posted 06-06-99 09:47 PM ET        

In any case, let�s go straight to the heat of the issue, the home plate of the diamond, the foozback of the Penumbra- the Second Amendment.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed.

Interpretation 1: Sure, you can have all the weapons you want! Just join your local militia (probably the National Guard today), and you can train with them to help protect the state all you want. That�s the only requirement. Of course, they have to be registered since it�s a well-regulated militia, and if the government wants you to only have certain weapons, hey, that�s up to them. The right does not extend to people not in that well-regulated militia.

Interpretation 2: The key word here is regulated. The militia doesn�t have to be organized, like the National Guard, since it is the people, after all. But it has to be regulated- in fact, it has to be well-regulated.

Interpretation 3: This amendment was made with the expectation that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the survival of a free state. Since civilian weapons can no longer compete with military grade weapons, that assumption is now incorrect. Therefore, if the reason the amendment was made is now invalid, the amendment invalidates itself.

Interpretation 4: Slice off the first half, slap the second half on a bumper sticker on your pickup truck filled with weapons, and complain about how the evil UN�s plans for a New World Order must be stopped. {/stereotype mode}

posted 06-07-99 02:56 PM ET         

Your faithful and Obedient

posted 06-07-99 03:48 PM ET            

It is difficult to think that private citizens could stand up to the army, but without the right to own weapons, especially firearms, it would be even more difficult. A revolution against the Federal Forces would be one of guerilla uprising and terrorisms, as no private militia is going to be able to go toe to toe with a tank division. With firearms, it would be possible to at least remove (via assassination by sniping or close range fire) the tyrant that was so manipulating the system. This might not seem reasonable to you or me, but slavery doesn't seem reasonable to us, and it certainly did to the Founders of our nation.

But if we are going to outlaw guns because the children get hurt, then we have a long ways to go before the nation is child-safe. There is alcohol, tobacco, cars, Hollywood, TV, books, bikes, roller-blades, airplanes, helicopters, trains, sharks, dolphins, corral, kitchen knives, pocket knives, box cutters, scissors, shaving razors, mud, water, cow patties... the list of things that are intentionally or unintentionally dangerous when used or abused is tremendous. It takes parenting and education to prevent the misuse of items that are dangerous. That is our role as older humans. To protect and guide the younger ones. But just because a 6 year old sets fire to the house does not mean we make fire illegal or controllable only by the government.

This country has long been to Federalized so that the Federal Government can impose its will on the common citizen. The Federal government was never meant to do 99% of the things it does, especially without having to answer to the people for it. But it does. We have shredded our country's constitution enough. Let's not add an amendament to make it illegal to burn a flag, and stop debating if we can allow our society to own firearms because people get hurt. Or put it in the voting booth to let us decide the issue for the next 50 years and put it to rest.

posted 06-07-99 07:23 PM ET            

Sorry, but you're the one using selective reading. Look at the terms as they were meant when this was written. Back then, well-regulated meant efficent, not government-run. The connotation of something being "regulated" as being under government control came along later as the language shifted (as the country looked to congress to cure dandruf and shine their shoes). The second part, militia, at that time meant every able-bodied male citizen who was willing to hold a weapon, not any specific government group.

--"Let�s face it- all you need is a rifle to go hunt some deer."

This is not about hunting.

--"We won�t need self-protection as much if the criminals don�t have a gun either."

Oh, of course! I see now! Once guns are outlawed, those law-abiding criminals won't dare to use them!

--"and those can be registered with the government"

When Hitler took power, his first move was to require gun registration. Then he gathered up the guns in the hands of any minority he didn't like. Then, well, you've heard of World War 2 and the Holocaust, right?

--"Well, the government registers cars, the biggest killer in America, and I haven�t seen stormtroopers running through the streets and making people use mass transit."

Driving your car on a public road is a privilege, not a right, and therefor subject to whatever legislation they care to pass. Therefore they don't pass too much, cause it's already totaly in their hands. Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege, and therefore they've got to force it away from people. As one of the characters in Atlas Shrugged said (and I paraphrase, cause I don't have it with me to quote from) "Of course we don't want you to obey the law. We want you to break them. That way you'll feel guilty. If you have no guilt, then it is hard for the government to control you, for you have done nothing wrong. So we will pass laws until it is impossible for you to not break at least one of them, and then your fear and guilt of us will let us control you." (Very rough paraphrase, sorry)

--"There is no reason John Q. Public should have access to tools that are meant for killing, and killing alone."

What, not going to quote the number of "gun-related deaths"? It's, what, about 400,000? And that, btw, included suicides and any crime where a gun was present, even if no one ever touched it. However, they are used in over 2.5 million cases of self-defense every year. Seems worth it to me.

--"Well, if the US wanted this for some reason, our "elite" militas aren't gonna stop them."

Oh? There's over 250 million people in the country. How many do you think are in the military? How many of those in the military will be willing to turn their weapons on the public? Giving people the right to bear arms is far more equalizing than you think.

--"because they didn't trust the people with being able to vote responsibly"

No. This is not correct. They had a Republic rather than a democracy because they did not feel the public could make informed decisions on the matters of government. There is too much happening, and was then, for the average citizen to learn everything they needed to make those sorts of decisions.

--"which should be addressed not by taking away guns from the law abiding but by punishing those who break the law."

This is the key issue. The NRA advocated stricter enforcement of current gun laws. There are some 40,000 gun laws already on the books. The kids in Littleton broke 18 or 19 of them. Would another one or two have stopped them?
On the other hand, Clinton's vaunted Brady bill has resulted in almost no prosecutions. They've stopped some thousand felons from buying guns, but in only about 14 of the cases were charges ever brought! Clinton isn't about keeping people safe, or he'd be enforcing those laws (the Executive branch is in charge of enforcement, remember). His agenda is totaly different.

Wraith
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients"
-- Edmund Burke

posted 06-07-99 08:43 PM ET            

I was just saying that hunting is a perfectly acceptable reason to have guns, that's all. I'm trying to show I'm not "kill all the guns " type person.

Oh, of course! I see now! Once guns are outlawed, those law-abiding criminals won't dare to use them!

Har har. And if they can't get their hands on them? Right now, without rigorous federal standards, I can go down to South Carolina, get some guns that are highly illegal in New Jersey and New York, and shoot people. And even still, crime has gone down in states that have tough gun control laws (at a faster rate than it has in other states). Coincidence, brought on by other factors? I doubt it. Just check the average crime drop in gun control states compared to others, it's quite a difference (if I ever dig up the exact stats, I'll tell you). Even with the "leakage," John Q. Average Gunman is not going to be able to shop around. Keep the guns away, and no matter how little they care for the law they won't have them.

"When Hitler took power, his first move was to require gun registration. Then he gathered up the guns in the hands of any minority he didn't like. Then, well, you've heard of World War 2 and the Holocaust, right?"

And if Hitler HADN'T taken the guns, do you really think that the people would have risen up in revolt when they didn't without them?

And if they had, would it have made a bigger difference than without guns? Warsaw '43 did, and they had really crappy weapons, and made a big difference. Other countries like Denmark and Norway effectively opposed Nazi rule without the need for guns.

Let's face it. Guns are nice, but they aren't essential. And if there's no groundswell for revolution, the presence of guns isn't going to make the borderline people jump into the revolution camp.

Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege...

I think you've become Handgun Control's new poster boy. Put this quote on a poster and your picture with this menacing demonic look in a black and white photograph, and we've got a typical political ad going. You can't believe how sinister and evil you sound saying something like that.

Owning a gun is a privilege. If you can prove that you're competent in a gun's usage and are not likely to use the gun against society, you have earned the privilege of being able to have a gun. If you aren't competent (and might shoot the wrong people), or have a vaguely criminal record (you might use it for evil), you haven't earned the privilege of being able to use a gun.

Besides, isn't that what the NRA stands for? More training? All these accidental deaths and foolish uses of guns on criminals could be avoided if more people had to go through a training program to get a gun license. And if you agree that the privilege to hold a gun is only given if you have proven yourself worthy- well, then it's a privilege! Not a right!

Oh? There's over 250 million people in the country.

You think there's 250 million people willing to join militias? Remember all those people opposing the Nazis in Germany? Yeah... (well, alright, there was the White Rose. But aside from that...)

posted 06-07-99 09:28 PM ET            

How many guns are in this country? How many of them are registered? How many of them come through our border with Mexico illegaly? How, exactly, do you think this sort of law will stop criminals from getting them?
Also, if it's illegal to own guns at all, then why won't they get more powerful ones? If it's just as illegal to carry a Saturday Night Special as it is a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun, which do you think they'll opt for?

--"And even still, crime has gone down in states that have tough gun control laws"

Which ones are these? Washington D.C. has the toughest handgun control laws on the books -- it's illegal to own one, period -- and they've got one of the highest rates in the country of handgun murders. Vermont, on the other hand, has a simple policy; anly law-abiding citizen may carry a firearm for any reason except the commision of a crime. There are no restrictions to concealed carry, no state permission slip, no fee for the permit, no fingerprinting, and no waiting period. And Vermont is consistently rated one of the safest states in the country.

--"Just check the average crime drop in gun control states compared to others,"

Just check the statistics in the areas that relax gun control the most compared to others :P

--"Keep the guns away,"

How do we do this? Got a magical gun-divining rod? This policy is what the War on Drugs is based on, look how successful that is.

--"do you really think that the people would have risen up in revolt when they didn't without them?"

It's certainly a possibility.

--"would it have made a bigger difference than without guns?"

I don't see how it wouldn't have. I'd love to hear about how Denmark and Norway resisted the Nazis, btw. I'm not familiar with their doings during WW2.

--"You can't believe how sinister and evil you sound saying something like that."

So the Second Amendment sounds sinister and evil? If you read the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution, this is exactly what the framers meant. Making it a right rather than a privelege meant that government had to prove that you, for some reason, could not be trusted with a gun, as opposed to you having to prove that you could be trusted with one.
The U.S. Constitution recognizes and protects, but does not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and ear arms. This is because the Framers assumed that the basis of governmental power originates with the people, whose natural rights are either ceded to government in the form of governmental powers, specifically protected from the powers of government by listing them in the Bill of Rights, or retained by the people, according to the Ninth Amendment.
In the case of guns, those rights are specifically protected from the powers of government, by way of the Second Amendment.

--"Owning a gun is a privilege."

No, it isn't. See above. This is something that Democrats are always implying, but there is no justification for such a position in the US.

--"and foolish uses of guns on criminals"

Foolish uses of guns on criminals? Interesting phrasing there. How, exactly, do you define a "foolish use on a criminal"? Accidentally shooting the robber? Dropping the clip on his foot?

--"And if you agree that the privilege to hold a gun"

It is not a privilege! I can't emphasize this enough, since this insidious perception is the only real reason the government is getting away with infringing on so many of our rights. Please read the Bill of Rights before you say this again.

--"You think there's 250 million people willing to join militias?"

No, but all of them don't need to. Look at Vietnam. Or Afganistan. Or the American Revolution. You yourself mentioned Warsaw, although I can't believe you're reffering to this as a point against the usefullness of civilan weapons.
The Jewish Ghetto in Warsaw was almost liquidated by the occupying Nazis between July and September of 1942, but there were a few hundred out of the few thousands
of Jews who had not yet been sent on the trains to Treblinka and who felt that they would rather fight than surrender to Hitler's Final Solution. Armed primarily with pistols, Molotov cocktails, grenades and explosives, and desperately short of ammunition, the Warsaw Ghetto fighters were able to hold off the Waffen-SS for almost a month in April of 1943, killing a dozen or more Nazis and wounding many more, before leading a few survivors out under the walls through the sewers of Warsaw, even as the Nazis demolished the Ghetto with aerial bombs and finally burned what remained to the ground.
Just think what they would have been able to accomplish if they had been properly armed, like the rebels in Afganistan.

--"remember my comment on mace?"

Look, even shooting someone won't neccessarily put them out of action right away. Chemical sprays are only appropriate in certain circumstances. If the attacker is wearing glasses, holds their breath, or is on drugs, there's a good chance the spray won't do a damn thing. If you're outside, rain can limit its effictiveness, and you really don't want to catch a wind-gust wrong. Guns are also good against multiple attackers, which sprays are not, and when a gun is used it certainly acts as a signal to anyone in the area that something is wrong, which the sprays won't. Guns are also very intimidating, and most gun defenses are simple intimidation; they prevent the crime altogether by scaring off the criminal.

--"Do we HAVE to put lethal force in the hands of civilians, something quite a few can misuse?"

Do we HAVE to put free speech in the hands of civilians, something quite a few can misuse?

posted 06-08-99 06:16 AM ET            

Yep, that's all I have to say about it!
The right to keep and bear arms do not belong in a modern civilized society!
Is your country that??

posted 06-08-99 06:44 AM ET            

"Sensible Precaution or Threat to the Republic?"

I hope both . No, but really. It is a sensible precaution. Look at countries with tough gun laws (Sweden, for example) and compare the statistics.

Sweden:
Population: 9 million people.
Policemen killed in the line of duty since 1950: 17
Average rate: about 1:500,000

Untied States:
Population: 270 million people
Policemen killed in the line of duty since 1950: Well over 5,000
Average Rate: 1:54,000 (Moderate count)

posted 06-08-99 06:49 AM ET            

Ambro2000

posted 06-08-99 08:17 AM ET            

This better be all you have to say about that. If you want to post pictures, at least link to ones on good servers, so the entire damn page isn't slowed down.

I notice you're concentrating on guns and kids; common tactic. However, a federal study has shown that kids who are taught how to handle firearms by their parents are less likely to be involved in accidents, and less likely to commit crimes, in both cases even less than those from families that don't own guns.
I should also point out that this problem is not caused by the guns; there were plenty of guns in the old west, and how many school shooting happened then?

Look at this. I post facts, I get back overblown emotionalism. Why not leave the argument to the adults, Ambro?

--"Look at countries with tough gun laws (Sweden, for example) and compare the statistics."

You only took two countries here. I don't know the situation in Sweden, but it is a far different culture than the US. What about Switzerland? Crime is very low there, yet their rate of gun ownership is even higher than in the US. Everyone has to serve in the army from 21-32, and they are required to keep their weapon and ammo at home. You can't draw comparisions from two examples, especially not by oversimplifying everything to "gun-control" "not-gun-control".

There's a federal study here that shows that crime in England, despite their stricter gun-control laws, is actually higher than in the US. It's in Acrobat format.

posted 06-08-99 11:08 AM ET            

"But the Constitution says we have a right to own guns!" Yes, it may well. It doesn't say you have a right to have absolutely no waiting period before you buy a gun to make certain you aren't a homicidal maniac (we already routinely suspend criminals' rights, remember?) or about to commit a crime of passion, or that you have a right to keep your gun in the open where any 5-year-old can stumble on it, or that you have a right to try to keep people from trying to make it harder for someone to unintentionally use a gun or use one without at least some reasonable deliberation (i.e., gun locks). And that summarizes the laws that are most often proposed and/or passed.

And if you're going to bitch about impediments to quick ownership and quick use, why not bitch about the fact you actually have to pay money for a gun? I mean, you have a RIGHT to one, you shouldn't have to pay for it, right?

There's nothing unconstitutional about putting a few curves in the path to gun ownership as long as the sales of them are not restricted outright. And I have a very, very hard time understanding why people are so, ahem, up in arms about having to wait a few days to purchase a gun (what -- emergency hunting trip?) or having to secure it so it can't be used by someone else, especially given how gung-ho most gun owners I know are about gun safety in general. (Of course, about half the gun owners I know are fully supportive of the laws/bills in question...)

posted 06-08-99 02:22 PM ET            

It reduces the availability. Yes, it's not going to stop terrorists that we get so worried about with bank roll backing. But- when you have to smuggle guns across the border, transport them to the city they need to be used, then sell the ones that get there, the price goes up considerably (depending on the amount of smuggling going on). This can put it out of the range of your average gang (that doesn't make it's money from drugs).

In any case, the classic stats-quoted-out-of-context both sides use: Handgun Control gives Massachusetts an A-, and there are 40 gun-related children's deaths there; they gave Michigan a D-, and there were 203 deaths there. I choose these two because both are rustbelt states having their own problems, and somewhat similar. Mass. has a pop of around 6 million; Michigan has a population of around 9 million; both have a major, dying industrial city in them.

Also, if it's illegal to own guns at all, then why won't they get more powerful ones? If it's just as illegal to carry a Saturday Night Special as it is a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun, which do you think they'll opt for?

It's just as illegal to shoot heroin as smoke marijuana. Why doesn't everyone shoot heroin?

Availability, and need. And personally, I'd rather face a bad guy with a sawed-off over a Saturday Night Special- I'll at least be able to see the sawed off, while I'll never notice the Special until it's too late. And if the supply is so low that the criminals have neither, so much the better.

I don't see how it wouldn't have. I'd love to hear about how Denmark and Norway resisted the Nazis, btw. I'm not familiar with their doings during WW2.

Well, Denmark hated Hitler from the first. Their teachers refused to use Nazi approved curriculum, for one, and kept their old ones. Plus, when Hitler made his requirement that all Jews wear a Star of David... all the Danes did too. The soldiers didn't know who to kick and spit at and who not to, so persecution was tougher. Danish factories scuttled themselves rather than make war material for the Nazis. And when Hitler was trending toward sending the Jews to the death camps, on one night, all the Danish Jews were shuttled to safety in Sweden with Danish boats- from fishing boats that took 20 to tiny craft that took no more than 4. When the Germans woke up in the morning, there were literally no Jews left in Denmark to take, due to the heroic effort of the Danish people and the Danish merchant marine. They didn't have guns to resist Hitler, but they sure resisted a lot more effectively than did the armed Free French- France was, second to Germany, the biggest contributor of war material to the Axis cause. Their resistance may have been armed, but for the most part, it was almost totally ineffective, because the people didn't support it (as much as they could have). That's why I said that even if the Germans had been armed, there's no reason they would have risen up in revolt against the Fatherland- the French were armed, and they showed that even with their arms, they did not achieve half the victory Denmark did.

In Norway, many of the same things occurred. Their teachers refused to teach the Nazi garbage, and many were killed for this defiance. Their factories did not work for the Nazis much at all. And the crucial "heavy water" plant the Nazis had there was neutralized by the poorly armed Norwegians, who ambushed and destroyed a convoy carrying important nuclear test material back to Germany, putting to an end once and for all Germany's chances of getting the bomb.

What I was trying to say with Warsaw was that even with crappy weapons or no weapons, there's still plenty that can be done to "win" if, god forbid, a tyrannical government came to power.

How, exactly, do you define a "foolish use on a criminal"?

Pulling a gun on a criminal and getting shot.

Also, as for the countries and states thing: Of course, it's not just "amount of gun control." You mentioned New Hampshire, a state with lax gun laws, but traditions still in place to prevent complete idiots from getting their hands on one- people are trained in a gun's proper usage. So, Switzerland with a high amount of competency as well as strict laws keeping the guns in control, has no problems and if anything is the kind of society you should be advancing here.

I tried to take a look at that study, but unfortunately Acrobat crashed on me. But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. There's more crime in England than in the US. But- is there more violent crime? I know for a fact that the number of shooting deaths a year in England is roughly equavilent to what we rack up in a weekend. So it seems that with gun control, what might have become shooting deaths only turns into people-beating-other-people-up. If anything, the idea that a higher crime nation has far fewer deaths supports what we're saying.

Eris: Exactly. I agree with most everything you say. It's the irresponsible gun owners and the criminals we aiming at, Wraith- not the freedom fighters.

Do we HAVE to put free speech in the hands of civilians, something quite a few can misuse?

posted 06-08-99 06:48 PM ET            

What you are fighting over, is how to remove the gun from the irresponsible users... Criminals, children, and the untrained...

I hate any thing that infringes the SLIGHTEST on my rights and freedoms because governments do not relax once they have taken or restricted something without some form of rebellion, whether there is blood spelt or not. If I am going to go hunting or target shooting, I won't need a gun right now. But there are already so many rules and regulations to keep guns away from those we don't want them to be used by. Guess what? They aren't enforced, so they don't matter. If I need a gun quick, I can go right down to the local combat zone if I don't know anyone and pick one up cheap. If I am willing to travel to a MAJOR city, I can even get a better selection.

Regulation is not the answer. Better enforcement and education are. Just like many "hot" issues in the US.

And Britian has more violent crimes resulting in critical injuries and death per person the US. Go compare the numbers published by Scottland Yard vs the FBI (something I had to do for a civics class in school). You might even be able to find them online these days.

Oh... about WWII, that was the French. Did you expect they would, as a nation, be anything else?

posted 06-08-99 07:23 PM ET            

We're against the "unreasonable" gun control laws. Start arguing on a by-law basis, and you'll see what I mean.

--"It doesn't say you have a right to have absolutely no waiting period"

"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." (Empahsis added)

This says that we the people are to be free from government laws regulating our use of guns. Read this article titled Reading the Second Amendment for more info about this sort of thing.
Proposals for firearm licensing are usually just designed to reduce gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, which is unconstitutional.
And, of course, we all know that all those criminals and lunatics that want guns go and apply for one and patiently wait for the five day waiting period to end rather than, say, going and buying one on the black market.

--"I mean, you have a RIGHT to one, you shouldn't have to pay for it, right?"

Now you're just being pissy.

--"There's nothing unconstitutional about putting a few curves in the path to gun ownership"

See above (by which I mean the part after the waiting period comment, not the pissy comment).

--"who would ask people to remember that there was no such thing as an automatic weapon"

So? The militia (ie. the people willing to bear arms) spoken of in the Second Amendment were expected to be armed with military-grade weapons.
I would also like to point out that up until 1934 you could walk into a gun store and buy a Thompson sub-machine gun. The vast majority of those guns that were used in crimes were used in gang on gang shootings.

--"This can put it out of the range of your average gang"

And obviously everyone is having so much trouble being able to afford drugs that this is the case now, right?

--"Why doesn't everyone shoot heroin?"

Different highs.

--"I'd rather face a bad guy with a sawed-off over a Saturday Night Special"

Whoa... this shows your ignorance about guns, rather strikingly. The shotgun is one of the best close-combat weapons, second only to a flame-thrower. Sawed-offs are easily hidden (that's what they're for); the kids at Columbine were able to easily hide several bombs and guns, including a shotgun. The Saturday Night Special, on the other hand, is going to be a horribly innacurate piece of offal, and will be just as likely to not work as to actually hurt you, so I'd much rather be facing one of those.

--"the French were armed,"

If there's no will to resist, it doesn't matter what they've got.

--"Pulling a gun on a criminal and getting shot."

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

--"There's more crime in England than in the US. But- is there more violent crime?"

It covered robbery, assualt, motor vehicle theft, burglary, murder and rape.
Murder was the biggest exception, as the US still leads there, but the difference is closing.

--"Regulation is not the answer. Better enforcement and education are."

Exactly

Let me put up some staticts on the top ten killers in the US.

1. Motor vehicles: 43,200 deaths
2. Falls: 14,900 deaths
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids: 8,600 deaths
4. Drowning: 4,000 deaths
5. Fires, burns and related deaths: 3,700 deaths
6. Suffocation by swallowing object: 3,300 deaths
7. Firearms-related: 1,500 deaths
8. Poisoning by gases and vapors: 700 deaths
9. All other causes (including medical "misadventures"): 13,900
Total deaths: 93,800
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)

And what activities are most likely to send you to the emergency room?

1. Baseball/softball 404,000
2. Dog bites 334,000
3. Playground 267,000
4. ATV's, mopeds 125,000
5. Volleyball 98,000
6. In-line skating 76,000
7. Horseback riding 71,000
8. Baby walkers 28,000
9. Skateboards 25,000
[Source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission]

Guess we better ban everything from softball to skateboards to protect our kids, eh?

posted 06-08-99 07:46 PM ET         

First off

Norway? Didn't they also give the world the term Quisling? Granted all countries had individuals who fought Nazi tyranny in many different ways, its just that wouldn't weapons make being a partisan easier?

Second

Using emotional arguments for something as serious as a constitutional right is a bit
ridiculous. If i hear the term "For the children" one more time in any kind of serious discussion of an issue I think I'll lose my cookies! If you have an intelligent argument use it! Saying things should be done for the sake of the children is an intellectual cop out. If that's an acceptable reason than you could ban anything and everything since what doesn't at somepoint in time or use negatively effect a child? How many deaths a year are caused by a child drowning in a mop bucket?(They do actually have figures, although the specfic number escapes me at the moment)Should we outlaw them too "For the Children"?

Even though I am strong second amendment rights supporter I do think certain regulation would help in cutting down some accidental deaths or misuse. The problem I have is the same as others have posted here.
Where will it stop? Once you open the door to small measures it's hard to justify stopping anywhere along the route to total confiscation. If this saves one more life how can you oppose it when you've let other restrictions through. Once you shatter a principle to achieve and end nothing can put it back together again.(Which is why as a non-smoker I think the tobacco legislation and lawsuits are plain nuts! What's next?
You'll get that burger when you ply it out of my cold dead fingers! But then again that needs another thread.)

As to a point about who gets hurt when both a criminal and his victim has a gun there was some statistical information at the ABC news site(Can't remember the exact figures) but it showed a victim with a gun was less likely to be injured than someone without a gun.(Not to mention suffering the loss of property) There was also a statistic that only 3% of victims were actually injured by a gun used during the commission of a crime, criminals turn out to be rather poor shots statistically.

Finally(Huzzah!) Why don't we just enforce the gun laws that are on the books right now?
Most of the crimes involving guns that so grab the headlines and our attention already involve the violation of existing law. How is enacting more laws necessarily going to translate into preventing people intent on doing destruction from doing it? If your going to break one law, what's a few more. It's like campaign finance reform, we would be able to get them to stop breaking the laws if we could only get more laws. Here's a hint, WHY DON"T YOU OBSERVE AND ENFORCE THE RULES ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!(Sorry about the volume) How about we punish, and most severly, those who use a gun in the commission of a crime? THis may not eliminate all instances of gun violence but it may actually be a more constructive way to reenforce the message that using a gun for criminal purposes is wrong and will be punished more severly than not using a weapon. SOme people may think twice, and that could certainly save some from suffering.

Well back to see how the Bill of Rights is doing, I remain,

posted 06-08-99 09:55 PM ET            

Exactly! You understood the entire point of what I was talking about. Now, about guns in Germany stopping Hitler...

the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun.

Key word no resistance. I'm all for offering resistance, just not resistance with lethal force in all except the gravest emergencies. Women out there, a tip for muggers: get a paperclip or something covering a $10 bill (on top) and 2 $1 bills. Throw the bills one way, run the other, and yell "Fire!" Given a choice of 30$ and a lot of onlookers seeing if there's a fire endangering them, most criminals with half a brain (which is, unfortunately, not all of them) will take the $30.

On the shotgun: I've shot one of them before (I was in Boy Scouts), and totally missed the target, even with the pellet spread. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time seeing someone shove one of those big things down there jacket. You're right in that I'm no gun expert though; if you say that a Saturday Night Special is horribly inaccurate, I'll believe you, but a TV newsmagazine I saw a few years ago said bad things about them and played sinister music in the background.

Didn't they also give the world the term Quisling?

And the fact that the Norwegians hated the traitor Quisling so much is what gave us the word. Do you think the entire country followed Quisling? They forced him out of office, in fact. I guess since America gave us Benedict Arnold, all Americans are traitors, right?

And oh yes- are those emergency room stats for kids? And I'm going to say that going to the emergency room with a bullet inside you is far more serious is going because you got a baseball in the crotch.

Finally(Huzzah!) Why don't we just enforce the gun laws that are on the books right now?

posted 06-09-99 09:06 AM ET            

So swallow a few of these:

QUIT SMOKING! for the children. My children start coughing anytime they get around cigarette smoke because they live in a smoke free household and aren't normally exposed to it.

QUITCURSING! for the children. I try to instill in my children the belief that saying "bad words" is something that happens to people that get old and cynical. These words should not be used to put people down. (In other words, I'm raising them to be the opposite of me).

STOP HOMOSEXUALITY! for the children. I tell my children that although there are people that like other people of the same sex, it's not natural. M/M or F/F can't produce children naturally and giving birth to children via AI, surrogate mothers, etc., can lead to children that are confused.

STOP OBESITY! for the children. I tell my children that you need to eat right and exercise. However, the more that FAT becomes the norm in American society, the harder it may be for my children to believe that healthy is good. They've even altered sizes on women's clothing to make the fat ones feel good.

Now, I know there are some of you sheeples here that wouldn't like if the government was as serious about smoking, weight, homosexuality, or cursing issues as it is about gun control. The reason the government wants gun control is because well armed citizens tend to think for themselves and not want the government wants them to think.

It doesn't matter what the 2nd Amendment was originally intended for. We need it today so that citizens have a right to hunt, to defend themselves and their families against intrusion, and to defend themselves against a government that wants to lead sheep instead of people.

posted 06-09-99 09:28 AM ET            

Wraith quoted: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I disagree that making someone wait a few days to acquire something constitutes infringement of the right to possess that thing. I'm not going to budge on this one.

Let me make something clear. I despise handguns. I cannot stand them. I wish they'd never been invented. I wish that every single one would simply disintegrate for no reason whatsoever. There is no other purpose for a handgun (NOT a rifle, NOT a shotgun, but a pistol or a revolver) but to shoot people. People, not animals. But I nonetheless do not wish to outlaw them, because I understand the reasons for the 2nd
Amendment. All I want is the ability to whap someone with the law when they do something stupid and irresponsible with a gun, and that little waiting period.

I said: "I mean, you have a RIGHT to one, you shouldn't have to pay for it, right?"

Wraith replied: "Now you're just being pissy"

No. I'm being quite serious. When people get all extremist about anything at all hindering them from something they believe they have a right to, I tend to ask questions like that. I want you to answer the question, in fact. Since you think there should be absolutely no impediment to gun ownership, why do you think it's fair for someone to charge for a gun? What if you can't exercise this Constitutional right because you don't make enough money? Does that constitute infringement? And since you're opposed to a waiting period, apparently, does having to spend time saving up for a gun count?

I said: "who would ask people to remember that there was no such thing as an automatic weapon"

Wraith replies: "So? The militia (ie. the people willing to bear arms) spoken of in the Second Amendment were expected to be armed with military-grade weapons."

Which at the time were things that required quite a lot of deliberate effort to use; i.e, you had to really think about the fact you were prepping an instrument whose purpose was to kill people. I am not so sure the authors of the Constitution would have been /quite/ so sanguine about letting everyone own a gun if they'd foreseen just how /easy/ killing would be and how /easy/ it would be to be totally emotionally removed from the act...

Just a thought. Since I'm not a practicing necromancer, I can't dig one up and ask.
But everyone's entitled to an opinion.

So far.

Eris (who really should be doing her work right now)

posted 06-09-99 11:49 AM ET            

"The reason the government wants gun control is because well armed citizens tend to think for themselves and not want the government wants them to think."

I'm not a well armed citizen and think for myself. You seem to be forgetting that this is a government by the people and for the people. The ultimate reason why the government does anything is because at least some people want it that way. Do you want to call all the people who support any measure "government" and all those that don't the citizens? It's not like we have a king and nobles who are eternally the govenrment, allowing separation of government and people. If we don't like our government, we can change it. So, what I'm trying to say is that the reason the government supports gun control is that the people do. It's as simple as that. I'm not subscribing to the Populist philosophical error of saying that what the majority thinks is what is right; but the reason why the government does something- especially something that is done by Congress or the Legislature, not the court system- is done because the people support it.

posted 06-09-99 11:54 AM ET         

On the point of having to pay for guns. The 2nd amendment only calls for no government interference in the acquisition. It is not the governments place to supply them. That is left to the market place and the free choice of the citizenry. This is really a tired argument made from artists on down who think that somehow their freedom is infringed if the government doesn't support them(Another topic in need of a thread of its own). We have a limited government, not one that's supposed to be a candy store to fund everyone idea of freedom. All the government is required to do is "Get out of the way". If you want to buy a gun and have the cash, go ahead. If you want to take pictures of crucifixes in urine, be my guest. If you want to cover yourself in chocolate and call it art, I won't stop you. Just don't expect other hard working citizens to pay for you.

As far as how easy killing has become that seems to be more of the fault of society than in the gun itself. People don't respect its power like they used to. As far as the Founders go I don't think their reasoning would have changed given the firepower since the prinicple of WHY guns are necessary would still be the same.

posted 06-09-99 03:19 PM ET         

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire; a dangerous servant and a terrible master."
-- George Washington

"A free people ought...to be armed..."
-- George Washington, 1790

Two visions of the world remain locked in dispute. The first believes all men are created equal by a loving God who has blessed us with freedom. Abraham Lincoln spoke for us: "No man," he said, "is good enough to govern another without the other's consent."
The second vision believes that religion is opium for the masses. It believes that eternal principles like truth, liberty, and democracy have no meaning beyond the whim of the state. And Lenin spoke for them: "It is true, that liberty is precious," he said, "so precious that it must be rationed."
Well, I'll take Lincoln's version over Lenin's - and so will citizens of the world if they're given free choice.
Ronald Reagan

A Quote from our Communist and ignorant friend Mr. Clinton:

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."
-- Bill Clinton, 3-22-94

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
-- Albert Einstein

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Ghandi

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
-- Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

"Never turn your back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!"
-- Winston Churchill

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

-- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister

"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, 1787

"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 peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police."
--Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

"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

posted 06-09-99 06:22 PM ET            

Hehe. Last time this came up I said something similar, only in reference to TVs and windows...

--"I'm all for offering resistance, just not resistance with lethal force"

If the guy pulls a knife (or a gun) on you, what sort of effective resistance can you offer other than lethal?
I should also point out that most of the places that have really strict gun control laws (including Washington DC) also outlaw all sorts of non-lethal defenses like mace. In fact, some DC citizens have taken to carrying spray cans of oven cleaner (nasty stuff) because they can't legaly carry non-lethal mace.

--"but I have a hard time seeing someone shove one of those big things down there jacket"

That's why they get sawed-off. It reduces the total length rather dramatically.

--"I'll believe you, but a TV newsmagazine"

I really hope this was meant in jest

--"are those emergency room stats for kids?"

Nope, they're over-all.

--"I disagree that making someone wait a few days to acquire something constitutes infringement of the right to possess that thing."

And, of course, violent criminals and the mentaly deranged always go to stores where they have to undergo a background check and a five-day waiting period before buying a gun. Face it, this law affects only the law abiding citizens. It can do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Background checks might be able to, but only if prosecuted (out of the however many - 1,000+ I think, not sure - people caught by background checks so far, only about 14 have been prosecuted). Also, according to BATF statistics, the average age of a gun used in a crime is six years. This five-day waiting period does nothing to criminals.

I should also point out that in the vast majority of murders, the victim was not armed. If you're under an immediate threat (say a stalker) that five day waiting period can kill you.

--"I despise handguns."

Gee, you know something? It shows. Maybe you should try using them sometime, find out some real info about what you hate, eh? Frankly, not that many people with actual firearm handling experience are gun-control advocates.

--"All I want is the ability to whap someone with the law when they do something stupid and irresponsible with a gun, and that little waiting period."

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books right now (the kids in Littleton violated at least 18 of them). If these laws would be enforced, you would be whapping criminals, which is something the NRA supports and is currently advocating (not that the media will mention anything positive about the NRA). This problem is because of Clinton, who is in charge of enforcing laws, and he knows it, and he doesn't admit it (where have we seen that before?).

--"I want you to answer the question, in fact."

I think walruskkkch covered it pretty well. Government's job, despite what the Democrats seem to think, is not to provide for every material whim of its citizenry.

--"and how /easy/ it would be to be totally emotionally removed from the act."

And, obviously, this emotional remove from reality is inherent in the gun, which is a solid chunk of metal, rather than in the person, who is a living, breathing wad of flesh. FYI, that was sarcasm. The problem is not guns, the problem is people who can detatch killing from consequences. It's made worse by the horrible trends in education, that punishes teachers for disciplining children and then punishes them again when they end up running wild for never having been disciplined. If those liberal yahoos who coddle personality rather than educate would get their meddling hands out of the education system, we'd have a much better environment across the country.

--"if there is no will to resist, than the most armed Germany won't revolt."

But an armed Germany will have a much better time (and better chance of success) than an un-armed one. Look at how nasty urban warfare can be. The only reason the Nazis were able to take out the few armed Jews is because they were already physically segregated, so they could be bombed without "friendly" losses. If they were spread across the city, they'd have been truly horrible for the Nazis. They'd look the same as the rest, they'd be able to drop their weapons over a wall and mix with the crowd, pop up in ambush, etc.

--"If we don't like our government, we can change it."

For now, and more-or-less.

--"is done because the people support it."

Some of it. And sort of. Only if it fits their political agendas. But there are plenty of government programs without any tangible support (grasshopper research anyone?) that are in place, and other popular measures that aren't (can you say campaign finance reform and tort reform? Sure, I knew you could). Politicans have become increasingly detached from their constituency, and if we do remove guns from the hands of the citizens, it gives them less reason than ever to pay attention to us.

--"Wraith claims that gun control doesn't help. I claim it does."

Department of Justice data show those areas of the country where firearms are more readily available have a lower violent crime rate than areas of minimal firearm ownership.
University of Chicago Professors John Lott and David Mustard examined the correlation between guns and crime in over 3,000 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 in their 1996 study, "Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." They discovered liberalized concealed-carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.
New York City and Washington DC, have very restrictive laws regarding gun ownership, yet they have higher violent crime rates than neighboring areas where it is easier to obtain firearms.
Nationwide, firearm ownership increased between 1993 and 1997. According to the U.S. News & World Report [May 25, 1998, citing FBI statistics], the homicide rate decreased 29 percent during that same period.

Right to carry states have a 24% lower total violent crime rate, a 19% lower homicide rate, a 39% lower robbery rate, and a 19% lower aggravated assault rate, on average, compared to the rest of the country. People who obtain carry permits are by far more law-abiding than the rest of the public. In Florida, for example, only a fraction of 1% of carry licenses have been revoked because of gun-related crimes committed by license holders.(Florida Dept. of State)

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted a virtual ban on handguns. By 1991, D.C.'s homicide rate had tripled, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and D.C. with very restrictive gun laws make up only 5% of the U.S. population, yet account for 13% of U.S. murders.(FBI)

California imposed a 15-day waiting period on handgun sales in 1975, and banned "assault weapons" in 1989 yet since, its homicide and violent crime rates have averaged 34% and 52% higher, respectively than the rest of the country's. In 1975, South Carolina limited handgun sales to individuals to one per month. Within 15 years, South Carolina's violent crime rate doubled.(FBI)

Guns in the U.S.: 200 million, incl. 65-70 million handguns (BATF)
Gun owners in U.S.: 60-65 million, 30-35 million own handguns
Owners who have used guns for defense:
11% of firearms owners
13% of handgun owners
Annual criminal gun use:
Less than 0.2% of firearms
Less than 0.4% of handguns
About 99.8% of firearms and more than 99.6% of handguns will not be used to commit violent crimes in any given year.(Source: FBI data on gun related crimes and survey research on gun owenrship.)

There's also some interesting stats on gun control in Australia, but I can't find those off-hand. I'll post them if I do.

posted 06-10-99 05:09 AM ET            

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent of others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

As can be seen Washington was referring to a proper militia (ala the Swiss model) for the defence of the US...he later goes on to talk about protecting people from Indian raids etc.

The full Address is here:
http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/annualmessages/message1.html

posted 06-10-99 08:42 AM ET            

- I want to keep it that way. It's the government that seems to be forgetting....

"So, what I'm trying to say is that the reason the government supports gun control is that the people do."

- They support gun control because it's popular to support gun control and they want to get re-elected.

Think of where the term "Politically Correct" comes from. Why is it PC and not "Morally Correct" or "Ethically Correct"?

I'm sure gun control would prevent a lot of gun related incidences. I won't argue that point. Would it deter crime?...I doubt it.

posted 06-10-99 09:25 AM ET            

I haven't really seen this in depth discussion on the second ammendment before, it's a good one. Both sides get their view across well. I find it hard to imagine the US having a dictator as a leader so bad it would require the public to take arms against the government. Would the US armed forces really follow a mad dictator? I doubt it. Is that really a concern in present day America?

posted 06-10-99 09:48 AM ET            

Wraith responded:

"Gee, you know something? It shows. Maybe you should try using them sometime, find out some real info about what you hate, eh? "

Gee, you sure are full of assumptions.

"Frankly, not that many people with actual firearm handling experience are gun-control advocates."

1 US Marshall.
2 paramedics, both of whom work sometimes as security.
2 other people who routinely work security.
1 Chicago police officer.
1 ex-Army Sergeant

These are on the list of people I know with "actual" gun-handling experience who are pro-gun control in the sense that I am.

"Government's job, despite what the Democrats seem to think, is not to provide for every material whim of its citizenry."

*nods* I agree. But in this case, I'm in favor of a couple of very small, clearly worded measures, because the safety of the citizenry /is/ part of what government's job is.

--"and how /easy/ it would be to be totally emotionally removed from the act."

"And, obviously, this emotional remove from reality is inherent in the gun, which is a solid chunk of metal, rather than in the person, who is a living, breathing wad of flesh."

Yes and no.

When you create something the purpose of which is to kill people from afar, then yes, the object itself does have teh quality of helping to let the person be emotionally removed from their act. You will note that nowhere in my posts have I suggested there is anything wrong with rifles or shotguns, though I get the idea you didn't read that part.

-"I disagree that making someone wait a few days to acquire something constitutes infringement of the right to possess that thing."

"And, of course, violent criminals and the mentaly deranged always go to stores where they have to undergo a background check and a five-day waiting period before buying a gun. Face it, this law affects only the law abiding citizens."

They may not /always/ go to stores where the background check could be in place, but they sure as hell SOMETIMES do. Not every insane person knows where to get illegal guns. Crimes of passion also come to mind. Which I also said earlier.

Eris (whose last post on this topic this is)

posted 06-10-99 04:01 PM ET            

Couldn't agree more. Which is why we're the masters of the government, and don't let it take over us, and as our servant, we treat it like nuclear power- great potential, but great danger if mishandled, and worse danger if used for evil. But since, IMNSHO, gun control is not a misuse of the government's powers.

"A free people ought...to be armed..." -- George Washington, 1790

Taken wildly out of context, as already pointed out.

"blah blah" -Ronald Reagan

Don't even bother quoting the guy, unless you want me to get out my "dumb quotes made by Reagan" datafile. I have a strong feeling that Reagan made up that quote from Lenin, too (I'll check it out)- Reagan had a really bad habit of making up or misquoting quotes from other leaders. It certainly wouldn't be the first quote he made up from Lenin. Well, it's his svoboda.

"A Quote from our Communist and ignorant friend Mr. Clinton:"

If you think that Clinton's a commie, wait until you see an "old" liberal. Furthermore, there's a distinction between liberals and communism. People like Truman & JFK were liberals- but they were also feverent anti-commies. Truman gave us the Truman Doctrine, and JFK even served on McCarthy's House Committee on Un-American Activities. Any true liberal would oppose the government of the USSR for its wild revocation of liberties- but Lenin was not that bad a guy. It's Stalin who really turned the idealistic communist system into a bloody dictatorship.

In any case, I oppose the quote too. You know why? I oppose it from liberal grounds. It sounds like he said that as an excuse to sign that telecommunications bill or to restrict free speech- conservative initiatives!

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
-- Albert Einstein

Good, I agree with this one too. Notice that Einstein, a rather pacifistic person, never says defend with arms- back to that pacifist resistance thing again on why dictators can be resisted sans arms.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Ghandi

Made up quote, I assure you. Gandhi was a pacifist! He probably would support gun control today! Plus, the British allowed the Indians to have guns- remember the Sepoy revolt? That would have gone nowhere if the British hadn't armed Indian regiments and given them guns.

"Blah blah" -- Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Look at the state and the date. 'Nuff said.

"Never turn your back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!" -- Winston Churchill

Sounds like good advice to me. What's it to do with gun control?

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister

Sounds like they discovered both our secrets. Goebbels was absolutely right. Now, tell me that you're side doesn't do it too- try doing a search and look at the name calling and the reduction of this issue to something far simpler than it is. Heck, look at the political cartoons previously posted for some examples of anti-gun control propaganda- Guns kill children, guns are barbaric (though the 2nd one makes an actual point). Your side has engaged in plenty of unscrupulous acts- remember all the gun nuts repeatedly calling Handgun Control's 1-800 number to tie up phone lines and waste money- with an ad published saying "You, too, can screw Sarah Brady?"

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms..." --Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

Yeah, subjected peoples, since they hate the government. But what about the Germans? Remember the Hitler Youth, etc.? Hitler strongly supported getting people brainwashed at an early age, and training kids for weapon use. And yet the Germans were just as "subjected" under a tyranny as the others. See the problem?

Wraith: Yes, that was meant in jest. But the sinister music was pretty scary, I don't know... Well, seriously, there's usually some truth in these things. I learned enough from it, and I think I could pick out the correct things said.

"Face it, this law affects only the law abiding citizens."

As Eris says, what about crimes of passion? In any case, those guns on the black market have to come from somewhere- that gun was legally purchased at some point on the chain. A Federal law helping out here would do wonders.

"Some of it. And sort of."

I did say that at least some of the people support something is why things get done. In any case, you're absolutely right that there are exceptions. However, that's a good thing- people railed against the Warren Court when it single handedly reformed our corrupt police system in the 60's into a competent one, but now things like not keeping people for 14 hours in the same room to drag out a confession and letting them have a lawyer present are well accepted. As long as that balance remains, no idea will be surpressed. The price is that some popular things (like flag burning amendment) won't become law (thank god).

"Right to carry states have a such and such lower crime rate, etc."

I mirror what MikeH says. Remember what you were saying about culture and training and everything? And about the shelf life of a gun? That means that while Washington has had guns banned for awhile, there are still plenty of them sticking around, not to mention the ones brought across the river at the black market. The states that have lax laws haven't needed tough gun laws, because of the culture, as well as lack of much crime to begin with.

posted 06-10-99 06:39 PM ET            

Why do we need guns? Sure, people did in the 18th century when they wrote the Constitution, as hunting was a food supply, not a sport and you needed protection from raiding British and Native Americans (please don't flame me. I love England! Europe is cool! And it makes me sick to think of what Americans have done to Native Americans)

But those days are gone! You don't need to hunt! If you do, use a bow and arrow, and add some difficulty into it! You don't need to protect yourself from people criminals with guns, because where would they get them?

The Consitution is supposed to assure the necessary and fundamental rights of human beings! Freedom to say what you want! (of course, we can't do that anymore) Freedom to practice whatever religion you want! And most of all the right to live! The government protects us from invaders that try to do that, but can't seem to protect us from fellow Americans!

Oh, and Yang he's a Democrat. (and even if he were a communist, he's assured the freedom of political parties in the Constitution, but I see you prefer to read only the parts you want to)

posted 06-10-99 07:16 PM ET            

Still is, legally.
13 USC 311:
a) 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.
b) The classes of the militia are -
  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

"If you ask me, the 2nd Amendment should have been repealed as soon as the Revolutionary War ended." -- Dreadnaught

Likely already mentioned, but you are aware that the 2nd Ammendment didn't even exist until well after the end of the Revolutionary War, right?

Hugo:
"The statistics repeat... For almost every type of crime."

Then how can it be the fault of guns?

----

I guess my answer to the title question would be "Both.".

Certainly some gun control is reasonable, for example stiffer penalties for crimes committed with a gun or other deadly weapon, but there is also merit to the POV that going too far might lead to the slippery slope erroding the other, traditionally inviolate, ammendments in the Bill of Rights. This one just happens to be the most unpopular right now.

posted 06-10-99 07:44 PM ET            

Defending yourself with a gun does not necessarily mean killing whatever you're defending yourself from. In most cases, simply having a gun is enough to scare off would-be attackers, and guns are used defensively some 2.5 million times per year in the US. Compared to the number of gun deaths, this seems like a good trade, yes?

--"Surely the areas would have introduced gun cotrol to help control the high levels of violent crime problem in the first place?"

I think you're missing something in reading those statistics. Taking the DC example, those statistics are over a 15 year span, with DCs rate tripling as opposed to the national average, which should be a decent indication of prevaling social trends. A difference of 288% seems hard to explain by saying that "well, they must have been crooks in the first place". Even if there were high levels of crime to star with, those staticts measured the increase of crime as compared to the start of the study. If those laws were enacted because of major gun problems in DC, then they failed miserably. In other areas with lesser or equal (or worse) problems, not enacting such laws lead to a much smaller increase in crime rates.

--"These are on the list of people I know with "actual" gun-handling experience who are pro-gun control"

Which is what, exactly? Cracking down on current laws? Banning everything? Allowing anything except handguns?

As for police support of gun-control, that is mostly either the in-the-spotlight administrators rather than the beat cops, and a lot of advertising effort by Clinton and his ilk. A 1992 poll by the National Association of Chiefs of Police demonstrated overwhelming support for private firearms ownership. They resoundingly rejected gun control as effective crime control. A more recent survey of San Diego's rank-and-file officers emphatically mirrored these results, as did an even more comprehensive study in Pennsylvania.

--"I'm in favor of a couple of very small, clearly worded measures"

But we already have over 20,000 leagalese gun-control measures. What is adding some more poorly worded ones going to do? Take the Brady Bill as an example. They tried to outlaw "assault weapons", which was and is a made up category based on how nasty a gun looks. They then went and got their panties in a twist when gun makers made guns that did the same thing but looked different. This is not the sort of law we need.

--"You will note that nowhere in my posts have I suggested there is anything wrong with rifles or shotguns, though I get the idea you didn't read that part."

Then why the opposition to just handguns? Rifles are far, far better at killing at a distance, and a handgun, even a .45, is nothing compared to the stopping power of a 12 guage at close range. Both are far more deadly than a pistol. None of them are often used in crimes, and I pointed out above (less than half a percent in both cases).

--"Not every insane person knows where to get illegal guns."

I should point out that the NRA supports background checks, so long as they're instant. Several states have InstaCheck systems in place, and they do their job very well (although there have been a bare handful of prosecutions of people who have tried to illegaly buy a gun and got caught this way). The problem is when people get background-check tangled up with waiting period. The two have little to do with each other. Instant background checks would be perfectly adequate at stopping mentally unstable and habitual criminals from buying guns at law abiding stores. Waiting periods do nothing. You seem to have missed something I said above; according to the BATF, the average age of a gun used in a crime is 6 years. Understand? Guns used in crimes have been purchased an average of siz years before the crime. What is a week or two going to do? The crimes of passion that are committed in this period are vanishingly small, and I challenge you to put forth numbers on it. This is pure emotionally driven rhetoric on the gun-control advocates part.

--"Crimes of passion also come to mind."

This is the only even partially logical reason to advocate waiting periods, and they are also a very small percentage of actual crimes.

--"what about crimes of passion?"

See above, and the one above that.

--"those guns on the black market have to come from somewhere- that gun was legally purchased at some point on the chain."

For one, it was not necessarily purchased in this country. How many slightly used soviet weapons do you think are floating around the world right now? For another, there are already some 20,000 gun laws on the books that deal with these issues, but they are not being enforced. This problem is not created by guns. It is created by politicians, the ones who are supposedly obeying our will. If our will is to actually do something about criminal access to guns, then they've failed miserably. If our will is to seem to do so while actually penalizing only the law abiding gun owners, then we're on the right track.

--"That means that while Washington has had guns banned for awhile, there are still plenty of them sticking around,"

And this helps my side, since it's only the law-abiding citizens that are going unarmed. These sorts of laws give criminals a horrible advantage, especially when the laws that would actually help disarm the criminals aren't being acted on.

--"I for one don't think civilians should have the right to bear weapons at all."

What about your steak knifes? It's a knife right? It's meant for cutting things, you could easily kill someone with it. Or your car; it's a huge chunk of metal that goes fast and can easily kill someone (and does so far, far more often than guns do), so it must be a weapon, right? Don't forget the common penny. If you drop it off a tall building, you can kill someone with that, too. Guess we better just ban everything and let the government seal us all in hermetically controlled chambers and feed us mush. Oh, wait, if it's sealed, we could suffocate, so it's a weapon, better ban it.

--"You don't need to hunt!"

And you have totally missed the point of most of the arguments in here...

posted 06-11-99 07:00 AM ET            

You provided some backup for your less violent crime stat, thanks.

I was under the impression (from TV, news, etc. so this may be wrong) that there were quite deep social problems in DC (I assume we are talking about DC not Washington state right?) including a terrible drugs problem and a two tier society with wealthy (mainly white) government employees at one end and poor (mainly black) people living in slums (projects?) at the other end. It seems to me that the problems in the area can't solely be connected to gun control. People don't turn to crime just because the person next door hasn't got a gun. They turn to crime for other reasons, mainly poverty. The gun ownership may or may not be a factor in whether they turn to crime armed or not.

posted 06-11-99 08:22 AM ET            

"It doesn't matter what the 2nd Amendment was originally intended for. We need it today so that citizens have a right....to defend themselves against a government that wants to lead sheep instead of people."

posted 06-11-99 02:59 PM ET            

I've lived here about 10 years and have never heard anything about this unlawful mace stuff. I doubt if somebody used it for protection, the police would give them grief. So too about loaded guns. If a grandmother pulled out an uzi to foil robbers breaking into her house, The Washington Post would have a series of articles praising her.

However, DC is a violent place. You can see it in the art, culture, and murder statistics, gun control notwithstanding.

Btw, the government employees live in the suburbs because DC is too expensive (among other things). The wealthy in DC are lawyers who work in the downtown firms. Further, government employment has quite ample minority representation. The DC area has the largest black middle class, for instance.

posted 06-11-99 03:26 PM ET         

Here's a provacative thought.(Y'all know I'm pro-second amendment so I'm only playing Devil's advocate here) Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. The second amendment only lists Arms. Do bullets constitute arms? Why not just ban ammunition? Anybody could own a gun but you could only hurt someone by hitting them with it.

Arguing both sides makes you understand you side better.

As always I remain,

posted 06-11-99 03:54 PM ET            

Fertilizer and fuel oil blew up the government building in Oklahoma; should we ban those too?

Nope, because fertilizer and fuel have other, legitimate purposes that far outweight the negatives. Same with things like hunting rifles.

On the other hand, assault weapons were built for one thing: killing other human beings. That's useful if you want to commit a crime or revolt against the government. I think that, in this case, I've tried to say that the "commit a crime" aspect is too great, and the assitance in revolting against a government too small to put it in the same category as fertilizer.

posted 06-11-99 07:51 PM ET            

It hasn't come close to the armed revolution point yet, but there's enough indicators that it could go there real quick to disquiet people. If nothing else, this whole "War on Drugs" things has the government ignoring half or more of the Bill of Rights in many circumstances, we all know that the most permanent thing around is a temporary government program.

--"I've lived here about 10 years and have never heard anything about this unlawful mace stuff."

I doubt they advertise it However, my dad is a police officer, and when we went vacationing there, he couldn't bring his pistol, and could only bring mace because of his badge.

--"How do you think that effects the debate?"

Like I've been saying, maybe we should try enforcing current laws before we start making more? All of the illegal gun buys that are hyped so much by various liberals or news orginizations are just that; illegal. Making more laws doesn't make it more illegal. That it happens "so often" just means that even people who get caught at it don't get punished.

--"while police officers (who have gone through extensive training with guns) prefer not to face armed criminals."

As I've said, my father is a police officer, and he's very much against gun control. He doesn't want to face armed criminals, but he realizes that adding more laws on something that's already illegal doesn't stop anyone. If you're already commiting a crime (robbery, assualt, whatever), adding another on top of that, illegal firearm, is nothing, especially when they're simply not punished for the additional crimes.

--""Cop-Killer" bullets"

Many sorts of ammo are controlled (to answer someone else's question), including these supposed "cop-killer" bullets. This buzz-word grew out of a 1982 NBC special that ignored federal studies to proclaim a Teflon-coated bullet (KTW ammunition) as a cop-killer, claiming all sorts of ridiculious things about increased penetration and so forth (the things the federal studies said didn't happen) because of the coating. This sort of ammo was meant for military and law-enforcement use in the first place, and in the second when this story came out not one police officer had even been wounded by such a bullet. Riding a wave of hysteria, Congress outlawed all sorts of bullets made out of anything but soft lead.

--"assault weapons"

Assault weapon is a political term, not a technical one. An assault rifle is a very specific class of rifle, with a certain rate of fire and muzzle velocity. An "assault weapon" is something that looks nasty on TV (this term is defined in the Brady Bill, and very vaugely).

--"But I still think the first option we should explore is to enforce the laws we already have."

Exactly.

posted 06-17-99 10:34 AM ET            

The legal right or the ethical right to limit constitutional freedoms or a pre-legal "individual freedom" ?

Where do people get off saying that the government knows what is good for the people better than the people themselves know and therefore will ban guns.

This is based on the assumption that "government" and "people" are two mutually exclusive entities. Is this your view ?

The right of the government to limit freedoms or regulate things stems from vesting legislative, executive and judicial powers in government - like "collect taxes ...to provide for... the general welfare of the United States" (Art I section 8 US const). Constitutional freedoms limit that power of government, but outside the scope of those rights, government can use the mentioned powers in the way the political process decides.

That is in effect what the governments of almost every major country in the world says, outside of the US.

posted 06-18-99 01:30 PM ET            

Like the Freedman's Bureau?

On Cop-Killer Bullets: I don't know, but I've seen the "rhino-killer" bullets before. And I also know that no deer in my vicinity wear Kevlar. I'm going to assume you're right, but again, what more than soft lead do you need to go hunt deer or deter a criminal? You said that deterrence is a main factor in why a gun is superior to mace. So shouldn't a BB gun be just as good a deterrent, and less fatal too?

posted 06-18-99 11:22 PM ET            

Q: Does anyone know how many times the Constitution has been changed since it's original form?

A: Over 30.

The Framers had change in mind when they wrote the damn thing.

Fun Fact: The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. At this time, it was legal to own slaves; there were only 13 states; women could not vote or own property; and Senators were elected by state legislatures.

Another Fun Fact: The Framers were not in favor of the Second Amendment, that's why it wasn't included in the original Constitution.

Yet Another Fun Fact: Most people know very little of the Constitution and exploit the parts they like while treating the others like crap (i.e. calling the Preamble "Commie Bull****".)

posted 06-18-99 11:22 PM ET            

Q: Does anyone know how many times the Constitution has been changed since it's original form?

A: Over 30.

The Framers had change in mind when they wrote the damn thing.

Fun Fact: The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. At this time, it was legal to own slaves; there were only 13 states; women could not vote or own property; and Senators were elected by state legislatures.

Another Fun Fact: The Framers were not in favor of the Second Amendment, that's why it wasn't included in the original Constitution.

Yet Another Fun Fact: Most people know very little of the Constitution and exploit the parts they like while treating the others like crap (i.e. calling the Preamble "Commie Bull****".)

posted 06-19-99 11:01 AM ET            

Again, these one-to-one comparisions don't work well. There's low-gun/low-crime, low-gun/high-crime, high-gun/low-crime, and high-gun/high-crime countries. You can mix and match and "prove" whatever you like.
Also, keep in mind that European countries (including the UK) had lower crime rates than the US even before strict gun control laws were instituted. Moreover, many violent crime rates (see studies link above, among others) are rising faster in Europe than in the US. Also, the UKs non-gun homicide rate is lower than the US non-gun homicide rate. It seems very unlikely that gun control measures have any effect on murders commited with knives, poison, etc.

--"Constitutional freedoms limit that power of government, but outside the scope of those rights, government can use the mentioned powers in the way the political process decides."

Not quite accurate, I think, unless I'm interpreting something different than you mean.
The Constitution isn't a listing of the people's rights, it's a listing of the government's power. Anything the government is not strictly allowed to do by the Constitution is, by definition in the Constitution, something that it is prohibited from doing. This is why there had to be an amendment for the US Government to collect income tax; it wasn't something they were allowed to do before then.
For some reason, this view has become less prevailent recently, with government taking a more "Big Babysitter" approach and doing anything that they are not stopped from doing (sometimes only by Supreme Court challenges). The Bill of Rights was a specific listing of individual rights that the government was specifically prohibited from infringing on, rights seen by the founders as neccessary to a free society. This does not mean that government has the right to meddle with everything not spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but it has been taken in that manner.

--"So shouldn't a BB gun be just as good a deterrent, and less fatal too?"

Yah, they'll be really scared of your plastic pump-action BB gun. Unless they've got glasses on, in which case you won't even be able to put an eye out :P
Tell me, which would you be more intimidated by? A BB gun or a 9mm?

--"The Framers were not in favor of the Second Amendment, that's why it wasn't included in the original Constitution."

Your titles should be "Fun but false factoids". As I mention above, this is not what the Bill of Rights was about. The original Constitution was meant as a simple description of the limits of government power. It was assumed that government would not try to expand beyond those powers laid out in full in the Constitution. However, this was not enough for many delegates, who felt that further protection for essential rights had to be included. They then created the Bill of Rights, to specifically prevent the government from limiting personal liberty in areas they felt were essential.
Please stop with these blatantly false assaults and factoids, they don't do your cause any good.

--"Most people know very little of the Constitution and exploit the parts they like while treating the others like crap"

A little pot calling kettle here?

--"TIMES HAVE CHANGED!!! I guess some people would rather live in 1791."

So, obviously, freedom of speech, press, and religion are outdated as well and need to be changed? Or how about freedom from search and seizure? Or how about the right to due process? Or the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment? I mean, times have changed, right? Why even bother with a democracy?

posted 06-21-99 03:51 AM ET            

The Constitution isn't a listing of the people's rights, it's a listing of the government's power. Anything the government is not strictly allowed to do by the Constitution is, by definition in the Constitution, something that it is prohibited from doing. This is why there had to be an amendment for the US Government to collect income tax; it wasn't something they were allowed to do before then.

That further limitation only applies to the _federal_ government; the US constitution is limiting federal powers by attributing competences and the bill of rights, that of the states (by virtue of amendments) only by the bill of rights (and some exclusive federal powers). But the states don't need empowerment by the federal constitution.

For some reason, this view has become less prevailent recently, with government taking a more "Big Babysitter" approach and doing anything that they are not stopped from doing (sometimes only by Supreme Court challenges). The Bill of Rights was a specific listing of individual rights that the government was specifically prohibited from infringing on, rights seen by the founders as neccessary to a free society. This does not mean that government has the right to meddle with everything not spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but it has been taken in that manner.

posted 06-22-99 04:38 AM ET            

Here's a couple more that aren't relevant, but I thought were funny (URLs only to save board bandwidth):