Gun Control [Archive]

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 06:55

I appreciate your efforts, Antiochus, but I'm not in need of your diplomatic services. Read Kralizec's post again, with an unbiased eye, then tell me what he meant.

Think of the women!

Of course there's always going to be incidents where innocent people end up getting shot, but we have to remember that there are foul people out there preying on our women. If widespread firearm ownership saves even one woman from getting raped, isn't it worth it?

Sounds to me like he thinks it's all fun and jokes. Well, having put a girl sobbing to bed more times than I'd care to count, it's not funny and it's not a joke. Having known one or two girls that had it happen to them in their own homes, I think it's a shame they didn't have a gun handy. But yeah, it's funny. Rapists are funny as all hell. So are those stupid redneck goons that want to shoot everyone.

Wait till your cousin, or your sister or your wife asks you why it happened to her. Then wait till she asks what she could have done to have stopped it. Then, here's the real fun one, wait for them to ask you why you didn't stop it.....Then make your Dukes of Hazzard jokes. Till then, Bzzzzt.

And if you want to talk about innocent people getting shot with guns... how many people die every year due to gross medical malpractice like laziness or drunkeness in places like Holland or America. Let's compare numbers, then we'll talk about how dumb all us rednecks are.

KukriKhan

11-04-2006, 07:03

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 07:09

In fairness, I think Kralizec's tongue was planted much deeper in his cheek than you imagine, Don-san.

I could be wrong. But that's how it looked to me. Just joining in with the hoopla of your and Lemur's frolic.

If you, Kralizec or Antiochus want to make the point that the answer is to beef up police, maybe make a concerted effort to disarm everyone, criminal and law abider alike, I will respectfully make my argument in dissent.

But to make a wisecrack that hey, it doesn't really happen, but if we save even one woman's virtue, isn't it worth shooting a bunch of innocent people... That's so far beyond the pale I don't know where to begin arguing against it except to give it the same amount of respect he gave my views, which was none at all.

I'm glad that life in the Netherlands is bliss. I'm glad that rape and home invasions don't exist. What little time I've spent in Amsterdam, I'd never go back, as the Dutch do seem to have a violent streak towards Americans, even (or you could say especially) ones that refuse to discuss American politics. But let's just say they live in gunless, crimeless paradise. That's not where I live. I don't appreciate being laughingly dismissed, and when I am, I'll give the laugher roughly the same amount of respect he showed me... none at all.

lars573

11-04-2006, 07:11

Kralizec

11-04-2006, 07:14

A lot of assumptions thrown around there.

I was making an analogy to the "think of the children!" cliche wich I've seen conservatives use sarcasticly. The point was that far reaching restrictions will have to be measured against the benefits, I haven't seen anybody claim that the prevention of a single sporadic death of a child actually does justify inflicting a boatload of restrictions and red tape on the whole of society. I don't think anybody was laughing about the death of children then, but of course I can never know now.
I'm not convinced that the current gun laws in the US (far more "liberal" then those here) actually prevent a meaningful amount of rapes. I view it as a cliche argument that I never saw statistical support for.

But back to you, this is your idea of discussing it seriously?

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

Guess I should have known better then to touch upon one of the sacred cows of American conservatism.

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 07:14

A person should only have the right to own 1 hunting rifle, 1 shotgun. And if you've been a good little boy, a pistol. You sholdn't be allowed to ahve any of these unless you have a clean, or cleaned, criminal record. You shouldn't be allowed to carry them on your person outside your house. And you shouldn't use them to fight an intruder. There are much more effective and less than lethal ways of doing that.

Why? If I've never done anything illegal with the 5 long guns I own, who the Hades are you to show up and take them away? Now I'll agree with you that a handgun is a poor choice of a defensive weapon, but again, who are you to order people around and tell them how they can defend their lives and how they can't?

Ice

11-04-2006, 07:18

DC- I see where you are coming from. Knowing someone who has gotten raped myself, it isn't a laughing or joking matter. I can relate and agree with you.

About guns. Guns should be owned to a responsible extent. There is no need to have an automatic rifle in your house. I also have a problem with handguns, far to easy to concel. Shotguns and rifles, are ok if they are kept on your property. I disagree though about intruders. If someone is breaking into your house, they know full well what they could be getting themselves into, and it is your right to defend yourself the way you deem necessary.

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 07:20

But back to you, this is your idea of discussing it seriously?

Actually, yes, it was. More than any other issue, my desire to maintain my right to defend myself makes, hell it forces, me to vote Republican, whether I care to or not. Why? At the end of the day, I look at politics as how much intrusion am I going to have to tolerate. This one ranks right up there. I actually would vote Democrat for a number of candidates if they'd just simply say "You have a right to protect your home as you see fit". They can't do it. Until they do, how can I trust them to protect my interests anywhere, if they insist on putting me in a victim class in my own home?

Now I don't believe in sacred cows. If you really want to discuss this with me, I will. I'll debate it all night long. But don't laugh at me and talk about how "if we save even one woman's virtue". As I said, if the Netherlands has figured out how to eliminate rape and home invasion, fantastic, we'd love to hear how you've done it, because we haven't yet. Until we do, I'll take my own chances with the thug that breaks my door in.

KukriKhan

11-04-2006, 07:24

:grabs beer and steps back, since it looks like the fellas want to fight:

Will just add: have guns. Will shoot. If coming, come loaded.

But I'd rather share a beer or 10.

Ice

11-04-2006, 07:27

But I'd rather share a beer or 10.

I'm more of a hard liquor man, but if the beer is good ~:cheers:

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 07:30

I'm not trying to fight. I respect Kralizec and I usually respect his opinions. If somebody I didn't respect had wandered in and spouted off about crazy Americans and their guns, it wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the reaction out of me.

But Kralizec seems like a reasonable fellow to me. And yet, in his eyes, apparently I'm a redneck rube because I choose to defend my own home. I'm to be the butt of jokes. Fair enough, I dish it out at times, I can take it. I hold no long term ill will towards the guy, but I'm not going to sit quiet in the corner while he runs me down either.

Here's to your beer or two, or ten. And hell, Kralizec, you've got enough chutzpah to speak your peace, I'll raise a glass to you too. I simply ask that you stop dismissing me as a simpleton and consider that perhaps not all the world exists as harmoniously as it does in your little hamlet. Cheers.
~:cheers:

KukriKhan

11-04-2006, 07:34

I'm more of a hard liquor man, but if the beer is good ~:cheers:

Cuz yer young, so likker = kwicker. Beer allows some moderation for an old fart... but I keep some of that devil rum around for you young'uns, out of respect for your needs. :)

Oh, and on-topik: booze & firearms = bad.

Kralizec

11-04-2006, 07:35

But Kralizec seems like a reasonable fellow to me. And yet, in his eyes, apparently I'm a redneck rube because I choose to defend my own home. I'm to be the butt of jokes. Fair enough, I dish it out at times, I can take it. I hold no long term ill will towards the guy, but I'm not going to sit quiet in the corner while he runs me down either.

Here's to your beer or two, or ten. And hell, Kralizec, you've got enough chutzpah to speak your peace, I'll raise a glass to you too. I simply ask that you stop dismissing me as a simpleton and consider that perhaps not all the world exists as harmoniously as it does in your little hamlet.

I wasn't deliberately suggesting any of that, and I personally don't see how my actual post does. But that could be me.

KukriKhan

11-04-2006, 07:37

And yet, in his eyes, apparently I'm a redneck rube because I choose to defend my own home

Ah crap, now I gotta go back and re-read. I missed that the first time.

lars573

11-04-2006, 07:40

Why? If I've never done anything illegal with the 5 long guns I own, who the Hades are you to show up and take them away? Now I'll agree with you that a handgun is a poor choice of a defensive weapon, but again, who are you to order people around and tell them how they can defend their lives and how they can't?
Having 1 rifle means you like to hunt. 5 means your trouble waiting for a place to happen. In this hypothetical I'm the federal government, who else can make gun control laws. The only body authorized to make gun control, as well as criminal, laws. Also I have the power to tell you how you can defend yourself in your own home.

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 07:41

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 07:44

lars573

11-04-2006, 07:56

A .22 for garden pests! :inquisitive: :laugh4: Overkill much? All you need for that is a pellet gun or a BB gun. Why force you to one. Easy you only think you need a 30/30 for one type and a .306. Using one or the other would work fine. You might miss more but it's hunting not killing. Besides if you were a real hunter you'd be out there with a recurve self-bow.

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 08:00

Kralizec

11-04-2006, 08:02

I guess I mistook your response of "if it saves one innocent woman" line. It is entirely possible that I read more into it than you intended. If that is the case, then I humbly apologize. Now drink up, your beer is getting warm.

~:cheers:

Look, I can understand how from a European perspective, my argument seems like a red herring. I bet home invasions are unheard of in the Netherlands. But I live in New Hampshire, a very low crime rate area for the USA, and there were 3 home invasions within driving distance (30 miles) of my house within the past week. Add to that how much I travel, and yes, I do worry a lot about it. I personally don't think I'm being paranoid, but perhaps you do. I am all ears on your alternate suggestions as to what my wife and I should do to keep our happy home safe and sound, especially when I'm in China for 2 weeks next time I go.

No problem. Home invasions are not unheard of but less of an issue here and I rarely hear about them in my vicinity (then again I don't pay much attention to it) Personal safety (in general) in daily life was a big politcal issue the last couple of years but seems to be dying down now. I vaguely recall a study a couple of months back that the murder and violence rate had in fact been consistently (but slowly) dropping since the 1990's in fact, so I personally think it was just mass hysteria stirred up by politicians.

Thanks for the beer, but I can't. Sigh...duty calls :whip:

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 08:03

More importantly, Lars, why haven't you bothered to attempt to consript how many cars I drive, or how many construction projects I run? According to New Hampshire's latest data, each of these high risk area killed more people than gun accidents. Oh yes, of course.... criminals don't go to construction sites. Now what you're saying makes sense....

Xiahou

11-04-2006, 08:05

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.
Maybe you haven't heard about the SNiVeL (http://www.sarahbradycampaign.org/snivel.htm) defense?

Do The SNiVeL:

*

Step 1: "S" is for Safe - Assume a safe, fetal position, preferably under a table or other cover.
*

Step 2: "N" & "V" are for Non-Violent - Remember, remain non-violent. Moves that could be interpreted as 'self-defense' may only serve to further provoke your assailant. Offer no resistance.
*

Step 3: "L" is for Limp - Remain limp while begging and groveling for your life!!! This is no time for pride or courage, so cry like a girl, you fool!!! This will always serve you better than a firearm, which would only inject more violence into the situation. Finally, stay limp until your assailant has finished beating you like a rented mule. He will eventually tire from pummeling you mercilessly and choose to move on to a more entertaining endeavor, such as beating your spouse and/or children.

Pannonian

11-04-2006, 08:11

KukriKhan

11-04-2006, 08:40

Let the Americans use whatever controls they want to use, and let us use whatever controls we want to use, as we're obviously seeing this from very different perspectives. Your world is not our world, and the rules are different.

Wow. Wisdom. Right here on our stage.

Cut it out Pannonian, you'll give the Tavern a bad name. :)

In 3 hours since warman's drive-by posting, we've gone to page 2...likely page 3 by the time he wakes up and wonders: "Hey! Where's my Cheerio's, and whatever happened to all those threads I started?"

Keba

11-04-2006, 09:04

Redleg

11-04-2006, 09:13

Having 1 rifle means you like to hunt. 5 means your trouble waiting for a place to happen. In this hypothetical I'm the federal government, who else can make gun control laws. The only body authorized to make gun control, as well as criminal, laws. Also I have the power to tell you how you can defend yourself in your own home.

Actuall this is incorrect. There are several types of rifles. For instance when I went varmit hunting (Rabbits, racoons, possums, and the occasional swamp rat) I use a .22 caliber long rifle. Now if I am hunting white tail deer I perfer another small caliber rifle say the .223 otherwise known as the 5.56mm or the 6mm rifle that I have used in the past for the smaller deer. Then when I hunt for Mule Deer or Elk I perfer the 3030, .306, or my 7mm rifle because the shot will normally be done at a greater range in open country.

Now my father when gets lucky and draws the bear or moose hunt in Montana takes his larger rifle the 7.7 mm mag rifle.

A hunter often has multiple types of rifles and shotguns depending upon what type of animal he is hunting.

So to say having five means your looking for trouble is not correct.

By the way I grew up in a house that consistent of over 20 different rifles ranging from the .22 caliber to the large bore big game rifle of my father's plus the multiple shotguns and pistols.

Not once was there ever an accidental discharge of a weapon in my family. The rule my father taught me is that every weapon is to be treated as if it is loaded. If people would treat weapons as the tools that they are versus toys their would be a lot less tradic accidents involving weapons.

Now don't get me wrong their is a point of overkill in owning weapons for personal use - but saying that owning five weapons is the magic number does not make since when many avent hunters own multiple different types of weapons for specific types of game.

Redleg

11-04-2006, 09:20

One word, licensce.

A test instituted for ability to own a weapon responsibly and a liscensce issued by the goverment/local police station authorizing you to own a weapon.

And no automatic ones, hand cannons or whatever. Hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols (though with a more thorough test for this one).

Though I still think it a stupid idea to pump what you're going to eat full of lead.:no:

Registration of weapons when buying them is now a requirement for the ownership of firearms in United States. So the "licensing" of them is basically alreadly done. Most states do not allow individuals under 18 to hunt unless they have taken a hunter's safety course. With no hunting license - an individual can not legally take a deer.

poaching still carries some very stiff penalities - for instance many states still allow for the seizing by the state all property in the possession of the poacher when they are caught.

Most hunters don't pump what they are going to eat full of lead - two shots is the typical hunter, a good hunter only uses one shot. Unfortunately that one shot can often ruin a bit of the meat that you are after.

I typical aim just behind the front shoulder of the deer, (its a heart shot) kills the animal very quickly, and I never shoot until I am sure about my shot.

Fragony

11-04-2006, 09:43

I really don't understand why we aren't allowed to have guns, police is taking a monopoly on the use of violence but they are completily useless. Every household should have a gun in case something goes wrong, why become a victim :thumbsdown:

Banquo's Ghost

11-04-2006, 11:03

I'm largely with Pannonian on this subject, since the evidence suggests that all Europeans walk about naked and snivelling whilst every Yank is tooled up like Rambo with PMT, and neither side ever suffers crime thereby proving they're right. :dizzy2:

On a more serious note, I'd be interested in more information on the home defence argument. I can completely understand Don's reasoning and it holds water.

Nonetheless, are there any studies that have looked at the efficiacy of using home guns for defence?

My interest lies in the consideration that while one may have a gun or three at home, sensible guidelines would advise them being properly secured. If an invader gets into the house - presumably in the US criminals are aware that their victims are likely to be armed, and therefore come armed themselves - how easy is it for the home-owner to get to their weaponry, load and then bring to bear?

Major Robert Dump

11-04-2006, 11:19

I cheerfully abstain from this thread. I think I'll go clean my hand cannon instead.

Tribesman

11-04-2006, 12:33

I really don't understand why we aren't allowed to have guns
You are allowed to have a gun Frag , unless of course you have been a naughty boy and are banned from getting a permit .

Anyhow , silly topic , silly title . Gun control ...Yes obviously , but what is acceptable as gun control .

Fragony

11-04-2006, 12:37

You are allowed to have a gun Frag , unless of course you have been a naughty boy and are banned from getting a permit .

That is true, but you aren't allowed to use it, it's just for sports. Should have said 'right on selfdefense'.

Keba

11-04-2006, 14:31

Most European systems allow the use of a gun in self-defense, but they tend to be rather strict in viewing the self-defense.

So, if somebody else is openly threatning your life and is actually attempting to kill you, then you get off scot-free (that is, after the court finds that you acted in self-defense). Someone simply threatning your property or simply threatning without actually acting on it does not qualify as a threatning situation, meaning you can't pull out your gun and shoot the guy.

rory_20_uk

11-04-2006, 16:03

Even if the USA tomorrow was to have a blanket ban on all weaponry, little would change. There are so many weapons in the USA that it would be years (if ever) before those that wanted them couldn't easily get hold of them. Probably less easily than today, but still far from impossible.

Guns can be effective for years, and with the large borders America has, the small number that would be confiscated by the police would be replaced by the criminals with ease.

"Smart guns" (fingerprint ID, or better yet with an inbuilt tracker) might help eventually, but they'd have to be coupled with draconian penalties for having the old type of gun.

Unless something earth shattering happens (and let's face it, Americans don't blink when a gunman guns down Amish children), no politician is going to have the backbone to do anything about this in a meaningful way.

~:smoking:

lars573

11-04-2006, 16:54

Were I real hunter, you're absolutely right. But I'm an opportunist. Where I live, there's so many deer, one gets into a traffic incident, pretty much every night. My local area is lousy with them. All this meat, and I'm just going to play Cochise, watching them walk by while they avoid my bow? No. I'm going to shoot a couple and spare a trip to the meat aisle of the grocery market. I'm funny like that, I actually will make the effort to go get my own meat, save a little money in the process. If you prefer to pay somebody to go kill a hormone addled cow for you, good on you.
Criminal. :no: Your actions (assuming they're true) are those of a problem gun owner. You shouldn't be allowed to have any if your going to use them like that.

More importantly, Lars, why haven't you bothered to attempt to consript how many cars I drive, or how many construction projects I run? According to New Hampshire's latest data, each of these high risk area killed more people than gun accidents. Oh yes, of course.... criminals don't go to construction sites. Now what you're saying makes sense....
This isn't about North americans insane car habits. Or our criminally lax safety regulations. It's about how average people don't need more than 3 firearms in their house.

Actuall this is incorrect. There are several types of rifles. For instance when I went varmit hunting (Rabbits, racoons, possums, and the occasional swamp rat) I use a .22 caliber long rifle. Now if I am hunting white tail deer I perfer another small caliber rifle say the .223 otherwise known as the 5.56mm or the 6mm rifle that I have used in the past for the smaller deer. Then when I hunt for Mule Deer or Elk I perfer the 3030, .306, or my 7mm rifle because the shot will normally be done at a greater range in open country.

Now my father when gets lucky and draws the bear or moose hunt in Montana takes his larger rifle the 7.7 mm mag rifle.

A hunter often has multiple types of rifles and shotguns depending upon what type of animal he is hunting.

So to say having five means your looking for trouble is not correct.

By the way I grew up in a house that consistent of over 20 different rifles ranging from the .22 caliber to the large bore big game rifle of my father's plus the multiple shotguns and pistols.

Not once was there ever an accidental discharge of a weapon in my family. The rule my father taught me is that every weapon is to be treated as if it is loaded. If people would treat weapons as the tools that they are versus toys their would be a lot less tradic accidents involving weapons.

Now don't get me wrong their is a point of overkill in owning weapons for personal use - but saying that owning five weapons is the magic number does not make since when many avent hunters own multiple different types of weapons for specific types of game.
You father has too many guns. More than he needs. You only need a shotgun for hunting rabbit.

Banquo's Ghost

11-04-2006, 16:58

Criminal. :no: Your actions (assuming they're true) are those of a problem gun owner. You shouldn't be allowed to have any if your going to use them like that.

I'm intrigued. How exactly should he use them? Run up behind the little bambi and club it to death with the blunt end?

:inquisitive:

Redleg

11-04-2006, 17:07

You father has too many guns. More than he needs. You only need a shotgun for hunting rabbit.

A shotgun destroys to much of the usable meat on the rabbit. Your beginning to show more opinion then fact on the matter.

Probably because you assumed that they were all his, its rather fun to be obtruse at times, but read carefully I never stated that all 20 weapons were his, only that I grew up in a household that had 20 different rifles, and all five of us hunted to include my mother who was an excellent shot.

Tsk Tsk - your bais is showing through very clearly.

So can I have 5 antique historical weapons plus 3 hunting rifles? Can I have different weapons for different categories of hunting?

The point is lars to state only a certain number of weapons should be allowed goes against what the 2nd Amendment states.

If you use a shotgun to hunt rabbit - who are you to tell me what I need to go hunting with. I have absolutely no respect for people who use weapons only to destroy animals for sport - hunting is primarily for sport, but what you kill you must harvest for the meat, or for protecting your livestock from predators. Do do otherwise is just a waste and I despise those that do so.

Lemur

11-04-2006, 17:21

To our European friends, there's something important to remember -- in the U.S.A., the government is under no obligation to protect any particular citizen at any particular time. This has been tested in our famously weird courts, and it's been upheld.

So we have a legal and cultural basis for the concept that our safety is our business, and if the government can help (in the form of police or Nat'l Guard or whatever) then great, but ultimately it's on us.

I think this is the reality everywhere, but here in the U.S. it's acknowledged in case law.

Anyway, this means that anybody who has something to lose (which is most everybody) has to take at least some thought to their personal and familial safety. For some people that means elaborate security systems; for some people that means firearms; for others it means living in a gated community (the cheesiest option by far); and for some extremists that means exercising their pacifism (the scariest option by far).

Don's position is based on the assumption that all liberals oppose gun ownership, and all gun control comes from liberals. His vision of hordes of pacifist, pot-smoking liberals laying down to be raped isn't terribly convincing, but I have no doubt he' run into some bad situations in which a gun would make a difference.

The thing is that security should be layered. By the time the blue-tattooed double-Y chromosomed shaved-headed super-predator is looming in your bedroom door, you have already screwed up, and whether or not you have a gun in your nightstand, you're starting from behind. Your security should have dissuaded him before he made it to your bedroom doorway, or at least given you warning. I can't tell you how many incidents I've read where someone scared a criminal off with a gun because they neglected the basics. ("Oh yeah, I showed my gun and he ran back through the door I'd left open all day!")

Personally, I wouldn't mind having a self-defense gun in my house, but it wouldn't be a good idea. As soon as you bring a firearm home, the odds are that it will be used on you by a child or enraged wife; much more likely than the bedroom door/predator scenario. And the Queen Lemur has a temper like a tsunami, a sort of berserker fugue that she slides into about once every two or three months. I don't want to tempt her with a gun. It's bad enough defending myself from her, given that she studied Thai Kickboxing for years.

Lemur's first layer of defense: Living in a nice neighborhood with multiple cops for neighbors.
Lemur's second layer of defense: Front door stays locked.
Lemur's third layer of defense: Three dogs.
Lemur's fourth layer of defense: Super-creaky steps to the second floor (where the bedrooms are) that I have deliberately not fixed.
Lemur's sixth layer of defense: Billy club and maglite within reach of bed.
Lemur's seventh layer of defense: Berserker wife.

I don't know that adding a shotgun to this mix would make me substantially safer. But if my wife ever gets a grip on her temper, I'll consider it.

lars573

11-04-2006, 17:35

I'm intrigued. How exactly should he use them? Run up behind the little bambi and club it to death with the blunt end?

:inquisitive:
He's talking about walking out his back garden and blasting a deer. Most placs in north america have some sort of law against hunting, or discahrging a firearm, in residential areas. We have specific areas, which can be quite large, where you are allowed to shoot game. As I'm sure you euros do too.

A shotgun destroys to much of the usable meat on the rabbit. Your beginning to show more opinion then fact on the matter.
My uncle, the only active hunter in the family. Nearly lost a the use of his hand and his life form some rookie hunter/gun user (first time hunting and shooting) with a broken hand. They were hunting rabbits with shotguns.

The point is lars to state only a certain number of weapons should be allowed goes against what the 2nd Amendment states.
I'm arguing and opinionating from within my own nations laws on the books, and constitution. A constitution that has no expressed right for me to own a gun. Canadas gun laws work so that it's almost impossible for you to get a pistol. And any rifle/shotgun you have is treated like a car. Each has a license and registration that has to be renued every few years. Essentailly you pay the government for the right to own a gun. My views on gun control are very lose compared to what has passed with full support here in the past.

Probably because you assumed that they were all his, its rather fun to be obtruse at times, but read carefully I never stated that all 20 weapons were his, only that I grew up in a household that had 20 different rifles, and all five of us hunted to include my mother who was an excellent shot.
Oh so you were being purposefully misleading, ok I can live with that. :2thumbsup:

You can have 3 useable firearms. The rest would have to be bored by a gun smith.

[QUOTE=Redleg]If you use a shotgun to hunt rabbit - who are you to tell me what I need to go hunting with. I have absolutely no respect for people who use weapons only to destroy animals for sport - hunting is primarily for sport, but what you kill you must harvest for the meat, or for protecting your livestock from predators. Do do otherwise is just a waste and I despise those that do so.
I've never shot anything besides a BB at a soup can. Have no desire to either. I also find the whole idea of psort hunting stupid and pointless. Especially if your using a gun. Unless you need that meat to feed your family you should be using a bow. It's far more sporting.

Geezer57

11-04-2006, 17:42

From NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action):

"Accidental firearm deaths are at an all-time low, among the entire U.S. population and among children in particular. In 2000, there were 776 accidental firearm-related deaths, including 86 among children. (National Center for Health Statistics)"

"Three out of four violent crimes committed in the United States each year do not in any way involve firearms. (Crime in the United States, 1999, FBI)"

"When anti-gun activists and politicians claim 11 children a day are killed with guns in America, they have to include anyone under age 20, including teen-aged "gang bangers" as children. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1998)"

"States that adopted nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws saw murders decreased by at least 8%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robberies by 3%. The murder rates of women permit-holders fell by as much as five times the drop of their male counterparts. (More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago Press, 1998)"

"'While there is a good deal of violence in schools, virtually none of it involves guns,' writes criminologist Gary Kleck, who estimates 'that under 0.1% of students are caught carrying guns in school in any one-year period.'(Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1997)"

"School violence is more than 23 times more likely to be unrelated to guns, according to a national survey of school principals. (Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics report "Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97")"

"The average American child watches 8,000 homicides and 100,000 acts of violence on television before completing sixth grade. (American Psychological Association)"

"A survey of federal prison inmates indicated that only 1.7% of those who had used firearms had obtained those firearms from a gun show. ("Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992-98," Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2000)"

"One additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women about 3-4 times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men. (More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago Press, 1998)"

"Police are under no legal obligation to provide protection for any individual. Courts have ruled the police have an obligation only to society as a whole. (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 1981)"

"The crime rate in London is now higher than the crime rate in New York. Crimes with firearms have risen dramatically since the ban on handgun ownership was passed by Parliament. ("Gun law stalks Britain`s," The Express, May 14, 2001)"

"The congressionally-mandated study of the federal "assault weapon" law found that: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders." (Urban Institute, "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994," March 13, 1997, p. 3.)"

"Crime rates and crime trends in states where "waiting periods" have been imposed have been worse than in other states. (FBI Unifrom Crime Reports)"

"Studies by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury have determined that most criminals obtain firearms through illegal and informal channels where no "waiting period" exists. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992-98," June 2000)"

"Federal law requires a background check on anyone purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed firearm dealer, at a gun show or anywhere else."

"People who carry firearms as provided for by state right-to-carry laws are statistically more law-abiding than the public as a whole."

"Right-to-carry states have lower violent crime rates, on average—24% lower total violent crime, 22% lower homicide, 37% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault—compared to other states and D.C. (FBI, 1999, most recent data.)"

"Two of every three defensive uses of firearms are carried out with handguns. Private citizens benefit from handguns for the same reason that the police do: handguns are easy to carry and they are effective defensive tools. (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)"

"People who use firearms for protection are statistically less likely to be injured in a criminal attack than people who use other means of protection or no protection at all. (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)"

"In Haynes v U.S. (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that felons do not have to register illegally possessed guns, because the Fifth Amendment protects them against self-incrimination."

"Without gun registration and gun owner licensing, the nation`s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and is now at a 27-year low. Also, deaths due to firearm accidents have been decreasing substantially without gun registration and gun owner licensing, while those due to motor vehicle accidents have not decreased, despite vehicle registration and driver licensing."

"Since 1991, the number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has increased by about 50 million, the number of right-to-carry states has increased from 15 to 37, and violent crime has decreased every year. Posted: 6/26/2003"

"Since 1968, virtually every aspect of lawful firearms commerce from manufacture to retail sales has been strictly controlled, regulated and licensed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury through its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Few products have the oversight of nearly an entire federal agency. Most states also have a corresponding “BATF” regulatory and law enforcement agency that oversees firearms and enforces state firearms laws. Firearms also fall under all laws relating to negligent manufacture. Any manufacturer who sells an inherently unsafe firearm will very quickly find itself in court. Lastly, firearms are the only product for which an American citizen needs to receive the FBI’s permission—through the NICS—before making a retail purchase. For more information see Fables, Myths & Other Tall Tales about Gun Laws, Crime and Constitutional Rights (http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.html)."

There's lots more solid info available, folks, if you want to follow up on the subject. See here: http://www.nra.org/

Kralizec

11-04-2006, 17:44

Well, it's been a couple of hours now and after re-reading my own posts I feel I do owe an apology to Don Corleone, and of course to rape victims. It was pretty tasteless and that wasn't apparent to me before, I'm pretty slow when it comes to that. Sorry.

Banquo's Ghost

11-04-2006, 17:45

He's talking about walking out his back garden and blasting a deer. Most placs in north america have some sort of law against hunting, or discahrging a firearm, in residential areas. We have specific areas, which can be quite large, where you are allowed to shoot game. As I'm sure you euros do too.

OK, I can see if you read Don's post that way, how you might make your conclusion. However, I re-read what he wrote and cannot see how that meaning can be attributed except through the lens of prejudice.

Though we differ on many things, I cannot quite bring myself to believe Don runs about his neighbourhood shooting from the hip at every furry animal that pops its head out of cover and then feasts on its still dripping corpse.

:shrug:

Redleg

11-04-2006, 17:47

My uncle, the only active hunter in the family. Nearly lost a the use of his hand and his life form some rookie hunter/gun user (first time hunting and shooting) with a broken hand. They were hunting rabbits with shotguns.

And you have very adequately demonstrated what has always been my main point in any gun control thread. Its not the weapon but the person that causes problems.

I'm arguing and opinionating from within my own nations laws on the books, and constitution. A constitution that has no expressed right for me to own a gun. Canadas gun laws work so that it's almost impossible for you to get a pistol. And any rifle/shotgun you have is treated like a car. Each has a license and registration that has to be renued every few years. Essentailly you pay the government for the right to own a gun. My views on gun control are very lose compared to what has passed with full support here in the past.

Your nation's laws are different then my nations laws. For instance all weapons have to be registered when they are purchased. Do people violate this law? Yes and they should be punished for violating the law, but that does not equate to someone dicating to me how many weapons I can own or not own.

Oh so you were being purposefully misleading, ok I can live with that. :2thumbsup:

Yep to determine the baised inherient in your arguement.

You can have 3 useable firearms. The rest would have to be bored by a gun smith.

This is wrong on so many levels. Why do you feel the need to limit the amount of property that I own?

I've never shot anything besides a BB at a soup can. Have no desire to either. I also find the whole idea of psort hunting stupid and pointless. Especially if your using a gun. Unless you need that meat to feed your family you should be using a bow. It's far more sporting.

I know hunters that use all three types of allowed hunting. Black Powder, Bow, and Rifle. Black powder hunting is actually the hardest, since bow hunting is now done primarily with compound bows that do not require as much upper body strength to draw and hold the arrow prior to release.

Try walking the hills of Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana when you hunt. Its extremely hard even with a rifle. That has been by far the most sporting of any of the hunting I have ever done. Tough Terrian, one has to stalk their prey, and even then because of the terrain many miss their shot and the animal gets to bound away with the bullet hitting the ground above or below them. Far more difficult then any bow hunt that I have ever been on. Which for the most part - especially in Texas, Oklahoma (primarily Eastern OK), Arkansas, and Lousiana where one must hunt from a blind - your not allowed to walk the terrain because its mostly scrub oaks and thick brush.

Crazed Rabbit

11-04-2006, 17:52

The basic reason for our 2nd amendment in the US is to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. As such, any effort to limit that right is tyrannical.

Anyone with no violent felonies should be able to own all the guns they want, including machine guns. There should be no laws requiring registration, which is useless in finding criminals, or safety locks (if you want one buy one), limiting where you can carry guns, or limiting gun purchases or ownership.

Limiting ownership is the same as limiting the amount of books you can own.

Why? It is our right. Free people should have no need to prove that they 'need' to exercise a right, nor should the government have any control over it.

As it happens, criminals tend to ignore all these laws, making them totally useless except for disarming the law-abiding.

As soon as you bring a firearm home, the odds are that it will be used on you by a child or enraged wife; much more likely than the bedroom door/predator scenario.

Um, maybe in your home, but not on average in the US.

CR

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-04-2006, 17:52

Jaysus, young lad, you really do like to let bombs off dontcha...

Everyone knows firearms are completely and utterly unnecessary. If somebody breaks into your house and threatens the lives and/or virtue of your children and wife, simply but politely ask them to stop. If they refuse, offer them a flower. If they still refuse, beg. If they still refuse, call the police, but ask them to come nicely. They'll write you a nice report when they arrive 3 hours henceforth. That should give you enough time to clean up your children and wife to make them presentable for the police when they arrive.

If one inisists on this foolish notion of defending one's family and property, one must be a foul villian that we must shackle immediately.

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

You must be joking....Right? :no:

So ok, Let me get this. Say,someone breaks into my house, wants to kill me,my wife and kis,for example. I'll go up to him and ask him to stop,instead of blowing his head clean off his body for threating my family? Ok,mabye I was to blunt in what I would do with him, but plain and simple.
Now if he breaks in just to Rob, I might get Push him around abit, broken arm should teach him then.

One Reason that Makes me believe is this,is the following that happen 2 houses away from me, where I live

2 houses down from me, in the Summer of 2005, This Family that lives that, were letting their Kids camp outside. Ok, so one night, the youngest one, I guess at that time 11 or 12 mabye, look outside the camp, and Saw a Man,yes a Man, standing not to far away from the tent. So they ending up running inside, and calling the cops, and the Cops Search Their Backyard,The House Next to Us,their backyard, and my backyard, and Never found the guy,that you go.
I don't even wanna think what would have happen if the kid didn't wake up and saw him when he did......

and Lemur,your post

"Excuse me, but some of us are still busy establishing that John Kerry is a bad person. Please be respectful of this."

How does this have to do with John Kerry? Explain? :no:

Prince of the Poodles

11-04-2006, 17:57

Lemur was being funny I think.... it was funny to me anyway. :yes:

Kralizec

11-04-2006, 18:00

There should be no laws requiring registration, which is useless in finding criminals,

I assume your gripe with registration is the chance that in the future a government may use it to confiscate your weapons, right?
If we put that reason aside for a moment, what else? I don't see it being "totally useless", unless the law isn't being enforced properly.
What reason would you have against it if you're planning on following the law?

Lemur

11-04-2006, 18:03

How does this have to do with John Kerry? Explain? :no:
As POP said, I was making a funny. I think it's telling of the mood of the Backroom that of all the issues in the world, it's Kerry's self-destruction that has taken up two long threads, and shows no sign of dying. They're still going at it! And they'll probably keep going at it through the weekend. It's kind of astonishing. All of the facts are now known, all the damage has been done, and they're still going at it. And to think I get accused of milking! They got a dairy farm in there!

CR, I am guilty of extremely poor writing. What I meant to express was that the likelihood of a gun being used in self defense is lower than the likelihood of it being used by a family member in an accidental discharge. You would never know it from my sloppy phrasing, but that's the idea I was going for. My bad.

Tribesman

11-04-2006, 18:04

There's lots more solid info available, folks
Yeah you can always rely on the NRA for solid bias:thumbsdown:

Three out of four violent crimes committed in the United States each year do not in any way involve firearms.
So 25% of violent crime does involve guns then .:oops:

Crimes with firearms have risen dramatically since the ban on handgun ownership was passed by Parliament.
Yep since possesion of an unlicensed gun is a crime with firearms , possesion of a relica weapon is a crime with firearms , incorrest storage of ammunition is a gun crime , having the wrong type of gun cabinet is crime with firearms .:juggle2:
Do you remember the recent Metropolitan police swoop that added over 800 gun crimes to the figures ? all for one individual arms dealer , and mainly over storage and paperwork "gun crimes"

The last place you want to look for "solid" info would be the NRA , no more than you would rely on an anti-firearm group for "solid" info .

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-04-2006, 18:05

ah ok, SOrry about that Lemur.I took it differently, my bad.

I know, but the first Kerry thread lasted how long? my Iraq Thread lasted Ages before this Stuff came along (Over 6 pages for mine)

Redleg

11-04-2006, 18:06

I assume your gripe with registration is the chance that in the future a government may use it to confiscate your weapons, right?
If we put that reason aside for a moment, what else? I don't see it being "totally useless", unless the law isn't being enforced properly.
What reason would you have against it if you're planning on following the law?

I to find the notion of registration is not inconsistent with insuring that individuals who have legally lost their right to the 2nd Amendment are not able to purchase a weapon.

The main problem with gun control in the United States is that the basic laws on the books are not being enforced. Until they are enforced, any new discussion on gun control in the United States is pointless. Laws should never be based upon previous un-enforced laws. It makes for bad legislation.

Lemur

11-04-2006, 18:19

This doesn't address the political aspect of gun ownership in the U.S. (prevention of tyranny by spreading gun ownership throughout society), but rather security in general. (Note: I don't hunt or plan to violently oppose the government, so the only reason I consider gun ownership is security. Sorry if that means I'm coming at this from an incomplete perspective.)

Anyway, Bruce Schneier is a security dude whom I deeply respect, and he has a nice, brief essay on how we behave in relation to real versus perceived threats. It's relevant to this discussion. Linky. (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_1.html)

Crazed Rabbit

11-04-2006, 18:31

I assume your gripe with registration is the chance that in the future a government may use it to confiscate your weapons, right?
You assume correctly. This has already happened in a couple US states, and AUstralia, for example.

If we put that reason aside for a moment, what else? I don't see it being "totally useless", unless the law isn't being enforced properly.
What reason would you have against it if you're planning on following the law?

Criminals won't register their guns. They won't leave their guns at a crime scene, either.

Yeah you can always rely on the NRA for solid bias

Are you disputing the accuracy of those figures? Or just attempting another logical fallacy by attacking the messenger and ignoring their argument?

So 25% of violent crime does involve guns then .

Congratulations, you can read and understand English.

Yep since possesion of an unlicensed gun is a crime with firearms , possesion of a relica weapon is a crime with firearms , incorrest storage of ammunition is a gun crime , having the wrong type of gun cabinet is crime with firearms .
Do you remember the recent Metropolitan police swoop that added over 800 gun crimes to the figures ? all for one individual arms dealer , and mainly over storage and paperwork "gun crimes"

That, and the fact that the amount of actual (ie not those you discuseed, but muggings and the like) crimes with guns have increased.

CR, I am guilty of extremely poor writing. What I meant to express was that the likelihood of a gun being used in self defense is lower than the likelihood of it being used by a family member in an accidental discharge. You would never know it from my sloppy phrasing, but that's the idea I was going for. My bad.
Um, once again I don't think that is true nationally, though variation will occur depending on how safe people are.

CR

Lemur

11-04-2006, 18:39

Um, once again I don't think that is true nationally, though variation will occur depending on how safe people are.
Interesting point. I'm going to have to do some research on the issue -- I remember the study I read about percentage odds of gun usage was almost a decade ago, and for the life of me I can't find it now. I just spent almost two whole minutes Googling, and all I could come up with were blatantly partisan studies.

I'm going to see if I can find some numbers, and I'm wide open to being wrong on this point. I take it you don't disagree with the main thrust of my post, that security should involve layers, and not just rest on gun ownership?

lars573

11-04-2006, 18:50

And you have very adequately demonstrated what has always been my main point in any gun control thread. Its not the weapon but the person that causes problems.
Proper gun use is side issue to ownership. A very important side issue, but a side issue.

Yep to determine the baised inherient in your arguement.
I'm pretty moderate for compared to some Canadians on gun control. In fact gun control is one of the few areas I disagree with most Canadian lefties.

Your nation's laws are different then my nations laws. For instance all weapons have to be registered when they are purchased. Do people violate this law? Yes and they should be punished for violating the law, but that does not equate to someone dicating to me how many weapons I can own or not own.

This is wrong on so many levels. Why do you feel the need to limit the amount of property that I own?
You have no idea. Here the government is perfectly within it's constitutional rights to limit what property a private citizen can own. When the money pit gun registration act (a billion dollars up in flames) came into effect it also put new limits on what type and bore wepaons a person could own. All gun owners were required to bring all their weapons to RCMP run registrtion fairs to have their weapons registered and inspected. If someones weapons fell outside these new regulations the mounties conficated it and destroyed it. No joke, no exageration. This happened. If you didn't go to one of the fairs you had 1 year to bring your guns for inspection. Otherwise the mounties were authorized to come and take all your guns to inpect them and fine you. Course that was mostly a scare tactic. It only happened a few times.

I know hunters that use all three types of allowed hunting. Black Powder, Bow, and Rifle. Black powder hunting is actually the hardest, since bow hunting is now done primarily with compound bows that do not require as much upper body strength to draw and hold the arrow prior to release.
Still I prefer the idea of bow hunting to firearms. The range and power they have over even a compound bow seems unfair to the game.

Try walking the hills of Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana when you hunt. Its extremely hard even with a rifle. That has been by far the most sporting of any of the hunting I have ever done. Tough Terrian, one has to stalk their prey, and even then because of the terrain many miss their shot and the animal gets to bound away with the bullet hitting the ground above or below them. Far more difficult then any bow hunt that I have ever been on. Which for the most part - especially in Texas, Oklahoma (primarily Eastern OK), Arkansas, and Lousiana where one must hunt from a blind - your not allowed to walk the terrain because its mostly scrub oaks and thick brush.
I've never been outside the forrests of the maritimes. Which is like Maine for the most part. Thick young growth fur forrests. Some swamps, with Moose in them. That's one critter I wouldn't want to hunt without a gun. Mean SOB's Moose are. Bulls especially.

OK, I can see if you read Don's post that way, how you might make your conclusion. However, I re-read what he wrote and cannot see how that meaning can be attributed except through the lens of prejudice.

Though we differ on many things, I cannot quite bring myself to believe Don runs about his neighbourhood shooting from the hip at every furry animal that pops its head out of cover and then feasts on its still dripping corpse.
He said local area. That means the county he lives in. I also have a huge problem with people shooting things with a real gun in their yard. Which he claims he does. Heck I have deer in my local area. They ate all the vegtables my grandfather planted in the back yard this summer. But it's not legal to hunt them here though. I'm also fairly sure he cooks his kills, you know a little to keep the bacteria down.

Geezer57

11-04-2006, 20:46

Yeah you can always rely on the NRA for solid bias:thumbsdown:
Actually, most of the info quoted by the NRA is from government or university studies, and doesn't originate with the NRA. Sure, they pick and choose to emphasise their point of view, but what special-interest group doesn't? The NRA is far, far, more objective than ANY of the anti-gun groups - if they didn't have a firm basis for their claims, they'd be subjected to even more hysterical ranting than what happens ordinarily. On the other hand, the anti organizations tend to make up their "facts" from thin air.

So 25% of violent crime does involve guns then .:oops:
The point is simply, since the overwhelming majority of violent crime does not involve guns, that regulating guns in an attempt to "control crime" is unproductive.

Yep since possesion of an unlicensed gun is a crime with firearms , possesion of a relica weapon is a crime with firearms , incorrest storage of ammunition is a gun crime , having the wrong type of gun cabinet is crime with firearms .:juggle2:
Do you remember the recent Metropolitan police swoop that added over 800 gun crimes to the figures ? all for one individual arms dealer , and mainly over storage and paperwork "gun crimes"
I'm sure that "paper" gun crimes are a small factor, but since the various UK gun bans have been put in effect the rate of hot home invasions (residents are present), assaults, rapes, etc. have all risen. And these are definitely not paper gun crimes. This is not something the UK politicos want broadcast, so they've been doing everything in their power to downplay these occurrences. But it's pretty clear to anyone who wants to dig into the issue that violent crime rates in most (not all) categories are now higher in the UK than in the USA. The disarming of the population, the elimination of any legal self-defense justification, etc., have all (unintentionally?) contributed to making the problem worse.

The last place you want to look for "solid" info would be the NRA , no more than you would rely on an anti-firearm group for "solid" info.
Actually, this conclusion of yours is just uninformed - have you even been to the NRA's website? There's a wealth of good information, firearms history, hunter safety, the Eddie Eagle child safety education, etc., etc.
On the other hand, I've been to most of the major anti-gun sites, looked at their "research", followed up on the claims, and found most of it to be so flawed and emotional as to be worthless.
So yes, outside of political appeals (where everybody is way too glandular), the NRA's info on this issue is much more "solid" than their counterparts on the opposite side.

Watchman

11-04-2006, 20:59

...just how often do I need to see this "guns reduce crime" junk, I wonder ? Most countries get along right fine with low crime rates despite the citizenry not being armed to the teeth for their own protection you know.

The quality of law enforcement systems might of have rather more to do with it.

Redleg

11-04-2006, 21:10

Proper gun use is side issue to ownership. A very important side issue, but a side issue.
This I disagree with - proper gun use negates the issue around ownership. If people who owned weapons treated them with the responsiblity inherient with ownership - the ownership of weapons would not be an issue. A nation that serves a good examble of this is Switzerland (SP) and a few other nations where militia weapons are assigned and stored in individual homes.

I'm pretty moderate for compared to some Canadians on gun control. In fact gun control is one of the few areas I disagree with most Canadian lefties.

However you still approach the area with a baised viewpoint about restricting ownership, which is why I was initially obtruse.

You have no idea. Here the government is perfectly within it's constitutional rights to limit what property a private citizen can own. When the money pit gun registration act (a billion dollars up in flames) came into effect it also put new limits on what type and bore wepaons a person could own. All gun owners were required to bring all their weapons to RCMP run registrtion fairs to have their weapons registered and inspected. If someones weapons fell outside these new regulations the mounties conficated it and destroyed it. No joke, no exageration. This happened. If you didn't go to one of the fairs you had 1 year to bring your guns for inspection. Otherwise the mounties were authorized to come and take all your guns to inpect them and fine you. Course that was mostly a scare tactic. It only happened a few times.

Well this gives ammunition to stroke the far right's fear's about gun registration for the United States. This is exactly the fear of many individuals concerning gun control. I don't necessarily believe that the United States will take that course of action with gun registration, but it does provide international presedence of just such a thing happening.

Still I prefer the idea of bow hunting to firearms. The range and power they have over even a compound bow seems unfair to the game.

I don't have a problem with that viewpoint at all. I don't believe hunting from a tree blind is fair to the game either. (One of the primary reasons why I do not hunt in Texas is just this. I prefer hunting in the open where I have to have some woodcraft.)

I've never been outside the forrests of the maritimes. Which is like Maine for the most part. Thick young growth fur forrests. Some swamps, with Moose in them. That's one critter I wouldn't want to hunt without a gun. Mean SOB's Moose are. Bulls especially.

Terrain often dictates what weapon is best for hunting. I wouldn't want to go hunting for moose even with a gun - happen to watch a Bull Moose win a fight with a Volkswagon bug one day. Rather humorous to watch after knowing that the driver was able to escape.

Tribesman

11-04-2006, 21:22

That, and the fact that the amount of actual (ie not those you discuseed, but muggings and the like) crimes with guns have increased.

So you mean actual crimes where guns are used to enable criminals to commit crimes rather than the technical gun crimes .
I see you use the word "fact" in your statement , now that is interesting .

You see , it is a fact that "gun crimes" in the broader sense have increased , however it is a fact that Britains largest police authority says that actual gun enabled crime has dropped .
So would you like to guess by how big a percentage gun enabled crime has dropped , or would you prefer to believe the NRA bull ?

I'm sure that "paper" gun crimes are a small factor, but since the various UK gun bans have been put in effect the rate of hot home invasions (residents are present), assaults, rapes, etc. have all risen. And these are definitely not paper gun crimes.
I take it you get your "solid" data from the NRA without checking it then :oops:
Do you notice how out of date many of those quoted snippets of "solid data" are .:stupido2:

Actually, this conclusion of yours is just uninformed - have you even been to the NRA's website?
OMG !!!!!!!! it never crossed my mind to actually read what the NRA has to say before I slagged them for misrepresentation and bias , how could I have ever been so silly :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Sometimes this is just too easy:coffeenews:

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 22:04

Shame on me. I just reread my series of posts in this thread last night. While I stand behind everything I said, I really don't care for the tone that I employed at all. I was boorish and rude.

Kralizec, I apologize. I have no excuse for my behavior. :bow:

lars573

11-05-2006, 00:10

This I disagree with - proper gun use negates the issue around ownership. If people who owned weapons treated them with the responsiblity inherient with ownership - the ownership of weapons would not be an issue. A nation that serves a good examble of this is Switzerland (SP) and a few other nations where militia weapons are assigned and stored in individual homes.
I don't see it that way.

However you still approach the area with a baised viewpoint about restricting ownership, which is why I was initially obtruse.
I believe that gun ownership for sport, however distastful I find it, isn't inherently wrong. I believe very limited gun ownership should be allowed.

Well this gives ammunition to stroke the far right's fear's about gun registration for the United States. This is exactly the fear of many individuals concerning gun control. I don't necessarily believe that the United States will take that course of action with gun registration, but it does provide international presedence of just such a thing happening.
Well that's only part 1. Part 2 is how a registry initative that the Liberals promised would curb illegal guns, and only cost 100 million. Didn't curb anything illegal, and ended up costing 1 billion dollars. It caused legal and responsible gun owners to be treated like ex cons. If you legislation ends up treating people doing the right thing like crooks then your legislation is bad, IMO.

I don't have a problem with that viewpoint at all. I don't believe hunting from a tree blind is fair to the game either. (One of the primary reasons why I do not hunt in Texas is just this. I prefer hunting in the open where I have to have some woodcraft.)
I don't know if there is limits on how you can hunt with a bow here. Other than bow season for deer starts a month before gun season.

[QUOTE=Terrain often dictates what weapon is best for hunting. I wouldn't want to go hunting for moose even with a gun - happen to watch a Bull Moose win a fight with a Volkswagon bug one day. Rather humorous to watch after knowing that the driver was able to escape.[/QUOTE]
When my dad was around 7 he went ot a family gathering in a plae called Brookside. It's where my grand dad was born. Anyway my uncle and him were playing at the river bank when they happened upon a bull Moose. They startled it and it chased them. All the way back to the family homestead. Grand-dad scared it off some how. Also my neighbour who has aboriginal status went Moose hunting in September. Bagged a bull.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-05-2006, 00:32

I don't see it that way.

I believe that gun ownership for sport, however distastful I find it, isn't inherently wrong. I believe very limited gun ownership should be allowed.

Well that's only part 1. Part 2 is how a registry initative that the Liberals promised would curb illegal guns, and only cost 100 million. Didn't curb anything illegal, and ended up costing 1 billion dollars. It caused legal and responsible gun owners to be treated like ex cons. If you legislation ends up treating people doing the right thing like crooks then your legislation is bad, IMO.

I don't know if there is limits on how you can hunt with a bow here. Other than bow season for deer starts a month before gun season.

When my dad was around 7 he went ot a family gathering in a plae called Brookside. It's where my grand dad was born. Anyway my uncle and him were playing at the river bank when they happened upon a bull Moose. They startled it and it chased them. All the way back to the family homestead. Grand-dad scared it off some how. Also my neighbour who has aboriginal status went Moose hunting in September. Bagged a bull.

made some good points there m8. Can't do major laws on Gun Owners here in the US... One meaning becauses My family is a hunting Family, and I tend to hunt this year, or Next Year at latest, and I don't want gun laws to F it up.Also, self defense. I hear on Channel 2 KDKA News about all these shootings and such, and people can say "Bans with fix the ploblem". Eh, no it work. Organized Groups of Crime will always gets Gun,if bans are in place. Also, Self Defense. I love it how I see stories on the news, of how this 80 some year old woman pull out a gun during a hold up, and chase the robber off. And it Also makes it sick how I see how a Old Couple also got Beaten down in a Home Invasion. Gun Bans should be in place eh? Proably no one cares,but what's funny is my Grandfather was a trap shooter, and he keeps a hand gun somewhere (it a sercert :) ) in case someone breaks in, and he's loaded with so many bullets and guns, my god, he could have a small Army, Honest to god.

lars573

11-05-2006, 00:50

Violent crime is going to happen whether you have weapon laws or not. I hear of home invasions and hold ups too. But they happen by people armed with knifes or a shotgun. About the easiest weapons to get hold of.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-05-2006, 00:52

Of Course, Like I said. Even if you banned Guns, ppl will still using Knifes,etc..., then when ppl start killing other people, in murders and self-defense, what you going to do then, ban knifes??

Ice

11-05-2006, 01:32

You must be joking....Right? :no:

So ok, Let me get this. Say,someone breaks into my house, wants to kill me,my wife and kis,for example. I'll go up to him and ask him to stop,instead of blowing his head clean off his body for threating my family? Ok,mabye I was to blunt in what I would do with him, but plain and simple.
Now if he breaks in just to Rob, I might get Push him around abit, broken arm should teach him then.

One Reason that Makes me believe is this,is the following that happen 2 houses away from me, where I live

2 houses down from me, in the Summer of 2005, This Family that lives that, were letting their Kids camp outside. Ok, so one night, the youngest one, I guess at that time 11 or 12 mabye, look outside the camp, and Saw a Man,yes a Man, standing not to far away from the tent. So they ending up running inside, and calling the cops, and the Cops Search Their Backyard,The House Next to Us,their backyard, and my backyard, and Never found the guy,that you go.
I don't even wanna think what would have happen if the kid didn't wake up and saw him when he did......

Warman, he was being sarcastic.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-05-2006, 05:11

Ice,I didn't take it like That,not untill I read some of the later post did I see he was being sarcastic, not a joking person.

Crazed Rabbit

11-05-2006, 23:45

I'm going to see if I can find some numbers, and I'm wide open to being wrong on this point. I take it you don't disagree with the main thrust of my post, that security should involve layers, and not just rest on gun ownership?

Certainly. The gun is a last resort; ideally you would not need it. Alarms (like dogs) and locks are great.

I recall that the antis used to moan on about how people were '43 times more likely' to use a gun against a family member or some such nonsense, based on a study by a Mr. Kellerman. This study was full of methodological errors, and Kellerman admitted as much somewhat recently.

I believe that gun ownership for sport, however distastful I find it, isn't inherently wrong. I believe very limited gun ownership should be allowed.
I'm curious, what do you find distasteful about the mechanical process of firing a gun? Is it the combustion of chemicals that irritates you? Or perhaps the propulsions of a metal projectile? Or is it the combination of factors from pulling the trigger to the bullet leaving the muzzle?

tribesy...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5195910.stm

The latest crime figures include a 10% rise in gunpoint robberies.

Violent crime overall rose 2% last year, with use of handguns in crime up 7% to 4,652 offences...serious injuries from firearms incidents were up 16%.

Of course, the BBC is biased...

CR

lars573

11-06-2006, 04:52

I'm curious, what do you find distasteful about the mechanical process of firing a gun? Is it the combustion of chemicals that irritates you? Or perhaps the propulsions of a metal projectile? Or is it the combination of factors from pulling the trigger to the bullet leaving the muzzle?
:no: Using a gun to kill animals for fun. :thumbsdown: Killing something when you don't have too is a waste. Of your time and energy, and the animals life. If your going to do that you should be stacking the deck in the animals favor.

Crazed Rabbit

11-06-2006, 05:14

Not all gun sports involve hunting, you know. In fact, in the US I think more people are involved in gun sports like target shooting competitions than hunting, or just going to a local range and shooting off some rounds.

CR

lars573

11-06-2006, 05:16

Just as bad.

Crazed Rabbit

11-06-2006, 05:31

Wait, are you saying target shooting at inanimate wooden targets is just as bad as killing animals for fun?

I suppose I must reask my original question;

I'm curious, what do you find distasteful about the mechanical process of firing a gun? Is it the combustion of chemicals that irritates you? Or perhaps the propulsions of a metal projectile? Or is it the combination of factors from pulling the trigger to the bullet leaving the muzzle?

CR

yesdachi

11-06-2006, 17:28

Gun Control? Humm, a topic I have never seen in the backroom before. ~D

I like guns and enjoy firing them. I think any issues with them are actually issues with people, and that is why I completely support licenses, registrations and proper training. I consider gun ownership a freedom we have the option to enjoy if we desire.

Major Robert Dump

11-06-2006, 23:14

My idea of gun control is:

You control your gun, I'll control mine. KThnxBye.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-07-2006, 00:28

Ser Clegane

11-07-2006, 11:38

You do not see anything wrong in sitting at a window and killing rabbits/groundhogs just for the fun of it? :inquisitive:

Banquo's Ghost

11-07-2006, 19:01

Going Hunting is not Wrong, Netheir is going Trap Shooting or anything else,my god. It is quite fun sitting at a Window, waiting for a Rabbit/Grondhog to come out so you can shoot it dead with a .22 with a scope on it, like myself..

You see, that's the kind of irresponsible behaviour that gets gun owners and hunters a bad name.

Really, what on earth do you get out of that?

Mithrandir

11-07-2006, 19:14

Blodrast

11-07-2006, 19:26

Going Hunting is not Wrong, Netheir is going Trap Shooting or anything else,my god. It is quite fun sitting at a Window, waiting for a Rabbit/Grondhog to come out so you can shoot it dead with a .22 with a scope on it, like myself..

awww man, c'mon, it's fun!
When I was a kid, like 20 something years ago, I used to tear flies' legs and/or wings, and then drown them and stuff... think about all the fun I could have had if I had had a gun, why, I could have sat at my window shooting puppies, and stray cats, and birds... fun, I tell you, fun!

Crazed Rabbit

11-07-2006, 19:56

You're 14 right ?

14 year olds are allowed to own guns and go hunting ?

I'm not quite sure on gun owning laws, though I believe kids can own guns, but can't buy them. And I don't of any age limit on hunting, though I'd imagine in most states it depends on what's being hunted, and the age minimum may be from 6-12. As it is, kids suffer the least hunting accidents of any age groups. Despite this, anti-gun and anti-hunting groups are trying to scare people with crap like 'kids have high-powered sniper rifles!'.

CR

Scurvy

11-07-2006, 20:26

Going Hunting is not Wrong, Netheir is going Trap Shooting or anything else,my god. It is quite fun sitting at a Window, waiting for a Rabbit/Grondhog to come out so you can shoot it dead with a .22 with a scope on it, like myself..

I don;t think hunting is wrong - as long as you eat watever you shoot, at least that way its not wasted :2thumbsup:

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-07-2006, 23:33

You see, that's the kind of irresponsible behaviour that gets gun owners and hunters a bad name.

Really, what on earth do you get out of that?

um no. have a nice garden every year at my grandpartents. Usally my Grandfather killed them, becauses we usally didn't put up a fence. But since he lost most of his eyesight, and since they,the animals, kept trying to get under the fence this year, and 1 did, I kill them.
That's isn't irreponsilbe, it's called being helpful. What to disagree? Then whatever.

And Mith, Yes. a 14 year old can go hunting, but have to take a Hunting class first.it is required in my state.

BDC

11-08-2006, 00:30

Iraq has very relaxed gun law enforcement. I hear it's helped the security situation there a lot...

:)

BigTex

11-08-2006, 07:23

Iraq has very relaxed gun law enforcement. I hear it's helped the security situation there a lot...

:)

And banning guns would do what? Somehow magically stop the insurgents from shooting at people? Somehow by banning the ownership of guns would prevent the unrest? Come on.

Guns do not kill people, guns do not injure people, guns don't even scare people. People kill people, people injure people, the gun is just a tool, just look at the UK. After implimenting strict gun legislation there was and is a massive jump in criminals using knifes to kill with.

There is absolutely no reason why you should need to ban guns. It wont prevent crimes it wont prevent deaths. If you wanted to help prevent accidents you'd support gun education.

It's not wether they should ban guns but. Why should they ban guns?

Kralizec

11-08-2006, 08:21

Iraq is actually illustrating one of the points cited in favour of gun ownership: it makes it nigh impossible for a foreign power to occupy the country.

BDC

11-08-2006, 11:26

And banning guns would do what? Somehow magically stop the insurgents from shooting at people? Somehow by banning the ownership of guns would prevent the unrest? Come on.

Guns do not kill people, guns do not injure people, guns don't even scare people. People kill people, people injure people, the gun is just a tool, just look at the UK. After implimenting strict gun legislation there was and is a massive jump in criminals using knifes to kill with.

There is absolutely no reason why you should need to ban guns. It wont prevent crimes it wont prevent deaths. If you wanted to help prevent accidents you'd support gun education.

It's not wether they should ban guns but. Why should they ban guns?
Well admittedly now, but assuming no one had had guns in the first place, I doubt there'd be any sort of killings on the same level. Be a lot easier to impose some sort of law and order too.

Not sure Iraq really shows any good points. Might be nigh on impossible to occupy the country, but that hasn't really helped the population at large has it?

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-08-2006, 23:15

Doesn't Matter. Imposing a Gun Law/Ban isn't going to Help Crime. When Crime rates shoot up then with knifes, what you going to do, banned steak knives then??

rory_20_uk

11-08-2006, 23:20

Iraq is actually illustrating one of the points cited in favour of gun ownership: it makes it nigh impossible for a foreign power to occupy the country.

Relax, the British aren't about to burn Washington down again...

The country was occupied. The ratio of occupiers to locals killed is immense - and the occupiers aren't supposed to be killing any of 'em!

~:smoking:

Mithrandir

11-08-2006, 23:23

Doesn't Matter. Imposing a Gun Law/Ban isn't going to Help Crime. When Crime rates shoot up then with knifes, what you going to do, banned steak knives then??

Good point.

And why ban heroïn? If alcohol addictions increase, then should alcohol also be banned ?

:rolleyes:

Don Corleone

11-08-2006, 23:31

BigTex

11-08-2006, 23:43

Good point.

And why ban heroïn? If alcohol addictions increase, then should alcohol also be banned ?

:rolleyes:

Why ban any drug? If people want to committ suicide let them.

I guess after they ban guns you could go Atl Atl hunting. No, wait the same bleeding heart liberals have banned that already. Hunting is important it keeps the deer and other animal populations in check. Without hunting the deer would overpopulate area's and cause mass famines and kill many other creatures. Inevitably bambi's got to be killed, either by the forest rangers or by the hunter. Wait wait, but without hunting were would all those finances come from for the forest rangers?:wall: Hunting is absolutely neccesary it does more envirmental work then PETA and is a wonderful past time.

Vuk

11-08-2006, 23:50

Jaysus, young lad, you really do like to let bombs off dontcha...

Everyone knows firearms are completely and utterly unnecessary. If somebody breaks into your house and threatens the lives and/or virtue of your children and wife, simply but politely ask them to stop. If they refuse, offer them a flower. If they still refuse, beg. If they still refuse, call the police, but ask them to come nicely. They'll write you a nice report when they arrive 3 hours henceforth. That should give you enough time to clean up your children and wife to make them presentable for the police when they arrive.

If one inisists on this foolish notion of defending one's family and property, one must be a foul villian that we must shackle immediately.

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

Nice one!

In Hawia women were being raped left and right, more so than in anyother state. They legalized firearms and made training programs for women who wanted to take them - in a matter of months, the rapes occuring in Hawaii dropped to half what they had been!
It isn't just women who have to be able to defend themselves though, it's guys to. People have a fundamental right to defend themselves! The founding fathers saw this when they added they bill of rights and the 2nd amendment, but because of the policy of selective incorparation (which is unconstitutional) many states do not let their citizens bear arms. The crime rate in Swisterland which requires all its citizens to own and be able to operate firearms, is the lowest in the world except militant states!!

AntiochusIII

11-09-2006, 00:12

In Hawia women were being raped left and right, more so than in anyother state. They legalized firearms and made training programs for women who wanted to take them - in a matter of months, the rapes occuring in Hawaii dropped to half what they had been!Err, source please.

It isn't just women who have to be able to defend themselves though, it's guys to. People have a fundamental right to defend themselves! The founding fathers saw this when they added they bill of rights and the 2nd amendment, but because of the policy of selective incorparation (which is unconstitutional) many states do not let their citizens bear arms. The crime rate in Swisterland which requires all its citizens to own and be able to operate firearms, is the lowest in the world except militant states!!I do not believe any of us actually have the superior decisive intelligence to interpret that pathetically vague passage of an Amendment and be sure that we're absolutely correct about it.

So the choice would be: be an arse and a partisan hack to assume you know everything about that particularly controversial Amendment and shout down everyone else, or know nothing and try to find a better ground for our arguments. The Constitution has been beaten enough -- the document wasn't written so that people can bring it up as the ultimate law when it agrees with them and silently avoids mention when it isn't so receptive.

Oh, and the Swiss is an old, old example; one that ought to be dropped already. See, I doubt they were the country with an extremely low crime rate because of the metal pieces called guns -- I think it's the social, cultural, and political aspects of that peculiar country that contribute to a safer environment...or may be it's just the weather.

Vuk

11-09-2006, 00:25

Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.

Blodrast

11-09-2006, 00:29

cut down on swearing and personal attacks and insults.
If you can't defend your argument without insulting the other one, shut up.

Vuk

11-09-2006, 00:35

Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.

AntiochusIII

11-09-2006, 00:37

If that wasn't the most pathetic, dancing-around-the-bush-lameasshat-nobrain statement I have ever heard!!!!My pleasure. :bow:

The Constitution is the basis and foundation of this land! 'SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND', need I quote it? It is revolutionary to say that it isn't (look up the word revolution on dictionary.com, and you'll see)!!
I have never 'silently avoided' the constitution in any debate (even though there are parts of it I personally disagree with); If you have a problem, amend it!It does declare itself as the ultimate legal authority of the United States -- I never disputed that. By the way, it isn't "revolutionary" to disagree; even if I don't, in any case.

That is not a vague amendment! It is clearly stated to avoid any confusion or interpretation: , 'The right to keep and bear arms'! Need it be any simpler my little leftist friend?
The right to keep and bear arms is SECURED in the constitution! The only reason people can't in some places is because of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice of 'Selective Incorparation'!Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
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.

A prime example of terrible sentence construction up there; somehow I suspect it's intentional, though.

Tell me, word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, what do they mean. Don't just summarize the whole, either. This is legalese, not basic "understanding" English.

I'll readily present alternative viewpoints and their justifications of your awaited interpretation of the phrase.

As for Switzerland, no, I think its the colour undies they wear [expletive]! (Of course the countries around them have a similar culture, enviorment, form of government, and, hey! Wear the same UNDIES!!That makes...no sense. :balloon2:

Vuk

11-09-2006, 00:45

Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.

drone

11-09-2006, 00:59

The Backroom is for (somewhat) civil debate, not name-calling. It is against forum rules, and detracts from your arguments.

Forum rules:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/faq.php
Backroom reminder:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=53372

AntiochusIII

11-09-2006, 01:02

It is revolutionary to say that we should not use the Constitution as the basis of our laws (read the full clear and present danger clause [expletive]).I'd assume that this is an indirect accusation of my own dangerously traitorous position (somehow...)

I must disappoint you with knowledge that I am no citizen of the USA...yet. Feel free to deport me, however.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State = a conditionAn intention. Note the wording: "well regulated" and "militia." The stated intention being that this is "necessary to the security of a free State." "Necessary;" "security of;" "a free State." Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia; the argument that they contribute to the security of a free state has to be quite stretched.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. = an action.Who are "the People?" Why "keep and bear arms"? What does it mean to be "infringed"?

Moreover, the first phrase does not match the second very well in a modern context. Whereas armies of old often have their own soldiers providing the equipment, especially in a less regularized force as the early American military, such is not the case to the modern military.

Does that nullify the right, or does it not?

Obviously, I am not taking sides -- merely pointing out some the countless questions that can be immediately derived to challenge one certain position of what this particularly Amendment means.

In other words, I'm urging debaters in this thread to acquire support for their positions by other means than the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Pretty simple [expletive]?Please lay off the insults. I do not believe the moderators will appreciate having to go back to edit your posts to remove the profanity. Moreover, you will get the thread closed. I still see a few debates going (or have potential to go) and do not like them to be interrupted and stopped merely because of such distractions as this.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-09-2006, 01:03

Okay, Warman, speaking as a hunter, shame on you. My grandfather, who taught me how to hunt, would skin and then cram each and every one of those squirrels and rabbits down your throat. If you were actually farming or something and protecting your crops, that'd be one thing. But killing animals shouldn't be entertainment.

Entertainment? Sarcrasm People, try taking Some Sarcrasm About Entertainment. People Bitch to me About me not taking any, and we got People like Don, who can't, amazing :no: .
Shame on me? What is wrong with protecting my grandfather's garden because he can't see worth a damn due to his Eye Ploblems to shoot them himself? But Then Again, Mabye you don't understand, which it seems you don't.

AntiochusIII

11-09-2006, 01:10

Entertainment? Sarcrasm People, try taking Some Sarcrasm About Entertainment. People Bitch to me About me not taking any, and we got People like Don, who can't, amazing :no: .
Shame on me? What is wrong with protecting my grandfather's garden because he can't see worth a damn due to his Eye Ploblems to shoot them himself? But Then Again, Mabye you don't understand, which it seems you don't.Well, if you explains your situation...

It is very easy to derive from your post that you take pleasure from merely shooting the animals. Obviously, some of us here adores Thumper and don't like the idea of the poor little guy getting shot for fun.

Of course, I'm not making judgement on you at all. Also, everyone misses sarcasm time and again. I don't think it's very nice to say "People like Don...amazing," since Don Corleone has demonstrated his ability to grasp sarcasm on many occasions...

Don Corleone

11-09-2006, 01:27

Gawain of Orkeny

11-09-2006, 02:07

An intention. Note the wording: "well regulated" and "militia." The stated intention being that this is "necessary to the security of a free State." "Necessary;" "security of;" "a free State." Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia

In those days militia meant every able bodied man. The point was with every man armed a well regulated militia could be formed very quickly.

Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia; the argument that they contribute to the security of a free state has to be quite stretched.

Hunters are some of the best militia. Their armed and well versed with their weapons. It doesnt say only the militia maybe armed anyway. In fact quite the opposite.

Who are "the People?" Why "keep and bear arms"? What does it mean to be "infringed"?

As I said every able bodied man. And do we really need to explain infringed to you?

the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

This sentence says it all. There are no qualifiers or exceptions here. Nothing about only the militia can be armed but it states plainly that the People all have the right to bear arms and no one shall infringe on that right.

Moreover, the first phrase does not match the second very well in a modern context

As Ive pointed out its not supposed to. Their saying becasue you need a well regulated militia for security it is good to have every able bodied man armed if one need be called up. Thats all it says . Its pretty plain english.

Whereas armies of old often have their own soldiers providing the equipment, especially in a less regularized force as the early American military, such is not the case to the modern military.

The Militia is not the US army. Its a citizen army. In fact it might be callled upon to fight the US Army.

Strike For The South

11-09-2006, 02:58

I live in Texas (you may not know it for I am rather humble) Guns are a part of our culture like alchool or fast food. Banning them would kill us a little inside. Oh and and taking away 25 million guns from 10 million pissed off hillbillys that could be a slight logistical problem

AntiochusIII

11-09-2006, 07:39

In those days militia meant every able bodied man. The point was with every man armed a well regulated militia could be formed very quickly.Which I knew. And agreed. The Revolutionary War was fought by militias, obviously.

The Second Amendment had a relatively clear historical use. Modern practical usage, however...

Is in dispute.

Hunters are some of the best militia. Their armed and well versed with their weapons. It doesnt say only the militia maybe armed anyway. In fact quite the opposite.Were. Unless they are trained in modern military training they will not create an effective fighting force.

Of course, they might contribute to a very hard-to-put-down insurgency. ~;)

There are a lot of interpretations, sir. What I subscribe to does not matter -- since my whole point revolves around the issue that there are so many interpretations, many of which equally valid, that just to dismiss them all and cherry-pick the one you happens to agree on is intellectually dishonest.

Just to mention it, I'm not a bleeding heart all-guns-must-be-taken-away kind of person. I just believe regulations are not inherently bad. Else we'll be eating rat meat and human fingers for sausage like we did a century ago.

As I said every able bodied man. And do we really need to explain infringed to you?So you said.

What does that terribly confusing original text say?

As Ive pointed out its not supposed to. Their saying becasue you need a well regulated militia for security it is good to have every able bodied man armed if one need be called up. Thats all it says . Its pretty plain english.Not the way the Constitution is often interpreted in this country. Debates often revolves around implications that can be derived from seemingly simple words -- and things had changed from changing interpretations.

The Militia is not the US army. Its a citizen army. In fact it might be callled upon to fight the US Army.Do hunters stand a chance against Abrams?

Moreover, it's widely accepted that the modern "Militia" is the National Guard, which in all practicality is now used quite frequently by the Federal Government as a reserve force.

BigTex

11-09-2006, 09:56

Of course, they might contribute to a very hard-to-put-down insurgency.

That is pretty much the premise of the 2nd ammendment. To make the USA near unconqurable. Also the Revolutionary war was only held together by the militia. The militia like zeal of the regular army is what won it.

Moreover, it's widely accepted that the modern "Militia" is the National Guard, which in all practicality is now used quite frequently by the Federal Government as a reserve force.

The National Guard is indeed a militia. The federal government can only hold a army the state's have a militia. Militia's have always been used to bolster the ranks of an army. The term militia is by no means a word that refers to peasant troops either, even the spartans only had militia's.

Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia; the argument that they contribute to the security of a free state has to be quite stretched.

Quite wrong there. Hunter's have almost exclusively built the US army's sniper and advanced marksmanship military tradition. The US army has almost always excelled in accuracy with rifles when compared to their enemies. That has alot to do with alot of the populace being familiar and understanding how to fire and aim a weapon. The 2nd ammendment will always be important in any modern perspective.

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.

Is a pretty simple read. Like most of the ammendments in the bill of rights alot of it needs to be seperated by a good o'l ;.

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.

Easier to understand?

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

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

My two favorite amendments in the bill of rights. There's no reason why we need to ban guns. Sure criminals use them but they use any weapon available to them at the time. Again the gun doesnt kill people, the gun is an inanimate object, it has no soul, no conscious, no thought process, it can't even pull its own trigger. People kill People, objects are just used to speed this process.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-09-2006, 14:42

That's not how your post came out Warman. If you're actually varmit hunting to protect a vegetable garden, that's a different matter. But said you sat at the window picking off animals, just for grins and giggles.

You're right that I missed your joke. Sorry, I guess I just missed the funny part. ~:confused:

my bad, I should have talked about my Grandfather in that post,but didn't,my fault.

Owning a Gun/Guns isn't Wrong. They are use TO Hunt, Taget Pratice and Sel-Defense. All of them are done each year.

Redleg

11-09-2006, 15:22

Which I knew. And agreed. The Revolutionary War was fought by militias, obviously.

The Second Amendment had a relatively clear historical use. Modern practical usage, however...

Is in dispute.

If the 2nd Amendment is in dispute, in order to bring about gun control legislation Congress first must go through the amendment process to the United States Constitution. You can not argue for gun control saying that the United States Constitution is unclear. The second part of the sentence states very clearly what the amendment means. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Were. Unless they are trained in modern military training they will not create an effective fighting force

Of course, they might contribute to a very hard-to-put-down insurgency. ~;)

There are a lot of interpretations, sir. What I subscribe to does not matter -- since my whole point revolves around the issue that there are so many interpretations, many of which equally valid, that just to dismiss them all and cherry-pick the one you happens to agree on is intellectually dishonest.

If the arguement does not call for an amendment to the consitution concerning the current wording of the 2nd amendment then the arguement is intellectually dishonest by itself. One can wish away the 1st or the 2nd half sentence of the 2nd Amendment. One calls for the establishment of a militia, the other states clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Just to mention it, I'm not a bleeding heart all-guns-must-be-taken-away kind of person. I just believe regulations are not inherently bad. Else we'll be eating rat meat and human fingers for sausage like we did a century ago.
So you said.

Gun control regulation does not equate to OSHA and FDA regulations. Regulations that are created by the government for the general welfare of the people is an approiate action by the government. When the constitutional states something - its not a matter of regulation to restrict the wording of the consitution, but an amendment process that must happen. However gun control - the selling of weapons can be regulated to insure the safety of the people. However the state does not have the right to deny ownership of weapons in the United States. (There are a couple of exceptions, the courts through the legal process can restrict one's rights for cause, and the government has successfully argued that certain types of weapons fall outside of the orginial intent of the constitution.) But not one arguement has been successful in arguing against what the 2nd Amendment means - that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What does that terribly confusing original text say?

It states two things - A well regulated militia is important to maintain a free and secure state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The meaning of the words is quite clear - maintain and regulate a militia - and the people shall have the right to arm themselves. What the state has been successfully in arguing is that the orginal intent of the founding fathers was geared toward personal arms - not crew served weapons. Gun control in the form of registration and background checks to determine the legal right to own weapons still exists - fall within the scope of the founding father's orginial intent in my opinion. Attempts to disarm the people does not fall within the scope of the founding father's intent. The desire to disarm the people of arms requires a consitutional amendment, to do otherwise violates the constitution.

Or are you attempting to be intellectually dishonest in this discussion?

Not the way the Constitution is often interpreted in this country. Debates often revolves around implications that can be derived from seemingly simple words -- and things had changed from changing interpretations.

And so far no interpation can get around the second half sentence in the 2nd Amendment.

Do hunters stand a chance against Abrams?

Yes - if they are smart and snipe against the crew of the tank...

Moreover, it's widely accepted that the modern "Militia" is the National Guard, which in all practicality is now used quite frequently by the Federal Government as a reserve force.
Which is one of the missions of the guard. It was also the main intent of the founding fathers since not all believed in the necessity of a standing federal army.

Then you might want to look into the militias that are currently around in the states. There are a several of them. Missouri has a big one that is not the National Guard.

scooter_the_shooter

11-09-2006, 19:39

I won't get into this that much because people in general don't have a clue what they are talking about on both sides when it comes to gun control. I haven't even read most of the thread (so this may have been mentioned).

But I figured I'd help my side once. Many anti gunners say that guns can only go to the militia according to the 2nd amendment but what they dont realize is.....they are in the militia.

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

Crazed Rabbit

11-09-2006, 20:02

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.

Confused about the meaning? Consider the Senate Report on the Issue from 1982:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)

"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
...
The history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity.

So there you have it.

If the 2nd Amendment is in dispute, in order to bring about gun control legislation Congress first must go through the amendment process to the United States Constitution. You can not argue for gun control saying that the United States Constitution is unclear. The second part of the sentence states very clearly what the amendment means. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Quoted for truth. You cannot bypass the constituion by claiming a section is in dispute, as though that means you can completely ignore it.

As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.

CR

Tribesman

11-09-2006, 21:19

As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.

Thats strange , since the link Ceasar provides gives this.......

Related FindLaw Resources
Findlaw Resources
Visit the Litigation Practice Center
Sign up for a FindLaw Newsletter

Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution > Second Amendment

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | Annotations
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.

Annotations
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

If there is no definative resolution then it is disputed isn't it , so how the hell can there be no dispute ?

BTW Rabbit , to your earlier "Tribsey" post , you should know by now , read what is written , read exactly what is written:book:

Crazed Rabbit

11-09-2006, 21:56

A few things, tribesy:
I said 'basically no dispute'. Of course, we can't rely on you not to make a strawman with every post.

I also said by serious scholars, not long dead supreme court justices who didn't know what they were talking about when they decreed that a 17 1/2 inch shotgun had no use in war, and thus upheld a law as not infringing on militia arms that also, blatantly obvious even to idiots such as themselves, affected weapons of wars, like the BAR machinegun.

Put a little effort into reading my link:

Within our own century, the only occasion upon which the Second Amendment has reached the Supreme Court came in United States v. Miller.[63] There, a prosecution for carrying a sawed off shotgun was dismissed before trial on Second Amendment grounds. In doing so, the court took no evidence as to the nature of the firearm or indeed any other factual matter. The Supreme Court reversed on procedural grounds, holding that the trial court could not take judicial notice of the relationship between a firearm and the Second Amendment, but must receive some manner of evidence. It did not formulate a test nor state precisely what relationship might be required. The court's statement that the amendment was adopted "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces" and "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view", when combined with the court's statement that all constitutional sources "show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.... these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,"[64] suggests that at the very least private ownership by a person capable of self defense and using an ordinary privately owned firearm must be protected by the Second Amendment. What the Court did not do in Miller is even more striking: It did not suggest that the lower court take evidence on whether Miller belonged to the National Guard or a similar group. The hearing was to be on the nature of the (p.11)firearm, not on the nature of its use; nor is there a single suggestion that National Guard status is relevant to the case.
Even what you posted goes against the nanny-stater interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

That is all.

CR

Tribesman

11-09-2006, 22:52

I said 'basically no dispute'. Of course, we can't rely on you not to make a strawman with every post.

Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .

Even what you posted goes against the nanny-stater interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .

also said by serious scholars, not long dead supreme court justices who didn't know what they were talking about when they decreed that a 17 1/2 inch shotgun had no use in war, and thus upheld a law as not infringing on militia arms that also, blatantly obvious even to idiots such as themselves, affected weapons of wars, like the BAR machinegun.

Now that is just too funny , I wonder what the long dead people who wrote the constitutionand its amendments knew about a BAR ?
Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with . I suppose they hadn't studied law either .
Obviously they are just blatant idiots who have never been serious scholars:dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

11-09-2006, 23:29

Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .

If I had a dollar for every time you used a strawman, I'd be filthy rich.

Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .

Ah, the classic tribesy hang-up on a single word. "Help! This one word confuses me because I'm unable to comprehend English!" :laugh4: :laugh4:
Also, your post doesn't support some other interpretation- it supports the interpretation that the second amendment is an individual right, which agrees with what I said.

Do you have any evidence of a wide dispute about the second amendment amoung constitutional scholars?

As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.

Try to understand; amoung scholars studying the constitution, there is broad consensus that the second amendment amounts to an individual right. Do you disagree with the idea of a second amendment as an individual right? Think a bit before answering; I'm not asking for your opinion on other's views of it, but what you think. That is, I'm trying to get you to actually debate the idea, and not pollute the thread with pathetic complaints of semantics.

Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with .

You're ignoring the substance, and messing up the frivolities. Re-read the ruling you posted and what I posted and try and think a bit about how they screwed the ruling up. Also, did I argue there was no dispute amoung scholars of the 1930s?

CR

Tribesman

11-09-2006, 23:57

If I had a dollar for every time you used a strawman, I'd be filthy rich.

No straw man there Rabbit , you set up a position that doesn't have any legs .

Do you have any evidence of a wide dispute about the second amendment amoung constitutional scholars?
Yes , you posted it

Try to understand; amoung scholars studying the constitution, there is broad consensus that the second amendment amounts to an individual right.
A broad consensus , that doesn't mean no dispute does it , plus it had to be disputed for them to even consider trying to reach an agreement on what it meant .

"Help! This one word confuses me because I'm unable to comprehend English!"
So what English do you not understand Rabbit ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I'm trying to get you to actually debate the idea, and not pollute the thread with pathetic complaints of semantics.

Then think about what you write Rabbit , since you wish to focus on the precise meaning of the wording of the badly worded amendment then you should be able to understand the importance for clear word usage .

Do you disagree with the idea of a second amendment as an individual right? Think a bit before answering; I'm not asking for your opinion on other's views of it, but what you think.
My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .
Which is why some people are so fond of it .

BigTex

11-10-2006, 00:55

Now that is just too funny , I wonder what the long dead people who wrote the constitutionand its amendments knew about a BAR ?

Nope they probably couldn't have dreamed of this weapon when they wrote it. But you can be assured that they would have wanted people to be able to have it. The 2nd amendment is there not just to allow one to carry a firearm or to allow a militia, but to ensure the government always has a healthy fear of its people. And there's nothing like a full automatic heavy saw to do that.

My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .

Every amendment lacks wording. Their blunt and to the point they don't dance around what they mean nor do they include creative language to explain what they mean. Their not like the EU's constitution, they are only a few pages long. That amendment doesnt even once contradict itself, and neither is it worthless. It is one of the cornerstones of a good democracy that the government fears its people, and not the other way around.

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.

scooter_the_shooter

11-10-2006, 00:59

Oh cut it out tribes and give him a real answer. It seems like every time someone tries to debate you, you ignore their main points and go for ones that aren't even made or are insignificant.

Do you think the 2nd amendment is an individual right or not? Yes or no?

Tribesman

11-10-2006, 01:26

Do you think the 2nd amendment is an individual right or not? Yes or no?
No , simple as that .
It's all in the wording .

That amendment doesnt even once contradict itself, and neither is it worthless. It is one of the cornerstones of a good democracy that the government fears its people, and not the other way around.

Well you quoted it so you must have read it , but for you to say that definately implies that you havn't read it Tex .
If it was blunt and to the point then you wouldn't have had people debating what the hell it actually means since it was written would you .:oops:

Xiahou

11-10-2006, 01:41

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofPeople regularly debate the meaning of the above phrase- yet it is worded quite clearly.

Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic. :no:

scooter_the_shooter

11-10-2006, 01:47

If it was blunt and to the point then you wouldn't have had people debating what the hell it actually means since it was written would you .:oops:

Not necessarily...most anti gun organizations don't care what the 2nd amendment says, they just want to get rid of guns. And trying to wiggle a different meaning out of the 2nd amendment is one way for them to achieve their goals.

You could say that they care about the amendment sense they go through all the trouble of trying to change the meaning.

But they really don't they are not trying to uphold the constitution they are just trying to get rid of the guns. (it's just a tactic, it could say that "every single american citizen may have any type of firearm" and they would still try to ban them.)

I am not trying to be insulting but I have never seen organizations make as many our right lies as the anti gun organizations.

BigTex

11-10-2006, 01:49

Well you quoted it so you must have read it , but for you to say that definately implies that you havn't read it Tex .
If it was blunt and to the point then you wouldn't have had people debating what the hell it actually means since it was written would you .

People will debate the meaning of anything. The amendment is about as clear as you can get. Saying someone debates the meaning doesnt distract from the fact that it is clear and blunt. The supreme court not once has said it means anything different.

Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic.

Quoted for the truth.

The fact that your saying the 2nd amendment contradicts itself though does imply you havent read it. Please feel free to point out anywere in that amendment were it contradicts your right to bear arms or the states right to form a militia.

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.

Also very simple sentence construction. The 2 subjects, your right to privately own firearms and the states right to protect itself with a militia, will not be infringed upon.

Tribesman

11-10-2006, 01:56

Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic.
So can you explain Tex's assertion , he thinks that the amendment is to make the government fear the people , a cornerstone of his theory of democracy is the threat of armed rebellion against the government .
Now if the government was in fear of an insurrection by armed people , what provision does the constitution contain to deal with exactly that issue ?:yes:
Some people wish to take one tiny element of a small portion of a document and claim implicitly that it has only one meaning , ignoring that it must be taken together with all provisions relating to it in the document .

Tribesman

11-10-2006, 02:03

Too slow posting .....
Also very simple sentence construction. The 2 subjects, your right to privately own firearms and the states right to protect itself with a militia, will not be infringed upon.
and you cannot see the contradiction :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Don Corleone

11-10-2006, 02:30

Guys, why are you even bothering to try? I like Tribesman. He's a witty fellow. He's basically decent, doesn't believe in boiling babies for lye or anything of that sort. But in the 2 1/2 years I've been on this board, he's never, not once, even hinted that he's learned a single wit from somebody that he's disagreed with. :no:

He's an idealogue of the highest order. Nice guy, sure, but you're arguing with a brick wall. He is always right in his mind, because he has to be. He has all the answers, he only shows up here to post to inform us all of his brilliance. Doesn't matter whether he's ever been to a country, he knows what laws they need and he can tell you the perfect policy.

This might sound like a personal attack, but it's not meant as one. I just tire of the charade. It's not a dialogue when one party enters from the premise "allow me to show you why you are always wrong".

Crazed Rabbit

11-10-2006, 02:32

Yes , you posted it

Where? Remember, the brady handgun control group aren't scholars. Also remember that 1982 is not the present.

A broad consensus , that doesn't mean no dispute does it , plus it had to be disputed for them to even consider trying to reach an agreement on what it meant .
I didn't say no dispute, did I? :rolleyes: So basically you're going in some weird argument against yourself.

My opinion , it is a badly written amendment , lacking in substance and detail , contradictory and pretty worthless really .
Which is why some people are so fond of it .

Your opinion, as shown in the study I posted, happens to be wrong. :yes: :smash:

*Tim Robbins voice* Are you being...obtuse? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

So anyways, what are people's thoughts on carrying a handgun, after completing a safety class and being approved by the sheriff, in a city?

Yea- people should be able to defend themselves?
or Nay - It'll lead to violent shootouts between crazies!

CR

Tribesman

11-10-2006, 03:03

I didn't say no dispute, did I
No you said "basically" which is even worse , since that covers the core issues of the subject , which is exactly what is disputed . Nice language English isn't it , you should try it some time .
Tell you what Rabbit , read some back issues of gun nut weekly and find out how many dispute the meaning and interpretation of the second , you yourself have previously disputed its interpretation here , as has Ceasar , so don't come out with bull about it not being disputed .

So anyways, what are people's thoughts on carrying a handgun, after completing a safety class and being approved by the sheriff, in a city?

Nooooooooo that is an infringement of the peoples rights under the second amendment .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Your opinion, as shown in the study I posted, happens to be wrong.
Really , so you maintain that it is not badly written , is not contradictory , does not lack substance and detail , and is not pretty worthless .:dizzy2:
Would you like to read it again .....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.
Then perhaps you can contradict yourself by asking about permission for handgun permits and safety classes:oops:
Then you can explain to Tex why he cannot have a fully automatic heavy SAW to keep his government in order .
Then you can explore the stipulations in the constitution about the well regulated militia:yes:

He's basically decent, doesn't believe in boiling babies for lye or anything of that sort.
Too right Don , the yield is too low, boil adults instead :yes:

[QUOTE][But in the 2 1/2 years I've been on this board, he's never, not once, even hinted that he's learned a single wit from somebody that he's disagreed with./QUOTE]
It happens Don , you must just have missed those occasions .

Xiahou

11-10-2006, 04:07

So anyways, what are people's thoughts on carrying a handgun, after completing a safety class and being approved by the sheriff, in a city?

Yea- people should be able to defend themselves?
or Nay - It'll lead to violent shootouts between crazies!

CRIn PA, there's no laws forbidding open carry of handguns anywhere except in the city of Philadelphia- permit or no. A permit allows you to carry concealed almost anywhere (court rooms, post offices, ect are prohibited). And, the only requirement to get a permit is being able to fill out an application properly and pass an instant background check. I got mine in less than 30minutes- great stuff.

Redleg

11-10-2006, 04:28

Then you can explain to Tex why he cannot have a fully automatic heavy SAW to keep his government in order .

Probably because the fully automatic heavy SAW does not exist. The SAW stands for Squad Automatic Weapon which fires a 5.56mm, and is also classifed as a Light Machine Gun.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m249.htm

The Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) is an air-cooled, belt-fed, gas-operated automatic weapon that fires from the open-bolt position. It has a regulator for selecting either normal (750 rounds per minute [rpm)) or maximum (1,000 rpm) rate of fire. The maximum rate of fire is authorized only if the weapon's firing rate slows under adverse conditions. Although the M249 AR is primarily used as an automatic rifle, it is also used as a light machine gun. It can be fired from the shoulder, hip, or underarm position; or from the bipod-steadied position. When employed as a machine gun, it has a tripod with a T&E mechanism and a spare barrel; however, barrels must not be interchanged with those from other M249s unless the headspace has been set for that weapon by direct support personnel.

But you are most likely attempting to refer to the Federal law that bans automatic weapons manufactured after 1968 from being purchased in the United States. One can however buy and own a BAR if one is willing to pay the $200 dollar transfer of license fee.

scooter_the_shooter

11-10-2006, 06:10

scooter_the_shooter

11-10-2006, 06:14

Probably because the fully automatic heavy SAW does not exist. The SAW stands for Squad Automatic Weapon which fires a 5.56mm, and is also classifed as a Light Machine Gun.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m249.htm

But you are most likely attempting to refer to the Federal law that bans automatic weapons manufactured after 1968 from being purchased in the United States. One can however buy and own a BAR if one is willing to pay the $200 dollar transfer of license fee.

That ban happened in 1986. The gun control act of 1968 was different.

Aenlic

11-10-2006, 07:00

Crazed Rabbit

11-10-2006, 07:12

No you said "basically" which is even worse , since that covers the core issues of the subject , which is exactly what is disputed . Nice language English isn't it , you should try it some time .
Tell you what Rabbit , read some back issues of gun nut weekly and find out how many dispute the meaning and interpretation of the second , you yourself have previously disputed its interpretation here , as has Ceasar , so don't come out with bull about it not being disputed .
I really do wish I'd get a buck for every strawman of yours. Try reading what I said, and pay attention to the part about serious scholar (and what the actual subject it) you know, as in not Handgun Control Inc or Rosie O Donnell. You crack me up, tribesy. I'm talking about constitutional scholars, not the average soccer mom, and you know it (I hope, at least, though perhaps reading 'scholars' doesn't impart the idea of scholars to you brain). Simple enough? :smash: I think you'll help yourself get a leg up in life if you can understand the difference between:
"There is no dispute by anyone on this subject" - Which is what you are arguing against, in classic strawman fashion, and
"There is basically no dispute by serious scholars".

Really , so you maintain that it is not badly written , is not contradictory , does not lack substance and detail , and is not pretty worthless .:dizzy2:
Would you like to read it again .....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.
Then perhaps you can contradict yourself by asking about permission for handgun permits and safety classes:oops:
Then you can explain to Tex why he cannot have a fully automatic heavy SAW to keep his government in order .
Then you can explore the stipulations in the constitution about the well regulated militia

Its very clear, for those not being purposely obtuse about it. :yes: Once again, try gaining a bit of knowledge and read the link I posted:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

I don't like the idea. It infringes on your rights.
I agree, but it is better than nothing. Ideally, more states would move to Vermont style laws, but that won't happen in one big jump.

CR

Redleg

11-10-2006, 07:15

That ban happened in 1986. The gun control act of 1968 was different.

You might want to read again. Several sources cite both the 1934 "Machine Gun" act and the 1968 legislation together. The 1986 ban I believe was to place even more restrictions that were ommitted from the previous legislation.

Here is one examble of how some are reading the act, note that the class 3 SOT is mentioned which as far as I understand is the only legal way to own a machine gun - hince the comment about the $200 license fee.

There are two kinds of firearms under federal law, title 1 firearms and title 2. Title 1 firearms are long guns (rifles and shotguns), handguns, silencers, and firearm frames or receivers. Most NFA weapons are also title 1 firearms. Title 2 weapons are NFA weapons. Title 2 of the 1968 Gun Control Act is the National Firearms Act (codified at 26 U.S.C. sec. 5801 et seq.), hence NFA. Title 1 is generally referred to as the Gun Control Act of 1968, (18 U.S.C. sec. 921 et seq.). NFA weapons are also sometimes called class 3 weapons, because a class 3 SOT (special occupational taxpayer) is needed to deal in NFA weapons.

NFA weapons include categories such as machine guns, sound suppressors, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, destructive devices and items classified as "any other weapons". NFA weapons do not include the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which have been since at least 1994 misclassified by many in Congress, government agencies, and the media as “assault weapons.”

Under the provisions of Federal law, anyone over the age of 21 who is not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase and own National Firearms Act weapons which include machine guns, sound suppressors (i.e., silencers), short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, an other unusual types of weapons commonly classified as an "Any Other Weapon", and destructive devices. Tennessee law does not regulate, prohibit possession of or prohibit the purchase of NFA weapons. The applicable code section is Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1302(b)(7) which provides in relevant part:

Redleg

11-10-2006, 07:17

Banquo's Ghost

11-10-2006, 08:07

Aenlic

11-10-2006, 08:23

Nice to see you too. Glad to see Redleg is still here too. I've just been terribly busy for the last few months (ok, I've been playing World of Warcraft out of sheer boredom and nothing much was happening here until M:TW2 came out; but "terribly busy" sounds more important). Now that M:TW2 is near release, I came back around to see how things were going. :wink:

Tribesman

11-10-2006, 08:47

Probably because the fully automatic heavy SAW does not exist.
Perhaps you had better tell Tex Redleg , since he mentioned it .~;)

I think you'll help yourself get a leg up in life if you can understand the difference between:
"There is no dispute by anyone on this subject" - Which is what you are arguing against, in classic strawman fashion, and
"There is basically no dispute by serious scholars".

oh dear Rabbit , and you talk about strawmen :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: is English not your strong suit ?

The core issue that is disputed (thats basically if you cannot understand) by serious constitutional scholars is the meaning and implementation of the second . It is disputed and has been for a loooooooong time because it is (a)badly worded , (b) not implemented .

Aelenic writes .....The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation.
Yep so it is badly worded . Since you have regulations infringing upon it at a federal , state and local level , and have had since the beginning .
That bad wording , lack of substance and detail makes it contradictory and pretty worthless .

Nice link BTW rabbit , lots of nice dispute going on there , are those serious scholars , have you shot yourself in the foot ?:yes:

Redleg

11-10-2006, 16:10

Aelenic writes .....The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation.
Yep so it is badly worded . Since you have regulations infringing upon it at a federal , state and local level , and have had since the beginning .
That bad wording , lack of substance and detail makes it contradictory and pretty worthless .

You are incorrect in that approach. The amendment has stood the test of time, just as the constitution has.

Adjustments have been made based upon the wording of the 2nd Amendment. For instance the registration of weapons have been found to be consistent with the first part of the amendment and not in violation of the 2nd part of the sentence structure. The government has rightly determined that certain types of weapons are for military purposes and the citizens do not have the right to own them, as one can argue successful given the first part of the amendment.

I don't take issue with criticizing the amendment but to call it worthless is a contradiction to the testimony of time.

scooter_the_shooter

11-10-2006, 17:05

You might want to read again. Several sources cite both the 1934 "Machine Gun" act and the 1968 legislation together. The 1986 ban I believe was to place even more restrictions that were ommitted from the previous legislation.

Here is one examble of how some are reading the act, note that the class 3 SOT is mentioned which as far as I understand is the only legal way to own a machine gun - hince the comment about the $200 license fee.

Huh?

1968 seemed to be more about sale and transportation of firearms then full autos. (it mentions them only twice that I saw and doesnt seem to place new regs.)

86 banned the import and manufacture of them after that date.(I'm surprised reagan let that through:thumbsdown: ).

And anyway I'm done with the thread. Cause tribes is a brick wall. There is not discussion with him he just makes smartass post till' you get sick of it and leave.

Haudegen

11-10-2006, 18:21

The government has rightly determined that certain types of weapons are for military purposes and the citizens do not have the right to own them, as one can argue successful given the first part of the amendment.

I totally agree that military weapons don´t belong in the hands of civilians. But how does that regulation you mention fit with the first half of the 2nd amendment? If the reason for an armed population is to have a militia, why deny them the weapons that a militia would need most (bazookas, machineguns)?

I think this shows that the militia idea is somehow outdated.

Redleg

11-10-2006, 18:41

I totally agree that military weapons don´t belong in the hands of civilians. But how does that regulation you mention fit with the first half of the 2nd amendment? If the reason for an armed population is to have a militia, why deny them the weapons that a militia would need most (bazookas, machineguns)?

I think this shows that the militia idea is somehow outdated.

The first half of the 2nd Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." It means that the government has the ability to define what weapons are crew served and which are individual weapons. It means that the government can make definitions about how arms are classified. It means that the government gets to define how militia's are organized and maned. Militia's by definition come with what weapons they as individuals can carry and provide ammunition for.

Now note the second half of the amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.." This is where both sides get themselves stuck. They attempt to define the amendment as two seperate sentences.

A well regulated militia allows for the government to make decisions about how militias are to be organized and equiped, in doing so under the orginial concept of a militia the people were suppose to come armed with their personal weapons. Hince because the founding fathers believed in militia's over a standing army - the people will always have a right to personal arms to defend themselves and their nation.

Is the militia concept outdated - maybe. But to change the wording of the amendment takes the constitutional process - not simple regulation and legislation. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is such so that the government can not remove personal weapons from the citizens of the nation. It does not mean that the government can not define weapons into different catergories and then regulate ownership. For instance one can buy machine guns made prior to 1968 if they purchase the license class to own one.

Ronin

11-10-2006, 18:46

The 2nd Amendment is clear. "Shall not be infringed" isn't open to interpretation. Unless and until (hopefully not ever) that Amendment is changed by a new Amendment, there is no way around the language.

I don't own a gun and I'm also so far left of what most people consider "left" that I'm nearly all the way right again. I'm a socialist and a libertarian - an anarchist in a cheap and far too easy one word designation. And yet, my position on individual liberties compels me to support the 2nd Amendment.

You don't violate individual rights for any reason, not even if you think it'll make you safer. Oddly, many of the same people who argue vehemently for individual liberties like the 2nd Amendment don't seem intelligent enough to apply that same logic when it comes to things like The Patriot Act and the 2007 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122). You don't trample on individual liberties just because it seems to make one safer. Bad idea.

Luckily, there are still a few real conservatives out there, like former congressman Dick Armey, who feel as I do, even though I'm about as unconservative as they come. I may disagree with people like Armey on almost everything else; but I have to applaud those who have the cahones to apply their principles to all of their positions, not just when convenient.

I always find it interesting...when I see this debate from the outside not being american myself...that people always seem to like to quote one part of the second amendment of the US constitution and forget about the other part.

this is just my read on the text....not trying to stir anything up here:

the part that is always quoted goes like "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"...which could be taken to mean that you have the right as an american citizen to have any weapons you want...

but why do people always leave out this part? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

notice the words "militia" and "well regulated".....call me silly....but isn´t the modern "well regulated militia" the US army and other armed forces?

so the second amendment (when you read all of it, and not just the "quotable" part) seems to mean that the right to bear arms is necessary, so that a well regulated militia can be formed and maintained for the security of the state......-> meaning you need guns for the army....how you get from that to "any civilian has the right to carry a gun" is a jump of logic I haven´t been able to achieve yet.....:smash: i´ll try to keep working on it....

Gawain of Orkeny

11-10-2006, 18:56

so the second amendment (when you read all of it, and not just the "quotable" part) seems to mean that the right to bear arms is necessary, so that a well regulated militia can be formed and maintained for the security of the state......-> meaning you need guns for the army....how you get from that to "any civilian has the right to carry a gun" is a jump of logic I haven´t been able to achieve yet..... i´ll try to keep working on it....

You just answered you own question. You just said that in order to form a well regulated militia you need guns. We have already ponited out that the militia is not the army so the part about 'meaning you need guns for the army' doesnt apply. The militia needs to be armed. That once more means every able bodied man so that when called up they can fight at a moments notice. If they only wanted the army armed they would have said that.

Redleg

11-10-2006, 19:01

so the second amendment (when you read all of it, and not just the "quotable" part) seems to mean that the right to bear arms is necessary, so that a well regulated militia can be formed and maintained for the security of the state......-> meaning you need guns for the army....how you get from that to "any civilian has the right to carry a gun" is a jump of logic I haven´t been able to achieve yet.....:smash: i´ll try to keep working on it....

It could because your leaving out an important part in your reading of the
2nd Amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The amendment clearly states that the right of the people. Avoiding those words is the error you have committed in your reasoning.

Ronin

11-10-2006, 19:05

You just answered you own question. You just said that in order to form a well regulated militia you need guns. We have already ponited out that the militia is not the army so the part about 'meaning you need guns for the army' doesnt apply. The militia needs to be armed. That once more means every able bodied man so that when called up they can fight at a moments notice. If they only wanted the army armed they would have said that.

terms and reality changes with times.....the US army(and the navy etc.) is the modern equivalent of the "militia" mentioned in the text.

One of the big problems I think you guys have is that you read and interpret the US constitution like it was written yesterday when parts of it are 200+ years old.....you can´t take a text that old literally word for word, it just won´t make sense nowadays :book: just like it wouldn´t make sense for me go around speaking 17th century portuguese.

Ronin

11-10-2006, 19:08

It could because your leaving out an important part in your reading of the
2nd Amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The amendment clearly states that the right of the people. Avoiding those words is the error you have committed in your reasoning.

yes I read that part.....

but the first part of the phrase clearly states the objective of that right of the people -> "to maintain a well regulated militia"

there is a diference between saying

"you have a right to have arms in order to build up a militia"
and
"you have a right to have arms"

the first version clearly states a purpose for the existance of those guns right?....while the second gives the idea you can have guns and do anything you want with them.

Crazed Rabbit

11-10-2006, 19:39

terms and reality changes with times.....the US army(and the navy etc.) is the modern equivalent of the "militia" mentioned in the text.

One of the big problems I think you guys have is that you read and interpret the US constitution like it was written yesterday when parts of it are 200+ years old.....you can´t take a text that old literally word for word, it just won´t make sense nowadays just like it wouldn´t make sense for me go around speaking 17th century portuguese.

No, the armed forces are not the equivalent of militias. Standing armies like you mentioned are what the founders feared as oppressors of the people. You are right in that we can't use our modern meaning of words to read the consitution. Consider, briefly, the 'well-regulated' term and this federalist paper:

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
"Well regulated" would then mean something different from well controlled by laws and rules, and rather closer to a state of preparedness after long training. (see more evidence here:http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html)
This leads me to disagree with Redleg:

The government has rightly determined that certain types of weapons are for military purposes and the citizens do not have the right to own them, as one can argue successful given the first part of the amendment.
I would say the government has wrongly determined that. The whole purpose of the amendment was ensuring the people are equipped with military weapons. In US vs Miller, for example, the supreme court upheld the NFA because the gov't was prosecuting a sawed off shotgun owner, and the court believed that these were not military weapons, and so did not fall under the protection of the 2nd.

Anyways, after that 'brief' digression, we return to the meaning of militia. The founders thought of the militia as the whole body of people in the nation:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)

"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. - George Mason

Once again, I encourage all to read the senate report on the meaning and history of the second amendment:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

Crazed Rabbit

Haudegen

11-10-2006, 20:19

"Well regulated" would then mean something different from well controlled by laws and rules, and rather closer to a state of preparedness after long training. (see more evidence here:http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html)
This leads me to disagree with Redleg:

I would say the government has wrongly determined that. The whole purpose of the amendment was ensuring the people are equipped with military weapons. In US vs Miller, for example, the supreme court upheld the NFA because the gov't was prosecuting a sawed off shotgun owner, and the court believed that these were not military weapons, and so did not fall under the protection of the 2nd.

I´m interested in your personal opinion. Would you like it if every citizen had access to military weapons?

I´ve partly read your link:

Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

I think that the founding fathers could not imagine the development of weapons that can be carried by one man but that have the power of an "ordinance" (--> Machineguns, bazookas, handgranades or maybe Sci-Fi-stuff like the Star Trek phasers that may be available one day in the future)

Therefore I think the word "arms" has to be restictively defined by the legislation or government.

Sidenote: If the 2nd Amendment basically guarantees the right of the people to own military weapons, that would exclude for example weapons for hunting or sports. Interesting.

Crazed Rabbit

11-10-2006, 20:51

I´m interested in your personal opinion. Would you like it if every citizen had access to military weapons?

Every law-abiding (as in no felonies) citizen should be able to own fully automatic machine guns if they want.

I think that the founding fathers could not imagine the development of weapons that can be carried by one man but that have the power of an "ordinance" (--> Machineguns, bazookas, handgranades or maybe Sci-Fi-stuff like the Star Trek phasers that may be available one day in the future)

This is an invalid argument. The consitution stands as it is, and one cannot change its meaning by speculation. Also, though they may not have imagined it, they would support the citizenry being able to own such weapons. Your argument is akin to arguing that free speech does not apply to speech spread with computers, radios, TVs, modern printing presses, etc.

Sidenote: If the 2nd Amendment basically guarantees the right of the people to own military weapons, that would exclude for example weapons for hunting or sports. Interesting.

It gurantees the right to arms. Besides, a hunting rifle is basically similar to military sniper rifles.

Oh, and well said Aenlic. Support for gun rights (and all rights) should not be classified according to liberals and conservatives.

Crazed Rabbit

Seamus Fermanagh

11-10-2006, 21:01

Crazed Rabbit posted an excellent review piece earlier in this thread.

"Militia" is a term drawn, as are so many of our early concepts, from English Common Law and history. The militia was the whole of the armed citizenry. This is distinct and separate from an army raised to go to war or a standing professional military -- which, however small, we had from the outset.

"Well regulated" was a reference that outlined that the militia must be guided and responsible to their local government, following reasonable regulations of service promulgated by same. This was to prevent 16 blokes from taking their guns, naming themselves a militia and then claiming the legal right to attack and kill as they pleased. Such can still happen, but it would NOT be sanctioned.

Banquo's Ghost

11-10-2006, 21:29

This has developed into a fascinating discussion on the Second Amendment. Thank you guys, for your insights.

:bow:

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-10-2006, 21:33

Every law-abiding (as in no felonies) citizen should be able to own fully automatic machine guns if they want.

This is an invalid argument. The consitution stands as it is, and one cannot change its meaning by speculation. Also, though they may not have imagined it, they would support the citizenry being able to own such weapons. Your argument is akin to arguing that free speech does not apply to speech spread with computers, radios, TVs, modern printing presses, etc.

It gurantees the right to arms. Besides, a hunting rifle is basically similar to military sniper rifles.

Oh, and well said Aenlic. Support for gun rights (and all rights) should not be classified according to liberals and conservatives.

Crazed Rabbit

Crazed, I agreed with you alot on this Topic, very good argument
+8

Haudegen,

People can Used Miliatry Weapons if they want, as long as they are not Criminals and such. Makes Senses.

Haudegen

11-10-2006, 21:34

Every law-abiding (as in no felonies) citizen should be able to own fully automatic machine guns if they want.

Ok, but what about bazookas and handgranades and such things that can be carried by one man? Wouldn´t you want to draw a line somewhere?

This is an invalid argument. The consitution stands as it is, and one cannot change its meaning by speculation. Also, though they may not have imagined it, they would support the citizenry being able to own such weapons. Your argument is akin to arguing that free speech does not apply to speech spread with computers, radios, TVs, modern printing presses, etc.

Well but we must assume that the creators of the 2nd Amendment knew the difference between "arms" and "ordinance" (see above). And for some reason they decided to use the word "arms" which describes items that can be used to kill one person at a time. They did not say "ordinance" which means an item that could blow entire houses away or kill dozens of people at once. Therefore I still stand on my point of view.

It gurantees the right to arms. Besides, a hunting rifle is basically similar to military sniper rifles.

:embarassed: In your own words:

The whole purpose of the amendment was ensuring the people are equipped with military weapons. In US vs Miller, for example, the supreme court upheld the NFA because the gov't was prosecuting a sawed off shotgun owner, and the court believed that these were not military weapons, and so did not fall under the protection of the 2nd.

Or would you claim that any item that can be potentially used for combat is protected by the 2nd Amendment? Well I´ve heard of people who can kill with a guitar string....or using pencils to stab into the opponents eye...

I don´t mean to make a cheap joke here. The word "arms" requires a precise definition, and IMHO a restrictive one.

Crazed Rabbit

11-10-2006, 21:51

Ok, but what about bazookas and handgranades and such things that can be carried by one man? Wouldn´t you want to draw a line somewhere?
I'm not entirely sure on that. I'm leaning towards allowing explosives and cannons (but not long range missiles). A bit extreme? Probably.

Well but we must assume that the creators of the 2nd Amendment knew the difference between "arms" and "ordinance" (see above). And for some reason they decided to use the word "arms" which describes items that can be used to kill one person at a time. They did not say "ordinance" which means an item that could blow entire houses away or kill dozens of people at once. Therefore I still stand on my point of view.

They did not limit arms to what was availible at that time, and to do so goes against their intention. They knew arms would evolve, and put no limits on what arms people could use. Again, using this argument is akin to banning most of the means for free speech today.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

:embarassed: In your own words:
Or would you claim that any item that can be potentially used for combat is protected by the 2nd Amendment? Well I´ve heard of people who can kill with a guitar string....or using pencils to stab into the opponents eye...

I don´t mean to make a cheap joke here. The word "arms" requires a precise definition, and IMHO a restrictive one.

Every implement of the soldier.

This has developed into a fascinating discussion on the Second Amendment. Thank you guys, for your insights.

I'm happy with how its turned out too.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

11-10-2006, 21:55

yes I read that part.....

but the first part of the phrase clearly states the objective of that right of the people -> "to maintain a well regulated militia"

there is a diference between saying

"you have a right to have arms in order to build up a militia"
and
"you have a right to have arms"

the first version clearly states a purpose for the existance of those guns right?....while the second gives the idea you can have guns and do anything you want with them.

The first part of the Amendment clearly states that a well regulated militia is need for the security of the state, the 2nd part states clearly The people, can keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not state you can do anything you want with them. This tract of reasoning is fallacous (SP), in fact if you violate the law - not only do you lose your freedom, the courts through the due process can remove from you, the right to keep and bear arms. Guns can and should be regulated as shown with several key legislative actions that have done so. Which futher demonstrates the fallacous nature of your comment.

In your earlier comment you questioned how the people came about their understanding of the right to bear arms. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was two fold. To insure the security of the state and to allow the people to protect themselves. Hince the two part sructure of the amendment, and it was crucial in the beginning of the country, not only for the security of the state but for the formation of the country.

Has time changed? Yes. Can the 2nd Amendment be changed to reflect that change? Yes. But it must follow the constitutional process and not just be regulatated and legislated away. I personally don't have a problem with gun control legisation because it falls within the intent of the initial part of the amendment, but I do have a problem with the adovation of removing weapons from citizens without following the constitutional process in which the 2nd Amendment provides for.

Haudegen

11-10-2006, 23:10

I'm not entirely sure on that. I'm leaning towards allowing explosives and cannons (but not long range missiles). A bit extreme? Probably.

Ok, but with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, how would you justify a ban of long range missiles, battle tanks, B2 bombers, SSBNs for civilians? All these are implements of soldiers...

Crazed Rabbit

11-10-2006, 23:18

Haudegen

11-10-2006, 23:40

Implements --> tools

Gawain of Orkeny

11-10-2006, 23:56

Ok, but with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, how would you justify a ban of long range missiles, battle tanks, B2 bombers, SSBNs for civilians? All these are implements of soldiers...

Thats easy. Their technology is top secret. You dont have to ban them anyway as their not for sale to the public.

There was no ban on anyone owning say a cannon back then nor any other type of weapon that I know of. The militia could be armed with anything they felt like using. I dissagree with Redleg and CR on this matter. I dont think they had any restrictions on what arms you were allowed to bare.

Haudegen

11-11-2006, 01:01

Thats easy. Their technology is top secret. You dont have to ban them anyway as their not for sale to the public.

I don´t think that this is a sufficient explanation for the rareness of fully functioning battle tanks in civilian hands in the USA. The technology for a mediocre battle tank (or even a WW2 design) isn´t too difficult to acquire, I suppose.

There was no ban on anyone owning say a cannon back then nor any other type of weapon that I know of. The militia could be armed with anything they felt like using. I dissagree with Redleg and CR on this matter. I dont think they had any restrictions on what arms you were allowed to bare.

Were there any civilians in the 18th or 19th century who seriously tried to buy a military cannon?

Gawain of Orkeny

11-11-2006, 01:08

The technology for a mediocre battle tank (or even a WW2 design) isn´t too difficult to acquire, I suppose.

And many are owned by civilians here today. Theres one down the block from me. A real nice Sherman.

Were there any civilians in the 18th or 19th century who seriously tried to buy a military cannon?

Many civilians owned cannon. There was no law against it.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-11-2006, 04:09

And many are owned by civilians here today. Theres one down the block from me. A real nice Sherman.

Many civilians owned cannon. There was no law against it.

Not a "Homeowners Association w/ covenants" type neighborhood for you eh?

Aenlic

11-11-2006, 06:01

I hate to come down on the side of my conservative friends; but, I must in this case.

The part of the 2nd Amendment dealing with a well ordered militia is called a dependent clause. It is not the main part of the statement. It is a dependent clause which clarifies or gives reason for the main clause. This does not mean that the main clause has no other reason.

For example:

Since it is a sunny day, I will go have a nice walk.

Does this mean I can only go have a nice walk when it is a sunny day? Of course not. I can have a nice walk on a cloudy day too. The dependent clause suggests a reason for my heading out for a nice walk; but it doesn't restrict that as the only reason I might do so.

The 2nd Amendment was so worded because at the time of its being written the founding fathers were wrestling with the ideas of state versus federal power, and whether or not states should have their own standing armies or just the federal government. In the end, the federal government was given the sole right to maintain a standing army, the states were given the right to maintain the national guard units and the states were given the right to have a local militia which consisted of all able-bodied men of a certain age. This last bit is important. That local militia was all able-bodied men of a certain and and was not the national guard. A distinction was made between the two. This was the result of having the citizen's rise up as militias in revolution against the British. Unlike the otherwise somewhat similar Swiss system, citizens of the USA aren't required to keep guns; but they have the undeniable right to keep them in light of all of the above. And that right shall not be infringed. The dependent clause was put in to give a reason for having that right; but, as in my nice walk, it can't be construed as the sole reason.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued many decisions in this regard. In fact, in some cases the distinction of that first dependent clause was used to restrict ownership (federal prohibition of sawed-off shotguns for one, U.S v Miller was the case, I think).

Redleg

11-11-2006, 06:32

Haudegen

11-11-2006, 09:34

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued many decisions in this regard. In fact, in some cases the distinction of that first dependent clause was used to restrict ownership (federal prohibition of sawed-off shotguns for one, U.S v Miller was the case, I think).

Yes, and from these cases I draw the conclusion that the government or legislation can restrict the ownership of of weapons for hunting or sports. If the supreme court has decided several times in the past that a weapon can be banned because it has no military purpose, I see no reason why it should be different in other cases. Your posting contained interesting historical arguments, but it seems that they didn´t affect the supreme courts interpretation of the law in these cases. Or are there other supreme court cases that contradict US v Miller?

My conclusion therefore: the ownership of sports/hunting weapons is legal because the authorities haven´t forbidden them yet. Disclaimer: I´m not saying they should be forbidden. But if the government or legislation would make such a decision one day, it would not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. However I´m quite confident that this will never happen, because such a decision would be very unpopular.

Aenlic

11-11-2006, 12:22

There have been no other cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court since that 1939 decision in US v Miller which used the well regulated militia argument to restrict ownership. Since 1939, the court has heard no other cases which involved the 2nd Amendment. There have been questions regarding gun control; but the court avoided the 2nd Amendment in those decisions. A provision of the Brady bill was overturned using the Commerce clause, I believe. The ban on assault weapons has only made it close to the court in one case, and that case was refused a hearing at the Supreme Court level in 2002.

Unless and until another solid 2nd Amendment case makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court again, the US v Miller decision is it.

scooter_the_shooter

11-13-2006, 21:46

Ok I know I said I would leave but I have to make one more post....

Stop making claims that you can't have guns because you are not in the/a militia!!!! (and other such claims)

You are already in the militia wether you like it or not. (assuming you are an american who meets these requirements)

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Tribesman

11-13-2006, 23:07

A well regulated militia allows for the government to make decisions about how militias are to be organized and equiped, in doing so under the orginial concept of a militia the people were suppose to come armed with their personal weapons. Hince because the founding fathers believed in militia's over a standing army - the people will always have a right to personal arms to defend themselves and their nation.

Just wondering Redleg , if the militia was supposed to be citizens bringing their own arms , then why does the constitution say that congress has to arm the militia ?

Redleg

11-14-2006, 00:11

Just wondering Redleg , if the militia was supposed to be citizens bringing their own arms , then why does the constitution say that congress has to arm the militia ?

The constitution states several things about the militia, and one must look to what each statement means. And how it can be interpated

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Very simply stated, and a seperate issue by the way this is where I believe congress has removed itself from its constitutional power with the Presidential War Powers Act of 1973.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

This talks about the government's responsiblity to fund any military requirement that congress deems necessary. The BRAC process falls in line with part of this.

To provide and maintain a navy;

Not necessary for this discussion but was in the part of the article I wanted to bring up.

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Done with the Uniform Code of Military Justice

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Self-explanatory.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

This passage does not necessarily mean explicitily what you possiblity attempting to claim, that the government must in fact arm the militia. To provide for - can have several definitions depending upon how one wishes to view the wording of the constitution. By requiring every citizen to bring their own weapon to the call-up actually falls within the definition of this clause. The second amendment actually address this part also.

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.

If the people have the right to keep and bear arms - the government can use the weapons in the procession of the civilians that are called up to arm them. In fact this is exactly the system that was used for the first 50 years of the nation. THe government did not arm military forces in a consistent manner until the Civil War, and even then several Regiments supplied their own arms. A Regiment of Civil War Union Sharpshooters was supplied with arms solely by the commander of that Unit. I also remember reading about a Union Cavarly Unit that was armed not by the government but by the commander.

Edit: An interesting read on the subject. I haven't read it all, but the initial glance at the first few paragraphes it has an interesting historical background on the Legsilative Clause and the 2nd Amendment. An aside it seemly takes the point that the Founding Father's intent is not truely understood even by themselves concerning the militia clauses and the 2nd Amendment. I will have to read this link in its entirely when I have time.

http://www.potowmack.org/mahonch4.html#ch4

The part that took my main interest.

Both the framers of the Constitution and a majority of the delegates

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

Militia in the Early National Period 49
ratifying conventions were more concerned with foreign aggression than with internal subversion. As a result, the ratified Constitution contained adequate legal basis for a standing army if Congress chose to create one. On this matter the anticentralists were defeated But in the clauses pertaining to the militia they came close to achieving their objectives. Here, as in the entire Constitution, the object was to prevent the accumulation of overwhelming power in any person or agency. The method used was to split power into fragments, and no part of the document was this done in more detail than in the militia clauses. Congress received authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia; the states, the power to appoint officers and to train the citizen soldiers according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Not the president but Congress acquired the authority to summon the state militias into federal service, for three specific tasks only: execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasion.

Because the militia clauses, like the rest of the Constitution, were written in general terms, they had to be interpreted to have meaning in specific cases. Only case-by-case interpretation could make it clear what exactly was meant by the power to appoint the officers and to train the militias. likewise, some agency would have to decide in every case whether a federal call for militia to enter national service was for one of the three purposes stipulated. One observer might see an invasion where another saw only a maneuver; an insurrection to one man might be nothing but a harmless gathering to another. In any given situation there could be disagreement over whether or not troops were needed to enforce the laws. The framers did not designate an agency to interpret the Constitution. Over a long period of time, the courts assumed that indispensable task, but not without challenge.

Another clause gives Congress power to govern such part of the militia as maybe employed in the service of the United States. A second says that the president shall be commander-in-chief of the militia when it is called into the actual service of the nation. A third clause, added to the Constitution as the Second Amendment, states that "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." In the twentieth century, the Second Amendment has become the center of a controversy between those citizens who want to see gun carrying restricted and those who insist that free Americans must have the right to be armed. The authors of the Amendment left no clues as to their intentions; but it seems likely that they felt scant concern about firearms in the hands of people and that they had the militia in view when they wrote the clause.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-14-2006, 01:29

Very Much Agreed Redleg..

I'll stop myself with this quaote from ReddyLeggy

"

Stop making claims that you can't have guns because you are not in the/a militia!!!! (and other such claims)

You are already in the militia wether you like it or not. (assuming you are an american who meets these requirements)

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia."

Aenlic

11-14-2006, 01:38

Yeppers. That's why I went to such great pains to differentiate between the National Guard and the militia, and brought up the concept as it is seen in Switzerland.

Also, I'd like to mention, which I don't think I've seen discussed but may have missed, that "well ordered" as a term used during the writing of the Bill of Rights meant only well-trained, not ordered and controlled by the government.

Basically, considering the lack of precedent in Supreme Court rulings and the state of those few cases which actually were decided, there is some cause for alarm on the part of those of us who fully support the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment. It is one reason to support strict constructionist and original intenters. However, I'd be much happier if those same people also applied their strict constructionist ideas and original intent interpretations consistently with regard to things like corporate personhood (especially considering that corporations are not mentioned even once in the Constitution, and the founding fathers were clear on their mistrust and disdain for corporations). It's the inconsistency on such matters that makes me cautious.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-14-2006, 15:52

Yes. Eariler in the Thread, people was debating about if Non-Militarly People,like ourselves, should have acess to Assualt Rifles and AK-47's and such.. I say Yes..

I was watching this Interisting Show last year, and these 3 or so guys robbed a bank.... Bad thing was, they Had pretty bad butt AK-47's and really good bullet proof vests.the cops had their 9mm I presume and shotsguns, but was no match, because their bulletproofs vests soaked up the cop's fire. and the AK 47's was tearing up the cop cars like crazy. So the Cops went to a local gun store, and also brought assault weapons and took one of the guys down, while the other 2 surreneder soon after..

Tribesman

11-14-2006, 16:47

The part that took my main interest.

Now then , doesn't that say that it is badly written Red .

Every law-abiding (as in no felonies) citizen should be able to own fully automatic machine guns if they want.

Yep , but you cannot , so isn't it worthless .
BTW rabbit , doesn't that also mean that it is disputed ~;)

Redleg

11-14-2006, 19:22

Now then , doesn't that say that it is badly written Red .

Not at all. What it means is that the drafters of the constitution were a bunch of smart individuals that crafted a document that can be changed over time based upon the desires of the people. They left many passages open to interpations and adjustments. The 2nd Amendment happens to be one of the more clever aspects of using language to carry several different possible meanings, allowing the government to have some flexibility in how it handles any given area.

If one does not like the wording of the constitution all one had to do is be a citizen of the United States and begin the constitutional processes to bring about the change that the majority of the people want.

Your a clever guy - but it seems your stuck on attempting to prove that the sentence was poorly written. It seems to me that the founding fathers of the United States were far more clever.

Meneldil

11-14-2006, 20:32

Arguing about a Constitution that has been written 2 centuries ago is almost as pointless as arguing about the Bible or the Quran.

The way Americans regard their outdated constitution as a modern Bible is kinda fascinating for me.

I mean, come on, when the founding fathers wrote that, people obviously had reasons to fear for their freedom, and popular militias were probably the best way to avoid a tyrannical system of government.
It is simply not the case anymore. If for some reason an oppressive government sizes the power, people will riot, whether they have guns or not.
Funny fact is that most conservatives here keep claiming they protect their freedom while their beloved government trample this freedom.

As for the "guns lower crime rate" argument, I don't think I have the knowledge to argue about that (and crime rate is something that can easily be modified depending on someone's agenda). I just think that when everyone wants to have its own gun, it means that the society is quite screwed up.

Don Corleone

11-14-2006, 20:49

Well, Meneldil, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I would argue that an oppressive government has seized power in our country, and yours as well for that matter. You may look at the Constitution as antiquated and outdated, but I think that without it, judges and lawmakers simply make up the rules as they go (something they're prone to doing anyways, the Constitution just slows them down). If you're fine with each new election bringing in a fresh regime, each with their own dreams and desires how to oppress you, good for you. I'd argue that you're in a good place for that. Personally, I like having a contract in place, even if those in charge don't follow it all that well.

Edit: Sorry, Menldil. Was typing to fast and misspelled your name.

Redleg

11-14-2006, 20:50

Arguing about a Constitution that has been written 2 centuries ago is almost as pointless as arguing about the Bible or the Quran.

Then we in the United States should fold up our executive branch, our legislative process and our court system because its all based upon the United States Constitution? In otherwords are you demonstrating a lack of knowledge about how the United States government was established and the way in which it must work?

Frankly I thank the founding fathers for writing a document that forces the people and the government to discuss issues before the government can just inact them. And if the Legislative branch does go against the people our systems allows the people to ask the executive branch to veto the new legislation. And if that fails we the people have one other branch to appeal to for recourse. So not such an outdated piece of writing now is it?

The way Americans regard their outdated constitution as a modern Bible is kinda fascinating for me.

Its the basis of the government - not the same as the bible which is only a base for religion. The Constitution is the foundation of the government. Without it - the government can not exist in its current form. The French have had how many revolutions and changes to their form of government in the same time frame?

I mean, come on, when the founding fathers wrote that, people obviously had reasons to fear for their freedom, and popular militias were probably the best way to avoid a tyrannical system of government.
It is simply not the case anymore. If for some reason an oppressive government sizes the power, people will riot, whether they have guns or not.
Funny fact is that most conservatives here keep claiming they protect their freedom while their beloved government trample this freedom.

Hince it must be discussed and go through the constitutional amendment process to be changed. Here you are discussing an idea, but you seemly refuse to allow the process to work as the document which established the government states that the government must act. The writers of the constitution were far more enlightened on the subject of government then many in the world today. The document allows for change, but it does not allow for blind change without the consent of the people. Your fact however is slightly misleading - the beloved government just had to answer to the people for its actions.

As for the "guns lower crime rate" argument, I don't think I have the knowledge to argue about that (and crime rate is something that can easily be modified depending on someone's agenda). I just think that when everyone wants to have its own gun, it means that the society is quite screwed up.

Emotional appeal arguements rarely work concerning the constitutional amendment process.

Kagemusha

11-14-2006, 21:59

My 5 cents on gun control. I think people should have the right to own guns if they want or need them. My point is that all the fire arms purchased should be registered by law enforcement to keep track of them. I dont see anything bad that people have shotguns,hunting rifles and hand guns but we should be aware where the guns are and authorities should be able to check if necessary that the guns are kept in safe places so they dont create unnecessary risks.
Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
What i dont understand is why civilians should be able to posses military weapons like full automatic assault rifles,machine guns,mortars or anything like that. There is not anykind of good explanation why civilians should have acces on military hardware.

Crazed Rabbit

11-15-2006, 05:01

What i dont understand is why civilians should be able to posses military weapons like full automatic assault rifles,machine guns,mortars or anything like that. There is not anykind of good explanation why civilians should have acces on military hardware.

In case the government becomes oppressive and you have to fight the military.

Crazed Rabbit

Kagemusha

11-15-2006, 10:20

In case the government becomes oppressive and you have to fight the military.

Crazed Rabbit

Well dont you live in a democracy? Arent the military personel citizens also? Do you think they would turn their weapons against their own people? It seems you have little trust towards your political system Rabbit.:no:

Banquo's Ghost

11-15-2006, 10:59

Well dont you live in a democracy? Arent the military personel citizens also? Do you think they would turn their weapons against their own people? It seems you have little trust towards your political system Rabbit.:no:

I'm not at all sure that CR was implying that (not to put words in Rabbit's mouth, this is my own interpretation of what has been written).

As we know from history, the institution of democracy, even supported by a constitution, is not immune from installing a government antithetical to it. What the people vote for is not always what they get.

Since militaries are beholden by oath to the government (even if the wording of the oath actually says something different, in practice this is how it works) it is possible to envisage a scenario whereby the government of the day uses the military to impose an unconstitutional solution (say a state of emergency, that evolves from temporary to permanent) which is no longer supported the people. If that government then foregoes the democratic process by suspending elections (for the sake of "security", for example) the people may come into conflict with said government and the military acting to impose the government's will. Whereas some officers and soldiers may baulk at this unconstitutional government, most will not - again, history proves that following orders tends to be the default.

What choice do the people then have, save armed insurrection? The founding fathers, schooled in exactly this rebellion against established yet tyrannical government, would have been remiss not to have made a provision in their constitution to facilitate such an insurrection.

They no doubt believed it was much more of a possibility than we do today, because of the proximity of their history.

I don't go so far as to claim they wanted the government to fear their people, but to maintain a very healthy respect for them. If I may paraphrase awfully, you get more respect with a kind word and a gun, than you do with just a kind word.

Kagemusha

11-15-2006, 11:11

Aenlic

11-15-2006, 11:54

Kagemusha

11-15-2006, 12:26

Well, I think I should be allowed to own RPGs and a launcher. But that's mostly so I can take out cars with overly loud sub-woofers that drive by my house at 3 in the morning and wake me up. I'm pretty sure that's not Constitutionally protected, though. :wink:

I think that few anti- vehicle mines should do that. That way you wouldnt have to aim while half sleep,it could turn out disastrous to your neighbours.Also you can pick the ones from the road that havent detonated over night the same time you pick the morning mail. Maybe a SAM battery would be apropriate too? The bloody planes make awfull noice when they fly over your house in the middle of the night.~;)

Ronin

11-15-2006, 12:32

Well, Melendil, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I would argue that an oppressive government has seized power in our country, and yours as well for that matter. You may look at the Constitution as antiquated and outdated, but I think that without it, judges and lawmakers simply make up the rules as they go (something they're prone to doing anyways, the Constitution just slows them down). If you're fine with each new election bringing in a fresh regime, each with their own dreams and desires how to oppress you, good for you. I'd argue that you're in a good place for that. Personally, I like having a contract in place, even if those in charge don't follow it all that well.

Saying that a 200 year old constitution is an outdated document is not the same as saying you should have no constitution at all.

why not write up a new constitution that makes sense for the time and age we live in?

My country has a constitution that is just 32 years old.....the people voted...and their representatives wrote it out, and it has been updated regularly....this process was not problematic..... so I don´t see why the US government can´t do this...instead of fighting over a document so old and outdated that nobody can come to an agreement on what it actually means anymore.

Aenlic

11-15-2006, 12:50

I think that few anti- vehicle mines should do that. That way you wouldnt have to aim while half sleep,it could turn out disastrous to your neighbours.Also you can pick the ones from the road that havent detonated over night the same time you pick the morning mail. Maybe a SAM battery would be apropriate too? The bloody planes make awfull noice when they fly over your house in the middle of the night.~;)

Don't have much of a plane noise problem; but the traffic report helicopter over the freeway half a mile away deserves a good SAM or two when it comes down this side of the freeway at 6 AM. :grin:

Banquo's Ghost

11-15-2006, 12:56

But Banguo. The level of equipment which you would need to make the army any kind of real threat is out of the reach of citizens anyway. With only infantry fire arms you wont get far.So should the people be able to purchase RPG´s,MBT´s,AFV´s,Artillery and fighters/bombers also?

I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree.

Look at Iraq - the most powerful military in the world is being knocked about by insurgents with little more than stone knives and bearskins. If people do not consent to be governed, they can make themselves ungovernable with just sticks and stones. My own country of Ireland fought against the then most powerful nation in the world for a very long time, and though one can argue we were still "governed" it made for some very unhappy British governors.

One may argue that a totalitarian government as posited would deploy the kind of barbarism advocated by certain posters for the Iraq occupation. History again tells us that this may lead to temporary success, but motivates the oppressed to fight harder and nastier themselves. The kind of brutal measures necessary to govern an insurrection eventually sap the spirit of those that do the dirty work. The military that once followed orders because it seemed legitimate begins to question. A people that desire to be free will eventually win that freedom.

I think the argument from the Second Amendment is that if the citizenry are fore-armed, this sequence of events is much less likely to happen because a potentially undemocratic government knows the bar for suppression is that much higher.

As for the capacity of weaponry that should be available, in the context of the argument being made for the Second Amendment (where there are more scholarly voices than mine) but I can see both the reasoning that would allow citizens to be unhampered in their choice of weaponry, and the argument that maintains that simple gun ownership is enough to have citizenry armed "enough" to ensure government respect.

My own view is that the latter position should be enough, if one accepts the intent of the Second to be government respect.

Personally, I would not like to see a "Second Amendment" type position in my own country's constitution as I think uncontrolled gun ownership (relatively speaking) contributes more problems than it solves. However, as Redleg and others have eloquently noted, in the USA, they do have such an Amendment and if people want to change the effect and meaning of it (and I tend to agree that it is rather clear) they should instigate constitutional change, not seek to shackle it through case law.

But my opinion remains irrelevant, as I am not a citizen of that great country.

Banquo's Ghost

11-15-2006, 13:06

Saying that a 200 year old constitution is an outdated document is not the same as saying you should have no constitution at all.

why not write up a new constitution that makes sense for the time and age we live in?

My country has a constitution that is just 32 years old.....the people voted...and their representatives wrote it out, and it has been updated regularly....this process was not problematic..... so I don´t see why the US government can´t do this...instead of fighting over a document so old and outdated that nobody can come to an agreement on what it actually means anymore.

What like the process that led to the EU constitution? ~:eek: Care to reflect on what any of the language in that most modern of documents actually meant? Constitutions, modern or archaic, are always subject to interpretation and argument - that's why we have a judiciary. The moment you write an idea down, it becomes "outdated" (which is one of the more compelling arguments for the British unwritten constitution). Or perhaps you are a fan of constitutional government by blogosphere? :smile:

The US Constitution is still one of the finest documents ever written by Mankind in its simplicity, language and aspiration. It codifies Enlightenment thought, at the time when that thought was in its finest hour. It has informed most of the documents and treaties since that deal with human rights, dignity and representation.

The Magna Carta of the United Kingdom is a similar document. These are of their time and yet timeless.

And the Constitution of the United States can be and has been amended to reflect new realities. But the old truths remain self-evident.

Aenlic

11-15-2006, 13:17

Ronin

11-15-2006, 13:29

What like the process that led to the EU constitution? ~:eek: Care to reflect on what any of the language in that most modern of documents actually meant? Constitutions, modern or archaic, are always subject to interpretation and argument - that's why we have a judiciary.

the EU constitution is no example of how to write a constitution because it is no far removed from the general public and tries to mesh together the interests of diferent countries that it became an unreadable mess....

but there are examples out there of constitutional documents that are reasonably clear and easy to read....that was the kind of document I was refering to.....as an example I presented the Portuguese constitution that I always found to be a pretty clear document....

English version of the Portuguese constitution (http://www.parlamento.pt/ingles/cons_leg/crp_ing/index.html)

this kind of document doesn´t cause the debate we see over the US constitution for example....questions put to the Portuguese Constitutional Court are normally concerning extremelly minute tecnical situations....nothing related to the individual citizen rights or anything of the sort.

The US Constitution is still one of the finest documents ever written by Mankind in its simplicity, language and aspiration. It codifies Enlightenment thought, at the time when that thought was in its finest hour. It has informed most of the documents and treaties since that deal with human rights, dignity and representation.

The Magna Carta of the United Kingdom is a similar document. These are of their time and yet timeless.

so is the bible....but I wouldn´t rule my life by any of those documents....in the end they are museum pieces...

And the Constitution of the United States can be and has been amended to reflect new realities. But the old truths remain self-evident.

so self-evident that there is constantly debates as to what the document actually means....:oops:

Banquo's Ghost

11-15-2006, 14:01

Ronin, I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

I believe constitutional argument and debate to be a good thing, and I am certainly a traditionalist. I would therefore argue that the Portuguese constitution you linked to owes its body and soul to the US Constitution in form and aspiration.

As for clarity, what happens when, for example, the country tries to implement Article 7.2? What does it mean by 'all forms of aggression'? How does that operate with Article 7.4 if a Portuguese speaking nation performs an act of aggression? Article 7.7 - may accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court? Under which circumstances may it not?

Do you see how just these few items may need to be debated and interpreted on a case by case basis?

There are also provisions there which guarantee what many people would describe as Euro-socialist political policy. Does that mean a right-wing government that doesn't believe in a welfare state is by definition unconstitutional?

Not saying it's a bad constitution at all - bit long, but robust. I just think it is not as free from discussion and debate as to its intended meanings as you observe.

:smile:

Kagemusha

11-15-2006, 15:20

I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree.

Look at Iraq - the most powerful military in the world is being knocked about by insurgents with little more than stone knives and bearskins. If people do not consent to be governed, they can make themselves ungovernable with just sticks and stones. My own country of Ireland fought against the then most powerful nation in the world for a very long time, and though one can argue we were still "governed" it made for some very unhappy British governors.

One may argue that a totalitarian government as posited would deploy the kind of barbarism advocated by certain posters for the Iraq occupation. History again tells us that this may lead to temporary success, but motivates the oppressed to fight harder and nastier themselves. The kind of brutal measures necessary to govern an insurrection eventually sap the spirit of those that do the dirty work. The military that once followed orders because it seemed legitimate begins to question. A people that desire to be free will eventually win that freedom.

I think the argument from the Second Amendment is that if the citizenry are fore-armed, this sequence of events is much less likely to happen because a potentially undemocratic government knows the bar for suppression is that much higher.

As for the capacity of weaponry that should be available, in the context of the argument being made for the Second Amendment (where there are more scholarly voices than mine) but I can see both the reasoning that would allow citizens to be unhampered in their choice of weaponry, and the argument that maintains that simple gun ownership is enough to have citizenry armed "enough" to ensure government respect.

My own view is that the latter position should be enough, if one accepts the intent of the Second to be government respect.

Personally, I would not like to see a "Second Amendment" type position in my own country's constitution as I think uncontrolled gun ownership (relatively speaking) contributes more problems than it solves. However, as Redleg and others have eloquently noted, in the USA, they do have such an Amendment and if people want to change the effect and meaning of it (and I tend to agree that it is rather clear) they should instigate constitutional change, not seek to shackle it through case law.

But my opinion remains irrelevant, as I am not a citizen of that great country.

Well sayed Banguo.:bow: But if we use Iraq as example,we come up with a problem. I completely agree that any government cant govern their citizens without the acceptance of the citizens forever. But when it comes down to Iraq situation, there we can see soldiers of democratic government who are trying to fight against the rebels and insurgents bound by their rules. A totalitarian government wouldnt have the problems that the US troops are facing since they could mass murder the whole population if they felt the need.
Im not trying to change US legistlation,but im talking from my own perspective. But to me a principle that the citizens should be able to access military hardware just be sure could cause lot more problems then benefits. If the Citizens would have free acces to military hardware, also the less law abidinging and potentially dangerous groups inside the nation would have that same ability too. For example a group which would be out to replace the lawfull democratic government of the sayed country and replace it with a totalitarian one.

I think if the people of united states would really like to show a threat towards a possible totalitarian regimee in their country they should have atleast mandatory military service for their male population. That is one of the reasons that make conscription a good choice in a civilized democratic republic. The Citizen army will not bow down to any dictators. and my firm belief is that a military trained man armed with for example hunting rifle could be lot more dangerous opponent then civilian fighting with AK-47.

Redleg

11-15-2006, 16:23

Banquo's Ghost stated the postion I have concerning the dating of the Constitution. Well written sir.

Redleg

11-15-2006, 16:27

so self-evident that there is constantly debates as to what the document actually means....:oops:

Debate is the cornerstone of a healthly democracy. If one can not debate - how can one develope an informed opinion on the subject?

The debate around the 2nd Amendment has shown that certain types of legislation is allowed under the amendment while others types are not. Without debate their is no democracy - only tyranny of the government.

Ronin

11-15-2006, 16:52

Debate is the cornerstone of a healthly democracy. If one can not debate - how can one develope an informed opinion on the subject?

The debate around the 2nd Amendment has shown that certain types of legislation is allowed under the amendment while others types are not. Without debate their is no democracy - only tyranny of the government.

debate is great...and necessary.

but it´s one thing if you have a clear law...that everybody knows the meaning off...and then everyone can debate if the law is correct or not...and if the law should be changed or not...

it´s a completelly different situation if the wording of the law is so vague that nobody can figure out what it means...then you have to debate just to try and figure out what the hell the law means.....

if the law was written correctly you´d just have the first type of debate.....instead of wasting time with the second.

Redleg

11-15-2006, 17:07

debate is great...and necessary.

but it´s one thing if you have a clear law...that everybody knows the meaning off...and then everyone can debate if the law is correct or not...and if the law should be changed or not...

The constitution constantly is debated and has constant change done. Last amendment was 1992. The constitution has a two fold purpose, one to set the boundries of the government on what it can do and not do, and one to establish the procedures for what types of laws the government can pass. The second amendment is not a law but a setting of a right. Rights of the peopel can be adjusted by the constitutional process not the legislative process.

it´s a completelly different situation if the wording of the law is so vague that nobody can figure out what it means...then you have to debate just to try and figure out what the hell the law means.....

The 2nd amendment is clear in its intent. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. The part that is cloudly is what exactly does the Well regulated militia mean. The drafters of the constitution were a clever bunch of men of the enlightenment. One thing that they did know is that the government could not protect the people from every possible source of danger of their time. So the drafters determined that the best possible course was to insure the safety of the Free State that militia would be necessary, that because it was a new government with very limited resources that those called up would have to come armed with what they processed in order to defend their homes and their nation. The line of a well regulated militia allows the government to draft laws concerning the militia. Gun control that regulates what types of weapons the people can own fall within that scope of the amendment (in my opinion) to deny weapons in the hands of the people violates the admendment.

if the law was written correctly you´d just have the first type of debate.....instead of wasting time with the second.

Times have changed but the orginal intent of the drafters was to arm the population. Most serious studies of the constitution agree on that point. What the founding fathers did do with the initial part of the second amendment was to create an amendment that could be subject to change in the future and even legislative action without having to do an amendment process. The two part sentence was done on purpose to get 13 independent colonies to come together to form a union. It was worded in such a way that the Federalists could regulate what militias were to consist of.

Where you believe the second part is a waste of time, I believe it is a cornerstone of a democracy and prevents bad law from being past. I rather discuss the issue first - versus discuss after the fact wether the law is a good one or bad. Because without debate - laws such as the patriot act get passed. Hopefully the congress will allow it to expire in the time frame stipulated in the law - but once the government removes a right from the people it is very hard to get it back.

Tribesman

11-15-2006, 18:49

The constitution constantly is debated and has constant change done. Last amendment was 1992.
Now is that an example of really good debate or really bad debate ?
After all it was proposed in 1789 so it is only 203 years they took to ratify it

Redleg

11-15-2006, 19:32

Now is that an example of really good debate or really bad debate ?
After all it was proposed in 1789 so it is only 203 years they took to ratify it

Incorrect and I strongly subsect that you know that.

The constitution was ratified back in 1787, went into effect in 1789. The last amendment was an adjustment made to the consitution in 1992, which is exactly in line with the process outlined in the document itself.

The amendment process shows that those who argue that it is an outdated document have no understanding of the document itself, nor the process that it advocates.

Is your problem Tribesman with the constitution a lack of understanding or the lack of wanting the people to decide the course of their government through debating the base document and what the scope of their government should be?

The constitution allows the people to be activitily involved in their government through debate of what the document means and how it should be applied. Not many nations can make that claim.

Tribesman

11-15-2006, 20:46

Incorrect and I strongly subsect that you know that.

What I wrote is entirely correct .
Don't you know that .
Read again exactly what was written and exactly what was quoted .:book:

If you still wish to dispute what was written then I shall put it another way .
If you are not happy that it was 203 years , would you be happier if I was more precise and said it was 74,003 days .

Is your problem Tribesman with the constitution a lack of understanding or the lack of wanting the people to decide the course of their government through debating the base document and what the scope of their government should be?

It appears your problem is that you didn't read what was written , and instead read what you thought was written:yes:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :thumbsdown:

drone

11-15-2006, 21:03

Linky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Since he won't do it...

Redleg

11-15-2006, 21:04

Silly boy red , why the aggressive nonsense .

You might want to ask yourself that question, given your deliberate attempt at being obtruse, since you know full well I was speaking of the constitution as a whole, not just one specific amendment.

Resorting to name calling is beneath the level of discussion.

Tribesman

11-15-2006, 21:19

You might want to ask yourself that question, given your deliberate attempt at being obtruse, since you know full well I was speaking of the constitution as a whole, not just one specific amendment, given that your last two comments were attempts at trolling and this last response confirms that you have resorted to only trolling.

Resorting to name calling is beneath the level of discussion.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

ALL the information was in the post Red , it says exactly what it says , so don't go getting upset because you didn't read it properly and went off on one instead.:thumbsdown:

Redleg

11-15-2006, 21:26

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

ALL the information was in the post Red , it says exactly what it says , so don't go getting upset because you didn't read it properly and went off on one instead.:thumbsdown:

I gave you an honest answer, you responded with an obtruse game, and I fell for it, good show Tribesman:thumbsdown:

So if your done being deliberatily obtruse and want a honest discussion on the constitution then do so, but if your going to only play word smith, obtruse wording games - let me know so I will just ignore your comments in this thread from now on.

Tribesman

11-15-2006, 21:35

That isn't name calling Red , that was a comment about the content of your post and the flawed process you went through to make that post .

Tribesman

11-15-2006, 21:40

Wow that isn't just an edit , you have completely changed your post Red

TosaInu

11-15-2006, 21:47

Gun topics tend to get out of control. We're not going to let that happen this time right?

Redleg

11-15-2006, 21:53

Wow that isn't just an edit , you have completely changed your post Red

And it is meant in all sincerity, (SP)

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-15-2006, 23:18

Mithrandir

11-15-2006, 23:22

no.

Redleg

11-15-2006, 23:30

Guys, Control yourselves Here. Yes, Tribes can Be Annoying with his posts, its a fact, but he does put up good arguments. So No Baiting, do it in PM

Anyhow, Where were We?

I ask the Simple Question to start off another good Debate

Do you think Guns should be in the Hands of Civianlns, normal people like us, or no??

All types of guns no

Rifles of the sporting type - Yes. (Hunting Rifles, Semi-Auto, Bolt action, Lever action, or even pump.)
Pistols - yes
Shotguns - Yes
Automatic Military grade weapons - No

Military ordance is a different subject and falls outside of your stated question concerning guns.

Tribesman

11-15-2006, 23:31

Anyhow, Where were We?

Well I don't know about you , but I was waiting for an answer .~;)
So hows about it Warman , do you think it was an example of really good debate or really bad debate ?

To answer your own simple question .
Yes , but with restrictions and regulations , which would be an infringment of your rights under the second , but it is what you have , just as I have the same in my country without the second amendment .

Now for another twist 2 questions , what countries entirely ban their civilian population from having any guns at all , and which country has the most regulations concerning private firearm ownership?:2thumbsup:

Adrian II

11-16-2006, 01:28

Incorrect and I strongly suspect that you know that
It appears your problem is that you didn't read what was written
given your deliberate attempt at being obstruse
the flawed process you went through to make that post
:beam:

Do you guys have any idea how reassuring, nay: soothing this is to me? I imagine how during all the time I was absent, you two have constantly been at each other's throats, day after day, round after interminable round. Just like you were last time I checked here, ages ago.

For comfort this beats whale sounds, Bach's Brandenburgers, ruby port...

Love you guys! :kiss:

Crazed Rabbit

11-16-2006, 01:56

Rifles of the sporting type - Yes. (Hunting Rifles, Semi-Auto, Bolt action, Lever action, or even pump.)
Pistols - yes
Shotguns - Yes
Automatic Military grade weapons - No

I think people should be able to own military weapons - that is the whole point of the second amendment.

I'm curious as to why you are against ownership of them.

Crazed Rabbit
PS Tribesy, I love how you go from ignoring parts of what I write earlier in this thread to using some small parts of what you post as an excuse to be intentionally obtuse.

Adrian II

11-16-2006, 02:01

I love how you go from ignoring parts of what I write earlier in this thread to using some small parts of what you post as an excuse to be intentionally obtuse.Is there three of you now? :dizzy2:

Redleg

11-16-2006, 03:19

I think people should be able to own military weapons - that is the whole point of the second amendment.

The reasoning being around the first part of the 2nd Amendment. A well regulated militia being necessary to maintain the free state. The government has the responsibility to regulate what standards the militia must maintain both in drill, weapons, and organization. Since militias are still around - they must be regulated. Since the arguement about maintaining the ability to secure one's property and provide a means for the people to overthrow a tyrannical government are the two main arguements for keeping guns in the hands of citizens, lets address just those two for now.

Protection of life and property.

What weapon is required for protection of life and property against other citizens intented upon doing harm to you and yours? My opinion is that personal arms are required. One could base an arguement for the M16 or Ak47 being a personal arm that is needed in the hands of citizens to maintain their protection. And in that regards I would even concede to that. Fact is there are civilian models of both weapons that are legal to purchase. Now other military weapons - Machine guns for the most part are described as Company, Platoon, and Squad weapons. Because of the type of weapon and its function - it is not a personal arm - but one that involves a team. So following the wording of the amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The government has the ability to regulate what weapons will be required for the militia when its called. Personal arms being the main intent (I believe) of the drafters of the constitution - I see no conflict with the government regulating that military issued weapons can not be purchased by the people.

Does one need a military weapon to secure and defend one's home from criminals? My belief is no. A shotgun, a pistol, and any other individual weapon yes.

Now concerning the people upraising against a tryannical government.

If a citizens upraising happens against the government - what portion of the military will also desert and join the upraising - remember the men and women who serve in the military are also citizens. So I don't buy the arguement that the people must arm themselves with military ordance to protect themselves from a tryanical government, because the military has weapons greater then the people. Then you add the fact that less then 1% of the population serves in the military.

Then coupled with the National Guard which is also a regulated branch of a citizen's militia that answers first the the Governor of the state, then to the Federal Government. Military ordance is available to the citizens through this militia formation, which in case of a popular upraising the ability for the Federal Government to call the Guard forth is questionable.

So all that is left is for the citizens to have for the upraising access to personal arms, which is done under the current system of laws and regulations. Regardless of the difference in the types of weapons, 1% of the population can not control, nor contain a popular upraising of the people. A popular upraising of the people against the government does not require military weapons to be successful.

Finally

To regulate what types of weapons belong where fits the admendment very well in my opinion.

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.
I see the issuing of military grade weapons as a function of the government, which falls in line with the first part of the amendment.

If the United States were to maintain a trained militia that conducts regularly scheduled military training for all citizens, then I would agree that military weapons should be in the homes of the citizens, but we do not. Therefor I see no over-ridding need to ignore the first part of the amendment to tell the government that they can not regulate weapons, However I will vehemently oppose any legislation that removes personal arms from the people.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-16-2006, 03:54

Is there three of you now? :dizzy2:

Well Adrian, take comfort in the mote of steadiness Tribesman creates in our otherwise cherry-blossom-like maelstrom of a universe.:beam:

If it weren't for his running bouts with:

Gawain, Redleg, Crazed Rabbit, Myself, Xiahou, and Divinus Arma and other such right-thinking individuals (don't keel-haul me for that one, please), the .org wouldn't be able to claim anywhere near the threads/posts it otherwise can.

Perhaps we could label him our .org contrarian or something -- his persistence warrants some kind of epithet (aside from the ones for which the noble Tosainu would smite us:yes: ).

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-16-2006, 16:32

Redleg

11-16-2006, 16:42

M-16's and AK47's.... It's bad enough how I hear everyonce in awhile how certain gangmembers get arrested for using AK-47's in a gunfight. IF you allowed civialins to own Mitiarly weapons, inclunding hand grenades,land mines,etc...., then once the gangs and them get them, it will just make matters worse.. a Shotgun to a the head of someone who breaks in your house works just as good :-) :-)

Justifing regulation based upon keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals is not good legislation. If you look at the weapons criminals use in crimes, you will quickly discover that a very high percentage of those weapons were bought on through illegal means.

Military arms that are illegal to purchase in the United States can be bought by those who use the underground - blackmarket to purchase such weapons.

Now if someone was to ask me - does the United States require new gun control legislation, the answer would be no. Until the current laws are enforced to the standards that were written into the legislation, the people can not determine with any adquecy that the laws are just. The main problem with gun control in the United States is not the 2nd Amendment, but the lack of consistent enforcement of the current laws.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-16-2006, 16:50

Of course th Black market m8. But if they Become Allowed, like you are propsoing, then it will be easily avadible to get then..

Ronin

11-16-2006, 17:12

Guys, Control yourselves Here. Yes, Tribes can Be Annoying with his posts, its a fact, but he does put up good arguments. So No Baiting, do it in PM

Anyhow, Where were We?

I ask the Simple Question to start off another good Debate

Do you think Guns should be in the Hands of Civianlns, normal people like us, or no??

In an ideal situation no civilian should be armed in a civilized society in my opinion.

however I see a few exceptions to this rule:

-Hunting weapons
-Weapons for home security in isolated areas, and/or areas without adequate police presence, like the countryside and such areas.

in towns and cities owning a gun should not be allowed at all....they cause far more problems then the ones they solve in my opinion.

Redleg

11-16-2006, 17:14

Of course th Black market m8. But if they Become Allowed, like you are propsoing, then it will be easily avadible to get then..

Re-read what I stated. You will find that I am against M-16's and AK-47 being available to the people, but have to concede the point that they are personal arms. Can the government regulate them as assualt rifles? There is just such a legislation that has been passed

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c1039Nmyhb:e643945:

I believe this piece of legislation automatically expired in 2004. Was it effective in meeting the goals of the legislation. A 1999 study

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Wikepia also has a write up on the ban - but take it with a grain of salt, given the source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

Once again you can buy an AR-15 which is the civilian model of the M16. The AR-15 is what the police use for their SWAT teams. A semi-automatic rifle is much more effective then an automatic rifle when someone knows how to use it.

Ronin

11-16-2006, 17:19

Justifing regulation based upon keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals is not good legislation. If you look at the weapons criminals use in crimes, you will quickly discover that a very high percentage of those weapons were bought on through illegal means.

yes, that is true, but a large number of illegal guns are guns that were once sold legally and then were stollen by criminals or illegally sold on by their legal owners....so if you have more legal guns in the hands of the citizens you end up with more guns in the hands of criminals too.

this does not solve the problem of gun crime...it only escalates the situation...with more and more guns being bought legally which then translates into larger guns in the hands of criminals also.

Redleg

11-16-2006, 17:29

yes, that is true, but a large number of illegal guns are guns that were once sold legally and then were stollen by criminals or illegally sold on by their legal owners....so if you have more legal guns in the hands of the citizens you end up with more guns in the hands of criminals too.

That is a circuler arguement. Removing rights of all citizens because of the bad behavior of a minority does not make for good legislation.

this does not solve the problem of gun crime...it only escalates the situation...with more and more guns being bought legally which then translates into larger guns in the hands of criminals also.

A false postion in my opinion. More guns brought legally does not equate to larger guns in the hands of criminals. Criminals buy the large percentage of their weapons illegally. Adequate enforcement of the current laws should reduce potential of criminals getting weapons through illegal sources.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

here is the data from the Justice department, see if you can find the data that supports your stated postion.

A news article that actually counters your arguement very well, coming out of the UK which has fairily restictive laws concerning weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

And again using Wikipedia to source UK gunlaws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Take it with a grain of salt, but one must concede that the United Kingdoms gun laws are more restrictive then the United States.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-16-2006, 18:29

In an ideal situation no civilian should be armed in a civilized society in my opinion.

however I see a few exceptions to this rule:

-Hunting weapons
-Weapons for home security in isolated areas, and/or areas without adequate police presence, like the countryside and such areas.

in towns and cities owning a gun should not be allowed at all....they cause far more problems then the ones they solve in my opinion.

Yes, but Banning Majortjiy of guns in most places Won't help Ethier Ronin. People still will get it from the Black Market..

Redleg, you been proposing one minute, to allow Civilans to own M-16's and AK-47's, then the next minute, saying:

"Re-read what I stated. You will find that I am against M-16's and AK-47 being available to the people, but have to concede the point that they are personal arms. Can the government regulate them as assualt rifles? There is just such a legislation that has been passed"

Make up your mind

Redleg

11-16-2006, 19:25

Yes, but Banning Majortjiy of guns in most places Won't help Ethier Ronin. People still will get it from the Black Market..

Redleg, you been proposing one minute, to allow Civilans to own M-16's and AK-47's, then the next minute, saying:

"Re-read what I stated. You will find that I am against M-16's and AK-47 being available to the people, but have to concede the point that they are personal arms. Can the government regulate them as assualt rifles? There is just such a legislation that has been passed"

Make up your mind

Since you have demonstrated the inablity to understand what I have wrote, lets try a different way.

What weapon is required for protection of life and property against other citizens intented upon doing harm to you and yours? My opinion is that personal arms are required. One could base an arguement for the M16 or Ak47 being a personal arm that is needed in the hands of citizens to maintain their protection. And in that regards I would even concede to that.

Do you understand what the term concede means?

From webster's

1 : to grant as a right or privilege
2 a : to accept as true, valid, or accurate <the right of the state to tax is generally conceded> b : to acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly <conceded that it might be a good idea>

Now look at the definition in 2b. If I am against something but must acknowledge by its definition that it falls within the intent of my understanding of the amendment - that does not mean I agree with it completely, but in order to insure that the right to bear arms is not degraded to nothing - I have to concede that M16 and AK-47 are by definition personal arms. Civilian copies of the weapons - ie semi-automatic versions have meant the criteria of such and have been sold and are allowed by law. The government did in fact attempt such a legislation to ban all assualt weapons but put in an automatic expiration clause in that legislation. One must look at why they placed the expiration in the legislation if they believed the legislation was constitutional.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-16-2006, 20:13

Since you have demonstrated the inablity to understand what I have wrote, lets try a different way.

What weapon is required for protection of life and property against other citizens intented upon doing harm to you and yours? My opinion is that personal arms are required. One could base an arguement for the M16 or Ak47 being a personal arm that is needed in the hands of citizens to maintain their protection. And in that regards I would even concede to that.

Do you understand what the term concede means?

From webster's

Now look at the definition in 2b. If I am against something but must acknowledge by its definition that it falls within the intent of my understanding of the amendment - that does not mean I agree with it completely, but in order to insure that the right to bear arms is not degraded to nothing - I have to concede that M16 and AK-47 are by definition personal arms. Civilian copies of the weapons - ie semi-automatic versions have meant the criteria of such and have been sold and are allowed by law. The government did in fact attempt such a legislation to ban all assualt weapons but put in an automatic expiration clause in that legislation. One must look at why they placed the expiration in the legislation if they believed the legislation was constitutional.

Boy Red, I'm so stupid I Didn't know what that means :laugh4: Mabye you Don't know what Concede means, since you the one who looked it up:idea2: .

No Redleg, it seems like you demonstrated the ablity to change your Opnion around, but then accuse people of not understanding, when you yourself are the one making things more stupider then it already is.

Banquo's Ghost

11-16-2006, 20:18

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-16-2006, 20:36

You should understand that resorting to personal attacks when someone has been rather patient in explaining your errors, rather undermines any credibility your arguments may hold.

And Who Started the Personel attacks? :inquisitive:
Redleg eariler in this Thread asked, if it wasn't him sry, but last time I checked it was, that he wanted miliatary guns to be avabile to Civilans.. Now he saying he didn't say it. That is a Lie.

A Person doesn't need a Assault Weapon Red. I would like to have a M-16,oh sure. But Why? I don't think someone with a AK-47 is going to break in my house, and even if it did happen, I won't mind being in a gunfight..

Banquo's Ghost

11-16-2006, 20:41

And Who Started the Personel attacks? :inquisitive:
Redleg eariler in this Thread asked, if it wasn't him sry, but last time I checked it was, that he wanted miliatary guns to be avabile to Civilans.. Now he saying he didn't say it. That is a Lie.

I suggest you check his posts again. He said nothing of the sort. Before accusing someone of lying, you need to be very sure of your position.

yesdachi

11-16-2006, 20:42

Do you think Guns should be in the Hands of Civianlns, normal people like us, or no??
I think all weapons should be available to all people given the proper permits. How else am I suppose to get a tank for my militia.

Crazed Rabbit

11-16-2006, 20:47

Is there three of you now?
You will be assimlated. http://www.thumbsiteboard.com/images/smilies/borg.gif

Does one need a military weapon to secure and defend one's home from criminals? My belief is no. A shotgun, a pistol, and any other individual weapon yes.

I would agree one does not need an AK-47 for home defense against simple burglars or the like. But I would contend that rights are not granted upon need; we don't need to prove we need any firearm.

Now concerning the people upraising against a tryannical government.

If a citizens upraising happens against the government - what portion of the military will also desert and join the upraising - remember the men and women who serve in the military are also citizens. So I don't buy the arguement that the people must arm themselves with military ordance to protect themselves from a tryanical government, because the military has weapons greater then the people. Then you add the fact that less then 1% of the population serves in the military.

And what if the vast majority of the military obeys the gov't, for whatever reason? What if those who desert don't bring with them any military ordance?

You are, it seems, trusting in the standing army to protect us against the tyrannical use of such an army. To me, that seems odd, s the whole point of the second is that citizens can arm themselves - they don't have to rely on stolen state weapons or deserters.

Then coupled with the National Guard which is also a regulated branch of a citizen's militia that answers first the the Governor of the state, then to the Federal Government. Military ordance is available to the citizens through this militia formation, which in case of a popular upraising the ability for the Federal Government to call the Guard forth is questionable.

So all that is left is for the citizens to have for the upraising access to personal arms, which is done under the current system of laws and regulations. Regardless of the difference in the types of weapons, 1% of the population can not control, nor contain a popular upraising of the people. A popular upraising of the people against the government does not require military weapons to be successful.

Again, I think you are assuming too much to justify your argument.

The state controls the national guard weapons, and I doubt they would look kindly upon them being stolen. The national guard is not a militia in the sense the founders meant. Also, the military is not the only agent of force the government can employ; think of the police officers and large police forces in cities.

I believe you are neglecting a right because you think we don't need it.

Finally

To regulate what types of weapons belong where fits the admendment very well in my opinion.

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.
I see the issuing of military grade weapons as a function of the government, which falls in line with the first part of the amendment.

If the United States were to maintain a trained militia that conducts regularly scheduled military training for all citizens, then I would agree that military weapons should be in the homes of the citizens, but we do not. Therefor I see no over-ridding need to ignore the first part of the amendment to tell the government that they can not regulate weapons, However I will vehemently oppose any legislation that removes personal arms from the people.

In the amendment, the phrase 'well-regulated' means well prepared, not controlled by the gov't - such gov't control over the arms of the people would be contrary to the very meaning of the amendment.

The gov't does not have to 'issue' people weapons, it merely has to get out of the way and let people make, buy, and sell them.

I recall from one of the federalist papers an argument against requiring the people to train as a militia - it would take too much time.

In summary, I think you put too much trust in the military, you assume too much power for the government, and that you don't seem to support the true meaning of the second - preparation of citizens should they ever have to actually fight against a tyrannical government.

In an ideal situation no civilian should be armed in a civilized society in my opinion.
So, women should be forced to fistfight with rapists?
People should be at the mercy of criminals breaking into their homes?
The government should be able to control your life?

Did you know the amount of guns in the US increases by a couple million each year, and violent crime has been dropping for something like 30 years? That one of the highest murder rates is in Washington DC (Home to the FBI and numerous other security agencies)?

yes, that is true, but a large number of illegal guns are guns that were once sold legally and then were stollen by criminals or illegally sold on by their legal owners
We already have laws against that.

Crazed Rabbit

Ser Clegane

11-16-2006, 20:49

:stop:

Personal attacks in this thread will stop immediately.

Please behave maturely and try to convince me that a gun control does not necessarily need to lead to flaming and significant moderator intervention.

Thanks

Aenlic

11-16-2006, 21:00

One thing I would like to see is barrel ballistics signature typing done at the factory. All arms manufacturers already do extensive Q&A of their barrels, each and every one. It wouldn't be all that difficult to add in a process to signature type each barrel, so there would be a record of the individual ballistics markings from every gun to match its serial number.

Gun manufacturers already want to be absolved from civil liability. Make such a ballistics typing a condition of such liability. Also make it mandatory to duplicate the serial number in a second less accessible location so it can't be removed so easily. They want to be free from any civil liability, then they ought to at least put some effort into lessening their liability. :wink:

At least that way, all future guns sold would have a ballistics record on file. With that information, instead of needing both gun and casing after a crime has been committed, law enforcement would only need the casing. With that they could match it to a ballistics file for the gun and at least trace the gun to the last legal owner. The only time your gun's ballistic file would be needed, or even accessed, would be if a bullet casing turned up at a crime scene that matched your gun's barrel.

It doesn't put any burden on the gun owner, unless his or her gun is used in a crime. And even then, only if the gun owner wasn't sensible and law-abiding. Sensible gun owners know where their guns are. If their gun is stolen, they bloody well better report it as being so.

Redleg

11-16-2006, 21:13

Boy Red, I'm so stupid I Didn't know what that means :laugh4: Mabye you Don't know what Concede means, since you the one who looked it up:idea2: .

No Redleg, it seems like you demonstrated the ablity to change your Opnion around, but then accuse people of not understanding, when you yourself are the one making things more stupider then it already is.

If I had been obtruse I would understand your attempt here. However Ihave not been obtruse in this thread.

Again do you understand what the term concede means - because it seems clearly to me that you do not given the nature of your comments from this point forward.

Again did I state that I support military weapons in the hands of citizens or did I state I concede the point that AK-47 and M16's are considered personal arms? Read carefully before thinking I am speaking incoherient in this thread.

However if you wish to pursue this tract of logic then I of course will have to believe that you do not wish a honest discussion on the issue at hand.

Crazed Rabbit

11-16-2006, 21:25

One thing I would like to see is barrel ballistics signature typing done at the factory. All arms manufacturers already do extensive Q&A of their barrels, each and every one. It wouldn't be all that difficult to add in a process to signature type each barrel, so there would be a record of the individual ballistics markings from every gun to match its serial number.

Gun manufacturers already want to be absolved from civil liability. Make such a ballistics typing a condition of such liability. Also make it mandatory to duplicate the serial number in a second less accessible location so it can't be removed so easily. They want to be free from any civil liability, then they ought to at least put some effort into lessening their liability.

At least that way, all future guns sold would have a ballistics record on file. With that information, instead of needing both gun and casing after a crime has been committed, law enforcement would only need the casing.

I am compelled to disagree. This thing can be very easily beaten:
Getting a revolver, or picking up some loose casings at the range.

It would increase costs and represent more information the government has on you, and be, essentially, a registeration program - which have been used before guns are consficated.

CR

Redleg

11-16-2006, 21:32

I would agree one does not need an AK-47 for home defense against simple burglars or the like. But I would contend that rights are not granted upon need; we don't need to prove we need any firearm.

You are correct.

And what if the vast majority of the military obeys the gov't, for whatever reason? What if those who desert don't bring with them any military ordance?

Again can 1% of the population control the majority of the people if the people are against the 1% no matter how well that 1% is armed? Its a circuler arguement in which one pursues when stating that the people must be armed to protect themselves from the military in the United States. The military consists of citizens that are willing to serve to protect and serve the United States and its constitution.

You are, it seems, trusting in the standing army to protect us against the tyrannical use of such an army. To me, that seems odd, s the whole point of the second is that citizens can arm themselves - they don't have to rely on stolen state weapons or deserters.

I shall refer you to the enlistment oath and the oath of office for an officer in the United States Military. Plus I refer you to the safe guards alreadly proscribed by law concerning the use of the military within the terrority of the United States. The whole point of the second amendment is two fold - to insure the security of the nation through a well regulated militia, and to provide for the arming of the people to insure that security. Military arms are not needed to defend the people's freedom.

Again, I think you are assuming too much to justify your argument.

You would first have to discount the assumption to reach that conclusion.

The state controls the national guard weapons, and I doubt they would look kindly upon them being stolen. The national guard is not a militia in the sense the founders meant. Also, the military is not the only agent of force the government can employ; think of the police officers and large police forces in cities.

Yes the individual state controls the national guard weapons - that is correct. What happened during the last insurrection of the people against the government? Do you need military grade weapons to defeat the police forces of cities. Where once again its less then 2% of the population that is attempting to maintain law and order on a rather peaceful group.

I believe you are neglecting a right because you think we don't need it.

You would be incorrect in that assumption. I don't believe the founding fathers meant that all forms of arms should be in the people's hands. That the founding fathers meant for personal arms should not be banned.

In the amendment, the phrase 'well-regulated' means well prepared, not controlled by the gov't - such gov't control over the arms of the people would be contrary to the very meaning of the amendment.

Well regulated has several meanings. I am not saying your interpation is necessarily wrong, but to believe it means only well prepared means one must discount the militia clauses in the Legislative Section of the constitution

The gov't does not have to 'issue' people weapons, it merely has to get out of the way and let people make, buy, and sell them.

Again I refer to the body of the constitution, the amendment does not state issue nor does it make, buy and sell.

I recall from one of the federalist papers an argument against requiring the people to train as a militia - it would take too much time.

Correct, do you also recall that the second amendment was a compramise between the drafters to take in account all parties concerns about the militia, the maintaining of the free state, and the protection of the people.

In summary, I think you put too much trust in the military, you assume too much power for the government, and that you don't seem to support the true meaning of the second - preparation of citizens should they ever have to actually fight against a tyrannical government.

:no:

I trust the military to react like the citizens of the nation that they are. That they have pledge to protect and defend the constitution and the nation foremost over the actions of the tryannical government.

THose that believe the second amendment means that the government can not regulate certain aspects concerning weapons have missed the intent of the constitution to support only one amendment to it. The 2nd amendment was written in such a way that certain aspects concerning weapons can be controlled. One important judicial decision alreadly mention by Anelic confirms that interpation over all other interpations.

To read anything else into my arguement is an assumption.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-16-2006, 22:24

Redleg

11-16-2006, 22:32

Why should I not be permitted the use of an automatic weapon to defend my home?

I am responsible for that weapon's proper storage, safe use, and injuries infliceted thereby -- as I would and should be with any other weapon -- so what is the problem?

If I use a baseball bat to crush the skull of an intruder, a kitchen knife to puncture the intruder's lung, or a burst from an M-60 to take that intruder out, what is the difference?

Does possession of an automatic weapon somehow decerebrate the individual, forcing them to become a crazed killer who simply has to take the gun out for a stroll and hose down a school bus on full rock and roll?

Does the prohibition of such weapons somehow prevent, in practice, the whack-job who would commit such a horror from acquiring such a weapon?

We live in a world where you can acquire weapons of mass destruction with a trip to your local feed & seed store and a stop at Radio Shack. Zip home, download the instructions from the net and make your kill. Crazies don't run off to become hermits anymore -- they go for the media splash.

Since that is the world in which we live, I don't think gun control laws accomplish what they set out to do.

Perhaps we should go the other direction: a legal requirement for all non-felons who are physically/mentally able to own, be trained to use, and carry a firearm. I bet social politeness would be "in" real quick. Perhaps not?

The question is not why should you be allowed or not allowed to own a fully automatic weapon. But what was the intent of the drafter's of the constitution? Did they intend the people to have access to every possible type of weapon, or as men of their time did the intend the people to have the ability to rightfully defend themselves with personal arms.

Think back to the 1994 Assualt weapon's ban, Why did congress place an automatic expiration date into that piece of the legislation? Was it because - unlike the Machine gun ban of 1934 - they knew that the legislation would not stand up to judicial review? Then there is the Miller case where the court also ruled in favor of government restriction on weapons.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-16-2006, 23:11

Kagemusha

11-16-2006, 23:42

Why should I not be permitted the use of an automatic weapon to defend my home?

I am responsible for that weapon's proper storage, safe use, and injuries infliceted thereby -- as I would and should be with any other weapon -- so what is the problem?

If I use a baseball bat to crush the skull of an intruder, a kitchen knife to puncture the intruder's lung, or a burst from an M-60 to take that intruder out, what is the difference?

Does possession of an automatic weapon somehow decerebrate the individual, forcing them to become a crazed killer who simply has to take the gun out for a stroll and hose down a school bus on full rock and roll?

Does the prohibition of such weapons somehow prevent, in practice, the whack-job who would commit such a horror from acquiring such a weapon?

We live in a world where you can acquire weapons of mass destruction with a trip to your local feed & seed store and a stop at Radio Shack. Zip home, download the instructions from the net and make your kill. Crazies don't run off to become hermits anymore -- they go for the media splash.

Since that is the world in which we live, I don't think gun control laws accomplish what they set out to do.

Perhaps we should go the other direction: a legal requirement for all non-felons who are physically/mentally able to own, be trained to use, and carry a firearm. I bet social politeness would be "in" real quick. Perhaps not?

How about a fact that a light machine gun like M-60 shoots bursts. When a trained machine gunner shoots a short burts he fires 2- 6 bullets per burst. Now when someone breaks into your home and in panic you start firing with your M-60,which have no single shot mode, how many rounds do you think mostly likely shoot? 10,15, half of the ammo belt? Would it be possible that after the few first rounds hit the intruder the rest how many you ever may happen to release start hitting walls,neighbours walls and windows and maybe one of the neighbours kids or your family members head,torso or limb?
Now if you had lets say shotgun or that baseball bat you could have stopped the intruder without endangering others. So machine gun for self defence is not only unpractical becouse its heavier then normal rifle,shotgun or pistol, but also unpractical and dangerous, becouse its ment to be platoon,squadron or team support weapon not a self defence weapon.

Redleg

11-16-2006, 23:42

Yes we are allow to defend ourselves with Personal Arms RedLeg, but nothing is saying that we should be given AK-47's to defend our homes and families, and end up having a half a hour gunfight with a few gangbangers that also broke into your house with M-16's.

Your getting very close to what I have stated, expect your missing one key point.

There is nothing that states that an M16 nor an AK 47 is not a personal arms. In fact in the United States Military the M16 is considered a personal weapon.

If one agrees that the 2nd Amendment means personal arms, one must concede that all personal arms fall within that definition. Light Machine Guns such as the SAW do not fit within that definition, however military issued personal arms do fit within that definition. For instance are you not allowed to purchase the exact same handgun that the military issues as a personal sidearm? Are you not allowed (this is in the past) to purchase Military issued shotguns? Is not the M1 allowed to be purchased? Is not the M14 allowed to be purchased? All these weapons were considered personal issued weapons in the military.

I believe full heartly that the 2nd Amendment applies to all personal weapons - rather I like it or not, I must concede that it includes military assualt weapons and their civilian counterpart models such as the AR15. How else can you explain the automatic expiration date of the Assualt Weapons ban?

I wonder if you understand the difference given your earlier comments?