NationStates Jolt Archive

Does the First Amendment only cover quill pens and ink?

Craig

Does the First Amendment only cover quill pens and ink?

Criag

ROFLMAO!!! I never heard it put quite that way before, but you have a very valid point! Kudos! :D

No, the First covers all forms of free speach. As long it is not provoking people to murderous action I guess.

BTW, the Second Amendment covers weapons meant to kill other people. A militia is armed with military grade weapons, back when it was signed those weapons were flintlock single shots muskets. Nowadays it there are AKs, Armalites, Tavors, Bushmasters, FNs, Heckler and Koch, and a whole list of others. All meant to kill people, thier not meant to be used to hunt with.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting weapons or hunting in general.

No, the First covers all forms of free speach. As long it is not provoking people to murderous action I guess.

BTW, the Second Amendment covers weapons meant to kill other people. A militia is armed with military grade weapons, back when it was signed those weapons were flintlock single shots muskets. Nowadays it there are AKs, Armalites, Tavors, Bushmasters, FNs, Heckler and Koch, and a whole list of others. All meant to kill people, thier not meant to be used to hunt with.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting weapons or hunting in general.
By my understanding of the intentions of the 2nd Amendment, this is fairly accurate, but IMO if you look at it like that, the 2nd Amendment is outdated. It was mainly created so that ordinary citizens can have guns and form militias in case of an invasion by a foreign power, or to defend themselves from Indian attacks on frontier settlements, etc. The US is in no danger of being invaded, militias aren't needed because of how strong our regular military is already (and don't forget the National Guard). Therefore, there really isn't any reason for an average citizen to own a firearm that has no purpose other than killing other people, unless they are a member of law enforcement or military, and in those cases, they should not need the weapons except when they are on duty. Of course, I realizethis isn't perfect, because criminals still do have guns, people want to have handguns and such to defend themselves...but seriously, when would you ever need an AK-47 to defend yourself? In case you get robbed in an alley, would you just so happen to have it with you? If someone breaks into your house, don't you think an assault rifle is a bit of an overkill? This is a complex problem, ideally nobody would need or have guns (except those for hunting), but I would still think it'd be a good idea for police to have them. But how do you get the guns off the streets out of the hands of criminals? I don't know, I don't have a solution...

I hope this made sense...not always easy to put my thoughts into words :)

Does the First Amendment only cover quill pens and ink?

Criag

Yes.

And now we understand the purpose and constitutionality behind the FCC.

And of course, rights can (and should) be taken away as they become outdated.

By my understanding of the intentions of the 2nd Amendment, this is fairly accurate, but IMO if you look at it like that, the 2nd Amendment is outdated. It was mainly created so that ordinary citizens can have guns and form militias in case of an invasion by a foreign power, or to defend themselves from Indian attacks on frontier settlements, etc. The US is in no danger of being invaded, militias aren't needed because of how strong our regular military is already (and don't forget the National Guard). Therefore, there really isn't any reason for an average citizen to own a firearm that has no purpose other than killing other people, unless they are a member of law enforcement or military, and in those cases, they should not need the weapons except when they are on duty. Of course, I realizethis isn't perfect, because criminals still do have guns, people want to have handguns and such to defend themselves...but seriously, when would you ever need an AK-47 to defend yourself? In case you get robbed in an alley, would you just so happen to have it with you? If someone breaks into your house, don't you think an assault rifle is a bit of an overkill? This is a complex problem, ideally nobody would need or have guns (except those for hunting), but I would still think it'd be a good idea for police to have them. But how do you get the guns off the streets out of the hands of criminals? I don't know, I don't have a solution...

I hope this made sense...not always easy to put my thoughts into words :)

Let's just take an example: in the genocide currently being conducted in Rawanda ( I think that's where it is, anyway ), if those in the villages and camps being decimated had the right to own the same weapons as those doing the killing, do you think they might have been able to prevent much of it? And please spare me the specious argument that "it couldn't happen here" ( wherever "here" might be for you ); it can happen ANYWHERE.

And of course, rights can (and should) be taken away as they become outdated.
Rights should not be taken away simply because some people are of the opinion that they are outdated? It is not that hard to imagine a time when freedom of speech might be concidered outdated... should it then be taken away? The right to privacy?

And of course, rights can (and should) be taken away as they become outdated.

In the US, rights cannot be "taken away." They can only be given away by those who posses them, either by choice or by default.

Yes.

And now we understand the purpose and constitutionality behind the FCC.
It's all so clear now...

Does the First Amendment only cover quill pens and ink?

Criag
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in this are pens and quills mentioned. The premise is freedom of speech extending to and including the freedom to publish one's speech in written form.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The fore part is the premise upon which the second part rests. After the writing of this amendment a regular military has been established and therefore obviates the latter part.

That said - the courts did not strike down the assault weapons ban as unconstitutional. The Congress, bought off by the NRA, let a good law lapse.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in this are pens and quills mentioned. The premise is freedom of speech extending to and including the freedom to publish one's speech in written form.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The fore part is the premise upon which the second part rests. After the writing of this amendment a regular military has been established and therefore obviates the latter part.

That said - the courts did not strike down the assault weapons ban as unconstitutional. The Congress, bought off by the NRA, let a good law lapse.


Well SCOTUS seems to disagree w/ you as in 1938 they defined the militia as any man capable of bearing arms. Where did you get this idea? Seriously.

Why do you feel it was a good law? What direct effect did it have?

Does the First Amendment only cover quill pens and ink?

Criag

If that were the case, it would cover manual printing presses as well. You wouldn't even have single shot rifles to think of it, only muskets.

And of course, rights can (and should) be taken away as they become outdated.

:eek:

Since when?
And aside from the question of whether rights can actually be taken away (as opposed to abused),
Would you agree that parts of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments should be taken away? They are "outdated" according to the Bush adiminstration.*
The right to life, which the 2nd Amendment is in part historically** designed to protect, is inalienable according to Jefferson and the others who signed the declaration of independence. Also note what order they listed the inalianable rights. It certainly wasn't libertry, pursuit of happiness, and life.
And to those who bring up the "well regulated militia" clause note 2 things. First, well regulated, in historical context means well armed. Second, as is clear from the context of the writings of the authors of the constitution, and the Federalist Papers in particular, state repeatedly that the militia consists of the whole population.

* See Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which abridges parts of those amendments.
**And if you aren't aware of that I suggest you read up on the topic. The 2nd Amendment historically derives from the English Bill of Rights which specifically mentions the use of arms for self defence. The Federalist Papers also specify this.

You also need to account for the fact that they INTENDED the populace to be able to rise up against the government should it ever become too terribly oppressive to the majority of americans and force of arms became necessary to ensure the freedom of the american people. An unlikely prospect to be sure, but something that IS there as a last resort for the citizens of the U.S.

If that were the case, it would cover manual printing presses as well. You wouldn't even have single shot rifles to think of it, only muskets.

I thought Kiwis were supposed to understand sarcasm/irony? ;)

Craig

I thought Kiwis were supposed to understand sarcasm/irony? ;)

Craig

Yeah sorry I'm used to talking to Americans on here.

If you have your arm amputated in the states are they infringing your second amendment right? What if thats what they meant all along?

Yeah sorry I'm used to talking to Americans on here.

If you have your arm amputated in the states are they infringing your second amendment right? What if thats what they meant all along?

Well then I know quite a few combat vets and Amish farmers that need to take their doctors to court. Of course you're assuming that it wasn't a case of dyslexia and they meant the right to arm bears.

Well then I know quite a few combat vets and Amish farmers that need to take their doctors to court. Of course you're assuming that it wasn't a case of dyslexia and they meant the right to arm bears.

Under this whole line, yes they should. Those silly doctors forgot to attach the big ole hairy arm of a bear!

Of course you're assuming that it wasn't a case of dyslexia and they meant the right to arm bears.

I'm seeing a Reality TV show opportunity :-D

Craig

No, the First covers all forms of free speach. As long it is not provoking people to murderous action I guess.

actually, Brandenburg v Ohio says the First Amendment protects that too.

The first amendment has to do with language and creative freedom; the second amendment has to do with physical elements that are neither bound by creativity or explained by language.

bump

The right to bear arms was not intended to provide only for the defence against foriegn invaders, Natives, Etc, but to defend the people against the tyranny of the government. It was to insure thate the individual states were not left defenseless against the federal government.

It was not about hunting.

There are quite a few ways to interpret the 2nd Amendment, but you have to dig into the writings of the founding fathers to really understand what they meant and what they wanted.

The problem is, though, that the 2nd Amendment *is* outdated, if you believe that it specifies that the people have a unalienable constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

"Arms" is a fairly broad term, which includes not only pistols, shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles, but also machine guns, rocket launchers, warplanes, heavy artillery, and nuclear weapons. If you agree that the government has a responsibility to regulate those, then you believe that the people, via the government, have a right to draw a line as to what types of arms are and are not authorized to be bore by the people.

The question, in my mind, is do these laws do any good, and, even worse, do they cause harm. Invariably, they do no good, and cause a great deal of harm. Outside of reasonable controls on weapons types (the assault weapons ban was a ridiculious law, as anyone even remotely familiar with weapons will tell you) to prevent overly dangerous weapons into the general population, banning handguns, rifles, and shotguns will do absolutely nothing to prevent them from being used in crimes. Guns are, and always will be, readily available to criminals, regardless of their legal status. In the UK, the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40% after they were banned.

So, for those of you in favor of stricter gun controls, tell me, why?

"Arms" is a fairly broad term, which includes not only pistols, shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles, but also machine guns, rocket launchers, warplanes, heavy artillery, and nuclear weapons. If you agree that the government has a responsibility to regulate those, then you believe that the people, via the government, have a right to draw a line as to what types of arms are and are not authorized to be bore by the people.

Hey, if they can afford to spend millions, even billions of dollars to have a warplane, I say let em.

I'd love to own an F-15 .. even unarmed. :-)

Does the First Amendment only cover quill pens and ink?


No ... it also covers freedom of the press .... the garlic press.

The 117 PAGES of rhetoric the last time enough for this topic? :)

In the UK, the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40% after they were banned.

So, for those of you in favor of stricter gun controls, tell me, why?
From my understanding though, the U.K. has a ridiculously low murder rate involving handguns.

Let's just take an example: in the genocide currently being conducted in Rawanda ( I think that's where it is, anyway ), if those in the villages and camps being decimated had the right to own the same weapons as those doing the killing, do you think they might have been able to prevent much of it? And please spare me the specious argument that "it couldn't happen here" ( wherever "here" might be for you ); it can happen ANYWHERE.
There is the difference between us. I honestly don't think it can or will happen here. :)
There's a bit of difference between the United States and countries like Rwanda, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc.

You also need to account for the fact that they INTENDED the populace to be able to rise up against the government should it ever become too terribly oppressive to the majority of americans and force of arms became necessary to ensure the freedom of the american people. An unlikely prospect to be sure, but something that IS there as a last resort for the citizens of the U.S.
Yes, that is what they intended. However, in this day and age, I don't think it would be possible. If it ever got that serious, the military could call in airstrikes, artillery, they could use machine guns, bazookas, sniper rifles, etc... Even if half of the population rebelled violently and they all had M-16s, I still don't think it would succeed through sheer force of numbers. It probably would have worked in 1804, or maybe even 1904, but not in 2004.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting weapons or hunting in general.
And why do so many Americans want to own weapons in the first place? Absolutely barking. They clearly don't deter criminals 'cos if they did the USA would have the lowest crime rate in the world - which it clearly doesn't.

It Second Amendment was written because in 1789 the country was a much more dangerous place with Indian attacks and no kind of army or police force to speak of. Things are different now, with no need for privately owned weaponry, except for hunting. Owning a handgun is unneeded nevermind automatic weapons or somehing even more powerful. With the murder rate with firearms in the U.S. it is irresponsible to continue to allow guns to be legal. This will never happen but hopefully Kerry will be elected and will at least bring back the assault weapons ban.

And why do so many Americans want to own weapons in the first place? Absolutely barking. They clearly don't deter criminals 'cos if they did the USA would have the lowest crime rate in the world - which it clearly doesn't.

Opposed to London?
http://www.economist.com/cities/displaystory.cfm?story_id=988020

It Second Amendment was written because in 1789 the country was a much more dangerous place with Indian attacks and no kind of army or police force to speak of. Things are different now, with no need for privately owned weaponry, except for hunting. Owning a handgun is unneeded nevermind automatic weapons or somehing even more powerful. With the murder rate with firearms in the U.S. it is irresponsible to continue to allow guns to be legal. This will never happen but hopefully Kerry will be elected and will at least bring back the assault weapons ban.

Uh huh.

Are you aware that the assault weapons ban required the weapon to have a BAYONET PLUG? So... you can't attach a bayonet, it didn't fall into the ban.
That sounds like a law worth bringing back!

ALL guns should be legal to own, so long as you're licensed, the same way you can SAY whatever you want in public, so long as you have your assembly permit.

Either the laws fall one way, or they fall the other.

I am truely humbled by all the "experts" on the constitution. I personally think some people just post crap to stir people up.

Now here is my spin on the issue. The constitution is a document that was written many years ago by men that were wise beyond there years. Being very intelligent and understanding that things might need to be changed, the writers added a measure to amend the constitution through a very drawn-out process. Why must so many steps be taken to amend the constitution? If something as important as the law of the land needs to be changed then EVERYBODY needs to be onboard about the change.

Now lets step back to the issue which is truely the hidden agenda of this thread, gun control. For years legislators from many Liberal states have tried to enact legislation to limit, ban, outlaw, register, tax more, etc. firearms. Some things have passed, some haven't. The sticky point is this, does a criminal really follow the law? The answer is NO, they normally don't walk into a store and purchase a gun, they get them from stealing them or buying them off the street via blackmarket,etc. So why pass a law that only the law abiding citizens will follow? Because it makes everybody "feel good". Feel good legislation, has no bearing on how safe the streets are.

When the assault weapons ban was passed, great things were touted with it, lower police response time, more cops on the streets, etc. Didn't really see the impact of that were I live. In fact our police response time is actually 8-10 minutes, hasn't changed probably never will. Doesn't seem like a long time, except when some guy is stabbing the crap out of you.

Many legislators that voted for this bill all came up for reelection and many were soundly defeated. One thing to note about politicians, they pay attention to trends. When so many people lost there congressional seats, the ones that remained wouldn't touch reenacting the ban with a ten foot pole. Combine this with the fact that terrorism is a real possibility in our country now, I don't think strict gun legislation will be brought up anytime soon.

Now if gun control and getting rid of the second amendment is such a "high" priority with all you activists, amend the constitution. The problem ya'll have with this is you simply don't have the votes to get it done. This issue should be a state law issue and not a national issue anyway.

It would truely be a wonderful place if all the "activist" complainers would take up an issue that would benifit another human. Griping about the second amendment isn't getting this done. Hmm, maybe take a homeless person a warm plate of food? Call your elderly neighbor and check on them?

Opposed to London?
http://www.economist.com/cities/displaystory.cfm?story_id=988020
Murder aside, London's crime rate is far higher than New York's, and rising
Emphasis mine. Maybe Sploddygloop wasn't, but I was talking specifically about crimes with handguns. Besides, you can't compare one city that has recently cracked down hard on crime in the US and compare it to one cith which is having problems with crime in the UK. If you took the same statistics 10 years ago, I think you would find that NYC crime was much higher, and London's was much lower.

Uh huh.

Are you aware that the assault weapons ban required the weapon to have a BAYONET PLUG? So... you can't attach a bayonet, it didn't fall into the ban.
That sounds like a law worth bringing back!

ALL guns should be legal to own, so long as you're licensed, the same way you can SAY whatever you want in public, so long as you have your assembly permit.

Either the laws fall one way, or they fall the other.
No it didn't. The bayonet fixture was one of the 3 possible features that was required for it to be considered an assault weapon. There's a list of about 10 or so features, and if it contains ANY 3 of them, it's considered an assault weapon. Also, there are about 19 or so weapons which are specifically named in the bill as well.

I would point out that you can be arrested for "Disturbing the Public Peace" Which can be used against protesters. You can get arrested if you threaten to kill the president, whcih is just free speech. You have to be a certain age to go to the movies. Sexual harrasment is just free speech. There are so many ways that the 1st amendment is restricted, why cant the 2nd ammendment be restricted also?

:eek:

Since when?
And aside from the question of whether rights can actually be taken away (as opposed to abused),
Would you agree that parts of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments should be taken away? They are "outdated" according to the Bush adiminstration.*
The right to life, which the 2nd Amendment is in part historically** designed to protect, is inalienable according to Jefferson and the others who signed the declaration of independence. Also note what order they listed the inalianable rights. It certainly wasn't libertry, pursuit of happiness, and life.
And to those who bring up the "well regulated militia" clause note 2 things. First, well regulated, in historical context means well armed. Second, as is clear from the context of the writings of the authors of the constitution, and the Federalist Papers in particular, state repeatedly that the militia consists of the whole population.

* See Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which abridges parts of those amendments.
**And if you aren't aware of that I suggest you read up on the topic. The 2nd Amendment historically derives from the English Bill of Rights which specifically mentions the use of arms for self defence. The Federalist Papers also specify this.

Amendment XVIII
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

... so from 1919-1934, it was illegal to have a drink. That's 15 years worth of a right being taken away. :(

Now lets step back to the issue which is truely the hidden agenda of this thread, gun control. For years legislators from many Liberal states have tried to enact legislation to limit, ban, outlaw, register, tax more, etc. firearms. Some things have passed, some haven't. The sticky point is this, does a criminal really follow the law? The answer is NO, they normally don't walk into a store and purchase a gun, they get them from stealing them or buying them off the street via blackmarket,etc. So why pass a law that only the law abiding citizens will follow? Because it makes everybody "feel good". Feel good legislation, has no bearing on how safe the streets are.

One thing you can do is vastly increase the penalty for owning an illegally acquired gun. I don't think any law-abiding citizens would have anything against that.

Yes, that is what they intended. However, in this day and age, I don't think it would be possible. If it ever got that serious, the military could call in airstrikes, artillery, they could use machine guns, bazookas, sniper rifles, etc... Even if half of the population rebelled violently and they all had M-16s, I still don't think it would succeed through sheer force of numbers. It probably would have worked in 1804, or maybe even 1904, but not in 2004.
I don't know about that. A well-armed (AK-47's, C4/Semtex, sniper rifles, touch explosives, all of which can be easily aquired or made), decently-trained organization could easily take out the leaders of the government. Even one high-level government revolutionary could probably take out the president. From there, the rest would be much easier. Civilians have a very easy time getting into government facilities, since most of them have jobs there.

No it didn't. The bayonet fixture was one of the 3 possible features that was required for it to be considered an assault weapon. There's a list of about 10 or so features, and if it contains ANY 3 of them, it's considered an assault weapon. Also, there are about 19 or so weapons which are specifically named in the bill as well.

My point was that it's a very arbitrary distinction. BTW, It's not 3 of 10, it's 2 of 5, broken into "classes" of guns. (It's in subsection 30:)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=921

Please look below the line.
Now, for part B. Parts i, ii, and iii are very obviously just in there to net more guns that they'd not have to enumerate in part A. I can point out several weapons that are decades old that have i and iii, and some from last week which are infinitely more deadly, but are not.
Further, consider part C. Why does part v exist there and not in B and D?
Consider part D, iii. So... I can have 7 rounds in my .45 pistol, but only 5 in my Remington shotgun?
_______
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol
outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel
extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or
completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter
to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the
pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm

(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

And the 19 weapons (aka part A), with a minor change in manufacturing and a new name stamp, were perfectly legal for the length of the ban.

The law made some people feel better, but was really not effective.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16833-2004Sep12.html

No it didn't. The bayonet fixture was one of the 3 possible features that was required for it to be considered an assault weapon. There's a list of about 10 or so features, and if it contains ANY 3 of them, it's considered an assault weapon. Also, there are about 19 or so weapons which are specifically named in the bill as well.
If you look at the facts of the ban, you would realize that it was primarily cosmetic in nature. It was only a "feel good" weapon ban.... designed to make people feel good about enacting it because it baned "scary looking" weapons.

Amendment XVIII
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

... so from 1919-1934, it was illegal to have a drink. That's 15 years worth of a right being taken away. :(

15 years of a right being abused. People still had the right to drink. Note that the government figured out fairly quickly (as far as governments go) that this was a bad idea.

I fully realize that the assault weapons ban had many flaws but it was the best we had. President Bush with all his talk of "security" now has made it easy to get automatic weapons, which should concern President Bush with his paranoia over terrorism. The simple fact is that not simply upright citizents get to own their new Glock, but drug dealers and other criminals as well. With over 10,000 homicides a year with the use of firearms how can we have the luxury to leagalize even more dangerous weapons? Where do you draw the line? Now, the state of Ohio has just legalized concealed weapons. Now can this be smart? The only silver lining in this mess is that a good portion of these homicides are criminals whacking other criminals, no loss there. I really don't like the NRA trying to flood our nation with even more deadly devices. Perhaps Charles Heston would have liked to have his child die at Columbine?

15 years of a right being abused. People still had the right to drink. Note that the government figured out fairly quickly (as far as governments go) that this was a bad idea.
Not exactly sure about this.. but I don't think drinking alcohol is a right. It's a privilege.

I fully realize that the assault weapons ban had many flaws but it was the best we had. President Bush with all his talk of "security" now has made it easy to get automatic weapons, which should concern President Bush with his paranoia over terrorism. The simple fact is that not simply upright citizents get to own their new Glock, but drug dealers and other criminals as well. With over 10,000 homicides a year with the use of firearms how can we have the luxury to leagalize even more dangerous weapons? Where do you draw the line? Now, the state of Ohio has just legalized concealed weapons. Now can this be smart? The only silver lining in this mess is that a good portion of these homicides are criminals whacking other criminals, no loss there. I really don't like the NRA trying to flood our nation with even more deadly devices. Perhaps Charles Heston would have liked to have his child die at Columbine?
You are speaking from emotion, not from facts.
The assault weapon ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons.
The assault weapon ban had nothing to do with getting "dangerous weapons" off the streets.
Those 10,000 homicides a year compared to 2,500,000 defensive uses of guns each year, which means guns are 250 times more likely to save a life than to take it.

You are speaking from emotion, not from facts.
The assault weapon ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons.
The assault weapon ban had nothing to do with getting "dangerous weapons" off the streets.
Those 10,000 homicides a year compared to 2,500,000 defensive uses of guns each year, which means guns are 250 times more likely to save a life than to take it.
how many of those were assault weapon defensive uses and assault weapon homicides?

how many of those were assault weapon defensive uses and assault weapon homicides?
The statistics do not break down which type of weapon was used in defense. And according to the sources I've seen posted on these forums about the ban, only about 2% of crimes with firearms are commited with assault weapons. Mind you that last statistic is off the top of my head from what I've read on these forums... I don't have the link to the pages in question.

Here is a link about violent crime, which doesnt directly relate to assault weapons, but it does point out 2 key facts. 1. Violent crime is on the downturn. 2. The use of weapons in crime is on the upturn.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon

The statistics do not break down which type of weapon was used in defense. And according to the sources I've seen posted on these forums about the ban, only about 2% of crimes with firearms are commited with assault weapons. Mind you that last statistic is off the top of my head from what I've read on these forums... I don't have the link to the pages in question.
I believe that only a few homicides are commited with assault weapons. However, I also believe an even smaller persentage of defenses use or need assault weapons.

People should also consider when and why the second amendment was put in there. The English probably didn't like the idea of Americans toting around guns, so the writers of the Bill of Rights felt it was important to protect that right.

Mind you, back then, you needed a gun to go hunting for dinner, and such. Now... not so much. Some people would also argue that it holds true largely for militia. *shrugs*

Now, the assault weapons ban was an unfortunately thin cover. It's not like everyone is going to suddenly run about with twin uzis or something. However, you can find out some about the act here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644044.stm) (The pictures are more help than some of the political commentary, sorry. I really didn't want to use the WOO GUNS! or ARGH! GUNS! people's sites.). Certain weapons may be modified to evade the ban. It's really not that hard to get around it. I think if there is to be any legislation on guns, it should be definite, and clear, but. Guns are an immense part of American culture, and I honestly doubt they are going away any time soon.

I'm really sorry if this post seems stupid. This is a bit new to me.

I don't believe that percentages really matter when it comes to banning assault weapons. So what if only a fraction of violent crime is committed using them? They are still a real danger to people not to mention police officers. If guns were banned then defensive shooting with guns wouldn't matter anyway. Since this won't happen, banning everything but handguns and true hunting rifles is the way to go. Raising the sentence for gun crimes would also be a step in the right direction. Banning many types of ammuniton would also help. I like a joke I heard from Chirs Rock where we shouldn't ban guns but raise the price of ammunition to $1,000 dollars a bullet. You may find this referance stupid but I love it. You'd have to really piss someone off for them to shoot you with a $1,000 dollar bullet!

I don't believe that percentages really matter when it comes to banning assault weapons. So what if only a fraction of violent crime is committed using them? They are still a real danger to people not to mention police officers. If guns were banned then defensive shooting with guns wouldn't matter anyway. Since this won't happen, banning everything but handguns and true hunting rifles is the way to go. Raising the sentence for gun crimes would also be a step in the right direction. Banning many types of ammuniton would also help. I like a joke I heard from Chirs Rock where we shouldn't ban guns but raise the price of ammunition to $1,000 dollars a bullet. You may find this referance stupid but I love it. You'd have to really piss someone off for them to shoot you with a $1,000 dollar bullet!


I saw that sketch. Wasn't it 5000 American dollars? :P It's also a Dilbert joke about how Dogbert was going on about giving everyone all the weapons they wanted, but only he got the ammo.

If you look at the facts of the ban, you would realize that it was primarily cosmetic in nature. It was only a "feel good" weapon ban.... designed to make people feel good about enacting it because it baned "scary looking" weapons.
So since its was allegedly "feel good" how did it impede your rights since it only banned scary looking weapons? Are you saying scary looking weapons are okay? Why?

I don't believe that percentages really matter when it comes to banning assault weapons. So what if only a fraction of violent crime is committed using them? They are still a real danger to people not to mention police officers. If guns were banned then defensive shooting with guns wouldn't matter anyway. Since this won't happen, banning everything but handguns and true hunting rifles is the way to go. Raising the sentence for gun crimes would also be a step in the right direction. Banning many types of ammuniton would also help. I like a joke I heard from Chirs Rock where we shouldn't ban guns but raise the price of ammunition to $1,000 dollars a bullet. You may find this referance stupid but I love it. You'd have to really piss someone off for them to shoot you with a $1,000 dollar bullet!

Small problem with that line of logic. Many would have one bullet, with zero practice in, to make sure the bullet went where it was supposed to go. I'd rather have a lot of guns and gun owners with a great deal of practice in, thank you.

As for the so what about tiny percentages of assault weapons being used in crimes: assault weapons are not the danger. The people that use them in crimes are the danger. A bolt action rifle is more dangerous to police officers than a semi-auto with lower-powered rounds coming out. A .308 or a 30-06 is going to go through armor much better than a .223.

You're right, if guns were banned, no law-abiding citizen would be able to use a gun in a defensive manner. They'd just die by the gun the criminal had, as opposed to having some semblance of a chance in the situation.

I do like the idea of very nasty penalties for using a firearm in a crime, though.

So since its was allegedly "feel good" how did it impede your rights since it only banned scary looking weapons? Are you saying scary looking weapons are okay? Why?

I think it's more along the line of, "Why are you scared of an inanimate object?" We banned a great many things because something LOOKED scary.

I think there are those of us that aren't going to judge on something on just appearance. Isn't that how race wars get started?

So since its was allegedly "feel good" how did it impede your rights since it only banned scary looking weapons? Are you saying scary looking weapons are okay? Why?
I didn't say it impeded my rights... I am saying it's a completely useless piece of legislation because it had no real impact on guns out there.

If you want to restrict guns and gun ownership, at least attempt to do it logically and intelligently.

By my understanding of the intentions of the 2nd Amendment, this is fairly accurate, but IMO if you look at it like that, the 2nd Amendment is outdated. It was mainly created so that ordinary citizens can have guns and form militias in case of an invasion by a foreign power, or to defend themselves from Indian attacks on frontier settlements, etc. The US is in no danger of being invaded, militias aren't needed because of how strong our regular military is already (and don't forget the National Guard). Therefore, there really isn't any reason for an average citizen to own a firearm that has no purpose other than killing other people, unless they are a member of law enforcement or military, and in those cases, they should not need the weapons except when they are on duty. Of course, I realizethis isn't perfect, because criminals still do have guns, people want to have handguns and such to defend themselves...but seriously, when would you ever need an AK-47 to defend yourself? In case you get robbed in an alley, would you just so happen to have it with you? If someone breaks into your house, don't you think an assault rifle is a bit of an overkill? This is a complex problem, ideally nobody would need or have guns (except those for hunting), but I would still think it'd be a good idea for police to have them. But how do you get the guns off the streets out of the hands of criminals? I don't know, I don't have a solution...

I hope this made sense...not always easy to put my thoughts into words :)

Actually the 2nd Amendment's intention was for American citizens to be able to resist their government should it try to unjustly oppress them. One interpretation of "a well-regulated militia" suggested by Jefferson is that the people need the ability to prevent the military (and thereby the government) from being the only physical power around. Another interpretation is that the Founders never wanted an established Army, or at least, not much of one.

In keeping with the thrust of the rest of the Constitution, which is intended to limit the powers of government in favor of the people (but did not succeed so well, since there was conflict between the likes of Jefferson, Payne, and Franklin against Madison, Hamilton, and those that wanted an American aristocracy). If one looks at it through the lens of original intent, the first paragraph's interpretation makes sense.

That said - the courts did not strike down the assault weapons ban as unconstitutional. The Congress, bought off by the NRA, let a good law lapse.
It seems to me that for a lot of people, anyone who disagrees with them has been bribed or threatened.

Here's a story that illustrates the importance of the right of the people to bear arms:
In D.C., it is illegal to own a gun. Someone breaks into a guy's house and heads upstairs towards his daughters' rooms. He confronts the burglar with a gun, and is forced to use it. He then goes to jail for owning a gun. WTH?! Laws don't prevent crime. They only define it. If the government makes a law, law-abiding people will follow it, but criminals won't. That's happened in a lot of countries where guns have been banned. I'll give up my assault weapons when the government gives up theirs.

"Anyone willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither."
-Benjamin Franklin

By my understanding of the intentions of the 2nd Amendment, this is fairly accurate, but IMO if you look at it like that, the 2nd Amendment is outdated. It was mainly created so that ordinary citizens can have guns and form militias in case of an invasion by a foreign power, or to defend themselves from Indian attacks on frontier settlements, etc. The US is in no danger of being invaded, militias aren't needed because of how strong our regular military is already (and don't forget the National Guard). Therefore, there really isn't any reason for an average citizen to own a firearm that has no purpose other than killing other people, unless they are a member of law enforcement or military, and in those cases, they should not need the weapons except when they are on duty. Of course, I realizethis isn't perfect, because criminals still do have guns, people want to have handguns and such to defend themselves...but seriously, when would you ever need an AK-47 to defend yourself? In case you get robbed in an alley, would you just so happen to have it with you? If someone breaks into your house, don't you think an assault rifle is a bit of an overkill? This is a complex problem, ideally nobody would need or have guns (except those for hunting), but I would still think it'd be a good idea for police to have them. But how do you get the guns off the streets out of the hands of criminals? I don't know, I don't have a solution...

I hope this made sense...not always easy to put my thoughts into words :)

Don't forget the right to self defense. You enter my home without my permission, I have the right to shoot you.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in this are pens and quills mentioned. The premise is freedom of speech extending to and including the freedom to publish one's speech in written form.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The fore part is the premise upon which the second part rests. After the writing of this amendment a regular military has been established and therefore obviates the latter part.

That said - the courts did not strike down the assault weapons ban as unconstitutional. The Congress, bought off by the NRA, let a good law lapse.

Pens and quills would be covered by freedom of press not freedom of speech.
The ban was never challenged in front of the US Supreme Court.
Again, the second amendment was targeted at foreign invasion, but at a government that would turn tyrannical in the future and attempt to abolish any of the rights outlined by the constitution. When the government does that, then it will be time for the US government to be overthrown.

Don't forget the right to self defense. You enter my home without my permission, I have the right to shoot you.

Depends on the state you're in. In Texas (All Hail the Motherland, the Greatest State of Them All), yes. In Maryland, you have to be backed into a corner or be facing a similarly armed opponent. In other words, if someone walks in your house, starts nabbing your stuff, ignores your presense, and you brandish a weapon at them and fire, you've just committed murder.

Depends on the state you're in. In Texas (All Hail the Motherland, the Greatest State of Them All), yes. In Maryland, you have to be backed into a corner or be facing a similarly armed opponent. In other words, if someone walks in your house, starts nabbing your stuff, ignores your presense, and you brandish a weapon at them and fire, you've just committed murder.
Only if you kill them, and that isn't the likeliest scenario.

There are quite a few ways to interpret the 2nd Amendment, but you have to dig into the writings of the founding fathers to really understand what they meant and what they wanted.

The problem is, though, that the 2nd Amendment *is* outdated, if you believe that it specifies that the people have a unalienable constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

"Arms" is a fairly broad term, which includes not only pistols, shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles, but also machine guns, rocket launchers, warplanes, heavy artillery, and nuclear weapons. If you agree that the government has a responsibility to regulate those, then you believe that the people, via the government, have a right to draw a line as to what types of arms are and are not authorized to be bore by the people.

No. Arms does not include grenades, rocket launchers etc. Those things are encapsulated by the word "ordinance"(which was the word they used at the time to refer to things such as canons).

That being said, the framers did want the citizens to have access to equipment that was roughly comparable to the military's. How to go about reconciling these two things is beyond my understanding.

Emphasis mine. Maybe Sploddygloop wasn't, but I was talking specifically about crimes with handguns. Besides, you can't compare one city that has recently cracked down hard on crime in the US and compare it to one cith which is having problems with crime in the UK. If you took the same statistics 10 years ago, I think you would find that NYC crime was much higher, and London's was much lower.

But London is one of the few cities in the world than is actually comparable to NYC.

Well, yeah. Dinkins had been running the city into the ground.

All I'm saying is that at this time, NYC is (comparitively speaking) safer than ever before, which (if you've ever been to NYC) is darned amazing.

No. Arms does not include grenades, rocket launchers etc. Those things are encapsulated by the word "ordinance"(which was the word they used at the time to refer to things such as canons).

That being said, the framers did want the citizens to have access to equipment that was roughly comparable to the military's. How to go about reconciling these two things is beyond my understanding.

Arms? Do you mean swords and pikes? They most certainly *do* include grenades (BTW, grenades have been around since the 1500s), et al.

The founders did not specify technology for a REASON: they were inventive men themselves, and so knew that times change. :)

15 years of a right being abused. People still had the right to drink. Note that the government figured out fairly quickly (as far as governments go) that this was a bad idea.

The US was a DRY COUNTRY for that period. It was ILLEGAL to drink!

Actually, nothing of the sort. FDR brought back beer (and alcohol) to help fight the Depression. Really. Oh, and cut off a revenue stream from organized crime, but that was more of a fringe benefit.

Not exactly sure about this.. but I don't think drinking alcohol is a right. It's a privilege.

Is it a privledge to drive? What if they made an Amendment to stop all automobiles from being driven? That's what this amounts to. You can call it a privledge or a right, but it's still something you *could* do that's being taken away...

It Second Amendment was written because in 1789 the country was a much more dangerous place with Indian attacks and no kind of army or police force to speak of. Things are different now

Hey, if free speech/free press with quills and ink was good enough for then, it is good enough for now!

So we shouldn't have free speech on any medium invented after the time of the constitution, because times change.

Craig

Is it a privledge to drive? What if they made an Amendment to stop all automobiles from being driven? That's what this amounts to. You can call it a privledge or a right, but it's still something you *could* do that's being taken away...
Yes, driving is a privilege to drive. It isn't a right. Privileges can be taken away almost indiscriminantly, rights can not.

Arms? Do you mean swords and pikes? They most certainly *do* include grenades (BTW, grenades have been around since the 1500s), et al.

look, arms did indeed include things such as knives, swords, clubs, guns etc. Ordinance was the term they used for canons and other large destructive items. Whether grenades was considered an arm or an ordinance, I have no idea.

The founders did not specify technology for a REASON: they were inventive men themselves, and so knew that times change. :)

This is true. The founding fathers were well of multi shot weapons and even some fully auto types of weapons that existed during the time(well, fully auto is probably not the right word). But there were some very novel firearms designs/models available during the time.

Other than in regards to grenades though, I dont understand the point you are trying to make.

Yes, driving is a privilege to drive. It isn't a right. Privileges can be taken away almost indiscriminantly, rights can not.

No, it is a privelege to drive on PUBLIC roads. You can do fuck all on your property and the police cant do a thing. You dont even need to register your car unless it is on public roads/property. There are many places that you cannot get a ticket(many types of parking lots) other than doing something that endangers another.

So, if the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, then why did they not edit the Section that repeats that section Almost verbatim from the Alaska State Constitution in 1994?

Yes, driving is a privilege to drive. It isn't a right. Privileges can be taken away almost indiscriminantly, rights can not.

You're saying that Prohibition was okay and it was fine for the Government to pass a law that makes it illegal to do something?

Great! The Gay Marriage and Anti-Abortion Amendments are gonna be just fine. :)

My point is that the 18th Adm. took away a specific liberty that people have.
And, btw, driving is also a RIGHT. Otherwise, you are not being allowed to move at liberty, ala the 9th & 10th Amendements!

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

look, arms did indeed include things such as knives, swords, clubs, guns etc. Ordinance was the term they used for canons and other large destructive items. Whether grenades was considered an arm or an ordinance, I have no idea.

This is true. The founding fathers were well of multi shot weapons and even some fully auto types of weapons that existed during the time(well, fully auto is probably not the right word). But there were some very novel firearms designs/models available during the time.

Other than in regards to grenades though, I dont understand the point you are trying to make.

While that's true linguistically, the Constitution makes no differentiation.

And they did not prohibit them. :)

The point I'm making is that they didn't mean to limit "arms" to anything.
As a citizen, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to own an Uzi, provided that I buy it legally and have a license. That is the way it is now, and that's the way it should stay.

if they say it is only for single shot weapons the expression 'keeping my powder dry' has renewed meaning.

While that's true linguistically, the Constitution makes no differentiation.

And they did not prohibit them. :)

The point I'm making is that they didn't mean to limit "arms" to anything.
As a citizen, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to own an Uzi, provided that I buy it legally and have a license. That is the way it is now, and that's the way it should stay.

Why do you need to own an Uzi? Some nasty critter out there that you need that kind of weapon for? I know that people who would want to commit some nasty acts would love to have a weapon like this. If you want something like home protection then get a revolver. Hell, they sell home-defense shotguns! Private citizens really have no need for a weapon like this and for collectors? Stamps won't kill you.

Why do you need to own an Uzi? Some nasty critter out there that you need that kind of weapon for? I know that people who would want to commit some nasty acts would love to have a weapon like this. If you want something like home protection then get a revolver. Hell, they sell home-defense shotguns! Private citizens really have no need for a weapon like this and for collectors? Stamps won't kill you.
Why do you need to own a car? Im sure a horse drawn carriage would do for you.

Why do you need to own a car? Im sure a horse drawn carriage would do for you.

An Uzi and an automobile are hardly alike. The analogy doesn't work. A car isn't manufactured with the specific intent of killing someone. A handgun will do that just fine, without the nasty drawback of spraying bullets around and that a gun of this type really has some accuracy problems.

An Uzi and an automobile are hardly alike. The analogy doesn't work. A car isn't manufactured with the specific intent of killing someone. A handgun will do that just fine, without the nasty drawback of spraying bullets around and that a gun of this type really has some accuracy problems.
It's amazing how many times anti-gun people post from emotion rather than from facts.
In home defense situations any accuracy issue with an Uzi is a non-issue.
Spraying bullets around is an image designed to elicit a reaction, but isn't based on reality. No-one is talking about automatic weapons.

The analogy works... what do you need a car for? You brought up need as an argument, Im just expanding the scope of the argument.

Gun ownership isn't based on a need. No-one needs a reason to exorcise their rights.

Why do you need to own an Uzi? Some nasty critter out there that you need that kind of weapon for? I know that people who would want to commit some nasty acts would love to have a weapon like this. If you want something like home protection then get a revolver. Hell, they sell home-defense shotguns! Private citizens really have no need for a weapon like this and for collectors? Stamps won't kill you.

I don't need a Hummer H1 or a 65" plasma TV, either.
Simply put, the government does *not* have the right to say what I can or cannot own, unless it does so across the board.

It's amazing how many times anti-gun people post from emotion rather than from facts.
In home defense situations any accuracy issue with an Uzi is a non-issue.
Spraying bullets around is an image designed to elicit a reaction, but isn't based on reality. No-one is talking about automatic weapons.


You got it. Thank the media for those depictions of sprayings....

An Uzi and an automobile are hardly alike. The analogy doesn't work. A car isn't manufactured with the specific intent of killing someone. A handgun will do that just fine, without the nasty drawback of spraying bullets around and that a gun of this type really has some accuracy problems.

Tell that to Ted Kennedy. :(

And who are YOU to tell ME how to defend myself? :)

Your arguement, (and I'm not picking here, I'm just pointing this out) is no better than me saying "ok, now you MUST defend yourself with a herring". Or, for that matter, "you must now only use your right to assembly on the town green, as it was intended".

What works for all the other amendments works for the 2nd. And vice versa.

Well SCOTUS seems to disagree w/ you as in 1938 they defined the militia as any man capable of bearing arms. Where did you get this idea? Seriously.

Why do you feel it was a good law? What direct effect did it have?
In 1938 Jim Crow laws were upheld by courts. Court decisions come and go. What was in fashion at one point gets another reinterpertation at another.

Where did I get the foolish idea that "arms" and "militia" and "state" are not independent, unrelated references? From the ammendment itself. For any other interpertation see my first paragraph.

The right to bear arms was not intended to provide only for the defence against foriegn invaders, Natives, Etc, but to defend the people against the tyranny of the government. It was to insure thate the individual states were not left defenseless against the federal government.

It was not about hunting.
I am trying to imagine a scenario wherein that might work. Thanks for the laugh.

Tell that to Ted Kennedy. :(

And who are YOU to tell ME how to defend myself? :)

Your arguement, (and I'm not picking here, I'm just pointing this out) is no better than me saying "ok, now you MUST defend yourself with a herring". Or, for that matter, "you must now only use your right to assembly on the town green, as it was intended".

What works for all the other amendments works for the 2nd. And vice versa.

You are going to defend yourself with an automatic weapon? Spray a home intruder full of lead? Whip one out on a mugger on the streets? Owning one for "protection" is really foolish unless your a total jerk and have made lots and lots of people want to kill you. Ted Kennedy regardless a car is not made to kill. It can if you want it to but it is to get from point A to point B, and a Hummer is not neccessary for that. As for the handgun, I don't think anyone should own guns but a handgun will be more efficient than an automatic. My "liberal" stance on this issue should have basis on incidents like Columbine. Mr. Heston cut a fine image afterward didn't he?

The second amendment was designed to allow for the possibility of future revolutions against the government in power. Its framers had just revolted successfully, and wanted their successors to have the same privilege if necessary.

It was to provide a bulwark against tyranny.

It seems to me that for a lot of people, anyone who disagrees with them has been bribed or threatened.

Here's a story that illustrates the importance of the right of the people to bear arms:
In D.C., it is illegal to own a gun. Someone breaks into a guy's house and heads upstairs towards his daughters' rooms. He confronts the burglar with a gun, and is forced to use it. He then goes to jail for owning a gun. WTH?! Laws don't prevent crime. They only define it. If the government makes a law, law-abiding people will follow it, but criminals won't. That's happened in a lot of countries where guns have been banned. I'll give up my assault weapons when the government gives up theirs.

"Anyone willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither."
-Benjamin Franklin
You would let loose with an assault weapon on the staircase in your home?

Don't forget the right to self defense. You enter my home without my permission, I have the right to shoot you.
In NYS you don't. Murder, Attempted Murder, Kidnapping, Rape and Armed Robbery are the only times a citizen may use deadly force.

You would let loose with an assault weapon on the staircase in your home?

Only if the intruder happened to be you.

You are going to defend yourself with an automatic weapon? Spray a home intruder full of lead? Whip one out on a mugger on the streets? Owning one for "protection" is really foolish unless your a total jerk and have made lots and lots of people want to kill you. Ted Kennedy regardless a car is not made to kill. It can if you want it to but it is to get from point A to point B, and a Hummer is not neccessary for that. As for the handgun, I don't think anyone should own guns but a handgun will be more efficient than an automatic. My "liberal" stance on this issue should have basis on incidents like Columbine. Mr. Heston cut a fine image afterward didn't he?

First, that speech was a year after Columbine--not the same day as a certain film-director would have you believe.

The parents of those kids allowed Columbine to happen--not the tools.

It's painfully obvious that you just want to control others--as evidenced by someone's lack of "need" for a Hummer. You may not admit it openly, or even realize that's what you're doing--but it's under all your comments.

Your liberal stance is all about controlling others, when you cut through all the words. YOU think you should choose how someone should live their life. YOU don't think others need certain things--therefore, they aren't necessary, and should be eliminated. YOU think limitations should be placed on others because YOU don't need/want/feel it's good for you. It's all about how YOU would do things. That's not how real people operate. What works for me may not work for you--and vice-versa. I won't try to force anything on you. I wouldn't dream of taking your rights away, or controlling you in any fashion. I ask for the same modicum of respect and freedom--that's all. No more, no less.

Any time anyone says, "There ought to be a law," is actually demanding control of someone else's life--something they have no right to demand.

You would let loose with an assault weapon on the staircase in your home?

Let loose?

Spray?

You guys have quite the impression of what a submachine gun (or they typical semi-automatic assault rifle, for that matter) is like to handle. They're very easy to control--despite all the fictional accounts you get on the television and in movies.

If you had some actual experience with firearms, maybe you could actually speak something to the subject.

Pens and quills would be covered by freedom of press not freedom of speech. Look at the first post that this was in response to. Then reread what I wrote in it's entirity, "Nowhere in this are pens and quills mentioned. The premise is freedom of speech extending to and including the freedom to publish one's speech in written form." That would include this electronic medium we are now enjoying. I wasn't limiting it. I was showing it all encompassing intent.

The ban was never challenged in front of the US Supreme Court. or any other court. Interesting that it wasn't challenged, no?

Again, the second amendment was targeted at foreign invasion, but at a government that would turn tyrannical in the future and attempt to abolish any of the rights outlined by the constitution. When the government does that, then it will be time for the US government to be overthrown.
Do you honestly believe that the citizenry, even with the full right to bear arms, has the capacity to overthrow the government by force of arms? If not then what is your point?

The second amendment was designed to allow for the possibility of future revolutions against the government in power. Its framers had just revolted successfully, and wanted their successors to have the same privilege if necessary.

It was to provide a bulwark against tyranny.

Bingo.

Only if the intruder happened to be you.
LOL! A nice guy like me? I wouldn't intrude and hey, it's your stuff and family that will probably get sprayed. Why not use a .44?

First, that speech was a year after Columbine--not the same day as a certain film-director would have you believe.

The parents of those kids allowed Columbine to happen--not the tools.

It's painfully obvious that you just want to control others--as evidenced by someone's lack of "need" for a Hummer. You may not admit it openly, or even realize that's what you're doing--but it's under all your comments.

Your liberal stance is all about controlling others, when you cut through all the words. YOU think you should choose how someone should live their life. YOU don't think others need certain things--therefore, they aren't necessary, and should be eliminated. YOU think limitations should be placed on others because YOU don't need/want/feel it's good for you. It's all about how YOU would do things. That's not how real people operate. What works for me may not work for you--and vice-versa. I won't try to force anything on you. I wouldn't dream of taking your rights away, or controlling you in any fashion. I ask for the same modicum of respect and freedom--that's all. No more, no less.

Any time anyone says, "There ought to be a law," is actually demanding control of someone else's life--something they have no right to demand.

I am perfectly happy with the live and let live philosophy in many cases. Though it seems that you feel the other extreme that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't "hurt others." I have seen the knee jerk response when restricting guns comes up. "My rights! My rights! I can own whatever type of weapon I want!" I suppose this logic extends to bombs? Freedom of arms after all doesn't specify anything. This you may see as extreme but is a logical conclusion to your arguement. If our Founding Fathers could have fathomed automatic weapons, I seriously doubt they'd let Joe citizen own one. Laws are meant to keep people safe which is why there are drug laws and safety regulations. Not to demand, or to infringe on peoples rights.

The Hummer reference by the way was a response to a previous link.

Let loose?

Spray?

You guys have quite the impression of what a submachine gun (or they typical semi-automatic assault rifle, for that matter) is like to handle. They're very easy to control--despite all the fictional accounts you get on the television and in movies.

If you had some actual experience with firearms, maybe you could actually speak something to the subject.
If you had the ability to control your shots you would be able to use a handgun with sufficient accuracy. I am not against all gun ownership by responsible individuals, I just think some weapons are over the top.

Let me start by saying this, I do not own an assault weapon. I do own several handguns, and many power tools and hand tools. If you have driven me to the point of wanting to kill you, it doesn't matter if I have a hammer or a hand grenade, I'm gonna try to kill you. So the argument that "it wasn't designed to kill" holds zero value.

I do however have a solution to this whole mess. As I see it, the "anti-gun nuts" have been benefiting from us "gun nuts" for far to long. I propose the following, and everyone would need to participate for this to work, but since everyone is soooo committed to their beliefs, this shouldn't be a problem.

If you are on the "anti-gun nuts" side, you place in front of your home a sign that reads something along these lines, "I have chosen to waive my second amendment right, as I feel it is outdated and/or misinterpreted. I also request that in the event of an emergency, only on duty police officers and the US military are to come to my aid should the use of force be needed."

If you are of the "gun nut" camp, you post a sign that says, "I have chosen to exercise my second amendment right. I have also pledged not to aid in any way by use of force, those that have chosen not to exercise their second amendment right, because they feel it is outdated or misinterpreted."

Those that have not chosen to exercise their right, but are not trying to take away the rights of those that have, need not have a sign, as they are not involved in this debate.

Then, 5-10 years from now we can revisit this topic and the people involved, at least those that are left, and see where everyone stands.

I am perfectly happy with the live and let live philosophy in many cases. Though it seems that you feel the other extreme that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't "hurt others." I have seen the knee jerk response when restricting guns comes up. "My rights! My rights! I can own whatever type of weapon I want!" I suppose this logic extends to bombs? Freedom of arms after all doesn't specify anything. This you may see as extreme but is a logical conclusion to your arguement. If our Founding Fathers could have fathomed automatic weapons, I seriously doubt they'd let Joe citizen own one. Laws are meant to keep people safe which is why there are drug laws and safety regulations. Not to demand, or to infringe on peoples rights.


Laws are meant to control, not to save. Since you can't trust yourself with a specific drug, no one should be trusted--that's what your support for a drug law comes down to.

There are a great many that drink alcohol legally, and have very few issues. There is a small segment of that population that does drink that kill people by driving drunk. Now, alcohol can't be outlawed--they tried that, and it failed miserably, so what do you do? You beef up the punishments for those that kill while driving a car under the influence. Same for crimes committed with firearms. Banning does nothing, other than create more crime (usually of the organized type to meet the demand).

Yes, I am one of those that thinks people shouldn't be pre-emptively punished for doing nothing wrong "yet" (but they could!!!). That's control. That's infringing rights.

If you had the ability to control your shots you would be able to use a handgun with sufficient accuracy. I am not against all gun ownership by responsible individuals, I just think some weapons are over the top.

That's fine that you think that. You can think that all you want. You can talk about it all day, if you feel like it. However, the minute you try to go after the amendment itself, that's a direct attack on my freedom.

Most of us that practice with firearms do have a decent amount of control over our shots. However, why do you get to determine how I choose to defend myself? Why do you get to determine which weapon I use? As far as accuracy goes--that automatic or assault weapon has a longer barrel than a pistol, making it inherently more accurate. Shotguns have a spread--why would I want to damage several things around the intended target if I don't have to?

I use a pistol for home and self defense, as I have the most hours and rounds through it, but I'm certainly not going to try to tell someone else they must do it my way. Go with what's most comfortable and what you have the most experience with because when the adrenaline is going in a life-or-death situation, you will need your practiced reflexes more than ever.

Those who wish to control what kind of weapon I own, are trying to control me and my freedom of choice. My goal is to make those for gun control realize that's exactly what they are doing. And then I want them to think about how it would make them feel if I tried to control them. I'm not pro-life and I'm not anti-gay. I don't want to tell anyone else what to do with their bodies or their lives. Why can't you do the same?

You are going to defend yourself with an automatic weapon? Spray a home intruder full of lead? Whip one out on a mugger on the streets? Owning one for "protection" is really foolish unless your a total jerk and have made lots and lots of people want to kill you. Ted Kennedy regardless a car is not made to kill. It can if you want it to but it is to get from point A to point B, and a Hummer is not neccessary for that. As for the handgun, I don't think anyone should own guns but a handgun will be more efficient than an automatic. My "liberal" stance on this issue should have basis on incidents like Columbine. Mr. Heston cut a fine image afterward didn't he?

If I need to, Heck Yes!

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Neither is a gun. A gun is made to propel a projectile at a high rate of speed. A car moves at a high rate of speed. Both are consumer goods. QED.

But it's not a matter of *need*. I'm sure if I came over your house I could point out dozens of object that you own, but don't need. Electric canopeners or coffee pots. Clothes dryers. Etc.

What metrics do you use for efficency? One shot one kill? That's great, if you're using a rifle with a scope and can take your time with a shot. You're in no position to say that I should do X to protect myself... even *I'm* not.
For example, I would never pull a gun if I was attacked next to our propane tank. There is nothing that covers every circumstance.

NONE of the weapons used at Columbine were automatic weapons!
I think that Janet Reno cut a lovlier one. :)

If I need to, Heck Yes!

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Neither is a gun. A gun is made to propel a projectile at a high rate of speed. A car moves at a high rate of speed. Both are consumer goods. QED.

But it's not a matter of *need*. I'm sure if I came over your house I could point out dozens of object that you own, but don't need. Electric canopeners or coffee pots. Clothes dryers. Etc.

What metrics do you use for efficency? One shot one kill? That's great, if you're using a rifle with a scope and can take your time with a shot. You're in no position to say that I should do X to protect myself... even *I'm* not.
For example, I would never pull a gun if I was attacked next to our propane tank. There is nothing that covers every circumstance.

NONE of the weapons used at Columbine were automatic weapons!
I think that Janet Reno cut a lovlier one. :)

What exactly would be the standards of owning a weapon like this? Quick backround check and bingo? What standards should there be in your handling of the weapon? If you are good, than a handgun is all you need. Anything more powerful is for drive-by shootings. I certainly hope that you never have an assailant that you need such powerful weapons. I really don't understand why the difference between a gun and a car isn't clear. Gun=kill things. That is what it is made for. Car=travel. Misused it can kill but Henry Ford didn't make it to run people down. Much more efficient ways to kill someone!

What exactly would be the standards of owning a weapon like this? Quick backround check and bingo? What standards should there be in your handling of the weapon? If you are good, than a handgun is all you need. Anything more powerful is for drive-by shootings. I certainly hope that you never have an assailant that you need such powerful weapons. I really don't understand why the difference between a gun and a car isn't clear. Gun=kill things. That is what it is made for. Car=travel. Misused it can kill but Henry Ford didn't make it to run people down. Much more efficient ways to kill someone!

What do you need to buy a car? Same thing.
What do you need to drive a car? Same thing.

Er, no.
GUN = CONSUMER PRODUCT
CAR = CONSUMER PRODUCT

Or, to directly counter your example,
GUN = shoot paper targets
CAR = run over helpless bunnies!

Listen, you're applying one metric towards cars and one towards guns, yet they are both inanimate objects that are purchasable!

We're not talking about slavery, or the right to free speech, or anything else. You're saying that you WANT the government to tell you what you can or cannot buy.

Or worse, you're telling ME what I can or cannot buy. That's not how America works.

When the laser guns come out, will the full autos be okay, since they're not as dangerous?

The whole idea of "what is enough" is pointless, as today consumerism has made the point moot: we already have WAAAAY more than we need. Of everything!

Either you're for unlimited gun purchasing, or we need to SET STANDARDS on EVERY good.
So: Electric can openers, cars with engines larger than 2 litres, and extra value meals are now banned. They're more than you need to open your can, drive to work, or eat for lunch. Have a nice day!!

What exactly would be the standards of owning a weapon like this? Quick backround check and bingo? What standards should there be in your handling of the weapon? If you are good, than a handgun is all you need. Anything more powerful is for drive-by shootings. I certainly hope that you never have an assailant that you need such powerful weapons. I really don't understand why the difference between a gun and a car isn't clear. Gun=kill things. That is what it is made for. Car=travel. Misused it can kill but Henry Ford didn't make it to run people down. Much more efficient ways to kill someone!
You keep bringing up the "need" argument, yet when it's used against cars you dismiss it.
You do not need a car. There are other means of travel.. safer and more reliable means. Public transportation and then there's still horse drawn carriages.

It's not an argument of need. There is no need for someone to exorcise their rights.

You would let loose with an assault weapon on the staircase in your home?Which of these features (other than the grenade launcher) make an assault weapon worse for use inside a home?
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresser; and

`
(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppresser, forward hand grip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned;

(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
Why not use a .44?A .44-caliber weapon can be an assault weapon.
If you had the ability to control your shots you would be able to use a handgun with sufficient accuracy.Even if you hit someone in a vital organ, s/he won't necessarily die. (That person might be living and in no condition to fight, though.)
It is estimated that in the US, there are about 190,000 injuries per year relating to gunshot wounds (suicidal, homicidal, or accidental). Overall, about 20% of these cases are fatal. Gunshot wounds to the heart are among the most serious, with an overall mortality rate of about 70-80%. On a more positive note, of people with gunshot wounds to the heart who arrive at the hospital with signs of life, there is a survival rate of 70-90%.
The mortality rate from gunshot wounds to the brain is now at about 35%, leaving a large population of survivors of violent injuries with potentially devastating, lifelong disabilities.
Gun=kill things. That is what it is made for.A gun that is sold as a target shooter and not as a police, military, or hunting gun is made to kill things?

PDF alert!
How often are assault weapons used in crime? (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf) - Page six

You keep bringing up the "need" argument, yet when it's used against cars you dismiss it.
You do not need a car. There are other means of travel.. safer and more reliable means. Public transportation and then there's still horse drawn carriages.

It's not an argument of need. There is no need for someone to exorcise their rights.

I suppose people living in Wyoming have an abundance of public transportation?

I suppose people living in Wyoming have an abundance of public transportation?
They can buy a horse.. .what's your point.

They can buy a horse.. .what's your point.

Not to mention walking, bicycles, and canoes...
Ah, rivers and streams... the original roads!

They can buy a horse.. .what's your point.

My point is that I am very curious as to how you think having a car is as important as owning a gun? I suppose if you were in a rural area with no buses and didn't have a car you could bum a ride or something. You don't HAVE to own anything, but a car sure makes life easier. Is your daily routine improved by gun ownership?

My point is that I am very curious as to how you think having a gun is as important as owning a gun? I suppose if you were in a rural area with no buses and didn't have a car you could bum a ride or something. You don't HAVE to own anything, but a car sure makes life easier. Is your daily routine improved by gun ownership?
My point is that need has nothing to do with this argument. You keep saying one does not need to own particular types of guns.

Im saying you do not need many things, but you still have them.

Cars make life easier, but they kill and injure people a lot more than guns do. All these arugments really have no basis on the underlying question.

Does someone need a reason to exorcise their rights? Does someone need a reason to exorcise their right to free speech? Or their right to secure from illegal search and seizure? If someone isn't doing anything wrong in their home, and therefor don't have a reason not to be searched, does your argument mean that the police can search them whenever they please? Can you answer any of those questions?

My point is that need has nothing to do with this argument. You keep saying one does not need to own particular types of guns.

Im saying you do not need many things, but you still have them.

Cars make life easier, but they kill and injure people a lot more than guns do. All these arugments really have no basis on the underlying question.

Does someone need a reason to exorcise their rights? Does someone need a reason to exorcise their right to free speech? Or their right to secure from illegal search and seizure? If someone isn't doing anything wrong in their home, and therefor don't have a reason not to be searched, does your argument mean that the police can search them whenever they please? Can you answer any of those questions?

You have jumped far afield from my view. Searches/Seizures are a different issue where the police need a warrant obviously. Next, traffic accidents don't fall under the same category as thousands of homicides used by firearms never mind accidntal shootings. Vehicular homicide certainly isn't as common as being shot. Getting away from cars though, I suppose you approve concealed weapons? Perhaps you'd like to draw the line as to the most powerful weapon a citizen should own?

You have jumped far afield from my view. Searches/Seizures are a different issue where the police need a warrant obviously. Next, traffic accidents don't fall under the same category as thousands of homicides used by firearms never mind accidntal shootings. Vehicular homicide certainly isn't as common as being shot. Getting away from cars though, I suppose you approve concealed weapons? Perhaps you'd like to draw the line as to the most powerful weapon a citizen should own?
You are right... I don't think a citizen should be able to possess a tactical nuke.
But small arms? Nope, don't see a reason to limit the possession of those. And yes I am for concealed weapon permits. Actually, Im for the abolishment of the necessity for obtaining a permit... it should be allowed.

Do you honestly believe that the citizenry, even with the full right to bear arms, has the capacity to overthrow the government by force of arms? If not then what is your point?

Yes. A group of people armed with assault rifles on their own territory can, through use of guerrilla tactics, form an effective resistance against a larger, better equipped force. We have seen this happen time and time again around the world.

The simple facts:

Will an assault rifle ever be necessary for personal defense where a handgun would not do? No.

Do citizens have the right to possess assault rifles anyway? Yes.

Why? Because there must always be the possibility for armed revolution against the government.

Yes. A group of people armed with assault rifles on their own territory can, through use of guerrilla tactics, form an effective resistance against a larger, better equipped force. We have seen this happen time and time again around the world.

The simple facts:

Will an assault rifle ever be necessary for personal defense where a handgun would not do? No.

Do citizens have the right to possess assault rifles anyway? Yes.

Why? Because there must always be the possibility for armed revolution against the government.
Sorry to nit pick, but.....
Assault rifles are banned, and have been for quite some time.
You are possibly refering to assault weapons, which really are a horse of another color.

Heh, I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant "should be allowed to", not "do have the legal right to."

Sorry to nit pick, but.....
Assault rifles are banned, and have been for quite some time.
You are possibly refering to assault weapons, which really are a horse of another color.

TO nitpick further...

Assault rifles and any weapon that can fire in the fully automatic mode are REGULATED. You can own one with a class 3 FFL in almost any state.

Since 1934 to be exact.

Assault weapons is a buzz phrase devised by the anti-gunners to demonize any weapon they didn't like.

You are right... I don't think a citizen should be able to possess a tactical nuke.
But small arms? Nope, don't see a reason to limit the possession of those. And yes I am for concealed weapon permits. Actually, Im for the abolishment of the necessity for obtaining a permit... it should be allowed.

A permit does help with distinguishing honest citizens to simply a thug packing right? Abolishing permits would certainly make it much tougher to see who is carring illegally. Wouldn't want felons and psychos to have it even easier would we?

A permit does help with distinguishing honest citizens to simply a thug packing right? Abolishing permits would certainly make it much tougher to see who is carring illegally. Wouldn't want felons and psychos to have it even easier would we?

A full licensing system, akin to automobiles. I can carry my gun in CT, but not in Massachusettes (or about 30 other states, come to think of it.). Madness. I can drive to California, I should be able to carry my gun, too.

Mind you, any local laws (ie: two states totally lack state permits) would stay in effect for citizens of those states.

A full licensing system, akin to automobiles. I can carry my gun in CT, but not in Massachusettes (or about 30 other states, come to think of it.). Madness. I can drive to California, I should be able to carry my gun, too.

Mind you, any local laws (ie: two states totally lack state permits) would stay in effect for citizens of those states.

I don't believe you can carry your gun across state lines anyway. I'm not sure but if you carry in Ohio than you can't go across the river into Kentucky with it, permit or no.

Assault weapons is a buzz phrase devised by the anti-gunners to demonize any weapon they didn't like.

I suggest we start calling huge large caliber automatic machine-rifles with scopes, hollow point bullets the size of your forearm and lazer-sights "butterfly booboo's"

I don't believe you can carry your gun across state lines anyway. I'm not sure but if you carry in Ohio than you can't go across the river into Kentucky with it, permit or no.

If you are legal in the place you are starting from and legal in the place you are going, you can take a gun along with you in your car as long as it is
1)unloaded
2)kept in a separate location from ammunition
3)not readily accesible by the driver(eg has to locked if in a glovebox)

Note: you cant make any significant stops. You can stop to spend a night in a hotel but you cant take a detour to visit your parents.

If you have a carry permit, you can do as you like if you are in another state that honors your states carry permit(I think 32 states recognize each others)

I don't believe you can carry your gun across state lines anyway. I'm not sure but if you carry in Ohio than you can't go across the river into Kentucky with it, permit or no.

That's why state firearms licenses NEED to be 100% valid in every other state, just like drivers licenses.

If you are legal in the place you are starting from and legal in the place you are going, you can take a gun along with you in your car as long as it is
1)unloaded
2)kept in a separate location from ammunition
3)not readily accesible by the driver(eg has to locked if in a glovebox)

Note: you cant make any significant stops. You can stop to spend a night in a hotel but you cant take a detour to visit your parents.

If you have a carry permit, you can do as you like if you are in another state that honors your states carry permit(I think 32 states recognize each others)

Except in Chicago where police can confiscate and arrest you if you have in your possession a handgun, even sucured in your trunk. There are several lawsuits going on right now where people(out of towners) had theirs taken after traffic stops while driving on the interstate w/i Chicago city limits.

Except in Chicago where police can confiscate and arrest you if you have in your possession a handgun, even sucured in your trunk. There are several lawsuits going on right now where people(out of towners) had theirs taken after traffic stops while driving on the interstate w/i Chicago city limits.

If it is illegal to carry a handgun in Chicago and visiters get their guns taken that's just too bad. They should know better than to carry something illegal into the city limits. The it's legal somewhere else or I didn't know excuse doesn't apply. My sympathies are totally with the police anyway, who I'm sure have a VERY good reason to outlaw guns in Chicago.

If it is illegal to carry a handgun in Chicago and visiters get their guns taken that's just too bad. They should know better than to carry something illegal into the city limits. The it's legal somewhere else or I didn't know excuse doesn't apply. My sympathies are totally with the police anyway, who I'm sure have a VERY good reason to outlaw guns in Chicago.

Ok, let me explain this slowly. People, with their guns LOCKED UP IN THEIR TRUNK, from out of state, traveling on an INTERSTATE, that happens to go through Chicago for a few miles, were arrested w/ their guns confiscated. There was no carrying involved.

Chicago is a model of democracy and crime control isn't it?. It has one of the worst levels of crime in the country(just behind D.C. another banning city) and the politicians have their reputation for a reason.

Except in Chicago where police can confiscate and arrest you if you have in your possession a handgun, even sucured in your trunk. There are several lawsuits going on right now where people(out of towners) had theirs taken after traffic stops while driving on the interstate w/i Chicago city limits.
here's a question, why were they stopped? maybe they should stop breaking the damn law.

Ok, let me explain this slowly. People, with their guns LOCKED UP IN THEIR TRUNK, from out of state, traveling on an INTERSTATE, that happens to go through Chicago for a few miles, were arrested w/ their guns confiscated. There was no carrying involved.

Chicago is a model of democracy and crime control isn't it?. It has one of the worst levels of crime in the country(just behind D.C. another banning city) and the politicians have their reputation for a reason.

Chicago has some of the most corrupt officials AND police officers in the nation.

As for Chess' comment about breaking the law--I'd love to see him get in an argument here, in Madison. About half-way through, he'd start throwing the word "fuck" around, and get a citation. :) I can hear it now, "What about my freedom of speech?" Well, maybe you should have used a different word to express the same sentiment. Regulation is infringement.

Hmmm....what kind of analogy can we draw from that? OH YEAH, I KNOW! I'd like to express my right to self-defense using an assault weapon. :D Love that infringing rights stuff...

Ok, let me explain this slowly. People, with their guns LOCKED UP IN THEIR TRUNK, from out of state, traveling on an INTERSTATE, that happens to go through Chicago for a few miles, were arrested w/ their guns confiscated. There was no carrying involved.

Chicago is a model of democracy and crime control isn't it?. It has one of the worst levels of crime in the country(just behind D.C. another banning city) and the politicians have their reputation for a reason.

All the more reason to keep MORE guns from going into the city! Corruption by others doesn't then let you do whatever you want anyway, high crime rates and guns don't mix! Common sense!

All the more reason to keep MORE guns from going into the city! Corruption by others doesn't then let you do whatever you want anyway, high crime rates and guns don't mix! Common sense!

Um, look at Florida's violent crime rates since they introduced concealed carry permits....your common sense doesn't stack against the actual numbers.

Crime drops in this country, when more weapons aren't confiscated or banned from the law-abiding citizen.

Every state that has adopted shall-issue concealed carry laws have had decreases in their violent crime rates.

Um, look at Florida's violent crime rates since they introduced concealed carry permits....your common sense doesn't stack against the actual numbers.

Crime drops in this country, when more weapons aren't confiscated or banned from the law-abiding citizen.

Every state that has adopted shall-issue concealed carry laws have had decreases in their violent crime rates.

I seriously doubt people carrying guns will do anything. Most gun crimes are committed by criminals and family members shooting each other anyway. Will carrying concealed somehow stop domestic violence that ends with someone dead? Gangs defending their drug territories?

I seriously doubt people carrying guns will do anything. Most gun crimes are committed by criminals and family members shooting each other anyway. Will carrying concealed somehow stop domestic violence that ends with someone dead? Gangs defending their drug territories?

You get law-abiding citizens stopping muggers, rapists, and murderers, without actually having to get to the violent portion of the crime. Brandishing usually scares them off. And if it doesn't--it's a lawful use of force--not a crime.

I don't have a problem with criminals dying. Just as long as it's not the law-abiding citizens doing the dying.

Florida's violent crime rate has dropped since the adoption of concealed carry. You can doubt all you want, but that's what has happened.

You're the one putting all the extra qualifiers on the violent crime rate. I would rather see a woman defend herself from an abusive spouse/significant other than see her beaten repeatedly. Guns don't cause the crime. It's the people that cause the crime.

Earlier in this thread, peopel were claiming that the second amendment is outdated because we don't need a militia seeing as we've got a professional army.

Wrong.


"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state..."

If citizens aren't allowed to arm themselves and protect themselves from a tyrannical government, what kind of freedom do they have? Never mind the fact that the Army would side with the citizens before siding with the government (their oath is to the President, but also part of their oath they swear never to kill an American citizen), but if the military were to side with the government, the people would need to protect themselves.

Most gun crimes are committed by criminals
Ding ding ding, we've got a winner!

What's a Razorback?

Damn. I thought you were talking about:

A Razorback (http://www.danwessonfirearms.com/products/catalog/1/4)

:D

Oh well....

Except in Chicago where police can confiscate and arrest you if you have in your possession a handgun, even sucured in your trunk. There are several lawsuits going on right now where people(out of towners) had theirs taken after traffic stops while driving on the interstate w/i Chicago city limits.

very true. I think in DC and NYC too. This ability is due to a relatively new federal law.

If it is illegal to carry a handgun in Chicago and visiters get their guns taken that's just too bad. They should know better than to carry something illegal into the city limits. The it's legal somewhere else or I didn't know excuse doesn't apply. My sympathies are totally with the police anyway, who I'm sure have a VERY good reason to outlaw guns in Chicago.

It is a federal law that allows you to carry a gun with you if you are legal in the place you are leaving from and legal in the place you are going to. Moreover, it is ridiculous that these people are going to face mandatory jail time just because a section of the interstate falls within city limits. Not to mention that if they are convicted its a felony and they will lose their rights to own a firearm.

constitutionally protected right??? yeah right.

very true. I think in DC and NYC too. This ability is due to a relatively new federal law.

I'm unfamiliar w/ this. Enlighten.. (w/ links/cites preferable)

I seriously doubt people carrying guns will do anything. Most gun crimes are committed by criminals and family members shooting each other anyway. Will carrying concealed somehow stop domestic violence that ends with someone dead? Gangs defending their drug territories?


I am not positive, but I do not believe guns are the most used weapon in domestic violence. I think knives and fists are.

I'm unfamiliar w/ this. Enlighten.. (w/ links/cites preferable)


I would have to dig out some books that I havent seen since 2001. In 2001 I was leaving Florida and wanted to know what to do with my guns(I was driving). Thats when I found out about the Federal law that allowed to carry my guns as long as I was legal in both places. I was advised though to stay out of DC and NYC(I have handguns) despite the law.

I had to sell my calico autopistol though(it isnt legal in many states outside of Florida). I cant imagine anyone taking it along during a crime, but hey, who knows. It had a sweet 50round magazine. I needed to bring along an autoloader evertime I went to the range.

I'm unfamiliar w/ this. Enlighten.. (w/ links/cites preferable)


here is a link about the transport, I have no links for travel through DC or NYC. I only have the advise the guys in the gun shop gave me when I left Florida

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=59

By my understanding of the intentions of the 2nd Amendment, this is fairly accurate, but IMO if you look at it like that, the 2nd Amendment is outdated. It was mainly created so that ordinary citizens can have guns and form militias in case of an invasion by a foreign power, or to defend themselves from Indian attacks on frontier settlements, etc.

Yes. The Second Amendment was added to guarentee that the government would not take away people's rights to bear arms insomuch that those arm-bearing people could be needed for the state militia.

Basically the Second Amendment says you are allowed to have guns because the National Guard might need you. It is totally obsolete.

Yes. The Second Amendment was added to guarentee that the government would not take away people's rights to bear arms insomuch that those arm-bearing people could be needed for the state militia.

Basically the Second Amendment says you are allowed to have guns because the National Guard might need you. It is totally obsolete.

No, it wasn't. The National Guard wasn't created until the latter half of the 19th century.

The 2nd also protects us from our own government. It is most certainly not obsolete.

No, it wasn't. The National Guard wasn't created until the latter half of the 19th century.

The 2nd also protects us from our own government. It is most certainly not obsolete.

State militias became the National Guard. I am stating that they are equivilant.

But yes, the government stuck that in there so that the states would be guarenteed to have a source of soldiers in case the federal government tries to quash their rights. Therefore, if states decide to give back some of those rights, so to speak, how is that unconstitutional?

The Militia Act of 1792 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) - Repealed?
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_13.html)

I can't find the 1903 Dick Act...Can you?

Yes. The Second Amendment was added to guarentee that the government would not take away people's rights to bear arms insomuch that those arm-bearing people could be needed for the state militia.

Basically the Second Amendment says you are allowed to have guns because the National Guard might need you. It is totally obsolete.


This isnt the current legal interpretation of the justification clause of the 2nd amendment.

Basically the Second Amendment says you are allowed to have guns because the National Guard might need you. It is totally obsolete.

What happens when someone decides your Freedom of Speech has become obsolete? Who needs religion nowadays? I think Freedom of Religious Association sounds obsolete, let's wipe it!

If you give governments the power to infringe rights that are deemed "obsolete" then you have no rights, just priveleges.

Craig

State militias became the National Guard. I am stating that they are equivilant.

But yes, the government stuck that in there so that the states would be guarenteed to have a source of soldiers in case the federal government tries to quash their rights. Therefore, if states decide to give back some of those rights, so to speak, how is that unconstitutional?

Well, for one, the states can't do that without a new amendment going in....

The old militias are quite different than the national guard. The national guard can be controlled federally. The militias can't. The militia was defined as every able bodied man from 18-45. I'm not in the national guard, but I am in the militia, by that definition.

It was not replaced. The government decided they wanted more control over things and created the national guard.

It is a federal law that allows you to carry a gun with you if you are legal in the place you are leaving from and legal in the place you are going to. Moreover, it is ridiculous that these people are going to face mandatory jail time just because a section of the interstate falls within city limits. Not to mention that if they are convicted its a felony and they will lose their rights to own a firearm.

constitutionally protected right??? yeah right.

It this law is correct than it is ridiculous that they get in trouble for having a gun. The only thing I can suggest to these people who lose their guns is not to get in trouble to begin with. Don't speed and the cops won't pull you over and you won't lose the gun. Best you can do.

The militia was defined as every able bodied man from 18-45. I'm not in the national guard, but I am in the militia, by that definition.Eh?
(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.
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

From my understanding though, the U.K. has a ridiculously low murder rate involving handguns.
In what way ridiculous? we're quite proud of it, but are still working to stop it rising. A girl has been shot dead in Nottingham and it's making headline news days later.

In what way ridiculous? we're quite proud of it, but are still working to stop it rising. A girl has been shot dead in Nottingham and it's making headline news days later.

With such a low rate compared to America's I have to ask what the U.K.'s gun laws are? Perhaps there is a secret to end the violence in America.

Eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
(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.


Yup. I'm the first part. I'm not a woman in the National Guard, so it doesn't matter. I fall under the militia.

My point was that the 2nd amendment was in place a good century before the National Guard was even created. The amendment hasn't been changed to reflect that distinction.

is anyone out there?

Yup. I'm the first part. I'm not a woman in the National Guard, so it doesn't matter. I fall under the militia.Sorry, I just wanted to point out that what you said wasn't exactly correct. I guess it wasn't really important, but I tend to point out holes (even insignificant ones) I see in arguments coming from any side.
My point was that the 2nd amendment was in place a good century before the National Guard was even created. The amendment hasn't been changed to reflect that distinction.Indeed.

With such a low rate compared to America's I have to ask what the U.K.'s gun laws are? Perhaps there is a secret to end the violence in America.
Almost all weapons are banned. Shotguns are allowed, but strictly licensed with restrictions on how they're stored and carried. Pump shotguns are (I think) not allowed. Handguns are not permitted. Rifles are rare and again strictly licensed. Most people who own one keep and use it solely at a gunclub.
What this does mean is that anyone with a gun in public is almost certainly a criminal and will be dealt with as such rather abruptly by the police.

I haven't seen a gun for about eight years except on holiday in Europe, and I consider this a GOOD THING.

I haven't seen a gun for about eight years except on holiday in Europe, and I consider this a GOOD THING.

Sure, unless the next gun you see is in the hand of a man who wishes harm on you and your family. Guns are not good or evil.

It surprises me how many people actually blame an inannimate object...

Play the Police Response Time game! Make the sound of breaking glass, pretend to dial the police and then sit on your bed for 10 minutes.

Craig

Sure, unless the next gun you see is in the hand of a man who wishes harm on you and your family. Guns are not good or evil.

It surprises me how many people actually blame an inannimate object...

Play the Police Response Time game! Make the sound of breaking glass, pretend to dial the police and then sit on your bed for 10 minutes.

Craig

I really don't think this is the frame of mind to have. If gun crimes are very low then that in itself should make you feel safe. But to think that there is STILL that very slim chance it could a gun crime could happen... I bet lots of people keep their doors unlocked there. Worrying about gunmen is hardly a big concern for you.

I really don't think this is the frame of mind to have. If gun crimes are very low then that in itself should make you feel safe. But to think that there is STILL that very slim chance it could a gun crime could happen... I bet lots of people keep their doors unlocked there. Worrying about gunmen is hardly a big concern for you.

I'm really not concerned. I don't have a gun for self defence (Hell, we aren't even allowed pepper spray, thanks government). I feel safe, or I'd have more protection.

But just because I feel that way, doesn't mean that I think everyone should have to do it my way. It really annoys me that someone thinks that guns magically cause crime and that it must be a good thing not to have even seen a gun.

Guns are neither good nor evil. They are innanimate objects.

They can kill an innocent civilian or accidentally shoot their owner.
They can also stop a murder or prevent a rape.

People who get wound up in the gun-banners game seem to forget that a gun is just a chunk of metal! I seriously think they should go out to a range, meet some actual gun owners and have a shoot.

Craig

Sure, unless the next gun you see is in the hand of a man who wishes harm on you and your family. Guns are not good or evil.
However, this sort of thing is extremely rare in the UK. Burglars do no go armed, nor do muggers or shoplifters or just about anyone else. Occasionally bank robbers do - but they seldom actually fire.
Don't get me wrong, there are guns out there, but in the three years I've lived in this town of about 60,000 people there have been two instances of guns being waved about, neither of which resulted in shots being fired.

I really don't think this is the frame of mind to have. If gun crimes are very low then that in itself should make you feel safe. But to think that there is STILL that very slim chance it could a gun crime could happen... I bet lots of people keep their doors unlocked there. Worrying about gunmen is hardly a big concern for you. We rarely lock our back door or back gate at night, and (supposedly, though I can't for the life of me understand how this is worked out, since it's quite a nice place to live and the neighbours are almost universally pleasant and considerate) this is in the top (bottom?) ten most deprived estates in the country.
People just don't lie in bed at night waiting to be shot or burgled.

People who get wound up in the gun-banners game seem to forget that a gun is just a chunk of metal! I seriously think they should go out to a range, meet some actual gun owners and have a shoot.
Craig
While in principle I agree with you, it turns out that where guns are more available, more innocent people get shot. I've shot a few times, with shotguns with my GP and .303s at school, but that's very diferent from having a gun at home. I'm sure if you look you'll find plenty of examples of people being shot by mistake simply because the gun owner misinterpreted the actions of an innocent person.
It's rather like speed limits. In an ideal world all drivers would be considerate and responsible and would adjust their speed with great skill to achieve a reasonable balance between safety and haste. In reality, we have speed limits because some (not all) drivers can't manage this seemingly simple task for themselves. It's a blunt tool, and not always as effective as it could be, but it does save lives. Just like guns, cars are just inanimate lumps of metal, but they're regulated and controlled and prohibited from some areas.

where guns are more available, more innocent people get shotSource?
http://kennesaw.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx
http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/032601/opi_046-7178.shtml
http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html