NRA is too radical

[Crazed Rabbit]

Now that the 2nd Amendment has been formally incorporated onto the individual states, the gun debate is moot for the US. The only thing to discuss is the level of security we will take to prevent criminals and mentally ill from getting them. Chicago and any other local/state government will not be able to deny guns anymore. NRA is mostly moot at this point except to act as a small vanguard in case a future supreme court attempts to challenge the incorporation (almost completely unlikely).

I wish it were so.

But Chicago, New York City, and others will fight to the end to deny people their rights.

The NRA is far from moot. States like California restrict semi-auto firearms to ridiculous levels (no detachable magazines, no pistol grips, etc.), others deny people the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Others want to impose draconian registration requirements.

New Jersey threw a man in prison for seven years for having an unloaded pistol in the trunk of his car.

Obama does what he can to oppose gun rights.

We're a long way from being able to own and carry semi-auto handguns and rifles in the entire nation.

EDIT: Not to mention truly moronic laws about how some semi-auto rifles legal to own and make in the US cannot be imported, or how a certain number of parts on each rifle have to be made in the US or it's illegal to own.

Double EDIT: Also, the ATF will throw you in jail for merely possessing the parts to assemble an 'illegal' rifle - one with a barrel that's to short, for example. And all the stupid laws against rifles with short barrels.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wish it were so.

But Chicago, New York City, and others will fight to the end to deny people their rights.

The NRA is far from moot. States like California restrict semi-auto firearms to ridiculous levels (no detachable magazines, no pistol grips, etc.), others deny people the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Others want to impose draconian registration requirements.

New Jersey threw a man in prison for seven years for having an unloaded pistol in the trunk of his car.

Obama does what he can to oppose gun rights.

We're a long way from being able to own and carry semi-auto handguns and rifles in the entire nation.

EDIT: Not to mention truly moronic laws about how some semi-auto rifles legal to own and make in the US cannot be imported, or how a certain number of parts on each rifle have to be made in the US or it's illegal to own.

Double EDIT: Also, the ATF will throw you in jail for merely possessing the parts to assemble an 'illegal' rifle - one with a barrel that's to short, for example. And all the stupid laws against rifles with short barrels.

CR

Chicago and New York City can battle and fight all they want, but the greater war has been decided. The law is the law and judges will see to it that it is carried out. They are not threats to your ownership.

Clamoring over detachable magazines and pistol grips being banned is just as over the top as me hollering over the censorship of Carlin's Seven Dirty Words and declaring it to be an infringement of the First Amendment to the utmost extreme. The laws are moronic, of course, but it's not the tyranny coming to get ya over the hill as completely banning guns (or free speech) is. Those completely denying a gun to defend yourselves will also be washed away by the Supreme Court's ruling, it only takes time and enough lawyers. They are not a threat in the long run either. You will have to explain what "draconian" entails before I comment on that sentence.

The New Jersey case isn't black and white gun right infringement. There is a real discussion on the responsibility of gun owners. If an unloaded gun is left on the dashboard and someone breaks the car window grabs the gun and leaves that is now a black market gun with no way of tracing the user. That is irresponsible for a gun owner to simply leave his gun in such a place. Now granted this was in the trunk but if the law simply deemed the entire car as an irresponsible place to leave a handgun then the issue isn't tyranny, it is vague laws concerning responsibility.

That is what the NRA vanguard is for. Hire a lawyer and tear the bill apart in court. Nothing else needs to be done. No gun waving or speeches about cold, dead hands needed.

We're a long way from complete freedom from censorship, but that doesn't mean we lose our heads and think to ourselves it is all going to slip away from us at any moment.

Yes, your two edits are right in that they are moronic policies. However, the fact is you have your guns and they can't take them away from you under the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States which makes such laws and policies, an annoyance or hindrance, not tyranny.

[Beskar]

In America, the mental image of the gun is a man barricaded behind the sofa, protecting his family.

In the rest of the World, the mental image of the gun is a tool with the sole purpose of killing and violence.

[HoreTore]

In America, the mental image of the gun is a man barricaded behind the sofa, protecting his family.

In the rest of the World, the mental image of the gun is a tool with the sole purpose of killing and violence.

Europeans believe in the rule of Law.

Americans believes it is the right of everyone to acts as prosecutor, judge and executor.

An even shorter version:

Europe: person > property

America: person < property

@WarmanCake: kudos from driving forth all the "paranoid USA government people" (like any of them will ever rebel....they're about as threatening as a moist sponge)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Europeans believe in the rule of Law.

Americans believes it is the right of everyone to acts as prosecutor, judge and executor.

I guess you didn't read the thread. Because I just described how the ruling in favor of gun rights is consistent with our adherence to the rule of law. The 2nd Amendment is the law and it applies whether we like it or not.

You want to talk about rule of law, lets talk about the riots in Greece over the austerity law their elected government passed. I guess as long as we are picking and choosing which laws are "good" to revolt over we can still say we submit to their rule.

[HoreTore]

I guess you didn't read the thread. Because I just described how the ruling in favor of gun rights is consistent with our adherence to the rule of law. The 2nd Amendment is the law and it applies whether we like it or not.

....And I don't see how that changes an americans desire to "settle things out of court" by executing a suspected criminal on the spot for the theft of a candy bar.

[a completely inoffensive name]

....And I don't see how that changes an americans desire to "settle things out of court" by executing a suspected criminal on the spot for the theft of a candy bar.

Well at least we don't have the Norwegian desire to touch little boys as shown by your post in the other thread (I can generalize too!). The left is supposed to be smarter and not resort to stereotyping in their arguments. We can't make a better society until we have mastered the complexity of it and we can't do that if we are making stupid arguments and statements like yours that are false and lead the conversation nowhere constructive.

[PanzerJaeger]

In America, the mental image of the gun is a man barricaded behind the sofa, protecting his family.

In the rest of the World, the mental image of the gun is a tool with the sole purpose of killing and violence.

Europeans believe in the rule of Law.

I've never understood the smug, self-righteous attitude this issue brings out in Europeans; not to mention the wildly inaccurate depictions of America that highlight a serious lack of knowledge on the subject.

One could just as easily say that Europeans don't love freedom as much as Americans do, or that they have outsourced their personal safety to strangers whose response times are completely dependent on current traffic congestion.

Those are just talking points though.

The hard truth is that increasingly liberal gun laws yield marginally higher gun crime rates, and every society has a bit different cost/benefit analysis on the subject. Europeans in countries that have very restrictive gun laws can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime. Americans can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime as well, albeit with a .000X higher chance than their European counterparts, and a bit more freedom.


Also, gun ownership in America is not supported solely by anti-government, militia types. In fact, the main reason for gun ownership is personal safety.

Consider a young woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. She can get a restraining order, but the police can only take action against the man after he has broken it, and response time can often be well over 10 minutes - plenty of time for all sorts of awful acts. In America, the young woman has the option to invest in a level of personal protection that the police simply cannot supply.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Americans can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime as well, albeit with a .000X higher chance than their European counterparts, and a bit more freedom.

Your chance referral is not quite correct: in the USA you are not yet 10^5 times more likely to be killed by a bullet than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Thankfully, in Virginia you still have to have a really, really good reason.

Sorry, drone.

Seriously though: you are significantly more likely in the USA to be shot by someone, than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Significantly more likely, not just a bit more likely.

However the quick google statistics are made a bit more complicated by other issues: homicide rates, and of course criminal gangs and the like.

[PanzerJaeger]

Your chance referral is not quite correct: in the USA you are not yet 10^5 times more likely to be killed by a bullet than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Thankfully, in Virginia you still have to have a really, really good reason.

Sorry, drone.

Seriously though: you are significantly more likely in the USA to be shot by someone, than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Significantly more likely, not just a bit more likely.

However the quick google statistics are made a bit more complicated by other issues: homicide rates, and of course criminal gangs and the like.

Here is an interesting list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 people. Is a .00007 chance per year of being killed by a gun versus a .0000036 (using the Netherlands) chance worth the price (ignoring the fact that such deaths are disproportionately skewed towards the inner city and gang violence)? Perspective is key...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Here is an interesting list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 people. Is a .00007 chance per year of being killed by a gun versus a .0000036 (using the Netherlands) chance worth the price (ignoring the fact that such deaths are disproportionately skewed towards the inner city and gang violence)? Perspective is key...

By your own link, England/Wales is reported with a .46/.38 compared with 10+ for the US. That is significant...

[rory_20_uk]

Consider a young woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. She can get a restraining order, but the police can only take action against the man after he has broken it, and response time can often be well over 10 minutes - plenty of time for all sorts of awful acts. In America, the young woman has the option to invest in a level of personal protection that the police simply cannot supply.

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

Including being of limited or no danger to criminals. Tasers are one shot weapons which are only effective in the right conditions even when they do hit - OR they require the user to be in grappling range. Pepper spray is useless for thwarting a determined attack - it just irritates the skin, it doesn't physically impede someone.

Also, in some cities tasers have been outlawed, and single woman carrying them for protection have been arrested. One city in Washington (where it's legal to openly carry a pistol if you're older than 21 with no permit, and getting a concealed carry permit is easy) has done this, and more elsewhere.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

So she's drunk enough to have her judgement seriously affected, but sober enough to draw and double tap somebody in an instant?

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

You know, we already have laws allowing concealed carry of firearms. And the hypothetical scenarios you lay out remain just that - hypothetical and nonexistent.

As it turns out because of the physics of weapons, something needs to be effect 25m away if it's to be effective at all.

I should have put it this way: is it more dangerous to live in a country where people can legally own firearms or not?

The majority of firearms deaths come from drug related gang violence. Staying out of the drug trade and not being in a gang reduces your risk considerably.

What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?

I think we shouldn't based laws on extreme hypothetical scenarios with no chance of happening.

Depending on where you leave the gun in your car, yes you should be jailed for a while. CR, get your head out of the ideological cloud, when you have a gun you have a responsibility as with all freedoms. You should be jailed for leaving you gun out on a table at Applebee's and then heading off to the bathroom. When you put the gun in an unreasonable situation for being stolen, the consequences are someone taking the gun and shooting some person they hate, dropping gun somewhere and potentially leaving no evidence. You are partly responsible for that death. I don't see how you can argue that it is ok for a gun owner to leave the gun anywhere.

Your second sentence is really over the top. Holding no accountability is not the same as freedom.

I did not argue that it's okay for a gun owner to leave their gun around. Rather, that while being stupid they should not be liable for a criminal complaint for something like that - which directly results in no harm to anyone. The harm comes from the actions of others. I do not think people should be prosecuted on the chance somebody else may take their gun and do bad things with it.

Umm, be careful CR. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment was incorporated was because about 110 years ago, the SCOTUS did use the Constitution as a living document by rejecting the philosophy that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and set the precedent for enforcing the Bill of Right's onto the individual states. The Constitution needs to be treated as a living document because society changes at a faster pace then the Constitution can be changed to adapt to it. Your gun right's victory is because of that living treatment, whether or not you recognize it or appreciate it.

I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

I did not argue that it's okay for a gun owner to leave their gun around. Rather, that while being stupid they should not be liable for a criminal complaint for something like that - which directly results in no harm to anyone. The harm comes from the actions of others. I do not think people should be prosecuted on the chance somebody else may take their gun and do bad things with it.

So if a criminal wanted to hand guns off into the black market, all he would have to do is buy a bunch of guns legally, take them and then leave them somewhere for a bit and have someone "steal" them. Then he gets off free because it isn't his actions that will cause those guns to be used violently it's the people he worked with who "stole" them. This sort of reasoning, leaves loopholes for criminals for the benefit of what, the freedom to leave your gun where you wish?

I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment.

CR

It is their interpretation of the 14th Amendment that gave them the legal basis to incorporate the Bill of Right onto the States. But this interpretation did not suddenly appear along with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, for many years after its ratification, the SCOTUS still held that the Bill of Rights is only for the Federal government, see United_States_v._Cruikshank from 1875.

In fact take a look at that case very carefully CR. Let's go over the holding of that case from 1875:
The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

So the precedent since the beginning of the country was that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States and even after the 14th Amendment this view was given as the legal doctrine to be enforced.

In fact the first case of incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not happen until 1925, with Gitlow_v._New_York when that SCOTUS made their own interpretation of the 14th Amendment to allow incorporation. They went against precedent that stemmed all the way back to the founders and treated the Constitution as a living document, able to given new interpretations. And if it wasn't for treating it as a living document, well CR, Chicago would still be asking for your guns.

[quadalpha]

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

Alternative scenario: Young woman pulls pistol on stalker, who pulls out the AK he was carrying for self defense.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

'too'

Please define 'assault rifle'.

For example, An AK-47 maybe......

The purpose of the second amendment is not for hunting, nor even self defense, but to provide citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government (as evidence, I would submit the many statements of the founders about this. Arguments that a civilian uprising would be impossible are both irrelevant - such arguments do not change the constitution as written - and suspect, considering how well the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing).

Using a definition of assault weapons as select fire rifles (for example, the US Army M4, which fires the 5.56 cartridge in both semi-auto and fully automatic fires), they are arguably the most protected weapon under the second amendment, because they are the primary modern infantry weapon.

And what do you mean, can't be defended as legitimate civilian weapons? They're just tools, and how they are used is up to who is using them.

CR

Good luck overthrowing a government,escaplly in Europe.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Good luck overthrowing a government,escaplly in Europe.

We do that on a regular basis. It's called general election.

[Crazed Rabbit]

For example, An AK-47 maybe......

When was the last time a legally owned AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime?

EDIT: Heck, when was the last time any AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime? And why don't you say just why such weapons can't be used by civilians?

CR

[rory_20_uk]

Although the AK-47 is the best known, there are several others that have supplanted it over the years, and I imagine that there are few AK-47s that are used.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

When was the last time a legally owned AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime?

EDIT: Heck, when was the last time any AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime? And why don't you say just why such weapons can't be used by civilians?

CR

North Hollywood shootout-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

In my hometown of Pittsburgh PA-
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23813856...me_and_courts/


Stop being paranoid about the government, you guys will never have a case to overthrow them you nuts.


Enjoy the new year.

[PanzerJaeger]

By your own link, England/Wales is reported with a .46/.38 compared with 10+ for the US. That is significant...

Is it?

Eliminating suicides brings America's stat to approximately 7. Now, in the range of 0-7, the difference is highly significant. However, in the range of 0-100,000, I would argue that it is not.

My point being that while you do have a statistically higher chance of being shot and killed in America than in Europe, the actual chance that you will die by gunfire in either place is highly remote.

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

Certainly. I wouldn't trust my life to pepper spray.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Why would the girl in the example walk home alone? I understand that you are reaching to try and invalidate the example, but such hypotheticals should at least make sense.

For example, An AK-47 maybe......

An example is not a definition.

What characteristics of the AK-47 make it more dangerous and/or deadly than other firearms?

What about hunting rifles like this? Would you ban them?

[rory_20_uk]

Are you suggesting that in the course of a year there are no women who unwisely walk home alone?

And why be afraid when you've got a semi-automatic pistol in one's handbag - I thought that these guns make people safe?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is it?

Eliminating suicides brings America's stat to approximately 7. Now, in the range of 0-7, the difference is highly significant. However, in the range of 0-100,000, I would argue that it is not.

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically. What that cannot prove, of itself, is whether firearms are the cause of INTENTIONAL deaths. However, even there, recent statistics suggest that you are more than thrice as likely to be intentionally killed in the USA as you are to be killed intentionally in the UK. The question is whether the difference is firearms, culture, or both.

My gut reaction is to view firearms as one of the reasons for the difference. Such weapons are readily available, lethal even with limited or no training in their use, and often very portable. The ready availability of such tools suggests that, when drunk or upset, the typical American is far more likely to have a gun available with which to vent their frustrations than is the typical Brit. The likelihood of an attack of some form is probably pretty similar in both cultures, but the Yank is likely more lethally armed and more likely to kill the person who has angered them. Moreover, the ready availability of weapons yields a higher number of accidental gun deaths (though there is nothing in the data to suggest that we're more likely to have such accidents than some other culture, only that we have more weapons per person and hence more accidents).

Personal firearms are a right and a guarantor of rights and freedoms. In strict terms of physical safety, the confiscation of all such weapons and their restriction to government military use only is likely to result if fewer deaths.

To me, the right is worth the price.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Chicago and New York City can battle and fight all they want, but the greater war has been decided. The law is the law and judges will see to it that it is carried out. They are not threats to your ownership.

Clamoring over detachable magazines and pistol grips being banned is just as over the top as me hollering over the censorship of Carlin's Seven Dirty Words and declaring it to be an infringement of the First Amendment to the utmost extreme.

The 2nd Amendment was confirmed by only one vote in the SCOTUS, on the most basic and fundamental interpretation.

A change in just one judge could lead to rulings that bans on semi-auto rifles are okay, that draconian registration regulations are alright (for safety!).

It's true that the tide has turned. But the battle for gun rights is far from over.

The New Jersey case isn't black and white gun right infringement. There is a real discussion on the responsibility of gun owners. If an unloaded gun is left on the dashboard and someone breaks the car window grabs the gun and leaves that is now a black market gun with no way of tracing the user. That is irresponsible for a gun owner to simply leave his gun in such a place. Now granted this was in the trunk but if the law simply deemed the entire car as an irresponsible place to leave a handgun then the issue isn't tyranny, it is vague laws concerning responsibility.

So leaving your gun in your car should lead to seven years in jail? I'm sorry, but criminally punishing people for not doing what the state decides is "enough" to prevent theft is a form of infringement.

Such laws are designed to make it potentially criminal to even own a gun by a law abiding citizen, and thereby deter ownership.

Why do some love their ancient documents and fail to treat them as living documents?

That 'ancient document' has led to one of the longest lasting democracies in the world. The way to change it is by going through the prescribed amendment route, not declaring it to be a 'living' document and ignoring the rule of law to suite your own needs.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

The 2nd Amendment was confirmed by only one vote in the SCOTUS, on the most basic and fundamental interpretation.

A change in just one judge could lead to rulings that bans on semi-auto rifles are okay, that draconian registration regulations are alright (for safety!).

It's true that the tide has turned. But the battle for gun rights is far from over.

One vote is all you need. And each case sets precedent. No lower federal judge is going to go against the SCOTUS and accept a ban on only certain types of guns. And it is very unlikely that they are going to have another gun case where one judge is going to switch sides. Usually once the SCOTUS makes a decision, they move on to other cases talking about different subjects.

So leaving your gun in your car should lead to seven years in jail? I'm sorry, but criminally punishing people for not doing what the state decides is "enough" to prevent theft is a form of infringement.

Such laws are designed to make it potentially criminal to even own a gun by a law abiding citizen, and thereby deter ownership.

Depending on where you leave the gun in your car, yes you should be jailed for a while. CR, get your head out of the ideological cloud, when you have a gun you have a responsibility as with all freedoms. You should be jailed for leaving you gun out on a table at Applebee's and then heading off to the bathroom. When you put the gun in an unreasonable situation for being stolen, the consequences are someone taking the gun and shooting some person they hate, dropping gun somewhere and potentially leaving no evidence. You are partly responsible for that death. I don't see how you can argue that it is ok for a gun owner to leave the gun anywhere.

Your second sentence is really over the top. Holding no accountability is not the same as freedom.

That 'ancient document' has led to one of the longest lasting democracies in the world. The way to change it is by going through the prescribed amendment route, not declaring it to be a 'living' document and ignoring the rule of law to suite your own needs.

CR

Umm, be careful CR. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment was incorporated was because about 110 years ago, the SCOTUS did use the Constitution as a living document by rejecting the philosophy that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and set the precedent for enforcing the Bill of Right's onto the individual states. The Constitution needs to be treated as a living document because society changes at a faster pace then the Constitution can be changed to adapt to it. Your gun right's victory is because of that living treatment, whether or not you recognize it or appreciate it.