2nd Amendment Battle Royal

[MikeD]

This has been nursing within the head for some time...just wanted to get some feedback...

I think the second amendment is vastly misinterpreted by most people in this country. It's specifically focused on well-regulated militias. My interp. is that it's intended to preserve individual rights by providing state and lower governments the ability to deter oppressive measures by the both the federal government and any internal threats to life and liberty which may arise.

This means 1) military weapons and 2) control/organization by, and loyalty to, a local governmental entity. Even in revolutionary times, there was a sharp distinction between battefield weapons and your average rifle. Smoothbore muskets were relatively useless for individuals...they were inaccurate, but fast loading, and effective only en masse. Not the kind of weapon you needed for hunting or home defense, which would be filled by a rifle (which had very limited military application...), shotgun, or possibly a pistol, depending on needs.

So, basically, I think the second amendment is simply inapplicable to the arguments about gun control in this country. It's got nothing to do with handguns, concealed carry, what weapons citizens can own, etc. It's not a matter of anything but the scope of the amendment...this isn't a critique of Americans and what guns they can or should have. I just don't see it as an issue covered by the scope of the second amendment, leaving it open for regulation by the federal (not the people to regulate it, IMHO) and state/local governments (a more reasonable entity to regulate these issues).

I do think the amendment sets the stage for states and local groups to have some sort of military reserve force, which is most closely filled by the national guard in our current organization. It's not a truly independent state militia, but no state seems to have the desire (or probably the cash) to front such an organization. The fact that the states haven't wanted or created a militia is no reason to misinterpret the 2nd amendment to cover an individual's right to have a gun for any reason other than as a member of a militia (which might or may not, according to its own regulations, allow members to keep military weapons in their homes). In short, the 2nd amendment isn't a catch-all right to have guns. It's a specific right for a specific purpose.

So while I know what I've said is total anathema to the NRA folks, I just wanted to open a discussion in the name of internet tirades. I'm by no means anti-gun; I'm just a stickler with my legal logic. Have at it...

MD

[Silver]

Pretty much agree. (Edit: Pretty much? 100%, actually)

Now, for the NRA members out there:

Why can't I have a suitcase nuke? 100 pounds of Semtex in a vest? An RPG in the garage?

[BurlyShirley]

The only issue I have is, if the intent of the ammendment was to provide some form of protection for the citizens FROM the government, than it kind of stands to reason that, since the states arent inclined to uphold it, the citizens themself ought to have the right to attempt to...no?
Not saying it would have much effect if the military ever did try to take the country over, but, it's at least a little comforting to know that an Iraq-like insurgency could at least make it costly.

[Changleen]

Here you go, a little surrounding law and the 2nd ammendment itself:

Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689).

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818)

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780).

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790).

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842).

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796).

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777).

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

II. Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions

Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.

III. "The Right of the People" in Other Bill of Rights Provisions

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .

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

Tenth Amendment: [Speaking of "the powers . . . of the people" rather than "the right . . . of the people"] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

IV. Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure

Rhode Island Free Press Clause: The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Massachusetts Free Press Clause: The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth.

Massachusetts Speech and Debate Clause: The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation of prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

New Hampshire Venue Clause: In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed.

[Changleen]

So it seems different states interpret it differently - Some are more gung ho about it and some are not.

I personally think that it was a bit of a mistake to allow that level of gun ownership in the first place. America would be a much nicer place without so many idiots running round shooting people.

[BurlyShirley]

I like TN's definition most.

[Tenchiro]

Here is how I see it, the 2nd Ammendment is our insurance policy on the rest of them.

Take that how you will.

[Changleen]

I like TN's definition most."For their common defence" kinda implies 'not for personal use' to me. Is that where you're coming from?

[alwaysbroncin19]

Pretty much agree. (Edit: Pretty much? 100%, actually)

Now, for the NRA members out there:

Why can't I have a suitcase nuke? 100 pounds of Semtex in a vest? An RPG in the garage?


Answer: Look at your signature. HA! Just kiddin.

[Changleen]

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the stateI hope they go on to make dispensations for young children and criminals...

[Changleen]

Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)


Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.

What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited. So I guess it was intended for everyone to get a gun, albeit not for shooting other people, just other armies. That puts the handgun people in a bit of a spot.

[alwaysbroncin19]

I hope they go on to make dispensations for young children and criminals...

Which is every pro-gun guy/girls problem with gun control. It doesn't matter what they say about criminals having them. THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS.

As for the constitutionality issue. The constitution leaves room for certain enumerated rights not specifically granted to states and citizens. MikeD brings a valid point however; if the anti-gunners want to get something done, his point/argument alone is the sole argument they have in their arsenal. Effective???? No. So if you want handguns out of the criminals hands.....you can go ask them for them and see how well diplomacy works. :) Or, you can always be ready for them because prevention works,,, right?

[TheMontashu]

So it seems different states interpret it differently - Some are more gung ho about it and some are not.

I personally think that it was a bit of a mistake to allow that level of gun ownership in the first place. America would be a much nicer place without so many idiots running round shooting people.
Without guns the government can take controll of the people. The government needs to fear its populas. Look at the 4 greatist murdereds of the 20th century, pol pot, mou, hitler, and stalin. All of them took the guys away from the people.

[ALEXIS_DH]

Without guns the government can take controll of the people. The government needs to fear its populas. Look at the 4 greatist murdereds of the 20th century, pol pot, mou, hitler, and stalin. All of them took the guys away from the people.

you mean moe?

http://l33tf00k3r.com/hello/173/1318/320/Moe.jpg

[Changleen]

Without guns the government can take controll of the people. The government needs to fear its populas. Look at the 4 greatist murdereds of the 20th century, pol pot, mou, hitler, and stalin. All of them took the guys away from the people.I don't think that had much to do with taking guns away from the people...

[DaveW]

Without guns the government can take controll of the people. The government needs to fear its populas. Look at the 4 greatist murdereds of the 20th century, pol pot, mou, hitler, and stalin. All of them took the guys away from the people.



Actually those govenments probably had the greatest fear of the people of any govenment last century, so I recon that the statement "The government needs to fear its populas" is a false one. If they fear you they will repress you, so if they don't fear you they will be good to you like say the swedish govenment (as a random example).

[Changleen]

Which is every pro-gun guy/girls problem with gun control. It doesn't matter what they say about criminals having them. THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS.

As for the constitutionality issue. The constitution leaves room for certain enumerated rights not specifically granted to states and citizens. MikeD brings a valid point however; if the anti-gunners want to get something done, his point/argument alone is the sole argument they have in their arsenal. Effective???? No. So if you want handguns out of the criminals hands.....you can go ask them for them and see how well diplomacy works. :) Or, you can always be ready for them because prevention works,,, right?The criminals don't always have to have guns. If the population as a majority decided it wanted to get rid of guns, and the law was behind it, it wouldn't take long for it to practically impossible to carry and use a gun without instantly attracting law enforcement attention. You could own them, but they'd have to be kept hidden, and therefore would be mostly useless. Gun crime would be drastically reduced, and only be in the domain of really serious criminals such as it is in Europe. Only your gun lobby stops this from happening.

[alwaysbroncin19]

The criminals don't always have to have guns.

Sure, some criminals don't. They could always knuckle-up against a mob of people. :rofl:

[Changleen]

Sure, some criminals don't. They could always knuckle-up against a mob of people. :rofl:Wow, for a moment I thought you might take this thread seriously.

[TheMontashu]

The criminals don't always have to have guns. If the population as a majority decided it wanted to get rid of guns, and the law was behind it, it wouldn't take long for it to practically impossible to carry and use a gun without instantly attracting law enforcement attention. You could own them, but they'd have to be kept hidden, and therefore would be mostly useless. Gun crime would be drastically reduced, and only be in the domain of really serious criminals such as it is in Europe. Only your gun lobby stops this from happening.
If criminals want guns they can go to mexico and get one, no problem. Criminals don't look at society sees things THEY ARE CRIMINALS, and knowing that the populas is unarmed will only be opurtunity to tak advantage of an unarmed person.

And the idea that some one cant walk down the street with a gun and not be notices is flat out WRONG, you can carry ALOT without being noticed

[alwaysbroncin19]

Wow, for a moment I thought you might take this thread seriously.

I can't be serious when I quote you. Sorry.

[Changleen]

If criminals want guns they can go to mexico and get one, no problem. Criminals don't look at society sees things THEY ARE CRIMINALS, and knowing that the populas is unarmed will only be opurtunity to tak advantage of an unarmed person.

And the idea that some one cant walk down the street with a gun and not be notices is flat out WRONG, you can carry ALOT without being noticedIf you illegalised guns and put some effort into it (say a 10th of the effort you put into Iraq) you could have great border control with Mexico. You may be able to walk along the street with a concealed gun, but if the law abiding population had disarmed, the moment you pulled it you'd have all the cops in the area on your ass. Criminals arn't stupid, they weigh risk vs. reward. If you knew the heat that would come down on you for pulling a gun in a 7/11 robbery for a few bucks was going to be serious, you wouldn't do it.

It is possible to get handguns in Europe and in fact in most of the first world, and some people have them. The thing is they cannot be used with the same sort of freedom that they can in the US because of their illegality, and the support for these laws by the bulk of the population. You'll never have this situation in the US until you have the support of the population, which you'll never get until you can remove the mindset of the NRA.

[Changleen]

I can't be serious when I quote you. Sorry.I think it's just that you're just retarded and can't actually argue for ****, so you have to resort to weak humour when you have no defence.

[alwaysbroncin19]

I think it's just that you're just retarded and can't actually argue for ****, so you have to resort to weak humour when you have no defence.

Give me something to argue then. Wait, it's no use to argue here. So I make fun of comments like that. Criminals don't have to have guns??? That's like saying a hamburger doesn't have to actually have hamburger involved. WTF am I supposed to do? Next time, I'll just not say anything and have a good laugh when I head into work.

Good luck

[bjanga]

I think that the bottom line is that if someone really wants to, they will find a way to kill people. Tank, RPG, Assault rifle, Cheney's shotgun, handguns, pellet rifles, knives, shifter cable used as a garotte, I would have a hard time saying "no" to one while saying "yes" to another, if only because pellet pistols can look remarkably similar to bona fide handguns.

From another standpoint, I think it is safe to say that we need knives and shifter cables. Do we need pellet guns and shotguns for hunting? Should hunting be legal? Should only "certified hunters" be able to wield firearms? Are there any good uses for firearms besides those involving crime and hunting?

[ALEXIS_DH]

Give me something to argue then. Wait, it's no use to argue here. So I make fun of comments like that. Criminals don't have to have guns??? That's like saying a hamburger doesn't have to actually have hamburger involved. WTF am I supposed to do? Next time, I'll just not say anything and have a good laugh when I head into work.

Good luck

the argument of "criminals will always have guns" doesnt make much sense.

what is the point of customs, if drug dealers will smuggle drugs anyway??
what is the point of traffic laws, if people still die in crashes and always will?
are you getting it?

[Changleen]

Give me something to argue then. Wait, it's no use to argue here. So I make fun of comments like that. Criminals don't have to have guns??? That's like saying a hamburger doesn't have to actually have hamburger involved. WTF am I supposed to do? Next time, I'll just not say anything and have a good laugh when I head into work.

Good luckWell, since you can't understand the proposition of a criminal without a gun, or even what I was actually driving at, that society does not have to allow criminals to have guns (I understand now why you could not understand that subtle distinction based on your more recent comments) and better still you cannot formalate an argument based on your position on the 2nd ammendment, a subject you clearly feel something (to the degree I assume you can feel anyhting) about, I'd say most people are probably laughing at you.

[Changleen]

I think that the bottom line is that if someone really wants to, they will find a way to kill people. Tank, RPG, Assault rifle, Cheney's shotgun, handguns, pellet rifles, knives, shifter cable used as a garotte, I would have a hard time saying "no" to one while saying "yes" to another, if only because pellet pistols can look remarkably similar to bona fide handguns.Yes, I basically agree that if someone really wants to kill someone they will find a way. However looking at the statistics (www.nationmaster.com) it is fairly obvious that in general in the western world, countries that have less access to guns have less gun crime and lower murders in general.

The fact is guns make it easy to kill and seriously injure. They make it an action anyone is capable of in a quarter second's rage. Especially handguns. With the preponderance of guns in the US is it any suprise you have the pointless loss life that is often incurred when people have a second of bad judgement?

The fact is, countries which have harsher attitudes to guns have less gun crime. If America banned handguns, and the public in general would realise it was a good thing, gun crime and deaths would go down. People assume that criminals would suddenly go on some huge killing spree. This might happen for one second. In even the medium short term it would be a better deal for everyone in terms of randomly not getting shot in some random bull****.

[MikeD]

And thus dies the hope that this thread might be about the 2nd amendment, and not the way people feel...

MD

[DaveW]

Die monster die!!

[MikeD]

If you illegalised guns and put some effort into it (say a 10th of the effort you put into Iraq) you could have great border control with Mexico. You may be able to walk along the street with a concealed gun, but if the law abiding population had disarmed, the moment you pulled it you'd have all the cops in the area on your ass. Criminals arn't stupid, they weigh risk vs. reward. If you knew the heat that would come down on you for pulling a gun in a 7/11 robbery for a few bucks was going to be serious, you wouldn't do it.


Are you suggesting the cops would respond differently to an armed robbery if other citizens couldn't carry concealed weapons? I don't get your point on all this. You've implied that openly-carried weapons are the actual problem, and that eliminating concealment would somehow make the police more responsive to armed crime. There's simply not an intersection of the two issues... and criminals generally conceal a weapon until the occasion of use or brandishment, so what's it going to change? Cops aren't going to suddenly have a better ability to spot concealed weapons, or a different reaction to spotting one (or witnessing its removal from a concealed position).

And criminals can be and are often very stupid, especially when it comes to weighing risk/benefit. Additional penalties, death penalties, etc. haven't actually had too much deterrent effect...they've often simply made those inclined to violence that much more desparate if they're considering the penalties at all.

MD

[Old Man G Funk]

And thus dies the hope that this thread might be about the 2nd amendment, and not the way people feel...

MD
I'll try to revive the original intent...

Here's a legal question. Should we really be trying to figure out the exact intent of the writers of the second amendment? It seems ambiguous at best to me. I think the founding fathers meant for the Constitution to be a living document as well, so the meaning of the laws change over time. That's why we rely so much on case law in interpreting the Constitution. If we want to parse the second amendment, then I think that your analysis is pretty good. Is anyone knowledgable about the Supreme Court rulings on this issue and how they have changed over the years?

[Tenchiro]

There is nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership. Think of it this way, where have all the recent massacres taken place in America in recent history?

Schools and office buildings, places where the guy with the guns knew nobody else would have them. When is the last time something like that happened at an NRA convention, rifle range or gun show?

We don't only need them to protect ourselves from the government.

[Old Man G Funk]

There is nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership. Think of it this way, where have all the recent massacres taken place in America in recent history?

Schools and office buildings, places where the guy with the guns knew nobody else would have them. When is the last time something like that happened at an NRA convention, rifle range or gun show?

We don't only need them to protect ourselves from the government.
Wait, so allowing students to arm themselves would have prevented Columbine?

[Tenchiro]

Wait, so allowing students to arm themselves would have prevented Columbine?

All I was saying is that people who want to victimize others are going to go where they have the greatest chance of success. And where the least risk to them is.

But do you think that these school shooting would happen if people new the teachers (for example) were armed? (Take note that I in no way endorse this idea)

[Old Man G Funk]

All I was saying is that people who want to victimize others are going to go where they have the greatest chance of success. And where the least risk to them is.

But do you think that these school shooting would happen if people new the teachers (for example) were armed? (Take note that I in no way endorse this idea)
Yes, they probably would.

[noname]

If you illegalised guns and put some effort into it (say a 10th of the effort you put into Iraq) you could have great border control with Mexico. You may be able to walk along the street with a concealed gun, but if the law abiding population had disarmed, the moment you pulled it you'd have all the cops in the area on your ass. Criminals arn't stupid, they weigh risk vs. reward. If you knew the heat that would come down on you for pulling a gun in a 7/11 robbery for a few bucks was going to be serious, you wouldn't do it.

It is possible to get handguns in Europe and in fact in most of the first world, and some people have them. The thing is they cannot be used with the same sort of freedom that they can in the US because of their illegality, and the support for these laws by the bulk of the population. You'll never have this situation in the US until you have the support of the population, which you'll never get until you can remove the mindset of the NRA.

the fact that you assume that the "heat" would be onto you almost immediately just because you pulled a gun is incredibly naive. Police only resond to crimes committed, they don't prevent crimes.
Also, no one carries their guns out in the open but law enforcement, so you could actually carry a large caliber firearm anywhere (except airports, courts etc.) and nobody would know.
You could rob a 7/11 at gunpoint, walk out to your car and drive away long before the police ever show.
As far as countries with fewer guns having less crime, Switzerland pretty much kills that assumption. they are far more heavily armed than the U.S. per capita and have a lower murder rate than any country in Europe sans greece.
A lot of it is cultural.
Also, if a country has fewer guns it stands to reason that there may be fewer gun crimes, but what about violent crimes in general? There are many countries out there where private gun ownership is banned, yet the overall per capita rates for violent crimes (robbery, assault, hot burglaries etc.) is higher. (England comes readily to mind).
As far as the Second amendment barring private ownership and use of arms, I don't believe that. I also don't believe in a "living document".
To believe in a living document is to believe that the words mean different things at different times, essencially saying that it means what we want it to mean. try enforcing a contract whos meaning and interpretation change depending on who is reading it.
The founding fathers of this country were pretty clear in their writing that the second amendment applied to private ownership of weapons , and for the most part the courts and states have born that out.
The U.S. constitution is not a set of limitations telling the citizens what they are allowed to do so much as it is a set of parameters telling government what they can/can't do.
I guess ultimately what it comes down to is " you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" :oink:

[noname]

Yes, they probably would.
I'd have to disagree with that, check your stats on hot burglaries/ and Breaking and entering in states with ccw laws and check them against states without ccw laws, also check the rates in those states before and after ccw laws were implemented, the rates of hot burglaries (people home at time of crime) goes down.
Criminals will avoid armed resistance.
Also, check the towns in the US with the highest level of gun crimes, they are also the cities with the most restrictive gun control measures.

[Old Man G Funk]

I'd have to disagree with that, check your stats on hot burglaries/ and Breaking and entering in states with ccw laws and check them against states without ccw laws, also check the rates in those states before and after ccw laws were implemented, the rates of hot burglaries (people home at time of crime) goes down.
Criminals will avoid armed resistance.
Also, check the towns in the US with the highest level of gun crimes, they are also the cities with the most restrictive gun control measures.
We were speaking of school shootings, not burglaries.

[Old Man G Funk]

As far as the Second amendment barring private ownership and use of arms, I don't believe that. I also don't believe in a "living document".
To believe in a living document is to believe that the words mean different things at different times, essencially saying that it means what we want it to mean. try enforcing a contract whos meaning and interpretation change depending on who is reading it.
The founding fathers of this country were pretty clear in their writing that the second amendment applied to private ownership of weapons , and for the most part the courts and states have born that out.
The U.S. constitution is not a set of limitations telling the citizens what they are allowed to do so much as it is a set of parameters telling government what they can/can't do.
I guess ultimately what it comes down to is " you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" :oink:
If the Constitution were not meant to be a living document, then why did the founders put in amendments and means to add more amendments? Also, your idea of what case law means is rather limited. It does not mean that you read the original words and just interpret as you see fit. That actually more correctly fits the situation that you are trying to impose, because words, societies, and situations do change. When you try to interpret the exact words of the second amendment with your understanding of the current world, that is when you run into interpretational barriers. If you go back and look at the case history, you can get a feel for how the law has evolved within society.

[MikeD]

As far as the Second amendment barring private ownership and use of arms, I don't believe that.

Who said anything about barring? I'm suggesting it leaves it open to local communities to decide how they want to run things. What the 2nd amendment does is ensure that communities can, as a whole, defend their rights agaist oppressors and threats. It's just not about personal ownership/use of guns.

[Tenchiro]

It seems to me that the same people who want stricter gun control are the same people that want to ban me from lighting fireworks off on the 4th of July or using my BBQ on my deck. Simply because they are afraid that something bad might happen.

Taking rights away from responsible people is no way to fix the problem of gun violence. Just as taking away the fireworks or BBQ's of responsible people does not affect the amount of fires caused by those items.

The people you are trying to prevent from acquiring these items are the same people who have little regard for the law anyways. So all it succeeds in doing is infringing on honest, responsible people.

[DRB]

Here are some quotes:

Thomas Jefferson from the proposed Virginia Consititution in 1776
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

This quote sometimes is attributed to Thomas Jefferson but its actually from Cesare Beccaria. Jefferson quoted him in Commonplace Book

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

John Adams in A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

George Wasington in his 1790 address to Congress

"A free people ought not only to be armed but also disciplined;"

James Madison in 1788

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

[Old Man G Funk]

Tenchiro,
You've spoken a couple times about "responsible" gun owners. What makes a "responsible" gun owner?

I'll bet that the vast majority of gun owners (if not all) consider themselves to be "responsible" gun owners (just like everyone thinks they are a good driver; it's all the other idiots out there who can't drive.) What if we had some sort of licensing where a gun owner had to attend some classes and learn how to be "responsible" and properly handle a gun? This is an idea I've been kicking around lately.

[ohio]

Should we really be trying to figure out the exact intent of the writers of the second amendment?
Does it matter? They were smart enough to know they couldn't predict the future; they created a living document. We should draw wisdom from them where we can, and adapt to the realities of the modern world where we need to.

People only demand a strict interpretation of the constitution when it matches their agenda which has nothing to do with the constitution. And then they conveniently ignore the other parts, or claim they're irrelevant. (Wait for it.... here comes the derailment...) It's kind of like the Bible, that way.

[Tenchiro]

Tenchiro,
You've spoken a couple times about "responsible" gun owners. What makes a "responsible" gun owner?

I'll bet that the vast majority of gun owners (if not all) consider themselves to be "responsible" gun owners (just like everyone thinks they are a good driver; it's all the other idiots out there who can't drive.) What if we had some sort of licensing where a gun owner had to attend some classes and learn how to be "responsible" and properly handle a gun? This is an idea I've been kicking around lately.

It boils down to safe handling, and storage of the gun. Knowing how to use it and there are lots of safety courses around to take. And of course using it for legal purposes such has hunting, marksmanship or self defense.

If you have kids make sure they can't get access to it, but also ensure that they know how dangerous it is. I would say a safety course should be mandatory for them, and taking them to a range for some target practice is also good. Because a child (or anyone) that knows what to expect from a firearm and how to use it they are going to be far less likely to shoot someone on accident.

[Silver]

People only demand a strict interpretation of the constitution when it matches their agenda which has nothing to do with the constitution. And then they conveniently ignore the other parts, or claim they're irrelevant. (Wait for it.... here comes the derailment...) It's kind of like the Bible, that way.

Sshhh...a couple of more strict constructionists (which brings up a question: If the constitution is that crystal clear, why do we need those judges anyways?) on the Supreme Court and I'm going to buy Clarence Thomas.

Then I'm going to ebay him. Imagine how smoothly a slave market can work with modern technology?

[DRB]

Sshhh...a couple of more strict constructionists (which brings up a question: If the constitution is that crystal clear, why do we need those judges anyways?) on the Supreme Court and I'm going to buy Clarence Thomas.

Then I'm going to ebay him. Imagine how smoothly a slave market can work with modern technology?

13th Amendment. Strict constructionists do not throw out the amendments. Their point is that if you want to change it, there is a vehicle to do so.

[Old Man G Funk]

Does it matter? They were smart enough to know they couldn't predict the future; they created a living document. We should draw wisdom from them where we can, and adapt to the realities of the modern world where we need to.

People only demand a strict interpretation of the constitution when it matches their agenda which has nothing to do with the constitution. And then they conveniently ignore the other parts, or claim they're irrelevant. (Wait for it.... here comes the derailment...) It's kind of like the Bible, that way.
Actually, that question was more rhetorical. The real question I had was at the end of the paragraph.

[Old Man G Funk]

It boils down to safe handling, and storage of the gun. Knowing how to use it and there are lots of safety courses around to take. And of course using it for legal purposes such has hunting, marksmanship or self defense.

If you have kids make sure they can't get access to it, but also ensure that they know how dangerous it is. I would say a safety course should be mandatory for them, and taking them to a range for some target practice is also good. Because a child (or anyone) that knows what to expect from a firearm and how to use it they are going to be far less likely to shoot someone on accident.
So, why don't we make safety courses required for gun ownership, period (i.e. not just for those with children in the house)? We require classes and a test for a driver's license, why not for gun ownership?

[Silver]

13th Amendment. Strict constructionists do not throw out the amendments. Their point is that if you want to change it, there is a vehicle to do so.

Hell, we can change that back right after we pass the one that makes the fags wear pink triangles out in public. Won't be a problem.

9/11 changed everything, remember?

[MikeD]

Strict constructionism is an illusion. Language is based in context, and doesn't stand alone as some kind of clear Platonic structure which holds, conveys, or constitutes some kind of meaning-in-itself.

This is why, as OMGF points out, we need case law and interpretation. And what I haven't done (nor anyone else here) is look up the case law on the subject.

I look at the Constitution with somewhat of a framers' intent mentality...it's like a set of principles on which a business was built. We should look to those principles for guidance and structure, yet be unafraid to reevaluate them and change them conciously if necessary. Still, we should be very careful about abandoning or reversing the principles upon which we're based. Lots of organizations start successfully, then go belly-up as they try to be everything to everyone, leaving behind the things that made them strong, successful, and unique.

MD

[Tenchiro]

So, why don't we make safety courses required for gun ownership, period (i.e. not just for those with children in the house)? We require classes and a test for a driver's license, why not for gun ownership?

Many municipalities have their own requirements and some are more strict than others. So this may very well be a requirement for many people.

[fluff]

No True American would oppose gun ownership.

[Changleen]

Are you suggesting the cops would respond differently to an armed robbery if other citizens couldn't carry concealed weapons? I don't get your point on all this. You've implied that openly-carried weapons are the actual problem, and that eliminating concealment would somehow make the police more responsive to armed crime. There's simply not an intersection of the two issues... and criminals generally conceal a weapon until the occasion of use or brandishment, so what's it going to change? Cops aren't going to suddenly have a better ability to spot concealed weapons, or a different reaction to spotting one (or witnessing its removal from a concealed position).

And criminals can be and are often very stupid, especially when it comes to weighing risk/benefit. Additional penalties, death penalties, etc. haven't actually had too much deterrent effect...they've often simply made those inclined to violence that much more desparate if they're considering the penalties at all.

MD
What I'm saying is that if you remove any kind of legal situation where the populace could carry or use guns, it wouldn't take long for even minor gun crimes to become higher priority offences. I'm not claiming this will happen overnight, but it would happen. The problem you currently have is the volume of crimes that include guns. It's 'normal' to use a gun in a robbery. Making them completely illegal (hanguns at least) would be a huge step to changing this normality.

[Changleen]

the fact that you assume that the "heat" would be onto you almost immediately just because you pulled a gun is incredibly naive. Police only resond to crimes committed, they don't prevent crimes. That depends on how well they are resourced. I recognide that if handguns were made illegal today, there would be little change tomorrow, but in a few months pulling a gun would be a bigger deal. Currently as I said gun crime is basically the norm in robberys. You need to change this norm.As far as countries with fewer guns having less crime, Switzerland pretty much kills that assumption. they are far more heavily armed than the U.S. per capita and have a lower murder rate than any country in Europe sans greece.Do you know why they have that blip? Every male in Switzerland does national service and is obliged by law to have a weapon. 99.9% of these are assault rifles. People are trained how to use them very well and they're a little impractical for everyday carry. My observation stands.A lot of it is cultural.I agree. The US has a culture where it is normal to use a gun to commit a crime. You need to change that.

[noname]

That depends on how well they are resourced. I recognize that if handguns were made illegal today, there would be little change tomorrow, but in a few months pulling a gun would be a bigger deal. Currently as I said gun crime is basically the norm in robberys. You need to change this norm.Do you know why they have that blip? Every male in Switzerland does national service and is obliged by law to have a weapon. 99.9% of these are assault rifles. People are trained how to use them very well and they're a little impractical for everyday carry. My observation stands.I agree. The US has a culture where it is normal to use a gun to commit a crime. You need to change that.
It doesn't matter how big a deal it is, (btw it's a huge deal here) it matters that you have someone with a gun and no cops near enough to do anything about it. It has been proven that when criminals are aware that there will be no forceful resistance it emboldens them.
Police respond to the report of a crime.
I'm quite well aware of the Swiss situation, that's why I pointed it out, practically everyone there has a gun and is trained in how to use it. "An armed society is a civil society" (can't remember who said that)
Just like the death penalty doesn't inhibit would be killers, increased punishment severity will not deter would be armed robbers, it's already a heavy felony with much jail time.
As far as a living document, that's not the job of the judiciary. The job of changing the laws and creating new ones belong to the legislature. The job of the judiciary is to determine if something is within the bounds of the law, or if the law itself is allowable under the constitution. It is not the judiciaries role to alter the meaning of the constitution.

[noname]

So, why don't we make safety courses required for gun ownership, period (i.e. not just for those with children in the house)? We require classes and a test for a driver's license, why not for gun ownership?
I had to complete a safety/legality training class as well as qualifying at the range before I could apply for my permit to carry a firearm. After that I was subjected to a backround check before the permit would be issued. Does that answer your curiousity?
It is different in different states but usually fairly strict regardless.

[noname]

That depends on how well they are resourced.
As far as how well they are resourced, try this little exercise when you get some time..........
Pick a large city, find out how many officers it has on duty regularly, get the sqare mileage of the city and divide it by the number of on duty cops.

[Transcend]

It boils down to safe handling, and storage of the gun. Knowing how to use it and there are lots of safety courses around to take. And of course using it for legal purposes such has hunting, marksmanship or self defense.

If you have kids make sure they can't get access to it, but also ensure that they know how dangerous it is. I would say a safety course should be mandatory for them, and taking them to a range for some target practice is also good. Because a child (or anyone) that knows what to expect from a firearm and how to use it they are going to be far less likely to shoot someone on accident.

So what about the guy who does all this, but still thinks his handgun or his ar-15 are sweet home defense weapons? There are plenty of them out there, I am sure they consider themselves responsible and go to their weekly NRA meeting.

We all know that in the heat of the moment, most people couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, let alone a human sized target at more than a few feet. All they do is put a few rounds through walls and kill their kids or neighbours.

[Transcend]

I had to complete a safety/legality training class as well as qualifying at the range before I could apply for my permit to carry a firearm. After that I was subjected to a backround check before the permit would be issued. Does that answer your curiousity?
It is different in different states but usually fairly strict regardless.

A carry or carry/conceal permit is a vastly different thing from simply owning a weapon.

[Silver]

Ah the Swiss...

You know why the Swiss don't murder each other with their rifles on a regular basis? They aren't bat**** crazy.

Saying "The Swiss can do it!" doesn't mean that the happily ignorant average American can do it too.

[MikeD]

What I'm saying is that if you remove any kind of legal situation where the populace could carry or use guns, it wouldn't take long for even minor gun crimes to become higher priority offences.

They're huge-priority offenses as-is, with mandatory sentencing for people who use them.

As far as a living document, that's not the job of the judiciary. The job of changing the laws and creating new ones belong to the legislature. The job of the judiciary is to determine if something is within the bounds of the law, or if the law itself is allowable under the constitution. It is not the judiciaries role to alter the meaning of the constitution.

But the judiciary never creates laws...it fills in the gaps between the words of the law and actual, physical reality. It's entirely necessary that there's someone to do this, because laws are just abstractions and words. For example, we have a right to be free from 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' Someone has to decide what this means where the rubber meets the road, in our current time and place...that's what the Supreme Court is for. The 'activist judge' rhetoric is kind of a bogeyman-distractor in the modern political parlance, especially inasmuch as everyone in politics has an agenda...judges, by the nature of their jobs, are probably the most neutral entities in our political system.

All they do is put a few rounds through walls and kill their kids or neighbours.

C'mon, how many gun owners actually do this? It's rare one's ever used in home defense at all, much less with such disasterous consequences. The real problems have to do with criminals using guns to commit crimes.

MD

[bjanga]

MD, as for this being about the 2nd amendment, it seems to be about what people are comfortable with, because as has been mentioned before, context is important. Perhaps then only "militias" (National Guard?) should be armed.

The fact is guns make it easy to kill and seriously injure. They make it an action anyone is capable of in a quarter second's rage.
I find myself agreeing with this. The state should not be telling individuals how to conduct themselves (seatbelts, smoking), but should have a say if an individial can affect another individual (DUI, smoking in a hospital or gas station). Disregarding suicide and hunting, guns have direct effects on other people.

[TheMontashu]

If you illegalised guns and put some effort into it (say a 10th of the effort you put into Iraq) you could have great border control with Mexico. You may be able to walk along the street with a concealed gun, but if the law abiding population had disarmed, the moment you pulled it you'd have all the cops in the area on your ass. Criminals arn't stupid, they weigh risk vs. reward. If you knew the heat that would come down on you for pulling a gun in a 7/11 robbery for a few bucks was going to be serious, you wouldn't do it.

It is possible to get handguns in Europe and in fact in most of the first world, and some people have them. The thing is they cannot be used with the same sort of freedom that they can in the US because of their illegality, and the support for these laws by the bulk of the population. You'll never have this situation in the US until you have the support of the population, which you'll never get until you can remove the mindset of the NRA.
The cops take a long time to get there, usualy the crime is over before they show up. Think about this, if every one has a gun when 1 person pulls one out every one in the aria has a gun on him.

You say criminals weigh risk vs reward, if no one has a gun there is no risk and that is EXACTLY my point. If I have a gun too there is ALOT more risk, therefore he does not want a part of it.


O and cops with guns is almost as bad as criminals, a monley could take an average cop in a shooting match.

[noname]

A carry or carry/conceal permit is a vastly different thing from simply owning a weapon.
even purchasing a firearm here in VA requires a backround check.

[noname]

But the judiciary never creates laws...it fills in the gaps between the words of the law and actual, physical reality. It's entirely necessary that there's someone to do this, because laws are just abstractions and words. For example, we have a right to be free from 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' Someone has to decide what this means where the rubber meets the road, in our current time and place...that's what the Supreme Court is for. The 'activist judge' rhetoric is kind of a bogeyman-distractor in the modern political parlance, especially inasmuch as everyone in politics has an agenda...judges, by the nature of their jobs, are probably the most neutral entities in our political system.
MD
Judges are supposed to be neutral, what they are supposed to be and what they are are two entirely different things. There are plenty of judges out there that don't see there job as upholding/interpreting the law so much as a chance to make a difference. You have to remember that every judge is just a lawer in a black robe, and in many places they run for re-election, making them politicians as well.

[MikeD]

Disregarding suicide and hunting, guns have direct effects on other people.

But so do cars if used improperly...I don't throw that out as glibly as many in the radical pro-gun lobby do, but it's a fact. Thus, cars are regulated according to certain laws, and I think it's acceptable to do the same with guns. I don't think they should be banned, but reasonable limitations put on them in accordance with a community's (as represented through its state and local gov't) desires. Some communities desire or tolerate guns, others don't.

Certainly, minority rights should be respected, as should a state's traditions, but any unrestricted minority right to own, carry, and possibly employ guns pretty much ends with its intersection of the public sphere...

I just don't think the 2nd Amendment (in conjunction with the 14th, providing equal protection under the law) governs or precludes this type of regulation.

MD

Ed: Apparently, case law on the 2nd Amendment is extremely limited in scope, and hasn't addressed the issues we're dicussing here: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

[MikeD]

The cops take a long time to get there, usualy the crime is over before they show up. Think about this, if every one has a gun when 1 person pulls one out every one in the aria has a gun on him.

You say criminals weigh risk vs reward, if no one has a gun there is no risk and that is EXACTLY my point. If I have a gun too there is ALOT more risk, therefore he does not want a part of it.


O and cops with guns is almost as bad as criminals, a monley could take an average cop in a shooting match.

A monley could take you in a spelling match. ALOT of the time, anyhow...

[bjanga]

^ I agree MD (with posts 68 and 69 :)).

How much regulation is too much? Personally, I can see good reasons for outlawing guns, but very few reasons for allowing them (except just for the heck of it, which is valid in and of itself).

[1000-Oaks]

The criminals don't always have to have guns. If the population as a majority decided it wanted to get rid of guns, and the law was behind it, it wouldn't take long for it to practically impossible to carry and use a gun without instantly attracting law enforcement attention. You could own them, but they'd have to be kept hidden, and therefore would be mostly useless. Gun crime would be drastically reduced, and only be in the domain of really serious criminals such as it is in Europe. Only your gun lobby stops this from happening.

Look what happened in Australia when they took away all of the guns several years ago: violent home intrusion robberies increased by over 500%. (the criminals knock, then force their way in when you answer the door) Sure, shootings were way down but overall crime went way up - criminals like unarmed victims. The anti-gun politicians were completely at a loss to explain the crime surge.

[1000-Oaks]

A carry or carry/conceal permit is a vastly different thing from simply owning a weapon.

You got that right, I had a concealed carry permit for several years and then let it expire - just too much money and trouble to keep it up.

[MikeD]

Look what happened in Australia when they took away all of the guns several years ago: violent home intrusion robberies increased by over 500%. (the criminals knock, then force their way in when you answer the door) Sure, shootings were way down but overall crime went way up - criminals like unarmed victims. The anti-gun politicians were completely at a loss to explain the crime surge.

I've seen those stats flung around in a lot of hysterical chain e-mails, but never from a credible source. Got one? (That's not a challenge or a knock...I'd really like to know...)

[Transcend]

even purchasing a firearm here in VA requires a backround check.

Sure but I could be completely trustworthy and have no blemishes on my record, yet be completely inept with a firearm.

[1000-Oaks]

What's scarier is how many new parents there are who are completely inept and have no business raising children...lol.

[noname]

I've seen those stats flung around in a lot of hysterical chain e-mails, but never from a credible source. Got one? (That's not a challenge or a knock...I'd really like to know...)
John Lott jr. More guns, Less Crime. Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. University of chicago Press c. 1998/2000
check here, plnety of stuff http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Gun_Control/International/Australia/

Also, interesting home office stats from England. http://www.cybershooters.org/PDFdocs/Use%20of%20Licensed%20Firearms%20in%20Homicide.pdf

[noname]

What's scarier is how many new parents there are who are completely inept and have no business raising children...lol.
We need a licensing program for sexual activities!:)
Mentally inept should pay double!

[DaveW]

We need a licensing program for sexual activities!:)
Mentally inept should pay double!


Wouldn't work, britney and paris could still afford to breed. :nopity:

[valve bouncer]

I've seen those stats flung around in a lot of hysterical chain e-mails, but never from a credible source. Got one? (That's not a challenge or a knock...I'd really like to know...)
He can't because it's a totally bogus claim. Homicides in 2004 were at their lowest since national statistics were first kept in 1993 (i.e before stricter gun laws were in place). Indeed stats for unlawful entry with intent (which covers home invasions), theft and assault were all way down.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument
Of course even before the Port Arthur massacre which precipitated even tighter gun laws in Australia, it was virtually impossible to own a handgun. People who use Australia in any pro-gun arguement don't have a clue what they're talking about.

[alwaysbroncin19]

the argument of "criminals will always have guns" doesnt make much sense.

what is the point of customs, if drug dealers will smuggle drugs anyway??
what is the point of traffic laws, if people still die in crashes and always will?
are you getting it?

I'm assuming you are notioning towards more strict enforcement?? If so, I like the way you think.

[TheMontashu]

He can't because it's a totally bogus claim. Homicides in 2004 were at their lowest since national statistics were first kept in 1993 (i.e before stricter gun laws were in place). Indeed stats for unlawful entry with intent (which covers home invasions), theft and assault were all way down.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument
Of course even before the Port Arthur massacre which precipitated even tighter gun laws in Australia, it was virtually impossible to own a handgun. People who use Australia in any pro-gun arguement don't have a clue what they're talking about.
Thoes results are pretty incunclusive, they dont tell much eather way. I want to se definative proof that an anti guns polocy has worked. Cause here in the U.S. CA has the highest crime precentages and the strictist gun laws. Lets also not forget japans has something like a 5 foot pound energy limit on all airguns.

[valve bouncer]

Thoes results are pretty incunclusive, they dont tell much eather way. I want to se definative proof that an anti guns polocy has worked. Cause here in the U.S. CA has the highest crime precentages and the strictist gun laws. Lets also not forget japans has something like a 5 foot pound energy limit on all airguns.
That's not my arguement. 1000Oats said home invasions went up 500%. Total crap, not true at all as official Aust Bureau of Staistics figures show.
It's clear to me though that gun ownership is only one factor regarding crime-rates.

[TheMontashu]

That's not my arguement. 1000Oats said home invasions went up 500%. Total crap, not true at all as official Aust Bureau of Staistics figures show.
It's clear to me though that gun ownership is only one factor regarding crime-rates.
and untill there is PROOF that gun control works why ban guns?

[alwaysbroncin19]

I've seen those stats flung around in a lot of hysterical chain e-mails, but never from a credible source. Got one? (That's not a challenge or a knock...I'd really like to know...)

Here's a peer-reviewed journal of Aus. Criminal Justice. I've read this book, and I remember there being some of those stats in it. If you have the time, try and find it.

Australian Quarterly; Autumn97, Vol. 69 Issue 1, p50, 13p, 2 charts

[alwaysbroncin19]

^ I agree MD (with posts 68 and 69 :)).

How much regulation is too much? Personally, I can see good reasons for outlawing guns, but very few reasons for allowing them (except just for the heck of it, which is valid in and of itself).

:D Are you an illegal?

[bjanga]

and untill there is PROOF that gun control works why not ban guns?
Fixed . . . perhaps.

[Transcend]

We need a licensing program for sexual activities!:)
Mentally inept should pay double!

The US used to have a Eugenics program, look into it.


Published on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 in the Chicago Tribune
Yale Study:
U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany
by David Morgan

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - U.S. doctors who once believed that sterilization could help rid society of mental illness and crime launched a 20th century eugenics movement that in some ways paralleled the policies of Nazi Germany, researchers said on Monday.

A Yale study tracing a once-popular movement aimed at improving society through selective breeding, indicates that state-authorized sterilizations were carried out longer and on a larger scale in the United States than previously believed, beginning with the first state eugenics law in Indiana in 1907.

Despite modern assumptions that American interest in eugenics waned during the 1920s, researchers said sterilization laws had authorized the neutering of more than 40,000 people classed as insane or ``feebleminded'' in 30 states by 1944.

[alwaysbroncin19]

He can't because it's a totally bogus claim. Homicides in 2004 were at their lowest since national statistics were first kept in 1993 (i.e before stricter gun laws were in place). Indeed stats for unlawful entry with intent (which covers home invasions), theft and assault were all way down.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument
Of course even before the Port Arthur massacre which precipitated even tighter gun laws in Australia, it was virtually impossible to own a handgun. People who use Australia in any pro-gun arguement don't have a clue what they're talking about.

I'll admit that due to his bias, Lott isn't a very credible source of information, but his correlation matrix(s) and regression analysis are irrefutable in "More Guns, Less Crime." The jist: Stricter gun laws as an independant variable on homicide rates, aren't statistically or practically significant at the highest significance level. There are three variables however, that are. Do some research and you will see the light my son.

As for using Aus. for a reference,,,,, I ask why not? I use Amsterdam as a reference for liberal drug laws, nevada for liberal prostitution laws, and the Aussies for their gun laws. It makes logical sense.

[bjanga]

:D Are you an illegal?
Guns dont pay taxes ;)

[Silver]

and untill there is PROOF that gun control works why ban guns?

Explain the murder rates in Japan, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy, Spain, the Netherlands...there is no first world country with a higher murder rate than the USA. The closest is Finland, and their per capita murder rate is only 66% of the USA's. Finland is also a bit of an outlier, the next closest first world country is France (...maybe South Korea?) and their per capita murder rate is only 40% of the USA.

The one thing that comes to mind is that all those countries have restrictive (compared to the US) gun laws. Now, that doesn't mean that gun laws are the reason for the lower murder rates (Americans could be morally degenerate murdering people due to cultural reasons as well) but it does sort of place the burden of proof on the pro-firearms crowd.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

The murders with firearms per capita is also illuminating.

You might want to check out assaults per capita as well.

[TheMontashu]

I know there is a country in the netherlands that has manditory FN assault rifles to be in every home, from what I was told (By some one who trained oakland PDs swat team and did risk managment for governments) that that country has the least murders per capita on earth

[alwaysbroncin19]

[QUOTE=Of course even before the Port Arthur massacre which precipitated even tighter gun laws in Australia, it was virtually impossible to own a handgun. People who use Australia in any pro-gun arguement don't have a clue what they're talking about.[/QUOTE]

I think you are refering to the incident where ONE armed man shot 35 or 36 people ON OPEN GROUND? If I'm mistaken, sorry but I can assure you that would have never happened in a state where concealed carry permits were even moderate.

People act on a consequence based continuum. Some people fall off of this continuum in a certain mindframe, but it is of my humble opinion that this is just another reason for high gun ownership. I'd have hated to be the one standing there waiting for the police and their nightsticks to arrive. Just silly.

[DaveW]

I know there is a country in the netherlands that has manditory FN assault rifles to be in every home, from what I was told (By some one who trained oakland PDs swat team and did risk managment for governments) that that country has the least murders per capita on earth


And I think you will find that everyone with one of those guns has been thru millitary training and disipline.... and the serrial numbers and location of the weapon etc etc are recorded.

[alwaysbroncin19]

Explain the murder rates in Japan, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy, Spain, the Netherlands...there is no first world country with a higher murder rate than the USA. The closest is Finland, and their per capita murder rate is only 66% of the USA's. Finland is also a bit of an outlier, the next closest first world country is France (...maybe South Korea?) and their per capita murder rate is only 40% of the USA.

The one thing that comes to mind is that all those countries have restrictive (compared to the US) gun laws. Now, that doesn't mean that gun laws are the reason for the lower murder rates (Americans could be morally degenerate murdering people due to cultural reasons as well) but it does sort of place the burden of proof on the pro-firearms crowd.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

The murders with firearms per capita is also illuminating.

You might want to check out assaults per capita as well.

Again, even per-capita, the level of gun laws is not a significant predictor of crime rates in 95% of the world. The other 5% are the swiss cause the only other thing that could cause it is poor skiing conditions!:thumb:

[Transcend]

The guns per capita is actually higher than the USA. We have MUCH less violent crime.

Also, gun laws are also to restruct ownership to prevent accidents, not just to prevent crime. Almost as many deaths by gun in the US are accidental as they are murders.

[bjanga]

And I think you will find that everyone with one of those guns has been thru millitary training and disipline.... and the serrial numbers and location of the weapon etc etc are recorded.
Sounds like the way to do it . . .

[TheMontashu]

And I think you will find that everyone with one of those guns has been thru millitary training and disipline.... and the serrial numbers and location of the weapon etc etc are recorded.
I have more disipline with a guns that you will EVER know.

[alwaysbroncin19]

Sounds like the way to do it . . .

Boy that's comedy. The slightest mention of a draft, and everyone heads to Canada, but I'm for it too!

[Changleen]

I know there is a country in the netherlandsErrrrr...... Geography 101? The Netherlands IS a country.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html

[bjanga]

Boy that's comedy. The slightest mention of a draft, and everyone heads to Canada, but I'm for it too!
Just saying, something so regulated sounds better than cosmetic stipulations about rifles. All or nothing, right?

[DaveW]

I have more disipline with a guns that you will EVER know.


I feel that those who have been subject to military disipline are far safer to trust with a firearm..... mind you I'm not to sure about american military disipline, as they do have a hell of a reputation for having poor fire control/trigger happy. :hot:

[Changleen]

So the upshot of all these stats seems to suggest there is a large percentage of the American population who are dumb, poorly disciplined, short sighted rednecks with no impulse control.

[MikeD]

Excerpted from Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

In the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because "criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed" are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback. But beyond that, most of the statistics offered here are misleading and present only "first year results" where long-term trends need to be considered in order to draw valid cause-and-effect conclusions.

For example, the first entry states that "Homicides are up 3.2%." This statistic is misleading because it reflects only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. (A country with a rapidly-growing population, for example, might experience a higher number of crimes even while its overall crime rate decreased.) An examination of statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) reveals that the overall homicide rate in Australia has changed little over the past decade and actually dipped slightly after the 1997 gun buy-back program. (The chart found at this link also demonstrates how easily statistics based on small sample sizes can mislead, as when the homicide rate in Tasmania increased nearly eight-fold in one year based on a single incident in which 35 people were killed.)

Then we have the claim that "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent." This is another example of how misleading statistics can be when the underlying numbers are not provided: Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%). An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends. Moreover, the opening paragraph mixes two very different types of statistics — number of homicides vs. percentage of homicides committed with firearms. In the latter case, it should be noted that the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. (In the former case, the absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.)

Other claims offered here, such as the statement that "While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months" and "There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly" are even more difficult to evaluate, because they don't offer any figures or standards of measurement at all. Do they deal with absolute numbers, or percentages? Do they reflect all incidents of crime, or only those committed with firearms? How much of an increase constitutes a "dramatic" increase? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of firearms used to commit armed robbery has actually declined over the last several years:

1995 - 27.8%
1996 - 25.3%
1997 - 24.1%
1998 - 17.6%
1999 - 15.2%
2000 - 14.0%

The ABS does report that the number of assaults on victims aged 65 and over has increased over the last few years, but hardly in a proportion one would describe as "dramatic":

Number of victims of assault aged 65 and over:

1996 - 1474
1997 - 1662 (12.8% increase from previous year)
1998 - 1663 (0.06% increase from previous year)
1999 - 1793 (7.8% increase from previous year)

The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.

[fluff]

I have more disipline with a guns that you will EVER know.
Judging by the discipline you exhibit with your typing (which is all we have to go by); that would not mean much.

[noname]

Explain the murder rates in Japan, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy, Spain, the Netherlands...there is no first world country with a higher murder rate than the USA. The closest is Finland, and their per capita murder rate is only 66% of the USA's. Finland is also a bit of an outlier, the next closest first world country is France (...maybe South Korea?) and their per capita murder rate is only 40% of the USA.

The one thing that comes to mind is that all those countries have restrictive (compared to the US) gun laws. Now, that doesn't mean that gun laws are the reason for the lower murder rates (Americans could be morally degenerate murdering people due to cultural reasons as well) but it does sort of place the burden of proof on the pro-firearms crowd.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

The murders with firearms per capita is also illuminating.

You might want to check out assaults per capita as well.
"The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic" U.N. survey
Check violent crime rates in all of those countries per capita too. Also look into the increase/decreased rates over the past few years.

[Silver]

Again, even per-capita, the level of gun laws is not a significant predictor of crime rates in 95% of the world. The other 5% are the swiss cause the only other thing that could cause it is poor skiing conditions!:thumb:

I'm not talking about crime rates. I'm talking about murder rates.

The levels of assault per capita are higher in New Zealand. Why is the NZ murder rate so much lower per capita?

[noname]

Just a thought.........
We're discussing the U.S. bill of rights, something that former supreme court cheif justice Hugo Black referred to as absolutes, not to be weighed against other legislative powers but to stand absolutely, and he had good reason to say so.
I have to agree with him, all the sideways discussions of crime etc. obfuscate the issues of inalienable rights, saying that the government should have the power to limit/reduce/remove rights from citizens by fiat puts us right back to the situation from which the colonial Americans fought so hard to extirpate themselves from.

[Silver]

"The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic" U.N. survey
Check violent crime rates in all of those countries per capita too. Also look into the increase/decreased rates over the past few years.

So muder is defined significantly different in Canada or the EU? I wasn't aware of that.

[noname]

I'm not talking about crime rates. I'm talking about murder rates.

The levels of assault per capita are higher in New Zealand. Why is the NZ murder rate so much lower per capita?
Moot point. The biggest advocacy point of pro gun lobbyists is that not knowing who is armed and who isn't will incur greater levels of caution in criminals, making them less willing to openly confront their victims. Thus reducing the likelyhood of a violent confrontation.

[noname]

So murder is defined significantly different in Canada or the EU? I wasn't aware of that. neither was I until I saw it listed on the page.
It is entirely possible though.. . . .. .
Look at the various different names giving to conditions of death depending on actions and intentions, they may very well be greatly different from one country to another, as well as how they are catagorized by law enforcement.

[Silver]

Moot point. The biggest advocacy point of pro gun lobbyists is that not knowing who is armed and who isn't will incur greater levels of caution in criminals, making them less willing to openly confront their victims. Thus reducing the likelyhood of a violent confrontation.

That's a moot point? If that's the case, I'm wondering what rises to the level of a serious point...

Personally, I'd rather be assaulted than murdered. I'm funny that way though.

[fluff]

Moot point. The biggest advocacy point of pro gun lobbyists is that not knowing who is armed and who isn't will incur greater levels of caution in criminals, making them less willing to openly confront their victims. Thus reducing the likelyhood of a violent confrontation.
Or, alternatively, if you don't know if your victim is likely to be armed, you shoot them anyway, just in case.

[Silver]

neither was I until I saw it listed on the page.
It is entirely possible though.. . . .. .
Look at the various different names giving to conditions of death depending on actions and intentions, they may very well be greatly different from one country to another, as well as how they are catagorized by law enforcement.

It is entirely possible (especially for the assault stats) that they may not be comparable, especially in third world countries with less developed legal systems.

However, the onus is on you. Show me how murder is defined differently in Canada vs. the US that would account for the difference in murder rates between the two countries.

[ALEXIS_DH]

Moot point. The biggest advocacy point of pro gun lobbyists is that not knowing who is armed and who isn't will incur greater levels of caution in criminals, making them less willing to openly confront their victims. Thus reducing the likelyhood of a violent confrontation.

what if, instead of greater caution, criminals switch to more aggresive tactics (like they already do in places where the certainty of confronting an armed person are high, caracas and bogota for example) like shoot/disable first, commit crime later????

[ALEXIS_DH]

Or, alternatively, if you don't know if your victim is likely to be armed, you shoot them anyway, just in case.

oh, beaten while posting.

[fluff]

oh, beaten while posting.
I thought you made an excellent point though. But why did it take you 8 minutes to type it? :)

[ALEXIS_DH]

I thought you made an excellent point though. But why did it take you 8 minutes to type it? :)

i usually have like 10 ridemonkey windows, click the "post reply" and leave it open while reading other stuff. plus am watching the news too.

[noname]

That's a moot point? If that's the case, I'm wondering what rises to the level of a serious point...

Personally, I'd rather be assaulted than murdered. I'm funny that way though.
THe point I was making is that murder rates are not indicitive of the enfectiveness or lack there of when analizing gun control laws.
Trying to simply use murder rates as an indicator is a moot point as it is ineffective and meaningless.
What to have a little fun, take the overall murder rates from all these countries and break them down by demographics. Age, race, income, education, you'd see that by demographic most western nations get a lot closer, especially the gap between the U.S. and Canada.

[ALEXIS_DH]

THe point I was making is that murder rates are not indicitive of the enfectiveness or lack there of when analizing gun control laws.
Trying to simply use murder rates as an indicator is a moot point as it is ineffective and meaningless.
What to have a little fun, take the overall murder rates from all these countries and break them down by demographics. Age, race, income, education, you'd see that by demographic most western nations get a lot closer, especially the gap between the U.S. and Canada.

translation: is the blacks/browns fault.

[Westy]

So I haven't read the whole thread but I will add my $.02. I thought that the 2nd amendment was a reaction to a specific event. The confiscation of weapons and powder at the Williamsburg Armory. The armory was of course intended to supply the local militia.

[noname]

what if, instead of greater caution, criminals switch to more aggresive tactics (like they already do in places where the certainty of confronting an armed person are high, caracas and bogota for example) like shoot/disable first, commit crime later????
A lot of crimes that turn violent (burglary, theft etc,) start out as crimes of opportunity. The majority of stats on the issue in the U.S. support the supposition that increasing a citizens legal ability to defend themselves decreases the rate of those crimes. (Unless you're from new Orleans, then ou're just farked)

[Silver]

THe point I was making is that murder rates are not indicitive of the enfectiveness or lack there of when analizing gun control laws.
Trying to simply use murder rates as an indicator is a moot point as it is ineffective and meaningless.
What to have a little fun, take the overall murder rates from all these countries and break them down by demographics. Age, race, income, education, you'd see that by demographic most western nations get a lot closer, especially the gap between the U.S. and Canada.

Source?

[noname]

Source?
IF I was at home with access to all my books you'd quickly get one. Guess you'll have to wait till then.

[DaveW]

Moot point. The biggest advocacy point of pro gun lobbyists is that not knowing who is armed and who isn't will incur greater levels of caution in criminals, making them less willing to openly confront their victims. Thus reducing the likelyhood of a violent confrontation.


Ocams razor at work again....... Or making the criminal more likely to arm them selves, which in turn makes it more likely that someone will die....personaly I'd rather get beaten up than shot.

[DaveW]

oh, beaten while posting.

DOH! ....Ditto. :(

[alwaysbroncin19]

I'm not talking about crime rates. I'm talking about murder rates.

The levels of assault per capita are higher in New Zealand. Why is the NZ murder rate so much lower per capita?


Because they have Changleen!:) Sorry, I had to.

[MikeD]

Even I have been sucked into it...a discussion about the actual second amendment becomes an argument about guns, in which everyone tries to support their emotions with statistics. Although it can't be a failure as an experiment, I'm sort of disappointed that no one has engaged the Constitutional argument except in passing...

[Transcend]

Pussify the men,take the guns away,raise taxes,implant micro-chips,total control of the people,ban this ban that,etc..
Sounds scary ......Sounds like commie left wing crap to me ..!

(( Must read this website ))

http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

There will be a great huge revolution if the United States government or U.N or anyone tries to take firearms away from us.

Well, with a response like that I guess we can't ignore that logic! :rolleyes:

[MikeD]

U.N or anyone

The UN? HAHAHAHAAAHAHHHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAaaaaaahhhAHHAHHAHAHAH HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhahahahahhaaa ... ah... ahhhh...hheeeehhh eh eh heh heh.

[alwaysbroncin19]

The UN? HAHAHAHAAAHAHHHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAaaaaaahhhAHHAHHAHAHAH HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhahahahahhaaa ... ah... ahhhh...hheeeehhh eh eh heh heh.


Hey, I'm not sold that the UN would try it either, but s*it like the Kyoto Protocol is a step in that direction. We give an inch they will try and take a mile.

[DaveW]

WOW! go the tin hat brigade!

Anyone who thinks the UN would ever be interested in doing that is in need of a padded cell! :looney: :banghead:

[Changleen]

Hey, I'm not sold that the UN would try it either, but s*it like the Kyoto Protocol is a step in that direction. We give an inch they will try and take a mile.You have mental problems. Seriously. I think you should go and see a doctor. You may have some sort of condition.

[bjanga]

So. Regarding the second amendment . . . who constitutes a militiaman in 2006? Anyone?

[DaveW]

Personaly I would have said when they wrote it that the Militia were what we now call the police?

But thats just a guess on my part.

[bjanga]

How cozy is a militia with the government, though?

[MikeD]

So. Regarding the second amendment . . . who constitutes a militiaman in 2006? Anyone?

National Guard is the closest thing we have...force composed of local part-timers, under control of the state gov't, whose functions are 1) final defense of the locality in case of invasion and 2) enforcing peace in times of disturbance.

Only thing is that this 'state' militia is ultimately a part of a federal structure, which sort of defeats the original point of ensuring the fed. stays off the people's backs. However, like we said, times do change...I don't think we're in imminent danger of slipping back to monarchy or allegiance to a foreign power anytime soon, so I guess it doesn't seem as important to us now.

[Changleen]

or allegiance to a foreign powerNot so sure about that one...

[Transcend]

Hey, I'm not sold that the UN would try it either, but s*it like the Kyoto Protocol is a step in that direction. We give an inch they will try and take a mile.

Holy Christ, please do some research before you spout off at the mouth. :rolleyes:

Factories need to pollute less; oh no they are going to take our guns away!

[alwaysbroncin19]

Holy Christ, please do some research before you spout off at the mouth. :rolleyes:

Factories need to pollute less; oh no they are going to take our guns away!


Read my post....it's a step in that direction and you know what I'm talking about.

[Changleen]

Read my post....it's a step in that direction and you know what I'm talking about.In the direction where you have to think about the needs of other people on the planet, and maybe even the future? Damn you suck soooo much.