Right to bear arms

[vid]

I was just wondering (and stirring) what Americans thought of the right to bear arms. Is it just most of the rest of the world that thinks it is a ludicrous law, or do alot of north Americans agree?

I mean it's not like the king of England or the USSR are going to invade you ;)

[Pietoro]

I think the mentality behind it is, if private citizens have guns, its not just the police/army/criminals that are packing.

[SpiritWalker]

I think it is my right to have a bear in my arms.. to have arms even! :flip:

[Lazzmodai]

The most misunderstood line of the constitution.. silly americans.

[TheDagdaMor145]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."




i dunno, that doesnt seem to say to me that people are only allowed to bear arms if they are in a militia. if you are obeying the letter of the law, the bill of rights simply says that this right of the people shall not be infringed.

perhaps the king of england and the russians will never invade. however, the possibility of some kind of invasion into the country does exist and will always exist. and in a far less dramatic sense, the property of people could be invaded upon by people who break the law. therefore, if for no other reason, people should have the right to defend themselves and therefore have the right to bear arms.

perhaps it is because everyone in my family hunts, but i think that people should be allowed to own guns. however, i do not see any reason why civillians need to own something along the lines of an assualt rifle, uzi, sniper rifle, etc.

[Drakeon]

From how my political science teacher expained it, the reason that they have that amendment is to make sure the government doesn't ever become too powerful. In the case that it does, you have guns to protect yourself and something to fight back with. Granted that may seem silly to some, but it made sense to me.

I fully support the 2nd amendment BTW. I guess we could have a little stricter gun control laws, but nothing too severe.

[Eiger]

Umm, we just did this topic a month+ ago. See this thread: http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=230015&highlight=amendment

As always, the constitution is one of those documents that is interpreted to create law. The current interpretation is found in post 12 of the above thread.

In short, the current law of the land is (from said post 12): "The rub is that with the single exception of one non-holding case (US v. Emerson in 2001), every circuit court has adhered to the legal principle that there is no right to personally bear firearms unless it is related to preservation of a well-regulated militia. And, while Miller is now well over 60 years old, the Supreme Court has refused certiorari for at least 9 circuit cases where the court refused a personal right to bear arms, indicating continued support for the collective right interpretation."

[Eiger]

perhaps it is because everyone in my family hunts, but i think that people should be allowed to own guns. however, i do not see any reason why civillians need to own something along the lines of an assualt rifle, uzi, sniper rifle, etc.
I don't think you'll ever have to worry about gun control laws taking away your hunting rifles. Just ain't ever going to happen. Hopefully, we'll eventually get smart on assault rifles and put a ban in place that doesn't have the loopholes of the previous ban which recently expired. Handguns, who knows, I doubt they'll ever be banned, but additional controls, tracking and such would certainly be helpful.

[Bhs Crew]

The most misunderstood line of the constitution.. silly americans.
Yes it is, but it is the liberals who misunderstand it.

It means exactly what it says it does. Many of the founding fathers (especially the more freedom based ones who got the bill of rights passed) felt that the more checks against power put into the constitution the better.

One of the main things it was supposed to do was keep the federal government from ever being able to invade and force a state under its control (though they didn't count on Lincoln throwing waves of immigrants against his enemies).

The second amendment supports Jefferson's often stated idea that the people should control the government and if it ever stops serving the people it is their DUTY to take it down and set up a new one. Plus as we've found out in Iraq, an armed populace is really good at causing trouble to an occupying power.

[Drakeon]

Hah looks like what I said was right, as BHS just restated it :D

[Bhs Crew]

If you say something enough times it BECOMES correct!

Seriously though, I stand by my belief on the original intent of the law. The Supreme Court will come around just like it took them 40 years to realize that jailing the Japanese Americans in World War 2 was unconstitutional.

Old people in robes are human, and while their view is what is currently applied to law, it doesn't change the constitution. That's why future courts have the right to take another look at an old ruling.

As I said before, Eiger, if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that abortion was not only unprotected by the constitution, but that it was unconstitutional, I don't believe you would accept that as what the constitution actually says.

[vid]

So 10,000 gun deaths a year is a good price to pay incase tha government suddenly decides to otherthrow the state? And what would you do then, go up against the army? Yes guns may cause a problem like in iraq, but would you fight an army with them? And is it worth the huge deathtoll?

Here in the uk we get around 20 gun deaths a year, alright you have 300 million people, we only have 60 million, still, 5x20 =100 so you have 100 times the gun deaths that we do, justify peoples lives.

[Eiger]

If you say something enough times it BECOMES correct!

As I said before, Eiger, if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that abortion was not only unprotected by the constitution, but that it was unconstitutional, I don't believe you would accept that as what the constitution actually says.
Hehe. Regarding the first sentence - that's what the NRA's been banking on for years.

Regarding the rest - I believe that the current interpretation is what the framers intended and what's written in the 2nd amendment. People and militia meaning roughly the same thing.

It certainly was NOT intended to allow a proliferation of handguns, assault rifles and such for personal protection from crime or for the committing of crimes. Additionally, there's nothing there which states that reasonable regulation of such weapons would be inconsistent with the constitution. Which is why so many gun control laws have not been struck down.

[Maullus]

Greetings,

So 10,000 gun deaths a year is a good price to pay incase tha government suddenly decides to otherthrow the state? And what would you do then, go up against the army? Yes guns may cause a problem like in iraq, but would you fight an army with them? And is it worth the huge deathtoll?

Here in the uk we get around 20 gun deaths a year, alright you have 300 million people, we only have 60 million, still, 5x20 =100 so you have 100 times the gun deaths that we do, justify peoples lives.

I'd like to see some documentation for those statistics. They seem rather distorted, especially when you're not clarifying exactly what a "gun death" is.

Also, aside from your own mention of it, do those numbers take into account the population difference? America is bigger then the UK both in population and geography. That's not a slight, just an observation.

Do I think people should have the right to possess a firearm if they choose to? Yes. Why? Because there are a lot of people out there that wouldn't bat an eyelash at the thought of breaking into my home, harming my family, and robbing me blind. That's not to say that I'm going to walk around with a six-shooter in my beltstrap, but I should have the right to protect my home and family during the estimated two minutes on average it takes the police to arrive.

Now, am I in favor of much stronger gun control laws? Absolutely. Certain types of weapons should not be available to the general public, regardless of the ridiculous gunshow loopholes and such. No one, and I mean no one, as a private citizen needs an Assault Rifle.

The bottom line is, unless and until you have someone trying to force your door open while you're on the other side of it, or had the sliding glass door in the rear of your home smashed in so someone could rob you, or your next door neighbor's front door was kicked in... don't tell me that I don't need a means of defending myself. I'd love nothing more then to not need a weapon, but I'm not going to be an idealist here, not when doing so would put the safety of my family in jeopardy.

[powermongor]

So 10,000 gun deaths a year is a good price to pay incase tha government suddenly decides to otherthrow the state? And what would you do then, go up against the army? Yes guns may cause a problem like in iraq, but would you fight an army with them? And is it worth the huge deathtoll?

Here in the uk we get around 20 gun deaths a year, alright you have 300 million people, we only have 60 million, still, 5x20 =100 so you have 100 times the gun deaths that we do, justify peoples lives.

Ok, vid, so how many ppl are stabbed / poisoned / pushed off balconies / murdered by some other means in your country?

What about the overall crime rate? Last I heard, the crime rate had skyrocketed in GB over the last decade.

Wanna hear something funny? The violent crime rate is lower in states that have the most liberal gun laws (liberal as in free) and higher in states with the most stringent gun laws. Don't ask me for a link, do the research yourself or someone else post a link. BHS would prolly agree with me on that, maybe you could do the homework for me
:thumbsup:

[powermongor]

So 10,000 gun deaths a year is a good price to pay incase tha government suddenly decides to otherthrow the state? And what would you do then, go up against the army? Yes guns may cause a problem like in iraq, but would you fight an army with them? And is it worth the huge deathtoll?

Here in the uk we get around 20 gun deaths a year, alright you have 300 million people, we only have 60 million, still, 5x20 =100 so you have 100 times the gun deaths that we do, justify peoples lives.

And actually I think that the number is much higher than 10,000, its like 100,000 or more... and HALF of those deaths are SUICIDES.

[BrimSt0ne M0nkey]

I totally believe in the right to bare arms. I dont own a gun myself....Yet. I see it as another item on the list of the government slowly taking away peoples rights. But if the day comes when we start using our guns against our own military, well the country is doomed. I only see that happening if Marshall Law is Declared.

[Bhs Crew]

Yes guns may cause a problem like in iraq, but would you fight an army with them? And is it worth the huge deathtoll?
If this country was invaded the question to both would be a profound yes. It has been shown time and time again that an armed populace can cause great damage to an occupying army (the invading a state idea was just a historical reference pointing out one of the original intents of the amendment).

Here in the uk we get around 20 gun deaths a year, alright you have 300 million people, we only have 60 million, still, 5x20 =100 so you have 100 times the gun deaths that we do, justify peoples lives.

According to the US Department of Health and human services (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) there were 11,348 firearm homicides in the United States in 2001, or 4 deaths per 100,000 people.

Besides firearms there were another 8,960 homicides for that year.

Simply put, all things being equal I have a 0.004% chance of getting killed with a gun next year. I'm willing to take that risk.

To put this in perspective (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03.pdf) 15,764 people died from falling, 22,242 people died from poisoning, and 700,142 people died from heart disease. Simply put, controlling things that cause heart disease is over 61 times more important then controlling guns.

[vid]

@ maullus, yes i said you have 5 times the population, which is why i said 5x20 (20 deaths), the higher rates of homicides are higher in urban areas, the uk has almost 100 times less useable landmass than the US, so in effect you are 20 times more spread out as well.

@ Powermonger, your homicides are 5 times higher according to the BBC website from which i am quoting. Yes, the violent crimes had skyrocketed in the last ten years, but they are falling again at the moment, they are still far below the US.

@ Bhs, but when is it high enough? where do you draw the line? .005%, .01% 0.1%? Surely 1 a year is too high, and yes i agree there are more pressing matters like obesity, but you cannot ignore the small agendas because the big ones seem so bad.

At the end of it i am just wondering why the gun and violent crime is so high in America compared to the rest of the 'civilised' world. If any of it is truely civilised.

[Bhs Crew]

Wanna hear something funny? The violent crime rate is lower in states that have the most liberal gun laws (liberal as in free) and higher in states with the most stringent gun laws. Don't ask me for a link, do the research yourself or someone else post a link. BHS would prolly agree with me on that, maybe you could do the homework for me
:thumbsup:

Finding links to support powermonger....grumble.....grumble....BAH!
That being said, here they are:

First point is that firearms were only used in 1 out of every 8 violent crimes (US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr)) meaning that a lack of a firearm doesn't seem to stop violent crimes from happening.

First a look at states that have laws passed to allow people to carry guns (known as "right to carry" laws).
Here's the map (http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg) (I had to use the NRA website for this, but it doesn't affect the accuracy as states either have them or they don't. Not much room for interpritation.

I'm tired and I have a life to get back to. Someone else on my side look up the crime data for each state.

[Andarcel]

Bad argument. As you yourself have pointed out on another thread, the fact that another concern is more pressing shouldn't sway us in weighing this issue - it's not like we can't both ban guns and address heart disease. However:

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. (57)(58)(59)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 15 nationwide polls done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (7)

And Vid? The number of illegally owned guns in the UK has doubled in the last the last ten years, despite fifty years of hard gun-control legislation. Since most felons used illegally-owned weapons, I find it hard to credit the notion that we will significantly reduce violent crime by banning guns.

Eiger, I thought you were a fan of not sacrificing liberty for security?

[Bhs Crew]

What he said. Thanks Andarcel.

I've been keeping track of too many arguments and the quality of my posts has been steadily declining. I'm getting back to my life and taking a nap.

Just one more post...

[Glurin]

On assault rifles, maybe I'll agree they need to be banned if, and this is a big IF, people can come up with a definition that doesn't change all the time. A minigun, for example, should probably be banned or highly restricted (allowing serious collectors to have one for example). But the definition of "assault weapon" has included everything from military rifles to handguns to shotguns. Basicly, if a high profile killing happens and involves a gun, that gun somehow becomes an assault weapon.

On banning or limiting handguns, no way. A big part of the right to bear arms is self defence, and its just not practical to pack a shotgun around all the time. Plus rifles are heavy and have quite a kick compaired to handguns. Don't take this the wrong way, but most women these days aren't going to be able to handle one. A handgun is easier to use, especialy in most of the situations you would be useing it in self defence. The most I'll go for is requireing you to take a gun safety class before you can buy one.

We have way more than enough gun control laws already. Too many actualy. More won't help and will more than likely hurt. Just enforce the ones we've got.

[starryknight]

i dont know. if u had the right to bear arms it would risking lives... :scratch:

[Maullus]

Greetings,

Gnobbler Gnevermind says, "but wihtout arms how will i scartch my itchy places?!?!!!1111" :cheesy:






Sorry. I just thought the Gnomes' should have their opinions represented.

[Semidi]

I have a gun, and so do the criminals...

Uncle Sam bans guns

I don't have a gun, but the criminals do...

and HALF of those deaths are SUICIDES

You don't need a gun to kill yourself... a piece of rope, a knife, or a really tall building will do also.

[Elevander]

Or your teeth, suicide can be accomplished naked. Just gnaw through your wrist. Bad idea to try and corrolate suicide to banning firearms.

[powermongor]

Finding links to support powermonger....grumble.....grumble....BAH!
That being said, here they are:

First point is that firearms were only used in 1 out of every 8 violent crimes (US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr)) meaning that a lack of a firearm doesn't seem to stop violent crimes from happening.

First a look at states that have laws passed to allow people to carry guns (known as "right to carry" laws).
Here's the map (http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg) (I had to use the NRA website for this, but it doesn't affect the accuracy as states either have them or they don't. Not much room for interpritation.

I'm tired and I have a life to get back to. Someone else on my side look up the crime data for each state.

I will try not to be so lazy next time.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I find nothing wrong with the right to bear arms. Weapons such as assault rifles should have stricter control on them but thats about the only fault I find with it.

Now, I'm in the army so I may be a little biased but I believe it should be every mans right to carry a weapon to protect himself.

Strict gun control does not necessarily lower crime. Guns are the weapon of choice in murders because it is the most effective, if there were no guns, these murders would probably not be prevented, they would have been done with an alternative weapon like a knife.


I'll use Norway as an example as it's almost the opposite of the US when it comes to weapons.
Here in Norway we have incredibly strict gun control, firearms are very hard to come by if you don't have underworld connections. Only thing you can really have without going through tons of paperwork is hunting rifles. Not even the Police in this country carry guns without special permission from District central.

So in effect, the only ones with guns are the more hardcore brand of criminals. The bad guys have all the firepower they need while citizens have no way of defending themselves. That is not a good thing.

But instead of a gun, people carry knives. Although carrying a knife on your person in public is not allowed either. People carry knives because they are easy to come by as they can be bought at any store who sells them and it's needed for protection, just like guns in America.
Hell, even I carry a knife with me at all times when I go out at night, I would feel alot safer if I had a gun. But I dont, because its not allowed and hard to get a hold of.

The majority of murders on the news are stabbings. Not just random stabbings, because knives are the weapon of choice here and people learn to really use them we regularly see fancy stabbing like people getting stabbed in the groin and bleeding to death from a severed artery.
Just 3 weeks ago there was a guy that went crazy on the subway in Oslo and randomly stabbed 14 people and killed one man. Now this ofcourse has caused a typical stupid knee jerk reaction from the usual hysteric crowd and people screaming to stop the over the counter sale of that type of knives.

What I'm trying to say is, strict gun control or even a ban on firearms wont make the country a safer place. People will find alternative weapons and things will be just as bad. If someone wants to kill someone, they will, guns or no.
Might as well let people protect themselves.
What people should focus on is cracking down on illegally owned firearms. That is the real problem.

[Sage the Mage]

Having the right to bear arms is fine when its limited to handguns and hunting rifles. There's also the collectors, but they gotta be strictly watched.

Sure people will get shot, but as Graav said, they'd probably would have been killed in some other sort of way. Let me ask you a question: which mode of death is better for the economy? :)

[Bartleby]

My position on gun control?... Hit what you're aiming for.

Seriously though, there is no need to ban small caliber pistols, hunting rifles or anything above a 12 gauge shotgun. I am for registering weapons (although it is likely a ruse to be used at taking guns away, it's still important), weapons training/safety classes, and a short waiting period as prerequisites to owning a gun.

The only thing strict gun control laws do is provide criminals with the assurance that they have a distinct advantage over the people they intend to harm. Right to carry/conceal take that certainty away. Similar to the adage that it's not the length of the sentence, but the chance of being caught that deters criminals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I said before, Eiger, if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that abortion was not only unprotected by the constitution, but that it was unconstitutional, I don't believe you would accept that as what the constitution actually says.Excellent point.

[Bhs Crew]

See this all is interesting. You would think that if this forum was actually dominated by liberal communists as has been often suggested by many people throughout the year, then this thread would be dominated by people wanting more gun control.

It just shows my often stated point that people are a mix of opinions and positions. Putting people into categories like liberal and conservative helps nothing. This forum is full of a vast range of ideas.

The one thing that has some agreement is that most of the people here hate Bush, but we have incredibly ranged and diverse reasons for hating him.

I guess what Bush said is true. He's a uniter not a divider.

[TheDagdaMor145]

It just shows my often stated point that people are a mix of opinions and positions. Putting people into categories like liberal and conservative helps nothing. This forum is full of a vast range of ideas.

which is why i shall be voting for myself in this next election. i am the only one i know that agrees with and would represent all of my views 100%! :winner:

cheers :drink:

ps: no, not really. i might disagree with my own views...

pps: or would i....? :scratch:

ppps: why are you still reading this?

[gismo]

The most misunderstood line of the constitution.. silly americans.
Then please educate us. :scratch:

No the consitution doesn't mean you have to be in a militia to have a gun. The right to bear arms wasn't just thrown in there for protection from ones own government. Yes, that was one major reason. Another reason was food gathering and personal/family protection from thieves, indians, etc. But, according to the SC constitution every male in the age of majority is considered in the militia.

[BrimSt0ne M0nkey]

Gizmo, what the Hell is your Avatar :lol:. It looks like some happy, Loafy, prancing, lime green pickle. :lol: I love it. :lol:

[Maullus]

Greetings,

At the risk of completely side-tracking this discussion

The majority of murders on the news are stabbings. Not just random stabbings, because knives are the weapon of choice here and people learn to really use them we regularly see fancy stabbings like people getting stabbed in the groin and bleeding to death from a severed artery.

:lol:

I don't know why, but the term "fancy stabbing" just cracks me up. I can just see a couple of bystanders...

"Oooh, did you see that flourish?"
"Yea, but the riposte was a doozy."
"Oh, nope. He's done for."
"That scratch? It's just a flesh wound."
"No no, you daft strumpet. He nicked an artery."

:cheesy:

[Eiger]

And Vid? The number of illegally owned guns in the UK has doubled in the last the last ten years, despite fifty years of hard gun-control legislation. Since most felons used illegally-owned weapons, I find it hard to credit the notion that we will significantly reduce violent crime by banning guns.

Eiger, I thought you were a fan of not sacrificing liberty for security?Unfortunately, one reason we have so many gun crimes is because they are so accessible. If they are limited, average joes are going to have to commit their crimes of passion with means that are less likely to kill. Criminals would also find guns more difficult to obtain. Not to say they won't obtain them, but many wouldn't. Sure, they'll be available on the black market, but that requires connections that many people don't have. It's not a fix all, but it would be an improvement in saftey for sure.

As for liberty and security, I really don't see much issue there. Owning handguns doesn't provide security when the army has assault rifles, tanks, howitzers, fighter jets and the like. Now assault rifles in every household would provide some, but do we really want that? For that matter, is anyone really that afraid of the government these days? If they come to get you, are you going to go out in style ala Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Or are you going to keep your family alive and take your chances in court? I dunno, this whole thing sounds like a fairly bogus issue to me.

It should be noted that I'm not in favor of banning guns in general, just assault rifles in particular. I would like to see control of handguns, but leave hunting rifles, target shooting rifles and etc. left alone.

[Bhs Crew]

Unfortunately, one reason we have so many gun crimes is because they are so accessible. If they are limited, average joes are going to have to commit their crimes of passion with means that are less likely to kill.
First, as I pointed out in post 20, only 1 out of 8 violent crimes is commited with a handgun (US Gov. statistics). This doesn't seem like a high rate to me, nor would that mean a big drop if guns were banned. Also the 62,000 people or so who protect themselves with guns each year would be unable to do so(check the links in post 20 and before if you don't believe my numbers, I ain't linking it twice).

Anyone who lets their passion get control of themselves to the point where they try to kill somebody would get shot in a state with full right to carry laws, and he would deserve it.

Criminals would also find guns more difficult to obtain. Not to say they won't obtain them, but many wouldn't. Sure, they'll be available on the black market, but that requires connections that many people don't have. It's not a fix all, but it would be an improvement in saftey for sure.
A police state would be much bigger improvement in safety. The whole point is that safety is not always the issue.


As for liberty and security, I really don't see much issue there. Owning handguns doesn't provide security when the army has assault rifles, tanks, howitzers, fighter jets and the like.
No you misunderstand what Andarcel is saying. Security is having guns banned, liberty is having the ability to own/carry one if you wish.

Owning handguns provides me with the ability to protect myself and my family from a criminal who does. Just because idiots periodically kill shoot themselves or people they care about, doesn't mean the people who can use guns shouldn't be able to have them. Idiots will find some other way to hurt themselves and the people around them.

Actually this liberty for security thing works the exact same way as with terrorism. Homeland security is good but I'm willing to accept a good amount of risk in order to keep more freedom. The same is true with handguns.
Now assault rifles in every household would provide some, but do we really want that? For that matter, is anyone really that afraid of the government these days? If they come to get you, are you going to go out in style ala Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Or are you going to keep your family alive and take your chances in court? I dunno, this whole thing sounds like a fairly bogus issue to me.
No one's afraid of the current government as long as much of the power remains dispersed. It doesn't matter what is true now, it matters what could be true fifty years down the line. Right now I am able to take my chances in court and have a relatively fair hearing. As long as it stays that way then that is the smartest choice.

[Bartleby]

Based on the statistics we should be banning the following (at the bare mininum):
Bricks, bats, bottles, pans, cars, knives, scissors, rolling pins, fists, feet, etc.
These are the weapons attackers used most often and also that resulted in the most serious injury. Of the injuries that resulted in death firearms of any kind proved to be the more efficient killer, used in 70% of all homicides. Does this mean that if we take away all the guns, there will only be serious injuries? No. The remaining 30% of victims were also stabbed, bludgeoned and/or pummeled to death. If you were actually able to prevent criminals from getting a gun, which everyone knows you can't, a criminal will just choose the next most efficient method to kill. Ultimately you'll just have to cut everyone off and the knees and elbows (think Holy Grail and the Black Knight) to actually prevent homicides. All banning guns does is prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, period.

[Eiger]

First, as I pointed out in post 20, only 1 out of 8 violent crimes is commited with a handgun (US Gov. statistics). This doesn't seem like a high rate to me, nor would that mean a big drop if guns were banned. Also the 62,000 people or so who protect themselves with guns each year would be unable to do so(check the links in post 20 and before if you don't believe my numbers, I ain't linking it twice).

Anyone who lets their passion get control of themselves to the point where they try to kill somebody would get shot in a state with full right to carry laws, and he would deserve it.


A police state would be much bigger improvement in safety. The whole point is that safety is not always the issue.


No you misunderstand what Andarcel is saying. Security is having guns banned, liberty is having the ability to own/carry one if you wish.

Owning handguns provides me with the ability to protect myself and my family from a criminal who does. Just because idiots periodically kill shoot themselves or people they care about, doesn't mean the people who can use guns shouldn't be able to have them. Idiots will find some other way to hurt themselves and the people around them.

My point was that if fewer guns (and I'm referring to handguns and assault rifles) exist there will be fewer crimes with them, hence less need to protect oneself with them as well. That there's only 1 in 8 violent crimes committed with a gun is irrelevant as I'm not talking about all violent crimes - only gun crimes. Comparisons can be made with other countries which have fewer guns per capita, but those are not so relevant due to cultural differences between the countries. Even comparing to Canada and UK - it's also a matter of culture - what exactly, I don't know, but for some reason they're much less prone to use guns on a per capita basis (comparing the amount of guns available in each country).

Re: crimes of passion. I totally disagree. A large number of murders with guns are crimes of passion and usually it's against a spouse or a girlfriend. You're assuming that the wife is carrying a gun in her kitchen while she's cooking dinner when hubby decides to pop her?

Yes, a police state would be safer, hehe. Who wants that though? I'd prefer to work within the current system we have.

I didn't misunderstand Andarcel - just a typo. Insert liberty for security in that sentence. Sorry! It works either way, hehe. Guns provide neither security or liberty compared to what the army can bring to bear.

Sure guns can provide security from criminals trespassing in your own home. However, I've known no one in my nearly 44 years who's had to do so. I have however, known 3 kids who've killed themselves with their parents gun, and another who shot a friend of his kids who was (legally) visiting one night thinking he was an intruder. Oops. I'm not too worried about in home crime frankly. The odds of it happening to me are really pretty darn low. Of course if I lived in a nasty neighborhood it might be different. Either way, I think it's a little paranoid.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I don't know why, but the term "fancy stabbing" just cracks me up. I can just see a couple of bystanders...

"Oooh, did you see that flourish?"
"Yea, but the riposte was a doozy."
"Oh, nope. He's done for."
"That scratch? It's just a flesh wound."
"No no, you daft strumpet. He nicked an artery."


:lol:

Well, anyone can stab a guy in the chest 28 times but it takes some skill to slash an artery or get to organs like the liver. So in some twisted way, I guess I appreciate people giving it some effort and doing some nice work with the knife rather than just hack away mindlessly. :innocent:

[Bartleby]

Let's assume "a large number" of murders with guns are crimes of passion (although we have no evidence to suggest this). So what? Does that mean that the "hubby" can't get a bat, lamp, flashlight, screwdriver or any object and kill her with that? Does that mean that the wife can't take a knife from the kitchen and stab him or bludgeon him with any number of blunt objects in the kitchen? No, the end result will be the same, because weapons of any sort produce the same results... you die, after that it's just about efficiency. If you're going to kill someone in a crime of passion, whether or not you have a gun isn't going to change your resolve. That's ridiculous. (very sexist scenario btw, in our house usually I cook and she does dishes - how progressive are you? ;p Although maybe it's because the majority of women in CA that I've met can't cook worth a damn so I may be biased =D )

As for accidental child shootings there's a more dangerous weapon with the exact same culprit: the family pool.

Eight times as many children were killed by drownings, even though in 90% of those incidents the children were being supervised, than accidental gun deaths in 2000. Children are less likely to die from an accidental gun shot than from a bicycle accident. Refer to National Safe Kids Campaign reports: http://www.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=680

I'm sorry to hear that you've known four kids who've ended up killing themselves or being killed by a parent's gun, but they are the extreme exception, comprising 2% of the accidental deaths. And as in the case of the pool drownings, the parents are to blame. With adequate control these incidents could have been prevented. Removing the guns from responsible citizens is not the answer. CAP laws are a good example of responsible legislation. Gun owners are held criminally liable for failure to either store loaded firearms in a place inaccessible to children or to use safety devices to lock guns.

Personally I live in a borderline neighborhood. I did not feel comfortable at all with my wife being home alone while I was at work. Until she found a job she got up in the morning with me, drove me to work and stayed at her parents house until it was time to pick me up. I would have bought her a gun had that option not been available. The safety of where you live is not always a choice you can afford to make.

[Andarcel]

I didn't misunderstand Andarcel - just a typo. Insert liberty for security in that sentence. Sorry! It works either way, hehe. Guns provide neither security or liberty compared to what the army can bring to bear.Evidently, you did. Your confusing the insurgency and libertarian arguments. Gun ownership does not provide liberty by protecting against tyrannical governments, it IS a civil liberty. By restricting guns, you are by definition restricting liberty. The only argument I've seen to date (or expect to ever see) for gun control is a security argument - people will be safer. This is qualitatively no different than PATRIOT, and quantitatively speaking, the evidence suggests that it's no more effective. Everyone here appears to concede that determined criminals will be able to get guns; and if someone in the heat of passion is willing to assault his wife with a gun, a kitchen knife will do just as well.

[Mastgrr]

According to my constitutional rights I have the right to own a nuclear bomb.

[Apollo]

It's true that if a person is going to commit a crime of passion (and they don't have a gun) they will use something else. The difference is if you shoot someone in the heat of passion you are more likely to kill them than you will with another weapon such as a baseball bat, knife, fist, etc. because they are less efficient.

If you compare the ease of use of a gun to a baseball bat you only have to pull a trigger and it's done - easy as that. The baseball bat on the other hand requires the person to raise it, and swing repeatedly so the person must be totally oblivious of rational thought to commit a crime of passion.

As for criminals though, they will just resort to another weapon like Graav said.

[Sage the Mage]

Maybe we should teach everyone kung fu or something? Then we'd get by the right to bear arms and obesity at the same time.

[Mastgrr]

Maybe we should teach everyone kung fu or something? Then we'd get by the right to bear arms and obesity at the same time.I agree. We should amend the constitution with that! :D

[Eiger]

(very sexist scenario btw, in our house usually I cook and she does dishes - how progressive are you? ;p Although maybe it's because the majority of women in CA that I've met can't cook worth a damn so I may be biased =D )

Removing the guns from responsible citizens is not the answer. CAP laws are a good example of responsible legislation. Gun owners are held criminally liable for failure to either store loaded firearms in a place inaccessible to children or to use safety devices to lock guns.


Please note that I have not expressed support for the banning of handguns, but only reasonable control.

As for the sexist scenario - ok how's this - while wifey is under the hood fixing the car, hubby whacks her. Satisfied? :D ;)

[Andarcel]

It's true that if a person is going to commit a crime of passion (and they don't have a gun) they will use something else. The difference is if you shoot someone in the heat of passion you are more likely to kill them than you will with another weapon such as a baseball bat, knife, fist, etc. because they are less efficient.

If you compare the ease of use of a gun to a baseball bat you only have to pull a trigger and it's done - easy as that. The baseball bat on the other hand requires the person to raise it, and swing repeatedly so the person must be totally oblivious of rational thought to commit a crime of passion.

As for criminals though, they will just resort to another weapon like Graav said.
I personally think most people would reach for a bat sooner than a gun anyway. If they go for the gun, they're usually in a frenzy of rage that will probably be just as lethal.

And with most common guns, it's not that easy to kill someone unless you hit them in the head. And a baseball bat to the head can kill you pretty damn effectively too.

[Eiger]

If you compare the ease of use of a gun to a baseball bat you only have to pull a trigger and it's done - easy as that. The baseball bat on the other hand requires the person to raise it, and swing repeatedly so the person must be totally oblivious of rational thought to commit a crime of passion.

Yup, that's what I was about to say. It's a LOT easier to pull a trigger than it is to stab someone, much less repeatedly. There have even been studies on this one to illustrate the notion. However, that'll remain unsupported as I'm not inclined to go searching for it at the moment.

As for liberty, ya ok. However, I'm not inclined to believe that it should be a civil liberty. But rather a privilege. So, my position is that our constitution's out of date and wrong on that one.

Hmm, let me re-phrase. The constitution's correct in saying that people have the right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a militia, but as far as any other right to bear arms that it should be a privilege. Albeit one that is reasonably granted for most firearms other than assault rifles.

[Bhs Crew]

Yup, that's what I was about to say. It's a LOT easier to pull a trigger than it is to stab someone, much less repeatedly. There have even been studies on this one to illustrate the notion. However, that'll remain unsupported as I'm not inclined to go searching for it at the moment.
It is much easier and less noisy to beat someone to death with a bat then it is to get, load, and fire a gun in a lethal manner.


As for liberty, ya ok. However, I'm not inclined to believe that it should be a civil liberty. But rather a privilege. So, my position is that our constitution's out of date and wrong on that one.
Suit yourself. This is where we fundamentally disagree. Luckily for my side the constitution is really hard to amend.

As far as I can tell your position is that you aren't one of the people who choose to benefit from that particular liberty so you see no need to sacrifice any security for it. I hope not everyone follows your lead and only supports the parts of the Bill of Rights that they personally use.


Hmm, let me re-phrase. The constitution's correct in saying that people have the right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a militia, but as far as any other right to bear arms that it should be a privilege. Albeit one that is reasonably granted for most firearms other than assault rifles.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No matter how you use the first part of the sentence the latter half doesn't disappear. The constitution says what it says. If you want to change it then go ahead and try (you'll fail), but don't convince yourself too much that the founding fathers agreed with you. All it does is allow you to rationalize believing in one part of the bill of rights but not another.

[Glurin]

Dead is dead. A bullet is no more effective than your bare hands. As for ease of use, yes its physicly easier to pull a trigger than swing a bat, but I have to wonder if people who say its easier to kill with one or the other has ever fired a gun before.

First of all, just because you got shot doesn't mean your going to die. A bullet isn't some magic instant kill object. Less than half of all gunshot wounds are fatal, as the vast majority of gunshot wounds are in the arms, legs, sholders, or some other non-vital part of the body.

Second, its not that easy to aim a gun. You may think "just point and shoot", but you have to remember that your only going to damage the area directly in front of and straight away from the barel, and that area is only as big as the bullet. Only a shotgun fans out.

Third, unless the person being shot at is a compleat idiot, they are not going to just stand there and let you shoot them. A moving target is MUCH more difficult to hit than a stationary one.

Finaly, guns are not a touch weapon. They work best at a distance. If your opponent manages to get in close, your going to have problems useing the gun effectively.


Also, the government does not GIVE you your rights. You surrender your rights to the government. The bill of rights is not a document that gives people the right to speak their mind or to have weapons. The bill of rights lists the rights that the government shall not take away.

[Bartleby]

It's funny, this whole "crimes of passion" thing is nothing, but a red herring. Homicides by intimates make up at best 7% of total homicides, less if you make it spouse only. If you want to stop that kind of violence, you're better off mandating psychological profiling and pre-marital counseling, then trying to legislate what kind of weapon with which a pair of whack jobs will kill each other.

Here's a real bit of news that's actually interesting. Crime rates have reached historical lows in 2003. They have declined steadily since 1994.

[Andarcel]

Yup, that's what I was about to say. It's a LOT easier to pull a trigger than it is to stab someone, much less repeatedly. There have even been studies on this one to illustrate the notion. However, that'll remain unsupported as I'm not inclined to go searching for it at the moment.

As for liberty, ya ok. However, I'm not inclined to believe that it should be a civil liberty. But rather a privilege. So, my position is that our constitution's out of date and wrong on that one.

Hmm, let me re-phrase. The constitution's correct in saying that people have the right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a militia, but as far as any other right to bear arms that it should be a privilege. Albeit one that is reasonably granted for most firearms other than assault rifles.
What you mean is, gun ownership should be a privilege not a right. Liberties are simply types of action a person may take; rights are those liberties that are guaranteed by social contract, while privileges are not guaranteed.

Edit: Rights are not freedoms of action. They do not exist independently of society. Hence my use of the word "liberties."

Any time a right becomes a privilege, liberty is lost because it becomes optional. your still in the same position as supporters of the PATRIOT Act, who feel that some elements of freedom of speech should be privileges, not rights. If there is a difference, burden's on you to establish it. If there isn't, you're simply inconsistant and we might as well ignore you until you sort it out.

[Eiger]

As far as I can tell your position is that you aren't one of the people who choose to benefit from that particular liberty so you see no need to sacrifice any security for it. I hope not everyone follows your lead and only supports the parts of the Bill of Rights that they personally use.



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No matter how you use the first part of the sentence the latter half doesn't disappear. The constitution says what it says. If you want to change it then go ahead and try (you'll fail), but don't convince yourself too much that the founding fathers agreed with you. All it does is allow you to rationalize believing in one part of the bill of rights but not another.
My personal use has nothing to do with it. I'm quite affected by others' personal use of firearms.

The first part of the sentence applies to the latter part. And apparently the current court interpretations agree with my position, so I'm feeling pretty darn good about my interpretation.

[Eiger]

What you mean is, gun ownership should be a privilege not a right.


That's what I said. Re-read the post....

[Bhs Crew]

My personal use has nothing to do with it. I'm quite affected by others' personal use of firearms.
Do people you know really get shot that often?

I've been quite affected by other people's use of firearms but that doesn't make me willing to give up that particular liberty, just as if one of my family was in the world trade centers, I wouldn't be willing give up the fourth amendment.


The first part of the sentence applies to the latter part. And apparently the current court interpretations agree with my position, so I'm feeling pretty darn good about my interpretation.
So if a state had a militia (like SC does) and I was in it, I could own any gun they allowed me to? If tomorrow SC passes a law that allows their militia members to have tanks then that is constitutional because they're in a militia right?

The solution to this is obviously for all states to pass laws making every person a member of the militia. This would prevent any federal regulation on guns regardless of what interpretation I use.

Thanks, you have given me the common ground to work with. The liberals can keep their interpretation and the rest of us can keep our guns (and actually get more powerful ones as well).

[Eiger]

Yup, we certainly have different perspectives on this one.

[Andarcel]

That's what I said. Re-read the post....
As for liberty, ya ok. However, I'm not inclined to believe that it should be a civil liberty. But rather a privilege. So, my position is that our constitution's out of date and wrong on that one.

If you don't understand why the distinction between a liberty and a right is important, reread my post. Liberties are intrinsically good, rights simply determine which ones are preserved.

[Eiger]

If you don't understand why the distinction between a liberty and a right is important, reread my post. Liberties are intrinsically good, rights simply determine which ones are preserved.
Duh. You need to go one paragraph further down.

[Bhs Crew]

Yup, we certainly have different perspectives on this one.
A couple of questions.
If the Supreme Court switched over to my side, would that change your opinion?

What is it about guns that bother you so much?
They don't kill that many people (compared to other causes of death), and they're only used in an 8th of violent crimes. What is it about them, or what has happened to cause you to dislike them so much? I'm curious.

[Eiger]

A couple of questions.
If the Supreme Court switched over to my side, would that change your opinion?

What is it about guns that bother you so much?
They don't kill that many people (compared to other causes of death), and they're only used in an 8th of violent crimes. What is it about them, or what has happened to cause you to dislike them so much? I'm curious.
If the supreme court switched, yes it would change my position on what the law of the land is and how that is interpreted.

I'm not bothered by guns that much really. I've said several times that I oppose assault rifles being sold to the public, support the usual reasonable controls on handguns (waiting periods, trigger locks, gun education, no selling at gun shows), and have no problems whatsoever with hunting rifles, target shooting, etc.

It just seems like I've been a lightning rod... Opportunity to whack on Eiger or something.

This whole guns thing somewhat mystifies me. Like anyone's ever going to take guns away from Americans anyway. It is interesting how emotional people get about this topic though.

[Bhs Crew]

If the supreme court switched, yes it would change my position on what the law of the land is and how that is interpreted.

I'm not bothered by guns that much really. I've said several times that I oppose assault rifles being sold to the public, support the usual reasonable controls on handguns (waiting periods, trigger locks, gun education, no selling at gun shows), and have no problems whatsoever with hunting rifles, target shooting, etc.

It just seems like I've been a lightning rod... Opportunity to whack on Eiger or something.

This whole guns thing somewhat mystifies me. Like anyone's ever going to take guns away from Americans anyway. It is interesting how emotional people get about this topic though.
The reason people get emotional is that it is actually suggested by a large segment (not large enough) of the population that the Federal government should do exactly that. They should register and then confiscate all guns.

It is not an opportunity to whack on Eiger, you just found yourself in the minority opinion of the forum, which is rare for you.

Anyway my question wasn't whether it would change your position on what the law was. I want to know if it would change your position on the actual meaning of the second amendment of the constitution. The constitution would not change only the old people who interpreted it.
Frankly, if you said yes it would surprise me to no end.

[Bartleby]

I see you side stepped my point that this whole crimes of passion argument of yours is pretty much bs.

[Eiger]

The reason people get emotional is that it is actually suggested by a large segment (not large enough) of the population that the Federal government should do exactly that. They should register and then confiscate all guns.

Anyway my question wasn't whether it would change your position on what the law was. I want to know if it would change your position on the actual meaning of the second amendment of the constitution. The constitution would not change only the old people who interpreted it.
Frankly, if you said yes it would surprise me to no end.
Actually, in this case, the answer is (for the most part), yes. My position on this topic is largely based on the court cases and that it's been the interpretation virtually unchallenged for the last 60 years, despite the work of the very powerful NRA. So, basically, I've deferred to the court for my opinion. Not exactly, independent thinking - but then I only got into this little bit of research a couple years back to annoy the gun fiends on the Ghost Recon forum. If you guys think you've been tough on this one, try my argument in a forum full of military wonks. HEHE.

Anyway, after researching it a number of times, my more personal opinion has come to thinking that the constitution in this case is outmoded. It was written in a different time when this country was far less cohesive, states were far more powerful relative to the federal government, and we'd just fought a war of independence. The War of 1812 was not far off in the future and there were still issues with Indians not far to the west of the original colonies. At that time, the 2nd amendment made a whole lot more sense.

Do we really need state militias anymore even? Isn't that what the national guard is for? Does any reasonable person really believe they'll need to take up arms against their own country? (I say that despite knowing that we really could elect another Hitler given the right conditions) And if they had to, would they really be effective? Especially since the right wingers would likely be in charge and the left wingers are too wimpy to pick up arms. Ok, that's pushing it maybe, but you see what I mean.

Really, I'm just thinking that that amendment needs to be brought into the 21st century. But I'd hate to go through a national debate on it - that'd be worse. So, ya whatever. Either way it's interpreted, it won't matter much because no one's going to take away people's guns.

Oh, I don't think that a very large segment really want to register AND confiscate guns. Register yes - that'd be a very prudent thing to do. But I just don't see the groundswell for confiscation.

[Eiger]

I see you side stepped my point that this whole crimes of passion argument of yours is pretty much bs.
Nah, nothing much to reply to really. I don't agree with your position and didn't care enough to bother. You said that they were, what 7% of gun deaths or something (not bothering to check)? Well that's significant enough in my book. And the baseball bat stuff or whatever, well, that's your (their) opinion. Guns are easier to kill with. I loved the moving target thing and that bats are quieter. Those were good ones...

[Bartleby]

Plenty to reply to, considering one of your primary points was about crimes of passion although less than 7% of all gun deaths are between intimate people, even less if you take spouses only. It basically translates that one of your main points is irrelevant or insubstantial to the debate as a whole.

[Eiger]

No. Just that we disagree on what's relevant.

[Bartleby]

Re: crimes of passion. I totally disagree. A large number of murders with guns are crimes of passionYou're wrong on this one. Admit it and move on.

[Bartleby]

With regards to what is and is not relevant, you're being obstinate for the sake of not facing the facts and conceding the point. If the position's were turned around and you actually had the statistics on your side you'd be calling me out on spewing a bunch of bologne. The fact of the matter is that there are few classifications (I think 5) and with so few categories crimes of passion garnered a very small percentage. It is not subjective and it is, relative to the other categories, irrelevant.

[Eiger]

Hehe, worked up on this one are you? Sure, 7% seems small, but I wouldn't call it irrelevant. If you want to go ahead.

[Bhs Crew]

Do we really need state militias anymore even? Isn't that what the national guard is for? Does any reasonable person really believe they'll need to take up arms against their own country? (I say that despite knowing that we really could elect another Hitler given the right conditions) And if they had to, would they really be effective?
I hope that if we elected a person who tried to end democracy and sieze control with the army, there would be enough people (including defectors from the army) to hold on for quite some time. It would be really hard to occupy a country this large successfully. What would it say if we didn't even try to fight back?

Especially since the right wingers would likely be in charge and the left wingers are too wimpy to pick up arms. Ok, that's pushing it maybe, but you see what I mean.
Whoever did it would lose vast amounts of support from the people, they would just have the army on their side. Even Hitler didn't have anywhere close to a majority, and by the time he became really unpopular the country was in his grasp. America is much bigger than Germany and so would be a lot harder to control. To quote Jefferson, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
We would have no option but to at least try.

I realize that this scenerio is unlikely and far away, but it has happened to many countries, and I see a little gun violence as a small price to pay to at least have the option of trying to prevent it.


Oh, I don't think that a very large segment really want to register AND confiscate guns. Register yes - that'd be a very prudent thing to do. But I just don't see the groundswell for confiscation.
In most countries that have done registration, confiscation followed. As soon as the government knows where the guns are it is much easier to take them. They don't take all of them, they pass rules little by little and confiscate a small amount each time.
It's the same process as the removal of any other freedom. Each step is small and reasonable, but when it's all over the freedom is gone.

Right now the movement to confiscate guns is relatively small and I am thankful(though for some reason you still see that mentioned as an ideal in many movies).

To quote Thomas Jefferson one more time (just cause I like to),
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

[Bartleby]

Not worked up, just calling a spade a spade. You crack me up Eiger, because I could show you a lime and if it suited your views, you'd swear it was an orange. I can't recall ever seeing you concede a point even if you were obviously in the wrong. I'm not saying you don't or can't admit that you're wrong, but I have seen times (like now) when you should have, but didn't. Either way it doesn't matter, the majority of people will recognize that it is irrelevant, so I don't really need you to confirm it. On to the next topic :thumbsup:

Edit#1 - Funny quote Bhs... very poignant

[Eiger]

Not worked up, just calling a spade a spade. You crack me up Eiger, because I could show you a lime and if it suited your views, you'd swear it was an orange. I can't recall ever seeing you concede a point even if you were obviously in the wrong. I'm not saying you don't or can't admit that you're wrong, but I have seen times (like now) when you should have, but didn't. Either way it doesn't matter, the majority of people will recognize that it is irrelevant, so I don't really need you to confirm it. On to the next topic :thumbsup:

Edit#1 - Funny quote Bhs... very poignantAh, I've been wrong and admitted it quite a few times. This one though is not about being wrong or right - there isn't a wrong or right. You believe it's not significant, while I believe it is. Just a matter of opinion.

Yes, it's small, but it's still 794 out of 11,348 firearm deaths. In those cases, had a firearm not been readily available at the time someone got really pissed off, the victim may still be alive. Too bad we don't have a stat on arguments that got to the boiling point where the perp would have grabbed a gun but didn't have one and just beat the crap out of the victim instead. Or stats on how often the perp didn't have gun and grabbed a different weapon or had a gun and grabbed a different weapon. Only with that knowledge can we really determine whether guns and crimes of passion are significant. But I think you're just saying that crimes of passion aren't significant at all due to their low number. And that's where we really disagree.

[Bartleby]

You can dance like no other :lol: are you involved in politics?

[Eiger]

I hope that if we elected a person who tried to end democracy and sieze control with the army, there would be enough people (including defectors from the army) to hold on for quite some time. It would be really hard to occupy a country this large successfully. What would it say if we didn't even try to fight back?

To quote Jefferson, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

I realize that this scenerio is unlikely and far away, but it has happened to many countries, and I see a little gun violence as a small price to pay to at least have the option of trying to prevent it.

To quote Thomas Jefferson one more time (just cause I like to),
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Ok, I can concede to that. I would have to fight and I would want something to fight with, eh? And while I see your point on registration, I still feel that I'd rather play the odds on that one (against having to defend myself against tyranny) and support registration.

[Bartleby]

Agreed on registration. It's important for authorities to know or be able to find out who has what guns and where they were purchased. Just because it is a useful tool for those who would try to take guns away, does not mean it is not the most sensible course of action.

[Bhs Crew]

I don't see much advantage to the US Government knowing what type of guns each person has. People are only going to report the legal ones anyway.

What are the full advantages of registration?

[Bartleby]

Off the top of my head: Cops need to go into someone's home, it'd be nice to have the information that the suspect owns a shotgun.

[Bhs Crew]

Off the top of my head: Cops need to go into someone's home, it'd be nice to have the information that the suspect owns a shotgun.
Of course if he's a criminal the suspect is likely to have stolen or borrowed a shotgun as well. It's a good idea to assume he's armed all the time.

[Bartleby]

Yes, but the more information, the better the police can do their job.

[Bhs Crew]

True, but in this case I believe I prefer to give them less info and reduce the risks that come with giving that info up.

Anyway, I wouldn’t want the police to be treating my house differently because their computer says I own a shotgun. Only increases the chance of them overreacting and someone (in my house) getting shot.

Someone who is willing to get in a shootout with the police is either stupid or willing to die. (Though I realize it happens)

[Bartleby]

We are at an impasse on the registration. There really are no hard facts that I am aware of so I'm operating strictly off opinion. My guess is the same is true for you, so I doubt we'll change each other's minds. So I'll just agree to disagree.

[Bhs Crew]

Works for me, it's a minor issue anyway.

[Andarcel]

Duh. You need to go one paragraph further down.
Duh. I know you confuse liberty and rights by using them as synonyms. Go one paragraph further to discover why the difference matters.

[Eiger]

Of course if he's a criminal the suspect is likely to have stolen or borrowed a shotgun as well. It's a good idea to assume he's armed all the time.
It's also helpful in tracking stolen guns, returning them to rightful owners and such or for identifying who the murder weapon belongs to - lots of boneheads kill with their own guns.

I think there's already a means for tracking via serial number, but don't know effectiveness, etc.

[Eiger]

Duh. I know you confuse liberty and rights by using them as synonyms. Go one paragraph further to discover why the difference matters.
Whatever.....

[Bhs Crew]

If you don't understand why the distinction between a liberty and a right is important, reread my post. Liberties are intrinsically good, rights simply determine which ones are preserved.
Well total liberty is not necessarily intrinsically good because if it were then we would all want to live in a place with no laws or government. As soon as we say the idea of a government is good we are conceding some liberty.

Rights are liberties which the people in that country believe are important enough that they shouldn't be reduced by the government. Eiger just believes that freedom to arm should not be a right in this country.

While I disagree I wouldn't say that the liberties I believe should be rights are intrinsically good, rather it is a choice I believe that is best for myself and this country.

[Glurin]

I think there's already a means for tracking via serial number, but don't know effectiveness, etc.

The main difference is that the serial number indicates who owns that gun, which works very well for tracking down the original owner. Its very effective at provideing leads in cases where the weapon is found. Registration would only indicate who owns what guns, which is only good for letting the police know about it when they want to storm your house or something. (Pointless because they should be assumeing your armed anyway.) And for the inevitable banning and confiscation of guns.

[Eiger]

Finally, figured out why I felt boxed in in this thread. I like the freedom and protections provided by the second amendment with regard to protecting ourselves from tyranny. And I'd certainly go out and buy a gun if I felt the need for that kind of protection - and I'd sure as hell use it, too.

On the other hand, I've seen the bad things that come with guns being readily available and have been held up at gunpoint (masked dude hung out at the bank waiting for us to make the nightly drop - that was a special experience). I'd prefer that people not have most guns.

I'd like to have my cake and eat it, too. That's my problem.

[Bhs Crew]

I'd like to have my cake and eat it, too. That's my problem.

Heh, that is a problem. Can't help you there (other then to recommend you join my side.)

I'd say when in doubt pick the side of greater liberty and take your chances.

[Tso Za Naoa]

Heh, that is a problem. Can't help you there (other then to recommend you join my side.)

I'd say when in doubt pick the side of greater liberty and take your chances.

I'd say pick the side that has been working for the past 200 years. Our type of government is a peace of crap, but it still 7 times better than everything else out there.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

The United States is about 10,000 times more likely to be blown to dust than to ever be invaded.

Fight crime: Shoot back.

I say its not the gun thats the problem, its the ammo!

Yes, I am at odds with myself. :clap: