The 2nd Amendment

[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 Of course, this survival instict is very outdated.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

[fett]

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

[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.

[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.

[Spivonious]

^^^

[scotty2]

Let me give you a Brit’s take on this if I may.

I am a Police Officer with just under 20 years service, I have served in specialist units, including armed ones & I have met & dealt with some extremely violent individuals armed with everything from axes to firearms. We are not routinely armed in the UK & if the need arises, we have to call for specialist armed units based around the force area. Our Government has seen fit to act in the wake of incidents such as what took place yesterday in Virginia. My thoughts are with those who lost friends & family in yet another senseless tragedy.

Here is a wee history lesson as to how we reached the position we are at in the UK with regards gun laws.

Hungerford, England, 1987. Michael RYAN, described as a loner & gun fanatic, runs amok in a small rural town armed with an automatic rifle (AK47), a pistol and at least one hand grenade. He kills 14 people including one Police Officer before he shoots himself after Police eventually locate & contain him.

The UK government act swiftly, all automatic weapons are banned, no more AK47s or similar can be purchased. Pump action shotguns are restricted as to how many cartridges they can hold. Some say the legislation does not go far enough.

Fast forward to Dunblane, Scotland, 1996. Thomas HAMILTON, a disgraced scout leader, arrives at Dunblane Primary School armed with two 9 mm Browning self-loading (or semi-automatic) pistols and two .357 Smith & Wesson revolvers. He proceeded to shoot & kill 17 people, mainly young children along with school staff. 17 others were also injured.

The UK Government act swiftly again. ALL weapons over .22 calibre are now banned. The Government announces that there will be a national surrender of the banned weapons. Police stations will be the receiving houses for surrendered items with former firearms holders being compensated. Our station is inundated with equipment being surrendered. In one case, one man hands in a multitude of weapons & thousands of rounds of ammunition. The scary thing was, he held them all legally. He couldn’t quite say why he had so many guns & thousands of rounds.

Do we still have gun crime??? Yes we do but we have not had a Columbine or Virginia since 1996.

The Metropolitan Police in London recently dealt with a high number of fatal stabbings, they also have specialised units who deal with gang related gun crime. The trend in the UK is for ‘firearms incidents’ to be on the rise as opposed to shootings which do occur. We have seen an increase in the number of crimes committed with the offender carrying an imitation firearm since the acquisition of the real thing is more difficult here. There is a thriving underground industry for the conversion or adaptation of blank firing or low powered weapons to be rendered capable of firing live or more powerful ammunition. The risks to the shooter are greater than that of an intended victim since the gun or ammo having been adapted, is more likely to blow up in the face of the shooter. (Summary justice don’t you think?)

We have learned some bitter lessons here in the UK. Yes we do still have illegally held firearms being used to commit crime, but we have taken steps to minimise the chances of another Dunblane or Hungerford from happening again. In the US it seems that even the well intentioned actions taken by some of your leaders have been undone. President CLINTON instituted the Assault Weapons Ban, but only for 10 years. A promise to reinstate or strengthen it by President BUSH was never carried out. That ban would not have stopped someone from killing another but it would perhaps have meant that the shooter would have had less of an opportunity to kill multiple victims.

No one is saying that all gun owners are inclined to commit mass murder, quite clearly they are not, however the actions of a minority of individuals does suggest that there needs to be a thorough examination of your existing firearms laws. I said ‘laws’ for a reason. In the UK we have a few acts of Parliament that are law throughout the country, not the system you have in the US where each state has their own version of firearms legislation. This cannot be helpful at all if there is to be a realistic alteration of the law in relation to sale, purchase & possession of firearms.

Here we have severe penalties for firearms offences....that is when we have enough prison spaces free to actually send someone to jail. That coupled with the actions taken by the Government has to have helped reduce the opportunity for mass killings to have taken place.

Much has been said about the 2nd Amendment & how it enshrines the citizens’ right to bear arms. Can anyone explain how a piece of legislation, hundreds of years old is still relevant today? If this shining beacon of legal wisdom allows people to continue to acquire weapons & present opportunities for someone to commit an act of mass murder, then it will take an act of monumental courage for someone to stand up & say that this is the time to scrutinise the 2nd Amendment & decide once & for all if it has any place in modern America. I for one will applaud anyone who stands up & says ‘enough is enough’ & the time to re examine gun control is now.

Much is mentioned about the militia as outlined in the Constitution, the USA is without any doubt, the only superpower left in the world today. Given the capability of the US armed forces & the technological support they have, is there a real NEED, for a militia????

Am I a limey who knows nothing about guns, sadly not. I am a serving Police Officer who has carried firearms, some of my colleagues have used their weapons & either wounded or killed criminals. My unit has many roles one of which is to maximise the opportunities to recover illegally held weapons. Last year was our most successful yet in terms of seizures. This year is going strong with another recovery today.

In 1995, one of my relatives moved to Dunblane in the Central Scotland. In 1996, his daughter was less than 100 feet away from Thomas HAMILTON when he opened fire on the group of school children fatally shooting 17 people. We never lost anyone that day but many people did. Sadly, again there are many families who are without loved ones tonight. Think about them when you defend the constitutional right to bear arms folks.

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.

My thoughts once again are with those who lost friends & family in Virginia. Stay safe.

[lerxstcat]

That intent is useless in modern times. When it was written, a group of men with guns had nearly the equivalent fire power as the tyrannical governments of the times. If they could score some cannons then they're on equal footing. Today's tyrannical government is so drastically better equipped that it is a silly argument.

Handguns are for people that cling to some notion that it is some freedom they are entitled to regardless of whether or not it is sensible anymore.

Well, yes and no. We can't go up directly against the military, but we can still assassinate a tyrant if we catch him in a vulnerable position. We can also fight a guerilla war, probably a lot beter than the Iraqis are doing. And until the Second Amendment is repealed by what, 3/5 of the states, it IS a freedom we are entitled to.

Some will contend that even if Congress repealed it, that it is an inalienable right and Congress would be wrong. But that is moot because America will never repeal the Second Amendment. Even Rosie O'Donnell realizes that, though she doesn't like it.

[fett]

Here's the defintion of "Infringe" http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/infringe Raises an interesting point.

[OnlineStageGear]

Tell ya what, I will give up my guns that day the Government can guarantee me there will be nobody coming in my house is in my store to rob me or harm me in any way.

[Spivonious]

**double post**

[Spivonious]

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

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

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols.

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.

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

[xenophobe]

We're trying to debate the finer points of Constitutional law and SCOTUS interpretations, but you're not even aware of the fundamental elements of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the premise in which they were written, or the understanding of the debates our Forefathers had in creating these documents. I've studied both sides and have the basic understandings that are not argued even between the liberals and conservatives.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not outline what you can or can't do. They weren't written to grant you rights. They outline what power the people have vested in the government, and what limitations are placed on Federal Government on how the people can be governed. You don't even seem to understand this basic concept of why States have separate Bills of Rights and Constitutions of their own, the understanding of the basic rights, understand the Supremacy Clause and Article III Section 2 left the Federal Government powerless to enforce States to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights until the 14th Amendment's creation to give the Federal Judicial Branch power to force states to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even though SCOTUS hasn't opined that the 14th does indeed incorporate the 2nd Amendment, contrary to liberal belief, that the pre-CRA 14th wasn't about freed slaves, it was about protecting the rights of white men and bearing arms among other rights, and extending this protection to US citizens in every state and extending this umbrella protection over the citizens of states who did not wish to recognize them....

Anyways... rant over.

[xenophobe]

So to fall into the militia (i.e. those needing to be able to supply their own weapons) I need to be either a member of said militia, or a member of the National Guard/Naval Militia.

This is exactly your misunderstand that is driving me nuts. Definition of unorganized militia:

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The 'milita' refers to everyone who is capable of fighting regardless if they are in active service, the national guard, or alone in their shack in Montana.


And I'm sorry for the personal attacks. I'm having a discussion about a book with someone who only saw the movie.

[Strat God]

Well I have a jaded view since I run a security company and was a contractor for DHS in NYC for 6 years. You would shit if you knew some of the stuff that's happened that didn't make the papers.

But I have a strong opinion regarding gun ownership and when it comes down to me or him - I'm gonna do everything in my power to make sure it's me still breathing when it's over.

I'll never convince the anti-gun crowd - but remember:

It's better to be judged by 12 - than to be carried by 6.

[Spivonious]

It's a movie. It's not even a documentary. To be a documentary it would have to be relatively free of bias. Bowling for Columbine is not relatively free of bias.

Again, I already said it wasn't a documentary. It's a movie about M.M.'s opinion. You claim that he doctored the footage in Canada. I ask for evidence supporting this, you provide none.

Another assumption.

I only know how I feel. I said that streets felt safer. This is not a fact and I'm not purporting it to be one.

The rights expressed in the Constitution and BOR affirm pre-existing rights, they do not create rights in their own.

You pointed me specifically to the preambles. The Constitution deals with the structure and function of the federal government. The BOR lists certain rights. Perhaps you're thinking of this line from the declaration of independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

So you're saying that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to own a gun? Please point me to the part in the Bible/Koran/Torah that says this.

Obviously you have never actually interpreted anything on your own.

Quite a needless personal attack there.

The 2nd Militia Act requires that common citizens who are not part of the organized militia to own weapons that are comparible to what was in use at the time.

The militia is recognized as the organized militia and the unorganized militia, which is ALL able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 47.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So to fall into the militia (i.e. those needing to be able to supply their own weapons) I need to be either a member of said militia, or a member of the National Guard/Naval Militia. Since other pieces of that document describe how a militia should be organized, I really don't see how I could be part of one, since there are no militia coordinators or leaders or meeting times scheduled at least twice a year.

Again, you didn't read it. SCOTUS reviewed Miller and said that firearms that are used for Military purposes are indeed protected under the 2nd Amendment. If the defense, who was a public defender would have shown up and provided evidence that a short barreled shotguns were indeed used by the military, SCOTUS would have ruled in favor of Miller.

I did read it. Sure there was an oversight since the defendent didn't show up to defend his case. That doesn't change the wording of the SCOTUS response: "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

And again you didn't read it. Your argument is invalid as you're talking like a moron out of your ass.

Parker v. DC was ruled by the DC District which holds weight, right now DC is petitioning for the DC circuit to hear the case en banc, and they will most likely be denied. After that, SCOTUS.

And just the same with Miller v. US, you can't cite why the opinion is right or wrong, or why the dissent is right or wrong, you just know what the one sentence outcome was.

That's like arguing what a book says only by reading the text on the back.

Until the whole process is finished, all this means is that two people thought that the gun law was unconstitutional.

bla blah blah.

You don't even know what you're talking about and arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I'm sorry, you're uninformed, uneducated and not read up on the subject.

Why was the 14th Amendment even passed? Never mind, instead of finding out you'll just find some brief overview and absorb it as your own.

You sir, are a mental midget and I'm wasting my time on you.

I've read all of the items you've mentioned in your arguments, and fail to see how they support you. But hey, if you can't argue back, just insult the person. That makes you look really smart.