American Law Enforcement and Guns

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is your interpretation. Fortunately for the world, I'm not in the business of interpreting law and you're not even an American. So...

Fortunately?

Fortunately for the guy shot in the theatre?

No - not fortunately for America at large.

Not at all. I'm just saying that someone who didn't grow up in America simply doesn't have the cultural background to be invested in the prevailing interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. What he's saying is all fine and logical, but totally irrelevant because, quite frankly, he's not American. He's missing some key ingredients needed to weigh in fully on the issue. I think that's less a cheap shot, and more the truth. Its the same reason you people shouldn't take me seriously when I start talking about issues deeply ingrained in the greater European legal situation.

This amounts to "we like being dumb"

GC - sometimes I find you to be the most utterly depressing man on the planet.

"We have a problem with guns, but we can't fix it because we're American"

"We have a problem with healthcare, but we can't fix it because we're American."

Contrary to popular comics - Americans do not have a monopoly on collective stupidity, America is no more or less exceptional than anywhere else.

I put it to you that America has unregulated gun ownership, that this lack of regulation is detrimental to the effectiveness of the militia in times of war and is therefore unconstitutional.

IMO a slightly better interpretation, PVC, one that treats both clauses equally, is that the 2A specifies a right of each capable citizen to be part of a locally constituted-and-regulated militia, free of risk of dissolution or hampering from the federal (or possible even state) side, that entails each member of the militia be required to maintain and train with his own firearms and obey any local regulations that exist to ensure a high standard for the militia.

Well - I was offering the least Libertarian proposition.

An alternative interpretation would be that, considering the needs of the militia, it behoves the States to issue each adult who passes muster with an M-16 and 60 rounds of ammunition, to be securely stored at home and kept in good working order. This is, of course, the Swiss model.

Switzerland also has high gun ownership, but not the problems the US does.

[Ironside]

You two go-getters have inspired me.

From now on, I will tell the obese to just "put down the damn fork", the depressed to just "get over it", and the addicted to just "man-up and quit".

I mean clearly, if these pussies really wanted to change, they would just up and change. It's just that easy after all, right?

So no man has ever gone down in weight, fought a depression or kicked an addiction?

"It can't be done" is defeatist. "It can be done, but is freaking hard and more than I could muster by my own" is more of an admittance to reality.

That's the good thing with those who still tries to stem the tide, even if many of them fails and some of them ends up obstructing a good journey. The rest of us doesn't dare until we see that stone.

[Montmorency]

"It can be done, but is freaking hard and more than I could muster by my own" is more of an admittance to reality.

There's a difference between that and 'just change what you all believe', which is exactly like telling a depressive "have you thought about simply not being depressed?": it's insulting, it's insensitive to both reality and common empathy, and it's not at all helpful.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hah, I've thoroughly detailed why we can't fix healthcare and guns in a timely fashion using a lot more than just "we're American." That's always my point--it can't be done quickly. Like Monty said, there's no appetite in America at large to "fix" the "gun problem." You people spend more time worrying about it than we do, and as a result it would be political suicide for the Democrats to try anything serious on gun control. Its a non-issue. There are a million more important things to be done first, and political capital is limited.

Your gun problem is a symptom of your wider cultural malaise - your healthcare problem is much more important.

[/quote]Call me an American exceptionalist, but I really do think we have some perspective that the rest of the world just doesn't want.[/QUOTE]

You're pretty similar to any other developing country - the "exceptionalism" in America is that you have a society that resembles a country like India with the economic muscle to beat the Soviet Union at it's height.

Actually - India is a very good comparison - both former British Colonies which demanded independence and achieved that aim through a mix of violence and diplomacy - both with a deep seated hated for the UK. Lets be honest here - the average American may like "the British" but they HATE "Great Britain" and everything it stands for.

[PanzerJaeger]

European impressions of America and vice versa are fascinating; both sides seem to view the other with an air of superiority tinged with just the slightest hint of jealousy. I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic for many years and can assure you that living in Germany, Britain, the US and pretty much any first world country is surprisingly, depressingly similar, even when it comes to the issue of guns and security. I live in Memphis, the second most dangerous city in America, and I feel no danger leaving my house to go to work, shop, or walk my dog in one of the many public parks around my home. I have a concealed carry permit, but rarely make use of it. I simply know, as one knows in Europe, that certain small, isolated areas are not to be frequented.

That's where America's 'gun problem' resides, not in the statistically insignificant mass shootings and random acts of violence that grab headlines, but in the ghetto. To be perfectly clear, black people killing black people in impoverished inner city areas is the overwhelming driver of America's high gun violence statistics.

I'm not really sure how to address this issue, as it is linked far more to poverty and culture than the availability of guns. Despite PVC's typically ignorant claim, gun ownership is highly regulated in the US and the vast majority of these gangbangers do not obtain their weapons legally as they would not be able to pass a background check. Changing gun laws will not impact people who do not pay attention to gun laws.

If we really want to cause a measurable decline in the gun violence rate, we have to address inner city poverty and black culture. After the failures of Affirmative Action, race quotas, and the innumerable other societal advantages blacks have been given in the last thirty years, I fear there is little more that can be done apart from instituting policies that will grow the whole economy. Thankfully, violence is on the decline without new, misguided legislation... so maybe the answer is to do nothing?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lets be honest here - the average American may like "the British" but they HATE "Great Britain" and everything it stands for.

I think this explains why you seem to miss the mark so often when it comes to Americans.

We love you guys. We spend all of our Euro bashing on the French.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think this explains why you seem to miss the mark so often when it comes to Americans.

We love you guys. We spend all of our Euro bashing on the French.

That's why you represent us as snaggle toothed, hair-lipped idiots? As still beholden to a defunct aristocracy? Why are villains in American films so often English? We're represented as Craven because we aren't in love with Guns and the NHS has been claimed to operate "Death Panels".

We ARE the ogre in your Constitutional Nightmare.

It's so pervasive, you aren't even aware of it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's why you represent us as snaggle toothed, hair-lipped idiots? As still beholden to a defunct aristocracy? Why are villains in American films so often English? We're represented as Craven because we aren't in love with Guns and the NHS has been claimed to operate "Death Panels".

We ARE the ogre in your Constitutional Nightmare.

It's so pervasive, you aren't even aware of it.

Did you not follow the plot? Alan Rickman is British but he is portraying a German.

[Montmorency]

That's why you represent us as snaggle toothed, hair-lipped idiots?

Wait, so do you mean characters that are explicitly British, or just any usage of the "British accent" at all?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...

Your Constitution provides for a "well regulated" militia - QED the State should regulate the ownership and carriage of weapons so that seditious groups and enemy aliens, along with the criminal and insane, are prevented from carrying weapons.

IN FACT it would seem that REFUSING to regulate the citizen militia at all is as unconstitutional as a blanket ban.

"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."....

There is an excellent point here. Clear indications from the Federalist papers and other then-extent commentary suggest that the founders did view the bearing of arms as an individual right. Guns were kept in the home and were used by individuals and brought to musterings of the militia. In the larger cities of the East Coast, some cities held weapons at the armory and issued them to the citizenry as needed (city dwellers were less likely to own).

However, you make a nice point that the amendment clearly limits the federal government's ability to infringe on the bearing of arms, some degree of regulation by the several states is implied. A fair point to consider. State "dodges" such as declaring all adults part of the "un-regulated militia" may well be running against the provision.

When we were defended by a militia, ALL males of 16 years and older were expected to turn out and bear arms unless they were crippled, incompetent, or were in occupations/roles clearly accepted as being non-violent. Yet our communities DID keep weapons out of the hands of persons thought to be mentally incompetent. There is at least some precedent for regulation at the state level.

[HoreTore]

Yet our communities DID keep weapons out of the hands of persons thought to be mentally incompetent. There is at least some precedent for regulation at the state level.

.......And blacks.

[drone]

Via the Militia Act of 1903, the US has two separate militia categories. The organized militia consists of the state's National Guard units. The reserve militia consists of every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, minus those in certain important professions. States are allowed to categorize/regulate further, but pretty much every adult male is in a regulated militia by federal law so most of the word-lawyering around the Second Amendment is pointless.

And the Brits are bad guys not because we hate the Brits, but we need a foreigner and the British accent is distinct, yet easily understood by the audience.

[Montmorency]

That's exactly why it's so important, actually.

but pretty much every adult male

Except the tens of millions above age 45.

And here, it becomes very easy to argue for reform on the basis that the current militias are not well-regulated.

And there is less basis to complain against any regulatory legislation toward that end, since if curtailing the use of guns is a side-effect of a better-regulated militia, then so be it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

.......And blacks.

Free blacks were gun owners as well. Sometimes even in the South (MD). Those who were not free were not thought of as persons but as property without rights. That view is asinine of itself.

[Montmorency]

There were those black militias that operated within the South during the time of the Civil War, for one side or another. Though I grant there weren't too many of those...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There were those black militias that operated within the South during the time of the Civil War, for one side or another. Though I grant there weren't too many of those...

Blacks fought for both sides during the ACW. The Union employed them in "somewhat" larger numbers than did the Confederacy. Documentable numbers are more than 150k for the Union, and about 10 for the Confederacy.

[rvg]

That's why you represent us as snaggle toothed, hair-lipped idiots? As still beholden to a defunct aristocracy? Why are villains in American films so often English? We're represented as Craven because we aren't in love with Guns and the NHS has been claimed to operate "Death Panels".

We ARE the ogre in your Constitutional Nightmare.

It's so pervasive, you aren't even aware of it.

Seriously man, you're totally off on this one. Britain is the one nation that we consider to be a true friend. There's absolutely no animosity towards Brits here. None whatsoever.

[Papewaio]

If the US government wanted to reduce the number of firearms then an amnesty (I'm sure some are illegal even now) plus a voluntary buy back for firearms for those that chose to give up theirs.

This isn't to remove all firearms just unwanted surplus as defined by the individuals.

[Lemur]

There's absolutely no animosity towards Brits here. None whatsoever.

But we are allowed to thump our chests on the Fourth of July, and tell any Briton within shouting distance that "we kicked your ass."

No hard feelings, though.

And @rvg is quite right, Britain is our best and truest ally, hands down. We should probably stop dragging you into nation-building exercises.

[Beskar]

If the US government wanted to reduce the number of firearms then an amnesty (I'm sure some are illegal even now) plus a voluntary buy back for firearms for those that chose to give up theirs.

This isn't to remove all firearms just unwanted surplus as defined by the individuals.

Such initiatives are rather good in theory and in practise for the individual. It allows you to get rid of your surplus or remove weapons from your household you simply kept for keeping as you were unable to pass it on or sell-on sufficiently.

[Veho Nex]

They are only weapons if you use them as such. They are firearms, tools, to be used. Using the term weapons demonizes them and is frequently used by anti-gun lobbyist. Also gun buy back programs, while allowing individuals to get rid of unwanted firearms, cheat the gun owners out of a lot of money. Getting like 100 or 150 for each gun they bring in.

[Lemur]

Using the term weapons demonizes [firearms] and is frequently used by anti-gun lobbyist.

Isn't that a bit of a stretch? "Weapon" is the generic term for any tool that is primarily designed for inflicting harm. So a sword is a weapon, a pistol is a weapon, a thermobaric explosive is a weapon, and so forth. Can you also use a sword for hedge-trimming and general amusement? Can you repurpose a flamethrower to remove the snow in your driveway? Yes. But that doesn't really make the term "weapon" incorrect, or deceptive.

You can object to its vagueness, but I find it very hard to believe that the use of a correct word for an object is the pointy tip of an Orwellian Newspeak smear campaign.

[Veho Nex]

And most gun owners I know refer to them as firearms as it is more correct here. Anything can be called a weapon, generic term for guns it should not be.

[Montmorency]

To refer to citizens of the United States as "people" is not merely disrespectful, but dehumanizing as well, and is often done by anti-US terrorists.

They are only people if you see them as just like anybody else. They are USAnians, peace-loving workers, to be exploited.

Anyone can be called a "person", generic term for citizens of the United States it should not be.

[Veho Nex]

Most gun owners I know are life long hunters and police with a few cops sprinkled in there. Its different for an army guy because you were conditioned that way.

I was conditioned to refer to them as firearms. In my state/county gun rights are always on the table and hotly debated. It was always better to refer to them as firearms than get caught in a debate about whether dads old hunting rifle is any more dangerous than my new AR 15.

[Papewaio]

All squares are rectangles not all rectangles are squares.

I thought guns were a subset of firearms and which are a subset of weapons.

"A firearm is a portable gun, being a barreled weapon that launches one or more projectiles often defined by the action of an explosive"- Wikipedia

[Husar]

Exactly, it takes a lot of mental weirdness to think that a fire-arm is somehow different from a weapon.

arm 2 (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arms

Definition of ARM

1
a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm
b : a combat branch (as of an army)
c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arm

[Ironside]

They are only weapons if you use them as such. They are firearms, tools, to be used. Using the term weapons demonizes them and is frequently used by anti-gun lobbyist. Also gun buy back programs, while allowing individuals to get rid of unwanted firearms, cheat the gun owners out of a lot of money. Getting like 100 or 150 for each gun they bring in.

If you want to play that game. What does arms in firearms stand for? Armament. In its most generic form, that's equipment made for war. It usually refers to the weaponry.

The literal meaning of the term firearm is a weapon that uses a chemical reaction (usually gunpowder) for the propulsion of the projectile.

You use weapons or traps for hunting. Guns for self-defense are used with the specific purpose of threaten with lethal/significant force as a deterrent.

The only difference is that weapon is a more generic term than firearm.

To deny the connection is the newspeak.

[Beskar]

It reminds me a lot of Estate Agents who call dilapidated houses "rustic" and very small crammed rooms as "cozy".

Weapons and Firearms are now "Projectile Cylinders" or something which sounds far more benign and harmless compared to reality.

Most gun owners I know use the term Weapon as it is more correct. Especially if they have a military background.

They do this here as well. I was always lead to believe it is to instil the sense into soldiers that "this isn't a game" "this is not a toy" "don't screw around with this" as I am sure there are those which go in with big blinkers covering their minds initially.

[Fisherking]

Are you talking about bullet projectors?

A subset of mechanical projectile delivery systems…