Bricker’s pile is going to look like it belongs in Egypt. The problem lies in the fact that the overwhelming majority of times a gun is used to protect someone, it is never fired and never reported. Makes it hard to compile really accurate statistics.
Sitnam, I would have thought it was pretty obvious that much as you were posting to “gun nuts” I was posting in response to people trying to impose gun control.
I have no problem with people proposing the need for amending the second. It is just a shame more people don’t take that path.
Just the other day I was involved in a traffic imbroglio. Bastard cut me off, and we spent the next few miles playing bumper tag. Stupid, sure, but nobody—and I mean nobody—gives me the finger and gets away with it. Finally we hit a hit a bottleneck and I hopped out of my car, 9-iron in hand, to teach that prick a lesson he’ll never forget. That is, until I saw the swimming pool come out and the crazy look in his eye that said go ahead, make my day.
Two Venti doubleshots and a vein-popping road rage notwithstanding, I’m smart enough not to take a golf club to a swimming pool fight. I lost that one, but the next joker that wants to play is gonna talk to my kidney-shaped inground.
From my cold, wrinkled hands, Mr. Obama.
Amending the Second would require an overwhelming amount of support, and there are quite frankly far too many single issue voters for that to be possible in my lifetime. However, to imply from it’s few sentences that the intent of the Second is completely unregulated arsenals for even law abiding citizens is stretching it though. Every Amendment has it’s limits, even the First.
Suppose for a moment that 'luci is right though. Would that fundamentally change the equation? In other words, do you accept the premise that if guns do more harm than good they could be subject to further regulation?
You must have me confused with another Doper, or do all disagreeing with you look alike? 
I don’t believe in completely unregulated arsenals. But, like with the First, I believe the burden is on the person proposing the restriction to justify it. And generally speaking “the good of society” ain’t a good enough reason to trump a constitutionally protected right.
Not because I am opposed to the “good of society” but more because I think in the long run, it is better served by hard core protection of individual rights than granting exceptions willy-nilly.
The other night I was drinking with some friends in a bar, when I noticed a drop of liquid appear on my chest. Well, at that point my military training kicked in and I hit the ground, reaching for my personal swimming pool.
Turns out it was just a couple of off-duty cops dicking around with a squirt gun, but I saw too much water in Iraq to take any chances.
Really? Segregation and slavery were Constitutionally protected. At one time it was my Constitutional ‘right’ to harm the environment at will, cruelly treat animals, sell Opium, beat my wife etc. etc.
You think the family members of those lost in gun related violence are being capricious?
I am not sure those later one’s were considered constitutional rights as such, more not legislated against. I’d also support a right to sell opium today, probably.
As for the segregation and slavery - yes, they were seen as constitutionally protected. I don’t think that is a problem to my argument on multiple levels. First, once the post-Civil War Amendments were passed, I think legal segregation was based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution. I don’t doubt, though, that pre-civil war, slavery was constitutional, and was intended to be constitutional.
I don’t see constitutional protection as being a get out of jail free card or magic talisman. However, I do think if something is a constitutionally enshrined right, restrictions should be held to a higher degree of scrutiny - that is how our system works, even when what is protected, such as “the right to hold humans in slavery” is a reprehensible act.
And there is a fundamental difference, in my mind, between individual rights as protected under the Bill of Rights, and rights that directly impact others. Me owning a gun, or my freedom of speech, or me worshipping as I see fit, or me not being subject to a government taking does not remove any rights from you. My misuse of things guaranteed by those might, but the right itself, and its exercise, doesn’t, or at least not in any cognizable manner. Me holding you as a slave, on the other hand, directly impinges on your rights. It’s a different kettle of fish altogether.
No I don’t. I think they have suffered a horrible tragedy that I would wish on few people if any. Not sure what that has to do with the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, though.
Which gun owners, by name, on this message board are stating that the Second Amendment protects “completely unregulated arsenals?” Or was that just a throwaway posting?
The Supreme Court already ruled and affirmed the right to have firearms for personal self-defense in Heller* and defined what “the People” means - amazingly, it means “the individual people.”* It also affirmed that that right can, and in fact must, be limited, something I personally agree with.
- This was sort of the biggest Supreme Court decision since Roe v. Wade, you might want to do what apparently most anti-gun folks on here haven’t done, and take a good, long read of it.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t explicitly state “guns” or “firearms” anywhere but simply states “arms”.
Aren’t nuclear bombs considered “arms”?
Should I as a citizen of the US have the right to own and bear my own nuclear bomb under the 2nd amendment?
Are you familiar with the differences between “arms” (namely, gunpowder weapons that one man can carry and properly fire in infantry combat) and “ordnance” (crew-served weapons and explosives)? That’s a distinction that’s been around for a long bloody time, so can we maybe not confuse the issue with nuttery that even the nuttiest of gun nuts subscribe to?
Aside from the fact that this is a very, very convenient mechanism, could you explain to me just how this comes about? Someone’s home is invaded and defended by a firearm, but the prospective victim doesn’t call the police? Huh?
I think we need a bit more detail on this. Actually, we need a *lot *more detail, if you expect this to be taken seriously.
I think this is hitting below the belt.
The police don’t have a simple statistical tag to show that an intruder was chased off by an armed homeowner. In addition, when someone is illegally armed (carrying without a permit), then they will not notify the police regarding an encounter.
Personal Anecdote:
I chased a man out of my apartment by pointing a gun at him. I did NOT tell the police that, just that he was scared off by me. I had no need for others in my complex to know that I was a gun owner, nor was it relevant to the break-in.
Now, when analyzing the impact of firearms possession on crime reduction, analysis depends on using surveys. That is what John Lott used in his peer-reviewed and published research. There are some that have argued that his data sets are either incomplete or that his statistical tools are misapplied. I will leave that to others to debate in the halls of academia, but you can get a taste of the lines drawn in the wiki bit on his work:
American Heritage Dictionary:
I’ve been looking for an 18th century dictionary on-line to see how they defined the word arm, but I doubt that the founders specifically meant “just” firearms. If so, they would have said so. I’m sure they meant to at least include swords.
I’ve heard of the cold war “arms” race with the soviet union.
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a race to see who had the most guns.
All of this is good fun until you put the stick in my eye.
What a bunch of hypocrites…
The call for the victims sympathy card.
What BS…
When I call for punishment for the murder of my daughter I get boat loads of scorn and statements from you types on how I have no rights to a say so because I am victim and so can not make a rational decision. My pain and suffering don’t count. Let the murder walk. To hell with me. And NOW you claim you are trying to protect ME by allowing only bad guys to have guns… Bawahahaha Take my means of defense away is how you want to protect me & my family… snerk It is all about you and your personal fear. Not a drop of concern is for the other guy. It is all about you…
You won’t put bad people in jail and keep them in jail, the true evil people of all ages. You want the stone killer kids to come back 3-5 times before you support them for the rest of their lives. And you claim that it is a tools fault that it gets misused. Ban the tool…
What a bunch of hypocrites… X 42
I suspect you’ll enjoy a nice four-bedroom house, with detached garage.
And I suspect I’ll be able to invite you to my new eight-story office building to see the pics.
Unless you’re imagining that “using” a gun to protect himself means “firing.”
In which case I grant that I’ll probably have a three-walled outhouse.
“Of course this stuff works. You don’t see any elephants around, do you?”