Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[Alamar]

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?

I don't particularly like mandatory training in order to excersize a constitutional right. Having to pass a government mandated test to become a journalist goes against the principle of having a free press. The same could be said about the 2nd amendment.

Note: I have taken training courses on various aspects of gun usage but I believe those should be strictly on a voluntary basis. On the other hand if someone uses a firearm in a reckless manner [and causes injury to an innocent because of the reckless behaviour] then they should be hammered to the full extent of the law.

Personal Freedom && Personal Responsibility should go hand-in-hand ....

 

[Tomorrow]

Switzerland is interesting (I was there over the summer) with regards to guns, b/c the vast majority of crimes there are domestic violence. According to the hotel owner that I talked to there (great hotel btw if anybody needs a place to stay in Zurich) there's been a lot of controversy b/c more and more of those domestic crimes have involved the use of firearms. In addition, the crime rate in general is going up- particularly among foreign residents. There's now a call for more restrictions on gun ownership.

Israel is a place unlike any other. I haven't been for almost 17 years now, but there's a feeling in the air that you get walking down the streets there that I've never felt anywhere else. When you live in Israel, you know you could be blown up any minute- however you also feel totally safe. Maybe it comes from knowing that everybody has served in the military, or the fact that their police system is ridiculously good.

Here is some research that is possibly a little more reliable than a hotel owner's opine, lol. It's actually interesting fodder for more detailed discussion. There is an tiny, tiny firearm homicide rate in Switzerland.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html#intl

 

[aberkowitz]

Here is some research that is possibly a little more reliable than a hotel owner's opine, lol. It's actually interesting fodder for more detailed discussion. There is an tiny, tiny firearm homicide rate in Switzerland.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html#intl

I would agree... except that data is from 1993.

 

[Tomorrow]

I would agree... except that data is from 1993.

Some of it. It was last updated in 2006.

 

[cbraver]

Economists Steven Levitt and John Donohue published a paper in 2001 that basically said that the crime rate drop in the US wasn't because of Clinton or anything like that, but rather because of Roe Vs. Wade / abortion, even when corrected for income. Then there were other studies in a few other countries that found similar findings. I'm sure some people believe them, others don't (plus that would certainly piss off the pro-life folks), but that's kind of the game with statistics, eh?

I don't think statistics really help arguements like this that much, they are more likely to help if you address a scenario and then attempt to find the causation. not to check if something is the cause... that's like finding the clues of a mystery after you've solved the crime... if that makes sense. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are so many things going on in the country, narrowing crime rates to guns or no guns is pretty difficult. It's argueable... but you're rights aren't. And if people don't understand the second amendment, then we don't need to worry about guns we need to worry about education.

 

[Matt34]

I don't know where you live, but living in NYC I'm around a constant police presence. I see them walking a beat through my neighborhood, on the buses and subways, in the train stations, outside of office buildings, outside the bars on Friday and Saturday nights. I've personally seen cops arresting folks committing crimes. My friend who is part of the NYPD told me they've switched up to even more of a plainclothes presence in order to deter crime. I can say that it's worked because both the crime rates and absolute crime levels have fallen drastically in NYC over the past 10-12 years. So yes- I can absolutely say that I feel protected here.

As for the conservative/liberal comment- maybe I was sensitive there, but I felt that the reason to mention it was as an attack. Just as an FYI for you though, historically people who were called liberals did not want big government. They were in favor of a "Laissez-faire" government with limited intervention. Interesting how the term has evolved...

...and here's my perspective. I live in a rural area where the closest police presence is 12 miles away. I'm also a stones throw away from a largely unguarded international boarder. The last time I had to call a LEO to my house it took 45 minutes.

After saying that even if I was in your position, I would not want my only recourse to protect myself or my family to be in the hands of another man.

That is and always should be my right.

 

[aberkowitz]

...and here's my perspective. I live in a rural area where the closest police presence is 12 miles away. I'm also a stones throw away from a largely unguarded international boarder. The last time I had to call a LEO to my house it took 45 minutes.

After saying that even if I was in your position, I would not want my only recourse to protect myself or my family to be in the hands of another man.

That is and always should be my right.

That is your right, and I would never want to take that away from you. I want to do as much as possible to make sure that the guy who wants to rob me and you has the hardest possible time to get his hands on a weapon. I don't think that's something we disagree about.

I also think that we all define protection differently. Some of us believe protection involves guns, some of us don't. Those people who believe this point of you should be allowed to have their beliefs as well.

 

[AUtiger]

Ipod

We need to oulaw Ipods because they have increased the crime rate as muggers are targeting people with Ipods. Either they are distracted or the robbers knows the Ipod is easy to resell.

 

[mtrycrafts]

..

On the other hand, some people are still confused about the definition of "is".

Mort

Or, pornography, or, a bunch of other stuff.
What did the writer really mean by those words? After 200+ years, it may mean something different? Or not.
But, I forgot about the word 'people' in there, or never noticed it before. And, that is clear cut to me at least.

 

[mtrycrafts]

At risk of sounding like a weirdo, on the high level it's a governmental check. .

Well, better than being Jerico-ed

 

[Tomorrow]

Or, pornography, or, a bunch of other stuff.
What did the writer really mean by those words? After 200+ years, it may mean something different? Or not.
But, I forgot about the word 'people' in there, or never noticed it before. And, that is clear cut to me at least.

Yeah, just imagine if they used an ambiguous word like 'populace' or some other oratorical contrivance to confuse and obfuscate that little piece of frolicsome, proclamatory recreation they frivolously called a Constitution.

Then the political factions could argue it for the next 200 years, too.

(Please don't take this post seriously. Thank you. )

 

[aberkowitz]

Yeah, just imagine if they used an ambiguous word like 'populace' or some other oratorical contrivance to confuse and obfuscate that little piece of frolicsome, proclamatory recreation they frivolously called a Constitution.

Then the political factions could argue it for the next 200 years, too.

(Please don't take this post seriously. Thank you. )

Nice usage of the word obfuscate

 

[Joe Schmoe]

My main objection to guns is that we are becoming a "gun culture". Rather than being something for use only in extreme circumstances, guns are almost taken for granted. Eventually, practically everybody will have a gun and be prepared to point them at each other at the drop of a hat, at which point nobody will ever be safe. It is already that way in some inner-city areas
Rant over.

 

[cbraver]

My main objection to guns is that we are becoming a "gun culture". Rather than being something for use only in extreme circumstances, guns are almost taken for granted. Eventually, practically everybody will have a gun and be prepared to point them at each other at the drop of a hat, at which point nobody will ever be safe. It is already that way in some inner-city areas
Rant over.

Huh? So you're saying now that there are a lot of guns we are all the sudden going to start shooting eachother? All the law abiding legal gun owners are going to snap and start shooting eachother, because they have become desensitized to a gun?

Sorry, but, hahahahaha. No.

That sounds like a Brady Bill advertisement.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

That sounds like a Brady Bill advertisement.

You seem to be implying that sounding like a Brady Bill advertisement is a bad thing.
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

 

[Pyrrho]

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

It works because almost no one else has guns either. The need for guns in the hands of the police is almost always due to others having guns.

 

[Pyrrho]

I would have thought with so many posts that people would get to a debate about what the meaning of the Second Amendment is:

"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."

(As reproduced at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii )

There is some interesting reading about it at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms

But since everyone who has expressed an opinion on this, so far, seems to ignore the first portion of the Amendment, I would ask, what is the function of all of the words prior to the first comma? If the framers of the Constitution wanted to just grant the right for everyone to own a gun, why mention a "well regulated militia"? Did they just like adding extra words that have no meaning?

(This is likely to get some people riled up a bit, but I think it is something that should be seriously discussed.)

 

[AverageJoe]

My main objection to guns is that we are becoming a "gun culture". Rather than being something for use only in extreme circumstances, guns are almost taken for granted. Eventually, practically everybody will have a gun and be prepared to point them at each other at the drop of a hat, at which point nobody will ever be safe. It is already that way in some inner-city areas
Rant over.

...Becoming a "gun culture"?

I'd say that started with the Pilgrims. This country has a pretty long history of private gun ownership, and I'm sure there were times when "practically everybody" did have a gun. If they hadn't, we would probably still be paying taxes to England .

It sounds harsh, but whether guns in the hands of private citizens is causing more harm than good today is irrelevant. The phrase earlier in the thread about "protected carry rights" had nothing to do with protecting a person. Our State (I live in the same one as Tomorrow) recognises that the right to carry a firearm is protected by the Constitution.

Many of us believe that the second ammendment is very clear - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people have a right to have and carry a firearm.

Some think the word Militia in the first line means the National Guard, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

Then there are some, like Rosie O'Donnell, who think it means we can all have flintlocks.

So, if the "anti-gun culture" wants to confiscate all firearms and forbid gun ownership, there is a procedure provided for in the Constitution: Repeal the second ammendment.

Since it would probably be political suicide for any lawmaker to tamper with the Bill of Rights, the second ammendment is just ignored or mis-read (intentionally?) by municipalities that think the end justifies any means.

While we're at it, wouldn't searching every house in the country, or every person on the street also deter crime? Think of the crack-houses that could be shut down or the property that could be recovered from thieves if the police didn't need to worry about that pesky fourth ammendment .

 

[Matt34]

I would have thought with so many posts that people would get to a debate about what the meaning of the Second Amendment is:

"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."

(As reproduced at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii )

There is some interesting reading about it at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms

But since everyone who has expressed an opinion on this, so far, seems to ignore the first portion of the Amendment, I would ask, what is the function of all of the words prior to the first comma? If the framers of the Constitution wanted to just grant the right for everyone to own a gun, why mention a "well regulated militia"? Did they just like adding extra words that have no meaning?

(This is likely to get some people riled up a bit, but I think it is something that should be seriously discussed.)

According to current US Federal Law the militia is all males between the ages of 18 and 45 that are not otherwise serving in the Active, Reserve, or National Guard, and Women that are in the National Guard. Fact. This is the 1956 Militia Act, still on the books.

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

The problem is that no one brings that up to the anti's that claim the 2A is a 'Militia" clause and refers to the National Guard. THe National Guard didn't even exist for another 100 years after the Constitution was written.
No matter which way you read the 2nd that is a very large portion of this country that have the Right to be armed.

 

[Tomorrow]

Nice usage of the word obfuscate

I try to use it at least once a day as a good colonic!