The 2nd Amendment

[Tashtego]

Actually, the right to bear arms is in direct support of the right to life. Police cannot provide protection, that is, they cannot prevent crime. A firearm is a great equalizer that enables the otherwise defenseless to safeguard their own lives and property where the state will not and cannot. When a wolf gets in among the sheep the rational answer is not to turn the few dogs in the flock into sheep as well. In any case, unlike Australia or the UK, I really don't think Americans will line up to surrender their firearms no matter what laws are passed. We shall see I suppose. The emotionally driven political capital that this terrible episode has provided anti-self defense camp will be ruthlessly exploited.

[scotty2]

Police cannot provide protection, that is, they cannot prevent crime.

I beg to differ. There has long been discussion about how does one masure the effectiveness of the Police, is it by the amount of people we lock up, the amount of crime complaints we record & successfuly identify an offender for, or, is it just by being there that we make a difference. You cannot measure the number of times that someone was intent on committing a crime, saw a cop & thought better of doing what they were going to do, therefore the presence of the Police prevented a crime. It would seem that the fact that all your officers are armed does not prevent someone from shooting another or using a firearm in the commission of a crime. If a large number of citizens are similarly armed how does that assist with crime prevention? Quite simply it doesn't, all it does is encourage a criminal to go & get a gun to DEFEND himself while committing a crime.

Yes I respect the fact that you have the laws that you have, but in this day & age, they appear antiquated & do need to be subject of scrutiny. That's why you have higher courts to debate & examine the laws that exist & assess if they need updating. That process alone should commence at the very least.

Yes this is an emotive subject for BOTH sides which is why, a balanced, independent, measured assessment needs to be undertaken.

[fett]

Wow!!! I hope you guys did this well in school. It's like term papers here.:ROTF: :ROTF:

[npacheco]

It would seem that the fact that all your officers are armed does not prevent someone from shooting another or using a firearm in the commission of a crime. If a large number of citizens are similarly armed how does that assist with crime prevention? Quite simply it doesn't, all it does is encourage a criminal to go & get a gun to DEFEND himself while committing a crime.

Simple. An armed officer cannot be everywhere 100% of the time. Criminals are not going to think twice about commiting a crime because an armed cop may or may not come around the corner any second. Now if they are facing a victim that may or may not be armed, they may think twice...they may not. As you said, it is impossible to measure how many times this has actually been the case.

I like my chances of survival if I'm confronted on the street if I'm armed rather than not being armed. For some people, they may do more harm to themselves. Those people should consider not owning/carrying a gun.

If I'm walking in the woods, I want the right to be able to defend myself from a wild animal. Maybe if we make it illegal for all wild animals to have claws and fangs, then this will prevent any situations in the forest. Of course, this survival instict is very outdated. There are no more wild beasts.

Now substitute any street in America for woods and forest, criminal for wild animal (because that is what they are, except that a wild animal does not seek me out to do harm), guns for claws and fangs, and tyrannical government for wild beast.

That is all us gun nuts want. The right to feel safe. You'll never convince us that ANY amount of legislation will prevent criminals from getting guns. We just want to be on equal footing with them.

UK may not have anymore Columbine and VT type shooting sprees, but has gun violence stopped all together?

I don't mean to sound crass and insensitive, but all I care about is the well being of my family. Some guy breaks into my house and kills my wife and kids (I don't have kids yet, but), I care more about preventing that than some guy shooting up a Wal-Mart. I'm sure that sounds harsher than I want it to, but I can't think of a better way to put it, I'm no poet.

Anyway, just my $0.02

[rjohnstone]

In Europe he have a convention of Human Rights the first principle of which states that everyone has the right to life, please don’t tell me that the right to bear arms in the US is more important than the right to exist.

We put life first, however if someone tries to deprive me or my family of our constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I will defend that right... violently if need be.

I have the right to preserve my life and my families life. The constitution and the laws in the state I live in say I can defend myself and my family by any means reasonable, including the use of a firearm.

The moment a person attempts to deprive another person of life, that person forfeits their own right to live.

Eliminating guns from a country as large as the United States is all but impossible.
Just a little comparison to give one an idea of the task.
The UK has 60 million people.
The US however has over 300 million people.

And don't throw Australia into the mix either. It may be a large country in land mass, but it's only got 20 million people... hell there are more than that in the L.A. area alone.
Come to think of it... it would be a hard task just to rid L.A. of firearms let alone the entire US.

[Tashtego]

Research on gun control and crime in UK, Cananda, and Australia.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/share...sNav=pb&id=604

[VitaminG]

Research on gun control and crime in UK, Cananda, and Australia.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/share...sNav=pb&id=604

how independent is this organisation? The report is full of vagaries & emotive language. It reads less like an independent investigation, and more like a treatise by someone with an agenda. And then it turns out the author actually testified against the introduction of stricter gun laws before Canadian parliament in '95. So it seems the whole basis of the report is just supporting his earlier position.

How about some argument from someone not directly involved, so that it doesn't seem that they're just saying "told ya so" 12 years after the fact?

[5074charvel]

You're citing Michael Moore. Need I say more?

I too cited something from his movie in an earlier post. Apart from a constitutional debate, what is your opinion on the fact, that the number of gun related deaths in the US is at 28.000, whereas in other countries it´s only a fraction of it.

[Tashtego]

I'm not sure what you are criticizing. Do you dispute the statistics, references cited, conclusions drawn or just the prose? It makes sense that a knowledgable researcher would be called to testify before parliment so that should be a reassuring indicator of credibility to the suspicious.

[Jack Napalm]

This thread almost had some merit until someone threw Michael Moore into it. If you really want to know moore read this.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Or this

http://mooreexposed.com/

[OnlineStageGear]

Going after the people who legally own guns first is NOT the solution here.

[rjohnstone]

I too cited something from his movie in an earlier post. Apart from a constitutional debate, what is your opinion on the fact, that the number of gun related deaths in the US is at 28.000, whereas in other countries it´s only a fraction of it.

28,000 out of a population of 300 million.
It's all relative.

[xenophobe]

Yeah but if there's no militia in the first place, how can I be expected to be part of it?

The militia is every US citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. You do not need to be in the National Guard or the Armed forces to be a member of the unorganized militia. By the very nature of being a US citizen you already are when you sign you register for selective service.

That's what I'm trying to get across. The rest of the Militia Act spells out certain things that a militia must have and do. None of these are even thought of today. Using this document as support for the right to own a gun is akin to enforcing a law that says spitting on the sidewalk means a mandatory 5-day jail stay.

This is where you're confusing things. The 2nd Amendment (as well as the other Amendments) do not grant you a right. It affirms a right that is considered to pre-exist the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Hence, 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting... or abridging the right", 2ndA "the right... shall not be infrigned", 5thA "The right of the people... shall not be violated", etc... and the 10th Amendment states it clearly too... That the government cannot restrict or control what the people do not allow it to. The preamble to the Constitution states "secure the blessings of liberty"... which translates to protecting the rights inherent of free men.

Even quickly researching the earlier versions of the Bill of Rights and the debates and statements of the founding fathers, you will see that this is apparent.

Just look at this excerpt to see how antiquated this act is:

So you're saying that everyone between 18 and 45 needs to have a horse, a saber, a holster covered with bearskin caps? Grenadiers? I doubt anyone would support our "right" to own grenades.

The requirements of the Militia, as stated in the Militia acts, is that a common person not in the regular army, or not part of an organized militia like the National Guard, must keep a firearm and other items necessary to be able to serve the country if necessary.

Miller v. US addresses the issue in dicta... Even though the defendant was a criminal and it resulted in his prosecution (even though he was already dead) that it means that firearms that are common to the military are protected under the 2nd Amendment. In fact hunting rifles and hunting shotguns may not even be considered protected firearms at all, only firearms that are suitable for militia use, regardless of a citizens particular militia status or lack thereof.

Regardless if you think it is outdated, you would have to assume that your right to privacy, your right to free speech and other rights are outdated and that you shouldn't have them?

In nearly 30 states, if you wish to own a machine gun, grenades, a canon or explosives, all you need to do is pass a background check and pay the federal tax. Yet, you don't hear about them ever being abused... Not that I think most people should have access to grenades, bombs or other crew served weapons, but the firearms that are in use by the individuals military today are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Parker v. DC also addresses this issue and agree that some restrictions and training may very well be legal, but does not tread into this ground. Parker v. DC is currently at the DC Circuit of Appeals awaiting en banc review, which will probably be denied after analysis of the opinion and the dissent, and then will be granted cert. by SCOTUS by the end of this year... The reason it will be heard is that there is currently a circuit split on the individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and that they will want to finally clear this up.

The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as are all the other rights in the BOR. The right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to avoid self-incrimination, the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seisure, the right to have council, etc...

I'm sorry about your frustration with me. I admit that my opinion was based solely on my interpretation of the amendment. You have obviously done some research.

Can't we all just get along

Yes, and I'm sorry for being rude. I do take all of my rights very seriously. They are all equally important to our continued freedom.

[5074charvel]

This thread almost had some merit until someone threw Michael Moore into it.

If you´re refering to my post: I threw in the name but referred to a statistic. That statistic reveals, that the rate of persons being killed by guns in the US exceeds the rate in other countries of the western world by a couple of thousand percents. This has nothing more to do with M. Moore as I found these facts quite astonishing.

In a later post I asked about opinions about this fact. One opinion was, that out of 300 million it is not much.

[lerxstcat]

I beg to differ. There has long been discussion about how does one masure the effectiveness of the Police, is it by the amount of people we lock up, the amount of crime complaints we record & successfuly identify an offender for, or, is it just by being there that we make a difference. You cannot measure the number of times that someone was intent on committing a crime, saw a cop & thought better of doing what they were going to do, therefore the presence of the Police prevented a crime. It would seem that the fact that all your officers are armed does not prevent someone from shooting another or using a firearm in the commission of a crime. If a large number of citizens are similarly armed how does that assist with crime prevention? Quite simply it doesn't, all it does is encourage a criminal to go & get a gun to DEFEND himself while committing a crime.

Yes I respect the fact that you have the laws that you have, but in this day & age, they appear antiquated & do need to be subject of scrutiny. That's why you have higher courts to debate & examine the laws that exist & assess if they need updating. That process alone should commence at the very least.

Yes this is an emotive subject for BOTH sides which is why, a balanced, independent, measured assessment needs to be undertaken.

The Second Amendment will never be repealed in this country, and even if it were, it would start an insurgency that makes the one in Iraq look like a holiday fireworks display.

Los Angeles. California has about 4 million citizens, and 8,000 police officers. The town I grew up in had 8,000 people and probably 12 officers at the time. Now it's about 15,000 and I think 32 officers.

How with these ratios are the police going to effectively protect the people? They can't. Yes their prescence might deter criminals - for 5 minutes until they drive away. Then the smart criminal knows that cop won't be back for an hour or two, whatever his patrol circuit is, and knows he has X amount of time to commit his crime.

You need to realize that this is a very different environment than yours, and the rules that apply there, don't here.

I can walk out to the river and potentially run into an alligator or a bear. Even deer have been acting strangely aggressive recently. Many areas have mountain lions and wolves and coyotes. You don't have this kind of wildlife in your long-tamed countryside.

Someone posted a story about a school massacre in Japan in 2001. The guy killed 8 and wounded 13, armed only with a kitchen knife. Those are lower numbers, but think what he could've done with even a machete. Or failing that, a bomb made from a propane torch fuel can and a box of nails.

If you want to kill a bunch of people, you will find a way. Hey, let's ban cars, I could go up on the sidewalk in any downtown in the IUS and take out more people than this guy did.

What we need is to spot these people, take them into custody and treat them for their mental problems before they explode. This man's English tutor contacted authorities about his homicidal writings, but because he didn't explicitly threaten real people, there was nothing they could do,.

THAT is the problem here...