NRA Madness [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

LethalWolfe

Dec 20, 2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
when there a a few cases of assault weapons or shotguns used in mass killings by a psycho, the body count is still small

the worst killer, which does not make the news nationally, are handguns

assault weapons were made for war to defend one's troops, shotguns were designed for hunting, but handguns were designed to sneak up on a person/people, or go into an area where one could looks unarmed, and kill people...it is essentially a murder weapon and countless thousands of americans, many innocent lose their lives from this most devious weapon every year...i think it's ok for people to have rifles and non sawed off shotguns, but there is no reason for assault rifles which are not a huge threat to society, but handguns with their concealability should be outlawed gradually and i cannot see anyone besides the cops and military who need a "sneak up and kill" weapon like a handgun

i like lynard skynard's song saturday night special becuase if addresses the issue of handguns in general and like they say, it's good for nothing

Actually hand guns were made because long guns were cumbersome to carry around on your person. Hand guns offered a (generally speaking) lower powered, less accurate but more convient secondary firearm to carry. This was very imporant back in the single shot days so you wouldn't be defenseless while you were reloading your long gun. It is also much faster to draw a pistol than it is to sling a rifle off your back and bring it into the fireing position.

And there is nothing devious about firearms. Their opperation and safe use is pretty straight forward and mostly common sense.

Reducing the amount of firearms the public can legally own will do little or nothing to effect the crime rate. The criminals who use guns in their crimes have gotten that firearm illegally 8 or 9 times outta 10. So, no matter what laws you pass, or bans you put in place the vast majority of the criminals will still have their guns.

Whales, England, and Australia all have tight gun control laws and they all have some of the highest rates of break-ins and crimes against persons in the industrialized world (higher than the US). The rate of gun crime in England is steadily on the rise even though gun control laws have become more and more restrictive.

And on the flip side, basically every adult male in Switzerland owns atleast one firearm and the Swiss crime rate (especially gun related crimes) is incredibly low.

If you want to reduce crime look to social and economic problems, not to inanimate obects.

And, kinda OT, but the assasians favorite weapon is whatever fits the situation. It could be a sniper rifle, a pistol, a bomb, poison, piano wire, etc.,.

Lethal

pseudobrit

Dec 20, 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
assasins find the small .22 caliber their favorite weapon because the pistol is small, it does not kickback as much offereing the shooter to get in more shots accurately at close range

It's quieter and easier to suppress also.

pseudobrit

Dec 20, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
And, kinda OT, but the assasians favorite weapon is whatever fits the situation. It could be a sniper rifle, a pistol, a bomb, poison, piano wire, etc.,.

Someone else has been playing Hitman 2, eh?

jefhatfield

Dec 21, 2003, 12:00 AM

i am reading about the delta force, us army, right now...it was thought by some military units that the pistol was less accurate, less powerful, less range, etc, but they have shown that in no way is that the case with proper training

a .45 caliber bullet, or any caliber, has the same range as a similar counterpart bullet no matter what type of a gun it is shot from...one has to realize that the concealability of a pistol is its greatest strength...and where some people who use it in a wrong way get incarcerated by the government, but some elite special forces units like the delta force operators get paid a salary by the same government to learn how to kill with pistols and due to their covert nature, a pistol is the perfect killing weapon for a perfect killing machine

make no mistake about it, a handgun was invented for its ability to kill humans at close range and its concealability made sure to that fact that the shooter could get close

now, here's an interesting issue...what constitues a handgun?...and what is too small and perfect to conceal?

i just know from the many guns i have come across *i used to be a used and vintage guitar collector and many of the instruments i looked at were from dealers who often carried handguns, i know that there is no reason for a handgun so small that it could be concealed in the hand of a reasonably big person

like many people, i have to admit, i can appreciate the craftsmanship and the small guns to have a very comfortable and utilitarian vibe to it...i have shot long barreled firearms and they had a reasonable feeling of power like a good tool, but a handgun has a certain magical aura around it and the pricetags also seem to reflect that on the higher priced handguns vs. long barreled firearms

now what do you think a person needs with a gun that small? for hunting???:p :p

LethalWolfe

Dec 21, 2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am reading about the delta force, us army, right now...it was thought by some military units that the pistol was less accurate, less powerful, less range, etc, but they have shown that in no way is that the case with proper training

a .45 caliber bullet, or any caliber, has the same range as a similar counterpart bullet no matter what type of a gun it is shot from...one has to realize that the concealability of a pistol is its greatest strength...and where some people who use it in a wrong way get incarcerated by the government, but some elite special forces units like the delta force operators get paid a salary by the same government to learn how to kill with pistols and due to their covert nature, a pistol is the perfect killing weapon for a perfect killing machine

make no mistake about it, a handgun was invented for its ability to kill humans at close range and its concealability made sure to that fact that the shooter could get close

now, here's an interesting issue...what constitues a handgun?...and what is too small and perfect to conceal?

i just know from the many guns i have come across *i used to be a used and vintage guitar collector and many of the instruments i looked at were from dealers who often carried handguns, i know that there is no reason for a handgun so small that it could be concealed in the hand of a reasonably big person

like many people, i have to admit, i can appreciate the craftsmanship and the small guns to have a very comfortable and utilitarian vibe to it...i have shot long barreled firearms and they had a reasonable feeling of power like a good tool, but a handgun has a certain magical aura around it and the pricetags also seem to reflect that on the higher priced handguns vs. long barreled firearms

now what do you think a person needs with a gun that small? for hunting???:p :p

Speaking in generalities a rifle is more powerful and more accurate over longer distances. Even shooting the exact same ammo a rifle will be more accurate than a pistol. Generally speaking the shorter the barral the short the effective range of the firearm. Also, bullets for rifles are typically longer and more aerodynamically shaped (pistol rounds tend to be short and fat in comparison) and the shells tend to be larger in order to hold more powder (this will propel the bullet faster and farther). There are more factors to a bullet than just it's calibur. I tried shooting .22 shorts out of my semi-auto pistol once (it takes .22 long rifles) and that wasn't too fun. The .22 short fit in the clip and fired fine, but it didn't have enough powder to produce enough gas to operate the slide. Needless to say it didn't take long for me to switch back to my box .22 LR.

And a pistol is far from a "perfect killing machine." There are situations where pistols excel, and their are situations where pistols come up lacking.

Lethal

aldo

Dec 21, 2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

Whales, England, and Australia

LOL, I assume you mean 'Wales'.

amnesiac1984

Dec 21, 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

Whales*, England, and Australia all have tight gun control laws and they all have some of the highest rates of break-ins and crimes against persons in the industrialized world (higher than the US). The rate of gun crime in England is steadily on the rise even though gun control laws have become more and more restrictive.

And on the flip side, basically every adult male in Switzerland owns atleast one firearm and the Swiss crime rate (especially gun related crimes) is incredibly low.

If you want to reduce crime look to social and economic problems, not to inanimate obects.

And, kinda OT, but the assasians favorite weapon is whatever fits the situation. It could be a sniper rifle, a pistol, a bomb, poison, piano wire, etc.,.

Lethal

* see above post.

The crime rate may be quite high but the amount of people actually killed by guns is far lower than in the US, but I agree that you need to stop the culture of fear in the US and stop people from needing guns for self defense.

This all reminds of a film I saw the other night on Channel 5 called 'Betrayed' with Tom Behringer in it, anyone seen it? It wasn't that good but interesting subject matter.

jefhatfield

Dec 21, 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Speaking in generalities a rifle is more powerful and more accurate over longer distances. Even shooting the exact same ammo a rifle will be more accurate than a pistol. Generally speaking the shorter the barral the short the effective range of the firearm. Also, bullets for rifles are typically longer and more aerodynamically shaped (pistol rounds tend to be short and fat in comparison) and the shells tend to be larger in order to hold more powder (this will propel the bullet faster and farther). There are more factors to a bullet than just it's calibur. I tried shooting .22 shorts out of my semi-auto pistol once (it takes .22 long rifles) and that wasn't too fun. The .22 short fit in the clip and fired fine, but it didn't have enough powder to produce enough gas to operate the slide. Needless to say it didn't take long for me to switch back to my box .22 LR.

And a pistol is far from a "perfect killing machine." There are situations where pistols excel, and their are situations where pistols come up lacking.

Lethal

pound for pound, in the hands of almost any human, and for its size, and within the statistics of crime...there is no more perfect killing mechanism than a handgun

even in the hands of the most able people, a handgun can be dangerous...sometimes it's the gun but sometimes (usually) it's the person...when i worked for the cia, i knew a man who was exquisitely trained for his job but i did not trust the man around firearms when it came to a certain personal spat he had with a high profile local official..long story there

in other countries, when people get into heated arguments, sometimes somebody gets beat up or stabbed and in most cases, the victim lives...in the united states, a lot of those arguments translate into somebody getting shot by a handgun...a rifle or shotgun is too unwiedly and the time it takes to use it, point it, etc will give the split second of time it takes for a person's judgement to kick in...a handgun can be used almost instantaneously

south of where i live in los angeles, road rage has gotten so out of control and with the extreme amount of traffic there with a highway system that did not project the massive growth of this city, america's second largest, there is a lot of congestion...and at the same time, big cities bring big crime and besides the criminals carrying handguns galore, the regular citizen has handguns...the factors there lead to a perfect recipe for people getting out of hand with road rage...in the 90s it got so severe that people were mounting bullet proof glass in their cars

about perfect killing machines...where i live, there is a military base where a lot of military intelligence, navy seals, and army delta force get their language training...and over the years being for civilian civil service, plus living next to the base, i have befriended many a special forces soldier...and these people are paid, although not very well, to be able to use a pistol very effectively as a killing machine...one bullet from a pistol in the head, throat, or chest will most likely kill or seriously injure a person...they are trained to do something called a double tap...two shots which will hit its target in one of those three areas which will, with an almost 100 percent accuracy, kill the person who gets hit

i do realize that not everybody is a navy seal, delta force operator, or military special forces trained in language, espionage, and handgun training, but these people can do anything with a pistol that most civilian shooters cannot do with a long gun...so in the right hands, a pistol is the most perfect killing machine ever invented...part of that equation is that a pistol allows you to get very close to your target...realize that a lot of the military special forces, and all branches have them whether it's common knowledge or not, dress in civilian clothes most of the time (like the military base where i live) and often have the pistol as their only weapon becuase these people go undercover and need to get close to their targets

and with the us military playing a more peacekeeping and international law enforcement role in today's terrorist ridden world, being undercover (like a vice cop going deep cover) is more and more a function of the military and the lines have blurred in this decade especially

america's enemy is not your typical leader in a specific geographical position with borders and a standing army...but ok some say iraq is an enemy but i have reservations about bush's strategy in iraq exactly the same way as stated by BOTH hilary clinton and newt gingrich (imagine that), but our enemy is more likely to be a terrorist/criminal working within our borders, dipping in and out of the usa at will, and using illegal drug trade as a means of funding...this is where the line blurs when the military has to deal with them in the special forces arena

now if you want to get to perfect killing machines, then yes, weapons of mass destruction are the way to go and chemical and biological weapons, as well as conventional expolsives are powerful, yet insdiscriminate killers of everybody in sight...friend and foe...but in the case of the military and police, it's not the best weapon to achieve most military and police objectives

i wish you could have met some of the people i have come to have known through my past job, or thru the special military language school, or through the college i went to which trained many military officers to get advanced degrees...and basically chewed the fat with them...and you might have come away with a different view of handguns and their ability to kill so perfectly in the hands of someone with the right training

jefhatfield

Dec 21, 2003, 11:14 AM

there are instances, in one case, where i can't imagine the use of handguns, and that would be an officer in the us air force

but when i met this man, he was a captain going to the language school and it turned out he was in military intelligence and was training to speak in either russian or arabic

but when i went over to his house, i saw the typical things on his desk wall, college diploma, air force officer's stuff, but there was this one strange plaque on the wall which seemed out of place...special handgun training...actually some of the people in his specialty worked to weed out certain espionage within the ranks of the us military and this is not something he would want to advertise on his uniform...it would be as obvious as a cop in internal affairs wearing a patch that said, "breaking the blue wall of silence - internal affairs"...he he

i asked him why he had that plaque and he very non chalantly said, sometimes he may be asked to go deep cover and if need be, he might need to defend himself with a hand gun and kill people

it was when i talked to him many years ago then that i realized the purpose of some in the military, and of that special handgun course...and suddenly a handgun did not seem to be a smaller all purpose rifle, but a specialized firearm designed to kill people and to do it a close range

plus the conceability...why do you think, just for sake of argument, that these two military intelligence related school near me have their soldiers routinely dress in civilian clothes?

jefhatfield

Dec 21, 2003, 11:25 AM

edit.....oops, i hit quote instead of edit ;)

LethalWolfe

Dec 21, 2003, 01:34 PM

So your agruement against handguns, and why handguns are superior to rifles, is based on the lethality of handguns in the hands of highly trained military special forces? Your arguement has nothing to do w/the weapon and everything to do w/the person. I'm sure most of these guys could kill someone w/a straw, but that doesn't mean we should ban straws does it? ;)

Your argruements that the pistol is the perferct killing machine are flawed because you are only focusing on the strong points of the pistol. Yes, if you need something concealable and for short range than a pistol is your best bet. If you need something that can provide heavy fire, can hold a lot of rounds, and/or is very acurate over long range you do not want a pistol. A pistol is the ultimate weapon in situations when you are looking to be low-key in a close encounter, but it's not the ultimate weapon across the board.

I agree that if handguns were banned you would have less handgun violence but if you look at the total number of handguns in US and compare it to the number of handguns used criminally the percentage is pretty small. And of those handguns used criminally the majority of them were gotten illegally.

i wish you could have met some of the people i have come to have known through my past job, or thru the special military language school, or through the college i went to which trained many military officers to get advanced degrees...and basically chewed the fat with them...and you might have come away with a different view of handguns and their ability to kill so perfectly in the hands of someone with the right training

I'm not doubting the lethality of handguns in the hands of elite US Military personal. But I think your experience has given you a distorted view of reality in this case. You are using extreme examples (US special forces) and applying them to the common man. It's kind of like a jaded cop who has a very negative view of humanity on a whole. Which is understandable because all the cop sees is the most negative side of people, but cops view is obviously skewed and innacurate. His perception of humanity is based on the criminal minority which is obviously not an acurate cross-section of the US population as a whole.

Lethal

jefhatfield

Dec 21, 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
So your agruement against handguns, and why handguns are superior to rifles, is based on the lethality of handguns in the hands of highly trained military special forces? Your arguement has nothing to do w/the weapon and everything to do w/the person. I'm sure most of these guys could kill someone w/a straw, but that doesn't mean we should ban straws does it? ;)

Your argruements that the pistol is the perferct killing machine are flawed because you are only focusing on the strong points of the pistol. Yes, if you need something concealable and for short range than a pistol is your best bet. If you need something that can provide heavy fire, can hold a lot of rounds, and/or is very acurate over long range you do not want a pistol. A pistol is the ultimate weapon in situations when you are looking to be low-key in a close encounter, but it's not the ultimate weapon across the board.

I agree that if handguns were banned you would have less handgun violence but if you look at the total number of handguns in US and compare it to the number of handguns used criminally the percentage is pretty small. And of those handguns used criminally the majority of them were gotten illegally.

I'm not doubting the lethality of handguns in the hands of elite US Military personal. But I think your experience has given you a distorted view of reality in this case. You are using extreme examples (US special forces) and applying them to the common man. It's kind of like a jaded cop who has a very negative view of humanity on a whole. Which is understandable because all the cop sees is the most negative side of people, but cops view is obviously skewed and innacurate. His perception of humanity is based on the criminal minority which is obviously not an acurate cross-section of the US population as a whole.

Lethal

i hope not to be jaded and think only of the bad side of human nature ;)

i still hold out hope that i can see good and beauty in a lot of things...the handgun is not a perfect killing machine as much as an a-bomb, and i am sure there are some chemical weapons many of us have never heard of that can wreak havoc, too and make a handgun seem like a toy

but that does not solve the handgun violence problem we have in america

some have suggested letting us keep and bear weapons but not own any smaller than a 10-12 inch barrel so that anything that size or larger available to the populace would be relatively easy to spot, let's say, in a bank or near a president, presidential candidate or other political figure

how could this be done? probably very, very slowly over time

i don't like the idea of such a lethal weapon in such a small concealable form factor for the average citizen...the air force has thermonuclear weapons so does that mean that the average citizen should also have weapons like that? at a certain point, certain weapons like thermonuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and yes, small concealable handguns are overkill for the average citizen to possess

but maybe a gun not so concealable publicly, but still small enough to keep near your bed and use easily in case of an intruder could be a happy medium

of all people who have used guns, and know their power, i am no different than most people...sure, i would like to see and use a british SAS (special air service) all plastic glock 17 and fire this feather light pistol and hit a target with a 9 mmm round...it would be fun a gun range, but i don't see the use of the average citizen who can own this gun an easily get through any metal detector

i am sure al qaeda, with all their drug and oil money, can acquire some glock 17 all plastic models, but what average citizen needs such a weapon...or what about a sub sonic bullet speed thompson machine gun with a silencer on it where the bullets never reach the speed of sound, thus not having a pop, and then using a silencer on it which makes it able to be used indoors without other people in another room not hearing it?

some guns are better left to the police and military who have special uses for them just like the air force has their silos with nuclear weapons...which, unfortunately is needed for world peace since it has been proven that peace can be had through strength

it's not a black and white issue, gun control/right to bear arms, and i think americans should have access to some weapons, after a background check, and not be able to have certain very dangerous/potentially dangerous weapons

LethalWolfe

Dec 22, 2003, 01:58 AM

Jaded was perhaps the wrong term (nothing you've said has ever made me think you were jaded) maybe biased is a better term? More critical? Skewed? ;)

One of the down falls of living in a free society is that requires people to be responisble. Most people are. Some aren't. And others are just stupid. ;)

Like I said a few posts back, if you want curb crime and gun violence look at social and economic issues. Focusing on handguns will not solve the handgun problem in America either. It's a symptom, not the cause, of the problem. Also, like I said before, the majority of weapons used in criminal acts are gotten illegaly. So making it harder or impossible for someone to obtain a firearm, or specific type of firearm, legally won't keep those weapons out of the hand of criminals because they aquire most of their firearms illegally to begin with. Gun related crime is climbing in England even though the gun laws are as strict as they'ev ever been. To use the cliche, "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns."

I have no problems w/background checks or the "cooling off" period. Heck, I'd like to see manditory basic gun training/gun safety classes required if you apply for a permit to carry. I'd like to see more emphasis on training and safety anyway.

jefhatfield

Dec 22, 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Jaded was perhaps the wrong term (nothing you've said has ever made me think you were jaded) maybe biased is a better term? More critical? Skewed? ;)

One of the down falls of living in a free society is that requires people to be responisble. Most people are. Some aren't. And others are just stupid. ;)

Like I said a few posts back, if you want curb crime and gun violence look at social and economic issues. Focusing on handguns will not solve the handgun problem in America either. It's a symptom, not the cause, of the problem. Also, like I said before, the majority of weapons used in criminal acts are gotten illegaly. So making it harder or impossible for someone to obtain a firearm, or specific type of firearm, legally won't keep those weapons out of the hand of criminals because they aquire most of their firearms illegally to begin with. Gun related crime is climbing in England even though the gun laws are as strict as they'ev ever been. To use the cliche, "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns."

I have no problems w/background checks or the "cooling off" period. Heck, I'd like to see manditory basic gun training/gun safety classes required if you apply for a permit to carry. I'd like to see more emphasis on training and safety anyway.

i am totally with you on the cooling off period, checks, and training classes

do you think there is a gun too small and concealable that should be used only for police and the military?

what about silencers for the general public? cop killer bullets? zip guns?

and what do you think of the 100 percent plastic glocks that can defy any metal detector that is used by the british special air service for use as a handgun for regular civilians? would you sell such a gun at kmart, walmart, or outdoor world?

i think we all believe in gun safety here and we all draw the line in a different place as we probably both agree that it's not cool to sell chemical and biological weapons at the local hardware store

some believe that there should be no restrictions and my best friend believes that to his core, but his experiences in life are different than mine so he has a different perspective...he belives in all guns for all people, all drugs being legal, and all prostitution being legal...his idea is government out of one's life/liberty and the smallest government possible and he considers himself the truest of republicans in theory...maybe so as the old gop saying goes, "don't fix it if it ain't broke"

LethalWolfe

Dec 23, 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am totally with you on the cooling off period, checks, and training classes

do you think there is a gun too small and concealable that should be used only for police and the military?

what about silencers for the general public? cop killer bullets? zip guns?

and what do you think of the 100 percent plastic glocks that can defy any metal detector that is used by the british special air service for use as a handgun for regular civilians? would you sell such a gun at kmart, walmart, or outdoor world?

i think we all believe in gun safety here and we all draw the line in a different place as we probably both agree that it's not cool to sell chemical and biological weapons at the local hardware store

some believe that there should be no restrictions and my best friend believes that to his core, but his experiences in life are different than mine so he has a different perspective...he belives in all guns for all people, all drugs being legal, and all prostitution being legal...his idea is government out of one's life/liberty and the smallest government possible and he considers himself the truest of republicans in theory...maybe so as the old gop saying goes, "don't fix it if it ain't broke"

Who is to say how small is too small? My GF has pretty small hands (she's just under average height for a woman) and what if the smallest legal handgun is still to big for her to effectively use? My dad is 6'1" 200lbs, I'm 5' 8" 145lbs, what is a big gun on my body would probably conceal easily on his.

"Cop killer" bullets I think are a non-issue right now. AFAIK the standard issue police vest is light enough that a med-to-large calibur handgun is going to punch thru it anyway.

Silencers I'm not sure about. I don't recall hearing alot about silenced weapons commonly being used in gun related crimes so I'll have to take the uneducated stance of, "Let people have them." If I fired a silenced weapon all these years I'm sure I would have a little less ringing in my ears than I do today. ;)

zip-guns I don't know very much about.

The all plastic gun I think should be made available to qualifying individuals. For example, someone who works at/lives in an environment that is very corrosive to metal should be given the opportunity to purchase a weapon like that. Of cousre I'm assuming that kind of weapon would largely be prohibitvely expensive to the average person.

In general I think potential problem needs to be weighted against actual problem with a big dose of common sense to top it all off.

Lethal

jefhatfield

Dec 23, 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Who is to say how small is too small? My GF has pretty small hands (she's just under average height for a woman) and what if the smallest legal handgun is still to big for her to effectively use? My dad is 6'1" 200lbs, I'm 5' 8" 145lbs, what is a big gun on my body would probably conceal easily on his.

"Cop killer" bullets I think are a non-issue right now. AFAIK the standard issue police vest is light enough that a med-to-large calibur handgun is going to punch thru it anyway.

Silencers I'm not sure about. I don't recall hearing alot about silenced weapons commonly being used in gun related crimes so I'll have to take the uneducated stance of, "Let people have them." If I fired a silenced weapon all these years I'm sure I would have a little less ringing in my ears than I do today. ;)

zip-guns I don't know very much about.

The all plastic gun I think should be made available to qualifying individuals. For example, someone who works at/lives in an environment that is very corrosive to metal should be given the opportunity to purchase a weapon like that. Of cousre I'm assuming that kind of weapon would largely be prohibitvely expensive to the average person.

In general I think potential problem needs to be weighted against actual problem with a big dose of common sense to top it all off.

Lethal

i am not a cop or criminal defense/prosecuting lawyer, so i will make a guess as a citizen for handguns

i do not believe in citizens having cop killer bullets and silencers (for all types of guns)

zip guns should be illegal and these three to four ounce weapons are made for only one thing since it only works at very close range

but like you , i think only qualified individuals should be allowed to have plastic glock 17s...my take would be for commercial pilots, airport security, and special agents in the military, and federal, state, and local government agents

as for guns for the citizens i think acceptable weapons to be rifles, hunting rifles, single shot assualt type weapons made for hunting but not machine guns, shotguns, and pistols no smaller than 10-12" inches or somewhere around there...sawed off shotguns should be allowed if they are not smaller than 10-12" inches and short rifles should be allowed, but again not shorter than 10-12" inches

ultra short special forces and undercover rifles, shotguns, and machine guns should be for special forces and police and if there is such a thing as a plastic shotgun, rifle, or machine gun....especially if it's somehow foldable, should be used only for cops and military only

british SAS machine guns made to be sewn into jackets and sweatshirts, for ultimate concealment, and made in parts sewn in different places and no part over a few inches in length, operated by feet or a single finger (james bond type stuff) should never be made available to the general public

i have covered everything i have ever heard of, read about, or seen in person, photographs, or books and if i am leaving anything out, my basic idea is to let citizens have firearms as long as they are not too concealable or made to be undetected by metal detectors

if a gun needs to be rust proof or corrosion proof, then make it part plastic but not all plastic...meaning leave some metal on or in it so it can be detected by a metal detector...i don't see a scenario where a citizen needs a small, concealable, and undetectable weapon unless they want to do someone harm illegally or hijack an airplane

i believe people should be allowed to have a gunrack and keep long firearms but in plain sight and i am against poeple keeping small arms in the glove compartment

and i don't think anybody should have concealed handguns on them unless they are a cop or special agent for the government or military of some sort

i would like to see some happy medium like some high tech stun gun or laser gun or some technology not quite invented yet for the future

basically, i think making all guns illegal is an impractical idea and gives the government and police too much power but i think making all guns imaginable legal for anyone to carry anywhere at any age would be asking for trouble, too...so i take a common sense approach since i think when it comes to any kind of firearms, common sense is the best policy

2jaded2care

Dec 30, 2003, 12:16 PM

Actually, IMHO (as an individual NRA member), the flash presentation is somewhat misleading. "Assault weapons" (a term the gun control lobby has succeeded in applying to some semi-automatic weapons) are not illegal, except in California and some other parts of the US. The "assault weapons ban" (as signed by President GHW Bush) did ban the importation and sale of such weapons, effective a certain date. Weapons already in dealers' hands were still able to be sold, albeit at increased prices (that old supply-and-demand thing). The private possession of such weapons was not made illegal by the law. (California and some other areas have more restrictive laws which do actually forbid possession of these weapons.)

The NRA is lobbying Congress to exempt gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits filed by crime victims, in the belief that lawful manufacturers and dealers should not be held liable for the misuse of their products (as in, the actual criminal should be held accountable). This is not that different from exempting car manufacturers from lawsuits when an irresponsible driver kills people with a car. The gun industry is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. If a manufacturer or dealer is engaged in shady practices, they should be shut down and prosecuted.

Some individuals do possess machine guns and suppressors. These people have gone through FBI background checks, been fingerprinted, had their local sheriff sign a statement that they are not criminals, and agreed to produce their weapons for inspection on demand by any BATF agent. And paid a $200 federal transfer tax for the privilege.

The gun control lobby spends lots of money, too. While both sides do agree that gun crime is an important issue, we simply disagree on the best way to deal with the problem. The NRA says punish the criminals, not the innocent. The gun control crowd says there is no such thing as an innocent gun-owner.

IJ Reilly

Dec 30, 2003, 12:50 PM

I disagree with most of these characterizations, but particularly the last one:
The gun control crowd says there is no such thing as an innocent gun-owner.

I have never personally heard a single person advance this argument. You can beat up on this straw-man all you like, but that will never make you right.

2jaded2care

Dec 30, 2003, 01:17 PM

I believe there is a post on page 1:

"I believe that guns only belong in the hands of police and military."

Maybe I read too much into that statement.

Nevertheless, I should have recognized that there are lots of, for lack of a better word, "levels" of "gun control" and "gun control people".

However, I do believe that what I posted about the "assault weapons ban" and the NRA lobbying to exempt gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits filed by crime victims is pretty accurate, and not a "characterization". You, of course, are free to disagree.

IJ Reilly

Dec 30, 2003, 02:03 PM

Fair enough, but I don't think the exemption being requested by the gun manufacturers is fairly analogous to exempting car makers from the deeds of drunk drivers. In effect, they're already exempt from product liability suits where the safety of their product isn't at issue.

That being said, I don't think the civil courts have much to offer in terms of settling gun control issues. I take the move into these courts by gun control advocates as an act of desperation. I don't think we be at that point if the NRA hadn't been working so diligently for so long to obstruct the dialog over this issue.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 30, 2003, 02:04 PM

There has never been a gun that killed anyone, how can a gun load itself, aim and pull the trigger? this is impossible in our known universe. Now Man??? whole nother story in fact the first killing was with a rock, why dont we outlaw Rocks or better yet why dont we outlaw Man.

mactastic

Dec 30, 2003, 02:05 PM

We need a national registry of rocks I suppose.:D

jefhatfield

Dec 30, 2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
There has never been a gun that killed anyone, how can a gun load itself, aim and pull the trigger? this is impossible in our known universe. Now Man??? whole nother story in fact the first killing was with a rock, why dont we outlaw Rocks or better yet why dont we outlaw Man.

i know some women that would like to outlaw men...and even howard stern would not be welcome on this planet ;)

that being said, i am glad that all guns are not legal for all people to buy at all stores even if there has never been an instance of a gun going off by itself without the aid of a human firing the thing

jefhatfield

Dec 30, 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
We need a national registry of rocks I suppose.:D

would that be similar to the rolling stone guide to popular music?

or would that be more related to the fact that some stones have been arrested in the past..like mick and keith?

or that some stones can be very dangerous and toss television sets out of hotel windows?

IJ Reilly

Dec 30, 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
We need a national registry of rocks I suppose.:D

It's interesting, isn't it -- in these days of heightened concern over national security, that some people still seem perfectly comfortable arguing that all citizens should have free and unfettered access to all forms of weaponry. Is this an exaggeration? I don't think so. I've yet to hear anyone who takes the NRA line of reasoning explain where the line ought to be drawn (and even more importantly, why).

mactastic

Dec 30, 2003, 02:16 PM

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 30, 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
We need a national registry of rocks I suppose.:D LOL, I think its in the Constitution for a reason.(Big Brother, Police State, Criminals) but i do think they need to ban assault weapons and do background checks so psycho's & career criminals have no access.:)

jefhatfield

Dec 30, 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It's interesting, isn't it -- in these days of heightened concern over national security, that some people still seem perfectly comfortable arguing that all citizens should have free and unfettered access to all forms of weaponry. Is this an exaggeration? I don't think so. I've yet to hear anyone who takes the NRA line of reasoning explain where the line ought to be drawn (and even more importantly, why).

i know that there are some gun enthusiasts who believe in some control and common sense

i have a friend who does like the right to bear arms and that we may need guns for personal protection against criminals but laughs at the lunatics who think that owning guns is a deterrent that will somehow make our government stay perfectly in check and not get abusive...if our government decided to turn on the people, no gun that is in the hands of the people would be able to stop an apache helicopter

let's just be happy we can own guns for our own protection, but there are limits to what kind of weaponry we are allowed to have

and let's be glad that our government has not turned on it's people like some central american dictatorship and realize that it is by our constitution and laws that have kept our government in check, not the fact that johnny down the street has a beretta:p

jefhatfield

Dec 30, 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
LOL, I think its in the Constitution for a reason.(Big Brother, Police State, Criminals) but i do think they need to ban assault weapons and do background checks so psycho's & career criminals have no access.:)

and they should keep all psychos away from rocks as well as guns

or any person who gets rock hard at the sight of a gun

i wouldn't want to be the legislator that had to draw the fine lines in the sand in rock and gun laws because it might put me between a rock and a hard place

2jaded2care

Dec 30, 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Fair enough, but I don't think the exemption being requested by the gun manufacturers is fairly analogous to exempting car makers from the deeds of drunk drivers. In effect, they're already exempt from product liability suits where the safety of their product isn't at issue.

The Flash presentation claims "Right now, gun victims can sue irresponsible gun manufacturers and dealers", and that the NRA wants to change this. "Victims will have no recourse against dealers who supply guns to the criminal market". To me, this sounds like an attempt to bankrupt an entire industry through expensive litigation and jury awards, misplacing the blame for the misuse of firearms from the criminal to the manufacturer and dealer. Such cases have been filed in the recent past.

The Brady law already requires at minimum an ID check and "instant" computerized criminal background check on individuals purchasing firearms. This should prevent known criminals and non-citizens from purchasing firearms through legitimate channels. (Don't ask what happens when states start issuing IDs to illegal immigrants, you probably don't want to know.)

Gun dealers must run this background check before selling a firearm. If a buyer comes back clean, that dealer has no right to refuse to sell to anyone. You can't discriminate just because someone might "look like" a criminal. What does a criminal look like? Is everyone who fits this "criminal profile" a criminal? (Or just someone who's gonna sue you for discrimination?)

I can't speak for the entire NRA, as I am but one member. However, in my observation the NRA does not advocate free and unfettered access to any weapons whatsoever (that would be anarchists, some Libertarians, possibly some GOA members). The NRA does recognize the difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and does believe that the so-called "assault weapons" (some of which are semi-automatic versions of military-style weapons) are not functionally that different from many other currently legal weapons, which could lead to a wider "ban" (the old "slippery slope" argument).

The NRA in general seems to support more freedom for the law-abiding, with better enforcement against the law-breakers as a deterrent.

LethalWolfe

Dec 30, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i know that there are some gun enthusiasts who believe in some control and common sense

I agree.

i have a friend who does like the right to bear arms and that we may need guns for personal protection against criminals but laughs at the lunatics who think that owning guns is a deterrent that will somehow make our government stay perfectly in check and not get abusive...if our government decided to turn on the people, no gun that is in the hands of the people would be able to stop an apache helicopter

What is one thing almost all oppresive governments have in common? They disarmed their citizens. If there was a coup and someone positioned themself as a dictator in the US I guarantee that one of the first things they would do is disarm the American public. It's very hard to orchistrate and armed rebellion w/o arms. Of course no one in their right mind would try to stage a conventional war against the US Military (my pistol vs your Apache) but guerilla tactics have been, and probably will be, successful against conventional militarys and occupational forces. If an oppressive government comes into power they will want to rule the country, not turn it into smoking rumble so the full destructive power of the military will not be unleashed. The military will be hamstrung. It will be restricted to police actions, occupations, and troop garrisons.

I don't believe that armed citizens is the only thing keeping the "evil government" at bay, there are far more powerful checks and balances. But I do believe that anyone who plans to take over the US has to take into consideration that there are about 80 million armed citizens in the US. So even if only a quarter of them fight back that is still 20 million people. 20 million armed citizens fighting for their families, their homeland, and their freedom. And that is a problem that must be delt with otherwise you are just asking for constant guerilla attacks on patrols, supply lines, government buildings, etc., and an armed rebellion is only a matter of time.

[/soapbbox] ;)

Lethal

IJ Reilly

Dec 30, 2003, 03:54 PM

Anyone can sue anybody at any time for any reason. The merits of that lawsuit are then sorted out in court. That is how the torts system is supposed to work. Industries carving out special protections for themselves is not how the system is supposed to work. I'm opposed to efforts to bankrupt the firearms industry (if that's what they be) or attempting to work out gun control issues in civil courts -- but I am also not in favor of any industry manipulating the legislative process to grant themselves special dispensations. The firearms industry is no more deserving of this then anyone else.

Whatever distinctions the NRA makes between various types of weaponry, these distinctions don't seem to make much if any difference to their lobbying efforts or public rhetoric. I have already seen them fiercely oppose restrictions on the sale of armor-piercing bullets. The familiar slippery-slope argument was the rationale. If the NRA has changed its tune on these issues, then I haven't seen any indication of it.

The Brady law is full of loopholes, the biggest of which is the gun show exemption.

2jaded2care

Dec 30, 2003, 04:27 PM

Sorry for not being able to make it any clearer, apparent lack of knowledge on my part.

I do know that the gun industry is already treated differently from many others, as it is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and not the Federal Trade Commission. Apparently the Federal government saw fit to treat this industry differently... I just don't understand, if existing laws for a legal product are followed, how the manufacturers could be held accountable for the misuse of their product. Should not the BATF be held accountable, if it is their responsibility to regulate the industry?

I must admit there is contradictory information here. You mention NRA defending armor-piercing bullets, but other posters are ridiculing the concept of an armed militia being able to fight a theoretical US totalitarian government and its weaponry. Do armor-piercing bullets not work unless one is a criminal shooting at cops?...

Seriously, many rounds routinely used for hunting can pierce so-called bulletproof vests ("body armor"). The NRA does resist any attempts to restrict hunting rounds.

IJ Reilly

Dec 30, 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Sorry for not being able to make it any clearer, apparent lack of knowledge on my part.

I do know that the gun industry is already treated differently from many others, as it is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and not the Federal Trade Commission. Apparently the Federal government saw fit to treat this industry differently... I just don't understand, if existing laws for a legal product are followed, how the manufacturers could be held accountable for the misuse of their product. Should not the BATF be held accountable, if it is their responsibility to regulate the industry?

I must admit there is contradictory information here. You mention NRA defending armor-piercing bullets, but other posters are ridiculing the concept of an armed militia being able to fight a theoretical US totalitarian government and its weaponry. Do armor-piercing bullets not work unless one is a criminal shooting at cops?...

Seriously, many rounds routinely used for hunting can pierce so-called bulletproof vests ("body armor"). The NRA does resist any attempts to restrict hunting rounds.

I don't know how the gun manufacturers could be held liable either. AFAIK, they haven't been, at least not yet, and I have no idea if they will be. In any event, I don't think this is for me to decide or for Congress to carve out a special exemption. This should be up the courts, and that's a position I can take irrespective of what I believe to be a just outcome.

I'm not going to defend or try to explain what other posters say, or least of all attempt to reconcile their views with mine. No point there, that I can see.

I'm referring to Teflon-coated bullets. I don't know to what other purpose they can be put, but they were designed to penetrate Kevlar body armor. For obvious reasons, law enforcement is opposed to such things being available to everyone, but the NRA took a contrary position. This was some years ago -- maybe they've since arrived at a more sensible position.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 30, 2003, 06:23 PM

As i said before people are the ones killing why not hold them accountable for their actions? we would rather blame everything else including someones mother for what they do? absolutely stupid, and the reason the ambulance chasers go after the industry is because of $$$ all they need is a judge who is biased and a dumb jury.

jefhatfield

Dec 30, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

I don't believe that armed citizens is the only thing keeping the "evil government" at bay, there are far more powerful checks and balances. But I do believe that anyone who plans to take over the US has to take into consideration that there are about 80 million armed citizens in the US. So even if only a quarter of them fight back that is still 20 million people. 20 million armed citizens fighting for their families, their homeland, and their freedom. And that is a problem that must be delt with otherwise you are just asking for constant guerilla attacks on patrols, supply lines, government buildings, etc., and an armed rebellion is only a matter of time.

[/soapbbox] ;)

Lethal

those powerful checks and balances is our form of government who the rest of the world has used as a role model so i think that's really is what keeps things honest...that and a two party system...three or more parties would even be better...our system is not perfect but one of the best ones in history

if some tin horn third rate military tried to take us...yes, we would have small arms in our citizenry which would most likely repel them...but if the us govt with their wmd's galore and trained 21st century military went corrupt we couldn't do much except let them take over and hope to change them from the inside out over a longer period of time

our weapons are mainly, in today's world, to protect us from criminals and not a wayward us government...the founding fathers would be astounded if they found out how much stronger the military was than the citizenry in the 21st century

posse comitatus keeps the us military from doing operations within the us on any long term basis such as an internal take over of the country and civilians

and if worst came worst and it all went to heck in a hand basktet, we can always use rocks and pelt those jerks

2jaded2care

Dec 31, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
In any event, I don't think this is for me to decide or for Congress to carve out a special exemption. This should be up the courts, and that's a position I can take irrespective of what I believe to be a just outcome.

...

I'm referring to Teflon-coated bullets. I don't know to what other purpose they can be put, but they were designed to penetrate Kevlar body armor. For obvious reasons, law enforcement is opposed to such things being available to everyone, but the NRA took a contrary position. This was some years ago -- maybe they've since arrived at a more sensible position.

I thought Congress passed laws as they see fit, then the courts interpret those laws. If a law contradicts other laws or the Constitution, then the courts can render judgement on the validity of those laws. Maybe I learned it wrong.

I'll check on the NRA's position on Teflon-coated bullets. I don't know what their current position is, but I do know that I've never seen any such ammo offered for sale in the past 12 years or so I've been a member.

2jaded2care

Dec 31, 2003, 11:11 AM

I checked the NRA's sites and found this info (hope I get this right):

<http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=55>

Of course, it is from an obviously biased source (NRA), so you should regard it with the same skepticism as you would any info from the gun-control crowd.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree, hopefully without being disagreeable.

Happy new year (and new iPods) everybody!

IJ Reilly

Dec 31, 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
I thought Congress passed laws as they see fit, then the courts interpret those laws. If a law contradicts other laws or the Constitution, then the courts can render judgement on the validity of those laws. Maybe I learned it wrong.

I'll check on the NRA's position on Teflon-coated bullets. I don't know what their current position is, but I do know that I've never seen any such ammo offered for sale in the past 12 years or so I've been a member.

No, you didn't learn it wrong. Congress has the power to coddle any industry they wish, and they often do just that. The question is whether it's right, and whether it's a rational use of government power. I don't think it is.

The Teflon-coated bullet thing probably deserves more research before either one of us makes it a major debating point.

Patrick Bateman

Jan 2, 2004, 12:51 AM

Just a couple minor corrections before the main reason I'm posting: The AWB was signed by Bill Clinton. GWB backs it also though but it's clear he doesn't really care about it. Teflon coated bullets like in the movie Ronin that are bullets sprayed with Teflon do not have the effect they show of piercing body armor because they have this on them. If anything, it would be less effective by disrupting the bullets designed actions. Cop-killer bullets can theoretically be any bullets that pierce body armor (at least the meaning that has been stamped onto these so-called different bullets) and that all depends on what level of protection the body armor affords, the type of round used and the type of firearm used (barrel length affecting velocity/longer barrel, faster bullet, more energy transferred into target). So, a .22lr can be a cop killer if the body armor lets it through. The body armor may fail too.
Anyway, the Second Amendment is not about hunting. So the argument about only guns used for hunting should be allowed is in my opinion wrong. That Flash link is so flawed in it's subject matter. From what is banned to what the guns they showed can do to what someone can buy legally. What happens when a country bans certain firearms or just about all firearms? Look at Great Britain and Australia. Home robberies, violent crimes (rapes, murders and just about everything you can think of) bank robberies all sky rocket the same and following years that these laws are enacted. Some by 500%. Criminals use stolen guns almost all the time. They don't regularly ask for the states permission to buy at a store and I would venture to say never (well as close to it as possible) buy them at gun shows. On the matter of sweeping legislation backed by the NRA to get gun makers and gun shops protected from civil lawsuits, this is only if the gun operated in the manner it was designed to do. So only if something on that firearm wasn't working right, will they be able to be sued in regards to the gun directly. This doesn't apply to stores selling guns illegally to the bad guys. Cars kill so many more people than guns in this country. And we allow them? That's not even in the Bill of Rights. Should any car manufacturer and car dealer be open to civil suits if someone buys a vehicle and then uses that perfectly good vehicle and accidently hurts or kills someone or uses it in a crime? That's basically what this legislation does. It gets rid of all the lawsuits that are out there for the sole purpose of putting the makers and sellers out of business. The pro gun side has been winning these court battles but it's costing them. Also, that argument that some gun store had a bunch of guns traced back to it's store that were used in crimes... I'd like to trace back all those cars that were used in crimes as get away cars or just any accident that someone other than the makers or dealers were held responsible. No matter how long after the vehicle was made, how many different owners it had, and no matter what circumstances it was used under (even by law enforcement or military).
Well that's about all my mind and fingers can put out now. For now keep safe, watch your back and remember that the police are usually not there when the crime happens but respond to it and aren't even lawfully bound to respond to any particular crimes (decided in lawsuits brought about most notably from the Columbine shoootings). You are responsible for your safety.
I'm law enforcement by the way.

jefhatfield

Jan 2, 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman

Well that's about all my mind and fingers can put out now. For now keep safe, watch your back and remember that the police are usually not there when the crime happens but respond to it and aren't even lawfully bound to respond to any particular crimes (decided in lawsuits brought about most notably from the Columbine shoootings). You are responsible for your safety.
I'm law enforcement by the way.

i was just interested, the dems want to spend money for certain crime/enforcement issues and the gop for other issues

as a police officer, where do you think that the money is best spent from our tax dollars? and do you think that you are paid a fair salary or do you think you should be paid more? and lastly, do you think police officers, or your station, is properly outfitted with the right equipment?

2jaded2care

Jan 2, 2004, 10:53 AM

Apologies, Patrick. Quick Googling shows Clinton did indeed sign the 1994 AWB, and the feel-good 10-round magazine restriction was signed as part of another crime bill around the same time.

However, in 1989 GHW Bush did sign the first importation ban on certain so-called assault weapons. (Believe me, I do remember that!) The 1994 AWB ban expanded on Bush's precedent.

BTW, the 1989 ban was credited by some to be a contributing factor to Bush's loss to Clinton -- the rationale being that some Republicans simply stayed at home on election day. While I would like to believe it (and I believe there were some instances of it), more likely it was the economy that sank GHW Bush.

IJ Reilly

Jan 2, 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
On the matter of sweeping legislation backed by the NRA to get gun makers and gun shops protected from civil lawsuits, this is only if the gun operated in the manner it was designed to do. So only if something on that firearm wasn't working right, will they be able to be sued in regards to the gun directly. This doesn't apply to stores selling guns illegally to the bad guys.

As I've said before, anyone can be sued for any reason at any time. But they can't necessarily be sued successfully. It is far from certain whether a gun manufacturer can be successfully held liable for the use of a gun in a crime. As you've pointed out, car makers don't need to be shielded from lawsuits because there's no legitimate case to be made for liability when a car is used for an illegal purpose.

What is a legitimate case of product liability should be up to the courts to sort out. The government should not be exempting any industry from product liability. This is a special dispensation, plain and simple. This kind of thing is wrong philosophically, economically and legally. And as a matter of politics, it just tells you who is really in charge of our government.

mactastic

Jan 2, 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The government should not be exempting any industry from product liability. This is a special dispensation, plain and simple. This kind of thing is wrong philosophically, economically and legally.

The biggest product liability exemption of them all... (http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Price-Anderson-Act.htm)

This exemption is to be extended by the Bush energy plan.

The Price Anderson Act - a law that subsidizes nuclear power by creating liability protection for nuclear accidents - will expire in August 2002. The nuclear industry is working hard to ensure that the bill is reauthorized and expanded to cover a new generation of nuclear plants. Several bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress to renew the Act for another ten year period. Proponents of nuclear power are using their influence to ensure that this liability coverage would be expanded to new reactors.

The primary mission of the Act is to subsidize shareholders' value in nuclear power by placing a cap on the amount of insurance protection, thereby limiting the nuclear utilities' liability. This makes capital investment in the nuclear industry more attractive to investors because the risk is minimized and fixed. More subtly, the Price Anderson Act is intended to create the illusion that sufficient insurance coverage is available to compensate victims of nuclear accidents for injuries.

Funny that so many "free-market" types are so willing to allow this kind of distortion of the market to occur.

Sorry for going off the gun topic, but we are talking product liability here at the moment.

IJ Reilly

Jan 2, 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Funny that so many "free-market" types are so willing to allow this kind of distortion of the market to occur.

Sorry for going off the gun topic, but we are talking product liability here at the moment.

It isn't really off-topic, at least not in my opinion. Sadly, conservatives have become much more comfortable with government powers being employed to further the goals of corporations then with protecting the rights of individuals.

Enter, the law of unintended consequences. About a dozen years ago, Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act (I think that was the title), shielding small aircraft makers from product liability claims they said were crushing the industry. And well they might have been. The net effect of this legislation was not so much to lift the liability burden, as to shift it to airplane owners and pilots through higher liability insurance premiums. If you wonder even for a second why this sort of thing happens, consider only the "mother's milk of politics."

It's bad enough we're stuck in this situation, but even worse that so many individuals seem prepared to make excuses for it.

2jaded2care

Jan 2, 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
As I've said before, anyone can be sued for any reason at any time. But they can't necessarily be sued successfully. It is far from certain whether a gun manufacturer can be successfully held liable for the use of a gun in a crime. As you've pointed out, car makers don't need to be shielded from lawsuits because there's no legitimate case to be made for liability when a car is used for an illegal purpose.

You readily admit that there's no legitimate case against manufacturers when cars are misused, but your words seem to imply that this logic should not apply to lawful gun manufacturers when you say that it should be up to the courts to decide, and that it's "far from certain whether a gun manufacturer can be successfully held liable...". Why the apparent difference in opinion? Or do I misread your subtext?

BTW, I hope that anyone who files a frivolous lawsuit (McDonald's made me fat!) is held liable for defense fees.

IJ Reilly

Jan 2, 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
You readily admit that there's no legitimate case against manufacturers when cars are misused, but your words seem to imply that this logic should not apply to lawful gun manufacturers when you say that it should be up to the courts to decide, and that it's "far from certain whether a gun manufacturer can be successfully held liable...". Why the apparent difference in opinion? Or do I misread your subtext?

No difference of opinion. I thought I'd made this point clearly a couple of times already. I don't "admit," I simply don't know (and personally doubt) such a case could be successful. I'm saying it should be up to the courts to decide when a product liability claim is legitimate, and no industry has earned a liability exemption from Congress. Well, I suppose they have "earned" it by lining our legislator's pockets with campaign dollars -- but other then that, no.

mactastic

Jan 2, 2004, 12:59 PM

I think the worry is that a sucessful lawsuit against gun manufacturers will lead to the dreaded "confiscation of all guns by left-wing jack-booted thugs."

However, auto manufacturers have been sued before, are being sued now, and will continue to be sued. I have yet to hear a call for confiscating all wheeled vehicles as a result though.

Link (http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Topic=985)

2jaded2care

Jan 2, 2004, 01:19 PM

IJ, I think it's fair to say that you are far more trusting of the courts (and the jury-selection process) than I am. Perhaps you have forgotten the Dems' reaction to the 2000 Presidential election. ;-)

I would like to believe that there should not be a problem with Congress protecting any lawful industry from being sued out of existence when its product is intentionally misused (in my opinion, legislating though the courts what one cannot legislate through the legislature). I don't consider that "caving" to industry or special interests, but apparently many do.

Anyway, it seems that we are just on different wavelengths here and I'll try to leave it at that.

Off-topic, please don't assume that all conservatives favor big business over the individual (as long as that individual has a legitimate complaint). I don't know much about the Energy Plan, but all industries should be required to carry enough insurance to cover accidents.

The "gimme" that really gets my goat is the SUV tax break. We should be encouraging less fuel consumption, not more. Sorry, Detroit (and OPEC), you don't deserve this kind of taxpayer support.

That said, let's lighten up a bit -- Happy new year, everybody!

mactastic

Jan 2, 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Off-topic, please don't assume that all conservatives favor big business over the individual

There's a lot of the "all conservative are..." or "all liberals are..." that gets thrown around here. I'm sure he meant the conservative leadership, not every single conservative.

IJ Reilly

Jan 2, 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
IJ, I think it's fair to say that you are far more trusting of the courts (and the jury-selection process) than I am. Perhaps you have forgotten the Dems' reaction to the 2000 Presidential election. ;-)

I would like to believe that there should not be a problem with Congress protecting any lawful industry from being sued out of existence when its product is intentionally misused (in my opinion, legislating though the courts what one cannot legislate through the legislature). I don't consider that "caving" to industry or special interests, but apparently many do.

Anyway, it seems that we are just on different wavelengths here and I'll try to leave it at that.

Off-topic, please don't assume that all conservatives favor big business over the individual (as long as that individual has a legitimate complaint). I don't know much about the Energy Plan, but all industries should be required to carry enough insurance to cover accidents.

The "gimme" that really gets my goat is the SUV tax break. We should be encouraging less fuel consumption, not more. Sorry, Detroit (and OPEC), you don't deserve this kind of taxpayer support.

That said, let's lighten up a bit -- Happy new year, everybody!

No, I don't think it's fair to say that. Whatever its flaws may be, I don't believe we can afford to be so cynical about the legal process that we endorse carving out exceptions to it for politically well-placed corporations. At some point, we're talking about a serious equal protection issue here. Hey, maybe you have more faith then I do in the Congress!

I realize I may have done a bit of over-generalizing, but just there are liberals who believe the government can solve all of our problems, there are conservatives who think the government should throw down a path of rose pedals for corporations. Now, if you asked me which philosophy of government is holding sway at the moment...

2jaded2care

Jan 2, 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, I don't think it's fair to say that. Whatever its flaws may be, I don't believe we can afford to be so cynical about the legal process that we endorse carving out exceptions to it for politically well-placed corporations. At some point, we're talking about a serious equal protection issue here. Hey, maybe you have more faith then I do in the Congress!

Okay, okay! Yes, I agree, maybe I have more faith than you do in the Congress! Geez! Hopefully you will not contradict my agreeing with your own statement.

(At least there's a chance of ousting elected officials...)

IJ Reilly

Jan 2, 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Okay, okay! Yes, I agree, maybe I have more faith than you do in the Congress! Geez! Hopefully you will not contradict my agreeing with your own statement.

(At least there's a chance of ousting elected officials...)

Not much. With a 95% return rate, you'd probably find a higher turnover rate on the Federal bench. Which is probably going to remain true so long as members of Congress continue pandering to their real constituencies... yup, there's a lot to have faith in there.

Don't be so afraid of debate. It's what we do around here.

SPG

Jan 2, 2004, 04:55 PM

I believe that one of the reasons the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers have gone forward is that there were many cases (some stronger than others) where the gun makers could have either made the weapons safer, less able to be used by anyone other than the original purchaser, or prevented the flow of weapons into the illegal market through "straw purchases". The lawsuits all claimed these factors more than the original lethality of the weapons as the reason to sue.
If we still want to use the auto analogy, car makers weren't seeking ways to sell cars to convicted drunk drivers with suspended licenses, selling cars with no way to lock to them, or removing/not implementing safety equipment.

I recall reading a document that was a collection of depositions from gun executives that detailed their knowledge that certain gun shops were selling thousands of guns right into the hands of criminals, yet they didn't want to stop the flow for the sake of profits.

IJ Reilly

Jan 2, 2004, 05:20 PM

Hmm, you're not saying the firearms industry might just have a few dirty little secrets they don't want anyone to know about, are you?

2jaded2care

Jan 2, 2004, 05:43 PM

Of course, it's always possible that there are some gun dealers who knowingly sell firearms to criminals. Any such dealers are in violation of existing law, and should be punished.

I don't know anything about gun executive depositions as you describe, but I can assure you that the NRA (which is composed of concerned citizens, not gun manufacturers) does not in any way condone letting criminals have guns. It would be stupid and self-defeating to do so.

The lawsuits filed by many cities against the gun industry did seek to force manufacturers to incorporate some sort of "identifying" technology before the gun would fire. An interesting side-note is that many police departments said that they should be exempted from being required to use weapons with such proposed, theoretical technology, because they did not trust it would be reliable ("The battery died?"), and could prevent firearms being used by other officers than the primary user.

mactastic

Jan 2, 2004, 06:00 PM

But if they are in violation of existing law, and law enforcement won't address the problem (for lack of resources, lack of jurisdiction, lack of motivation, whatever) then a private lawsuit is quite possibly the only option to an aggreived party.

There doesn't seem to be an aggressive effort on the part of law-enforcement to crack down on gun dealers who do break the law. Perhaps if some of the 'drug warrior' types were re-assigned to less glamorous positions investigating violent crime more of these laws would get enforced. 'Specially the one about not killing people.

IJ Reilly

Jan 2, 2004, 06:31 PM

It was stupid and self-defeating for the tobacco companies to deny that nicotine was addictive for so many years, when their internal documents showed that they knew it was a lie. If I've learned anything at all in my life, it's that whenever a wad of cash is waved in front of people's eyes, they tend to become incredibly myopic.

Desertrat

Jan 3, 2004, 02:49 PM

Sorry to be late to the party. Went off and whipped the Cancer Bug. I'm in "weight-gain mode", and all's well. :)

Hey, we've gone over a lot of this before. Lemme offer some "true facts" against some misperceptions, okay?

1. "Cop Killer" bullets are a media invention. The teflon coatings of sharp-pointed steel bullets protects a barrel from undue wear. This ammunition was available only to police, at least in the only gun store in which I ever saw it. At the time of the "noise" in Congress, no policeman had ever been shot at with it, hit with it, nor killed with it.

2. "Assault Weapons" as spoken to in both the media and law are better called "para-military weapons". These are not selective fire; they merely look like the actual rifles used by various military units around the world. The mechanism is not particularly different from those in use in some civilian sporting rifles since the early part of the 20th Century. The "noise" about them derives from their rather ugly appearance, but certainly not from their lethality. I won't allow them in my deer camp, as they are not reliably capable of ethical, clean kills.

The BATF testified before Congress that criminal AW use represented less than 2% of all guns used in crime.

3. "High capacity magazines" is another source of puzzlement to most folks in the gun culture. One reason is that it's not difficult to develop the skill to fire a shot from a pistol, change magazines and then fire another--and accurate--shot within a time frame of one second. (I learned to do this in one weekend, back when I was a youngun of merely 46 years. :) ) I've personally always thought that the original capacity of a Colt 1911 was quite adequate, thank you.

4. A rather scary datum from "Under the Gun" (Wright, Rossi and Daly, 1985, Univ. of Fla. Press) is that of those shot with handguns, 1/3 die and 2/3 live; of those shot with long guns, 2/3 die and 1/3 live. That is, if we "magicked" away all handguns, the death rate in gun crimes would increase.

I base this conclusion upon the authors' interviews with violent felons incarcerated in Florida's Raiford Prison. Respondents stated that if handguns were not available, they would steal rifles or shotguns and then apply hacksaws. (As did Charles Whitman with the single-shot shotgun he initially used in his murder spree at the Univ. of Texas tower.)

(The authors, at least two of whom are statisticians, concluded that no gun control law ever passed in Florida had ever affected gun-crime rates.)

5. Opinion: Once it is agreed that any person has a right to live, then it must be agreed that self defense is a right--all the way to deadly force if necesary. From that, how can it be said that some means of deadly force are "okay", but others are not? "Shotgun good, handgun bad?" "Club good, gun bad?"

Duh?

:), 'Rat

IJ Reilly

Jan 3, 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
5. Opinion: Once it is agreed that any person has a right to live, then it must be agreed that self defense is a right--all the way to deadly force if necesary. From that, how can it be said that some means of deadly force are "okay", but others are not? "Shotgun good, handgun bad?" "Club good, gun bad?"

Welcome back. Glad to hear you're doing well.

I asked a similar philosophical question way back near the beginning of this thread, but nobody took me up on it. It seems to me equally agreed that people should not have access to what, for lack of a better term, we can call "heavy artillery." So where does the line get drawn between that which is legitimate for individuals to own for their self defence (or sporting purposes), and that which is is not?

2jaded2care

Jan 3, 2004, 03:44 PM

Mactastic, I and many NRA members will agree that there is not enough law enforcement, period. And, it would help if the convicted criminals actually had to serve their sentences...

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It was stupid and self-defeating for the tobacco companies to deny that nicotine was addictive for so many years, when their internal documents showed that they knew it was a lie. If I've learned anything at all in my life, it's that whenever a wad of cash is waved in front of people's eyes, they tend to become incredibly myopic.

I cannot disagree with this comment. However, I will again point out that the NRA is composed of concerned citizens, which is not the same thing as gun manufacturers. Obviously these two groups have many goals in common, but they are not one and the same.

Personally, I can't understand the "thinking" behind the whole Enron, Global Crossing, etc. situations. Talk about stupid and self-defeating. Those execs deserve their perp-walks and prison time in spades. (But then again, I don't understand outsourcing work to other countries and laying off American workers -- how do you expect them to buy anything?)

IJ Reilly

Jan 3, 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
I cannot disagree with this comment. However, I will again point out that the NRA is composed of concerned citizens, which is not the same thing as gun manufacturers. Obviously these two groups have many goals in common, but they are not one and the same.

So, you don't think greed is a major force in our society, even after you cite several good examples of raging avarice trumping basic responsibility?

As for membership organizations -- I've belonged to many of these, and I am always aware that while their members are generally "concerned citizens," the organizations are in fact run like businesses. None that I have seen are above (1) tooting their own horns, (2) wild exaggeration, and (3) deliberately riling up the membership for fund-raising purposes.

2jaded2care

Jan 3, 2004, 04:20 PM

I don't know where you got the impression that I don't think that greed is a major force in our society, especially since I agreed with your statement that "whenever a wad of cash is waved in front of people's eyes, they tend to become incredibly myopic."

However, greed can be used for good or bad. Apple is not in business strictly to improve peoples' lives, but to make money at the same time (otherwise, no Apple Computer). As long as businesses make money (even obscene amounts of money) in a legal and hopefully honorable fashion, I consider that a good thing. Would I prefer that PowerBooks be built using all-American parts? Sure, but I have no choice but to be satisfied with the domestic workforce as Apple currently employs... It's whenever executives allow greed to trump legality, then they deserve to be punished.

I also am not naive to the tactics of lobbying groups. However, this does not mean that I will abandon groups which support causes important to me.

IJ Reilly

Jan 3, 2004, 04:46 PM

I read your statement too quickly and thus incorrectly. Humble apologies.

My point about membership organizations is that they're really in it for themselves. I still belong to some of them, but I often find myself becoming annoyed by their self-serving tactics. I think it pays to be as skeptical of what they tell you as a member as what any company tells you as a customer. The relationship is very much the same -- they want your money, and they're perfectly willing to shade the truth the get it.

jefhatfield

Jan 3, 2004, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Sorry to be late to the party. Went off and whipped the Cancer Bug. I'm in "weight-gain mode", and all's well. :)

:), 'Rat

hey, welcome back to our discussion and i hope you are feeling better

2jaded2care

Jan 4, 2004, 12:57 AM

Desertrat, congrats and I'm glad you're here. I bow in respect of your obvious knowledge.

Now, your mission is to do what I cannot and convince these misled people of the fact that the Flash presentation which started this whole thread is a low-down piece of propaganda awash in misleading statements. ;-)

Also, as a newbie, I'm interested in how you respond to the comment about "heavy artillery". I know the lawful restrictions, but where would you draw the line, and why?

Take care, and good luck!

jefhatfield

Jan 4, 2004, 01:02 AM

i have an abrahms in my garage and a bradley as a backup when it's in the shop

but i have to drive it during the day because if i run it at night, it wakes the neighbors...but i think it's really not too excessive as long as i register my license and get it smogged:D

IJ Reilly

Jan 4, 2004, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Also, as a newbie, I'm interested in how you respond to the comment about "heavy artillery". I know the lawful restrictions, but where would you draw the line, and why?

Go ahead, take a stab at it yourself. It's a philosophical question -- no wrong answers.

On the one side of the Second Amendment argument is the theory that it protects only ownership of breech-loading muskets. On the other extreme, is the argument that it protects a citizen's right to own whatever weaponry may be required to forcefully oppose the government, which I presume would include jefhatfield's Abrams tank (can I have a ride?), surface-to-air missiles, antipersonnel mines, RPGs, and the like.

So, which is it, and why?

Desertrat

Jan 4, 2004, 11:46 AM

:D Got any ammo for that Abrams? I have a place we can go shoot.

Over at THR* we got into a discussion of the upper limits of what weaponry an individual could lawfully possess, within the meaning of the Second Amendment and without government "worries". (Remembering that individual ship owners owned their cannon, "back then".) I'd say the consensus spoke to individual weapons, not crew-served.

My own view for one who would want an Abrams and a boxcar load of ammo is that I'd want governmental assurance that the person not be likely to do public harm. That is, something along the lines of the background checks for CHL holders, plus training and knowledge of proper use. We already have laws concerning excessive noise and damaging property.

'Rat

* http://www.thehighroad.org

IJ Reilly

Jan 4, 2004, 11:57 AM

Ok, that's an answer -- but why? What's the Second Amendment argument for requiring any special government permission for owning a boxcar full of explosives or a tank, but not, say for an AK-47? Or a handgun?

Desertrat

Jan 4, 2004, 12:46 PM

Most pro-gun folks apparently also consider the Congressional definition of who is in the militia. (Able-bodied men from around 16, on up to around 45) This definition, coupled with the idea that militiamen should provide their own weapons, has led to the general view of the propriety of individual weapons, but not crew-served. In the early decades of this nation, a community militia collectively owned whatever cannon were there in the town.

Personally, I hate to get into the "technology thing" about lightweight machine guns or bazookas and suchlike. Sure, those who favored individual ownership of arms never envisioned such things. However, a case could be made from the fact that they also never envisioned typewriters, copiers, radio or TV when writing the First Amendment, as to protecting those media as free speech. And computers, the Internet and Spam, as well. :)

I'm suspicious as to the Constitutionality of the NFA '34, the GCA '68, and the NICS check. I'm aware of the "slippery slope" arguments of pro-gunners, but I can live with those three matters of law. What I'm strongly against are those inefficacious laws which speak to cosmetics only ("assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines", e.g.), and other such laws which don't affect crime but merely add hassle to the lives of law-abiding citizens. I'm against laws which inhibit lawful self-defense.

'Rat

pseudobrit

Jan 4, 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
I'd want governmental assurance that the person not be likely to do public harm. That is, something along the lines of the background checks for CHL holders, plus training and knowledge of proper use. We already have laws concerning excessive noise and damaging property.

We just invaded a nation because they allegedly had the potential to kill masses of people.

Wouldn't it make sense to have certain restrictions on how many people a citizen is likely to be able kill while breaking the law?

IOW, if you're killing somone with a knife, you're breaking the same exact laws as someone who fires a shell from his M1A1 into his neighbour's house.

Neither is a good thing. But the potential to kill with ease and impunity is much higher with the heavy armour.

------------------

Anyway, the good news is that you can drive an Abrams, get training on how to do so, get live ammo to shoot with and plenty of target practice AND get paid to do it! And you get to exercise your 2nd amendment rights with a real militia (www.goarmy.com) while doing so!

mactastic

Jan 4, 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
What I'm strongly against are those inefficacious laws which speak to cosmetics only ("assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines", e.g.), and other such laws which don't affect crime but merely add hassle to the lives of law-abiding citizens. I'm against laws which inhibit lawful self-defense.

'Rat

Surprisingly I agreed with almost all of your post there 'Rat. But I gotta ask.

Are you against instituting a system of instant background checks every time a gun is transfered to another owner? And do you believe that if the government did require all guns to be registered that the inevitable conclusion is the eventual confiscation of them?

Oh and does that mean that once you are over 45 a case can be made that you shouldn't have your guns anymore???:D

IJ Reilly

Jan 4, 2004, 02:01 PM

Aw come on, 'Rat -- you're avoiding my question! All I want to know is what types and classes of weaponry you (or others) believe the Second Amendment protects or does not protect, and why.

mactastic

Jan 4, 2004, 02:05 PM

I think he said anything designed to be used by a single "militia" member was ok. Though he did allow that those militias had cannon that were collectively owned. Wonder if a homeowers association could get a "collective" howitzer for self defense under that scenario?

IJ Reilly

Jan 4, 2004, 02:15 PM

Well that's my point. We don't have village militias anymore, and certainly if we did, they wouldn't find cannon balls and black powder to be adequate armaments.

I'm asking a very simple, straight-forward philosophical question about the nature and limits of the Second Amendment. The answer doesn't need to be couched in historical terms.

jefhatfield

Jan 4, 2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Well that's my point. We don't have village militias anymore, and certainly if we did, they wouldn't find cannon balls and black powder to be adequate armaments.

I'm asking a very simple, straight-forward philosophical question about the nature and limits of the Second Amendment. The answer doesn't need to be couched in historical terms.

very true

some gun people really do like the idea of being able to personally own a tank if that were a possibility...you just never know when the red scare will overtake washington in a week long coup or if the redcoats will massively attack the eastern seaboard next month

it could happen

it really could

have you thought about it

hey, who's that outside my window

i gotta go

i gotta go

someone is watching me

i wish the stupid us government would grant me a tank

right now, right now...i am in the right because jesus is on my side

because of them not allowing tanks, i can't protect my family from the redcoats

the redcoats are coming

the redcoats are coming:rolleyes:

IJ Reilly

Jan 4, 2004, 09:25 PM

To be more precise, the Redcoats are coming back. The only question is, where have they been for the last 200 years?

I have to note that nobody seems willing to tackle my question. Come on, guys -- if you believe the Second Amendment protects your rights, then why can't you tell us specifically what rights those are?

Desertrat

Jan 4, 2004, 09:49 PM

Under the existing law of the land, any of you who are male and between the ages of (roughly) 16 and 45 are members of the unorganized militia. Passed by Congress and signed into law by whomever was President at the time.

It was taken for granted at the time of the writing of the Constitution that members of the militia would provide their own personal weapons: Rifles and pistols, primarily.

So, ownership of any rifle, or pistol or shotgun suitable for individual military use is a right of all militia members. This would include M16s and M14s as well as Beretta 92-type and Colt 1911A1 semi-auto pistols. (The US Army used Winchester Model 97 12-gauge shotguns in WW I & II as well as Remington 870s in Vietnam.)

As for us old guys over 45, well, we just hang on to certain keepsakes to help us remember what and who we were--and as teaching aids for you younguns. :)

Desertrat

Jan 4, 2004, 09:58 PM

mac asked, "Are you against instituting a system of instant background checks every time a gun is transfered to another owner? And do you believe that if the government did require all guns to be registered that the inevitable conclusion is the eventual confiscation of them?"

To the first, yes, (stipulating law-abiding sellers) because there is little evidence that these particular used guns are at all common in crime. Sure, some will be so misused, but as always there is a cost/benefit aspect to any sort of regulation. (The "if it will save just one life" argument more strongly supports a 20mph national speed limit than for registering private sales of firearms.)

To the second, yes, because in every instance of registration there has later been confiscation--including New York and California. It's not just countries in which there are despotic leaders, or feel-good places like England and Australia.

2jaded2care

Jan 4, 2004, 10:41 PM

Personally, I would be comfortable with just letting the 1994 AWB expire, as long as there is a serious effort to enforce other existing laws and punish criminals (including any law-breaking gun dealers out there) to the full extent. Otherwise, what will predictably happen is that there will be crimes committed and we will be bickering all over again. (Not that opponents won't bicker anyway if the AWB is allowed to expire, whether or not it results in increased crimes -- it just will mean that the opponents will appear to have a leg to stand on.) ... In other words, letting the ban lapse will backfire if there is not vigilant enforcement of other laws.

Myself, I would allow the over-the-counter sale of the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns (with required background check), but not the fully automatic assault rifles. This distinction is clear, between different classes of weapons. I think that it should reasonably be possible to enforce other existing laws to prevent criminals and non-citizens from being able to obtain such weapons through otherwise legitimate channels.

In an ideal country, a law-abiding citizen should be allowed (I just know this will be taken out of context later) to easily purchase fully automatic weapons. However, in our less than ideal country (in which would-be killers of commanders-in-chief are declared to be no threat to society and unleashed), I would not be in favor of it. I would continue to support the current system of extensive background checks, fingerprinting, ATF oversight, etc., until such time as criminals actually have to serve serious sentences (maybe more than the average 6-7 years for murder, say)... Yes, I am a bit of a weenie on this one.

My 2 cents -- Not necessarily the NRA's.

2jaded2care

Jan 4, 2004, 11:12 PM

Oops, I neglected to specifically address the Second Amendment ramifications of my opinion.

I must admit I don't think my personal opinion is necessarily very consistent with my interpretation of the Second Amendment. However, I don't think that we are living up to the standards set forth in the Constitution in many other regards, either. So, I don't think I can necessarily "justify" my delineations in Constitutional terms. It's just what I personally believe could work in a practical sense, given conditions as they exist today.

Not that the Bill of Rights doesn't matter, but I think that you just can't realistically declare we're going to go with a strict interpretation of the Constitution in any one area, but neglect everything else. (More freedom to screw things up, but no one to oversee or punish you if you do! Yippee!) You can't thrust that on people and not have chaos. It has to be a gradual thing. IMHO.

That said, I do believe that allowing the AWB to expire would be a step in the right direction, constitutionally speaking.

Disagree away.

IJ Reilly

Jan 5, 2004, 12:05 AM

Such circuitous answers to a simple question. Am I getting the right impression -- that the Second Amendment doesn't clearly secure any rights to gun ownership? Because I certainly haven't heard what rights it does secure, and how those rights can be justified by the language of the Amendment.

Desertrat

Jan 5, 2004, 07:36 AM

Sheesh, IJ, I thought I was pretty danged specific!

To me, when talking about any of the items of the Bill of Rights, one must be as clear and specific as possible about the meaning of the wordings--which is why I phrased my reply as I did. I tried to stay within the context and meanings of the words of over 200 years ago.

I'll try again: Stipulating law-abiding people, any person should be able to freely acquire and dispose of any firearm considered to be an individual (not crew-served) weapon. (RPGs ain't "firearms".)

That said, (to repeat) I can live with the NFA '34, the GCA '68 and the NICS. Today's society is reasonably well protected by them against the general decay in behavior as compared to a half-century back. The "Brady Bill" and the "Assault Weapons" ban (and the regulations deriving from them) are both inefficacious and merely cosmetic.

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Jan 5, 2004, 10:28 AM

Maybe I haven't phrased the question clearly. I'm not interested in discussing gun control laws at this point nor the merits of any other laws that may or may not have been passed by Congress. They are irrelevant to this question. I'm interested only in hearing an explanation of what "arms" the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to "bear," and why. If the anti-gun control argument is going to be based on the Second Amendment (and it is), then I believe it's incumbent on those who'd wave the Second Amendment flag for this purpose to define what they think it means.

derinda

Jan 5, 2004, 10:44 AM

Cars kill more people than guns do, so why stop at guns?

Neserk

Jan 5, 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Maybe I haven't phrased the question clearly. I'm not interested in discussing gun control laws at this point nor the merits of any other laws that may or may not have been passed by Congress. They are irrelevant to this question. I'm interested only in hearing an explanation of what "arms" the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to "bear," and why. If the anti-gun control argument is going to be based on the Second Amendment (and it is), then I believe it's incumbent on those who'd wave the Second Amendment flag for this purpose to define what they think it means.

I agree wholeheartedly. Personally, I don't own a gun and would not allow one in my residence. That being said, I believe the ammendment was meant for the people to be able to protect themselves against foreign invaders. Perhaps a history buff could give more details as to the original context of the ammendment.

2jaded2care

Jan 5, 2004, 11:39 AM

Can't speak for the NRA or "Second Amendment flag wavers" in general, only myself. My reasoning, admittedly, is sometimes not conventional, and a Constitutional and history scholar I'm not.

I believe that the main argument used by gun control proponents is that the "militia" reference in the Second Amendment refers, or should today refer to the National Guard.

Anti-gun control proponents say that this should still refer today to all the people, as the founders didn't envision a National Guard, and that all able-bodied citizens compose a militia.

Personally, while I recognize that the National Guard fulfills many of the functions of a citizen militia, it is still a branch of the "standing army" which the founders apparently considered a potential threat to the freedoms they had established. Not that I think the black helicopters are on the way, but I do think that an armed citizenry has a better chance not to fall victim to dictatorship.

All that prologue, and it seems I would mostly agree with Desertrat. Fully automatic weapons should be allowed under my (limited) understanding/ interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Realistically, however, these have been so strictly controlled since 1934, that I would not favor an immediate opening of that floodgate. Perhaps in a generation or two, when people learn (and government enforces) the concept that with freedom comes responsibility.

I do not see the argument advanced by some Libertarians, for example, that fission weapons can legitimately be considered a personal defense weapon. Which is one reason I'm not a Libertarian.

2jaded2care

Jan 5, 2004, 12:35 PM

Another rambling thought...

I don't think you can find a clear-cut answer as to what types of weapons should be allowed under the Second Amendment, as modern arms did not exist at that time. Therefore, any determination of whether, say, RPGs should exist in private hands would have to be based on a "best guess" of what the intentions of the amendment and founders were.

To claim that the amendment should only apply to flintlock rifles would be as absurd as to say that the First Amendment should not apply to television.

To claim that the "militia" is the same as the National Guard is certainly a point of contention, and not one (IMHO) which lends itself to easy determination either. Equally reasonable people fall on both sides of this argument.

Jack T.

Jan 5, 2004, 12:57 PM

Prolog: I registered here simply to be keep up to date on the mini-iPod thing. . .very cool stuff Apple is doing. However, I stumbled upon this thread, and since gun ownership is one of my hot-button issues, I had to reply. Thus, I have complied some quotes that are relevant to this discussion.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." --George Washington

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." -- Adolf Hitler

"Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") -- Fidel Castro, responding to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Politics Ch 10 para 4, 350 B.C.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA-ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." -- Heinrich Himmler

I could go on. Whether we like the 2nd Amendment or not, it IS a right. I think I can safely say that if the 1st Amendment was under as much fire as the 2nd, people (and especially the media) would be throwing a fit.

IJ Reilly

Jan 5, 2004, 01:13 PM

Ok, this is closer to the discussion I was hoping to set in motion with my question. I'm not expecting any Constitutional scholarship, and I can't offer any of my own.

The vast majority of the anti-gun control arguments I hear are based on a perceived need to be armed for personal, not national, defense. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitutional argument is made frequently by those who have no interest in joining a "well regulated militia." So it seems to me specious to link the Second Amendment's direct reference to a militia to any Constitutional right to be armed for personal defense, or sport shooting, for that matter.

2jaded2care

Jan 5, 2004, 02:27 PM

While there are groups which call themselves "militias", I am not sure whether they are considered "well-regulated" or not. Personally, I do not think the "well-regulated militia" the founders envisioned exists in today's world, which would make it difficult to join one whether a person wanted to or not. As I said, I do not consider the National Guard to be the same as "a well-regulated militia".

Certainly, if the US had no standing army, as the founders probably would have preferred, every able-bodied (male) citizen would likely serve in such a regulated militia.

I do think that the rationale behind "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was based on the concept of protecting the "security of a free State" -- which does not apply only to national defense against foreign invaders. I'm not sure either that this argument would necessarily limit the use of weapons to protecting the security of the State -- it could just explain why it is in the interest of this government that people be allowed to have firearms in the first place.

Keep in mind it is the right of the "people", not the right of the militias/ states/ federal government/ etc. to bear arms... The other amendments apply to the people as a whole (hence, the "Bill of Rights" to protect the citizens' rights from government intrusion, IOW the addendum of citizens' rights to the "blueprint" for the government). If the intention was to give government the power to arm its military, it would seem inconsistent to place this power in the Bill of Rights.

I am aware that this course of reasoning would seem to support allowing citizens more military-type weapons over hunting-type weapons.

While to my knowledge self-defense is not explicitly mentioned in the Second Amendment, neither does the Constitution deny an individual's right to self-defense and the means to practice it. However, we do have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit..."

Desertrat

Jan 5, 2004, 02:50 PM

Look, I posted this here during another discussion about guns and the Second Amendment and such: There is an introduction to the Bill of Rights, in the original "critter". I've seen it in the reproduction at the local post office, which also has facsimiles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Basically, it states that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the abuse of power by the State. It is thus a package of controls on our central government. (From this it appears to me that the writers of the Bill of Rights saw the Second Amendment as the means to prevent the other enumerated rights as being no more than the Nine Privileges.)

My question is, if the BOR is a set of restrictions upon the central government, how can it also be a set of controls upon the citizenry? You just can't have it both ways.

The Second Amendment is useless without the First Amendment. The First Amendment says there is an absolute right to discussion of governmental actions. How else would people know there is an abuse of power abuilding or in existence, against which to rebel and whereby those who object could congregate?

Maybe earlier I should have mentioned that by existing federal law we have first, the Army; then, the Organized Militia (which is readily interpreted to be the National Guard) and last, the Unorganized Militia of which I spoke before. If you recall from your history courses any of the views of the twenty years following adoption of the Constitution, any permanent military structure of any significant size was regarded as a Bad Thing. In those days, the Unorganized Militia was the largest military force in the United States. By and large, this general view of the military held until WW II. Our experiences with Japan and Germany, coupled with the rise of the Soviet Empire, clobbered the bejeezus out of this view.

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Jan 5, 2004, 04:41 PM

Sorry if this reply to both of you is less detailed then your thoughts justify, but I'm getting myself together for my annual MacWorld-SF trek and am pressed for time.

Both of you are arguing in essence that the reference to militia in the Bill of Rights is antique. I'd agree there. What I don't see is the need to find some modern analogy that somehow fits; as though we can't accept that the conditions the Founders anticipated no longer exist. This is a round peg in a square hole problem. This clause does not have to be relevant anymore, you know.

In fact the Supreme Court has never conferred a general right to the ownership of arms deriving from the Second Amendment. And I can't help noticing that the NRA doesn't have a history of challenging gun control legislation on this basis, either. Maybe they know something.

That being said, I think it is plainly wrong to think that only the Bill of Rights can protect any right or privilege we enjoy as Americans. I suspect we can all think of many activities we find essential for our "pursuit of happiness" that aren't directly, or even indirectly, protected by the Bill of Rights.

For instance, I like to pursue some of my happiness in a private airplane. That does not mean I can hop into any old airplane at any old time and fly wherever I like. Far from it. If I don't have the right pieces of paper in my pocket, and the airplane also doesn't have a great many pieces of paper in proper order, that is one happiness I absolutely may not pursue. The regulations I must know and follow are as thick as my fist and the penalty for violation can be severe. So why am I not particularly worried about losing that pursuit of happiness?

Frohickey

Jan 5, 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by revenuee
I believe that guns only belong in the hands of police and military.

Hmm... that kind of state is called a Police State.

Sorry, not good to live in a police state.

Frohickey

Jan 5, 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The vast majority of the anti-gun control arguments I hear are based on a perceived need to be armed for personal, not national, defense. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitutional argument is made frequently by those who have no interest in joining a "well regulated militia." So it seems to me specious to link the Second Amendment's direct reference to a militia to any Constitutional right to be armed for personal defense, or sport shooting, for that matter. [/B]

Right to self-defense comes along for the ride with the right to life. With this, comes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, be it handguns against highwaymen (robbers, carjackers), be it shotguns against burglars in your home, be it MP5 submachine guns against LA Riot looters and full auto M16 rifles against foreign invaders.

The real discussion should be on how to prevent bad people from using guns to intiate violence, not that only a certain annointed few (by government) should be allowed to have them.

Frohickey

Jan 5, 2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
All that prologue, and it seems I would mostly agree with Desertrat. Fully automatic weapons should be allowed under my (limited) understanding/ interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Realistically, however, these have been so strictly controlled since 1934, that I would not favor an immediate opening of that floodgate. Perhaps in a generation or two, when people learn (and government enforces) the concept that with freedom comes responsibility.

I think that any weapon that is routinely issued to the infantry soldier should be included.

How about gun safety classes in kindergarden, and gun marksmanship classes in high school?

Why the Japanese did not invade the West Coast after Pearl Harbor (http://www.csanews.net/091201/Why%20The%20Japaneese.htm)

Neserk

Jan 5, 2004, 06:50 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by revenuee
I believe that guns only belong in the hands of police and military.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm... that kind of state is called a Police State.

Sorry, not good to live in a police state.

No, in fact the people need to be able to defend themselves against the military and police. Think revolutionary war and the Colonists and GB!

mactastic

Jan 5, 2004, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
The real discussion should be on how to prevent bad people from using guns to intiate violence, not that only a certain annointed few (by government) should be allowed to have them.

My feeling as well. So how do we prevent bad people from having them? 'Rat seems comfortable allowing terrorists to purchase weapons without any kind of background check, the kind we do on people who want to work in certain industries, or with access to certain information etc. Both you and him seem to feel that guns will be confiscated by the government as soon as registration is complete. My question is, if we don't control the transfer of weapons, nor assure ourselves that ONLY the people who are allowed to have them (I'm assuming we're all on the same page in that there are some people who definetly deserve to be on the no-no list when it comes to owning a gun, correct me if you feel anyone with any kind of terror/criminal background or mental condition still has a right to a gun) how can we prevent bad people from having them? Or are we relying soley on the good word of every gun owner that their weapons will be used only for legal purposes?

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 12:34 AM

A few quick thoughts:

1. The "assault weapons" banned by Clinton and Bush were not any more dangerous than any simple semiautomatic rifle. The "firepower" of a certain firearm is determined by the caliber (size of the bullet, bigger bullets pack more of a punch) and rate of fire. The rate of fire varies among automatic weapons (those which continue to fire automatically when the trigger is held down). However, semiautomatic weapons (those which fire shot after shot as the trigger is pulled time after time without having to be manually recocked) only fire as fast as the person holding the rifle.

Currently, all automatic weapons are illegal in the United States without special permits. The semiautomatic weapons banned in the 1990's were the semiautomatic versions of various military weapons. People own these weapons not to kill people, but for target shooting and collecting. In fact, collectors (at least those who already had these weapons) gained by the ban, because the market value of their collections went up. In any case, you're not going to see gangsters killing one another with Steyr AUG's. In fact, a Steyr AUG, or any other military rifle of recent manufacture, is going to have less firepower than a hunting rifle, because while hunting rifles usually use .30 caliber ammunition, most military weapons use 5.56 mm or .223 ammunition.

In short, the "assault weapons" that were banned in the 1990's were not especially dangerous.

The high-capacity magazines are also a non-issue. They're convenient sometimes. Other times, they add a more authentic look to a rifle in a collection.

In any case, restricting the legal, legitimate trade of firearms will not affect violent crime in this country for this very crucial reason: the most persistent violent crime, that of urban gang warfare, already depends upon an illegitimate black market of illegal automatic firearms.

The rate of violent crime in the United States is relatively low, extremely low, with the exception of this crime. This crime wave is funded by the trade of illegal drugs. No drugs, no money for guns. But guns from where?

The greatest source of black-market assault rifles for urban gangs is currently China. Chinese organized crime has the influence to discreetly ship to American ports crates of Kalashnikov knockoffs at astronomically low prices for sale to urban street gangs.

If you want to stop the violent crime, you have to stop the street gangs. They get their guns predominantly from overseas black markets, and they are *already violating* laws intended to control said firearms. The NRA says that it's more effectual to actually enforce the laws we already have instead of passing new ones that will be just as easily circumvented.

To answer IJ Reilly's question, the greatest clue is in the text of the amendment itself. "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." Remember that the second clause (the right...shall not be infringed) is not dependent upon the first clause at all. Well, what does the first clause mean?

"Militia" is defined in US law as the body of American male citizens between the ages of 18 and 35, if I recall correctly. In any case, it doesn't *necessarily* refer to any organization (organized militia), it refers to the people at large, in their defensive capacity (just as "electorate" refers to the people at large in their democratic capacity). Setting up a neighborhood watch program and tackling hijackers on Flight 93 are two examples of the unorganized militia in action.

It's for the sake of this militia's protection of "a free state" that there is a right to keep and bear arms. Well, protect from whom? Criminals and hooligans are a good example, perhaps the most applicable to current situations. Warfare is another one--although the United States is at less risk of invasion that it once was (although we have fought both a civil war and a war with Mexico), a militia familiar with firearms will be more effective when they enlist and are sent to fight overseas. But remember how it's to secure a "free state". This implies that it must be secured against out-of-control governments.

In any case, the amendment implies that people should have a right to carry arms that will facilitate their function as providing for the security of a free state. This does not mean that, for instance, they need to own atom bombs, since that wouldn't help the security of the free state any. But it does mandate that anything useful to secure the country should be allowed to the people. Shotguns and semiautomatic rifles, for instance, are exceptionally useful against rioters, as proven by the Rodney King riots. Surface-to-air missiles wouldn't be protected because they wouldn't be very useful to defend the free state. Anyway, that's where the Second Amendment itself suggests the limit should be--or at least, the criteria for the limit itself.

I want to talk about something else: handguns. The carrying of concealed handguns, where it has been legalized in the United States, has not caused crime waves. But it has allowed people a means of self-defense that is very effective. Women who carry a gun are not as easily raped, especially considering that rapists are cowards who prey upon women in the belief that women are weak. Said woman isn't so weak when she pulls a 9mm out of her pants and threatens to perform an emergency vasectomy. (I don't want to argue about whether in any given situation pulling out a gun is a good or a bad idea, because different situations are by definition different. However, if you have a gun and know how to use it, you will have a better chance of protecting yourself. Statistically, resisting certain attacks, such as rape, with firearms is more effective than passively allowing the rape to happen in terms of survival. Besides, the average rapist is usually stronger than his victim, so the woman needs something to equalize the odds. A gun may not be the best solution for every woman--a good blade and the training to use it can be just as deadly, and martial arts are also effective.)

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 12:39 AM

Phil, your post made me think of a question, if a valid argument can be made that a handgun (or gun in general) makes it easeir to defend one's self, is it not also an equally valid argument that said gun makes it easier to commit such crimes as well?

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
Phil, your post made me think of a question, if a valid argument can be made that a handgun (or gun in general) makes it easeir to defend one's self, is it not also an equally valid argument that said gun makes it easier to commit such crimes as well?

Yes. The difference is, when you make something illegal, who's going to follow that law: criminals, or law-abiding citizens? The net effect of banning handguns is that criminals have handguns and law-abiding citizens don't. The net effect of legalizing handguns is that criminals have handguns, and law-abiding citizens do too. Remember the bit on black markets?

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 12:48 AM

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 12:56 AM

Also: If you have a 212-pound thug with a crowbar assaulting a 98 year old grandmother for her pension check, the 98 year old grandmother is at a distinct disadvantage. However, the 98 year old grandmother with a .45 is no longer at a disadvantage, even if the 212-pound thug has a .45 as well. So the equalization effect works even better than if no one had a gun in the first place.

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 01:08 AM

I hope that grandma is loading her own ammo if she's shootin a .45! That's a mean kick for arthritic hands...

Desertrat

Jan 6, 2004, 08:42 AM

One thing I've found interesting in discussions like this one, over a period of many years, (decades!) is the two disparate views of life in general.

Generally--not always-those favoring stricter controls of firearms tend to value a perceived security over chances of risk or danger. Those generally against more than the legal structure of post-1968 GCA seem to accept a certain amount of risk in the name of individual liberty.

After the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, a poll was taken as to whether people would give up certain freedoms in order to have more security against such events. Over half of the respondents chose more security.

"I don't know" comes ever more frequently to me as the years go by. For instance, if we had internal passports and had to pass check stations as we traveled our highways, terrorism would be more easily resisted. Do you want that?

If we have national ID cards and more police on the streets, couldn't we reduce the number of illegal aliens and have a better check on would-be terrorists?

Would our citizenry be happier with such? Would we really be more secure in our homes or during trips to the mall? And do we really believe there was no crime in the USSR under such conditions?

It seems to me that we just cannot have a reasonably free and open society without some sorts of risks.

Back to guns and crime: At a time when federal statistics stated there were some 600,000 criminal misuses of firearms in a year, Prof Gary Kleck of FSU did his extensive survey of self-defense uses of firearms. He conclude a minimum of 800,000 to as many as two million or more events per year where some sort of use of a firearm prevented a crime. (Shooting was not a necessity; mere display or the statement, "I have a gun." ended some potential threats.) Kleck is no right-wing gun nut. His own words included, "I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU." and he spoke of disagreement with many NRA views.

I note the BOR does not pretend to enumerate all our rights. That's part of the "why" of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

As to personal defense, I have read some studies wherein it was concluded that the self-defense aspect of guns is more logically considered in light of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause. After all, it has been held by federal courts that the police have no direct duty to protect the individual; only to maintain order within communities. You and only you are responsible for the safety of yourself and your family...

'Rat

2jaded2care

Jan 6, 2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
have[/I] to be relevant anymore, you know.

In fact the Supreme Court has never conferred a general right to the ownership of arms deriving from the Second Amendment. And I can't help noticing that the NRA doesn't have a history of challenging gun control legislation on this basis, either. Maybe they know something.

I'm not willing to cede your point about "modern analogies", and I don't think Desertrat will, either. Of course, that's my opinion against yours. As if anyone else cares.

I'm unaware of either the NRA or gun-control groups trying to force a determination on the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court. Both pro- and anti-gun groups seem to favor lobbying Congress. Maybe both groups know something -- that the Supreme Court is unpredictable and harder to challenge or rescind. (And they sure are hard to vote out of office!)

As far as the "general right" to gun ownership issue, the NRA recently addressed this argument in their magazine, but I will resist regurgitating that information because I don't think it will make any difference at this point. There is plenty of argument (some more valid than others) on both sides of this issue, and while we are all entitled to our opinions, we are IMHO all armchair quarterbacks, second-guessing the professionals (who do not agree amongst themselves).

I think this thread is becoming an exercise in futility, or at least flogging a mad cow. (I just couldn't let that propagandistic Flash presentation go without a bit of refutation.)

Now, IJ, stay away from those MWSF protesters! Next thing we know, you'll be getting arrested with those anti-WTO types!

Have fun at MW, be a dear and bring us some of those iPods, would you? :-)

Frohickey

Jan 6, 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
My feeling as well. So how do we prevent bad people from having them? 'Rat seems comfortable allowing terrorists to purchase weapons without any kind of background check, the kind we do on people who want to work in certain industries, or with access to certain information etc. Both you and him seem to feel that guns will be confiscated by the government as soon as registration is complete. My question is, if we don't control the transfer of weapons, nor assure ourselves that ONLY the people who are allowed to have them (I'm assuming we're all on the same page in that there are some people who definetly deserve to be on the no-no list when it comes to owning a gun, correct me if you feel anyone with any kind of terror/criminal background or mental condition still has a right to a gun) how can we prevent bad people from having them? Or are we relying soley on the good word of every gun owner that their weapons will be used only for legal purposes?

There is the difference between the two of us. In this country, there is the presumption of innocence absent a prior conviction or blatant committing of the act, but you would subject the innocent gun owner to various byzantine rules and regulations in order to stop the 0.5% that have already proven to society (via convictions) that they are dangerous.

During the commission of a violent crime, there are always two people present, the bad guy, and the victim. Police are there only after the fact, or if they happen to be present, or if they happen to be the victim as well. What is wrong with having the victim fight back and potentially send the bad guy to pushing up daisies or into the hospital. Sure, the bad guy could kill the victim if they resisted, but not resisting does not mean the victim will come out unharmed, both physically and mentally. Better to have harm come to the bad guy in order to serve notice to other bad guys that it might be time to get into an honest line of work... or they could go into politics. :p

Registration has always preceeded confiscation, history illustrates that very clearly. And governments, especially the ones that have confiscated private arms are the ones that have committed large scale genocide that makes your modern day big city crime stats pale into insignificance. That is what we need to avoid.

Back to the individual violent criminal problem, and access to deadly weapons, the toothpaste is already out of the tube, and the only solution would be to dissuade violent criminals, by making it more difficult for them to survive. This could be allowing victims to arm themselves or turning the country into a police state.

Gun prohibitions don't work since guns are pretty much 1800's technology that could be turned out easily with current machine tools. Better to steer efforts into gun safety, punitive criminal sentences (murder gets you the firing squad, with at least one being the family member of the victim), and social uses of the gun.

Ever heard of the Swiss schuetzenfest (spelling might be incorrect). Lots of guns there. Lots of kids with guns, along with their dads, moms and other family members. Turned a shooting match into a combination shooting match, picnic, ballroom dance and general socialization of the participants. Instead, in the USA, with the efforts of Sarah Brady and the MMMers (Donna Dee Thomases), you have would-be gun enthusiasts driven into seclusion from others. Which one do you thing would more likely turn out anti-social psychopaths?

(Sure, there was the Zug shooting, but that how many shootings of that sort do they get with gun ownership rates rivaling that of the United States?)

Frohickey

Jan 6, 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
I hope that grandma is loading her own ammo if she's shootin a .45! That's a mean kick for arthritic hands...

Nah. That would be only 3 shots to the bad guy. Two to the chest, one to the head. :p

Besides, 45ACPs are not that mean kicking. Full power 45Colt would be mean kicking (out of modern firearms and modern cartridge cases).

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 03:12 PM

Where do you think terrorists get their guns?

1. Wholesale, from the black market and state sponsors.
2. Sending operatives to the United States to scope out countless gun shows to purchase higher-priced weapons with less firepower?

You make the call.

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Also: If you have a 212-pound thug with a crowbar assaulting a 98 year old grandmother for her pension check, the 98 year old grandmother is at a distinct disadvantage. However, the 98 year old grandmother with a .45 is no longer at a disadvantage, even if the 212-pound thug has a .45 as well. So the equalization effect works even better than if no one had a gun in the first place.

So if you are arguing a right to some form of "equalization" factor for self defense for a 98 yo grandma against a 212 pound thug, is there also an argument for a right to equalization in other areas? Does a 98 IQ person have a right to a manner of equalization against someone with a 212 IQ? Does someone who can only afford a $98 lawyer get any kind of "equalization" method against someone who can afford a $212 lawyer? Or does this theory only apply to guns?

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Registration has always preceeded confiscation, history illustrates that very clearly.

So your car was confiscated??? Once I register as a general contractor will I be confiscated? I registered for school the other day and have done so every 3 to 6 months for that last 9 years and nothing has ever been confiscated except some money, which I consider to be a fair trade...

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
So if you are arguing a right to some form of "equalization" factor for self defense for a 98 yo grandma against a 212 pound thug, is there also an argument for a right to equalization in other areas? Does a 98 IQ person have a right to a manner of equalization against someone with a 212 IQ? Does someone who can only afford a $98 lawyer get any kind of "equalization" method against someone who can afford a $212 lawyer? Or does this theory only apply to guns?

I'm not saying equality is an ethical necessity. (I'm not saying it isn't, either, I'm not addressing that point.) I'm saying that in general, firearms give grandmothers have a way to equalize their capacity for force with 230 pound thugs. This is a good thing--just like if we found a method of stimulating intellect to bring mentally deficient individuals up to the intellectual level of geniuses.

As for registration, guns are different there too. You see, in many jurisdictions with gun registration--Canada, Chicago--the registration has failed to solve a single violent crime. However, they do allow the government to utterly confiscate whatever is registered. With guns, confiscation is more of a threat than with automobiles due to the political climate.

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 06:17 PM

So if you could be made as sure that your gun wouldn't be confiscated as you are that your car won't would you go for it?

And you dodged the question about the right to equalization. If it's good in one area, why not others? I thought making everyone equal was kind of antithetic to what our country was about.

pseudobrit

Jan 6, 2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Yes. The difference is, when you make something illegal, who's going to follow that law: criminals, or law-abiding citizens? The net effect of banning handguns is that criminals have handguns and law-abiding citizens don't. The net effect of legalizing handguns is that criminals have handguns, and law-abiding citizens do too. Remember the bit on black markets?

I call BS on this one.

Let's look at this from the same point of view you have: a logical one rather than a factual one.

The net effect of unchecked handgun distribution is that there are more handguns out there. Following your logic, there would be a huge drop in crime, since law-abiding citizens would all be armed and would certainly outnumber the criminals.

In actuality though, more handguns in the homes of law-abiding citizens leads to more stolen handguns that are distributed to criminals who will use them.

Where do you think a young, stupid, trigger-happy criminal gets his gun?

1) a gun show, using legal loopholes

2) from the black market, where guns are pooled from theives who burgle them from law-abiding citizens who keep them in their suburban homes.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
So if you could be made as sure that your gun wouldn't be confiscated as you are that your car won't would you go for it?

There's no reason for the government to know about any weapons I may or may not own. In fact, I don't think I should have to register my car, either. Only reason I am is so it can be taxed.

Originally posted by mactastic
And you dodged the question about the right to equalization. If it's good in one area, why not others? I thought making everyone equal was kind of antithetic to what our country was about.

I didn't dodge it at all. In fact, you assumed that I meant more than I said. I noted that firearms are particularly handy in the hands of the weak, because finally someone with weak muscles and a frail constitution can actually defend themselves against a physically stronger opponent. This is a good thing not necessarily because it creates some sort of egalitarianism, but because it allows something otherwise impossible: it allows potential victims an almost unanswerable means of not becoming actual victims. This creates an equality, but one of the type where the weak are brought up to the level of the strong.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I call BS on this one.

Let's look at this from the same point of view you have: a logical one rather than a factual one.

The net effect of unchecked handgun distribution is that there are more handguns out there. Following your logic, there would be a huge drop in crime, since law-abiding citizens would all be armed and would certainly outnumber the criminals.

In actuality though, more handguns in the homes of law-abiding citizens leads to more stolen handguns that are distributed to criminals who will use them.

Where do you think a young, stupid, trigger-happy criminal gets his gun?

1) a gun show, using legal loopholes

2) from the black market, where guns are pooled from theives who burgle them from law-abiding citizens who keep them in their suburban homes.

A few things:

1. If you have guns in your house, you can use them to stop burglars. If you aren't at your house, that's another matter, but you can still take your handgun with you.
2. Criminals have ways of getting handguns other than by stealing them from law-abiding owners. The black market for guns in any country is fueled by illegal foreign imports. They're already smuggling drugs, handguns aren't any less difficult. Either way, the criminals have guns. Do we disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals, or do we allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves?

pseudobrit

Jan 6, 2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
2. Criminals have ways of getting handguns other than by stealing them from law-abiding owners. The black market for guns in any country is fueled by illegal foreign imports.

Ours isn't.

A study by a New York corporate consulting firm found that gun manufacturers oversupply states like Florida where laws are weak, knowing the overflow will wind up in the black market.

It also found that manufacturers "substantially and disproportionately" increased production of guns like the 9 mm semi-automatic pistols favored by criminals.

New Orleans claims that the industry has violated state gun safety laws by failing to install high-tech gun locks and other devices that would prevent unauthorized users from firing them.

Chicago is suing the industry for contributing to a "public nuisance" by oversupplying surrounding suburban stores with guns, knowing that the surplus will find its way into the city where laws are tight. link (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/guns/overview/)

Do we disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals, or do we allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves?

You don't disarm citizens, you restrict and regulate the sale of weapons which can be used only for killing human beings.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Ours isn't.

For organized crime and street gangs it certainly is. They get automatic weapons from overseas.

In nations where guns are severely regulated and banned, there remains a black market supplied from overseas.

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You don't disarm citizens, you restrict and regulate the sale of weapons which can be used only for killing human beings.

You make it illegal to sell guns to violent criminals, while selling them to peaceful, law-abiding citizens, you mean? No one, not even the NRA, has a problem with that.

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
You make it illegal to sell guns to violent criminals, while selling them to peaceful, law-abiding citizens, you mean? No one, not even the NRA, has a problem with that.

But how do you do that without anyone knowing about your gun transfers? You've ruled out registration, and I'm assuming you are against background checks. So how do you make it illegal to sell to violent criminals while still allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase?

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 07:38 PM

And a seperate question to anyone who wants to take a stab at it. Stipulating that we need to solve more violent crimes, which is obviously not being done now, how do we get enough cops to do the job effectively? A 50/50 chance of being caught for a gun murder is not much of a deterrent, so how do we give law enforcement the tools to achieve at least a 90% rate of catching the bad guys? Do we need more cops? And how do we pay for that, considering that cops are underpaid already as it is?

Link (http://www.latimes.com/la-me-detect28jul28.story)
For example, as of last week, the LAPD's Southeast Division, which covers 10 square miles in the Watts area, had more homicides this year than the 200 square miles of the San Fernando Valley. One Valley division, Devonshire, has four detectives who had investigated 11 homicides this year. Southeast has twice as many detectives — eight — but they have had to investigate more than three times as many homicides — 37.
Only 150 of 1,610 LAPD detectives specialize in homicide. The detectives are thinly spread among burglary, auto theft, sex and other crimes. The Valley is heavy on property crime, lighter on killings. South L.A., by contrast, is lighter on property crime, heavy on killings.
The disparity began to even out in mid- to late-1990s as homicides in Los Angeles followed a nationwide decline. Detective caseloads plummeted. In 1998, South Bureau caseloads briefly dipped below those in the Valley for the first time in years.

South Bureau homicide detectives used the respite to reopen cold cases. What happened next suggests that many old cases would have been solvable, if detectives had had more time. From 1995 to 1998, they cleared more than 100 unsolved cases, making a dent in the backlog.
Emphasis mine.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 07:51 PM

It's a federal offense to sell guns to people convicted of violent crime. I'm not against an instant check system to enforce that.

As for solving the problems of violent crime, "more cops" isn't always the solution. The primary cause of violent crime in this country is the illicit drug trade. It's the same phenomenon we noticed with Prohibition.

Desertrat

Jan 6, 2004, 08:16 PM

I've had tables at gunshows for some 30 years. Bear with me. We card youthful-appearing would-be purchasers. There are criminal penalties for selling to those too young for legal purchase. (21 for handguns per the feds; state laws for long guns run 16 to 18.) Absent knowing some particular customer, sellers at shows commonly give receipts, keeping a copy with the pertinent ID info on the buyer--and the buyer has proof of lawful purchase. It is a federal crime for me to sell a handgun to somebody from out of state.

It is a mandatory minimum of five years at Club Fed for a felon to even handle a firearm or ammunition. To lie on the licensed dealer's "Yellow Sheet" (BATFE Form 4473) can cause up to ten years at Club Fed, plus a maximum fine of $20,000. For me to buy a firearm from a dealer, I must show ID, fill out the 4473, and pass the FBI's NICS. Since I have a Texas CHL, I don't have to deal with the NICS for purchases in Texas--that's built in to the system; I'm "pre-passed". (Same for a Floridian in Florida.) While I can buy a long gun from a licensed dealer in any state in which I happen to visit, but I either must wait to pass the NICS (my CHL doesn't help, outside Texas) or have that dealer ship the gun to my nearest dealer.

To buy one of the 150,000 or so legal-to-own "civilian" machine guns here in the U.S., bring money. $4,500 to $20,000 for anything worth shooting. Plus, get your local Police Chief or Sheriff to sign off on your application to BATFE. Send them the non-refundable $200 tax, your mugshot and your fingerprints. After you're approved, you can then go to your dealer and pick up your MG. If you change address, so inform BATFE. They have the right to an annual view of your weapon and your locked storage. And don't leave your state with the weapon without their permission.

Pre-1934, you could send a Postal Money Order to any seller, and the USPS would deliver your Tommy Gun. Pre-1968, it was the same for non-full-auto firearms. Tell me again about "guns are too easy to acquire"?

'Rat

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It's a federal offense to sell guns to people convicted of violent crime. I'm not against an instant check system to enforce that.

Good, many do not see it that way however.

The primary cause of violent crime in this country is the illicit drug trade.

Ummm... you do know that the definition of violent crime includes more than just murder right? I'm looking at some stats that say out of 1.4 million violent crimes reported in 2000 that about 15,000 of those were murders. In fact it shows that there were more than 6 times that number of forcible rapes in the same year. Are you suggesting that rape is also a by product of the drug trade?

Desertrat

Jan 6, 2004, 08:25 PM

The four cites,

"A study by a New York corporate consulting firm found that gun manufacturers oversupply states like Florida where laws are weak, knowing the overflow will wind up in the black market.

It also found that manufacturers "substantially and disproportionately" increased production of guns like the 9 mm semi-automatic pistols favored by criminals.

New Orleans claims that the industry has violated state gun safety laws by failing to install high-tech gun locks and other devices that would prevent unauthorized users from firing them.

Chicago is suing the industry for contributing to a "public nuisance" by oversupplying surrounding suburban stores with guns, knowing that the surplus will find its way into the city where laws are tight. link"

strike me as "research" toward foregone conclusions.

Florida's laws are no more "lax" than many other states.

Criminals favor whatever gun they can get hold of, in whatever manner. I note that more police carry 9mms than they do .45ACPs.

To date, no "high-tech gun lock" is known to be reliable. Why not pass a law mandating that Pi = 3.000000? Note that the police are exempt from this "safety" requirement, purely because of the unreliability factor.

"Oversupply"? Manufacturers sell to distributors, who sell to retail dealers. Pick up a copy from a news stand or Barnes & Noble of "The Shotgun News". Manufacturers produce as a function of orders, and do not "target" any geographical area. It's up to dealers to control what and how much they stock of any product. As for Chicago, a lawful purchaser is a lawful purchaser. The state of Illinois controls who may have a firearms permit in order to purchase, wherever in the state the store may be. There are few gun stores in Chicago, which might be why its citizens are forced to shop elsewhere.

IOW, folks, learn something about gun laws and regulations and restrictions before stating as fact that which ain't so.

'Rat

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Ummm... you do know that the definition of violent crime includes more than just murder right? I'm looking at some stats that say out of 1.4 million violent crimes reported in 2000 that about 15,000 of those were murders. In fact it shows that there were more than 6 times that number of forcible rapes in the same year. Are you suggesting that rape is also a by product of the drug trade?

Not so much, but the drug and gang culture leads to more rape and violent crime. When people turn to a life of crime in the drug trade, they will be more likely to commit random crimes that they wouldn't otherwise commit. I mean, if you already kill people in drive-by's every once in awhile, are you really going to think twice about a random rape? It's not a huge factor (certainly doesn't account for all of it) but when gangs start, gang members are more willing to turn to crime.

I still maintain there would be less rape if more women carried handguns to defend themselves against rape.

mactastic

Jan 6, 2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Not so much, but the drug and gang culture leads to more rape and violent crime. When people turn to a life of crime in the drug trade, they will be more likely to commit random crimes that they wouldn't otherwise commit. I mean, if you already kill people in drive-by's every once in awhile, are you really going to think twice about a random rape? It's not a huge factor (certainly doesn't account for all of it) but when gangs start, gang members are more willing to turn to crime.

Can you prove any of that, or are you just talking out your a$$?

Phil Of Mac

Jan 6, 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Can you prove any of that, or are you just talking out your a$$?

It's common sense. It's why women don't walk around alone at night through gang-infested neighborhoods.

Frohickey

Jan 6, 2004, 09:25 PM

Equalization for thwarting an attack from a particular individual. 98 yo grandma with a S&W model 29 vs 250lb thug on PCP. If the 250lb man wasn't attacking anyone, 98 yo grandma is already equal in capacity... but the 250lb man can't equal grandma in cookie-baking skills. :p

Your desire to pass 'equalization' into other areas is a strawman. Tell me this, which is better? To preserve the life of 98 yo peaceful grandma, or to preserve the life of 250lb grandma-attacking thug?

-----

Car registration is in order for cars to be taxed for use in maintenance of public roads. This also allows the registrant to drive the car on the public roads since the taxes went towards it. Gun registration, what would the taxes collected for gun registration be used for? Free time at gun ranges? Maintenance of gun ranges? There is already a private enterprise system for this.

Also, if guns are registered, does that mean that registrants can carry their guns out in the public?

You might say that gun registration taxes will go to pay the victims of gun crimes, but who is doing the gun crime? The peaceful gun owners who carry for self defense and practice regularly did not commit the violent crime, its the criminal, and these criminals should be the ones to pay the victims.

Car taxes are not used to pay accident victims, BTW.

-----

Illegal guns, or guns used in crimes come from multiple sources. In countries where there is gun prohibition, smuggling is where guns come from since the legal avenues for manufacture and sale of guns have been effectively shut down. In countries where there is NO gun prohibition, theft and fraudulent purchases are where they come from since its still legal to manufacture and sell guns. The theft or fraud is committed by individuals that are prohibited from possessing guns, or ones that seek to supply these prohibited persons.

So, with gun prohibition, bad guys can get guns. With NO gun prohibition, bad guys can still get guns. But here is the difference. With gun prohibitions, good guys (peaceful citizens) can't get guns. You have just disarmed people that did not have any propensity to initiate violence.

You would have to explain to me the logic in a society that willfully seeks to leave the weaker members of society at the mercy of the predatory members of that society. A police state could achieve your goals for a gun-free society, but even a police state, not everyone is guaranteed to not be a victim of initiated violence. Maybe a medicated society would be, but that would be a mandatory medicated society. So much for a free society. (There was a neat Matrix-esque movie called "Equilibrium".)

-----

Lets see, there are laws against murder, laws against robbery, laws against burglary, laws against theft, laws against fraud, laws against felons owning guns, and your solution to violent crime is to add yet another law saying guns are illegal??? Where is the logic in that?

-----

Solving crimes, and giving police the tools to solve them. Police detectives are there to solve crimes after the crime has occured. What we are talking about is potentially stopping the commission of a crime, if the robber is scared off when a victim draws their gun, or if the robber is put under 6 feet under, the crime is stopped. The police can then investigate better when the victim is also a live witness able to give testimony and facts for the police to investigate. Sure, robbers and murderers could have guns to kill the victims too, but they already have the guns, and could kill their victims already. The force equation is already in the favor of the bad guys. That is what needs to be fixed.

-----

Shouldn't it be enough that its illegal for a felon to be in possession of a gun? Are you saying that more is needed in societal laws to ensure that felons out in the public do not seek to commit further crimes? Are you saying that the felons that are out on the streets should really be out on the streets? A condition of the release of a felon is that they are going to be law-abiding peaceful contributing members of society. What you are saying is that if we need a law making it illegal for the SELLER to sell to a felon, that the felon shouldn't have been released in the first place.

Desertrat

Jan 7, 2004, 08:00 AM

I'm a few years behind in checking DOJ or CDC numbers, but I think the homicide rate in the U.S. is roughly 45,000 to 50,000 per year, some 15,000 of which involved firearms (11,000 via handguns, 4,000 via long guns, give or take).

FWIW, if one defines "child" as 14 and under, the CDC says that accidental deaths involving firearms is around 100 per year, compared to a total of some 1,100 for all ages.

Regardless, "gun control" gives the illusion of "We're doing something to reduce crime!" as opposed to actually doing something to reduce crime.

Government data shows us that most crimes involving guns are tied to the world of illegal drugs. The majority of these crimes involve acquisition of the money to buy black market drugs. To me, that says that our present ways and means of the War on Drugs are not done correctly. Again, that's another thread.

:), 'Rat

IJ Reilly

Jan 8, 2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Right to self-defense comes along for the ride with the right to life. With this, comes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, be it handguns against highwaymen (robbers, carjackers), be it shotguns against burglars in your home, be it MP5 submachine guns against LA Riot looters and full auto M16 rifles against foreign invaders.

Please show me where the Second Amendment makes reference to self defense.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 8, 2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Please show me where the Second Amendment makes reference to self defense.

The term "militia" refers to the populace in general in their defensive capacity.

IJ Reilly

Jan 8, 2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The term "militia" refers to the populace in general in their defensive capacity.

Earlier in this thread, before it fell into the familiar ruts, it was admitted that the militia as it was understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights no longer exists. So again, I ask where the Second Amendment makes reference to self defense. When you get done with that, please point out where it makes provision for firearms for sporting purposes.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 8, 2004, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Earlier in this thread, before it fell into the familiar ruts, it was admitted that the militia as it was understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights no longer exists.

I disagree with that statement. Read my prior posts for an explanation of what I meant, I don't feel like repeating myself.

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
So again, I ask where the Second Amendment makes reference to self defense.

Next time, actually read my posts, ok?

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
When you get done with that, please point out where it makes provision for firearms for sporting purposes.

What part of "the right to keep and bear arms" is so hard to understand? It means "the right to keep and bear arms". The right in and of itself stands without being restricted to a particular purpose: the "well-regulated militia" clause is simply an explanation of the purpose of the Second Amendment. Basic grammar.

IJ Reilly

Jan 9, 2004, 12:31 AM

I don't feel like repeating myself either, but I find I often need to do it.

You've said it yourself, the "well regulated militia" phrase explains the purpose of the Second Amendment. The militia as it existed at the time of the Bill of Rights creation is long defunct. It's an act of imagination, not Constitutional law, to say that the language of the Second Amendment confers some general rights beyond the actual words contained within the amendment. And in fact, the Supreme Court does not interpret to do so. Further, the NRA doesn't even challenge gun control laws on this basis. What remains of this argument I cannot see.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I don't feel like repeating myself either, but I find I often need to do it.

You've said it yourself, the "well regulated militia" phrase explains the purpose of the Second Amendment. The militia as it existed at the time of the Bill of Rights writing is long defunct.

The organized militia at that time. The unorganized militia is still recognized in American law. In fact, the existence of the unorganized militia is the *only* thing that gives the government the authority to perform conscription (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia...")

While the militia clause does explain the purpose of the Second Amendment, it neither negates nor restricts the second clause of the sentence. Grammatically speaking, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not dependent on or restricted by "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It's an act of imagination, not Constitutional law, to say that the language of the Second Amendment confers some general rights beyond the actual words off the amendment.

The actual words recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It's not that hard to understand.

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Further, the NRA doesn't even challenge gun control laws on this basis.

The NRA certainly does challenge gun control laws on the basis that they violate the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
What remains of this argument I cannot see.

Perhaps you are expending too much effort trying to take the argument apart and too little effort trying to comprehend it. That's not productive for any of us. We all like to, or at least tend to, blank out and refuse to accept an argument that we disagree with, so I'm not exactly blaming you.

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 12:54 AM

The second clause may be grammatically correct without the introductory one, but the meaning is very different.

Compare:

"Self-defense being necessary to personal security, the right to take another's life shall not be infringed."

The second clause stands alone, but has a very different meaning without the introduction. It's the equivalent of taking a quote out of context.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The second clause may be grammatically correct without the introductory one, but the meaning is very different.

Compare:

"Self-defense being necessary to personal security, the right to take another's life shall not be infringed."

The second clause stands alone, but has a very different meaning without the introduction. It's the equivalent of taking a quote out of context.

Rower, that statement you made an example of is an example of a poorly worded statement, because it actually does literally give people the absolute right to kill one another. These weren't amateurs writing the Constitution. In any case, I've explained how the militia clause does refer to the "unorganized militia", i.e. the man on the street.

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Rower, that statement you made an example of is an example of a poorly worded statement, because it actually does literally give people the absolute right to kill one another. These weren't amateurs writing the Constitution.

That's my whole point. Taking a multiple clause sentence apart like that has the potential to fundamentally change the meaning.

Arguing that one part of a statement in the Constitution says something is twisting what those non-amateurs wrote as a whole.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
That's my whole point.

Did you read the sentence I actually wrote, or were you set on taking whatever I said as confirmation that you were right? My whole point was that the example you came up with was utter B.S. and would never have been included in the Constitution because it literally gave people a license to kill. The Second Amendment is not poorly worded, its literal meaning is the intended meaning, while the literal meaning of your sample statement was definitely not the intended meaning.

pseudobrit

Jan 9, 2004, 01:26 AM

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
So how does having a well-regulated militia relate to Mr. Jones having a revolver under his pillow? Doesn't sound very regulated to me...

While today, "regulated" has come to mean "centrally controlled", the Founding Fathers felt that a free society regulated itself pretty well. "Regulate" means, in the most general terms, to make regular and ordered. A "well-regulated militia" is one that is capable of taking to the field of battle almost by definition. People who aren't allowed to have firearms won't be capable of taking to the field of battle.

pseudobrit

Jan 9, 2004, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
While today, "regulated" has come to mean "centrally controlled", the Founding Fathers felt that a free society regulated itself pretty well. "Regulate" means, in the most general terms, to make regular and ordered. A "well-regulated militia" is one that is capable of taking to the field of battle almost by definition. People who aren't allowed to have firearms won't be capable of taking to the field of battle.

So without handguns in suburbia we would lack a well-regulated militia?

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
So without handguns in suburbia we would lack a well-regulated militia?

Exactly. We'd have a well-regulated professional military and a weak, disarmed militia--exactly what the Founding Fathers didn't want.

IJ Reilly

Jan 9, 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The NRA certainly does challenge gun control laws on the basis that they violate the Second Amendment.

Please provide specific instances. For clarity, understand I'm speaking of legal, not political, challenges.

Also, please indicate where and when the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to confer a general right to own guns free of regulation.

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Did you read the sentence I actually wrote, or were you set on taking whatever I said as confirmation that you were right? My whole point was that the example you came up with was utter B.S. and would never have been included in the Constitution because it literally gave people a license to kill. The Second Amendment is not poorly worded, its literal meaning is the intended meaning, while the literal meaning of your sample statement was definitely not the intended meaning.

It's an extreme example used to make a point.

The framers of the Constitution knew exactly what they meant when they wrote it, and the kind of deconstruction you are attempting is false.

If all they meant was "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period.", they would have said it. But they didn't. They qualified it with the section about the militia because thats the situation necessary for keeping and bearing arms. Your insistence on getting hung up on the clause dependencies and trying to read deeper meaning into the statement is ridiculous. Besides which, we're dealing with archaisms of the English language and grammatical structures that are no longer in use today. Applying today's rules to language from over 200 years ago is an incorrect approach.

You said it yourself, "the literal meaning is the intended meaning". So why do you persist in taking that section out of context?

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Please show me where the Second Amendment makes reference to self defense.

Please show me where in the Bill of Rights makes references to abortion and privacy rights.

I'll give you your abortion and privacy rights (implied rights) if you give me my right to keep and bear arms (explicit right).

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Earlier in this thread, before it fell into the familiar ruts, it was admitted that the militia as it was understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights no longer exists. So again, I ask where the Second Amendment makes reference to self defense. When you get done with that, please point out where it makes provision for firearms for sporting purposes.

Militia, as understood at the time of the writing of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights still exists. It is composed of males between 17 and 45, (and females not part of the National Guard). Its part of the US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html).

Care to revise your statement? ;)

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The second clause may be grammatically correct without the introductory one, but the meaning is very different.

Compare:

"Self-defense being necessary to personal security, the right to take another's life shall not be infringed."

The second clause stands alone, but has a very different meaning without the introduction. It's the equivalent of taking a quote out of context.

A well informed citizenry being necessary for the continuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear typewriters/computers/radio stations/etc shall not be infringed.

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Please provide specific instances. For clarity, understand I'm speaking of legal, not political, challenges.

Also, please indicate where and when the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to confer a general right to own guns free of regulation.

It has not. But if you read the US vs Miller decision, you'd take it to mean that the only types of arms protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones that could possibly contribute to the efficacy of a well-regulated militia (which would mean full-auto assault rifles and machineguns and shortbarrelled shotguns, etc).

But everytime Brady/VPC mentions US vs Miller as separating the people from the 2nd Amendment, they never mention this.

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
So how does having a well-regulated militia relate to Mr. Jones having a revolver under his pillow? Doesn't sound very regulated to me...

2A does not say '...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' It says people. These are the same people in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th (5th says person, 6th says accused).

As to adding the introductory clause in the 2nd Amendment, this is just how they happen to write back then. Research some of the older state Constitutions, and you will see the same state of wordcraft. Its not used these days, but it was back then.

Professor Lund on
the Second Amendment (http://www.womenshooters.com/wfn/lund.html)
Who Are The People? (http://www.users.nac.net/topgun/whopeople.html)

Remember, the Constitution after the Revolutionary War was still fresh in the minds of the people, and that war started, not when Bostonians had themselves a tea party, but when the British tried to disarm the colonists.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You said it yourself, "the literal meaning is the intended meaning". So why do you persist in taking that section out of context?

I also said that the literal meaning was to grant the man on the street the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you persist in taking my remarks out of context?

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I also said that the literal meaning was to grant the man on the street the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you persist in taking my remarks out of context?

You were arguing that that part of the clause was irrelevant, and now you want to use your militia definition argument to claim I'm taking your statements out of context.

Riiiiiiight.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
While the militia clause does explain the purpose of the Second Amendment, it neither negates nor restricts the second clause of the sentence. Grammatically speaking, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not dependent on or restricted by "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".

IJ Reilly

Jan 9, 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Militia, as understood at the time of the writing of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights still exists. It is composed of males between 17 and 45, (and females not part of the National Guard). Its part of the US Code Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html).

Care to revise your statement? ;)

Sure. Women who are not in the National Guard, and men over 45 or under 17 have no right to own guns. Care to try a more logical approach to your argument?

IJ Reilly

Jan 9, 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Please show me where in the Bill of Rights makes references to abortion and privacy rights.

I'll give you your abortion and privacy rights (implied rights) if you give me my right to keep and bear arms (explicit right).

Please, answer the question. Ok?

Edit: If Brady was unconstitutional, we'd surely know that by now, wouldn't we?

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You were arguing that that part of the clause was irrelevant, and now you want to use your militia definition argument to claim I'm taking your statements out of context.

You are the one twisting my words around until they agree with what you said. I'm not wholly optimistic that repeating myself will work. You've blanked out my arguments two or three times already, so I suspect you'll do it again. But just to be an optimist, here we go.

Your example statement, "Self-defense being necessary to personal security, the right to take another's life shall not be infringed," is a bad statement because it *literally gives* a license to kill. The Second Amendment, "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", *literally recognizes* the right to keep and bear arms--just as your statement literally gives a license to kill.

I never argued that the militia clause was irrelevant. All I argued was that it did not restrict or contradict the right to keep and bear arms clause. If you would actually RTFT (read the thread), you would see where I explain its relevance, and where Frohickey explains its relevance.

That said, I am also making the separate argument that the unorganized militia, as recognized in U.S. law, consists of, more or less, the people in general. This is called making two different arguments: "Even if the well-regulated militia clause in any way altered or negated the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms clause, which it doesn't, but even if it did, it doesn't matter because the 'militia' consists of US citizens in general."

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Please, answer the question. Ok?

Edit: If Brady was unconstitutional, we'd surely know that by now, wouldn't we?

2nd Amendment doesn't talk about self defense. It does talk about the right to keep and bear arms. Self defense is part of that, so is discouraging foreign invasions, or emergence of a tyrant, and a whole slew of other things.

Brady bill, as it currently stands has already run its course, and the provisions therein have already been superceded.

As to unconstitutional laws, I urge you to look at US vs Cruikshank. Gun Control Reveals Its Racist Roots (http://www.mcsm.org/racist.html)

IJ Reilly

Jan 9, 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
2nd Amendment doesn't talk about self defense. It does talk about the right to keep and bear arms. Self defense is part of that, so is discouraging foreign invasions, or emergence of a tyrant, and a whole slew of other things.

Brady bill, as it currently stands has already run its course, and the provisions therein have already been superceded.

As to unconstitutional laws, I urge you to look at US vs Cruikshank. Gun Control Reveals Its Racist Roots (http://www.mcsm.org/racist.html)
Which of course is simply a distraction from the current discussion.

Your interpretation of the Second Amendment is fabricated from whole cloth. You have provided no evidence to support it beyond your own wishful thinking.

mactastic

Jan 9, 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It's common sense. It's why women don't walk around alone at night through gang-infested neighborhoods.

Common sense is not proof. Try again.

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 03:55 PM

Phil-

I've been disagreeing with your argument. That's very different from "blanking" or ignoring. You keep saying the same thing and I keep disagreeing. Do you see the pattern?

Once again, my example shows how deconstructing a two part clause can give "literal" meaning in an incorrect manner. Deal with the statement as a whole, or don't deal with it at all.

As I said before, and you have yet to respond to, if the militia declaration does not restrict the keep and bear arms statement, why is it there? The framers knew what they were saying.

Here's a fun experiment. Re-write the passage to have the meaning you intend, but without the archaic sentence structure. This is my interpretation (because that's really what we're talking about here):

The right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed.

As to your two argument statement, if I call into question your attempts at sentence deconstruction and I don't agree with your common man militia assertion I will not let you form one argument of the two.

2jaded2care

Jan 9, 2004, 04:08 PM

If you guys keep this up, I'm buying stock in whatever pharmaceutical makes Vasotec :-)

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
If you guys keep this up, I'm buying stock in whatever pharmaceutical makes Vasotec :-)

LOL. I'm done beating this dead horse...no need for blood pressure meds. ;)

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Which of course is simply a distraction from the current discussion.

Your interpretation of the Second Amendment is fabricated from whole cloth. You have provided no evidence to support it beyond your own wishful thinking.

Nope. My interpretation is the same interpretation by the founding fathers.

The US vs Cruikshank is a 2nd Amendment SCOTUS case, so its relevant.

pseudobrit

Jan 9, 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Please show me where in the Bill of Rights makes references to abortion and privacy rights.

I'll give you your abortion and privacy rights (implied rights) if you give me my right to keep and bear arms (explicit right).

Good point. The rights enumerated in the Constitution, explicit or otherwise, are interpreted by the Supreme Court.

We can sit here and bicker all day about the minutia of clauses and grammar; there are but nine men and women who are qualified and authorised to give their opinion on it. They have. The point is moot.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I've been disagreeing with your argument. That's very different from "blanking" or ignoring. You keep saying the same thing and I keep disagreeing. Do you see the pattern?

Yes. What you fail to see is that for whatever reason, you continue to misunderstand my argument and reply to them in a matter that is clearly ignorant of what I am trying to say.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Once again, my example shows how deconstructing a two part clause can give "literal" meaning in an incorrect manner. Deal with the statement as a whole, or don't deal with it at all.

All that you did with your example is make an egregious grammatical error. The Founding Fathers did not make egregious grammatical errors of that type.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
As I said before, and you have yet to respond to, if the militia declaration does not restrict the keep and bear arms statement, why is it there?

If you would actually read the thread, you would see that I already explored that in an earlier post. That post occurred before you started to contribute to the thread. You should know to RTFT before you respond.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Here's a fun experiment. Re-write the passage to have the meaning you intend, but without the archaic sentence structure.

A populace capable of defending itself is necessary to maintain a free state; therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
As to your two argument statement, if I call into question your attempts at sentence deconstruction and I don't agree with your common man militia assertion I will not let you form one argument of the two.

I'm not trying to do that. I'm making two separate arguments. It's not my fault you can't keep them separated in your mind.

Rower, it's almost useless to argue with you. Instead of actually addressing my arguments, you twist my words around until they agree with yours. It's futile to discuss things with someone who does not argue with integrity.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Good point. The rights enumerated in the Constitution, explicit or otherwise, are interpreted by the Supreme Court.

We can sit here and bicker all day about the minutia of clauses and grammar; there are but nine men and women who are qualified and authorised to give their opinion on it. They have. The point is moot.

If you continue to take this view that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it is, you are essentially saying there is no Constitution at all. Ever since Dred Scott, it's been painfully clear that the Supreme Court is not always right.

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If you continue to take this view that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it is, you are essentially saying there is no Constitution at all. Ever since Dred Scott, it's been painfully clear that the Supreme Court is not always right.

Hmm... view that the Constitution means whatever the 9 justices on SCOTUS says it means.

How is that different from 1 King saying what the law means?

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Yes. What you fail to see is that for whatever reason, you continue to misunderstand my argument and reply to them in a matter that is clearly ignorant of what I am trying to say.

All that you did with your example is make an egregious grammatical error. The Founding Fathers did not make egregious grammatical errors of that type.

If you would actually read the thread, you would see that I already explored that in an earlier post. That post occurred before you started to contribute to the thread. You should know to RTFT before you respond.

A populace capable of defending itself is necessary to maintain a free state; therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm not trying to do that. I'm making two separate arguments. It's not my fault you can't keep them separated in your mind.

Rower, it's almost useless to argue with you. Instead of actually addressing my arguments, you twist my words around until they agree with yours. It's futile to discuss things with someone who does not argue with integrity.

Those are cheap shots, even for you, Phil.

I'm trying to point out inconsistencies in your arguments and you question my integrity.

mactastic

Jan 9, 2004, 06:39 PM

So we should toss the Supreme Court???? Is that what's being suggested here?

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Those are cheap shots, even for you, Phil.

Actually, it is the best I could have said of you. I don't think you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying.

And it's not a cheap shot when I critique your method of argumentation. Your statement above, ironically, is a far better example of a cheap shot.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'm trying to point out inconsistencies in your arguments and you question my integrity.

You're failing to understand my arguments, and as a result, not even coming close to addressing it. You're twisting my words around until they're easier to attack (the straw man fallacy). I've explained myself three times and you still do not comprehend. At some point, it's not my lack of clarity anymore, it's your failure to understand. And considering that your misunderstandings have always been to the effect of a straw man fallacy, I think they're intentional. Either you're just petty and you want to win the argument at any cost, or you're so incapable of divorcing yourself from what you currently believe that you just blank out any valid arguments against it. If it's the first, then it's a lack of integrity to us; if it's the second, then it's a lack of integrity to yourself.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
So we should toss the Supreme Court???? Is that what's being suggested here?

What's being suggested is that the Supreme Court is sometimes wrong. You cannot have a human authority that is, by definition, always right.

IJ Reilly

Jan 9, 2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Nope. My interpretation is the same interpretation by the founding fathers.

The US vs Cruikshank is a 2nd Amendment SCOTUS case, so its relevant.

Nope, it's not relevant to this discussion because the court did not confer a general right to gun ownership in this or any other case they have decided. What's more, as I have pointed out several times before, the NRA does not have a history of challenging gun control laws in court on the basis of the Second Amendment because they know it's a non-starter. Both of these points remain entirely unrefuted.

mactastic

Jan 9, 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
What's being suggested is that the Supreme Court is sometimes wrong. You cannot have a human authority that is, by definition, always right.

Yeah the Supremes have made some bum decisions before. But they have also made some very principled stands against the will of the majority.

So are you suggesting they have made some kind of erroneous ruling here? I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought the Dred Scott decision was a good one at the time, and some who thought the Tenn v Scopes was a bad one.

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Actually, it is the best I could have said of you. I don't think you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying.

And it's not a cheap shot when I critique your method of argumentation. Your statement above, ironically, is a far better example of a cheap shot.

You're failing to understand my arguments, and as a result, not even coming close to addressing it. You're twisting my words around until they're easier to attack (the straw man fallacy). I've explained myself three times and you still do not comprehend. At some point, it's not my lack of clarity anymore, it's your failure to understand. And considering that your misunderstandings have always been to the effect of a straw man fallacy, I think they're intentional. Either you're just petty and you want to win the argument at any cost, or you're so incapable of divorcing yourself from what you currently believe that you just blank out any valid arguments against it. If it's the first, then it's a lack of integrity to us; if it's the second, then it's a lack of integrity to yourself.

It was never my intention to twist your words, but when you venture into semantic/grammatical arguments it can happen.

Let me rephrase what I've been saying to see if coming from a new direction will help us out.

You argued:
While the militia clause does explain the purpose of the Second Amendment, it neither negates nor restricts the second clause of the sentence. Grammatically speaking, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not dependent on or restricted by "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".

To which I posted the ridiculous example of a similarly constructed clause, showing how taking apart such clauses can change the meaning. My intent being to show that the clause must be taken as a whole to actually reflect what the framers intended.

You also argued that militia can be defined as "the populace in general in their defensive capacity". Something I, and other posters have expressed disagreement with.

The gist of your two arguments, as I see it, are that people have the right to bear and keep arms according to the Constitution, since the general populace can be considered a militia, and that if you disregard the militia clause, all people have the right to keep and bear arms.

My argument to you is that I don't agree that the general populace can be defined as a militia and that the militia clause must be included in the full statement.

I'm the second person you've accused of not reading your posts and trying too hard to take apart your arguments. Seems to me you might want to start looking elsewhere for the reasons your statements are being questioned.

PS. I apologize for the cheap shot comment.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
To which I posted the ridiculous example of a similarly constructed clause, showing how taking apart such clauses can change the meaning. My intent being to show that the clause must be taken as a whole to actually reflect what the framers intended.

It was clear from your example that you can construct a sentence with one literal meaning (license to kill), but which has an entirely different *intended* meaning (right to self-defense). That is what we call a grammatical error. The Second Amendment is not a grammatical error.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You also argued that militia can be defined as "the populace in general in their defensive capacity". Something I, and other posters have expressed disagreement with.

You are on the record for saying so. Please check out Frohickey's link to the US Code's definition of the unorganized militia.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The gist of your two arguments, as I see it, are that people have the right to bear and keep arms according to the Constitution, since the general populace can be considered a militia, and that if you disregard the militia clause, all people have the right to keep and bear arms.

That's close, but not quite there.

Barring a grammatical error, the militia clause was not meant to restrict the right to keep and bear arms clause. The Founding Fathers committed no grammatical error.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
My argument to you is that I don't agree that the general populace can be defined as a militia and that the militia clause must be included in the full statement.

You disagree that the general populace can be defined as a militia. That's not an argument, that's simply a statement contradictory to mine, and to United States law.

I don't disagree that the militia clause must be included in the full statement. However, it doesn't nullify or restrict the right to keep and bear arms clause, it merely explains the purpose for it and expands on it slightly.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'm the second person you've accused of not reading your posts and trying too hard to take apart your arguments. Seems to me you might want to start looking elsewhere for the reasons your statements are being questioned.

You're the second person who has failed to understand my posts and who has tried too hard to take apart my arguments. It's human nature to blank out convincing arguments for a viewpoint we disagree with, so I don't mean to be too hard on you for it. But that part of human nature is something we should try to overcome in these discussions.

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It was clear from your example that you can construct a sentence with one literal meaning (license to kill), but which has an entirely different *intended* meaning (right to self-defense). That is what we call a grammatical error. The Second Amendment is not a grammatical error.

You are on the record for saying so. Please check out Frohickey's link to the US Code's definition of the unorganized militia.

That's close, but not quite there.

Barring a grammatical error, the militia clause was not meant to restrict the right to keep and bear arms clause. The Founding Fathers committed no grammatical error.

You disagree that the general populace can be defined as a militia. That's not an argument, that's simply a statement contradictory to mine, and to United States law.

I don't disagree that the militia clause must be included in the full statement. However, it doesn't nullify or restrict the right to keep and bear arms clause, it merely explains the purpose for it and expands on it slightly.

You're the second person who has failed to understand my posts and who has tried too hard to take apart my arguments. It's human nature to blank out convincing arguments for a viewpoint we disagree with, so I don't mean to be too hard on you for it. But that part of human nature is something we should try to overcome in these discussions.

I never said that the 2nd Amendment was a grammatical error, just that deconstructing the sentence in that fashion is not correct. You've acknowledged that the statement must be taken as a whole, so we can get past that now.

As to Frohickey's link to the Cornell law pages and my disagreement that the populace can be defined as a militia, that actually brings me to a new argument.

The classification of the general populace as an "unorganized militia" by that law seems to me to be at odds with the "well regulated militia" language of the amendment.

So, if according to US law, the only well regulated militia is the National Guard, then the 2nd amendment does not extend to the general populace.

How do you all reconcile that?

Desertrat

Jan 9, 2004, 07:52 PM

Hey, IJ: Where has it ever been "admitted" that the unorganized militia is no longer some official status? Congress hasn't rescinded the law which defines it.

I mentioned the BOR as a package of protections against the State. I went by the post office and wrote down the introductory sentence:

"The convention of members of their states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitiution, expresed a desire in order to prevent unconstitutional abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of further confidence in the government will best ensure the beneficient ends of its constitutition."

I ask again: How can restrictions on government also be construed as restrictions on citizens? How?

'Rat

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I never said that the 2nd Amendment was a grammatical error, just that deconstructing the sentence in that fashion is not correct.

Deconstructing the sentence in that fashion *is* correct if we're looking for a literal meaning. In any statement formatted as, "X being true, Y." Y is held as being the literal meaning of the statement, with "X being true" only as an explanatory statement. "X being true" cannot negate "Y" according to the rules of grammar. Your example statement would *literally grant* a license to kill, just as the Second Amendment *literally recognizes* the right to keep and bear arms. With your statement, the literal meaning (the license to kill) is probably not your intended meaning, therefore you have committed a grammatical error. With the Second Amendment, either there is a right to keep and bear arms, or the Founders committed a grammatical error.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You've acknowledged that the statement must be taken as a whole, so we can get past that now.

Not quite. While we both agree that the Second Amendment must be taken as a whole, we are still in disagreement about how the first clause effects the second.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
As to Frohickey's link to the Cornell law pages and my disagreement that the populace can be defined as a militia, that actually brings me to a new argument.

The classification of the general populace as an "unorganized militia" by that law seems to me to be at odds with the "well regulated militia" language of the amendment.

So, if according to US law, the only well regulated militia is the National Guard, then the 2nd amendment does not extend to the general populace.

How do you all reconcile that?

The National Guard is a branch of the federal army, and the Constitution already grants the federal government the power to have an army. There does not actually need to be an amendment to allow the government use of an extensive army of reservists, which is what the National Guard is, after all.

When we refer to "the militia" in general, we are referring to the entire militia, not just the organized portion thereof, if it exists. The Second Amendment states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state: that the entire militia, organized and unorganized, must be well-regulated, to ensure the security of a free state.

Now, if only the organized militia (that is, that portion of the militia in service in the military at any given time) had access to firearms, while the unorganized militia did not, that would be an irregularity that would not be conducive to ensuring the security of a free state. In a given society, when one class of people have guns and another does not, the class of people with guns have a great deal of power over the disarmed class. They can get away with anything by means of brute force. This is the antithesis of "security of a free state", because the free state has been consciously abandoned for a potentially omnipotent government.

It's not inevitable that the class with guns will necessarily oppress the class without guns, by the way, but that is a situation that could possibly lead to that happening. The aim of the Bill of Rights is to prevent situations that could possibly lead to oppression.

One flaw here is in your definition of "well-regulated". The term "regulated" has come to mean "controlled", but all that it really means is "kept regular". As I explain above, separating people into a powerful, well-armed class and a subservient, disarmed class is an irregularity that ought to be eliminated so we have a well-regulated militia and a free state.

In summary, a well-regulated militia (i.e. a populace not separated into armed and disarmed classes) being necessary to the security of a free state (the free state is not secure when one class of people has all the guns because that class has the potential to abolish freedom), the right of the people (i.e. the unorganized militia, not just the organized and active militia in current government service) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This interpretation, by the way, fits perfectly with the views of the Founding Fathers (those who wrote the amendment) on the topic of the right to keep and bear arms. It also fits in with the fact that the Bill of Rights was passed to grant the individual citizen certain rights, in order to prevent the government from stepping on him. The Bill of Rights is there to prevent us from having a tyrannical government.

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
As to Frohickey's link to the Cornell law pages and my disagreement that the populace can be defined as a militia, that actually brings me to a new argument.

The classification of the general populace as an "unorganized militia" by that law seems to me to be at odds with the "well regulated militia" language of the amendment.

So, if according to US law, the only well regulated militia is the National Guard, then the 2nd amendment does not extend to the general populace.

Let me answer this one.

National Guard is the organized militia, as stated in the US Code. The rest are the unorganized militia, and that is defined by "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States".

That is clearly defined in law.

Well regulated does not define what the National Guard. Organized militia is what the National Guard is... not well regulated.

Here (http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_well_regulated_militia.html) is another discussion of what well regulated militia means. In this article, is says that a 'well regulated' miltia, meaning that a militia that is regulated/limited/hampered in effect. This is the first that I have read of an interpretation of 'well regulated' but it would fit along with the Founding Fathers distrust of a standing army.

"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."

Lets start taking clauses out of the 2nd Amendment and see if it starts changing meaning.

(1) A well regulated militia
(2) being necessary to the security of a free state
(3) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Take (3) by itself and you have right to keep and bear arms enjoyed by the people, same as the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th.

Add (2) and (3), you get one reason for a RKBA enjoyed by the people, which is to secure a free state.

Add (1) (2) and (3), and you get a more fleshed out reason for RKBA, but its still a right enjoyed by the people.

If you take out (1) and (2), the (3) statement still stands, and it unchanged. If you add (1) and (2), the (3) statement still stands, unchanged. Its still a right of the people.

The only way you could change the meaning is if the (3) statement read "the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

But remember, the 2nd Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights as rights of the people. So its not consistent to have the 2nd Amendment be something that gives provisions to the states.

Also, the wording of all of the Bill of Rights is very consistent. Rights belong to people. Powers belong to people, states and government. They were very clear on this one, as indicated in the way the 9th and 10th Amendment are written.

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
This interpretation, by the way, fits perfectly with the views of the Founding Fathers (those who wrote the amendment) on the topic of the right to keep and bear arms. It also fits in with the fact that the Bill of Rights was passed to grant the individual citizen certain rights, in order to prevent the government from stepping on him. The Bill of Rights is there to prevent us from having a tyrannical government.

Phil Of Mac... so far, you have been pretty good about correctly reading the Bill of Rights, but in this one point, I need to correct you.

Bill of Rights were ratified to guarantee that certain individual rights were not denied by government. Government cannot grant rights. Rights come from just being people, or granted by a higher power than government.

Right to free speech, keep and bear arms, against unreasonable search and seizure, due process, speedy public impartial jury trial are Constitutionally guaranteed. Even if there were no Bill of Rights, people would still have their 1st Amendment rights, even if they were denied by government!

I know this notion of rights NOT coming from government is a novel idea in this day and age, but this is how the Founding Fathers thought.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Phil Of Mac... so far, you have been pretty good about correctly reading the Bill of Rights, but in this one point, I need to correct you.

Bill of Rights were ratified to guarantee that certain individual rights were not denied by government. Government cannot grant rights. Rights come from just being people, or granted by a higher power than government.

Right to free speech, keep and bear arms, against unreasonable search and seizure, due process, speedy public impartial jury trial are Constitutionally guaranteed. Even if there were no Bill of Rights, people would still have their 1st Amendment rights, even if they were denied by government!

I know this notion of rights NOT coming from government is a novel idea in this day and age, but this is how the Founding Fathers thought.

Thanks for the correction. I feel embarrassed for tripping up on that one, but there it is. The rights are ours, government or not, all the Bill of Rights does it guarantee them. (And the Ninth Amendment is there in case they missed any in the first eight.)

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 09:25 PM

Phil-
Can you provide some sort of source that lends credence to your deconstruction of the sentence in that manner? In my studies of linguistics and foreign languages I haven't come across anything that follows that formula.

The clause reads to me as "if x, then y", which, you'll agree, is quite different than what you've been saying and was the basis for my initial example.

Frohickey-
Let's not go down the deconstruction road again? ;)

You both are right. I'm incorrectly applying the term "well-regulated" in the case of the unorganized militia. In this case, regulated referred to regular, as in "belonging to or constituting the permanent army of a nation." (ref (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regular))

I just noticed this, according to the law on the Cornell page, only women in the National Guard can be part of any kind of militia.

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So, they are excluded from being part of an unorganized militia, since only women in the National Guard are considered members of a militia. So, it seems that the RKBA does not extend to females not in the National Guard. Thoughts?

I'd also like to clarify my stance on this or any issue of Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the Constitution is a beautiful document that started our country down a great path. Unfortunately, it has not kept up with the realities of our world, and no-one has stepped up to the plate to make sure that this living document accurately reflects our lives today. I don't think that guns should be taken from the hands of responsible citizens, but that the availability and types of guns today would surely make the Founding Fathers think twice about blanket statements covering access to firearms.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Phil-
Can you provide some sort of source that lends credence to your deconstruction of the sentence in that manner? In my studies of linguistics and foreign languages I haven't come across anything that follows that formula.

The clause reads to me as "if x, then y", which, you'll agree, is quite different than what you've been saying and was the basis for my initial example.

I interpret it as "X, therefore Y."

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You both are right. I'm incorrectly applying the term "well-regulated" in the case of the unorganized militia. In this case, regulated referred to regular, as in "belonging to or constituting the permanent army of a nation." (ref (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regular))

Disagreed. The term "regular" refers to an active member of the military who is not a reservist, but who is instead a full-time soldier, which doesn't fall under that purview.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I just noticed this, according to the law on the Cornell page, only women in the National Guard can be part of any kind of militia.

So, they are excluded from being part of an unorganized militia, since only women in the National Guard are considered members of a militia. So, it seems that the RKBA does not extend to females not in the National Guard. Thoughts?

That's because of the current legal definition of "militia", which if we changed to include women, would then leave women subject to being drafted, which is an entirely different contentious political issue. If we didn't allow women to own firearms but did allow men to, then the definition of "militia", specifically its exclusion of women, would be challengeable on the basis of equal protection under the law.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'd also like to clarify my stance on this or any issue of Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the Constitution is a beautiful document that started our country down a great path. Unfortunately, it has not kept up with the realities of our world, and no-one has stepped up to the plate to make sure that this living document accurately reflects our lives today. I don't think that guns should be taken from the hands of responsible citizens, but that the availability and types of guns today would surely make the Founding Fathers think twice about blanket statements covering access to firearms.

The difference is, there have been changes. A number of amendments were instituted after the Civil War, and a number were passed in the 1910's and 1920's. There were a number of procedural changes later on and a couple amendments relating to poll tax and voting age after that.

The Founders saw a need to possibly amend the Constitution, but they undoubtedly also held that certain ethical absolutes did exist and had to be maintained within a government. In fact, that very vast array of weaponry that now exists could potentially give the government too much power over the average citizen. In comparing the firepower of the average citizen, the only difference between today and the day of the Founders was the repeating rifle. Instead of a single-shot weapon, we now have weapons where you can load multiple rounds and fire more than once before reloading. That change in and of itself doesn't really change the Constitutional principles involved: when one class in society is armed (the government army) and another class is not (private citizens), the class that has guns gets to screw over the class without guns. They may or may not take advantage of that opportunity, but they still should not be granted it.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 09:54 PM

Another small bit: The reason women aren't defined as part of the militia is because of the belief at the time the law was passed that women are unsuitable for the task of going to war and shooting people, while men are. The unorganized militia is supposed to refer to all citizens suitable for the task of going to war and shooting people who are not actually serving. If women are thus capable, then they should be added to the definition.

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I interpret it as "X, therefore Y."

That I can agree with, but it seems to go against your earlier statements that the first part doesn't restrict the second. If X is not there, Y cannot be.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Disagreed. The term "regular" refers to an active member of the military who is not a reservist, but who is instead a full-time soldier, which doesn't fall under that purview.

Source?

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
That's because of the current legal definition of "militia", which if we changed to include women, would then leave women subject to being drafted, which is an entirely different contentious political issue. If we didn't allow women to own firearms but did allow men to, then the definition of "militia", specifically its exclusion of women, would be challengeable on the basis of equal protection under the law.

Ah, interesting. I had forgotten about the draft issues - odd that some chauvinistic laws don't get brought up by women's rights people.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The difference is, there have been changes. A number of amendments were instituted after the Civil War, and a number were passed in the 1910's and 1920's. There were a number of procedural changes later on and a couple amendments relating to poll tax and voting age after that.

And in your opinion, that is sufficient to bring a 200 year old document up to speed for todays world?

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The Founders saw a need to possibly amend the Constitution, but they undoubtedly also held that certain ethical absolutes did exist and had to be maintained within a government. In fact, that very vast array of weaponry that now exists could potentially give the government too much power over the average citizen. In comparing the firepower of the average citizen, the only difference between today and the day of the Founders was the repeating rifle. Instead of a single-shot weapon, we now have weapons where you can load multiple rounds and fire more than once before reloading. That change in and of itself doesn't really change the Constitutional principles involved: when one class in society is armed (the government army) and another class is not (private citizens), the class that has guns gets to screw over the class without guns. They may or may not take advantage of that opportunity, but they still should not be granted it.

It's odd that you refer to the government and the citizens as different classes. To follow that motif, the government already has been granted an advantage in their ability to procure tanks, planes, helicopters, nerve gas, etc. Do you think the general populace should have access to those?

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Another small bit: The reason women aren't defined as part of the militia is because of the belief at the time the law was passed that women are unsuitable for the task of going to war and shooting people, while men are. The unorganized militia is supposed to refer to all citizens suitable for the task of going to war and shooting people who are not actually serving. If women are thus capable, then they should be added to the definition.

Agreed. See my comment on chauvinistic laws.

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I just noticed this, according to the law on the Cornell page, only women in the National Guard can be part of any kind of militia.

So, they are excluded from being part of an unorganized militia, since only women in the National Guard are considered members of a militia. So, it seems that the RKBA does not extend to females not in the National Guard. Thoughts?

I'd also like to clarify my stance on this or any issue of Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the Constitution is a beautiful document that started our country down a great path. Unfortunately, it has not kept up with the realities of our world, and no-one has stepped up to the plate to make sure that this living document accurately reflects our lives today. I don't think that guns should be taken from the hands of responsible citizens, but that the availability and types of guns today would surely make the Founding Fathers think twice about blanket statements covering access to firearms. [/B]

Actually, the US Code would tell me that women not in the National Guard could be told to go home when the militia was ever called up. Then again, if the militia were to be ever called up, we would want the women there, National Guard member or not.

As to RKBA and women NOT in the National Guard, they are still people, and as people they have the right to keep and bear arms too.

As to availability and types of guns today, Founding Fathers would probably approve and go further saying that whatever the standing Army has, the people should have. Heck, during the Revolutionary War, people had cannons (artillery pieces). Artillery pieces were big deals during that era.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
That I can agree with, but it seems to go against your earlier statements that the first part doesn't restrict the second. If X is not there, Y cannot be.

That's true for regular statements, but in terms of a law, it's not uncommon to say, "We believe in these principles, therefore, the law says this." If you disprove those principles, you don't necessarily nullify the law.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Source?

For my technical, military definition of a "regular"? I'd have to say my father, Maj. H.L. Welch, USMC :)

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Ah, interesting. I had forgotten about the draft issues - odd that some chauvinistic laws don't get brought up by women's rights people.

I don't think they actually *want* to be drafted ;)

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
And in your opinion, that is sufficient to bring a 200 year old document up to speed for todays world?

Essential rights and principles are eternal and timeless. The Constitution was written in light of these rights and principles, and 200 years is virtually no time at all in light of that. The only thing in that 200 years that would change things is the atom bomb.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
It's odd that you refer to the government and the citizens as different classes.

Well, you can choose any two groups of people you want and separate them into classes if one group is armed and the other is not. If the whites have guns and the blacks don't, the whites have power over the blacks in society. If the army has guns and the civilians don't, the army has power over the civilians. If criminals have guns, and law-abiding citizens don't, then criminals have power over law-abiding citizens. All class distinctions are created by an arbitrary grant of power. Giving one group of people all the guns is a good example of this.

There are other ways to separate people into different classes, by the way.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
To follow that motif, the government already has been granted an advantage in their ability to procure tanks, planes, helicopters, nerve gas, etc. Do you think the general populace should have access to those?

I don't think it's necessary to secure a free state. Guerrilla warfare exists. As long as we have rifles, the ingredients of a Molotov cocktail, and the will to fight for our rights, the government can't bully us around through martial law and brute force, and they won't try to. That's what's meant by, "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."

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Founding Fathers would probably approve and go further saying that whatever the standing Army has, the people should have. Heck, during the Revolutionary War, people had cannons (artillery pieces). Artillery pieces were big deals during that era.

I don't see why people shouldn't own artillery and tanks. I mean, it's not like you can get away with holding up a convenience store with one. Tanks and cannon are big, obvious targets :)

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Ah, interesting. I had forgotten about the draft issues - odd that some chauvinistic laws don't get brought up by women's rights people.

It's odd that you refer to the government and the citizens as different classes. To follow that motif, the government already has been granted an advantage in their ability to procure tanks, planes, helicopters, nerve gas, etc. Do you think the general populace should have access to those? [/B]

The strange part is that the feminists (women's rights people) are averse to women using guns for their protection. In essence, this means that they would like to see women be potentially abused with no way to fight back against stronger attackers (men). There is some value in remaining a 'victim class' such as tax-exempt status and other govt bennies. ;)

As to which specific items are covered under the definition of 'arms'. That is a matter of degree. Some people would say that arms would cover anything that your typical infantry soldier could potentially be armed with, while some others would go so far as strategic nuclear MIRV missiles. Me, personally, I would say that 'arms' is anything that your typical infantry soldier would go to war with. Today, it would be your M16A2, M4s, M249 SAWs, M9 Beretta, M11 P228, as well as the older M60s, M1Garand, M3 GreaseGun, M1 Carbine and M1911.

My criteria would be... if the entire US Military was lured into a fight in the area of Krakatoa, and our standing army were to be annihilated, what would you want the replacement soldiers/foreign invader discouragement personnel to come armed with when they are called up to fight.

Remember, marksmanship/shooting skills are a highly developed skill, and requires lots of practice to be proficient. Would make sense to have the people have arms that they would use for protecting themselves/society with. That would mean, arms they own, and use/familiarize themselves with on a regular basis.

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I don't see why people shouldn't own artillery and tanks. I mean, it's not like you can get away with holding up a convenience store with one. Tanks and cannon are big, obvious targets :)

You mean to tell me that you can't hold up a 7-11 for a bag of twinkies and $50 using a $8000 50BMG rifle weighing 45lbs with a 3 foot long barrel?? How about doing drive-by bayonettings?

As to tanks and drive-by shootings, imagine how slow your get-away would be at 45MPH, not to mention mileage that is measured in the gallons per mile.

;)

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
That's true for regular statements, but in terms of a law, it's not uncommon to say, "We believe in these principles, therefore, the law says this." If you disprove those principles, you don't necessarily nullify the law.

I'd love to see more examples of that in instances less controversial than the Constitution. I think that explanation is the best I've seen yet that explains where you're coming from.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
For my technical, military definition of a "regular"? I'd have to say my father, Maj. H.L. Welch, USMC :)

Well, that's fine for you but what about the rest of us. :p

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I don't think they actually *want* to be drafted ;)

Neither do I, and yet I'm still qualified for the militia. ;)

You're right though, that it is a huge other can of worms to open that's best left saved for another discussion.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Essential rights and principles are eternal and timeless. The Constitution was written in light of these rights and principles, and 200 years is virtually no time at all in light of that. The only thing in that 200 years that would change things is the atom bomb.

...and other technological advances like global travel, communications and commerce...

To me, all these changes in the way the world works and the relations of countries with each other and the world community are important factors that the Constitution was never intended to handle, or at least doesn't seem to handle appropriately.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I don't think it's necessary to secure a free state. Guerrilla warfare exists. As long as we have rifles, the ingredients of a Molotov cocktail, and the will to fight for our rights, the government can't bully us around through martial law and brute force, and they won't try to. That's what's meant by, "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."

Not to be too flippant about it, but the guerilla warfare in Iraq certainly didn't protect that county from our military might. Why do you think the situation would be different if that force were directed at the citizenry of the US?

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Well, that's fine for you but what about the rest of us. :p

If you really want me too, I'll search for a better source. It's pretty well established that "regulars" are the full-time, active duty troops as opposed to reservists. I'll look for it if you'd like.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
...and other technological advances like global travel, communications and commerce...

I meant from the standpoint of the RKBA.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
To me, all these changes in the way the world works and the relations of countries with each other and the world community are important factors that the Constitution was never intended to handle, or at least doesn't seem to handle appropriately.

There is an amendment process to fix those things...

It is a different world, but the Constitution was designed to deal with the fact that the world would change. That's why we have the Ninth Amendment. The Founders would have never thought of recognizing the right to buy contraceptives or the right to sodomize your consenting friends and neighbors, but they did come up with a Ninth Amendment in case there ever were rights that are legitimate human rights that we have that the Founders never thought of protecting.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Not to be too flippant about it, but the guerilla warfare in Iraq certainly didn't protect that county from our military might. Why do you think the situation would be different if that force were directed at the citizenry of the US?

There also needs to be the will to fight. There aren't enough Iraqis with the will to fight, so they're more or less impotent. But when you have enough guerrillas, you have the power. Would there be enough guerrillas? That depends on who chooses to fight. It's possible, with the population of the US and the size of our military, that the citizens could stage a good guerrilla fight against the military should the need arise. We have hills and woods and cities to fight from and a military that has never been good at facing guerrillas. The will to fight is something we have to provide if the time comes. I don't believe it will, as long as the government knows that in the end, we outnumber them and we have guns too.

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I meant from the standpoint of the RKBA.

And I brought the topic up in the first place as a blanket Constitution comment, not necessarily specifically addressing the 2nd Amendment.

Communications and travel does play a part in hypothetical "government gone bad" situations, though.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
There is an amendment process to fix those things...

Which, IMHO, today's politicians are too scared to touch. So, we're in stasis as the world moves forward.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
And I brought the topic up in the first place as a blanket Constitution comment, not necessarily specifically addressing the 2nd Amendment.

Communications and travel does play a part in hypothetical "government gone bad" situations, though.

And in hypothetical "overthrowing a government gone bad" situations as well.

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Which, IMHO, today's politicians are too scared to touch. So, we're in stasis as the world moves forward.

The problem isn't the Constitution, it's today's politicians.

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Not to be too flippant about it, but the guerilla warfare in Iraq certainly didn't protect that county from our military might. Why do you think the situation would be different if that force were directed at the citizenry of the US?

Guerilla warfare worked in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The Soviets annexed Afghanistan and had no intention of letting the country go.

In Iraq, you had a tyrant that oppressed a portion of the country, while favoring another portion of the country, the minority portion in fact!

Guerilla warfare worked in Vietnam too. Even when the US won ever major battle/engagement, it was unable to convince the average Minh Nguyen that things would be good if they didn't fight. (South Vietnam govt was corrupt as heck.)

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I don't believe it will, as long as the government knows that in the end, we outnumber them and we have guns too.

When the government fears the people, that is LIBERTY.

When people fear the government, that is TYRANNY.

(unknown quote)

Frohickey

Jan 9, 2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Which, IMHO, today's politicians are too scared to touch. So, we're in stasis as the world moves forward.

I dunno.

There was the talk about the Balanced Budget amendment.
Recently, its the Protection of Marriage amendment.
Previously, it was the Equal Rights amendment.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
When the government fears the people, that is LIBERTY.

When people fear the government, that is TYRANNY.

(unknown quote)

Thomas Jefferson.

Rower_CPU

Jan 9, 2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The problem isn't the Constitution, it's today's politicians.

I'd add to that that there is a mindset in this country that the Constitution is this infallible document that is not to be profaned by modification.

I've heard recently that the document itself was never intended by the framers to be more than a temporary structure to get the country up on its feet after gaining independence. Controversial, I know, but an interesting point to ponder. [source (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17442)]

Phil Of Mac

Jan 9, 2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'd add to that that there is a mindset in this country that the Constitution is this infallible document that is not to be profaned by modification.

I've heard recently that the document itself was never intended by the framers to be more than a temporary structure to get the country up on its feet after gaining independence. Controversial, I know, but an interesting point to ponder. [source (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17442)]

First off, that was the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was put into place to fix the Articles and was much better thought out. Secondly, that may have been true of some of the procedural stuff, but the Bill of Rights was a political necessity at the time, and adequately reflected what at the time was believed to be basic human rights that we are all entitled to.

Rower_CPU

Jan 10, 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
First off, that was the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was put into place to fix the Articles and was much better thought out. Secondly, that may have been true of some of the procedural stuff, but the Bill of Rights was a political necessity at the time, and adequately reflected what at the time was believed to be basic human rights that we are all entitled to.

Do you have more info on the AoC vs Constitution and how the framers thought the latter was supposed to be permanent?

I doubt that Mr. Vidal would misspeak in saying that there were specific references to the temporary nature of the Constitution, but if you've got a rebuttal I'd love to see it.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 10, 2004, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Do you have more info on the AoC vs Constitution and how the framers thought the latter was supposed to be permanent?

I doubt that Mr. Vidal would misspeak in saying that there were specific references to the temporary nature of the Constitution, but if you've got a rebuttal I'd love to see it.

Sure, remind me and I'll do a bit of research on that.

IJ Reilly

Jan 10, 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Hey, IJ: Where has it ever been "admitted" that the unorganized militia is no longer some official status? Congress hasn't rescinded the law which defines it.

I mentioned the BOR as a package of protections against the State. I went by the post office and wrote down the introductory sentence:

"The convention of members of their states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitiution, expresed a desire in order to prevent unconstitutional abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of further confidence in the government will best ensure the beneficient ends of its constitutition."

I ask again: How can restrictions on government also be construed as restrictions on citizens? How?

'Rat

Oh lord, this thread has gone on so long and run into so many cul-de-sacs, I can hardly recall specifically. But we seemed to be talking about the militia, and whether it exists now as it did at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights. I thought we all agreed that it did not. The problem as I see it is that we're witnessing the fabrication of this thing called the "unorganized militia," which if it ever existed, doesn't exist today and to the extent a militia was ever defined by Congress, it specifically excluded much of the population. I think it would be ludicrous to argue from that set of facts that anybody with a .38 in their nightstand is a member of an "unorganized militia." Trying to construe some general right to the ownership of arms from this very, very thin line of reasoning simply doesn't work for me, and it doesn't seem to work for the Supreme Court, either.

I'm not sure I get the drift of your last question, so try it again and I'll see if I can answer it.

In the mean time, it's a lovely Saturday, and I'm going to go out to fly my airplane -- which after all these years is still an earned and regulated privilege, and not a right. But I plan on enjoying it all the same...

:)

Rower_CPU

Jan 10, 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Sure, remind me and I'll do a bit of research on that.

!Reminder! :)

Desertrat

Jan 10, 2004, 02:40 PM

IJ, isn't the notion of a .38 on a nightstand having some connection with "militia" sort of a strawman argument? Or the old apples and oranges thing? :)

Look: The Congress codified the unorganized militia within the original meaning at the time of the writing of the BOR. While it's fact that most of the population only thinks of "militia" in terms of the Montana Freemen or the Michigan Militia doesn't change the meaning of the law. The fact that most people don't know anything about what Congress has said as to "militia" doesn't take that law off the books.

As to the 2nd A, all I'm asking is how restrictions on government can be seen as simultaneous restrictions on the citizenry? Given the intent of the entire BOR, the government is required to allow the membership of the militia to bear those arms common to an individual's military needs. So, how can the government deny those rights?

As far as self-defense with the nightstand .38, isn't that part of one's civil right to life itsownself? 14th A, "Equal Protection" clause? That was the reasoning behind the FBI's investigation and the charges brought down in Mississippi, as storied in "Mississippi Burning". The federal court decisions holding that the police have no obligation to protect individual citizens are additive to the 14thA justification for self-defense via firearms.

:), 'Rat

Phil Of Mac

Jan 10, 2004, 03:31 PM

What does the Second Amendment mean? Process of elimination.

1. It grants the federal military the right to keep and bear arms. First off, anything granted to government is referred to as a "power", not a "right". Second off, Article I Section 8 already gives Congress the power to raise armies and the power to do anything necessary and proper to raising armies, which includes arming them. Thirdly, the Bill of Rights is concerned with preserving the liberties of the citizen. So, in conclusion, the Second Amendment does not mean the military gets to have guns.
2. It grants state militias the right to keep and bear arms. Well, we can probably count this one out too. It refers to the right of the *people* to keep and bear *arms*--not the right of the *states* to keep a *militia*. Sure, having arms is part of having a militia, but if there was a constitutional amendment preserving the rights of the states to operate liquor stores, it probably wouldn't go and say, "A well-regulated liquor store being necessary to prevent gang warfare, the right of the people to keep and bear whiskey shall not be infringed." In other words, an amendment preserving state militias would probably say something like, "The several states reserve the power to train and keep militias".
3. It grants the people the right to keep and bear arms. Well, despite the fact that this is what it literally says, an important term here is "people". The Constitution is careful to distinguish between the people, the several states, and Congress. The Ninth Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", while the Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So it's not about preserving the rights of a particular state or a power of the federal government, it's about preserving the right of the *people*.

(As an aside, the Tenth Amendment also gives the several states the power of having their own militias. The Second Amendment would be redundant for this. Of course, the first eight amendments are redundant with the ninth, but apparently free speech and assembly, freedom of religion, and guns were important enough to be named specifically, in case there was any question about whether or not they were actual rights.)

As for the "unorganized militia", it does exist, and its existence is manifested elsewhere in the Constitution where Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to call up the militia in times of war. By "calling up the militia", they mean calling up the entire militia, both organized state militias, should they exist, and the unorganized militia. Calling up the unorganized militia is also known as conscription.

If you think the Second Amendment means anything other than giving the people the right to keep and bear arms, I'd like to give you the chance to explain and defend that position as much as I've defended my position.

(Rower, I'll do that research later tonight.)

IJ Reilly

Jan 10, 2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, isn't the notion of a .38 on a nightstand having some connection with "militia" sort of a strawman argument? Or the old apples and oranges thing? :)

Heck no. I've been hearing how the Bill of Rights must mean something current and relevant with respect to the ownership of arms, so it must mean that anyone who owns a weapon for self-protection is a militia member. It's not my argument!

Look: The Congress codified the unorganized militia within the original meaning at the time of the writing of the BOR. While it's fact that most of the population only thinks of "militia" in terms of the Montana Freemen or the Michigan Militia doesn't change the meaning of the law. The fact that most people don't know anything about what Congress has said as to "militia" doesn't take that law off the books.

This is not the image of the militia I necessarily have in mind, but then again, it isn't my argument that Congress' ancient definition of the militia has any current relevance. In fact, the connection between this law and the Second Amendment is tenuous at best and certainly can't be read as somehow explaining the Second Amendment. That's for the Supreme Court to do, and over two centuries they have decidedly not read it as conferring any general right to own weapons. They simply have not, and this highly inconvenient fact is being skirted and dodged constantly with what I regard as distraction arguments.

As to the 2nd A, all I'm asking is how restrictions on government can be seen as simultaneous restrictions on the citizenry? Given the intent of the entire BOR, the government is required to allow the membership of the militia to bear those arms common to an individual's military needs. So, how can the government deny those rights?

I don't know, and personally I don't see the relevance. Many things are restricted in this way, and it bothers almost nobody. The only difference is, guns have become such a special case in many people's minds.

As far as self-defense with the nightstand .38, isn't that part of one's civil right to life itsownself? 14th A, "Equal Protection" clause? That was the reasoning behind the FBI's investigation and the charges brought down in Mississippi, as storied in "Mississippi Burning". The federal court decisions holding that the police have no obligation to protect individual citizens are additive to the 14thA justification for self-defense via firearms.

Ok, now you're asking a different question, and a good one I think. You or I or both of us might agree that allowing citizens to own guns and use them in a lawful and responsible manner is a thing the government should allow. We could have a very productive (I hope) discussion about what those privileges ought to be, and furthermore we've got the civil institutions with which to implement whatever rules we decide are right and proper. But this is a far cry from insisting that gun ownership is an absolute, inviolate Constitutional right.

It's very American to insist that what I like to do is a right, and what you like to do is an option -- but this is why the entire gun rights/gun control debate today is so horribly twisted. One side of the debate has staked out a territory so absolute as to defy rational debate. And so here we are.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 10, 2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Heck no. I've been hearing how the Bill of Rights must mean something current and relevant with respect to the ownership of arms, so it must mean that anyone who owns a weapon for self-protection is a militia member. It's not my argument!

It's part of the US Code that every able-bodied male citizen of a certain age is a militia member.

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This is not the image of the militia I necessarily have in mind, but then again, it isn't my argument that Congress' ancient definition of the militia has any current relevance.

It's official. Parts of the law that date back to times that IJ Reilly considers "ancient" are no longer in effect. Well, that helped a lot.

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
In fact, the connection between this law and the Second Amendment is tenuous at best and certainly can't be read as somehow explaining the Second Amendment. That's for the Supreme Court to do, and over two centuries they have decidedly not read it as conferring any general right to own weapons. They simply have not, and this highly inconvenient fact is being skirted and dodged constantly with what I regard as distraction arguments.

Your Supreme Court argument is a distraction argument. The Supreme Court may or may not be correct in their interpretations of the Constitution. IJ Reilly's intellectual forebears who likewise felt that the Supreme Court was always right would undoubtedly embrace both Dred Scott and the decision that established "separate but equal".

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It's very American to insist that what I like to do is a right, and what you like to do is an option -- but this is why the entire gun rights/gun control debate today is so horribly twisted. One side of the debate has staked out a territory so absolute as to defy rational debate. And so here we are.

No, the debate is twisted because people like to blank out in their minds what they don't want to believe, no matter how clearly or rationally the argument is made. That's true of many arguments, but it is especially true of an argument where a certain side of the argument likes to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't exist, or if it does, it means something it doesn't say and doesn't mean what it does say. It's especially true of an argument where irrational hoplophobia turns some proponents of one side into blathering, hypocritical idiots. What's especially tragic is that this happens with an issue that strikes to the very core of what it means to be a free society, an issue that directly affects whether we have a society where one class rules over another by brute force with no accountability.

IJ Reilly

Jan 10, 2004, 08:49 PM

For two hundred years, the Supreme Court has been wrong, and Phil of Mac has been right.

And so it goes. I suppose I should thank you for proving my point, but I really don't think I needed the help.

Phil Of Mac

Jan 10, 2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
For two hundred years, the Supreme Court has been wrong, and Phil of Mac has been right.

The Supreme Court never ruled that there *wasn't* a right to keep and bear arms. I think for most of those two hundred years, they didn't even feel the need to. The idea of gun control is relatively new.

For most of those 200 years, the Supreme Court was wrong about one thing or another. Your faith in the infallibility of nine political appointees is curious.

Rower_CPU

Jan 10, 2004, 09:06 PM

Another quickie question for the Constitutional experts:

What do you make of the "being necessary to the security of a free State" language? Is this defining the purpose of the militia and the RKBA for a certain situation (i.e. protecting the 'State') or is the word 'state' more abstract?

Phil Of Mac

Jan 10, 2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Another quickie question for the Constitutional experts:

What do you make of the "being necessary to the security of a free State" language? Is this defining the purpose of the militia and the RKBA for a certain situation (i.e. protecting the 'State') or is the word 'state' more abstract?

Note how it says "free state". If the government as instituted starts violating the Constitution and becoming some sort of tyranny, we get to shoot them and restore the free state. Of course, if we all have guns to begin with, the government knows its bounds and can't become, or create, a superior class that rules over the rest of us by brute force. In summary, the balance of power in society that results when everyone has access to weapons in and of itself is necessary to the security of a free state. You won't inevitably lose the free state without this, but the free state is considerably less secure.

We can think of this in terms of "protecting the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

To summarize again:

"A well-regulated militia" (the militia being that segment of society that is capable of bearing arms, well-regulated meaning there is no irregularity where one class has guns and the other does not) "being necessary to the security of a free state" (the free state isn't secure if a favored class has the capacity to engage in unlimited brute force against the rest of us), "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This interpretation fits well with the thoughts, and thus probably the intentions, of the framers of the Constitution.

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense... " -John Adams, 1788, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471

"First, the Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided." -Patrick Henry

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense is the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, v.3 p.168

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, June 5, 1788
_
"Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people." -Patrick Henry, 1782 speech

(Patrick Henry was among those who protested the original Constitution, demaning a Bill of Rights.)

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia Constitution, June 1776

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." -Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788, at 169

"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state...such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." -Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
_
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer 53, 1788

"The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia... all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided." -Richard Henry Lee

"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country" -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the State. Such are a well regulated Militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen, and husbandman; who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." -James Madison, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."-George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny." -James Monroe

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."-William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. (Note: 1825 was prior to the 14th Amendment, which is generally interpreted as extending the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to state governments and not merely the federal government.)

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." -Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787