Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Some years back, there was a rash of robberies and car jackings of foreign tourists in Florida. A local reporter interviewed a prisoner who was convicted of several such crimes and asked why the new focus on tourists. The answer was that Florida had recently adopted a much more liberal policy of allowing citizens to carry guns, and the crooks knew that foreign tourists could not be armed.

[/ QUOTE ]
come on now, you don't really think the pro-gun people really care what happens to foreigners?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't see a hint of that idea there. I read it to say that people who are more likely to be armed are less likely to be victims of crime.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
On top of this, unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to states and municipalities, although that might be changing. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you mean by this quote. I assure you that neither the Supreme Court, nor any federal appellate court, has never ruled that states are allowed to pass laws that infringe upon a right protected under the Second Amendment. You may disagree with their interpretation of the scope of the protections afforded under the Second Amendment, but that is an entirely different issue.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
the right to bear arms (or defend oneself) is not granted by the constitution or the government. It is the natural right of man to do so. The Bill of Rights only serves to remind us of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is the right to bear arms a "natural right"? Because Paul Philips says it is?

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that link offers any brilliant revelations, and I'm surprised that that argument can change anyone's mind. If it changed your mind, I guess you just hadn't given it enough thought. So, while I agree with most of it in principle, I do question the effectiveness of an individual's right to bear arms.

When the constitution was written, sure, a well armed populace would have just about been on an even keel with the government in terms of fighting power. But, today, if it ever came to a point where citizens were forced to defend themselves against the governement with weapons,I think firearms would be little more than an impedance. Paul says, "Mass exterminations are not possible against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first." I don't know if I agree with this. I think a more accurate statement might be, "Mass exterminations are much more difficult against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Paul needs to get his head in the twenty first century. An armed populace might have been a significant deterrent to tyranny in 1880, and maybe even in 1935, but not in the modern world.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that link offers any brilliant revelations, and I'm surprised that that argument can change anyone's mind. If it changed your mind, I guess you just hadn't given it enough thought. So, while I agree with most of it in principle, I do question the effectiveness of an individual's right to bear arms.

When the constitution was written, sure, a well armed populace would have just about been on an even keel with the government in terms of fighting power. But, today, if it ever came to a point where citizens were forced to defend themselves against the governement with weapons,I think firearms would be little more than an impedance. Paul says, "Mass exterminations are not possible against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first." I don't know if I agree with this. I think a more accurate statement might be, "Mass exterminations are much more difficult against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Paul needs to get his head in the twenty first century. An armed populace might have been a significant deterrent to tyranny in 1880, and maybe even in 1935, but not in the modern world.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...8931418617.jpg

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]

To me, these are just startling numbers. I've always felt a little uneasy about how easy it is to attain firearms in the U.S. and all "guns don't kill people, people kill people" arguments aside i truly believe most people aren't responsible enough to own one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no basis for assuming people aren't responsible enough to own one. The average law abiding citizens is quite responsible. Exactly what do u mean by "not responsible enough"?

Do you think they are going to go on some sort of shooting spree? IT'S NOT THAT [censored] HARD TO USE A GUN RESPONIBLY. Get over it. FYI, i've stared down the barrel of guns multiple times in my life. I will always carry a gun on me for the rest of my life. And I am quite capable of using it responsibly. When you get robbed at gun point multiple times in your life, you'll change your attidude, guaranfuckingteed.

Just curious, what would u consider irresponble use?

Your fear is so unwarranted. Those that use guns irresponsible can EASILY aquire guns on the black market.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the right to bear arms (or defend oneself) is not granted by the constitution or the government. It is the natural right of man to do so. The Bill of Rights only serves to remind us of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is the right to bear arms a "natural right"? Because Paul Philips says it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural rights are rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. Obviously, this is subject to debate.

The founders of our country assumed that certain rights were a part of human nature, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After writing and adopting the Constitution, they came to the conclusion that certain other rights, which should be obvious to rational people, might better be enumerated. These rights were specifically stated in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The right to bear arms may or may not be a natural right, inherent to being a human, but the founders of our country assumed that it was, and enumerated it in the Bill of Rights.

Re: Guns in America
 

Deleted by cfb1739. That post was valium induced nonsense.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that link offers any brilliant revelations, and I'm surprised that that argument can change anyone's mind. If it changed your mind, I guess you just hadn't given it enough thought. So, while I agree with most of it in principle, I do question the effectiveness of an individual's right to bear arms.

When the constitution was written, sure, a well armed populace would have just about been on an even keel with the government in terms of fighting power. But, today, if it ever came to a point where citizens were forced to defend themselves against the governement with weapons,I think firearms would be little more than an impedance. Paul says, "Mass exterminations are not possible against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first." I don't know if I agree with this. I think a more accurate statement might be, "Mass exterminations are much more difficult against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Paul needs to get his head in the twenty first century. An armed populace might have been a significant deterrent to tyranny in 1880, and maybe even in 1935, but not in the modern world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you understand modern warfare as well as you seem to think you do. See Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet primarily), Iraq, and other examples of how a well armed population can be an absolute bitch to forcibly coerce even in the face of very modern armies.

Funny thing is I had a recent conversation on the subject of the issues a foreign nation would have in trying to occupy the US during a drive through West VA. God, dealing with an underdeveloped and heavily forested space infested with heavily armed and highly experienced marksman? Forget Vietnam, that would be a quagmire. We couldn't see a way to effectively control the region without extreme numbers.

I'm quite curious how many of the respondents are familiar with the American south and the more rural regions of our country because I see a disconnect understanding the stats and the reality of those places.

J

Re: Guns in America
 

While it is true that WMD's have made it possible to kill an armed populace, occupying or controlling them is an entirely different matter. The Grandmaster, who believed in an armed populace said it very well:

"No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." --Robert A. Heinlein

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
While it is true that WMD's have made it possible to kill an armed populace, occupying or controlling them is an entirely different matter. The Grandmaster, who believed in an armed populace said it very well:

"No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." --Robert A. Heinlein

[/ QUOTE ]

"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein

Re: Guns in America
 

What I find strange about US gun laws is that the weapons least likely to be used in a crime, and most likely to be useful in a civil war or w/e, are most likely to be banned. OTOH automatic handguns seem to be handed out in cereal packets. If you reversed that it would seem that you would reduce gun violence and keep the hillbillies somewhat mollified.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I find strange about US gun laws is that the weapons least likely to be used in a crime, and most likely to be useful in a civil war or w/e, are most likely to be banned. OTOH automatic handguns seem to be handed out in cereal packets. If you reversed that it would seem that you would reduce gun violence and keep the hillbillies somewhat mollified.

[/ QUOTE ]

methinks there are many misunderstandings on the term "automatic"

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On top of this, unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to states and municipalities, although that might be changing. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you mean by this quote. I assure you that neither the Supreme Court, nor any federal appellate court, has never ruled that states are allowed to pass laws that infringe upon a right protected under the Second Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong.

The relevant part of that thread was my post a little further down. Basically, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it was assumed to only apply to the federal government. Starting around 1925, the Supreme Court began employing the "incorporation doctrine" by which the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment was interpreted to require the observation of portions of the Bill of Rights by States. This was done in a piecemeal fashion and as of this date the 2nd Amendment has not been included. This has been reaffirmed numerous times by lower courts including in the 1982 decision I linked earlier.

The bottom line is, the default is that States can infringe on portions of the Bill of Rights until the Supreme Court tells them not to. The Supreme Court has most definately ruled that States can infringe on 2nd Amendment Rights, most recently in Presser v. Illinois:

[ QUOTE ]
In Presser, the Court reaffirmed the Cruikshank decision that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon only the federal government and not the states. Cruikshank and Presser are consistently used by the lower courts to deny any recognition of individual rights claims and provides justification to state and local municipalities to pass laws that regulate guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you understand modern warfare as well as you seem to think you do. See Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet primarily), Iraq, and other examples of how a well armed population can be an absolute bitch to forcibly coerce even in the face of very modern armies.

Funny thing is I had a recent conversation on the subject of the issues a foreign nation would have in trying to occupy the US during a drive through West VA. God, dealing with an underdeveloped and heavily forested space infested with heavily armed and highly experienced marksman? Forget Vietnam, that would be a quagmire. We couldn't see a way to effectively control the region without extreme numbers.

I'm quite curious how many of the respondents are familiar with the American south and the more rural regions of our country because I see a disconnect understanding the stats and the reality of those places.

J

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that you understand current events as well you think you do. The resistance forces in those countries were successful for a variety of reasons, some political, some military. They most certainly were not successful because the "enlightened" governments of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan dutifully protected some "natural" right of the populace to bear arms. Furthermore, the opposition forces in those countries resisted with military hardware, most of it supplied by foreign governments (or pilfered from internal standing armies).

Also, I am from Alabama (aka the rural South), so there is no disconnect for me. The idea that Joe Deer Hunter could band together with his buddies and resist the U.S. military (or any modern military) is a fantasy of state militia groups and people who watched Red Dawn one too many times.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that Joe Deer Hunter could band together with his buddies and resist the U.S. military (or any modern military) is a fantasy of state militia groups and people who watched Red Dawn one too many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

this has been the MO of most recent hostilities in afghanistan, iraq, somalia, vietnam etc. what makes you think mississippi would be different?

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On top of this, unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to states and municipalities, although that might be changing. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you mean by this quote. I assure you that neither the Supreme Court, nor any federal appellate court, has never ruled that states are allowed to pass laws that infringe upon a right protected under the Second Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong.

The relevant part of that thread was my post a little further down. Basically, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it was assumed to only apply to the federal government. Starting around 1925, the Supreme Court began employing the "incorporation doctrine" by which the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment was interpreted to require the observation of portions of the Bill of Rights by States. This was done in a piecemeal fashion and as of this date the 2nd Amendment has not been included. This has been reaffirmed numerous times by lower courts including in the 1982 decision I linked earlier.

The bottom line is, the default is that States can infringe on portions of the Bill of Rights until the Supreme Court tells them not to. The Supreme Court has most definately ruled that States can infringe on 2nd Amendment Rights, most recently in Presser v. Illinois:

[ QUOTE ]
In Presser, the Court reaffirmed the Cruikshank decision that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon only the federal government and not the states. Cruikshank and Presser are consistently used by the lower courts to deny any recognition of individual rights claims and provides justification to state and local municipalities to pass laws that regulate guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess my statement was a little strong, but you are relying far too heavily on the Wikipedia article you read for your "research."

I am a lawyer. I am familiar with the incorporation doctrine, though not the sparse case law dealing with the incorporation of the Second Amendment. In any case, your post implies that the Supreme Court has considered and declined to incorporate the Second Amendment. I don't believe that to be the case. Much of the relevant caselaw defining the scope of the incorporation doctrine was written post Presser. In any case, it doesn't matter. The real question is does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to bear arms. If the Supreme Court ever decides that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms, I assure you that the second part of the opinion will state that states cannot infringe on that right and that the Second Amendment is incorporated.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that Joe Deer Hunter could band together with his buddies and resist the U.S. military (or any modern military) is a fantasy of state militia groups and people who watched Red Dawn one too many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

this has been the MO of most recent hostilities in afghanistan, iraq, somalia, vietnam etc. what makes you think mississippi would be different?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. You see no difference between an Afghan resistance fueled by American military weaponry, and a resistance by deerhunters in Mississippi, unaided by any foreign government and unaided by modern military hardware.

Also, we may disagree on what counts as successful resistance. I haven't looked up the numbers, but I'm sure that opposition forces in Aghanistan and Vietnam suffered casualties that were 20-30 times as high as American and Soviet casualties.

Re: Guns in America
 

And the larger standing armies still lost.

Re: Guns in America
 

I often see when reading about people who were murdered with a gun that they wouldn't have been killed if the person who owned the gun had just been more responsible. <-that's sarcasm for you slow people.

It never has anything to do with anger or depression or drugs and alcohol or money or who's wife was fking who. It's just that they weren't responsible enough. Like if they hadn't had a gun they would've never been able to figure out how to bash the guy's head in with a tire iron or stab him to death.

People that don't believe in the 2nd amendment piss me off. You have nothing to fear from the overwhelming majority of gun owners unless you're doing something you shouldn't be.

And, I would add that the statistics in the OP are misleading at best and geared toward making America look like a bunch of gun nuts. Did you know that 66.7% of statistics are either manipulated or just complete BS?

New gun laws only make it more difficult for honest people to legally own firearms. Some groups would love to see that happen though, mostly because they want to totally control the populace. I would wager that most people who are anti-gun couldn't tell you anything about current gun laws in their state, statistics regarding gun deaths and gun ownership in their area, or anything else other than they read some tear-jerking story and now they know that guns should be banned.

That paul phillips blog makes me want to buy another gun.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I often see when reading about people who were murdered with a gun that they wouldn't have been killed if the person who owned the gun had just been more responsible. <-that's sarcasm for you slow people.

It never has anything to do with anger or depression or drugs and alcohol or money or who's wife was fking who. It's just that they weren't responsible enough. Like if they hadn't had a gun they would've never been able to figure out how to bash the guy's head in with a tire iron or stab him to death.

People that don't believe in the 2nd amendment piss me off. You have nothing to fear from the overwhelming majority of gun owners unless you're doing something you shouldn't be.

And, I would add that the statistics in the OP are misleading at best and geared toward making America look like a bunch of gun nuts. Did you know that 66.7% of statistics are either manipulated or just complete BS?

New gun laws only make it more difficult for honest people to legally own firearms. Some groups would love to see that happen though, mostly because they want to totally control the populace. I would wager that most people who are anti-gun couldn't tell you anything about current gun laws in their state, statistics regarding gun deaths and gun ownership in their area, or anything else other than they read some tear-jerking story and now they know that guns should be banned.

That paul phillips blog makes me want to buy another gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just curious. Do people on this forum really believe that there is absolutely zero correlation between the number of guns in this country and the amount of gun violence? I find that hard to believe. I of course agree that other factors play a huge role as well.

Second, this isn't really a thumbs up or thumbs down question. A very small percentage of people have a problem with a farmer in Kansas hunting deer with a legally purchased rifle. Likewise, a very small percentage of people think that the Second Amendment should be interpreted so as to prevent the state or federal government from restricting the purchase of anti-aircraft weaponry. The right answer obviously is somewhere in between.

Re: Guns in America
 

guns in america

Re: Guns in America
 

I am not a lawyer, I just have an interest in the topic. My post wasn't an analysis of what anyone would like the law to be, it was an analysis of what the Law is. The 1982 decision I cited (Quilici v. Morton Grove) is an example of the existing law on the 2nd Amendment. The decision basically said 1. That the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states and 2. It wouldn't matter if it did because the precedents have basically gutted the 2nd Amendment to the point that handguns are not covered. This was well settled until the DC Circuit handed down its decision a few months ago. I'll admit that the Supreme Court decisions predate the incorporation doctrine, but the Supreme Court has routinely declined to hear cases dealing with this issue including Quilici. I think that has to count for something.

Furthermore, I think its wrong to assume that if the Supreme Court finds an individual right to bear arms that its an automatic fist pump that the 2nd Amendment will be applied to the states. Rights such as indictment by grand jury and against excessive bail have well settled law on their side and yet the Supreme Court has elected not to incorporate them. Indeed, under Rochin v. California, the Supreme Court may only incorporate Amendments "if its application 'shocks the conscience,' offends 'a sense of justice' or runs counter to the "decencies of civilized conduct." It seems like a stretch to say that a court that cared so little about the 2nd that it hadn't heard a case in 70 years would suddenly care so much that failure to uphold it would "shock the conscience of the Court". Of course its possible, but it is by no means guaranteed.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a lawyer, I just have an interest in the topic. My post wasn't an analysis of what anyone would like the law to be, it was an analysis of what the Law is. The 1982 decision I cited (Quilici v. Morton Grove) is an example of the existing law on the 2nd Amendment. The decision basically said 1. That the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states and 2. It wouldn't matter if it did because the precedents have basically gutted the 2nd Amendment to the point that handguns are not covered. This was well settled until the DC Circuit handed down its decision a few months ago. I'll admit that the Supreme Court decisions predate the incorporation doctrine, but the Supreme Court has routinely declined to hear cases dealing with this issue including Quilici. I think that has to count for something.

Furthermore, I think its wrong to assume that if the Supreme Court finds an individual right to bear arms that its an automatic fist pump that the 2nd Amendment will be applied to the states. Rights such as indictment by grand jury and against excessive bail have well settled law on their side and yet the Supreme Court has elected not to incorporate them. Indeed, under Rochin v. California, the Supreme Court may only incorporate Amendments "if its application 'shocks the conscience,' offends 'a sense of justice' or runs counter to the "decencies of civilized conduct." It seems like a stretch to say that a court that cared so little about the 2nd that it hadn't heard a case in 70 years would suddenly care so much that failure to uphold it would "shock the conscience of the Court". Of course its possible, but it is by no means guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. As with so many things, I guess the result would turn in large part on the composition of the case at the time a relevant Second Amendment case is heard. I haven't analyzed the issue thoroughly, but I wonder if it is a tough one for the Scalia (aka strict constructionist) wing of the Court. In other words, the argument that the Framers intended to preserve an individual right to bear arms may be very weak. Conservative courts (like the current one) might be reluctant to hear a case where the "strict constructionist" result was at odds with the politically conservative result. Just a thought.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also, we may disagree on what counts as successful resistance. I haven't looked up the numbers, but I'm sure that opposition forces in Aghanistan and Vietnam suffered casualties that were 20-30 times as high as American and Soviet casualties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and because they won on the bodies scoresheet, the Americans won the Vietnam War.

The point, you missed it.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I often see when reading about people who were murdered with a gun that they wouldn't have been killed if the person who owned the gun had just been more responsible. <-that's sarcasm for you slow people.

It never has anything to do with anger or depression or drugs and alcohol or money or who's wife was fking who. It's just that they weren't responsible enough. Like if they hadn't had a gun they would've never been able to figure out how to bash the guy's head in with a tire iron or stab him to death.

People that don't believe in the 2nd amendment piss me off. You have nothing to fear from the overwhelming majority of gun owners unless you're doing something you shouldn't be.

And, I would add that the statistics in the OP are misleading at best and geared toward making America look like a bunch of gun nuts. Did you know that 66.7% of statistics are either manipulated or just complete BS?

New gun laws only make it more difficult for honest people to legally own firearms. Some groups would love to see that happen though, mostly because they want to totally control the populace. I would wager that most people who are anti-gun couldn't tell you anything about current gun laws in their state, statistics regarding gun deaths and gun ownership in their area, or anything else other than they read some tear-jerking story and now they know that guns should be banned.

That paul phillips blog makes me want to buy another gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just curious. Do people on this forum really believe that there is absolutely zero correlation between the number of guns in this country and the amount of gun violence? I find that hard to believe. I of course agree that other factors play a huge role as well.

Second, this isn't really a thumbs up or thumbs down question. A very small percentage of people have a problem with a farmer in Kansas hunting deer with a legally purchased rifle. Likewise, a very small percentage of people think that the Second Amendment should be interpreted so as to prevent the state or federal government from restricting the purchase of anti-aircraft weaponry. The right answer obviously is somewhere in between.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first argument isn't really valid. Of course there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. If there are zero guns in the country there can be no gun violence. I'm sure the framers knew when they wrote the Bill of Rights that innocent people would die as a result of the 2nd amendment. They thought that LESS innocent people would die (through government actions rather than "street criminals") if the populace were armed.

You are correct in your second point, the answer is somewhere in between. Its a slippery slope, though. The problem when laws are written, is only law-abiding citizens take note. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem with gun violence, by definition. The majority of gun owners are law-abiding. How much hassle should they be put through to keep the guns out of the hands of a few criminals?


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin,
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am just curious. Do people on this forum really believe that there is absolutely zero correlation between the number of guns in this country and the amount of gun violence? I find that hard to believe. I of course agree that other factors play a huge role as well.

Second, this isn't really a thumbs up or thumbs down question. A very small percentage of people have a problem with a farmer in Kansas hunting deer with a legally purchased rifle. Likewise, a very small percentage of people think that the Second Amendment should be interpreted so as to prevent the state or federal government from restricting the purchase of anti-aircraft weaponry. The right answer obviously is somewhere in between.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first argument isn't really valid. Of course there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. If there are zero guns in the country there can be no gun violence. I'm sure the framers knew when they wrote the Bill of Rights that innocent people would die as a result of the 2nd amendment. They thought that LESS innocent people would die (through government actions rather than "street criminals") if the populace were armed.

You are correct in your second point, the answer is somewhere in between. Its a slippery slope, though. The problem when laws are written, is only law-abiding citizens take note. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem with gun violence, by definition. The majority of gun owners are law-abiding. How much hassle should they be put through to keep the guns out of the hands of a few criminals?


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin,
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul Phillips -- "Now as it happens I believe that 0% of the gun deaths in the US are preventable through gun prohibition."

I asked the first question because I wanted to know exactly how many people agreed with the above quote from the Paul Phillips article, which struck me as absurd on its face.

Lines are always difficult to draw. For the purpose of criminal liability, how do you decide when someone has gone far enough with a plan to rob a bank for it to constitute an attempted crime? Is casing the bank enough? Buying a stocking to wear over your head? Recruiting a friend to drive the getaway car? Walking through the bank door with a concealed gun? Pointing it at the teller? You have to draw the line somewhere. Abortion, and in paticular the question of when a state's interest in protecting fetuses outweighs the mother's right to privacy, is yet another exercise in line drawing. The fact that lines are difficult to draw doesn't absolve a responsible society from making the effort.

I would like to hear from gun owners. Is it really an incredible hassle to buy a gun in your state? My impression is no, but I have never bought a gun, so maybe I'm wrong.

Re: Guns in America
 

Had it not been for our current Iraq war i would have thought the argument that an armed populace can be highly disruptive to a modern army was completely ridiculous.

I've since become convinced otherwise.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Had it not been for our current Iraq war i would have thought the argument that an armed populace can be highly disruptive to a modern army was completely ridiculous.

I've since become convinced otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bond18= not dumb.


Rococo- I think I will go buy a .45 today in your honor. I "need" one for Tahoe in case I have to take down a bear in my kitchen. The transaction should take about 10 min.

Re: Guns in America
 

Your first argument isn't really valid. Of course there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. If there are zero guns in the country there can be no gun violence. I'm sure the framers knew when they wrote the Bill of Rights that innocent people would die as a result of the 2nd amendment. They thought that LESS innocent people would die (through government actions rather than "street criminals") if the populace were armed.

I differ with you here. Having written a law review note on the subject, I can assure you that the Framers understood that the Freedoms protected could/would be abused by some among us, but felt the overall good outweighed the bad. Street crime as we know it was not much of a factor, but being secure in your home was. Similarly, having just defeated an army of professional and mercenary soldiers with lightly trained militias, the concept that individual citizens had a right to own weapons was so clear that it frankly bore little discussion.

You are correct in your second point, the answer is somewhere in between. Its a slippery slope, though. The problem when laws are written, is only law-abiding citizens take note. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem with gun violence, by definition. The majority of gun owners are law-abiding. How much hassle should they be put through to keep the guns out of the hands of a few criminals?

As was noted elsewhere, many State constitutions contain a right to bear arms. This largely eliminates the militia argument because the State would not need to protect itself from itself in order to arm a militia. Most States adopt some form of reasonable regulation approach, akin to what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure. Drawing that line is where the disputes arise.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]

As was noted elsewhere, many State constitutions contain a right to bear arms. This largely eliminates the militia argument because the State would not need to protect itself from itself in order to arm a militia.

[/ QUOTE ]

A large number of the states specifically cite the right to the use of arms in self-defense. Link to state by state summary.

[ QUOTE ]
Drawing that line is where the disputes arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another yet to be opened can of worms is whether the right to bear arms includes handguns. A federal appeals court recently overturned a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns within the city. I would guess this could end up with the Supremes.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I find strange about US gun laws is that the weapons least likely to be used in a crime, and most likely to be useful in a civil war or w/e, are most likely to be banned. OTOH automatic handguns seem to be handed out in cereal packets. If you reversed that it would seem that you would reduce gun violence and keep the hillbillies somewhat mollified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the motivations of the people trying to enact it. Extreme liberals in the finest Marxist tradition, they know that one of the first steps to subjugation is disarmament of militia-type weapons.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Had it not been for our current Iraq war i would have thought the argument that an armed populace can be highly disruptive to a modern army was completely ridiculous.

I've since become convinced otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bond18= not dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he is, for failing to recognize how often it's occurred prior to Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
Rococo- I think I will go buy a .45 today in your honor. I "need" one for Tahoe in case I have to take down a bear in my kitchen. The transaction should take about 10 min.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't shoot a bear with a .45 in your kitchen or anywhere else. It'll only piss him off.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bond18= not dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he is, for failing to recognize how often it's occurred prior to Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that he is young and able to figure it out makes him not dumb. Too many of the liberals (on this board and elsewhere) are so open-minded that their brains have fallen out.

When will Iron81 get it?

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't shoot a bear with a .45 in your kitchen or anywhere else. It'll only piss him off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that might be a problem. I have a Benelli with some rifled slugs in it, but I keep it in the kitchen. I don't really want to ever shoot anything, but bears are kinda big and scary.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Had it not been for our current Iraq war i would have thought the argument that an armed populace can be highly disruptive to a modern army was completely ridiculous.

I've since become convinced otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bond18= not dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he is, for failing to recognize how often it's occurred prior to Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
Rococo- I think I will go buy a .45 today in your honor. I "need" one for Tahoe in case I have to take down a bear in my kitchen. The transaction should take about 10 min.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't shoot a bear with a .45 in your kitchen or anywhere else. It'll only piss him off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there are other points of history where an armed populace has created huge problems for a large nations army (Afghanistan vs the Russians, Vietnam vs US)but we hadn't really seen it vs an army this modern and advanced before.


I didn't really start this thread with an anti-gun agenda in mind to be honest. In fact, growing up as a teenager i loved firing guns and going to the gun store and browsing, thinking what i'd like to own one day. If i ever move back to the US, i'll likely go buy a hand gun.

My larger concern is the ease of attainability, though i don't know what could possibly be done to stop criminals who want them from getting them.

I don't know, overall i think its a highly complicated issue worth discussion.

Re: Guns in America
 

Banning guns won't do very much. For the most part, "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" rings true to me. Street crimes are committed by criminals. Making weapons illegal would do very little to change this.

On the other hand, I fail to see why the "gun show" loopholes are allowed to persist. If the state passes laws which create a process by which guns can be legally obtained, then those rules should be followed. I can't get a driver's license until I jump through the hoops that the state has erected. Guns should be no different.

The "illegal" guns come from somewhere. Unlike the military examples above (Vietnam, Iraq, etc) there are no foreign governments or previous militias which are arming US citizens. Those guns come from somewhere, and are purchased legally before they cross over to the illegal resale market. I have to believe that the gun show loophole is the portal for a huge percentage of these guns. I look at it in a "Freakonomics" sort of way. Criminals are, in general, poor. Guns are plentiful and cheap because it is easy for them to be purchased legally and then sold illegally. Drying up the supply of guns should raise the price (hopefully) above the easy range of the average criminal. This would be a good thing. No law abiding citizens would have their right to bear arms infringed upon, but their ability to purchase guns on short notice might be restricted. I see that as a minor inconvenience, not a trampling of constitutional rights.

Oh, and as for myself, I have never and will never own a gun. In summer camp I have shot a rifle, but have never had any other experience with guns. One of my freshman roommate's best friends was a cop. We were hanging out and he had his gun with him. It honestly made me very nervous having it around and I felt much more comfortable when he went and locked it in his car. The two of them had grown up with guns around and didn't think anything of it. I just had stupid tabloid headlines running through my mind.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I suppose hundreds of millions of lives are a small price to pay so that you can feel a tiny bit safer even though that feeling is an illusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's talking about the millions of people who have already been killed by their governments.. is he implying if you don't support gun ownership you are supporting, nay, responsible for the deaths of those already dead people or something? I can see the general point of an armed population being a defense against tyrany but the quoted statement is absurd.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't shoot a bear with a .45 in your kitchen or anywhere else. It'll only piss him off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that might be a problem. I have a Benelli with some rifled slugs in it, but I keep it in the kitchen. I don't really want to ever shoot anything, but bears are kinda big and scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.impactguns.com/store/medi...wk_alaskan.jpg

And it isn't close.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i truly believe most people aren't responsible enough to own one.

[/ QUOTE ]

what are most people responsible enough to own? a car? a knife? a credit card? a blender?

is it just americans who aren't responsible enough or the entire world?

and link to time article ifucan

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa whoa, i didn't say "most people who own guns are to irresponsible to have one", i didn't call anyone out. I'm sure even the strongest pro gun supporters can agree that guns are a lot of responsibility and the ease with which people can attain them is a little disconcerting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bond,
Here is a serious problem with your position, choosing who gets guns, and which guns they get is also an enormous responsibility. Do you not feel nervous putting that responsibility in the hands of someone whose only qualification is that hes managed to convince a large group of people he's never met to like him. Remember that those people picking him are the very same people who make you nervous about their ability to safely own a gun.