Guns...who loves them?

[SorianoFanHFW]

In addition, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and has never been incorporated via the 14th amendment so any body who says a state or city cant pass a gun law because of the 2nd amendment has no clue.

Time for a little history lesson for you:

Amendment II

 

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 validates both militias and personal gun ownership. It is rather simple. Quite simply, whenever "the people" is used throughout the constitution, like the 10th amendment, it means EVERYONE. That means everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Amendment XIV

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yes, the second amendment is protected by the 14th amendment, because it is a guarenteed right.

 

The second biggest misconception is that conceal and carry laws reduce crime. The study you refer to was done by John Lott who has lost all credibility in the academic circles. His study miscontrues numbers and doesnt properly take numerous variable into account. Why would he do this? Because his name has gotten so popular within gun rights circles and he has so much publicity now. There has been no validation of his studies.

 

Hmm, if that is true, then let's make concealed weapons illegal.

 

They argue that every man, women and child should own a gun despite strong evidencnce that you are much more likely to have an accident with a gun and kill your own family member either accidently or intentionally than stopping a criminal.

Without scrutinizing your overtly manipulative language, the 40:1 study you are refering to was a hunk of crap. For example "killing a family member" allowed them to count suicides into the statistic, because after all, you are an member of your own family.

 

There is a huge sensibility gap. Keep your damn guns if you want. But dont tell the city they cant keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Dont tell states that they should make sure 16 yr olds dont get guns at gunshows.

 

You know for the last 10 years or so, school shootings and such are down? The damn media just blows things out of proportion. Because of a couple of dumb people, the whole country should not have to pay.

 

NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE EVERYONE'S GUN AWAY.

Hmmm, registration laws in Greece, Ireland, Bamuda, and Jamaica took guns away from their owners. I think in 1976 Washington DC was planning on passing a law that confiscated all registered hand guns and shot guns...so yes, people have tried, people have succeeded, and the possibility is always there.

 

People need to realize that the government isnt trying to do that.

Read my above.

 

Its funny that bowling for columbine is characterized as propaganda by someone who implies his views are the government is going to take over our lives.

Dude, I read all of Michael Moore's books, watched all his movies, and have the entire second season of "The Awful Truth." I'm pretty fluent in his humor, agendas, truths, and mistruths. My Mom does work for Michael Moore as well. I KNOW Bowling For Columbine was propaganda because SO MUCH OF IT WAS LIES!!! The movie was entertaining, but did you even read the links I offered you?

 

And I'm not implying the government is going to take over our lives, it already has. We are fully dependent on our government. Good or bad, I'm not passing judgement...but this is a fact. Look at where your paycheck is going, you can't think that isn't funding anything, do you?

 

Through a thorough study of history, authoritarian governments have outlawed personal gun ownership as a means of dominating the people. Throughout history guns have been confiscated from the people. Throughout history personal gun ownership has helped take down oppressive governments.

 

I'm not going to sit here and listen people justify illegalizing hand guns. The criminals will always have their guns, illegalizing them only takes them out of the hands of the people.

 

 

 

WISE UP...this is directly from bowling for columbine:

 

Moore goes around America and we have all these guns and we are killing each other.

 

He goes to Canada and glorifies all their social programs and lack of crime, but GUESS WHAT...THEY HAVE A LOT OF GUNS! That's right, Canada has personal gun ownership as well...so what point is Moore making? America has a lot of guns and crime and canada has a lot of guns and NO CRIME. HENCE, GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!!

 

How thick-headed are the liberals who do not get this? It is like talking to some conservative dinosaur about Reagan.

 

Just in case you didn't get the point of Moore's film, the point is that GUNS are not the problem, it is America's cut throat capitalistic system and media that put us on edge to kill each other and perpetuate a cycle of racism. That was the point Moore was trying to make, GUNS ARE IRRELEVANT. Damn, I shouldn't have to spell these things out for people.

 

Switzerland, which is armed to it's teeth with (you guess it) guns, has a lower murder rate than Great Britain (where guns are illegal) by 14%.

 

Explain that then.

[Flamarlins3]

In addition, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and has never been incorporated via the 14th amendment so any body who says a state or city cant pass a gun law because of the 2nd amendment has no clue.

 

Time for a little history lesson for you:

Amendment II

 

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 validates both militias and personal gun ownership. It is rather simple. Quite simply, whenever "the people" is used throughout the constitution, like the 10th amendment, it means EVERYONE. That means everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Amendment XIV

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yes, the second amendment is protected by the 14th amendment, because it is a guarenteed right.

 

The second biggest misconception is that conceal and carry laws reduce crime. The study you refer to was done by John Lott who has lost all credibility in the academic circles. His study miscontrues numbers and doesnt properly take numerous variable into account. Why would he do this? Because his name has gotten so popular within gun rights circles and he has so much publicity now. There has been no validation of his studies.

 

Hmm, if that is true, then let's make concealed weapons illegal.

 

They argue that every man, women and child should own a gun despite strong evidencnce that you are much more likely to have an accident with a gun and kill your own family member either accidently or intentionally than stopping a criminal.

Without scrutinizing your overtly manipulative language, the 40:1 study you are refering to was a hunk of crap. For example "killing a family member" allowed them to count suicides into the statistic, because after all, you are an member of your own family.

 

There is a huge sensibility gap. Keep your damn guns if you want. But dont tell the city they cant keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Dont tell states that they should make sure 16 yr olds dont get guns at gunshows.

 

You know for the last 10 years or so, school shootings and such are down? The damn media just blows things out of proportion. Because of a couple of dumb people, the whole country should not have to pay.

 

NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE EVERYONE'S GUN AWAY.

Hmmm, registration laws in Greece, Ireland, Bamuda, and Jamaica took guns away from their owners. I think in 1976 Washington DC was planning on passing a law that confiscated all registered hand guns and shot guns...so yes, people have tried, people have succeeded, and the possibility is always there.

 

People need to realize that the government isnt trying to do that.

Read my above.

 

Its funny that bowling for columbine is characterized as propaganda by someone who implies his views are the government is going to take over our lives.

Dude, I read all of Michael Moore's books, watched all his movies, and have the entire second season of "The Awful Truth." I'm pretty fluent in his humor, agendas, truths, and mistruths. My Mom does work for Michael Moore as well. I KNOW Bowling For Columbine was propaganda because SO MUCH OF IT WAS LIES!!! The movie was entertaining, but did you even read the links I offered you?

 

And I'm not implying the government is going to take over our lives, it already has. We are fully dependent on our government. Good or bad, I'm not passing judgement...but this is a fact. Look at where your paycheck is going, you can't think that isn't funding anything, do you?

 

Through a thorough study of history, authoritarian governments have outlawed personal gun ownership as a means of dominating the people. Throughout history guns have been confiscated from the people. Throughout history personal gun ownership has helped take down oppressive governments.

 

I'm not going to sit here and listen people justify illegalizing hand guns. The criminals will always have their guns, illegalizing them only takes them out of the hands of the people.

 

 

 

WISE UP...this is directly from bowling for columbine:

 

Moore goes around America and we have all these guns and we are killing each other.

 

He goes to Canada and glorifies all their social programs and lack of crime, but GUESS WHAT...THEY HAVE A LOT OF GUNS! That's right, Canada has personal gun ownership as well...so what point is Moore making? America has a lot of guns and crime and canada has a lot of guns and NO CRIME. HENCE, GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!!

 

How thick-headed are the liberals who do not get this? It is like talking to some conservative dinosaur about Reagan.

 

Just in case you didn't get the point of Moore's film, the point is that GUNS are not the problem, it is America's cut throat capitalistic system and media that put us on edge to kill each other and perpetuate a cycle of racism. That was the point Moore was trying to make, GUNS ARE IRRELEVANT. Damn, I shouldn't have to spell these things out for people.

 

Switzerland, which is armed to it's teeth with (you guess it) guns, has a lower murder rate than Great Britain (where guns are illegal) by 14%.

 

Explain that then.Well said...I am personally not a big fan of Moore by the way he goes at his documentaries and that show the Awful Truth, but some of the things he says is true. The thing is the crime rate has decreased over the past 30 years, but the media coverage of the crime has gone up 600%. It makes us believe to be afraid to go out late at night in a certain part of town. Odds are nothing will happen to you unless you go looking for trouble. Crime is a huge problem in the United States, but it isn't the guns. It's the peoples' minds that they see these crimes everyday and think they can do the same if someone makes them angry. Honestly I think a lot of it starts with the mind and what has been planted into peoples thoughts through family values, studies, or just things witnessed over the years.

[SorianoFanHFW]

The thing is the crime rate has decreased over the past 30 years, but the media coverage of the crime has gone up 600%. It makes us believe to be afraid to go out late at night in a certain part of town. Odds are nothing will happen to you unless you go looking for trouble. Crime is a huge problem in the United States, but it isn't the guns. It's the peoples' minds that they see these crimes everyday and think they can do the same if someone makes them angry. Honestly I think a lot of it starts with the mind and what has been planted into peoples thoughts through family values, studies, or just things witnessed over the years.

 

I totally agree with you there. I also agree with Moore's point concerning the media...but what he said wasn't particularly enlightening...most educated people should notice that the media blows everything out of proportion in order to get us on edge. Sadly, Moore did exactly what he scrutinized the media for doing.

 

I personally think crime is a socieoeconomic factor in this country. "Americans" aren't genetically inclined to kill people, yet we kill each other no matter the means.

 

I do think a violent history plays a role. The media does as well. Furthermore, we have a mentality for blaming everyone else for our problems and taking things out on others. Couple that with wide social and economic differences (America has a far larger lower class and immigrant population than the countries moore chooses to compare to, including Canada) and you get the makings of a blood bath...sort of.

 

 

Concerning "being afraid to go out at night" I admit I'm a bit brainwashed. There's this pace two or three blocks outside of yankee stadium with a dozen pieces of fried chicken for $2.99. I really want to go (for the chicken), but being a scrawny white guy at this moment with my elbow problem, I don't quite feel so confident...

[Flying_Mollusk]

Time for a little history lesson for you: It validates both militias and personal gun ownership. It is rather simple. Quite simply, whenever "the people" is used throughout the constitution, like the 10th amendment, it means EVERYONE. That means everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Im getting a better picture of youre thought process SF. You conveniently didnt address the thrust of my point which was that the SUPREME COURT has never expreslley stated what you assert. Its not the interpretation according to Sorianofan that count with all authority. But Im pretty sure you think it is.

 

Please please show me where the Supreme Court has explicitley stated the right of the people to bear arms? Theyve had ample opportunity to do so. Dont you think that if the NRA could invalidate Federal laws that regulate gun ownership like Brady and regulation of certain types of weapons, they would? Of course. But they cant because they know the court has allowed Congress to regulate the use of certain weapons which cannot be shown to effectuate a use for a MILITIA. If there is a fundemental right for an individual to bear arms then why would it matter if it was linked to use for militia. For example in US v Miller the court upholds the conviction of someone who posseses a shotoff shotgun in violation of federal law:

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

 

Next point:

 

Yes, the second amendment is protected by the 14th amendment, because it is a guarenteed right.

 

Have you read much constitutional history or interpretation? Yoi obviously didnt read the 14th amendment well. It states that no STATE shall pass a law which violates a persons due process of law. Once again the interpretation does not fall within the highest authority that is Sorianofan. A state cannot deprive someone of life liberty etc without due process of law. What is due process? The SC has interepreted it as that which is fundemental to a persons due process. The court has only selectivley incorporated amendments and initially refused to do so at all. Has it done it for the 2nd amendment? No. You saying it is a guarenteed right does not make it so via the 14th amendment. You need to back that claim up. Of course you cant because the Supreme Court has never dont it. Once again, why wouldnt the NRA attack every regulation on guns that come via the states basd on the 14th? Because there is no foundation to do so!

 

Hmm, if that is true, then let's make concealed weapons illegal.

 

NRA fighting hard as hell against it. Its the same gun toting mentality. I should be able to defend myself anywhere and anytime against any threat that I percieve. There are conceal and carry laws all over this country.

 

Without scrutinizing your overtly manipulative language, the 40:1 study you are refering to was a hunk of crap. For example "killing a family member" allowed them to count suicides into the statistic, because after all, you are an member of your own family.

 

1)40:1 doesnt exactly become that much less drastic even if you take suicides out since they dont make up a drastic number of gun related fatalities.

 

2)Why shouldnt suicides be included? The basic thrust of the study is that that item which you bring into your home is more likely to adversley affect you than positivley defend you. Guns are the most effecient method of suicide and Im sure in some small percentage contribute to the ease of making that rash choice.

 

 

Hmmm, registration laws in Greece, Ireland, Bamuda, and Jamaica took guns away from their owners. I think in 1976 Washington DC was planning on passing a law that confiscated all registered hand guns and shot guns...so yes, people have tried, people have succeeded, and the possibility is always there.

 

You miss my point. The thrust is over this unfounded fear that nobody will be allowed to own guns. Thats just silly. Its killing sensibility in guns laws. Why dont you address the background check system? Why cant we make sure a wacko who we know is going to kill in mass numbers is prevented from so easily getting a gun?

 

 

 

Im not going to even get into it with you about your libertarian views. There is a reason libertarians are the intellectual minority. If we cant balance sensible governments structure with idealistic theory and its all going to hell views..whats the point.

[Dodge]

I will not live in a house without a shotgun, a rifle, and a four wheel drive.

"Country Boy Can Survive" - Hank Jr.

 

 

Amen to that, DodgeMarlin Heck yeah. I knew someone would recognize it. Ain't it the truth!

 

Country folks can survive!!! :cool

[g8trz2003]

dodgemarlin....you the man...hank jr. fan...sterling marlin fan...and a florida marlin fan. Awesome.

[Dodge]

:thumbup Sterling's the champ!

 

You da man too. Cause you got a Ram and I'm still working on it. It's a possibility within the next month. :cool

[Flying_Mollusk]

Ill clarify everything Ive said with that statement that the majority of gun owners are sensible people. Guns have their place in our society. Thats fine. Nobody wants to end that. But the NRA leadership(not its general members) is crazy. Just plain crazy.

[g8trz2003]

:thumbup Sterling's the champ!

 

You da man too. Cause you got a Ram and I'm still working on it. It's a possibility within the next month. :cool

if only my ram was 4X4. Whenever I wanna go offroading though, I take the jeep wrangler. That thing is so fun.

 

Getting on track with the topic, my bro and I take the jeep way out by Lake Washington (where cops cant get out there, and it's safe--no people around) and shoot things with our guns. We recently got a new 12 gauge, and it's been fun playin around with it.

[g8trz2003]

damn, I agree with SF, but definitely respect where F_M comes from. He knows his sh*t

[Dodge]

You have a Jeep too?

 

I love Jeeps! I borrow my sisters and go mudding... ain't nothin like it!!! Now, there also ain't nothin like a P.O'd sis. :lol

[Flying_Mollusk]

Pride of Brevard county :thumbup

[g8trz2003]

you know it! F_M, you familiar with Sarno Extension or Sarno Flats? If you know where the Humane Society is in Melbourne, it's out past there like you're heading towards Lake Washington (past the interstate)....so much fun.

[Flying_Mollusk]

I know the area but not that stuff. What goes on out therE?

[g8trz2003]

we just go muddin, sometimes a bonfire....sometimes frog giggin, you can do some fishin...i mean, some people even go way out there and duck hunt (not exactly safest thing to do, or smartest).

 

I like to go out there with a bunch of friends and just tool around out there in our 4X4s. If ya get stuck, there are like 3 or 4 other vehicles that can pull you out.

 

Amazingly though, you see hot girls out there in bikinis on 4 wheelers...apparently the beach just isnt their style.

[Flying_Mollusk]

...hot girls...Im there.

 

 

My roommate is a hunter. He has some pheasant(sp?) Im waiting for him to cook up.

[g8trz2003]

ive never eaten pheasant. I've never actually hunted bird....I am this fall though.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Ill stick with fishing..

 

Gotta get back to the books though. Get back to posting on ESPN! :thumbup

[g8trz2003]

damn, i need to!

[SorianoFanHFW]

Please please show me where the Supreme Court has explicitley stated the right of the people to bear arms? Theyve had ample opportunity to do so. Dont you think that if the NRA could invalidate Federal laws that regulate gun ownership like Brady and regulation of certain types of weapons, they would? Of course. But they cant because they know the court has allowed Congress to regulate the use of certain weapons which cannot be shown to effectuate a use for a MILITIA. If there is a fundemental right for an individual to bear arms then why would it matter if it was linked to use for militia. For example in US v Miller the court upholds the conviction of someone who posseses a shotoff shotgun in violation of federal law:

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

How does this prove the government has the right to take away hand guns? Or guns in particular? Of course through intepretation of the constitution you are never going to get any clear stance on to what extent is a person pesonally protected by any amendment. So of course it is a matter of interpretation, like how you choose to believe it only applies to a militia...that's your personal belief. You can't just give me what a supreme court ruling decreed recently, because for practically 100 years the 14th amendment did nothing more than bust Unions, so yes personal interpretation plays a role.

 

1)40:1 doesnt exactly become that much less drastic even if you take suicides out since they dont make up a drastic number of gun related fatalities.

There are other things which I cannot remember at this moment, it stuck out at me like a sore thumb. I'm on a crappy computer right now, so I can get back to you on that. Most people are not so inept that they kill 40 times the people that aren't criminals in their own house when it comes to sel defense. All I can tell you know is that statistic is totally crap, so do a google search for yourself or wait a bit and I'll bring up some numbers.

 

2)Why shouldnt suicides be included? The basic thrust of the study is that that item which you bring into your home is more likely to adversley affect you than positivley defend you. Guns are the most effecient method of suicide and Im sure in some small percentage contribute to the ease of making that rash choice.

The obvious implication from the study is that you are more likely to just kill a family member by mistake. In my honest opinion, it is dishonest to add this other variable. This gets into a whole other moral issue, which is one's right to end their own life. The instrument to this end is secondary when discussing this subject.

 

You miss my point. The thrust is over this unfounded fear that nobody will be allowed to own guns. Thats just silly. Its killing sensibility in guns laws. Why dont you address the background check system? Why cant we make sure a wacko who we know is going to kill in mass numbers is prevented from so easily getting a gun?

You see, here's the trade off:

-Make it possible for the government to take our guns. Furthermore, make it more difficult and hassling for the average citizen to get guns...

-Sure some stupid "wackos" don't get their guns, but illegal weapons are so readily available, such laws do not prevent such "wackos." Most gun nuts I know that have them legally talk about "how fast I can go to the city and get an illegal gun."

 

So if such laws only hurt the law abiding citizen, what's the point?

 

Im not going to even get into it with you about your libertarian views. There is a reason libertarians are the intellectual minority. If we cant balance sensible governments structure with idealistic theory and its all going to hell views..whats the point.

 

Wait...so that's your argument? Let's totally avoid the fact you failed to prove the usefulness of such laws that inhibit gun ownership (examples like switzerland and canada) and that's your comeback? Rather laughable if you think about it.

 

All you proved was that guns kill people: I already know that. Now to gun control laws work? No. Does the amount of guns in society the cause of more or less crime? No. The point? If the previous is true, you are wrong...I don't care if you are a communist, libertarian, republican, democrat, or ect. You are avoiding the issue at hand. You cannot prove that guns are to blame so the only thing you are advocating is limiting our rights...that's just stupid.

[SorianoFanHFW]

John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research:

85 percent of firearms used by criminals don't come from retail stores; they come from friends and family, as well as the black market and through drug deals or trades.

 

Registering guns will do nothing to prevent crimes.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20010830d.html

 

Gun confiscations have occurred in England, Australia, New York and Caliornia.

 

The Kellerman study, which came up with the 43:1 statistic (derived from King County Washington 1978 to 1983) looks like this:

 

Type of Death No.

Unintentional deaths 12

Criminal homicide 41

Suicide 333

Unknown 3

 

Total 389

Self-protection homicide 9

 

Ratio 43 to 1

 

Now what about violent deaths not concerning a firearm in a household:

Type of Death No.

Unintentional deaths 0

Criminal homicide1 50

Suicide 347

Unknown 0

 

Total 397

Self-protection homicide 4

 

99 to 1

 

So using the same methodolgy to denounce gun ownership actually shows that you are more likely to violently die without a gun. Pretty much, the study is stupid. So what's the point? Most people kill "a family member" via suicide and for a total of THREE more deaths in a house with a gun that aren't self defense or suicide? Such a tiny difference means that you cannot use such an argument against gun ownership...it is just stupid.

 

For more (which you probably won't read like the Moore links): http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

[Flying_Mollusk]

Ok, clearly there is miscommuncation here. Youre not getting what I orignally said. My reference to the 2nd amendment and the Constitution is that it is a misconception to say that the 2nd amendment guarantees that each and every individual has the right to bear arms and the government cannot pass ANY laws encroaching on this right. You see if the 2nd amendment did implicate such a thing, then NO GUN LAWS would be allowed. The federal governmnt could in no way encroach on the right to bear an arm. But if the second amendment did not implicate such a thing, then the federal government WOULD BE ALLOWED to pass laws that regulate individual laws to bear arms. Now this is no argument that they should. It would simply mean that they can. Its the same way THEY CAN pass a law that says you are not allowed to do drugs because the bill of rights doesnt say that they are not allowed to pass a law that regulates our right to use drugs.

 

Now the issue is a question of textual interpretation. You cant simply read the Constitution and say hey, see what it says? Thats what it means! Neither conservatives(Scalia) nor liberals(Marshall) have ever stated such a position. We in our modern times can look at the Constitution and vary widely in our opinion in what it states. But who gets to decide? The Supreme Court. It doesnt matter what our wacko opinion is. Because what the federal government is ALLOWED TO DO and what it is NOT ALLOWED TO DO arises from what the SC tells them they can and cannot do. (They pass a law that says murder is illegal, SC says hey, youre allowed to do that! Why? Bill of rights and C doesnt forbid you from doing so.)

 

Look at it this way: The 1st amendment has been interepreted to protect our right to free speech which says the federal government CANNOT encroach on what you say. The federal government has passed laws that the SC has struck down(no matter what the reason) because it violates this fundemental right. Now is this absolute? No, the Supreme Court has stated that you dont have the right to yell fire in a theatre. The state can somewhat regulate your fundemental right to free speech. But this is a very very narrow view.

 

Now by your rational, you can claim that you do have the right to yell fire in a theatre. Why? Because the Constitution gives us the right to free speech. But that is your interpretation. Does have any validity? No, because the Supreme Court, being the ultimate authority on the Constitution, says that such a right cannot be inferred from the right to free speech and that your claim that the federal government cannot pass a law telling you that you are NOT allowed to scream fire in a theatre is wrong. You can think you are right all you want but it wont matter one bit. Its the SC that decides. Thats the way its been for 200+ years and frankly thats the way I like it.

 

In this same line of thinking, the SC has never stated that you have a fundemental right to bear arms. In doing so they have implicitley said that the federal government can regulate people's right to bear arms. So it is incorrect to assert this right to bear a shot off shotgun because that would be as incorrect as claiming you have the right to scream fire in a theatre. Both of these are things which the SC has basically said the federal government CAN regulate and in doing so it has ALLOWED the federal goverment discretion.

 

 

Now does this mean that the federal goverment should just because it is allowed? Now thats a totally different issue! Thats what my original point was. The NRA and others point to the 2nd amendment in stating that it gives them a right to bear arms but they do so erroneously. I mean there is a reason the federal government has been able to pass these laws...because they are allowed to do so!

 

 

My whole point in regards to that study was the silly view that the NRA perputuates that if everyone owned a gun, we would be a safe society. It goes against our basic rationality.

 

You see, here's the trade off:

-Make it possible for the government to take our guns. Furthermore, make it more difficult and hassling for the average citizen to get guns...

-Sure some stupid "wackos" don't get their guns, but illegal weapons are so readily available, such laws do not prevent such "wackos." Most gun nuts I know that have them legally talk about "how fast I can go to the city and get an illegal gun."

 

So if such laws only hurt the law abiding citizen, what's the point?

 

 

Wait...so that's your argument? Let's totally avoid the fact you failed to prove the usefulness of such laws that inhibit gun ownership (examples like switzerland and canada) and that's your comeback? Rather laughable if you think about it.

 

All you proved was that guns kill people: I already know that. Now to gun control laws work? No. Does the amount of guns in society the cause of more or less crime? No. The point? If the previous is true, you are wrong...I don't care if you are a communist, libertarian, republican, democrat, or ect. You are avoiding the issue at hand. You cannot prove that guns are to blame so the only thing you are advocating is limiting our rights...that's just stupid.

 

 

You see this is what I mean. There is no point in stating things to you because youve already made up your mind and when specific issues are brought up, you off handedly throw them off and the revert to your broad blanket statements to hide behind.

 

You barely even address my point of a specific interest and a specifc law. This law is more the substance of gun control debates and not mass gun registration or confiscation as you think it is. How does it make it possible for government to take our guns? How is this such a hassle? It isnt some minor benefit with a large burden but youve construed it to yourself as such and hence it becomes so. Then you demand that I address your blanket view that I havent even said was wrong. I never stated that guns should be banned but you equate all regulations to this antiquated notion a government that acts in a minor gun security fashion takes your guns away hence is automatically a tyranny. Thats that libertarian viewpoint that doesnt deals with the practical matter at hand.

 

 

I feel like the consistent pattern with you is that everything has to lead back to your blanket assertions. I make my points about the NRA and rational laws being stifled and you try and pull it towards getting rid of guns in society and hence becoming like other countries and becoming a tyranny. You drive EVERYTHING into your axiomatic views. Does guns in society lower crime? Its not so simple! We live in such a complex gun estbalished society that there is no argument that we should take peoples guns away. I never said that. But that doesnt mean we cant affectuate crime control with gun purchase regulation. These are two clear and distinct notions.

 

Its like I could say the NRA is silly for saying a recently escaped mental patient with a history of violence should have a gun and you would response by saying yeah well gun control laws dont lower crime and lead to tyranny in other countries.

 

Its like Mr. Mackey from South Park...drugs are bad..ok. They are all taking your guns away!!

[SorianoFanHFW]

Ok, clearly there is miscommuncation here. Youre not getting what I orignally said. My reference to the 2nd amendment and the Constitution is that it is a misconception to say that the 2nd amendment guarantees that each and every individual has the right to bear arms and the government cannot pass ANY laws encroaching on this right. You see if the 2nd amendment did implicate such a thing, then NO GUN LAWS would be allowed. The federal governmnt could in no way encroach on the right to bear an arm. But if the second amendment did not implicate such a thing, then the federal government WOULD BE ALLOWED to pass laws that regulate individual laws to bear arms. Now this is no argument that they should. It would simply mean that they can. Its the same way THEY CAN pass a law that says you are not allowed to do drugs because the bill of rights doesnt say that they are not allowed to pass a law that regulates our right to use drugs.

I never said gun regulations are unconstitutional, especially because as of now the going intepretations of the constitution give the federal government a lot of leeway in limiting rights (good or bad, no matter).

However, the right to bear arms is obviously protected by the constitution, so when laws are made to ban hand guns and shot guns (guns that have been around for years and perfectly legal), conflict WILL insue.

I find it rather simple that the constitution originally dictated that men can always hold firearms. Most probably, it also implied that men can have any fire arm available on the market, because the very best rifles then were openly available to the people. The forefathers might of not considered the advent of assault weapons, but I am sure they did not intend on the government having the ability to carry superior hand weapons and preventing the people from doing so.

 

The Supreme Court. It doesnt matter what our wacko opinion is. Because what the federal government is ALLOWED TO DO and what it is NOT ALLOWED TO DO arises from what the SC tells them they can and cannot do. (They pass a law that says murder is illegal, SC says hey, youre allowed to do that! Why? Bill of rights and C doesnt forbid you from doing so.)

I'm not going to debate with you at this point, because it is the supreme court that makes the decision. However, we all know that going with the current interpretation does not amount to a hill of beans in the long run, because interpretations change.

 

What many gun advocates fear is the precedent set by gun control advocates. Before you know it, the SC will allow mass gun confiscations, I can certainly fathom that happening 30 years from now. Because the SC can make such decisions and pretty much disregard amendments (like the 14th and 15th for so long), it is necessary to not set the precedents that lead to this. However, most gun control advocates like Moore do have an alternate agenda in mind: do not only make it as hard as possible to get a gun, get it to the point where guns can be made illegal...I don't care what society thinks 30 years from now and how the SC then interprets the constitution. I know the 15th amendment was meant to enfranchise black people. I know the 2nd amendment was meant to give the people the right to bear arms. It is rather simple.

 

Look at it this way: The 1st amendment has been interepreted to protect our right to free speech which says the federal government CANNOT encroach on what you say. The federal government has passed laws that the SC has struck down(no matter what the reason) because it violates this fundemental right. Now is this absolute? No, the Supreme Court has stated that you dont have the right to yell fire in a theatre. The state can somewhat regulate your fundemental right to free speech. But this is a very very narrow view.

The "Clear and Present Danger" ruling was made jsut after world war one I believe. Let me put it this way: our rights to free speech were never so violated then by Woodrow Wilson. I hope I never live to see that day.

 

I'm not going to debate with you interpretations of the 1st amendment. I fully understand that how much rights we have is the result of what society demands during a certain generation. That's why people pro-guns do not want to set a precedent legally against it and therefore lobby against gun control.

 

The NRA and others point to the 2nd amendment in stating that it gives them a right to bear arms but they do so erroneously. I mean there is a reason the federal government has been able to pass these laws...because they are allowed to do so!

Yes, just like the civil rights movement pointed to the 14th and 15th amendments. News flash, people can rally and lobb for whatever they wish. Some people's complaints are within constitutional grounds.

 

My whole point in regards to that study was the silly view that the NRA perputuates that if everyone owned a gun, we would be a safe society. It goes against our basic rationality.

That study was made by a liberal FOR gun control. His methodology sucked. Admit it.

 

You see this is what I mean. There is no point in stating things to you because youve already made up your mind and when specific issues are brought up, you off handedly throw them off and the revert to your broad blanket statements to hide behind.

No, you are obviously hiding. When "statistics" show you are more likely not to commit suicide with a gun, you just blame the NRA, even though they are not behind the study.

 

When I bring up the fact that switzerland has a lower murder rate than great britain (lots of guvs vs no guns) you SAY NOTHING. When I bring up the point that 85% of the crimes committed with weapons are illegally handled, YOU SAY NOTHING.

 

Who's hiding behind broad blanket statements now?

 

My point is that gun control helps no one, it just inhibits individual rights. You have (and cannot) prove otherwise.

 

You barely even address my point of a specific interest and a specifc law. This law is more the substance of gun control debates and not mass gun registration or confiscation as you think it is. How does it make it possible for government to take our guns? How is this such a hassle?

Again, you blatantly ignore facts already presented to you. Gun confiscations have already happened at local and state levels. It has happened at national levels in countries abroad. So yes, mass gun confiscation is a major possibility.

 

Am I saying it is going to happen tommorrow? No. But Will it happen someday? America is a western nation, we would just be following the crowd.

 

It isnt some minor benefit with a large burden but youve construed it to yourself as such and hence it becomes so. Then you demand that I address your blanket view that I havent even said was wrong. I never stated that guns should be banned but you equate all regulations to this antiquated notion a government that acts in a minor gun security fashion takes your guns away hence is automatically a tyranny. Thats that libertarian viewpoint that doesnt deals with the practical matter at hand.

 

I at least proved that there is some possibility that my viewpoint is valid. YOU HAVE PRESENTED NOTHING.

 

Gun controls DO NOT WORK in limiting criminals, murder, or crime. These are facts. However, they do inhibit a right: gun ownership. It is rather simple.

 

 

Does guns in society lower crime? Its not so simple! We live in such a complex gun estbalished society that there is no argument that we should take peoples guns away. I never said that. But that doesnt mean we cant affectuate crime control with gun purchase regulation. These are two clear and distinct notions.

But those regulations and controls have not accomplished anything. They don't work when 85% of gun crimes are with illegal weapons. Sure, you can drive that number close to 100%, but I wouldn't say that is an admirable "goal."

 

Mine and many others is that GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK. This is a fact. Now, another fact is that by limiting the ownership of guns, the right to gun ownership is inhibited. For example to register a gun is 500 bucks in some states. How would you like if you had to pay 500 bucks to register to vote?

 

So to the extent gun control laws inhibit rights is debatable. We can debate that all day. But do they inhibit rights? Yes. Do gun control laws detur crime? No. So unless you can prove otherwise, which you did not, I do not see what the debate is about.

[Hotcorner]

Switzerland, which is armed to it's teeth with (you guess it) guns, has a lower murder rate than Great Britain (where guns are illegal) by 14%.

 

Explain that then.

I'd attribute at least some of that to the fact that Swiss males are required to become members of the militia, and therefore are at least trained and presumably somewhat responsible with their weapons...

 

At 20 years old every male is issued an automatic military rifle and required to keep it at home. The country requires three weeks of service every year, diminishing over the years to one week.

 

When a Swiss is no longer required to serve, he may keep his rifle (converted from automatic to semi-automatic) or his pistol (if he served as an officer).

 

It may have saved the Swiss from Nazi invasion. It has been said that the Nazis decided not to try and take Switzerland because with basically every home being armed, it would've been far too costly.

 

I think it's more of a cultural/social issue why the U.S. can't handle their guns responsibly.

[Fish Fillet]

Amen, Mollusk. I think we actually argree on something.

 

The gun-control issue is ridiculous. First off, the right to keep and bear was written over two hundred years ago, when a "militia" helped defeat the British. Does the NRA think that would happen now? Do you think that the fact you own 6 shotguns, 4 pistols and a couple semi-auto rifles keeps the military and gov't in check? Puhleeze.

 

Handguns and the resulting CCW permits issued to those who carry them legally have goten out of hand, as well. In my mind there are very, very few instances where a civilian should be allowed to carry a handgun.

 

I admit, I hunt, and I own two rifles. But I keep them for sport to hunt a couple of times a year, not because I am waiting for the gov't to break down the door, or because I think it's my inaleiable right to do so.