The Right To Bear Arms

[chicagomd]

rjbudz,

It was hard for me to see your point in your previous post, perhaps because of the personal comments. Thank you for the clarification. What I feel is necessary in this control, is not "people control" as you put it, but rather "people who use guns control". Post #59 had some good points:

1. mandatory waiting period associated with purchase of guns
2. gun safety training and EXAMS Mandatory (they just don't let you buy a car and drive away do they?)
3. Under 18, should not be able to buy ammo or guns without consent/approval of the parents.
4. Law enforcement should be allowed to carry out safety inspections in the home on a regular basis (once every x number of years) for proper storage etc.
5. A mechanism to allow removal of guns from homes/ppl during instances domestic violences or threat of (mental illness, ugly divorces etc)
6. Handguns severely restricted
7. Fully Auto practically outlawed


I also feel that the gun industry, the gun laws you mention restrict ownership not the industry itself, should take some responsibility for their product. Drug companies have to take measures to protect the public from abuses by patients and doctors, banks have to have protections in place to protect against money laundering. Why do we give the gun industry a pass? If you feel that they are already restricted enough, the industry itself-not ownership laws, please give me a link to those restrictions, I would like to educate myself.

As for why I have not disputed the bullet points you mentioned...I am not argueing against them. Again, there needs to be mechanisms in place for neglect of the gun industry, and there need to be concrete standards that gun owners are held to if they choose to keep a weapon in their home. I feel that by doing these things you DECREASE the chance for gun misuse.

"My aside point to you was to suggest that perhaps more of your concern and effort (as an md?) be directed toward the MUCH MORE DANGEROUS activity of driving to work each day or your cohorts' mistreatment of patients."-I deal with these things every day in my personal life and in my practice as a physician. Believe me, I care about both of these points a whole hell of a lot more than gun control. But again, that is not what this thread is about.

Going to go watch my newly calibrated DLP on my new Axioms now. Have a good weekend.

 

[Matt34]

Guns cause crime just like pencils cause mispeled werds. Hammers cause bent nails and smashed fingers. Knifes to stick them selves into people and cut off appendages. A bottle of Budweiser to cause a fatal car crash. Gasoline to cause arson. My car to cause a hit and run. These thing are all inanimate object and require a homoerectus (at the very minimum) to use them improperly and cause harm. Criminals (by the very definition) will break any laws put in-place to "prevent" their actions that cause harm to property or people. The only people who obey the "law" are the very ones who are most harmed by the actions of said criminals. Gun control has never reduced crime. Take a look at D.C, still the "murder capital" of the country, only people carrying guns there now are the police and the gangbangers.....and you don't see that many cops.

Teach kids at an early age about guns and the effects of mishandling. We need better education, not more laws. I have 10yrs law enforcement/military experience and like what I believe I saw elsewhere in this thread, "An armed society is a polite society," speaks volumes.

As far as holding gun manufacturers responsible, I think it is obviously a tactic used TOO OFTEN in our society to shift blame from one person or group to another. Again, it completely disregards the notion of personal responsibility and accountability. Come to think about it, I think that's why we have so much crime in the first place: lack of "personal responsibility, accountability and respect for others".

*Edited for spelling

 

[Tomorrow]

rjbudz,

It was hard for me to see your point in your previous post, perhaps because of the personal comments. Thank you for the clarification. What I feel is necessary in this control, is not "people control" as you put it, but rather "people who use guns control". Post #59 had some good points:

1. mandatory waiting period associated with purchase of guns
2. gun safety training and EXAMS Mandatory (they just don't let you buy a car and drive away do they?)
3. Under 18, should not be able to buy ammo or guns without consent/approval of the parents.
4. Law enforcement should be allowed to carry out safety inspections in the home on a regular basis (once every x number of years) for proper storage etc.
5. A mechanism to allow removal of guns from homes/ppl during instances domestic violences or threat of (mental illness, ugly divorces etc)
6. Handguns severely restricted
7. Fully Auto practically outlawed


I also feel that the gun industry, the gun laws you mention restrict ownership not the industry itself, should take some responsibility for their product. Drug companies have to take measures to protect the public from abuses by patients and doctors, banks have to have protections in place to protect against money laundering. Why do we give the gun industry a pass? If you feel that they are already restricted enough, the industry itself-not ownership laws, please give me a link to those restrictions, I would like to educate myself.

As for why I have not disputed the bullet points you mentioned...I am not argueing against them. Again, there needs to be mechanisms in place for neglect of the gun industry, and there need to be concrete standards that gun owners are held to if they choose to keep a weapon in their home. I feel that by doing these things you DECREASE the chance for gun misuse.

"My aside point to you was to suggest that perhaps more of your concern and effort (as an md?) be directed toward the MUCH MORE DANGEROUS activity of driving to work each day or your cohorts' mistreatment of patients."-I deal with these things every day in my personal life and in my practice as a physician. Believe me, I care about both of these points a whole hell of a lot more than gun control. But again, that is not what this thread is about.

Going to go watch my newly calibrated DLP on my new Axioms now. Have a good weekend.

Thanks for your reply. (How DO you like your Axioms? )

The points you mention, with the exception of police intrusion into your home (there's a Constitutional POKE-IN-THE-EYE if I ever saw one) are ALL currently in place, though for some of them I have no clue as to reasoning. These are all restrictions on individual rights under the constitution. (Driver's licenses are not covered there, lol.) And by the way, the NRA does almost ALL the country's training and safety education about firearms.

As to your other issues, in all states, to one degree or other, there ARE concrete standards in place regarding home firearm ownership. The most serious one is that you can't use it indiscriminately or carelessly against or around others. And isn't that your main complaint? You want more? You go to prison if you do use it in such a way. What more do you want, then?

Lastly, you want standards for the gun industry? You desire rules/regulations/laws that mitigate against unsafe guns and gun accessories? Just like medical malpractice, there are judicial remedies to salve neglectful, or dangerous industry practice. But you want more government control of the gun industry...the laws themselves you say aren't there? I direct you to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) website. With a few weeks of reading, you'll be able to wade through the voluminous laws and regulations and might understand the depth of the government concern on this matter, and perhaps take back your "political blow-job" description. (Education is a wonderful tool, too.)

Now I'm gone, too, to my Sci-Friday B-movie of the week with family and friends! Tonight I'm thinkin' Zontar, The Thing From Venus starring John Agar! (Really. ) And mmmm, I'm serving with the movie my world famous sambal oelek barbecued Cornish game hens (not shot ), wild rice, and asparagus with chipotle whipped mayo.

Have a good weekend all. (And Matt...I'm on edge waiting)

 

[Tomorrow]

Guns cause crime just like pencils cause mispeled werds. Hammers cause bent nails and smashed fingers. Knifes to stick them selves into people and cut off appendages. A bottle of Budweiser to cause a fatal car crash. Gasoline to cause arson. My car to cause a hit and run. These thing are all inanimate object and require a homoerectus (at the very minimum) to use them improperly and cause harm. Criminals (by the very definition) will break any laws put in-place to "prevent" their actions that cause harm to property or people. The only people who obey the "law" are the very ones who are most harmed by the actions of said criminals. Gun control has never reduced crime. Take a look at D.C, still the "murder capital" of the country, only people carrying guns there now are the police and the gangbangers.....and you don't see that many cops.

Teach kids at an early age about guns and the effects of mishandling. We need better education, not more laws. I have 10yrs law enforcement/military experience and like what I believe I saw elsewhere in this thread, "An armed society is a polite society," speaks volumes.

As far as holding gun manufacturers responsible, I think it is obviously a tactic used TOO OFTEN in our society to shift blame from one person or group to another. Again, it completely disregards the notion of personal responsibility and accountability. Come to think about it, I think that's why we have so much crime in the first place: lack of "personal responsibility, accountability and respect for others".

*Edited for spelling

(You beat my post. )

This is very well said, Matt, and I thoroughly agree. The "government" or something or someone is seen more and more as the villain. It's called scapegoating and it's rampant. You can see it in living color going on in and around New Orleans. But it's pervasive and subtle too, everywhere. Personal responsibility is getting lost in our society today, and it is a bad sign.

Okay, now I'm REALLY gone to cook my birds.

 

[Tsunamii]

"Why is it so simple for criminals to "buy their guns illegally and easily"? "

chicagomd,
is your logic that if guns were either A) more regulated or B) outlawed they would not be easily obtained? I say this because this strategy has not worked out so well for drugs. Some are outlawed some are regulated and both are easily obtained.
Back to the gun debate. In Massachusetts it took me over 6 months to get a handgun license. Prior military the whole bit, still 6 months. Heavy regulated, no? Still it is easy to get a gun illegally here. So what do you do? Shut down the gun industry? Throw away the 2nd amendment? This country was founded on Guns and the right to have them. Please speak to the Consitutional issue here, does it not fit into your argument?

 

[chicagomd]

rjbudz,

I love the Axioms. They are my first "real" attempt at a home theater solution. Once I get some wall treatments for the room I have a SPL meter and an Rives Audio CD in a drawer that need dusting off.

I am bowing out of this thread. I do not have enough knowledge or, quite frankly, passion on this subject to continue. I enjoy challenging people on their points of view, specficially on a topic that I have not yet formed a solid stance on, and for me this has been a great, and educational Friday afternoon discussion.

I certianly to not have the constitutional law experience to discuss those issues with you in depth, Tsunamii. The Constitutional challenges from the US Supreme Court and 2nd District Federal Courts in my origional post seem to suggest that the right to "bear arms" is not absolute. I in no way can defend those decisions to you, nor would I pretend to, as I do not know enough about them. Again, in none of my posts have I advocated the elimination of guns, nor the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution.

EDIT: Ok, for sure my last comment...enjoy:
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/evaluatinggunpolicy.htm

 

[mulester7]

.....and I'll throw this in.....

http://www.barry.fireflyinternet.co.uk/fun/files/pilot.htm

 

[Matt34]

rjbudz,

I love the Axioms. They are my first "real" attempt at a home theater solution. Once I get some wall treatments for the room I have a SPL meter and an Rives Audio CD in a drawer that need dusting off.

Not a bad first attempt I might say doc.

Yep, I think you guys had a pretty civil debate on a hot topic which on many other forums I frequent gets outta hand by about the 6th post. There's no easy solution, that I will agree on.

Going to go watch my newly purchased copy of Batman Begins. Hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable weekend.

 

[Tsunamii]

Batman beg, is on my list for the weekend also.
And yes it is nice to see that an argument can be made civilly.
I can’t resist my last stab.
I will say I am a constitutionalist. I believe in what the Framers intended. The Supreme Court has a habit of trying to legislate from the bench all too often. The original internet was to allow everyone to bear arms. If they can't see that then we do have problems again let me point to the quotes from those there at the time of the Constitution.



"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.)

"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

The argument can be made that times have changed and we need to disregard the original intent of this document. I would argue against that.

 

[Tomorrow]

Chicagomd,

You asked for a political entity that wants to ban all guns. You doubted such an existence. Here is one example. Kindly go to bat for our 2nd Amendment rights. (Of course there is always the political remedy of changing the Constitution. Yessiree.) Below is an article from the San Francisco Chronicle. Apparently they wish to join the ranks of those cities with the highest crime rate and gun violence, i.e. Washington DC, NYC, Chicago (your home town?).

(Sorry, I don't have the link...so here is a shortened version of the article.)

CAMPAIGN 2005: San Francisco Measures
Voters to decide on banning guns, military recruitment
Ballot also addresses firehouse hours, mayor's authority
Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, October 20, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article




From banning firearms and keeping firehouses open, to opposing military recruitment in public schools, San Francisco voters will decide on a variety of measures on election day that keep true to the spirit of San Francisco politics.

A coalition of anti-war groups placed Proposition I on the Nov. 8 ballot, which they say would make San Francisco the first city in the country to have a policy that opposes military recruiting in public schools.

Supporters hope to continue the momentum of last year's Proposition N, in which San Franciscans voted overwhelmingly to call on the U.S. government to withdraw all military personnel from Iraq.

"We see this as a way of ending the war," said Ragina Johnson, spokeswoman for College Not Combat. "If they don't have new recruits to join the military, ultimately in the long run they won't be able to continue the war."

Though the measure is largely symbolic and would not forbid recruiting, opponents say it ends the wrong message to young people.

"This measure would bring the erosion of respect for our military armed forces, and I don't want to entertain one change," said Gail Neira, president of the San Francisco Republican Alliance.

Another hot-button issue on the ballot, gun control, is sponsored by four members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Proposition H would make it illegal for city residents to possess handguns and would ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within the city. (This also means that if you protect your life with a handgun you will be prosecuted for having an illegal gun !)

The National Rifle Association has spoken out against the measure, though local opponents say the group is not part of the official opposition.

"The possession of firearms by law-abiding people is not the problem," said Mike Ege, a board member of the Coalition Against Prohibition, who said crime rates would rise if handguns were banned. Criminals will know people are not armed and protecting themselves, he said.

Supporters who want San Francisco to join the ranks of Washington, D.C., and Chicago, the only cities in the country with such a ban, say too many innocent people die as a result of gun violence.

"Banning handguns alone is not gong to stop the violence, but it's a big step," Supervisor Chris Daly said.

Voters also will decide on Proposition F, a measure backed by the politically powerful San Francisco firefighters union that would end the brownouts that closed firehouses on a rotating basis during tight budget times and require all 42 firehouses in the city to stay open.

 

[shokhead]

Batman beg, is on my list for the weekend also.
And yes it is nice to see that an argument can be made civilly.
I can’t resist my last stab.
I will say I am a constitutionalist. I believe in what the Framers intended. The Supreme Court has a habit of trying to legislate from the bench all too often. The original internet was to allow everyone to bear arms. If they can't see that then we do have problems again let me point to the quotes from those there at the time of the Constitution.



"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.)

"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

The argument can be made that times have changed and we need to disregard the original intent of this document. I would argue against that.

Henery Lee couldnt have in his most srange dream thought of automatic weapons,gangs and all of that. Owning a gun and being able to use it on someone is a far,far distance. Bad guys dont care,good guys care and thats what seperates shooters from non-shooters of humans.For some of the Consti, we have outgrown it a long time ago.

 

[Tomorrow]

Henery Lee couldnt have in his most srange dream thought of automatic weapons,gangs and all of that. Owning a gun and being able to use it on someone is a far,far distance. Bad guys dont care,good guys care and thats what seperates shooters from non-shooters of humans.For some of the Consti, we have outgrown it a long time ago.

Yeah, right. Who needs the Constitution (Consti?)?! Damn useless old parchment, anyway. Screw free speech, right to assembly, and the whole stinkin' thing. Right. They had no imagination or forethought, those Founding Fathers. No bad guys back then to deal with, either. Yeah, right.

Except Shok, who is Henery Lee?

LOL!

Right!

Hey AverageJoe. This is the 140 Rule in all it's glory!

 

[shokhead]

Yeah, right. Who needs the Constitution (Consti?)?! Damn useless old parchment, anyway. Screw free speech, right to assembly, and the whole stinkin' thing. Right. They had no imagination or forethought, those Founding Fathers. No bad guys back then to deal with, either. Yeah, right.

Except Shok, who is Henery Lee?

LOL!

Right!

Hey AverageJoe. This is the 140 Rule in all it's glory!

Calm down and take your hand of your penis. I didnt say we dont need it,update it. Now take a breath and think. Do you really think they could have ever thought that it would be the way it is now? Do you?

 

[mulester7]

.....RJBudz, you leave your hand wherever you wish, buddy....this should help put your mind at ease....and guys, I told you a long time ago I was pretty worthless....I still don't understand why ya'll didn't get rid of me when you had the chance, haha.......

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/mulester77/detail?.dir=3149&.dnm=7ee4.jpg&.src=ph

 

[ironlung]

A little shooting bio on me.....ironlung

Ironlung,

You have a gun in your home, you say you are responsible and educated. How do I know? Should I believe that you hold yourself to a high standard of gun saftey? Should I trust my kids to play at your house? I should be able to look you in the eye, shake your hand, and trust you. That is not our reality.

I know Chicago MD bowed out but maybe he is still reading.


I don't have a wife or kids. So your kids should probably not play at my house.

Seriously the questions and concerns you had above are exactly what I'm talking about. It's a parents job (not the government) to know where there children are. Talking to their friends parents is way more than most do.

If I had children I'd like to think you could look me in the eye, shake my hand, and trust me. I would be open and honest about any hazards that your children may be exposed to at my house. Handgun, rifle ,shotgun or otherwise.

I was raised in a house with firearms. When I was to young to understand the dangers the guns were out of access. A little older (9-10 years old) and I learned gun safety with a BB gun. My dad satisfied my curiosity about his guns in a safe way letting me see him clean them and letting me hold them.

"Only pont at things you can shoot even if you know it's unloaded." He told me. "If any of your friends ever bring out a gun you leave immediatly." He warned.

When I was a little older (13 I think) I was given a 22 rifle for 8th grade graduation. When shooting my new rifle with my dad at the range he let me shoot his .357 magnum. That thing almost broke my little 13 year old wrists. After that I did not want to get close to that thing in the top of his closet.

Now I'm almost 30 and I have a 13 year old little brother(same mother different dad he lived out of state till a few years ago). He has no desire to see or handle my guns I still explained some basic safety and if any of his knuckle head friends pulled out a gun to get out of there quick. If he ever became curious I told him I would take him to the range and teach him to shoot in a safe way in a safe environment.

Why do I think I'm qualified to teach him or think I myself am safe and responsible. I worked in a gun shop/range for 6 years. I have reloaded 10's of thousands of various pistol rounds and fired almost as many. At age 15 I was invited to join a rimfire/centerfire bullseye team and regulary beat all the old fogies . In all that time/experience I have never had a safety problem myself or the people around me.