Essentially, the 2nd Ammendment doesn't give individuals the right to own a gun: it gives militas those rights.
Nothing new here, I'd just to see Rob and Omega bumble their way through this with their claims of "Founder's Intentions" and other such nonsense.
quote:Pro-gun advocates claim that this amendment guarantees their individual right to own a gun, and that gun control laws are therefore a violation of their constitutional rights. In fact, the term "violation of our Second Amendment rights" has become a battle cry in gun lobbyist literature, repeated everywhere in their editorials and essays.
However, this raises a fascinating observation. If gun control laws are so obviously a violation of the Second Amendment, then why doesn't the National Rifle Association challenge them on constitutional grounds before the Supreme Court? The answer is that they know they face certain defeat, for reasons we shall explore below. Consequently, the NRA has abandoned all hope in the courts.
Instead, the NRA has chosen to lobby Congress to prevent gun control legislation, and has become in fact one of the most powerful lobbies on Capital Hill. This is a supreme and exquisite irony, given the conservative and libertarian's love of constitutions and hatred of democracy. But, at any rate, the NRA is fighting for its perceived constitutional rights on Capital Hill, by bribing our legislators with millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
The reason is because the Supreme Court -- this nation's final arbiter on the interpretation of the Constitution -- has always ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, but to the well-regulated militias mentioned in the first part of the amendment. Specifically, these are militias that are regulated by the federal and state governments. Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress:
[small]"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; 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 officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."[/small]
The Founders were passionately opposed to standing peacetime armies -- in fact, Thomas Jefferson listed it as one of their grievances against the British Crown in the Declaration of Independence. Intent on eliminating this evil, they created a system whereby citizens kept their arms at home and could be called by their state militias at a moment's notice. These militias eventually became the states' National Guard, and the courts have always interpreted them that way.
In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!
Even so, this left a question about how much the federal government can limit a citizen's right to own a gun. In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States vs. Miller. Here, the Court refused to strike down a law prohibiting the interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun on the basis of the Second Amendment. Rejecting the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.
In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia. Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they have even expressed exasperation with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.
In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."
In 1972 Justice William O. Douglas wrote: "A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment....There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police."
Gun advocates have bitterly decried the "activist courts" that have supposedly changed the plain meaning of the constitution. But over 100 years of courts have interpreted a states'-rights meaning, and so has a broad body of constitutional scholars. Gun advocates simply have a different "plain meaning" of the constitution than everyone else, one that coincidentally legalizes their desired goal of owning weapons.
The only apparent recourse for gun advocates now is to reject the system of judicial review that has led to a perfect record of court defeats. But the alternative is even worse: trusting Congress to pass laws that respect our constitutional rights. On all other issues but gun ownership, the idea is anathema to conservatives and libertarians.
But even accepting the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment does not spare the gun owner from gun control. The amendment simply states that the people have a right "to keep and bear" arms. It says absolutely nothing about regulating them for safety, design or caliber. The gun lobby argues that the lack of of such language means that individuals are free to own any arms they please, and government cannot use constitutional silence to infer permission to regulate them. But this isn't true; look at the First Amendment. It simply says that "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" -- yet the government regulates countless forms of speech -- slander, malicious falsehoods, fraud, insider trading, etc. -- and these regulations are upheld by the Supreme Court. The same principle applies to the regulation of guns.
This point becomes especially important when considering the regulation of arms by category. For example: do the people have a right to own nuclear weapons? (Pro-gun advocates contemptuously call this the "nuclear straw-man argument," yet they have not even come close to providing a satisfactory answer to it.) How about chemical and biological weapons? Tanks? Battleships? Bombers? In a society where people get drunk, angry, jealous, self-destructive and mentally ill, you certainly wouldn't want the unregulated sale of nuclear weapons on the market. Prohibition of such arms seems like the best thing to do, but, strictly speaking, that too would be a violation of the Second Amendment.
Some pro-gun advocates admit that a literalist interpretation allows the right to keep and bear all arms, including nuclear weapons, and that this is surely archaic. Certainly the Founders could not have foreseen or intended this situation. However, pro-gun advocates claim the correct reaction of modern America should be to amend the constitution to exclude ownership of nuclear weapons; creatively interpreting the constitution is the wrong way.
This is a curious argument, for a couple of reasons. First, the entire rationale of an individual right to keep and bear arms is to defend against a tyrannical government. But to surrender an advantage as overwhelming as nuclear weapons and smart weaponry to the government is irrational. Given the fanaticism of the gun lobby to protect themselves from government tyranny, this meek acquiescence towards weapons of terrible destruction is more than little strange, and begs explanation. It suggests that, down deep, the gun lobby is not really serious about its claim that government threatens them. (How could they be, in a democracy with high-speed, mass communication?) What is more likely is that they feel the need to empower themselves, and firearms are sufficient to fulfill that need.
The argument is also strange because it concedes a point to gun control; namely, that there are some weapons so deadly that they should not be allowed in society. That is exactly what gun-control advocates have been arguing, and you don't need nuclear weapons to achieve the feared results; the U.S. already has the high murder statistics to prove it with handguns alone.
The argument is also strange because the gun lobby fervently hopes to avoid public mobilization on a constitutional amendment limiting the right to keep and bear arms. A huge majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws; and as long as they're excluding nuclear weapons they might as well throw in assault weapons and Saturday Night Specials.
But ultimately, calling for a constitutional amendment banning the ownership of nuclear weapons is moot. Individuals do not even have a guaranteed right to keep and bear firearms, much less modern military weapons. To overcome the Supreme Court on this issue, the gun lobby would have to promote fundamental changes in our political structure that would surely be disimprovements.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
In the states you have the right to bear arms, here in Canada you have the right to bare breasts. Where would you rather live?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
*Yawn*
If I had a large amount of actual time, I'd pick through this argument bit by bit. But I don't.
(Incidentally, Snay has violated the Bilateral, Short Point-by-Point Posting Treaty of 2001. I move that sanctions be imposed.)
Simply put, it is Omega's (and sometimes my) contention that when the Supreme Court rules on a matter which contravenes the Constitution in any way (and that might include even libel laws), then the Supreme Court has erred.
Since we know that the Supreme Court HAS erred on occasion, permitting slave laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act, allowing the internment of Japanese Americans, etc (and no doubt, in Snay's opinion, in stopping the Florida Recountfest), this is not a far-fetched opinion.
The writer of the article also fails utterly to explain how "the people" in EVERY other amendment and mention in the Constitution, refers to each and every INDIVIDUAL, but in the Second Amendment, and ONLY the Second Amendment, it refers to the 'militia' or the states.
This is a glaringly huge assumption (although the same sort of one that Fundies make when they insist that yadha means 'to have homosexual sex with' in the story of Sodom, it is even more glaring because we understand English and know what the words in it mean.)
As for the 'power' of the NRA... surely it musn't be THAT powerful... otherwise they'd have won by now. The NRA's power pales in comparison to that of the TLA, (Trial Lawyers' Association), which is the single most powerful lobby in existence (think about it... most congressmen, judges, etc are or were MEMBERS), and the TLA always comes down on the side of the anti-gun camp.
quote:This point becomes especially important when considering the regulation of arms by category. For example: do the people have a right to own nuclear weapons? (Pro-gun advocates contemptuously call this the "nuclear straw-man argument," yet they have not even come close to providing a satisfactory answer to it.)
Actually, it's not only a straw man argument, but a slippery-slope fallacy as well. I wasn't aware that anything which could be identified as a blatant logical fallacy REQUIRED an answer, anyway. That's like pointing out to someone who says the sky is green that the sky is blue, not green, and that other someone still goes "but WHY is it green?"
quote:It suggests that, down deep, the gun lobby is not really serious about its claim that government threatens them. (How could they be, in a democracy with high-speed, mass communication?)
Carnivore, for starters. -or- This, from the same people who brought you "AIGH! Run for the hills! Ashcroft is crushing your rights!" Hypocracy in Action.
quote:A huge majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws
Really? Stats? Reliability? Slant of questions? I don't think 40% is a huge majority... and that was BEFORE 9/11 pushed home gun sales up 200%.
The rest is sturm und drang.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Incidentally, Snay has violated the Bilateral, Short Point-by-Point Posting Treaty of 2001.
No, I didn't. I said I would only post relevent material, and that I would provide a link. Everything I posted is relevent.
Essentially, what this article proves is that:
a) The Second Ammendment doesn't give individuals the rights to own firearms.
b) The Founder's Intent (if Republicans really believe in it so much) supports that it doesn't allow individuals to own firearms, as it does for militas to exist. With militas existing (National Guard), individuals have no right to own said weapons.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Essentially, what this article proves is that:
a) The Second Ammendment doesn't give individuals the rights to own firearms.
No, it proves that the Supreme Court thinks that.
b) The Founder's Intent (if Republicans really believe in it so much) supports that it doesn't allow individuals to own firearms, as it does for militas to exist. With militas existing (National Guard), individuals have no right to own said weapons.
Where?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
My response is actually fairly similar to Rob's.
*YAWN*
To quote a certain Toronto-area band, it's all been done.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:No, it proves that the Supreme Court thinks that.
And that the NRA thinks that, since they won't press anything as a violation of the 2nd Ammendment.
quote:Where?
quote:The Founders were passionately opposed to standing peacetime armies -- in fact, Thomas Jefferson listed it as one of their grievances against the British Crown in the Declaration of Independence. Intent on eliminating this evil, they created a system whereby citizens kept their arms at home and could be called by their state militias at a moment's notice. These militias eventually became the states' National Guard, and the courts have always interpreted them that way.
In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!
Even so, this left a question about how much the federal government can limit a citizen's right to own a gun. In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States vs. Miller. Here, the Court refused to strike down a law prohibiting the interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun on the basis of the Second Amendment. Rejecting the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.
In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia. Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they have even expressed exasperation with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And that the NRA thinks that, since they won't press anything as a violation of the 2nd Ammendment.
...or perhaps they just don't want to waste money going up against a court that doesn't care about the Constitution any more? Did that ever occur to you?
The presence of other possibilitiess that fit the facts negates your "proof".
Intent on eliminating this evil, they created a system whereby citizens kept their arms at home and could be called by their state militias at a moment's notice.
Sounds like they went for private ownership of weaponry to me. What things have evolved into is irrelevant to the Founders' opinions.
Now can we please end this tired repetition and get back to the usual, boring state of things in the Flameboard? Please?
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Hell Rob and Omgea, why even have a Supreme Court then?
We'll just all carry our copies of the Constitution and beat each other over the head with what we think it means when we meet on the street.
As far as Guns47, why do this again.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:or perhaps they just don't want to waste money going up against a court that doesn't care about the Constitution any more? Did that ever occur to you?
No, I'm not paranoid.
So, the Supreme Court hasn't cared about the Constitution since the 19th century? Wow.
quote:What things have evolved into is irrelevant to the Founders' opinions.
Does this mean you'll shut up about 'Founder's Intent'? Because the Fathers' didn't seem to intend for those who didn't belong to a militia to have weapons.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
*SIGH*
Apparently we CAN'T let this go...
So, the Supreme Court hasn't cared about the Constitution since the 19th century? Wow.
It would seem not. Hey, Rob, what was that case where the SC ruled that the Constitution does not, in fact, guarentee the right to free exercize of religion?
Does this mean you'll shut up about 'Founder's Intent'? Because the Fathers' didn't seem to intend for those who didn't belong to a militia to have weapons.
Intent on eliminating this evil, they created a system whereby citizens kept their arms at home and could be called by their state militias at a moment's notice.
You seem to be contradicting the article that you yourself posted. You're also ignoring the bit that says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". As always.
Just where do you get the idea, FROM THE WORDING OF THE AMMENDMENT, that you have to be part of the militia to qualify as part of the "people" in question that have a right to keep and bear arms? And you've never answered Rob's question as to why "the people", for this ammendment ONLY, does not refer to ALL the people, as it does everywhere else.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:FROM THE WORDING OF THE AMMENDMENT, that you have to be part of the militia to qualify as part of the "people" in question that have a right to keep and bear arms?
I'm just taking your lead and looking for a strict "Founder's Intent" view of the Constitution.
quote:It would seem not.
And yet, if you wanted to let it go, would you be posting? C'mon.
quote:And you've never answered Rob's question as to why "the people", for this ammendment ONLY
Because "the people" clearly speaks about those who are members of a militia. You know, like the Founding Fathers intended.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Since i'm not old enough to own a gun, I don't have to worry about gun control. But i wanna say that all the anti-gun freaks need to calm down. some of 'em probalbly never even picked one up. guns are dangerouse if it is used by someone who has no sense of human morals/rights. same with computer violence, and de-sensitization. But that's another topic. if someone buys a gun for the purpose of killing some guy who pissed you off at work, damn right you should go to jail. it's not that guns are evil. but it's the good or ill intentions of the people wielding them. also you should be trained in the use of the weapon. if there is anything i'd like to see more it would be mandatory to go through at least 6 weeks of instruction before you can even buy a gun.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Not to mention that the risk of being shot is much higher if there's a gun in the house.
Back to Rob's question:
Rob, we don't let children or criminals, or many other people (depending on mental stability) own firearms. We let them have many of their other rights (free speech, etc.), but even most Conservatives should recognize the need to limit certain groups from owning firearms.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Not to mention that the risk of being shot is much higher if there's a gun in the house.
Well, yes it would seem common sense that if there is no guns in the house there's not a whole lotta chances of gettin shot.
if you teach your children about guns, instead of lettin them find it themselves and shooting thier best friend like it so often happens, then this world will be so much safer. accidents may still happen. but there will be less incompetence, ignorance, and all around stupidity.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, sadly, there aren't too many sensible gun owners in the world when it comes to teaching their kids.
quote:A team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
all the more reason to make it the law to take a gun course before you can own a gun. they make you take a driving course before you can drive. because you need to know how to control the vehicle so you don't pose a threat to the public. same with guns.
now if only the governments of the world will listen to a 16 year old canadian kid. instead of having sex with interns, or picking fights with thier neighbors.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Because "the people" clearly speaks about those who are members of a militia.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I see no such qualification as the one you describe. we don't let children or criminals, or many other people (depending on mental stability) own firearms. We let them have many of their other rights (free speech, etc.), but even most Conservatives should recognize the need to limit certain groups from owning firearms.
All rights were presumed under common law to apply to mentally competent adults. Unfortunately, common law died before it could discover how to define that.
Well, yes it would seem common sense that if there is no guns in the house there's not a whole lotta chances of gettin shot.
I would point out that the statistic quoted doesn't say anything about what gun you get shot with. I'd love to see that study, in detail.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
This thread is producing massive amounts of heartburn in me at this point.
Thanks Snayer.
*chews a Tums*
*makes that two Tums*
The Constitutional arguemnt about the 2nd Amendment has never really been about banning guns. Rather it is about the right of government to regulate them. As I've showed before in previous threads, the government does have the power to regulate weapons.
It's so simple that even Dubya could have it explained to him and understand it.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
No one's forcing you to read this, Jay.
Omega:
quote:True, the study doesn't say, but the study's findings make it logically impossible for a significant number of these guns to have been brought in from the outside. The study found that keeping a gun in the house raised the chances of gun homicide only, not any other kind of homicide. It also found that it raised the chances of being killed by a family member or intimate acquaintance, not a stranger or non-intimate acquaintance. We can therefore eliminate the possibility that owning a gun raises the risk of a stranger breaking in (and then only with a gun!). The only alternative is that a family member or intimate acquaintance brought a second gun into the house on the day of the murder (any longer-term storage would have classified it as a "gun in the house"). That all murderers using handguns would do this seems highly implausible. It is also unlikely that these live-in murderers would restrict themselves to guns; we should expect to see other murder methods employed as well. The only plausible conclusion is that the vast majority of the guns used for homicide were the ones kept in the house.
And as I've told people many a time, while I think a world without guns would be great, since that's not going to happen, I'm very much a strong supporter of gun control (Omega and I had this conversation once in detail). I just found this information amazing and wanted to see what the 'pubies thought about it.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Your right about that Jeff, but I just hate Constitutional misinformation.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases..."
So, in 82.6% of the cases, the killer was identified.
"...76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew... Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers..."
That's 80.3%. So, who were the 2.3% who were neither strange nor known to the vicitms?
"...what was that case where the SC ruled that the Constitution does not, in fact, guarentee the right to free exercize of religion?"
Erm... The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to free exercise of religion.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It's also common sense that if there are no airplanes in the air, then nobody can use one to plow into a large building.
It's the PEOPLE, not the machine.
And we won't go into how many of those "homicides" were actually self-defense.
See, if you date someone, and they turn into a stalker, and come to your house to kill you, and you kill them first, that would be counted in the statistics you posted, because they took place in the home where the "victim" was known to the shooter, and vice-versa.
My gf's brother was also abused as a child, and now he's a schizophrenic living on his own. He threatened Julie and other family members in the past If he came to carry out his threat, and I killed him, he'd be counted in your 'statistics' as well.
So you're counting positives as negatives.
Skewed data leading to a previously-determined conclusion. Poor science.
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Sounds like a guarantee to me... Okay, the Bill of Rights isn't exactly a part of the Constitution per se... but the Const. wouldn't exist without it.
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:It's the PEOPLE, not the machine.
Or, "guns don't kill people, people do."
Even better: "Fingers don't kill people, bullets do."
Even Rob can't deny that guns make it a lot easier to inflict harm. Guns provide enhanced ability. Are you aware the most successful suicides are those who use firearms? For anyone feeling murderous (kids at Columbine, that office worker, a guy we had running around in Baltimore about a year and a half ago, Palcynski something), guns make it very easy to attack physically bigger people, many people, at a distance, hidden, and so on.
C'mon, how many people would rob a bank with a knife? Give a person a gun ... you've got a different story.
quote:See, if you date someone, and they turn into a stalker, and come to your house to kill you, and you kill them first, that would be counted in the statistics you posted, because they took place in the home where the "victim" was known to the shooter, and vice-versa.
quote:But most damagingly, the FBI deems only 1 percent of all murders to be "justifiable homicides" using a firearm. Statistics from the nation's largest crime survey also show that a gun in 19 times more likely to be used in nonfatal crime than in nonfatal self-defense.
Rob, the study only showed that if you owned a gun in the home, you were *more* likely to die from gun violence then if you didn't. I posted the link about -- you should take a look at it.
As for Julie's brother, do you know the laws in PA governing how you may lawfully use your firearm? Are you aware that in '93, the FBI counted 24,526 murders? 251 were justifiable homicides by handguns. That's one percent. (Don't bring up 'Excuseable' Homicide ... if you have to draw your gun and shoot someone when they bump into you, or in the heat of passion or rage, you don't deserve one -- and it certainly doesn't count as 'justifiable').
And the study controlled for domestic violence.
quote:So you're counting positives as negatives.
Skewed data leading to a previously-determined conclusion. Poor science.
quote:What this objection is asking us to imagine is this: a gun prevents a murder from happening in, say, nine cases. But on the tenth it fails (by necessity, to produce the murder victim in question). If guns really provided this kind of protection, we could easily imagine that one of the previous nine murder attempts would have been successful, had the victim not possessed a gun. In that case, non-gun owners would have seen a higher murder rate. This is something the study would have found (see point 1), but it did not; it found a higher murder rate among gun owners. Pro-gunners might then argue that an individual facing a likely threat sought protection by buying a gun, hence the higher correlation. But this is the same argument rebutted in point 3. Ultimately, the pro-gunners starting assumption is incorrect. Guns do not prevent a series of threats, one of which ultimately succeeds; rather, guns enhance the possibility of murder.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Now, what I personally would like (and I think this is very reasonable) ...
* Federal Background checks. It doesn't matter if you're buying from a dealer or a gun show. Get the damn check done.
* State Registration.
* Education classes, including:
1) Awareness of gun laws in state, including what is or is not justifiable homicide, carry laws, etc. Also, a basic overview of nearby states' laws so you can't claim ignorance.
2) Shooting. Look, if you can't shoot your gun, what's the point? A person should have basic compentancy with a weapon if they want to own one.
3) Cleaning, firearm safety, basic maintenance, etc. Have to leave this to the person on their own depending on the gun they get.
* Gun ownership should certainly be restricted depending on whether or not a person is arrested for dangerous behavior, including drug and alcohol related arrests, etc. ("Gee, you like to drink and drive? Second time arrested? You lose your car, and your guns!")
I don't think this is asking for too much.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:It's also common sense that if there are no airplanes in the air, then nobody can use one to plow into a large building.
Except planes don't crash into buildings ten thousand times a year, whereas the number of victims of gun-related violence has risen to such dramatic hights.
And spare us the "it's the people, not the machines" speech, will ya? Fact: firearms are highly proliferated. Virtually anyone can obtain one (mentally stable or not), thanks to your excellent gun-control policies. Don't make it too difficult for the fruitcakes, ok?
(And since every patriotic right-winged American believes in the almighty Constitutional right to defend against Government Injustice(tm), this problem is *very* likely to remain. Talk about beating a dead horse.)
quote:Carnivore, for starters.
Like owning a weapon renders you invisible to the eyes of Carnivore and Echelon - or even changes the status quo in the slightest. Logical thinking there.
[Edit]Snayer already formulated his thoughts better than I could have...[/Edit]
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:And since every patriotic right-winged American believes in the almighty Constitutional right to defend against Government Injustice(tm), this problem is *very* likely to remain. Talk about beating a dead horse.)
Which is stupid reasoning in and of itself.
Even if Rob owned, say, an AR-15, a single soldier armed with body armor, grenades, claymores, and an M-16 would be more then a match for him. Make that a squad, or platoon, or division of soldiers, backed up by attack helicopters, bombers, tanks, and other weapons of war, and you realize how stupid the arguement is.
Really.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Two centuries ago it might have been good reasoning... now the argument is what you might call conservative.
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: C'mon, how many people would rob a bank with a knife? Give a person a gun ... you've got a different story.
How many people would hijack a plane with a knife?
Oh, wait, we already know the answer to that...
In any case, your statistics fail to take many other factors into account.
One of the more obvious is that murders are not evenly distributed throughout the population.
Another is that it also does not take into account bad-guy-on-bad-guy murders, and lumps them in with innocent people. It counts if one drug dealer shoots a rival drug dealer he knows in his house. Both may be gun owners, but that is irrelevant.
If your writers were actually using valid means of determining their statistics, they would find that the murder rate among otherwise law-abiding gun owners is very close to that among non-gun owners, perhaps lower in some areas.
In fact, it is not extraordinary for these 'statisticians' to 'reclassify non homicides, such as accidents and suicides, as homicides to fit their statistical models. I read an expose a few years ago that showed a certain 'researcher' from a college had done that.
The "Impulse Murder" is a myth. People who kill in rages generally will use whatever is at hand... and that's not usually a gun. Blunt instruments come to mind. Many more children under 10 die at the bare hands of their parents each year than are killed by guns. (Actually, the leading cause of death for children under that age is mother's live-in boyfriend.)
quote:The only alternative is that a family member or intimate acquaintance brought a second gun into the house on the day of the murder (any longer-term storage would have classified it as a "gun in the house").
"ONLY alternative?" Omega on Evolution?
quote:That all murderers using handguns would do this seems highly implausible.
When you say it like that, yes. "ALL" is implausible. However, "Some," "Many," or "Enough to change the statistical outcome" are NOT implausible at all. Skewed wording.
quote:It is also unlikely that these live-in murderers would restrict themselves to guns; we should expect to see other murder methods employed as well.
No doubt we do.. however, since those were not relevant to the "study," they were no doubt left uncounted.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Snay I agree COMPLETELY with the necessity for your proposed education courses. SO does the NRA, for that matter.
I also agree with prohibiting people from owning guns if they've been convicted if irresponsible behavior... although it's slippery grounds when you're talking about restraining and PFA orders... because vengeful ex-es will and have filed false reports.
As for the whole "you can't win a battle against superior forces" argument... history points to several examples when that HAS occurred. Especially when the 'inferior' force knows the terrain and all the hiding places (and I do). The point should also be made that it's not necessarily as necessary to WIN as it is to resist at all. Just because victory isn't inevitable doesn't mean you shouldn't TRY.
(and who says I couldn't manufacture basement equivalents of some of those other "arms" if I needed to? Daddy was a chemist, remember.)
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:How many people would hijack a plane with a knife?
Because they couldn't take guns onto the plane, remeber? Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
That's it. I'm never coming to this board again.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
How are you ever going to learn anything with an attitude like that?
My point is that it wasn't the proliferation of knives, or the proliferation of airliners, that made the September 11th tragedy possible.
It was the proliferation of bad people.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
So what do you suggest we do? Somehow filter out the fuckwits and prevent 'm from breeding in the first place (hmm... we could be on to something )? Or should we *maybe* alter the Constitution a tiny little bit and actually start IMPOSING some anti-proliferation measures?
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Somehow filter out the fuckwits and prevent 'm from breeding in the first place?
Well, I AM in favor of the Death Penalty, aren't I? You'd be better off if you simply enforced more of the 10,000 state and local laws already on the books.
See, the Constitution of the United States only prohibits the US Congress from making such laws. It doesn't prohibit the states. States can take whatever measures they deem appropriate... assuming that they don't violate the State's Constitution. Local governments and Municipalities can do the same, with ordinances.
Project Exile worked wonders, for one.
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Well, I AM in favor of the Death Penalty, aren't I?
Oh, yeah, that does wonders. Costs more, doesn't deter ... and it's "after" the crime has been committed, so it doesn't accomplish anything. Prevention is the goal.
quote:You'd be better off if you simply enforced more of the 10,000 state and local laws already on the books.
Maybe if we could get some more cops on the street ... for some reason, either you or Omega usually directs this diatribe at politicians. Curious.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Prevention is the goal.
Prevents him from doing it again. Prevents him from siring high-risk offspring. Prevents him from influencing other lesser offenders he may be incarcerated with. But this is off-topic...
Snay, they usually don't even enforce the on-the-books gun laws when they CATCH the guys.
I mean, if you committ a crime with a gun, you committ something like six other crimes just by having the gun with you. If you fire it, that's around seven more. If you hit someone, well.
But they rarely charge anybody with those crimes (like, it's unlawful to discharge a firearm within a so-many-yard radius of any residence), or they allow them to be plea-bargained away.
Do you deny that Project Exile (use a gun in a felony, go to federal jail for 5 years mandatory) cut gun crime significantly?
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Do you deny that Project Exile (use a gun in a felony, go to federal jail for 5 years mandatory) cut gun crime significantly?
When did I deny that? Do you deny that Project Exile is gun control? Do you deny that gun control is legal and can reduce crime?
quote:Prevents him from doing it again. Prevents him from siring high-risk offspring.
Ah, so you're *not* from the "nurture" line of thought ... ?
quote:Snay, they usually don't even enforce the on-the-books gun laws when they CATCH the guys.
Yeah, but how is that the politicians' fault?
quote:Prevents him from doing it again.
So does a life sentence.
quote:Prevents him from siring high-risk offspring.
It is possibly to prevent inmates from conjegal visits. Of course, its always possible he's had a kid before he got in jail, but the death penalty doesn't prevent this any better then other options that don't involve killing him (or, in all fairness, her).
quote:Prevents him from influencing other lesser offenders he may be incarcerated with.
Isolation, or incarceration with others who have life sentences and thus won't be getting out until they're dead.
Besides, it costs more to kill someone then to keep them alive.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
As for the whole "you can't win a battle against superior forces" argument... history points to several examples when that HAS occurred. Especially when the 'inferior' force knows the terrain and all the hiding places (and I do).
And a lot more where it hasn't. Assuming the U.S. does send the army after you, it's a good bet several of those soldiers will be from Pennsylvannia, possibly even from your home town, thereby negating your 'I know the terrain!' arguement.
Keep in mind that the Taliban knew the terrain, and all the hiding places, and had a lot better military forces then you did, and look what happened to them. If the Taliban got steam-rolled, you'd get ... is there even a word? "Hey, what was that I stubbed my foot on?"
(and who says I couldn't manufacture basement equivalents of some of those other "arms" if I needed to? Daddy was a chemist, remember.)
So, your dad trained you to be a chemist ... ? Or he trained you to make bombs? What exactly are you saying here?
Another is that it also does not take into account bad-guy-on-bad-guy murders, and lumps them in with innocent people.
Innocent people don't shoot each other illegally, Rob. Given that only 1% of homicides are legally justifiable, we've still got a lot of people who don't know how and when they can use their precious guns.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: Ah, so you're *not* from the "nurture" line of thought ... ?
Actually, I'm from the "both" line. But how often do crooks' kids get good nurture?
quote:Besides, it costs more to kill someone then to keep them alive.
Only when you do it the current, inefficient way, with endless appeals processes. Sentence the doubtful offenders to life,yes, but the confessors, the 'caught over the body plunging the knife-in-hand' killers, the DNA-proven can be fragged at low cost. We can get them for you wholesale.
quote:Assuming the U.S. does send the army after you, it's a good bet several of those soldiers will be from Pennsylvannia, possibly even from your home town, thereby negating your 'I know the terrain!' arguement.
Keep in mind that the Taliban knew the terrain, and all the hiding places, and had a lot better military forces then you did, and look what happened to them. If the Taliban got steam-rolled, you'd get ... is there even a word? "Hey, what was that I stubbed my foot on?"
You assume I'd be alone. Likely, anything severe enough to get ME to rebel would cause widespread reactions. Bombing another country is one thing. Whacking an opponent scattered throughout your own country is entirely different.
quote:So, your dad trained you to be a chemist ... ? Or he trained you to make bombs? What exactly are you saying here?
My dad taught me enough about chemistry that I know what blows up and what doesn't.
More later. I gotta leave work now.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
For the Flare News Network, I'm Tom Aylward-Nally. I'm here live with Mr. Dead Horse.
Tom:So, tell me, how are you feeling?
Dead Horse:I imagine, Tom, I fall into the proverbial "world full of pain."
Tom:Really?
Dead Horse: Indeed. I think that the last half dozen posts have broken about four or five of my ribs. That's on top of the concussion that Jeff started things out with and the dislocated jaw Rob contributed. I think Omega's been poking around my ass, as well.
Tom: I see. So they've been...
Dead Horse:Flogging me. Beating me. Whatever idiom tickles you, I guess.
Tom:And I'm to understand this isn't the first time?
Dead Horse:Oh, I can't say I've ever had it too well here. For a while they used to kick my teeth in every time religion came up. Silliness about some guy named "Adam" and his girl "Eve," I think. And then they broke three of my legs over Keynesian economic theory. It's a good thing I'm already dead, or else I wouldn't have been able to walk.
Tom:That's terrible.
Dead Horse:But things had been looking up for the last couple of months. Just a few bumps and bruises, but no flogging. I guess I got my hopes up a little too high.
Tom:So what now?
Dead Horse:Well, not a whole lot. I'd cry out in pain, but being dead is something of an obstacle. I'd just really like them to stop, and let this old horse curl up in the hay somewhere and relax.
For the Flare News Network, this is Tom Aylward-Nally.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
*edits post*
I guess I should look to see if there are more than one pages on this topic next time...
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Tom is funny.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Only when you do it the current, inefficient way, with endless appeals processes.
So, the only thing the government does efficiently is to find people guilty ... ? Curious. One would think a person like you would want to take every available measure to make certain that an innocent person was *not* executed.
quote:Whacking an opponent scattered throughout your own country is entirely different.
Okay, so a bunch of guys armed with handguns are running around taking pot shots at guys in body armor. I'm sure you'd destroy the Death Star.
Sorry Dead Horse, but, uh, you're dead.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grokca: In the states you have the right to bear arms, here in Canada you have the right to bare breasts. Where would you rather live?
Maybe somewhere just across the border. I'm all for the right to bear breasts. Perhaps a US constitutional amendment is in order...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
If handguns have no possible modern military application, in this day of big guns and body armor, one wonders why most modern militaries arount the globe issue them as well as big guns and body armor...
Hm.
[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Why? For the same reason military fighterplanes still carry a 20mm Vulcan: backup. Small handguns are last-ditch pea-shooters, NOT primary armament.
*Pictures FoT, along with several dozen BookWur... right-wingers, storming Capitol Hill*
Get a grip.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
If handguns have no possible modern military application, in this day of big guns and body armor, one wonders why most modern militaries arount the globe issue them as well as big guns and body armor
Well, let's see -- did the Taliban's soldiers wear body armor? I don't think so.
When are handguns used in military situations? In Vietnam, to clear out Vietcong tunnels ... of course, a rifle would limit one's manueverability.
As I understand it, handguns are generally issued only to officers, and special forces. They don't give every Private his own .45
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Cartman's forgotten that guy who made it into one of the Capitol buildings (was it the white house?) a few years back.
Backup? No. The aircraft gun, like the small-arms gun, is used when it's appropriate to the job... such as when you're too close for missiles. Or in that tunnel example you used.
Or more importantly, when you don't have any missiles, because to anybody with an iota of grey matter, a little defense is better than none at all.
When your armed capability goes up, the number of people who are serious threats to you decreases exponentially.
It's kind of like clothes in winter... a T-shirt and shorts aren't as good as a parka... but they're better than being naked.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But they won't stop you from freezing to death, either.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
But they'll keep you alive somewhat longer, thus affording you a better chance to seek shelter / more clothes / some other alternative to freezing to death.
Sometimes a chance is all you need.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Sometimes people tend to confuse reality with fiction.
Face it, Rob, if the government sent in soldiers and tanks to find you, and you resisted, you'd be dead. No ifs-ands-or-buts about it. Infa-red vision on helicopters, satelites ... you camp, they'd find you. You run, pilots would track you.
Unless, of course, you managed to convince the French to send an army Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I dread getting involved, but surely an argument for gun rights or against gun control or for gun proliferation or whatever you want to call it can be constructed without resting on the basic premise that Red Dawn was a wicked cool movie.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yeah right. If I'm living in "Red Dawn," then he's living in "Patriot Games" or some book in which the military technology is infallible.
1. The government is not going to mount a full-scale military assault on an individual or small group (waco notwithstanding). To do so would invite more trouble than it was worth. Almost certainly stir up support. They're more likely to send somebody like the BATF... and you could see how long a few people managed to hold THEM off.
2. As I said before, anything which would get me that involved would have to be big enough to involve a lot of other people. So the "lone defender" postulate you keep using is silly.
3. By the time the govt. would come looking for inoffensive subtle sneaky little old me, the situation would likely have deteriorated to the point that even parts of the military would be untrustworthy, so the "vs. the whole armed forces" part is equally ludicrous.
4. Even if I agree that a handgun is a 'last resort backup,' other currently legal weapons are not. Shotguns, rifles, etc. A person who knows how to use it can inflict a lot of damage with a rifle and be gone before the airstrikes come.
5. Speaking of these hypothetical airstrikes... have we seen any footage of airstrike victims from Afghanistan? I mean, besides the convoy which was in a nice straight line out in the open? Airstrikes didn't win 'Nam, or Panama, or even the Persian Gulf War. An air attack ended WWII in the Pacific, but I don't think the US is willing to nuke their own neighborhoods.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Wow. Post a subtle critique of Jeff's hamfisted tactics in this thread and it is apparently either too subtle or one must be registered in the Official League of People Who Like To Blow Things Up to have an opinion worth paying attention to.
Well, lesson learned, I guess.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, it's nice to know Rob agrees with me that the military isn't going to turn against U.S. citizens and that thusly, "we need guns to protect ourselves from it!" isn't valid reasoning.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I don't believe he said that...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
The government is not going to mount a full-scale military assault on an individual or small group (waco notwithstanding).
You didn't read this, apparently.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That doesn't rule out small-scale attacks, ranging from Ruby Ridge-style assaults up to MOVE and Waco. (granted, these folks were nuts, but if they can do it to the nuts they can do it to the rest of ya. -- we're all 'nuts' to somebody else: from 'liberal communists' to 'fundie psychos' to everybody else in between. All it takes is for 'them' to classify 'you' as a threat.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)? Or should we *maybe* alter the Constitution a tiny little bit and actually start IMPOSING some anti-proliferation measures?