The 2nd Amendment

[OnlineStageGear]

[xenophobe]

I'm an asshole. I know that. I also know that I'm right.

And I still don't see you explaining how banning guns will do anything.

You want the police or military to go door to door and search your house, your neighbor's house, and every house in the US?

You want the police or military to stand at every street corner, every school hallway, every shopping center?

So, if you're not advocating the government to destroy the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to ban all guns, and you're not advocating that America turn into a police state, what are you suggesting?

Waving a magic wand to remove guns from the earth?

Pass a few laws and hope that criminals will abide by them?

I would have to inform you, by their very nature, criminals do not obey the laws, generally law abiding citizens do. Rape, Murder, Theft are all already outlawed. You don't do it, I don't do it, and most of the people here won't either. Does that deter criminals from committing crime?

Do you realize committing a crime with a firearm has extra penalties added onto a prison sentence, and in many cases it's more than double the time that you would serve without possessing a firearm? Probably not, but talking about the merits of law-based deterrence is a topic for a different discussion.

Do some genuine research on this. Australia passed strict gun bans. Their rates of crime, burglary, assaults, home invasions and firearms related crimes rose. Look at the UK, since banning handguns and severely limiting long guns, their firearms related crime has jumped exponentially. Look at Japan, where guns are banned. Crimes with firearms are on the rise, and they've even had to form their own rapid response teams to deal with firearms related crimes... yet handguns are banned in all of these countries.

Your argument that "oh, they'll just go to a different state to get a gun" turns into, "they'll just get their guns smuggled into the country in the black market". Then trafficking firearms in the US becomes a billion dollar industry, like illicit drugs, and only strengthens the base of organized crime. That's what we want, right?

In the past 20 years, America has turned from mostly non-CCW issue, to mostly shall-issue CCW, and overall crime rates in these areas have dropped. Florida was going to be "murder in the streets", yet years after the fact, only a few people have ever misused their firearms. The percentage of citizens who have abused lawfully registered concealed weapons is so small it's not even quantifiable.

IF you wanted to get a Concealed Weapons Permit in 1986:


If you want to get a CCW now:


Impressive, isn't it?

So in the past 20 years, most states have gone from SHALL NOT ISSUE or MAY ISSUE, to SHALL ISSUE, which means that anyone who wants one and can pass a FBI criminal background check and receive the necessary training WILL GET ONE with NO grounds for refusal and no reason necessary. Only the "May Issue" states are where getting one requires some need that can be validated, and in most of these states the benchmark is pretty high.

If guns are so bad, and so many states changing to allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, why hasn't any major crime increases been noted? Why isn't there murder on the streets and stories reporting how lawful citizens with CCWs are detrimental to society? WHY?

I'll tell you why, because honest, law abiding citizens who wish to carry a firearm that have taken mandatory training, passed a criminal background check and have a permit to legally carry a concealed handguns ARE NOT A PROBLEM. You don't have to fear honest, law abiding citizens with guns. Why? Because they are law abiding citizens.

Anyways, I didn't mean to be so insulting, I just don't like it when MY RIGHTS are perfectly reasonable, and other people wish to dictate how I choose to live my life when their assertions are based on emotions rather than reasonable thought and the truth.

Personally, I think your right to free speech is more damaging to society than my right to keep and bear arms, but you don't see me trying to destroy the 1st Amendment because I don't like what you have to say. However feel free to take away whatever rights of mine you don't approve of as long as it makes you feel better. That's bullshit.

[VitaminG]

Check out South Africa, UK, and Australia for recent stats on the benefits of making private gun ownership illegal.

private gun ownership isn't illegal in Australia. Private ownership of semi-automatic weapons is. I believed registered hunters & farmers may still own them though, if they have a genuine need for them & keep them securely locked away. A lot of the people that had to hand in their weapons during the govt buy-back scheme were regular folks in the suburbs who apparently "needed" a rack of high-powered military grade weapons for home security and (ornamental purposes).

Police still carry sidearms here too. And not just special ops, SWAT or whatever either - the average constable on the street has a gun on their belt.

+1 A free state, does not merely mean free as in not ruled by a dictator, but free to go to the local supermarket without fear you will be attacked.

We as free people have the right to not live in fear. If owning a gun helps you feel unafraid, then no one should infringe upon those rights.

What many people fail to realize, is that there are plenty of "gun laws" on the books. Most gun related crimes are perpetrated by individuals who have broken one or more of those laws.

I am grateful every day that I live in this country. People are still killed by guns and during gun-related crimes here, but I have never owned a gun, feel no compulsion to carry one, and still feel relatively safe walking the streets. There's always the chance of some fucktard trying to take my wallet or jacking my car at the lights, but I try to mitigate those risks as best I can by staying out of high risk areas, and always being aware of my surroundings. If someone was to jump me, I imagine I'd have a knife in my back before I could pull a gun anyway. I certainly don't fancy my chances of outdrawing them.

[LouSiffer]

quote:
Originally Posted by LouSiffer
In 2002, there were 43,354 motor vehicle deaths. There were 28,663 gun deaths including everything from accidental to gang warfare. How come you aren't wanting to ban cars?

Sorry but that's an incredibly lame argument. How many of those 28,663 gun deaths were accidents vs. the 43,354 motor vehicle deaths? Consider that about 25-30% of the US owns guns and about 70-75% drive cars and odds are very good that people drive their cars way more than they fire their guns. Your gun death stats aren't very supportive of guns being a good thing.

Tim, you make my point. Many of those deaths by firearms were intentional. Most, if not all the car deaths were accidental. Imagine what the car death rate would have been if the same amount of killers with firearms just watched Death Race 2000 and said " Hell yeah!! Lets go fot it!!". Drive through a park, schoolyard, mall.....lots of points to be racked up there.

You know why there were so mnay deaths at the school....because they were a bunch of wussies that would rather cowar and be shot than fight back. Hell, after a few people were shot, it wouldn't take much for me to pick up a body, use it as a shield and try to put up a fight. If I am going out, its with a fight. But, I also have the survivor mentality. Maybe from being in the military or just my DNA....dunno.

I mean, what did this guy have...a single freaking 9 mm. Now that is nothing to sneeze at, but damn, when are people going to get over this passive " you hug me and I hug you back with some reach around" mentality....put up a fight. If you are going to hell....at least give it hell along the way.-Lou

[xenophobe]

And just for everyone's sake, I typed every single word of my last post and did not cut or paste anything.

However, this post is info that can be found on wikipedia.

private gun ownership isn't illegal in Australia. Private ownership of semi-automatic weapons is.

They are severely limited and you cannot own one without 'permission'. Defacto ban on firearms, since you cannot just have one and do not have a right to own one without reason. Severe restrictions are not working.

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

* Category A: rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, paintball guns, and airsoft/soft air rifles (depending on State). (For Category A an applicant must give an acceptable "Genuine Reason" for owning that firearm.)

* Category B: centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after January 1, 1901 (For Category B and higher, the applicant must prove a "Genuine Need" for each firearm of that category.)

* Category C: semi-automatic rimfire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. (Restricted: only some farmers and collectors can own working Category C firearms)

* Category D: semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds (Category D Firearms are effectively banned: only those who have an occupational need of culling large animals may own a functional Category D weapon [1].)

* Category H: handguns including air pistols, deactivated handguns and airsoft guns not exceeding 65 cm in total length. Target shooters can acquire handguns of .38" calibre or less.

In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[17] In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia.[18] Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies.[19] The majority of firearm related deaths are committed with hunting rifles.[8]

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [3], in 1985-2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, yet only 5% of suicides involved firearms. The suicide rate has only fluctuated, not statistically changed, from 1993-2003.

The number of unregistered or uncontrolled firearms continues to increase, with an average of over 4,000 firearms stolen per year, primarily from residences (although one gun-dealer had approximately 600 firearms stolen sometime between 1999 and 2000).[20] Concern has been raised about the number of smuggled pistols reaching Australia, particularly in New South Wales.

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

[xenophobe]

Accidentally deleted 1986 CCW map... here it is:

[Cleveland Metal]

We've come a long way. Nice to see.

[LouSiffer]

Well, long before guns were around, people were killing, robbing, raping and plundering just fine. We have been doing it for centuries without guns. I really don't understand the point in this argument.-Lou

[StukaJU87]

Again, this is certainly true if we continue to do nothing.

Do me a favor. Start doing something with the criminals and illegal weapons FIRST!

[hippietim]

Do me a favor. Start doing something with the criminals and illegal weapons FIRST!

Absolutely. The more dirtbags that are in your care, the better.

[buzzsaww]

this calls to mind an argument i had with the wifey about hiroshima/nagasaki. hey being from hiroshima, they're all about THE BOMB. in my opinion, what does the method of death matter, you're still dead.

Well, long before guns were around, people were killing, robbing, raping and plundering just fine. We have been doing it for centuries without guns. I really don't understand the point in this argument.-Lou

[Spivonious]

Tim, I guess you and I are in the minority here

I have seen the Michael Moore movie "Bowling for Columbine" in which he does his thing with gun control. Sure, he's a nutjob most of the time, but he does make some good points in that movie. My favorite part is when he crosses over to Canada and goes around just opening people's front doors. How many cities in the U.S. could you do that in? We live in fear, and it's only perpetuated by the media, the government, and our neighbors.

I travelled to Scotland last year and felt completely safe walking down any street in Glasgow, Liverpool, and Stirling. In the UK guns are outlawed. Even the police don't have any. It makes me feel a whole lot safer when I'm over there. I'd much rather be stabbed than shot. At least with stabbing the criminal has to be close to me.I've visited Philadelphia, Baltimore, and NYC and have only felt safe on the busy streets.

In Lancaster last year, a guy was shot at his wedding reception because someone had a "beef" with his brother-in-law. Sure, criminals will still find a way to get a gun, but this was a case of spontaneity. The shooter saw the man at the party as he was driving past, got out, and shot him. This was not preplanned. If it wasn't so easy to get a gun, it most likely would not have happened.

Also last year, Lancaster held a "gun drive" where they gave people $100 for each gun they turned in. They collected a whole bunch of guns. What would happen if they did this in Philly, or Baltimore? Some poor people make some money, and the streets are a little bit safer.

Regardless of all of this, the 2nd Amendment provides the right to arms so that they can be used in a revolt by the state against the federal government. If it wasn't for the whole slavery thing, I'd be against the Civil War, since it really took away state's rights. Even used recreationally, the words "well-regulated" are still in there. Why not have a privately-run hunter's club where hunter's can keep their weapons and go retrieve them when they want to go hunting?

Sure, the criminals will still find a way, so make any crime committed with a gun automatically have its sentence doubled. Give jailtime for anyone caught with a gun outside of their home. I have a feeling that small-time gun-toting criminals will become just small-time criminals. Let's use the power of fear against the criminals.

[Endrik]

I'm curious what the gun laws in your countries

guns are leagal, but you have to get a gun permission and the doctors have to examine you first.

that being said almost no one owns handguns here, we perfer manlier stuff like good ol' fashioned fist fights.

very few criminals have guns here... mostly the thugs in local maffia and the Russian maffia who do their own biz and don't bother people and well some small time crooks too.

the killing rate is very low... specially with guns.... other crimes are very very high

[xenophobe]

Tim, I guess you and I are in the minority here

I have seen the Michael Moore movie "Bowling for Columbine" in which he does his thing with gun control. Sure, he's a nutjob most of the time, but he does make some good points in that movie. My favorite part is when he crosses over to Canada and goes around just opening people's front doors. How many cities in the U.S. could you do that in? We live in fear, and it's only perpetuated by the media, the government, and our neighbors.

The thing about Canada and people's front doors wasn't true. Much of his statements, and the people he interview were quoted out of context or edited... Watch Michael and Me since you seem to get your information from movies... you really need to see the counterpoint. Without it, you're only spouting someone else's propaganda and not making a decision based on more than one perspective.

I travelled to Scotland last year and felt completely safe walking down any street in Glasgow, Liverpool, and Stirling. In the UK guns are outlawed. Even the police don't have any. It makes me feel a whole lot safer when I'm over there. I'd much rather be stabbed than shot. At least with stabbing the criminal has to be close to me.I've visited Philadelphia, Baltimore, and NYC and have only felt safe on the busy streets.

And when you went to Glasgow, Liverpool and Stirling, did you make it a point to go through the slums or bad neighborhoods? Of course you didn't. As a nice tourist, you're only led to the nice spots to go to.

I've felt perfectly safe walking the streets of SF at night, Boston, or Hollywood even.

If it wasn't so easy to get a gun, it most likely would not have happened.

Yes, nice assumption there.

Also last year, Lancaster held a "gun drive" where they gave people $100 for each gun they turned in. They collected a whole bunch of guns. What would happen if they did this in Philly, or Baltimore? Some poor people make some money, and the streets are a little bit safer.

And most of the guns that are turned in are junk. Many are not functioning, are owned by the elderly, or from people that would not use a firearm in a crime in the first place.

Regardless of all of this, the 2nd Amendment provides the right to arms so that they can be used in a revolt by the state against the federal government. If it wasn't for the whole slavery thing, I'd be against the Civil War, since it really took away state's rights. Even used recreationally, the words "well-regulated" are still in there. Why not have a privately-run hunter's club where hunter's can keep their weapons and go retrieve them when they want to go hunting?

You don't even know what the 2nd Amendment means. No it doesn't provide you a right. It doesn't allow you to do anything. It was written so that Federal Government couldn't restrict you from lawful ownership of firearms. In a way, you can say it is the final oversight of government corruption when the 3 branches have failed to regulate the government...

The 2nd Amendment was created to acknowledge and protect a pre-existing right that all free men have and that many other controlling governments did not allow common citizens.

As for interpreting the grammatical structure of the 2nd Amendment, the operative phrase is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is not limited by by the prefatory phrase.

And saying it's not an individual right would be saying the right to free speech, the right against self-incrimination, habeas corpus, the right to due process, the right to equal protection, etc... are not individual rights.

[Spivonious]

The thing about Canada and people's front doors wasn't true. Much of his statements, and the people he interview were quoted out of context or edited... Watch Michael and Me since you seem to get your information from movies... you really need to see the counterpoint. Without it, you're only spouting someone else's propaganda and not making a decision based on more than one perspective.

Any links to prove that segment wasn't true? I know that Michael Moore is not an unbiased person. He makes movies about his opinions; he's not a journalist. I'm not spouting propoganda. Everything I posted came from inside of me.

And when you went to Glasgow, Liverpool and Stirling, did you make it a point to go through the slums or bad neighborhoods? Of course you didn't. As a nice tourist, you're only led to the nice spots to go to.

Actually, I was staying with a friend in Glasgow who goes to school there, so we tended not to do the touristy things. And even walking around the Independence Hall area in Philly, I don't feel completely safe, so your point is moot.

I've felt perfectly safe walking the streets of SF at night, Boston, or Hollywood even.

Good for you. I've never been to those cities.

Yes, nice assumption there.

I didn't say otherwise. I was stating that if gun access were not so easy, crimes of passion would decrease. This guy was not cruising around looking for the guy to shoot.

And most of the guns that are turned in are junk. Many are not functioning, are owned by the elderly, or from people that would not use a firearm in a crime in the first place.

To use your own words, nice assumption there.

You don't even know what the 2nd Amendment means. No it doesn't provide you a right. It doesn't allow you to do anything. It was written so that Federal Government couldn't restrict you from lawful ownership of firearms. In a way, you can say it is the final oversight of government corruption when the 3 branches have failed to regulate the government...

Perhaps you need to reread the entire amendment. The federal government can't restrict access to weapons so that if the "security of the free state" is ever threatened, the state can muster a militia and repel the feds.

The 2nd Amendment was created to acknowledge and protect a pre-existing right that all free men have and that many other controlling governments did not allow common citizens.

Source? I don't remember ever reading that human rights include the right to own a gun.

As for interpreting the grammatical structure of the 2nd Amendment, the operative phrase is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is not limited by by the prefatory phrase.

So if I say "When I'm in the train station, I am not allowed to stand on the tracks," that means I can't stand on tracks anywhere? Then what is the purpose of the prefatory phrase? Why include it at all? Because the intentions of the writers of the bill of rights wanted to be clear that they meant to bear arms for military purposes in defense of the state.

And saying it's not an individual right would be saying the right to free speech, the right against self-incrimination, habeas corpus, the right to due process, the right to equal protection, etc... are not individual rights.

When did I say it wasn't individual? Since you quoted my hunters club example, I described a place where a person could store their gun until they wanted to use it for its intended purpose. This is not a common pool of weaponry available to the public.


And to try to get this thread a little bit back towards where I intended it to go, let's not talk about federal gun control. I personally am against any federal control of internal matters. We are still a collection of States, not one big country, even though most people probably can't understand the difference.