NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a little confused about this argument that it says somewhere in the constitution that it's a constitutional right to own a gun- let me explain.
Article To of the Bill of Rights says-
"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."

Re-arrange that sentence grammatically (without a change to meaning) and it says-
" In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (i.e The National Guard) is necessary, and that end people (The National Guard) have the right to bear arms".
Flip the sentence around, it's obvious- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia .

The American people have the right not to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia, and in order to have that militia, said militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The American people HAVE a well-regulated militia which does protect the freedom of the state and that militia keeps and bears arms- it is the National Guard.
A group of drunken friends in a shack does not constitute a well regulated militia, so it does not have the right to keep and bear arms. A group of drug dealers driving the streets of LA is NOT a well-regulated militia, and therefore does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether or not a well-regulated militia is necessary in this day and age (my country, the UK, doesn't have a militia and yet is a free state) is debatable. But American citizens only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regualted militia, and thats why I think gun-control in the USA is beneficial not only to the US but, due to its wide ranging cultural influence, the rest of the world.

It has to do with how its been interpreted over the years. In the 1st amendment, there is nothing about the separation of church and state, but its been interpreted that way for a long time. The same can be said for the 2nd amendment, regarding militia and individuals.

Intellegent and well-said.

It has to do with how its been interpreted over the years. In the 1st amendment, there is nothing about the separation of church and state, but its been interpreted that way for a long time. The same can be said for the 2nd amendment, regarding militia and individuals.

But if it is so open to intepretation, surely the logical conclusion would be to take the interpretation that would protect the 'life and liberty' of the citizens- i.e gun control.

I'm a little confused about this argument that it says somewhere in the constitution that it's a constitutional right to own a gun- let me explain.
Article To of the Bill of Rights says-
"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."

Re-arrange that sentence grammatically (without a change to meaning) and it says-
" In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (i.e The National Guard) is necessary, and that end people (The National Guard) have the right to bear arms".
Flip the sentence around, it's obvious- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia .

The American people have the right not to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia, and in order to have that militia, said militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The American people HAVE a well-regulated militia which does protect the freedom of the state and that militia keeps and bears arms- it is the National Guard.
A group of drunken friends in a shack does not constitute a well regulated militia, so it does not have the right to keep and bear arms. A group of drug dealers driving the streets of LA is NOT a well-regulated militia, and therefore does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether or not a well-regulated militia is necessary in this day and age (my country, the UK, doesn't have a militia and yet is a free state) is debatable. But American citizens only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regualted militia, and thats why I think gun-control in the USA is beneficial not only to the US but, due to its wide ranging cultural influence, the rest of the world.


As has already been said, the justification clause of the 2nd ammendment in no way limits the rights of the people to bear arms solely for the purpose of a having a well regulated militia. The same that the first ammendments freedom of speech is in no way limited to the press.

Also keep in mind that the constitution limits the rights of the govt NOT the people. This means that the constitution does not confer the right to bear on the people, it prevents the govt from taking away such a right. Any powers specifically given to the govt by are the constitution are intentionally limited. The government is prevented from posessing powers not specifically outlined in the constitution, the people are in no way prevented from rights not outlined in the constitution.

This is a subtle but significant differance.

Also keep in mind that the constitution limits the rights of the govt NOT the people. This means that the constitution does not confer the right to bear on the people, it prevents the govt from taking away such a right. Any powers specifically given to the govt by are the constitution are intentionally limited. The government is prevented from posessing powers not specifically outlined in the constitution, the people are in no way prevented from rights not outlined in the constitution.

This is a subtle but significant differance.

Agreed with the first point- however the second amendment therefore, surely, prevents the government from taking away the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the use of maintaining a well-regulated militia (and therefore a free state). I doesn't prevent the government from taking away the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms NOT for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia. If the keeping and bearing of arms does not contribute to the maintaining of said well-regulated militia, that right isn't protected under the constitution?

But if it is so open to intepretation, surely the logical conclusion would be to take the interpretation that would protect the 'life and liberty' of the citizens- i.e gun control.
How would more gun control protect the liberty of the people? Its not the same in the UK, clearly, but here in the USA a lot, if not most, people would regard strict gun control as an infringement upon their liberty, just like strict abortions controls. And it would have to be proven that gun control leads to less crime, or at least less crime due to guns. I'm not sure that has been done yet...

How would more gun control protect the liberty of the people? Its not the same in the UK, clearly, but here in the USA a lot, if not most, people would regard strict gun control as an infringement upon their liberty, just like strict abortions controls. And it would have to be proven that gun control leads to less crime, or at least less crime due to guns. I'm not sure that has been done yet...

Good point about liberty. I suppose it is a careful weighing up of which is more important, lifeor liberty. I guess most people would take a utilitarian view on this, i.e whichever is the greater good for the greater number. I think, personally, that the right to life is more important than the right to bear arms, although this is just a personal opinion. I see your point about gun control having to be proven to be an effective way of reducing gun related crime, but I think that Britain is Americas closest cultural relation, and obviously here gun control leads to much fewer gun crimes per head of population.
My point is that I don't see the right of an American citizen to hold guns for uses other than maintaining a well-regulated militia as a right protected under the Second Amendment.

Context, Context, Context.

The 2nd Amendment was written shortly after the American War of Independence. At this time most of the country was still frontier and under constant threat from Native Americans (who rightly took issue with the "illegal immigrants" overrunning their land), European Imperialists, and wild animals (bears, wolves and the occasional drunken neighbor). Guns were not just a right but an absolute necessity, both for protection and food procurement. Additionally, the poorly funded federal government did not have the finances to maintain a large, well equipped standing army. State and local militias had to fill in the gap. The founding fathers were also very much aware of the pivitol role that private gun owners played in the War of Independence. These factors led to the 2nd Amendment.

However, their relevence today is debatable. Certainly rifles and shotguns for hunting should be allowed. Handguns, the arguement goes both ways. Assault rifles, there is no justifiable reason for private citizens to own these.

Agreed with the first point- however the second amendment therefore, surely, prevents the government from taking away the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the use of maintaining a well-regulated militia (and therefore a free state). I doesn't prevent the government from taking away the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms NOT for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia. If the keeping and bearing of arms does not contribute to the maintaining of said well-regulated militia, that right isn't protected under the constitution?
Did you miss what he said? The constitution doesn't have to prevent the government from taking away the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. The constitution must explicitly GIVE that power to the government.

How would more gun control protect the liberty of the people? Its not the same in the UK, clearly, but here in the USA a lot, if not most, people would regard strict gun control as an infringement upon their liberty, just like strict abortions controls. And it would have to be proven that gun control leads to less crime, or at least less crime due to guns. I'm not sure that has been done yet...
In fact, just the opposite....

..., but I think that Britain is Americas closest cultural relation, and obviously here gun control leads to much fewer gun crimes per head of population.
O.K. Now look at Canada.

I think the main argument is, people who support this ammendment dont know how to read! Or they dont know about US laws, give or take.

It says right up there "For a well regulated Militia!" Militias are illegal in the United States. Therefor the ammendment is outdated.

Or they think it says "For a well regulated Military." I have heard someone say that before, than I corrected him. But even if it did say that, it doesnt matter because the US army supplies your guns, it is illegal to bring your own.

Some think it is the right to arm bears, myself included, this would help prevent forest fires, and stop bear hunting all at once, (I mean if we can protect ourselves why cant they?) It would defenitely benefit the wildlife preservationists. :D

Has anyone ever considered they might actually mean you have the right to 'BEAR arms'?
Nothing to do with guns at all. Just allows ppl to have short hairy arms and long fingernails.

These gun control threads are boring. Even if it's a mass character flaw, Americans always will want to have guns.

It has to do with how its been interpreted over the years. In the 1st amendment, there is nothing about the separation of church and state, but its been interpreted that way for a long time. The same can be said for the 2nd amendment, regarding militia and individuals.
Your signature is cool, "everyone else is a socialist", lol. I actually had no idea you were so liberal (9.12 OMG!).

Regarding separation of church and state, it is also confirmed in article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli, which I do not need to quote here.

Did you miss what he said? The constitution doesn't have to prevent the government from taking away the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. The constitution must explicitly GIVE that power to the government.
The Second Amendment doesn't GIVE the government any powers, it gives the citizens rights. I'm saying it ONLY gives the citzens rights to hold guns as a way of maintaining a well-regulated militia. The constitution GIVES citizens protection, not governments powers.


In fact, just the opposite....
The opposite?


O.K. Now look at Canada.
As I said, Britain is Americas closest cultural relation. Canada has similar gun laws to the USA but a much different culture. Britains culture is more similar to America, and it's gun control laws offer it's subjects protection- gun crime in Britain is far lower in America. I.E Britain and America have similar cultures. However Britain has gun control, America doesn't. Britain has lower gun crime. If America had a different culture whereby it's citizens held guns and yet had low gun crime, this would be an issue- see Canada.

It says right up there "For a well regulated Militia!" Militias are illegal in the United States. Therefor the ammendment is outdated.



I would say that the National Guard are the well-regulated militia in this case.

Let the people bear all the arms they want-- the Constitution says nothing at all about ammunition http://www.animeleague.net/~berrik/emot-v.gif

The Second Amendment doesn't GIVE the government any powers, it gives the citizens rights. I'm saying it ONLY gives the citzens rights to hold guns as a way of maintaining a well-regulated militia. The constitution GIVES citizens protection, not governments powers.
Yes, I realize that, but it wasn't my argument in the first place.

The opposite?
Yup.

As I said, Britain is Americas closest cultural relation. Canada has similar gun laws to the USA but a much different culture. Britains culture is more similar to America, and it's gun control laws offer it's subjects protection- gun crime in Britain is far lower in America. I.E Britain and America have similar cultures. However Britain has gun control, America doesn't. Britain has lower gun crime. If America had a different culture whereby it's citizens held guns and yet had low gun crime, this would be an issue- see Canada.
Canada is basically a Democrat's winter wonderland, and the Democrats are the only ones who want to strengthen gun control. Now, you seem to be implying that your gun control laws are the cause of the reduced gun violence. Have you considered that perhaps it's because there are fewer hateful idiots there?

I would say that the National Guard are the well-regulated militia in this case.

A military organization run by the GOVERNMENT isn't a militia.

A militia is a group of armed citizens that organize on their own initiative.

The Second Amendment doesn't GIVE the government any powers, it gives the citizens rights. I'm saying it ONLY gives the citzens rights to hold guns as a way of maintaining a well-regulated militia. The constitution GIVES citizens protection, not governments powers.

.

Completely wrong(IMHO). Even without the 2nd amendment, the people would have the right to bear arms. It is simply that the founders felt so strongly about this issue that they intentionally included it, the same with the freedom of speech. The founders believed that rights came from an ultimte creator(or were inherant to all humans .. for the more agnostic).

That aside, the courts and legal/historical scholars have determined(I guess they can come to a differant consensus later on) that "well regulated militia" and "free speech" are just examples, and that this form of writing is consistant with the writing styles of the time.

Further, in those days, all able bodied men were considered to be part of the militia. Militia wasnt refering to some govt organization, and it certainly wasnt reffering to the national guard of 2 centuries later.

Canada is basically a Democrat's winter wonderland, and the Democrats are the only ones who want to strengthen gun control. Now, you seem to be implying that your gun control laws are the cause of the reduced gun violence. Have you considered that perhaps it's because there are fewer hateful idiots there?

You used Canada as an example of the fact that you can have no gun control and low gun crime. I agree, but I point out that you have to have the right culture. Canada has that culture.
I was saying the best way to see if gun control would work in America is to look at a country culturally similar to America which has gun control. I would say Britain is Americas closest cultural relative, and Britain has gun control. It also has lower gun crime. I think this is because of the gun control, not cultural differences, although I wouldn't deny culture played a part.

Let the people bear all the arms they want-- the Constitution says nothing at all about ammunition http://www.animeleague.net/~berrik/emot-v.gif

Actually it does. "Well regulated" is used during those times to reffer to the quantity and quality of the weapons, ammunition, and other assorted gear. I can look up the refferance if you are truly interested.

Good point about liberty. I suppose it is a careful weighing up of which is more important, lifeor liberty. I guess most people would take a utilitarian view on this, i.e whichever is the greater good for the greater number. I think, personally, that the right to life is more important than the right to bear arms, although this is just a personal opinion. I see your point about gun control having to be proven to be an effective way of reducing gun related crime, but I think that Britain is Americas closest cultural relation, and obviously here gun control leads to much fewer gun crimes per head of population.
My point is that I don't see the right of an American citizen to hold guns for uses other than maintaining a well-regulated militia as a right protected under the Second Amendment.
"He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither"
-Ben Frankiln
The founding fathers definitely intended that every citizen should have the right to own a gun. There are many, many stories in which lives were saved by guns. Plus, what about women? I'm very concerned on that point. I know if a 200 pound rapist breaks into my house, there's no way I could ever defend myself withut a gun. The purpose of that clause is very clear: The citizens have the right to own guns. Even if guns were outlawed, criminals would still have them. Laws only control the law-abiding. The founding fathers had seen what had happened in feudal England, where peasants couldn't have guns. They didn't want that to happen here. Look at places where they've banned guns, like DC. It hasn't cut crime at all. You think you know better what that clause meant than those who wrote it?

A military organization run by the GOVERNMENT isn't a militia.

A militia is a group of armed citizens that organize on their own initiative.

militia-
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Sounds pretty much like the National Guard to me.
Section 8 of the Constitution says -

Congress has the power-

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

The Second Ammendment is not a conditional statement. It boldly states that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state and strictly forbids government from infringing on the right of the people ot keep and bear arms. Following the wording, whether or not a well regulated militia is actually necessary, and whether or not people have a right to keep and bear arms are not debatable. Legally speaking, the only legitimate legal question about the 2A and gun control is whether or not the federal courts have the power to overturn state and local laws/decisions in defense it. Federal gun control is unconstitutional even without the Second Ammendment.

The founding fathers definitely intended that every citizen should have the right to own a gun. There are many, many stories in which lives were saved by guns. Plus, what about women? I'm very concerned on that point. I know if a 200 pound rapist breaks into my house, there's no way I could ever defend myself withut a gun. The purpose of that clause is very clear: The citizens have the right to own guns. Even if guns were outlawed, criminals would still have them. Laws only control the law-abiding. The founding fathers had seen what had happened in feudal England, where peasants couldn't have guns. They didn't want that to happen here. Look at places where they've banned guns, like DC. It hasn't cut crime at all. You think you know better what that clause meant than those who wrote it?

How can you claim you 'know' better what the founding father 'meant'? How do you know what the 'definitely' intended? You're right about the fact the if you ban guns, only criminals have guns. But a) fewer criminals have guns and b) it's much easier to determine who is a criminal and who isn't. In Britain if the police pull over someone with a gun, they are a criminal. In America, they could be law-abiding or criminal. They can then go on their merry way, either home to the wife and kids or to YOUR home, wife and kids. In Britain, they go on their merry way to the local crown court.

As for your history of Britain- a) England was not 'feudal' when the Founding Fathers lived, b) during 'feudal' times (a very unscientific time period) peasants didn't have guns. Neither did anyone else, except perhaps arabs and c) Britain still doesn't have guns, yet the subjects of Britain have protected themselves pretty well from crime, invasion and tyranny.

"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."


Yes it can be said that the line may be interpreted several different ways. The right wing Militia movement believe this gives them permission for armed revolt, which it does not. This was written at the time the Army was called up from a pool of American citizens with rifles, which happened in America right up to the Spanish American War, (Teddy's Rough Riders was one such unit).

A firearm may be interpreted as anything from a muzzle loader to a silo with a nuclear tipped ICBM. The technological cut off point for easy to obtain firearms is currently the semiautomatic rifle and pistol. This is purely a subjective limitation since constitutionally there would be grounds to deny an American the right to own an nuclear ICBM for self protection.

I for one am all for this, I think if American citizens had privately owned ICBMs, the world would be far more compliant to American whimsy. Too expensive you say? Well yes if your just producing a few every year, but is we're producing millions of them each year the price would drop dramatically. For the budget minded there would be nuclear tipped Cruise Missiles. Give me some cheap Cruise Missiles and a deep water cabin cruiser and I'm off for the Middle East. :D

I'm a little confused about this argument that it says somewhere in the constitution that it's a constitutional right to own a gun- let me explain.
Article To of the Bill of Rights says-
"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."

Re-arrange that sentence grammatically (without a change to meaning) and it says-
" In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (i.e The National Guard) is necessary, and that end people (The National Guard) have the right to bear arms".
Flip the sentence around, it's obvious- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia .

The American people have the right not to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia, and in order to have that militia, said militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The American people HAVE a well-regulated militia which does protect the freedom of the state and that militia keeps and bears arms- it is the National Guard.
A group of drunken friends in a shack does not constitute a well regulated militia, so it does not have the right to keep and bear arms. A group of drug dealers driving the streets of LA is NOT a well-regulated militia, and therefore does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether or not a well-regulated militia is necessary in this day and age (my country, the UK, doesn't have a militia and yet is a free state) is debatable. But American citizens only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regualted militia, and thats why I think gun-control in the USA is beneficial not only to the US but, due to its wide ranging cultural influence, the rest of the world.
This tired old argument has been used by the left in their pogram against gun owners since the early days of the Carter administration. The language of the Constitution is clear and unequivocal: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of discussion.

You used Canada as an example of the fact that you can have no gun control and low gun crime. I agree, but I point out that you have to have the right culture. Canada has that culture.
I was saying the best way to see if gun control would work in America is to look at a country culturally similar to America which has gun control. I would say Britain is Americas closest cultural relative, and Britain has gun control. It also has lower gun crime. I think this is because of the gun control, not cultural differences, although I wouldn't deny culture played a part.

couple of points before I go.

1) Culture helps!!! America has a problem with violence no question. This has nothing to do with guns, as can be seen by the fact that our NON GUN per capita murder rate is higher than many countries(or was, we have seriously reduced crime across the board in the past decade)

2) The UKs overall crime rate far exceeds the USs. Differant societies, differant views on property rights and self defense. Too bad for the Brits who dont mind being robbed, raped and having the shit beat out of them. Too bad for the Americans who wind up dead.

3) Gun crime(by itself) is no differant than any other crime(except that you are more likely to die from being shot instead of being stabbed or being clubbed over the head by a brick), I am saying this so that we dont put GUN crime into its own special category on the 7th level of hell or something.

4) the killing friends/family stuff if you own a gun is a complete load of garbage. This MISinformation comes from a)Kellerman including suicides(86% of the stat) along with murder/death, and the FBI including drug dealers + buyers, prostitutes + johns + pimps, 1st time taxi cab passengers + drivers, gang members ect ect into its "family, friends and aquantences" statistics. There is 1 major county in the US that doesnt use this ridiculous statistic(Chicago), and there it turns out that risk to REAL"family, friends and aquantences" is only something like 7% or 10 %. Guns are less dangerous to a person's own family friends ect than knives, blunt objects and buckets(if you have small children).

5) For some bizarre(if you believe gun control activists) reason, the states with the least gun control have less crimes than their COMPARABLE states that have STRICT gun control.

Vermont for example allows people to buy any firearm and carry it as they please as long as they tell the sales clerk that they will not use it for an illegal purpose. Vermont is 47th in the country crime wise.

I know, I know.. unfair example. So how about Washington DC and Richmond Virginia? Whats the logic there? Why dont gun control advocates go live in the normal parts of DC(without bodyguards)? Absolutely no guns allowed, lets see how long they can survive without being being shot.

You used Canada as an example of the fact that you can have no gun control and low gun crime. I agree, but I point out that you have to have the right culture. Canada has that culture.
I was saying the best way to see if gun control would work in America is to look at a country culturally similar to America which has gun control. I would say Britain is Americas closest cultural relative, and Britain has gun control. It also has lower gun crime. I think this is because of the gun control, not cultural differences, although I wouldn't deny culture played a part.
I would deny that it's the gun control. I've been looking for a concise, unbiased source on gun use statistics. http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm seems to do all right.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida
homicide rate -36%
firearm homicide rate -37%
handgun homicide rate -41%

United States
homicide rate -.4%
firearm homicide rate +15%
handgun homicide rate +24%

How can you claim you 'know' better what the founding father 'meant'? How do you know what the 'definitely' intended? You're right about the fact the if you ban guns, only criminals have guns. But a) fewer criminals have guns and b) it's much easier to determine who is a criminal and who isn't. In Britain if the police pull over someone with a gun, they are a criminal. In America, they could be law-abiding or criminal. They can then go on their merry way, either home to the wife and kids or to YOUR home, wife and kids. In Britain, they go on their merry way to the local crown court.

As for your history of Britain- a) England was not 'feudal' when the Founding Fathers lived, b) during 'feudal' times (a very unscientific time period) peasants didn't have guns. Neither did anyone else, except perhaps arabs and c) Britain still doesn't have guns, yet the subjects of Britain have protected themselves pretty well from crime, invasion and tyranny.

We left Britain centuries ago because we didn't want to follow there rules
and now you use them as a reason why we should change our laws ...
come on. If parents were still allowed to punish their children without fear
of a jail sentence then children wouldn't have access to their parents guns.

Also think of it this way if everyone in America has access to firearms then
the terrorist will have to take that into consideration when they are planning
their plots on our soil. Don't you think that is going to be a deterant to them?

Has anyone ever considered they might actually mean you have the right to 'BEAR arms'?
Nothing to do with guns at all. Just allows ppl to have short hairy arms and long fingernails.
I shall add one comment to this post: What about the right to arm bears?

About the 2nd Amendment: it mentions militias. Someone pointed out that militias are illegal in the US. Also, how could the population of the USA - loosely affiliated at best - be classed as any form of military/militia as it is? I don't know the answers to this, not knowing anything about the 2nd amendment, but could someone explain?

As I said, Britain is Americas closest cultural relation. Canada has similar gun laws to the USA but a much different culture. Britains culture is more similar to America, and it's gun control laws offer it's subjects protection- gun crime in Britain is far lower in America. I.E Britain and America have similar cultures. However Britain has gun control, America doesn't. Britain has lower gun crime. If America had a different culture whereby it's citizens held guns and yet had low gun crime, this would be an issue- see Canada.

similar? pfft.
uk statistics: 54 153 898 white = 92.1%
us statistics: 211 460 626 white = 75.1% including those of hispanic or lation ethnicity.

246 116 088 are not hispanic or latino = 87.5%
194 552 774 are white, of the non-hispanic = 69.1% of total population.

canada statistics: ~25.25 million are white = 88.5%

the way i see it, neither 92.1% nor 88.5% =! 69.1% which concludes that our cultures are not that similar, in that the us has many many more varieties of ethnicities and cultures.

oh, and don't forget we have a media with a tendency to villify minorities and a disparate justice system that furthers the fear and paranoia against minorities.

in short, do not use cultural similarity anymore.

EDIT: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=764
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t6/tab01.pdf
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t6/tab01.pdf

oh, and don't forget we have a media with a tendency to villify minorities and a disparate justice system that furthers the fear and paranoia against minorities.
Proof of this would be nice. I haven't seen any "vilification" of minorities in the media in many, many years. If anything, it's just the opposite. Even just ONE example of media "vilification" of minorities would be nice. :rolleyes:

Even you so called "Conservatives" won't support the right of the American citizen to go to his local gun shop and buy a nuclear warhead. Bah I say!

Your nothing but panty waisted closet Liberals!

Liberals!
Liberals!
Liberals!

I'm a little confused about this argument that it says somewhere in the constitution that it's a constitutional right to own a gun- let me explain.
Article To of the Bill of Rights says-
"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."

Re-arrange that sentence grammatically (without a change to meaning) and it says-
" In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (i.e The National Guard) is necessary, and that end people (The National Guard) have the right to bear arms".
Flip the sentence around, it's obvious- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia .

The American people have the right not to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia, and in order to have that militia, said militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The American people HAVE a well-regulated militia which does protect the freedom of the state and that militia keeps and bears arms- it is the National Guard.
A group of drunken friends in a shack does not constitute a well regulated militia, so it does not have the right to keep and bear arms. A group of drug dealers driving the streets of LA is NOT a well-regulated militia, and therefore does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether or not a well-regulated militia is necessary in this day and age (my country, the UK, doesn't have a militia and yet is a free state) is debatable. But American citizens only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regualted militia, and thats why I think gun-control in the USA is beneficial not only to the US but, due to its wide ranging cultural influence, the rest of the world.

According to the Militia Act of 1792, the militia is defined as every armed able bodied man. That is what the militia they are referring to means.

It has always been my belief that people who want to deny themselves the freedom to defend oneself from both crime, foreign enemies, and repressive government should be punished by removal of their vote so that the rest of society doesn't suffer. Guns in the hands of criminals are the only problem, and we need to concentrate on them. How about instead of taking away everoyne's rights, we concentrate on the few people abusing them. That means we should have background checks when buying a gun to ensure they are not felons. A law abiding citizen has the right to own a firearm simply because they want to, they don't have to have a need. They deserve the right to own any kind of firearm they wish. So, instead of taking away our rights, perhaps it is time to get tough on crime. You liberals need to make way or join in on getting tough on criminals. We need to use the death penalty for very violent crimes, such as murder, rape, carjakcing, robbery with a gun, or attacking someone with a gun. Less violent crimes should be punished by sending them to a better type of prison where they don't get cable tv's and feather pillows. I was thinking hard labor camps in Alaska but thats just me.

About the 2nd Amendment: it mentions militias. Someone pointed out that militias are illegal in the US. Also, how could the population of the USA - loosely affiliated at best - be classed as any form of military/militia as it is? I don't know the answers to this, not knowing anything about the 2nd amendment, but could someone explain?

Militias are NOT illegal in the US. I have many friends who are members of militias.

Less violent crimes should be punished by sending them to a better type of prison where they don't get cable tv's and feather pillows.
..., not to mention released in 2 years because too many people use marijuana.

..., not to mention released in 2 years because too many people use marijuana.

I believe drug use should be legalized, mostly for that reason, or at least not punishable by prison sentinces.

The 2nd amendment protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms, not the right of the states to have militia's or the right of an individual only so long as he is acting as a member of a state's militia. While the government may regulate which weapons may be kept and how they may be borne, the American government cannot constitutionally disarm the citizenry (like has been done in Australia).

Many of the arguments made about the 2nd amendment are given from a personal political agenda, not from having researched of the amendment itself. There is an excellent article discussing the constitutional analysis at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#N_139_

I think most of us would agree that a citizen walking down Main Street in 1789 who carried a flintlock and had a handgun strapped to his waist was less "spooky" to society than a citizen in 2005 who carries an AR-15 with a 20-round magazine clip and has a .40 S&W pistol with a 15 round magazine. But, if you believe that the 2nd amendment's relevancy to an individual's personal right to keep and bear arms is outdated, then the solution is to seek to have that amendment amended or to have the Congress pass a more effective "assault weapons" ban.

Personally, I don't want citizens to be able to arm themselves with nukes, chemical and biological weapons, or plastic explosives. But, I do want the citizenry as a whole to be able to be armed to such a degree that the citzenry ("We the People") will have some amount of protection against abuses by governmental "authorities" acting illegitimately (ex.: the bad guy who gets appointed as the sheriff by the rich land/cattle baron who controls the town).

I live in Houston. I am not armed to the teeth, but am armed to the waist. I have a goose-hunting shotgun, an "home defender" shotgun, a Ruger 10-22, a 30.06 deer rifle, a .270 deer rifle, a .38P+ S&W revolver, and a .40 Glock semi. I have a concealed carry license. My wife of 33 years has 3 year-old Bichon Frise with a bad attitutde.

It is my opinion that I have the constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment to strap my Glock to my hip and put my 30.06 on the gun rack in my truck, and drive from my house out to the country, look around to make sure no Redcoats or Al Queda are close by, get out to smell the fresh air, and get back in my truck to drive back home.

If you so called "Conservatives don't want to live in a society where the common Joe is allowed to fulfill the loosest interpretation of the 2nd amendment by owning a nuclear ICBM you should pack off and go to Russia where they don't allow individuals to own nuclear warheads.

You Pinko Commie Bastards!

I think the main argument is, people who support this ammendment dont know how to read! Or they dont know about US laws, give or take.

It says right up there "For a well regulated Militia!" Militias are illegal in the United States. Therefor the ammendment is outdated.

Or they think it says "For a well regulated Military." I have heard someone say that before, than I corrected him. But even if it did say that, it doesnt matter because the US army supplies your guns, it is illegal to bring your own.

Some think it is the right to arm bears, myself included, this would help prevent forest fires, and stop bear hunting all at once, (I mean if we can protect ourselves why cant they?) It would defenitely benefit the wildlife preservationists. :D


OK. Let's look at your reasoning. If the 2nd amendment were written (as many argue) to allow citizens to keep and bear arms only in the performance of their militia duties, then any law passed to outlaw militias would violate the 2nd amendment and be unconstitutional.

te big deal back in 1789 was to have a small standing army but to ensure that the citizenry had the right to be able to come together quickly to repel an abusive threat by government. Now, we have a huge standing army, including the guard and reserve components.

Whether the 2nd amendment is outdated is a political issue. The Constitution has an amendment process to enable We the People to change it as we believe it needs to be updated. Until We the People amend it, political issues which become formalized in legislation must conform to the Constitution.

The "militia" in the early days of the Republic was the citizenry as a whole. The "Special Militia" (ie" today's National Guard") was an organized group of citizens under the direction and control of each State. The States have the authority to call up the National Guard to defend the state, but today's National Guard is federalized, being an essential component of the federal standing army.

If you so called "Conservatives don't want to live in a society where the common Joe is allowed to fulfill the loosest interpretation of the 2nd amendment by owning a nuclear ICBM you should pack off and go to Russia where they don't allow individuals to own nuclear warheads.

You Pinko Commie Bastards!

Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not absolute and must be balance against other peoples' rights and the constitutional authority granted to the government by the people. Just as the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee an citizen the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, the Constitution doesn't give citizens the right to posses nukes.


The Constitution shouldn't be interpreted so that it conforms to your current political opinion. If you have researched the 2nd Amendment and believe that it does not protect the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms, then please share with us your sources for the interpretation. Being sarcastic doesn't advance a meaningful discussion of the issue.

Proof of this would be nice. I haven't seen any "vilification" of minorities in the media in many, many years. If anything, it's just the opposite. Even just ONE example of media "vilification" of minorities would be nice. :rolleyes:
Yep, cause there's sooooo many positive portrayals of Muslims, Hispanics or Blacks in the American media.

Yep, cause there's sooooo many positive portrayals of Muslims, Hispanics or Blacks in the American media.
Even just ONE example of media "vilification" of minorities would be nice. :rolleyes:

Here's the key to the second amendment man. In the US by law there are two types of militia, The organized militia, which is the national guard and naval milita. And the unorganized militia. And, well you can read what the unorganized militia is.

For further reading on the subject:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

Britain is not 92% white. That figure is a fabrication.

You also want to be careful about your interpretation of the word state. You see, the word state has several different meanings, each with potential validity, espescially when considering the language being used by the framers of the constitution. Here's the dictionary.com definitions of the word state.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=state

Okay, I want everybody to take a bit of time and imagine something.
Okay, say North Korea were to invade the US and (this is hypothetical, remember) defeat our military and destroy the govornment.
Now imagine the North Korean occupation force in New York.
You get my point?

Britain is not 92% white. That figure is a fabrication.
really? thats funny, the uk's statistical department seems to think so.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/images/charts/764.gif
from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=764

The Second Amendment doesn't GIVE the government any powers, it gives the citizens rights. I'm saying it ONLY gives the citzens rights to hold guns as a way of maintaining a well-regulated militia. The constitution GIVES citizens protection, not governments powers.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

We the People have Rights granted us by our Creator! Through the Constitution, We the People granted the government certain authority. The Constitution guarantees our rights to protect us from abuses of government. The Constitution doesn't "give" us the right to keep and bear arms. We have that unalienable right because it was granted us by our Creator. The government's power derives from the constitutional authority granted it by We the People.

Now, people in positions of power who don't honor the fundamental concept the We the People are sovereign and the government is our servant should be voted out of office immediately (if not impeached).

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

We the People have Rights granted us by our Creator! Through the Constitution, We the People granted the government certain authority. The Constitution guarantees our rights to protect us from abuses of government. The Constitution doesn't "give" us the right to keep and bear arms. We have that unalienable right because it was granted us by our Creator. The government's power derives from the constitutional authority granted it by We the People.

Now, people in positions of power who don't honor the fundamental concept the We the People are sovereign and the government is our servant should be voted out of office immediately (if not impeached).

but in all reality, it should be We the States, because that's how our government runs. we the people really don't do that much.

really? thats funny, the uk's statistical department seems to think so.

I won't try and speak for him. But maybe by 'white' he meant 'British' Becuase we have plenty of white immigrants from Europe and other places.

but in all reality, it should be We the States, because that's how our government runs. we the people really don't do that much.
The states are the elected representatives of the people and in theory they are supposed to obey the will of the people.

I'm a little confused about this argument that it says somewhere in the constitution that it's a constitutional right to own a gun- let me explain.
Article To of the Bill of Rights says-
"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."

Re-arrange that sentence grammatically (without a change to meaning) and it says-
" In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (i.e The National Guard) is necessary, and that end people (The National Guard) have the right to bear arms".
Flip the sentence around, it's obvious- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia .

The American people have the right not to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia, and in order to have that militia, said militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The American people HAVE a well-regulated militia which does protect the freedom of the state and that militia keeps and bears arms- it is the National Guard.
A group of drunken friends in a shack does not constitute a well regulated militia, so it does not have the right to keep and bear arms. A group of drug dealers driving the streets of LA is NOT a well-regulated militia, and therefore does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether or not a well-regulated militia is necessary in this day and age (my country, the UK, doesn't have a militia and yet is a free state) is debatable. But American citizens only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regualted militia, and thats why I think gun-control in the USA is beneficial not only to the US but, due to its wide ranging cultural influence, the rest of the world.

Ah, someone else who actually gets it! I never thought I'd see the day. Bless you, child.

Ah, someone else who actually gets it! I never thought I'd see the day. Bless you, child.
Actually, I'm afraid you don't get it. Even if you accept his abomination of the sentence (which is admittedly grammatically incorrect nowadays), then you should still be able to read that it is a right of the people, not a right of the members of a militia.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia" was his abomination.

This does not indicate that, should a militia not exist, individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Then, it says why. It does not state a condition on the previous.

And the Department of Justice agrees. So, you can stop trying to mangle the constitution to fit your own beliefs.

Actually, I'm afraid you don't get it. Even if you accept his abomination of the sentence (which is admittedly grammatically incorrect nowadays), then you should still be able to read that it is a right of the people, not a right of the members of a militia.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia" was his abomination.

This does not indicate that, should a militia not exist, individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Then, it says why. It does not state a condition on the previous.

And the Department of Justice agrees. So, you can stop trying to mangle the constitution to fit your own beliefs.
And a militia does exist! Or, at least so says the DoD. And the US Code as well.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

Ah, someone else who actually gets it! I never thought I'd see the day. Bless you, child.
Too bad they're only about twenty miles and ten gallons off, huh? The 2nd Amendment is clear in its wording and only those wishing to twist the Constitution to their own ends would attempt to rewrite it.

BTW ... I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me why we should bother with repealing or rewriting the 2nd Amendment.

The states are the elected representatives of the people and in theory they are supposed to obey the will of the people.

no, the representatives are elected because they have the same general ideals and beliefs as the majority that elected them. they are free to make their own decisions, even if they are contradictory to the people's will.

we elect them because we feel they will make the same decisions that we would if we were in the situation. not because they will do what we say precisely.

And a militia does exist! Or, at least so says the DoD. And the US Code as well.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311
Yep. When the National Guard is called up for whatever purposes, their Armories are occupied by the "unorganized" militia. I've seen this happen in North Carolina twice in the last 30 years.

EDIT: BTW ... they bring their personal weapons, since the only weapons in the Armory will have been issued to the National Guard troops. Interesting, eh? :)

no, the representatives are elected because they have the same general ideals and beliefs as the majority that elected them. they are free to make their own decisions, even if they are contradictory to the people's will.

we elect them because we feel they will make the same decisions that we would if we were in the situation. not because they will do what we say precisely.
Why I said supposed to.

BTW ... I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me why we should bother with repealing or rewriting the 2nd Amendment.
I wouldn't mind rewriting the entire constitution for the purpose of settling arguments like this once and for all. Of course, that's provided that people who actually know what they're talking about are the ones doing the rewriting.

Ive read through this thread and as far as i can see the only defense your giving to being allowed to bear arms is a 200 year old piece of paper.
Really its quite simple if people dont have guns the cant shoot each other, admittidly that comes from a perfect world where criminals are unable to get them aswell and fair enough they will get hold of them but it will be far more difficult. Take the UK for example (ok the situation is not exactly the same) guns are illegal therefore there are fewer gun crimes ok some criminals still get hold of them but that is a minority of criminals. Its also far more difficult and risky for criminals to obtain them.

Think about it this way why would normal person in this day and age need to carry a gun? If your so worried about being attacked there are other ways to defend yourselves, tasers for example

Why I said supposed to.
no, they're not supposed to do what we say! they are supposed to do what they would do, personally. and the people have the same ideals and beliefs, so they coincide with each other. we elect them because we think they will do what we want them to. they aren't supposed to do anything except what they would do.

Do we advocate an position based on an opinion which was not sincerely held? I hope not. But, if the opinion is what what the 2nd Amendment means, as opposed to what we want, then it seems to me that the opinion should be based upon research and analysis. Otherwise, the advocated position is simply waving around a monkey pulled out of one's ass.

Our Founding Fathers were amazingly intelligent and literate people who wrangled long and hard in the Constitutional Convention. They understood what things meant, and they understood the conventions of construction and interpretation.

So, for those who think that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms, please provide primary sources which indicate that the Founding Fathers intended the protection of keeping and bearing or arms only applied to an organized militia supervised by the State. I'll read and think about it like crazy and might very well change my mind.

Ive read through this thread and as far as i can see the only defense your giving to being allowed to bear arms is a 200 year old piece of paper.
Really its quite simple if people dont have guns the cant shoot each other, admittidly that comes from a perfect world where criminals are unable to get them aswell and fair enough they will get hold of them but it will be far more difficult. Take the UK for example (ok the situation is not exactly the same) guns are illegal therefore there are fewer gun crimes ok some criminals still get hold of them but that is a minority of criminals. Its also far more difficult and risky for criminals to obtain them.

Think about it this way why would normal person in this day and age need to carry a gun? If your so worried about being attacked there are other ways to defend yourselves, tasers for example
A 200 year old piece of paper? A 200 year old piece of paper!?! HELLO!!!!!!! ANYONE HOME???????

You're talking about one of the most important documents in the last millenium dude. The Constitution, your 200 year old piece of paper, is the modern US government!

To disregard the US Constitution so blatantly is like saying "*yawn*, you know that old piece of paper, the Magna Farta, or whatever it's called? Yeah, that one, so inconsequential. We oughta just ditch it. Not really all that important. Anyways, who cares about the powers of a king?"

I mean, hell the US Constitution ranks up there with the collection of laws that form the English Constitution, the Bible and the Koran! It ranks with the writings of Galilleo, Copernicus and Newton!

Hundreds of thousands have died to protect this "200 year old piece of paper," and you, are being a dumb toad, totally throwing the sacrifice of these people out the window.

I mean...damn, I just can't comprehend the stupidity...Jesus Christ...

Ive read through this thread and as far as i can see the only defense your giving to being allowed to bear arms is a 200 year old piece of paper.


You are so right! Unfortunately, you don't get it.

no, they're not supposed to do what we say! they are supposed to do what they would do, personally. and the people have the same ideals and beliefs, so they coincide with each other. we elect them because we think they will do what we want them to. they aren't supposed to do anything except what they would do.
Ok, how about this, I phrased what I said wrong, and my attempts to cover up my mistake came off as crappy. I agree with you completely, I'm just trying to cover up my error.

Good point about liberty. I suppose it is a careful weighing up of which is more important, lifeor liberty. I guess most people would take a utilitarian view on this, i.e whichever is the greater good for the greater number. I think, personally, that the right to life is more important than the right to bear arms, although this is just a personal opinion. I see your point about gun control having to be proven to be an effective way of reducing gun related crime, but I think that Britain is Americas closest cultural relation, and obviously here gun control leads to much fewer gun crimes per head of population.
My point is that I don't see the right of an American citizen to hold guns for uses other than maintaining a well-regulated militia as a right protected under the Second Amendment.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=England+shooting+deaths

I've got relatives in Liverpool who are always complaining about firearm related homicides. Seems like taking guns away from citizens doesn't do such a good job with stopping criminals from using firearms in the commission of a crime over there, to me.

Firearm related crime has increased significantly enough in England that the Armed Response Force is a common site flying along the streets of London in their shiney, white BMW 5 series patrol cars...

I didn't really look at the per-capita... but I don't think it is fair to compare the gun deaths on an island roughly the size of California to the gun deaths on the bigger part of an entire *continent*. I think our issues are exponential.

Gun culture is also a historic part of American mass culture. Gun ownership has *always* been limited to the land-owning and ruling classes in England, and the "commoners" have always pretty much been without access to firearms. That just isn't practical in America.

If you've never really been here, you don't understand just how LARGELY rural the vast, sprawing majority of this nation is. You can't just look at our urban metropolitain hubs and have an accurate picture of our nation. MOST (and I mean the VAST most) of the privately held guns in America are used for absolutely legitimate purposes. Hunting and pest control, (y'all don't have anything quite so dangerous as Rattlesnakes in Jolly Old England... but they're pretty prolific through much of the United States...), general self defense... (you also don't have a lot of real big animals with real sharp teeth and unimaginable speed and strength. We *do*, here). I'm struck with an image of the Colonial English doddering old man explorinig India or Africa, sure that being highly civilized protects him from the savages of the wild.

I'm sure our gun culture leads to a higher incidence of gun related "crimes of passion" and "accidental gun deaths". Guns are a tool. A dangerous tool. They should be used responsibly. Unfortunately, just like any other dangerous tool, a chain-saw, an automobile, that isn't always the case. I recall you lost one of the much loved members of your royal family when someone used an automobile irresponsibly. Should black, armored, Mercedes limos be banned, as they're obviously capable of taking human life?

The anti-gun lobby in America is almost *exclusively* limited to the large urban areas. The Blue/Red divide is clearly evident here, too. The urban and suburban people who are pro-gun control in this nation have little or no realistic idea of the *real* role firearms play in rural settings in America today.

I own several firearms. A 9mm handgun, which exists solely for shooting *people*. I fire it frequently at the gun range, but it never has, and hopefully never will be used for it's intended purpose. I am not one to rely on the Government, or the police, to defend my home, my life, my liberty, or that of my family. I'd gladly welcome their support in this role, if it ever because necessary. But I'd rather not sit and pray that they arrive on time as an armed criminal prowls my house. I also own a .357 magnum revolver. It isn't really practical for use in home defense. I'd stand a good chance of killing an intruder, having the bullet go through my wall and kill a neighbor as well. I take this firearm hunting and camping, because it has decent stopping power, and enough punch to at least *discourage* some of the larger and more ferocious animals one might encounter in the wilderness of America. Let that sink in. I don't live in a flat, or even a "detached house/duplex"... and a weapon that can penetrate several rooms and kill a person in the next house over *after* passing through the body of another person might only DISCOURAGE some of the larger dangerous animals in America. Hell... if my aim was bad enough, a .357 might just piss a mountain lion, grizzly or brown bear OFF. I also have a 12 gauge, pump action, double barrled shotgun which is solely a sporting gun, and an old 20 gauge that was my grandfather's and I'd be afraid to even fire. I'll probably add a .22 rifle to my collection at some point. My guns are all locked in a gunsafe, kept apart from their ammo, and handled as if they are always loaded. I'll probably pick up trigger locks for them as well at some point. I also have no complaints about having to register, and being accountable. I do the same for my car, so why not my guns?

Still, I live in a suburban area on the near outskirts of a major metropolitan area in a Blue state. One of my neighbors is very pro gun control. I've shown him my guns, and he is very nervous around firearms. Which is irrational fear. A gun is no more going to jump up and shoot you than a chainsaw is going to turn on and severe your limb. He has no experience with firearms, and lives in a society that has fed him fear of firearms his entire life. What are you going to do? I have no desire to *compel* him to own firearms. I'm willing to let him make that own decision. He, on the other hand, not only has no desire to own firearms, but would *like* to take that decision away from ME, as well.

Now you tell me... which position is illogical and unreasonable.

ok ok i dont mean it like that what i mean is it was written 200 years ago so even though it may be extremely historically valuble when it was written it was a completely different age slavery was atill going on for example so what it says needs to be reviewed for the modern age.

If you take away a single right to a person that is an infringement to the Americans as they were founded. If you take that away then you are taking away what America stands for in this world. Most people in the outside world see the freedoms we have and shutter. Yet none of them complained when America helped them or allied them in the world wars. The thing is not that we should not have guns or should have guns. It is the principle of the United States of America. We the people do not want to see our single most unifying symbolic piece of material we have "The Constitution" and our "Declaration of Independence" changed. They have stood sine the beginning of it all. We are not about to trample the ideas that we were founded this great nation on. A true patriot is something that the writer of this thread should look up. I will stand and die for this country. I will do what it takes to ensure that this place will stand for my children and family. It is about us doing what is necessary to survive. Make no mistake about it We The Americans will not stand down for anyone. We will us our rights to help us in anyway to protect our rights given to us by the people for the people. The ideology is where it is at. Those who want to change that are mistaken. Why change the one thing that has stood for over 200 years. That is not the way of America. We are here to PROTECT the peace. That constitution has been here for 200 years and it will be here for longer three times longer than that. Will it get changed. As I said yet it has too be changed in anyway too dramatic. I would think though as time changed then it will.. Right now though. I am glad to be in the Navy protecting America and our great flag "Old Glory" I would love to give my life to save the lives of others. Laugh at me and think I am dumb. There is no greater gift than to die for what you believe in. I am willing to die for my family, my friends, my future. If you are laughing you are ignorant. Making fun of me is just proving that you will never understand what it means to be a Patriot. Give me My Right To Protect My Country. That is what I do with my guns. It would be smart to do the same ,because when your family dies visiting a forgien country because of a terrorist then you will want to protect your family no matter what. Just the truth. :mad: :sniper:

ok ok i dont mean it like that what i mean is it was written 200 years ago so even though it may be extremely historically valuble when it was written it was a completely different age slavery was atill going on for example so what it says needs to be reviewed for the modern age.
There's a marked difference between slavery and gun ownership, slavery was the oppression of an entire group of people. And, the only reason it was in the constitution was to get the southern states to sign it.

Gun ownership in itself on the other hand, oppresses no one. And to take that right away from people is EXACTLY the opposite of slavery. Hell, in my opinion it is on the same level as that foolish amendment to ban gay marriage. To remove the right to bear arms is like the stupid attempt at prohibition in the 1930's.

The job of the constitution is to ensure freedom, and anything that ensures individual freedom in any way should NOT be taken away from it.

I mean, your total disregard for this document which has been the foundation of one of the greatest nations in history, is so stunning that I'm having a hard time articulating what I'm trying to say...I mean, you have no idea...

ok ok i dont mean it like that what i mean is it was written 200 years ago so even though it may be extremely historically valuble when it was written it was a completely different age slavery was atill going on for example so what it says needs to be reviewed for the modern age.

I've got news for you. It has been. It is a living document, and is so by design. When Bush was trying to push through that ridiculious and dangerous ammendment on gay marriage... that is an example of this process in action.

Saying, "it was written 200 years ago and doesn't apply today" just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the document.

There's a marked difference between slavery and gun ownership, slavery was the oppression of an entire group of people. And, the only reason it was in the constitution was to get the southern states to sign it.

Gun ownership in itself on the other hand, oppresses no one. And to take that right away from people is EXACTLY the opposite of slavery. Hell, in my opinion it is on the same level as that foolish amendment to ban gay marriage. To remove the right to bear arms is like the stupid attempt at prohibition in the 1930's.

The job of the constitution is to ensure freedom, and anything that ensures individual freedom in any way should NOT be taken away from it.

I mean, your total disregard for this document which has been the foundation of one of the greatest nations in history, is so stunning that I'm having a hard time articulating what I'm trying to say...I mean, you have no idea...

Heh... WORD! :D

Look im sorry if offended you i wasnt trying to knock the constitution and i have nothing against america all im trying to say is it was written 200 years ago. I wasnt comparing gun ownership to slavery i agree they are totally different what i was saying is when it was written slavery was around (im using it as an example of the times) so maybe in todays world which is totally different its time to look over it and update you. Im sorry if this offends you.

I would love to give my life to save the lives of others. Laugh at me and think I am dumb. There is no greater gift than to die for what you believe in. I am willing to die for my family, my friends, my future. If you are laughing you are ignorant.

You sound just like a terrorist. I'm not laughing.

ok ok i dont mean it like that what i mean is it was written 200 years ago so even though it may be extremely historically valuble when it was written it was a completely different age slavery was atill going on for example so what it says needs to be reviewed for the modern age.


The current of political opinion changes darn near year-to-year. The purpose of a constitution is to provide the bedrock for the relationship of the different branches of federal government to each other, the federal government to the states, the federal government to the people, and the states to the people.

If you don't like what the Constitution say, then the solution is to amend it. Not to wave your hand and dismiss it simply as being historically valuable or say that it needs to be "reviewed" for the modern age.

I want a constitution that is a bedrock, not one which will be amended as the political current changes (ie: the modern age).

Just how easily do you want the Constitution to be changed to fit the modern age or the political whim de jure? By online voting?

You not only offend us but yourself if you are trying to change the Constitution if you live in America. :headbang: If you do not live in America. Then come on over. I will show you what this place is all about. Show you all the freedoms we enjoy and the things that others take for granted. :D

Look im sorry if offended you i wasnt trying to knock the constitution and i have nothing against america all im trying to say is it was written 200 years ago. I wasnt comparing gun ownership to slavery i agree they are totally different what i was saying is when it was written slavery was around (im using it as an example of the times) so maybe in todays world which is totally different its time to look over it and update you. Im sorry if this offends you.
I'm not offended, I'm just stunned at the stupidity of your comments, and how you so off-handedly dismiss it because "the times have changed." The time are always changing, and you don't change the foundation of a country on such transient whims, which the constitution is.

And I say that the same arguement of "the times have changed" was used for the prohibition amendment, and, well, you can see where that went.

I'm just stunned at how faulty you logic is.

You sound just like a terrorist. I'm not laughing.

You sound like an ignorant child. I'm not laughing. You just turned one thing around that makes me a Patriot. To die for what you believe in is the greatest sacrifice. I have read that in many places.... Some call it the ultimate. Oh yeah have you ever had your family killed. I have for no reason. Tell me would you die to stop others from having that happen. Again, I am not laughing. You need to stop being close minded and realize that you are twisting the wrong subject and start thinking like this is life and or death ,because in the real worlds people die all the time. It just is wether you died for the right cause. Terrorist do it to oppress people. Do you think fighting to die for my family, friends, and future is oppressing Americans. If so you are very wrong. I fight for every right everyday I wake up. That is an AMERICAN. That is not just a right... it is also what I live to do.

Look were going away from the point i was making forget what i said about the constitution i wrote it offensivley without meaning to im sorry. The real point is about gun control and you have to agree that no guns means less gun crime. (I am accepting that criminals will still get hold of them and it will still happen but it will be reduced)

The real point is about gun control and you have to agree that no guns means less gun crime. (I am accepting that criminals will still get hold of them and it will still happen but it will be reduced)
i'm not sure about that. where i live almost every household has a gun (every guy is required to have one by the military.) and there doesn't seem to be a problem.

Look were going away from the point i was making forget what i said about the constitution i wrote it offensivley without meaning to im sorry. The real point is about gun control and you have to agree that no guns means less gun crime. (I am accepting that criminals will still get hold of them and it will still happen but it will be reduced)
Of course if you ban something it will be reduced. BUT, one should NEVER exchange freedom for security. (This is aimed at this arguement and the Patriot Act, mind you)

This is the easiest way for a tyrant to find a way to power, to get people to change freedom for security.

Look were going away from the point i was making forget what i said about the constitution i wrote it offensivley without meaning to im sorry. The real point is about gun control and you have to agree that no guns means less gun crime. (I am accepting that criminals will still get hold of them and it will still happen but it will be reduced)

That is the point though. If you take one freedom what stops you from taking others. The right to have guns is just what it is. Also cars kill more people that guns every year. Should we ban cars? I hope not I drive everywhere. I need a car. Everything is dangerous with the wrong person in possession of it. You can take an airplane and make it into a terrorist bomb to strike buildings. It is not the gun the kills people. It is the people that have the guns that kill people. A gun is only a weapon when it is used to kill people. If you use them to shoot clay pigeons or to use them in the bialtlons then they are for fun or sport. It is just how you use them. Do not blame the guns they have been used to stop many who are aiming to do wrong also. You have to take that into consideration. Ask any bar owner, store owner, farmer, or person that can be vandalized. It is all about intentions. That is it pure and simple. :p

Of course if you ban something it will be reduced. BUT, one should NEVER exchange freedom for security. (This is aimed at this arguement and the Patriot Act, mind you) <-- quote from Andaluciae (i dont know how to quote properly)

In the UK we enjoy mostly the same freedoms as you yet there is a ban on guns.

Look were going away from the point i was making forget what i said about the constitution i wrote it offensivley without meaning to im sorry. The real point is about gun control and you have to agree that no guns means less gun crime. (I am accepting that criminals will still get hold of them and it will still happen but it will be reduced)


A few years ago, except for the outback residents who needed protection from monsters, Australia (go figure..never would have guessed they'd go to the Dark Side) banned all the private ownership of handguns, rifles, and shotguns. They heaped them in piles and crushed and smelted them.

Since then, the number of violent crimes has skyrocketted in Australia.

Surely, there must be some rational balance between personal freedoms and governments' abuses of power (or just stupid policies).

I agree its not the gun that kills its the person. It would however be impracticle to analyze everyone you sell a gun to to deide if they are going to commit a crime with it. Ok you can do criminal records checks but thats not perfect. Whats to stop a known criminal getting his friend to buy him a gun. As for cars killing people you are right and perhaps tougher tests should be required to drive one (for amother post perhaps) but it would be (i have no facts for this i am presuming) harder to commit a violent crime with a car than a gun.

Great Mark. I need to take you to the shooting range. Or better yet put you in room with an unloaded gun on a table. Then I want you to say that it is dangerous. I want you to tell me this thing is going to kill you. It is just an object. It can be used as a paper weight.. You just need to stop being scared of something that canno hurt you if used in the right hands. Are they dangerous? Yes but like I said everything is dangerous. They just need proper supervision and the right intentions. :cool:

I agree its not the gun that kills its the person. It would however be impracticle to analyze everyone you sell a gun to to deide if they are going to commit a crime with it. Ok you can do criminal records checks but thats not perfect. Whats to stop a known criminal getting his friend to buy him a gun. As for cars killing people you are right and perhaps tougher tests should be required to drive one (for amother post perhaps) but it would be (i have no facts for this i am presuming) harder to commit a violent crime with a car than a gun.

That is what they thought when 911 hit with Airplanes or Jets. Put about 300lbs of C-4 in a car. I think you get the picture.... Anything is a weapon. Anything.. I stress anything. :(

i'm not sure about that. where i live almost every household has a gun (every guy is required to have one by the military.) and there doesn't seem to be a problem.

"A well armed population is a polite population."

You people just don't get it!

If you outlaw the right of the American citizen to have nuclear weapons, then only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.

Do you want to wake up one night with a man at the foot of your bed with a nuclear bomb? And your just laying there without one? Call your Congressman before its too late!

Don't listen to those liberal pansies in the NRA. They'd have you believe that all you have the right to is an assault rifle that can only cut down all the patrons in a crowded McDonald's. In today's dangerous world real men need real fire power!

Look up the Oklahoma City Bombing. It was a truck of Fertilizer and mixed with diesel. A car mind you that blew that up. So that is my proof. :(

To Underemployed Pirates the problem with removing guns is as probably happened in australia that only people who obay the law hand them in. Im not saying introducing a ban on guns anywhere in the world would be easy this proble would perhaps allways arrise. Did the crime rate stay high or did it lower over time?

You people just don't get it!

If you outlaw the right of the American citizen to have nuclear weapons, then only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.

Do you want to wake up one night with a man at the foot of your bed with a nuclear bomb? And your just laying there without one? Call your Congressman before its too late!

Don't listen to those liberal pansies in the NRA. They'd have you believe that all you have the right to is an assault rifle that can only cut down all the patrons in a crowded McDonald's. In today's dangerous world real men need real fire power!

Been watching too many movies I take it. You get that nuke and destoy the world ok... then I will say yeah he was dumb.. second.. why? I mean why would you say that. I do not get your point of view. You think a gun is a nuke.. You ever see a person walking around america with a missle launcher. I will call you an idiot. We ban weapons. Ones that cause mass destruction. We are talking about a gun.. Something used for self defense and sport and for such things as biathlons. You have gone way overboard and to a point where you are just making an "ass" out of yourself.

In the UK we enjoy mostly the same freedoms as you yet there is a ban on guns.
I'm saying the surrendering of rights for security should NEVER happen. This is a blanket statement, and doesn't just pertain to guns.

Did the crime rate stay high or did it lower over time?

I'm assuming that was sarcasm?

If not, well, their crime rate pretty much doubled after the ban.

You sound like an ignorant child. I'm not laughing. You just turned one thing around that makes me a Patriot. To die for what you believe in is the greatest sacrifice. I have read that in many places.... Some call it the ultimate. Oh yeah have you ever had your family killed. I have for no reason. Tell me would you die to stop others from having that happen. Again, I am not laughing. You need to stop being close minded and realize that you are twisting the wrong subject and start thinking like this is life and or death ,because in the real worlds people die all the time. It just is wether you died for the right cause. Terrorist do it to oppress people. Do you think fighting to die for my family, friends, and future is oppressing Americans. If so you are very wrong. I fight for every right everyday I wake up. That is an AMERICAN. That is not just a right... it is also what I live to do.

No... I'm not ignorant. I'm actually on the pro-gun ownership of this debate. YOUR voice is the voice that gives gun-owners a bad name. It makes us look like lunatic, fringe nutcases who hole up on compounds in Montana and Idaho and Texas and have stand-offs with the ATF. Your voice is the voice that causes alarm among people in the UK and makes them wonder just WTF is wrong in this nation. And you know, I defend your right to hole up on a compound and stockpile assault weapons. I do... but that doesn't mean I condone your Rambo-outlook on life. And I'm damn sure willing to call you on it.

Yeah, some DO call it the ultimate sacrifice. The palestinian suicide bombers. Al Qaeda Martyr squads. These terrorists, the ones DYING, are doing it because they believe they are saving the lives and futures of their families. They're not doing it for 70 virgins or for the money. They're doing it for what THEY see as their future. In a nutshell, they're doing it for the SAME reason you claim you would do it. You just happen to have an opposite perspective that comes to the same conclusion.

Would I be willing to die to protect my family? Without being in the situation it is hard to say how I would react. I'd hope the answer would be yes. I like to think I would do *anything* to protect the life of my daughter or wife, under any circumstances. To that end, would I die defending my country, to insure that my wife and child could continue to live the life that they lead? Again, I'd like to think, absolutely.

That is a pretty universal emotion and response. Stop beating on your chest and acting like this realization makes you special. And think about what you are saying and how you word it. You do more HARM for pro-gun arguments than you do good when you come off sounding like this.

You people just don't get it!

If you outlaw the right of legitimate nations like America to have nuclear weapons, then only outlaw and rogue nations will have nuclear weapons.

Do you want to wake up one night with North Korea in your airspace with a nuclear bomb? And your nation is just laying there without one? Call your Congressman before its too late!

Don't listen to those liberal pansies in the UN. They'd have you believe that all you have the right to is simple tactical weaspons of mass destruction that can only cut down all the enemy soliders on a crowded battlefield. In today's dangerous world real countries need real fire power!

Yes, when the argument is used in a reasonable manner... it works.

Yes, when the argument is used in a reasonable manner... it works.
Just look here (http://datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm).

Just look here (http://datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm).

Yes, Ultra Cool People was making a false analogy, and I fixed it so that it was a much better anology. Thank you for reiterating that for anyone who isn't too bright.

First of all about the first agrument about the second amendment, perhaps you do not know the definition of militia, let me explain:
mi·li·tia
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to form their own militias, this has nothing to do with the national guard.

Second, if banning firearms is so successful, why is it that cities in Florida that passed Concealed Carry laws had vastly lower armed crime rates?

You Europeans have no idea about American history and the American way of life.

I found this article pretty interresting
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

BTW ... I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me why we should bother with repealing or rewriting the 2nd Amendment.

One, remove the militia part, so we have simply "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Two, for emphasis "And we really mean it this time".

Been watching too many movies I take it. You get that nuke and destoy the world ok... then I will say yeah he was dumb.. second.. why? I mean why would you say that. I do not get your point of view. You think a gun is a nuke.. You ever see a person walking around america with a missle launcher. I will call you an idiot. We ban weapons. Ones that cause mass destruction. We are talking about a gun.. Something used for self defense and sport and for such things as biathlons. You have gone way overboard and to a point where you are just making an "ass" out of yourself.


Oh so your all for limiting the 2nd Amendment!

Why stop at semiautomatics then. An AK47 with a sear switch and a banana clip can kill everyone in a crowded restaurant. Is that a WMD? How many people have to die before it's a WMD.

By your reasoning we might as well set the line at black powder muzzle loaders.

Liberal NRA pinko.

One, remove the militia part, so we have simply "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Two, for emphasis "And we really mean it this time".


I'd add: ..And we really mean it this time, DAMMIT."

No... I'm not ignorant. I'm actually on the pro-gun ownership of this debate. YOUR voice is the voice that gives gun-owners a bad name. It makes us look like lunatic, fringe nutcases who hole up on compounds in Montana and Idaho and Texas and have stand-offs with the ATF. Your voice is the voice that causes alarm among people in the UK and makes them wonder just WTF is wrong in this nation. And you know, I defend your right to hole up on a compound and stockpile assault weapons. I do... but that doesn't mean I condone your Rambo-outlook on life. And I'm damn sure willing to call you on it.

Yeah, some DO call it the ultimate sacrifice. The palestinian suicide bombers. Al Qaeda Martyr squads. These terrorists, the ones DYING, are doing it because they believe they are saving the lives and futures of their families. They're not doing it for 70 virgins or for the money. They're doing it for what THEY see as their future. In a nutshell, they're doing it for the SAME reason you claim you would do it. You just happen to have an opposite perspective that comes to the same conclusion.

Would I be willing to die to protect my family? Without being in the situation it is hard to say how I would react. I'd hope the answer would be yes. I like to think I would do *anything* to protect the life of my daughter or wife, under any circumstances. To that end, would I die defending my country, to insure that my wife and child could continue to live the life that they lead? Again, I'd like to think, absolutely.

That is a pretty universal emotion and response. Stop beating on your chest and acting like this realization makes you special. And think about what you are saying and how you word it. You do more HARM for pro-gun arguments than you do good when you come off sounding like this.
I would have to say that you ride the fence. If your daughter had a gun to her head you would do nothing.... You just sit there and watch.. I think not. You think that me being this way is bad. You need to serve in the military for about 29 years like I have. Fighting for a cause that you see people just throw rocks, spit, and say that you are idiots. You have no clue what it is like to be in an intense situation. You need to figure out that I am not Rambo. I am the guy saving your family. I am the guy looking out for you. You say I do more harm than help. If that is true you do it then. You stand where I am. You take on the light of the cause.. I want you to hold up under all this pressure. You would crack like a child like you are. You can blast me with your words all you want. About the people in houses holding up against ATF people... that is just stupid. I would lay down my arms the minute they asked. If I was going to give my life for this country do you think I would not lay down my guns for it too? I do not ride this fence. You need to grow up and get some better views in this world ,or you are going to be the one having to make that decision the hard way. I did not have the luxury of making up that decision. My family was in an embassy in South Africa when I was on tour there. They are all dead now. You have the choice. Yet you stand there thinking that you will never have to use it. Get real. No better yet get a backbone.

I would have to say that you ride the fence. If your daughter had a gun to her head you would do nothing.... You just sit there and watch.. I think not. You think that me being this way is bad. You need to serve in the military for about 29 years like I have. Fighting for a cause that you see people just throw rocks, spit, and say that you are idiots. You have no clue what it is like to be in an intense situation. You need to figure out that I am not Rambo. I am the guy saving your family. I am the guy looking out for you. You say I do more harm than help. If that is true you do it then. You stand where I am. You take on the light of the cause.. I want you to hold up under all this pressure. You would crack like a child like you are. You can blast me with your words all you want. About the people in houses holding up against ATF people... that is just stupid. I would lay down my arms the minute they asked. If I was going to give my life for this country do you think I would not lay down my guns for it too? I do not ride this fence. You need to grow up and get some better views in this world ,or you are going to be the one having to make that decision the hard way. I did not have the luxury of making up that decision. My family was in an embassy in South Africa when I was on tour there. They are all dead now. You have the choice. Yet you stand there thinking that you will never have to use it. Get real. No better yet get a backbone.

Listen... I just got into it on one of these threads about if Islam is a bad religion with a guy who was former Army Ranger who happened to also be Muslim. And I'm absolutely going to give you the *same* respect I gave that guy, and take you at your word that what you said is true. No one in American society will get more respect and *room* from me than a solider, current or former, who defends our Republic. I haven't disagreed with you. I'm *simply* trying to make you see and acknowledge a perspective outside of your own. A perspective which, if you have experienced what you say, may be unreasonable of me to expect you to see. But I'd still implore you to try and see outside of your own experiences, and the biases that those create, and try to understand how people without those experiences perceive you and what you are saying. Reread your messages from the perspective of a civillian, or a foreigner, and ask yourself how those messages represent responsible American gun owners. Then draw your own conclusions.

I wouldn't mind rewriting the entire constitution for the purpose of settling arguments like this once and for all. Of course, that's provided that people who actually know what they're talking about are the ones doing the rewriting.
And who, pray tell, is going to decide who knows what they're talking about?

I'm a little confused about this argument that it says somewhere in the constitution that it's a constitutional right to own a gun- let me explain.
Article To of the Bill of Rights says-
"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."

Re-arrange that sentence grammatically (without a change to meaning) and it says-
" In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (i.e The National Guard) is necessary, and that end people (The National Guard) have the right to bear arms".
Flip the sentence around, it's obvious- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia .

The American people have the right not to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia, and in order to have that militia, said militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The American people HAVE a well-regulated militia which does protect the freedom of the state and that militia keeps and bears arms- it is the National Guard.
A group of drunken friends in a shack does not constitute a well regulated militia, so it does not have the right to keep and bear arms. A group of drug dealers driving the streets of LA is NOT a well-regulated militia, and therefore does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether or not a well-regulated militia is necessary in this day and age (my country, the UK, doesn't have a militia and yet is a free state) is debatable. But American citizens only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regualted militia, and thats why I think gun-control in the USA is beneficial not only to the US but, due to its wide ranging cultural influence, the rest of the world.
Firstly, given the various authors of the bill of rights comments' in various newspapers, broadsheets, and writings, they clearly meant for it to be an individual right. Secondly, I somehow doubt they meant it to concern an organization established in 1907 that is run by the Federal Government on the Federal Governments' land. Thirdly it is clear you do not know the meaning of militia. A militia is composed of the common people. That means every person you see on the street over the age of 16-18 depending on who you talk to. Actually if you want to set it as they thought at the time it was every male. But in a situation in which an actual militia was needed you would probably want the extra firepower. People are expected to bring their own rifles and pistols if and when they are called into their militia. The government is not supposed to have them. Now fuck off.

As I said, Britain is Americas closest cultural relation. Canada has similar gun laws to the USA but a much different culture. Britains culture is more similar to America, and it's gun control laws offer it's subjects protection- gun crime in Britain is far lower in America. I.E Britain and America have similar cultures. However Britain has gun control, America doesn't. Britain has lower gun crime. If America had a different culture whereby it's citizens held guns and yet had low gun crime, this would be an issue- see Canada.
How much do you actually know about current british AND australian trends of crime? Because after gun bans were put in place, crime has, for the most part, gone UP.

The states are the elected representatives of the people and in theory they are supposed to obey the will of the people.
Well if the "people" in chicago would get their heads out of their asses and get that crooked gun fearing wussie Daley out of office I might believe you.

How much do you actually know about current british AND australian trends of crime? Because after gun bans were put in place, crime has, for the most part, gone UP.

Living in the supposedly crime-ridden UK, I feel no need for a gun.

Firstly, given the various authors of the bill of rights comments' in various newspapers, broadsheets, and writings, they clearly meant for it to be an individual right. Secondly, I somehow doubt they meant it to concern an organization established in 1907 that is run by the Federal Government on the Federal Governments' land. Thirdly it is clear you do not know the meaning of militia. A militia is composed of the common people. That means every person you see on the street over the age of 16-18 depending on who you talk to. Actually if you want to set it as they thought at the time it was every male. But in a situation in which an actual militia was needed you would probably want the extra firepower. People are expected to bring their own rifles and pistols if and when they are called into their militia. The government is not supposed to have them. Now fuck off.
Actually, not just by their writings do we know this, but we know this by the US law as well. Here is the section of the US Code that describes a militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

Living in the supposedly crime-ridden UK, I feel no need for a gun.
That's a good thing. You shouldn't want to have a gun. However, you can't make that decision for your neighbor. If your neighbor wants a gun and you tell him that he can't, then you have an angry neighbor who wants a gun.

The problem with liberties is that, once people have them, people get really upset and stop voting for your political party when you try to take them away. Sure, maybe generations later things might be better off. However, all of the studies that I've ever seen show that regions with loose gun control laws have much lower crime rates. Regions that bring gun control laws into effect see spikes in crime rates. Regions that loosen gun control laws see significant decreases in crime rates. You can't really argue with that.

I have solved the problem.

Ban guns, make katanas compulsory.

Living in the supposedly crime-ridden UK, I feel no need for a gun.
Good for you, but why should your neighbor be forced to not feel a need for one?

Actually, not just by their writings do we know this, but we know this by the US law as well. Here is the section of the US Code that describes a militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311
I know. There's also the Senate's 1982 RBKA report, and various supreme court cases that referenced it as an individual right but never actually explicitly stated such. Then there was the DOJ's recent report that stated it was an individual right as well.

Dooder, the National Guard is a government organization stationed throughout the country in order to protect the country from outside enemies. Hardly a militia in common meaning. A militia at the time of writting (and still today) is a group of able-bodied citizens, ages 17-40, that will take up arms in times of crisis. Specifically, a tyrannical government overstepping their bounds.

However, since all armed forces take an oath to protect the Constitution U.S. citizens should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Marines etc if (when) our govenment takes it too far.

I'm not saying that they should.

What I am saying is that the solution to concern over your own well-being is not necessarily to carry a lethal weapon.

And I object to someone (no-one in specific here) telling me I'm a fool for disapproving of guns and not seeing a need for them in my society.

-------------------

"OMG! You don't have a gun!? What if someone attacks you? What if someone breaks into your house! Your police suck dude!"

"Well, if need be I'd run after getting a profile on the person attacking me. And if someone comes into my house, there are more ways to defend myself than a gun. I know my house, they don't. And thankfully where I live, we don't assume everyone has a gun. If I spent my life worrying about small percentages, I'd shy away from doing most things. Like driving a car."

-snip-
I think the point is that you can choose to not own a gun, but you shouldn't tell someone else that they can't. All that is is legislating your morality on other people.

And the next step is you respond to my post...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=England+shooting+deaths

I've got relatives in Liverpool who are always complaining about firearm related homicides. Seems like taking guns away from citizens doesn't do such a good job with stopping criminals from using firearms in the commission of a crime over there, to me.

Firearm related crime has increased significantly enough in England that the Armed Response Force is a common site flying along the streets of London in their shiney, white BMW 5 series patrol cars...

I didn't really look at the per-capita... but I don't think it is fair to compare the gun deaths on an island roughly the size of California to the gun deaths on the bigger part of an entire *continent*. I think our issues are exponential.

Gun culture is also a historic part of American mass culture. Gun ownership has *always* been limited to the land-owning and ruling classes in England, and the "commoners" have always pretty much been without access to firearms. That just isn't practical in America.

If you've never really been here, you don't understand just how LARGELY rural the vast, sprawing majority of this nation is. You can't just look at our urban metropolitain hubs and have an accurate picture of our nation. MOST (and I mean the VAST most) of the privately held guns in America are used for absolutely legitimate purposes. Hunting and pest control, (y'all don't have anything quite so dangerous as Rattlesnakes in Jolly Old England... but they're pretty prolific through much of the United States...), general self defense... (you also don't have a lot of real big animals with real sharp teeth and unimaginable speed and strength. We *do*, here). I'm struck with an image of the Colonial English doddering old man explorinig India or Africa, sure that being highly civilized protects him from the savages of the wild.

I'm sure our gun culture leads to a higher incidence of gun related "crimes of passion" and "accidental gun deaths". Guns are a tool. A dangerous tool. They should be used responsibly. Unfortunately, just like any other dangerous tool, a chain-saw, an automobile, that isn't always the case. I recall you lost one of the much loved members of your royal family when someone used an automobile irresponsibly. Should black, armored, Mercedes limos be banned, as they're obviously capable of taking human life?

The anti-gun lobby in America is almost *exclusively* limited to the large urban areas. The Blue/Red divide is clearly evident here, too. The urban and suburban people who are pro-gun control in this nation have little or no realistic idea of the *real* role firearms play in rural settings in America today.

I own several firearms. A 9mm handgun, which exists solely for shooting *people*. I fire it frequently at the gun range, but it never has, and hopefully never will be used for it's intended purpose. I am not one to rely on the Government, or the police, to defend my home, my life, my liberty, or that of my family. I'd gladly welcome their support in this role, if it ever because necessary. But I'd rather not sit and pray that they arrive on time as an armed criminal prowls my house. I also own a .357 magnum revolver. It isn't really practical for use in home defense. I'd stand a good chance of killing an intruder, having the bullet go through my wall and kill a neighbor as well. I take this firearm hunting and camping, because it has decent stopping power, and enough punch to at least *discourage* some of the larger and more ferocious animals one might encounter in the wilderness of America. Let that sink in. I don't live in a flat, or even a "detached house/duplex"... and a weapon that can penetrate several rooms and kill a person in the next house over *after* passing through the body of another person might only DISCOURAGE some of the larger dangerous animals in America. Hell... if my aim was bad enough, a .357 might just piss a mountain lion, grizzly or brown bear OFF. I also have a 12 gauge, pump action, double barrled shotgun which is solely a sporting gun, and an old 20 gauge that was my grandfather's and I'd be afraid to even fire. I'll probably add a .22 rifle to my collection at some point. My guns are all locked in a gunsafe, kept apart from their ammo, and handled as if they are always loaded. I'll probably pick up trigger locks for them as well at some point. I also have no complaints about having to register, and being accountable. I do the same for my car, so why not my guns?

Still, I live in a suburban area on the near outskirts of a major metropolitan area in a Blue state. One of my neighbors is very pro gun control. I've shown him my guns, and he is very nervous around firearms. Which is irrational fear. A gun is no more going to jump up and shoot you than a chainsaw is going to turn on and severe your limb. He has no experience with firearms, and lives in a society that has fed him fear of firearms his entire life. What are you going to do? I have no desire to *compel* him to own firearms. I'm willing to let him make that own decision. He, on the other hand, not only has no desire to own firearms, but would *like* to take that decision away from ME, as well.

Now you tell me... which position is illogical and unreasonable.

you make a REALLY good point. I own a small .22 for target prctice and pleasure shooting, a small .110 shot gun i used to hunt with when i was a child, and a old mauser rifle i use for deer hunting.
--------
anyone think about taking a look at Texas? they have conceiled carry laws there.

Would YOU want to go mug an old lay if she pulled out a rugger and pointed at your face? I sure as hell wouldn't.
-------
If you ban guns only the crimianls will have them, besides you ban guns people are going to use swords or bats, ban those people will begin to use rocks, ban rocks, and people will be running around beating people with fists. should we cut off peolpes arms and legs too? nope, you do that the'll still start rolling around biteing eachother!

Originally Posted by Analmania
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...shooting+deaths

I've got relatives in Liverpool who are always complaining about firearm related homicides. Seems like taking guns away from citizens doesn't do such a good job with stopping criminals from using firearms in the commission of a crime over there, to me.

Firearm related crime has increased significantly enough in England that the Armed Response Force is a common site flying along the streets of London in their shiney, white BMW 5 series patrol cars...

I didn't really look at the per-capita... but I don't think it is fair to compare the gun deaths on an island roughly the size of California to the gun deaths on the bigger part of an entire *continent*. I think our issues are exponential.

Gun culture is also a historic part of American mass culture. Gun ownership has *always* been limited to the land-owning and ruling classes in England, and the "commoners" have always pretty much been without access to firearms. That just isn't practical in America.

If you've never really been here, you don't understand just how LARGELY rural the vast, sprawing majority of this nation is. You can't just look at our urban metropolitain hubs and have an accurate picture of our nation. MOST (and I mean the VAST most) of the privately held guns in America are used for absolutely legitimate purposes. Hunting and pest control, (y'all don't have anything quite so dangerous as Rattlesnakes in Jolly Old England... but they're pretty prolific through much of the United States...), general self defense... (you also don't have a lot of real big animals with real sharp teeth and unimaginable speed and strength. We *do*, here). I'm struck with an image of the Colonial English doddering old man explorinig India or Africa, sure that being highly civilized protects him from the savages of the wild.

I'm sure our gun culture leads to a higher incidence of gun related "crimes of passion" and "accidental gun deaths". Guns are a tool. A dangerous tool. They should be used responsibly. Unfortunately, just like any other dangerous tool, a chain-saw, an automobile, that isn't always the case. I recall you lost one of the much loved members of your royal family when someone used an automobile irresponsibly. Should black, armored, Mercedes limos be banned, as they're obviously capable of taking human life?

The anti-gun lobby in America is almost *exclusively* limited to the large urban areas. The Blue/Red divide is clearly evident here, too. The urban and suburban people who are pro-gun control in this nation have little or no realistic idea of the *real* role firearms play in rural settings in America today.

I own several firearms. A 9mm handgun, which exists solely for shooting *people*. I fire it frequently at the gun range, but it never has, and hopefully never will be used for it's intended purpose. I am not one to rely on the Government, or the police, to defend my home, my life, my liberty, or that of my family. I'd gladly welcome their support in this role, if it ever because necessary. But I'd rather not sit and pray that they arrive on time as an armed criminal prowls my house. I also own a .357 magnum revolver. It isn't really practical for use in home defense. I'd stand a good chance of killing an intruder, having the bullet go through my wall and kill a neighbor as well. I take this firearm hunting and camping, because it has decent stopping power, and enough punch to at least *discourage* some of the larger and more ferocious animals one might encounter in the wilderness of America. Let that sink in. I don't live in a flat, or even a "detached house/duplex"... and a weapon that can penetrate several rooms and kill a person in the next house over *after* passing through the body of another person might only DISCOURAGE some of the larger dangerous animals in America. Hell... if my aim was bad enough, a .357 might just piss a mountain lion, grizzly or brown bear OFF. I also have a 12 gauge, pump action, double barrled shotgun which is solely a sporting gun, and an old 20 gauge that was my grandfather's and I'd be afraid to even fire. I'll probably add a .22 rifle to my collection at some point. My guns are all locked in a gunsafe, kept apart from their ammo, and handled as if they are always loaded. I'll probably pick up trigger locks for them as well at some point. I also have no complaints about having to register, and being accountable. I do the same for my car, so why not my guns?

Still, I live in a suburban area on the near outskirts of a major metropolitan area in a Blue state. One of my neighbors is very pro gun control. I've shown him my guns, and he is very nervous around firearms. Which is irrational fear. A gun is no more going to jump up and shoot you than a chainsaw is going to turn on and severe your limb. He has no experience with firearms, and lives in a society that has fed him fear of firearms his entire life. What are you going to do? I have no desire to *compel* him to own firearms. I'm willing to let him make that own decision. He, on the other hand, not only has no desire to own firearms, but would *like* to take that decision away from ME, as well.

Now you tell me... which position is illogical and unreasonable.


If he puts trigger locks on his guns then he almost completely negates their self defense usage. For that matter, it is highly unlikely a normal .357 mag. would go through a person's body, through two separate wall of two separate houses and still manage to hit someone, let alone kill them, but I will agree that it is a bit overkill. For that matter, if you have a self defense gun you should always keep it loaded and maintained, unless it's a revolver in which case you just need to make sure it's working and then load it. Keeping the ammo out of the gun and locking it away means that if you actually need it for self defense, there's a good chance you will not have enough time to unlock the case and load it in time. Also, longarms(rifles and shotguns) are much much more dangerous in terms of accidental deaths than handguns are.

I think the point is that you can choose to not own a gun, but you shouldn't tell someone else that they can't. All that is is legislating your morality on other people.

Perhaps it is.

However to re-introduce full and total gun legality (well, a la the US system) to the UK, I believe, would create a period where those out to cause trouble, but previously unable to attain guns easily, would acquire them, and the British public as a whole would be reluctant to buy guns.

This would then lead to everyone buying a gun for their personal protection, and no offense, but I prefer my society to one closer to the US. Right now I know there's a chance that someone who confronts me might have a gun. But I know that is slim to very slim, depending where I am. And in a country with more guns, all I'd feel is that this chance would increase. It only takes a few seconds, and -bang- dead / seriously injured. And before someone says about other armed people acting as a deterrent to this, that's only if they know it's happening.

I freely admit this is a difficult issue for me to argue on, as I tend to sit in both camps. As an idealist I would prefer it if no guns were needed in my country. As a realist I admit people need to be on an even playing field. As an optimist I'd hope we could achieve a totally gun-free society, with better police to manage crime. As a pessimist I doubt my government will ever get it right.

lol

To think I came into this thread because I was annoyed someone was using my country as a worst-case scenario. Ah well, that's life :p

"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example."

—Oliver Wendell Holmes

Your point?

I have a right to self defense and I exercise it.

Your point?

I have a right to self defense and I exercise it.
This statement is highly ambiguous, and at the moment my brain is tired by the hours of halo 2, as such, I'm not making connections very well. Please explain.

Halo 2!

Come on, reload that Battle Rifle and get back in there :p

Anyway, Armed Bookworms posted a quote, and it seemed to be lacking a point, so...

Halo 2!

Come on, reload that Battle Rifle and get back in there :p

Anyway, Armed Bookworms posted a quote, and it seemed to be lacking a point, so...
Ah, but it is my roommates turn, and we only have on controller (curses)

I have a right to self defense and I exercise it.
No, you have a right to provide for your own well being and have the right to defend yourself IF and WHEN someONE threatens you. You do not have the right to remove some else's form of defense UNLESS they have acted or seriously threaten to act in a matter that would harm you or someone else without provocation.


Oh, and the quote was more of a reflection on most governments attitudes towards how they conduct themselves over any matter, not just that of guns.

*sends Anda $40*

Armed, you seem to think that I want to take guns from those who have them, I don't.

What I am objecting to is making it easier for people who commit crimes to get access to weapons, and forcing something where it isn't needed (yet).

And I'm objecting because people seem to have the belief that the UK is awful because it doesn't have more guns.

Well, I read the first page, and skipped the rest, deeming it probably flamming bullshit.

The US militia is defined as all able bodied men over the age of 18 and under the age of 40 something. This is defined by the US Law Code. I'd give you the link, but I cannot access my favourites, where it is saved, as AOL needs to be wiped of the Earth and its CEO hanged.

So, going off of US Code title 10.A.1.13.311, combined with the 2nd amendment, every able bodied male from 17 to 45, barring legal cause for otherwise, has the option to be, and in all rights the duty to be, armed.

Simple!

Allowing our government to dictate that we cannot have arms, can (not saying that it will) eventually lead to the incapability of standing up to the government if required, not to mention the inability to defend ourselves.

What leads anyone to believe that by outlawing, restricting, or banning any firearms will have any infulence on someone who lives outside the law, ie a criminal? Many felons this instant are armed and probably in the course of planning another illegal action. Then there are those such as a in-law of mine who cannot own a firearm due to a court action when he was 16. He was "Made an example of" for something UNRELATED TO FIREARMS WHATSOEVER!

My family will continue to be armed, even if it means that when the time comes I'm sandbagging my exterior walls and setting up barbed wire in a deliberate defense around my home. My wife, and her rifle, will be right next to me and mine.

Well, I read the first page, and skipped the rest, deeming it probably flamming bullshit.

The US militia is defined as all able bodied men over the age of 18 and under the age of 40 something. This is defined by the US Law Code. I'd give you the link, but I cannot access my favourites, where it is saved, as AOL needs to be wiped of the Earth and its CEO hanged.
You mean shot?

Well, I read the first page, and skipped the rest, deeming it probably flamming bullshit.

The US militia is defined as all able bodied men over the age of 18 and under the age of 40 something. This is defined by the US Law Code. I'd give you the link, but I cannot access my favourites, where it is saved, as AOL needs to be wiped of the Earth and its CEO hanged.
I agree wholeheartedly about AOL, and although I've posted the link 3 times already, I'll post it again, as I think it's fun.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

*sends Anda $40*

Suh-weet!

So, going off of US Code title 10.A.1.13.311, combined with the 2nd amendment, every able bodied male from 17 to 45, barring legal cause for otherwise, has the option to be, and in all rights the duty to be, armed.

Simple!

Allowing our government to dictate that we cannot have arms, can (not saying that it will) eventually lead to the incapability of standing up to the government if required, not to mention the inability to defend ourselves.

What leads anyone to believe that by outlawing, restricting, or banning any firearms will have any infulence on someone who lives outside the law, ie a criminal? Many felons this instant are armed and probably in the course of planning another illegal action. Then there are those such as a in-law of mine who cannot own a firearm due to a court action when he was 16. He was "Made an example of" for something UNRELATED TO FIREARMS WHATSOEVER!

My family will continue to be armed, even if it means that when the time comes I'm sandbagging my exterior walls and setting up barbed wire in a deliberate defense around my home. My wife, and her rifle, will be right next to me and mine.

But only until you're 45, right? :p

And I'm objecting because people seem to have the belief that the UK is awful because it doesn't have more guns.
Awful, no. But crime is rising in the UK while in the US it has been falling for quite a while. And all states that have dropped most gun control laws have seen a marked decrease in crime.

Possible Answer to problem without introducing guns: Increase police presence, shift balance of rights from criminal to victim.

Possible Answer to problem without introducing guns: Increase police presence, shift balance of rights from criminal to victim.
Police can really only stop the crime After it has happened, where the general availability of guns is more likely to stop the crime from happening at all.

Awful, no. But crime is rising in the UK while in the US it has been falling for quite a while. And all states that have dropped most gun control laws have seen a marked decrease in crime.

Want to see crime drop to nothing? Unlimited 2nd amendment rights, nuclear weapons for everyone!

I promise that if you allow any American to own a nuclear warhead, crime will drop to zero in a week,... and will stay that way.

OK.

Say someone walks up and punches you.

No-one could have prevented that unless they were very close and very fast.

Say someone walks up and shoots you.

Same situation, injury is greater.

You cannot prevent a crime if you do not know that it is about to occur. This applies to both victims and witnesses. In an open, well lit area, it is relatively easy to see if a crime is taking place. In a dark, enclosed area or open area with plenty of obstructions, it gets considerably harder.

Going back to my suggestion on police, greater police numbers means greater visibility, hence more doubt in the criminal's mind if they can successfully commit their crime, and more police means more people to catch the criminal sooner if they manage to commit the crime.

OK.

Say someone walks up and punches you.

No-one could have prevented that unless they were very close and very fast.

Say someone walks up and shoots you.

Same situation, injury is greater.

You cannot prevent a crime if you do not know that it is about to occur. This applies to both victims and witnesses. In an open, well lit area, it is relatively easy to see if a crime is taking place. In a dark, enclosed area or open area with plenty of obstructions, it gets considerably harder.

Going back to my suggestion on police, greater police numbers means greater visibility, hence more doubt in the criminal's mind if they can successfully commit their crime, and more police means more people to catch the criminal sooner if they manage to commit the crime.
Let's say that you're going to walk up to somebody and punch him.

Situation A: The person is wearing a padded helmet.

Situation B: The person is carrying a gun.

In which situation are you more likely to punch that person?

OK.

Say someone walks up and punches you.

No-one could have prevented that unless they were very close and very fast.

Say someone walks up and shoots you.

Same situation, injury is greater.

You cannot prevent a crime if you do not know that it is about to occur. This applies to both victims and witnesses. In an open, well lit area, it is relatively easy to see if a crime is taking place. In a dark, enclosed area or open area with plenty of obstructions, it gets considerably harder.

Going back to my suggestion on police, greater police numbers means greater visibility, hence more doubt in the criminal's mind if they can successfully commit their crime, and more police means more people to catch the criminal sooner if they manage to commit the crime.

This is where the theory begins to take shape. It's sort of a twist on MAD, basically, if someone comes up to you and wastes you before you can pull off some sort of defensive behavior, but according to the theory other people will probably be carrying guns and they'll be able to respond.

The murderer, not wanting to have to face this response, will not shot you in the first place. Hence, the theory, I know my description of it sucks, but it's 1:14 AM here, and I'm pretty tired.

I think that, as long as the bear died of natural causes, it should be permissible to be able to access its arms... Live bears arms have a rather unfortunate tendacy to maul people.

OK.

Say someone walks up and punches you.

No-one could have prevented that unless they were very close and very fast.

Say someone walks up and shoots you.

Same situation, injury is greater.

You cannot prevent a crime if you do not know that it is about to occur. This applies to both victims and witnesses. In an open, well lit area, it is relatively easy to see if a crime is taking place. In a dark, enclosed area or open area with plenty of obstructions, it gets considerably harder.

Going back to my suggestion on police, greater police numbers means greater visibility, hence more doubt in the criminal's mind if they can successfully commit their crime, and more police means more people to catch the criminal sooner if they manage to commit the crime.

Unless you are in a back alley, or it is very late there is likely to be other people around. The greater the saturation of guns, the more likely that someone will pull out their own gun and kill that person. Rather an effective detterent. Besides, Vermont has dropped almost all gun laws and yet you mysteriously don't hear about random incidences like the one you describe. On the other hand, in Chicago where guns are almost outlawed it is considered a good weekend if only 3 people are murdered with guns.

Umm... Can you check that against population so it means something?

Umm... Can you check that against population so it means something?
"don't hear about" doesn't scale well. Also, I'm pretty sure that Vermont has a higher population than Chicago, so it doesn't actually matter.

The right to bear arms, and armed bears, and whatever variations on tha theme!

Alrighty then.

The right to bear arms, and armed bears, and whatever variations on tha theme!

Mmm... Bear arms. Great barbecued with a little rosemary rubbed in. *nods and drools*

Mmm... Bear arms. Great barbecued with a little rosemary rubbed in. *nods and drools*
Interesting, I use thyme, oh yeah, do you grill or broil?

"don't hear about" doesn't scale well. Also, I'm pretty sure that Vermont has a higher population than Chicago, so it doesn't actually matter.
Well, I don't explicitly know that there aren't completely random shootings going on in Vermont, but given the attention that went to the DC sniper, I would sort of assume that if it was a constant problem the media would be all over it.

The right to bear arms, and armed bears, and whatever variations on tha theme!
Heh, look up the book, "the right to arm bears". You can read the first 6 chapters here http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200009/0671319590.htm?blurb

Some people have stated that guns are nescecary for when the government takes over. They are wrong because:
1. The government took over in 1776
2. No matter what guns you own they're not going to save you from a RODS FROM GODS satellite array, unless you can shoot objects you can't even see that are moving at 17,000 mph
3. We have the best trained army in the world. You'll have twenty bullets in your skull before you un-holster your gun if the army wants you dead.

I tend to veiw guns as self defense as unnescecary as a dancing bannanna paper wheight. Perhaps it's because I live in a town where the most heinous crime in the last year was littering. (the bastard was burned at the stake for it) I also feel that guns for sport is a despicable excuse. Hunters, think of what you're doing: Killing for fun. At least al-Queada gave us a crazy excuse. What's yours?

Some people have listed the weaponry that they have. These people have quite extensive armories. I wonder why anyone would need that many guns. They all kill people. Why would you need so many different ways to do it? I feel left out though, so let me list my weapons:
A wooden katana
A small pistol-bb gun
A fuzzy-wuzzy teddy bear
A peice of paper (for giving people paper cuts)
Beat that, losers.

Heh, look up the book, "the right to arm bears". You can read the first 6 chapters here http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200009/0671319590.htm?blurb
wow

Interesting, I use thyme, oh yeah, do you grill or broil?

This thread ain't about bear arms dagnabit!

It's about fire arms.

Let me wrap you on my fiery arms. :p

This thread has officially been jacked by us, crazy folk.

This thread ain't about bear arms dagnabit!

It's about fire arms.

Let me wrap you on my fiery arms. :p

Hey! DOn't interfere with my right to bear arms!

Succulent, juicy bear arms... *drool*

3. We have the best trained army in the world. You'll have twenty bullets in your skull before you un-holster your gun if the army wants you dead.
For that army to actually do anything truly serious to the common US citizen would be nearly impossible, seeing as it is both volunteer and given the oath they take.

And another quote, because I feel like it.

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.

"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"

—Robert A. Heinlein, in Time Enough for Love

I also feel that guns for sport is a despicable excuse. Hunters, think of what you're doing: Killing for fun. At least al-Queada gave us a crazy excuse. What's yours?
Actually, hunters provide an important service to animal populations. Namely, they kill animals that would otherwise starve to death during the winter. That's why they're allowed to do it. Do you have a problem with hunting for food if the person also enjoys the hunting? You know that we're carnivores, right?

I don't have a gun, nor do I intend to get one, and I don't even like them. I do enjoy shooting bows and arrows at bails of hay and styrofoam, and I consider this to be very similar to using firearms for sport. I don't own any archery equipment, nor do I intend to, but I think it would be ridiculous to prevent me from being able to shoot bails of hay and styrofoam.

In fact, my only real experience with guns is from Cub Scout camp. We let cub scouts use guns, and the BSA has never had any problems with it. Do you really trust cub scouts more than adults?

Actually, hunters provide an important service to animal populations. Namely, they kill animals that would otherwise starve to death during the winter. That's why they're allowed to do it. Do you have a problem with hunting for food if the person also enjoys the hunting? You know that we're carnivores, right?

I don't have a gun, nor do I intend to get one, and I don't even like them. I do enjoy shooting bows and arrows at bails of hay and styrofoam, and I consider this to be very similar to using firearms for sport. I don't own any archery equipment, nor do I intend to, but I think it would be ridiculous to prevent me from being able to shoot bails of hay and styrofoam.

In fact, my only real experience with guns is from Cub Scout camp. We let cub scouts use guns, and the BSA has never had any problems with it. Do you really trust cub scouts more than adults?
Can you tell wit 100% accuracy that the animals would starve to death? Seems to me that if a species starved to death during the winter, it would quickly become extinct. The one exception I make with my hatred of hunters is those who depend on it for food. You gotta do what you gotta do, right? But I just get appalled at those who kill so they can have an ugly thing to hang over their mantle. I also do not object to guns in a safe and controlled environment where the guns would never be allowed to leave, and every measure was taken to ensure safety, such as a shooting gallery. I also find it strange that people spend so much money to squeeze off a few rounds when their are so many realistic shooting arcade games out there, like Time Crisis.

Can you tell wit 100% accuracy that the animals would starve to death? Seems to me that if a species starved to death during the winter, it would quickly become extinct.
Not every member of the species would starve to death. There is some food around. However, more of the species would starve to death than are actually killed by hunters.

The most dangerous mammal in the United States is the common deer. It kills, on average, 147 people a year.

The most dangerous mammal in the United States is the common deer. It kills, on average, 147 people a year.

YAY DEER! :D They'd get more if I could figure out how to install those damn shotguns!

YAY DEER! :D They'd get more if I could figure out how to install those damn shotguns!
Most of them are from car accidents actually.

Most of them are from car accidents actually.

Yeah. Right. 'Accidents'. ;)

Let's say that you're going to walk up to somebody and punch him.

Situation A: The person is wearing a padded helmet.

Situation B: The person is carrying a gun.

In which situation are you more likely to punch that person?

*wrestles thread back on track for just one more post...*

Who goes about wearing padded helmets?

>_> <_<

And how would you know they're carrying a gun? Going to ask? Stop and stare? Or do they have it in clear sight? (in which case, having surprise on their side, and depending on the holster it's in, they might try and take it, and shoot you with your own weapon...

This is where the theory begins to take shape. It's sort of a twist on MAD, basically, if someone comes up to you and wastes you before you can pull off some sort of defensive behavior, but according to the theory other people will probably be carrying guns and they'll be able to respond.

The murderer, not wanting to have to face this response, will not shot you in the first place. Hence, the theory, I know my description of it sucks, but it's 1:14 AM here, and I'm pretty tired.

You and Armed are sorta on the same idea here, so I'll just quote you.

Yeah, MAD is a deterrent.

However.

How do you know who to shoot?

You're walking down the street, concealed gun... wherever you conceal it, and hear a gunshot near you. You turn and see one person on the ground (dead or unconscious) and another beside them, gun in hand. The shooter looks distressed (hey, not all criminals are mindless killers, this one might be feeling some remorse).

Couldn't the person with the gun be the (intended) victim here? They would just be exercising their right to self defense with a firearm. How can you know in the few seconds you might have? Would you shoot them anyway, just to be sure?

Ignoring any of the due process that would come afterwards (since by the time you put it beyond all doubt they'll be in custody, escaped or released without charge), can you be sure the person left standing is the criminal?

And if in this situation, you would not shoot, the situation has the same resonance as an attacker and good samaritan with knives/fists, and the only deterrents become the likelyhood of being convicted in court, and the seriousness of the sentence. Which isn't influenced by the right to bear arms.

These are the kinds of questions that keep me from totally siding with either side on this debate.

*breathe*

OK. You may now resume lunacy. :)

You mean shot?

Nah, Hanging is slower if you do it wrong (which needs to be done).

Or, you can shoot him while he's hanging, if you wish. http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/mp5.gif

YAY DEER! :D They'd get more if I could figure out how to install those damn shotguns!

You mean deer have fire arms, I thought they had legs and hooves.

It was Bambi!

He started the forest fire!

The most dangerous mammal in the United States is the common deer. It kills, on average, 147 people a year.
Realy? I could have sworn it was the comman human.

Realy? I could have sworn it was the comman human.
Animals that exist in nature.

Animals that exist in nature.

Humans exist in nature.

Humans exist in nature.
Not for a very long time, and then, those guys are typically harmless hermits.

If he puts trigger locks on his guns then he almost completely negates their self defense usage. For that matter, it is highly unlikely a normal .357 mag. would go through a person's body, through two separate wall of two separate houses and still manage to hit someone, let alone kill them, but I will agree that it is a bit overkill. For that matter, if you have a self defense gun you should always keep it loaded and maintained, unless it's a revolver in which case you just need to make sure it's working and then load it. Keeping the ammo out of the gun and locking it away means that if you actually need it for self defense, there's a good chance you will not have enough time to unlock the case and load it in time. Also, longarms(rifles and shotguns) are much much more dangerous in terms of accidental deaths than handguns are.

I live in a HUGE house... lots of rooms, two different wings... with a very good security system.

Any intruder into my house would have to get past several levels of security, including electronic systems and large dogs. Then they would have to *search* for me. I'd have ample advanced warning that something is amiss to remove a firearm from my gun safe, remove trigger locks and slide a clip into my 9mm and chamber a round.

If someone was laying in wait to ambush me on my return, I'd be screwed. But, having the gun loaded or unloaded, with trigger locks or not, wouldn't mitigate that.

In return for the marginal inconvienence of having gun locks, and not having a round chambered in any of my firearms until *necessary*, I enjoy a MUCH higher sense of security that my firearms will not be involved in an accidental shooting... which is a luxury I can afford.

Hell... when I'm hunting, I generally do not chamber a shell until I see my target. It is simply safer. Why have a shell loaded for a target you have not yet determined? As you pointed out, accidental shootings are more common with rifles and shotguns... there are a few reasons. Alcohol is involved in a lot of cases, they're simply more "common" to be out and being *used* in surroundings where there are more people, and because they are so common, people become *complacent* about their safety. I treat a chain-saw with a HEALTHY degree of respect, bordering on fear. I treat a firearm the same way. I am *confident* in my ability to use either, but I always keep in mind the risks of using this kind of tool.

If I were in a military engagement, that would be a different matter, but in general, I think the idea of being *that* prepared at all times borders on paranoia. If having a round chambered is going to make that big of a difference for you, perhaps your marksmanship skills need improving. I generally trust in my skill to chamber a round, take careful aim, and hit my target with a high degree of accuracy. Especially in a gunfight with your average criminal with a poorly manufactured handgun and no *real* experience shooting that firearm outside of the occassional home invasion or drive-by shooting.

Perhaps it is.

However to re-introduce full and total gun legality (well, a la the US system) to the UK, I believe, would create a period where those out to cause trouble, but previously unable to attain guns easily, would acquire them, and the British public as a whole would be reluctant to buy guns.

This would then lead to everyone buying a gun for their personal protection, and no offense, but I prefer my society to one closer to the US. Right now I know there's a chance that someone who confronts me might have a gun. But I know that is slim to very slim, depending where I am. And in a country with more guns, all I'd feel is that this chance would increase. It only takes a few seconds, and -bang- dead / seriously injured. And before someone says about other armed people acting as a deterrent to this, that's only if they know it's happening.

I freely admit this is a difficult issue for me to argue on, as I tend to sit in both camps. As an idealist I would prefer it if no guns were needed in my country. As a realist I admit people need to be on an even playing field. As an optimist I'd hope we could achieve a totally gun-free society, with better police to manage crime. As a pessimist I doubt my government will ever get it right.

lol

To think I came into this thread because I was annoyed someone was using my country as a worst-case scenario. Ah well, that's life :p

You know, I'm not arguing that the UK should remove gun bans. I don't think it should. I think the UK is a different sitaution than America, and I think the UK does allow some limited firearm possession in certain circumstances for carefully thought out reasons, which works fine for that nation.

America is a different case. This thread started when a citizen of the UK asked about gun laws in America, and said he/she didn't understand them. My response to that is, "well, OBVIOUSLY".

Some people have stated that guns are nescecary for when the government takes over. They are wrong because:
1. The government took over in 1776
2. No matter what guns you own they're not going to save you from a RODS FROM GODS satellite array, unless you can shoot objects you can't even see that are moving at 17,000 mph
3. We have the best trained army in the world. You'll have twenty bullets in your skull before you un-holster your gun if the army wants you dead.

I tend to veiw guns as self defense as unnescecary as a dancing bannanna paper wheight. Perhaps it's because I live in a town where the most heinous crime in the last year was littering. (the bastard was burned at the stake for it) I also feel that guns for sport is a despicable excuse. Hunters, think of what you're doing: Killing for fun. At least al-Queada gave us a crazy excuse. What's yours?

Some people have listed the weaponry that they have. These people have quite extensive armories. I wonder why anyone would need that many guns. They all kill people. Why would you need so many different ways to do it? I feel left out though, so let me list my weapons:
A wooden katana
A small pistol-bb gun
A fuzzy-wuzzy teddy bear
A peice of paper (for giving people paper cuts)
Beat that, losers.

An un-armed civilian population poses *zero* threat to a military.

We can see the impact that even a POORLY armed and trained civilian population can pose to an unwanted Government Military Presence, on a daily basis, in Iraq.

So much for *THAT* argument...

Funny how this "an armed population is no deterent to oppressive government" argument ALWAYS comes from someone on the "left" who is pro-gun control and almost inevitably "Anti-Iraqi Invasion" and they *never* see the irony in their position.

Most of them are from car accidents actually.

And deer hunting by ordinary armed citizens of the United States, is among the FOREMOST method of controlling deer populations in the United States.

Ban guns in America, deer populations go up, more humans die needlessly in senseless deer-related traffic fatalities. And I'm only being half-sarcastic.

An un-armed civilian population poses *zero* threat to a military.

We can see the impact that even a POORLY armed and trained civilian population can pose to an unwanted Government Military Presence, on a daily basis, in Iraq.

So much for *THAT* argument...

Funny how this "an armed population is no deterent to oppressive government" argument ALWAYS comes from someone on the "left" who is pro-gun control and almost inevitably "Anti-Iraqi Invasion" and they *never* see the irony in their position.

http://www.animeleague.net/~berrik/emot-owned.gif

Oh! and finally...

This amazement among Europeans and non-gun owners in general at the number of firearms a person owns...

Do you own a *single* tool that you use for everything?

Does the term "The right tool for the right job" make any sense to you? Do you use a screwdriver for a hammer?

Neither would you use a rifle for shooting waterfowl, or a shotgun for precision shooting, or a handgun for shooting nuisance rattlesnakes on your property...

So generally, if you're going to own ONE gun, unless it is purely a "personal defense" gun, you're going to own multiple guns. That doesn't constitute a "stockpile of weapons", regardless of how many times you hear this term in the media.

And deer hunting by ordinary armed citizens of the United States, is among the FOREMOST method of controlling deer populations in the United States.

Ban guns in America, deer populations go up, more humans die needlessly in senseless deer-related traffic fatalities. And I'm only being half-sarcastic.

dont be sarcastic, deer are picking off people in New Jersey left and right. I think they have been recruited by terrorists.

dont be sarcastic, deer are picking off people in New Jersey left and right. I think they have been recruited by terrorists.

If you don't understand the problem, shut up. Strict laws on hunting deer and geese were enacted here in Minnesota, and as a result the damn things are overrunning the suburbs.

Deer are a nuisance animal.

If you don't understand the problem, shut up. Strict laws on hunting deer and geese were enacted here in Minnesota, and as a result the damn things are overrunning the suburbs.

Deer are a nuisance animal.
My cousin lives in Colorado and has managed to total two cars, one from hitting a mule deer and another from hitting an elk. She no longer drives through Rocky Mountain Nat. Park.

I live in a HUGE house... lots of rooms, two different wings... with a very good security system.

Any intruder into my house would have to get past several levels of security, including electronic systems and large dogs. Then they would have to *search* for me. I'd have ample advanced warning that something is amiss to remove a firearm from my gun safe, remove trigger locks and slide a clip into my 9mm and chamber a round.

If someone was laying in wait to ambush me on my return, I'd be screwed. But, having the gun loaded or unloaded, with trigger locks or not, wouldn't mitigate that.

In return for the marginal inconvienence of having gun locks, and not having a round chambered in any of my firearms until *necessary*, I enjoy a MUCH higher sense of security that my firearms will not be involved in an accidental shooting... which is a luxury I can afford.

Hell... when I'm hunting, I generally do not chamber a shell until I see my target. It is simply safer. Why have a shell loaded for a target you have not yet determined? As you pointed out, accidental shootings are more common with rifles and shotguns... there are a few reasons. Alcohol is involved in a lot of cases, they're simply more "common" to be out and being *used* in surroundings where there are more people, and because they are so common, people become *complacent* about their safety. I treat a chain-saw with a HEALTHY degree of respect, bordering on fear. I treat a firearm the same way. I am *confident* in my ability to use either, but I always keep in mind the risks of using this kind of tool.

If I were in a military engagement, that would be a different matter, but in general, I think the idea of being *that* prepared at all times borders on paranoia. If having a round chambered is going to make that big of a difference for you, perhaps your marksmanship skills need improving. I generally trust in my skill to chamber a round, take careful aim, and hit my target with a high degree of accuracy. Especially in a gunfight with your average criminal with a poorly manufactured handgun and no *real* experience shooting that firearm outside of the occassional home invasion or drive-by shooting.



Nice of you to post Prince William.

Nice of you to post Prince William.

Hey, reality sucks... sorry you are a "have not".

Oh! and finally...

This amazement among Europeans and non-gun owners in general at the number of firearms a person owns...

Do you own a *single* tool that you use for everything?

Does the term "The right tool for the right job" make any sense to you? Do you use a screwdriver for a hammer?

Neither would you use a rifle for shooting waterfowl, or a shotgun for precision shooting, or a handgun for shooting nuisance rattlesnakes on your property...

So generally, if you're going to own ONE gun, unless it is purely a "personal defense" gun, you're going to own multiple guns. That doesn't constitute a "stockpile of weapons", regardless of how many times you hear this term in the media.

There are also laws against shooting avians with rifles. you HAVE to have a shotgun to legaly hunt avian creatures.

I would alos like to bring up the issue of herloom firearms. My father currently hold several guns that have been passed down throug the family for about five generations. If atni-guns laws were to be passed, why should i loose a peice of mt family history to be melted down into a hunk of metal?

Nope, if the government DOES pass laws banning civilians from having guns than it's no longer a government i want to support.

the "Assult rifle issue": I USE an "assult rifle" to go hunting with. I have a stock AK-47 with a 5-round clip available for my use for deer hunting. There are people with rifles out there that are even MORE powerfull and can hold more ammo than mine that are NOT assult riffles. Does that make me a bad person? no. Statistics have SHOWN that violent crimes are almost NEVER committed with "assult rifles" they are more often committed with hand guns. Think about it. Whitch are you going to be more likely to be able to hide, a hand gun or a rife? it's not like you can stick a rifle down you pant's and "whip it out" to assult some desk clerk. no.

However, i agree that firearm education classes should be more redily available for FREE. then we wouldn't have neraly as many accidents would we?

I live in a HUGE house... lots of rooms, two different wings... with a very good security system.

Any intruder into my house would have to get past several levels of security, including electronic systems and large dogs. Then they would have to *search* for me. I'd have ample advanced warning that something is amiss to remove a firearm from my gun safe, remove trigger locks and slide a clip into my 9mm and chamber a round.

Problem is, most people DON'T have those luxuries, so instead of a big house and security system to stall the ass while you unlock your guns from the trigger lock and load them up, we have maybe a short walk to the stairs to meet the sunuvabitch.

Has anyone ever considered they might actually mean you have the right to 'BEAR arms'?
Nothing to do with guns at all. Just allows ppl to have short hairy arms and long fingernails.
That would be the right to bare arms.

Hell... when I'm hunting, I generally do not chamber a shell until I see my target. It is simply safer. Why have a shell loaded for a target you have not yet determined? As you pointed out, accidental shootings are more common with rifles and shotguns... there are a few reasons. Alcohol is involved in a lot of cases, they're simply more "common" to be out and being *used* in surroundings where there are more people, and because they are so common, people become *complacent* about their safety. I treat a chain-saw with a HEALTHY degree of respect, bordering on fear. I treat a firearm the same way. I am *confident* in my ability to use either, but I always keep in mind the risks of using this kind of tool.
It's also because both rifles and shotguns are one hell of a lot more deadly than handguns. Rifles because of their higher power and shotguns because buckshot wreaks havoc on it's target.

I'm a little confused about this argument that it says somewhere in the constitution that it's a constitutional right to own a gun- let me explain.
Article To of the Bill of Rights says-
"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."

Re-arrange that sentence grammatically (without a change to meaning) and it says-
" In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (i.e The National Guard) is necessary, and that end people (The National Guard) have the right to bear arms".
Flip the sentence around, it's obvious- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia .


You can't re-arrange the sentence to suit your idea of good grammar. You do need to read the Federalist papers in order to get a good idea of how people thought and acted in the 18 century. This spells out the intentions of the authors far better than any amount of case law since then. Fortunately, most judges have decided to concur with the Founding Fathers in that the 2nd Amendment rights are indeed conferred on individuals, rather than to the government. That's in keeping with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The American people have the right not to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia, and in order to have that militia, said militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The American people HAVE a well-regulated militia which does protect the freedom of the state and that militia keeps and bears arms- it is the National Guard.
A group of drunken friends in a shack does not constitute a well regulated militia, so it does not have the right to keep and bear arms. A group of drug dealers driving the streets of LA is NOT a well-regulated militia, and therefore does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether or not a well-regulated militia is necessary in this day and age (my country, the UK, doesn't have a militia and yet is a free state) is debatable. But American citizens only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regualted militia, and thats why I think gun-control in the USA is beneficial not only to the US but, due to its wide ranging cultural influence, the rest of the world.
Your interpretion is certainly held by a lot of folks in the US. Fortunately, they are not judges, nor are they members of Congress.

the "Assult rifle issue": I USE an "assult rifle" to go hunting with. I have a stock AK-47 with a 5-round clip available for my use for deer hunting. There are people with rifles out there that are even MORE powerfull and can hold more ammo than mine that are NOT assult riffles. Does that make me a bad person? no. Statistics have SHOWN that violent crimes are almost NEVER committed with "assult rifles" they are more often committed with hand guns. Think about it. Whitch are you going to be more likely to be able to hide, a hand gun or a rife? it's not like you can stick a rifle down you pant's and "whip it out" to assult some desk clerk. no.
Heh, for some reason M-16's are outlawed, yet a rifle chambered for .308 winchester in semi-capable hands is much deadlier.

It's also because both rifles and shotguns are one hell of a lot more deadly than handguns. Rifles because of their higher power and shotguns because buckshot wreaks havoc on it's target.
Different topic, but I don't think you can call handguns less deadly than long rifles or shotguns. At close range, a magnum load is pretty strong stuff and a 45 caliber slug will stop just about anything. It's hard to bring a long rifle around real fast, that's why the carbine models of rifle were developed. Different tools have different strengths.

Heh, for some reason M-16's are outlawed, yet a rifle chambered for .308 winchester in semi-capable hands is much deadlier.
M-16s are outlawed because of the automatic fire. I have an AR-15, indentical in every other respect. I use it for service rifle competition, the deer get the 30.06 rounds.

Problem is, most people DON'T have those luxuries, so instead of a big house and security system to stall the ass while you unlock your guns from the trigger lock and load them up, we have maybe a short walk to the stairs to meet the sunuvabitch.

Well... I wasn't saying you should be required to have a trigger lock... simply that illustrating that I take pains to make my fire-arms safe and accident-resistant.

I still don't like the idea of a loaded gun, with a chambered round, unsecured, in any house. That is a statistic waiting to be recorded on a Government chart waiting to happen. It is a dangerous tool, it shouldn't be left lying around loaded.

That is like having your chainsaw, in the garage, always running, with the garage door open, in case you have to cut down a tree in a hurry... or always leaving your car in the driveway, unlocked, with the engine running, in case you need to leave quickly.

Nope, if the government DOES pass laws banning civilians from having guns than it's no longer a government i want to support.

Amen!

However, i agree that firearm education classes should be more redily available for FREE. then we wouldn't have neraly as many accidents would we?
The NRA has a free series. The most basic is "Eddie Eagle" which is available to schools. Problem is that the schools, by and large, are afraid to admit guns exist, so Eddie is a little underused.

The problem with FREE is that it really costs someone. Who should bear the costs of FREE?

Well... I wasn't saying you should be required to have a trigger lock... simply that illustrating that I take pains to make my fire-arms safe and accident-resistant.

I still don't like the idea of a loaded gun, with a chambered round, unsecured, in any house. That is a statistic waiting to be recorded on a Government chart waiting to happen. It is a dangerous tool, it shouldn't be left lying around loaded.

That is like having your chainsaw, in the garage, always running, with the garage door open, in case you have to cut down a tree in a hurry... or always leaving your car in the driveway, unlocked, with the engine running, in case you need to leave quickly.

There's a good compromise. Put the gun in a wall safe during the day. Take it out and load it at night, or when you think it might be needed. The chainsaw analogy might be extended. Take the chainsaw out and put gas in it Saturday morning. Sharpen the blade. Now it's ready to cut the big limbs when you need it. If you don't need it, put it back on the shelf.

Crikey!

I've always thought that it was the "right to arm bears!"

I'm a little confused about this argument that it says somewhere in the constitution that it's a constitutional right to own a gun- let me explain.
Article To of the Bill of Rights says-
"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."

Re-arrange that sentence grammatically (without a change to meaning) and it says-
" In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (i.e The National Guard) is necessary, and that end people (The National Guard) have the right to bear arms".
Flip the sentence around, it's obvious- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia .

The American people have the right not to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia, and in order to have that militia, said militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The American people HAVE a well-regulated militia which does protect the freedom of the state and that militia keeps and bears arms- it is the National Guard.
A group of drunken friends in a shack does not constitute a well regulated militia, so it does not have the right to keep and bear arms. A group of drug dealers driving the streets of LA is NOT a well-regulated militia, and therefore does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether or not a well-regulated militia is necessary in this day and age (my country, the UK, doesn't have a militia and yet is a free state) is debatable. But American citizens only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regualted militia, and thats why I think gun-control in the USA is beneficial not only to the US but, due to its wide ranging cultural influence, the rest of the world.

I suggest you consider the SCOTUS decisions that do not portray the 2nd Amendment as entailing a militia.

I also suggest that you consult the latest research, which indicates that violent crime increases after you ban guns. The UK and Australia and the US (in certain locations) are prime examples of that result.

Crime has also been shown to drop in areas of the US where concealed carry of weapons was made easier.

Studies may disagree on the percentage of increase in crime after a gun ban, or the decrease in crime after the liberalization of gun ownership and gun carry, but they all show the same trends.

Sorry to say, but 93 percent of violent crime in the US is committed by people WITHOUT guns. Roughly half the murders with guns, yes. But murders have dropped to an all-time low in the US, and gun murders have dropped as well - despite an INCREASE in handgun ownership by 47 MILLION handguns over the past 10 years.

We now own nearly twice as many guns per household in nearly 50 percent more households than we did during the period immediately prior to WW II - a period which people regard as fairly non-violent in the US. Yet we have a lower violent crime rate and a lower murder rate per 100,000 people. That crime rate is even LOWER in areas where gun ownership is LEGAL and concealed carry by 3.5 million people is made easy.

If guns cause violent crime, and if the mere presence of a gun causes people to commit murder, the evidence is sorely lacking in the US.

I suggest you consider the SCOTUS decisions that do not portray the 2nd Amendment as entailing a militia.

I also suggest that you consult the latest research, which indicates that violent crime increases after you ban guns. The UK and Australia and the US (in certain locations) are prime examples of that result.

Crime has also been shown to drop in areas of the US where concealed carry of weapons was made easier.

Studies may disagree on the percentage of increase in crime after a gun ban, or the decrease in crime after the liberalization of gun ownership and gun carry, but they all show the same trends.

Sorry to say, but 93 percent of violent crime in the US is committed by people WITHOUT guns. Roughly half the murders with guns, yes. But murders have dropped to an all-time low in the US, and gun murders have dropped as well - despite an INCREASE in handgun ownership by 47 MILLION handguns over the past 10 years.

We now own nearly twice as many guns per household in nearly 50 percent more households than we did during the period immediately prior to WW II - a period which people regard as fairly non-violent in the US. Yet we have a lower violent crime rate and a lower murder rate per 100,000 people. That crime rate is even LOWER in areas where gun ownership is LEGAL and concealed carry by 3.5 million people is made easy.

If guns cause violent crime, and if the mere presence of a gun causes people to commit murder, the evidence is sorely lacking in the US.
They don't listen. They didn't listen when violent crime in North Carolina ( for example ) dropped radically after the State legislature passed a concealed carry law. The anti-gun fanatics have been brain-washed into believing that "guns bad ... gun owners bad ... must ban" until they are virtually mindless automations.

There's a good compromise. Put the gun in a wall safe during the day. Take it out and load it at night, or when you think it might be needed. The chainsaw analogy might be extended. Take the chainsaw out and put gas in it Saturday morning. Sharpen the blade. Now it's ready to cut the big limbs when you need it. If you don't need it, put it back on the shelf.

Ok... I'm willing to go with that...

One thing, though. The idea of having a gun loaded and ready to go because you might wake up dislocated and groggy without enough time or awake enough to load a gun...

Doesn't that strike you as a time when the gun maybe SHOULDN'T be loaded?

Just playing devil's advocate. Have you ever gone to answer the phone and instead answered your alarm clock by mistake? Or you know, anything else like that... went to hit snooze and instead turned the table lamp on?

Ok... I'm willing to go with that...

One thing, though. The idea of having a gun loaded and ready to go because you might wake up dislocated and groggy without enough time or awake enough to load a gun...

Doesn't that strike you as a time when the gun maybe SHOULDN'T be loaded?

Just playing devil's advocate. Have you ever gone to answer the phone and instead answered your alarm clock by mistake? Or you know, anything else like that... went to hit snooze and instead turned the table lamp on?

Then I guess that soldiers should have to turn in their weapons before sleeping at night in a war zone...

I sleep with a loaded semiautomatic pistol on my bedside table. It's not remotely like the alarm clock, and it isn't as easy to set off as you imagine.

I would have to:

a) rack the slide (a two-handed operation) to chamber a round
b) turn off the safety
c) put my finger inside the trigger guard and pull the trigger through its double-action (racking the slide on my pistol does not cock the weapon).

Altogether, if one or more of these actions doesn't take place, it doesn't go off. And my alarm clock (and for that matter the phone and the lamp on the same table) don't work that way either.

Ok... I'm willing to go with that...

One thing, though. The idea of having a gun loaded and ready to go because you might wake up dislocated and groggy without enough time or awake enough to load a gun...

Doesn't that strike you as a time when the gun maybe SHOULDN'T be loaded?

Just playing devil's advocate. Have you ever gone to answer the phone and instead answered your alarm clock by mistake? Or you know, anything else like that... went to hit snooze and instead turned the table lamp on?
No, but I've struggled to figure out what's going on after awakening from a deep sleep.
I don't know this from first hand experience. I'm willing to be that the alarm that one will feel at the sound of breaking glass, the burglar alarm, the dogs barking, or whatever else wakes one up will cause such a rush of adrenaline that time will be compressed and you will have super-sensitive reactions because of the stimulant.

Now before you laugh, or while you are laughing, think about the fact that time compression is a real phenomenena. It just sounds so funny that I had to say something about it. During extreme stress, the brain kicks into overdrive and you really do think faster and act faster than you normally would.

Remember there are various degrees of what "loaded" may mean. To me, that means I can put a round in the chamber very easily. For a semi-automatic pistol, just pull and release the slide. For a shotgun, just pump it. That noise alone will be enough to scare off a bad guy in most circumstances.

I would have to:

a) rack the slide (a two-handed operation) to chamber a round
b) turn off the safety
c) put my finger inside the trigger guard and pull the trigger through its double-action (racking the slide on my pistol does not cock the weapon).

Altogether, if one or more of these actions doesn't take place, it doesn't go off. And my alarm clock (and for that matter the phone and the lamp on the same table) don't work that way either.

My italics. What sort of semi-automatic pistol do you own? I can't think of how it would be semi-automatic without the slide cocking the trigger. That's what usually makes them semi-automatic.

I've been in two incidents so far when carrying my pistol.

In each case, I am quite certain that I would have been robbed had I not been armed.

In each case, the person who was demanding my money ran away when I began to draw.

In one of those cases, the person robbing me had a gun out already. He did not shoot me.

There are some here who would rather that I was robbed, than have two desperate people run away unharmed.

I've been in two incidents so far when carrying my pistol.

In each case, I am quite certain that I would have been robbed had I not been armed.

In each case, the person who was demanding my money ran away when I began to draw.

In one of those cases, the person robbing me had a gun out already. He did not shoot me.

There are some here who would rather that I was robbed, than have two desperate people run away unharmed.
That certainly jibes with a lot of research. Most bad guys are just out easy money and they are cowards on top of it all.

Now what about the semi-automatic that doesn't cock its self? I'm still curious who made it?

That certainly jibes with a lot of research. Most bad guys are just out easy money and they are cowards on top of it all.

Now what about the semi-automatic that doesn't cock its self? I'm still curious who made it?

Mauser M2, a recent import by SIG. Comes in 45 ACP or 40 S&W.

The pistol has an internal striker (no hammer). When you rack the slide, the gun goes to half-cock, and you must pull the trigger to release the automatic firing pin lock and fully cock the striker - otherwise it can't go off.

It also has a manual safety that keeps the striker from moving, as well as a magazine safety (won't fire when the magazine is removed).

Based on a Josef Nickl design, it holds 8+1 in 45 ACP and is very reliable and fairly compact (though not lightweight at 28 ounces).

Mauser M2, a recent import by SIG. Comes in 45 ACP or 40 S&W.

The pistol has an internal striker (no hammer). When you rack the slide, the gun goes to half-cock, and you must pull the trigger to release the automatic firing pin lock and fully cock the striker - otherwise it can't go off.

It also has a manual safety that keeps the striker from moving, as well as a magazine safety (won't fire when the magazine is removed).

Based on a Josef Nickl design, it holds 8+1 in 45 ACP and is very reliable and fairly compact (though not lightweight at 28 ounces).
Wow. So, you have to pull the trigger through just like a revolver on each shot?

Wow. So, you have to pull the trigger through just like a revolver on each shot?

Yes. It has a consistent trigger pull, at about 5 pounds, a bit more than you'll have for a single action semi.

The other nice thing: it's well rounded and smooth on the exterior, so I didn't have to have it de-horned. It seems made for concealed carry, although being a 45, it's a tad large.

There's also a loaded chamber indicator. This pistol would be rather difficult for you to shoot yourself with accidentally.

Mauser M2, a recent import by SIG. Comes in 45 ACP or 40 S&W.

The pistol has an internal striker (no hammer). When you rack the slide, the gun goes to half-cock, and you must pull the trigger to release the automatic firing pin lock and fully cock the striker - otherwise it can't go off.

It also has a manual safety that keeps the striker from moving, as well as a magazine safety (won't fire when the magazine is removed).

Based on a Josef Nickl design, it holds 8+1 in 45 ACP and is very reliable and fairly compact (though not lightweight at 28 ounces).

Pretty slick. I'm still hooked on Kimbers, though.

I suppose since it has been pointed out numerous times in this thread that the National Guard is not the militia and that "unorganized" militias exist, I shouldn't have to repeat it. But I just did anyhow. :sniper:

Here's where I'm coming from, though:

I'm an officer in the local militia here in my hometown. I am licensed by the federal government to maintain an arsenal because of my duties with the militia. In other words, I have mulitple types of powder for reloading various weapons and over 50 longarms stored in my home. These weapons range from a kentucky rifle, to a Krag Carbine that went up Kettle Hill in Cuba, to the M1 my grandfather carried on Gaudalcanal to a small collection of AR 15s (including one with a "flare gun" attachment under barrel) and AK 47s. There are also several pistols, of which the most important is my normal carry piece, a Glock 19.

Do I sound like a fanatical madman to you? Gun toting militia officer with an entire arsenal and all that, gotta be crazy, right? Funny the local law enforcement doesn't see it that way.

I also teach firearm safety and work with the NRA to give refresher courses on gun safety before each hunting season. I have "range rights" at the firing range where the city, county and state cops practice; meaning I'm often comparing notes on weapons, safety and the like with the local cops before or after my target practice. I go to the Boy Scouts summer camp each year and supervise the young men learning the right way to handle a weapon the first time.

Since becoming a civilian, I've never had to kill any people; but I've drawn my weapon several times. I shot a rabid dog. I drew my weapon at a Speedway when I walked in on a guy robbing it with a knife. And there was the attempted mugging on me, the guy didn't have a weapon at all, except his size; but just drawing the Glock and telling him to put his hands up or I'd shoot him in the back kept him there long enough for a cop to arrive.

Owning guns doesn't make one a criminal or a lunatic. Being a criminal, however, makes a gun owner dangerous. That's why I favor strict penalties for crimes committed with firearms and the lifetime removal of the right to keep and bare arms from convicted felons. We have plenty of gun control laws on the books, if only we'd enforce them and punish offenders properly.

Context, Context, Context.

The 2nd Amendment was written shortly after the American War of Independence. At this time most of the country was still frontier and under constant threat from Native Americans (who rightly took issue with the "illegal immigrants" overrunning their land), European Imperialists, and wild animals (bears, wolves and the occasional drunken neighbor). Guns were not just a right but an absolute necessity, both for protection and food procurement. Additionally, the poorly funded federal government did not have the finances to maintain a large, well equipped standing army. State and local militias had to fill in the gap. The founding fathers were also very much aware of the pivitol role that private gun owners played in the War of Independence. These factors led to the 2nd Amendment.

However, their relevence today is debatable. Certainly rifles and shotguns for hunting should be allowed. Handguns, the arguement goes both ways. Assault rifles, there is no justifiable reason for private citizens to own these.

You're right it is all about context. But you missed the real context--basically, the intent behind pretty much everything in the US Constitution is in the Federalist Papers. The second amendment is there to protect US citizens from their own government, first and foremost, not to hunt or defend themselves from native americans.

The founding fathers wanted us to never trust the government completely because those who are in power will be corrupted, and an armed populace is much more difficult to overrun. Yes, assault rifles are necessary for just that purpose.

I'm a little confused about this argument that it says somewhere in the constitution that it's a constitutional right to own a gun- let me explain.
Article To of the Bill of Rights says-
"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."

Re-arrange that sentence grammatically (without a change to meaning) and it says-
" In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (i.e The National Guard) is necessary, and that end people (The National Guard) have the right to bear arms".
Flip the sentence around, it's obvious- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia .


The American people have the right not to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia, and in order to have that militia, said militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The American people HAVE a well-regulated militia which does protect the freedom of the state and that militia keeps and bears arms- it is the National Guard.
A group of drunken friends in a shack does not constitute a well regulated militia, so it does not have the right to keep and bear arms. A group of drug dealers driving the streets of LA is NOT a well-regulated militia, and therefore does not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether or not a well-regulated militia is necessary in this day and age (my country, the UK, doesn't have a militia and yet is a free state) is debatable. But American citizens only have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regualted militia, and thats why I think gun-control in the USA is beneficial not only to the US but, due to its wide ranging cultural influence, the rest of the world.

I will differ with your opinion.

The founding fathers had some SERIOUS foresight, if you think the National Guard is what they meant. The national guard wasn't created until almost 100 years after the Constitution came to being. That doesn't work.

The Justice Department just finished an exhastive report on the fact that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right--not something for militias.

I'd suggest reading the Federalist Papers, to see what the founding fathers meant--that's where they wrote it all down.

no, the representatives are elected because they have the same general ideals and beliefs as the majority that elected them. they are free to make their own decisions, even if they are contradictory to the people's will.

we elect them because we feel they will make the same decisions that we would if we were in the situation. not because they will do what we say precisely.

Nah, in the US, it's generally because the other is worse, not because the one you choose is better in any way.

Do we advocate an position based on an opinion which was not sincerely held? I hope not. But, if the opinion is what what the 2nd Amendment means, as opposed to what we want, then it seems to me that the opinion should be based upon research and analysis. Otherwise, the advocated position is simply waving around a monkey pulled out of one's ass.

Our Founding Fathers were amazingly intelligent and literate people who wrangled long and hard in the Constitutional Convention. They understood what things meant, and they understood the conventions of construction and interpretation.

So, for those who think that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms, please provide primary sources which indicate that the Founding Fathers intended the protection of keeping and bearing or arms only applied to an organized militia supervised by the State. I'll read and think about it like crazy and might very well change my mind.


I'm afraid they won't find that, due to the fact that the Federalist Papers say why we're supposed to have unfettered access to arms.

Ah, the National Guard.

The Guard is famous for killing innocent American civilians on behalf of corporate interests.

I need only refer the good reader to the West Virginia coal miner strikes, and the armored trains run by the National Guard to fire at striking miner's camps with machineguns - killing women and children, and using incendiary rounds to set fire to their camps.

The National Guard is NOT the militia. United States Code says so. The National Guard is NOT the militia.

USC defines the militia as being all male US citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 - it is NOT the National Guard.

Ah, the National Guard.

The Guard is famous for killing innocent American civilians on behalf of corporate interests.

I need only refer the good reader to the West Virginia coal miner strikes, and the armored trains run by the National Guard to fire at striking miner's camps with machineguns - killing women and children, and using incendiary rounds to set fire to their camps.

The National Guard is NOT the militia. United States Code says so. The National Guard is NOT the militia.

USC defines the militia as being all male US citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 - it is NOT the National Guard.


I agree with the bottom third of your post

Here's a pop quiz for you: Which country in the world has the highest murder rate? If you said the United States, you would be wrong, but your error would certainly be excusable. The incessant drumbeat from the mainstream media and anti-gun groups serves to perpetuate the canard that the U.S. is the bloodiest free-fire zone on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In his article "America: The Most Violent Nation?" researcher David C. Stolinsky shows conclusively that there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than the U.S. This information comes from the United Nations report "The 1996 Demographic Yearbook." The report lists the murder rates in some 86 countries. There are more than 200 countries in the world, and more than 100 did not provide murder-rate data to the U.N. Even so, the Yearbook opens a fascinating window on the failure of gun-control laws around the world.

The connection between murder rates and gun control is quite clear. The vast majority of murders are committed with firearms. Therefore, it is possible to determine if there is any sort of correlation between gun laws and murder rates in selected countries.

Gun laws, like all laws, should be evaluated to determine if they meet accepted measures of success. Gun-control advocates contend that gun laws reduce murders as well as other gun crimes. An examination of this proposition shows conclusively that gun laws fail to reduce murder rates in many countries. Therefore, they fail to meet the fundamental measure of success and should be amended or repealed.

A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7.

By contrast, consider Brazil. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued.

Therefore, it should not be a revelation to anyone that Brazil has a thriving black market in guns. Virtually any type of gun is available, for a price. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year.

In Cuba, Fidel Castro controls every aspect of life with an iron hand, including gun ownership. Castro remembers well how he and his rag-tag armed Communist rebels overthrew the government of Fulgencio Batista and set up a Communist dictatorship. An armed populace is threatening to a repressive government. Still, somebody in Cuba is obtaining guns and using them to murder fellow citizens. Cuba's murder rate is 7.8.

The former Soviet state of Lithuania is now an independent democratic country. But it still retains some vestiges of Stalinism. Lithuania's citizens must obtain a police permit to buy a gun. All guns are registered with the government. Somehow these restrictions are not deterring the criminal element; Lithuania has an unenviable murder rate of 11.7.

Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed.

Mexican authorities seem to take a particular delight in arresting and imprisoning unwitting Americans who are not familiar with Mexican gun laws. Americans may not bring legal guns or ammunition into Mexico. Possession of even one bullet can get you thrown in a medieval Mexican prison. The State Department says that at any one time there are about 80 Americans imprisoned in Mexico for minor gun crimes. The State Department even went so far as to issue a special notice to U.S. gun owners, warning about harsh Mexican gun laws. Americans are allowed to hunt in Mexico, but they must first obtain a permit from the Mexican Embassy or a Mexican Consulate before taking their hunting rifles south of the border.

Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals.

Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property. By the way, Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6.

It is surprising to learn that there is gun trouble in the tropical paradises of Trinidad and Tobago. Here a permit is required to purchase a gun. All guns are registered with the police. In spite of (or perhaps because of) these restrictions, Trinidad and Tobago together have a murder rate of 11.7.

In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies. The countries I have discussed, along with many others, have gun laws that are more restrictive than U.S. laws, yet their murder rates exceed the U.S. murder rate. These laws clearly do not meet the fundamental measure of success, which is ultimately to save lives.

What some people all over the world fail to understand is that people everywhere are basically the same in one important respect. They are determined to protect themselves and their families. If their governments will not allow them to have firearms for self-defense, then they may obtain guns illegally, even at the risk of harsh punishment. It is a natural human response to danger.

One thing, though. The idea of having a gun loaded and ready to go because you might wake up dislocated and groggy without enough time or awake enough to load a gun...

Doesn't that strike you as a time when the gun maybe SHOULDN'T be loaded?

Just playing devil's advocate. Have you ever gone to answer the phone and instead answered your alarm clock by mistake? Or you know, anything else like that... went to hit snooze and instead turned the table lamp on?
No, because you know the telephone isn't a danger, so your body does not wake fully alert. If you wake because of an out of place noise, you are much more likely to be fully alert.

What some people all over the world fail to understand is that people everywhere are basically the same in one important respect. They are determined to protect themselves and their families. If their governments will not allow them to have firearms for self-defense, then they may obtain guns illegally, even at the risk of harsh punishment. It is a natural human response to danger.

So the only possible way to have gun abolition work, i.e. reduce gun crimes, would be to unilaterally ban the manufacture and possesion of all firearms and ammunition. Okay let's do that...

Done!

Now let's start counting the number of edged weapons that are used in crimes.

Then I guess that soldiers should have to turn in their weapons before sleeping at night in a war zone...

I sleep with a loaded semiautomatic pistol on my bedside table. It's not remotely like the alarm clock, and it isn't as easy to set off as you imagine.

I would have to:

a) rack the slide (a two-handed operation) to chamber a round
b) turn off the safety
c) put my finger inside the trigger guard and pull the trigger through its double-action (racking the slide on my pistol does not cock the weapon).

Altogether, if one or more of these actions doesn't take place, it doesn't go off. And my alarm clock (and for that matter the phone and the lamp on the same table) don't work that way either.

Listen, your analogy to a soldier in a war zone is ridiculious. There is a CLEAR difference between the two.

Do soliders in peace time sleep in their barracks with a loaded weapon right by their bedside?

Is your residence more like a barracks in peacetime, or a war zone?

Having a loaded weapon by your bedside, or under your pillow, or what have you, is paranoia. What the hell are you afraid of?

Owning guns doesn't make one a criminal or a lunatic. Being a criminal, however, makes a gun owner dangerous. That's why I favor strict penalties for crimes committed with firearms and the lifetime removal of the right to keep and bare arms from convicted felons. We have plenty of gun control laws on the books, if only we'd enforce them and punish offenders properly.

Excellent point. Enforcement of the laws which already exist is a big step in the right direction.

Listen, your analogy to a soldier in a war zone is ridiculious. There is a CLEAR difference between the two.

Do soliders in peace time sleep in their barracks with a loaded weapon right by their bedside?

Is your residence more like a barracks in peacetime, or a war zone?

Having a loaded weapon by your bedside, or under your pillow, or what have you, is paranoia. What the hell are you afraid of?

I've been personally attacked before. On more than one occasion.
One thing you can count on - if you call the police, they will ask you if the attacker is still there - that's because they want to show up after everything is over.

I was even shot at in my office downtown. I had to quit because they wouldn't give me an interior office after that incident.

So now I live in a place where I get to carry concealed or openly, everywhere except in a church, public school, or courtroom. I have successfully prevented myself from being robbed (or worse) twice. And I continue to deter several individuals who I know who have done harm to me in the past, and desire to do so again.

And, I haven't shot anyone as a result. No Wild West gunplay. Just the knowledge that I'm armed is enough to keep bad things from happenning to me (so far - it's a much better record than before, when I was seriously beaten and injured in each robbery when I did not resist).

I was even shot at in my office downtown. I had to quit because they wouldn't give me an interior office after that incident.


What the heck do you do? Downtown where? I want to stay away from there.

When we lived in Monterey, CA, I wasn't allowed to take the kids to get pizza in Seaside because of all the drive-by shootings that went on in that area. Pretty nice in the daytime, but the wackos all came out after dark.

What the heck do you do? Downtown where? I want to stay away from there.

When we lived in Monterey, CA, I wasn't allowed to take the kids to get pizza in Seaside because of all the drive-by shootings that went on in that area. Pretty nice in the daytime, but the wackos all came out after dark.

I used to work at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, downtown DC, at 9th & E Street NW. Nice neighborhood, right near the MCI center. Also a place where guns are illegal, but a lot of bullets fly during daylight.

I work in Sterling, VA now. But, if you shop at night in the burbs, there are a fair number of idiots who want to do strongarm robbery.

They seem disabused of the notion as soon as they see the jacket go back, and the gun leave the holster.

Assault rifles, there is no justifiable reason for private citizens to own these.

Bulls**t...what if the People want to take down the Government by violent means? I think the Founding Fathers wanted to leave that option opened to us just incase the governemtn gets out of hand.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams)

But if it is so open to intepretation, surely the logical conclusion would be to take the interpretation that would protect the 'life and liberty' of the citizens- i.e gun control.

Are you saying that gun control would protect the life and liberty of americans?

(i.e. = that is... so i took your statement to mean we need to ban guns, which would be disastrous both for basic individual freedom and the right of the individual to protect himself from criminals, a tyrannical government, and our country's enemies should they ever invade)

I've been personally attacked before. On more than one occasion.
One thing you can count on - if you call the police, they will ask you if the attacker is still there - that's because they want to show up after everything is over.

I was even shot at in my office downtown. I had to quit because they wouldn't give me an interior office after that incident.

So now I live in a place where I get to carry concealed or openly, everywhere except in a church, public school, or courtroom. I have successfully prevented myself from being robbed (or worse) twice. And I continue to deter several individuals who I know who have done harm to me in the past, and desire to do so again.

And, I haven't shot anyone as a result. No Wild West gunplay. Just the knowledge that I'm armed is enough to keep bad things from happenning to me (so far - it's a much better record than before, when I was seriously beaten and injured in each robbery when I did not resist).

Well, yeah, if that had been my expience, I might want to pack 24x7, myself. I'm sure it is an excelent deterent.

I don't think your experiences reflect those of the common man in typical day-to-day life in the United States, today, though. There should absolutely be exceptions for special cases... But I don't think the rules must extend the privleges granted in extreme cases to everyone by *default*. Wouldn't you agree that this is reasonable?

Bulls**t...what if the People want to take down the Government by violent means? I think the Founding Fathers wanted to leave that option opened to us just incase the governemtn gets out of hand.

You could argue that many of the founding fathers thought this was more than our right, they thought it was our DUTY.

Maybe that is why it is no coincidence that this topic was started by a Brit who didn't understand the logic behind allowing private citizens to own firearms in America.

They fact that America is NOT still a British colony is possibly the best example of why this is the case, in this nation. No disrespect intended.

...the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

Strom Thurmond... full text at http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

(I'm not a big fan of Strom Thrumond, but it was his committees job to study and report on the
2nd Amendment and previous interpretations)

Are you saying that gun control would protect the life and liberty of americans?
Sure, as long as it consists of
Breath control
Relax
Aim
Slack
Squeeze

Assault rifles, there is no justifiable reason for private citizens to own these.
No, but I must have armor-piercing AR-15's so I can rebel against this tyrannical government. [/sarcasm]

Well the 2nd Amendment does give you the right to bear arms, it doesn’t actually specify that those arms have to be of a particular type or technological advancement.

The full spirit if the 2nd amendment can be satisfied by making only black powder muzzle loaders legal without a special licence. The prohibition of full automatics and WMDs are a subjective line drawn by congress with the 2nd Amendment, I don't see why we can't draw that line back a hundred and eighty odd years.

Well the 2nd Amendment does give you the right to bear arms, it doesn’t actually specify that those arms have to be of a particular type or technological advancement.

The full spirit if the 2nd amendment can be satisfied by making only black powder muzzle loaders legal without a special licence. The prohibition of full automatics and WMDs are a subjective line drawn by congress with the 2nd Amendment, I don't see why we can't draw that line back a hundred and eighty odd years.

We *could*. The living, dynamic nature of our government DOES give us the capacity to do something this ridiculious, if we wanted to... well, and there were enough morons willing to go along with it.

It looks like you're on the right track, that way, too... just keep dumbing the population down, and you'll probably get there.

Well, yeah, if that had been my expience, I might want to pack 24x7, myself. I'm sure it is an excelent deterent.

I don't think your experiences reflect those of the common man in typical day-to-day life in the United States, today, though. There should absolutely be exceptions for special cases... But I don't think the rules must extend the privleges granted in extreme cases to everyone by *default*. Wouldn't you agree that this is reasonable?

The question is, who is really expecting these things to happen? Is an armed society a polite society? Ancient Japan would suggest so.

The technical problem is that police cannot escort everyone all the time. And no matter how efficient, they cannot respond to a situation in time to *prevent* it from happenning.

Even if I walk up to you on a London street (where there are police cameras watching everything), it would be minutes at best before someone aided you if I pulled a knife and demanded money. I could easily stab you and possibly kill you before any police arrived. Sure, I might go to jail. But that would be it. You would be dead or injured (or robbed), and I *might* go to jail.

I'm in the US. If someone plans on robbing me, they must try and kill me without warning as their first action. Because if I am allowed to act, the gun is coming out. And if they don't immediately turn and run, I'm going to shoot.
So in this case, I *might* go to jail (depending on how the local authorities judge the shooting), and the robber is either dead or injured.

I'd rather be alive than be dead or injured. Statistics show that the use of firearms in the US to prevent crimes without firing a shot depends on what study you look at: anywhere from 60,000 times a year to 2.5 million times per year. If we assume that the true answer is very probably somewhere in between, that's a lot of bad things that *did not* happen because someone had a gun.

And we know that the police were not there to help.

Sleeves should be mandatory.

Sleeves should be mandatory.

Well, does this discriminate against the armless?

Well, does this discriminate against the armless?

No, they would have the added benefit of wearing two windsocks. Natural weathermen if you ask me.

No, they would have the added benefit of wearing two windsocks. Natural weathermen if you ask me.

Ah, I see. Even though they don't have arms, which might be no fault of their own, we will struggle for their right to bear them (and to wear windsocks).

Ah, I see. Even though they don't have arms, which might be no fault of their own, we will struggle for their right to bear them (and to wear windsocks).

Why must you ruin the sanctity of sleeves?! :mad:

Well the 2nd Amendment does give you the right to bear arms, it doesn’t actually specify that those arms have to be of a particular type or technological advancement.

The full spirit if the 2nd amendment can be satisfied by making only black powder muzzle loaders legal without a special licence. The prohibition of full automatics and WMDs are a subjective line drawn by congress with the 2nd Amendment, I don't see why we can't draw that line back a hundred and eighty odd years.

One small problem. It specifically states in the Constitution that anything not mentioned there means the government DOESN'T have the right to do it. So, no, a limit on specific arms can't be placed, unless the Constitution is amended.

Well the 2nd Amendment does give you the right to bear arms, it doesn’t actually specify that those arms have to be of a particular type or technological advancement.

The full spirit if the 2nd amendment can be satisfied by making only black powder muzzle loaders legal without a special licence. The prohibition of full automatics and WMDs are a subjective line drawn by congress with the 2nd Amendment, I don't see why we can't draw that line back a hundred and eighty odd years.

And the full spirit of the First Amendment can be satisfied by making only ancient printing presses subject to the First Amendment. Everything else is prohibited, including the Internet. I don't see why we can't draw that line back a hundred and eighty odd years.

Some people have stated that guns are nescecary for when the government takes over. They are wrong because:
1. The government took over in 1776
2. No matter what guns you own they're not going to save you from a RODS FROM GODS satellite array, unless you can shoot objects you can't even see that are moving at 17,000 mph
3. We have the best trained army in the world. You'll have twenty bullets in your skull before you un-holster your gun if the army wants you dead.
Please stop threatening people.

The most dangerous mammal in the United States is the common deer. It kills, on average, 147 people a year.
147? Don't you mean second most dangerous mammal?

Oh yes, let us abolish firearms entirely! Just like Germany in 1938 with their "perfect gun control" stance! Oh wait... Yeah, that didn't turn out so well now did it.

So, no, a limit on specific arms can't be placed, unless the Constitution is amended.

Well, I think it depends on your understanding of which weapons are "arms". I would say that not all weapons qualify. There is a reason they say "arms" and not "weapons". I think the word had a particular meaning at the time which is narrower than the meaning it has now. First, whatever it is has to be portable. Second, it should be an individual weapon, up to and including anything that is standard issue in the military, or anything equivalent. Third, it should not be an indiscriminate area weapon. This excludes most of the items that people bring up as straw-man arguments... as in, "okay, so why don't we allow nukes then?". Nukes are not "arms".

No, but I must have armor-piercing AR-15's so I can rebel against this tyrannical government. [/sarcasm]
A semi auto .308 civvie rifle in the proper hands is more deadly and armor piercing than an M-16. For that matter, a K98 Mauser is damned nasty.

Well the 2nd Amendment does give you the right to bear arms, it doesn’t actually specify that those arms have to be of a particular type or technological advancement.

The full spirit if the 2nd amendment can be satisfied by making only black powder muzzle loaders legal without a special licence. The prohibition of full automatics and WMDs are a subjective line drawn by congress with the 2nd Amendment, I don't see why we can't draw that line back a hundred and eighty odd years.
Guess we need to go back to the printing presses and no TV news then. For that matter, no TV unless mandated by the government.

Guess we need to go back to the printing presses and no TV news then. For that matter, no TV unless mandated by the government.

Or computers, like this forum for example.

ok, everyone can have military issue guns and ammo, however they are no longer allowed to use any civilian issue ammo: hollowpoints, slugs, etc