Murder? A DEER???
Nevermind, that’s too ridiculous to even consider.
aseymayo, if a gun is pointed at you can you tell if it’s loaded?
Guess we’ll miss that NRA meeting in Colo. this week.
“That clause, “A well-regulated Militia” is set off, and for a good reason…”
–jdv
Incorrect.The National Guard/Air National Guard is co-funded by Federal and State Appropriations, making them Government Agencies.The (still) current definition of a militia according to The New Oxford English Dictionary is:
militia
noun: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
n:military force that engages in rebel or terror activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
n: (in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
The Second Amendment does not guarantee your right to own a howitzer. The NRA is wrong. The Founders wanted to assure the right of a properly founded body to guard against invasion, not your right to instigate mayhem. If you think they did, you are an idiot.
Partially correct. True, the Second Am. doesn’t allow for the private ownership of engines of war. At the time of writing, that was artillery pieces, mortars, and any ship-of-the-line.
The modern context would be machine guns, mortars, howitzers, etc.
But one other thing a little bit of casual reading would have shown you is that the Founding Fathers wanted an armed populace for another reason as well: to protect the nation from itself.
Or put another way, to keep some would-be tyrant from usurping control of the government and instituting tyranny.
And you are completely wrong on the last part: I’m not an idiot.
Now, if you want to institute some sort of certification course and/or mandatory safety instruction prior to permitting people to legally purchase firearms, bang on! It’s exactly what I and the NRA stands for and encourage: safe, responsible ownership and handling of firearms. --Me
Sounds like youre slicing it pretty thin, actually, since that sounds like a significant impediment to getting a gun that is not readily resolved by the text of the 2d Amendment. Why can the government infringe the time of your weapon purchases but not the amount?
I was offering what I thought was a reasonable compromise, as a way of trying to reduce the number of injuries/deaths due to accidental shootings. I would distrust the motives of a person who must have a gun RIGHT NOW!
Chance favors the prepared individual.
I personally don’t feel the need for more than one handgun, but I also own a rifle and a shotgun (the right tool for the right job).
But people who want to own 20 AR-15s and 1,000 rounds of ammo make me nervous. Why does a person need 20 semi-auto rifles? Just because you can doesn’t seem to me to be a reasonable, rational answer.
So the Great Limit Debate goes on…
As a reasonable compromise would be hard to work out (there are radical elements on both sides of the argument), some pretty close timming is going to be necessary.
I may have missed it on the news…has anyone figured out where those two nut-jobs aquired those guns?
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“They got better than they deserved.”
“There are an estimated 200 million guns in America – where only seven states ban the carrying of concealed weapons – and the differences between it and other countries are stark: in 1996 handguns were used to murder 30 people in Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany and 9,390 in America.”
So, does this mean if you Brits and Canadians had access to guns, you’d be just as violent? You mean, we’re not alone? It’s not just our horrible culture, then? Not that I’m defending American culture - we have no culture, only pop culture.
Let’s face, none of the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights is absolute. Even the most fundamental, the right of free speech, is limited. People can and are arrested, prosecuted, and/or sued for what they say.
The anti-hunting argument is ridiculous. Would you consider a wolf a murderer for killing a deer ? Hunting of non-endangered non-predators is no worse than letting them starve to death (which frequently happens in suburban areas where the deer population is exploding due to a lack of predators).
Anyway, back to guns. You want to own a gun ? You’re responsible for it. If someone gets ahold of it and shoots me or one of mine, and I can convince a jury you didn’t take adequate means to safeguard this from happening, I should be able to sue you for everything you’ve got or will ever have.
Second, statistics show that having a gun in the house greatly increases the chances of someone in the house getting shot by it. I’ll take my chances with the burgulars, thank you.
Third, having a gun is a temptation to use it. In the Old West, everyone carried guns; therefore, lots of people got shot. Laws restricting gun ownership came about because of this. If more people are armed, more people will be shot. Too many people in a moment of rage will choose to use the gun.
Fourth, the analogies of defending against whatever government bogie man you choose are a pipe dream. If the US Army, Air Force, Marines, etc. wants to get you, you don’t stand a chance. The only reason nutcases like the Branch Davidians held out as long as they did is because they had kids inside, which made the FBI/ATF hold back. Let’s at least be honest about that.
[[It should be necessary for people to take classes on how to use guns properly and responibly before issuing to them a license or permitting them to purchase guns.]]
Yeah, just like all those Vietnam vet postal workers, who got all kinds of weapons training in the military.
Jill
I stand by my original position, and no one has been able to challenge this. I Shepardiezed this while working at Hughes, Hubbard, and Reed in New York.
The right to “bear arms” is restricted to the National Guard. period.
Read the Consitution. That’s all.
If you think you know better, you’re not dealling with reality.
[[ {{The Second Amendment does not guarantee your right to own a howitzer. The NRA is wrong. The Founders wanted to assure the right of a properly founded body to guard against invasion, not your right to instigate mayhem. If you think they did, you are an idiot.}}
Partially correct. True, the Second Am. doesn’t allow for the private ownership of engines of war. At the time of writing, that was artillery pieces, mortars, and any ship-of-the-line.
The modern context would be machine guns, mortars, howitzers, etc. ]] ExTank
Presumably the weapons covered were to be of such a size that a person could “bear” them. While that readily eliminates nuclear launching devices, I don’t see where that (or anything ) takes automatic weapons out of the protection of the 2d amendment.
{{[[Sounds like youre slicing it pretty thin, actually, since that sounds like a significant impediment to getting a gun that is not readily resolved by the text of the 2d Amendment. Why can the government infringe the time of your weapon purchases but not the amount?]]
I was offering what I thought was a reasonable compromise, as a way of trying to reduce the number of injuries/deaths due to accidental shootings.]]ExTank
I appreciate that on the level of your being a human being with whom I share this planet (and this MB). However, I just don’t think I see where that is founded as a constitutional principle.
[[ I would distrust the motives of a person who must have a gun RIGHT NOW! ]]
“Ohhh! Five days? But I’m mad now!”
{{I stand by my original position, and no one has been able to challenge this.}}jdv
Naw, it’s just been shredded and put out to pasture.
[[ I Shepardiezed this while working at Hughes, Hubbard, and Reed in New York.]]
Uh huh – are you a law student? Seriously.
[[The right to “bear arms” is restricted to the National Guard.]]
That is a reasonable position – however, the contrary position is also completely reasonable, and you will have no credibility if you continue to deny this.
[[period.]]
Exclamation point!
[[Read the Consitution. That’s all.]]
Maybe you got a bad copy – mine says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
[[If you think you know better, you’re not dealling with reality.]]
Based on what I’ve seen, I’m pretty sure that reality says I know a lot better.
Although, most of have agreed on this thread, I have to add my 2 cents in.
Re the original question, in addition to the other philosophical answers, be aware that there is a subclass of the gun hobbyist called “Black Powder” where the plinker makes his own ammunition.
Regarding gun control and violence. There are two thought processes at work. The gun banning people think “Guns are used in violent crimes, so if there are fewer guns, there will be less crime” The opposite camp thinks “Someone who wants to rob my home or kill me may think twice if they might get blown away”. Well, I think the first philosophy is a little naïve. A person doesn’t become violent because a gun is in his/her hand. A person is has violent tendencies and the gun facilitates acting on those tendencies. However, so do axes, hammers, mazeltov cocktails, their own body, iron skillets, …
In addition, unless all firearms were eliminated from the face of the earth, professional criminals could still get their hands on them. The second philosophy is less naïve, but a dog works better on the personal level. I have heard that in Florida, they had to stop putting ad stickers on rental cars, because the criminals were targeting the tourists in the rental cars. Since you couldn’t bring guns into Florida but the locals tended to have them it was safer to rob the obvious tourists.
Consider Cervaise’s statistic - it says that * firearm-related * deaths are lower in other countries - well of course they are. The question is, are total deaths lower?
I don’t like gun banning issues because I think it takes attention away from the actual causes of violence.
And that, I think is the core problem. Americans are lazy. We want the easy, fast way out of any problem. We want to blame a group we are not a part of, an activity we do not engage in, anything so that we don’t have to change. Watch. Littleton will be blamed on the gothic subculture, violent video games, violence on TV, availability of guns (even though the most destructive item was a homemade bomb), the Internet, the Democrats, the decay of morals because people don’t go to church anymore.
We want to smack our kids if they make us angry, then we wonder why they are so violent. Recent research shows that a) children that are spanked are more likely to engage in disruptive and violent behavior and b) children who watch violent shows become violent only if they come from a violent family life. Violence is taught at home.
See? If you thought gun control arguments were vituperative, try addressing some of the real reasons for violence.
Regarding guns and accidents. This is where training and licensing can have the most benefit. You can’t drive (and by extension get a car) unless you can parallel park, use the turn signal, and follow the rules of the road. But you can get a gun without knowing which end to point away from you. Yes, JillGat, training will not keep anyone from going postal; however it will cut down seriously on the number of accidents that happen. When my ex taught me how to use a gun, he taught me gun safety rules. Since then, I have never heard the details of an accident where one or more rules were not broken.
Rule 1: A gun pointed at a person is loaded. Consider this magic. I don’t care if you just took all the bullets out and took the firing pin out - a bullet has materialized in the chamber as soon as the gun has been pointed at someone.
Corollary 1: Don’t point a gun at a person unless you intend to kill him/her. No playing, no threats. Unless you want that person dead, don’t point the gun at them.
Corollary 2: If someone points a gun at you, move. If they follow you with the gun, run for cover. If they tell you the gun is not loaded, repeat rule 1 and point out how many people have been killed with unloaded guns.
Corrollary 3: A gun is not a toy. A gun is not a toy. A gun is……
Rule 2: Always know if the gun is loaded or not & cocked or not. Don’t forget the magic materializing bullet.
Rule 3: Know how your gun works, intimately. Can you imagine driving a car without knowing how to turn on the headlights, or that gas is needed to make the car go? How are you going to follow rule 2 if you don’t know the mechanics of the bullet loading and firing mechanism?
Rule 4: Gun cleaning is the most hazardous aspect of owning a gun. Send the wife and kids shopping, point the gun at the washing machine while you’re working, and know how to completely disarm the gun. Because at some point you will have to look down the barrel, and you don’t want that magic bullet to have a chance at getting fired.
Rule 5: Most guns used in crimes are stolen. Don’t tell anyone you have a gun, or you will end up on someone’s houses to rob list.
Parents, even if you don’t have a gun, teach your children rule 1 and its corollaries. If you do have a gun, be aware of the forbidden fruit syndrome and work with it. When they are young, let them look at it. When they are old enough to understand death, teach them rule 1 and let them dry fire it. Make sure they know that this is something you don’t tell other people about, and that they must have your permission to touch the gun.
Zyada
"…mazeltov cocktails…’
Can you only throw these at Jewish celebrations?
Molotov cocktails were named for a Soviet foreign minister.
I stand (well sit) corrected.
But it works, you throw one and say “Congratulations, you’ve been annihilated”, eh?
jdv asserts:
Let me guess…you also worked a little bit on somebody’s appeal?
–elm
I’m trying to see things from your point of view, but I can’t get my head that far up my ass.
Hey Ex Tank;
I threw you a bone, and you didn’t bite! 
Really, I would like to hear your opinion on why the NRA is so anti gun law and at the same time so pro marijuana law.
Both involve personal freedom, and both are very controversial.
Peace,
mangeorge
“If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything” Mark Twain 1894
Dear mangeorge:
Although not a member of the NRA, I oppose just about all forms of gun control.
I also believe this society should legalize marijuana and prostitution and should probably consider legalization or decriminalization of all other drugs.
As Robinson Jeffers said: “Long live freedom and damn the idealogies.”
jdv, don’t forget to read the cases after you Shepardize. Your New York law firm should have taught you that.
The Supreme Court fails to mention your notion that only the National Guard may bear arms. Rather old Supreme Court cases define the militia as the adult population of a state; but that was before anything as organized as the National Guard.
More recent Supreme Court cases describe the Second Amendment as a limit on the federal government’s ability to infringe the people’s right to bear arms. So, the Supreme Court thinks the people have the right to bear arms, not the people as a militia having a right to bear arms.
Before setting your position out to pasture, we should first brand it, “not Supreme Court approved”.
[[More recent Supreme Court cases describe the Second Amendment as a limit on the federal government’s ability to infringe the people’s right to bear arms. So, the Supreme Court thinks the people have the right to bear arms, not the people as a militia having a right to bear arms.]]
That is also not so clear (to put it mildly). What is clear is that the Court has NEVER invalidated a state gun law in the basis of the 2d Amendment (to my knowledge).
That ringing “what is clear” didn’t go real well with that weaselly “to my knowledge,” but I’m pretty sure there have been no such decisions. Occupational hazard? 
Peyote coyote;
When you’re right, you’re right.
The purpose of law is to protect the innocent, not to get me into heaven.
Where the heck’s Ex Tank? :>
Peace,
mangeorge
“If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything” Mark Twain 1894