I don’t have too much time tonight, but just to get started discussing your contention, ph317:
I’m trying to do a little googling myself, and what I’ve come up with so far is that the debate surrounding the addition of the 2nd Amendment did not center around individual rights to possess arms for personal self-defense, but rather centered around the Federalists’ view that the federal government should have the power to arm the militia, vs. the Anti-federalists’ fear that the federal government would have the power to disarm state militias, which was a great concern at the time. So in fact, the wording about militias is crucial to the meaning of the amendment. I found a Washington Post article about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/courtguns051095.htm
And in fact, if you look at some of the quotes you posted, you’ll notice that they are talking about Federal vs. State government, not State government vs. the individual. Just for example, look at your Sam Adams quote:
Plus, the guy makes some great beer.
The history of the Second Amendment is actually that it was a compromise for those who feared the Federal government might disarm the states.
It is really comical watching you squirm and wriggle in a pathetic attempt to save face, and now you have to resort to prevarication. Either that or you don’t know what “confer” means. Stating that the right is one of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States is not saying that the Constitution is conferring that right.
As I previously pointed out to you, the wording of the Second Amendment indicates that “the right to keep and bear arms” existed prior to the Constitution. The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not “confer” that right, the Amendment forbids the government from infringing on that right. Do you get it now?
Furthermore, you haven’t nailed me on anything. The only thing you have done, is get your panties in a wad when I bitch-slapped you over your condescending grammatical “interpretation” of the “subordinate clause” of the Second Amendment. So now you whine about talking about state legislation, not federal. Well boo-hoo. Sorry 'bout that, but when I joined this discussion, you were “interpreting” (and I use the term loosely) the Second Amendment to another poster. Hey, but all is not lost. Afterall, you did get corrected and you can use the lessons you have learned here in the future.
Then when I reference the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to state law concerning “the right to keep and bear arms” , rather than defending the gun-control orthodoxy, you feign indignation because, supposedly, that’s already been covered. Well, I don’t recall any discussion regarding the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, how about the Lautenberg Amendment? Care to defend some of that liberal “legislation”? I’m sure that the ACLU, despite masquerading as an organization dedicated to protecting the integrity of the Constitution, is perfectly content with it. How 'bout you? Constitutional or unconstitutional?
While I’ll agree that the washington post article makes your case, I don’t see where you get that from the Sam Adams quote. Yes he said “Congress”, meaning federal government, but he didn’t say Congress had no right to disarm state militias, he said Congress had no right to disarm “The People”. In any case, I still think it’s a safe bet to defer to Congress themselves, who in my other quote stated in a 1982 comitee on the constitution in very uncertain terms that they believed it’s original intent was individual ownership and carry, and that this point of view is clearly backed by surround legal and historical document from the first 50 years after it was introduced.
I really don’t see the original intent part as even a good debate, I think there’s really no other rational position to hold given the preponderance of evidence. Certainly the meaning has effectively changed since, hence Congress’ reference only the the first 50 years after its passing. The question to be debated, to me, is whether the slip-n-slide redefinition by laws and courts since those times is valid and reasonable because the original was a mistke, or the original is no longer applicable to the modern situation, versus the idea that short of another ammendment to the constitution, all such laws and views are wrong. If you take a constitutional purist view of original intent and meaning, I don’t see how anyone can say that we weren’t gauranteed the right to keep and bear arms on a personal basis without twisting reality and rewriting history to suit your needs.
Oh, I get it now - you’re just regurgitating the NRA talking points, but doing a poor job of it.
Here’s what you said:
That sounds an awful lot like you’re saying the right is granted by the Bill of Rights. I can’t help it if your language is sloppy.
So I guess you’re trying to say that such a right already existed, which is untrue. From R. Bhowmik, “Our Second Amendment Rights Are Not Eroded – Our Understanding Of Them, However, Is” Church & Society Magazine, Vol. 90, No. 5 (May/June 2000).
So your assertion that such a right already existed is just plain wrong. The original colonies recognized no such right.
Guess the crack hasn’t worn off yet, 'cuz that has nothing to do with what I was saying. What we “already discussed”, was whether the SECOND AMENDMENT gurantees an absolute right to bear arms. I never said we already discussed the 14th Amendment. Why do you have so much trouble focusing? What I called you on was the inanity of, after exhausting all your silly sidetracks, you coming full circle and saying “duh, the Second Amendment sez we can have guns”, as if that were the first mention of it.
Geez, you’re like a dog who gets ahold of your pants leg and won’t let go. I already said I’m not defending Federal anti-gun laws. What part of “we are discussing state laws” didn’t you understand? If you want to discuss what federal laws are included in the powers conferred upon the federal government in the Constitution, and how gun-control laws are justified by those powers, you ought to start another thread. I’m not giving you any argument here. As far as I know, you’re right on that point; I just haven’t done the research on that, and it’s too far afield from the topic we are discussing. So please let it go.
Geez, you really can’t seperate your emotions from reason, can you? I quoted a well-written essay from the ACLU explaining why the 2nd Amendment does not confer an absolute right to own guns. But in your “for us or agin’ us” mentality, that apparently means that I agree with the ACLU on every issue, ever, and if they are ever wrong on anything, that it invalidates my whole being. Get a life.
I really don’t know. How about we deal with the issue at hand first. Start a new thread, and if I have time, I’ll try to do some research on it. It’s a completely different issue - not a 2nd Amendment issue at all, but rather a debate on what powers are conferred on the federal government.
Not to nitpick, but ya might need a better source for this one, since he’s run into a few problems with his research.
[ul]
[li]His own School[/li][li]The Bancroft Committee[/li][/ul]
Hmmm…it seems a bit hypocritical to appeal to the “intent” of the Second Amendment to support your view, then turn around and appeal to the literal wording of the quotes. The fact is that these people were debating a federal-controlled militia vs. a state-controlled militia. They weren’t debating the rights of individuals to own guns for personal self-defense, hunting, etc.; If Samuel Adams wanted to prevent the individual STATE governments from passing gun-control laws, why did he say “Congress”?
Well I haven’t heard of this committee, and that’s certainly a point in your favor, but then I can cite the opinion of the courts, which overwhelmingly states that one only has the right to bear arms in connection with a state militia. And since the courts, not Congress, is the branch that has jurisdiction over Constitutional matter, I would say that’s the more important opinion.
Well I think you believe this only because you are taking everything the NRA says at face value. You have to realize that there is a huge lobbying machine dedicated to spreading misinformation about the subject. If you’d bother to look at the other side, they debunk these NRA assertions:
Dude, are you serious? I looked up that committee - it was chaired by the infamous Strom Thurmond. And the subcommittee on the Constitution was chaired by Orrin Hatch, a zealous gun advocate. You’re really gonna base your whole argument on that, huh? Sheesh.
Of course you don’t see it, because you are taking propaganda at face value.
Hi Uncommon Sense, thanks for starting this thread.
I have strong concerns with the notion of concealed carry (and actually) any kind of carrying of a gun in public. My impression is that good anger-management is in short supply amongst most people in today’s society. Moreover, whatever concerns I have can be multiplied by 10 when you factor driving in congested areas into the mix. I am concerned that an armed person may not have the self-control to refrain “popping a cap” in someone if they get sufficiently furious (or sadly, these days, “disrespected”), whether driving or a plain old shouting arguement in a public space. Without guns, I believe that though people can get hurt in a shoving match or fisticuffs, at least no one will be losing a family member as a result of the altercation either as a target or as a bystander.
I do, however, support personal weapons for self-defense and would advocate concealed carry close-to-medium range non-lethal weapons (if and when effective ones are developed). I also believe in firearms for recreation (hunting, target shooting, etc). I am on the fence on firearms for home defense.
In summary, I would just add that a friend of a friend was killed in an altercation by gun user. To the inevitable, “Well if he had had a gun too, he might be alive today” argument that will no doubt spring up in this wake, I don’t believe that if two people have each other in their sights, their first thought is “Well, maybe shooting this poor fella isn’t such a good idea,” I believe their first thought is “Holy shit! I better shoot before he does!”
Thanks again for opening this thread, I hope I get a response and I welcome all viewpoints and facts, but not so much the rhetoric of either the pro- or anti-gun crowd.
Some overriding points I’d like to make first before this disagreement gets on uglier terms:
I’m not a member of the NRA, and I don’t read their stuff, and I’m not copying their arguments. I’m not trying to manipulate anything by creative illogical reasoning. My stance is that in ideological terms I’m of a libertarian-ish viewpoint (that “the state” meaning all levels of government shouldn’t infringe on my moral or fiscal decisions any more than absolutely neccesary to reasonably ensure I don’t infringe on others’). Based on my own personal ideologies, I think personal gun ownership and carry are basic rights. If the US Government or my State Government happened to strongly disagree with me, I would probably do so anyways (and probably either leave my country, or end up being some locked-up has-been revolutionary). However, from what I can find and read of the law (being neither a law professor, a historian, or an activist of any type), I think I can reasonably say that the law does support the right to own and carry arms with some (mostly) acceptable limitations. I don’t mind background checks and the exclusion of criminals, etc… (the likes of the current TX carry laws). I think those are reasonable barriers designed to prevent some people from having any easier time infringing the rights of others.
In the overall, I’m mostly happy with how the US and TX gun laws work out for me today. There’s some points I could nitpick about (for instance, I think the shooting accuracy tests for the TX carry license should be even more stringent, and I think the misdemeanor 5 year wait should exclude some very minor class B infringements as well as the current class C speeding tickets), but in the grand scheme, it works for me.
One particular point of current law that I’m unhappy with is the “Assault Weapons Ban” that has been all the debating rage lately. The real problem with the AWB and the arguments which lead to it, and the arguments about it now in the press, is the sheer volume of misinformation involved. The AWB is often painted as the only thing keeping full-auto machine guns off the streets, and those who support the AWB’s sunset (which will happen later this year unless congress enacts a new version) must therefore want people running around with UZIs. The truth of the matter is that fully-automatic weapons have been very strictly controlled by other laws since decades before the AWB. The AWB ban bans certain forms of certain semi-automatic rifles based on their (easily removable and mostly worthless, I might add) cosmetic features. Things like “If it has a bayoney attachment lug”. The other significant thing the AWB bans is ammunication feeding devices that carry more than 10 rounds. It didn’t ban the mags current in circulation of course, so this part has had virtually nil effect in the real world - you can buy and use legal higher capacity magazines from anywhere easily. They just cost more because of the limited supply and no new parts entering the market, which is an unneccesary burden IMHO.
If the AWB Sunsets (which won’t have any practical effect on gun-carrying types other than letting them buy cheaper magazines that fit better and function better, reducing failure rates in a dangerous device), and all other laws stay as they are, I’ll be a pretty happy camper.
Unfortunately, there are congresspeople out there who want to create a new replacement AWB that takes things much further, banning many legitimate hunting weapons and self-defense weapons. These people have an anti-gun agenda, and they will keep fighting for progressively tougher gun laws until nobody but the police or military can own a firearm at all. They’ve stated that goal, it is their mark. They have to do it in stages so it doesn’t look bad (Current stances: oh, we’ll never take away deer hunting rifles - Current situation: media frenzy over “sniper-style” mass murderers - Next stance: we must outlaw weapons that can be used to snipe humans, oh well I guess that means deer rifles too, since they’re basically the same weapon).
It is because of these congresspeople who are actively working to erode the gun rights I currently enjoy, that I feel the need to step up and participate in debates like this with people like you, and to try to take a strong stand on my view of the 2nd ammendment.
Now on to your points:
I don’t think it’s hippocritical, I think I’m seeing properly the intent of both statements. I agree that Sam Adams didn’t want to prevent individual state governments from passing gun laws, he wanted to prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws - I think we have misunderstood each others’ argument on this point, and perhaps I still do. The point I’m extracting from his statement was that Sam Adams didn’t say “Congress can’t restrict the arms-bearing of State Militias”, he said “Congress can’t restrict the arms-bearing of the individual citizen”, which to me indicates that he supports a view of the 2nd ammendment that applies to all individuals, not to organized state militias only.
You’re right, the courts have the final say in interpreting all this. My opinion is that they should interpret it as an individual right to bear arms, and I’m using the logical fallacy of appeal to authority by citing a congressional comitee’s findings in my favor. However, I’m doing so because I believe they likely put more research into the subject than you or I, and they probably have a pretty rational opinion on the subject.
Your quoted source for saying that the NRA-style quotes are misinformative are just as biased. Without really seeing the original text, your quotes are no better for how much they potentially leave out or interpret for me without showing. Unfortunately most pro- and anti- gun raw material on the web is to be found on very biased sites in both directions, which makes coming up with unbiased information rather difficult. You should be aware that you could also be taking propoganda at face value. “Zealous” gun advocate congressmen are still congressmen, as much as the zealous anti-gun congressmen are. Most congresspeople could be characterized as one or the other, does that invalidate any work any of them do with regard to this matter?
Actually, judges do a lot of research too. A court decision isn’t just an arbitrary flip of the coin, depending on a judge’s whim that day; it’s based on research. So what we have is your one Congressional committee vs. my many court rulings. And your one Congressional committee is quite obviously biased. Not that appeal to authority is the final say anyway (as you said), but if we’re citing authorities, it comes down to yours vs. mine, and doesn’t definitively answer the question.
Well first of all, you didn’t even give your source, and I rather suspect you got it from a pro-gun blog. And you’re right that my source has an agenda. I pointed out much earlier that there are very few neutral sources on the issue. So the best we’re going to do here is a battle of the blogs. I think the point here is that finding some quotes from founding fathers that seemingly advocate private gun ownership for hunting and personal self-defense, which may or may not be taken out of context, doesn’t prove anything. Yes, some of the founding fathers most likely did favor that, and others didn’t. Either way, it doesn’t prove the meaning of the Second Amendment. When you debate a law, people present their arguments for both sides of an issue; just because someone advanced a particular argument at the time doesn’t mean the law ended up that way. You can dredge up some quotes about “the people”, and I can dredge up some quotes about “the militia”, and neither one of us will have proven our point. You have to look at the history, and the fact is that the Second Amendment was added because of fears that the newly-formed federal powers would eclipse the powers of the states, resulting in the state militias being disarmed. There’s a very clear reason why the word “militia” is in there, it’s not just an extraneous bit to be ignored.
I agree with many of your sentiments hear about the overall difficulty of determining the truth, but I think the heart of the matter is that is not clear at all what the reasoning behind the word militia is. I can drag out my reasons, and you’ll drag out yours, but I’ll take the chance at being shot down for it by backing down now on the matter at that
I’d like to approach another disagreement we seem to have here. You keep saying that th courts have continually sided in favor of a militia interpretation, as opposed to an individual rights interpretation. I don’t know the cases well enough to argue this, but I have noticed that current legal reality doesn’t seem to bear out this conclusion.
According to the map at http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/all+united+states, out of the 50 states, there are 6 states which deny the right to carry, 9 states which have a “restrictive” carry right (which means a carry law exists, but it is in a form that people like myself would be generally unsatisfied with - usually it’s because the local peace officer can deny a permit without proving any reason or meeting any standard, it’s basically “at his will”), and the remaining 35 states have a reasonable carry law in place (which usually involves licensing and no criminal record of note, etc). If memory serves, there’s 1-2 states that have unlicensed carry on the books - meaning that while it is illegal for certain persons to carry based on their criminal background (and they can be prosecuted for weapons violations if they are caught carrying), there is no general requirement for anyone to become licensed in order to carry.
These carry laws seem to indicate that there is no current federal law restricting individuals from owning or carrying firearms (other than the federal laws on explosive, machine guns, WMD, etc obviously) - that the matter is purely at the discretion of individual states, the majority of which have chosen to allow their citizens to carry in some form or another.
ph317 says that the " heart of the matter is that is not clear at all what the reasoning behind the word militia is."
This is absolutely wrong.
Federalist Paper 29 (Hamilton) explains exactly what the Militia is and its function.
And it supports that every individual should have the right to bear arms (because it is these individuals who form the militia.)
The question lies in what constitutes bearing arms?
So far, the courts have deemed that weapons such as handguns and sawed off shot guns are not needed for war fare, thus not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
This makes no sense to me though as Automatic Weapons are banned…and that is needed for war.
I heard automatics will be up for availability though in Sept. is that true?
Anyways, the Federalist Papers paints throughout a vivid picture of what the 2nd Amendment is supposed to mean.
There is a reason it is the 2nd Amendment, and not the 5th or 10th etc.
You’re interrupting an argument that’s kinda going ok with some very naive comments. I’m not going to argue the bigger point with you, I think you’re after the same point as blowero, but he does a much better job - read his exchange with me.
I will, however, correct your factual mistakes in the lower half of your post, in the interest of stopping the spread of misinformation (I covered this earlier in this thread by the way):
The “Assault Weapons Ban” was passed 10 years ago. It automatically expires this September, because a “sunset” clause was written into the bill such that it would automatically take itself off the books in ten years. The opponents of the bill at the time fought hard for this provision, it was included so that congress would have to actually pass this law again after seeing its effects for 10 years in order to keep it.
So far, from scorecards some pro-gun sites keep anyways, it looks like it’s unlikely that a replacement bill will be enacted, although it is always a possibility and nobody can predict the future. There certainly are some congresspeople who are vigorously fighting to replace the original sunsetting AWB with a considerably stronger one with even more teeth.
As to the substance of the bill - this is where the real misinformation is spread by news media on the subject all the time. News articles on this matter often get away with mischaracterizing the AWB as being a ban on automatic rifles. In fact, automatic rifles have been effectively outlawed from the private citizen since decades before the AWB was passed. What the AWB bans is certain semi-automatic weapons based entirely on their cosmetic features.
For those who don’t shoot and to whom this may sound like the same thing - With a bolt-action or single-shot rifle, one must actually load a shell into the gun before you pull the trigger each time for a single shot. A semi-automatic weapon holds a container of many shells (usually 4-30 depending on a wide variety of factors), such that the weapon automatically re-loads the next round for you after you fire. However, you must still pull the trigger once individually for every round that comes out of the gun. Fully-automatic weapons are just like semi’s, except that if you hold down the trigger, they just keep on firing on their own at a fixed cyclic rate.
As to the bills’ cosmetic nature - essentially what it bans are semi-automatic weapons which meet certain criteria. Those criteria are that is has at least 2 of the following features: Flass suppressor (or threaded barrel to accept such devices), Bayonet Lug, Folding Buttstock, Grenade Launcher, and Pistol Grip. If the gun has at least any of those two features, it’s covered by the ban, otherwise it isn’t. Now of course, nobody cares whether their semi-auto rifle has a Bayonet Lug unless you’re keeping it as a historical or collector’s item - they can be removed from rifles that original came with them and are fairly useless in modern combat. Grenade Launchers are already outlawed to civilians, so we couldn’t have those anyways. That leaves the flash suppresor (which mutes the visible flash at the end of the barrel on firing - not many non-military persons care about this) , the pistol grip (common to most of them, but not all), and the folding buttstock (again, entirely optional equipment that isn’t really neccesary in most cases).
So manufacturers and dealers simply stripped off the useless mentioned cosmetic features and kept selling the semi-automatic weapons that might’ve otherwise been restricted anyways. For instance, some models of AR-15 rifles (which is the semi-automatic version of the military’s M-16 full-auto rifle) originally met the ban requirements, but are now sold with no flash suppressor or threaded barrel, no bayonet lug, and no folding buttstock, in order to be legal. It’s still the same rifle for all practical purposes.
The ban hasn’t effectively kept any class of weapons off the street. And of course a ban that would effectively describe semi-automatic “assualt weapons” would also include the often difficult to distinguish semi-automatic hunting rifles, which would cause an uproar among hunters. Hunters could still use bolt-action rifles of course, but many prefer not to.
So during the ban’s 10 year life, it’s been pretty obvious to all involved it hasn’t had any practical effect in keeping any form of gun outlawed - only in modifying the guns’ cosmetics. Whether or not a successful ban of semi-automatic rifles would have made a difference in crime rates is a matter of debate between the two camps, but the fact is that the current law didn’t do so anyways. I would like to point out in my side’s defence, however, that the overwhelming majority of crimes don’t involve semi-automatic rifles. However there’s always the occasional whacked-out mass murderer who makes this his weapon of choice (who I might add would probably have gotten it regardless of any ban), and it makes big media waves and leads to laws like this.
The latest media wave of that sort has been about recent sniper-style killings. Unfortunately, as any reasonably person can deduce if they think about it, and certainly as any markman knows from experience, the same design criteria that make a weapon a good human sniping tool also make it a good game-animal hunting tool. You really can’t ban “sniper rifles” without banning hunting rifles as well. If you try to find a way to do so based on the “scary look” like the AWB did, human snipers will just use the legal unscary-looking hunting rifles that perform the job just as well, in some cases better. For example, most of the scary-looking rifles that would get banned by a cosmetic anti-sniper bill fire .223 caliber rounds (such as the AR-15 again), which is all that’s neccesary for certain lightweight animals and humans - whereas the pure-hunting equivalents of these guns range much higher in caliber for taking down big game, and thus are actually considerably more powerful, longer ranging, and more accurate.
This has led to some of the congresspeople involved who are trying to replace the AWB with a tougher law to start trying to include anti-sniper provisions, which if not in the current forms of the bills, down the road in future laws, will lead to the outlawing of hunting rifles if they have their way.
I should point out for completeness that there is a seperate unrelated ban inside the AWB - and that’s the ban on any ammunication feeding devices (magazines) which carry more than 10 rounds, for any rifle or handgun. Prior to this ban many semi-automatic handguns (which means a modern self-loading handgun as opposed to a revolver, and sitll must be fire one trigger pull per bullet) came from the factory with magazines boasting anywhere from 12-20 rounds depending on caliber. They are designed this way for good reason, and police of course still buy the larger magazines directly from the manufacturer.
Again, the ban failed to do anything practical - it outlawed newly manufacturerd standard-capacity magazines since 1994, but there were already thousands upon thousands of them in the market from before that were grandfathered in by the law. YOu can go to any handgun shop, gun show, or gun parts website and order used but fully functional high (standard) capacity magazines for most guns. The only difference is that they now cost more due to limited supply. This is the provision that most gun-owners really care about in the AWB, because larger magazines have many practical benefits, and we’re tired of having to pay 10x the price for a used part.
Criminals have guns because your lobby makes it so goddamn easy for them to get them- legally. Yes, some criminals would still obtain guns if they weren’t as easy to buy as a pack of cigarettes, but not in the numbers that make the paranoid believe they need a firearm under their pillow to grant themselves even a modicum of safety.
Most victims of violent attacks are picked, so that at least is true; however, most attacks do not begin with a conversation. As for predictable? Yes, in the strictest sense, but not simple unless you have a lot of information available. It would be easier, for example, for myself watching as a 3rd party to possible predict an attack as it happens; however, for the victim it might not be so simple.
Almost all violent attacks begin with an interview. Despite the term, this doesn’t necessarily involve verbal contact although it is one mode. The interview is the process the attacker uses to determine if their selected prey is going to be a sheep, a nice easy victim who rolls over, or a wolf who will fight back. Violent criminals by and large want sheep. I say by and large because there are subsets who want somebody who looks like a wolf but is a sheep. It gets complicated needless to say. So it comes down to the instinctive ability to size somebody up. To gauge their reactions to contact, verbal or otherwise. Verbal contact often boils down to an attempt to manipulate to an advantage.
Guns are not a great deterrant to violent criminals. The well-intentioned advice, for example, to rack a shotgun shell loudly and announce your presence to a home intruder is poor advice indeed.
The problem with this information is it represents a collection of knowledge from numerous source materials, courses and professional experience. I can’t just “post a link”; however, to avoid the inevitable call for a cite…
See:
“Interviews with the Violent Criminal”
“Collected Police Reports” (might not actually be available to the public)
“Inside the Criminal Mind”
“Psychology of Criminal Conduct: Theory, Research, & Practice”
“The Truth About Self Protection”
“The Gift of Fear”
…from a debate of this type. Hot-button stuff for sure.
A few points to consider:
Criminals love unarmed sheeple. Easy marks, no danger to themselves.
Bad things sometimes DO happen to good people, through no fault of their own. Just pick up the paper sometime or watch the news.
Criminals do not worry about gun laws. They carry what they want, however they want. Gun laws only restrict law-abiding citizens.
Guns, concealed on person, or used for home-defense are not magic. They might not protect you in all situations. On the other hand, they might very well be the difference between life and death.
In my experience, anti-gun people are emotionally driven, having little or no actual experience with firearms. They only hear about the negative aspects of guns (criminal use). In many cases, they are afraid of them. They think the average gun owner is too stupid to be able to defend themselves if it should become necessary. They think the police are the only ones capable of properly handling a handgun, shotgun or rifle. They think the police will protect them. More likely, the police will be the mop-up crew. What is their plan if they hear the front door being kicked in at 3 in the morning? Oh, that’s right. Nothing bad can happen to them. They’re enlightened.
The gun owners I know are some of the best people you could hope to meet. Honest, hard working, full of common sense. Many are excellent shots.
I would trust these citizens to make the proper judgement regarding lethal force to protect themselves and family. It is their right.
Do not fear the lawfully armed citizen. Fear the criminals.
You seem to be missing the point in the same way that Razorsharp was. This is getting really frustrating for me, because I had to explain it about 5 times before Razorsharp actually got it, and now you are doing the same thing. I will cover this one more time, and then if people still don’t get it, I’m out of this thread.
Several people in this thread have asserted a Constitutional right to own guns. What a “Constitutional right” means is that ALL states in the union are barred from infringing on that right. We have freedom of speech; that means NO state may restrict speech. We have freedom of assembly; that means NO state may restrict assembly. And if you assert that we have the Consitutional right to own guns for personal self-defense, hunting, etc., it means you are saying NO state may restrict that right.
But here’s the thing: every time (except one) that gun-control laws have been challenged in court, the courts have ruled against the pro-gun side, saying that the “right to bear arms” only applies to militias. There has been one case that ruled pro-gun, but the overwhelming majority of cases have ruled anti-gun.
THIS DOESN’T MEAN YOU CAN’T OWN A GUN. It just means that any given state can pass a law restricting gun ownership if they want to. It doesn’t mean they all do; it just means they can. I mean, think about it; if the courts were ruling for Second Amendment rights for individuals, why would the NRA be spending all their resources lobbying to get the laws changed? They wouldn’t do that, they would simply challenge the laws in court and win. But they can’t win, because the courts have virtually always ruled against them.
As you pointed out, each state has a different degree of restriction on gun ownership and concealed carry. IF AN UNLIMITED SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT WERE UPHELD BY THE COURTS, THEN NO STATES WOULD BE ABLE TO RESTRICT GUN OWNERSHIP AT ALL. And that is not the case.
And like I said before, whether FEDERAL gun-control laws are within the purview of the federal government is really a completely seperate argument. Most gun laws are STATE laws; let’s not confuse the issue by talking about federal laws.
Actually, as a CCW holder and competive shooter, my concern for Second Amendment issues, as well as the historical foundations of the United States, has provided me the capability to author my own opinions. So now, I would request from you a “cite” of the NRA talking point that I “regurgitated”. (BTW: As far as I am concerned, the NRA capitulates and Charlton Heston revealed a degree of ignorance concerning America’s historical foundations, that, as president of an organization supposedly dedicated to preserving the rights of gun-owners, I found inexcusable.)
Now, as for someone who can do little more than regurgitate:
Remember when I said that it was comical, watching you squirm and wriggle? It’s starting to get hilarious.
You’re now referencing Michael Bellesiles, a so-called professor of history, in support of your contentions. Funny thing about Bellesiles, the “research” for his book, “Arming America”, subtitled: “The Origins of a National Gun Culture”, was deemed so fraudulent, he was forced to resign his position at Emory University.
It’s not my language, it’s your ability to comprehend.
If your contention were true, then explain why the original colonies, which became states, demanded that the Constitution be amended to prevent the government from infringing on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms? And please do note, the Amendment does say the people, not the state.
I don’t have any trouble focusing. What you did, was to dodge the issue by saying that, “We’re talking about state legislation, not federal.”, when the Fourteenth Amendment ties the two together.
The Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
The Fourteenth Amendment states that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Now, it is obvious that you believe that private citizens should not be allowed to possess guns for any reason. You are of the ilk that thinks that only government officials should possess guns. Therefore, being in the position of defending the indefensible, you choose to hide behind the notion that “we” are discussing state law, not federal. Well, as for the “right to keep and bear arms”, the two are intertwined.
Yes, you are right in noting that it is not “the case”, but it is supposed to be the case.
Quoting court rulings and “interpretations” does not contradict the notion that both the federal legislature and, via the Fourteenth Amendment, state legislatures are prohibited from infringing on the peoples right to keep and bear arms, when legislatures legislate and courts rule in sympathy to certain agendas, just as was done with the “Lautenberg Amendment”.
The “Lautengerg Amendement” is blatantly unconstitutional, but it is allowed to stand because, well, this is how they wish things to be.
Wow. Someone actually addressing the OP. I had pretty much given up on that, and this thread. Thank you, Hey you!.
Anyway…it’s all well and good to have an “impression” about people and their tempers. And frankly, I’m not saying that I entirely disagree with you. But the argument I and others are trying to make…were trying, I should say, before this thread got hijacked…is that it is wrong to make law based on nothing more than people’s impressions.
If you have an impression that gay sex is icky, should it be outlawed? No. Laws ought to be based on facts and evidence. So I ask you, do you have any evidence, gathered from any of the many states that now actually have liberalized CCW laws, that there is an actual danger that people actually carrying weapons under this legal regime will, for real, actually behave in the manner you are afraid they will, often enough to be statistically significant, and that more people will suffer from such liberalized laws than will benefit from them?
Excuse the excitement, but what the heck are you talking about? It has been illegal for criminals to get guns for as long as you might care to look. It has been illegal for non criminals to get certain guns for almost as long. As I recall, the NRA is in favor of instant background checks.
Can you please explain how criminals get guns legally?
