It may seem that i implied that. Then again my post factually states that the NRA staged a rally, in Denver, in a short time after the Columbine shootings.
This event taking place is a fact.
Let’s discuss the real issues.
Should i understand you as to mean that neither the NRA nor the weapons industry is being involved in any form of lobbying? Now i really thought that was a fairly uncontroversial assumption.
In what way can you support NRA members as being “the little guy” any more than people that are anti-gun? Is Charlton Heston the little guy?
Finally, my point was that I believe that part of your gun-violence problem lies in the unwillingness [of the american public] to change the wording of the second amendment. Because it allows guys like yourself to claim the following:
That firearms are part of the american culture (may be true) and heritage (here, refering to something positive), and (the part that i view as the problem) it is therefore destined to be so in the future. You are actually arguing that because of all this you think it should be.
Your supplied intepretation of the second amendment is exactly the way in which it lends unnessecary credibility to these opinions.
You are aware of how well the prohibition of liquor worked, aren’t you?
There were numerous laws broken aside from murder at Columbine, several of which involved laws the anti-gun lobby had put in place to ‘protect the children’. Laws that forbid the carrying of any firearm, even by someone with a concealed weapons license, on the property of a school. Also, the killers at Columbine employed more than guns (as in explosives they built at home) to kill their classmates. Some of the firearms they did have may well have been stolen (already illegal).
If you want to name school shootings, I’ll bring up the one in Edinboro, Pennsylvania which was stopped only when restaurant owner James Strand pointed a shotgun at the attacker. And the one in Pearl, Mississippi, assistant principal Joel Myrick went to his car, got a gun, and subdued the shooter. Strand and Myrick are both alive and well today, and people don’t mention Pearl or Edinboro on messageboards, they mention Columbine.
But hey, if guns weren’t legal there’d be no assurance that shootings wouldn’t have happened in Pearl or Edinboro. What we can be sure of is that there would not have been a James Strand or a Joel Myrick there to stop them.
Yes. And actually that never worked in Europe either, in constrast to gun control which is working very nicely keeping firearm homocide down to a fraction of the rate in the US.
And i am sure the anti-war lobby would like to put in place some more effective laws. Such laws, i might add, are successfully enforced in other countries.
You are 18, you can buy a gun anywhere without a license (you don’t have those, right?), but you can’t bring it to school. Weeell.
My statements on the legality of the guns used in Columbine, was based on the article your link referred to. No other guns were mentioned there, i think.
Now this is a legitimate argument you are making in this context, and furthermore a major point. One of the cornerstones of the pro-gun stance being the benefit of ordinary citizens (of good intentions, we’ll assume) being given the power to protect themselves and others.
I view the whole of this argument as being something like this:
“Given the state of things, do you believe that you in your everyday life can rely on law-enforcement (the police) to protect you and your family. Of course, after hearing about all these things being brought on good folks like you and me, you must give the answer: no. Therefore we must uphold or right to take it upon us to defend ourselves. To uphold that right we must be allowed to bear arms.”
The key her, being the “state of things”, which is the present violent society of the US.
Now, my belief, is that if guns were controlled you wouldnt be subjected to the threats that you try to protect yourself from with guns. It is this belief that i am trying to justify with f. e. the discussion on the gun murder rate in the US and that of the UK, above.
But then, maybe you were actually suggesting that citizens intervention with the use of firearms will drastically reduce the number of firearm homocides in the next few years?
Correlation is not causation. “My magic necklace sure is keeping elephants away.”
There are other factors that account for different homicide rates than gun ownership.
**
Depends on the state. There’s a federal restriction on handguns that require you to be 21.
Your argument is logically sound, if one believes that firearms are the cause of violence in our society. But to blame an inanimate object as the source of human motivation is ridiculous.
Even if all guns magically dissapeared, which is a ridiculous proposition, the malicious strong would still prey on the weak. People don’t buy guns to protect themselves against people with guns - they buy guns to protect against anyone that means them harm. (At least, in the case they buy them for self defense).
Even if you could remove guns from the equation, you’d still have non-armed people who would wish to cause people harm, and what you’ve done now is given the initiative to the physically strongest - or in a more realistic scenario - the illegally armed.
So even at the very best, when we make the ridiculous assumption that we could get rid of all guns, despite huge amounts of contraband easily getting into this country already, despite the ability to make them in a simple machine shop, etc. - you resort to a situation in which the malicious still commit their crimes, but it becomes a struggle between the physically strong and physically weak.
In a more realistic scenario, what you do is disarm law abiding citizens, while those predisposed to break the law will stay armed. So rather than having some semblance of balance, having the decent able to defend themselves and their family, you make them weak prey for the malicious.
Your argument might seem reasonable on the surface, but it makes the assumption that the violence we have in America is based on the existance of certain physical objects, and as that’s a faulty assumption, the whole argument tanks from there.
minty: Even if they were purchased legally, to my knowledge the NRA has never endorsed any supposed ‘right’ of students to carry rifles and shotguns to school.
So, which NRA endorsed right were Harris and Klebold exercising when they went to school with firearms?
RandySpears: What link? The post you responded to didn’t have a link in it.
If guns were controlled in every city they’d all be as safe from crime as Washington D.C., where it’s currently illegal for anyone except a police officer to possess handguns. Except Washington D.C. doesn’t have a low crime rate as compared to places like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where a concealed firearms license is pretty easy to obtain.
One needs look no further than the U.S. to see that a gun ban here won’t reduce crime, as those places with the most restrictive gun laws also tend to have high crime rates, such as Los Angeles, Newark, New York City, Chicago, and others. Those places where firearms are less restricted tend to lower crime rates, and every once in a while a Charmaine Dunbar shows up to help get a serial rapist off the street.
Oh sure, define away the problem. The NRA supports the right of 18-year-old homicidal maniacs to purchase shotguns and rifles, but dammit, when they take those guns to school, they’ve just gone too far!
You have a cite that says the NRA wants ‘homicidal maniacs’ to have firearms?
Because at every NRA event I’ve ever been to, one of the topics has been how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Which, by the way, Klebold and Harris both were.
There’s little wrong with an 18 year-old owning a rifle or a shotgun (I’ll admit that I personally owned both a rifle and a shotgun before I could legally drive a car). However, if you’re going to tell me the NRA thinks minors should be able to go into stores and purchase them, or buy them from any FFL dealer, you’ll have to provide a cite.
The only way I legally got the rifle and shotgun I had is that my father was held as the legal purchaser from the FFL dealer and they were transferred to me by him.
You accuse me of defining away the problem, but you’re the one making sensationalistic statements that the NRA wants 18 year-olds to buy rifles and shotguns to mow down their classmates? Alright then, let’s see a cite of any NRA official saying that ‘18 year-old homicidal maniacs’ should be able to purchase rifles and shotguns.
Whoa! We’re on the same side! I’m so glad, now we can finally get that nationwide registration system going.
Juvenile misdemeanors, as I recall. Nothing that would have prevented Harris from buying as many shotguns and rifles as he could carry.
No, of course not. The NRA just wants 18-year-olds to be able to buy as many shotguns and rifles as they want. If they subsequently use them to kill a dozen kids, well, the NRA is clearly opposed to that.
Yeah, sure, I did ask you a question. So I, of course, believe in mandatory license for carrying a gun on a federal level.
No, of course. Correlation, alone, is no cause to believe there’s causation. And i wouldnt even pretend to believe that gun access is the only causation for homocides in general. That would be ludicrous.
Now. When it comes to a correlation between firearms homocides and the access to firearms, i am sure you agree that there is more reason for discussing correlation and causation than your magical necklace keeping the elephants away.
Now, the point here is that the US are unique in the world, in its firearms homocide rate. If you look to the murder by any means rate, the difference is significally smaller, as can be easily note in the statistics debate, above.
So what is it that is different between the US and the rest of the world? Gun control regulation, is one thing that separates the US from most other countries.
Furthermore it is not that hard to accept gun access as a casual necessity to go from me standing here, with the urge to shoot you, to me actually doing so.
While that would be considerably harder to accept about the magic necklace keeping Dumbo away. At least for me.
Is that so? Then you would argue that the existence of the obviously inanimate objects we call “drugs” has no causal connection to the existance of the very human condition of “drug addict”. Having said that, in the individual case of course other factors come in to place. Like the urge to escape reality. Just like in the case of a gun kill, there must also exist the intention to harm.
See, human motivation is the motive, gun access is the means. There are other means for homocide in general, but not in the case of firearms homocide. Wouldn’t you agree?
So? I was not saying that gun control would stop the strong from preying on the weak. Who am I, Jesus? I believe it would stop the (majority of) mr bad man to prey on the weak with guns.
So, again, what makes the enforcement of these laws work great in all other places, but so impossible to enforce in the US? Sounds to me like an argument that the americans are a people so addicted to guns, it would just be impossible to give them up?
Or maybe you’re generalizing out of your personal urge, should you have to part with your gun?
Still. For the sake of your argument, let’s make the assumption that we disarm all good, descent folk like you and me, but only succeed in disarming 75% of the baddies. (Not a bold assumption, judging from experience in other countries) In all likelyhood the average-Joe would still be safer!
Yeah and the same goes for drugs, huh? Or nuclear arms? Lets make those legal to the public, too! Because it would still be human motivation deciding whether someone blew one up! Both inanimate objects. My argument is based on the belief that if a certain inanimate (man-made) object causes to much misery if in public circulation, then it should be banned.
And intellectual integrity I guess forces me to answer: None. They exercised their NRA endorsed right up to the School Entrance (except the guy carrying the Semi). As those two armed, murderous wackos first stepped into the school their NRA-endorsment ended.
So there.
Yep, right again, it was Minty’s link. The original point i made still remains.
Well, again, consider if all drugs were banned in Washington D.C. but were legal in the rest of the US. Do you think such a law would be easy to uphold?
Gun regulation necessarily needs to work on a federal level, and it needs to work together with a state effort to rid the country of the guns already in circulation.
Well, in that case that is a statement that is true in the US, and false in the rest of the world. Again, what separates the American?
And, seriously, you really don’t believe that LA, NY, Chicago etc have tough gun laws because they have high crime?
You are absolutely correct, it is indeed a fact that the NRA held a convention not long after the Columbine incident. What is not a fact is that the NRA deliberately scheduled a rally immediately after Columbine to “celebrate” the right to own semi-auto weapons and glorify those idiots, which is what your post implied.
Yes, let us do that.
No. Your post:
The NRA spends a significant amount of time and effort lobbying the members of the local, state, and congressional representatives. I asked for a cite that the weapons industry takes equal part in these efforts.
The NRA is comprised of citizens from all walks of life in this country, from bulldozer operators to nurses and even, yes, lawyers. Mr. Heston was voted in as president of this organization by it’s members.
And once again, I’m trying to tell you that a significant portion of the american public believes in the current wording of the 2nd Amendment and don’t want it changed. However, there are a number of pro-gun advocates who do want to amend the wording, and they want it to read “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Period, full stop. That way the legal scholars (and this is what I meant, minty) who have adjudicated 2nd amendment rights will not have a (some say) ambiguous statement of which they have supported that to mean that the right belongs to the states, and not to the individual.
What supporting evidence do you have that this may not be true? Up until a few years ago, many high schools, even inner city schools, had rifle teams (just like being on the chess team).
Many people in this country view firearms training of youth as an important rite of passage. You teach gun safety and discipline at the same time. I’ve been handling firearms since I was six years old, had my first shotgun at 14. I, my brothers, and the kids we grew up with, have not perpetrated any Columbines lately. And I think you will find that the majority (70-90 million) of gun owners have never committed a crime with a firearm.
No, I’m arguing that it has been a fact known to a significant portion of the population of this country that the 2nd Amendment means the individual right to own a firearm. Many spirited debates about this have sprung up on this message board due to the number of legal precedents set by a number of courts (cites provided by minty green in most cases, which say the right belongs to the states. When we got an Attorney General who agrees with our viewpoint, we hope that the courts will follow and overrule some of the earlier findings.
Nothing mysterious about it. Their friend purchased the firearm for them, which is called a straw purchase, which is illegal.
It seems to be working in the US. As the gun supply and the number of CCW holders increase, the number of firearm homicides and accidents decrease.
Quick example of Florida:
CCW law was passed in 1987. By 1999 Florida had issued 551,000 permits.
Firearm homicide rate changes from 94 thru 99 (Couldn’t find numbers quickly for earlier than 94, but these should work) Florida Crime Statistics
Firearm homicide rate changes from previous year (All are negative):
1994 -20.8%
1995 -8.7%
1996 -2.7%
1997 -5.0%
1998 -7.0%
1999 -21.9% (I did find that there were 26,807 new permits between 1998 and 1999)
Hmm. Do you mean a country like Brazil (not to mention other countries)? More gun control laws and roughly 3 times the gun homicide rate? You may want to be careful when comparing the US to the “rest of the world”.
Guns are already “regulated”. Perhaps you should be more specific.
Please see my statement above on the “rest of the world”.
IIRC, the UK had a low gun homicide rate before they enacted any meaningful gun control legislation, so your assertion that the low rate is a result of laws is incorrect. Please give us a cite that shows the rate was reduced as a result of gun control laws.
I believe that the point was that the strict gun control wasn’t reducing crime in these cities.
quote] Yes, so long as there is a reasonable interpretation that gives effect to both clauses. In the case of the Second Amendment, there is indeed a reasonable interpretation of the militia clause that gives it substative effect–see Miller and the lower court decisions that build on that case.
[/quote]
You’re wavering, Earlier, you said “As it applies to this topic, the principle contradicts the claim of those who say that the introductory clause of the Second Amendment is meaningless.” If you truly believe that every word must be given effect, then you must find a way to give effect to the phrase “roses are red, violets are blue”. If, however, this obligation exists only when there is a reasonable way to do so, then claiming that this principle “contradicts the claim of those who say that the introductory clause of the Second Amendment is meaningless” is begging the question. If there is a reasonable way to give meaning to the first phrase, then of course the claim that it is meaningless is contradicted. That is tautological. But if the first phrase is meaningless, then there is no way to reasonably give meaning to it, so the principle can not be applied to contradict the claim that the phrase is meaningless. To sum up: in order to contradict the claim that it is meaningless, you must first show that the principle is applicable. And to do that, you have to first show that the it is not meaningless.
Well, that’s not what you said either. The “so long as a complete reading is reasonable” caveat is new, and “a reading that picks and chooses what stuff to enforce” is not an accurate description of the alternative. Referring to this as choosing not enforce some parts is highly disingenuous. After all, if you enforce none of it, that it is a choice about what to enforce. If you enforce all of it, that’s a choice about what to enforce. No matter what, there’s no way to avoid making a choice about what to enforce. What you mean (presumably) is that you are opposed to arbitrary decisions about what to enforce. And there’s nothing arbitrary about enforcing everything that’s an imperative.
Taking something that can be given substantive effect, and claiming that it is what the clause means, is hardly the same thing as actually giving the clause substantive effect.
And of course by going to school to begin with, he was exercising his first amendment right of freedom of assembly. In fact, other than some rare exceptions (such as the DC sniper) every shooting has involved the shooter being in the presence of the victim, and thus exercising his first amendment rights. The ACLU supports the right of homicidal maniacs to go wherever they want, but when they start shooting once they get there, they’ve just gone too far. See, I can play this game too.
RandySpears:
Your use of the words “rally” and “staged” clearly implies a situation completely at odds with the facts. The word “rally” implies a public gathering meant to push their own agenda, and the word “staged” implies not just that they not only held it after Columbine, but planned it afterwards (and in response to it). Suppose I were to say “Following the September 11th attacks, RandySpears went on a message board criticizing Americans and blaming them for murders in their country”. It’s technically true, but presents a false implication.
No, we’re not. I’m opposed to registration on the grounds that the government does not have a compelling interest in knowing whether or not I own firearms and if so what type and how many. There’s no demonstrable proof this would keep anything out of the hands of criminals, and quite frankly the only use for it is to create a big list of gun owners for illegal monitoring. I have no problem with the background check, because that can actually deter criminals.
Where did you get the idea from any of my posts that I favor registration?
And the problem with that is? Last I recalled, in this country we don’t punish people who haven’t committed a crime.
Your problem here is what, exactly? Do you think the NRA should be in favor of murder so you could further demonize the NRA? What’s wrong with the NRA stating that they don’t support the actions of criminals nor condone murder?
Because banning drugs in the entire country has worked so well, we might as well try guns next? I think you’ve just given a perfect example of how bans don’t stop criminals from getting what they want.
The facts never get in the way of a pointless attemted nitpick from The Ryan.
Me: Chocolate is my favorite flavor of ice cream.
Ryan: What do you mean when you say “Chocolate is my favorite flavor of ice cream”?
Me: I mean that chocolate ice cream is the ice cream that I generally prefer when I wish to eat ice cream. Sometimes I might go for strawberry or cookies 'n cream, and I love hot fudge sundaes with french vanilla, but chocolate is my all-time favorite.
Ryan: You’re wavering. If you truly believe that chocolate is the best ice cream, you would never eat anything else.
Me: (Oh yeah, that’s why I was snotty to him the first time he showed up in this thread.)
Really? Jeez, here I am thinking that gun-related crimes are a big deal and pretty important stuff, and you’re telling me the government doesn’t have any interest in the tools of death and destruction? Jeez, how could I have been so misled? Damn you, Sarah Brady!
The Ryan, are you trying to tell us that there is no such rule of interpretation about giving affect to all the words? Are you just saying that such a rule exists, but that it doesn’t make sense? Or, are you trying to tell us that such a rule exists, but that it doesn’t work very well when applied to the Second Amendment?
Of course, if it’s none of the above, could you please summarise what it is?
