Guns in America

[secretprankster]

If you made this thread for any other reason than to settle a sidebet on O/U of replies before it gets locked, ysscky.

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]
I was glancing through the 'numbers' section of the most recent Time Magazine.

One portion absolutely amazed me:

90
Number of guns in the U.S. for every 100 citizens, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey, making it the most heavily armed country in the world. India has the second largest civilian gun-arsenal tally, with just four firearms per 100 people.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is almost certainly wrong. According to this wikipedia article, there are between 1.2 and 3 million firearms in private homes in Switzerland, for 7 million people.

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
90
Number of guns in the U.S. for every 100 citizens, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey, making it the most heavily armed country in the world. India has the second largest civilian gun-arsenal tally, with just four firearms per 100 people.



[/ QUOTE ]

That stat seems way, way off.
From a Wikipedia article
[ QUOTE ]
In a study of gun ownership in selected western nations, Canada's level of gun ownership (21.8%) was similar to France's (23.8%) and Sweden's (16.6%). Of the eight countries compared, firearm ownership was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in the Netherlands (2%).

[/ QUOTE ]


edit: Canada's population is 33 million, so they'd have to possess fewer than 132,000 guns to be under 4%. They have over 4.5 million legally registered guns and probably that many more unregistered ones.

[HP]

but hey, before this thread gets locked:

Is it possible for the government to abolish the right to bear arms by way of an amendment?

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
but hey, before this thread gets locked:

Is it possible for the government to abolish the right to bear arms by way of an amendment?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it is. If they go through the hassle of getting an amendment, the government can do about whatever they want as long as it doesn't spark a rebellion. The thing is, barring State judicial decisions to the contrary, you basically have no right to bear arms right now.

The current Supreme Court precedents say that the 2nd Amendment is a "Group" right, not an individual right, meaning that the right is upheld as long as someone is allowed to have weapons. Furthermore, that someone has been ruled to be the National Guard. 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

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
The current Supreme Court precedents say that the 2nd Amendment is a "Group" right, not an individual right, meaning that the right is upheld as long as someone is allowed to have weapons. Furthermore, that someone has been ruled to be the National Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]

Sure it is. If they go through the hassle of getting an amendment, the government can do about whatever they want as long as it doesn't spark a rebellion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cool just checking

This is what I don't get. When 'tyranny' comes along and legally outlaws guns, you guys think there's enough aware Americans with guns and the balls to rebel?

[BigPoppa]

Allowing gun ownership is not fatal to tyranny if the people won't rebel against you. There are a significant number of people who'd only rebel if guns were outlawed.

So it would probably be smarter for a tyranny not to outlaw guns. Then they could point at the one freedom they haven't crushed and say "See, we're not a tyranny".

[iron81]

Wiki

I looked back and I was wrong. The Supreme Court has never ruled that the National Guard is the sole militia for 2nd Amendment purposes. However, they have ruled in 1965 and 1990 that the National Guard is the militia in other contexts. Indeed, a law was passed in 1903 basically replacing the historical militia with the National Guard.

Also, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the individual versus group model for 2nd Amendment Rights. However:

[ QUOTE ]
Presently, nine of the federal circuit courts support a collective rights model, two of the federal circuit courts an individual rights model, and the Supreme Court and one federal circuit court have not addressed the question

[/ QUOTE ]
The last time the Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd Amendment in 1939 in the case US v. Miller, they said that:

[ QUOTE ]
the “obvious purpose” of the Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia and it “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

[/ QUOTE ]
A more modern view of the 2nd Amendment is evidenced by a 1982 appellate court ruling upholding a local handgun ban. The ordinance became a model for weapon bans across the country:

[ QUOTE ]
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia...
Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]
I spent two hours researching the above. That's how much I love you guys.

[benfranklin]

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



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is certainly hard to refute that kind of data and logic.

I truly believe that most people aren't responsible enough to have kids. What causes more harm, irresponsible parents or irresponsible gun owners?

P.S. If you ever took a firearms course and observed gun owners at a firing range, I doubt you would ever repeat that statement.