That's What Katanas Are For

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Remember, posts #136 and #138. And #150.

Thankee kindly.

[Lemur]

You shouldn't have to take classes to exercise a right. I wouldn't be opposed to some basic training in schools though.

Well, free speech is also a right, and our government forces children to learn to read and write coherent sentences. I don't see why some mandatory firearm safety training infringes on the right to bear arms any more than public schooling infringes on the right to free speech.

I should not be free to run through a building shouting that there's a bomb about to go off. That's inciting a panic, and people could get hurt for no good reason. Likewise, idiots like the OB/GYN I know should be forced to learn some basic firearm handling principles. Simple enough. Nobody's saying he can't arm himself, nobody's trying to take his gun away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, free speech is also a right, and our government forces children to learn to read and write coherent sentences.

They don't require you to pass an English exam before you can speak in public.

I don't see why some mandatory firearm safety training infringes on the right to bear arms any more than public schooling infringes on the right to free speech.

Gee, maybe because no schooling is required to be able to practice free speech?

I should not be free to run through a building shouting that there's a bomb about to go off. That's inciting a panic, and people could get hurt for no good reason. Likewise, idiots like the OB/GYN I know should be forced to learn some basic firearm handling principles. Simple enough. Nobody's saying he can't arm himself, nobody's trying to take his gun away.

Police don't prevent you from speaking until you can prove you've passed an exam about whether or not you can shout 'fire' in a movie theater. Being prevented from shouting 'bomb' is different from requiring firearms training. Shouting 'bomb' is a harmful act in and of itself. Not taking a firearms training class is not.

And you are saying he can't arm himself until he passes your test. And there's many who would make the test as onerous as possible if they could, to prevent people from being able to own guns.

CR

[Lemur]

And there's many who would make the test as onerous as possible if they could, to prevent people from being able to own guns.

Well, that's the real root of your objection, isn't it? A worry that a safety test/course would not be designed or administered in good faith. And it's not unrealistic but ...

... that said, I'd love to see some basic level of competence among firearm owners.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Upon receipt of warning that my recent posts have been rather pointed, I have reviewed said post and indeed I was out of line.

Apologies, all, and of course to Philipvs.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, that's the real root of your objection, isn't it? A worry that a safety test/course would not be designed or administered in good faith. And it's not unrealistic but ...

... that said, I'd love to see some basic level of competence among firearm owners.

As would I. But I think the better method would be instruction in school. It's useful knowledge, after all, and that way is more constitutionally compatible. Plus more people will be educated, and it'll help the people who don't own guns but have friends who do.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Still bad and unnecessary.

During the inquisition, they offered to strangle you to death rather than burn you if you signed a confession.

But, frankly, I don't see much about strangulation to be happy about. ;) Get my drift?

Never heard this about the Inquisition. It sounds like a bare-faced lie (not yours) because the Church doesn't kill people, it hands them off to the state. Also, it isn't legally allowed to forsake a penitant. If you repent you are forgiven, pretty much Canon Law 101.

Respond to my other posts, will ya?!? Do I have to repost them or what?

In time, I feel this issue is currently more pertinant.

Anyways, yes, really.

That is an insane restriction. You seem to think that you have all the time in the world to react when you're house is broken into.

Man, a criminal can be in and OUT in a matter of minutes. Usually the police are too late.

So don't tell me that from the time you actually realize someone is in your house, you can get up, fumble with your keys, open TWO safes, get everything out, assemble it, and be all set.

I don't know, 30 seconds. I'd pratice it blindfolded. Loading a magazine into a weapon should be as natural as tieing your shoelaces, if it isn't you haven't practiced enough. You shouldn't keep your weapon dissassembled anyway, you'll get gunk in the working parts and the oil on the bolt and spring will attract dust.

Rediculous. We are talking about SECONDS' worth of time here, not minutes.

Well, it should take more than 30 seconds for him to break in and get to you, your alarm should wake you up, and if he doesn't attack you you shouldn't really be shooting him. I don't really want to kill someone over a TV, even if it is a flatscreen.

And guess what you can do to stop an idiot child from picking up and loading Daddy's gun?

TRAIN 'EM, DANGIT!!! Yes, personal responsibility!!! You cannot legislate personal responsibility! It doesn't work.

There have already been several cases this year of under-tens shooting siblings by accident because the weapon was left loaded, and there have been many instances over the years of teens taking weapons from their parents and going nuts.

Driving is a priviledge, not a right. ;) And driving is not a means of self-defense, as guns are.

I believe your Constitution actually defines the right as that of a "Well regulated Militia". In any case, a right always comes with a responsibility. Requiring someone to be trained and safe, up to a military standard of basic competancy, is entirely reasonable in my view. It is what was required of me.

Such training is not difficult, a child can quite litterally by taught. In the UK the minimum age they are willing to train you to use a weapon is around 12 usually. Pass, you can put bullets down range; fail, sit in the corner and watch. This in a country that has some of the most restiricive gun-laws in the world.

And you are saying he can't arm himself until he passes your test. And there's many who would make the test as onerous as possible if they could, to prevent people from being able to own guns.

CR

CR, your army requires nothing less of your countries soldiers before it sends them onto a range, let alone a battlefield.

Upon receipt of warning that my recent posts have been rather pointed, I have reviewed said post and indeed I was out of line.

Apologies, all, and of course to Philipvs.

No worries, I would say you were no more than overly passionate.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

In time, I feel this issue is currently more pertinant.

Anyways, yes, really.

Fair enough. What you want to debate is what I want to debate.

I don't know, 30 seconds. I'd pratice it blindfolded. Loading a magazine into a weapon should be as natural as tieing your shoelaces, if it isn't you haven't practiced enough. You shouldn't keep your weapon dissassembled anyway, you'll get gunk in the working parts and the oil on the bolt and spring will attract dust.

That might be theoretically possible, I suppose. But only if it was a key-lock safe, not tumblers, dials, or the like.

Regardless, unless you're fully aware of a burglar's intent before he enters the house, you're still too late. How many seconds does it take you to walk from one room to the other, after all?

Well, it should take more than 30 seconds for him to break in and get to you, your alarm should wake you up, and if he doesn't attack you you shouldn't really be shooting him. I don't really want to kill someone over a TV, even if it is a flatscreen.

Again, that's assuming that you detect him while he is outside, which is rare because when a person is outside you don't start with the assumption that he must intend to break in.

Furthermore, I don't want to kill someone over a TV either. You seem to assume that possession of a firearm = instant death to burglars.

On the contrary, often burglars freeze. I sure would.

I mean, think of it this way:

If a burglar comes in, and he really IS only after the TV, as you say, then as soon as he is confronted and threatened with lethal force, he will do a very quick risk assessment in his head. He will realize quite quickly that nothing that he came for is worth even the remotest possibility of death. So he will be compliant.

If, on the other hand, a burglar actually gives a homeowner a reason to shoot him after being confronted, that probably means that said burglar had quite a bit more invested in it. He could be a murderer, kidnapper, or rapist, for instance.

The reason I say that is because, for a burglar to attack an armed homeowner, he is either

a:) extremely foolhardy; nay, raving mad
b:) has no other choice (that is, the nature of his crime is such that arrest is not an option in his mind)
C:) ARMED

And if a criminal is armed, that tells me that either he merely intends to wave it around to scare people, or he has much more deadly intentions in mind. In the case of home invasion, I'd say the latter.

There have already been several cases this year of under-tens shooting siblings by accident because the weapon was left loaded, and there have been many instances over the years of teens taking weapons from their parents and going nuts.

This is extremely unfortunate, and we have here been discussing the importance of firearms education. And it is a real issue.

I'd say the biggest issue is the first one you mentioned: small children making bizarre mistakes. As far as teenage suicide goes, that is by no means the fault of the gun. Teens are sufficiently old that they are quite capable of determining consequences, as well as circumventing safety measures.

I believe your Constitution actually defines the right as that of a "Well regulated Militia".

That it does. And the next clause says that, as the right to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, the right of the people to bear arms shall LIKEWISE not be infringed.

It's a compound sentence, not a run-on. ;)

In any case, a right always comes with a responsibility.

Very true, but a deficit in responsibility cannot be solved through increased legislation upon or removal of said right.

Such training is not difficult, a child can quite litterally by taught. In the UK the minimum age they are willing to train you to use a weapon is around 12 usually.

As CR pointed out, the reason that we don't accept the idea is because of the politics involved and where it could lead.

It's a very similar idea with free speech. There are a good many people in this country who, by all reason, should be stripped of their 1st Amendment rights, to put it bluntly.

Similarly, there are many people who are not qualified to vote and who, by doing so, pollute and distort the system.

But the fact is that Those people MUST retain their right to free speech and they MUST be allowed to vote!

Why is that? I'll tell you. Because, even though some people maybe shouldn't vote, if you create a means to determine WHO exactly is qualified, you create a massive danger to democracy.

Who decides whether people are qualified to vote or not?

See what I'm saying? It would not be hard for me to find a reason to broadly disqualify a large group of people who, by coincidence happen to disagree with my political views.

And I'm not saying that the instant that mandatory voting screenings are instituted, this will happen. I'm saying that all human behavior has a trend, and it isn't good in this case.

It would happen eventually.

So that is the fear behind gun registration/qualification. And a legitimate one too, I think.

CR, your army requires nothing less of your countries soldiers before it sends them onto a range, let alone a battlefield.

But more is also required of them; it's by no means a direct comparison.

No worries, I would say you were no more than overly passionate.

I must say sir how very kind it is of you to say so. Whilst in all this time you have kept quite excellent composure.

, if I may.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR, your army requires nothing less of your countries soldiers before it sends them onto a range, let alone a battlefield.

Well I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about constitutional rights.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Never heard this about the Inquisition. It sounds like a bare-faced lie (not yours) because the Church doesn't kill people, it hands them off to the state. Also, it isn't legally allowed to forsake a penitant. If you repent you are forgiven, pretty much Canon Law 101.

The garrotting of the repentant was reasonably commonplace. A poor source here (under Sentencing) but you will find the practice noted in several histories of the Inquisition. Of course, in theory this was done by the secular state.

As I understand the logic, burning was both exemplar and foretaste of the Inferno to which the heretic was dispatched. A penitant may still deserve death, but with the chance of Purgatory in which to repent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The garrotting of the repentant was reasonably commonplace. A poor source here (under Sentencing) but you will find the practice noted in several histories of the Inquisition. Of course, in theory this was done by the secular state.

As I understand the logic, burning was both exemplar and foretaste of the Inferno to which the heretic was dispatched. A penitant may still deserve death, but with the chance of Purgatory in which to repent.

Really? How deeply disturbing, that's really not how you're supposed to deal with heretics.

I will reply to everything else later.

[Furunculus]

Maximus, I seriously suggest you look at the posts of the others in this topic, and have a look at who you have aligned yourself with.

who has he aligned himself with?
is it me?
would that be so terrible?
explain.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Really? How deeply disturbing, that's really not how you're supposed to deal with heretics.

Well, I don't think even the Inquisition would have claimed that they were the very finest examples of Christian charity.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well, I don't think even the Inquisition would have claimed that they were the very finest examples of Christian charity.

Thats because nobody expects them Ta DA

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That might be theoretically possible, I suppose. But only if it was a key-lock safe, not tumblers, dials, or the like.

Regardless, unless you're fully aware of a burglar's intent before he enters the house, you're still too late. How many seconds does it take you to walk from one room to the other, after all?

Well, most houses have the bedrooms as far away from the access as possible. Assuming you're all asleep, you should have several minutes to get between an intruder and your family. You should also have an alram, if your are afraid enough to buy a gun. Thsat will increase your warning time considerably.

Again, that's assuming that you detect him while he is outside, which is rare because when a person is outside you don't start with the assumption that he must intend to break in.

Alarm.

Furthermore, I don't want to kill someone over a TV either. You seem to assume that possession of a firearm = instant death to burglars.

On the contrary, often burglars freeze. I sure would.

I mean, think of it this way:

If a burglar comes in, and he really IS only after the TV, as you say, then as soon as he is confronted and threatened with lethal force, he will do a very quick risk assessment in his head. He will realize quite quickly that nothing that he came for is worth even the remotest possibility of death. So he will be compliant.

If, on the other hand, a burglar actually gives a homeowner a reason to shoot him after being confronted, that probably means that said burglar had quite a bit more invested in it. He could be a murderer, kidnapper, or rapist, for instance.

The reason I say that is because, for a burglar to attack an armed homeowner, he is either

a:) extremely foolhardy; nay, raving mad
b:) has no other choice (that is, the nature of his crime is such that arrest is not an option in his mind)
C:) ARMED

And if a criminal is armed, that tells me that either he merely intends to wave it around to scare people, or he has much more deadly intentions in mind. In the case of home invasion, I'd say the latter.

If you have agun, and he has a gun, someone is going to get shot. I'm not going to get into any kind of TV standoff. He's getting double tapped, centre of mass.

This is extremely unfortunate, and we have here been discussing the importance of firearms education. And it is a real issue.

I'd say the biggest issue is the first one you mentioned: small children making bizarre mistakes. As far as teenage suicide goes, that is by no means the fault of the gun. Teens are sufficiently old that they are quite capable of determining consequences, as well as circumventing safety measures.

Firearms should be under lock and key. The military keeps it's firearms under lock and key, so does the police, so do shooting clubs. Homeowners should be no less responsible. There is NO reason not to have a locked gun cabinet and seperate magazine.

That it does. And the next clause says that, as the right to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, the right of the people to bear arms shall LIKEWISE not be infringed.

It's a compound sentence, not a run-on. ;)

Likewise is an interesting word. It means, "in the same manner". So, a well regulated militia made up of well regulated personal ownership.

Very true, but a deficit in responsibility cannot be solved through increased legislation upon or removal of said right.

I see no reason not to legislate the responsibility alongside the right. The right is legislated for, after all.

As CR pointed out, the reason that we don't accept the idea is because of the politics involved and where it could lead.

It's a very similar idea with free speech. There are a good many people in this country who, by all reason, should be stripped of their 1st Amendment rights, to put it bluntly.

Similarly, there are many people who are not qualified to vote and who, by doing so, pollute and distort the system.

But the fact is that Those people MUST retain their right to free speech and they MUST be allowed to vote!

Why is that? I'll tell you. Because, even though some people maybe shouldn't vote, if you create a means to determine WHO exactly is qualified, you create a massive danger to democracy.

Who decides whether people are qualified to vote or not?

See what I'm saying? It would not be hard for me to find a reason to broadly disqualify a large group of people who, by coincidence happen to disagree with my political views.

And I'm not saying that the instant that mandatory voting screenings are instituted, this will happen. I'm saying that all human behavior has a trend, and it isn't good in this case.

It would happen eventually.

So that is the fear behind gun registration/qualification. And a legitimate one too, I think.

I do appreciate the fear. Though it's worth remembering that the US army can quite easily role over most of your armer home owners.

Let me be very specific about what I am suggesting here. A very FUNDAMENTAL test, designed by your military, which would confirm an essential competancy. This would include complete military drills, field stripping and cleaning, and a basic understanding of safety. Rather than a ban on 5.56 NATO rifles, simply subject any private owner to the same basic test as a soldier in your army.

A well regulated militia needs to actually know how to use it's weapons. To be honest, I get the impression that a lot of Americans don't have basic skills, given that they seem to leave loaded guns lying around.

I must say sir how very kind it is of you to say so. Whilst in all this time you have kept quite excellent composure.

, if I may.

Well, they're only guns. They're not that exciting, to be honest.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, most houses have the bedrooms as far away from the access as possible. Assuming you're all asleep, you should have several minutes to get between an intruder and your family. You should also have an alram, if your are afraid enough to buy a gun. Thsat will increase your warning time considerably.

I suppose. But all the same it's the sort of thing that you can't effectively assign a standard. Personally I'd rather just keep a lock on my bedroom door, if I felt my kids would try to grab my guns.

If you have agun, and he has a gun, someone is going to get shot. I'm not going to get into any kind of TV standoff. He's getting double tapped, centre of mass.

Right. So we're agreed then.

Firearms should be under lock and key. The military keeps it's firearms under lock and key, so does the police, so do shooting clubs. Homeowners should be no less responsible. There is NO reason not to have a locked gun cabinet and seperate magazine.

Do you know how many kids die from unlocked guns per year? I don't; just asking. It would be useful to know.

Likewise is an interesting word. It means, "in the same manner". So, a well regulated militia made up of well regulated personal ownership.

But the original document doesn't say "likewise." Forgive my grammatical slip.

I see no reason not to legislate the responsibility alongside the right.

Right. So you can't make a law to force people to do what SHOULD BE common sense. The law doesn't work, and they should be responsible for their own foolishness.

I do appreciate the fear. Though it's worth remembering that the US army can quite easily role over most of your armer home owners.

Actually, it's an interesting concept, considering how well a veritable mob of homesteaders did against the most powerful army of the 18th Century. Granted, of course, the whole British army was not present.

Let me be very specific about what I am suggesting here. A very FUNDAMENTAL test, designed by your military, which would confirm an essential competancy. This would include complete military drills, field stripping and cleaning, and a basic understanding of safety. Rather than a ban on 5.56 NATO rifles, simply subject any private owner to the same basic test as a soldier in your army.

But what starts out as a simple, reasonable test can grow easily, as history has shown us time and again.

A well regulated militia needs to actually know how to use it's weapons.

Yes, but we're not a well-regulated militia. We're not talking about engaging in firefights, we're talking about personal protection.

Well, they're only guns. They're not that exciting, to be honest.

Good point. But, then, constitutional rights and people's lives are rather exciting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I suppose. But all the same it's the sort of thing that you can't effectively assign a standard. Personally I'd rather just keep a lock on my bedroom door, if I felt my kids would try to grab my guns.

Right. So we're agreed then.

Do you know how many kids die from unlocked guns per year? I don't; just asking. It would be useful to know.

I don't know, but at least three stories make it accross the pond a year.

Right. So you can't make a law to force people to do what SHOULD BE common sense. The law doesn't work, and they should be responsible for their own foolishness.

Then why do you need to legislate the Right? For me this is a very simple thing, a firearm is far more dangerous than any other weapon. The ability to reach out and kill is an extremely powerful thing, and I fail to see why you object to testing whether someone understands the practical difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but do you know when a weapon is in a "safe" state and when "unloaded".

Actually, it's an interesting concept, considering how well a veritable mob of homesteaders did against the most powerful army of the 18th Century. Granted, of course, the whole British army was not present.

The British Army was not that powerful then, and they did reasonably well considering the pitiful leadership and pathetic logistical situation. The American army today is about 10,000% more efficient.

But what starts out as a simple, reasonable test can grow easily, as history has shown us time and again.

Easily stopped. The tests are kept identical to those in the military. You can even tie that to the Constitution under your "well regulated militia" clause. You should not be quite so suspicious of your government, you do elect it.

Yes, but we're not a well-regulated militia. We're not talking about engaging in firefights, we're talking about personal protection.

Then you shouldn't really be owning guns. You should be MUCH more upset about the poor state of law enforcement. Might I suggest getting rid of those silly sherifs and establishing proper County Police Departments.

Good point. But, then, constitutional rights and people's lives are rather exciting.

Well, such things do not concern me overmuch. My Lord Clinton and my Lord Bishop Exon make such concerns peripheral, so long as I may write my papers I have few concerns.

More seriously, the American obsession with owning guns seems matched only by the general ignorance of the population.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I don't know, but at least three stories make it accross the pond a year.

Not to make light of such things, but that does put it into perspective, doesn't it?

Then why do you need to legislate the Right?

Well, that's the point. Don't legislate it.

For me this is a very simple thing, a firearm is far more dangerous than any other weapon.

It has greater potential, yes.

The ability to reach out and kill is an extremely powerful thing, and I fail to see why you object to testing whether someone understands the practical difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon.

Considering that you have to know such a basic fact to be able to fire a "weapon," I think it's safe to say that you needn't worry about ignorance to THAT extent, certainly.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but do you know when a weapon is in a "safe" state and when "unloaded".

I say sir; either you have quite underestimated my intelligence, or you have little experience with firearms, and thus think that this could possibly be a complex question.

Either way, I shall oblige you. I remain quite amiable; not to worry.

A firearm (I would hasten to remind you that a firearm is not a "weapon" until it is fired in anger, so to speak) is considered 'unloaded' when the chamber and magazine are empty of ammunition.

A firearm is considered 'safe' when it is loaded, but uncocked. Thus it cannot discharge accidentally. I suppose you could consider it to be safe when it is cocked, but any of a number of safety designs are used to prevent discharge, such as trigger safety, slide safety, grip safety, etc.

If that's really all you want; for people to have that level of understanding... well I think you can rest assured that anybody who is smart enough to undergo the business transaction of acquiring a firearm and ammunition is quite capable of achieving this level of awareness.

Functioning a firearm is really not as complicated as you make it out to be.

The British Army was not that powerful then, and they did reasonably well considering the pitiful leadership and pathetic logistical situation. The American army today is about 10,000% more efficient.

Well, you are right. I might have thought of the fact that the British had no armored vehicles or aircraft.

But you get my point I trust. Not to say that we'd necessarily win, as it seems quite improbable.

Easily stopped.

For the moment, perhaps. But what about one or two generations down the road?

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a bowl of milk. It's as simple as that.

You can even tie that to the Constitution under your "well regulated militia" clause.

No no no, the point is that you can't.

You should not be quite so suspicious of your government, you do elect it.

Frankly, sir, there are a good many politicians who have openly expressed their desire to literally ban all semi-automatic firearms, as preposturous a notion as that seems.

I don't think my suspicions are by any means unwarranted.

Then you shouldn't really be owning guns.

What? I don't see quite where you pulled this from. Non sequitur, so to speak.

I take it that you're saying that we should own guns if, and only if, we intend to be part of the "well-regulated militia."

Ah, but there you're messing with the Constitution again.

My whole point is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an independent clause. It is by no means bound to a well-regulated militia.

You should be MUCH more upset about the poor state of law enforcement. Might I suggest getting rid of those silly sherifs and establishing proper County Police Departments.

What's so dreadful about the state of our law enforcement?

If you mean that police aren't able to intervene in a crime such as stopping a burglar as he enters my house, well... there's not a policeman made that can fortell the future.

Unless you'd like us all to carry policemen in our pocket.

More seriously, the American obsession with owning guns seems matched only by the general ignorance of the population.

I really don't like generalizations.

It's a stereotype that Americans are obsessed with guns. Not even half of us own one. The reason we have so many is because gun owners tend to have multiples. ;)

I mean, golfers have upward of 20 clubs per person. Golf isn't an overwhelmingly popular sport by any means, yet we have all these golf clubs! Does it mean Americans are obsessed with golf?

However, I do here you on the general ignorance of the population. Actually, the ignorant ones tend to be the ones who support such amusingly skewed ideas as "assault weapons" and the like.

I'd be thrilled if people were less ignorant about guns. That would mean there would be more of us to support them. ;)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

More seriously, the American obsession with owning guns seems matched only by the general ignorance of the population.

A pretty ignorant statement, if I do say so myself.

[miotas]

I think this boils down to people in the USA(and anyone else without anti-gun laws) love their guns and so they have them, and anyone with anti-gun laws hates guns and so we don't have them.

This is a large part of the reason why 99% of Aussies will tell you that guns have absolutely no place outside of a farm or a sports shooting range, and even then they must be strongly regulated.

Really? How deeply disturbing, that's really not how you're supposed to deal with heretics.

Come on PVC, I'm not gonna make any comments on the present day church, but you seem like a smart guy, you should be well aware that, in the past the church was a horrible, corrupt organisation and countless terrible deeds were committed in it's name.

[ajaxfetish]

My whole point is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an independent clause. It is by no means bound to a well-regulated militia.

Just for clarification, the independent clause status isn't what's important here. In the sentence,

1) If they are members of a well-regulated militia, the people may bear arms

"the people may bear arms" is an independent clause, yet it's accompanying subordinate clause restricts its meaning. The wording of the US 2nd amendment is different, though.

2) 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 sentence 2, the initial subordinate clause lays out the reason for the right to exist, but does not restrict the main clause as in sentence 1. It is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State that the People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; however, the right applies whether an individual is a part of such a militia or not (and of course, in a sense, all able-bodied men at the least would be part of such a militia). Of course, there have been numerous and conflicting interpretations of the sentence, and it is a little confusing to some people what with the ablative absolute and the main clause being a passive construction, but I don't think it's actually ambiguous, as some people make it out to be.

Ajax

[Husar]

Good analysis of the sentence ajax, I just don't know what you mean with the "ablative absolute"?
I only remember ablative from latin and can't really find one here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not to make light of such things, but that does put it into perspective, doesn't it?

I'm not sure it does, because those are just the ones that make it over here. That could be a a 5th, or even a 10th. While it's still a small number, it is significant.

Well, that's the point. Don't legislate it.

I don't understand, you have the "right" to bear arms legislated for, but not the attendant responsibility to be competant. That's the current state of affairs.

It has greater potential, yes.

Considering that you have to know such a basic fact to be able to fire a "weapon," I think it's safe to say that you needn't worry about ignorance to THAT extent, certainly.

I say sir; either you have quite underestimated my intelligence, or you have little experience with firearms, and thus think that this could possibly be a complex question.

Neither, it's merely a way to quickly guage the level of your understanding, and to demonstrate my own. It helps to know who you're talking to, and it's fairer than to ask a relatively pointless question, such as the average pitch of rifling, or the practical operation of AR-15 derivative weapons (gas operated, rotating bolt)

Either way, I shall oblige you. I remain quite amiable; not to worry.

A firearm (I would hasten to remind you that a firearm is not a "weapon" until it is fired in anger, so to speak) is considered 'unloaded' when the chamber and magazine are empty of ammunition.

A firearm is considered 'safe' when it is loaded, but uncocked. Thus it cannot discharge accidentally. I suppose you could consider it to be safe when it is cocked, but any of a number of safety designs are used to prevent discharge, such as trigger safety, slide safety, grip safety, etc.

If that's really all you want; for people to have that level of understanding... well I think you can rest assured that anybody who is smart enough to undergo the business transaction of acquiring a firearm and ammunition is quite capable of achieving this level of awareness.

Functioning a firearm is really not as complicated as you make it out to be.

Absolutely right, though I have never heard the distinction between "firearm" and "weapon", in fact the two mean the same thing, because "arm" means "weapon". So, we've established that the principles of operating a weapon are simple. I pose to you, again, the question of why testing that basic knowledge before allowing someone to operate one is so onerous.

Well, you are right. I might have thought of the fact that the British had no armored vehicles or aircraft.

But you get my point I trust. Not to say that we'd necessarily win, as it seems quite improbable.

I do take your point, I'm just making the counter-point that things have moved on a LOT since then.

[quote]For the moment, perhaps. But what about one or two generations down the road?

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a bowl of milk. It's as simple as that.[/quote

I really don't see why. Labour has run roughshod over our Constitution, if the Conservatives don't undo the damage they'll be out of their ears soonest. Democracies only collapse when the people want them to.

No no no, the point is that you can't.

Why not, it's pretty clear that your Constitution links the two. You own guns in order to be part of the militia, and to protect your liberty.

Frankly, sir, there are a good many politicians who have openly expressed their desire to literally ban all semi-automatic firearms, as preposturous a notion as that seems.

I don't think my suspicions are by any means unwarranted.

Well, they might ban semi-automatic weapons, but that wouldn't make you less safe, or more oppressed. It would just mean that you can't have semi-automatic weapons. At the moment, if you exercise your right to resist Federal authority, the Feds use snipers, bombs, machine guns and armoured vehichels. The Afgans and Iraqis couldn't defeat the US Military, the US population certainly can't.

After all, the Afganis are on home ground and have RPGs, they still haven't won a single major battle.

What? I don't see quite where you pulled this from. Non sequitur, so to speak.

I take it that you're saying that we should own guns if, and only if, we intend to be part of the "well-regulated militia."

Ah, but there you're messing with the Constitution again.

My whole point is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an independent clause. It is by no means bound to a well-regulated militia.

My interpretation is that the militia is intended to protect against tyranny, and so is personal ownership of weaponry. The two are linked in spirit and purpose.

What's so dreadful about the state of our law enforcement?

If you mean that police aren't able to intervene in a crime such as stopping a burglar as he enters my house, well... there's not a policeman made that can fortell the future.

Unless you'd like us all to carry policemen in our pocket.

I'm just amazed by the primative nature of American arrangements. In many counties you elect the head of your law enforcement. Policemen should be impartial and professional defenders of the peace, I don't see how elected officials can do that.

I really don't like generalizations.

It's a stereotype that Americans are obsessed with guns. Not even half of us own one. The reason we have so many is because gun owners tend to have multiples. ;)

I mean, golfers have upward of 20 clubs per person. Golf isn't an overwhelmingly popular sport by any means, yet we have all these golf clubs! Does it mean Americans are obsessed with golf?

However, I do here you on the general ignorance of the population. Actually, the ignorant ones tend to be the ones who support such amusingly skewed ideas as "assault weapons" and the like.

I'd be thrilled if people were less ignorant about guns. That would mean there would be more of us to support them. ;)

Leaving aside the "man in the street", your media glamorises guns in a way that few other developed nations do. I expect much of this has to do with the "frontier" myth, in the same way as Europeans are often obsessed with swords and axes.

[ajaxfetish]

Good analysis of the sentence ajax, I just don't know what you mean with the "ablative absolute"?
I only remember ablative from latin and can't really find one here.

Yeah, I borrowed the term "ablative absolute" from Latin, since I'm not sure yet how to describe the form in English. It refers to participial phrases such as "Hannibal being near Rome," "Taxes being on the rise," or "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," which in Latin consist of a noun and passive participle in the ablative case (in English they come out a bit longer, since we can't do passives with just one word). The word absolute is used because it is only loosely connected to the rest of the sentence, giving general information on the circumstances but not otherwise restricting meaning.

Ajax

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Aggh; I wrote a reply and then the site went out; I'll have to do it again tomorrow.

Check this post later for an edit, which will be my full reply.

[Hooahguy]

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home.

indeed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think this boils down to people in the USA(and anyone else without anti-gun laws) love their guns and so they have them, and anyone with anti-gun laws hates guns and so we don't have them.

This is a large part of the reason why 99% of Aussies will tell you that guns have absolutely no place outside of a farm or a sports shooting range, and even then they must be strongly regulated.

Yet despite the many similar incidents in America guns remain enduringly popular.

Come on PVC, I'm not gonna make any comments on the present day church, but you seem like a smart guy, you should be well aware that, in the past the church was a horrible, corrupt organisation and countless terrible deeds were committed in it's name.

I know quite a bit about the Church and it's prosecution of heresy, especially in England. I can tell you that to charactarise it as, "a horrible, corrupt organisation" is not only untrue but also deeply unfair. Heresy was percieved to be a disease of the soul in a time when spiritual health was of paramount importance and physical health irrelevant.

That the State at times took Draconian measures is a sign that the leaders of the Church, etc., did care, not that they didn't. Even so, the execution of the penitant for past offenses was illegal under Canon Law and theologically indefensible; by contrast the execution of the heretic was an act of desperation and a final resort after all else had failed.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Never mind; I decided to make a whole new post instead of editing the other one.

I'm not sure it does, because those are just the ones that make it over here. That could be a a 5th, or even a 10th. While it's still a small number, it is significant.

I did a little research. I got 500 accident-related deaths per year.

I don't understand, you have the "right" to bear arms legislated for, but not the attendant responsibility to be competant. That's the current state of affairs.

It's not legislated for. "Legislated for" means it's a priviledge. The Constitution recognizes rights; legislation grants priviledge.

Recognization means that a right is not in the government's power to give in the first place; it is something that inherently belongs to all people. Granting something means that it can also be taken away.

Neither, it's merely a way to quickly guage the level of your understanding, and to demonstrate my own. It helps to know who you're talking to, and it's fairer than to ask a relatively pointless question, such as the average pitch of rifling, or the practical operation of AR-15 derivative weapons (gas operated, rotating bolt)

Very good then. I agree with you on that. I hope, then, that you find me a sufficiently reasonable fellow.

Well, I must say it's nice to know that you are familiar with the topic also. It's pretty irritating to debate people who dub all firearms as 'machine guns' and foolishness like that.

Absolutely right, though I have never heard the distinction between "firearm" and "weapon", in fact the two mean the same thing, because "arm" means "weapon". So, we've established that the principles of operating a weapon are simple. I pose to you, again, the question of why testing that basic knowledge before allowing someone to operate one is so onerous.

I suppose you've got an etymological point there.

The idea is that, whatever the meaning, a word will paint a picture in people's minds. Usually that picture is consistent with the meaning of the word.

However, "weapon" makes people think that a given firearm is some sort of armor-piercing, cop-killing, long-range, armor-piercing, depleted-uranium cannon-thingy.

And this is demonstrated by the anti-gun side, who makes good use of terms to scare people. "Assault Weapons" is a perfect example, even though I doubt people could find a documented case of one being used in an assault (though it has happened).

But of course I realize that you're not trying to do this; I'm just saying that it happens, you know?

I do take your point, I'm just making the counter-point that things have moved on a LOT since then.

Right on.

I really don't see why. Labour has run roughshod over our Constitution, if the Conservatives don't undo the damage they'll be out of their ears soonest. Democracies only collapse when the people want them to.

Several thousand years of recorded human history is why.

I mean, it's so obvious. The anti0gun crowd already wants to do away with guns entirely. Obviously they can't do it in one move; this is just a stepping stone.

Democracies collapse just like everything else. All nations and governmental systems have shelf lives.

Why not, it's pretty clear that your Constitution links the two. You own guns in order to be part of the militia, and to protect your liberty.

We may need an Attorney General in here for this one.

However, think of it this way. We know for sure that the Constitution doesn't say that anyone outside militia shall be prohibited from bearing arms. But this is exactly what a lot of people are driving at when they say that the Constitution only stipulates a "well-regulated militia."

Well, they might ban semi-automatic weapons, but that wouldn't make you less safe, or more oppressed. It would just mean that you can't have semi-automatic weapons. At the moment, if you exercise your right to resist Federal authority, the Feds use snipers, bombs, machine guns and armoured vehichels. The Afgans and Iraqis couldn't defeat the US Military, the US population certainly can't.

You cannot argue any change to anything simply on the basis that "it won't hurt." It has to be BETTER.

You are trying to change existing law. Since you are changing something that is ALREADY in place (i.e. has already been validated), the burden of proof is on you. You must show that your way is better, not that it's the same, or why bother changing it? Yet this is the most common argument I see for the assault weapons ban. (Actually it's very nature is that it ISN'T an argument.)

And really I would argue that it would open the door to further restriction. That's the whole point.

The anti-gun side is constantly picking away at the Second Amendment with stuff like this. Thus, we will give into them when they can show that their ideas are profitable (reduce crime), but those measures have already been passed. Now the only ones left might save some lives, but only at the expense of more.

At this point, we have to draw a line where we won't let the anti-gun side continue to wipe away gun rights.

Thus, we have chosen to take a stand at Assault Weapons, because no one can show that they are inherently dangerous, have uniquely defining characteristics, or that they substantially contribute to crime!

After all, the Afganis are on home ground and have RPGs, they still haven't won a single major battle.

But keep in mind that, even though they "haven't won a major battle," we still don't fully occupy their territory, it is inevitable that we will leave eventually, and their old government is still quite functional.

My interpretation is that the militia is intended to protect against tyranny, and so is personal ownership of weaponry. The two are linked in spirit and purpose.

Leaving aside the "man in the street", your media glamorises guns in a way that few other developed nations do. I expect much of this has to do with the "frontier" myth, in the same way as Europeans are often obsessed with swords and axes.

Really? Tell me about this media; I'd like to see it.

The general media is in league with the anti-gun side. Perhaps a bit of a stereotype that the media glamorizes guns.

Unless you mean hollywood movies like Die Hard and such. But if you think that is a major glamorization of guns, then those movies also glamorize car accidents, wide-scale destruction of property, theft on a massive scale, etc.

Anyways, the REAL media is quite against guns. Look at this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60aIaNZA0h8

Yet despite the many similar incidents in America guns remain enduringly popular.

Because you flatly ignore the hundreds of thousands of incidents that save lives!

Take a single ugly case of someone commiting a violent crime with a firearm, and then use it to overturn the hundreds of other, less-glamorous cases of self-defense.

There are a lot of sites like this, as well as forums dedicated to self-defence, that will show you account after account of people who would be dead today.

[Furunculus]

This is what axe's are for:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...with-AK47.html

no moralising, no legalising, this woman stuck an axe in a wanted terrorist who broke into her own home. i am delighted!

[Husar]

This is what axe's are for:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...with-AK47.html

no moralising, no legalising, this woman stuck an axe in a wanted terrorist who broke into her own home. i am delighted!

I'd marry her.

It's axes though, plural, not genitive.