Right there, you are suggesting that if it ain’t written in the Constitution that “We the People” have the right to possess or own guns, then we don’t have that right.
No, I don’t need any thing other than the “bald assertions” of the Amendments themselves.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
There, since the issue of firearm ownership is not among the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, that are listed in the Constitution, everytime the FedGov engages in regulating the private ownership of firearms, it is overstepping its Constitutional boundaries.
The safety of the governor is no more important than anybody else. If other people are not protected by armed guards, or by carrying pistols, then he should not be either. It seems to me that he should be doing everything possible to disarm those guards that around him. Whether it be capital police, or state police. If he doesnt have the authority as governor to disarm them when they are around him, then he should introduce legislation to make them disarm when they are near the governor.
If he doesnt then his veto doesnt mean anything, nor does what he say mean anything, since he personally doesnt believe in what he is saying if he says guns are not needed, so why should anyone else believe that guns are not needed when the governor himself relys on guns for protection?
Wrong. If you are murdered, then a murderer did it. I don’t know about you, but I have never seen a mechanical device with no mind or will act on its own to commit any crime, much less murder. You may be right in saying that chances are that the murderer used a gun, but the gun did not willfully murder anyone.
You’re going to have to prove that one. And when you do, don’t forget the 200,000 to 2,000,000 defensive gun uses that occur every year. By the way, the larger of those numbers comes from the Journal of Criminal Justice.
And I can guarantee that when the Founders came up with the idea of free speech, they didn’t forsee the invention of computers. You don’t need one of those, so why have one?
The fact is, I hold among my rights as a human being the right to defend myself against bodily harm or death. I will use the most efficient and effective means available to me to do so. That, for me, happens to be a pistol concealed on my person. I’d rather have it there and never need to use it than need it and not have one.
Really? When’s the last time you saw a firearm pull its own trigger? When is the last time a gun just ‘went off’ without any human interaction whatsoever?
People use firearms to kill animals (most of the time, this is called ‘hunting’). You’re being dishonest.
As to the Constitution, the U.S. Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government to only those specific areas in which the Constitution permits the branches of federal government to act. In other words, the way it supposedly works is that if it doesn’t say in the Constitution that the federal government can do something, then they’re not allowed to do that thing. In all the times I’ve read the Constitution and its Amendments, I have never seen the part of it that permits the federal government to restrict the ownership of firearms.
Much of this legislation has gotten passed under the ‘regulation of interstate commerce’, which is, in my opinion, a gigantic end run by the federal government to extend its power much like it did when it blackmailed states to lower speed limits to 55 mph by threatening (and carrying out) the removal of federal highway funds. Of course we could end this ‘interstate commerce’ thing once and for all by simply purchasing all firearms in the state of manufacture. Wonder where the government would look next for a Constitutional loophole to give itself powers it was never specifically given by the one document that exists solely to limit the power of that government?
The right to “bear arms” conflicts with endangered species attempts.
As for the idea of concealed weapons… I think it should be illegal to conceal a weapon in public. If you have a gun, tape it to your forehead or something…
Get people to quit freaking out and saying I should be arrested for exercising my legal (in Pennsylvania) right to open carry, and maybe I won’t need to conceal anymore.
Now you’re just being dense. “Doesn’t forbid” and “guarantees” do not mean the same thing. Just because the Constitution doesn’t forbid something does not mean it guarantees it. If you don’t understand the difference between a constitutional right and something that doesn’t happen to be illegal, then you need to bone up on what the phrase “constitutional right” means.
Uh, hello? This entire thread is about laws passed by state governments. As far as I know, the federal government isn’t in charge of regulating firearms; the states are.
This is a total non-sequitur. You completely ignored the context of the discussion between xstisme and me. If you can’t even keep up with what we’re talking about, and the best you can do is to interject trite NRA platitudes along the lines of “guns don’t kill people, people do”, then don’t even bother.
Uh, no - that’s in response to xtisme’s assertion that one is “less likely to be shot by a gun wielded by a CCW permit holder, and even less likely to be shot by a gun wielded by a CCW permit holder with no past criminal record.” If you advocate giving out more CCW permits, you have to prove that more CCW permits will lessen crime. Otherwise, it’s illogical to do so, which is what I stated.
Where’s the link?
Again, you have seperated my statement from the context of the discussion. And besides:
A. Yes I do need a computer.
B. Computers have lots of uses besides injuring living beings, and are rarely used to injure or kill, so your comparison is very poor.
Just because you claim something to be your “right” does not necessarily mean it is your right. We live in a society; not in a state of anarchy. You are defended against bodily harm or death by the rule of law and the police. I find it amusing that while xtisme just got finished claiming that we don’t have to worry about guns because it’s so unlikely that you would be murdered, now you claim that you must have a gun to defend yourself against murder. Rather than carry a gun, I would suggest that you stop placing yourself in dangerous situations.
Oh, wonderful - the platitude again. Give me a break.:rolleyes:
Hilarious! You keep taking things out of context, and then accuse me of being dishonest. What are you smoking?
You too? As I said to Razorsharp, since when are we talking about the federal government?
I’m sorry, you’re going to have to be more specific as to what you’re talking about. The OP is about a Wisconsin state law. How did we get on this federal tangent?
How you think you can logically get from that to believing that I am talking about federal legislation is beyond me. That’s a complete non-sequitur. And I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that the fact of the ACLU declining to take a stance in favor of gun-ownership is equivalent to a federal law.
You are still maintaining that “not constitutionally protected” is equivalent in meaning to “forbidden”. And since this is about the 4th time I’ve explained that they are not the same thing, I’m pretty sure you’re never going to get it. I think you’re in over your head here - logic obviously is not your strong suit.
Well, ya see… all this started when you, in reference to the Second Amendment, sanctimoniously asked MGibson if he understood what a subordinate clause was. Funny thing about that, it was obvious that you, yourself, didn’t have a clue as to what clause within the Amendment was subordinate.
You’re delusional.You’re the one who parroted the ACLU party-line, as though it was an authorative interpretation of the Constitution, which is somewhat akin to quoting the Communist Manifesto in defense of the progressive income tax.
Again delusional. You are the one that said,
, thus insinuating that if it’s not in the Constitution, then the people have no right. That’s bass-ackwards.
I say if it is not enumerated in the Constitution, then the FedGov has no business addressing it. Oh, and James Madison says that too.
My ankles ain’t even gettin’ wet stompin’ thru this liberal cess-pool.
Coming from the relatively gun free utopia that is the UK I don’t really have a view either way as to what is the best course of action but I just want to know one thing; If a citizen carrying a CW is confronted and maybe assaulted by a criminal and in the resulting fracas the law abiding citizen fires a shot that accidentally kills an innocent passer-by what happens? I would assume that they would be jailed for manslaughter at least. I am just wondering where the line is drawn as to where the responsibility of the CC starts and ends? Surely in a situation like this it would be better to lose material items than risk killing an innocent by passer trying to protect them. Basically if someone trying to prevent a theft killed my wife/father/brother etc. accidentally I would be pretty pissed off.
In your scenario WILLASS, what happens to the shooter would be up to the District Attorney. If it can be found that it was an accidental shooting, with the CC shooting to protect his/her life, they probably wouldn’t pursue charges. However, the victim’s family could easily sue and win big bucks. (W/o going into the loss of the victim, etc.)
The other scenario, defending property, could see the CC shooter being vigorously prosecuted. There are a number of DA’s who support self-defense shootings, but charge and convict citizens for taking a life over property. Can’t find the link right now but I think there was one in Texas recently where a guy was convicted for killing a car thief as the thief drove away in the shooters car.
I just have a bit of a problem with the fact that you would be able to protect your own property even to the extent of killing someone else, albeit accidentally. I was led to believe that crime rates in America are now very similar to those in the UK (obviously gun crime is lower but that doesn’t rule out stabbings etc.) and that general crime rates in London are now higher than New York, now as you are most likely aware handguns are outlawed here so only criminals and the police have them but I don’t know anyone who feels like they need to arm themselves in order to be safe. Lets face it if anyone is going to use a gun on you it is far more likely to be in order to rob you as I’m sure that random gun murders are still a pretty rare occurrence in the States except maybe in the most violent areas. What I am getting at is surely it would be safer all round to just give a robber what they want as material items are replaceable but life is not. The U.S appears to outsiders to be a crime riddled, gun toting, near anarchic bullet fest but I think that your perception of what could happen to you crime wise is dis-proportionate to the actual risk. I need to find a cite that confirms the U.S/U.K crime stats. as I read it in a paper and can’t find it at the minute but if it really is true that our crime rates are similar I don’t really understand why everyone is so scared of being attacked. Basically I feel that you should try and move towards a gun free society as your gun related crime stats. speak for themselves; the more guns you have the more people die.
. Emphasis mine. Actually, that is not true. IIRC, earlier in this thread someone posted a cite showing the number of firearms in this country is at an all-time high, while firearms deaths have decreased from their all time high in the late 80’s and early 90’s. From the Bureau of Justice. The BBC reports that violent crime in the UK is on a sharp upswing. And please, in no way am I saying who’s right or wrong, just the facts, ma’am.
You CANNOT legally use lethal force to protect your property (at least not in any of the states I’ve lived in). Lethal force may only be used in immediate defense of your life (or another person’s life). A person legally carrying a concealed handgun who uses it to protect his/her property will be facing a felony manslaughter or murder conviction. What you’re worried about is a non-issue.
Oh, and there’s no such thing as a “gun-free” society; the only question is who’s going to be able to carry the guns. A society where only crimnals and government agents are able to carry weapons isn’t a society I’d be comfortable living in.
Hadn’t been paying much attention here–also hadn’t realized people would actually have anything to say about what I posted.
re: fallacies in this thread:
I was going to go back and extract a few choice deliberate misinterpretations to back myself up on this, but if blowero found them too then I feel justified. I apologize if I misattributed something to someone but I think I was on target.
My original comment was that pro/anti discussions on political issues like gun control often get so passionate that people overreach themselves a bit and use points that aren’t helpful or relevant to bolster an argument, just because they can. Sure, passion is important, and it’s an important subject. But including absurdities along with facts and reasoning can only weaken one’s argument overall. (For the record, I’m not sure if I’m against gun control or not. If I wasn’t interested in reforming my opinion, I wouldn’t lurk/post here.)
I still have doubts about how well someone can use a firearm under pressure. It’s not that I think the police have superpowers, or anything: but the police get paid to protect me, they are ‘professionals,’ and they are, in theory, supposed to be familiar with their service weapons. I realize that theory and reality may differ, but I don’t feel it’s unreasonable to expect a cop on the beat to know how to use his gun. Sure, someone at a desk all day may not be as proficient. But if I can expect anyone to have marksmanship skills, it should be a policeman.
The other thing a policeman has is experience with criminals and pressure situations. Gun owners are fond of saying how accurate they are on the range, and use this to suggest that they will be accurate when firing at a criminal. But if that’s all the experience you have, it’s uncertain (not completely out of the question, though) that you’re still accurate when your physical well-being is on the line.
Catsix gave an example, which to me seems to be a best-case scenario. There was a routine that had been practiced, it was on familiar territory, the criminal was an amateur (a drug addict, rather than a burglar), appeared to be unarmed, and left before the gun needed to be fired.
Is there any sort of requirement for gun owners to do the sort of rehearsal catsix apparently used? Is this tested somehow? That’s different than just having a liscence to carry concealed.
Secondly, why would the gun need to be concealed in this situation? It would have been just as handy on the kitchen table next to the phone.
Third, catsix decided not to fire, which eliminates another variable.
What about late at night, in an unfamiliar city, badly lit street, etc.? I realize this is unlikely; but that’s part of the argument against guns, is that you can do a lot just by avoiding situations without having a lethal weapon. (Not that you can avoid using one as easily in your own house, but when we talk about laws and the Constitution, we’re talking about general benefit vs. harm, rather than specific instances.)
Hadn’t even realized this thread was still going. I really don’t have much more to add that I haven’t already, but thought I’d respond to comments directed back at me.
God only knows why people feel they need guns to defend themselves. Statistically murders aren’t even 1% of the deaths by, say, smoking in a year (I think off the top of my head thats something like 400k/year…not going to bother with a cite on this unless someone is REALLY going to be pigheaded about it…call it a WAG on my part) or heart disease (200-300k…same), or even drunk driving. And only 71% of THOSE are by gun according to your cite. In a country of 300 million+ this isn’t even a drop in the bucket statistically.
However, as I said, this gets into the deeper issue of ‘rights’. You disagree that its a ‘right’ to own and bear arms, so its kind of pointless to continue on IMO, as I’ve said that I think you can make a reasonable and valid case either way. Personally, as I said, I think it IS a right, and one that can be reasonably safely excersized, albiet with the proper controls (registration and regulation). I say reasonably safely because, again, even if EVERY murder by firearm can be attributed to law abiding citizens (something thats ridiculous) its STILL a drop in the bucket and not a major problem as far as public OVERALL safety is concerned. In other words, anti-gun advocates are worrying about something fairly minor. They’d be better served, if public safety is their primary concern, to go after drinking and driving, or smoking, or fast food…or hanging christmas lights for that matter. More realistically, they’d be better served by compromising and seeking to put in better registration/regulation and dropping the stance of trying to ban guns completely, or even ban citizens from their right to bear arms.
By the same token, pro-gun advocates would be much better served by conceeding that registration and regulation on this issue is a GOOD thing, and even pushing to raise the standards for such things as CCW permits and maybe even purchasing standards. They should be in the forfront leading the charge to police their own and ensure that the LEGAL owning of a gun goes to those who most EARN the ‘right’…i.e. those who put in the time to learn how to operate and maintain their weapons properly, who keep their noses clean and are good citizens, etc.
Agreed…never said it WAS ‘logical’. But then, people don’t always work by pure logic, as you know yourself. I don’t think there IS a way to solve the problem of criminals having guns to be honest. Even in countries where the average citizen can’t have a gun at all, criminals still manage to find them (and still manage to murder people with them). And honestly, I don’t see CCW as ‘solving’ the problem of criminals having guns…quite the opposite in fact (as I already said). I see it as ensuring a ‘right’…just like ensuring the ‘right’ of free speech, the ‘right’ to assemble, Freedom of Religion, etc. Until and unless the constitution is amended and the language made more explicit (something I think SHOULD be addressed btw…but addressed in such a way that the PEOPLE have a chance to participate. Maybe a national referendum?) its a ‘right’ I definitely feel should be protected, especially in light of its, to me, minor impact on public safety.
Because shit DOES happen. You can’t protect society from everything thats bad for it, nor can you take the responsibility of action out of people hands…and thats what you do when you make this kind of decision for them. Personally, again, I agree with you. I think its absolutely both crazy AND stupid to carry a weapon with you in public unless you are a police officer (thats why I don’t do it, even though I live in a state that has pretty liberal CCW permits). There are myriad reasons for this, not the least of which the average citizen is neither physically nor mentally equiped to handle a weapon in what would be a combat situation.
You may (ok, you ARE) even be correct in saying that no CCW permits is better than fewer, which is better than what we have now. No guns at all in the hands of civilians is probably better than fewer guns, is better than what we have now too. However such a case can be made for nearly anything. No cigarettes is better than fewer cigarettes, is better than lots of cigarettes. No drunk drivers (or no alchohol/drugs for that matter) is better than fewer, is better than lots…etc etc.
At some point people have to be and take responsibility for their actions, and that means they have to be given leeway to TAKE those actions…otherwise you have a totally repressive society. And that means, ya…shit happens.
Where do you draw the line on ‘protecting society’ from itself…on repression and control? Its an arbitrary line after all. Do you draw it at guns/no guns? Do you draw it at free speech/free speech but only whats ‘approved’ by the state? Assembly/authorized assembly only? Tolerance of religion/Intolerance or conditional tolerance by the state? Alchohol/prohabition? Legalization of drugs/fucked up system we currently have? Prostitution/ditto? To me, the government is already too repressive on a lot of these and I’d like to see them(and am hopeful eventually they WILL) loosen up some. The last thing I want is for MORE repression and control from the government.
Again, it comes down to, is the right to bear arms a ‘right’ guarenteed by the Constitution? I think it is, though I conceed the language is unclear and there are truely valid arguements that can be made on the other side. However, there is enough controversy on this that I think its time to really and deeply re-examine this amendment and put it to the people to clarify this.
But, as I currently DO think its a ‘right’ (as I interperate it), thats why I support stuff like CCW in theory, even while I disagree in practice with folks doing it. Same with the fact that I disagree with Nazism or Creationism, but agree with folks right to publish such drivel. I disagree with the KKK (BIG time), even while supporting their right to (peace-ably) assemble and march about in sheets like fools.
Until the amendment is properly amended (one way or the other) and the language clarified and the majority view by the PEOPLE is discovered on this issue, this is always going to be one of these legalistic gorgon knots IMO that will never be resolved.
Anyway, as usual, NO ONE agrees with my own positions on any of this and I’m squarely in the middle, catching fire from all sides. I’ll leave it here. Enjoyed the thread as always.
Unfortunately, a lot of gun owners no longer trust those who push for things like registration and regulation. California mandated registration and regulation of certain guns, and then used those lists as ban lists to not only permanently stop the sale of those firearms, but to collect them from people who already legally owned them. This included speciality rifles such as those used for Olympic competitions. Maryland did the same thing regarding registration; the list was used as a way to go around and collect the now-banned guns. We have seen cities (Chicago) where laws were passed requiring registration cards, and then the city government placed a de-facto ban on ownership by simply refusing to ever issue a registration card.
The lack of trust for those who wish ‘registration and regulation’ has been well earned.
One thing to remember - statistics apply to populations, not individuals. Perhaps some of those people who want to carry firearms know that their circumstances put them in a higher-risk situation than an “average” individual? Just as someone who’s smoked cigarettes is at a much higher risk of getting lung cancer than the “average” person, a person who’s being persistently stalked by a jealous ex-lover or who is forced to work or live in a high-crime neighborhood may be at far greater risk of being murdered than the “average” American. I certainly can’t blame that person for wanting to be armed, any more than I’d fault the smoker for wanting regular chest x-rays.
Well, you’re wrong on that count - I find your view a reasonable one. I suspect,in fact, that it represents the viewpoint of most “average Americans”. Most folks I know want reasonable regulation of firearms but don’t want them banned, and they’d support tough restrictions and training requirements for concealed carry, so long as they were fairly and consistently applied. Someone who’s going to be carrying in public (concealed or not) SHOULD be well-trained in the use of their weapon. I just don’t agree with the folks in this thread who seem to feel that its impossible for “average citizens” to be trained to an acceptable standard.
I’ll leave it here. Enjoyed the thread as always.