san fransisco handgun ban Your thoughts. [Archive]

Tribesman

12-10-2005, 19:10

scooter_the_shooter

12-10-2005, 19:13

Tribes men if you go strictly constitutional you can have any weapon....It says you can have arms....and imposes no limits!

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-10-2005, 20:04

awesome, I know where to go to mug people now!

Redleg

12-10-2005, 20:34

And where in the constitution does it say that a city in California cannot have a vote about laws in its own jurisdiction ?
Oh but that would be an impossibility wouldn't it ~;)
So since you mean the amendment to the constitution , does that specify anything about types of arms that can be bourne .No .
So if you wish to get stricltly constitutional then you are only allowed black powder flintlocks Ceaser as those are the only firearms that that document could possibly have been refering to .

The constitution has no such statement in it. It only states That a well regulated Militia and the right to bear arms will not be infringed. Now the meaning of that can be debated until one is blue in the face - but it does not mention what type of weapon one can own. If you want to be strict consitutional you have to argue that the Militia clause is the primary purpose of the second admendment.

So if the city does vote for the ban whats the problem ?

No problem at all - let them vote and then let the lawyers play with the constitutional law aspects of it. Someone will make some money off of it - and the City of San Francisco will have to pay for the defense of the new law. The crime rate of San Francisco will show wether it was a good move or a bad one.

Edit for Spelling

Xiahou

12-10-2005, 20:36

Well shouldn't be any more crime in San Francisco.... since all the people that obey the law won't have guns anymore....~:confused:

Redleg

12-10-2005, 20:44

Well shouldn't be any more crime in San Francisco.... since all the people that obey the law won't have guns anymore....~:confused:

Well we both know which direction the crime rate of San Francisco is most likely to go. The question remains do the citizens of San Francisco know what direction that is?

However this is where the measure doesn't pass the Constitutional test - it is banning weapons - not placing a restriction such as no conceal carry permits, or a requirement that every gun be registered - it is actually seeming to have the wording to place an out right ban on the handguns, and required citizens to give up their weapons, and the article does not mention how the city plans to pay for enforcement of such a ban, nor does it mention paying the citizens for the property that they turn in.

To many loopholes in the article - and if the wording of the measure is reflected in part by the article - the ban won't pass any constitutional review.

It seems to be more of a political stunt - then anything else

Crazed Rabbit

12-10-2005, 21:14

It will be overturned in state courts due to California's preemption laws, just like the last time SF tried to ban guns.

The only effect this will have is to embolden criminals and disarm defesless women:http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/05/MNG30G33SM1.DTL

One good quote:

Hurst denounces all those arguments, saying that there are simply too many guns out there to ban them all and that having a weapon levels the playing field against an attacker, who is likely to be armed.

"Assuming I'd be able to make a 911 call in the first place, you're looking at six or seven minutes realistically before police can get here," Hurst said. "You can get killed many times over in that length of time."

"Or raped and maimed and then killed," B.C. added.

Here's an article about the realities of how gangs get guns in Cali:
http://www.sbsun.com/troubledtown/ci_3274277

A good quote:

Gun laws, such as the federal Assault Weapons Ban and waiting periods for handgun purchases in California, do little to stem the tide of gun use among street gangs, police said.

In California, many assault rifles and their copies are illegal, deputies said. The state has strong gun laws despite the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban last year.

But laws have little impact on gang members - until they are charged and convicted - because they generally do not get their guns lawfully.

"They're not registering them, and there's no waiting period for that," Espindola said.

Laws also have no effect on young gang members who have grown up in the lifestyle and watched as their grandfathers, fathers, uncles and brothers all participated in the same gang.

And where in the constitution does it say that a city in California cannot have a vote about laws in its own jurisdiction ?

They have a state preemption law that prohibits cities and counties from passing even more anti-gun laws than the state already has.

Oh but that would be an impossibility wouldn't it
So since you mean the amendment to the constitution , does that specify anything about types of arms that can be bourne .No .
So if you wish to get stricltly constitutional then you are only allowed black powder flintlocks Ceaser as those are the only firearms that that document could possibly have been refering to .

Wrong. The founders purposely said arms and meant all sorts of weaponry avalible then (cannons and whatnot) and that would become avaliable in the future.
Your reasoning is foolish. By your logic, freedom of the press would apply only to newspapers using 18th century presses and public speakers without public address systems.

So if the city does vote for the ban whats the problem ?
It goes against human rights, and against the aforementioned state preemption law.

You had a little terrorist uprising to give yourselves government of the people by the people , if the people and the peoples government pass a law what is the issue?????
Ah but its guns , that is the issue , democracy shall always take second place to guns

Wrong again. The 'terrorist uprising' was a rebellion, the American forces did not terrorize people.
Furthermore, democracy is held in check by such documents as the constitution to ensure 51% of the people don't enslave the other 49%. There are fundamental rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, that cannot be taken from you by other people, even if they vote on it. Democracy takes second place to liberty.

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

12-10-2005, 21:16

Kanamori

12-10-2005, 21:16

Well, it isn't a federal law, so the second amendment doesn't necessarily apply 100%. The fourteenth amendment's protection only goes so far, especially depending on who is in SCOTUS at the time.

Edit: The reasoning behind the amendment doesn't matter. It's gaurantee is there, and the only way to take it away is to pass another amendment. However, it neither makes exceptions nor is it absolute in what arms are protected, etc., etc.

Wrong. The founders purposely said arms and meant all sorts of weaponry avalible then (cannons and whatnot) and that would become avaliable in the future.

What the framers may or may not have intended is secondary to the actual text, if you want SCOTUS to keep personal opinions out of their judicial opinions.

It goes against human rights.

Mer, What? The last time I looked, owning a gun wasn't a human or God given right. At the time of ratification, and for many years after, the second amendment was only a federal right.

The 'terrorist uprising' was a rebellion, the American forces did not terrorize people.

Apperantly you don't know about what the "patriots" did to the loyalists on many occasions.

Democracy takes second place to liberty.

In theory only. There are so many exceptions to our "liberties" that it is depressing. We should give up SCOTUS and go to the British system. At least then the changes in our Constitution constitution would be from the american people rather than nine people who all have agendas.

Redleg

12-10-2005, 21:40

If you want to be strict consitutional you have to argue that the Militia clause is the primary purpose of the second admendment.

Interesting Red , now forgive me if I am wrong , but this amendment (like the other early ones)was appended for a reason was it not.

If I remember my constitutional history correctly - the 2nd Amendment like all of the first 10 amendments were done to help get all 13 states to agree upon the consititution. The states were concerned about the Federal Government taking to much power from the state. ( I would say individual - but initially it the country was governed under a loose confedercy at the time of the Constitutional Conventions.

What was the reason why Massachusetts wanted the additions , this second one in particular ?

I believe the answer above address this question also - many history texts will provide more detailed answer then above.

Slightly OT but as you writeNow the meaning of that can be debated until one is blue in the face
It has always struck me that the wording used for such an important issue is extremely vauge and badly put together

Parts of the constitition uses words that can be interpated in various ways, I believe this was done on purpose to allow the government and the country to grow and adapt to changes of the time, without losing the fundmental principles of the founding document.

Edit for grammer and content

scooter_the_shooter

12-10-2005, 21:44

Mer, What? The last time I looked, owning a gun wasn't a human or God given right. At the time of ratification, and for many years after, the second amendment was only a federal right.

A.

Constitution or not its a god given right to have the tools needed to protect your self.

Kanamori

12-10-2005, 21:54

The constitution doesn't recognize it as "God given" and as such, that idea has no legal merit.

If I remember my constitutional history correctly - the 2nd Amendment like all of the first 10 amendments were done to help get all 13 states to agree upon the consititution.

The amendments were ratified two years after the constitution.

Samurai Waki

12-10-2005, 23:03

All I can say is it's ridiculous. California is stupid. Nice weather, and hot women though!:san_wink:

AntiochusIII

12-10-2005, 23:11

The amendments were ratified two years after the constitution.They were promised so to get Virginia (and others) to support the Constitution, I believe. That they were ratified later only means the new Union kept their end of the bargain 2 years "late." The Bill of Rights was originally intended to keep the federal power from overwhelming the states.

Guns are not God-given rights. Constitutional rights or not, I am not knowledgable enough to debate. But God-given rights!? :san_undecided: "Thou shalt have guns and shoot thy neighbors!"

But if we are to adhere only to the principles of democracy, San Francisco has decided its choice in the gun-control issue; of course, in the United States the Constitution is above the will of the people...though not seemingly the lobbyists. :san_sad: Eminent domain anyone?

Redleg

12-10-2005, 23:48

They were promised so to get Virginia (and others) to support the Constitution, I believe. That they were ratified later only means the new Union kept their end of the bargain 2 years "late." The Bill of Rights was originally intended to keep the federal power from overwhelming the states.

I believe you are correct.

According to this site

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.html

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

doc_bean

12-11-2005, 00:06

Thats funny.....If I remember right handguns saved thousands of belginians from going into a depression not so long ago.....any one remember John Moses Browning and FN Herstal? The handgun deal they struck saved a city.

Hey, I'm not complaining, the arms industry is pretty much the only thing that keeps our French speaking countrymen part of the economy (well, that and Brussels). However, most of the money gets made selling automatics to those African countries that seem to be at constant war, or have a lot of rebel armies marching about. Great service to the black continent we're providing ~:cheers:

Seriously though, there's about one illegal gun (type not specified) for every ten people in Belgium. And we have the city with the highest crime rate in Europe (funny stories though...), I'm not really a believer in a gun ban. :san_rolleyes:

doc_bean

12-11-2005, 00:30

Carrying a handgun is quite different from owning one, It thought it was almost impossible to get a CnC in Cali anyway.

jayrock

12-11-2005, 02:00

Carrying a handgun is quite different from owning one, It thought it was almost impossible to get a CnC in Cali anyway.

according to the article it is a total ban, owner would be required to give up there firearms within 90 days, that is what will make it uncontitional by both the federal and state of california constitution.

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL
San Francisco Proposes Handgun Ban
Wednesday, December 15, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO — City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns (search) to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.

If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses. The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal by a gun owners group.

The measure — submitted Tuesday to the Department of Elections by some city supervisors — would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses, according to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly.

Firearms would be allowed only for police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment," according to the measure.

Barnes said Wednesday the initiative is a response to the rising homicide rate and other social ills, noting: "We think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."

Kanamori

12-11-2005, 02:17

True, any interpretation of the second amendment as it affects the states through the fourteenth would never pass w/ an outright ban.

Tachikaze

12-11-2005, 07:50

Another good reason to move to San Francisco. I love that place. But I'll stay here in San Diego and support the same measure.

Rather than me rewriting all my opinions about guns in a civilized society, just search the archives. We had a bigtime debate a few years back, and I posted a lot of material. Other people with similar opinions wrote even better stuff.

One thing I didn't mention then. If you really want to protect yourself and loved ones, why don't you invest in racecar-like roll cages and crash helmets for riding in cars. You are far more likely to be injured or killed in an auto accident than by a "bad man with a gun".

The issue is not really about safety. It's about fearful American men who feel powerless and inadequate, or simply have a gun fetish.

The Second Amendment allows us the right to bear arms, not carry handguns. "Arms" also include: knives, rifles, clubs, shotguns. You can still own these if handguns are banned. "Arms" also includes hand grenades, thermonuclear missiles, and WMDs. Are you pro-gun people suggesting we make them legal as well?

The point is: if you can make laws restricting hand grenades without violating the 2nd Amendment, then you can make one restricting handguns as well. Rifles and shotguns are arms and you still have the right to own them.

Crazed Rabbit

12-11-2005, 08:43

Another good reason to move to San Francisco. I love that place. But I'll stay here in San Diego and support the same measure.

Perhaps you should check out the links I posted, about the otherwise defenseless women who wanted to have guns?

And I don't see how making sure the criminals know everyone is defenseless will make it a safer place.

And why do you think that DC and Chicago, with gun bans similar to this, have such high murder rates? Hmmm?

One thing I didn't mention then. If you really want to protect yourself and loved ones, why don't you invest in racecar-like roll cages and crash helmets for riding in cars. You are far more likely to be injured or killed in an auto accident than by a "bad man with a gun".

Ever heard of 'better to have and not need then need and not have'? Not getting a gun because you probably won't need it is a symptom of a naive, blissfully ignorant mental state.

The issue is not really about safety. It's about fearful American men who feel powerless and inadequate, or simply have a gun fetish.

What a steaming load of BS. Have any facts to back that up? I didn't think so. And what would explain the women with guns for protection?

The Second Amendment allows us the right to bear arms, not carry handguns. "Arms" also include: knives, rifles, clubs, shotguns. You can still own these if handguns are banned. "Arms" also includes hand grenades, thermonuclear missiles, and WMDs. Are you pro-gun people suggesting we make them legal as well?

Well that's a new and thoroughly stupid argument. The second admendment does not say 'certain arms' it says arms. As handguns are arms, they are constitutionally protected. Nor does the 2nd say 'an arm'. Saying that since you're only partly breaking the constitution makes it alright is ridiculus.

And we should be able to legally own machine guns and grenades. I suspect owning grenades was legal after this country was founded.

The point is: if you can make laws restricting hand grenades without violating the 2nd Amendment, then you can make one restricting handguns as well. Rifles and shotguns are arms and you still have the right to own them.

You can't, just as one cannot, in theory, ban guns. But legislatures do. One cannot cite an unconstitutional law as proof of the legitamacy of a different unconsitutional law.

Personally I think that handguns are the only guns that should be legal, but that's my opinion.

That's interesting. For most of the anti-gun groups here, handguns are the thing they want to ban first. Why do you think that?

Crazed Rabbit

Spetulhu

12-11-2005, 11:47

I hear they still call any handgun a "browning" in belgium.

That's the barnd they're sold under in the States. The guns go as FN in Europe.

Tribesman

12-11-2005, 13:18

There are fundamental rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, that cannot be taken from you by other people, even if they vote on it. Democracy takes second place to liberty.

Read your constitution Rabbit , it can be changed democratically(well not the constitution itself but the appended amendments).

Perhaps you should check out the links I posted
Would those be the links that say that crimials prefer handguns , that handguns are used in more crimes , that handguns are involved in more killings and the police say it is easier for a criminal to conceal a handgun .

Your reasoning is foolish.
:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
Perhaps you could pick up Reds eye for comedy Rabbit (he mislaid it recently ) and read again what I wrote that you quoted .
What was the status of the city of San Francisco in the State of California at the time the 2nd was written ?

Wrong again. The 'terrorist uprising' was a rebellion, the American forces did not terrorize people.

Oh but they did didn't they . It is a well documented historical fact .

If I remember my constitutional history correctly - the 2nd Amendment like all of the first 10 amendments were done to help get all 13 states to agree upon the consititution. The states were concerned about the Federal Government taking to much power from the state.
Redleg ; I only mention it as Mass. was concerned over standing armies , hence the well regulated militia bit .

Redleg

12-11-2005, 17:26

Your reasoning is foolish.
:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:
Perhaps you could pick up Reds eye for comedy Rabbit (he mislaid it recently ) and read again what I wrote that you quoted .

Tsk, Tsk - you are leading yourself astray again.

What was the status of the city of San Francisco in the State of California at the time the 2nd was written ?

That is not revelant to the consitution, nor is it a valid question concerning the 2nd Amendment. When California was admitted into the Union it accepted the constitution as the Federal document of government.

Wrong again. The 'terrorist uprising' was a rebellion, the American forces did not terrorize people.

Oh but they did didn't they . It is a well documented historical fact .

The American War for Independence or the American Revolution had some terrorist activity - but it was not a terrorist uprising. A distortion of history to make a point is revision. The Boston Tea Party - happened before the Revolution - and some concessions were granted by the British, but in all the colonists or to be more exact the leaders of the Revolution, believed it to be to little to late.

If I remember my constitutional history correctly - the 2nd Amendment like all of the first 10 amendments were done to help get all 13 states to agree upon the consititution. The states were concerned about the Federal Government taking to much power from the state.
Redleg ; I only mention it as Mass. was concerned over standing armies , hence the well regulated militia bit .

Mass was only one of the states that the amendends were done for, several of the states also had concerns about standing armies - to include Thomas Jefferson, from Virginia.

Tribesman

12-11-2005, 21:43

That is not revelant to the consitution,
Where your eye Red ?:san_wink:

The Boston Tea Party
Errrr.....since when was the Boston tea party carried out by American forces?
So I cannot have been referring to that can I , even though it does fall under the definition of terrorism .

Crazed Rabbit

12-11-2005, 21:51

Read your constitution Rabbit , it can be changed democratically(well not the constitution itself but the appended amendments).

Yes, but the citizens of SF weren't changing hte constitution, were they?

Would those be the links that say that crimials prefer handguns , that handguns are used in more crimes , that handguns are involved in more killings and the police say it is easier for a criminal to conceal a handgun .

You are missing the point, as you tend to do. The point was that gun-control laws don't stop criminals from getting handguns.

What was the status of the city of San Francisco in the State of California at the time the 2nd was written ?

Irelevant.

Redleg ; I only mention it as Mass. was concerned over standing armies , hence the well regulated militia bit .

The militia bit stems from the founders belief that a citizen's militia, similar to Switzerland, was the best tool for national defense.

Crazed Rabbit

Kralizec

12-11-2005, 22:28

That's interesting. For most of the anti-gun groups here, handguns are the thing they want to ban first. Why do you think that?

Because safety against street robbers and the like is a valid reason for owning a weapon. A handgun can be carried easily and discretely, and is hardly excessive force. You don't need a M60 machine gun to scare off petty criminals, and you wouldn't be able to carry it with you anywhere in daily life, making it pointless.
Speaking hypotheticly: if the police were to succesfully disarm somewhere around 90% of all criminals, would you then support stricter gun laws in order to keep it that way?

Redleg

12-11-2005, 22:57

That is not revelant to the consitution,
Where your eye Red ?:san_wink:

My eye is fine - its you that gone astray..... continue with the attempts to start something - your just making yourself look foolish.

The Boston Tea Party
Errrr.....since when was the Boston tea party carried out by American forces?
So I cannot have been referring to that can I , even though it does fall under the definition of terrorism .

Boston Tea Party was done by colonists just like the revolution was done by colonists - we were not Americans until we won our independence.

You should know what George Washington's Army was called.

The Continental Congress needed to select as commander in chief of its newly formed Continental Army

Opps your point is lost in your attempts - your leading yourself astray..

Somebody Else

12-11-2005, 23:01

'Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?'

Dhepee

12-12-2005, 03:33

Washington DC banned handguns over 20 years ago. Hasn't made the city any safer. It still has one of the highest murder rates in the US, it's #2 I think. Sometimes it's #1, DC trades off with Gary and Detroit.

The 2nd Amendment is a matter of state law, since militias were state bodies; that's a well settled point of constitutional law. Federal legislation on firearms is passed pursuant to the federal commerce power; which is seperate from the 2nd Amendment.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-12-2005, 05:19

There are many nuances of view on this issue, but the essential positions can be summarized as follows:

1. The "right to bear arms" is an individual right central to self and community defense that has been reserved to individual citizens. Any state agreeing to become part of the United States agrees to enact a body of laws that does not run counter to the rights delineated in the Constitution. Most holders of this view accept the right of government to enact a minimum of regulations (registration, "cool-down" periods etc.) and accept the restriction of arms from convicted felons and persons not mentally competent to use such tools -- provided that no attempt is made to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning/using weapons for sport or personal defense.

Note: Extreme View 1 holders note that "arms" should be any and all weaponry of any form whatsoever, noting that the 2nd ammendment is intended as the "tool of last resort" for people to protect themselves from a government turned despotic.

2. The "right to bear arms" is connected with the defense of the community and was only intended to enable a community to arm and equip a militia at need. From this perspective, the availability of "Guard" units to each duly elected state representative and the presence of police forces constitute the modern function of a "militia" and that these forces are therefore the only ones to whom arms must be guaranteed in order to promote the public safety formerly vested in the old-style militias. Therefore, government restriction of firearms owned/used by private citizens -- or even their abolition -- is a legitimate tool with which to effect public safety.

3. The Constitution was framed in, by, and for the conditions pursuant to the latter quarter of the 18th century. The provision of an ammendment process was specifically included so that we would not be trapped in an original -- and inevitably outdated -- set of rules and principles. Maintaining this stance in a modern era wherein governments protect individual communities and citizens -- a condition rarely applicable in the 18th century -- is ludicrous. The whole thing should have been scrapped and new language crafted to update things.

Extreme #3: Generally takes the stance that modern laws restricting firearms should be enacted despite the 2nd ammendment, since the ammendment is plainly out of touch and should no longer be held valid -- formally excising it through the ammendment process is superfluous.

...So far, the SCOTUS has generally ruled along the lines of view #1 (not extreme #1).

Thank heavens they have.

Kaiser of Arabia

12-12-2005, 05:21

I fear it may spread, and if that happens were in trouble
So if people vote for something it will be passed . oh that damn democracy ....its evil I tell you EVILLLLLLLL
By that logic then the judge who declared the law outlawing gay marraige unconstitution, after the law was voted on and passed with a huge majority, is in the wrong. It was voted on, after all.

And don't say it was unconstitutional, because so is gun control.

English assassin

12-12-2005, 11:41

there's about one illegal gun (type not specified) for every ten people in Belgium.

This, writ large, is the American problem. Once there are so many guns in uncontroled circulation that it is true that a criminal can get his hands on one no matter what, (and as a matter of fact I believe that is true in the US) then the argument that they should be banned is more difficult to make out. I'm actually not persuaded that handguns do make people any safer (I well remember putting 50 rounds through a Browning hi-power at a running man target at 25 metres and scoring about 4 hits in total) but if you put in the time on the range they might. And if its true that a criminal can have a gun for the askuing, then why shouldn't the law abiding citizen, provided he is prepared to register and be checked of course.

Of course the fact that you are in the soup is no reason not to try to get out of it but it would have to be a LONG process in America. In fact I wonder if it will ever be possible to bring gun ownership under control, and why the gun control lobby don't attack the much more tractable problem of ammunition. Make ammunition available only to those who have a permit, and make it an offence to pass any ammunition to someone who doesn't, and you might be able to make a start.

Apropos nothing I can readily see why handguns are first up for a ban: much better for criminals to use, and with only one designed purpose; killing people. A rifle or shotgun on the other hand has other uses and is hard to conceal.

doc_bean

12-12-2005, 13:06

This, writ large, is the American problem. Once there are so many guns in uncontroled circulation that it is true that a criminal can get his hands on one no matter what, (and as a matter of fact I believe that is true in the US) then the argument that they should be banned is more difficult to make out.

I know teenagers that know where they can get guns and I know people who knew who to get guns when they were teenagers. So much for gun control :san_rolleyes:

I'm actually not persuaded that handguns do make people any safer (I well remember putting 50 rounds through a Browning hi-power at a running man target at 25 metres and scoring about 4 hits in total)

The point is that the criminal would be running away then...

English assassin

12-12-2005, 13:12

The point is that the criminal would be running away then

You must have heard the old advice, run from a knife, never run from a gun? And all criminals have guns, remember? He'd be shooting you. Hopefully with as little success as you were shooting him.

doc_bean

12-12-2005, 13:19

You must have heard the old advice, run from a knife, never run from a gun? And all criminals have guns, remember? He'd be shooting you. Hopefully with as little success as you were shooting him.

Nah, we're not supposed to have guns in this country remember :san_wink:

I can see why we'd still enforce a gun ban in Europe, criminals might have guns but they aren't really needed or used that often, so allowing us to arm ourselves will probably cause violent crime to rise. (I don't necessarily agree with this, but am still making up my mind).

In the US, gun culture is a part of life it would seem, outlawing guns would do nothing but help the criminals. they're already used to shooting people or at least threatening them at gun point, no need to change for them. :san_sad:

Slyspy

12-12-2005, 18:57

Ianofsmeg16

12-12-2005, 19:35

Thank god i live in the Isle of man....The Laxest laws on Guns in Britain and almost no gun crime at all :)

Slyspy

12-13-2005, 02:49

Nothing worth stealing. :san_wink:

Kaiser of Arabia

12-13-2005, 02:51

Nothing worth stealing. :san_wink:
Or people are too afraid to steal thing because they'd get blown away :san_laugh:

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-13-2005, 02:54

just wait 'til the Scousers learn how to sail...

...only joking my dear Liverpudlians.:san_laugh:

Xiahou

12-13-2005, 09:33

I always love the fact that so many Americans dislike the "tyranny" of the modern federal government in all its democratic glory but are happy to operate under the "tyranny" of the 200 year old, rather vague and much ammended document written for a different USA in a different world.
Is that supposed to be ironic? ~:confused:
The "tyranny" of a 200 year old document that imposes strict constraints on government power and enumerates protected rights of the citizenry? Do you know what tyranny is?

English assassin

12-13-2005, 10:34

You make the arrogant and insulting assumption that it's a bad situation. Guns aren't the problem, violent acts in general are the problem. You take away guns, and people will do it with something else. That's not a token argument, it's the goddamned truth

Well, I'm sorry if you felt insulted, but insult or not I don't agree with you.

If I may be allowed to quote a great American patriot (Batman) "we kill so often because we've made it easy for ourselves". Its easier to kill someone with a gun, both intentionally and accidentally. I may not have hit the target much with that Browning but I certainly couldn't have stabbed it at all at 25 yds.

Second, I am not in fact arguing that guns per se are the problem, but I am arguing that guns available more or less as easily as a bag of popcorn is a problem. Contrary to the Euroweenie stereotype I am not in fact opposed to civilian gun ownership (as it happens I was at the rifle range myself bright and early last Sunday), but I cannot for the life of me understand why gun nuts are opposed to registration, checks and references. And that's even in a country where exactly what the gun nuts fear happened, when they confiscated all handguns in 1997. Confiscation of handguns seems to me a lesser evil than Kevin being able to walk into his local Londis and load up with 2 litres of coca cola and a Browning.

lugh

12-13-2005, 10:59

I wouldn't ban them.
It might be an idea to REGISTER them though!:san_rolleyes:
If you ever even looked at a cop crooked, bamn (pun intended), you're banned from owning one.
Plus, have the hammer imprint registered at the same time and make tampering with the weapon in a way that might hinder identification a crime.

I never understood why Europe was portrayed as anti gun. Outside the cities every second cow has a friggin' rifle.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-13-2005, 14:10

EA, I just read you reply about ammo.

The thing is that ammo is REALLY easy and cheap to make yourself.

Although, to be fair, I'm pretty sure most street thugs aren't into loading their own rounds/wouldn't have a clue.

Edit: I'm sure some entrepreneur would take advantage of the demand thus created...

Fragony

12-13-2005, 14:26

Ban won't do shit, the criminals won't stop using them. But it's San Fransisco, if you have to kill someone there is always HIV :san_kiss:

English assassin

12-13-2005, 15:13

@Taffy, yes, I know there is a hand reloading community, but as far as I can see that's the real anorak brigade and not a threat to anyone.

Anyway you can just control the propellant. You can make reasonably OK black powder yourself (though its not as easy as all that) but then I can't really see muzzle loaders as a big problem. I never saw a receipe for a modern propellant.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

12-13-2005, 15:30

EA: maybe the people who like to mess about with different amounts of powder than standard and such but I don't know anybody who reloads who is an anorak like that, they just want to be able to shoot without spending stupid amounts on ammo.

Anyway, as for the propellants...
...stock up before any ban comes into effect.

I'm sure that some members of the "anorak brigade" would be quite willing to help the thugs out if the money's there.

It's just as unenforceable as gun control.

English assassin

12-13-2005, 16:38

fair enough I must admit I was thinking of the ones who reload because "factory ammunition isn't consistent enough".

I wish I was a good enough shot that the "inconsistency" of factory ammunition was the major issue...

As for stocking up, sure, and you could stock up on ammo too, but the point is even so the ammo will be used/go off a lot more quickly than the guns will wear out.

Ah, you know what? If I was in the state America was in I really don't know what I would do about the amount of guns in circulation. Maybe they have just lost control.

drone

12-13-2005, 17:21

I think most people here in the States that reload their own ammo do it for cost reasons. I've had people at the range ask me if they can take my shells, and I've seen some dig through the sweep pile for brass. If you shoot enough or use rare rounds, it is definitely worth doing yourself.

Of course, you always would get the "anoraks" who want to customize their loads or think they can get better consistency.

Slyspy

12-14-2005, 01:51

Is that supposed to be ironic? ~:confused:
The "tyranny" of a 200 year old document that imposes strict constraints on government power and enumerates protected rights of the citizenry? Do you know what tyranny is?

Yes it is supposed to be ironic. I am also aware of what tyranny is.

Xiahou

12-14-2005, 04:14

The 2nd Amendment is a matter of state law, since militias were state bodies; that's a well settled point of constitutional law. Federal legislation on firearms is passed pursuant to the federal commerce power; which is seperate from the 2nd Amendment.That's news to me- you're saying the second amendment isn't an individual right? The DOJ (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm) certainly doesn't hold that view- and the rulings have been far from conclusive in that regard. Or are you saying it's a state matter in that the 2A only limits federal restrictions on gun ownership, not the state and local governments?

Ja'chyra

12-14-2005, 12:16

So the people are going to vote on the subject but you're still bitching about it?????

Let them decide how they want to live, what has it got to do with anyone who doesn't live there?

Unless of course you feel that this is just the beginning and the cunning plan is to declare independance as they don't agree with the constitution, wouldn't that be amusing, then we'd see how imperialistic the US really is.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-15-2005, 05:20

That's news to me- you're saying the second amendment isn't an individual right? The DOJ (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm) certainly doesn't hold that view- and the rulings have been far from conclusive in that regard. Or are you saying it's a state matter in that the 2A only limits federal restrictions on gun ownership, not the state and local governments?

Hiya X-man. I, like you, think of it as an individual right. However, there are those who take a different view -- see my earlier post on this thread.

Devastatin Dave

12-15-2005, 06:10

I fear it may spread, and if that happens were in trouble
So if people vote for something it will be passed . oh that damn democracy ....its evil I tell you EVILLLLLLLL
So if a majority of people within a city voted for slavery, then it would be perfectly alright by your definition of democracy?

Xiahou

12-15-2005, 07:05

Hiya X-man. I, like you, think of it as an individual right. However, there are those who take a different view -- see my earlier post on this thread.
Sure, you can (wrongly :san_wink: ) think it's a state, not individual right... My point was that it's hardly a settled fact that it's a state right.

Recognition of other views does not equate to those views being correct.Yeah, what he said.

So if a majority of people within a city voted for slavery, then it would be perfectly alright by your definition of democracy?Apparently the concept of majority rule with minority rights isn't familiar to him. :san_rolleyes:

AntiochusIII

12-15-2005, 07:24

Sure, you can (wrongly :san_wink: ) think it's a state, not individual right... My point was that it's hardly a settled fact that it's a state right.The fact is, the 2nd Amendment is extremely vague and incoherent. And, even though, by principles of Judicial review (which, in the end, can be disputed. The barrier between judicial review and judicial activism--which is heavily disputed--is blurry; some might say they're the same. John Marshall was the one who explicitly stated the power of judicial review, not the earlier documents), the judiciary has stated its "definition," people can still take on different views with some legal merit by the sheer vagueness of the source of the "right."

Could you please state why you believe that the said interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is wrong?

Yeah, what he said.True. Whose one is correct?

Apparently the concept of majority rule with minority rights isn't familiar to him. :san_rolleyes:The Constitution and the Bill of Rights seem to me more concerned with libertarian than democratic principles...

But is gun ownership a right? :san_undecided:

Xiahou

12-15-2005, 07:36

Could you please state why you believe that the said interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is wrong?Actually, I put a link earlier on this page to the current Department of Justice interpretation of the 2A as an individual right- they lay out a decent case for it.

link (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm)

Personally, I think it's common sense. The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights- not state rights, why on earth would the 2A somehow be an exception? It doesnt pass the smell test.

Ja'chyra

12-15-2005, 09:00

If you have to ask that question, you should not be partaking in this conversation.

If some people could write clear amendments then there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

Amendment II

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.

This amendment makes no mention of people owning guns. The sentence doesn't even read well, I really don't understand why the US doesn't clarify it.

Edit2:

Don't be dumb. The Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd amendment, is inalienable. What you have in SF is Majority Tyranny, which the Bill of Rights is supposed prevent in part.

I'm dumb for suggesting that people should have a say over the laws that they need to live under? If that's the way it is then I'll admit it, I'm dumb.

So you think they should be forced to abide by what the minority in that state want just so it fits with your views? And you have the temerity to mention tyranny.

Ja'chyra

12-15-2005, 09:28

Keep and Bear arms. How hard is that to read? It's only "vague" when anti-gun nuts want it to be vague.

Read the whole amendment, if it wasn't hard to understand then there would be no disagreement

Nice try. The Bill of Rights is one of the essential devices built into our government to prevent tyranny of any type. Whether it be majority or minority. That you see fit to toss out the Bill of Rights just because it disagrees with your anti-gun agenda is rather telling.

This might actually mean something if I was American or had an anti-gun agenda.

English assassin

12-15-2005, 10:45

It doesn't say "..keep and bear arms, EXCEPT ..

It doesn't say "keep and bear all kinds of arms" either does it mate?

Whatever else the second amendment may be it is not perfectly clear. Purely as an exercise in statutory construction is is "clear" to me that the right to keep and bear arms is related to the need for a well regulated militia. However whether that means you should only be allowed to keep and bear arms if you are in a well regulated militia, or whether it means a general familiarity with arms would be a good thing because you might be in a militia in the future, well, that's not clear.

Its also not clear what a militia is in 2005. I know there is this fantasy that you have to interpret the amendment as it would have been intended 200 years ago, which is (1) a humiliatingly bad legal argument at least in UK terms and (2) a principle conveniently forgotten by the gun lobby when it comes to what type of guns they want to own, (unless musketry is big in the states?) It seems to me that as the militia is "necessary to the security of a free STATE" (my emphasis, note not free people) the modern militia must be the armed forces and national guard.

Therefore it would be perfectly legitimate to argue that the second amendment does not relate to private ownership of guns at all, but instead requires that anyone who wants to should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces.

So no, I wouldn't say it was a clear amendment.

If you're not American, what do you care anyway?

Because he takes an interest in world affairs?

Ja'chyra

12-15-2005, 11:36

:san_rolleyes: Using that logic, we can dismantle the entire constitution to suit the needs of those who would like to expand government authority over individual rights. Freedom of Speach? Bah! Outdated.

Using that logic you could instead rewrite the parts of the constitution that are ambivalent or outdated. Or, you could bury your head in the sand, reject all other arguments because you don't think they suit and carry on as always, but no one would be that close minded, would they? :san_rolleyes:

English assassin

12-15-2005, 11:47

Using that logic, we can dismantle the entire constitution to suit the needs of those who would like to expand government authority over individual rights. Freedom of Speach? Bah! Outdated.

No we couldn't. I could ask you to look up the history of the interpretation of the ECHR but that would be profoundly facetious. Suffice it to say that the document, written in 1950, has been progressively interpreted in the light of current conditions to confer far, far more rights on individuals than can possibly have been in the minds of the draftsmen. Why you imagine a sensible approach to construction has to be in favour of the state I cannot imagine, that's why we have seperation of powers.

I really don't understand why the American right pappers its pants at the words "activist judge" (although bluntly in many cases I suspect its because they are too stupid to follow a decent argument, not a comment directed at fellow Orgers). As a believer in small, controlled government and individual rights (which i thought was more or less the touchstone of the right) I'd say its only the judges who have advanced either of those agendas in the UK.

Of course in America the right is not really right at all, because all the jesusland nonsense makes them far too interested in other peoples lives to deserve the accolade of being right wing. (Heh. And will they ever notice Jesus was a commie I wonder?) I guess that's the problem. Not directed at you personally GC, IIRC you aren't a god botherer.

Ja'chyra

12-15-2005, 12:13

And who does the re-writing, huh? People with agendas that are undoubtedly out of tune with the intent of the constitution, towards one extreme or another. People who would re-write it according to what they think their constitutuency wants to hear. Not with any regard for the past or the future, or the intent of the constitution.

You say burrying our heads in the sand? I say keeping ahold of the branch above, so we don't get caught in the quagmire.

Well, I would hope that the elected representatives of the people would write the constitution in line with what the people of the nation want, isn't that the way it works?

:san_laugh: Or something like that

Ja'chyra

12-15-2005, 12:32

You simply don't trust politicans with something that important. :san_rolleyes:

Then don't elect them.

Doing nothing because you think it's going to be hard work isn't a good enough excuse, not for me anyway. Like most things its cost vs benefit.

Ronin

12-15-2005, 14:14

And who does the re-writing, huh? People with agendas that are undoubtedly out of tune with the intent of the constitution, towards one extreme or another. People who would re-write it according to what they think their constitutuency wants to hear. Not with any regard for the past or the future, or the intent of the constitution.

You say burrying our heads in the sand? I say keeping ahold of the branch above, so we don't get caught in the quagmire.

everybody has an agenda my friend.....and that includes the people that wrote the american constitution too.

AntiochusIII

12-16-2005, 01:40

Actually, I put a link earlier on this page to the current Department of Justice interpretation of the 2A as an individual right- they lay out a decent case for it.

link (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm)Whoops. Missed that. Thanks. Quite a good read and clarify the judiciary's position quite well. Of course, the judiciary is ever-changing in position, as well...

If you have to ask that question, you should not be partaking in this conversation.Why not? Perhaps you do not wish for people to ask questions without taking a clear position? Perhaps it is because you do not know that I already have my opinions about gun ownership, but would rather seek a less-personal, legal side of the issue by observing dialogue and asking questions? Or perhaps that question itself is a little rhetorical in itself?

:san_wink:

Amendment II

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.It is incredibly vague as it is. Somebody should've let the libertarian Jefferson write the entire thing; at least he was a clear writer from what I've seen. Or wait...don't tell me it was Jefferson writing that, because I am rather ignorant and, strangely, couldn't find who wrote them.

The original, historical intend of this declaration was quite clear: the federal government was not trusted, and, since the Bill of Rights' original creation was intended to convince Union skeptics to support the Constitution, and that the militia was an important (of not militarily, then symbolically) part of the Revolution, this right was intended to allow the spirit of locality, and local self-defense (realistically or not) to continue.

However, the modern interpretation has taken to defining each words of the Amendment, since the original intention no longer applies.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state was used by those who oppose private gun ownership as the more relevant part of the Amendment. Thus, clearly the Amendment intends to include only the well-regulated militias of the state, no?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. was used, as GC demonstrates, as the more relevant part of the Amendment by those who support private gun ownership. After all, the right shall not be infringed!

Now, take both together and we get to probably related phrases that seems like two unrelated sentences, and defining the context becomes much harder.

Xiahou

12-16-2005, 04:15

However, the modern interpretation has taken to defining each words of the Amendment, since the original intention no longer applies.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state was used by those who oppose private gun ownership as the more relevant part of the Amendment. Thus, clearly the Amendment intends to include only the well-regulated militias of the state, no?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. was used, as GC demonstrates, as the more relevant part of the Amendment by those who support private gun ownership. After all, the right shall not be infringed!

Now, take both together and we get to probably related phrases that seems like two unrelated sentences, and defining the context becomes much harder.
I think both would be true- the 2 statements are independent of each other and can stand on their own. A well-regulated militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Although, I suppose the second clause would seem to be the important one. The militia portion is just a statement- it puts forth the notion that a militia is necessary. But, it's the second part that actually enumerates a right.

A.Saturnus

12-16-2005, 21:22

I´m not going to read any other post in this thread so sorry if this has been said already:

They have handguns in San Fran? Hmm... are they pink?

Xiahou

12-16-2005, 22:40

I´m not going to read any other post in this thread so sorry if this has been said already:

They have handguns in San Fran? Hmm... are they pink?Not anymore they dont- they're banned. :san_laugh:

AntiochusIII

12-17-2005, 01:22

I think both would be true- the 2 statements are independent of each other and can stand on their own. A well-regulated militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Although, I suppose the second clause would seem to be the important one. The militia portion is just a statement- it puts forth the notion that a militia is necessary. But, it's the second part that actually enumerates a right.Then again, there will be other legal practitioners who would disagree with you, and they might be able to present a decent case, perhaps by claiming that both phrases add to one context of the Amendment, with the first being the condition in which the right stated in the second phrase would apply...

Or something similar...

Blame it on the original author.

They have handguns in San Fran? Hmm... are they pink?They are purple. Though some have pink flowers on them.