Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[captiankirk28]

That's an illogical argument- because there are plenty of law-abiding citizens who own guns who have died here. We read about it on the news everyday. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you're invincible. Two guys with guns will often kill one guy with a gun.

I am not really arguing with anyone, but all i am saying that for the law abiding citizen at least he may have a chance against 2 guys with guns and it is his choice instead ofnot having a choice of defending himself or his famaily.
But i really dont need a lecture on being invincible if i have a gun, that is just retarded.

 

[Halon451]

The trouble with a lot of drugs is that they remove some or most of the feeling of pain from the user. Meaning, they have to be dead before they'll stop, and even good shots don't always do that and everyone reacts differently. Some get shot and loose consiousness right away, some can keep going, especially with drug assistance.

True, in some cases - but a well-placed head shot is likely to take down the bad guy instantly, drugs or no drugs. IMO, part of being a responsible gun owner is knowing how to handle your weapon, either by taking classes, going to the shooting range, becoming familiar with it, how to load it quickly, how to aim correctly, etc., and most importantly how to use it safely. Otherwise you're likely to be more of a danger than a means of protection in any given circumstance.

A cop once told me, if I ever have to pull out my gun during a break-in situation, shoot to kill, and on the first shot if possible. This was a cop. Believe me, I will follow that suggestion.

 

[Matt34]

The article that this goes with is interesting:

But Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pennsylvania, said before the hearing that the government had the right to limit gun ownership. Watch how life experiences are shaping the arguments »

"There should be reasonable control for access to guns and particularly handguns," he said. "Even if [the Supreme Court finds] that people have the right to bear arms, governments have a right to reasonable controls on firearms -- where and under what circumstances people have a right to have them."

You have a right, but only if I say so.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/18/scotus.guns/index.html

 

[aberkowitz]

Well, I feel that the issue revolves around the elimination of a major part of our Constitution - the one thing in this god-forsaken country that should remain constant and direct. The moment we start dismantling this document, the rest will follow quickly, that much I guarantee - then we won't have to worry about gun control - either we'll be overrun by our enemies, or we'll have fully dissolved into chaos.

Sure I support whole-heartedly anyone's right to protest and/or disagree on anything they like - the Constitution allows them the right, but nowhere does it specifiy that their demands are to be met at all times.

Halon- our Constitution also originally declared that black people counted as 3/5 of a white person, that it was legal for humans to own other humans, that women were unable to vote, and declared for a period of 25 years that alcohol was illegal. The beauty of the constitution is that it was made so that it could be changed. The writers were not arrogant enough to believe that they were correct about every issue.

We've already "dismantled" more than a decent portion of this document through amendments- 27 of them to be exact including the 10 included in the Bill of Rights. (Which further shows that gun ownership was not originally part of the document but had to be amended in). Pretty sure the US has been going pretty strong since then.

In fact, your argument about devolving in to chaos is the exact same one that anti-slavery activists used when opposing the abolishment of slavery, and the same one used when they gave women the right to vote (although they may be right about that one ). The beauty of this country is that we can change over time.

Like I've stated before, I don't support repealing the 2nd amendment. I have no problem with everyday citizens owning guns. I do have a problem with people claiming that additional restrictions around citizen gun ownership (licensing, training, mandatory minimums) will cause the fall of our country and the invasion of our enemies. US soil has been directly attacked a handful of times in our history- War of 1812, technically the Civil War if you want to consider the confederacy as an "invasion", Pearl Harbor (although Hawaii was not a state at the time), and 9/11. None of those had anything to do with whether or not everyday, ordinary citizens held guns in their house.

 

[aberkowitz]

But i really dont need a lecture on being invincible if i have a gun, that is just retarded.

That wasn't directed at you- I was using the word "you" in a general sense.

 

[captiankirk28]

Ok, thanks i do know that some people are like that though.

 

[jinjuku]

Can't assuming the worst end up with you shooting somebody who you didn't intend to?

Read my follow up post. All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate.

I didn't intimate what you should do as an answer to an absolute worst scenario. That is for the individual to decide.

 

[Halon451]

Halon- our Constitution also originally declared that black people counted as 3/5 of a white person, that it was legal for humans to own other humans, that women were unable to vote, and declared for a period of 25 years that alcohol was illegal. The beauty of the constitution is that it was made so that it could be changed. The writers were not arrogant enough to believe that they were correct about every issue.

We've already "dismantled" more than a decent portion of this document through amendments- 27 of them to be exact including the 10 included in the Bill of Rights. (Which further shows that gun ownership was not originally part of the document but had to be amended in). Pretty sure the US has been going pretty strong since then.

In fact, your argument about devolving in to chaos is the exact same one that anti-slavery activists used when opposing the abolishment of slavery, and the same one used when they gave women the right to vote (although they may be right about that one ). The beauty of this country is that we can change over time.

Like I've stated before, I don't support repealing the 2nd amendment. I have no problem with everyday citizens owning guns. I do have a problem with people claiming that additional restrictions around citizen gun ownership (licensing, training, mandatory minimums) will cause the fall of our country and the invasion of our enemies. US soil has been directly attacked a handful of times in our history- War of 1812, technically the Civil War if you want to consider the confederacy as an "invasion", Pearl Harbor (although Hawaii was not a state at the time), and 9/11. None of those had anything to do with whether or not everyday, ordinary citizens held guns in their house.

Crap, I must not be on my A-game today. Adam's beating the hell out of me on these posts.

I'm not going to argue that we as a country need to evolve away from archaic thinking and old-world values that are no longer relevant, and may even hinder our ability for true progress, and yes our forefathers had the visionary talent to allow for this to be the case. And yes, Amendment after Amendment has been made over time to allow for modification to our way of doing things. But the FIRST ten Amendments are so aptly named our "Bill of Rights" and for outstanding reason and have nothing to do with your above points. And we're talking about eliminating one of the first ten Amendments, not merely adding another clarification Amendment at the end of the list. Kind of a different picture, IMO.

 

[aberkowitz]

Crap, I must not be on my A-game today. Adam's beating the hell out of me on these posts.

I'm not going to argue that we as a country need to evolve away from archaic thinking and old-world values that are no longer relevant, and may even hinder our ability for true progress, and yes our forefathers had the visionary talent to allow for this to be the case. And yes, Amendment after Amendment has been made over time to allow for modification to our way of doing things. But the FIRST ten Amendments are so aptly named our "Bill of Rights" and for outstanding reason and have nothing to do with your above points. And we're talking about eliminating one of the first ten Amendments, not merely adding another clarification Amendment at the end of the list. Kind of a different picture, IMO.

Hey- as long as we can debate with civility, I'm more than happy to beat the hell out of you .

I personally don't see a need for gun control to have to involve repealing the 2nd amendment- and I think the crusaders who are trying to do so are misguided. The problem with the debate is that the extremists end up taking over the argument and everybody is labeled as "right" or "wrong", when many people actually have relatively moderate positions about the issue. The polarization is really stupid and in the end nothing gets done.

In the end, both sides have a common incentive- they all want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If we could stop polarizing the issue and actually sit down to make some reasonable laws, this would not be such a hot-button.

 

[Halon451]

Hey- as long as we can debate with civility, I'm more than happy to beat the hell out of you .

As we always have my friend - they have been very enjoyable as such. Enjoy your victories in the meantime - I'm just running short on sleep today.

I personally don't see a need for gun control to have to involve repealing the 2nd amendment- and I think the crusaders who are trying to do so are misguided. The problem with the debate is that the extremists end up taking over the argument and everybody is labeled as "right" or "wrong", when many people actually have relatively moderate positions about the issue. The polarization is really stupid and in the end nothing gets done.

In the end, both sides have a common incentive- they all want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If we could stop polarizing the issue and actually sit down to make some reasonable laws, this would not be such a hot-button.

I couldn't agree more...

 

[majorloser]

How is keeping the pistol fully loaded and in easy reach any different than keeping the shotgun fully loaded and in easy reach?
The advantage of the shotgun is not having to aim carefully.

In close quarters combat the advantage goes to very short weapons. Also at close ranges the shot pattern of a shotgun doesn't have the distance to spread.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

In close quarters combat the advantage goes to very short weapons. Also at close ranges the shot pattern of a shotgun doesn't have the distance to spread.

I would fire before they got that close (hypothetically, that is. I don't actually own a gun.)

 

[Halon451]

I would fire before they got that close (hypothetically, that is. I don't actually own a gun.)

You don't always have the ability to decide that.

 

[Tomorrow]

To build on this line of thought then- shouldn't there be mandatory training for somebody to be able to be a gun? From what I understand licensing is only mandatory for certain states/municipalities in this country, and I don't know whether any of them require training. How about a national licensing and training program? You need a license and training to be able to drive a car, why not to own a gun?

Adam,

Here in Oregon, and as far as I know, ALL states and municipalities that have protected carry rights also mandate training and fees to pay for said training. (Gun safety training is carried out by trained trainers of the NRA!!) Also yes, one must be licensed to legally carry a concealed weapon everywhere in the USA ($50 additional fee in Oregon). Fingerprints are required and licenses must be presented upon law enforcement demand.

Law enforcement has never been tasked with your protection. Law enforcement everywhere is dedicated to catching criminals. You should be aware that your safety, and that of your loved ones, rests with you as the first responder. Prevention begins with you. It is your responsibility and has been since the dawn of mankind. Consider why a government would want to abridge a right to protect yourself. The thought ahould offer interesting possibilities.

What puzzles me about your argument is that you believe private ownership of firearms is perfectly fine, but you wish to immediately abridge that right in various ways...much in the ways that the government abridges our other rights. Exemplia gratia, you argue that one should not own (fully) automatic weapons (assuming you know that many firearms are called "autos" when they are in fact, semi-automatic). By the way, full auto weapons require FBI checks, are taxed by the BATF, and one must be specially licensed to possess one. (Government control.)

Who makes those "reasonable" restrictions? You? (No...thank goodness. ) It's the government. And that is the real overriding issue here. It gets back to a comment I made in another thread, one that is pertinent here, as well. There are those that wish to control some aspects of your life. I'll call those conservatives. Then there are those that wish to control much of your life's activities. I'll call those liberals. Then, of course, there are dictators that wish to control ALL of your activities.

Hmmm. Which to choose?!

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Adam,

Here in Oregon, and as far as I know, ALL states and municipalities that have protected carry rights also mandate training and fees to pay for said training. (Gun safety training is carried out by trained trainers of the NRA!!) Also yes, one must be licensed to legally carry a concealed weapon everywhere in the USA ($50 additional fee in Oregon). Fingerprints are required and licenses must be presented upon law enforcement demand.

Good. I wouldn't want it to be any other way.

 

[Tomorrow]

Halon- Australians NEVER had the right to own guns. There is no constitutional protection in that country regarding gun ownership. We can debate as to what the meaning of the second amendment is until we're blue in the face, but that has no bearing on Australia.

Second- I agree that numbers can be spun many ways, but crimes are not measured in absolute numbers. The generally accepted way of reporting crimes is by rates. It's the same way disease is measured. If you looked at the US in 1950 and the US today, I'm sure the annual number of murders has increased by a very large percentage. It's may have even doubled. However, the US population has also doubled in that time. Hence, the general rate of crime stayed the same or most likely fell over time.

In the case of Australia, from 1996 until 2005 the population grew from 17.8 million people to 20.2 million people- that's an increase of 13.5%. From the stats that I showed you published by the Australian government, crime rates have fallen in that period of time. Of course the overall # of crimes has probably grown, but it's growing at a rate slower than population.

This is not statistical manipulation- this is plain fact.

Do I believe that the new gun law had any effect on this? No- I believe there is zero causation between the gun law and crime in Australia. If you look at the breakdown of demographics of crime, you'll find that the only area of crime that went up were crimes against the elderly. When you think about it, that makes sense. Why try to rob a 25 year-old man's home when you can rob a more defenseless 70 year-old woman?

Here's an interesting experiment we can try. It wouldn't cost much, either. Let's have every phone book in the nation include a little bullet icon next to the phone numbers and addresses of every resident that owns firearms. Non-gun owning residents will get no such icon. Then in five years, let's come back and address the home break-in rate for the two groups (bullet icon and no bullet icon).

Care to speculate?

 

[Halon451]

Here's an interesting experiment we can try. It wouldn't cost much, either. Let's have every phone book in the nation include a little bullet icon next to the phone numbers and addresses of every resident that owns firearms. Non-gun owning residents will get no such icon. Then in five years, let's come back and address the home break-in rate for the two groups (bullet icon and no bullet icon).

Care to speculate?

Tomorrow, your Avatar says it all.

 

[Mort Corey]

Here's an interesting experiment we can try. It wouldn't cost much, either. Let's have every phone book in the nation include a little bullet icon next to the phone numbers and addresses of every resident that owns firearms. Non-gun owning residents will get no such icon. Then in five years, let's come back and address the home break-in rate for the two groups (bullet icon and no bullet icon).

Care to speculate?

I'm certain that many of our fearless leaders in Washington would endorse such a proposal....but for different reasons.

As an aside, only the military and police being armed would be truely frightening.

Mort

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I'm certain that many of our fearless leaders in Washington would endorse such a proposal....but for different reasons.

As an aside, only the military and police being armed would be truely frightening.

Mort

In London, the police don't carry guns. I never understood how that was supposed to work.

 

[aberkowitz]

Adam,

Here in Oregon, and as far as I know, ALL states and municipalities that have protected carry rights also mandate training and fees to pay for said training. (Gun safety training is carried out by trained trainers of the NRA!!) Also yes, one must be licensed to legally carry a concealed weapon everywhere in the USA ($50 additional fee in Oregon). Fingerprints are required and licenses must be presented upon law enforcement demand.

First of all- may want to check your research- only 20 states out there require licensing or registration to purchase a gun. Of those 20 only a handful require training. It doesn't surprise me that Oregon is one of them, as when it comes to law-making Oregon has always been a progressive state.

You may be interested to know that only 4 states have restrictions on limits of gun purchases (one gun per person per month), a small minority of states have banned "junk guns" that are popular with criminals, background checks are no longer required under federal law and only about half of states use them, and less than 15 states actually have laws requiring waiting periods. Finally, only half of the states require you to be a non-felon in order to be granted a concealed weapon license.

Law enforcement has never been tasked with your protection. Law enforcement everywhere is dedicated to catching criminals. You should be aware that your safety, and that of your loved ones, rests with you as the first responder. Prevention begins with you. It is your responsibility and has been since the dawn of mankind. Consider why a government would want to abridge a right to protect yourself. The thought ahould offer interesting possibilities.

Actually- I believe the definition of law enforcement is my protection. Why is the motto of the LAPD "To protect and serve" if not for the protection of the residents of LA? One of the things that we pay local taxes for (and in NYC you wouldn't believe how high are taxes are) is to support the police and fire departments.

The last 3 sentences of that paragraph make no sense.

What puzzles me about your argument is that you believe private ownership of firearms is perfectly fine, but you wish to immediately abridge that right in various ways...much in the ways that the government abridges our other rights. Exemplia gratia, you argue that one should not own (fully) automatic weapons (assuming you know that many firearms are called "autos" when they are in fact, semi-automatic). By the way, full auto weapons require FBI checks, are taxed by the BATF, and one must be specially licensed to possess one. (Government control.)

Yes- you summarized my position. You can feel free to disagree with it.

Btw- Ever since the assault weapon ban expired, fully automatic weapons do not require special federal background checks. All checks are now the responsibility of the state.

Who makes those "reasonable" restrictions? You? (No...thank goodness. ) It's the government. And that is the real overriding issue here. It gets back to a comment I made in another thread, one that is pertinent here, as well. There are those that wish to control some aspects of your life. I'll call those conservatives. Then there are those that wish to control much of your life's activities. I'll call those liberals. Then, of course, there are dictators that wish to control ALL of your activities.

Hmmm. Which to choose?!

Laws are made by the government, who are elected by the people. So yes, the people of the US have some control over what happens in government by who they elect. Two recent examples- the republican "takeover" in 1994 and the Democratic rebound in 2006. In both cases the american public disagreed with the direction of the country and voted to make a change.

Wouldn't you be surprised to know that I actually side more with what are labeled as "conservatives" in this country than I do with those labeled "liberals"??? However, the stupidity of using ridiculous labels like that is NOBODY fits in perfectly to anything. I consider myself independent, and I have voted for republicans and democrats- including our current president during his first election (I didn't vote in 2004). My ideas don't align 100% with either party- and I think people who attack others as "liberal or conservative" because of one opinion they may have are narrow-minded.

You can disagree with me as much as you'd like, but I'm not going to back down from my beliefs because you try to label me. Trying to convince me of your point of view using facts and a well-reasoned argument will get you much further.