear danger to the mother's life)" for "all firearms must be registered and no firearm can be sold without a criminal and mental health background check?"

[Goofball]

Like I said... Don't mess with our guns.Like I said: the NRA has made you their bitch.

[Goofball]

In fact, in reading the text, if the people have a right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment, and it can be abridged but not infringed by the Federal government; the 14th amendment prevents the States from even modifying the right to keep and bear arms, as the words "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge any privileges or immunities" is included. This is the basis for incorporation to the States that the Supreme Court used in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

It is also the basis by which they will strike down the bans in my home state and many other urban areas. The "inference" that you speak of is based on the 9th amendment and the 14th together with stare decisis. The Second amendment is great, but the 9th:


And 14th, as you had posted, have been helpful in demolishing other Federal laws, some bad and others good. My interest, honestly, is to overturn as many laws as possible that don't specifically protect the rights of the people. I have minimal respect for government, except for where it protects the rights of people.So... How do you feel about letting gays marry?

[Goofball]

What kind of moron would bring a gun to work? As for owning one, in that case the state of Michigan should have a 70% unemployment rate. Every busboy here is a hunter.After all of those schoolchildren were murdered the NRA's suggested solution to the problem was to arm teachers. Would they then not be morons for bringing guns to work?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So... How do you feel about letting gays marry?

We've talked about this. Abolish marriage in civil law. Problem solved. The government is amoral and should leave value judgements to individuals. Contracts between whomever for whatever reason

[ICantSpellDawg]

After all of those schoolchildren were murdered the NRA's suggested solution to the problem was to arm teachers. Would they then not be morons for bringing guns to work?

It is our argument that high body count would be lowered if a handful of people out of 100 were able to keep and bear arms. Not everyone would have a permit, but a few would and it would be prudent for them to receive some training for crowded area carrying.

Your argument would be that
A) civilians would be incapable of coping with a threat and would increase body count due to blue on blue shootings
B) body count might decrease, but volume of shootings would increase due to the fact that everyone is now carrying a gun and over reacting
C) both body count and volume of shootings would increase.

Most people simply would not carry. Most people are sheep and like the idea of relying on others to protect them. You would be dealing with limited amounts of people who would take the time to get a permit and carry a heavy object that could kill them or get them sued. Blue on blue could be mitigated by training required for busy or high traffic areas such as malls, schools, large workplaces, etc. In all areas, the people you worry about committing gun crime are people who have access to firearms already and plan an attack. Those people already have guns and laws will not stop them from carrying to work to calamitous effect. The variable between your suggested situation and mine is that people have no recourse in an attack, whereas in mine a few people can attempt to neutralize or harass threat while law enforcement in in transit.

[ICantSpellDawg]

BTW: the President has been making suggestions that a gun law could have prevented the navy yard shooting

The individual passed background checks on multiple occasions, purchased a pump action shotgun legally from a licensed dealer who used a background check. What could the government have possibly done to have stopped this attack? The guy seems to have had a psychotic break 6 weeks ago, nothing suggested could have caused the government to arrest him or confiscate his property, no threats were made. Is a therapist now supposed to call the police the second any patient says anything even remotely loopy even when it is not a threat? This could cause serious harm to the patient, causing them to lose their job, their rights. Causing police to come to their home and violently escalate the situation in order to confiscate property.

The Presidential insinuation on the future of gun regulation is more terrifying than 10 navy yard shootings.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A discharge with a viable accusation of criminal intent, even if not proven, should result in a temporary suspension of the right to keep and bear arms. Not forever, but until a number of things are ironed out. I don't disagree with that. The idea that you should permanently lose rights for something that cannot be convicted is a non-starter. Likewise, a discharge by itself should not result in a loss of the right.

[ICantSpellDawg]

edit: found it

[Papewaio]

Its defense because it is deterrence.

Deterrence is part of an ROI calculation.

I presume most crimes happen at short range in poor lighting conditions with the criminal already having drawn a weapon.

I would be very surprised if all gun crime was done at high noon with good light and both combatants having their weapons holstered...then having a firearm might be a deterrent.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the second scenario a few times, but I'm not convinced I was watching a documentary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Deterrence is part of an ROI calculation.

I presume most crimes happen at short range in poor lighting conditions with the criminal already having drawn a weapon.

I would be very surprised if all gun crime was done at high noon with good light and both combatants having their weapons holstered...then having a firearm might be a deterrent.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the second scenario a few times, but I'm not convinced I was watching a documentary.

Watch some of these videos coming out of Kenya at the Westgate. People scrambling, cowering. Unable to do anything at all but crowd into a corner and wait for al-Shabaab to roll up. Unreal. At least one out of any 10 people should have a firearm and be able to organize a controlled rout. I'm CPR/aed certified, what about armed assault certified? There are certainly fall back maneuvers that armed citizens would benefit from in an armed situation.

I'm not talking about armed citizens turning into a swat team, but spreading out and watching the rear with guns on target while unarmed citizens make an escape - do you really think that this would be a terrible policy, knowing that there are as many guns as people in the US?

[Husar]

Watch some of these videos coming out of Kenya at the Westgate. People scrambling, cowering. Unable to do anything at all but crowd into a corner and wait for al-Shabaab to roll up. Unreal. At least one out of any 10 people should have a firearm and be able to organize a controlled rout. I'm CPR/aed certified, what about armed assault certified? There are certainly fall back maneuvers that armed citizens would benefit from in an armed situation.

I'm not talking about armed citizens turning into a swat team, but spreading out and watching the rear with guns on target while unarmed citizens make an escape - do you really think that this would be a terrible policy, knowing that there are as many guns as people in the US?

How many organizations like al-shabaab do you plan to have in the US and do you seriously think your military and police forces couldn't protect your citizens from large-scale insurgencies with armed jeeps or am I getting you wrong here?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah seriously... America is going down the tube, but we're not anywhere near that far down the tube.

You might need guns to resist the Tea Party when the time comes. :wink:

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's why I'm not an NRA member. When the Tea Party finally does get their Nazi on, the NRA's gonna be the paramilitary wing. :creep:

Then you're gonna have to counter them with the Oregon hippie militia.

[Veho Nex]

How many organizations like al-shabaab do you plan to have in the US and do you seriously think your military and police forces couldn't protect your citizens from large-scale insurgencies with armed jeeps or am I getting you wrong here?

A family friend of mine was in his business when it was broken into. He called the cops and told them that they were being robbed. Took 4 hours for the cops to show up. If the guy who was robbing them had a gun and wanted to do something more vicious they never would have stood a chance.

I have a really hard time reading what other counties views on firearms is. Husar, you believe a bullet proof vest is sufficient protection from a maniac with a firearm. I don't think you've ever seen one in action. While they provide substantial protection against most common caliber of pistol they do very little to stop a rifle round at close range. Most higher caliber rounds for pistols won't pen the armor but the shock and impact from the round will put you on the ground just the same. Sure you aren't going to die from the initial shot but now you are for all intents and purposes incapacitated while the gunman is free to continue advancing.

[Husar]

A family friend of mine was in his business when it was broken into. He called the cops and told them that they were being robbed. Took 4 hours for the cops to show up. If the guy who was robbing them had a gun and wanted to do something more vicious they never would have stood a chance.

When I was robbed at needlepoint the guy was so close that I couldn't have drawn a gun in time and if he had had an assault rifle and had wanted to do something more vicious, I couldn't have done anything to protect myself. I guess I'm incredibly lucky that he only cared about getting drugs and not going to go to jail for the rest of his life once he was arrested.

Now tell me why would someone want to break into your friend's business to do something incredibly vicious? Do you have that many mentally deranged serial killers in the USA? What if someone breaks in at night and doesn't wake you up? Will your gun protect you?

That it took the cops four hours sounds pretty bad, but think of all the evil taxes you save by keeping the cops understaffed.

[Veho Nex]

Husar, tell me why someone would goto a camp and shoot people for fun? How about going into a local movie theater and shooting people for some sense of fulfillment? Are there people out there that are unpredictable? Yes. Do you know what someone is going to do once they have already started to break one law? No.

What if my family friend had actually confronted the guy instead of leaving out a back entrance? No one ever knew if the guy was armed. Cops while in the majority of cities have pretty substandard budgets in Oakland they are constantly hiring. You can compare doing street patrol in some of America's worst cities to actual war zones and you wouldn't be that far from the truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Look at Germany's police per 100k. You have 298 cops per 100,000 people. A country with 80,000,000 people.

The United states has 316,000,000 people. With 258 cops per 100,000 people. We employ a larger police force than some countries employ a military.

Lets compare your countries capital to lala land usa, Los Angeles.

Berlin population 3.5 million. L.A. 3.82 million.

Berlin police employees per 100,000 is around 159. While L.A. is around 250 police officers per 100,000. If I used all employees that work for the police department it would be closer to 330.


----------------------------------------------------------------


Now a very small percentage of all gun related homicides are committed with a firearm registered to the person in possession. Most being stolen or purchased from underground sources. It is easier and cheaper for me to purchase a black market pistol that if I went through the proper channels. In California which has some of the countries strictest gun control laws I can call a buddy who knows a guy who has a contact or I can go through the proper channels get my criminal history and background check done every time I wish to purchase a firearm. Now if I, a guy with almost 0 criminal connections, can obtain a black market gun so easily what does that say about people who deal in narcotics or other illegal activities on a daily basis? I feel safer knowing I have some way of protecting myself if I'm ever put into an extraordinary situation rather than rely on someone to show up to protect me.

[Papewaio]

Watch some of these videos coming out of Kenya at the Westgate. People scrambling, cowering. Unable to do anything at all but crowd into a corner and wait for al-Shabaab to roll up. Unreal. At least one out of any 10 people should have a firearm and be able to organize a controlled rout. I'm CPR/aed certified, what about armed assault certified? There are certainly fall back maneuvers that armed citizens would benefit from in an armed situation.

I'm not talking about armed citizens turning into a swat team, but spreading out and watching the rear with guns on target while unarmed citizens make an escape - do you really think that this would be a terrible policy, knowing that there are as many guns as people in the US?

Again deference only works if they don't have the drop on you.

Aurora movie theatre, 12 dead 70 wounded. My guess is that in a dark movie theatre with tear gas and people stampeding for their lives defensive fire would have uped the number killed with friendly fire.

Asymmetric warfare like most crimes centres around surprise and targeting soft spots. Not will guns protect against IEDs, fire, shouting 'fire' in a movie theatre etc. Guns are useful in a subset of scenarios and will stop low level risks. But a terrorist team that is organized and trained well will need a paramilitary SWAT or better to respond to it.

Oklahoma or the unibomber or anthrax are not going to be stopped by firearms. Police work may intercept these or repeat attempts.

[Husar]

Husar, tell me why someone would goto a camp and shoot people for fun? How about going into a local movie theater and shooting people for some sense of fulfillment? Are there people out there that are unpredictable? Yes. Do you know what someone is going to do once they have already started to break one law? No.

It's boring if you already answer all of your own questions. The last question is answered a bit wrong on one hand and superfluous on the other. First of all you never know what anyone is going to do. And secondly there is quite a difference between stealing and killing and even most thieves know that. Otherwise you'd expect every thief who gets released from prison to start his new life by murdering everyone who spoke out against him in court or something like that.


What if my family friend had actually confronted the guy instead of leaving out a back entrance? No one ever knew if the guy was armed.

Noone knows, yes, maybe they could've had a cup of tea, maybe the thief would've run away.


Cops while in the majority of cities have pretty substandard budgets in Oakland they are constantly hiring.

Yes, jobs that are constantly hiring are usually of great quality and completely overpaid. I mean you state that as though the hiring meant they have enough money to hire but maybe it just means the job is paid so bad for the trouble that noone keeps it for long.


You can compare doing street patrol in some of America's worst cities to actual war zones and you wouldn't be that far from the truth.

Yes, and all the cops are rookies because they're constantly hiring new ones and only the ones who like violence stay and you wonder about police brutality in the USA. Oh and gangs and stuff often exist because it's the most feasible way for the younglings to make money due to a lack of viable alternatives and a bleak and hopeless upbringing. Or maybe some people just have the evil gene and they all migrated to the USA.


--------------------------------------------------------------

Look at Germany's police per 100k. You have 298 cops per 100,000 people. A country with 80,000,000 people.

The United states has 316,000,000 people. With 258 cops per 100,000 people. We employ a larger police force than some countries employ a military.

Lets compare your countries capital to lala land usa, Los Angeles.

Berlin population 3.5 million. L.A. 3.82 million.

Berlin police employees per 100,000 is around 159. While L.A. is around 250 police officers per 100,000. If I used all employees that work for the police department it would be closer to 330.


----------------------------------------------------------------

All that doesn't tell me a whole lot, the number of officers per 100k is lower in the US while LA has a whole lot of them. Berlin also has some troublesome areas where police do not like to go unless they go there in force. Maybe it's because they have too few police officers to take proper care of these areas or because of other failed policies. Don't think I'm saying we are perfect but if we solve gang crime problems by having public shootouts between gang members and their community, i.e. their parents, aunts and nieces, where is that going to lead? Concerning other crimes, we also struggle with an underfunded police force here, ever since the cold war stopped it's like public spending in the west is going down and down and down as though someone siphons all the money away despite higher tax returns. If a bank fails though, we can throw money at it, that's not a problem really...


Now a very small percentage of all gun related homicides are committed with a firearm registered to the person in possession. Most being stolen or purchased from underground sources. It is easier and cheaper for me to purchase a black market pistol that if I went through the proper channels. In California which has some of the countries strictest gun control laws I can call a buddy who knows a guy who has a contact or I can go through the proper channels get my criminal history and background check done every time I wish to purchase a firearm. Now if I, a guy with almost 0 criminal connections, can obtain a black market gun so easily what does that say about people who deal in narcotics or other illegal activities on a daily basis? I feel safer knowing I have some way of protecting myself if I'm ever put into an extraordinary situation rather than rely on someone to show up to protect me.

Are you assuming that the black market has as many guns to offer here as it has in the USA? It's not like we don't have a black market for guns but we aren't drowning in illegal guns because even the illegal guns have to be siphoned off from somewhere and that's much easier if everyone has unlimited access to guns which aren't even registered.

[Papewaio]

Aurora theatre was a designated gun free zone. If anything that incident is a cautionary tale against openly proclaiming a weak target, as the right has pointed out.

That is certainly one part. Another is a strong mental health system. It also pays not to shoehorn a single tool as a every situation solution. If one only has a hammer all problems are nails.

So allow guns, but make sure it includes a full mental health check at least for concealed carry.
Design buildings with multiple safe exits.
Drop CEOs pay.

Well when one is dreaming, dream large... And a more egalitarian society has a much fairer distribution of wealth and less crime.

[Montmorency]

Oakland has 400,000 people. My county has 2.25 million people.
Oakland's murder rate is 0.32. My county's is 0.03.

Instead of 'Gotta get guns', why not 'How can I clean up my community'?

[Veho Nex]

Oakland has 400,000 people. My county has 2.25 million people.
Oakland's murder rate is 0.32. My county's is 0.03.

Instead of 'Gotta get guns', why not 'How can I clean up my community'?

Ok, go to oakland and start cleaning up the community. Groups have been trying that for years. Im sure you will succeed where everyone else has failed. The only way they have come close is by buying up ghetto and turning it into areas where the poor can't even fathom going.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What type of a mental health check? You have to be specific. I had to pass a background check, with police interview and get multiple publicly notarized personal recomendation letters from friends and my wife. I also had to sign a hipa notice allowing them to look back into my medical history - all of it, forever. It took 6 months and I can only carry to and from the range. You want to compromise and let me carry anywhere, I'm all for it.

[Montmorency]

Ok, go to oakland and start cleaning up the community.

I'm nobody - petition the Feds. :mellow:

[Papewaio]

What type of a mental health check? You have to be specific. I had to pass a background check, with police interview and get multiple publicly notarized personal recomendation letters from friends and my wife. I also had to sign a hipa notice allowing them to look back into my medical history - all of it, forever. It took 6 months and I can only carry to and from the range. You want to compromise and let me carry anywhere, I'm all for it.

It should be a sliding scale. Something like:

Basic = firing range
Medium = rifle in the pickup truck, bolt removed
High = concealed pistol carry
Highest = regulated milita = you pay, you play

Note with each higher category comes higher responsibilities. I'd make the highest able to be called up by state authorities ... Just as able bodies in an emergency not as armed response.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nope. No license needed for the range, no license needed for handgun. Maybe license suggested for carry;concealed or open.

Let me remind you, the 2a is not conditional on the prefatory clause. Read it this way: AS a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The heart is the right of the people. We need to find ways in law to respect the right of the people without infringing or we need to amend/repeal the amendment. This isnt let's make a deal. Australia didn't have a 2a and now people have to get a permit to fire airguns and .22's. I'm not interested in that road as civil code, common law, and natural right support my reading.

[Lemur]

This isnt let's make a deal.
For you and the NRA: clearly. You can't make deals with "enemies" who must be "destroyed."

For the vast majority of Americans, however, making deals is kinda how this democracy thing works.

All of our inalienable rights have boundaries and limitations. All of 'em.

The fact that the panic sisters at the NRA see no limit to a single right speaks more to their monomania than any principled position.

Tell us again how it's great that the background checks bill was defeated. I never get tired of hearing about that.

[Vuk]

The fact that the panic sisters at the NRA


Isn't that a very sexist expression?
That is how democracy works? By 'making deals'? By which you of course mean not getting what you want, but instead settling for lessening the damage to your position. You know, it is a darned good thing that when republicans pushed through emancipation and voting rights laws they were absolutists and did not compromise. If they were Lemurian they would have been like: "Ok, let's make a deal. We will give blacks the right to vote, but they will not be allowed to own property. Sound fair?"

Some times giving a little is not in order. Some times you need to take a hard line on a position. Basic human rights is one of those things. Basic human rights like the right to be able to defend yourself (a key part of which is the right to bear arms). You don't compromise on stuff like that, or you end up like Russia or France.

[Montmorency]

Basic human rights is one of those things. Basic human rights like the right to be able to defend yourself (a key part of which is the right to bear arms).

Ridiculous.

[Slyspy]

That is because Parliament is the people.

In theory.

According to Wiki that particular right was subject to both the class of the person and the law of the land. Interesting find, thanks.

[Lemur]

Irepublicans pushed through emancipation and voting rights laws
I had no idea Republicans were solely (or primarily) responsible for the voting rights act of 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965).

I learn new and counter-factual things every day!

[Husar]

You don't compromise on stuff like that, or you end up like Russia or France.

France sounds okay to me, time to compromise? (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/France/United-States/Crime)

Russia is more complicated but how is it comparable to France? (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Russia/United-States/Crime)

Don't forget that people move from France to Russia (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/feb/24/gerard-depardieu-russian-resident-france) because Russia is better.

There are quite a few other countries available for comparison:
Germany (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime)
Poland (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Poland/United-States/Crime)
Botswana (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Botswana/United-States/Crime)
Japan (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Japan/United-States/Crime)
Belgium (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Belgium/United-States/Crime)
Netherlands (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime)
Kazakhstan (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Kazakhstan/United-States/Crime) (very secure cars apparently)
China (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/China/United-States/Crime)
Norway (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Norway/United-States/Crime)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Lemur has already stated that he doesn't believe in an individual right to bear arms exists in natural rights or in Constitutional protections. He's fighting the sisterhood of the traveling NRA as well as settled case law. There is clearly no discussing this with him, either. Those who say that "the right doesn't exist, but we just need to play along with the wackos until they get tired of defending a right that doesn't exist, also take what we can get and give nothing" are not the middle ground, but the extreme. Not the extreme wing of the extreme, but they are the auxiliary leading the Hastatii and the Triarii...

[Papewaio]

Nope. No license needed for the range, no license needed for handgun. Maybe license suggested for carry;concealed or open.

Let me remind you, the 2a is not conditional on the prefatory clause. Read it this way: AS a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The heart is the right of the people. We need to find ways in law to respect the right of the people without infringing or we need to amend/repeal the amendment. This isnt let's make a deal. Australia didn't have a 2a and now people have to get a permit to fire airguns and .22's. I'm not interested in that road as civil code, common law, and natural right support my reading.

I have a ballot box to protect my rights. My country was not formed in its present federation using guns it used the ballot box. Yet we have been able to fight off invaders when required. We have a different geography and a different history. Aussies are quite capable of defending themselves and the facts stand for themselves. Less incarcerations, longer life spans, higher literacy rates etc all quality of life indicators are pretty snazzy and the top ten cities to live in normal feature more then one Aussie city. My life would not be better off one iota by myself carrying a firearm. If I'm having a stressful week I will go for a hike in the national parks surrounding Sydney, or walk on a beach or have a coffee. Thing is every other Aussie has the same access to these and most of them are low cost or free or pretty good quality for what you do pay.

=][=
For the US I would think that removing weapons from the mentally unhealthy and opening up access to those of sound mind would be a positive thing. It should be upto each state to both administer and pay for the tests AND to look after those they find who are going loopy... If you are going to remove the right to bear arms because they are a danger then there is an onus on the state to look after the individual.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, your country was started as a penal colony - mostly political prisoners forced to work by their oppressors who attained freedom due to the distance and neglect of their masters. When you fight a war against your own government (or 2), maybe you will understand what government can be; a monster that needs to be resisted.

Husar can't possibly imagine what a brutal government would require in order to dislodge it. Kittens and hope change

[Lemur]

Lemur has already stated that he doesn't believe in an individual right to bear arms exists in natural rights or in Constitutional protections.
Feel free to show me where I have expressed that opinion. Heck, point out where I have used the term "natural rights."

Don't mind me, I'll be waiting, eating a sammich.

But when you give up (or perform one of your re-readings of English where words mean new and interesting things), I'll just point out that if your arguments and reasoning were a tenth as strong as you think they are, you wouldn't need to misstate your "enemies" arguments to get through your day.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Feel free to show me where I have expressed that opinion. Heck, point out where I have used the term "natural rights."

Don't mind me, I'll be waiting, eating a sammich.

But when you give up (or perform one of your re-readings of English where words mean new and interesting things), I'll just point out that if your arguments and reasoning were a tenth as strong as you think they are, you wouldn't need to misstate your "enemies" arguments to get through your day.

Listen, I'll concede the point that my assertion that "well-regulated" could have solely meant "well-equipped" was a false one. I am incorrect. The closest thing would be that "equipped" and "standardized" (with equipment suitable for national defense) would have been a primary component of "well regulated", but along side "controlled" in the way that I don't want it to mean. This point gets lost when you realize that the prefatory clause is not binding on the right to keep and bear arms, so the argument is academic as the lead-up to the right has been largely dismissed as merely an extremely important aspect, of many, to the right to keep and bear arms.

You've stated that this is your read and understanding of the amendment - that people who are members of the militia are the only ones who have a right to be armed and controlled by the government under 2a. Earlier, in prior threads, you have stated that it was merely one read, but not the most compelling or legally recognized read by a long margin. In these recent threads you seem to write off the right and to be looking for a way to denigrate and ignore a right recognized by the law and most Americans, due to some procedural drama in the Senate relating to an overplay of the hand of Democratic leadership (evidenced by the Failure to pass a bill with potential bi-partisan support CONTROLLED by Democrats).

Tom Coburn offered his hand in compromise. How did that offer go for him?

[Lemur]

the prefatory clause is not binding on the right to keep and bear arms
That's an awfully selective take. So we care deeply about the meaning of the original constitution ... until we don't. Hmm.


You've stated [...] that people who are members of the militia are the only ones who have a right to be armed
Feel free to show me where I said that. I got more sammiches where that one came from.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's an awfully selective take. So we care deeply about the meaning of the original constitution ... until we don't. Hmm.


Feel free to show me where I said that. I got more sammiches where that one came from.

so you refuse to say anything? You make implications and then pretend that it isn't you.

Read the Heller and McDonald decisions. Where do they get "self defense" and hunting and target shooting from if all 2A covers is organized militia purposes?


If you read the language for what it is, rather than what you think it ought to mean, it's pretty clear. "Well-regulated" means under some sort of organization and control, rather than a bunch of angry dudes in a mob. The founders' intent is pretty clear in this case. They want the state protected, and they want it done by a "well-regulated militia," as opposed to a disorganized bunch of shooters. (And it's clear from letters and speeches of the time that the founders were leery about having a standing army, so the "well regulated militia" was clearly being posited as an alternative to a permanent military force.)

When you say that things are clear it implies your own argument, not merely statement of fact. here, you are clearly stating a belief (https://www.google.com/search?q=belief&rlz=1C1PRFA_enUS418US418&oq=belief&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2j0j69i60l2.866j0&sourceid=chrome&espvd=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8)that you have.

Were the founders interested overwhelmingly in the ability of the people to resist abusive central government and standing armies? Absolutely. The problem with regulation is that it comes from the top. The top is the first thing corrupted by abusive government. Protection of the right to keep and bear arms starts at the lowest rung. Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state? Absolutely, but people don't have a right to a well regulated militia - they have a right to keep and bear arms and can aspire to a well regulated militia. The building blocks are more important and those are the things protected. We all want both a standing army AND an organized resistance. The 2nd amendment is a way to best ensure security in case the first 2 fail.

[Papewaio]

Yes, your country was started as a penal colony - mostly political prisoners forced to work by their oppressors who attained freedom due to the distance and neglect of their masters. When you fight a war against your own government (or 2), maybe you will understand what government can be; a monster that needs to be resisted.

Actually kind of correct but kind is missing the difference between how Australia formed and how its component countries formed. The Commonwealth was a voluntary amalgamation by voting of the people. Which is important in comparing how the US formed vs AU. Note we did have some armed revolution but not how we formed a new federation.

As for some being penal colonies. It just makes us the same as the US, it isn't a factor in modern rights here.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually kind of correct but kind is missing the difference between how Australia formed and how its component countries formed. The Commonwealth was a voluntary amalgamation by voting of the people. Which is important in comparing how the US formed vs AU. Note we did have some armed revolution but not how we formed a new federation.

As for some being penal colonies. It just makes us the same as the US, it isn't a factor in modern rights here.


Nothing against Aussies, I've never gone to war against my government either. The crazy thing is; many of our ancestors have. History isn't over is my point.

[Montmorency]

Absolutely, but people don't have a right to a well regulated militia

:no:

They absolutely do. This is the very crux of the Amendment.



The people as a body are the militia, as the militia is no more than the whole body of all armed citizens inasmuch as those armed citizens are united in the purpose of providing for the communal defense. As such, the people, in their capacity as militia - the militia - must be not just permitted to arm but even kept armed so that they may guarantee and participate in the defense of their individual states and localities. Towards this end, however, the people as a body must necessarily be heavily regulated in their ownership and usage of guns, to ensure that the militia remains viable as a defensive force for its stated purpose.

The prefatory clause specifies a goal for the amendment, and the operative clause shows how it is to be executed or maintained. This way, both clauses are given equal weight. The people must have access to arms in order that they have the opportunity to be counted among "the militia", which is "necessary to the security of a free state".

This is pretty much a guaranteed collective right for the existence of the above conception of "the militia", and a guaranteed individual right to be counted as a part of that militia, to individually participate towards the collective security, if one can meet the requirements. The whole point is that this individual right subserves the collective right and the collective right demands the individual right.

Therefore, the 2nd Amendment preserves absolutely no individual right to gun ownership unless the individual is consenting to be counted a part of the militia, with all the attendant burdens, in which case he must be armed or arm himself. From here, it is easy to see that if individuals flout their responsibilities as part of the militia - including whatever regulations may exist - they therefore, for such time as the non-compliance obtains, abjure their right to be a part of the militia, or minimally abjure their actual membership in the militia, and therefore abjure their right to keep and bear arms as part of the militia.

For an individual right to own firearms for whatever conceivable justification (e.g. self-defense, hunting), refer to the 14th Amendment - the 2nd is of no use to you, as your individualism clearly consigns you without the militia. Under the 14th Amendment, you may certainly be disarmed by the state in a large number of circumstances. But fear not - you still enjoy the protections offered by the 2nd Amendment, in that those individuals who are willing and able to carry the responsibilities of the militia are there to protect you and your community, and under no or almost no circumstances can be legitimately disarmed by any level of the state. That latter clause is one of the crucial elements of the amendment; the government (especially the national) is not permitted under normal circumstances to neuter the localized/communal defensive groups. However, it must not be omitted that despite this, the government is allowed to, and indeed required to keep the militia in good order.

Do you understand? It is a self-reinforcing feedback cycle that was intended to guarantee that the state would be committed to upholding strong measures mitigating its own inherent and potential oppressive/tyrannical tendencies.

Sure sounds a lot more reasonable than 'GUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZFREEEEEDOOOOOMGUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZ', doesn't it? It should - this is how statesmen, rather than wild-eyed fanatics, conceive of the world.

TLDR: The 2nd Amendment preserves the right of individuals to organize for the communal defense, towards which purpose they must not just be permitted to own firearms, but must actually own such weapons in fact, and must be regulated in their usage of them.

TLDR 2: In case that was confusing, I'll be even more straightforward. The individual has a right to be a part of a collective; neither the individual nor collective side of the right may be abrogated by the federal government or anyone else. That is the whole of the 2nd Amendment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is not the case. The 9th and 14th amendments also protect the right to bear arms, but the second protects arms both connected and unconnected from militia service.

Let's look at the summary of the Heller decision
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Decision

The Supreme Court held:[44] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-44)
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois), 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller), 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes (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.(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts,_Jr.) and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_M._Kennedy), Clarence Thomas (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas) and Samuel A. Alito Jr. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito_Jr.)[45] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-45)



Your suggestion is that they were flat out wrong. That is fine, but your opinion is flawed and should not be given undo credence. I believe that most of what they put forward is solid. The "dangerous and unusual", however should be judged not just on the arms of the body of the militia, but also on the military. For example, they shouldn't say that ar-15s should be banned because they are in common use and are not affiliated, in spite of ease of acquisition, with higher usage in homicides than say handguns (which are more difficult to obtain AND more numerous.

[Montmorency]

Scalia makes numerous fallacious judgements and so the decision is pretty much garbage. I would ask you to quit referring to that as some sort of trump card, when in fact it only acts to your detriment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Scalia makes numerous fallacious judgements and so the decision is pretty much garbage. I would ask you to quit referring to that as some sort of trump card, when in fact it only acts to your detriment.

Right, I should defer to your half-baked judgement. Honestly, I'm not concerned with what you think. I'm concerned with the law and this is the law. The same people who argue that the 2a covers only militia service connected to national defense still maintain that the guns whose use was designed for national defense are the ones that can be banned. Again, those who look at the bill of rights for rights reserved to government are attempting to find a right to regulate firearms. No such thing exists in the Bill of Rights.

My view on the right to keep arms exceeds the protections of the court. I want individuals to be armed to a level that would provide a real deterence to the State. Even though individual rights have been expanded beyond Heller, we are not done.

To add insult to injury:
Baracka likes Heller, or lied and said he did at the time.http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/06/obama-likes-heller/53633/

Its unfortunate that he must consistently act in bad faith. The sentiment expressed in his public statement is a sentiment that I agree with: close the loopholes where they exist and strengthen background checks to keep our communities safer. The issue is that they want to go beyond this, by keeping records of sales rather than merely knowing if a check has been done. By banning common use firearms which are precisely those which would best secure a free state, as you like to restate.

If you've forgotten how the dog lost his bone, just look back at the greed of the Senate in attempting to have it all. Compromise could have been had, but they preferred to be absolutists and failed. Their absolutism isn't backed up by law.

[Montmorency]

The same people who argue that the 2a covers only militia service connected to national defense still maintain that the guns whose use was designed for national defense are the ones that can be banned.

More than the national defense, the communal defense.

Any specific gun can be banned toward the goal of creating a well-regulated militia. Any specific firearm is obviously not important - it is the firearm's suitability as a weapon of the militia that matters. For instance, it is very difficult to argue that a suitable militia can not exist without free access to a specific model of 19th-century revolver, or free access to all manner of flame-throwing weapons, whether military-grade or homemade. As for things like tanks and other heavy-weapons platforms, you run into the same problem. The militia right entitles you to access to weapons in that context, but it does not automatically and utterly entitle you to any which weapon or weapons system of your choice. That obviously may and must be carefully regulated - it's simply the case that the state can not do something like banning every single projectile weapon and weapon-class except the bow and arrow, as that would plainly contravene the stated goal of a legitimate militia.


Again, those who look at the bill of rights for rights reserved to government are attempting to find a right to regulate firearms. No such thing exists in the Bill of Rights.


Wrong again. Not only is the regulation of weapons allowed for by the 2nd Amendment, it is required by it. Any non-disingenuous reading of the text makes this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, as I very plainly stated this a right of the individual citizen to participate in a collective; both that right to participate (if willing and able to undertake attendant responsibilities) and the communal right of being the militia (that is, the latent and potential constitution of such a body) is protected. It takes quite a stretch of imagination to assert that this is somehow a right reserved to the government.


My view on the right to keep arms exceeds the protections of the court. I want individuals to be armed to a level that would provide a real deterence to the State. Even though individual rights have been expanded beyond Heller, we are not done.

I agree - that is what is called for by the 2nd Amendment.

HOWEVER, your right to keep guns as part of the regulated body of armed citizens willing and able to undertake the responsibilities of being militia, has nothing to do with any notional right to keep and bear weapons for self-defense. Indeed, even for the guns of the militia, it is only permitted and required that they keep guns; the bearing of guns in random contexts may be freely infringed, as it has no affect on the capacities of the militia. Therefore (for example), laws that require firearms to be kept disassembled in the home when not being trained with are perfectly constitutional.

The weight of case law, not just in the Supreme of Supremes but in each individual State Supreme Court, is on my side. Your absurd position that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited and applies to any and all contexts of ownership/usage has only prevailed for the past decade - our time will come again, mark my words.

[ICantSpellDawg]

More than the national defense, the communal defense.

Any specific gun can be banned toward the goal of creating a well-regulated militia. Any specific firearm is obviously not important - it is the firearm's suitability as a weapon of the militia that matters. For instance, it is very difficult to argue that a suitable militia can not exist without free access to a specific model of 19th-century revolver, or free access to all manner of flame-throwing weapons, whether military-grade or homemade. As for things like tanks and other heavy-weapons platforms, you run into the same problem. The militia right entitles you to access to weapons in that context, but it does not automatically and utterly entitle you to any which weapon or weapons system of your choice. That obviously may and must be carefully regulated - it's simply the case that the state can not do something like banning every single projectile weapon and weapon-class except the bow and arrow, as that would plainly contravene the stated goal of a legitimate militia.



Wrong again. Not only is the regulation of weapons allowed for by the 2nd Amendment, it is required by it. Any non-disingenuous reading of the text makes this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, as I very plainly stated this a right of the individual citizen to participate in a collective; both that right to participate (if willing and able to undertake attendant responsibilities) and the communal right of being the militia (that is, the latent and potential constitution of such a body) is protected. It takes quite a stretch of imagination to assert that this is somehow a right reserved to the government.



I agree - that is what is called for by the 2nd Amendment.

HOWEVER, your right to keep guns as part of the regulated body of armed citizens willing and able to undertake the responsibilities of being militia, has nothing to do with any notional right to keep and bear weapons for self-defense. Indeed, even for the guns of the militia, it is only permitted and required that they keep guns; the bearing of guns in random contexts may be freely infringed, as it has no affect on the capacities of the militia. Therefore (for example), laws that require firearms to be kept disassembled in the home when not being trained with are perfectly constitutional.

The weight of case law, not just in the Supreme of Supremes but in each individual State Supreme Court, is on my side. Your absurd position that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited and applies to any and all contexts of ownership/usage has only prevailed for the past decade - our time will come again, mark my words.

You can keep restating your false position. Laws that require guns to be dismantled in the home were struck down DC v Heller. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and your argument isn't worth the ether it is printed on.

Is anyone else interested in discussing this topic, because if Montmorency is going to continue hammering large square pegs into small round holes, there is no more point to this discussion

[Montmorency]

there is no more point to this discussion


Especially as you have no arguments against my position other than 'Scalia has a different interpretation'.

[ICantSpellDawg]

... And the other Justices that signed onto his position, making a majority and settling a number of points of law.

[Montmorency]

... And the other Justices that signed onto his position, making a majority and settling a number of points of law.

Boy, for an ostensible individualist, you sure do show quite a bit of deference to the opinions of some of the top Feds - though not those of the 4 Justices who dissented, I see, or any of the other hundreds of judges with differing views over the course of the country's history.

The Constitution itself doesn't matter though, as long as your preferences are upheld. :rolleyes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If we go by this reading of the amendment, surely it's in need of an update? Arms available to the average militiaman aren't likely to be effective against a federal force. So the states should sit down together and look at the main drivers of increased federalisation, and work to restrict those factors. Because AFAICS armed force isn't what's driving the greater federal state.

Sorry for the delay in response. I tend to agree with you, but then again I also support the concept behind the largely ignored 10th amendment from that same BIll of Rights.

With the best of intentions at the time, Lincoln more or less gutted the power of the several states in favor of the federal government. Hasn't been quite the same since.

Revisiting the 2nd would be an interesting discussion, at the very least.

[Ironside]

On request, since it might cause thread derailing otherwise.


Except on guns, where each party is infuriatingly old fashioned and puritanical in your country.

Armed citizenry is the new way, not the old. It only seems old in the United States because we were among the first in modern history to experience an environment where the land was more expansive than governments ability to strip people of their means of self defense.

History is full of regimes imposing restrictions on the lower classes ability to own arms. With the discovery of the new world and subsequent years of man's realization that government's only legitimate role is as protector of individual liberty, arms began to proliferate. there was a minor speed bump in the 70's and 80's, but that bump seems to have been inverted. The future is in the equalization of power using the common ownership of arms as a deterrent. Just saying. If anyone would like to discuss this, let's take it to the gun thread.

Nah, the modern diffference is that Europeans trust their state enough to not try to use barrel of a gun extortion. That worked fine 400-500 years ago and at that time the military might of the peasantry did influence how much power they got, but not so much nowadays. First weapon restriction is Sweden was 1927. In general, the state is less intrusive now than what it was 200 years ago (much more taxing though).

Gun use for hunting is fairly common in Europe (plently of countries have about 1/3 of the US concentration), but the idea of using guns for self defense or some kind of protection from the state is an anathema.

Tunisia had a successful revolution 2011 without any civilian gun ownership (they had the lowest in the world according to wikipedia).

Seriously. You're looking with a narrow view on your own country, ignores the history of the rest of world and try to declare your view as some kind of universial truth.