# Anti-gun control folks, a question **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967 "2005-04-25T03:00:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/41 "2005-04-25T22:11:59Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Picking on a guest? Tsk, tsk. Post the whole quote, **mhendo** : > > “I think the spirit of the 2nd Ammendment was to prevent the rise of fascism. It wasn’t very well thought out, considering how it was worded, but the idea was to prevent “tyranny,” as they called it.” > > etmiller is absolutely correct. The founders were concerned with setting up the USA in such a way to prevent tyranny. Fascism can certainly be called tyranny. It’s exactly the sort of thing they were trying to prevent. Sure, they couldn’t have predicted Hitler’s Germany exactly, but it’s just the sort of thing we need an armed populace for to prevent. I never said that fascism wasn’t tyranny. And i don’t need you to quote the founders to me; i’m willing to bet i’ve read them as frequently and at least as intelligently as you. But the fact remains that the tyranny with which the founders were concerned was NOT the populist nationalism and authoritarianism combined with loyalty to a charismatic leader that we have come to know as fascism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. All i’m asking is that people not unnecessarily Godwinize this issue. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/42 "2005-04-25T22:21:32Z")
**Debaser** : you gave two quotes above: **James Monroe** : > [@](#): > > The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. And **Thomas Jefferson** : > [@](#): > > The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Just out of interest, who was quoting who? Or did both these men say exactly the same words independently of one another? Or are you trying to get a two-fer, offering the same quotation twice and pretending it counts as two different ones? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/43 "2005-04-25T22:23:12Z")
> [@Soul Brother Number Two](#): > > The whole idea of personal defense is baffling to me. First off, a shotgun is pretty effective protection against burglars and such. Second, how many concealed carry folks and the like have actually successfully “defended” themselves? We all are aware of the statistics around handguns and gun ownership, how they kill way more family members and friends than they do intruders or attackers. Prove it. U.S. v. Miller simply addressed whether a sawed-off shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 in. constituted the sort of weapon suitabe for militia use. Later courts added a “suitability test,” then one court went off the deep end with it’s “militia only” interpretation of Miller, leading to the states-rights/militia only interpretation of the 2nd by anti-gun liberal activists. > [@mhendo](#): > > For me, one of the biggest problems emerging from some pro-gun people in America is not so much their support for the right to have a gun, but their support for the right to have a gun RIGHT NOW. I have no time for anyone who argues against waiting periods and criminal record checks, or who argues that gun shows should be free-market free-for-alls where the only requirement for buying a weapon is having the ready cash. Who’s arguing against background checks? Why have a waiting period when it’s been shown to be totally ineffective for its stated purpose? How many gun shows have _you_ attended? How many guns have _you_ purchased at a gun show? How many guns have you _seen_ purchased at a gun show? A little over half of my collection (4 of 4 rifles, 1 of 2 shotguns, 0 of 3 revolvers, 2 of 3 semi-auto handguns) was purchased at a gun show. On every single purchase a background check was performed through NICS. > [@mhendo](#): > > Of course, this runs up against another thorny constitutional issue—that of states’ right. As far as i know, many of the laws related to purchasing a weapon are determined on a state by state basis, meaning that America’s gun laws are really only as repsonsible as the least responsible state. Not sure how to solve this problem, other than by federal legislation. But of course, that opens up a whole other hornets’ nest. Incorrect. _Every_ state must meet, at a minimum, the Federal requirements for the sale or transfer of firearms. The argument that part of the gun supply problem is the fault of a few “bad states” is fucking idiotic. > [@mhendo](#): > > As **SteveMB** suggests, the government has an interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of “rebels and thugs.” For me, the key failure of US gun law is that, in many cases, it fails to do this, and indeed shows very little interest in doing this. Really? Since the NFA passed in '33-34, crime with legally-owned full-auto weapons has dropped to practically nonexistant. And I guess you never heard of Project Exile? Which was rejected by an anti-gun president and Justice Dept.? But which was adopted by Pres. Bush’s admin.? > [@mhendo](#): > > In my opinion, the best way to fight gun violence right now, in a pragmatic way that is likely to do some immmediate good, is for the anti-gun crowd to join with responsible gun owners in asking simply that the purchase of a gun anywhere in the United States require a reasonable waiting period so that a check can be done of the person’s criminal history. The check is already done by NICS for every firearm transaction conducted by Licensed dealers. The Bush admin. has focused the efforts of the Justice Dept. on locating and shutting down “unlicensed dealers.” Again, waiting periods have never been shown to have any effect on crime, and was never nothing more than an attempt to condition people to getting a gun when the state says you can, not when you want it. Once the sheeples are conditioned to waiting, the next step was (is) to condition them to being told “No.” **Elvis:** I know you’ve read enough Straight Dope to have read what I am about to say before, which means that you are a hypocritical, anti-gun jackass, and your purpose here on the Straight Dope is NOT about fighting ignorance, but about espousing the propaganda of whatever cause you happen to be a sock-puppet of. The Militia is the People. The People are the Miltia. The **Militia** is the **People.** The **People** are the **Militia.** When in time of peace, the People are the People. When in time of War, or other emergency, the People are the Militia. Federal law (need I post a cite to the U.S. Code page _again?_) classifies the Militia into the Organized and the Unorganized. The Militia is all males age 17-45 who are citizens of the U.S. (or who have affirmed an intention of becoming so). It is further broken down into the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. The Organized Militia is the National Guard (affirmed by the Supreme Court in _Perpich v. Dept. of Defense_ to be an adjunct branch of the _Federal_ Armed Services), and the Naval Reserves. The Unorganized is simply, and here I [quote,] ([http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml](http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml)) “…which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” The first half of the 2nd is an introductory clause, and is in no way the _dependant_ clause of the entire sentence; it is expository in nature, not conditional. Not in 18th century Colinial English, and still not in 21st century American English. And yet you jump into these threads spouting the same tired old lies, the same tired old bullshit. Are you just too fucking stoopid to comprehend fucking **FACTS** when you have your nose rubbed in them? > [@etmiller](#): > > And it doesn’t matter what laws are passed, Americans are going to misuse guns, becuase so many of Americans are idiots. It doesn’t matter what laws are passed; there will always be Americans who shoot themselves, or who leave their weapons loaded so that others (often children) shoot themselves. > > Very few crimes have been prevented by civilians who are armed. And you’re a prime example of why the “Guest” function should be rescinded. There is more than ample evidence in this thread alone that there are at a minimum (as of 1996) 108,000 **D** efensive **G** un **U** ses per year, probably closer to 1,000,000 + per year. Do the rest of us **paying** customers a favor: Fuck Off. > [@Debaser](#): > > Picking on a guest? Tsk, tsk. Fuckin’ 'A yes, I _will_ “pick on” a “Guest!” If a “Guest” wants to jump in and get froggy with their line of bullshit, then they need to get slapped down just as hard as a _real_ member. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/44 "2005-04-25T22:42:11Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Once the sheeples are conditioned to waiting, the next step was (is) to condition them to being told “No.” You go on believe that, if it makes you feel better. Just out of interest, if all the measures you list are so successful, why does illegal and criminal gun use continue to be such a problem in the United States? After all, at _some_ stage along the way, just about every firearm that ends up in a bad guy’s hands has to come from a legal source. Unless the bad guys are making the guns themselves. Are they? I don’t know. How is it that so many weapons, which were presumably built by legal firearms manufacturers, and distributed to legal gun stores and gun dealers, get into the hands of the wrong people? I mean, at some stage in the process, some person presumably makes a legal purchase and then, in turn, makes an illegal sale or uses the gun illegally himself. Of course, you could argue that it’s not the fault of the gun dealers that some of their customers choose to resell the guns illegally. And you’d be right. But the fact remains that it happens, and that when it does it’s the result of people slipping through the same laws and regulations that you claim are so successful. There is also, i guess, the possibility that the majority of illegal guns in the US are illegally imported and then sold on the streets. Is this the case? If it is, then you might argue that US firearms laws aren’t the problem, and that port and border security are to blame. But for every once-legal gun that ends up in the hands of a bad guy, there has to have been a particular time and place at which the it was transferred from a legal owner to the criminal. And that’s what should be prevented. ---
**Author:** ![Cynical\_Optimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Cynical\_Optimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cynical_Optimist)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/45 "2005-04-25T23:10:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Perhaps you could review the same grammar text. That isn’t what they specified. They specified the existence and regulation of a militia to defend the security of the State. Plain English. Any other interpretation is wishful thinking. Just as you wrote, if all they wanted was to guarantee the state’s right to form a militia they wouldn’t have mentioned “the people” at all. But they did, and you’re doing exactly what you accuse others of, reading only half of the amendment. So again I ask, why did they bother mentioning “the people”? If, as you wrote, not including the phrase would change the meaning, what changes with the inclusion or exclusion of the phrase containing “the people”? If we read the first amendment in the same manner we see that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is the initial phrase, and by your reasoning, the only “people” who would have the (mentioned later) right to peaceful assembly are those who can ensure that Congress doesn’t do exactly that. Who can overturn acts of Congress? Not indiviudals but judges, so the first amendment wouldn’t really apply to private citizens either. I think we can agree that would be a rather poorly-understood reading of the first amendment. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It also, since at least 1939 and _Miller_, is the law of the land. You don’t have to like it, but to deny it exists is foolish. If you don’t like it, go get an amendment started, or quit whining. For your opinion to be correct it is necessary to deny the existance of the more recent _Verdugo-Urquidez_ decision which defines “people” in the context of several amendments, including the second. Even before that, the tenth amendment made a distinction between “people” and “states” so the founders clearly understood the difference. The people can have their arms seperate from any militia, just as the people can have their assemblies outside of congressional matters. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/46 "2005-04-25T23:30:51Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Just out of interest, if all the measures you list are so successful, why does illegal and criminal gun use continue to be such a problem in the United States? It’s much less of a problem than it is made out to be; The crime rate’s down to less than it was in the mid-'60’s. It was _always_ higher than, say, the U.K., and probably will be for some time; that’s not, in-and-of-itself, indicative of a problem. The U.K.'s, as low as it is, is much higher than some other places > [@mhendo](#): > > After all, at _some_ stage along the way, just about every firearm that ends up in a bad guy’s hands has to come from a legal source. Unless the bad guys are making the guns themselves. Are they? I don’t know. About 60% come from thefts; some say _home_ thefts, and I’m sure that’s some constituent of that 60%, but it also includes store thefts, and warehouse thefts. > [@mhendo](#): > > But for every once-legal gun that ends up in the hands of a bad guy, there has to have been a particular time and place at which the it was transferred from a legal owner to the criminal. And that’s what should be prevented. Agreed; but I (and others) don’t think bans/restrictions on law-abiding citizens are the answer. Education is one aspect, but nowadays, if you even _say_ the word gun in/around a school, you get arrested for “making threats.” Okay, I exaggerate. But only a bit. Too, the current supply would indicate that, even if all guns were banned right now, and that if every citizen turned in every legally owned gun right now, the criminals would still outgun the U.S. Army for the next several decades. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/47 "2005-04-26T01:25:56Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > **Elvis:** I know you’ve read enough Straight Dope to have read what I am about to say before, which means that you are a hypocritical, anti-gun jackass, and your purpose here on the Straight Dope is NOT about fighting ignorance, but about espousing the propaganda of whatever cause you happen to be a sock-puppet of. Stop being such a prick, amigo. Reasonable people are capable of disagreeing on these matters. > [@](#): > > The Militia is the People. > > The People are the Miltia. > > The **Militia** is the **People.** > > The **People** are the **Militia.** You forgot “well-regulated.” > [@](#): > > Federal law (need I post a cite to the U.S. Code page _again?_) classifies the Militia into the Organized and the Unorganized. Given that it’s pretty clear the founders were talking about _state_ militias, one wonders what relevance the federal definition has to the question at hand, aside from the fact that it’s much more efficient to cite a single federal statute than the patchwork of state definitions. And do keep in mind the significant body of federal case law that holds the Second Amendment is no impediment whatsoever to the _state_ governments establishing whatever gun control restrictions they please. > [@](#): > > And yet you jump into these threads spouting the same tired old lies, the same tired old bullshit. Are you just too fucking stoopid to comprehend fucking **FACTS** when you have your nose rubbed in them? Well that about wraps it up for the gun control debate. Thanks for clearing things up for us! ---
**Author:** ![fushj00mang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d26b3c/32.png) [@fushj00mang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fushj00mang)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/48 "2005-04-26T05:32:02Z")
> [@Soul Brother Number Two](#): > > Weirddave and UncleBeer, thanks for your responses. I am more than willing to examine any and all cites, when I have time, (weirddave, your link isn’t working). My question to Dave is: how many of those cases occurred at the person’s home, where a shotgun would serve the same purpose? In other words, in how many of those 108 thousand (or more) cases was it necessary to possess a handgun and/or to have a concealed carry permit? Not meaning to speak for **Weirddave** here, but I would venture that the question is moot. In a home it is actually better (from a tactical standpoint, as well as a safety one) to have and use a pistol than a shotgun. I use both, but perfer a pistol. Tactically, the reason is a shotgun (for civilians) has a minimum barrel length of 18", making the vast majority of shotguns in circulation 36" or longer. That’s one really long arm to be weilding in a close quarters situation. Try passing a doorway with a full sized shotgun at the ready or in a shooting stance. It is difficult to move with one, let alone to actually get a proper sight picture. A pistol, on the other hand, does not hinder its user in a CQ situation. Even a really long barreled weapon (such as Tarus’ BlackHawk, with it’s 11" barrel) is easy to move in comparison to a shotgun, as your arms are not hindered by a buttstock. In the end, you can simply defend yourself better with a pistol. More importanly, however, is the safety issue. This is based on the availability of munitions on the market. Shotguns are, for the most part, lead and steel slingers of various power and capability. Less-lethal ammunitions are difficult to obtain and often do not work well in semi-automatic shotguns used for hunting. Furthermore, the types of cover found in a home (couches, Lay-Z-Boys) easily defeat a beanbag or rubber slug. If you want to use a solid load, full sized buck loads are a poor choice (000-Buck in a 3" magnum shell can penitrate a cynder block) whereas smaller game loads are not guarenteed to take down a target. Slugs (solid projectiles often massing 500 grains or more) are wholly inappropriate for the job. Finally, a shotgun has a pattern (the way the shot spreads when it leaves the muzzle.) Although this can and does increase the odds of scoring a hit, it also increases the odds of wounding or killing someone other than your target. A pistol, on the other hand, is a far more precise weapon with a range of options with regards to ammuntion. Pistols can be loaded with frangible ammo (which vaporizes when it hits something more solid than flesh), jacketed hollow points (JHP, bullets with a copper or steel jacket and a soft lead tip) or FMJ rounds. A frangible round will penitrate the aformentioned sofa (if the bad-guy has taken to hiding behind one,) but will stop when it hits the wall (assuming it hasn’t hit the bad guy.) If it hits a person, it will not exit their body, as it will fragment and create multiple wound-paths. A JHP will stop inside the badguy, as it expands and ‘bites’ into him, causing a more traumatic wound path. FMJ rounds are generally frowned upon as home and self defense rounds because although they inflict terrible injuries, they also tend to overpenetrate and hit other things. Anyway, that’s my two bits. ~Fush, probably the only guy on the board who will fess up to being a gun fetishist. I kiss them goodnight, every night 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/49 "2005-04-26T05:50:15Z")
[QUOTE=SoulI’d love to hear what anyone, gun or anti-gun, has to say about this info.[/QUOTE] I couldn’t care less what the Supreme Court has to say about my right to keep and bear arms. I have this right regardless of what the Blackrobes think… ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/50 "2005-04-26T05:51:59Z")
Damn Gremlins. :smack: Let me try again… I couldn’t care less what the Supreme Court has to say about my right to keep and bear arms. I have this right regardless of what the Blackrobes think… ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/51 "2005-04-26T12:23:03Z")
I had not previously realized that when Jesus said “Blessed are the Peacemakers,” he was referring to the Colt .45. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/52 "2005-04-26T13:00:14Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > **James Monroe** :And **Thomas Jefferson** :Just out of interest, who was quoting who? Or did both these men say exactly the same words independently of one another? Or are you trying to get a two-fer, offering the same quotation twice and pretending it counts as two different ones? It seems that Thomas Jefferson wrote that in a letter addressed to James Monroe. Mr. Monroe then used it himself. (They both get google hits for it.) The point stands, the founders were concerned with tyranny. Fascism is tyranny. Therefore the founders were concerned with facsism, or at least would have been had they been aware of it’s future existance. It’s as if I put a deadbolt on my door to prevent intruders. Later, a man with a green shirt tries to break in using a hockey stick. It’s as if you are saying that my deadbolt isn’t to prevent him from breaking in because I couldn’t have forseen that a man with a green shirt would use a hockey stick to break in. It’s a needless, silly nitpick. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/53 "2005-04-26T13:02:21Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Fuckin’ 'A yes, I _will_ “pick on” a “Guest!” If a “Guest” wants to jump in and get froggy with their line of bullshit, then they need to get slapped down just as hard as a _real_ member. Hey, **ExTank** , I wasn’t talking to you. I was addressing **mhendo** , who was using his usual holier than thou attitude towards a guest who was making a perfectly valid and reasonable point. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/54 "2005-04-26T13:09:59Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Just out of interest, if all the measures you list are so successful, why does illegal and criminal gun use continue to be such a problem in the United States? > > After all, at _some_ stage along the way, just about every firearm that ends up in a bad guy’s hands has to come from a legal source. Unless the bad guys are making the guns themselves. Are they? I don’t know. It’s good that you at least admit you have no idea what you are talking about. I just wish you clueless people who don’t know the first thing about guns would stop trying to grab mine. How do drugs come to be in the hands of millions of Americans? What’s the legal source that just about every drug has to come from? Look, it’s really simple. Criminals want guns. They are always going to be able to get them on the black market. We currently have about 30,000 laws or so on the books about guns. It’s already illegal to get a gun on the black market if you are a criminal. You cannot magically snap your fingers and make the millions of guns out there now go away. Even if you could, they would still just get more of them the same way that drugs come in now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/55 "2005-04-26T13:51:01Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > I couldn’t care less what the Supreme Court has to say about my right to keep and bear arms. I have this right regardless of what the Blackrobes think. From where does this right you claim come, then? Not the Constitution, if its arbiters say otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/56 "2005-04-26T14:00:41Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > U.S. v. Miller simply addressed whether a sawed-off shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 in. constituted the sort of weapon suitabe for militia use. Later courts added a “suitability test,” then one court went off the deep end with it’s “militia only” interpretation of Miller, leading to the states-rights/militia only interpretation of the 2nd by anti-gun liberal activists. Yet, remarkably enough, that’s the law of the land, isn’t it? You’ve had it explained to you many times. You don’t have to like it, but you don’t get to pretend it isn’t the law. > [@](#): > > **Elvis:** I know you’ve read enough Straight Dope to have read what I am about to say before, which means that you are a hypocritical, anti-gun jackass, and your purpose here on the Straight Dope is NOT about fighting ignorance, but about espousing the propaganda of whatever cause you happen to be a sock-puppet of. Which means you haven’t absorbed anything you’ve been told, nor do you have a response other than invective. > [@](#): > > When in time of War, or other emergency, the People are the Militia. And there is the underpinning for the “well-regulated” requirement, which can only mean that Congress and the Executive have both the authority and the responsibility to regulate it. It also explains the reason for the Amendment itself, a reason which again you don’t have to like but can’t pretend doesn’t exist. Yet somehow you manage that trick. > [@](#): > > The first half of the 2nd is an introductory clause, and is in no way the _dependant_ clause of the entire sentence; it is expository in nature, not conditional. Not in 18th century Colinial English, and still not in 21st century American English. You might look up the meaning of “expository” if it makes you feel better, considering that the Constitution is not itself just another law but the document that establishes the principles which guide laws and their interpretation and enforcement. > [@](#): > > And yet you jump into these threads spouting the same tired old lies, the same tired old bullshit. Are you just too fucking stoopid to comprehend fucking **FACTS** when you have your nose rubbed in them? What you are contending to be “FACTS” are simply your preferred, conclusion-derived interpretations of matters that are in fact settled law _to the contrary_. You can complain all you want about how the courts have it wrong, but your efforts would be more productive if you focused that energy on getting an amendment passed to make the law be what you want instead of what it is. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/57 "2005-04-26T14:06:27Z")
> [@Mr. Krebbs](#): > > That was probably the intent. However, very little of the Constitution is crystal clear to us in modern times, which is why we require the Supreme Court to interpret it for us. And they have done so. You don’t have to like that any more than **ExTank** does, but there it is. > [@](#): > > While I cannot say why the founding fathers chose to include this particular aside to the Second Amendment If you don’t have any alternatives to propose, I guess we’ll just have to stick with the one I already laid out, huh? > [@](#): > > 1. Given that most of your ilk tend to intrepret “a well-regulated militia” as being regulated by the government I’d appreciate your defining what “ilk” you think I’m part of, and why. Well-poisoning, don’tcha know., > [@](#): > > why would the founding fathers choose to grant the government rights in the Bill of Rights? Keep in mind that the rest of the Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it **cannot** do. Rights do entail responsibilities, don’t they? Surely you’d acknowledge that government, IOW The People acting collectively, has rights of its own as well as responsibilities, and The People acting individually have responsibilities of our own as well as rights. > [@](#): > > 1. Why was the language “the right of the people” used in the Second Amendment? Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, “the people” means each and every citizen of the United States. **ExTank** has already chanted that mantra, about the militia of defense being drawn from the citizenry. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/58 "2005-04-26T14:40:59Z")
> [@](#): > > **Ludovic** said: > It’s not cut-and-dried if no living judge has issued an official statement about the current court’s position. Paraphrasing Cecil, it makes no sense to give a right to the people in the main sentence only to take it away with the subordinate clause. Also important, I believe, is that the Miller in the Miller case was deceased before his case was brought to the Supreme Court, and therefore his side of the case did not actually get its ‘day in court.’ I’m sure certain lawyers on these forums would disagree with me, but that is my opinion. > [@](#): > > **duffer** said: > If you have a CCP, you can buy any gun with no background check. Not in Pennsylvania. I’ve got a license to carry concealed fireams, and I still have to fill out the BATFE 4473 and undergo a NICS check to purchase a firearm from an FFL holding dealer. So does my father, who’s had his license to carry concealed firearms for more than thirty years. > [@](#): > > But most think the “gun-show loophole” means anyone off the street can show up at a convention center and buy a Tech 9. The so-called loophole means that it is just as legal for a private citizen to sell to another private citizen (who is not lawfully forbidden to own firearms) at a gun show exactly the same long guns (rifles and shotguns) that could be sold in such a transaction outside a gun show. > [@](#): > > **Harborwolf** said: > Not to step on one side or the other here duffer, but people were bringing up the slippery slope idea in AirmanDoors thread and it seems not to have happened. Chicago and Washington DC would be very good counter examples to your argument. Both began with registration, and then used the refusal to allow any new registrations as a de facto ban. > [@](#): > > **Soul Brother Number Two** said: > Second, how many concealed carry folks and the like have actually successfully “defended” themselves? That number lies somewhere between 100,000 and 2,000,000 a year. > [@](#): > > We all are aware of the statistics around handguns and gun ownership, how they kill way more family members and friends than they do intruders or attackers. The actual number includes ‘persons known to the shooter’ or ‘acquaintances’ which includes things like rival drug dealers and gang members. It also relies heavily on the _very_ flawed Kellerman study in which he looked at only one county in Washington state, a high crime area, and then claimed his number accurately reflected the entire country. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, a police officer here in the Bay Area lays close to death because despite body armor, he was mortally wounded by a teenager with a semi-automatic pistol. It’s already illegal to shoot people, and already illegal for a teenager to own or possess any kind of pistol. The minimum age for handgun ownership is 21. > [@](#): > > **mhendo** said: > In my opinion, the best way to fight gun violence right now, in a pragmatic way that is likely to do some immmediate good, is for the anti-gun crowd to join with responsible gun owners in asking simply that the purchase of a gun anywhere in the United States require a reasonable waiting period so that a check can be done of the person’s criminal history. That background check takes approximately five minutes with the NICS system and uses a database of criminal records in every state and county, as well as the FBI crime database. Brady II eliminated the previous federally required five day wait because it sped up the process of doing a background check and turned it into a telephone call in which the FFL dealer provides the buyer’s driver’s license number and name and the system responds with the buyer’s SSN (which must be provided on the BATFE 4473) and either an approval number or a denial. > [@](#): > > **Soul Brother Number Two** said: > And to Beer, is that the only study that correlated death by gun to friends and family, or is it the only hgorribly flawed one? So far as I know, the study to which you are referring is one and the same as the study to which **Uncle Beer** and I have responded. > [@](#): > > **Mr. Krebbs** said: > There are many carbines (rifles) that shoot handgun ammunition. The Beretta Cx4, for instance, shoots 9mm Parabellum (the same load that a Tec-9 fires). Much like the H&K MP5 in both semi-automatic and select fire, using the 9mmx19 ammunition that is extremely common for handguns. > [@](#): > > A principal in Pearl, Mississippi disarmed a student with his handgun, although he had to run to his car to get it. The principal formerly carried on school grounds, until it became illegal in 1995. The armed student had already killed two people before the principal returned with his handgun. Something very similar happened in Edinboro, PA in the 90s also. Then there was the Virgina Law School shooting where yet another very similar thing happened. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t take much effort to find more examples of a pistol or concealed weapon being used in crime prevention. You’re right. [Keep and Bear Arms](http://www.keepandbeararms.com/) maintains a daily list of links to news sources around the country of stories in which people have used firearms to defend themselves from crime. > [@](#): > > However, very little of the Constitution is crystal clear to us in modern times, which is why we require the Supreme Court to interpret it for us. This is where I disagree with you. I am a reasonably educated person who can read and understand English. The Constitution is written in English, and there are plenty of other materials around written by the Framers as they wrote the Constitution from which to derive context and their thoughts. These are also in English. The Supreme Court need not tell me what the Constitution means, it needs to tell the _government_ when it has overstepped the bounds of the power the people, via the Constitution, loan to it. > [@](#): > > **ExTank** said: > U.S. v. Miller simply addressed whether a sawed-off shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 in. constituted the sort of weapon suitabe for militia use. Doesn’t the military use something of that nature? > [@](#): > > Again, waiting periods have never been shown to have any effect on crime, and was never nothing more than an attempt to condition people to getting a gun when the state says you can, not when you want it. My recollection also seems to indicate that there have been people killed during the waiting period when they went to purchase a firearm for personal defense. While I don’t advocate running right out and buying a gun without learning to use it, I do see that as an indication that waiting periods can cause unintended but serious damage. > [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > You forgot “well-regulated.” Now, what did ‘well-regulated’ mean in 1789? > [@](#): > > Given that it’s pretty clear the founders were talking about state militias, one wonders what relevance the federal definition has to the question at hand, aside from the fact that it’s much more efficient to cite a single federal statute than the patchwork of state definitions. I don’t think the Framers were stupid. They obviously had a reason for choosing the word ‘people’. If they had meant states, I’m quite sure they would’ve been able to dip their quills in the ink and write the word ‘states’. > [@](#): > > **Elvis1Lives** said: > From where does this right you claim come, then? Not the Constitution, if its arbiters say otherwise. The Constitution does not purport to hand out _any_ rights to anyone. The point of the Constitution, and this is evident if you read it, is to define to the government what power is specifically lent to it by the people, and the Bill of Rights further specifically prohibits the government from abridging what the Framers believed to be essential rights. As for where those rights come from, the Declaration of Independence is extremely clear on this issue as well. The people have these rights because their Creator endowed them. > [@](#): > > **The Declaration of Independence** > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that **among these** are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [bolding mine] Note their use of the phrase ‘among these’ to indicate that the unalienable rights include but are not limited to what is specified. It’s pretty clear that they meant the people retain all rights by virtue of being people, and that the government is meant to have only those powers that are on loan to it. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/59 "2005-04-26T14:51:20Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Chicago and Washington DC would be very good counter examples to your argument. Both began with registration, and then used the refusal to allow any new registrations as a de facto ban. Do you have a cite for this. I honestly hadn’t heard about it. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/60 "2005-04-26T15:12:51Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Now, what did ‘well-regulated’ mean in 1789? This is where you bust out with the bit about how “regulate” meant like a watch, right, and didn’t have anything at all to do with government regulation? Unfortunately for that tired old canard, the Constitution itself uses the word “regulate” in the ordinary sense of “to control or direct according to rule or law” on multiple occasions. See Art. I, > [@](#): > > I don’t think the Framers were stupid. They obviously had a reason for choosing the word ‘people’. If they had meant states, I’m quite sure they would’ve been able to dip their quills in the ink and write the word ‘states’. Nor do I think they were stupid, which is why I don’t ignore the patently obvious fact that they used both _well-regulated militia_ and _the people_ in the text of the amendment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967.md?page=4)