Gun ownership

[Rudolph]

I admit that I don't feel too strongly either way, but most gun owners are pretty adamant on their right to bare arms - I lean slightly more to the latter. This perception that every American has a gun has probably stopped a lot of people from ever trying anything on USA's soil. My opinion is a rather simplified one, and looking at it in the short-term, I can find no evidence that barring gun ownership reduces gun violence. Not unless all guns magically disappear at the same time, or if criminals also hand in their guns.

Secondly, here's two interviews regarding the issue, mostly concerning crime-ridden South Africa where black and white gun-owners share sentiments.

Note: The show is rather biased, and some might consider it far right-wing, but others consider it reality.

Gun Owners of South Africa, Pt 1 (http://www.mediamax.com/djiced/Hosted/HelloAfrica_2007/ha080807du.mp3)
Gun Owners of South Africa, Pt 2 (http://www.mediamax.com/djiced/Hosted/HelloAfrica_2007/ha081507du.mp3)

[Jaeger07]

Yes, owning a gun is not a bad thing, if you are a responsible person.


The problem is persons who are not responsible. Infact many people should be kept far away from guns. Drug-dealers, people linked to organized crime and people with mental problems are examples.

The question you should be asking is "how to control guns". There are no countries I know of where gun-ownership is banned. And even in the USA there are a lot of restrictions on what kind of weapons one can own. So the question is not "should there be a total ban?", but rather "what kind of gun-control do we want?".


IMO some key factors in a responsible gun-legislation should be:

1: Registration of guns, so one can track guns that have been stolen, get rid of illegal guns, control that only responsible people own guns etc.

2: Full-auto guns/military-type guns should be for the police and military only. These guns dont have any use for civilians; if you have so many enemies that a normal shotgun or an automatic pistol can not be sufficient to protect you, you need help and not a gun. If you want to shot a machine-gun, join the army.


In most countries guns for civilians should only be kept for hunting and sport.

I do however respect that some people feel the need to keep guns as protection for situations where the government cannot help, burglary perhaps. But one must bear in mind that allowing guns for "self protection" means that your enemies also will have a greater chance to obtain guns - wich eventually makes it less safe for you and your family.



Remember that most european countries (and canada) follow the basic guidelines i stated, and it works just fine for us. Would it work in the USA? I dunno.

[Seraphim]

Yes, owning a gun is not a bad thing, if you are a responsible person.


The problem is persons who are not responsible. Infact many people should be kept far away from guns. Drug-dealers, people linked to organized crime and people with mental problems are examples.

rofl:cantbeli:

The question you should be asking is "how to control guns". There are no countries I know of where gun-ownership is banned. And even in the USA there are a lot of restrictions on what kind of weapons one can own. So the question is not "should there be a total ban?", but rather "what kind of gun-control do we want?".


IMO some key factors in a responsible gun-legislation should be:

1: Registration of guns, so one can track guns that have been stolen, get rid of illegal guns, control that only responsible people own guns etc.

2: Full-auto guns/military-type guns should be for the police and military only. These guns dont have any use for civilians; if you have so many enemies that a normal shotgun or an automatic pistol can not be sufficient to protect you, you need help and not a gun. If you want to shot a machine-gun, join the army.

Owning ARs or other "military" type firearms is not just for self defense. People use them for competitions and many other reasons besides self defense. Owning them purely for self defense is probably in the lower percentage bracket of owning them.


In most countries guns for civilians should only be kept for hunting and sport.

I do however respect that some people feel the need to keep guns as protection for situations where the government cannot help, burglary perhaps. But one must bear in mind that allowing guns for "self protection" means that your enemies also will have a greater chance to obtain guns - wich eventually makes it less safe for you and your family.

:cantbeli::slap:



Remember that most european countries (and canada) follow the basic guidelines i stated, and it works just fine for us. Would it work in the USA? I dunno.


1234567890

[Laworkerbee]

In most countries guns for civilians should only be kept for hunting and sport.

I do however respect that some people feel the need to keep guns as protection for situations where the government cannot help, burglary perhaps. But one must bear in mind that allowing guns for "self protection" means that your enemies also will have a greater chance to obtain guns - wich eventually makes it less safe for you and your family.

In America, our Right to bear arms is not there so we can hunt deer or shoot paper targets; we were given this right to defend ourselves against government tyranny.

Any other reason is secondary.

[Mastermind]

Anyone notice that the jackass who did the rectn church shootings in CVolorad was on the verge of turingin the corner into a huge auditorium filled with 7000 people...he was shooting people in the entrance way...the greeting hall...But, before he managed the fatal turn a little gal with a CCW permit met him...she is a church volunteer who happens to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and was sitting in the back of the church acting as a security agent. When she heard the shooting, she ran to the sound of the guns...and confronted the murdering SOB...and returned fire. One of her rounds struck the man, who was wearing a tactical helment and body armor, giving him a fatal wound. The actions of this armed, law abiding citizen probably saved the lives of a hundred people (statement from the Pastor of the Church).

But, I think we will probably see a very quick hush about this church shooting rampage ...as is the leftist, gun hating media's habit, the story will quickly be quashed when a lawfully armed citizen saves the day. Same as the quick story death of the event that happened in the mall in Utah earlier this year...an off duty police man saved countless lives by returning fire.

It is not even a question of gun rights when so many lives are on the line..the proof of the security offered by well armed, law abiding citizens is not arguable.

[Seraphim]

Yeah I was thinking that myself when I was watching the news at lunch how they didnt mention how the gunman was stopped.

[akd]

In America, our Right to bear arms is not there so we can hunt deer or shoot paper targets; we were given this right to defend ourselves against government tyranny.

Any other reason is secondary.

Yes, and there is no limit to the potential corruption of power once the government is given the right to decide if a citizen (not a criminal who has lost their rights of citizenship) is "responsible" enough to keep something "dangerous" in their home. In fact, the restrictions placed automatic weapons have already taken the first step down this road, as the automatic function on a firearm does not make it inherently more capable of killing (but you will never get this out of the heads of people raised on Hollywood).

Explosives are a different issue, and factor into a rather complex legal/philosophical argument about what constitutes self-defense. Basically, it boils down to if the use of a weapon in self-defense constitutes a greater or equal danger to those being defended than to the aggressor, society is only logical to put restrictions on its use. If I keep a stash of C4 in my house, and there is a house fire, then my neighbors could be blown up without any person making a decision to use that weapon. This is also why the "then why can't I own a nuclear bomb?" argument is nothing but a straw man. It is not a weapon that could be used in self-defense by an individual.

It is clear from the language used in the Constitution in context with contemporary writings that the founders of our nation believed it was the right of every citizen to own, keep and use individual arms equivalent to that of the military. This is why the 1939 SC decision is often misused today. The SC then essentially said that a citizen has no right to keep a sawed-off shotgun, because such a weapon was not recognized as having any military or militia use.

The Constitution says I can responsibly own and keep an M4 carbine in my own home, but fear has dictated otherwise. However, I essentially do own an M4 carbine; it just lacks a fun switch and a detachable flash hider, so I don't really feel the government has trod too severely on my rights granted by the Constitution (although I do think they could better improve public safety by focusing those resources on other areas of the law), but that doesn't mean I think that existing laws can be used as an argument for further trampling that document.


Yeah I was thinking that myself when I was watching the news at lunch how they didnt mention how the gunman was stopped.

Indeed, if mentioned, they insist on calling the woman a "security guard," as if that is her profession. I didn't realize that since I volunteered cleaning up trash at the local lake earlier this year, I will now be known as a trash collector. The woman was in plainclothes and carrying a concealed weapon. She is not currently a LEO, but apparently may have had a background in LE. Normally she splits her Sundays attending service in the morning and then volunteering to provide personal protection to some leading figure of the church. She is most likely a private citizen with CCW permit, but will probably never hear that.



A New Life parishioner acting as a security guard shot and killed the gunman who entered the church Sunday afternoon after he had gotten no more than 50 feet inside the building, Boyd said.

Boyd said the female security guard was a hero in preventing further bloodshed, rushing to confront the gunman just inside the church.
"She probably saved over a hundred lives," Boyd said of the guard, whom he said is not a law enforcement officer and used her personal weapon. http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gifWatch pastor tell how guard saved lives » (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html#cnnSTCVideo)

[Jaeger07]

In America, our Right to bear arms is not there so we can hunt deer or shoot paper targets; we were given this right to defend ourselves against government tyranny.

Any other reason is secondary.


IMO that is to compensate for your countys concentration of power - a very un-democratic thing. If you had better balance of power between the courts, the legislative branch and your white house - then you would not need this kind of law.

Most european constitutions are far mor modern than yours of 1776, and this is the reson why your constitution has more power concentrated to the government (white house).
Again I'm not saying what works for us here will work for you guys.


@ †Seraphim† : great post buddy. Emotion-signs sure make a hell of an argument. Care to elaborate?

[Yeti2424]

You dont need to be registered to enjoy the other 9 amendments why should we have to be registered for this one?

[Laworkerbee]

IMO that is to compensate for your countys concentration of power - a very un-democratic thing. If you had better balance of power between the courts, the legislative branch and your white house - then you would not need this kind of law.

Most european constitutions are far mor modern than yours of 1776, and this is the reson why your constitution has more power concentrated to the government (white house).
Again I'm not saying what works for us here will work for you guys.

You have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the balance of power in the United States government and your EU constitution is a joke; a document made for lawyers and unreadable by the average citizen.

This thread is about gun control please stay on topic.

[Seraphim]

IMO that is to compensate for your countys concentration of power - a very un-democratic thing. If you had better balance of power between the courts, the legislative branch and your white house - then you would not need this kind of law.

Most european constitutions are far mor modern than yours of 1776, and this is the reson why your constitution has more power concentrated to the government (white house).
Again I'm not saying what works for us here will work for you guys.


@ †Seraphim† : great post buddy. Emotion-signs sure make a hell of an argument. Care to elaborate?

Because you are a moron. You think that criminals buy guns legally? Do you know what checks you have to go through to buy a handgun?

You possess very flawed logic in your arguments.

[szr]

IMO that is to compensate for your countys concentration of power - a very un-democratic thing. If you had better balance of power between the courts, the legislative branch and your white house - then you would not need this kind of law.

Most european constitutions are far mor modern than yours of 1776, and this is the reson why your constitution has more power concentrated to the government (white house).Time to go back to school and take another class on American government because you're so far off I wouldn't even know where to begin in righting this ship.

[hank]

You dont need to be registered to enjoy the other 9 amendments why should we have to be registered for this one?

Because Article I give Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and the sale of guns implicates interstate commerse. I am not opining about the right to own guns, but don't be naive about 2nd Amendment rights. The right to bear arms is not absolute just like free speech is not absolute. The Constitution is about competing rights and always has been. When rights compete, compromises have to be made and registering is one such compromise. It may not be one that you like, but its a compromise nonetheless and its beyond dispute that it is and always has been constitutional.

hank

[Mastermind]

akd...the last paragraph there is interesting where you say "the government (has not) trod too severly on my rights..."

Any trodding on my rights, or anyone's rights is too much...ANY.

What right does the gvt have to allow the various states to crush our rights to keep and bear arms? This will soon be decided by the SCOTUS...probably early next year. But, more importantly, what lack of citizen outrage was present when the citizen's second ammendment rights were trampled on in the first place? What could possibly have given politicains the verve to incrementally remove those rights?

I think it is citizen apathy and liberal brain washing that has eroded our rights and it continues to this very day in a huge effort by the left to disarm this citizenry.

As for keeping any and all weapons as allowed by the military...I do not think such is actually necessary...no, we don't need equivalent weapons to cause such major disruption to the governmement that it would essentially cease to function. If things got that bad, it is not just civil unrest...that is called Civil War. As we have witnessed before in this nation, the Federal Government has the power to crush any revolt...even that by very well and equivalently armed citizens. If the cause for rebellion is universal, the weapons we have in our homes is an excellent way to start. Imagine trying such a rebellion totally unarmed!

Besides, the events in isolated incidents around the nation over our history has shown such "infantry" type weapons are quite sufficient to isolate the government.

I consider it my duty as a citizen to protect my rights and the right of my neighbors to the best of my ability. The proper exercise of those rights is one of the best ways to protect them. I strongly encourage everyone I know to own weapons, to practice with them and to garner every gun "license" the govermemnt allows a law abiding citizen. The more weapons bearing citizens the governemnt knows are out here the more careful they will be in trying to remove them by force. It is up to each of us to shed light of truth to the filthy lies the anti-gunners would spread for the consumption of our less mentally endowed citizens. They curse us for our weapons ownership and our defense of our gun rights...and never realize we are the ones protecting their rights for all future generations....theirs included.

[Jaeger07]

You have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the balance of power in the United States government.

Your EU constitution is a joke, a document made for lawyers and unreadable by the average citizen.

This thread is about gun control please stay on topic.



EU constitution? You seem to think that the EU is a country, there are no binding constitution concerning guns. This is completely up to the european countries themselves.


Americans generally is very constitution-conservative, something that can be good. In your case I think it is not. Your constitution is over 200 years old and your society has changed alot. What was a good solution (law) back then is not necesserily a good one now.

[hank]

akd...the last paragraph there is interesting where you say "the government (has not) trod too severly on my rights..."

Any trodding on my rights, or anyone's rights is too much...ANY.

What right does the gvt have to allow the various states to crush our rights to keep and bear arms? This will soon be decided by the SCOTUS...probably early next year. But, more importantly, what lack of citizen outrage was present when the citizen's second ammendment rights were trampled on in the first place? What could possibly have given politicains the verve to incrementally remove those rights?

Time out, MM. You are right about DC's laws and hopefully the SC will strike that as violative of the 2ndA. Are you only referring to DC's law or are you also pointing the finger at federal laws on gun sales?

hank

[Jaeger07]

Time to go back to school and take another class on American government because you're so far off I wouldn't even know where to begin in righting this ship.

I'm a 4th year law school student. This is a fact. If you dont agree tell my why I'm wrong.

And please can we keep this discussion civilized. This is getting flamy...

[clean]

The 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.

It says two different things. Opening it up to all sorts of interpretations.

[Laworkerbee]

EU constitution? You seem to think that the EU is a country, there are no binding constitution concerning guns. This is completely up to the european countries themselves.

Really, where do I refer to the EU as a country? You are backtracking and changing the subject. You have no idea how the US government works.

Just admit it and stop looking like a fool.


Americans generally is very constitution-conservative, something that can be good. In your case I think it is not. Your constitution is over 200 years old and your society has changed alot. What was a good solution (law) back then is not necesserily a good one now.

Learn about what you are talking about before opening your mouth, your arguments were supposed to be about gun control; since you failed there you now want to argue against our 200 year old constitution as being out of date and out of touch. :cantbeli:


I'm a 4th year law school student. Are we supposed to be impressed by a law student who doesn't know much about the subject he is debating?

[Jaeger07]

The Second Amendment


It says two different things. Opening it up to all sorts of interpretations.

It's even argued that in the keeping of a militia - ones right to bear arms is secured, i.e. if you have a militia that is enough.

IMO this is to stretch the meaning of the sentence too much.

[Buckeye67]

I'm a 4th year law school student. This is a fact. If you dont agree tell my why I'm wrong.

Being a 4th year law student, in Norway, doesn't exactly qualify you as an "expert" on the workings of the US government. Quite frankly, if your law school has taught you that the US government needs more/better checks and balances, you should seek a refund on your tuition.

Tell you why you're wrong? It's probably because the workings of our government are predicated on a system of checks and balances - the 2nd Amendment being the "ultimate" check and balance.


And please can we keep this discussion civilized. This is getting flamy...

You can't very well play with matches and gasoline and not expect to start a fire.

[Zoomie]

Americans generally is very constitution-conservative, something that can be good. In your case I think it is not. Your constitution is over 200 years old and your society has changed alot. What was a good solution (law) back then is not necesserily a good one now.
If you're a law student who knows about the US government as you claim, then surely you know about something called amendments?

[clean]

An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown or, the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

freedom from royal interference with the law (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself)
freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament
freedom to petition the Monarch
freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament
freedom to have arms for defence, as allowed by law
freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign
the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege)
freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail
freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial

[akd]

akd...the last paragraph there is interesting where you say "the government (has not) trod too severly on my rights..."

Any trodding on my rights, or anyone's rights is too much...ANY.

What right does the gvt have to allow the various states to crush our rights to keep and bear arms? This will soon be decided by the SCOTUS...probably early next year. But, more importantly, what lack of citizen outrage was present when the citizen's second ammendment rights were trampled on in the first place? What could possibly have given politicains the verve to incrementally remove those rights?

I think it is citizen apathy and liberal brain washing that has eroded our rights and it continues to this very day in a huge effort by the left to disarm this citizenry.

As for keeping any and all weapons as allowed by the military...I do not think such is actually necessary...no, we don't need equivalent weapons to cause such major disruption to the governmement that it would essentially cease to function. If things got that bad, it is not just civil unrest...that is called Civil War. As we have witnessed before in this nation, the Federal Government has the power to crush any revolt...even that by very well and equivalently armed citizens. If the cause for rebellion is universal, the weapons we have in our homes is an excellent way to start. Imagine trying such a rebellion totally unarmed!

Besides, the events in isolated incidents around the nation over our history has shown such "infantry" type weapons are quite sufficient to isolate the government.

I consider it my duty as a citizen to protect my rights and the right of my neighbors to the best of my ability. The proper exercise of those rights is one of the best ways to protect them. I strongly encourage everyone I know to own weapons, to practice with them and to garner every gun "license" the govermemnt allows a law abiding citizen. The more weapons bearing citizens the governemnt knows are out here the more careful they will be in trying to remove them by force. It is up to each of us to shed light of truth to the filthy lies the anti-gunners would spread for the consumption of our less mentally endowed citizens. They curse us for our weapons ownership and our defense of our gun rights...and never realize we are the ones protecting their rights for all future generations....theirs included.

Obviously, I agree. By too severely, I mean that I am still willing to recognize the government as both legitimate and more or less just, and to believe that there is still hope that we can go forward as country without abandoning the Constitution. Not heading to the hills yet. ;)

[Mastermind]

Time out, MM. You are right about DC's laws and hopefully the SC will strike that as violative of the 2ndA. Are you only referring to DC's law or are you also pointing the finger at federal laws on gun sales?

hank
The various municipal and state laws that are so oppressive as to inhibit 2nd ammendment rights of all are the ones I am referring to. The Federal gun laws, in reality, are quite liberal...allowing remarkable gun ownership freedom for all law abiding citizens....I can even own a fully functional machine gun with the right federal license which is available to any law abiding citizen.

[szr]

I'm a 4th year law school student. This is a fact. If you dont agree tell my why I'm wrong.

And please can we keep this discussion civilized. This is getting flamy...Your impressions of the US constitution are as fundamentally flawed as mine would be if I were to complain about the type face used when they wrote the constitution of the United Kingdom.

The Executive isn't government, it is one of 3 'co-equal' branches of government.

The power the Executive enjoys today isn't a function of what's written in the original constitution, but is rather in spite of it. Much of what the Executive branch is responsible for today, and many of the President's unenumerated powers are in fact Congressional powers and responsibilities that have been delegated to the Executive by the Congress over the years.


The more I write about this, the more I detract from the original topic so feel free to create another topic if you'd like to discuss this further.

[hank]

The various municipal and state laws that are so oppressive as to inhibit 2nd ammendment rights of all are the ones I am referring to. The Federal gun laws, in reality, are quite liberal...allowing remarkable gun ownership freedom for all law abiding citizens....I can even own a fully functional machine gun with the right federal license which is available to any law abiding citizen.

Cool.

I am truly hopeful that hte DC law will get struck. I think this court taking that case means it will. We'll just have to see.

The basis for the federal laws is really beyond dispute. The Commerce Clause is clear and interstate gun sales fit the common definition of commerce.

hank

[akd]

Because Article I give Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and the sale of guns implicates interstate commerse. I am not opining about the right to own guns, but don't be naive about 2nd Amendment rights. The right to bear arms is not absolute just like free speech is not absolute. The Constitution is about competing rights and always has been. When rights compete, compromises have to be made and registering is one such compromise. It may not be one that you like, but its a compromise nonetheless and its beyond dispute that it is and always has been constitutional.

hank

Of course you would reject as fundamentally totalitarian the registration of religious/political books, newspapers, etc. that cross state lines.

[Buckeye67]

The Second Amendment


It says two different things. Opening it up to all sorts of interpretations.

Actually it just says one thing. Instead of going into another lengthy diatribe about it, I'll let these guys do it:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

[clean]

Actually it just says one thing. Instead of going into another lengthy diatribe about it, I'll let these guys do it:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

I'm just saying, that the right to keep a miltia, AND the right of citizens to bear arms, are not the same. We have the right to a militia, and as a citizen, I also have a right to bear arms. People are always saying, well, you have a miltia (National Guard) why do you need to have a weapon in your closet? Well, 'cause it's my right.

[I can't think of a name]

Funny when people bash the US Constitution as old and out dated. It has survived longer than any other form of government in existence. It is simple and works.

[hank]

Of course you would reject as fundamentally totalitarian the registration of religious/political books that cross state lines.

Dude, that is a silly argument (from both the perspective of logic and practical implications) and you know it. If you really want to talk about the Commerce Clause and how it applies to gun sales I am happy to but methinks you don't want that.

I'll take the high road and let you experts duke it out with Norway.

hank

[Laworkerbee]

Hank is like a nice soothing balm.

[akd]

Dude, that is a silly argument (from both the perspective of logic and practical implications) and you know it. If you really want to talk about the Commerce Clause and how it applies to gun sales I am happy to but methinks you don't want that.

I'll take the high road and let you experts duke it out with Norway.

hank

From a Constitutional perspective, that would be no different than a law that prevented the movement of firearms and ammunition across state lines, thus creating a de facto ban on bearing arms for many, maybe most, citizens. No doubt both could be undertaken in the "interest of public safety." The point is obviously not the validity of the Commerce Clause, but the question of at what point the Commerce Clause infringes on guarunteed rights. A different standard is applied in the case of the 2nd Amendment, and that is not logical.

[Albatross]

All constitutions are flawed. Gun ownership should be allowed in full. There should be classes and background checks as well. Buying a shotgun for bird hunting and an M1A for protection are different things. I am grateful for my weapons, this is a difficult time for the world and anything could happen.

I went to a hunter safety class when I was 12 just to get a permit to deer hunt, I still remember some of the things that I learned. When I was in the military I trained in all sorts of fun stuff, so I feel confident that I am safe with my weapons and I also feel that putting a tight group center mass of my target wont be a problem. I would like to see more training, for free, available to the public. The last thing we all want to see is someone break into a guys house he goes out to confront them, then shoots his kid.

The right to bear arms in the constitution was put there for two things:
1) The people should never fear the government, the government should fear its people. They people on capital hill right now seem to forget they work for us at times, this is the final check and balance should they ever get out of hand.
2) If you decide to attack the United States, bring a lunch and a lot of friends. 9 of every 10 citizens own weapons.

-Alby

[Buckeye67]

I'm just saying, that the right to keep a miltia, AND the right of citizens to bear arms, are not the same. We have the right to a militia, and as a citizen, I also have a right to bear arms. People are always saying, well, you have a miltia (National Guard) why do you need to have a weapon in your closet? Well, 'cause it's my right.

All that stuff is answered in that court opinion. ;)

[shocker1]

Hank is like a nice soothing balm.
He is a lawyer so he is more like Nair. He gets you out of hairy situations.

I own several weapons, I will continue to do so. That is all about that.

[hank]

Then I don't understand what you are suggesting. You seem to be implying that the Commerce Clause allows the government a loophole to restrict any of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights, and taken to the extreme that could be to rather effectively restrict freedom of speech.


Well then I gave you too much credit. Read my post again. It says everything it needs to. You can't say anything you want anytime you want and you can't do whatever you want whenever you want with guns, including buying and selling them. The right to bear arms is not unlimited. So long as the US Congress is legislating in a permissible area (interestate commerce) it can reasonably limit (or balance) other constitutional rights. That is not controversial. They do it with speech, gun ownership, car ownership, a lot of things.

Speech is limited almost anywhere you make it. Read some cases if you think I'm wrong. The idea of "free" speech is a misnomer.

hank

[clean]

This strays a bit from the politics of the right to bear arms, but in April/May of 1992, during the LA riots, I lived in a pretty bad part of town. When the riots started, the various police agencies pulled back to their stations and the well-regulated militia didn't have the resources to come to our aid. It took 48 hours before the Marines were finally airlifted in from Pendleton. During those 48 hours, things were very hairy and cars were driving slowly past my rented house. If it weren't for the fact that me and four friends were crouched on the roof and in the doorway celebrating our right to bear arms, things would've gone south very quickly.
Our weapons were purchased and we had all gone through various checks to obtain them. And as stressful as the situation was, everyone of us acted responsibly. The weapons pointed at us from the street were not obtained legally (I'm assuming).

[akd]

Well then I gave you too much credit. Read my post again. It says everything it needs to. You can't say anything you want anytime you want and you can't do whatever you want whenever you want with guns, including buying and selling them. The right to bear arms is not unlimited. So long as the US Congress is legislating in a permissible area (interestate commerce) it can reasonably limit (or balance) other constitutional rights. That is not controversial. They do it with speech, gun ownership, car ownership, a lot of things.

Speech is limited almost anywhere you make it. Read some cases if you think I'm wrong. The idea of "free" speech is a misnomer.

hank

Please define "reasonably limit." Is the standard for "reasonable" the same for the 2nd Amendment, or different?

[clean]

Please define "reasonably limit."

Free speech doesn't cover screaming "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

[Buckeye67]

Free speech doesn't cover screaming "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

Spraying gunfire in a crowded theater is already covered by a number of other laws.

[clean]

If there is a fire, you are advise to proclaim "incindiery event" in calm hushed tones.

[Buckeye67]

That sounds even hotter if you add "in my pants" to it. ;)

[hank]

From a Constitutional perspective, that would be no different than a law that prevented the movement of firearms and ammunition across state lines, thus creating a de facto ban on bearing arms for many, maybe most, citizens. No doubt both could be undertaken in the "interest of public safety." The point is obviously not the validity of the Commerce Clause, but the question of at what point the Commerce Clause infringes on guarunteed rights. A different standard is applied in the case of the 2nd Amendment, and that is not logical.

Well, if teh Congress tried to ban the movement of guns/ammo across state lines that would not be a balancing of teh competing interests now would it? That would be the ending of the 2nd A and the full embodiment of regulating commerce. The SC has been very clear that such a scenario is not the answer. The Congress must balance the rights at issue.

Nice try though.

hank

[hank]

Please define "reasonably limit." Is the standard for "reasonable" the same for the 2nd Amendment, or different?

You're just being obtuse now.

Where does it say that the commerce clause always loses when it goes up against the 2nd A? Or for that matter when it goes against free speech?

Reasonably has always (all the way back to John Marshall) been interpreted to mean balancing of the interests. In this case it is balancing the right to own guns and Congress's right to regulate interestate commerce. Should Congress overstep in its regulation of commerce to the point of infringing gun rights, then that law would be unconstitutional. If you want to reasonably talk about this I will, but at this point you are playing devil's advocate on an issue that has not "reasonably" been at issue for more than 100 years.

hank

[akd]

Should Congress overstep in its regulation of commerce to the point of infringing gun rights, then that law would be unconstitutional. If you want to reasonably talk about this I will, but at this point you are playing devil's advocate on an issue that has not "reasonably" been at issue for more than 100 years.

hank

The main point being that many would say Congress has or soon will overstep its regulation of commerce to the point of infringing on the 2nd Amendment, yet I have not heard any reasonable current claim of such vis a vis any of the other amendments. Perhaps we disagree there, or you were just making a not very pertinent point about the Commerce Clause in the first place.

[clean]

All hell, he done pulled the vis a vis clause.

Sorry, just peanut gallerian.

[hank]

The main point being that many would say Congress has or soon will overstep its regulation of commerce to the point of infringing on the 2nd Amendment, yet I have not heard any reasonable current claim of such vis a vis any of the other amendments. Perhaps we disagree there, or you were making just making a not very pertinent point about the Commerce Clause in the first place.

Whateva, man. Somebody posted something about Congress not having the authority to regualte gun sales and I responded that the Commerce Clause gives them that right. If you want to claim that isn't pertinent then go right ahead.

You apparently disagree even though it has been the law in this county for some time that Congress can. You seem to base that argument on the notion that because Congress doesn't regulate speech in the same way it can't regulate gun ownership in that way. As a matter of logic that fails. I can't remember the latin phrase that applies but there is one.

Oh snap - ad hoc ergo propter hoc is the latin phrase.

hank

[dedbunniez]

So if my understanding is right the whole thing gets sticky over the commerce clause. So could one for example build/manufacture all parts in a state, say Texas. And as long as not one part of the gun overs a state line at any point in its production/life then the government would not be able to regulate the gun? Less aplicable fees etc.

[hank]

So if my understanding is right the whole thing gets sticky over the commerce clause. So could one for example build/manufacture all parts in a state, say Texas. And as long as not one part of the gun overs a state line at any point in its production/life then the government would not be able to regulate the gun? Less aplicable fees etc.


That would be the argument. I don't know if it would carry the day but that would be the argument. The SC has recognized that state specific activity that "impacts" interstate commerce can still be regulated so I imagine that would be the counter argument.

The DC case is difference because it relates to ownership and not the sale. That is the reason I think it will be struck.

hank

[clean]

Gun ownership is also forbidden in SF, Chicago and NYC? Is that right?

[dedbunniez]

That would be the argument. I don't know if it would carry the day but that would be the argument. The SC has recognized that state specific activity that "impacts" interstate commerce can still be regulated so I imagine that would be the counter argument.

The DC case is difference because it relates to ownership and not the sale. That is the reason I think it will be struck.

hank

I was not specifically applying to the the DC argument. So if the activity didn't impact interstate commerce, not sure if there is a litmus test for that one, then it would be possible to manufacture just about anything as long as it is in the confines of the law? I guess then you would be back at square one. I am going back to the peanut gallery, not sure I am making myself clear or know enough to discuss the subject.

[Mastermind]

Gun registration is permitted and constitutional and has no infringement on the law abiding citizen to own (bear and keep) fire arms. The bad part of registration laws is the potential for governemental abuse in having a data base of where each fire arm is and who is responsible for it. However, rifles, even semi-auto rifles are not manditorily registered...so far, only hand guns (although, in my opinion, there should be absolutely no reason for law abiding citizens to register them...and in many jurisditions, this is the case). However, obtaning a perusal license to pruchase a weapon is just good common sense...if the law says that law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear, while unlawful and insane or otherwise people who have trouble with anger or self control have lost that right, then the government not only has the right, but the social responsibility to peruse the persons seeking ownership. So long as the lawful citizens are allowed without other unreasonable interferences, no infringement is present.

Since I have been invloved in gun collection and have had a good opportunity to study the laws as they relate to my right to ownership, honestly, I find nothing in the Federal law that stops my exercise of my 2nd ammendment right.

However, local jurisdictions clearly limit my rights. If I lived in Boulder city, for example, I may own a weapon, so long as I do not ever transport it. I may transport parts of the weapons...but never assembled as a weapon. I may never step outside my home with the weapon. I may not own or posses a pistol of any kind within the city limits. All fire arms must be registered with the city government...and I have to prove they are kept in a safe place. No gun sales are permitted within the city limit. That infringes and inhibits reasonable bearing and keeping (in my own personal opinion)... also...this is quite similar to the DC situation. And hopefully, in the SCOTUS opinion very soon, such oppressive laws will be abolisihed..

[lider_r]

You think that criminals buy guns legally?

It doesn't matter, laws are being completely undermined by the lack of checks at gun shows and flea markets where firearms are being sold and used in crime, not to mention corrupt gun dealers and other yet-to-be-closed gaps in the law.


Waco, Texas: Branch Davidian cult leader David Koresh used Texas gun shows to make
large gun purchases. According to an ATF arrest warrant, Koresh and his cult made
"regular purchases of weapons and ammunition [from] flea markets and gun shows." In
the end, authorities estimated that Koresh had at least 200 automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles stockpiled, plus thousands of rounds of ammunition

Hezbollah purchases. On September 10, 2001, just one day before the devastating attacks against the United States, Ali Boumelhem was convicted on a variety of weapons violations plus conspiracy to ship weapons to the terrorist organization Hezbollah in
Lebanon. He and his brother Mohamed had purchased an arsenal of shotguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, flash suppressors and assault weapons parts from Michigan gun shows without undergoing background checks.

Al-Qaeda purchases. On October 30, 2001, Muhammad Navid Asrar, an illegalPakistani immigrant, was also convicted of weapons charges. Over the course of seven3 years, Asrar frequented gun shows, buying several weapons, allegedly to supply the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. He remains under investigation by a federal grand jury on suspicion of involvement with al-Qaeda.
Source (http://www.bradycampaign.org/pdf/faq/background-checks.pdf)

These were all bought from gun shows and they were obviously obtained pretty easily.

Assault weapons and high capacity mags? what is the point in the average person being able to buy one of these? A handgun i can understand, but an AK?

And even if you do own an own AK, what reasonable person would not think that this weapon, above others, should kept secured? If the reports out so far are right, this is how the Omaha shooter got his firearm...


we were given this right to defend ourselves against government tyranny.

I'm at a loss to understand this argument that widespread gun ownership keeps a tyrannical government at bay. I'm sure many would agree that If there was ever a government which was a threat to the citizens' civil liberties, and an insult to the nations constitution, its been the Bush admin And they've been bought to power twice now. Why didn't all the gun ownership prevent that one?

[Hilbert]

In the U.S., our founding fathers we're terrified of government, in the declaration of independence they wrote "...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...," they created the right to keep and bear arms so that heaven-forbid, if the situation called for such measures, the people of the U.S. would have the power to do just that (just as they did to the British).

I believe firmly in what the founding fathers laid forth, not just the second amendment, but all of their ideas.

This is why I will always support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and other freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, no if's and's or but's.

Just my $0.02,
Hil


Assault weapons and high capacity mags? what is the point in the average person being able to buy one of these? A handgun i can understand, but an AK?

First off, how do you define an "assault weapon?" If your using Mr. Clinton's creation of a definition, it's obsurd enough as to not matter. Before you ask why the average person should be able to buy these tools, I ask why not? Some people collect military style weapons, some people like to look at them, and I think most people can agree their damn fun to shoot. Some people yes, do use them in crimes and/or murderers, this is true, but by the same token, people commit crimes with knives, cars, and baseball bats and I don't see many people suggesting a ban on them.



I'm at a loss to understand this argument that widespread gun ownership keeps a tyrannical government at bay.

Read what I wrote above and try to understand it.


I'm sure many would agree that If there was ever a government which was a threat to the citizens' civil liberties, and an insult to the nations constitution, its been the Bush admin And they've been bought to power twice now. Why didn't all the gun ownership prevent that one?

First off, that's your opinion hot shot and obviously it's not shared enough to cause revolution. The 2nd Amendment is there so that if the American People as a whole feel that the need to abolish the current form of government and institute new government has arisen, they can do so, just as the American colonists did against the British to form the nation.

Oh and while your at it Sherlock, most all of our politicians are an insult to the Constitution, what else is new?

[clean]

[SIZE=1]
[SIZE=2]

I'm at a loss to understand this argument that widespread gun ownership keeps a tyrannical government at bay. I'm sure many would agree that If there was ever a government which was a threat to the citizens' civil liberties, and an insult to the nations constitution, its been the Bush admin And they've been bought to power twice now. Why didn't all the gun ownership prevent that one?

I fear one of those crazy striking writers is on the loose in here.

[Laworkerbee]

Lider don't bother writing to or quoting me, I know better than to have any discussion with you as you will never answer a question and of course never stay on topic.

This gem being a perfect example


If there was ever a government which was a threat to the citizens' civil liberties, and an insult to the nations constitution, its been the Bush admin And they've been bought to power twice now. Why didn't all the gun ownership prevent that one?

[dedbunniez]

deleted....

[Calanen]

I'm a 4th year law school student.

Not really a big claim to fame as far as legal prowess goes, but carry on....



IMO that is to compensate for your countys concentration of power - a very un-democratic thing. If you had better balance of power between the courts, the legislative branch and your white house - then you would not need this kind of law.



I don't know what this bit means. I don't think you have really explained yourself either.

The US has a very diverse concentration of power. Not only does it have 50 states with their own courts and legislature as well as the Federal Government, but it also has city council districts, and state and city or local area police. It also has a Federal Senate that represents the States. That is a three tiered system of government. It would be harder to make the power less concentrated.

The US constitution is an excellent document, that has stood the test of time. The Australian constitution is based upon it, but regrettably misses some of the better bits like the bill of rights. Very few countries anywhere have an excellent bill of rights like the US constitution, and the US was the first country to have such a detailed bill of rights.

Even though 200 years may have passed, human beings remain essentially the same, and the US Constitution should remain.

Btw, I took an oath to defend the US Constitution, so maybe I'm biased. But, I believe every word I am saying.

[Hilbert]

I'm at a loss to understand this argument that widespread gun ownership keeps a tyrannical government at bay. I'm sure many would agree that If there was ever a government which was a threat to the citizens' civil liberties, and an insult to the nations constitution, its been the Bush admin And they've been bought to power twice now. Why didn't all the gun ownership prevent that one?

*sigh* I feel like a machine now...

Paging Dr. Ngati...

[Gabe]

The first attack took place at a youth missionary training center in the Denver suburb of Arvata; the other occurred at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, where the gunman was shot and killed by a <b>security guard.</b>
<a href>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings</a>

Didn't this whole thread start because someone said it was a woman with a CCW shot the guy. Quite a different story. It makes me wonder if this thread would have gone down this road at all...

[Jaeger07]

Not really a big claim to fame as far as legal prowess goes, but carry on....

C'mon. The guy told me i should get back to school. That was the basis of what i wrote.



I don't know what this bit means. I don't think you have really explained yourself either.

The US has a very diverse concentration of power. Not only does it have 50 states with their own courts and legislature as well as the Federal Government, but it also has city council districts, and state and city or local area police. It also has a Federal Senate that represents the States. That is a three tiered system of government. It would be harder to make the power less concentrated.



The US president has more power concentrated to him than any european leader. Also the way supreme court judges are appointed and the power the courts have to interpret the legislation takes power away from the legislating branch.

Its off topic, so I wont say more.


Btw, I took an oath to defend the US Constitution, so maybe I'm biased. But, I believe every word I am saying.

I'm equally patriotic and belive in my countrys constitution. So we do have one thing in common.

[Buckeye67]

The US president has more power concentrated to him than any european leader. Also the way supreme court judges are appointed and the power the courts have to interpret the legislation takes power away from the legislating branch.

The US President/Executive Branch cannot introduce/pass any legislation (approve once it has been passed by both houses of Congress, but not introduce or pass a bill) on its own.

The Judicial Branch has oversight (to a degree) over both the Executive and Legislative Branches.

The Legistlative Branch can take away the Judicial (i.e. SCOTUS) Branch's authority to rule on a given topic.

Each branch's power is limited, and each branch is checked by at least one other branch. Now where is this overhelming imbalance?

[Zoomie]

*sigh* I feel like a machine now...

Paging Dr. Ngati...
The good Doctor has been already alerted to this case of Double-Dumbarseness. p-)

[Jaeger07]

The US President/Executive Branch cannot pass any legislation. The Judicial Branch has oversight (to a degree) over both the Executive and Legislative Branches, and the Legistlative Branch can take away the Judicial (i.e. SCOTUS) Branch's authority to rule on a given topic.

Now where is this overhelming imbalance?

The presidents capability of veto on bills.
The presidents capability of pardoning criminals.
The executive branch elects supreeme court judges.

Amongst others.

[Buckeye67]

Congress can override a veto.

Supreme Court Justices must be approved by Congress. See: Robert Bork.

Next.

Edit: Or, you could just shut up now since it's painfully obvious that you really don't know what you're talking about.

[Jaeger07]

Congress can override a veto.
Edit: Or, you could just shut up now since it's painfully obvious that you really don't know what you're talking about.

Hehe with the two-thirds majority they need to override it, this will practically never happen. My argument stands.


EDIT: Yes and this means 2/3 majority in each of the houses. Only 4% of presidential vetos have been overridden. Thats what i meant with practically never. See this link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

[Zoomie]

Hehe with the two-thirds majority they need to override it, this will practically never happen. My argument stands.
No it doesn't. It fails. :roll:

[Buckeye67]

Hehe with the two-thirds majority they need to override it, this will practically never happen. My argument stands.

As there have been bills vetoed by presidents that have been overridden - no, no it doesn't.

[clean]

Hehe with the two-thirds majority they need to override it, this will practically never happen. My argument stands.

Practically NEVER happen? Happens all the time. Happens in the senate, happens in the house... oh, did you know there were two legislative entities? Probably not.

[shocker1]

Hehe with the two-thirds majority they need to override it, this will practically never happen. My argument stands.
You are really ignorant of our system and have shown that arguing with you is really like pissing in the wind.

[Laworkerbee]

My argument stands.

No you simply appear arrogant and close minded.

[Jaeger07]

I'm expressing my views on your system. I think it has some flaws. All legislations do. Am I not allowed to critizie you? This is a political discussions forum after all.

Just for the record: I think the USA is a great place, been there on vacations several times and have close friends born and raised in the states.
No offense, but I'm just pointing out my views. I dont feel like I did it in an unrespectful manner.


Anyways its bedtime in Oslo now, and I have to hit the bunk.

Good night gents.

[clean]

Anyways its bedtime in Oslo now, and I have to hit the bunk.

Good night gents.

I'm sure it will all be better in the morning.

[Zoomie]

I'm expressing my views on your system. I think it has some flaws. All legislations do. Am I not allowed to critizie you? This is a political discussions forum after all.

Just for the record: I think the USA is a great place, been there on vacations several times and have close friends born and raised in the states.
No offense, but I'm just pointing out my views. I dont feel like I did it in an unrespectful manner.


Anyways its bedtime in Oslo now, and I have to hit the bunk.

Good night gents.
You're only going to bed just now because you got shown that your 4 years of law school has been proven to be a waste when it comes to understanding the US Government.

[szr]

The US president has more power concentrated to him than any european leader. Also the way supreme court judges are appointed and the power the courts have to interpret the legislation takes power away from the legislating branch.The illusion of the all-powerful President has more to do with the power of the country he's the president of than the power of the office itself.

The British PM and his cabinet in the context of their parliamentary system of government are relatively more powerful than the President in our system of government.

The presidents capability of veto on bills.
The presidents capability of pardoning criminals.
The executive branch elects supreeme court judges.

Vetoes can be overridden by the Congress.
Pardons - a power not unique to the President. Governors can grant pardons and so can the Congress through legislation.
The President nominates Supreme Court justices. They are confirmed (or not confirmed as the case may be) by the Senate.
Edit: Good night.

[Buckeye67]

I'm expressing my views on your system. I think it has some flaws. All legislations do. Am I not allowed to critizie you? This is a political discussions forum after all.

Were your "criticisms" based on something other than ignorance, then you might have some valid ones. Are we not allowed comment on your hideously ignorant assertions?


No offense, but I'm just pointing out my views. I dont feel like I did it in an unrespectful manner.

No offense here either, I'm just pointing how your views are based on incorrect, and ignorant, assumptions.

[hank]

I was not specifically applying to the the DC argument. So if the activity didn't impact interstate commerce, not sure if there is a litmus test for that one, then it would be possible to manufacture just about anything as long as it is in the confines of the law? I guess then you would be back at square one. I am going back to the peanut gallery, not sure I am making myself clear or know enough to discuss the subject.

No your point is right. There is a gray line between interstate commerce and state-specific commerce. Congress has no authority to regulate state-specific commerce. If you made guns in state x, sold them only to state x citizens then tecnhically Congress couldn't regulate that. A state could, so long as it didn't infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

hank

[hank]

I'm expressing my views on your system. I think it has some flaws. All legislations do. Am I not allowed to critizie you? This is a political discussions forum after all.

Just for the record: I think the USA is a great place, been there on vacations several times and have close friends born and raised in the states.
No offense, but I'm just pointing out my views. I dont feel like I did it in an unrespectful manner.


Anyways its bedtime in Oslo now, and I have to hit the bunk.

Good night gents.

You can criticize all you want, but you need to be accurate with your statements. I don't want to talk down to you, but if you are planning being a lawyer anywhere you need to think your stuff through more. You set yourself up for this because you've made a lot of errors in your analysis. Think of how you would feel if I started spouting off a bunch of incorrect stuff aobut your constitution and then told you you were wrong when you corrected me. I think I'd likely get the same response you have gotten.

Just a thought from a humble American lawyer who took con law in lawschool.

hank

[Geezah]

I'm a 4th year law school student. This is a fact. If you dont agree tell my why I'm wrong.

And that somehow makes your arguement that much more valid.

One of my best friends passed the bar and practices law in Ohio. He is actually a lawyer, you're a student, and one that's in Norway, so how is it you're an expert on all things American?

[lider_r]

I believe firmly in what the founding fathers laid forth, not just the second amendment, but all of their ideas.

This is why I will always support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and other freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, no if's and's or but's.

you honestly think the founding fathers would agree with you, knowing how weapons technology has progressed since they laid down the constitution?

They were wise men, I'm sure they would be turning into their graves at the total irresponsibility shown by gun shop owners, law makers and the heavy lobbying of the NRA on behalf of the arms industry (disguised, and accepted by the public, as lobbying on behalf of citizens for citizens).


First off, how do you define an "assault weapon?" If your using Mr. Clinton's creation of a definition, it's obsurd enough as to not matter.

Obviously an AK-47 is not an egg beater. Its designed for military use and is in military use.


Before you ask why the average person should be able to buy these tools, I ask why not? Some people collect military style weapons, some people like to look at them, and I think most people can agree their damn fun to shoot. Some people yes, do use them in crimes and/or murderers, this is true, but by the same token, people commit crimes with knives, cars, and baseball bats and I don't see many people suggesting a ban on them.

I'm not willing to address in full this infantile, proposturous attempt at an analogy. I've heard it too many times. Firearms are designed to kill- cars, knives and baseballs area not, nor are they capable of killing as efficiently as a firearm with a large capacity magazine, when used for purposes other than what they were designed for.



First off, that's your opinion hot shot and obviously it's not shared enough to cause revolution. The 2nd Amendment is there so that if the American People as a whole feel that the need to abolish the current form of government and institute new government has arisen, they can do so, just as the American colonists did against the British to form the nation.

Facing invasion from the British again sometime soon are we? Lets face it, that clause of 'preventing a tyrannical government' is so out of date its not funny. The idea that widespread, unfettered gun owernship somehow makes a nation more democratic is bogus.There are plenty of nations around the world that have some measure of gun control and their democratic institutions are functioning fine, perhaps even better than the US's.

Keeping a firearm in your home for personal protection? Yeah, sure, i can fully understand that and I'm not opposed to it being upheld, but purchasing multiple handguns or military grade weapons to throw a government out of power is cobblers. The worst government in the history of the US has stolen one, possibly two elections, pissed all over your civil rights and got the country bogged down in some foreign hell hole- where were you to defend your constitution with your gun then?

Perhaps many people miss out on civics at school but there is a new way civil society deals with governments who do the wrong thing- its called voting and impeachment. It seems some have a lot to learn about the lessons of non violent overthrow/peaceful change and how it can be just as effective, if not more, than other methods, and I'm surprised its fallen on deaf ears considering one of your country's son's happened to be a great man who put these principles into practice (that was, before he was removed from the planet by some gun toting idiot).

[Buckeye67]

you honestly think the founding fathers would agree with you, knowing how weapons technology has progressed since they laid down the constitution?

So does that mean we can nullify the 1st Amendment because the Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned television and radio? I sure hope so, because damn if that "free speech" thing isn't dangerous as hell.

Are you honestly insinuating that they weren't aware of technological innovation?


They were wise men, I'm sure they would be turning into their graves at the total irresponsibility shown by gun shop owners, law makers and the heavy lobbying of the NRA on behalf of the arms industry (disguised, and accepted by the public, as lobbying on behalf of citizens for citizens).

I'm sure, that they would have wanted as many people as possible to possess not only select-fire automatic weapons, but would have wanted as many people as possible to practice with said select-fire automatic weapons as often as possible.


Obviously an AK-47 is not an egg beater. Its designed for military use and is in military use.

Exactly, which is was (as per Miller vs US) AK-47's are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment (with regards to individual ownership), as they "pertain to a well-regulated militia".


I'm not willing to address in full anything that shoots my child-like, circular "arguments" full of holes.

Fixed for accuracy.


Facing invasion from the British again sometime soon are we? Lets face it, that clause of 'preventing a tyrannical government' is so out of date its not funny. Blah blah blah bull**** bull**** bull****

I'm certainly glad that you are possessed of this "wisdom" to nullfiy hundreds of years of social and political thought. Thank you for gracing us with your superior intellect - and by "superior intellect" I mean "retarded bull****".

Edit: Damn, he got suspended before he could report me again.

[WarriorMonk]

you honestly think the founding fathers would agree with you, knowing how weapons technology has progressed since they laid down the constitution?

By your logic, the first amendment should only apply to amplified voices and quill pens.

They were wise men, I'm sure they would be turning into their graves at the total irresponsibility shown by gun shop owners, law makers and the heavy lobbying of the NRA on behalf of the arms industry (disguised, and accepted by the public, as lobbying on behalf of citizens for citizens).

I don't mind licencing to own a gun, and I would like a background check every time I buy one. Just saying.

Obviously an AK-47 is not an egg beater. Its designed for military use and is in military use.

I thought people determined the use/purpose of tools?

I'm not willing to address in full this infantile, proposturous attempt at an analogy. I've heard it too many times. Firearms are designed to kill- cars, knives and baseballs area not, nor are they capable of killing as efficiently as a firearm with a large capacity magazine, when used for purposes other than what they were designed for.

Any one of them can kill efficiently, depends on your level of efficiency. I can hide a knife or a blackjack on my person and sneakily kill people, or I can simply jack an SUV and run it into the farmer's market. That efficient to you or what?

Facing invasion from the British again sometime soon are we? Lets face it, that clause of 'preventing a tyrannical government' is so out of date its not funny. I guess pretty much anything is out of date as long as we present evidence or just say "it's to save lives." The idea that widespread, unfettered gun owernship somehow makes a nation more democratic is bogus.There are plenty of nations around the world that have some measure of gun control and their democratic institutions are functioning fine, perhaps even better than the US's.

Stats? Or was this covered already? Plus you need to find a nation whose culture is similar to the US - which you're already hard-pressed to do.

Keeping a firearm in your home for personal protection? Yeah, sure, i can fully understand that and I'm not opposed to it being upheldSure..., but purchasing multiple handguns[what if one or more doesn't work, IE rare part broken, local armorer out of business?[/b] or military grade weapons Hint: body armor IS sold on the black market... to throw a government out of power is cobblers. So I guess your beloved Iraqi insurgents must be cobblers, too, you know, firin their AKs at soldiers and stuff, trying to throw out that oh so evil corporatist tyrannical US puppet government. The worst government in the history of the US has stolen one, possibly two elections, pissed all over your civil rights and got the country bogged down in some foreign hell hole- where were you to defend your constitution with your gun then?

Okay, to be honest, I'll give you an example: When my friend (who is part of the anti-war network on campus and is working with my government teacher on the genocide in Darfur), is taken away (or mysteriously disappears), then the government has really pissed on our civil rights - and then we got it bad. Then I'll go die for the Constitution. Some think its already been pissed on, some don't think it has been. In every friggin interpretation of the Constitution SOMEONE thinks the document's been pissed on apparently. To be honest I'm pretty sure there's going to be a reversal of this administration's policies soon, so don't get your hopes up, pretty boy.

Perhaps many people miss out on civics at school but there is a new way civil society deals with governments who do the wrong thing- its called voting and impeachment. It seems some have a lot to learn about the lessons of non violent overthrow/peaceful change and how it can be just as effective, if not more, than other methods, and I'm surprised its fallen on deaf ears considering one of your country's son's happened to be a great man who put these principles into practice (that was, before he was removed from the planet by some gun toting idiot).

One method out of many. Don't forget that.



12345677555

[Hilbert]

Holy ****, that's all I can say. I'm sure Ngati is going to have a field day with this. Your ideas are so flawed as to be laughable, no, downright comical.


you honestly think the founding fathers would agree with you, knowing how weapons technology has progressed since they laid down the constitution?

Weapons technology has nothing to do with this, we can pretend that we're dealing with plasma rifles and rail guns if it makes you feel better, but it still has nothing to do with it.

Would they agree with me necessarily? The only correct answer here is "who knows." As far as agreeing on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms being the people's teeth to ensure that "....when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends... etc...," absolutely. That was their idea afterall.


They were wise men, I'm sure they would be turning into their graves at the total irresponsibility shown by gun shop owners, law makers and the heavy lobbying of the NRA on behalf of the arms industry (disguised, and accepted by the public, as lobbying on behalf of citizens for citizens).

I think it would be more along the lines that they'd be grateful we have an NRA as it's probably the biggest reason the 2nd Amendment isn't even more unconstitutionally infringed upon than it already is. FYI: I am an NRA member by the way.


Obviously an AK-47 is not an egg beater. Its designed for military use and is in military use.

No kidding Sherlock. However, there are dozens of civilian variants of the AK designed specifically for sporting, hunting, recreational shooting and collecting; these are the ones which we are talking about regarding sale in the U.S., not fully automatic military rifles.


I'm not willing to address in full this infantile, proposturous attempt at an analogy. I've heard it too many times. Firearms are designed to kill- cars, knives and baseballs area not, nor are they capable of killing as efficiently as a firearm with a large capacity magazine, when used for purposes other than what they were designed for.

This is comical. It's not so much "infantile" and "proposturous" so much as it is true. What an item was designed to do has absolutely nothing to do with how it is used, plain and simple. Can't kill as efficiently? I'm sure there are some parents of the kids who were killed in the Japanese knife massacre who will disagree with you.


Facing invasion from the British again sometime soon are we?

This is one of the stupidest things you've mentioned yet. The 2nd Amendment isn't aimed against the British so much as it is the UNITED STATES government.


Lets face it, that clause of 'preventing a tyrannical government' is so out of date its not funny.

Preventing tyranical government is just as relevent today as it was when the U.S. was founded, genius.


The idea that widespread, unfettered gun owernship somehow makes a nation more democratic is bogus.

No, what you just said is bogus. First let's review the facts, it was never aimed to make a "nation more democratic" nor did I say that, you just pulled that out of your arse. Why? I don't know, maybe you can educate us on why you feel the need to make stuff up.

Secondly, the U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a republic, it was never envisioned as a democracy; in fact, if you read their works "The Federalist Papers" and other collections of their notes, you'll find they hated democracy, they thought very little of it aside from a it giving the majority a way to bully the minority. Having said this, the 2nd Amendment sure as hell wasn't designed to make the U.S. more "democratic."

Get your facts straight.


There are plenty of nations around the world that have some measure of gun control and their democratic institutions are functioning fine, perhaps even better than the US's.

Good for them, I'm glad their doing okay, but this isn't them, this is the United States, thank you.


Keeping a firearm in your home for personal protection? Yeah, sure, i can fully understand that and I'm not opposed to it being upheld, but purchasing multiple handguns or military grade weapons to throw a government out of power is cobblers.

I'm glad we agree on something, but tell me what do you consider military grade? In my book, AK style rifles aren't "military grade" unless their fully automatic.


The worst government in the history of the US has stolen one, possibly two elections, pissed all over your civil rights and got the country bogged down in some foreign hell hole- where were you to defend your constitution with your gun then?

You mean the Bush Administration? Thank's for your opinion on that but quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. The Clinton and other administrations did quite alot to trash the constitution themselves, thank you. Take your opinions elsewhere.

It wasn't my job to protect the constitution and it wasn't the second amendemnts job to stop people from doing unconstitutional acts. This right here is proof of your incompetence, it proves you don't understand the purpose of the second amendement.

The purpose of the second amendment is so that if, heaven forbid, the United States Government got so screwed up as to become destructive of the ends set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the American People could "...abolish it and institute new governmen..." And no, just because you don't approve of the current administration isn't cause for revolution.


Perhaps many people miss out on civics at school but there is a new way civil society deals with governments who do the wrong thing- its called voting and impeachment.
Sorry to rain on your parade there hot shot but we're fully aware of voting and impeachment, so were the founding fathers when they wrote the system for that and the Second Amendment. The 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is a worst case scenario fail safe so that if the system gets so screwed up that voting and impeachment no longer exists or isn't an option, the people can "alter or abolish" the government and institute new government, not just ask the government "Mr. Big Bad Dictator, we disagree with some of your decisions, pleeeaaasssseeee change them."


It seems some have a lot to learn about the lessons of non violent overthrow/peaceful change and how it can be just as effective, if not more, than other methods, and I'm surprised its fallen on deaf ears considering one of your country's son's happened to be a great man who put these principles into practice (that was, before he was removed from the planet by some gun toting idiot).

We are fully aware of this, thank you. However, since you obviously can't comprehend what I wrote above, I will put it into simpler terms: there's a time and a place for the system, there's a time and a place for protest and nonviolent methods, and there's a time and a place for when nothing short of revolution will do, just like the american revolution that MADE the United States.

In the future, before you start offering your flawed insight into matters, why not try UNDERSTANDING THEM, before casting your "enlightened" judgement down on them. You look more intelligent that way.

Regards,
Hildebert

[Calanen]

You're only going to bed just now because you got shown that your 4 years of law school has been proven to be a waste when it comes to understanding the US Government.

It would be unlikely to even be covered, except in the most peripheral manner.

[Buckeye67]

In the future, before you start offering your flawed insight into matters, why not try UNDERSTANDING THEM, before casting your "enlightened" judgement down on them. You look more intelligent that way.

You're making the mistake of assuming that lider is actually interested in having intelligent discourse on the subject.

[Zoomie]

It would be unlikely to even be covered, except in the most peripheral manner.
Well, that's his problem, not mine. He's the who chose to flaunt those "credentials" here, and it clearly backfired.

[Calanen]

Well, that's his problem, not mine. He's the who chose to flaunt those "credentials" here, and it clearly backfired.

I agree. A fourth year law student anywhere is not really a professor in jurisprudence, but especially a fourth year Norwegian law student is not likely to be an expert on US constitutional law, which I can tell you as an outsider who has passed the bar is *diabolically* complicated.

[HK in AK]

I think we need to take a step and define several issues.

A. What country are we talking about when it comes to firearms law?
B. What legal interpretation/standard are you applying to private ownership of a firearm?
C. What FACTUAL sources are you using to discuss A and B above?
D. Personal opinions should be clearly stated as YOUR OWN opinion.
E. Civil discourse applies, nobody is right and nobody is wrong, unless they are violating C above.

To that end, I suggest if you are talking about gun laws in the United States of America, you do some reading.

One site I recommend, because they stick with facts, is guncite.com. This site has all case law, studies, debate about gun laws. For those that want to keep automatic weapons from the public, I say, as an owner of several lawfully registered machineguns, that I cannot disagree more fervently than I can put into words. Of the over 240,000 legally registered machine guns, and over the past 73 years, a legally regsitered machine gun has been used in a "crime" twice. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

Please read and get educated before expression OPINIONS. Without being fully informed, you never know what rights you give away by expressing a knee-jerk reaction.

[Buckeye67]

Please read and get educated before expression OPINIONS. Without being fully informed, you never know what rights you give away by expressing a knee-jerk reaction.

As mentioned previously:


You're making the mistake of assuming that lider is actually interested in having intelligent discourse on the subject.

[Hilbert]

You're making the mistake of assuming that lider is actually interested in having intelligent discourse on the subject.

Sadly, I'm afraid your correct. It's nice to be able to talk it out with people of differeng views but lider is just silly.

[Buckeye67]

Yeah, just check his/her post history and you'll see that his/her trolli... I mean "expressing his/her opinion"... in any firearms-ownership related threads is legendary. :p

[TTMF]

Wouldn't a blanket-ban on the ownership of firearms eventually result in a huge drop in the number of church, mall and school shootings and random shootings (e.g. bystanders wounded or killed in drive-by shootings)?

You don't hear of any mass-knifings for obvious reasons - firearms in the US are so readily accessible and lend themselves so well to the aforementioned sorts of killings that they're really the only realistic option for the likes of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

[Buckeye67]

Wouldn't a blanket-ban on the ownership of firearms eventually result in a huge drop in the number of church, mall and school shootings and random shootings (e.g. bystanders wounded or killed in drive-by shootings)?

You don't hear of any mass-knifings for obvious reasons - firearms in the US are so readily accessible and lend themselves so well to the aforementioned sorts of killings that they're really the only realistic option for the likes of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Wouldn't a blanket ban on homicide completely eliminate murders?

What makes you think that someone who has already made the decision to murder a lot people is going to allow his course of action to be dictated by a lesser and more arbitrary law?

Also, as has been repeated ad nauseam in these discussions, per University of Florida criminologist Gary Kleck, there are approximately 2.5 million uses of firearms for self-defense in the US annually (note that that doesn't mean shootings - in the majority of those situations merely displaying a firearm diffuses the situation). That's 2.5 million potential crimes against persons (assaults, rapes, homicides, robberies) that don't occur due to the presence of privately owned firearms.

However, as has also been expressed repeatedly, personal self-defense against crime is only part of what the RTKBA is all about. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is about exercising our "right" to "revolution" - it was put in place as the ultimate "check and balance" on tyrannical government. The homicide rate with firearms doesn't trump essential liberties (yes, that sounds harsh - but it's the truth).

As Cesare Beccaria pointed out in "On Crimes and Punishments":


A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

In short, the answer to your question is "no".

[ThatHistoryDude]

Wouldn't a blanket-ban on the ownership of firearms eventually result in a huge drop in the number of church, mall and school shootings and random shootings (e.g. bystanders wounded or killed in drive-by shootings)?

You don't hear of any mass-knifings for obvious reasons - firearms in the US are so readily accessible and lend themselves so well to the aforementioned sorts of killings that they're really the only realistic option for the likes of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

I find it unlikey that a blanket ban would make random shootings go down in anyway. Criminals who obtained a weapon probably illegally in the first place or legally for an illegal use will not willingly give up his or her weapon. Basically if we make guns illegal the immediate affect would be only law abiding citizens would turn in their guns.

Short term this could lead to increased use of guns in home invasions where criminals no longer need to fear that their victims would have a gun of their own.

However with strict and proactive enforcement long term a gun ban might reduce gun crime but I doubt it would be all that effective. The last time I saw gun crime numbers from England they had seen a rise in their gun crime rate since they enacted their gun ban.

As far as dealing with mass shootings go I dont think this is a real problem that needs to be dealt with. Sure it gets big media attention but many many many more people get killed through the criminal combination of Alcohol and cars something like 20,000 per year. About 29,000 people die per year from guns with the majority being suicides about 16,000 people per year. This leaves about 13,000 per year killed by guns some are homicides some are accidental.

Seems to me we need to focus more on DUI than on gun crime being as thats the criminal activity that results in far more deaths.

[Doublethinker]

As history has proven time and time again, a blanket ban on firearms results only in LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS being completely disarmed.

In Russia all firearms are banned (except shotguns for those who are members of hunting-clubs, and guns for members of private guard, with a license). Still doesn't prevent bandits in, for example, st. petersburg to shoot each other from time to time.

And while making it hard for a psyho or a criminal to get his hands on a firearm, it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a citizen to defend themselves, if a said psycho/criminal still manages to.

[TTMF]

Wouldn't a blanket ban on homicide completely eliminate murders?

What makes you think that someone who has already made the decision to murder a lot people is going to allow his course of action to be dictated by a lesser and more arbitrary law?
Do you know of any of the sorts of killing I was alluding to (e.g. Columbine) conducted with weapons/items other than firearms? They all seem to have been carried out with firearms and, in some cases, improvised explosive devices. Would those killings have been possible without the killers having had ready access to firearms?


Also, as has been repeated ad nauseam in these discussions, per University of Florida criminologist Gary Kleck, there are approximately 2.5 million uses of firearms for self-defense in the US annually (note that that doesn't mean shootings - in the majority of those situations merely displaying a firearm diffuses the situation). That's 2.5 million potential crimes against persons (assaults, rapes, homicides, robberies) that don't occur due to the presence of privately owned firearms.
"David McDowall cites methodological issues with the Kleck studies, which used a very small sample size and did not confine self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced. A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns." - taken, by Wikipedia, from "Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys"

[Buckeye67]

Do you know of any of the sorts of killing I was alluding to (e.g. Columbine) conducted with weapons/items other than firearms? They all seem to have been carried out with firearms and, in some cases, improvised explosive devices. Would those killings have been possible without the killers having had ready access to firearms?

First, how would a blanket ban on firearms ownership limit mass homicides by improvised explosive devices?

Second, again, what part of "if someone wants to commit mass murder, and wants to use a firearm, they will go out of their way to get one" doesn't make sense?

The answer is, yes - those killings would have been possible to anyone with the desire and imagination to commit them.

Actually, thinking about it... you might be onto something. I mean, there's a blanket ban on ownership of cocaine - so I imagine it's use is pretty much right around the 0% mark... oh wait...



"David McDowall cites methodological issues with the Kleck studies, which used a very small sample size and did not confine self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced. A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns." - taken, by Wikipedia, from "Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys"


Or I could use the Department of Justice's own survey (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/165476.htm) which determined there are between 1.5 and 4.7 million DGU's per year:


Defensive gun uses

NSPOF estimates. Private citizens sometimes use
their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off
assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are
sometimes invoked as a measure of the public
benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of
data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data,
one would conclude that defensive uses are rare
indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys
yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs.
Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of
2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994
telephone survey conducted by Florida State
University professors Gary Kleck and Mark
Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked
up by the press and now appears regularly in
newspaper articles, letters to the editor,
editorials, and even Congressional Research Service
briefs for public policymakers.

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative
were followed with "How many different times did
you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect
yourself or property in the past 12 months?"
Negative answers to the first DGU question were
followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend
yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).
Each respondent who answered yes to either of these
DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional
questions concerning the most recent defensive gun
use in which the respondent was involved, including
the respondent's actions with the gun, the location
and other circumstances of the incident, and the
respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use
in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the
sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6
percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million
adults. Almost half of these respondents reported
multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis
for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23
million. This surprising figure is caused in part
by a few respondents reporting large numbers of
defensive gun uses during the year; for example,
one woman reported 52!

A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is
shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the
application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz
to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses.
Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most
recent DGU description for any of the following
reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator;
the respondent could not state a specific crime
that was involved in the incident; or the
respondent did not actually display the gun or
mention it to the perpetrator.

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is
smaller, it is statistically plausible that the
difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of
multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF
respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million
DGUs.

[TTMF]

First, how would a blanket ban on firearms ownership limit mass homicides by improvised explosive devices?

Second, again, what part of "if someone wants to commit mass murder, and wants to use a firearm, they will go out of their way to get one" doesn't make sense?

The answer is, yes - those killings would have been possible to anyone with the desire and imagination to commit them.
Firearms make it much much easier, do they not?

Just look at the UK - you could count the number of Columbine-style mass-shootings in the UK on one hand. With very limited access in the UK to firearms, you don't see any mass-stabbings or mass-forkings, do you?

[Buckeye67]

Firearms make it much much easier, do they not?

Just look at the UK - you could count the number of Columbine-style mass-shootings in the UK on one hand. With very limited access in the UK to firearms, you don't see any mass-stabbings or mass-forkings, do you?


Registered another account when you got suspended, eh lider?

[Jaeger07]

Actually, thinking about it... you might be onto something. I mean, there's a blanket ban on ownership of cocaine - so I imagine it's use is pretty much right around the 0% mark... oh wait...


By this analogy there is no point in having a ban on cocain... since people will do it anyway...


Restrictions on gun-ownership will make it more difficult for some to obtain weapons. Nonetheless it wont make it impossible. And no, it will probably not fix the problem with gun-related crime.

BTW good morning folks :)

[Buckeye67]

By this analogy there is no point in having a ban on cocain... since people will do it anyway...


Restrictions on gun-ownership will make it more difficult for some to obtain weapons. Nonetheless it wont make it impossible. And no, it will probably not fix the problem with gun-related crime.

BTW good morning folks :)

The difference being that firearms have valid legitimate uses. Cocaine doesn't.

The point though, is that simply "banning" something doesn't make it go away, and that if someone is determined enough - no law is going to stop them from engaging in an illegal activity.

While lider... I mean TTMF is correct in that there are fewer mass-shootings in the UK than the US - there have been far more mass bombings in the UK than the US. I can only assume (based on his logic) that the difference is due to the lax regulation in the UK on explosives ownership.

Good moring to you too, Jaeger - here to enlighten us with more of your US Constitutional law expertise?

[TTMF]

It was implicit in the blanket-ban suggestion that there would be a national gun buyback scheme put into place.

[Douros81]

Frist why is there always a post about guns? I'm get real sick of people from the EU tell me what I can and can't do. I have a God given RIGHT to own firearms.

God Bless the USA!

From my Cold Dead Hands!

[TTMF]

While lider... I mean TTMF is correct in that there are fewer mass-shootings in the UK than the US - there have been far more mass bombings in the UK than the US. I can only assume )based on his logic) that the difference is due to the lax regulation in the UK on explosives ownership.
Terrorist bombings in the UK aside, "mass bombings" have been few and far between.

[Jaeger07]

Good moring to you too, Jaeger - here to enlighten us with more of your US Constitutional law expertise?

I'll let it rest for now p-)



It seems to me that the reson for these mass-shotings in the US lately cannot be "blamed" on your gun laws - I dont think there are fewer guns (or automatic rfiles) per capita in f.ex. Norway than the US.

I wont say a gun ban solves this problem. IMO some sort of registration-system of guns could be a great tool for the police though. I know this has been discussed in the states earlier, but many felt it contradicted the 2nd amandement.

[that_one_guy]

Firearms make it much much easier, do they not?

Just look at the UK - you could count the number of Columbine-style mass-shootings in the UK on one hand. With very limited access in the UK to firearms, you don't see any mass-stabbings or mass-forkings, do you?


sigh, google + 30 seconds =

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting



Like buckeye said, just because you make a blanked ban on something, doesnt mean it's going to deter someone from getting what they want. If there's a will, there's a way. There's a blanket ban on illegal drugs, I'm pretty sure everyone knows someone who knows someone who can get drugs. Same concept applies with guns. Making guns illegal isn't going to stop a criminal from getting a gun because it might cause him to break the law. Thinking otherwise is just plain naive and completely retarded.

Likewise, what if everyone had a gun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw%2C_GA

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/NewsMax2001.html

[TTMF]

sigh, google + 30 seconds =

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Like buckeye said, just because you make a blanked ban on something, doesnt mean it's going to deter someone from getting what they want. If there's a will, there's a way. There's a blanket ban on illegal drugs, I'm pretty sure everyone knows someone who knows someone who can get drugs. Same concept applies with guns. Making guns illegal isn't going to stop a criminal from getting a gun because it might cause him to break the law. Thinking otherwise is just plain naive and completely retarded.
Mass shootings - that's what i've been talking about all along. Gun crime'll happen and that's something that no legislation will likely stop, but there is something that can be done about the larger-scale shootings.

[Dave-Sappy]

Im from the UK (and I guess the EU) and I completely agree with the Americans here who argue for the personal protection view - Issues of self defence in the home have been in the media more quite regularly over here, because citizens have been charged with assaulting a burglar! Indeed, burglars and attackers have won law suits over here against the people they were attacking!
The right to own a firearm has been seriously curtailed over here, yet gun crime has gone up! Ok, its still extremely low, but within certain communities such acts are quite common and carrying a firearm for many within said communities is a daily occurence. Has the blanket gun ban worked? Not really no.

(On a side note, the Dunblane massacre as has already been mentioned, was carried out by a man who was banned from running scout clubs but didnt have his handgun licence revoked...)

[Buckeye67]

Terrorist bombings in the UK aside, "mass bombings" have been few and far between.

Oooh, I can do that too... watch:

"Illegal homicides in the US aside, 'mass shootings' have been few and far between".

Hey, that's cool. Thanks!

[TTMF]

Oooh, I can do that too... watch:

"Illegal homicides in the US aside, 'mass shootings' have been few and far between".

Hey, that's cool. Thanks!
Few and far between, in the US? You just arguing that for argument's sake?

[Jaeger07]

Frist why is there always a post about guns? I'm get real sick of people from the EU tell me what I can and can't do. I have a God given RIGHT to own firearms.

God Bless the USA!

From my Cold Dead Hands!

This discussion is not exclusively about gun-politics in the USA, the OT is from south africa and made his post about the laws there.

What works for some countries does not have to work for another, nobody is telleing you what you can or cant do - were just having a discussion.

[that_one_guy]

Mass shootings - that's what i've been talking about all along. Gun crime'll happen and that's something that no legislation will likely stop, but there is something that can be done about the larger-scale shootings.

read the article i added about guntown.

[that_one_guy]

Mass shootings - that's what i've been talking about all along. Gun crime'll happen and that's something that no legislation will likely stop, but there is something that can be done about the larger-scale shootings.

read the article i added about guntown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw%2C_GA

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/NewsMax2001.html

[Buckeye67]

Few and far between, in the US? You just arguing that for argument's sake?

No, I'm just arbitrarily selecting what constitutes murder the same way you did. I have to admit, your whole "just make it up as I go along" method of discourse makes things a lot easier.

[that_one_guy]

No, I'm just arbitrarily selecting what constitutes murder the same way you did. I have to admit, your whole "just make it up as I go along" method of discourse makes things a lot easier.

i believe we're feeding a troll. crap.

[Douros81]

I'll let it rest for now p-)



It seems to me that the reson for these mass-shotings in the US lately cannot be "blamed" on your gun laws - I dont think there are fewer guns (or automatic rfiles) per capita in f.ex. Norway than the US.

I wont say a gun ban solves this problem. IMO some sort of registration-system of guns could be a great tool for the police though. I know this has been discussed in the states earlier, but many felt it contradicted the 2nd amandement.

Like for the KGB or the SS ?
Why not know where all the guns, easy way to over throw a county.

All I'm saying is bullets first!

What you people don't understand is that gun control is used to keep people in there place.

Why stop at the 2nd, lets **** with all the amendments, who needs rights?

[Jaeger07]

A question to the US-folks:

I heard a while back that the police in various states supported a more strict gun-policy, to "get the guns off the streets".

Any comment on that? How does most police officers in the US view this matter. They work under the constant threat of gun being used/missused.

[that_one_guy]

A question to the US-folks:

I heard a while back that the police in various states supported a more strict gun-policy, to "get the guns off the streets".

Any comment on that? How does most police officers in the US view this matter. They work under the constant threat of gun being used/missused.

In Corpus Christi where I live, the police often set up this event where anyone can turn there guns in for money, no questions asked.

[Buckeye67]

A question to the US-folks:

I heard a while back that the police in various states supported a more strict gun-policy, to "get the guns off the streets".

Any comment on that? How does most police officers in the US view this matter. They work under the constant threat of gun being used/missused.

When I was a police officer, the overwhelming majority of actual street cops were very pro-gun. In fact, I don't know if I still have it at home, but there was a poll in one of the police publications that demonstrated that.

What you tend to find are political organizations like the IACP and the (national level) FOP (folks who suck politican schlong all day) are the ones supporting anti-gun legislation.

[Douros81]

Here's a little history leason for people outside the USA.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lULr1p4DZh8&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFRx-QoIKBM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwH4oZOA8YY&feature=related

[Jaeger07]

Like for the KGB or the SS ?
Why not know where all the guns, easy way to over throw a county.

All I'm saying is bullets first!

What you people don't understand is that gun control is used to keep people in there place.

Why stop at the 2nd, lets **** with all the amendments, who needs rights?

Oh its possible to have registration-system without loosing your individual rights - in my opinion ofc.

In my country we have a registration-system for guns, but we dont have any fewer guns than you guys in the US. Most are for hunting, but its legal to own military-type rifles if you are member of a shooting-club that uses these kinds of guns (tactical shooting-clubs).


I will admit however: this means that your name and your gun number is written down in a state register. But this does not bother me; I feel the police can use this register to get rid of weapons "in the wrong hands", and that they do it in a healthy way. Meanwhile I have my gun safely at home, no questions asked.

[Buckeye67]

Oh its possible to have registration-system without loosing your individual rights - in my opinion ofc.

In my country we have a registration-system for guns, but we dont have any fewer guns than you guys in the US. Most are for hunting, but its legal to own military-type rifles if you are member of a shooting-club that uses these kinds of guns (tactical shooting-clubs).


I will admit however: this means that your name and your gun number is written down in a state register. But this does not bother me; I feel the police can use this register to get rid of weapons "in the wrong hands", and that they do it in a healthy way. Meanwhile I have my gun safely at home, no questions asked.

The problem is that gun registration lists can, and have been, abused by the government - the most recent and egregious example is in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when the New Orleans Police decided to start the wholesale confiscation of privately owned firearms.

[James]

I will admit however: this means that your name and your gun number is written down in a state register. But this does not bother me; I feel the police can use this register to get rid of weapons "in the wrong hands", and that they do it in a healthy way. Meanwhile I have my gun safely at home, no questions asked.

America was born in rebellion. We tend not to trust our government as much as people in many other nations.


The problem is that gun registration lists can, and have been, abused by the government - the most recent and egregious example is in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when the New Orleans Police decided to start the wholesale confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Talk about not trusting government! There are also cities like New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C., and the entire state of California (among a few others) who decided that the 2nd Amendment just didn't apply there.

[Douros81]

Oh its possible to have registration-system without loosing your individual rights - in my opinion ofc.

In my country we have a registration-system for guns, but we dont have any fewer guns than you guys in the US. Most are for hunting, but its legal to own military-type rifles if you are member of a shooting-club that uses these kinds of guns (tactical shooting-clubs).


I will admit however: this means that your name and your gun number is written down in a state register. But this does not bother me; I feel the police can use this register to get rid of weapons "in the wrong hands", and that they do it in a healthy way. Meanwhile I have my gun safely at home, no questions asked.


Most US gun control came after the Civil War, why?
Not to keep Southerns from having guns, but to keep newly freed slaves from having guns, so that they could defend themsleves from whites. This is the ture use of gun control.

[Douros81]

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_gulag.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_what.JPG


http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg

With the way history has gone why shouldn't every one want more gun control?

[James]

Americans generally is very constitution-conservative, something that can be good. In your case I think it is not. Your constitution is over 200 years old and your society has changed alot. What was a good solution (law) back then is not necesserily a good one now.

That's why there have been 17 Amendments. You should look up the definition of that word.

[Douros81]

Originally Posted by Jaeger07 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2922304#post2922304)
Americans generally is very constitution-conservative, something that can be good. In your case I think it is not. Your constitution is over 200 years old and your society has changed alot. What was a good solution (law) back then is not necesserily a good one now.


This is the dumbest thing I have read all day on the internet. Wow thats, I don't know what to say to that.

[Jaeger07]

The problem is that gun registration lists can, and have been, abused by the government -

This, I think, is the where we differ - There is no fear in my country of despots suddenly getting the power. If the government did something we the people dont like, we have a political system to get rid of them. The government needs the support of the people.


If a despot came into power he would have to set the Norwegian constitution aside anyway: concentration of power is a big constitutional no-no.

[James]

Obviously an AK-47 is not an egg beater. Its designed for military use and is in military use.

It's illegal (generally) to own an AK-47 too. Just like it's illegal to own and M-16. M-4, M-14, etc. You can own firearms that appear similar, but they aren't assault weapons. Ownership of select fire firearms has been severely resticted in the United States for more than 70 years.

I know he's suspended, I just had to respond.

[Calanen]

By this analogy there is no point in having a ban on cocain... since people will do it anyway...

Restrictions on gun-ownership will make it more difficult for some to obtain weapons. Nonetheless it wont make it impossible. And no, it will probably not fix the problem with gun-related crime.

BTW good morning folks :)

You've decided to jump straight into the argument boots and all, and left your boots under the bed.

Closer to your part of the world, Finland and Sweden have plenty of guns, but not much gun crime. Same with Israel. Why is this? Perhaps its not the guns that are the problem.

[Jaeger07]

That's why there have been 17 Amendments. You should look up the definition of that word.

The second amendemnt dates back to 1789, what seemed good then is not necessarily good today. This was my point.

I wont argue anymore about your constitution. Dont get all fired up; it was not meant as an offence.

[Buckeye67]

This, I think, is the where we differ - There is no fear in my country of despots suddenly getting the power. If the government did something we the people dont like, we have a political system to get rid of them. The government needs the support of the people.

If a despot came into power he would have to set the Norwegian constitution aside anyway: concentration of power is a big constitutional no-no.

Again, just because it may seem that way now - it may not always be that way. As setting aside current form of government is well within the realm of possibilities for a dictator, having a "political system to get rid of them" may not do you any good.

We asked a friend of mine's mother (who is/was anti-gun) how we would get rid of a tyrant. Her answer was "we'd vote them out of office". We said, that no, you can't vote them out of office because there were going to be no more elections. Her reply was, well yeah - but we could just vote them out of office. I'm guessing you can see where that went.

A government of the people needs the support of the people. A dictator/totalitarian government doesn't.

So again, just because the conditions are this point in time seem a certain way - history has shown time and again that things change. I'm not ready to give up my, or my grandchildren or their grandchildren's ability to resist tyranny just because things "seem ok now".

[Douros81]

You've decided to jump straight into the argument boots and all, and left your boots under the bed.

Closer to your part of the world, Finland and Sweden have plenty of guns, but not much gun crime. Same with Israel. Why is this? Perhaps its not the guns that are the problem.

Damn some body got it right.

[James]

You don't hear of any mass-knifings...

Rwanda. 1994. Look it up.

[Jaeger07]

EDIT: DOuble post.

[Jaeger07]

You've decided to jump straight into the argument boots and all, and left your boots under the bed.

Closer to your part of the world, Finland and Sweden have plenty of guns, but not much gun crime. Same with Israel. Why is this? Perhaps its not the guns that are the problem.


Gun crime in Sweeden is infact higher than here in Norway, the gun laws are AFAIK pretty much the same.

And yes, as I already said: guns alone is not the problem, we have just as many guns per capita here in Norway as you have in the States.

As I said: One can not "blame" mass-shotings etc. on guns.

[TTMF]

No, I'm just arbitrarily selecting what constitutes murder the same way you did. I have to admit, your whole "just make it up as I go along" method of discourse makes things a lot easier.
Who's talking about "murder" - I was focusing on mass shootings.

[Buckeye67]

The second amendemnt dates back to 1789, what seemed good then is not necessarily good today. This was my point.

The right to bear arms for one's personal defense and as a defense against tyranny pre-existed the Constitution for hundreds of years - going back to even the Classical Age.

The Framers understood that - which is why the amendment reads "the right of the people... shall not be infringed" and not "this amedment grants people the right to...".

The right to revolution, which the Framers saw as an extension to one's fundamental right to defend oneself (see Locke et. al.) was just as important to them as Freedom of Speech, the Press and all of the other issues covered in the Bill of Rights.

You can't cherry pick which ones you don't like and say they don't matter anymore.

[TTMF]

As I said: One can not "blame" mass-shotings etc. on guns.
Take that mall shooting last week - if the killer hadn't had such ready access to firearms, would he have gone in there with, say, a kitchen implement or lava lamp and attempted to kill as many shoppers as he could before clocking himself over the head with a stapler?

[Buckeye67]

Who's talking about "murder" - I was focusing on mass shootings.

So the victims who die in "mass shootings" haven't been murdered?

[Jaeger07]

You can't cherry pick which ones you don't like and say they don't matter anymore.

It's called a dynamic legislation - it is possible to change a constitution, and it's been done many times. I'snt that what your amandements are, "changes" to the constitution?

[Douros81]

Take that mall shooting last week - if the killer hadn't had such ready access to firearms, would he have gone in there with, say, a kitchen implement or lava lamp and attempted to kill as many shoppers as he could before clocking himself over the head with a stapler?


Again, Rwanda, 1994, Machete , about 1,000,000 million dead

[Buckeye67]

It's called a dynamic legislation - it is possible to change a constitution, and it's been done many times. I'snt that what your amandements are, "changes" to the constitution?

Which of the first 10 (the Bill of Rights) Amendments have been altered or eliminated?

Edit: Time for me to go home from work, you kids have fun.

Double secret edit: I'm not going to regurgitate every point made repeatedly in past threads about firearms ownership in the US. The search function should help you out there.

[Jaeger07]

Take that mall shooting last week - if the killer hadn't had such ready access to firearms, would he have gone in there with, say, a kitchen implement or lava lamp and attempted to kill as many shoppers as he could before clocking himself over the head with a stapler?

He would probably not have gotten the firearm at that time, no.
But he would probably have managed to aquire one later.

IMO gun-control does not solve these problems, but gives the police a better tool to fight gun-related crime.

[Douros81]

He would probably not have gotten the firearm at that time, no.
But he would probably have managed to aquire one later.

IMO gun-control does not solve these problems, but gives the police a better tool to fight gun-related crime.


Its mainly drug related, drugs cause far more crime then firearms.

[Jaeger07]

Which of the first 10 (the Bill of Rights) Amendments have been altered or eliminated?

I dont know that, have they?

I was talking about constitutions in general, not the american one in particular.


EDIT: I will be going now. Nice to talk it out with you gents. Have fun! :-)

[TTMF]

He would probably not have gotten the firearm at that time, no.
But he would probably have managed to aquire one later.

IMO gun-control does not solve these problems, but gives the police a better tool to fight gun-related crime.
So you don't think that the majority of these shootings happen only because of the ready access the killers have to firearms?

[Hilbert]

A question to the US-folks:

I heard a while back that the police in various states supported a more strict gun-policy, to "get the guns off the streets".

Any comment on that? How does most police officers in the US view this matter. They work under the constant threat of gun being used/missused.

My first word of advice to you is be careful about how information is presented to you, as the old saying goes "the devil is in the details." Let me explain:[/u]

Alot of anti-gunners here in the United States have tried to create the illusion that "the police agree with us, we need to restrict guns" by having [U]POLICE CHIEFS openly state they were for it.

Unfortunately, what many people don't understand is that's the big catch, Police Chiefs are political officials wearing a uniform, because of this their views fall in line with the politicians and other guys who help keep them in power, their views and that of the front-line street cop are completely different (as it usually is between the hot-shots sitting behind a desk and the guys who go and actually do the work).The majority of street cops are pro-second amendment, many NRA members of some type. In fact, all of the Police Officers I know are pro-second amendment.



So you don't think that the majority of these shootings happen only because of the ready access the killers have to firearms?

No, not really. I believe that while the access to firearms may play SOME part in this, quite frankly if people are determined to kill, they will find a way, whether it be firearms, knives, or homemade weapons, as evidenced by the 2001 "Knife Massacre" in Japan; that killer didn't need a gun to ruin dozens of lives.

[TTMF]

No, not really. I believe that while the access to firearms may play SOME part in this, quite frankly if people are determined to kill, they will find a way, whether it be firearms, knives, or homemade weapons, as evidenced by the 2001 "Knife Massacre" in Japan; that killer didn't need a gun to ruin dozens of lives.
With what frequency do those sorts of mass killings occur though?

[Zoomie]

With what frequency do those sorts of mass killings occur though?
What country are you from TTMF?

[WarriorMonk]

Around the same frequency as bombings or mass stabbings in any western society - not very frequently.

There's instructions on how to make IEDs or pipe bombs or suicide vests all over the internet, that take about the same time to make and carry out, if that fool didn't have access to that AK, you think he could have just strapped on a bomb and dropped a few pipe bombs in that store? Much more efficient, and much more surprising than a firearm.

[TTMF]

There's instructions on how to make IEDs or pipe bombs or suicide vests all over the internet, that take about the same time to make and carry out, if that fool didn't have access to that AK, you think he could have just strapped on a bomb and dropped a few pipe bombs in that store? Much more efficient, and much more surprising than a firearm.
If it was that easy, why don't you see kids blowing themselves up at schools or pipe bombs blown up at crowded churches with the same frequency as mass shootings?

[Hilbert]

If it was that easy, why don't you see kids blowing themselves up at schools or pipe bombs blown up at crowded churches with the same frequency as mass shootings?

Because, thankfully, our society hasn't subscribed to this philosophy that it's "cool" to go out and blow yourself up and think of it as the path to salvation like some fanatics do... yet (that's the scary part).

Don't be confused, making explosives is far easier than gun, knife, or bat - all it requires is a computer (knowledge) and a trip to the hardware store. One call that's all...

I'd also add, how do you define a massacre or "mass shooting"? If it's every shooting that makes Yahoo or MSN, then we have a massacre every day, if it's act of violence that kills more than five people at one time, it gets less common, and so forth.

[Mastermind]

RE: Above - Street Cops favor Gun control That is just not true.

The primary reason you might want to gain a concealed carry permit is that if you are stopped by a police officer for say, a traffic ticket or he just wants to know who you are. If you not only present your ID and your CCW card and quietly tell the officer that you are armed, that cop will immediately relax. Why? Because he/she knows you have already been vetted to the bone about your criminal past, you mental stability and your ability to handle a fire arm.

My whole family are or have been in law enforceemnt for the last thirty years and I can tell you, not one of us or our friends are against law abiding citizens owning or carrying a fire arm.

[TTMF]

Because, thankfully, our society hasn't subscribed to this philosophy that it's "cool" to go out and blow yourself up and think of it as the path to salvation like some fanatics do... yet (that's the scary part).

Don't be confused, making explosives is far easier than gun, knife, or bat - all it requires is a computer (knowledge) and a trip to the hardware store. One call that's all...
Why aren't explosives used more often then?

[Will Clark]

Because Article I give Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and the sale of guns implicates interstate commerse. I am not opining about the right to own guns, but don't be naive about 2nd Amendment rights. The right to bear arms is not absolute just like free speech is not absolute. The Constitution is about competing rights and always has been. When rights compete, compromises have to be made and registering is one such compromise. It may not be one that you like, but its a compromise nonetheless and its beyond dispute that it is and always has been constitutional.

hank

The supreme court has three levels of scrutiny, the 1st through 8th amendments receive very strict scrutiny when a law is made against them. There must be a compelling justification to have such a law and no lesser means available. For comparison the next step is intermediate and they must show a substantial relationship to an important purpose, these are for "semi-rights". The lowest tier demands that they show a rational relationship to a legitimate purpose, this one is for non-rights and such.

The issue is that the law is question is classified in a very subjective way, which test does it get? The 2nd is supposed to be in the most protected tier, if it were intermediate then they would have to show a substantial relationship to whatever important purpose they're trying for. Maybe a trend with full auto weapons and danger to the population. Well thats hard to make though legal gun ownership due to the extremely low number of murders by FA weapons. Now take that and kick it up a notch, its supposed to be scrutinized ever harder than that.

[Tareece]

In America, our Right to bear arms is not there so we can hunt deer or shoot paper targets; we were given this right to defend ourselves against government tyranny.

Any other reason is secondary.


We have a winner!
Let it not be dismissed, a armed populace is the last bastion for a free nation

[hank]

The supreme court has three levels of scrutiny, the 1st through 8th amendments receive very strict scrutiny when a law is made against them. There must be a compelling justification to have such a law and no lesser means available. For comparison the next step is intermediate and they must show a substantial relationship to an important purpose, these are for "semi-rights". The lowest tier demands that they show a rational relationship to a legitimate purpose, this one is for non-rights and such.

The issue is that the law is question is classified in a very subjective way, which test does it get? The 2nd is supposed to be in the most protected tier, if it were intermediate then they would have to show a substantial relationship to whatever important purpose they're trying for. Maybe a trend with full auto weapons and danger to the population. Well thats hard to make though legal gun ownership due to the extremely low number of murders by FA weapons. Now take that and kick it up a notch, its supposed to be scrutinized ever harder than that.

Dude, I am a lawyer (licensed in Georgia) and what you have posted is flatly wrong. If you want me to explain why all this is wrong I will do it in a pm. Not trying to be a ****, but this analysis is wrong on a lot of levels.

hank

[Will Clark]

Dude, I am a lawyer (licensed in Georgia) and what you have posted is flatly wrong. If you want me to explain why all this is wrong I will do it in a pm. Not trying to be a ****, but this analysis is wrong on a lot of levels.

hank

**** lol, I'm taking an exam on this in 4 hours. I would appriciate a pm if it isn't too much trouble.

[shocker1]

Hank knows Law, he is a Georgian too so he is a good man

[stonecutter]

Originally Posted by Laworkerbee
In America, our Right to bear arms is not there so we can hunt deer or shoot paper targets; we were given this right to defend ourselves against government tyranny.

Any other reason is secondary.

What I don't understand about this is that an armed populace at the time of the Revolution could indeed have defended against government tyranny, considering the more or less even match in weaponry at the time. But today? There's no way you could defend yourselves against the government with the the guns available to citizens, which are pea-shooters compared to what else is out there. If taken the way it was meant originally, wouldn't the 2nd Amendment guarantee the citizen's right to own an F-22 or at least a backyard battery of ground-to-air missiles?

[Will Clark]

Hank knows Law, he is a Georgian too so he is a good man

Didn't mean to imply he was wrong, only that I thought I was right based on what I was taught. Which is terrifying because 1/3 of my grade will be decided based on that question. Though it had to do with equal protection from the 14th.

[dedbunniez]

What I don't understand about this is that an armed populace at the time of the Revolution could indeed have defended against government tyranny, considering the more or less even match in weaponry at the time. But today? There's no way you could defend yourselves against the government with the the guns available to citizens, which are pea-shooters compared to what else is out there. If taken the way it was meant originally, wouldn't the 2nd Amendment guarantee the citizen's right to own an F-22 or at least a backyard battery of ground-to-air missiles?

But if you have a mass of humanity that is all moving the same direction for the same cause and most if not all are carrying weapons, then that would be the ultimate check. There would be little to nothing that the military could do except start shooting. Which would cause more outcry etc.

[Bia]

caveman 1: rocks kill people, lets ban rocks.
caveman2: no, people kill people.

lolz

[shocker1]

What I don't understand about this is that an armed populace at the time of the Revolution could indeed have defended against government tyranny, considering the more or less even match in weaponry at the time. But today? There's no way you could defend yourselves against the government with the the guns available to citizens, which are pea-shooters compared to what else is out there. If taken the way it was meant originally, wouldn't the 2nd Amendment guarantee the citizen's right to own an F-22 or at least a backyard battery of ground-to-air missiles?
It is because this armed populace is tolerant of so much and as such needs political control that tickles our ears. Without that support those who would do the things you say would not be in power. The reality is if the Government wanted to lock down the nation, set up military control. It can , the laws are in place to allow such a move and there is nothing we could do but fight or surrender. In the process most likely die but I will die for the same reasons millions of Americans have before. My Freedom and to me that is a good reason to die. Leave me alone, Don't tread on Me. Sadly most Americans today would just go with the flow and ignore the death of the former.


Didn't mean to imply he was wrong, only that I thought I was right based on what I was taught. Which is terrifying because 1/3 of my grade will be decided based on that question. Though it had to do with equal protection from the 14th.
I was just sayin

[hank]

Didn't mean to imply he was wrong, only that I thought I was right based on what I was taught. Which is terrifying because 1/3 of my grade will be decided based on that question. Though it had to do with equal protection from the 14th.

Go with what you were taught. A lot of times this stuff gets "simplified" in college and high school to the point of being wrong. After the exam we can talk about it. Put it out of your mind, I don't want you to screw up that exam on account of me. Good luck.

hank

[TTMF]

What I don't understand about this is that an armed populace at the time of the Revolution could indeed have defended against government tyranny, considering the more or less even match in weaponry at the time. But today? There's no way you could defend yourselves against the government with the the guns available to citizens, which are pea-shooters compared to what else is out there. If taken the way it was meant originally, wouldn't the 2nd Amendment guarantee the citizen's right to own an F-22 or at least a backyard battery of ground-to-air missiles?
The actual meaning of the 2nd amendment (the context in which it was written), a quaint remnant of days gone past, has been bastardised to the extent that a lot of Americans actually think that, when interpreted in the proper light, it means US citizens are entitled to own firearms.

Do the words "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." mean that? That US citizens are entitled to own firearms? Or is it talking about the right of US citizens to bear arms as part of a militia (presumably to kick out an invading force)?

[dedbunniez]

This has seriously been covered at least 10 times in this thread. Go back and look. As it has been mentioned before the second amendment is the ultimate check to the government. The original 13 colonies didn't trust a centralized government. Thus, they gave the citizens ways to overthrow the government if it stopped following the will of the people.

[TTMF]

This has seriously been covered at least 10 times in this thread. Go back and look. As it has been mentioned before the second amendment is the ultimate check to the government. The original 13 colonies didn't trust a centralized government. Thus, they gave the citizens ways to overthrow the government if it stopped following the will of the people.
That's what it's subsequently been interpreted to mean.

[dedbunniez]

If you have questions about the role the founding fathers of the U.S. wanted the government read the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers

These should give you a little insight into the debates/thought processes that were happening at the time the U.S. was founded.

[Hollis]

The actual meaning of the 2nd amendment (the context in which it was written), a quaint remnant of days gone past, has been bastardised to the extent that a lot of Americans actually think that, when interpreted in the proper light, it means US citizens are entitled to own firearms.

Do the words "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." mean that? That US citizens are entitled to own firearms? Or is it talking about the right of US citizens to bear arms as part of a militia (presumably to kick out an invading force)?


This has been re-hashed and re-hashed and your still completely off base. Maybe do some research and let O'Rielly do the bloviating.

[WarriorMonk]

A militia technically means any able bodied citizen 18 years or older, available to be called to arms.

so basically, TTMF/lider, if you had your way - all that would really happen is that people would just sign up to be in a "militia."

you still lose.

Hmm, I can just say every amendment has been bastardized, especially the first one.

EDIT: And it seems by your posts you just want to flat out ban private gun ownership, don't you.

[TTMF]

A militia technically means any able bodied citizen 18 years or older, available to be called to arms.

so basically, TTMF/lider, if you had your way - all that would really happen is that people would just sign up to be in a "militia."
You talking about "militia" in the context of the constitution or it's general meaning?

Btw, who is "lider"?

[WarriorMonk]

Constitutional.

(don't you love how everything is left up to interpretation?)

[Laworkerbee]

You talking about "militia" in the context of the constitution or it's general meaning?

Btw, who is "lider"?

You clearly are and will be called out on it, your posting style is the same. You never answer a direct question.

Have the best day ever.

[dedbunniez]

Hmm time for the scouting party to go out and sniff out the connection between these two.

[marius]

A few things about gun banners make me wonder..

I do not understand how you can support the notion that ordinary law abiding citizens simple cannot be trusted with guns and only the state should be given that power - when the latter is the result of a majority of law abiding citizens.

Banners usually see guns as objects being dangerous i.e. that guns 'an sich' carry evil intentions. Then why do guns belonging to the guys at the range never try to kill me?
I wonder how banners manage to function in a world of intentional inanimate objects? Are they carried to work by their career possessed car? Are they being turned into alcoholics by an evil cork screw?

Banners want guns to become outlawed - yet refuse to acknowledge that by doing so support that only criminals will have guns.

[dedbunniez]

Good post, I agree ban corkscrews.

[hank]

I do not understand how you can support the notion that ordinary law abiding citizens simple cannot be trusted with guns and only the state should be given that power - when the latter is the result of a majority of law abiding citizens.

Many a constitutional scholar smarter than any of us has said exactly this. There is also compelling evidence in the writings of many of the framers that this is exaclty the motivation they had in mind when they wrote the 2nd A. Good point

hank

[James]

I think a lot of anti-gun people project what they think they might do if they had access to a firearm (i.e. get angry, lash out and shoot someone) onto the rest of us. They think they'll have a flash of road rage, get into an argument with their neighbor, get angry when the dog pees on the floor... whatever - something makes them angry, they fall into a rage, and someone gets shot.

Maybe it's good that they're anti gun, because they will probably never own one. I just wish they'd leave the rest of us alone.

[playtym]

Maybe it's good that they're anti gun, because they will probably never own one. I just wish they'd leave the rest of us alone.

Thanks to a little digging on the part of some police mates we discovered that the woman who used to head the organisation "Gun Free South Africa" owned a firearm for self defence.

Apparently it was only the rest of us that shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. :roll:

[Laworkerbee]

Thanks to a little digging on the part of some police mates we discovered that the woman who used to head the organisation "Gun Free South Africa" owned a firearm for self defence.

Apparently it was only the rest of us that shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. :roll:

Same thing has happened over here my friend.

James,

There was I believe a Swiss study a few years ago that addressed and came to the exact same conclusion that you just did.

[James]

James,

There was I believe a Swiss study a few years ago that addressed and came to the exact same conclusion that you just did.

Well that proves it. If you're anti gun, you're CRAZY. ;)

[WarriorMonk]

EDIT: Okay, facts are a little off

[Calanen]

The supreme court has three levels of scrutiny, the 1st through 8th amendments receive very strict scrutiny when a law is made against them. There must be a compelling justification to have such a law and no lesser means available. For comparison the next step is intermediate and they must show a substantial relationship to an important purpose, these are for "semi-rights". The lowest tier demands that they show a rational relationship to a legitimate purpose, this one is for non-rights and such.

The issue is that the law is question is classified in a very subjective way, which test does it get? The 2nd is supposed to be in the most protected tier, if it were intermediate then they would have to show a substantial relationship to whatever important purpose they're trying for. Maybe a trend with full auto weapons and danger to the population. Well thats hard to make though legal gun ownership due to the extremely low number of murders by FA weapons. Now take that and kick it up a notch, its supposed to be scrutinized ever harder than that.

My understanding was the Supreme Court *primarily* uses three tests, (1) the mere rationality standard; (2) the strict scrutiny standard; and (3) the middle-level review standard. Gets a bit messy and boring for everyone else after this part. This is of course an oversimplification, but this only a forum board and not a thesis proposal on US constitutional law. Good luck in your exam.

Btw - I'm bar qualified in California, but currently voluntarily inactive, owing to the fact I am in Australia. No point in paying bar dues and insurance when I am not there anymore, but I can reactivate at any time.

[orionhawk]

The actual meaning of the 2nd amendment (the context in which it was written), a quaint remnant of days gone past, has been bastardised to the extent that a lot of Americans actually think that, when interpreted in the proper light, it means US citizens are entitled to own firearms.

Do the words "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." mean that? That US citizens are entitled to own firearms? Or is it talking about the right of US citizens to bear arms as part of a militia (presumably to kick out an invading force)?

"right of US citizens to bear arms", should read "Keep and Bear Arms"

to keep means to own. to bear means to carry/use.

Militia used privately-owned weapons. Argument over.

[Geezah]

A question to the US-folks:

I heard a while back that the police in various states supported a more strict gun-policy, to "get the guns off the streets".

Any comment on that? How does most police officers in the US view this matter. They work under the constant threat of gun being used/missused.

Two members of our gun club are LE, and we have shot with a Federal Air Marshall, none of them have at any time suggested anything close to gun control.

Maybe, you're confusing those Officers that live in libtard cities that hold the same un-constitutional views that you do with Police Officers in Europe.

But wait, you're in Europe so it doesn't matter what you think.

I really would like to know where you get your so called information from?

[Hollis]

I don't think I have ever met a anti-gun LEO. The ones that media use seem to be Ex-street cops who are in the political end of policing. I never met them. Maybe West coast Cops are different than East Coast Cops.

[akd]

Whateva, man. Somebody posted something about Congress not having the authority to regualte gun sales and I responded that the Commerce Clause gives them that right. If you want to claim that isn't pertinent then go right ahead.

You apparently disagree even though it has been the law in this county for some time that Congress can. You seem to base that argument on the notion that because Congress doesn't regulate speech in the same way it can't regulate gun ownership in that way. As a matter of logic that fails. I can't remember the latin phrase that applies but there is one.

Oh snap - ad hoc ergo propter hoc is the latin phrase.

hank

I apologize, as I thought your original response was in regards to keeping or ownership, not simply sales. However, I still think it could be said that congress does not have the authority to regulate gun sales, if the regulation is intended solely to restrict ownership (i.e. the owning and keeping of arms).

[dedbunniez]

I apologize, as I thought your original response was in regards to keeping or ownership, not simply sales. However, I still think it could be said that congress does not have the authority to regulate gun sales, if the regulation is intended solely to restrict ownership (i.e. the owning and keeping of arms).

The courts said that interstate commerce can be regulated. I forget the exact court case. So gun sales are considered inter-state commerce, thus it can be regulated.

[hank]

I apologize, as I thought your original response was in regards to keeping or ownership, not simply sales. However, I still think it could be said that congress does not have the authority to regulate gun sales, if the regulation is intended solely to restrict ownership (i.e. the owning and keeping of arms).

No, the intent has nothing to do with it. Interstate commerce is interstate commerce and Congress can regulate it.

hank

[hank]

My understanding was the Supreme Court *primarily* uses three tests, (1) the mere rationality standard; (2) the strict scrutiny standard; and (3) the middle-level review standard. Gets a bit messy and boring for everyone else after this part. This is of course an oversimplification, but this only a forum board and not a thesis proposal on US constitutional law. Good luck in your exam.

Btw - I'm bar qualified in California, but currently voluntarily inactive, owing to the fact I am in Australia. No point in paying bar dues and insurance when I am not there anymore, but I can reactivate at any time.


Yeah, Calanen is right those are some of the tests but they don't just apply to the first 8 amendments. That is the oversimplification that renders the statement wrong. There are also a number of other tests, like the Lemon test, that apply to speech under the First Amendment. None of those tests apply to the commerce clause analysis, though, which is the other oversimplification that renders the generalization wrong. Calanen is as usual right though, do what your professor says even if it is oversimplified.

hank

[Kilgor]

Six school children shot in Las Vegas: police
Wednesday Dec 12 11:24 AEDT
Six children have been shot and wounded in Las Vegas after getting off a school bus, but none of the injuries is life-threatening, police say.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=334959

[Albatross]

my god...this thread is still alive?

[Hollis]

Six school children shot in Las Vegas: police
Wednesday Dec 12 11:24 AEDT
Six children have been shot and wounded in Las Vegas after getting off a school bus, but none of the injuries is life-threatening, police say.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=334959

Why did you post this here? Why not open a new thread on this?

You already been hit with four point infraction are you trying for a higher score?

[Laconian]

I don't think I have ever met a anti-gun LEO. The ones that media use seem to be Ex-street cops who are in the political end of policing. I never met them. Maybe West coast Cops are different than East Coast Cops.
I've only policed on the East Coast. Most cops I know are either pro-gun or ambivalent. I only knew of one cop that was anti-gun; he was also the only cop I knew that was a liberal democrat. I know the IACP and FOP heads often back lame anti-gun laws, but rank & file guys part with management on that score.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I think there needs to be increased regulation not from the possession viewpoint but more from the sale viewpoint. Compulsory registration of firearms, stricter sale laws do not infringe on a persons 2nd amendment.

The manufacturing of firearms for the public also needs to have tougher regulations.

There is a lot of things that can be done regulatory but do not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

[Hollis]

Minny, now don't you be changing the definitions of words.

infringe - advance beyond the usual limit

[shocker1]

What more "regulation" do you want? The only folks adhering to any regulations are not doing drive bys and shooting up places. The only people tougher laws effect are those that obey the law. If anything, these last few incidents made me appreciate even more my permit and my right to carry.

[Hollis]

Minny, a question about something I have noticed in the Gun ownership discussion why are the most adamant prohibitionist Australians, and this is a USA issue?

[shocker1]

I do not understand how you can support the notion that ordinary law abiding citizens simple cannot be trusted with guns and only the state should be given that power - when the latter is the result of a majority of law abiding citizens.


Banners want guns to become outlawed - yet refuse to acknowledge that by doing so support that only criminals will have guns.
I thought this discussion was settled here. Good post

[Laconian]

How should they be tougher? (I'm not trying to flame; I'd like your take on it) The firearms industry is pretty heavily regulated and sales (at the Federal level) are monitored/regulated pretty well. Some states are more restrictive on purchases than others.

I do not agree with compulsory registration of firearms. The government has no more right to know what firearms I own than they do what power tools I own.

[shocker1]

What we are witnessing today is a symptom of society. When I was in High School there were no police at the game save one off duty fella. Who btw carried no gun but a baton. Last game I went to there were at least 20 police officers and they were all armed. The guns are the same, it is the people and the kids we are raising. It is obvious really. I was in High School in the late 80's early 90's. Big change in a small amount of time.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Minny, a question about something I have noticed in the Gun ownership discussion why are the most adamant prohibitionist Australians, and this is a USA issue?

It's the nature of the internet I guess. As for the Australian thing. Australia has always had relatively strict laws on firearms.

I've got nothing against gun ownership. I actually support it and it is something that should be encouraged. I'm just in favor of it being regulated especially the manufacturing, registration and sale process. And a bit on the type of firearms that can be stored at home.

Hell I'd support someone wishing to own a those Gatling guns you see on choppers. Provided it was kept at a government owned storage facility but it could be taken wherever the guy who owns it wants to use it.

[shocker1]

Hell I'd support someone wishing to own a those Gatling guns you see on choppers. Provided it was kept at a government owned storage facility but it could be taken wherever the guy who owns it wants to use it.
I have three Napoleons up the street. They have been silent for over 200 years. I have looked at them they would fire with some supplies.

[gaijinsamurai]

One thing I want to say about Minardiau-he's the only gun control-advocating socialist on MP.net who doesn't turn discussions into flame wars. I respect that.

A TOAST TO YOU, MY DEAR SIR!!!!

[Laworkerbee]

One thing I want to say about Minardiau-he's the only gun control-advocating socialist on MP.net who doesn't turn discussions into flame wars. I respect that.

A TOAST TO YOU, MY DEAR SIR!!!!

X2

I would like to see stricter penalties for straw man purchases.

[Zoomie]

I've only policed on the East Coast. Most cops I know are either pro-gun or ambivalent. I only knew of one cop that was anti-gun; he was also the only cop I knew that was a liberal democrat. I know the IACP and FOP heads often back lame anti-gun laws, but rank & file guys part with management on that score.
The only East Coast cop I've known who's anti-gun is Miami's Police Chief Timoney, and I believe that's primarily because he needed a scapegoat for the rising crime rates.

[gaijinsamurai]

Same thing where I work, in parole & probation. We see the evidence of gun-related crimes all the time, but realize that making more laws to restrict legitimate firearms ownership will not solve anything, and only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to have the means to defend themselves.

[Calanen]

Minny, a question about something I have noticed in the Gun ownership discussion why are the most adamant prohibitionist Australians, and this is a USA issue?

Culture. We have a bit of a Euroliberal view of things mostly. The Chardonnay socialists who know just how the poor feel etc, but who would think nothing of dropping a grand on dinner. Very PC here, and normally at drinks or whatever, people tend to say that they hate America (without ever having been there), that guns are baddy bad bad, the usual liberal lefty line.

I don't hold any of those views, but I am in the minority sadly. Very left wing media here, both press and television, including the government station. People tend to parrot whatever the left wing media says. When you ask them 'why?', these views are presented as self-evident truths, not anything that could be open to discussion.

A lot of places in Australia are reasonably safe. Those people who are anti-gun, have never had the risk of confronting someone in their homes. They've never been hit hard, they've never fought someone in a street fight, or been held up. They go to their cushy civil service job, drink cocktails at a swank bar and say how guns are so frightful and unnecessary.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Culture. We have a bit of a Euroliberal view of things mostly. The Chardonnay socialists who know just how the poor feel etc,

They go to their cushy civil service job, drink cocktails at a swank bar

And this is a problem?

p-)

[Hollis]

And this is a problem?

p-)


Well, ever heard of petti Bourgeoisie?

I think it boils down to self determinist and protectionists.

Self determinist want complete control over their lives

protectionist, believe people are not capable of managing their lives completely, therefore needs someone to look over their lives.

[Zoomie]

Wow. . .can you guys believe how quiet it's gotten since Lider got suspended?

[gaijinsamurai]

Yeah, the discussions are actually civil for a change, and this thread has yet to be locked. I hope it stays that way.

[Hollis]

Yeah, the discussions are actually civil for a change, and this thread has yet to be locked. I hope it stays that way.


With the two who were masters at baiting people, heck yeah, It is now a enjoyable topic. So we disagree. :hug:

I think if we can past the them Vs us mentality, we just might figure out better solutions that work for all of us.

In my mind the issue is violence not how it manifests itself. We can ban all weapons, would be weapon, get to a point we have nothing and violence will still destroy lives.

I would add the energy spent on defending or ending gun ownership could be much better spent looking for solutions to violence. That is the tragedy of all of this.

[gaijinsamurai]

Well said, Hollis.

[LRPV]

The only comment I would make here is that banning firearms effectively bans only the licencing or permits for them. The criminal element will not be effected.

[marius]

...
I would add the energy spent on defending or ending gun ownership could be much better spent looking for solutions to violence. That is the tragedy of all of this.

Hear!

One way could be to make the parties promoting acts of terror responsible. Youtube and the press have been very active idolizing the murderers haunting educational facilities. It seems a trend to wanna-be gunmen to proclaim their coming loser martyr hood on the internet. The videos are later glorified by more losers mistaking the interest from the press with that of stardom.

I would like to see the media put some interest in the victims and show of respect to the people who gave their life to save others, rather than the repeated media obsession with the deranged actions of the murderer.

[dedbunniez]

The Omaho shootings were carried out by a guy who wanted to be glorified. What did the media do? Glorify who he was. His face was plastered all over the news for a few days. Media outlets should not show any of the shooter, that way there is no message. Show the reports of the shooting and focus on the innocent victims, and honoring them.

I just want to see the media to quit putting these mass murderers into the national spotlight.