PDA

View Full Version : gun control


04-22-1999, 12:51 AM
If we in the US want to restrict the availability of guns but don't want to mess with the Constitution - why can't we just restrict the availability of ammo?

04-22-1999, 01:04 AM
That's not "messing with the constitution"? We are not dealing with a computer program here, and while such sophistry does occassionally make it into law, the judges are supposed to consider the meaning of the words, not just the characters.

If you are carrying a gun when no ammo is available, you are no more armed than anybody else carrying a length of pipe.

04-22-1999, 01:28 AM
Who's "we"?

The reason "we" in the NRA dislike that approach is that it tries to circumvent a legal process with legerdemain.
Why don't we cut down on drunk drivers and road ragers by restricting the availability of gasoline?
Why don't we cut down on spousal abuse by restricting marriage license?
Why don't we eliminate child abuse by drafting legislation restricting who may or may not have children?
The answer is that those measures, while possibly having an impact on the numbers, doesn't resolve the underlying issues of violence and impulse control.
I'm not a statistician, so I'm not going to try and interpret the Bureau of Justice's Crime Statistics to put spin control on my arguments about Gun Control and "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
But some simple results posted by the BOJ show crime has been steadily declining in the U.S. for several years; Texas' (and other states that have passsed similar Concealed Carry Laws) crime rates have been dropping about 3% quicker than the national average. And no state passing such laws have experienced "bloody gun battles in the streets" that the Gun Control Lobby had predicted; no "Dodge City" shootouts; no rampant vigilantsm.
Maybe my bias towards the right to keep and bear arms prejudices me to see a correlation in the crime rates between a legally, responsibly armed populace and an unarmed one, such as New York.
The vast majority of lawfull gun owners are safe, responsible individuals; that there are accidents involving firearms is regrettable, but the "safety devices" that HCI wants legislated are no substitute for safety awareness and training.
If we (the U.S.) want to try and "foolproof" every device that could possibly injure or kill us, as opposed to raising our consciousness through education and training, then we will wind up with a country full of drooling idiots who are incapable of the simplest tasks without a jillion safety devices.
But back on subject, if you truly feel that guns need to be removed from our society, be honest enough to present an intellectually honest argument; don't hide behind punitive taxes, cumbersome bureaucracies, hazy definitions of firearm types and classifications or over-engineered "idiot-proofed" firearms that will cost thousands of dollars apiece.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"Don't tread on me!

04-22-1999, 02:18 AM
Lets not play semantics here. Guns do kill and injure people. By accident or design, someone shoots someone far too often for it to be dismissed as "regrettable".
Most gun owners are responsible, but, far too many guns wind up in the hands of those who are not. And too many responsible gun owners resist any effort to curtail this problem.
Comparing guns to wife beaters, child abusers, drunk drivers, etc. is "apples & oranges.
You can't take a wife beater to school and blow away a dozen or so kids.
I don't think guns should be removed from society. I do think there are far too many guns and that a person should have to earn the right to own one. ONE.
You want facts? Here are two;
Very few lives are saved by gun ownership.
Many lives are taken by gun accidents.

Guns are designed to kill.
And please, don't try to bullshit me about target shooting and hunting and all that crap.
Grrr.
Peace,
mangeorge


------------------
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything" Mark Twain 1894

04-22-1999, 04:06 AM
[[If we in the US want to restrict the availability of guns but don't want to mess with the Constitution - why can't we just restrict the availability of ammo?]]


Logic, history, and jurisprudence dictate that "arms" cannot be legitimately separated from the ammo with which to "arm" them.

04-22-1999, 07:31 PM
Thanks for your replies - and you're right, banning ammo amounts to the same thing as banning guns. It's just that when things like the Colorado school shootings happen, you think - what can we do?

I mean, I really hated high school, but at least I never had to face first period wondering which of my psycho classmates might decide to shoot me.

I was just hoping for some quick fix to a complex problem.

04-22-1999, 07:54 PM
George, your very argument is riddled with glaring contradictions: in one breath, you claim that "guns do kill and injure people"; in the very next, you claim that "...someone shoots someone [else] far too often...".
So which is it? Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? Even if it is by accident, the inattention and irresponsible behavior of the individual is the reason the gun accidentally discharged, hurting or killing the unintended victim.
You then go on to say that "Most gun owners are responsible, but, far too many guns wind up in the hands of those who are not."
So you feel that it is correct to punish law abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals and the criminally negligent? That our Constitution can be cavalierly abridged or discarded to conveniently treat the symptoms of violence, as opposed to addressing the issue directly, and trying to reduce the tension and hostility in our society?
And the "Too many responsible gun owners resist any effort to curtail this problem."? Neither I, or the NRA, have ever opposed any measure that punishes a criminal or criminally negligent individual who abuses firearms. The laws and concurrent punishments already on the books, if uniformly applied and upheld by the various Depts. of Correction, are adequate to dissuade those who would abuse firearms, or permanently remove those individuals from our society.
And comparing gun violence to domestic or vehicular violence may be apples and oranges, but you'll find both in the same basket of fruit.
In other words, they all have one root thing in common: violence. Our society's increasing propensity to resolve every little issue violently is the underlying problem, not the instrumentality of that violence.
"I do think there are far too many guns and that a person should have to earn the right to own one. ONE."
Excuse me, but what country do you live in? You, me, and any other natural born citizen were born with the right to keep and bear arms. ARMS. No limit. To limit such would be an unconstitutional abridgement to the Second Amendment. Now, if you want to institute some sort of certification course and/or mandatory safety instruction prior to permitting people to legally purchase firearms, bang on! It's exactly what I and the NRA stands for and encourage: safe, responsible ownership and handling of firearms.
But mandatory safety devices and trigger locks are no substitute for an aware and concientious mind, trained in the safe, responsible usage of firearms.
"You want facts? Here are two;
Very few lives are saved by gun ownership.
Many lives are taken by gun accidents."
To quote the inestimable Mr. Disraeli:
"Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."

"Guns are designed to kill.
And please, don't try to bullshit me about target shooting and hunting and all that crap.
Please present forthwith your appointment to the post of Executive Director of Recreational Activities for The United States of America.
By what right do you denigrate the time honored and legitimate recreational activities of target shooting and hunting? You feel them barbaric? Anachronistic?
Can I call for the banning of all NASCAR events due to the fact that they promote the Culture of the Automobile, which also kills people and damages the environment? I may want to, but I have no right to project my personal feelings onto other people's fun, and will not do so.
Get a real argument George, not some rehashed and politically whitewashed statistics compiled by the appointees of Gun-Control politicians and HCI's lobby.
Did you know that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms compiled a study in '95-96 that showed gun-related crimes and violence was down significantly in the U.S.? That Attorney General Reno sent the report back with instructions to re-write the study?
I trust no one in the federal government who are dependant on the goodwill of their political masters for their position or career advancement; they will do as they are told, regardless of truth or facts, which may be embarrassing to their benefactors.
Stop listening to sound-bites on CNN and NBC/MSNBC, and their paid-for talking heads, and look around yourself with a skeptical eye and some common sense. You'll be wide awake and looking for The Truth.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"Trust a politician? I'd rather roll around on rattlesnakes and walk barefoot over scorpions!"

04-22-1999, 08:02 PM
be honest enough to present an intellectually honest argument

Okay, how's this?

From the Telegraph in England:

There are an estimated 200 million guns in America -- where only seven states ban the carrying of concealed weapons -- and the differences between it and other countries are stark: in 1996 handguns were used to murder 30 people in Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany and 9,390 in America.

A 1997 study found that the firearm-related death rate among American children under 15 was nearly 16 times higher than that of other industrialised countries.

So, the rate of handgun deaths per capita in the UK, which bans them, equals approximately 1 in 1.9 million.

And handgun deaths in the US, which does not ban them, come out at about 1 in 25,000 -- a rate 76 times higher.

It's kind of hard to argue with the numbers, although I'm sure some people will make the effort.

------------------
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

04-22-1999, 08:38 PM
Sure, those are some pretty wicked numbers, and I don't deny that it is physically easier to kill someone with a firearm than a knife or a club or such.
But I maintain that the instrumentality is not what should be at stake; but rather our propensity, as a society, to lash out violently at every perceived wrong done to us. We all too often see violence as the only recourse to our situations, rather than debate or compromise.
Anger/stress management and good impulse control will go much further towards reducing violence in our society than re-writing or abridging our Constitution.

I dislike comparisons with different societies, as they have different histories and events which shaped the character of that society. As I see it, (having visited several European countries) most European societies are much better behaved than we are; this is not due to any legislation or gun-control laws, but rather an inherent societal stability deriving from shared historical and cultural experiences.

One country you failed to mention: Australia.
After that bloody massacre by a crazed individual several years ago, Australia banned private possession of ALL firearms. Period.
Since the passage of that law, Australia's crime rate has skyrocketed, trebling in less than two years.
Coincidence? One thing all human beings with criminal intent share is the desire for easy, unresisting prey. Disarming a populace makes them just that.
Ask the Jews who survived Hitler's Solution.
Ask any Russian who knows something about the Bolsheviks.
Ask any Albanian.
Ask any South African of color.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"National Socialists and Communists LOVE Gun Control."

04-22-1999, 08:46 PM
Here are some suggestions from a person who doesn't hate guns yet who thinks too many idiots and/or criminals have too easy access to them:

It should be necessary for people to take classes on how to use guns properly and responibly before issuing to them a license or permitting them to purchase guns. And the licensing would be required for shotguns and rifles as well as handguns. It just makes sense to me that if you are going to let people buy a deadly weapon, you should at least make sure they know how to handle it, how to clean it and take care of it, and how to use or store it safely and responsibly. I think, too, that perhaps with the supervision on an instructor, a person's potentially destructive tendencies might be spotted sooner, like if they ignore repeated warnings not to point the weapon at class mates, show a disdain or disrespect for instruction or the instructor, make "jokes" about who they'd like to use the gun on, and so on might set off warning bells in the head of an experienced instructor.

Furthermore, I wouldn't permit anyone under the age of 15 or 16 to own or handle a gun at all, except maybe an air rifle, although I've even seen those used on my grandma's cat and on my house by miscreant neighbor boys. If children under the age of 15 aren't expected to have the judgement, hand-eye coordination, etc., to operate a motor vehicle, it seems nuts to me to let them have guns. Sorry, you won't be able to kill bunnies and ducks until you're older and hopefully wiser.

Finally, make back ground checks mandatory for every kind of gun and have them go back practically to the moment a person was born. Every blip on their record should be taken into consideration, from to midemeanors to traffic violations.

I have a friend who used to do background checks on gun permit applicants and she said it's appalling how low the requirements are. She said they were only allowed to check back about 10 years, and even then they were only allowed to refuse an application if the applicant been committed by a court order from a judge. She said one person she approved promptly took his newly licensed gun to the bank and shot a teller in the face.

A lot of people who kill have previous criminal records, even if some of it seems "small" like shoplifting. Requiring education, age limits, and thorough screening might have taken some of the guns out of a lot of murderers' hands. These boys from Littleton were known to have been gun nuts and had even filmed themselves with their collection. If my suggestions were implemented, I don't think they would have passed the background check or finished the education process to get a license to get the guns. Then if they were known to have guns anyway, the weapons could have been confiscated, the premises searched, the bombs found, the psychiatric care given and so on a long time ago.

Ideally, anyway.

So, go ahead, blast away and tell me that I would be restricting our rights too much. But so many people are killed or wounded in accidents as well as murders, it seems like we do need to better educate more people before giving them guns. And a lot of people just flat out don't deserve them.

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

04-22-1999, 11:50 PM
The assumption that the NRA has been able to inculcate is that the Constitution guarantees gun freedom to every citizen. It doesn't.

What the Second Aritcle of the Bill of Rights says is that "A well-regulated Militia, being neceassary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

That clause, "A well-regulated Militia" is set off, and for a good reason. At the time of writing, the militia consisted of every male citizen over the age of 18. The only well-regulated militia NOW in existence is the National Guard, and every Supreme Court to rule on this has so said.

The Second Amendment does *not* guarantee your right to own a howitzer. The NRA is wrong. The Founders wanted to assure the right of a properly founded body to guard against invasion, not your right to instigate mayhem. If you think they did, you are an idiot.

Assault weapons are *not* protected, and no Supreme Court decision agrees with that. Congress is totally under the thumb of the gun lobby and we, as a people, have bought that idiotic argument.

04-23-1999, 01:02 AM
The Supreme Court believes that what the federal government cannot do is infringe the right to own arms that are "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense". (U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)). How's that for screwy? The Federal government can ban sawed-off shotguns, but can't stop us from owning M-16s. (and it is us, in the context of the second amendment, the Supreme Court considers the populace of the U.S. to be the militia.)
But, the Supreme Court is fond of pointing out that the States have greater power to ban guns. If you want rid of guns in your neck of the words, go talk to your state government. That's the organization with the power to do something about it.
Of course, if federalism really is dead, this entire post is useless.

04-23-1999, 01:07 AM
No, Ex Tank, guns don't actually kill people.
It's those damn bullets.
I thought I made it clear that I am not proponent of banning guns.
I think that any prohibition is morally severe, and deserves extreme consideration before enactment. If "The Government" were to try to ban guns I'd be out there with your crowd, in FRONT of you, yelling my stupid head off.
Wanna talk apples & oranges?
Do you support tough drug laws? Many of your supporters do! The NRA does, doesn't it? Why? Is it because drugs kill people? I've never heard of a marijuana joint jumping off a shelf and killing anyone. Or a bag of smack, for that matter.
No, don't prohibit guns, or drugs, or other dangerous things. Just try as best we can to restrict the damage to those who choose them.

By the way, I left off the [else] intentionally, because all to often the victim is the person holding the gun.
Peace,
mangeorge


------------------
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything" Mark Twain 1894

04-23-1999, 01:43 AM
Well... I'm not sure if this argument is spent and I'm just blowing hot air (always a possibility *s*)... but I thought I might add my own two cents.
The fact is, I am not too sure if any of you are at all right. :0)

(I'll let that hang there and give you a chance to skip over this letter which may save me some unneeded embarrassment)

Here's how I see the gun issue. And I will use general statements because I'm not so good at these arguments and becasue this is the first time I've ever posted here and I kinda like to make some kind of good impression. (hee hee) 1. talking does no good. Gun control is not about to happen anytime soon. I hate to say it. Actually, it disgusts me. I am not against having guns by those who are responsible. I am not against having guns within our society. I do see that there could easily be issues to deal with if private ownership were banned and I would not recommend it. We'd be dealing with a sort of Sleeping Beauty syndrome.. no matter how many guns you throw on the fire, there's bound to be a few hidden in the back room. HOWEVER, I do have a big problem with the means of our society in the controlling of the guns we offer to our citizens. There are good reasons for having guns. There is the right to bear arms and I see this as highly logical. I would hate for us to sit about like sheep waiting to get herded into some kind of meat market for the slaughter. And I suppose you could use that as a reason for keeping the AK47's out on the street. (and those black talon bullets and whatever other guns taht when you shoot them your shoulder is seperated from the shoulder blade)... Yet, there is a real issue here that has to find some kind of middle ground. I am not in any danger of having the military run into my house and seperate me from my family and then drag me off to kick me and shoot me in the stomach and whatever other horrific picture you can think of for that reason. But I DO have a chance of coming home and finding a nicely dressed policeman on my steps, whose wonderful job it is, to tell me that my son, has been shot in the leg/arm/chest/head (God forbid) because one of the kids I let him stay with overnight, knows where his dad/mom/whoever, keeps the key to the gun case and wanted to show him the "cool" things his dad/mom/whoever, does with this thing. I am at a greater risk, of turning on the television and finding that my son's school was broken into by a wonderfully destroyed young child who thought that through some sort of suicidal ideation or unrealistic and damaged thinking process, that it is quite alright to go into a public place and shoot something other than tin cans.
Now, not having the knowledge to think of a single good way to control the guns that we are seeing so commonly (there were about five or so at a local highschool last year.. population of the highschool I'm sure is around hmm... 1200? and to tell you the truth, I can't recall seeing one as a child (and I'm not that darn old *L*) in my highschool only eight years ago.. in a highschool of a much larger population) but I would wonder if any of you have any good ideas on how to find a middle ground. The means we've taken so far, to get gun control is not effective. *L* I just found out how many days it would take to get a gun only a bit ago.... I'm not required to do all that much that a reasonably intelligent person could not do (even if they were intent on using it on someone else). So... not willing to run around and scream to throw all of the firearms into a pile and burn them to the ground, I would like to hear any ideas from those of you with the knowledge on how to better protect our kids.
Oh.. dang.. I was numbering these weren't I? Wahl... guess the other would be this.


Most of the guns out there that are doing the killing.. are NOT registered. They are street/black market material.

I can be eight and if I have the correct contacts, I can get myself a nice one to do some real damage to those tin cans in the back of the woods. Guess, there wouldn't be all that much left of the can when I was done. THIS is the problem. Guns are not regulated when it comes to those who have a history of criminal behavior. Proposals?

~Sara

(sorry if that got long winded or if you just passed over it then no worries for me anyhow. *L*)

04-23-1999, 04:44 AM
{{George, your very argument is riddled with glaring contradictions: in one breath, you claim that "guns do kill and injure people"; in the very next, you claim that "...someone shoots someone [else] far too often...".
So which is it? Do guns kill people, or do people kill people?}
Ex-Tank


People use guns to kill people (finding it to be much easier than without uing them).

It is foolish to deny that there is a cost to easy availability of guns -- there is a cost to every civil liberty, at least in the short run.


{{You then go on to say that "Most gun owners are responsible, but, far too many guns wind up in the hands of those who are not."
So you feel that it is correct to punish law abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals and the criminally negligent?}}

I'm generally sympathetic, but we outlaw drunk driving and speeding and a host of other things, too, on the theory that the activities create an unreasonable risk.

[[The laws and concurrent punishments already on the books, if uniformly applied and upheld by the various Depts. of Correction, are adequate to dissuade those who would abuse firearms, or permanently remove those individuals from our society.]]


After the flood ...

[["I do think there are far too many guns and that a person should have to earn the right to own one. ONE."
Excuse me, but what country do you live in? You, me, and any other natural born citizen were born with the right to keep and bear arms. ARMS. No limit.]]


NO LIMIT? Maybe.


[[Now, if you want to institute some sort of certification course and/or mandatory safety instruction prior to permitting people to legally purchase firearms, bang on! It's exactly what I and the NRA stands for and encourage: safe, responsible ownership and handling of firearms.]]


Sounds like youre slicing it pretty thin, actually, since that sounds like a significant impediment to getting a gun that is not readily resolved by the text of the 2d Amendment. Why can the government infringe the time of your weapon purchases but not the amount?

[[Did you know that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms compiled a study in '95-96 that showed gun-related crimes and violence was down significantly in the U.S.?]]


All violent crimes are down, due almost surely to demographic changes (ie., the fewer numbers of young males).

04-23-1999, 05:00 AM
{{The assumption that the NRA has been able to inculcate is that the Constitution guarantees gun freedom to every citizen.}} jdv

Well, not EVERY citizen, but it is eminently reasonable to read the 2d Amendment as granting an individual right to keep and bear arms, even of you think the amendment is purely a states' rights thing.

{{ It doesn't.}}


That is a proposition upon which reasonable people may disagree. It seems pretty clear to me that it does, generally.


{{What the Second Aritcle of the Bill of Rights says is that "A well-regulated Militia, being neceassary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

That clause, "A well-regulated Militia" is set off, and for a good reason.}}


Please, you wouldn't be parsing the grammar like this if it was a right you liked.


{{ At the time of writing, the militia consisted of every male citizen over the age of 18. }}


Yup -- and everyone was expected to have his own guns at home, which suggests that the right was to extend to having a gun or more at home. The British common law at the time allowed gun possesion for reasons unrelated to any militia, and the Bill of Rights is understood to have been intended to incorporate many of the English common law protections.


{{The only well-regulated militia NOW in existence is the National Guard, and every Supreme Court to rule on this has so said.}}


Said what? If you are suggesting that the Court has ruled that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2d Amendment, you are flat wrong.

{{The Founders wanted to assure the right of a properly founded body to guard against invasion, not your right to instigate mayhem. If you think they did, you are an idiot.}}


I'm a lot more comfortable interpreting and construing the actual words of the constitution, rather than the elusive intent of those who wrote it (or are the important ones the ones who voted for it? In the congress or in the state legislatures?). The 2d Amendment pretty clearly endows rights in the people to keep and bear arms.


{{Assault weapons are *not* protected, and no Supreme Court decision agrees with that.}}


That would be largely because no Supreme Court decision has ever addressed that.

{{ Congress is totally under the thumb of the gun lobby and we, as a people, have bought that idiotic argument.}}


It's down to me (oh, yes it is) ...

04-23-1999, 03:13 PM
-Quote-
"While I believe the citizens of the U.S. are given the right to bear arms by the Constitution, the ramifications of this right are subject to court interpretation. . ." - Pete

- - - Yes, they are. The ramifications of tht right are subject to court interpretation. The right itself, isn't.

-Quote-
"If you didn't have the gun, the burgler would just take your stuff and leave. No harm done. Even though criminals are often slightly depraved, most will not murder unless provoked or resisted." -Pete

Oh, no, criminals never kill people for petty reasons. That only happens in movies. And if a criminal wants to rape your wife or daughter, what's the big deal? That's what abortions are for, right?

-Quote-
"And hunting is ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL and IDIOTIC. If you're able to go into the woods and kill a deer, why can't I go into a town and kill a pedestrian? It's murder, anyway you slice it." -Pete

- - - It is hardly sensible to morally equate a deer with a human.
- - - Another thing that's idiotic is assuming plants like to be eaten.
- - - Poor drivers were discussed in another thread, I believe.
- - - And I understand the slicing is done after the animal is already dead. - MC

04-23-1999, 03:54 PM
If you're able to go into the woods and kill a deer, why can't I go into a town and kill a pedestrian? It's murder, anyway you slice it. If you actually eat the animal you shoot, I can understand that. You gotta eat to live.

So, if I eat the pedestrian would it be OK? I mean, if I were really hungry?

But you can rent a gun to use at the range.

So it's OK for companies to own guns? Don't people own companies?

Yes, people die playing sports. But it's CONSENSUAL.

I'll kill you if you kill me?

Sorry, Pete, just pointing out a few reasons that a rant seldom stands as an argument.

------------------
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once and you will suck forever.

04-23-1999, 04:44 PM
Murder? A DEER???
Nevermind, that's too ridiculous to even consider.

04-23-1999, 06:52 PM
aseymayo, if a gun is pointed at you can you tell if it's loaded?

Guess we'll miss that NRA meeting in Colo. this week.

04-23-1999, 07:40 PM
"That clause, "A well-regulated Militia" is set off, and for a good reason...."
--jdv

Incorrect.The National Guard/Air National Guard is co-funded by Federal and State Appropriations, making them Government Agencies.The (still) current definition of a militia according to The New Oxford English Dictionary is:
militia

noun: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
n:military force that engages in rebel or terror activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
n: (in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

The Second Amendment does *not* guarantee your right to own a howitzer. The NRA is wrong. The Founders wanted to assure the right of a properly founded body to guard against invasion, not your right to instigate mayhem. If you think they did, you are an idiot.

Partially correct. True, the Second Am. doesn't allow for the private ownership of engines of war. At the time of writing, that was artillery pieces, mortars, and any ship-of-the-line.
The modern context would be machine guns, mortars, howitzers, etc.
But one other thing a little bit of casual reading would have shown you is that the Founding Fathers wanted an armed populace for another reason as well: to protect the nation from itself.
Or put another way, to keep some would-be tyrant from usurping control of the government and instituting tyranny.
And you are completely wrong on the last part: I'm not an idiot.

Now, if you want to institute some sort of certification course and/or mandatory safety instruction prior to permitting people to legally purchase firearms, bang on! It's exactly what I and the NRA stands for and encourage: safe, responsible ownership and handling of firearms. --Me

Sounds like youre slicing it pretty thin, actually, since that sounds like a significant impediment to getting a gun that is not readily resolved by the text of the 2d Amendment. Why can the government infringe the time of your weapon purchases but not the amount?

I was offering what I thought was a reasonable compromise, as a way of trying to reduce the number of injuries/deaths due to accidental shootings. I would distrust the motives of a person who must have a gun RIGHT NOW!
Chance favors the prepared individual.
I personally don't feel the need for more than one handgun, but I also own a rifle and a shotgun (the right tool for the right job).
But people who want to own 20 AR-15s and 1,000 rounds of ammo make me nervous. Why does a person need 20 semi-auto rifles? Just because you can doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable, rational answer.
So the Great Limit Debate goes on.....
As a reasonable compromise would be hard to work out (there are radical elements on both sides of the argument), some pretty close timming is going to be necessary.

I may have missed it on the news...has anyone figured out where those two nut-jobs aquired those guns?

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"They got better than they deserved."

04-23-1999, 08:58 PM
"There are an estimated 200 million guns in America -- where only seven states ban the carrying of concealed weapons -- and the differences between it and other countries are stark: in 1996 handguns were used to murder 30 people in Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany and 9,390 in America."

So, does this mean if you Brits and Canadians had access to guns, you'd be just as violent? You mean, we're not alone? It's not just our horrible culture, then? Not that I'm defending American culture - we have no culture, only pop culture.

04-23-1999, 09:21 PM
Let's face, none of the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights is absolute. Even the most fundamental, the right of free speech, is limited. People can and are arrested, prosecuted, and/or sued for what they say.

The anti-hunting argument is ridiculous. Would you consider a wolf a murderer for killing a deer ? Hunting of non-endangered non-predators is no worse than letting them starve to death (which frequently happens in suburban areas where the deer population is exploding due to a lack of predators).

Anyway, back to guns. You want to own a gun ? You're responsible for it. If someone gets ahold of it and shoots me or one of mine, and I can convince a jury you didn't take adequate means to safeguard this from happening, I should be able to sue you for everything you've got or will ever have.

Second, statistics show that having a gun in the house greatly increases the chances of someone in the house getting shot by it. I'll take my chances with the burgulars, thank you.

Third, having a gun is a temptation to use it. In the Old West, everyone carried guns; therefore, lots of people got shot. Laws restricting gun ownership came about because of this. If more people are armed, more people will be shot. Too many people in a moment of rage will choose to use the gun.

Fourth, the analogies of defending against whatever government bogie man you choose are a pipe dream. If the US Army, Air Force, Marines, etc. wants to get you, you don't stand a chance. The only reason nutcases like the Branch Davidians held out as long as they did is because they had kids inside, which made the FBI/ATF hold back. Let's at least be honest about that.

04-23-1999, 09:28 PM
[[It should be necessary for people to take classes on how to use guns properly and responibly before issuing to them a license or permitting them to purchase guns.]]

Yeah, just like all those Vietnam vet postal workers, who got all kinds of weapons training in the military.
Jill

04-24-1999, 12:24 AM
I stand by my original position, and no one has been able to challenge this. I Shepardiezed this while working at Hughes, Hubbard, and Reed in New York.

The right to "bear arms" is restricted to the National Guard. period.

Read the Consitution. That's all.

If you think you know better, you're not dealling with reality.

04-24-1999, 01:04 AM
Hmmm. As with virtually all debates on the SMDB, this is well-considered, informed, and (mostly) civil; even though it's obvious there are some extremely contradictory positions here, people are being responsible enough to quote, attribute, refute, and re-propose.

And as with many of these discussions, it's fairly clear that nothing is likely to be resolved.

The issue is complex enough that each side can marshal impressive statistics and citations to support their assertions. We could split hairs and calculate pin-dancing angels all day, and nobody will be budged from his or her respective positions.

Can we at least agree to agree on a few simple propositions? To wit:

The Second Amendment is subject to interpretation. Aside from the infamous "militia" clause, it also refers to "arms." It doesn't say handguns, or flintlocks, or whatever -- just arms. By basic definition, that could include a slingshot, or it could include a thermonuclear device. Over the last two centuries, we have come to an uneasy collective consensus about what "arms" really means, but it's obvious that we aren't operating from the simple word itself; it's been interpreted and narrowed according to societal need. In our present culture, we have decided on a compromise that the mainstream can live with, even though on one side people are unhappy with not being allowed to have fully automatic weapons, and on the opposite side, other people are unhappy that handguns are available at all. The majority falls somewhere in between, and that's how we have chosen to live, for better or for worse.

Because of this historical preponderance of interpretation, any substantive change to the current situation will require amendment to the Constitution. This is not to claim advocacy of same -- it's merely stating that "sophistries" designed to get around the Constitutional language are just that.

The USA has a larger problem with violence than most other industrialized nations. Again, no causation is implied, as to whether the availability of guns is the root, or it's our TV shows, or comes from economic inequality, or if we're just plain grumpier.

Gun ownership may be a right, but it also comes with responsibility. This, too, is subject to interpretation. The NRA espouses safety and handling training, and safe storage; gun-control advocates want mandatory trigger locks. (See the front page of today's Wall Street Journal.) The fundamental position is the same, though: Guns are lethal devices, and misuse can have tragic results.

So. Can we treat these as baseline assumptions, and proceed from there?

------------------
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

04-24-1999, 01:52 AM
While I believe the citizens of the U.S. are given the right to bear arms by the Constitution, the ramifications of this right are subject to court interpretation, as many have pointed out. Personally, I don't see any reason for owning a gun. When the Bill of Rights was written, the U.S. was a fledgling country--actually, it wasn't even a country yet--that was nowhere near powerful. The people were still divided not only whether to join the Union or stay separate states, but there were also many Loyalists still around. Many moved back to England, but others stayed. The people of the new country had fears of Britain trying to regain control and also of other states joining forces and trying to overturn the Union. For this reason, in my opinion, and it the opinion of many Supreme Courts over the years, the people were given the right to bear arms against invaders--NOT to use them to stick up the local general store.

Although I think it's a stupid idea, I can understand why people would want to keep a handgun in the house to protect against burgleries: they're scared and want to protect themselves. But this is just a case of machismo idiocy. Do you really think that someone robbing your house in the middle of the night would wake you up, wait for you to brandish your piece, and then duel you?? And even if you somehow got to it in time, you may kill the burgler, but in the scuffle, s/he'll probably take you out AND your spouse and kids. What amazing benefits of owning a gun! If you didn't have the gun, the burgler would just take your stuff and leave. No harm done. Even though criminals are often slightly depraved, most will not murder unless provoked or resisted. Would you rather lose your TV and jewelry or keep your possessions but lose your wife Mary and your son, Billy?

So what is your next argument? You use guns for recreation? Okay, it's fine by me to go to a shooting range and have a gay old time. But you can rent a gun to use at the range. You don't have to carry it with you. And hunting is ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL and IDIOTIC. If you're able to go into the woods and kill a deer, why can't I go into a town and kill a pedestrian? It's murder, anyway you slice it. If you actually eat the animal you shoot, I can understand that. You gotta eat to live. But if you do it for the fun of it, that's ludicrous!! Same thing with fishermen who do it for the "sport." I'd like to stick a giant hook down every sport-fisherman's throat, prevent him from breathing for a few minutes, then decide he's too puny and throw him back on the sidewalk. You wouldn't like that, would you?

And don't give me that crap about car racing and football being dangerous. Yes, people die playing sports. But it's CONSENSUAL. The people participating CHOOSE to participate, completely aware of the risks. If you can cite a case where a moose or flounder gave you permission to chase it and kill it, then we'll talk.

04-24-1999, 04:53 AM
[[ {{The Second Amendment does *not* guarantee your right to own a howitzer. The NRA is wrong. The Founders wanted to assure the right of a properly founded body to guard against invasion, not your right to instigate mayhem. If you think they did, you are an idiot.}}

Partially correct. True, the Second Am. doesn't allow for the private ownership of engines of war. At the time of writing, that was artillery pieces, mortars, and any ship-of-the-line.
The modern context would be machine guns, mortars, howitzers, etc. ]] ExTank


Presumably the weapons covered were to be of such a size that a person could "bear" them. While that readily eliminates nuclear launching devices, I don't see where that (or anything ) takes automatic weapons out of the protection of the 2d amendment.

04-24-1999, 04:58 AM
{{[[Sounds like youre slicing it pretty thin, actually, since that sounds like a significant impediment to getting a gun that is not readily resolved by the text of the 2d Amendment. Why can the government infringe the time of your weapon purchases but not the amount?]]

I was offering what I thought was a reasonable compromise, as a way of trying to reduce the number of injuries/deaths due to accidental shootings.]]ExTank


I appreciate that on the level of your being a human being with whom I share this planet (and this MB). However, I just don't think I see where that is founded as a constitutional principle.


[[ I would distrust the motives of a person who must have a gun RIGHT NOW! ]]


"Ohhh! Five days? But I'm mad now!"

04-24-1999, 05:06 AM
{{I stand by my original position, and no one has been able to challenge this.}}jdv

Naw, it's just been shredded and put out to pasture.


[[ I Shepardiezed this while working at Hughes, Hubbard, and Reed in New York.]]


Uh huh -- are you a law student? Seriously.


[[The right to "bear arms" is restricted to the National Guard.]]


That is a reasonable position -- however, the contrary position is also completely reasonable, and you will have no credibility if you continue to deny this.


[[period.]]


Exclamation point!


[[Read the Consitution. That's all.]]


Maybe you got a bad copy -- mine says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


[[If you think you know better, you're not dealling with reality.]]


Based on what I've seen, I'm pretty sure that reality says I know a lot better.

04-24-1999, 03:39 PM
Although, most of have agreed on this thread, I have to add my 2 cents in.

Re the original question, in addition to the other philosophical answers, be aware that there is a subclass of the gun hobbyist called "Black Powder" where the plinker makes his own ammunition.


mangeorge:
Very few lives are saved by gun ownership.
Many lives are taken by gun accidents.

The British Telegram via Cervaise:
A 1997 study found that the firearm-related death rate among American children under 15 was nearly 16 times higher than that of other industrialised countries.

ExTank:
…Australia banned private possession of ALL firearms. Period. Since the passage of that law, Australia's crime rate has skyrocketed, trebling in less than two years.


Regarding gun control and violence. There are two thought processes at work. The gun banning people think "Guns are used in violent crimes, so if there are fewer guns, there will be less crime" The opposite camp thinks "Someone who wants to rob my home or kill me may think twice if they might get blown away". Well, I think the first philosophy is a little naïve. A person doesn't become violent because a gun is in his/her hand. A person is has violent tendencies and the gun facilitates acting on those tendencies. However, so do axes, hammers, mazeltov cocktails, their own body, iron skillets, …
In addition, unless all firearms were eliminated from the face of the earth, professional criminals could still get their hands on them. The second philosophy is less naïve, but a dog works better on the personal level. I have heard that in Florida, they had to stop putting ad stickers on rental cars, because the criminals were targeting the tourists in the rental cars. Since you couldn't bring guns into Florida but the locals tended to have them it was safer to rob the obvious tourists.
Consider Cervaise's statistic - it says that firearm-related deaths are lower in other countries - well of course they are. The question is, are total deaths lower?

I don't like gun banning issues because I think it takes attention away from the actual causes of violence.


aseymayo
I was just hoping for some quick fix to a complex problem.


And that, I think is the core problem. Americans are lazy. We want the easy, fast way out of any problem. We want to blame a group we are not a part of, an activity we do not engage in, anything so that we don't have to change. Watch. Littleton will be blamed on the gothic subculture, violent video games, violence on TV, availability of guns (even though the most destructive item was a homemade bomb), the Internet, the Democrats, the decay of morals because people don't go to church anymore.
We want to smack our kids if they make us angry, then we wonder why they are so violent. Recent research shows that a) children that are spanked are more likely to engage in disruptive and violent behavior and b) children who watch violent shows become violent only if they come from a violent family life. Violence is taught at home.
See? If you thought gun control arguments were vituperative, try addressing some of the real reasons for violence.


Regarding guns and accidents. This is where training and licensing can have the most benefit. You can't drive (and by extension get a car) unless you can parallel park, use the turn signal, and follow the rules of the road. But you can get a gun without knowing which end to point away from you. Yes, JillGat, training will not keep anyone from going postal; however it will cut down seriously on the number of accidents that happen. When my ex taught me how to use a gun, he taught me gun safety rules. Since then, I have never heard the details of an accident where one or more rules were not broken.

Rule 1: A gun pointed at a person is loaded. Consider this magic. I don't care if you just took all the bullets out and took the firing pin out - a bullet has materialized in the chamber as soon as the gun has been pointed at someone.
Corollary 1: Don't point a gun at a person unless you intend to kill him/her. No playing, no threats. Unless you want that person dead, don't point the gun at them.
Corollary 2: If someone points a gun at you, move. If they follow you with the gun, run for cover. If they tell you the gun is not loaded, repeat rule 1 and point out how many people have been killed with unloaded guns.
Corrollary 3: A gun is not a toy. A gun is not a toy. A gun is…..

Rule 2: Always know if the gun is loaded or not & cocked or not. Don't forget the magic materializing bullet.

Rule 3: Know how your gun works, intimately. Can you imagine driving a car without knowing how to turn on the headlights, or that gas is needed to make the car go? How are you going to follow rule 2 if you don't know the mechanics of the bullet loading and firing mechanism?

Rule 4: Gun cleaning is the most hazardous aspect of owning a gun. Send the wife and kids shopping, point the gun at the washing machine while you're working, and know how to completely disarm the gun. Because at some point you will have to look down the barrel, and you don't want that magic bullet to have a chance at getting fired.

Rule 5: Most guns used in crimes are stolen. Don't tell anyone you have a gun, or you will end up on someone's houses to rob list.

Parents, even if you don't have a gun, teach your children rule 1 and its corollaries. If you do have a gun, be aware of the forbidden fruit syndrome and work with it. When they are young, let them look at it. When they are old enough to understand death, teach them rule 1 and let them dry fire it. Make sure they know that this is something you don't tell other people about, and that they must have your permission to touch the gun.


Zyada

04-24-1999, 05:03 PM
"...mazeltov cocktails...'

Can you only throw these at Jewish celebrations?

Molotov cocktails were named for a Soviet foreign minister.

04-24-1999, 06:12 PM
I stand (well sit) corrected.

But it works, you throw one and say "Congratulations, you've been annihilated", eh?

04-24-1999, 07:52 PM
jdv asserts:

I stand by my original position, and no one has been able to challenge this. I Shepardiezed this while working at Hughes, Hubbard, and Reed in New York.

Let me guess...you also worked a little bit on somebody's appeal?

------------------
--elm

I'm trying to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my ass.

04-24-1999, 08:54 PM
Hey Ex Tank;
I threw you a bone, and you didn't bite! :)
Really, I would like to hear your opinion on why the NRA is so anti gun law and at the same time so pro marijuana law.
Both involve personal freedom, and both are very controversial.
Peace,
mangeorge

------------------
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything" Mark Twain 1894

04-24-1999, 10:15 PM
Dear mangeorge:
Although not a member of the NRA, I oppose just about all forms of gun control.
I also believe this society should legalize marijuana and prostitution and should probably consider legalization or decriminalization of all other drugs.
As Robinson Jeffers said: "Long live freedom and damn the idealogies."

04-24-1999, 10:36 PM
jdv, don't forget to read the cases after you Shepardize. Your New York law firm should have taught you that.
The Supreme Court fails to mention your notion that only the National Guard may bear arms. Rather old Supreme Court cases define the militia as the adult population of a state; but that was before anything as organized as the National Guard.
More recent Supreme Court cases describe the Second Amendment as a limit on the federal government's ability to infringe the people's right to bear arms. So, the Supreme Court thinks the people have the right to bear arms, not the people as a militia having a right to bear arms.
Before setting your position out to pasture, we should first brand it, "not Supreme Court approved".

04-25-1999, 05:19 AM
[[More recent Supreme Court cases describe the Second Amendment as a limit on the federal government's ability to infringe the people's right to bear arms. So, the Supreme Court thinks the people have the right to bear arms, not the people as a militia having a right to bear arms.]]


That is also not so clear (to put it mildly). What is clear is that the Court has NEVER invalidated a state gun law in the basis of the 2d Amendment (to my knowledge).

04-25-1999, 06:05 AM
That ringing "what is clear" didn't go real well with that weaselly "to my knowledge," but I'm pretty sure there have been no such decisions. Occupational hazard? ;)

04-25-1999, 09:08 PM
Peyote coyote;
When you're right, you're right.
The purpose of law is to protect the innocent, not to get me into heaven.

Where the heck's Ex Tank? :>

Peace,
mangeorge


------------------
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything" Mark Twain 1894

04-25-1999, 09:12 PM
:< was supposed to be :( , I'll learn?
Peace,
mangeorge

04-25-1999, 09:45 PM
Sorry I haven't responded in a while. I've been away from the computer for 2 days!! Criminal! Blasphemous! Ignominious! Well, sorry guys, but I had things to do...like trying to salvage a life that lives by moving things other than fingers.

Doctor Jackson, you need to look up the word "consensual" in a dictionary. Or at least read things that use that word. The word consensual does NOT imply murder--it doesn't even have a negative connotation. Nowhere did I say that athletes agree to kill and be killed. I wrote that they agree to participate even though they know there are dangers involved. However, anyone who moves to ban sports because 1 in 40,000,000 athletes die during competition, yet overlooks the 1 in 1000 who die in automobile accidents, is not exactly the brightest candle on the cake.

I have to think some more--probably a lot more--on why there is a difference between murdering a pig and murdering a human. One may say that pigs are edible and overpopulated, but so are humans. One could say that humans feel pain when killed, but--I hate to break it to you--so do pigs.

Please do not give me your opinions. Everyone has to decide this for himself. ...unless you're offering neurological comparisons of humans and other mammals. But as for the morality of the affair, it is such that...well, let me be laconic: I don't give a freak what you think.

------------------
I don't know who first said "everyone's a critic," but I think it's a really stupid saying.

04-25-1999, 10:40 PM
The Supreme Court seems to believe that the Second Amendment only applies to Congress. This even from a case after the Fourteenth Amendment:
"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.'"
Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

To say that it isn't clear that the Second Amendment is not limited to the federal government will require some variety of an incorporation argument. I can't find the case that makes this argument. I can find a dissenting opinion suggesting that states can outlaw pistols, if they like. An argument that the Second Amendment applies also to states requires negating Supreme Court precedent describing militias as organized by states.
I'm missing how this is a murky issue - what argument suggests that the Second Amendment limits state governments?

Certainly, the Supreme Court would never negate a state gun law on federal grounds - the Supremes don't think they possess the power to negate state gun laws.

04-26-1999, 05:57 AM
[[To say that it isn't clear that the Second Amendment is not limited to the federal government will require some variety of an incorporation argument. I can't find the case that makes this argument.]]


How about that fact that the Court has incorporated every other personal right in the Bill of Rights, and that the 2d Amendment expressly grants rights to "the people" (just like those other rights that have been incorporated)?


[[An argument that the Second Amendment applies also to states requires negating Supreme Court precedent describing militias as organized by states.]]


No, it doesn't.


[[I'm missing how this is a murky issue - what argument suggests that the Second Amendment limits state governments?]]


The argument that the 2d Amendment grants an individual right to fireams, an argument which is unequivocally not frivolous and appears to tbe the much better reasoned one.


[[Certainly, the Supreme Court would never negate a state gun law on federal grounds - the Supremes don't think they possess the power to negate state gun laws.]]


There is nothing the least bit certain about that, to my knowledge -- have you any authority for that proposition (especially S.Ct. cases)?

04-26-1999, 09:44 AM
Nowhere did I say that athletes agree to kill and be killed. -- Pete

Pete - I know what you meant to say, but what you typed in your OP was:

Yes, people die playing sports. But it's CONSENSUAL. -- Pete

Yes, I purposely took the quote out of context, but it was to show that your original post was more rant than argument. When I, and others, read lines like those I and others highlighted, a big flashing light goes off that indicates "Rant in progress, do not take seriously".

Glad you're willing to reconsider your stance on human vs. animal death. That shows an open mind.

------------------
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once and you will suck forever.

04-26-1999, 09:50 AM
doesn't anyone realize that people killed each other for thousands of years before guns were invented?

possesion of a bomb is illegal to but that sure as hell didn't stop those kids in Colorado did it?

04-26-1999, 11:05 AM
"Those kids in Colorado" got those guns, and those bombs, and those crazy ideas somewhere.
Peace,
mangeorge

04-26-1999, 11:12 AM
My point was that if you make guns illegal, like bombs are, that the only people who will have guns are the criminals and not the people who might have one to defend themselves with. Outlawing guns will no more stop people from obtaining them than outlawing pot stops people from using it or age limits on liquor stops kids from getting drunk on prom night.

04-26-1999, 12:49 PM
I have heard that in Florida, they had to stop putting ad stickers on rental cars, because the criminals were targeting the tourists in the rental cars. Since you couldn't bring guns into Florida but the locals tended to have them it was safer to rob the obvious tourists.

Wasn't this debunked? I thought someone looked at the statistics and showed that tourists (and rental cars) were no more likely to be targeted by criminals in Florida than anyone else. Tourist-victims just got more press.

Consider Cervaise's statistic - it says that firearm-related deaths are lower in other countries - well of course they are. The question is, are total deaths lower?

Yes, absolutely. Even if you ignore all the gun related deaths, we would still be one of the most violent countries in the industrialized world. Our non-gun-related murder rate is two or three times higher than the total murder rate of any other comparable nation.*


*source: David Kennedy, senior researcher, Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

------------------
"For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes" - Francis Bacon

04-26-1999, 02:50 PM
Big Iron, where do you find support for your proposition that the Bill of Rights grants the people rights? My understanding of our Constitution teaches that the Bill of Rights exists to safe-guard rights that we already possess. Therefore, the Second Amendment does not grant a right to bear arms, but limits the federal governemnt's ability to infringe a right to bear arms. (which was the point of me quoting Presser v. Illinois)

I think the idea that the Second Amendment grants a right is worse than frivolous, it is fundamentally misguided. The idea that the people greated a government that possesses the power to enumerate are rights is counter to the idea that the federal government is one of limited power. The people created a government and placed limits on that government's power. It didn't give us power - it should possess little power to limit us. (strangely, I think that people should be turning to their state governments if they wish to ban guns - I think that state governments have that power).

I don't think that it is an easy argument that the Second Amendment has been incorporated against the states simply because other amendments have been incorporated. The Second Amendment contains an implicit reference to states with its mention of a militia. The incorporated rights do not contain such implicit references.

For the proposition that the Supremes don't think they can limit state gun laws based on the Second Amendment, I can only find a dissenting opinion, but I failed to find a different view in Supreme Court opinions.

"There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted.
There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not
require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police."
dissent by Justice Douglas in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972)

Big Iron, if you think that I am wrong, please give me a bit more to go on than simply telling me I'm wrong. If you wish me to rethink me views, it would help to have something as a comparison.

04-27-1999, 08:20 PM
[[doesn't anyone realize that people killed each other for thousands of years before guns were invented?]] Sammy44


Of course everyone does -- it's just a real lot easier to do with guns.

04-27-1999, 08:25 PM
[[My point was that if you make guns illegal, like bombs are, that the only people who will have guns are the criminals and not the people who might have one to defend themselves with.]] Sammy44


Well, fewer criminal will have guns, and the cops will still have them. Not that I advocate outlawing guns.

[[ Outlawing guns will no more stop people from obtaining them than outlawing pot stops people from using it or age limits on liquor stops kids from getting drunk on prom night.]]


It sure cuts down on it, though.

04-27-1999, 08:57 PM
[[Big Iron, where do you find support for your proposition that the Bill of Rights grants the people rights?]] Robb

My copy says that "the people" have a "right" to "keep and bear arms" that may not be "infringed." What's yours say?


[[ My understanding of our Constitution teaches that the Bill of Rights exists to safe-guard rights that we already possess.]]


That's one way to look at it, although not a very meaningful way in light of how the courts have interpreted it, and practical reality in general.


[[ Therefore, the Second Amendment does not grant a right to bear arms, but limits the federal governemnt's ability to infringe a right to bear arms.]]


Kind of a meaningless distinction, don't you think? The 2d Amendment recognizes the existence of such a right. At the time, the English common-law also granted such a right (completely apart from belonging to any militia), and it is pretty well settled that a big part of adopting a Bill of Rights was to enshine many of those common-law rights.


[[I think the idea that the Second Amendment grants a right is worse than frivolous, it is fundamentally misguided. ]]


You are free to maintain that the 2d Amendment grants no personal right to keep and bear arms, and still be considered a reasonable person. You are, while remaining reasonable, free to hold that recognizing such a right is an irresponsible decision by society, and/or that any such a right is an anachronism in today's world and that the 2d Amendment ought to be abolished. If you maintain, however, that it is frivolous to argue that the 2d Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms, you are simply wrong and will accomplish nothing more than to make yourself sound like an idiot.


[[The people created a government and placed limits on that government's power. It didn't give us power - it should possess little power to limit us.]]


Sure, fine, all well and good in the abstract.

[[ (strangely, I think that people should be turning to their state governments if they wish to ban guns - I think that state governments have that power).]]


It was clear from your prior post.


[[I don't think that it is an easy argument that the Second Amendment has been incorporated against the states simply because other amendments have been incorporated.]]


Sure it is -- especially when EVERY OTHER ONE has been, and without a whole lot of controversy anymore.


[[ The Second Amendment contains an implicit reference to states with its mention of a militia. The incorporated rights do not contain such implicit references.]]

That is a good point (except for the fact that it doesn't necessarily mean "State" as one of the several States, rather than as a general synonymn for the goverment; after all, the federal government got to command the militias when they were needed to defend the Nation) -- however, it doesn't expressly say that the right should be limited by the stated purpose. It is clear, for instance, that the main purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech, but most people (including the members of the Supreme Court) do not restrict it to that purpose. Again, the common-law right was not limited by militia concerns.


[[For the proposition that the Supremes don't think they can limit state gun laws based on the Second Amendment, I can only find a dissenting opinion, but I failed to find a different view in Supreme Court opinions.]]


So, in other words, we have no idea at this point.


[["There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted.
There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not
require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police."
dissent by Justice Douglas in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) ]]

You notice he didn't get majority support for that proposition.

[[Big Iron, if you think that I am wrong, please give me a bit more to go on than simply telling me I'm wrong. ]]

Start by reading "The Embarassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale Law Journal 637-59 (I can't link it now for some reason, but it's readily found online with a modest effort), an outstanding article by liberal, gun-not-liking U. of Texas Law Professor Sanford Levinson. He covers the whole issue very thoroughly.

04-27-1999, 09:54 PM
Big Iron, Sandy Levinson I might listen to, you're not giving me much else to follow.

Part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to enshrine rights found in the English common law, yet you can't believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights? It enshrines rights we have at the same time it grants rights?
The way I see it, the way I end up looking like an idiot is by not walking away.

04-28-1999, 02:08 AM
[[Big Iron, Sandy Levinson I might listen to, you're not giving me much else to follow.]]

Probably because you're not real bright. The Supreme Court has never held that the 2d Amendment provides no individual right to firearms, nor has it hinted as much. The express language of the 2d Amendment recignizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The history of the 2d Amendment and the English common law support the finding of a 2d Amendment right to firearms. If you can't see that that is a reasonable basis for believing that the 2d Amendment protects an individual right to firearms, then I doubt you have sufficient mental capacity to be engaged in this discussion.


[[Part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to enshrine rights found in the English common law, yet you can't believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights?]]


As a practical matter, it is a pointless distinction. Are you related to Blando, by any chance?


[[The way I see it, the way I end up looking like an idiot is by not walking away.]]


I'll really miss you, Trollstein.

04-28-1999, 02:34 AM
quote (ExTank):
Excuse me, but what country do you live in?

Japan, why?

quote (ExTank) You, me, and any other natural born citizen were born with the right to keep and bear arms.

Someday, young man, you will learn that the world is a very big place.

And personally, I enjoy living in a country where the murder rate is less than a tenth that of the U.S., the murder rate by juveniles is less than a hundredth that of the U.S., and the mere sound of a gunshot makes the national news.

04-28-1999, 05:12 PM
This is a little off the main platform, but this just occurred to me. I am aware of many child endangerment laws, and I would think that one would seriously endanger the life of their child by owning and keeping a gun on their premises. I know that most parents that decide to keep a firearm usually take safety courses, etc. But the kids don't go with them, and many times the parents never tell their kids that they OWN a gun. So when these kids find the guns...have not the parents put their child at risk? Has anyone tried to use this as a gun control platform (in Congress)?
I am not on an anti-gun bandwagon, but I do think it is irresponsible to own a firearm while housing children.

------------------
Have you hugged your mustelid today?

04-28-1999, 08:09 PM
Dear Ibroc:
Personally, Ibroc I like living in a country where I can do what I damn well please as long as I don't hurt anyone.
If guns are outlawed, only the criminals and the government will have guns.
And the government scares me a helluva a lot more than the crooks.

04-28-1999, 08:09 PM
Dear Ibroc:
Personally, Ibroc I like living in a country where I can do what I damn well please as long as I don't hurt anyone.
If guns are outlawed, only the criminals and the government will have guns.
And the government scares me a helluva a lot more than the crooks.

04-28-1999, 08:10 PM
Sorry for posting that note twice. I made a mistake.

04-29-1999, 12:46 AM
Sorry I dropped out of the debate for a bit; I was distracted...

ManGeorge: I wasn't aware that the NRA was for the legalization of marijuana. If they are, as you claim, then the only thing I can think of is that the NRA, as much as a proponent of the right to keep and bear, is as much a proponent of personal responsibility/personal accountability.
I had a longer post written when A-O-Hell went down on me and I lost everything.
The only other thing I will respond to tonight is the presumptive IBROC, who chimed in with:

Excuse me, but what country do you live in?[/i\ (me)

[i]Japan, why?

quote (ExTank) You, me, and any other natural born citizen were born with the right to keep and bear arms.

Someday, young man, you will learn that the world is a very big place.

And personally, I enjoy living in a country where the murder rate is less than a tenth that of the U.S., the murder rate by juveniles is less than a hundredth that of the U.S., and the mere sound of a gunshot makes the national news.

Do you presume I am some trailerpark redneck who's never been further than the local Wal-Mart? Lemme give you the World Tour of ExTank: Germany, Italy, France, Switzerland, England, Holland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar and Haiti. In every one of those countries, I surrendered many rights that I hold dear to me, and yet never felt the loss of them as I am a law-abiding individual that respects the rights of others to live as they wish so long as it doesn't cause harm to others.
Okay, Haiti scared the shit out of me.
Ibroc, are you stationed in Japan with the military, or there doing work for your employer? Or have you moved to Japan in a conscious move away from America? Or are you a Japanese citizen of Japan adding your two Yen to this discussion? If the latter, go drink some sake and shut the fuck up.
Because my first gut reaction to your post was this:
"Were you born a coward, or did you grow into it?"
The reason you evoked this initial response is because I perceived a certain smug attitude in you touting of Japan's superiority. But you are in no way as "free" in Japan as you are in America; it's like saying England was a democracy after John of Anjou got his ass whipped at Runnymede. And if you have sacrificed your Bill of Rights for the "security" of a marginally democratic Corporate Regime, then you would well and truly deserve the appellation "Coward".
If you had bothered to read my previous posts, comparisons between different societies, with their separate histories and cultures, is largely meaningless.
Are there aspects of Japanese society and culture that America could emulate to better herself? Most certainly; I'd say there are dozens of different cultures on this planet that America has already taken the best of and made her own.
We don't live in Japan, and we don't have a history anything at all like that of Japan's.
So Japan's solutions probably won't work here in America.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"Of course, feel free to fall on your sword anytime the urge strikes you."

04-29-1999, 01:16 AM
Ex Tank;
Good to see you back.
One little thing;
I didn'n claim that the NRA was for legalization, I meant that they were for prohibition.
I don't have this on good authority, I just read it somewhere. Might easily be B.S.
Peace,
mangeorge

04-29-1999, 10:53 AM
[[Personally, Ibroc I like living in a country where I can do what I damn well please as long as I don't hurt anyone.]] Peyote Coyote


Unless, of course, you're a pot smoker, or a homosexual, or ...


[[If guns are outlawed, only the criminals and the government will have guns.]]


True, but there will be fewer criminals with guns.

05-21-1999, 04:59 PM
Here's my two cents-

I hate guns. I think they are killing machines, and useful only for destructive, damaging purposes. However, I also recognise that my morality is not the morality of the masses. In my opinion, you can do whatever you want, as long as you aren't interfering with any else's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

So, use your guns responsibly and no problem. But there is a problem. As Zyada noted about halfway through this thread, Americans are lazy. And not only that, we are focused on self-gratification and we are unable to accept the fact that we are responsible for our actions. If a person refuses to accept the consequences of having hot coffee in a moving vehicle, they can sue McDonalds. How can we expect the same nation of people to accept the consequences of pulling a trigger? Guns are a symptom of the disease, it allows one disassociation from the intended targets. That is the true issue here. If we took responsibility, and taught that to our children, these school shootings would have never taken place. But it is too easy - You piss me off, I demand the instant gratification of revenge. Sad world.

05-21-1999, 06:28 PM
One thing that everyone seems to be missing here is that the founding fathers did not address the issue of the right to bear arms in the Constitution to assure target practice or hunting, or even crime deterrence. They wanted the citizenry to have guns in order to protect against tyranny. The "arms" envisioned by the founding fathers were to be used against those trying to take away the rights of US citizens.

So guns (and ammo) do indeed Kill people. That it what many are designed for. No one understood this better than the British in the 18th century.

As for ammo restriction, gun registration, safety courses, etc. They all have one problem that flies in the face of the constitution: the whole point was that an armed citizenry would prevent despotism, tryranny and the dissilution of our freedoms. If you puts the decision of who will own a gun into the government's hands, then the protection is gone. The tyrant decides whether or not the "freedom fighters" can have guns.

For example, let's take the safety course Idea (and this is what happened with hunting courses in NY state.) You simply cut the courses down to one per year, ten people are allowed to attend, it costs $20,000 and it will be held in Northern Alaska in January. Oh, and el presidente is annexing public companies, abolishing property rights and taking your wife. What are you gonna do about it, Mr. Citizen? Call 911?

05-21-1999, 08:22 PM
Thor's got the thought right as for the Constitutional right to bear arms (as do others, but I'm just looking at the new input on an old thread) and Tabu I think has scratched the surface of the problem. Could it be that the American people as a whole are just incompetent to exercise the freedoms contemplated by our Constitution?

Regards

05-24-1999, 03:50 AM
" ... and nothin' comes for free ... "

05-24-1999, 11:46 AM
I think that one should excercise caution when making statements such as "the American People" and, "we as a society" when it comes to issues of irresponsibility.

Not only does it smack of an effite snobbery, but it is useless on a rhetorical basis for establishing a public policy.

I would remind you of the old Joke: All fisherman are liars, except for me and you..and I am not so sure about you.

I live in Littleton Colorado and have heard these statements used ad nauseum. "we as a society" should be stricken from our debates.

05-29-1999, 12:34 PM
When I was younger and more naive, I used to think, "Well, the least they should do is to make it as EXPENSIVE to own a gun as it is a car." As in: MANDATORY: Insurance, uninsured gun owner insurance, liability, accident, loss. theft etc... Also, tax everything & anything to do with guns...You know: the sale, yearly ownership taxes, ammo, cleaning target practice..
Then add on license & registration fees, a Dept of Guns & Ammo (like DMV) and voila!...Then I realized...the Foundind Fathers were sharp old revolutionaries...We don't want Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon, or Bob (limp) Dole, et al to have an army at their command unless we (you know, the people) have at least a chance of defending ourselves. Then of course Rodney King...so we add to the Govt/Military...the dirty Cops (nothing to fear from cops who understand their role, but the uppity ones)...Then we saw the Riots Following the Rodney King Beatings...Now, Do we want the aforementioned, and criminals to be the ONLY ones with access to guns...?

No easy way out of this one gang...

BTW, I don't never have owned a gun...I hope to leave the country before I feel that I need one to be safe...

La Voice

05-31-1999, 02:38 AM
<Picture>posted 04-22-99 07:02 PM <Picture: Click Here to See the Profile for Cervaise>
------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
be honest enough to present an intellectually honest argument
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, how's this?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Telegraph in England:

There are an estimated 200 million guns in America -- where only seven states ban the carrying of concealed weapons -- and the differences between it and other countries are stark: in 1996 handguns were used to murder 30 people in Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany and 9,390 in America.

Given that it switches a discussion of violence to a discussion of a particular tool of violence, this argument is either inherently dishonest, naive, or trivial.

06-01-1999, 02:12 PM
Two thoughts:

1) Let's say we have a scenario that there are 10 people in a room. Either everyone can have a gun or only one person gets a gun and that person is not you. Which situation do you want (i.e. everyone has a gun or only one person has a gun).

2) For those that are opposed to guns and want them banned and removed from homes. Would you put a sign in your yard or wear a button that proclaims you as being gun-free? Would you let everyone know that you do not have a gun in your home or on your person?

Jeffery T.

- Not a gun nut but sure do want to have the right to own one.

06-01-1999, 02:34 PM
1) Let's say we have a scenario that there are 10 people in a room. Either everyone can have a gun or only one person gets a gun and that person is not you. Which situation do you want (i.e. everyone has a gun or only one person has a gun).

That leaves me 8 human shields. Not a problem.

2) For those that are opposed to guns and want them banned and removed from homes. Would you put a sign in your yard or wear a button that proclaims you as being gun-free? Would you let everyone know that you do not have a gun in your home or on your person?

Why on earth, or under what oddball square-planet-where-everything-is-the-opposite-of-earth circumstances, would anyone be expected or required to do any such thing? Do you came from a strange land where presenting false choices results in winning an argument?

Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to put up a sign saying you do have a gun, whether you do or don't?

06-01-1999, 03:51 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Let's say we have a scenario that there are 10 people in a room. Either everyone can have a gun or only one person gets a gun and that person is not you. Which situation do you want (i.e. everyone has a gun or only one person has a gun).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That leaves me 8 human shields. Not a problem. - Pldennison

It could be a problem if the one gun contains more than 8 bullets.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) For those that are opposed to guns and want them banned and removed from homes. Would you put a sign in your yard or wear a button that proclaims you as being gun-free? Would you let everyone know that you do not have a gun in your home or on your person?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pldennison writes --

Why on earth, or under what oddball square-planet-where-everything-is-the-opposite-of-earth circumstances, would anyone be expected or required to do any such thing? Do you came from a strange land where presenting false choices results in winning an argument?

Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to put up a sign saying you do have a gun, whether you do or don't? --

The point is the reason one would not put such a sign in their yard, is it is the chance that the occupant of the house has a gun is what keeps the intruders away.

If all guns were confiscated, as they were in Austraila, then the intruders would be quite certain that all occupants are unarmed and therefore not deterred from robbing the house.

If one believes that guns are the problem and are proud they are gun-free then why don't they let everyone know.

Jeffery T.

06-01-1999, 04:09 PM
The point is the reason one would not put such a sign in their yard, is it is the chance that the occupant of the house has a gun is what keeps the intruders away.

Well, then, given your premises, the obvious answer for eliminating crime is to post a sign on every house in the country to the effect that the owners are armed, whether in reality they are or not.

06-01-1999, 05:12 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is the reason one would not put such a sign in their yard, is it is the chance that the occupant of the house has a gun is what keeps the intruders away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pldennison writes :

Well, then, given your premises, the obvious answer for eliminating crime is to post a sign on every house in the country to the effect that the owners are armed, whether in reality they are or not. --

That is not a bad idea Pldennison. The fear of possibly entering an occupied house in which the owner has a gun, is probably what causes most burglars to target empty houses.

The signs would not totally eliminate crime, but it might cause the criminal to think twice before entering.

Glad you agree with me Pldennison.

Jeffery T.

-- Do you really want our government and criminals (is there a difference) to be the only ones with guns?

06-02-1999, 06:21 AM
I don't agree with you; I was attempting to expose the underlying stupidity of your premises. I don't have a gun, nor will I at any foreseeable point in the future, but my home hasn't been robbed. Know why? Because I chose to live in a low-crime neighborhood with a decent police presense, I lock my doors, and I leave appropriate lighting on.

Criminals tend to target empty houses because it reduces their chance of being caught. The point is so obvious I don't know why you'd introduce the threat of being shot as a possible factor.

06-02-1999, 08:21 AM
Pldennison writes:

I don't agree with you; I was attempting to expose the underlying stupidity of your premises. I don't have a gun, nor will I at any foreseeable point in the future, but my home hasn't been robbed. Know why? Because I chose to live in a low-crime neighborhood with a decent police presense, I lock my doors, and I leave appropriate lighting on.
Criminals tend to target empty houses because it reduces their chance of being caught. The point is so obvious I don't know why you'd introduce the threat of being shot as a possible factor. --

You call my premises stupid, yet you offer no "proof". You state that your house has never been broken into, and give the reasons of a low crime area, police, door locks, etc. Then you state that it is obvious that a buglar targets empty homes because of not wanting to get caught and that being shot is not even a factor.

I will give that not being caught can and does play a role in the selection of a home, but numerous times one or more people have broken into a home and been met with an owner with a gun.

I too chose a low crime area, police, door locks, lights, etc. But I also have a gun, just in case the above items do not deter a bandit.

It sure is easy to say a point is obvious or stupid, but it seems to be hard for you to give facts or anything more than your personal experience.

Jeffery T.

06-02-1999, 08:52 AM
You call my premises stupid, yet you offer no "proof".

Nice to see the classic usenet debating tactics live on this MB as well.

You state that your house has never been broken into, and give the reasons of a low crime area, police, door locks, etc.

Yep. Oh, and I don't leave valuable things sitting where they are visible from street level, too. My entertainment center is in an upstairs room, right below our bedroom.

Then you state that it is obvious that a buglar targets empty homes because of not wanting to get caught and that being shot is not even a factor.

"Let's see, should I rob this house where everyone is home, and I will almost certainly be apprehended, identified and imprisoned; or this one where nobody is at home?"

A nuclear arsenal won't help you if you aren't home to use it.


I will give that not being caught can and does play a role in the selection of a home,

It's almost certainly the primary consideration. It's called "risk assessment"; see above.

but numerous times one or more people have broken into a home and been met with an owner with a gun.

Is this that "proof" you were discussing earlier?

I too chose a low crime area, police, door locks, lights, etc. But I also have a gun, just in case the above items do not deter a bandit.

Gee, I bet you live in one of those states where you can use lethal force even if not threatened with same. Some people get their rocks off that way, I hear.

It sure is easy to say a point is obvious or stupid, but it seems to be hard for you to give facts or anything more than your personal experience.

As opposed to presenting false choices like putting a sign on your home stating you don't have a gun. Say, are your guns programmed to shoot people who enter when you aren't there?

06-02-1999, 10:01 AM
It seems that Pldennison does not like my thoughts on the matter of having a gun in the home and the role that it plays in protection.

Here are some statistics that I have found on the matter.

According to Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, on the day that the Columbine Shootings occurred, guns were used for the purposes of self-defense nearly 7,000 times.

"John Lott teaches criminal deterrence, law and economics at the University of Chicago. His book, More Guns, Less Crime, contains a comprehensive and scientific study of the effects of gun control on crime rates. The results have made Lott a great enemy of the gun-grabbers. Lott's research found that states that ban carrying concealed weapons have murder rates 127 percent higher than states with laws that allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns for protection.
Why? Because murderers, rapists and other violent criminals actually put thought into targeting their potential victims. That's right. Every day, predators choose their targets based on several variables. Chief among those variables is the target's vulnerability. If the predators believe their prey might have a gun, they seek other prey." Pulled from Neal Boortz Column.

"Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi conducted a three-year study for the National Institute of Justice on how criminals acquire and use handguns. They found:

* 81 percent of the imprisoned criminals agreed that the "smart criminal" will attempt to find out if a potential victim is armed.

* 57 percent of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.

* 39 percent did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

* 69 percent of "handgun predators" personally knew other criminals who were scared off or shot at by armed victims." Same Boortz Column.

I do not have a problem with Pldennison jor anyone else not having guns. But for my family's safety, I want to be able to own a gun. Not just a hunting rifle or a target pistol, but a handgun.

I am not asking for assault weapons, just a handgun to defend myself.

By the way, Pldennison, I will use whatever force neccessary to protect my family. This does include killing an intruder.

Jeffery T.

06-02-1999, 10:48 AM
It seems that Pldennison does not like my thoughts on the matter of having a gun in the home and the role that it plays in protection.

It seems that you make too many assumptions based on my questioning your idea of requiring non-gun-owners to place a sign on their homes advertising that fact. It was a stupid premise and I called you on it. Get over it.

You may own whatever weapon you think you need. I don't care if you have a Sherman Tank for protection. If I am a criminal, I will simply case your home until you and your family leave, then rob you anyway.

By the way, Pldennison, I will use whatever force neccessary to protect my family. This does include killing an intruder.

I assume, then, that when he or she turns out to have been unarmed, you will be willing to pay the damages awarded his or her family in the inevitable civil lawsuit?

06-02-1999, 11:59 AM
Part of Orginal Post by Me:

2) For those that are opposed to guns and want them banned and removed from homes. Would you put a sign in your yard or wear a button that proclaims you as being gun-free? Would you let everyone know that you do not have a gun in your home or on your person?
--

Pldennison writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that Pldennison does not like my thoughts on the matter of having a gun in the home and the role that it plays in protection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that you make too many assumptions based on my questioning your idea of requiring non-gun-owners to place a sign on their homes advertising that fact. It was a stupid premise and I called you on it. Get over it. --

Based upon my above cut and paste, I never mentioned requiring non gun owners to put up signs. I asked if any of them would be willing to do so. Please do not change my words to make them fit your arguments.

Pldennison then writes:

You may own whatever weapon you think you need. I don't care if you have a Sherman Tank for protection. If I am a criminal, I will simply case your home until you and your family leave, then rob you anyway.
----

I am not concerned about someone robbing my house when I am not home, that is one reason I have homeowner's insurance. My reason to own a gun is to protect my family when we are home.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, Pldennison, I will use whatever force neccessary to protect my family. This does include killing an intruder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- StrTrkr777

Pldennison writes:

I assume, then, that when he or she turns out to have been unarmed, you will be willing to pay the damages awarded his or her family in the inevitable civil lawsuit?

If someone enters my home to do my family harm or steal its possesions and does not have a weapon, then I am going to kick the crap out of them. If, however, they do have a weapon, I will blow their freakin' head off. If I am arrested then so be it, I would rather die and protect my family than let someone harm them.

I also see that Pldennison did not want to comment on my statistics, but rather on my thoughts on the matter. Do you not believe the statistics Pldennison or since they disagree with your points do you choose to ignore them?

Jeffery T.

06-02-1999, 12:21 PM
I also see that Pldennison did not want to comment on my statistics, but rather on my thoughts on the matter. Do you not believe the statistics Pldennison or since they disagree with your points do you choose to ignore them?

Neither. You don't know what my complete opinion is on gun ownership and control, nor, I daresay, does anyone else on this board, because I judiciously avoid offering it. I began by addressing your preposterous proposal regarding placing signs on one's home; you took it farther than that.

If someone enters my home to do my family harm or steal its possesions and does not have a weapon, then I am going to kick the crap out of them. If, however, they do have a weapon, I will blow their freakin' head off.

Can we have a list of what qualifies as a "weapon"? I bet your list is real flexible, Mr. Itchy-Trigger-Finger, and probably includes crowbars, lockpicks and screwdrivers.

If I am arrested then so be it, I would rather die and protect my family than let someone harm them.

Great! After you're arrested or dead, they're there for the picking! Bwaaaahahahahah!

06-02-1999, 03:10 PM
Phil - In GA, where both I and StrTrkr live (the reference to Neal Boortz was a dead giveaway), the law is written (interpreted?) so that one doesn't have to determine whether a home intruder is armed. Should you catch someone who has broken into your home, you may presume they intend to harm or kill you and may defend yourself accordingly. This has been consistently been upheld in court. The (only slightly) tongue in cheek interpretation is "If you shoot someone on your doorstep, whether or not you go to jail depends on which way they fall." As you indicated, though, it does not preclude a wrongful death civil suit.

Another "fun fact" not truly intended to clarify anything.

------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

06-02-1999, 05:19 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone enters my home to do my family harm or steal its possesions and does not have a weapon, then I am going to kick the crap out of them. If, however, they do have a weapon, I will blow their freakin' head off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pldennison writes:

Can we have a list of what qualifies as a "weapon"? I bet your list is real flexible, Mr. Itchy-Trigger-Finger, and probably includes crowbars, lockpicks and screwdrivers.
-------

A weapon is anything that an intruder might use to do me or may family harm. I will not hesitate to use deadly force in protection of my family.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I am arrested then so be it, I would rather die and protect my family than let someone harm them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pldennison writes:

Great! After you're arrested or dead, they're there for the picking! Bwaaaahahahahah!
----------------

I feel sorry for your family if you would not choose to die to protect them. If someone enters my house intent to do harm to my family, I will shoot first and worry about the legal consequences later.

In your past messages you have referred to my proposal as preposterous and stupid. I thought this was a message board of intellectual discusion, but in my experience when one uses the word stupid to refer to an idea, it is usually out of being able to discuss the idea logically and rationally.

My point was if I believe in my country I would have no hessitation in putting a flag in front of my house, if I believe in Christ I have no problem in wearing a cross. If I believe in a cause then I promote it by showing my support for it. So if I believed that ordinary citizens should not have guns then I should show my support by stating publically that I am gun free.

As for you ascertion that the gun is not a deterant, and since you have stated that you do not own a gun, then why don't you post such a sign and then let us know what happens. (If the idea is so stupid.)

Jeffery T.

p.s. Thanks for the legal info. Dr. Jackson.

06-02-1999, 10:06 PM
Forget legal justification.
Forget moral justification.
According to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, guns kept in the home for protection are forty-three times more likely to kill a family member than an assailant.
How can you MENTALLY justify having a gun in the home?

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

06-02-1999, 11:04 PM
The actual statistic is "more likely to kill a friend, family member, or acquaintance than to kill an intruder". There were 9 justifiable homicides, divided by 12 accidents, 42 criminal homicides, and 333 suicides ("family member").

The "acquaintance" category includes such people as rival drug dealers. Obviously, the predominant statistic here is that a gun is a very popular instrument for suicide.

Aside from this, unless it has been a lifelong dream of yours to kill an intruder, the statistic is not very meaningful since it counts only KILLING intruders. Using a gun to only wound or even discourage an attacker gets you no credit with the New England Journal of Medicine.

06-03-1999, 12:21 AM
A guy who lived next door to me, when I lived in Bakersfield, once threatened to blow my head off because I didn't own a gun.
I promise, that's all there was to it. We weren't argueing or even unfriendly towards each other before this. Just civil.
Blow by blow;

I came out of my apt. and he was standing there playing with a pistol. I kind of ignored him and headed to my car.
He says "Hey, George, bet you wish you had one of these."
Me; "I've never felt the need to own a gun, Nathan"
He; "I'll blow your fuckin head of, man. Then we'll see who needs a gun."
I got in my car and left.

What does mean? Probably nothing.
But I did feel sorry for his family.
Peace,
mangeorge




------------------
Work like you don't need the money.....
Love like you've never been hurt.....
Dance like nobody's watching! Source???

06-03-1999, 06:40 AM
Can we have a list of what qualifies as a "weapon"? I bet your list is real flexible, Mr.
Itchy-Trigger-Finger, and probably includes crowbars, lockpicks and screwdrivers.
-------

A weapon is anything that an intruder might use to do me or may family harm. I will not
hesitate to use deadly force in protection of my family.

That's what I thought. It appears that for every responsible and intelligent gun owner, there are five guys just waiting for someone to break in to their house so they can shoot them. Few things entertain me more than when one of these self-styled Charles Bronsons gets shot with his own gun.


I feel sorry for your family if you would not choose to die to protect them.

What good am I to my wife if I'm dead?

If I believe
in a cause then I promote it by showing my support for it. So if I believed that ordinary
citizens should not have guns then I should show my support by stating publically that
I am gun free.

If you can come up with one single post anywhere where I have stated that ordinary citizens do not and should not have the right to own guns, I will instantly send you a check for $100. And you're gonna have a tought time, because in two other threads, I have vehemently defended the idea that the 2nd Amendment confers such a right on all the people. I choose not to exercise it.

As for you ascertion that the gun is not a deterant, and since you have stated that
you do not own a gun, then why don't you post such a sign and then let us know what
happens. (If the idea is so stupid.)

Better idea--why don't I just rob your home despite your guns?

06-03-1999, 07:52 AM
As for you ascertion that the gun is not a deterant, and since you have stated that
you do not own a gun, then why don't you post such a sign and then let us know what
happens. (If the idea is so stupid.)

Oh, yes, BTW, I also never asserted that the gun was not a deterrent, merely that most criminals will decide what homes to enter and which not to based primarily on the likelihood of the occupants being at home.

Furthermore, if I am smart enough to come up with the idea of putting a sign on my home that says I have a gun, whether I do or don't, I'm sure that people much smarter than I am have thought of the same thing. The same people smart enought to put up signs about dogs and alarm systems, most likely.

Finally, if I were a criminal, and I did have a gun, and you confronted me with your own, you have to assume I know how to use mine at least as well as you do. Ergo, I, the criminal, would probably simply shoot you first.

06-03-1999, 12:26 PM
I didn't read every post on this thread ( I don't have that much time) but here are my thoughts...
I think the intent of gun control laws should be to keep guns out of the reach of children. People can say that we should focus on why kids are angry and all that. But we know that if kids didn't have guns, they would invariably vent their anger in a safer way (no weapon is more dangerous than a gun) that would kill a lot less people, if any at all.
Is the solution the banning of all guns? No, of course not. When the criminals have guns, that's not exactly fair. But there is no reason for any civillian to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. The risks far outweigh the benefits. I don't see a huge problem with concealed weapons, because the people who do are well-tested, mentally and physically first. They shouldn't be in places where lots of children will be exposed to them though, i.e. schools.
Everyone who loves guns talks about the sanctity of the second amendment... well I have an idea... AMEND the second amendment. We've amended and repealed other amendments, and the 2nd isn't immune to this. My proposed amendment:
"Amendment XXVII: The right of every citizen of the United States ,not convicted by the federal or state government of a firearm felony and above 21 years of age, to possess a single manual-fire arm shall not be infringed upon. However, the states may ban a person from possessing firearms if that person is determined to be mentally unsound."
It needs a little work, but this would sufficiently allow Congress to make laws banning possession of semi-automatic and automatic weapons, make exemptions for hunters and collectors, etc.

06-03-1999, 03:53 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can we have a list of what qualifies as a "weapon"? I bet your list is real flexible, Mr.
Itchy-Trigger-Finger, and probably includes crowbars, lockpicks and screwdrivers.
-------
A weapon is anything that an intruder might use to do me or may family harm. I will not
hesitate to use deadly force in protection of my family.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pldenison writes:

That's what I thought. It appears that for every responsible and intelligent gun owner, there are five guys just waiting for someone to break in to their house so they can shoot them. Few things entertain me more than when one of these self-styled Charles Bronsons gets shot with his own gun.

------------
I do not sit around waiting for someone to break into my house so that I can shoot them. If I wanted that I would post the no gun sign to try to lure someone in. My statement is that if someone ever does break into my house, and I hope it never happens, I am prepared to use whatever force necessary.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel sorry for your family if you would not choose to die to protect them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pldennison writes:

What good am I to my wife if I'm dead?

-----------

What good are you to your wife if you are sitting back while she is raped or killed?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for you ascertion that the gun is not a deterant, and since you have stated that
you do not own a gun, then why don't you post such a sign and then let us know what
happens. (If the idea is so stupid.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pldennison writes:

Better idea--why don't I just rob your home despite your guns?

-------

Fine by me. However, bring a weapon and face the consequences. Leave your weapon at home and I'll have a good time beating you till the police arrive. (I hope it takes them a while.)

06-03-1999, 04:26 PM
tetzel1517 writes:

..snip.. Everyone who loves guns talks about the sanctity of the second amendment... well I have an idea... AMEND the second amendment. We've amended and repealed other amendments, and the 2nd isn't immune to this. My proposed amendment:
"Amendment XXVII: The right of every citizen of the United States ,not convicted by the federal or state government of a firearm felony and above 21 years of age, to possess a single manual-fire arm shall not be infringed upon. ...snip....

--------

Why the age of 21? Men are old enough to register for the draft at 18. In the military 18 year olds are given guns. So if someone has a house and a family but is not 21, they should still be denied a gun? Why not 18? Why not 25? If we are arbitrarily going to pick an age, why 21? I remember when I was 21, I was more mature than at 18 but much less than at 25 and much much less than at 30 and above.

In the case of the Columbine shooting, the guys were not of legal age to buy guns so they got friends who were. If you set the age at 21 there is nothing stopping them from getting an older person to buy the guns.

Why don't we blame the people pulling the triggers and not the law abidding gun owners or the guns themselves?

Jeffery T.

Gun related quotes from Neal Boortz's web site.

* "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject."
* "A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone."
* "Smith & Wesson!! The original point & click interface."
* "If guns cause crime then pencils must cause misspelled words."
* "If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."
* "Those who trade liberty for security, have neither."
* "What part of 'shall not be infringed on' don't you understand?"
* "The second Amendment is in place in case they ignore all the others."
* "64,999,987 Firearms owners killed no one yesterday"
* "This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."

That last quotation? Actually, it was some character named Adolf Hitler. He said it in 1935 after Germany instituted strict gun control laws. When they came for the Jews, the Jews were unarmed.

06-03-1999, 04:33 PM
tetzel1517:
I think the intent of gun control laws should be to keep guns out of the reach of children. People can say that we should focus on why kids are angry and all that. But we know that if kids didn't have guns, they would invariably vent their anger in a safer way (no weapon is more dangerous than a gun) that would kill a lot less people, if any at all.

Your logic escapes me, I'm afraid. The root of the problem, as it appears to me, is people's lack of respect for the lives of others. To suggest a "less deadly" approach is absurd. Would you rather they choked each other? Pipe bombs, perhaps?

A responsible individual knows full well the harm a gun can inflict. A responsible individual with a gun is no more dangerous than an irresponsible individual without one.

06-04-1999, 06:11 AM
Pldenison writes:

That's what I thought. It appears that for every responsible and intelligent gun owner,
there are five guys just waiting for someone to break in to their house so they can
shoot them. Few things entertain me more than when one of these self-styled Charles
Bronsons gets shot with his own gun.

------------
I do not sit around waiting for someone to break into my house so that I can shoot
them. If I wanted that I would post the no gun sign to try to lure someone in. My
statement is that if someone ever does break into my house, and I hope it never
happens, I am prepared to use whatever force necessary.

You got from "they" to "you" very quickly. I notice you backed off on your assertion that I don't believe in the right to gun ownership by private citizens. Or you still want a chance to be wrong about something else later?

Pldennison writes:

What good am I to my wife if I'm dead?

-----------

What good are you to your wife if you are sitting back while she is raped or killed?

So, now we've gone from burglary to raping and killing. Wow, if you change the circumstances, you can win any argument!!

Pldennison writes:

Better idea--why don't I just rob your home despite your guns?

-------

Fine by me. However, bring a and face the consequences. Leave your weapon
at home and I'll have a good time beating you till the police arrive. (I hope it takes
them a while.)

Of course, you wouldn't be home at the time of the robbery, so your moronic statements here are for naught, although they put the lie to your claim above that you aren't just waiting eagerly for someone to try. You sound like a violent person, frankly. In any case, if you are home, I will simply shoot you before conducting the robbery.

06-04-1999, 02:28 PM
no c&p see above from pldennison

I will admit that you never said you were against gun ownership. I mistook what you stated earlier and I was wrong.

Well if someone comes into my house while I am home I am not going to just let them rob me until they threaten me or my family and then act. I will take necessary action.

If someone is breaking in and they have a gun and they are going to plan to shoot anyone on sight, then if I take no action I am dead and they can do what they like to my family. If I take action, I may still be dead but maybe they are too.

You have called my statements stupid, perposterous, and now moronic. You also say that I sound like a violent person. I am not. I have never been in a fight, I have never shot anyone, I have never acted in violence to anyone. By your same ascertions, since you choose to attack my words and call them stupid, but choose not to debate my points or my statistics, I say that you sound like a liberal. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong.

Also, considering you have "threatened" me by saying that you will rob my home and now that you will shoot me if I am at home, it sounds like you are the violent person and my actions would be justified.

Since I know the layout of my home even in the dark, I believe I will have the edge over you.

Jeffery

06-04-1999, 06:40 PM
That's not what Phil's trying to say.
He's saying that if any given burglar is already pre-disposed to armed robbery and is serious about not getting caught, all your preparation will be for naught.
But the smart burglar will wait until you are not home to rob you; in which case, all your preparation is for naught.
Typically, in a dark room in the middle of the night, with nothing much more to go on than a vague silhouette, by the time you can ascertain whether or not the intruder is armed, he may have already fired and killed you.
Your logical response to any intruder, by your own words, is to shoot first.
However, this leaves you criminally liable in some states, and civilly liable in most states.
The use of deadly force (and any use of a firearm other than throwing it at an intruder is deadly force) should never be taken lightly, or without serious forethought.
And if you are ever going to point a gun at an intruder or attacker, and you aren't willing or able to make good on the threat, then your own gun is more dangerous to you than the intruder.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"He was shot with his own gun? How embarassing."

06-07-1999, 05:19 PM
I must take issue with the theory that no lives are saved by private gun ownership in the USA. Without the freedom to develop science, medecine, and technology that our arms ensure, millions would have died and Billions would never have been born.

06-07-1999, 11:30 PM
I agree with your last post, ExTank, but consider the flip side of the equation.

There's a rather strident and overreaching pro-gun activist on the web (I've lost the URL, so I'm paraphrasing) who claims the following "argument" is incontestable justification for keeping a gun in the house...

He says that anyone who is opposed to private gun ownership or thinks it is unnecessary or unjustifiable should place a sign on their home that proclaims: "There are no guns in this household". The author contends that this would make you a prime candidate for armed robbery and the like, proving (in his mind, anyway) that arming oneself is simple common sense.

But I wonder...

It seems to me that the best strategy for an armed intruder in a home where he can't be sure the residents are unarmed would be to shoot anything that moves before he himself can be shot. After all, a criminal would by definition be less concerned about the legal niceties involved and most of them are sure they won't be caught anyway. If I were such a criminal, I'd probably be strongly disposed to shooting first, rendering the homeowner's weapons completely moot.

This situation is roughly analogous to Cold War nuclear brinkmanship, where a first strike is clearly the best strategy if there's a reasonable chance you can get them and their ability to retaliate before they do the same to you.

Putting up the sign in question might theoretically increase the risk to your property, but I contend it might also greatly reduce the risks to you and your family!

06-07-1999, 11:48 PM
Ibrock, I heard you can't even own a dog in Japan!

06-08-1999, 12:35 AM
Oops! It seems the "sign" topic has been brought up already (I confess I skipped a lot of posts). I obviously side with Pldennison over StrTrkr...