This is why I favor gun control

[B. Serum]

This is really more of a MPSIMS. I really don't want to start a great debate, but given the subject matter and the posts that will inevitably follow, I'm posting this here just to save the mods a little work. I'm not here to debate ammendments or the idea that only lawbreakers will have guns if gun ownership became against the law.

I just want to share two posts that epitomize the fear I have about guns in our society, especially in these conceal carry days. From another thread about using your car horn…

Originally Posted by pullin

In Texas, a horn means: "Please draw your weapon, as I wish to have a shootout". Trust me, I don't honk here. Ever.

and

Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

In some neighborhoods, honking can be suicide! I was living in Orlando, & on the Interstate. Guy cuts me off, & I blow my horn. He pulls a gun. Big automatic. I cut across 3 lanes of traffic sideways!!!! Damn tourists.

Armed and easily-offended is a dangerous combination.

How easy is it to get through a day without offending someone? How long until one of those people you offend in the real world has a figurative hair trigger as well as literal one?

[Duke of Rat]

I have lived in Texas my whole life and have never had a gun pulled on me for honking my horn or any other reason.

Maybe I'll just start ramming people who honk at me, that should put your mind at ease.

[Regallag_The_Axe]

Many people (including most of those in favor of conceal carry as well as those opposed to all gun ownership) seem to miss the point of the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I read this as meaning that the people have a right to own (not necisarrily carry) firearms to protect their right to revolution. It was this right that the USA (and other modern nation sates) was born from.

So let me ask you this, Hey you! (or anyone else who wants in on this debate):
Do you oppose the right to own firearms, or the (more debatable) right to carry them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Regallag_The_Axe

I read this as meaning that the people have a right to own (not necisarrily carry) firearms to protect their right to revolution. It was this right that the USA (and other modern nation sates) was born from.

Sounds to me like you're not grokking the part about "and bear".

In my opinion, effective gun control means hitting one's intended target. If someone chooses an innapropriate target, then criminal justice ensues.

[Unregistered Bull]

"Bearing" is carrying.

[Revenant Threshold]

Originally Posted by Unregistered Bull

"Bearing" is carrying.

Bearing means to carry openly, though, doesn't it? So it's still relevant as to concealed carry laws.

[cerberus]

Given the utter lack of the "Wild West"-style apocalypses predicted by the gun control crowd in oppostion in to CCW laws in states like Florida and Georgia, the argument falls flat.

If we allow the abrogation of a right because people may abuse it, then this doctrine has implications for speech, assembly, religion, press.

The idea is to criminalise and prosecute the offenders, not to prophylactically deny people their rights because some may abuse them.

Better by far perhaps to incorporate anger and conflict management in those who need it.

By the by: The Second Amendment is controversial, but the use of the phrase of the people marks it decisively as an individual right. It is a state and municipal matter to impose "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership, though the compatibility of "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" leads to furiously contentious arguments.

[cerberus]

Make that "utter lack" an "extreme rarity". The term "apocalypse" refers to the "Movie of the Week"-style gunfights predicted by the usual offenders.

[Unregistered Bull]

Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold

Bearing means to carry openly, though, doesn't it? So it's still relevant as to concealed carry laws.

It means to carry, whether open or concealed. To me anyway.

[Duke of Rat]

Originally Posted by cerberus

If we allow the abrogation of a right because people may abuse it, then this doctrine has implications for speech, assembly, religion, press.

The idea is to criminalise and prosecute the offenders, not to prophylactically deny people their rights because some may abuse them.

Better by far perhaps to incorporate anger and conflict management in those who need it.

By the by: The Second Amendment is controversial, but the use of the phrase of the people marks it decisively as an individual right. It is a state and municipal matter to impose "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership, though the compatibility of "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" leads to furiously contentious arguments.

Well, at least free speech. You have to protect free speech for even the most disgusting examples. If you protect the most disgusting, then that insures that everybody else is covered.

I have guns that have been in my family for generations and have never been pointed at anybody. Does anybody want to protect my right to own them, or is it better that they are taken away from me because somebody else uses one in an illegal manner?

Something tells me that my rights aren't going to carry as much weight.

[Regallag_The_Axe]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Sounds to me like you're not grokking the part about "and bear".

Originally Posted by Unregistered Bull

"Bearing" is carrying.

My first post wasn't trying to take a stand one way or another on the constitutionality of carrying firearms. I was just trying to frame a proper debate here. Concealed carry permits are mostly what I was talking about when I said "more debatable".

As for what I think about bearing wepons in public:
Guns have the potential to cause injury or death. So do cars. Let's say someone decide to use a car as a murder weapon. Society (and the justice system) would judge them as being to irresponsible to drive. They would lose their licence.
If someone uses a gun as a murder weapon they would also be found irresponsible.

[Sarahfeena]

Originally Posted by Unregistered Bull

It means to carry, whether open or concealed. To me anyway.

I agree. I see nothing in that phrase that implies only openly carried weapons.

[Revenant Threshold]

Originally Posted by Unregistered Bull

It means to carry, whether open or concealed. To me anyway.

Originally Posted by Sarahfeena

I agree. I see nothing in that phrase that implies only openly carried weapons.

Ah, ok. I assumed that was the general definition, so never mind.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

See, those examples in the OP are what are known as "anecdotes". Now, I won't venture an opinion as to whether they happened or not, but it is important to realize that those are, at best, isolated cases, certainly not representative of gun owners in general.

This is the equivalent of saying that all postal workers should be forbidden to own guns because they go nuts, when it has happened on very rare occasions and those occasions were highly publicized, which lead to the stereotypical expression of "going postal". There is a small but non-zero segment of any sample that consists of unhinged people, holding them up as the representative sample is dishonest. Postal workers do not "go postal", the miniscule subset of lunatic postal workers "go postal".

It makes for a good joke, or even a witty quip, but it's simply not true. It's also noteworthy that the people telling the stories are still alive to do so, demonstrating that perhaps the story is blown a bit out of proportion.

[E-Sabbath]

Who says that gun in the ancedote was legal, anyhow?

[tashabot]

Originally Posted by Hey you!

How easy is it to get through a day without offending someone? How long until one of those people you offend in the real world has a figurative hair trigger as well as literal one?

I'm one of the most tactless and blunt people I know, and I seem to manage just fine (and I live right near the California border, so that's definitely something!). My views on guns are the same with drugs: you have the right to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. But you also have to take responsibility for your actions, and if it results in prison time, so be it.

I just have to mention that I am sick and fucking tired of people not taking responsibility for their own actions. "I was high" or "I was drunk" is not an excuse. "I was mad so I shot him." is not an excuse. There is an actual population of people who cannot control their actions due to a chemical misfunction, and then there are just people who are terrified to step up and be an adult. Drives me insane.

Originally Posted by Regallag_The_Axe

Do you oppose the right to own firearms, or the (more debatable) right to carry them?

Well, seeing as my life has been saved by a concealed weapons permit before, I'll just say I'm totally in favor of it.

I worked at a pizza place in an odd assortment of positions: Driver, insider, manager. All of those positions gave me the probability of getting mugged or robbed.

One night the store got robbed while I was managing it and one of my drivers had a concealed weapons permit. The guy had a gun pointed at my forehead and wanted me to open a time-delay safe that I was completely unable to open for 17 minutes. He was going to shoot me and my driver shot at him instead. I know that this is anecdotal evidence, but I firmly believe in concealed weapons permits simply because I know several people, myself included, whose lives have been saved because someone had one. This list includes convenience store clerks, grocery store bank tellers, delivery drivers, and even police officers. So I'll just keep defending my own rights to own and carry a gun, and keep pushing for harsher punishments for those who use them irresponsibly.

~Tasha

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Duke of Rat

I have lived in Texas my whole life and have never had a gun pulled on me for honking my horn or any other reason.

Same here. I have had a gun pulled on me, but I deserved it. It wasn't for honking my horn, though!

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by cerberus

By the by: The Second Amendment is controversial, but the use of the phrase of the people marks it decisively as an individual right. It is a state and municipal matter to impose "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership, though the compatibility of "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" leads to furiously contentious arguments.

The Second Amendment doesn't mean what you say it means, it doesn't mean what I say it means, it means what the courts say it means. In Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia. The courts over the years have uniformly taken the collectivist position regarding this amendment. Although I happen to agree with that interpretation, what matters is what the courts say.

[Voyager]

Those of you of the "no regulations, just jail violators" mentality, do you desire the same thing for driving? Why have drivers' licenses and road tests when you can throw someone who violates the rules of the road in a way that someone gets hurt into jail. In either case, you don't seem to be too concerned about the people who get hurt.

BTW, I am not in favor of banning guns, but in favor of rather stricter licensing and tracking of guns.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

The Second Amendment doesn't mean what you say it means, it doesn't mean what I say it means, it means what the courts say it means. In Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia. The courts over the years have uniformly taken the collectivist position regarding this amendment. Although I happen to agree with that interpretation, what matters is what the courts say.

Wrong.

Read Miller. All the way through. Then read subsequent circuit courts that claim to cite Miller. In those sunsequent citations, there are snippets, at best, of Miller. In one (3rd Circuit, IIRC), the court fabricated a whole new interpretation of Miller out of thin air.

I can similarly use snippets of your own words from, say, a post in a thread about domestic violence to make it appear that you not only favor domestic violence, but actually engage in it (having read your posts on this board for some time, I can safely assume you are against domestic violence).

Miller did say that a weapon should resemble or be part of the ordinary equipment in use at the time, and found that there was no evidnece to support Jack Miller's claim that a "shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches" formed a part of such ordinary equipment. The reason there was no evidence to support such a claim as because neither Miller or his lawyer showed up for the Supreme Court hearing.

Jack Miller didn't show because he didn't give a damn; having just skated on a bogus gun charge in Arkansas, he skedaddled back under whatever rock the Treasury Agents had drug him out from under.

His lawyer didn't show because Jack Miller and Frank Layton only paid him to defend them against the gun charge in Arkansas.

Furthermore, the court remanded the case for further review, which never took place as Jack Miller turned up dead not too long after, and his sidekick, Frank Layton, plead out to a lesser charge. So as far as U.S. v. Miller goes, the issue was never properly settled, just sorta dropped to die of its own "lack of interest."

And IMO, this whole thread started as a rant, and should've went to the Pit.

[Damuri Ajashi]

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It all depends on how you read this amendment.

Most of the Bill of Rights have to do with individual liberties, this particular right seems to have elements that go beyond merely guaranteeing individual rights.

As far as I can tell, this amendment recognizes that violent physical force is a basic building block of power.

This means that we don't let the Federal government regulate guns in case the states ever want to overthrow the Federal government.

It seems a reasonable read of the second amendment to say that this right is given to the citizenry to protect State rights and so the States are free to at least regulate (but probably not ban) the citizens right to keep and bear arms (normally States are restricted by the Constitution in the same way that the Federal Government is (especially when it comes to individual rights).

There is an ancillary argument that this right preserves the ability of the citizens to revolt against all levels of their government, so even States should not be able to infringe on this right.

Overall, I would support 2nd amendment rights more vociferously if we had more bloody revolutions or had to fight off outside invaders more often. As it is, I see this right as being just slightly more relevant than the 3rd Amendment.

Originalists could just as easily interpret this amendment in any number of different ways because of the way the military was run back then and the legislative history of the Constitution and the Amendments.

This right is a bit antiquated but until we get a Constitutional Amendment, I don't see how the Federal government can ignore the plain meaning of the Amendment and "infringe" on the People's right to keep and bear arms (they can tread very carefully and try to limit interstate transport of firearms and control national sales of firearms but they'd have to be pretty careful not to overreach). Until we get an amendment that eliminates or alters the second amendment, feel free to protest regulation of the right to bear arms but don't expect me to join any of your marches.

[Gary T]

An eye-opening insight from a post in a thread on another board:

"Well regulated" had nothing to do with being under someones control. It had to do with the person being proficient in what he was doing. I can send you a copy of the manual of arms of the time showing what a "well regulated" soldier or militiaman was expected to do.

With this understanding, and likewise understanding that the militia (note lower-case "m") consisted of every able-bodied citizen, the appearance of contradiction in the amendment evaporates. Every individual citizen has the stated right, just like it says.

[Common Tater]

Given what the 2nd Amendment says - the only honest approach is to enact yet another amendment revoking it, too much time and effort is expended trying to twist it around via syntax and other absurdities. In every instance, "the people" in the bill of rights means an individual, not a collective right, and not "the national guard" which didn't come into existance but 100 years later. "Well-regulated" in those days, meant something akin to a watch, for an example which was precision built and kept good time and any inevitable error was noted as a +/- figure in so many seconds and allowed for if utilizing for any serious use, like navigation. What "well-regulated" did not mean was 57,000 conflicting and overlapping absurd laws restricting law abiding citizens from self-defense whether at home or travelling, nobody has to channel the founding fathers to understand this. What's happened is a cultivated belief that the constitution cannot be interpreted but as through a middleman, who will explain what the constitution really means. Failing that, we are told that the constitution is a "living breathing document" which, stripped from its verbiage really means that as far as our rights go, words mean nothing and so ostensibly we have a contract that nobody would agree to on its face, since it is outside the boundaries of a rational definition..

[gonzomax]

A few years ago an old highschool friend planned a reunion of 7 old friends. I was shocked to find out in the bar that I was the only one not carrying.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by ExTank

Wrong.

Read Miller. All the way through. Then read subsequent circuit courts that claim to cite Miller. In those sunsequent citations, there are snippets, at best, of Miller. In one (3rd Circuit, IIRC), the court fabricated a whole new interpretation of Miller out of thin air.

I can similarly use snippets of your own words from, say, a post in a thread about domestic violence to make it appear that you not only favor domestic violence, but actually engage in it (having read your posts on this board for some time, I can safely assume you are against domestic violence).

You're proof that one can disagree without being disagreeable. It's nice to read such rational thought from someone even though I may disagree with you. I'm working on a rebuttal- may take me a lunch hour or two. And thank you for assuming that I am against domestic violence.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

You're proof that one can disagree without being disagreeable. It's nice to read such rational thought from someone even though I may disagree with you. I'm working on a rebuttal- may take me a lunch hour or two. And thank you for assuming that I am against domestic violence.

Sorry for the delay in responding, I forgot to subscribe to the thread.

IN anycase, you're welcome for the assumption on my part. It's generally a safe assumption here on the Board, so I didn't go far out of my way in making it.

Some further elaboration on the Miller case:

Judge Hearstill Ragon, justice for the District Court for western Arkansas, was the real impetus behind the 2nd Amendment challenge to the Miller/Layton indictment. Miller's and Layton's lawyer, Paul Guttensohn, didn't seem to have much of an opinion on the matter, one way or another, but seems to have followed Judge Ragon's thinking (lead?) on the matter.

The Supreme Court, in rejecting the "shotgun as ordinary militia/military equipment," seriously overlooked very recent military history in which shotguns had played their role. The did, though, delve into American history, citing various colony's and state's militia laws, in which militia members were required to be properly outfitted with "muskets in good working order," thereby strengthening their position that for a weapon to be considered "ordinary military equipment," it should be of a type and kind in ordinary use by the military.

The argument is somewhat self-destructive, until one realizes that the court simply said that "it was not within their notice" that shotguns with barrels of laess than 18-inches were part of such ordinary military equipment.

Eh, gotta get to work, more later.