Gun control

[EVO_9MR]

Are you for or against Gun Control? Personally i am for a well trained and armed population, although both sides present good arguments.

Pro 2nd amendment statements:
Gun control only affects law abiding citizens and not criminals
More guns in the hands of law abiding citzens deters crime
A crazed man with a gun can only be stopped by another man with a gun

Pro Gun Control statements:
availability of guns is dangerous, especially when someone could snap any moment.
Guns in the home have a higher chance of accidentally harming a family member than an intruder.

[clutch-monkey]

depends mainly on the country and it's society imo.

[slapnpopbass]

It's guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

Proven fact: Gun Control does NOT reduce crime.

[Master. kirby]

I believe the government should have free classes for citizens teaching gun safety, it should be a hard class, involve a psychological screening, a basic IQ exam, and background check.

Now after those are passed, we will issue the citizen a standard m9 and go though a course of how to handle, carry, and operate such a tool.

Now this shouldn't be taken lightly like some cpr class, I remember taking a cpr class and even have a card but my mom made me take it and I don't remember shit.

This class should be intense, if you are stupid, or show strange patterns, like your a crazy fucked up motherfucker, then you should not be allowed to pass, this should be an intense class, you should be able to have a certain degree of marksmanship before you can pass, but in the end you are now given a free gun, with a clip, and all you have to do is go out and buy some ammo.

This gun can be carried and concealed as you wish, exceptions such as courthouses, schools, and all the other shit nobody's allowed to bring a gun to anyways.

and again, this is not some fucking dmv test or course, this should be run by the an organization that knows what its doing and has high expectations, possibly even the army.

[Bergs]

The 2nd Amendment, like all the other Amendments, is subject to limited restrictions. Just as they can institute limited restrictions on right to speech and assembly, the government can institute limited restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. However, the right to keep and bear arms is undoubtedbly an individual right. The claim that it is a collective right is simply false and has no textual or historical basis. It was completely made up by the pro-gun control movement. Bottomline, it doesnt matter what you are in favor of, the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms to every American citizen and complete weapons bans are absolutely unconstitutional.

[RangerDanger]

I'm somewhere in the middle. Don't get me wrong, I have a few guns and shoot them from time to time, but there are some guns that I just find too outrageous to be in anyones hands. I do not believe in automatic weapons, in general. Other guns, like very high-powered sniper rifles, are just too dangerous to be in society. I believe that the rules regarding pistols should be strict.

I think it is pretty much necessary for our society to have guns, though.

[EVO_9MR]

anyone watch Bowling for Columbine? i dont think ive ever been so pissed off at any movie before.

[clutch-monkey]

I'm somewhere in the middle. Don't get me wrong, I have a few guns and shoot them from time to time, but there are some guns that I just find too outrageous to be in anyones hands. I do not believe in automatic weapons, in general. Other guns, like very high-powered sniper rifles, are just too dangerous to be in society. I believe that the rules regarding pistols should be strict.

I think it is pretty much necessary for our society to have guns, though.
pretty much with you on that one.
i do think castle doctrine is important too
anyone watch Bowling for Columbine? i dont think ive ever been so pissed off at any movie before.

is that the one that was dissallowed from getting an award as a documentary because moore cut and edited so much shit it no longer qualified :lol:

[n00b_rocket]

I believe the government should have free classes for citizens teaching gun safety, it should be a hard class, involve a psychological screening, a basic IQ exam, and background check.

Now after those are passed, we will issue the citizen a standard m9 and go though a course of how to handle, carry, and operate such a tool.

Now this shouldn't be taken lightly like some cpr class, I remember taking a cpr class and even have a card but my mom made me take it and I don't remember shit.

This class should be intense, if you are stupid, or show strange patterns, like your a crazy fucked up motherfucker, then you should not be allowed to pass, this should be an intense class, you should be able to have a certain degree of marksmanship before you can pass, but in the end you are now given a free gun, with a clip, and all you have to do is go out and buy some ammo.

This gun can be carried and concealed as you wish, exceptions such as courthouses, schools, and all the other shit nobody's allowed to bring a gun to anyways.

and again, this is not some fucking dmv test or course, this should be run by the an organization that knows what its doing and has high expectations, possibly even the army.

I like the idea of free classes, but they should not be a requirement for gun ownership (it's a right) and there's no reason for the government to issue anyone an M9.

However, if the government is gonna be spending shitloads of money on stupid shit, they might as well spend some on classes that are actually useful for something.

[Spike Lee]

pretty much with you on that one.
i do think castle doctrine is important too


is that the one that was dissallowed from getting an award as a documentary because moore cut and edited so much shit it no longer qualified :lol:

You're thinking of Farenheit and that is not the reason it was DQ'd. It was DQ'd because it aired on TV. Something you can't do till after the Oscars.

By the way, the poll options are fucking dumb. Someone can be fore the 2nd Amendment and for gun control.

[pinger]

I'm somewhere in the middle. Don't get me wrong, I have a few guns and shoot them from time to time, but there are some guns that I just find too outrageous to be in anyones hands. I do not believe in automatic weapons, in general. Other guns, like very high-powered sniper rifles, are just too dangerous to be in society. I believe that the rules regarding pistols should be strict.

I think it is pretty much necessary for our society to have guns, though.


Im fairly close to where you are here.
Obviously with the second amendment and it being part of your history, guns are for better or for worse part of the American fabric.

But the NRA and the pro-gun lobby are happiest when everyone is buying guns, because more guns = more money and more members and more power. They couldn't care less if they are legally or illegally obtained as more illegal weapons = more fear = more buying of legal weapons by law abiding citizens.

So whilst I think you guys need more administrative controls (types of weapons you can access, training, storing, elimination of obvious scams such as gun shows and collector sales), I just cannot see it happening in America. The NRA will simply roll out the paranoid fear machine ("the criminals will still have the guns, we need them in case the government goes crazy, any gun control will result in us losing all our guns and our rights") and god help any politician in the way.

It's a complex problem, and I kind of see why you are all pretty defensive about your own guns. I would arm myself as well if I was surrounded by all you crazy armed motherfuckers ;-)

[n00b_rocket]

Im fairly close to where you are here.
Obviously with the second amendment and it being part of your history, guns are for better or for worse part of the American fabric.

But the NRA and the pro-gun lobby are happiest when everyone is buying guns, because more guns = more money and more members and more power. They couldn't care less if they are legally or illegally obtained as more illegal weapons = more fear = more buying of legal weapons by law abiding citizens.

So whilst I think you guys need more administrative controls (types of weapons you can access, training, storing, elimination of obvious scams such as gun shows and collector sales), I just cannot see it happening in America. The NRA will simply roll out the paranoid fear machine ("the criminals will still have the guns, we need them in case the government goes crazy, any gun control will result in us losing all our guns and our rights") and god help any politician in the way.

It's a complex problem, and I kind of see why you are all pretty defensive about your own guns. I would arm myself as well if I was surrounded by all you crazy armed motherfuckers ;-)

Scams like gun shows and collector sales? So I guess private sales of firearms should be completely illegal, because gun shows are just a bunch of private individuals gathering together selling their guns to other private individuals.

As for your other arguments, more "administrative control" is completely unnecessary.

[Boomer]

I believe the founders of this country gave us the right to have firearms to resist tyranny if the government becomes too overbearing. I support that right with both hands and feet raised. However, I am not to keen on giving people with history of mental problems or long criminal records.

What we need to do is keep a tight control on illegal firearm trade and support citizen's legal right to guns.

[American Infidel]

Gun control: A nice, tight shot-group.

The only people "allowed' to have guns, in a gun-free zone (like Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University) are criminals and the suicidally insane. Allowing law-abiding, mentally-stable people to carry concealed weapons would have possibly mitigated the murders.

My state is trying to enact the "Castle Doctrine", which says that, if someone breaks into your home and threatens you or your family, you may use deadly force to prevent them from achieving their goals, without persecution or having to pay for court costs.

Hope it passes. Anybody who breaks into my home -- even if they're just looking to steal my TV -- should not be able to sue me, if they react violently, while looking down the barrel of my 40 caliber, when I confront them. Of course, I would ask, nicely, for them to kiss my carpet while I call for the police. Otherwise, I don't want their mother suing me because her punk son was so driven to kill me and my family for our material possessions, so he could get high.

[painfulogic]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than it is to kill in self-defense.[22

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/405837_4

That should be enough of a reason. Maybe a gun can stop a crime in rare cases but pure probability makes it more logical to have strong gun control. Also, most guns used in crimes are bought in stores legally. Besides that the 2nd amendment has been grossly abused and manipulated to something it was not originally intended for.

How Legal Weapons Fuel Gun Crime

http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/crime/htfd_courant_071606.asp

[clutch-monkey]

How Legal Weapons Fuel Gun Crime

http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/crime/htfd_courant_071606.asp
preventing legal guns from being trafficked illegally is usually pretty easy. why it's still an issue is beyond me

[TFS]

I refuse to vote in this poll since one does not have to be anti-gun control in order to support the 2nd amendment, nor does one have to oppose the 2nd amendment to support gun control.

It's a matter of what forms of gun control and extremes one desires gun control to be taken that are where lines begin to be drawn in the sand regarding the matter.

Even the NRA supports forms of gun control and registration.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than it is to kill in self-defense.[22

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/405837_4

That should be enough of a reason. Maybe a gun can stop a crime in rare cases but pure probability makes it more logical to have strong gun control. Also, most guns used in crimes are bought in stores legally. Besides that the 2nd amendment has been grossly abused and manipulated to something it was not originally intended for.

How Legal Weapons Fuel Gun Crime

http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/crime/htfd_courant_071606.asp

First bolded text: how many of those homes in which a family member was killed involved a situation where the family member was mistaken for an intruder as opposed to just killed out of careless handling of a firearm while on privateb property? How many of the cases in which a family member was mistaken for an intruder did the owner of the gun (not the one who used it, necessarily) utilize the full means of maximizing gun safety in his/her home (gun safes, storing the weapon unloaded and separately from the ammo, etc)?


Second bolded text: the same can be said for the US Welfare system. What's your opinion of that?

[slapnpopbass]

http://www.guncite.com/

Knock yourselves out. Straight facts.

[Johnny Promo]

anyone watch Bowling for Columbine? i dont think ive ever been so pissed off at any movie before.

ROLF, nothing like the far left, eh?

[pinger]

Scams like gun shows and collector sales? So I guess private sales of firearms should be completely illegal, because gun shows are just a bunch of private individuals gathering together selling their guns to other private individuals.

As for your other arguments, more "administrative control" is completely unnecessary.


You pro-gun progandists always equate any controls with total bans, don't you?

Legal sales should not be made illegal (I never said that), but they should be under the same check and balances that normal firearm sales are.

All because you are purchasing a gun from a collector or at a gun show should not exempt you from reasonable checks and balances to ensure you are not a criniminal, or mentally unstable. Anyone supporting the opposite position is obviously an NRA plant, or a person who does not care that criminals or the legally insane will have access to the same guns through the same conduit you are protecting.

Crossing state lines to pick up weapons at a gun show under looser legislation in the home state should be eradicated by strong, consistent cross state federal laws regarding the sale, purchase, and trade of all firearms.

[Yuseke]

You're thinking of Farenheit and that is not the reason it was DQ'd. It was DQ'd because it aired on TV. Something you can't do till after the Oscars.

By the way, the poll options are fucking dumb. Someone can be fore the 2nd Amendment and for gun control.

He's probably looking to see who "hates the constitution" so he can bring it up in future arguments concerning the constitution.

[Sketcher]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than it is to kill in self-defense.[22

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/405837_4

What's your point, ban something because some people are two fucking stupid to own a gun safely? That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Hey, while we're at it, lets ban sports cars because some people are too stupid to drive them safely! If someone kills themself or a family member, it's their own stupid fault and the rest of us shouldn't be punished for it. I grew up around guns. I have family members who have more guns than I can count and guess what, they were never locked up and none of us ever got shot. Instead of shielding me from them, I was taught to handle them safely and treat them with respect.

Before this thread goes any farther, I just have to point out that the reason why we were given the right to bear arms is not for self defense from criminals - it was for self defense from the government. So that we could fight back a dictatorship if we ever had to. Our Second Amendment protects all of the other Amendments.

[Bo Jackson]

anyone watch Bowling for Columbine? i dont think ive ever been so pissed off at any movie before.

I couldn't watch the whole thing because it made me want to vomit. There was one point in it where they were interviewing Americans and asking them why Canada had less gun violence even though they have as many guns. One woman said "because they have less black people." Lulz ensued. Moore's response to this was "I know plenty of black Canadians." That was his entire argument. That he knows black Canadians. Wow, what a great mind that Moore is.

[jonnykill]

I'm somewhere in the middle. Don't get me wrong, I have a few guns and shoot them from time to time, but there are some guns that I just find too outrageous to be in anyones hands. I do not believe in automatic weapons, in general. Other guns, like very high-powered sniper rifles, are just too dangerous to be in society. I believe that the rules regarding pistols should be strict.

I think it is pretty much necessary for our society to have guns, though.


Meh. Define too dangerous. Look at the 2 shmucks who had AK-47's and 75 round drum magazines shooting at the cops and swat teams for half an hour after robbing that bank in LA. They didn't kill any one. Now look at the day to day killings made by simple hand guns.

[Kazimierz]

Pro 2nd Amendment. Freedom > Security.

[pinger]

What's your point, ban something because some people are two fucking stupid to own a gun safely? That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Hey, while we're at it, lets ban sports cars because some people are too stupid to drive them safely! If someone kills themself or a family member, it's their own stupid fault and the rest of us shouldn't be punished for it. I grew up around guns. I have family members who have more guns than I can count and guess what, they were never locked up and none of us ever got shot. Instead of shielding me from them, I was taught to handle them safely and treat them with respect.

Before this thread goes any farther, I just have to point out that the reason why we were given the right to bear arms is not for self defense from criminals - it was for self defense from the government. So that we could fight back a dictatorship if we ever had to. Our Second Amendment protects all of the other Amendments.

Again, NO-ONE is talking about banning guns. Stop channeling NRA speak

[modogthemonkey]

A total ban on guns where guns bans are in place is stupid speak,anarchy would prevail at least for abit.

It just wouldn't happen guns are intertwined into their countries psyche and have been for a long time.

As would be also true if gun bans were lifted in countries where guns bans are in place...anarchy would prevail at least for abit.

[DazednConfused]

First bolded text: how many of those homes in which a family member was killed involved a situation where the family member was mistaken for an intruder as opposed to just killed out of careless handling of a firearm while on privateb property? How many of the cases in which a family member was mistaken for an intruder did the owner of the gun (not the one who used it, necessarily) utilize the full means of maximizing gun safety in his/her home (gun safes, storing the weapon unloaded and separately from the ammo, etc) Good points. You can't fix problems like extreme negligence and stupidity by banning guns. The same people who make those mistakes are also liable to have children, drive cars, vote for the president and do all sorts of other things with a huge impact on the world. There are indeed problems in society but the way to fix them isn't to surrender our rights.

It's a silly comparison for other reasons too. While the number of family members killed is certainly worth considering, is it really important that the number of intruders killed is yet higher? I'd rather scare an intruder away or deter him from coming into my house in the first place than have to kill anyone, and I think any sane person would too.

That isn't even why I think that gun rights are so important though. Like the rest of the constitution, it's an essential safeguard against tyranny. That's why I go as far as to oppose assault weapons bans.

[EVO_9MR]

yeah sorry bout the poll options, i was in a rush.

Anyways, anyone notice that all the mass shootings have occured in "gun free" zones and never at an NRA convention or gun show where there are plenty of guns? Gun free zones only leaves law abiding citizens defenseless against a criminal intent on mass murder. I made that argument in class and some kid responded "well, then you would just have shoot-outs and it would make everything worse" to which i responded "yeah, a shoot-out as opposed to a massacre?" he got silent.

[_Joe]

I did a study last semester on what effects gun prevalence has on gun crime rates. Basically, I found that legal gun ownership had no relationship to gun crime rates, but that illegal gun prevalence had a positive relationship to gun crime rates.

Legal Gun Ownership: number of licensed guns in the state.

Illegal Gun Prevalence: number of guns stolen or reported to have been bought illegally in the state.

Gun Crime Rates: includes all crimes committed with a firearm (armed robbery, assault, murder, manslaughter, anything that involves a firearm)

The study was conducted in the state of South Carolina over several years, tracking gun crime rates and whether there was a lag between gun theft and the use of those guns in a crime. The conclusion was that legal gun ownership has no effect on gun crime.

That being said, MY study was a literature review of several papers. Several were about how guns get into the hands of criminals. The two major ways criminals acquire guns is through theft and unlicensed dealers.

I suggest that we don't regulate gun OWNERSHIP RIGHTS any further, because law abiding citizens don't use them to the detriment of society. There should be, however, more safety training and possibly a mandatory gun safe/locker law to make it harder for thieves to steal the firearms. We also need to stop allowing people to sell firearms without a license and without performing background checks. This would greatly decrease gun crime rates without eroding away at our constitutional rights.


If you want me to post my paper I can, I'll just have to take out my name

[Liberator13]

Yeah, the mall shooting here in December was a gun-free zone.

That worked out well.

[Dayve]

Take a look at my country where gun control is firmly in place. Guns are illegal to carry or use (except in specific circumstances, such as hunting or shooting game) yet people still carry and use them, and there are deaths from shootings on a daily basis in Britain now, sometimes more than 1 in a day. That may sound like a tiny number to you Americans but don't forget Britain is smaller than 1 single American state with a population of 60 million as opposed to 300 million.

Knives and other offensive weapons are also illegal to carry, yet people carry and use them. There's usually a few deaths from stabbing every week, nobody is surprised anymore to see it on the news because it's so common.

What i'm getting at... these laws don't work. If somebody wants to shoot or stab someone they will do it whether it is legal or not. I could get a knife from my kitchen right now and walk around stabbing everybody i bump into until the police catch up with me, so why shouldn't i be able to just carry one with me for self-defense? If i want to use it i will, regardless of whether or not it's legal.

Same with guns. Banning guns is only stopping decent people from defending themselves. I 'know' (or know of) people, who know someone who someone who know someone who can get you a gun. With a couple of hundred pounds i could have a gun in a day, and be on a shooting spree the day after.

If i wanted to do it, really, really wanted to go on a shooting spree, i would acquire a gun and go on one, regardless of whether or not they're illegal.

Weapon laws do nothing but give criminals an easy life.

[chalupa]

Weapon laws do nothing but give criminals an easy life.

Actually, the incredible number of weapon makers give criminals an easy life.

I'm a middle of the road guy here. I'm for control, but not banning. Why should assault weapons be available to the population? Fully automatic...anything? Weapons that are easily modified to fully auto?

Give everyone a .38 revolver. Fine. There is no reason the general public has access to a banana clip. None.

i had a scary/crazy friend in high school who modded a semi-automatic .22 to fully, with a 30 round clip.

*dthdthdthdth*

done. 30 rounds. It was like 2-3 seconds? I don't remember how long, but I remember thinking, "This fucker should NOT have one of those."

How can the sane middle ground be reached on this issue?

[Papero]

i had a scary/crazy friend in high school who modded a semi-automatic .22 to fully, with a 30 round clip.



That would be a hell of a squirrel hunting gun.

[_Joe]

Actually, the incredible number of weapon makers give criminals an easy life.

I'm a middle of the road guy here. I'm for control, but not banning. Why should assault weapons be available to the population? Fully automatic...anything? Weapons that are easily modified to fully auto?

Give everyone a .38 revolver. Fine. There is no reason the general public has access to a banana clip. None.

i had a scary/crazy friend in high school who modded a semi-automatic .22 to fully, with a 30 round clip.

*dthdthdthdth*

done. 30 rounds. It was like 2-3 seconds? I don't remember how long, but I remember thinking, "This fucker should NOT have one of those."

How can the sane middle ground be reached on this issue?


Refer to my post, maybe. As for automatic weapons, I don't know where to go with that. A major basis for the second amendment is to defend ourselves from our government. One way of thinking is that if we do go up against them, can we fight them off with less than automatic weapons? Another way of thinking, if they become more accessible it makes a black market for auto-weapons much more available. I don't feel so bad about regulating automatic weapons heavily, I'm just wary of it.

[Dayve]

Actually, the incredible number of weapon makers give criminals an easy life.

I'm a middle of the road guy here. I'm for control, but not banning. Why should assault weapons be available to the population? Fully automatic...anything? Weapons that are easily modified to fully auto?

Give everyone a .38 revolver. Fine. There is no reason the general public has access to a banana clip. None.

i had a scary/crazy friend in high school who modded a semi-automatic .22 to fully, with a 30 round clip.

*dthdthdthdth*

done. 30 rounds. It was like 2-3 seconds? I don't remember how long, but I remember thinking, "This fucker should NOT have one of those."

How can the sane middle ground be reached on this issue?

Anything other than purely semi-automatic handguns should be illegal to the public. Personally I think a 6-shot revolver is perfect for self-defense. 6 bullets is more than enough.

As for all this talk of defending yourselves from your government... it's pathetic. Your government already has its cock lodged firmly up your ass, screwing you every day of your life... you haven't done anything about it though have you?

[texmaster]

Yeah, the mall shooting here in December was a gun-free zone.

That worked out well.

Don't forget the two college campuses too.

[chalupa]

As for all this talk of defending yourselves from your government... it's pathetic. Your government already has its cock lodged firmly up your ass, screwing you every day of your life... you haven't done anything about it though have you?

That, and an assault rifle is of little use against a tank.

[_Joe]

As for all this talk of defending yourselves from your government... it's pathetic. Your government already has its cock lodged firmly up your ass, screwing you every day of your life... you haven't done anything about it though have you?

How so??????

[jn_powell]

That, and an assault rifle is of little use against a tank.
I wouldn't say that necessarily. Sure, an assault rifle against a tank is not very useful, but an assault rifle, a little know how, and the will to fight to the death can make a person very dangerous to any military. Just look at the Iraqi insurgency, the Vietnam War, etc.

[modogthemonkey]

That, and an assault rifle is of little use against a tank.

Its says a well armed militia right?

So if I wanted a nuclear grenade bazooka type thing or a BFG 9000 would I have the right to own one? wheres the cut off point?

I wouldn't say that necessarily. Sure, an assault rifle against a tank is not very useful, but an assault rifle, a little know how, and the will to fight to the death can make a person very dangerous to any military. Just look at the Iraqi insurgency, the Vietnam War, etc.

Wouldn't a dictator's first act of office be to ban all firearms? I pretty sure,maybe wrong but didn't Hitler do this when he was first in power

[chalupa]

I think I was saying that the Amendment was written in a time before the technology was even a dream. Remember, the "arms" at that point were freaking muskets.

Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment maybe? Bring it up to pace with technology?

[Bergs]

Its says a well armed militia right?

So if a wanted a nuclear grenade bazooka type thing or a BFG 9000 would I have the right to own one? wheres the cut off point?

This site is operated by the attorneys representing the residents of Washington D.C. in the DC gun ban case which the Supreme Court will release an opinion on before the summer. I had the pleasure of meeting one these attorneys and this website is full of information and legal answers to all your 2nd Amendment questions. http://dcguncase.com/blog/faqs/

To address your question specifically, Many gun prohibitionists make wild claims that if the Second Amendment protects an individual right, courts would have to allow people to have their own flamethrowers or cruise missiles. This is nonsense. When interpreting constitutional rights, courts routinely draw lines between the permissible and the far-fetched. For example, our freedom of religion does not permit human sacrifice, and freedom of speech does not protect extortionate threats or disturbing the peace.

Miller suggests two conditions for finding a weapon protected by the Second Amendment. First, the weapon must have military use. Second, the weapon must be “of the kind in common use” when a person is “called for service.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 179.

Miller refers to the case United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only direct ruling by the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment. It is where the gun control advocates claim the idea of a collective right was established, however they are very mistaken. From the site, addressing the idea of a collective right as well as the regulation of types of weapons.
The Supreme Court’s only direct ruling on a Second Amendment question came in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Miller was charged with transporting a sawed-off shotgun and not paying the required tax. He successfully argued in the trial court that his actions were protected by the Second Amendment. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government’s appeal, however, Miller could not afford counsel to argue his case or prepare written briefs on his behalf. Thus, the government argued the case unopposed. Even so, the Supreme Court ignored the government’s primary argument, that the Second Amendment confers only a “collective right.” Rather, the Court held that Miller could have the sawed-off shotgun if he were to show that such a weapon would be useful to him if called upon for militia duty. The case was sent back to the trial court for the taking of further evidence, but Miller was murdered before the case could be resolved.

Some courts have mistakenly cited the Miller case as endorsing a “collective rights” point of view, often without carefully analyzing the case. But Miller does not support the collective rights theory. Here is the crucial passage from the Miller opinion: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun … has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Thus, Miller relates to the type of weapon. The Supreme Court did not find that rights secured by the Second Amendment are “collective.” Indeed, Miller explained that under the militia system, individuals called for duty were “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 179.

Miller is plainly consistent only with an individual rights model of the Second Amendment. The gun prohibition lobby’s claims to the contrary, no matter how often or how fervently repeated, are untrue. We invite people to read Miller and reach their own conclusions.

[_Joe]

Its says a well armed militia right?

So if a wanted a nuclear grenade bazooka type thing or a BFG 9000 would I have the right to own one? wheres the cut off point?
The Supreme Court is considering that very question right now. There was a challenge to the D.C. gun ban, so soon there may be an explanation of the second amendment coming from the Supreme Court.

EDIT:

Dammit Bergs, you beat me to it

[chalupa]

What happens when the military invents phasers? Should everyone be allowed to have one?

I don't know if I like the idea of people carrying around a weapon that can vaporize me, just because a document written two hundred years ago said that I can bear arms, when that document was talking about muzzle loading muskets that fired lead balls and were accurate to a couple hundred (200?) feet.

We have to admit, as a people, that the 2nd amendment is not truly applicable to the reality of the times.

[Bergs]

What happens when the military invents phasers? Should everyone be allowed to have one?

I don't know if I like the idea of people carrying around a weapon that can vaporize me, just because a document written two hundred years ago said that I can bear arms, when that document was talking about muzzle loading muskets that fired lead balls and were accurate to a couple hundred (200?) feet.

We have to admit, as a people, that the 2nd amendment is not truly applicable to the reality of the times.

No. Miller suggests two conditions for finding a weapon protected by the Second Amendment. First, the weapon must have military use. Second, the weapon must be “of the kind in common use” when a person is “called for service.” Technologically advanced or highly destructive weapons are not of the kind in common use and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.

[Jenovah]

Guns should be restricted to hunting rifles and pistols, preferably six-shooters.

[chalupa]

No. Technologically advanced or highly destructive weapons are not of the kind in common use and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.

Then apply that logic to assault rifles...and you see that they should not be protected. Obviously this has not been the case, so what happened?

[DazednConfused]

Wouldn't a dictator's first act of office be to ban all firearms? I pretty sure,maybe wrong but didn't Hitler do this when he was first in powerWell the idea is that is one of the things that we should never let our government do. I'm sure you've heard the quote, "you can have my rifle when you pry it from my cold dead hands"I think I was saying that the Amendment was written in a time before the technology was even a dream. Remember, the "arms" at that point were freaking muskets.

Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment maybe? Bring it up to pace with technology?I really don't trust this government to mess around with the bill of rights. If you look at the original intent and the wording, I don't see why assault weapons wouldn't be allowed. It would be hard to argue that anything less could be enough to arm a militia well enough to protect our security.

Why is everyone so worried about assault weapons anyways? They're overkill for anything but armed combat. A handgun is far more practical for most criminal purposes.

[Nocturnal]

OP is a little off.

Gun control and legal gun ownership are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, the mall shooting here in December was a gun-free zone.

That worked out well.

Do you guys think guns should be allowed everywhere?

Colleges, high schools, bars??

[Swindler]

No. Technologically advanced or highly destructive weapons are not of the kind in common use and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.

It seems pretty inevitable that they would be in time, though, right? I'd imagine that if we invented a cheap, easily distributed , energy weapon that surpassed 'slug-throwers', that they would eventually enter into common use.

Also, a lot of weapons are not commonly used but are allowed to be owned. Is it a type of weapon that is legal, the caliber, or what?

[_Joe]

Then apply that logic to assault rifles...and you see that they should not be protected. Obviously this has not been the case, so what happened?

You're allowed to own them with a permit, are you not?

[chalupa]

Why is everyone so worried about assault weapons anyways? They're overkill for anything but armed combat. A handgun is far more practical for most criminal purposes.

I'm not. However, they are the easiest example with which to make an argument. Quite frankly I have a bigger problem with the semi-automatic Beretta that is sitting in my mother's closet right now...but a bigger gun makes a better example.

The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when the population had no easy way to mobilize a force for self-defense. It would take weeks to march an army to help the locals, so the law was written to allow the locals to protect themselves...from Injuns, from Britain, from some foreign invader. It was meant to guarantee that Joe Farmerguy in Western MA or somewhere would be able to go inside, get his gun, get his boys, and hold back whoever until the cavalry arrived.

That whole scenario is completely asinine now. A new Amendment should be written to allow for self-defense, and I think gun CONTROL should logically follow suit.

No semi-automatics. Revolvers.

No assault weapons. Shotguns.

No phasers. _________ ?


For the people that say you are protecting yourself from a government -- seriously? You think the average soldier would turn on the population without some kind of crisis of conscience? You think it wouldn't take some kind of extraordinary circumstances to upset the status quo, that the armed forces would just turn around and start rounding up civilians, en masse? Shit would have to get really bad, REALLY bad, for that to happen in the US, and believe me, chances are that you would already be dead.

People have done stupider things in history though, so you may have a point. I just don't like the comparison of guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the US Armed Forces fighting their own people. I think it is a weak argument, because the situations would be so unbelievably different that we cannot even imagine them.


You're allowed to own them with a permit, are you not?

Assault weapons ARE NOT in common use, so by that logic (somewhere up top there) they shouldn't be protected. They most certainly are not "common."

[EVO_9MR]

OP is a little off.

Gun control and legal gun ownership are not mutually exclusive.



Do you guys think guns should be allowed everywhere?

Colleges, high schools, bars??

There are thousands of gun laws on the books, how many of them do criminals follow? "Gun free" laws serve absolutely no purpose other than "feel good" laws. Will the fact that carrying a gun into a certain location is illegal prevent a man intent on mass murder? You always hear about college campus gun shootings in the media, but what about the incidents where the shooter is subdued by others who are armed. In fact, shooters would prefer gun free zones like universities where they know they will meet no resistance. You never hear about shootings at NRA conventions or gunshows, so i don't see what the problem is.

[chalupa]

but what about the incidents where the shooter is subdued by others who are armed.

How often does that happen?

Give a stat, please, because that would be the (pun intended) silver bullet right there.

[Bergs]

Then apply that logic to assault rifles...and you see that they should not be protected. Obviously this has not been the case, so what happened?

Two things about that question.

First off, because Congress or a state declines to ban an "assault weapon" it doesnt follow that ownership of such is protected under the 2nd Amendment, even if Congress uses it as justification. The only binding authority for the interpretation of the Constitution is the federal courts. Executive and legislative history and actions are heavily persuasive but not binding on interpretation.

The second is that the term "assault weapon" is a dishonest classification. To answer the question you need to analyze what type of weapon we are actually talking about here. Is it the automatic nature of the weapon? Is it the clip size? Is it in common use, OR does it have a common use? An "assault rifle" obviously has military usage so it satisfies the first prong of the test so whether it is protected or not clearly falls on the issue of common use. If it is not in common use, which they arent, I would say its not protected, however, if it is proven that it serves a common use of effective self defense, then perhaps the Court would rule that it does have common use. I can't answer all these questions because we really have little guidance. We require further judicial, legislative, and executive actions on the topic. What guidance we do have does however make two things very clear. The Second Amendment protects an individual right from government intrusion and we have a very basic test of military usage and common use that requires further clarification.

Also, a lot of weapons are not commonly used but are allowed to be owned. Is it a type of weapon that is legal, the caliber, or what?

When they refer to type of weapon, they don't necessarily mean specific model and make. Type of weapon refers to general type or the nature of the weapon. So would an uncommon handgun be just as protected as glock? Absolutely.

[Nocturnal]

There are thousands of gun laws on the books, how many of them do criminals follow? "Gun free" laws serve absolutely no purpose other than "feel good" laws. Will the fact that carrying a gun into a certain location is illegal prevent a man intent on mass murder? You always hear about college campus gun shootings in the media, but what about the incidents where the shooter is subdued by others who are armed. In fact, shooters would prefer gun free zones like universities where they know they will meet no resistance. You never hear about shootings at NRA conventions or gunshows, so i don't see what the problem is.

Gun free zones sure as hell don't stop people from going on shooting rampages, but they sure as hell can reduce the number of shootings that people do in the heat of the moment. In many college bar areas you can see at least one fight a night. How many of those would wind up as shootings if half of those guys had guns on them?

Some places should definitely be gun free.

[chalupa]

We require further judicial, legislative, and executive actions on the topic.

You, my friend, have just highlighted my point.

I think the 2nd Amendment has to be revisited, in the form of a NEW amendment, written to reflect the reality of the times. Then it needs the Executive's nod, and then the Courts will have to review due to the inevitable lawsuits and challenges.

I really, truly, honestly, 100%, totally think that the 2nd Amendment is too archaic to be applicable to the reality of today. Fix it by making a new one. A BETTER one.

[shade]

Yeah, the mall shooting here in December was a gun-free zone.

That worked out well.

Ding ding ding!


Fact: Gun free zones are perfect targets for gun violence because the attacker is safe.

Gun Control = Victim disarmament

A pro-victim disarmament person would rather see a woman raped in an ally than walking with a gun in her purse in an ally.

Fact: The people who will have to take guns from the citizenry (especially in Texas) will be shot.

Fact: The 2nd amendment guarantees all others. The founding fathers were very clear that one purpose of the 2nd amendment is so that the citizenry can rebel if another revolution is necessary. George Washington (the good GW) even had the wit to say "The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that they won't need it until someone tries to repeal it."

Fact: Texas will secede if the union tries to take our guns.

[modogthemonkey]

Do you guys think guns should be allowed everywhere?

Colleges, high schools, bars??


If there was a fully armed security company on campus I would feel safer in the knowledge that my child had that sort of protection than having every tom,dick and harry packing.

I think it would be a visible deterrent too.

As for in bars I don't think alcohol and firearms wouldn't mix to well.


But hey what do I know.

[Swindler]

When they refer to type of weapon, they don't necessarily mean specific model and make. Type of weapon refers to general type or the nature of the weapon. So would an uncommon handgun be just as protected as glock? Absolutely.

Ah, gotcha. I really didn't know.

[chalupa]

Gun Control = Victim disarmament

A pro-victim disarmament person would rather see a woman raped in an ally than walking with a gun in her purse in an ally.
Bullshit. Gun bans = disarmament. Gun control = rational thought and care in crafting a firm but fair law that allows the people to protect themselves without going overboard.

Speed limits for guns, basically.

[Bergs]

The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when the population had no easy way to mobilize a force for self-defense. It would take weeks to march an army to help the locals, so the law was written to allow the locals to protect themselves...from Injuns, from Britain, from some foreign invader. It was meant to guarantee that Joe Farmerguy in Western MA or somewhere would be able to go inside, get his gun, get his boys, and hold back whoever until the cavalry arrived.

Just simply incorrect. The Modern Militia Act, 10 U.S.C. §311(b), last amended Jan. 02, 2006, provides that the militia comprises "all able-bodied males" at least 17 years old and less than 45 years old who are (or have declared their intent to become) citizens and all female citizens who are members of the National Guard. It also defines two classes of militia: "the organized militia," which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and "the unorganized militia," which consists of everybody else.

We to this day recognize the need for a militia and we include every single man and women in the national guard in its definition.

That whole scenario is completely asinine now. A new Amendment should be written to allow for self-defense, and I think gun CONTROL should logically follow suit.

The Second Amendment does NOT forbid gun control. It forbids gun bans and it forbids unreasonably intrusive infringements on your right to keep and bear arms. Licensing, waiting periods, background checks etc. are all legal.

[shade]

Bullshit. Gun bans = disarmament. Gun control = rational thought and care in crafting a firm but fair law that allows the people to protect themselves without going overboard.

Speed limits for guns, basically.

No gun control is reasonable because the only people who obey it are the ones who already are reasonable anyway.

Question:
Do you think guns like these should be legal?
http://www.dpmsinc.com/firearms/category.aspx?id=9

How about these?
http://www.impactguns.com/store/706397869038.html

[chalupa]

Bergs, as you state, there have been attempts to modify/modernize the INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment to bring it up to speed.

Why not stop all the debate by re-defining the Amendment? That has been my point from the start.

People cling to the 2nd Amendment "with their cold, dead hands." In my opinion the language of the second amendment precludes any rational debate because it is not clear -- it was written in a different time and place in history. It is about as applicable now as rules regulating the quality of steel in a peasant's sword.

Why have an Amendment that is not clear? Why not write a new one that defines the debate, or rather eliminates the debate, in modern terms in a modern world?

Why not say, you can own guns, limited to these specs, x,y,z, without government interference, after whatever details they hammer out for background checks, waiting periods, etc.

Why would we not want to clarify this, vote on it as a people, and move on?

[shade]

Why not stop all the debate by re-defining the Amendment? That has been my point from the start.

People cling to the 2nd Amendment "with their cold, dead hands." In my opinion the language of the second amendment precludes any rational debate because it is not clear.

Why have an Amendment that is not clear? Why not write a new one that defines the debate, or rather eliminates the debate, in modern terms in a modern world?


Ok, trying to redefine the 2nd amendment is not going to reduce debate lol.

The 2nd amendment is perfectly clear. Due to the necessity of a well armed militia, the right to own guns shall not be impaired.

[chalupa]

No gun control is reasonable because the only people who obey it are the ones who already are reasonable anyway.


Well, then we should just screw the rule of law.

Where is this argument in the War on Drugs?

[chalupa]

The 2nd amendment is perfectly clear. Due to the necessity of a well armed militia, the right to own guns shall not be impaired.

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.

The first half of that is a sentence fragment! And please, don't talk to me about the Latin origins of making statements like that.

READ it. It is not clear. It at least needs an "and" in there to have it make sense.

Why not make a new one that says,

"You can own guns, under these conditions: ..."

...and then list the conditions?

[shade]

Well, then we should just screw the rule of law.

Where is this argument in the War on Drugs?

Hey answer my question about which guns should be legal.

No, we still need laws. Laws like "don't shoot anyone but bad guys".


"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."
A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State, so people have the right to own guns.

Very very clear.

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.
Because the 2nd amendment does not list conditions. It says "shall not be impaired" and then it has a very clear "period" at the end.

[BJ and UT5]

A pro-victim disarmament person would rather see a woman raped in an ally than walking with a gun in her purse in an ally.

This is ridiculous. Why is it that when these issues come up it instantly becomes an argument over the worst fairy tale versions of the opposition. Maybe dogmatic people out there really think about it that way, but the majority of people in favor of gun control are trying to limit crime not make it worse.

This issue has a lot more nuance than anyone seems to be willing to give it. I don't think anyone can make a compelling argument that guns should be as easy to get as a pack of gum at the grocery store. Most people see the benefit of some sort of registration or regulation. Likewise, I don't think anyone is going to make a compelling argument that citizens should not have the right to own guns either.

[shade]

This is ridiculous. Why is it that when these issues come up it instantly becomes an argument over the worst fairy tale versions of the opposition. Maybe dogmatic people out there really think about it that way, but the majority of people in favor of gun control are trying to limit crime not make it worse.

This issue has a lot more nuance than anyone seems to be willing to give it. I don't think anyone can make a compelling argument that guns should be as easy to get as a pack of gum at the grocery store. Most people see the benefit of some sort of registration or regulation. Likewise, I don't think anyone is going to make a compelling argument that citizens should not have the right to own guns either.

Of course they are trying to limit crime.

Their mistake is that guns don't cause crime.

Pencils don't misspell words.

Spoons don't make people fat.

Cars don't have accidents.

Shall I go on?

[Nocturnal]

No gun control is reasonable because the only people who obey it are the ones who already are reasonable anyway.

Question:
Do you think guns like these should be legal?
http://www.dpmsinc.com/firearms/category.aspx?id=9

How about these?
http://www.impactguns.com/store/706397869038.html

How so?

If there were no rules on guns wouldn't street thugs be walking around with M16s?

How on earth would we allow people to walk around with one of these?

http://www.brookhursthobbies.com/dragon/images/GatlingF.JPG

Had the Vtech guy had one of those it wouldn't have mattered how many people returned fire with hand guns. It would have been a massacre.

[Bergs]

Bergs, as you state, there have been attempts to modify/modernize the INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment to bring it up to speed.

Thats not what I am saying and no there hasn't. Thats the whole problem. The Supreme Court has not tackled a Second Amendment case since Miller in 1934 and that case only supplies us with a basic legal test, it doesnt offer much guidance in the way of limitations. It stated that the sawed off shotgun in question would be protected if it had a military usage and it was in common use, because Miller was killed, they never resolve whether the shotgun was actually protected. They have never addressed any examples or further explored that test.

One of the frustrating things about our Constitution is that very little is clear. For our present day understanding of the First Amendment, the necessary and proper clause, the commerce clause, etc. we rely on a couple centuries worth of legal precedent. Our understanding of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments was largely defined in the 1960s and 1970s and continues to be defined today. We simply don't have a long history of legal precedent on the 2nd Amendment, partially because for most of our history the idea of gun control was seen as tyrannical. Instances requiring a legal challenge never came up. We have one single SC case and its not a particularly helpful one. Thats the problem. Not that the 2nd Amendment is archaic.

There are a few Federal Appellate cases that address the 2nd Amendment, and they are very recent, further demonstrating that we are probably entering the interpretative age of the Second Amendment.

United States v. Emerson (2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Second Amendment “protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia … to privately possess and bear their own firearms … suitable as personal individual weapons.”

Silveira v. Lockyer (2003), the Ninth Circuit stated that the militia "is like the jury pool, consisting of 'the people,' limited, like the jury pool, to those capable of performing the service."

[chalupa]

Hey answer my question about which guns should be legal.

No, we still need laws. Laws like "don't shoot anyone but bad guys".


"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."
A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State, so people have the right to own guns.

Very very clear.

YOU had to add and change words to make it clear, in YOUR interpretation.

Geez, fellas, why not re-write it so people DON'T have to interpret it?

If your interpretation is right, why don't we put it on paper, put it to the population, vote it, approve it, review it, and then accept it.

My argument here isn't for or against guns or anything. My argument is that the fucking amendment is not applicable to today's situation, is not clear in today's reality, and should be scrapped for a more clear, more concise statement that delineates my rights, without debate.

[shade]

How so?

If there were no rules on guns wouldn't street thugs be walking around with M16s?

You need to brush up on the topic.

Right now, street thugs can walk around with AR15's (the civilian version of the M16).

What is the problem with someone walking around with a gun? There is no problem.

It only becomes a problem if they use that gun to threaten people or commit violence - both of which are illegal regardless of the weapon used.

I should be allowed to walk anywhere with a gun on my hip in plain view. I would probably get better service.

[BJ and UT5]

Of course they are trying to limit crime.

Their mistake is that guns don't cause crime.

Pencils don't misspell words.

Spoons don't make people fat.

Cars don't have accidents.

Shall I go on?

Following up on the car analogy, do you agree in people needing to be licensed to drive cars? How about moving vehicle laws regarding stop lights, speed limits, crosswalks? You're not allowed to drive your vehicle anywhere you want either. Should I be allowed to drive my car down the sidewalk in a city? Most rational people agree in some sense of control and regulation with regard to vehicles. Why do they not approach guns, which are just as dangerous if not more so, with the same consideration?

[chalupa]

I should be allowed to walk anywhere with a gun on my hip in plain view.

Are you? Does the Constitution say you can? Does your state?


I personally think you should be able to, and I think this issue, in particular, is due for some legislative/constitutional clarity.

[Nocturnal]

You need to brush up on the topic.

Right now, street thugs can walk around with AR15's (the civilian version of the M16).

What is the problem with someone walking around with a gun? There is no problem.

It only becomes a problem if they use that gun to threaten people or commit violence - both of which are illegal regardless of the weapon used.

I should be allowed to walk anywhere with a gun on my hip in plain view. I would probably get better service.

I don't see why anyone should be allowed to carry an AR15 on their person. Useless for self defense in an emergency, and only useful for target practice or to kill people.

[shade]

YOU had to add and change words to make it clear, in YOUR interpretation.

Geez, fellas, why not re-write it so people DON'T have to interpret it?

If your interpretation is right, why don't we put it on paper, put it to the population, vote it, approve it, review it, and then accept it.

My argument here isn't for or against guns or anything. My argument is that the fucking amendment is not applicable to today's situation, is not clear in today's reality, and should be scrapped for a more clear, more concise statement that delineates my rights, without debate.

It was unclear to you so I was making it more clear for you. It is not up to interpretation.

Break down the sentence into it's individual segments and read them.
It states there is a need: A well regulated militia is required to have a free State.

It then states the solution: The people's right to own guns will not be impaired.

It does not say "only if there is a war and the militia is needed" or "as long as it only holds so many bullets" or "as long as the person has never committed a crime". It places no limits.

Are you? Does the Constitution say you can? Does your state?


I personally think you should be able to, and I think this issue, in particular, is due for some legislative/constitutional clarity.
It depends on where you are. In Texas, you have to conceal your handgun if you are carrying it. You can carry your rifle or shotgun in plain view on private property if you have a legitimate right to be there and the owner does not mind.

The risky thing is that if someone claims they felt threatened by your gun, then you committed assault which is a crime.




On a side note, I have never felt safer than when I am at a gun show. I really suggest you go to one if you have not. There is no safer place on the planet and you might get the same sort of feeling I did. The first gun show I went to was about a year ago and it was just to promote Ron Paul. Since then, I have been carefully planning which gun to buy...


Chalupa.... could you answer my question about which gun should be legal?

[shade]

I don't see why anyone should be allowed to carry an AR15 on their person. Useless for self defense in an emergency, and only useful for target practice or to kill people.

And no one should be allowed to drive Corvettes either. Not practical for transportation and only really good for driving fast or killing the environment. Good thing we live in a "free country".


And actually, AR15s are ideal self defense weapons. They are accurate from short to mid range and you can aim one much more precisely than a hand gun. You also have plenty of bullets to dispatch as many bad guys as necessary before needing to reload - even if they are armored.


Following up on the car analogy, do you agree in people needing to be licensed to drive cars? How about moving vehicle laws regarding stop lights, speed limits, crosswalks? You're not allowed to drive your vehicle anywhere you want either. Should I be allowed to drive my car down the sidewalk in a city? Most rational people agree in some sense of control and regulation with regard to vehicles. Why do they not approach guns, which are just as dangerous if not more so, with the same consideration?Non-sequitur. The constitution makes no mention of cars or any form of transportation like that, so it is a state issue entirely.

But, I will play your game anyway. Does a license mean someone is not going to get into a car accident? All a license does is say you know the laws. It doesn't make you a safer driver or make you follow the law. The same is true for gun control.

[Bergs]

YOU had to add and change words to make it clear, in YOUR interpretation.

Geez, fellas, why not re-write it so people DON'T have to interpret it?

If your interpretation is right, why don't we put it on paper, put it to the population, vote it, approve it, review it, and then accept it.

My argument here isn't for or against guns or anything. My argument is that the fucking amendment is not applicable to today's situation, is not clear in today's reality, and should be scrapped for a more clear, more concise statement that delineates my rights, without debate.

Amending the Constitution is a bad idea in general. Only a handful of the Amendments after the Bill of Rights were either necessary or a good idea. The Second Amendment is simply not vague. You only get this idea because of the prevalence of the debate. The problem is not the vagueness, the problem is the lack of legal action. This current case will settle a ton of questions and will likely lead to further questions and answers. It is completely unnecessary to rewrite it. Please read my last post, it was significantly pushed up so i dont know if you saw it.

The Second Amendment is not vague, however, neither is it as black and white as shade is portraying it. It is subject to the same restrictions as all the other rights and just like the other rights there is a thresehold that we may not breach. We go through these cycles as a nation. Our modern First Amendment understanding continues to be shaped and received its largest modern interpretation in the 1930s. Our 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment interpretations were largely defined in the 1960s and 1970s. Same as our Fourteenth Amendment. This appears to be the time for the Second.

[chalupa]

It was unclear to you so I was making it more clear for you. It is not up to interpretation.

Break down the sentence into it's individual segments and read them.
It states there is a need: A well regulated militia is required to have a free State.

It then states the solution: The people's right to own guns will not be impaired.

It does not say "only if there is a war and the militia is needed" or "as long as it only holds so many bullets" or "as long as the person has never committed a crime". It places no limits.

"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."

It doesn't say what you wrote. It says, "keep and bear arms." Nowhere does it say "own guns."

It can very easily be read to mean: "The people have the right to go to a common cache of weapons, pick them up, and form a militia. We will not stop the militia from forming, and we will not direct the military to keep them from defending themselves from an outside entity."

Why are you arguing the semantics of the thing with me? Every time you have to add or change words to "explain it to me" you are only emphasizing my point further...it is not clear.

It isn't.

It doesn't say "guns" it says "arms."

It says "well-regulated militia" ... where is the "regulation" of this militia? The previously posted definition of a militia does not explain the regulation of said militia.

Just say, "you know, chalupa, you might have a point. We could probably re-write it to define gun rights. We wrote an Amendment banning alcohol, so we know how to make specific amendments. Maybe we should consider this as a possibility here."

Seriously, I'm on your side of this argument, I just think if we clarify some things, the ridiculous bickering that defines the gun debates can stop.

[chalupa]

On a side note, I have never felt safer than when I am at a gun show. I really suggest you go to one if you have not. There is no safer place on the planet and you might get the same sort of feeling I did. The first gun show I went to was about a year ago and it was just to promote Ron Paul. Since then, I have been carefully planning which gun to buy...


Chalupa.... could you answer my question about which gun should be legal?

I have been to gun shows, I personally don't own a gun, but i grew up in a household with three. We target practiced, and my parents live in a relatively remote location and had them there for protection.

As for which ones should be legal, I tell you what...if I get to play the role of benevolent dictator, gun rights isn't the first thing I'd go after clearing up.

How am I going to make that choice? To do this right you'd need to bring people together and start the great democratic debate. Better yet, we could use our representative government that should, you know, represent the sentiments of the people, and bring those guys together to come up with the proper directives.

I'll go for it anyways. Six shooters, pump action rifles, shotguns limited to pump action and saaaaaay 5 rounds all should be legal.

If your gun doesn't fall into those categories, you can't have it.

Please don't start the "toothpaste back into the tube" debate now. I'm just talking about an ideal world.

EDIT: shit. double post. Two different topics and responses though, so it should be ok.

[shade]

"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."

It doesn't say what you wrote. It says, "bear arms." Nowhere does it say "own guns."

It can very easily be read to mean: "The people have the right to go to a common cache of weapons, pick them up, and form a militia. We will not stop the militia from forming, and we will not direct the military to keep them from defending themselves from an outside entity."

Why are you arguing the semantics of the thing with me? Every time you have to add or change words to "explain it to me" you are only emphasizing my point further...it is not clear.

It isn't.

It doesn't say "guns" it says "arms."

It says "well-regulated militia" ... where is the "regulation" of this militia? The previously posted definition of a militia does not explain the regulation of said militia.

Just say, "you know, chalupa, you might have a point. We could probably re-write it to define gun rights. We wrote an Amendment banning alcohol, so we know how to make specific amendments. Maybe we should consider this as a possibility here."

Seriously, I'm on your side of this argument, I just think if we clarify some things, the ridiculous bickering that defines the gun debates can stop.

Right to KEEP and bear arms. The PEOPLE have the right to KEEP and bear arms. Who would be in control of the common cache? That would be the government, and would violate the very simple and very clear 2nd amendment.

No, you don't have a point.


I have been to gun shows, I personally don't own a gun, but i grew up in a household with three. We target practiced, and my parents live in a relatively remote location and had them there for protection.

As for which ones should be legal, I tell you what...if I get to play the role of benevolent dictator, gun rights isn't the first thing I'd go after clearing up.

How am I going to make that choice? To do this right you'd need to bring people together and start the great democratic debate. Better yet, we could use our representative government that should, you know, represent the sentiments of the people, and bring those guys together to come up with the proper directives.

I'll go for it anyways. Six shooters, pump action rifles, shotguns limited to pump action and saaaaaay 5 rounds all should be legal.

If your gun doesn't fall into those categories, you can't have it.

Please don't start the "toothpaste back into the tube" debate now. I'm just talking about an ideal world.

EDIT: shit. double post. Two different topics and responses though, so it should be ok.So killing 5 people is ok but 6 is too much? Hah..

[Bergs]

It doesn't say what you wrote. It says, "bear arms." Nowhere does it say "own guns."

It says keep and bear arms. It clearly means own and carry guns. Doesnt keep and bear arms sound more eloquent?:cool:

It says "well-regulated militia" ... where is the "regulation" of this militia? The previously posted definition of a militia does not explain the regulation of said militia.

Judge Silberman explained in the Appellate Court opinion of the DC Gun Ban case that it means "properly supplied with arms and subject to organization by the states." In its 18th-century context, "well-regulated" didn't mean heavily regulated, but rather properly regulated — in other words, trained and equipped with citizen-furnished weapons so that the organized component of the militia would not become too powerful.http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8190

It can very easily be read to mean: "The people have the right to go to a common cache of weapons, pick them up, and form a militia. We will not stop the militia from forming, and we will not direct the military to keep them from defending themselves from an outside entity."
No it does not say that at all. That is an ultra-expansive reading that cannot be supported.

Just say, "you know, chalupa, you might have a point. We could probably re-write it to define gun rights. We wrote an Amendment banning alcohol, so we know how to make specific amendments. Maybe we should consider this as a possibility here."

I certainly wouldnt use prohibition to support your assertion that specific amendments to the United States Constitution are a good idea. We dont need an amendment. We need court action. We need what is happening now and will continue to happen in the near future.

[chalupa]

Right to KEEP and bear arms. The PEOPLE have the right to KEEP and bear arms. Who would be in control of the common cache? That would be the government, and would violate the very simple and very clear 2nd amendment.

No, you don't have a point.


So killing 5 people is ok but 6 is too much? Hah..
I never said the government would be in control. How about a registered organization? How about people who form a committee over a handshake?

Vague, again.

I think it should be written somewhere, on some piece of paper that is valid at the federal level, in plain, clear English, that I am allowed to own a gun. I want that on a piece of paper.


As for the whole 5 vs 6 people killing...quit being cute. I played along with your game, don't mock the answer. Come up with a counter-point. I humored you, assuming that you wouldn't mock the response.


It says keep and bear arms. It clearly means own and carry guns. Doesnt keep and bear arms sound more eloquent?:cool:

Yeah, when I wrote my response, I forgot the word "keep." I think OWN would make this all a moot debate, right?

EDIT: Judge Silberman explained in the Appellate Court opinion of the DC Gun Ban case that it means "properly supplied with arms and subject to organization by the states." In its 18th-century context, "well-regulated" didn't mean heavily regulated, but rather properly regulated — in other words, trained and equipped with citizen-furnished weapons so that the organized component of the militia would not become too powerful.
...and show me this militia, regulated by the state, armed by the people? Where is the training? Do you have to be a member of this militia to own your gun?

I stick with my point...screw the term "militia", forget the justification of being necessary for a "free state"...just say, "YOU CAN OWN GUNS."

I've supported my arguments, why don't you want to redefine gun ownership, in writing? Why not end the debate?

[Bergs]

Yeah, when I wrote my response, I forgot the word "keep." I think OWN would make this all a moot debate, right?

No, it clearly means own. Even still, its subject to a level of regulation, just like everything else.

[BJ and UT5]

Non-sequitur. The constitution makes no mention of cars or any form of transportation like that, so it is a state issue entirely.

But, I will play your game anyway. Does a license mean someone is not going to get into a car accident? All a license does is say you know the laws. It doesn't make you a safer driver or make you follow the law. The same is true for gun control.

It isn't a non-sequitur. You mentioned cars as a hypothetical. My point was simply do you agree in the logic behind regulating use of cars? Would it bother you to see a 5 year old driving in a busy highway? If it would then my argument is sound in principle. We can argue about the legalistic approach but the point is that some things have an innate danger associated with them and as such some degree of regulation is necessary to ensure that people who have access to these things have some limited level of competence.

I agree that the point of gun control is ensure a minimum level of competence. I don't see what is wrong with that. Yes people may not follow the laws but that is true of any law. The point is before someone owns a gun, I think most people would agree, that it is worthwhile to make the owner demonstrate some level of competence with it.

[Bergs]

...and show me this militia, regulated by the state, armed by the people? Where is the training? Do you have to be a member of this militia to own your gun?

I stick with my point...screw the term "militia", forget the justification of being necessary for a "free state"...just say, "YOU CAN OWN GUNS."

I've supported my arguments, why don't you want to redefine gun ownership, in writing? Why not end the debate?

It is completely unnecessary to get pissy with me. I've already answered every one of these questions throughout the course of this thread. The Court has lightly answered all these questions and we are in the midst of a period in which the Second Amendment will be further clarified by court action, just as many of the other amendments have had periods of intense clarification. You do not have to be a member of a standing militia to own guns, EVERY man between the ages of 17 and 45 is a member of the militia by federal statute. There is no formal training, regulation only refers to the basic supplying for the militia when it is called. Absent a time that its called, it is not subject to formal training. It is expected to arm itself and therefore private citizens must own guns. If you want to challenge my point that amending the Constitution is generally unnecessary or a bad idea then supply me with something solid. If you actually want to understand the Second Amendment, go back and read my well thought out and Supreme Court supported posts that were lost in the bickering jumble between yourself and shade.

[DazednConfused]

The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when the population had no easy way to mobilize a force for self-defense. It would take weeks to march an army to help the locals, so the law was written to allow the locals to protect themselves...from Injuns, from Britain, from some foreign invader. It was meant to guarantee that Joe Farmerguy in Western MA or somewhere would be able to go inside, get his gun, get his boys, and hold back whoever until the cavalry arrived.
That whole scenario is completely asinine now. A new Amendment should be written to allow for self-defense, and I think gun CONTROL should logically follow suit.

No semi-automatics. Revolvers.

No assault weapons. Shotguns.

No phasers. _________ ? I'll draw the line at phasers. Even the founders wouldn't have expected those. Seriously, I don't think that the constitution was so simplistic though. The line would probably have been drawn in the same place in modern times, especially considering how complacent modern America is. There are multiple reasons why guns can be helpful, from defense, to hunting to protection from the government. I don't see the justification for most banning them outright either. Waiting periods and differences in how hard it is to get certain types and other reasonable means of restriction are fine. I don't want violent criminals and the demonstrably insane to have Ak47s. These (http://www.michiganmilitia.com/) nuts can have them though.
For the people that say you are protecting yourself from a government -- seriously? You think the average soldier would turn on the population without some kind of crisis of conscience? You think it wouldn't take some kind of extraordinary circumstances to upset the status quo, that the armed forces would just turn around and start rounding up civilians, en masse? Shit would have to get really bad, REALLY bad, for that to happen in the US, and believe me, chances are that you would already be dead.

People have done stupider things in history though, so you may have a point. I just don't like the comparison of guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the US Armed Forces fighting their own people. I think it is a weak argument, because the situations would be so unbelievably different that we cannot even imagine them. How about on an individual level? The constitution is being shit on right now. If someone wants to stand up and fight rather than let the government step on their rights, their inevitable death should be enough of a deterrent to all but the most desperate. While I don't think that's the way to handle things, the option should be there as the government certainly has the power to do much worse things to the people.

And, yes, I do think that we need to be able to defend ourselves from the government as a whole if it comes to it. While things would have to get really bad for that to happen, it's not like it hasn't in history before. At least, as long as we have guns, there is the threat that it could really, really bad for the government too if it tried that.

[RangerDanger]

Meh. Define too dangerous. Look at the 2 shmucks who had AK-47's and 75 round drum magazines shooting at the cops and swat teams for half an hour after robbing that bank in LA. They didn't kill any one. Now look at the day to day killings made by simple hand guns.

AK-47's like the ones they used are too dangerous, it is a miracle nobody was killed. And your point about handguns is spot on; they are probably the most used weapon by criminals. You're never going to see a gangsta packing a rifle in his waistband, are you?

But at the same time, criminals will have handguns regardless of their legality. So it would make sense to have more of them in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens, right? Who knows where to draw the line.

I cant help but think that if many "reasonable" people were carrying weapons with them in public, there would be more incidents. Road rage, for example, could result in driving these "reasonable" people to shoot someone. Sure, the knowledge that a lot of people around you also had guns could stop you.

[shade]

I never said the government would be in control. How about a registered organization? How about people who form a committee over a handshake?

Vague, again.
Who decides how the cache works? The government. Therefor who controls it? The government.

[shade]

It isn't a non-sequitur. You mentioned cars as a hypothetical. My point was simply do you agree in the logic behind regulating use of cars? Would it bother you to see a 5 year old driving in a busy highway? If it would then my argument is sound in principle. We can argue about the legalistic approach but the point is that some things have an innate danger associated with them and as such some degree of regulation is necessary to ensure that people who have access to these things have some limited level of competence.

I agree that the point of gun control is ensure a minimum level of competence. I don't see what is wrong with that. Yes people may not follow the laws but that is true of any law. The point is before someone owns a gun, I think most people would agree, that it is worthwhile to make the owner demonstrate some level of competence with it.

States are free to pass laws regarding motor vehicles. Read the 10th amendment in my sig.

[chalupa]

It is completely unnecessary to get pissy with me. I've already answered every one of these questions throughout the course of this thread. The Court has lightly answered all these questions and we are in the midst of a period in which the Second Amendment will be further clarified by court action, just as many of the other amendments have had periods of intense clarification. You do not have to be a member of a standing militia to own guns, EVERY man between the ages of 17 and 45 is a member of the militia by federal statute. There is no formal training, regulation only refers to the basic supplying for the militia when it is called. Absent a time that its called, it is not subject to formal training. It is expected to arm itself and therefore private citizens must own guns. If you want to challenge my point that amending the Constitution is generally unnecessary or a bad idea then supply me with something solid. If you actually want to understand the Second Amendment, go back and read my well thought out and Supreme Court supported posts that were lost in the bickering jumble between yourself and shade.
My apologies if I sounded (or was) pissy. Not my intent.


Let's take a look, though, at your point...

Explain to my why modifying the Constitution is a bad thing? It has been done a couple of times since the document was written...the process is subject to intense debate and scrutiny, the people would be involved, a judge could not set law through precedent, nor could a panel of judges.

Basically, 2/3rd of the Legislature, then 3/4 of the states' legislatures need to approve the thing.

What is the advantage of waiting for Judicial ruling, as opposed to running an Amendment through the representative republic? ...other than cost?


Who decides how the cache works? The government. Therefor who controls it? The government.

Who regulates the militia? The government. Therefore who controls it? The government. ...at least according to how the Amendment reads.

I don't want to fight you. Let's hug.


I really don't think the 2nd Amendment reads as clearly as you do, and I've had a decent education, as I'm sure you've had. I'm saying, I'm a smart guy, and I can quite easily read MULTIPLE meanings from the statement. Right now if I had a gun, someone would have to pry it from my cold, dead hands, but currently I don't see that right clearly defined in the Constitution. I think it needs to be clear.

[slapnpopbass]

I shall branch off to the worst piece of anti-gun legislation ever, the Clinton Gun Ban.

This banned guns based purely on looks, not on firepower. AK-47s were not allowed because they look like an assault rifle. Looks don't make guns kill easier.

Crime with the said "banned guns" actually went up.

[Bergs]

Explain to my why modifying the Constitution is a bad thing? It has been done a couple of times since the document was written...the process is subject to intense debate and scrutiny, the people would be involved, a judge could not set law through precedent, nor could a panel of judges.

Basically, 2/3rd of the Legislature, then 3/4 of the states' legislatures need to approve the thing.

What is the advantage of waiting for Judicial ruling, as opposed to running an Amendment through the representative republic? ...other than cost

Three reasons. One is a practical reason, one is a legal reason, and one is a theoretical reason.

For practical purposes, we will NEVER get 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the legislature to agree on the rewording of the 2nd Amendment, as we can see from just this thread, it is an ultra volatile issue and a new Amendment, especially once this Court case strikes down the DC Gun Ban, which I guarantee it will, is not going to happen.

Second, the legal reason is that every aspect of the United States Constitution is purposefully open to interpretation and has changed and evolved in the last 230 years. It is simply the way we do things and it works. There is simply nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment. It states exactly what we should want it to state. It grants an individual right that is not an absolute right. It can be regulated and will continue to be regulated, we are now entering a period where the courts are going to start really examining what regulations are allowed. I guarantee that in 10 years we are going to have an absurd level of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence and very little will be open to interpretation.

The third reason, is even if you assume that we can get enough people to agree, and even if you just want to ignore what has worked for so long, we will undoubtedbly fuck it up. Over the course of centuries, the courts and the government have stretched the Constitution to allow them to do all sorts of things that are not good. Many of our own changes to the document have done nothing but enable them. Just to name two, the 16th and 17th Amendments are probably the cause of more government corruption on the federal level than anythign else weve ever done.

[BJ and UT5]

States are free to pass laws regarding motor vehicles. Read the 10th amendment in my sig.

When did I ever say they couldn't? Thats not the issue. Just because a right is granted in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean that it has to be upheld in the absolute. There are lots of laws that limit the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights.

[chalupa]

Three reasons. One is a practical reason, one is a legal reason, and one is a theoretical reason.

For practical purposes, we will NEVER get 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the legislature to agree on the rewording of the 2nd Amendment, as we can see from just this thread, it is an ultra volatile issue and a new Amendment, especially once this Court case strikes down the DC Gun Ban, which I guarantee it will, is not going to happen.

Second, the legal reason is that every aspect of the United States Constitution is purposefully open to interpretation and has changed and evolved in the last 230 years. It is simply the way we do things and it works. There is simply nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment. It states exactly what we should want it to state. It grants an individual right that is not an absolute right. It can be regulated and will continue to be regulated, we are now entering a period where the courts are going to start really examining what regulations are allowed. I guarantee that in 10 years we are going to have an absurd level of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence and very little will be open to interpretation.

The third reason, is even if you assume that we can get enough people to agree, and even if you just want to ignore what has worked for so long, we will undoubtedbly fuck it up. Over the course of centuries, the courts and the government have stretched the Constitution to allow them to do all sorts of things that are not good. Many of our own changes to the document have done nothing but enable them. Just to name two, the 16th and 17th Amendments are probably the cause of more government corruption on the federal level than anythign else weve ever done.
Well, as to your first point, not having a snowball's chance in hell is not a valid reason in my opinion. I think it would raise awareness on the issue, because most people don't even know what the 2nd Amendment says. However, I am a pragmatist, so I can see your point.

The second point -- I've never liked the fact that de facto laws can be set by judges who are appointed. It is the way of the world, though, so you may be right. At the end of the next block of decades, this discussion could be rendered pointless.

Third point -- I will not be held responsible for the mistakes of our predecessors. I have to hope that our generation can get it right, or else I'd put a bullet in my head. What would be the point in living? Look at the situation we have inherited. Some good things, lots of bad things, and the task of leaving the world better off then when we got here.

At least, that is how I see it. There are only so many opportunities to become the next Shakespeare, just as there have only been 43 presidents to date. So...if a Gun Rights Amendment is something to shoot for, or even if having this debate has enlightened a lurker, then I consider this day seized and will prepare for tomorrow.

[shade]

Who regulates the militia? The government. Therefore who controls it? The government. ...at least according to how the Amendment reads.

I don't want to fight you. Let's hug.


I really don't think the 2nd Amendment reads as clearly as you do, and I've had a decent education, as I'm sure you've had. I'm saying, I'm a smart guy, and I can quite easily read MULTIPLE meanings from the statement. Right now if I had a gun, someone would have to pry it from my cold, dead hands, but currently I don't see that right clearly defined in the Constitution. I think it needs to be clear.

Yes, the government does regulate the militia. That would be related to organizing it, structuring it, training it, deciding when it should be used, etc. But the constitution clearly says the right to keep and bear arms will not be impaired. So that means of all the things it can regulate, guns is not one of them.

As for the whole 5 vs 6 people killing...quit being cute. I played along with your game, don't mock the answer. Come up with a counter-point. I humored you, assuming that you wouldn't mock the response.I like you, so believe me when I say I mean this with the utmost respect.

It does deserve mocking. What can 6 bullets do that 5 can not? It can kill 20% more people. There is no logical reason to limit it to 5 instead of 6, unless you believe that that extra 20% is just a line that should not be crossed - that killing 5 is tolerable, but 6 is just over the top.

That is kind of like abortion arguments, where many people say "It depends on when the baby is self aware, or a human, or whatever, and at that point its bad". They can't ever agree on when that time is.

A bullet count is the same way.

Besides, the constitutional purpose to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of militia. Militias engage in military combat. If Mexico decided to invade right now, the Texas militia (yes there is one) would be called up by the governor (it is under his authority, not federal) to defend our border against the Mexicans. Are you going to want to go to war with Mexico with a 5 bullet gun?

Hell no - you are going to want high caliber weapons with large magazines that require less frequent reloading. You are going to want long range capability. If engaging in urban combat, you will want full auto.

[slapnpopbass]

You know who the biggest fans of gun control are?

Criminals. Why? Because the criminals aren't going to obey the laws... the citizens will.

If you want to ban guns for causing crime, lets ban silverware for making people fat.

[modogthemonkey]

You know who the biggest fans of gun control are?

Criminals. Why? Because the criminals aren't going to obey the laws... the citizens will.

If you want to ban guns for causing crime, lets ban silverware for making people fat.

Most of this debate has not been for a call to ban firearms because that is just stupid talk.But it has been to look at the 2nd Amendment and to see if its maybe is open for interpretation or in a need of updating to keep it in line for a modern society.

[pinger]

You know who the biggest fans of gun control are?

Criminals. Why? Because the criminals aren't going to obey the laws... the citizens will.

If you want to ban guns for causing crime, lets ban silverware for making people fat.

You are still not listening, you are parroting NRA propoganda.

No one is talking about banning guns. Gun control is not about banning guns.

Gun control is about putting realistic controls to minimise the misuse of all firemarms, whilst minimising the impact of said controls to legitimate gun owners.

[Bergs]

Well, as to your first point, not having a snowball's chance in hell is not a valid reason in my opinion. I think it would raise awareness on the issue, because most people don't even know what the 2nd Amendment says. However, I am a pragmatist, so I can see your point.

The second point -- I've never liked the fact that de facto laws can be set by judges who are appointed. It is the way of the world, though, so you may be right. At the end of the next block of decades, this discussion could be rendered pointless.

Third point -- I will not be held responsible for the mistakes of our predecessors. I have to hope that our generation can get it right, or else I'd put a bullet in my head. What would be the point in living? Look at the situation we have inherited. Some good things, lots of bad things, and the task of leaving the world better off then when we got here.

At least, that is how I see it. There are only so many opportunities to become the next Shakespeare, just as there have only been 43 presidents to date. So...if a Gun Rights Amendment is something to shoot for, or even if having this debate has enlightened a lurker, then I consider this day seized and will prepare for tomorrow.

On the first rebuttal, its not merely that there isnt a snowballs chance in hell, although as a practical argument its more than legitimate, its that the impossibility of agreement will probably just make the theoretical argument that we will make things worse more likely to happen. The dissent on whatever was decided will be very strong and the legal arguments that would be made to expand or contract whatever is stated in the amendment would require tons of interpretation. So if the whole damn point is to limit the interpretation necessary, well then why do it?

On the second point, judges do not set de facto laws. Judges interpret the laws as written and implemented. That is how our system works and is generally the most intelligent way to run a large government.

And last, I don't really care if you accept responsibility for it or not, the fact of the matter is that amending the constitution has generally been an unnecessary or bad idea, why should we be so arrogant to think that we could be more effective? Not going to happen. There is nothing wrong with the Second Amendment, leave it alone.

[GALLIENVS AVG]

anyone watch Bowling for Columbine? i dont think ive ever been so pissed off at any movie before.

I caught the last hour or so on TV just a few days ago... that movie was a piece of shit.

I saw the part with the Columbine kids parading around KMart (I think?) and requesting that they not sell pistol bullets anymore. Look, it was a terrible tragedy and it sucks to get shot, but figuring that a chain should remove all its bullets just because some kids decided to shoot up a school is ridiculous. By that argument, alcohol should be illegal too, right? That leads to more incidents involving deaths than guns do. And knives?

The Charlton Heston part pissed me off beyond comprehension. First of all, it was amazing of Heston to allow that retard into his home. Then, Moore goes off on some tyrade about how Heston keeps his guns loaded? Who the fuck cares? It's HIS house, he can do what he wants (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure this was the argument). When Moore pulled the picture of the little girl on Heston it made me want to punch him in the face. He treated him as if he walked up and pulled the trigger on the girl. Michael Moore, you own guns too, it's just as much your fault as it is Heston's if you use that retarded logic.

Then, he puts the picture of the little girl in front of Heston's door and walks off like he's some crusader against evil.

EDIT: And for my personal stances, I support the 2nd Amendment, but I do believe in some regulations, like some provisions of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (things like UZIs, AK's, etc... and some ridiculous add-ons like grenade launchers)

[Spike Lee]

I caught the last hour or so on TV just a few days ago... that movie was a piece of shit.

I saw the part with the Columbine kids parading around KMart (I think?) and requesting that they not sell pistol bullets anymore. Look, it was a terrible tragedy and it sucks to get shot, but figuring that a chain should remove all its bullets just because some kids decided to shoot up a school is ridiculous. By that argument, alcohol should be illegal too, right? That leads to more incidents involving deaths than guns do. And knives?

The Charlton Heston part pissed me off beyond comprehension. First of all, it was amazing of Heston to allow that retard into his home. Then, Moore goes off on some tyrade about how Heston keeps his guns loaded? Who the fuck cares? It's HIS house, he can do what he wants (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure this was the argument). When Moore pulled the picture of the little girl on Heston it made me want to punch him in the face. He treated him as if he walked up and pulled the trigger on the girl. Michael Moore, you own guns too, it's just as much your fault as it is Heston's if you use that retarded logic.

Then, he puts the picture of the little girl in front of Heston's door and walks off like he's some crusader against evil.
So it was okay for Wal-Mart to sell bullets to kids?
You guys have never really paid attention to the movie have you?

Moore's argument is that guns are not the reason why gun crimes happen. He argues that something within America's phsyche is causing it.

[GALLIENVS AVG]

So it was okay for Wal-Mart to sell bullets to kids?
You guys have never really paid attention to the movie have you?

Moore's argument is that guns are not the reason why gun crimes happen. He argues that something within America's phsyche is causing it.

I wasn't aware they were both still under 18... I thought Klebold was 18 and Harris was 17.

Either way, by pulling bullets from the shelves, they're only hurting innocent customers. The problem isn't solved by taking products away, because it's not like they couldn't just go somewhere else or get them illegally.

But if Moore's argument wasn't about how guns are the problem, then why did he want KMart to stop selling bullets?

[TheFondler]

Shade is 100% correct, guys. Bravo, sir. Kind of suprised slapnpopbass hasn't made his way into this thread (more often), but I'm sure I'd agree with him if he did....here's my next to worthless $.02:

Guns are the most convenient way to kill. I'll admit that.

Guns will always find their ways into the hands of gangsters, etc.

No law will ever prevent a gun death, because a man with a clean record will always be able to get a gun, and yes there is a minuscule chance of him going ape shit.

Therefore, the only apparent solution is a total ban right? Well, apart from the fact that you'd take guns away from the vast majority of good people, you'd be violating a constitutional right, and people would still die from guns every day, yeah that sounds like a great option! There is no reason a sane, mature adult can't handle carrying a weapon.

The government needs to stay the fuck out of people's personal lives, and stop trying to change society for some "greater good."

[Father Max]

What I really enjoy is how people keep coming in here using the word "ban", and it's like it doesn't even register that no one in this thread has said that they would ban guns.

In my opinion I would make illegal everything except for pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles. Any assault rifles would be gone, and I would create a national database that blacklists ex-cons, crazy people, etc.

Also I do believe gun-free zones are a good idea. Most of the people that carry guns aren't skilled enough to actually help out a situation. For example I guarantee I could out shoot slapnpopbass, but that won't stop him from carrying around a gun.

[pinger]

Shade is 100% correct, guys. Bravo, sir. Kind of suprised slapnpopbass hasn't made his way into this thread (more often), but I'm sure I'd agree with him if he did....here's my next to worthless $.02:

Guns are the most convenient way to kill. I'll admit that.

Guns will always find their ways into the hands of gangsters, etc.

No law will ever prevent a gun death, because a man with a clean record will always be able to get a gun, and yes there is a minuscule chance of him going ape shit.

Therefore, the only apparent solution is a total ban right? Well, apart from the fact that you'd take guns away from the vast majority of good people, you'd be violating a constitutional right, and people would still die from guns every day, yeah that sounds like a great option! There is no reason a sane, mature adult can't handle carrying a weapon.

The government needs to stay the fuck out of people's personal lives, and stop trying to change society for some "greater good."

What a silly argument.

No one is suggesting a complete ban

No-one is suggeting that a complete ban would end ALL firearm fatalities.

What were are talking about is control measures to reduce the level of direct gun violence (intentional violence, suicide), and indirect gun violence (accidental).

All because gun control measures will not stop ALL fatalities is no reason to discount it. Surely some realistic, prudent measures that help to reduce the level of gun fatalities without infringing upon the right of legitimate owners is worth it?

[Bergs]

What a silly argument.

No one is suggesting a complete ban

No-one is suggeting that a complete ban would end ALL firearm fatalities.

What were are talking about is control measures to reduce the level of direct gun violence (intentional violence, suicide), and indirect gun violence (accidental).

All because gun control measures will not stop ALL fatalities is no reason to discount it. Surely some realistic, prudent measures that help to reduce the level of gun fatalities without infringing upon the right of legitima