Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms

[Gilby]

Discussion started in the Earth Day thread (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59956&page=3).

Why do people assume that the constitution gives people the right to bear arms? The second amendment says: "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.". Does that mean that everyone has the right to bear arms? I think not. It means that there is aloud to be a militia, and they are aloud to have guns.

Um, everybody is the militia, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Everybody is the militia? I can tell you that I sure as hell am not part of the militia, I don't know about you. Also, the keyword is well regulated. I don't know of any well regulated militia that EVERYONE is a member of. Could this mean a sort of police force? Or possibly just an army? Or even if you want to stretch it, a militia that is WELL REGULATED and is led by people that volunteer to fight if there is a need and is organized. I know plenty of people that aren't part of this well regulated militia and still own weapons.

The constitution words this "people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed" as if it were suggesting that this would only be the case if they were part of this well regulated militia, which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist.

The constitution does not protect anyones right to bear arms. Nor does it protect most people's. (Only those in this well regulated militia, if you have not caught on)

You are right that the second amendment does not give the rights to anyone. Thought it was thought that it was clear that the federal government was limited in it's powers, the Bill of Rights were created because some people thought that over time, the federal government would eventually usurp the rights of the people and the states. History has shown that they were right, but that not even the Bill of Rights could stop the federal government from doing so.

The preamble of the Bill of Rights, set forth this purpose:
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

In other words, the Bill of Rights was made to limit the federal government.

You question the meaning of the term militia. The founding fathers were against having a standing army because of the imperialism and threat to liberty that could happen and therefore preferred a militia in which they could call forth the militia when we needed to defend against invasions. This means that every able bodied person should be ready with their arms for when a defense is needed. The phrase "well regulated" means a level of preparedness, in that they are well trained and ready to be called on.

The last part of the amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," gives us a clue as to it actually being a right of the people, but it does not give that right to us. Governments don't give rights, as each person has inalienable rights, and one such right is the right to self defense of one's person and property. Having the arms to provide proper defense then is an individual right.

Here is that inalienable right written in the 1776 Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/pa08.htm) section of the Constitution:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

There is a nice preamble in that one too. :)

[harper]

Historical accounts of the development of the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights provide several examples of the concerns of the framers. One was that the Constitution as a document only outlined what the federal government could do. No where in it were any descriptions of what it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY could not EVER do. Hence, the Bill of Rights. A couple of the states refused to ratify the Constitution without it.

Supreme Court rulings on the second amendment consistently hold that it is an individual right. The argument is made by comparing the wording of the second amendment to the wording used elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Were the second amendment suddenly to become a collective right then the rest of the Constitution would have to be re-interpreted.

The second amendment, although under high-profile, irrational, and continuous attack for almost 80 years, is still not the most abused and neglected amendment of the Bill of Rights. That dubious honor must go to the tenth amendment.

[unibikeling]

I dont really care about the 2nd ammendment, minus the fact it gives us defense, and hunting. Defense, that ones obvious, and hunting, i dont know. I only think you should hunt if your going to use the animal.

the 2nd ammendment was made for minute men. They had the right to bear firearms, so they could fight in wars if needed, which they did. Yeah, thats fact though, everything else is really opinion.

[tobbogonist]

i am sorry, bear arms :)

it will never loose its amusment value.

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

i know it is old but come on, a country that gives its people a right to have the arms of a different species!!

[harper]

i know it is old but come on, a country that gives its people a right to have the arms of a different species!!

The results of cloning and stem cell research?

[johnfoss]

So what are "arms"? In those days I assume it mostly meant rifles and swords. Should it extend to assault rifles, anti-aircraft batteries, mortars, etc?

Is this assumed to be an inalienable right of every citizen? What about children and the menatally ill? And convicted criminals?

Just stirring things up a tad.

And for all the people from outside this country who think it would be so simple to just "get rid of all the guns," uh, no. It doesn't work that way. Even if we agreed to disallow private gun ownership (which is extremely unlikely in any scenario), as is always mentioned, you would remove all the legal guns and then have only the illegal guns. They can't be made to go away. It's too late, they're already here and they've been building up for over 200 years!

However. I have a problem with what may be interpreted as an inalienable right to bear arms (own and use multiple guns), while I *do not* have an inalienable right to use a motor vehicle on public roadways. Sure, both are dangerous, and nobody seems to have a problem understanding why we license test and drivers before setting them lose. Why not do something similar with guns?

[harper]

However. I have a problem with what may be interpreted as an inalienable right to bear arms (own and use multiple guns), while I *do not* have an inalienable right to use a motor vehicle on public roadways. Sure, both are dangerous, and nobody seems to have a problem understanding why we license test and drivers before setting them lose. Why not do something similar with guns?

This is the often made comparison between apples and oranges.

Vehicles are designed to transport people and firearms are designed to kill people. Vehicles, however, are much more effective killing machines. Not more efficient, more effective.

The right to bear arms is an inalienable right granted by your maker (in whatever form that takes) and further ensured by the Bill of Rights preventing the US government from seizing that right. Driving a vehicle is a privilege granted to you by the governing body that regulates the roads on which you drive.

Firearms and vehicles are in no way similar. The laws that govern them are, not surprisingly, very different.

[MuniAddict]

I think the US should just ban ALL weapons, and disband the military completely. Then we should all hold hands, sing Kumbiya, and ask the terroists pretty please to be nice and not kill us or anyone else. There, problem solved, and now all the other countries will love and respect us again! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[peleschramm]

I think that we should move to where I heard Britain is when it comes to the right to bear arms.

I heard (from my history teacher) that the British are allowed to own guns for sporting purposes only, and before each use, they must pick their gun up from the police station and drop it off after each shooting session. This way, if there was ever any gun-related crime, it would be very easy to track (assuming the firearm was legal). I also like it how the British police carry Nightsticks instead of handguns. Now I have only heard this from one source, and i could be wrong about how the British do it, but regardless, I think that is an excellent idea.

[jamessd]

I heard (from my history teacher) that the British are allowed to own guns for sporting purposes only, and before each use, they must pick their gun up from the police station and drop it off after each shooting session.
That's not true...

[tobbogonist]

if it was true would that then not give England the right to '..

damn i cannot think of a pun.

[harper]

Now I have only heard this from one source, and i could be wrong about how the British do it, but regardless, I think that is an excellent idea.

Let me re-word this for you. "I don't KNOW if this is how the British do it and IF they do it this way I don't KNOW if it works at all, but regardless, I think that is an excellent idea. Liberty is just over-rated"

[SqueakyOnion]

This way, if there was ever any gun-related crime, it would be very easy to track (assuming the firearm was legal).

That may be true, but how many registered, legal gun-owners commit crimes with their guns?

I can't imagine one would go through all the hoops of owning and learning to operate a gun "just in case" they need to murder someone in the future. That's like saying "I bought this gun because I might want to commit a crime with it someday."

Legal gun owners aren't the ones murdering people with their guns.

[kington99]

I think that we should move to where I heard Britain is when it comes to the right to bear arms.

I heard (from my history teacher) that the British are allowed to own guns for sporting purposes only, and before each use, they must pick their gun up from the police station and drop it off after each shooting session. This way, if there was ever any gun-related crime, it would be very easy to track (assuming the firearm was legal). I also like it how the British police carry Nightsticks instead of handguns. Now I have only heard this from one source, and i could be wrong about how the British do it, but regardless, I think that is an excellent idea.


Yeah, utter crap. You can own weapons such as a rifle, shotgun etc. if you have a liscence for it (which are not very easy to get) and you store it securely. Handguns can be owned, but you can never remove them from the shooting range you use them at, they're strictly for sport purposes. Carrying a gun on you or to hand in your car is a complete no-no. The airport is the only place you routinely see police with guns, cops on the beat do not carry them. Except for the machine guns the kids at school used to run around with and the police, I have never seen a real gun in the UK.

As it has been mentioned, it would be difficult for the US to get back to where we are, due to the proliference of handguns in the population. Having said that, we only banned handguns about 10 years ago (following the Dunblane massacre).

[harper]

As it has been mentioned, it would be difficult for the US to get back to where we are,...

I like the reference to regression.

[_Ground_Zero_]

My opinion is that if they can prove they have knowledge of a firearm and have no mental disorders (all, unless they have controlling medication.) or criminal record (excluding minor offenives), anyone should be able to go to a gun shop and purchase an AK-47 if they wanted too.

[musketman]

oh Jeez, i dont even want to get involved in this thread. All i can say is i wouldn't give up my guns.

[harper]

oh Jeez, i dont even want to get involved in this thread. All i can say is i wouldn't give up my guns.

Maybe you still have time to delete your post.

[peleschramm]

That may be true, but how many registered, legal gun-owners commit crimes with their guns?

I can't imagine one would go through all the hoops of owning and learning to operate a gun "just in case" they need to murder someone in the future. That's like saying "I bought this gun because I might want to commit a crime with it someday."

Legal gun owners aren't the ones murdering people with their guns.
You are making the mistake of assuming that all murders have been planned for a long time. That is definitely not the case. People purchase the gun for sporting purposes, very rarely for crime. But, if you already have a gun for sporting purposes, and you come home one day, and see your wife sleeping with another man or something, you just may have a sudden urge to grab your gun from the bedside drawer and shoot them (not saying that I would, but some would).

Another major flaw in your thinking is that you mentioned registered, legal gun-owners as being the only people that this would stop from commiting crimes. You know, there definitely are cases of people that are unregistered, illegal gun owners that got into this state by simply stealing from the registered, legal gun-owners.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why anyone would need a gun in there home. Going on a hunting trip or the shooting range? Simply pick up your gun from your nearby police station!

And it really doesn't matter if Britain uses this or not (maybe she said just with handguns...). I still think that this would be the absolute best solution to drastically lower the amount of gun-crime in America. People would still own there guns, and they could still be much more easily kept from shooting fellow humans.

[surfer1024]

I like guns. Chicago has stupid gun laws. I got my foid card. I went to the shooting range in Indiana last weekend. I had fun. Guns are cool. Unless someone is shooting someone. That person is stupid. Unless they are fighting a war. My friend enlisted in the marines. He's cool. And brave. And conservative. I am too. I think we should have the right to own guns. Unless the person is using them for criminal purposes. Don't bash. I like guns...

[johnfoss]

Vehicles, however, are much more effective killing machines. Not more efficient, more effective.Yes, they are very fat projectiles.

Firearms and vehicles are in no way similar.But they are, in (at least) one very important way. They are both deadly devices that require knowledge and training to use safely. I don't think you would argue that the reason for licensing and testing in vehicles is so the govt. can track who's using the roads. It's to try to cut down on the carnage that takes place upon them.

Has our maker endowed us with the inalienable right to shoot, but not to travel? Hmmm, but I guess that goes back to those darn roads again...

Anyway, my question still stands about what "arms" are. On the one hand, one can say it was left very generic on purpose. But on the other hand one can say it may not include any arms technology that didn't exist at the time of the document was written. So no automatic weapons. Well, that wouldn't change much. The biggest problems are generally with simple pistols.

[harper]

I don't think you would argue that the reason for licensing and testing in vehicles is so the govt. can track who's using the roads. It's to try to cut down on the carnage that takes place upon them.

I actually would probably argue that it has become just that, tracking and taxing. It certainly can't be to cut down the carnage as you say. Alcohol continues to be the common denominator in traffic fatalities, not lack of driver's education or valid driver's licenses. Seat belts, air bags, ABS, and other technological advances have reduced carnage. To say training and licensing has is unsupportable if not laughable.



Has our maker endowed us with the inalienable right to shoot, but not to travel? Hmmm, but I guess that goes back to those darn roads again...

Our maker (again, in whatever form that takes) has endowed us with the inalienable right to defend ourselves, loved ones, and property. This may require shooting or kicking or just yelling really loudly. You are also endowed with the inalienable right to travel if you can afford it. If you're going to do it on California's roads, they're probably going to make you pay for the upkeep in part by paying for a license. You may rent the roads from California in this manner. If you had built the interstate highway system maybe it would be a different story. But you didn't.



Anyway, my question still stands about what "arms" are. On the one hand, one can say it was left very generic on purpose. But on the other hand one can say it may not include any arms technology that didn't exist at the time of the document was written. So no automatic weapons. Well, that wouldn't change much. The biggest problems are generally with simple pistols.

Arms are any and all weapons available at the time. If the armed forces have access to them, so should you if you can afford them. I am not excluding thermonuclear weapons or CBW technology from this category so don't bother asking. If the level of technology at the time is bow and arrow and the government only lets you have rocks does that sound OK? Sounds like a government that is afraid of its citizenry for some reason. You can't have archery equipment because...why? Oh, you would stand a chance defending yourself. That's bad.

[SqueakyOnion]

You are making the mistake of assuming that all murders have been planned for a long time. That is definitely not the case. People purchase the gun for sporting purposes, very rarely for crime. But, if you already have a gun for sporting purposes, and you come home one day, and see your wife sleeping with another man or something, you just may have a sudden urge to grab your gun from the bedside drawer and shoot them (not saying that I would, but some would).

I wasn't assuming all murders are pre-meditated. My point was that people who buy guns respect them, and generally know when to and not to use them. If someone is in such a fit of rage about cheating or anything, I think a gun is just a tool that will make it easier to hurt their victim. In cases of rage as you describe, the absence of a firearm will not prevent a crime from happening.


Another major flaw in your thinking is that you mentioned registered, legal gun-owners as being the only people that this would stop from commiting crimes. You know, there definitely are cases of people that are unregistered, illegal gun owners that got into this state by simply stealing from the registered, legal gun-owners.

Seriously, how many legal, registered handguns are stolen? Very few. Certainly not enough to warrant an infringement on my right to defend myself.

It is ludicrous to try to say that because someone's property could be stolen and used in a crime, that they shouldn't be allowed to own said property.

Firearm owners are responsible for keeping their firearms reasonably safe from theft. If theft does occur and that firearm is use to commit a crime, how does that diminish the lawful owner's right to ownership? If someone stole your car and ran down three 5th graders, would the state revoke your license?


I'm sorry, but I don't see why anyone would need a gun in there home.


I never understood why either, until a man down the street from my house in quiet, suburban Pennsylvania was robbed. He called the cops, robber went to jail. Posted bail. Came back with a gun, and as he tried to called the cops AGAIN, the guy shot him.

These people do/did:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2685

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-032008-ah-homeownershoots.ac213e2.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864946/posts

Three examples among thousands at your fingertips on any search engine or news station website.

Many legal gun-owners are irresponsible with their firearms. They leave them to be easily stolen, or accidentally shoot themselves or others with them. Some even, in rage or on fanatical impulse, use them when they're not warranted. Regardless, just because other people are morons doesn't mean MY right to self-defense should be infringed.

When I own my own firearm(s), they will be kept well hidden and/or locked up. Especially when loaded, they will never be pointed at anyone or anything but the ground, unless I intend to fire at a specific target.

[Naomi]

I think I will post some statistics, without much comment. I didn't have a lot of time to google so the years are different for the two cases. I just post the first figures google came up with.


1) UK. Guns difficult to get hold of. handguns banned.

Gun deaths in 2006/7 : 59

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm


2) USA Guns freely available to all

Gun deaths in 1999 : 28874

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

This site also gives a "gun deaths per 100,000 of population for several countries". I include those for the UK and the USA. The suicide figures are also interesting.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

............................Homicide........ Suicide ........ Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) ................. 3.98 ........ 5.92 ........ 0.36
England/Wales (2002) ......0.15 ........ 0.2 ........ 0.03
Scotland (2002) ............ .0.06 ........ 0.2 ........ 0.02

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.




Nao

[jamessd]

The airport is the only place you routinely see police with guns
I see police wtih guns every time I go into London city centre.

[catinabag1]

i think a 2x4 is a more civilized weapon. :p

[kington99]

I see police wtih guns every time I go into London city centre.


good point, this is why i don't live in london

[Borges]

That text could mean anything.
I could interpret it as: "If a state wants an army of its own the federal government can't prevent that, as long as they keep it under control". (Other than that, any gun/knife/stick-control is perfectly legal)

I could also interpret it as: "Noone can stop anyone from arming themselves unless they're killing or robbing people".

Rights are not worth much if people in power can interpret them any way they want. Valid official decision and clarification needed.

[harper]

I think I will post some statistics, without much comment.

I think I'll do the same.

Lower limb amputees in Sri Lanka 2004: 461
People with peanut allergies: 1.3% of the general population

[maestro8]

I think I will post some statistics
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION

[UniBrier]

I think we can settle this with an old fashioned duel (but we’ll use paint ball guns because we’d hate to have one less of us).

Those for gun control get to use both hands. Those with weak arguments have to shoot from the hip.

We’ll do it at dawn, as long as we’ve all had our coffee first. We want wide-awake but jittery contestants.

[harper]

Those for gun control get to use both hands. Those with weak arguments have to shoot from the hip.



Wait. This is the same group. You're going to have gun control advocates shoot each other?

[UniBrier]

There's two types gun control groups so you'll have a three way duel, just like in The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly; would that be a triel or a truel?

[poofengle]

Here's how I feel on the whole issue, this is a paper I recently wrote for English class about the topic, complete with a works cited at the end. Open the attachment and read it if you like.

[Naomi]

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION


That looks like a fairly "head in the sand" response. Had action been possible to reduce the level of gun ownership in the USA to match that in the UK, or even drop it to zero, I think it would have caused a much lower gun death total. But perhaps you disagree, and can support that disagreement?

It would have been reasonable, and undoubtedly accurate, to state that gun ownership levels may not be the only factor affecting gun death totals.

Nao

[digigal1]

Look at it simply as the right to protect yourself: How can I protect myself, especially being a woman, if the bad guy has a gun, but I have only a knife, or an umbrella, or nothing?

[johnfoss]

Look at it simply as the right to protect yourself: How can I protect myself, especially being a woman, if the bad guy has a gun, but I have only a knife, or an umbrella, or nothing?How much safer are you if you both have guns? In other words, there no guarantee that any shooting that occurs will be accurate. There is no guarantee you won't shoot each other. There is no guarantee the assailant will listen to reason or even care that you are similarly armed.

An attacker with a gun, if he knows what he's doing, will start by controlling your hands ("Don't move" or similar), to make sure you can't get whatever weapons you might have. Of course the world is also filled with stupid criminals, so you can never know exactly what to expect...

I'm not saying it's no better than having nothing but a Kleenex, but arming everyone doesn't make the world safer either.

[harper]

How much safer are you if you both have guns?

Much, much safer. Although you don't point out how many conditions are possible, let's look at the two extremes.

1.) 300 pound male attacker, 100 pound female victim, both unarmed. Does someone have an advantage here?

2.) 300 pound male attacker, 100 pound female victim, both armed with the same pistol. Who has the bigger target cross section to shoot at? Who is better trained?

The point is, in the first case the victim is clearly at a disadvantage. When you, John Foss, arm them both with identical pistols, you have made the dainty female victim much safer. Now she has a chance. Thanks for your support of the second amendment and thanks for making this world a safer place.

[tobbogonist]

quick get scientists working on developing a cure for itchy trigger finger, or maybe a prevention.

chop chop!

[johnfoss]

Who is better trained?Where did that part come from? Seemed a little random. Both parties can always know who's bigger, but neither can know (if they don't know each other) which one has the better training.

Aside from that, your argument is valid, not just for pistols but for most other things, such as martial arts training. Maybe the 100 pound woman can kick the man's butt, but we don't know if he's a former Navy Seal or something...

[maestro8]

That looks like a fairly "head in the sand" response.
Is this how you back up a statistical argument, with ad hominem? I'm still learning this whole business of debate, it seems...

Being that statistics can be compiled to prove virtually any point, your number-based proposition hasn't much substance... but for the sake of argument, I'll ignore this detail.

Had action been possible to reduce the level of gun ownership in the USA to match that in the UK, or even drop it to zero, I think it would have caused a much lower gun death total. But perhaps you disagree, and can support that disagreement?
Sure, take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and you're left with a nation of armed criminals. Tell me, Nao, how is this going to lower gun deaths?

It would have been reasonable, and undoubtedly accurate, to state that gun ownership levels may not be the only factor affecting gun death totals.
Absolutely! You can't easily draw parallels between the US and the UK on such a complex topic without also comparing government policy, law enforcement, socioeconomics, social stratification, etc.

Simply pointing at numbers and grunting doesn't even scratch the surface of this discussion. It seems you're only stirring the pot.

[harper]

Where did that part come from? Seemed a little random. Both parties can always know who's bigger, but neither can know (if they don't know each other) which one has the better training.



This is one of those things that you proofread and change and then see it ten minutes later with a missing sentence or partially rearranged thought. This was supposed to read something like, "Training now becomes the important factor rather than size and training is done by choice, not genetics."

[wobbling bear]

Discussing the "right to bear arms" looks like a religious matter.
I have a friend who is deeply religious and he was baffled that I had absolutely no need for an "afterlife".
I have no drive to own a gun and that could be beyond the grasp of any people who has a drive to own one ....(and vice-versa)

[harper]

Discussing the "right to bear arms" looks like a religious matter.
I have a friend who is deeply religious and he was baffled that I had absolutely no need for an "afterlife".
I have no drive to own a gun and that could be beyond the grasp of any people who has a drive to own one ....(and vice-versa)

This is good. There are many potential criminals who will be pleased to know this.

[wobbling bear]

This is good. There are many potential criminals who will be pleased to know this.
c'mon Harper you make the US look like a war zone! (and BTW I actually lived in a war zone and that did not make me fond of guns)

[harper]

c'mon Harper you make the US look like a war zone! (and BTW I actually lived in a war zone and that did not make me fond of guns)

Odd. I am well armed and the US around me is exceptionally peaceful. Go figure.

[johnfoss]

This is good. There are many potential criminals who will be pleased to know this.He said he's not driven to own one. He didn't say he *doesn't* own one. Reminds me of the movie Quigley Down Under, where Tom Selleck is a rifle expert who says he "never had much use for pistols". At the end he's handed a pistol by the villain, a quick-draw expert, and forced to duel with him. The villain finds out the hard way that "never had much use for" doesn't mean he doesn't know how to use one. :)

I'm all for letting the criminals think what they want. My car and house both have stickers to say they are protected by a security system. Let them find out if that's true or not too.

[1-wheeled-grape]

i read this thread a little while ago and it got me thinking, is there a need for citizens to have hand guns? no not really. for hunting a rifle would be superior to a hand gun, and you cannot walk around with a rifle like you can hand gun, they are to big to hide. the only problem would be getting hand guns off of people, some would co opperate, others would hide them. resulting in a group of armed citizens against unarmed people, that is where problems start.

[harper]

I'm all for letting the criminals think what they want. My car and house both have stickers to say they are protected by a security system. Let them find out if that's true or not too.

I am too. I have a sign in my yard that says, "NRA Life Member. My neighbors are all anti-gun."

[wobbling bear]

Odd. I am well armed and the US around me is exceptionally peaceful. Go figure.
it is also my experience with the US: a generally peaceful place ... oh BTW I've never heard of anyone having a gun in my neighborhood (even the policeman next door does not have the right for his weapon at home) and it is also very peaceful ... go figure ....

I would add these points :

- "criminals" as described in some posts seem to be a special demon breed intent of getting rid of humanity. I carry a more pessimistic view: the criminals is us!
So the slogan "when guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns" should be corrected to "when guns are outlawed only outlaws , and a well regulated militia, have guns" ... now let's reverse the proposition: "when guns are in law, all my inlaws have guns" :eek: I find this second proposition much scarier! :D - just a matter of taste -

- Self-protection or self-defence may be in some circumstances a valid goal. Now why use a gun for that? you need a howitzer to defend your home? I have a theory about that which I call the "animal farm" principle : we have rules such as "thou shalst not kill" .... except ....
well when some alien is entering your place without being explicitly invited he is a criminal (remember: a non-human!) so he is fair game!

- Some posts here imply that being a pacifist is like being a sheep waiting to be slaughtered ... in fact the very "manliness" of people shunning guns is at doubt.
This is a common misconception and I'll even dare to say an insult to pacifists that serve in the army or the police ("well regulated militias").
These people live with a principle: when in need use a stick ... but do not fall in love with your stick! ;)

I know that arguing about that is pointless due to the quasi-religious nature of the debate.
I'll dare to advance some hypothesis about underlying principles:
- distrust in governing bodies: the police won't be there when needed so as a responsible man I will take my defense in my own hands...
- a strangely "evolutionist" theory about society. To describe this I may draw a cartoon thus: two prehistoric men are in front of a cave...
one says " I don't want to live in a cave! man-eating tigers are ensuring survival of the fittests and are thus making my tribe stronger!".

I am definitely a caveman.

[wobbling bear]

another side note: Harper I am not totally connected to your sense of humour ... do you laugh at people that respond seriously when you play the über-redneck agent provocateur ? or are you serious ? or 50%/50% :o

[Naomi]

[QUOTE=maestro8]Is this how you back up a statistical argument, with ad hominem? I'm still learning this whole business of debate, it seems...

Being that statistics can be compiled to prove virtually any point, your number-based proposition hasn't much substance... but for the sake of argument, I'll ignore this detail.

QUOTE]

I thought you were a scientist Maestro. Surprised at you trotting out the old "statistics can be compiled to prove anything." You know that is not true. The fact that people can misunderstand or intentionally mis-represent statistics so as to mislead, has far less fish in the kettle than claiming that statistics can prove anything.

Ad hominem? Well I thought that was similar to the route you were effectively taking: "I like guns, therefore there is no substance in these figures, where is the sandpit?"

[harper]

another side note: Harper I am not totally connected to your sense of humour ... do you laugh at people that respond seriously when you play the über-redneck agent provocateur ? or are you serious ? or 50%/50% :o

I frequently laugh at people who respond seriously.
I am only an über-redneck agent provocateur in your bigoted classification system.
I am serious, therefore I expect you to be be frequently laughing at me.

[Naomi]

Is this how you back up a statistical argument, with ad hominem? I'm still learning this whole business of debate, it seems...


Mow that I have rather more time:
Learning? I believe that you are: you produce one statement: "correlation does not imply causation". Nothing to back up it as it might apply to these data. Would you not have been better advised to have said something like "correlation does not ALWAYS imply causatiion, and may even then, may only imply a partial cause"... and then gone on to demonstrate how your statement applies in this situation.
I would ask you a few questions:
1) if there were no guns in the USA would anyone have been killed by them there?
2) If guns were as common in the UK as in the USA do you think that there would have been a higher gun death total in the UK?
3) Answered these two realistically then how see if you could deny a degree of correlation is therefore implied?

Nao

Being that statistics can be compiled to prove virtually any point, your number-based proposition hasn't much substance... but for the sake of argument, I'll ignore this detail.


See earlier post about that piece of claptrap, and also note that I didn't make a proposition, I merely presented some data. I did not draw any conclusion from it in my first post. I left you to imply a conclusion.
Nao

Sure, take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and you're left with a nation of armed criminals. Tell me, Nao, how is this going to lower gun deaths?

That's what they did in the UK, banned all hand guns. Tell me why we don't have the same gun death rate as the US...the criminals in the UK who had got hold of guns illegally still had them. In the UK the only hand guns outside of a very few authorities are in the hands of criminals.
Nao

Absolutely! You can't easily draw parallels between the US and the UK on such a complex topic without also comparing government policy, law enforcement, socioeconomics, social stratification, etc.
Simply pointing at numbers and grunting doesn't even scratch the surface of this discussion. It seems you're only stirring the pot.

I may be stirring the pot, but the implication in the numbers is however quite pointed, even after accepting that other factors are involved. Far too pointed to be ignored or dismissed by ill-considered statements such as "Correlation does not imply causation"

Now I am not saying you are wrong to want to own a gun, not saying that the amendment is wrong, but you must understand there are consequences to that amendment which may not be to everyone's liking. One of them would appear to be that in America you have a greater risk of being shot. And I would challenge you to find a cause greater than the fact that having a gun has an odd side effect: it enables you to point it at someone and pull the trigger. In the UK, nearly all the population are completely unable to shoot someone else, no matter how much they might wish to. It kind of skews the data.

Nao

[maestro8]

Nothing to back up it as it might apply to these data.
Fine, here, 15 seconds of googling and I find the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm) and Wikipedia (with citations) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom) are saying quite the opposite of what you're implying. Quoting from the BBC article:

"despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising"
and
"there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession"

If researchers are finding the UK's gun policies aren't achieving their effect, then why are you so quick to link those policies and gun death rates?

Read on...

Tell me why we don't have the same gun death rate as the US
Apples and oranges. You can't just look at a proportion between your statistics for the US and those for the UK and claim there is but one culprit. There are some fundamental differences here which seem to elude your mental grasp.

As I said before, there are a myriad of causes behind gun crime, but I don't want to open that can of worms. I'm only here to counter the "take their guns away" argument...

in America you have a greater risk of being shot.
That's quite a naive statement to make there, Nao. Either that, or your generalization (the word "you") is quite misleading.

A great deal of gun crime happens here in the SF Bay Area, and most often the violence is criminal-on-criminal. That is, both the victim and the perpetrator are linked to gang activity, drug trafficking, or the like. This phenomenon isn't local... it's actually quite common across the US.

If you want numbers, visit the Bureau of Justice website (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm) and dig around for yourself.

In your generalization, it appears you claim "Average Bob" walking down the street is just as likely to be shot as "Coke-dealer Joe". This just isn't the case... your numbers group together random shootings, gang-related shootings, family-related shootings, accidental, etc.

Such a grouping overlooks many important details... which is what an anti-gun-nut would want to do, when there may be many larger problems behind the numbers. You're just using the gun as the scapegoat.

edit: fixed links

[SqueakyOnion]

I am for sure going to stockpile shotguns and automatic rifles and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition in preparation for the next ZOMBIE OUTBREAK! Hasn't anyone seen 28 Days Later, or 28 Weeks Later?! If I were in the UK, I'd be especially scurred. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[wobbling bear]

I frequently laugh at people who respond seriously.
I am only an über-redneck agent provocateur in your bigoted classification system.
I am serious, therefore I expect you to be be frequently laughing at me.
:p :o :( :p :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[johnfoss]

In your generalization, it appears you claim "Average Bob" walking down the street is just as likely to be shot as "Coke-dealer Joe".Yes, but it can really suck to be Coke-dealer Joe's 4-year old neighbor.

In other words, while it's true that most gun violence in this country is between pre-existing criminals, unfortunately it doesn't include just them. It's them and whoever happens to be nearby. That is, again, why I think all gun-using criminals should be required to take shooting lessons.

[SqueakyOnion]

That is, again, why I think all gun-using criminals should be required to take shooting lessons.


Why not just have EVERYONE take shooting lessons at an early age, and then those that choose to become criminals will already know how to shoot? :p :D

[maestro8]

That is, again, why I think all gun-using criminals should be required to take shooting lessons.
Chris Rock has the best solution to the problem.

Make every bullet cost ~$1,000.

Criminals won't be as quick to pull out a gun. And when they do, they'll make sure they hit what they intend to hit.

[johnfoss]

Make every bullet cost ~$1,000.I'd vote for Chris Rock. His solution would probably be easier to implement than getting "everyone" to learn anything. Look how hard it is to teach people the bare-bones basics of how to drive? Fortunately driving is a privilege and *not* a right, so the training can be required. Now we just have to commit to training people a little better.

[Gilby]

Chris Rock has the best solution to the problem.

Make every bullet cost ~$1,000.

Criminals won't be as quick to pull out a gun. And when they do, they'll make sure they hit what they intend to hit.

Those of us who know austrian economics know that wont work, because that'll just create an underground market for bullets.

[johnfoss]

Those of us that don't know who Chris Rock is, he's a comedian. :rolleyes:

[mscalisi]

I don't think it's surprising that "more guns" = "more gun deaths". Taken to the extreme, zero guns MUST equal zero gun deaths.

..but is that the question? Why not apply the same to automobiles? One might argue that we'd have a safer society if everyone owned guns and cars were banned.

The question is, "Do we have the right to possess guns (arms)?" Interestingly, the constitution uses the word "arms", not "guns". As Harper points out, nukes are arms too. Where does the line get drawn? Where can I pick up my rail gun?

Something I find interesting about this argument, is that city folk tend to be anti-gun, and country folk tend to be pro-gun. I think there's something to this.

I certainly don't want people in Oakland to have an easier time obtaining guns, and if my nearest neighbor was miles away, I'd probably want to have one to protect myself.


That looks like a fairly "head in the sand" response. Had action been possible to reduce the level of gun ownership in the USA to match that in the UK, or even drop it to zero, I think it would have caused a much lower gun death total. But perhaps you disagree, and can support that disagreement?

It would have been reasonable, and undoubtedly accurate, to state that gun ownership levels may not be the only factor affecting gun death totals.

Nao

[kington99]

Look how hard it is to teach people the bare-bones basics of how to drive?


or even basic literacy and numeracy.


Unfortunately bullets really aren't all that hard to make, a blackmarket would no doubt evolve in a matter of days.

[uni57]

Unfortunately bullets really aren't all that hard to make, a blackmarket would no doubt evolve in a matter of days.Not necessary. The criminals would just steal the bullets. At gunpoint (they can bluff the first time).

[Naomi]

[QUOTE=maestro8]Fine, here, 15 seconds of googling and I find the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm) and Wikipedia (with citations) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom) are saying quite the opposite of what you're implying. Quoting from the BBC article:

"despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising"
and
"there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession"


There are no high levels of LEGAL gun ownership in the UK. Legal privately held handguns have to be kept at the gun club. You cannot remove them from the club.
Now had you quoted rather less selectively from the BBC article, spent a little more than the 15 seconds on google, you would have noticed that it also said:
Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."
He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.
Notice the correlation he has made: more illegal guns LARGELY the cause of the rise!
And of course it is also true that if you make legal guns available some of them would add to those used by criminals.



If researchers are finding the UK's gun policies aren't achieving their effect, then why are you so quick to link those policies and gun death rates?

Read on...


Apples and oranges. You can't just look at a proportion between your statistics for the US and those for the UK and claim there is but one culprit.

I have already made the point that there is more than one factor. I did not say there was only one culprit. Please do not misquote me. However there is certainly a lot of similarity between the two countries, as well as some differences.

There are some fundamental differences here which seem to elude your mental grasp.

As I said before, there are a myriad of causes behind gun crime, but I don't want to open that can of worms. I'm only here to counter the "take their guns away" argument...


That's quite a naive statement to make there, Nao. Either that, or your generalization (the word "you") is quite misleading.

You are very easily misled: this is merely you being ridiculously pedantic. Had I used pedantry myself I would have said that there is more chance of an American citizen being shot than there is of a British citizen being shot. You chose to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal rates. I didn't. Without looking at the statistics it is almost certainly true that for both groups, if counted separately, the death rates would be higher in the US.

A great deal of gun crime happens here in the SF Bay Area, and most often the violence is criminal-on-criminal. That is, both the victim and the perpetrator are linked to gang activity, drug trafficking, or the like. This phenomenon isn't local... it's actually quite common across the US.

As in the UK: criminals shoot criminals here too. Moss Side near where I live is one such area with much drug and higher than average gun related incidents.

If you want numbers, visit the Bureau of Justice website (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm) and dig around for yourself.

In your generalization, it appears you claim "Average Bob" walking down the street is just as likely to be shot as "Coke-dealer Joe". This just isn't the case... your numbers group together random shootings, gang-related shootings, family-related shootings, accidental, etc.

Of course that is not the case, and I think it is quite rude of you to imply that I made any such generalization and claim. Picky attempts to score points based on actual words rather than the quite obvious meaning is not aiding your argument.



Instead you really need to apply some realism to your arguments. As before, you are burying your head in the sand quite deeply. I am not American, and it is not my place to campaign for, or against the amendment, and I am not doing so. However those that do see it is their place, should be able to look reasonably at what happens elsewhere. You are not doing that at all. You are quite deliberately avoiding any real consideration of the facts. Stop wriggling and face it: if there are guns, people get killed: more guns, more people killed by them. If zero guns were a possible scenario, then no-one would get shot, anywhere! It is a correlation that is quite inescapable.

Cutting out the UK/US differences for you:

If there were more guns freely available in the UK, more people would get shot.
If there were less guns in the hands of US citizens, then the death rate would fall.
Regardless of any other contributing factors!!!

How that affects the right to bear arms in the US is your problem, not mine.


Nao

[Gilby]

If there were less guns in the hands of US citizens, then the death rate would fall. Not necessarily. Other methods would become more common. Further, you're saying less guns, but criminals would still have guns so the less guns comes by those who use it for defense not having them, so the death rate could actually rise.

In the US there are some cities that have strict gun controls that have much more murders than other cities that even require each household to have a gun.

[maestro8]

BLAAARGHHH!
The only sense I can make of your ramblings is that you're convinced there's a direct correlation between A and B, where A is the number of guns that are owned by a population and B are the number of deaths caused by guns... if this isn't the point you're trying to make, then you've completely lost me... it seems you've become too rabid to convey your ideas logically.

Either way, I see there's no way to explain to you that Santa Claus doesn't exist, there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, or that reducing gun ownership is a good idea.

you're saying less guns, but criminals would still have guns so the less guns comes by those who use it for defense not having them, so the death rate could actually rise.
I think I said that earlier in this thread, but that contradicts Nao's "guns = deaths" formula, so obviously it must be wrong.

In the US there are some cities that have strict gun controls that have much more murders than other cities that even require each household to have a gun.
I've read stories about a town that did just that: required every household to own and maintain a firearm. It made sense to me that crime rates plummeted in that city, dunno why it's so hard for others to comprehend that outcome... makes even less sense to me that some cities would even consider an outright ban.

[digigal1]

A few pages back someone said why would civilians even need handguns. First, a rifle isn't as easy to manipulate: a person is coming after you and you have to swing up and aim at them and suddenly they're on top of you. Or you're in your house, someone breaks in, you hear the guy in the hallway, you grab your rifle and come around the corner and you try to aim but you knock the barrel into your wall instead. It's also about ease of carry and concealed carry. I don't want the criminals to ambush me to steal my gun, they're going to have to guess if I'm carrying and take their chances.

Another post said something about distrust of government, i.e., the police won't be there when you need them. I think it is naive to think the police will EVER be there to protect you in ANY situation where you're faced with a criminal. How can the police possibly be there in time to prevent the crime, whether it be a bad guy with a gun holding up the convenience store, let alone a criminal breaking into your house to steal from you, rape or kill you. Unless the police car is right outside at the time, how could that possibly happen? I once read an article about stupid crooks where a guy had to step around a police car to enter the gun store he attempted to rob. But come on.

[monkeyman]

I think a gun store would be the last place I would ever want to try to rob.

[kington99]

Would those of you who advocate guns for protecting the home intend to fire them?

i.e. you hear a noise, you go downstairs, there's a guy climbing out your window with your TV. He's in no position to attack you, he's halfway through a window and both his hands are full. You pull your gun and tell him to freeze. He continues climbing out the window with your telly, do you shoot him?

The point I'm driving at is that obviously if your personal safety is being seriously attacked then shooting the other person is reasonable. But if they're trying to take you wallet/bag/car, are you really going to take a human life over that? I would think that the vast majority of house break-ins are for theft rather than rape/murder. In the previously cited example of 300lb assailant versus woman, if he was only robbing her bag then is getting in to a gunfight in which either party could get killed really justifiable?

[wobbling bear]

happened here: a high school student was often a victim of jokes by fellows ... so he decided to emulate the Columbine event.... unable to find a gun a used a knife: result 3 woundeds + himself. For sure he lives in a country a bit short on fundamental freedoms.
happened there: in Somalia a disgusted African peace-keeper bitterly complained that since everybody owned guns there was no way to keep peace. May be he came from a country with a different vision .... An interesting remark: Somalia is so free that entreprenarial spirit flourishes: the per capita income is higher than in neighbouring Ethiopia (not a parangon of democracy)! Some politicians should use Somalia as an example of lean governement: they will make a killing!

[cathwood]

I'm going to have to agree with the guns=death formula. Besides experiments by psychologists support this argument (in that if you have got a gun you are far more likely to use it that if you haven't got one).

I was also wondering Maesto8, what other variables you think would impact upon this regarding our two countries?

From my perspective, what you pro gunners seem to be saying is that the USA is a country full of dangerous, murderous, gun totting criminals that you are all at danger from if you don't carry your own guns. Is that what it's really like? Or is there a touch of paranoia around?

[wobbling bear]

From my perspective, what you pro gunners seem to be saying is that the USA is a country full of dangerous, murderous, gun totting criminals that you are all at danger from if you don't carry your own guns. Is that what it's really like? Or is there a touch of paranoia around?
My overall impression is that both hypothesis are not exact: except from very special places the US looks like a peaceful place; the inhabitants are no more paranoïd than "us" (old europeans). So why this need for arms which looks extremely strange to "us" ? :confused:

[Naomi]

Not necessarily. Other methods would become more common. Further, you're saying less guns, but criminals would still have guns so the less guns comes by those who use it for defense not having them, so the death rate could actually rise.

In the US there are some cities that have strict gun controls that have much more murders than other cities that even require each household to have a gun.

Gilby, pedantry: you know very well that the statement, as per the previous one, refers to gun deaths. ;-)

[Gilby]

Gilby, pedantry: you know very well that the statement, as per the previous one, refers to gun deaths. ;-) Sorry for not spelling it out, change "murders" to "murders by gun"... is that better?

[Naomi]

The only sense I can make of your ramblings is that you're convinced there's a direct correlation between A and B, where A is the number of guns that are owned by a population and B are the number of deaths caused by guns... if this isn't the point you're trying to make, then you've completely lost me... it seems you've become too rabid to convey your ideas logically.

Again it is you that mentions a direct correlation: by which I assume you mean a straight line graph? Once again you have had to apply meaning that is not there, to make your point badly.
There is a correlation, but you are being very inaccurate if you assume that anyone, myself especially, has suggested that correlation would be governed by simple mathematical expression.

It would seem, and you suggest it yourself, that things need to be made very simple for you. So to that end, I ask again that you accept or deny the following:
1) No guns: no gun deaths
2) Lots of guns, some deaths from gunshots

Need it putting even more simply? Before the gun was invented, no one had ever been killed by a bullet. Now tell me that the invention of the gun has not resulted in any deaths from gunshots. Certainly someone had to pull the trigger, but give people triggers and some will pull them.

As others have said: guns kill people. More specifically: people with guns shoot more people than do those without guns.

Admittedly very simplistic, but:If you cannot deny these to be true then you have a correlation. For God's sake Maestro: you have a scientific mind: use it logically. And add a little common sense to that logic too.





Either way, I see there's no way to explain to you that Santa Claus doesn't exist, there's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, or that reducing gun ownership is a good idea.

Oh dear, Again I am not arguing that reducing gun ownership is a good ( or bad) idea. You again completely miss the point, and instead apply your own.

I've read stories about a town that did just that: required every household to own and maintain a firearm. It made sense to me that crime rates plummeted in that city, dunno why it's so hard for others to comprehend that outcome... makes even less sense to me that some cities would even consider an outright ban.


Stories? What.. no details? Shortage of Googling time? And how can you be sure that the criminals from that town did not just move down the road to commit their crimes, once someone had insisted they all be armed to the teeth? So many other factors to consider Maestro ;-)

[Gilby]

So many other factors to consider Maestro ;-)So many factors... yet, you're bent on a single factor.

[maestro8]

I was also wondering Maesto8, what other variables you think would impact upon this regarding our two countries?
I'm no sociologist, but I believe two major factors that contribute to a "culture of crime" are lack of access to a decent education, and for lack of a better term, "economic isolation"... the phenomenon where a community of poor people is left undeveloped, unassisted and disconnected.

When some people are exposed to a culture of crime, and they aren't given any alternatives to sustaining themselves (i.e. learning a trade and getting a job) they'll resort to violence. Some people become resourceful and find other ways, but unfortunately, not everyone.

From my perspective, what you pro gunners seem to be saying is that the USA is a country full of dangerous, murderous, gun totting criminals that you are all at danger from if you don't carry your own guns. Is that what it's really like? Or is there a touch of paranoia around?
You've been watching too much mainstream media, perhaps? Your "perspective" reads like a horror novel... really, the US is full of well-intentioned people with a reasonable amount of self-control.

It's just those "few bad apples" we have to look out for. And some of us choose to be prepared in case we cross paths with a "bad apple". I see it as no different than carrying a whistle when going hiking - it's something you hope to never use, but when you need it, and you have it, it may save your life.

[maestro8]

So many factors... yet, you're bent on a single factor.
Right, Nao, you have to realize there will never be a day where there are zero guns on the street. So unless you've got a suggestion as to how a society should deal with that issue, you've got no point, correlation or no correlation!

Let me offer another example to consider: nuclear deterrence.

Everyone agrees that the use of nuclear weapons is a bad idea, yet no country is willing to eliminate their stockpile. Why? Deterrence.

I agree pistols are much less dangerous than nuclear warheads, but I feel there are enough similarities to compare the two.

[harper]

I agree pistols are much less dangerous than nuclear warheads, but I feel there are enough similarities to compare the two.

Here is a site (http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm) that quotes a million firearms related deaths in the US since 1962. I do not know if their numbers are accurate. They do include ALL ages, ALL shootings, ALL firearms over ALL of the years cited. This may even include wartime deaths, I don't know. This alone probably makes pistols, or at least ALL firearms, more dangerous than nuclear warheads.

[Naomi]

Right, Nao, you have to realize there will never be a day where there are zero guns on the street. So unless you've got a suggestion as to how a society should deal with that issue, you've got no point, correlation or no correlation!

Not really Maestro: zero guns is a near impossible target: A lot less guns is not impossible, and would have point to it.
59 gun deaths in the UK in the year 2007, 81 a day in the USA ( New York Times 2004 figures). There is a HUGE disparity between the two figures. Allowing for population figures there is still a factor of about 100. I don't think it is surprising that the authorities invariably quote gun ownership when comparing these rates.


Let me offer another example to consider: nuclear deterrence.

Everyone agrees that the use of nuclear weapons is a bad idea, yet no country is willing to eliminate their stockpile. Why? Deterrence.

I agree pistols are much less dangerous than nuclear warheads, but I feel there are enough similarities to compare the two.

Oh yes indeedy, they are much more similar than your apples and oranges ;-) And how dangerous were nuclear warheads last year: how many were killed by them in 2007...in 2006?.... They were controlled.

..and America is well in the lead when it comes to trying to stop more countries from getting nuclear weapons. It does not want Iran and others to have this deterrent. Why? Because it knows that deterrents in some hands may not just be used for deterrent purposes. And people are still worried by the "dirty bomb" threat...one example of what a deterrent might do in the hands of a criminal.

Also see Harper's take on this in his recent post. His "million gun related deaths since 1962 in just the USA" is quite an eye-opener. A million: 1,000,000. With gun death stats showing around 25,000 a year , the figure probably does not include war. If it does, then the war proportion is fairly small.

[harper]

Also see Harper's take on this in his recent post. His "million gun related deaths since 1962 in just the USA" is quite an eye-opener. A million: 1,000,000. With gun death stats showing around 25,000 a year , the figure probably does not include war. If it does, then the war proportion is fairly small.


Equally interesting is multiplying other large numbers together for "eye opening" effects. Try multiplying Avagadro's number by the number of electrons in a Coulomb. For more theatrics you should have said "one million" in the same way Dr. Evil did in Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery. Big numbers easily impress small minds.

But I wasn't looking for theatrics. I just wanted to know if more people were killed by guns than by nuclear weapons. I think that's the case and over time guns have proven to be more dangerous than nuclear warheads. By the way, is your insistence on using that annoying red font in any way related to your desire to stress blood letting during these discussions?

[wobbling bear]

Everyone agrees that the use of nuclear weapons is a bad idea, yet no country is willing to eliminate their stockpile. Why? Deterrence.

AH? now I understand why Iran is so keen to get nuclear armament!

[digigal1]

From my perspective, what you pro gunners seem to be saying is that the USA is a country full of dangerous, murderous, gun totting criminals that you are all at danger from if you don't carry your own guns. Is that what it's really like? Or is there a touch of paranoia around?

I was walking my dog in the local park a few months ago. I live in the country, so it's often deserted. A man wearing a camo face mask (sort of like the old cowboy movies: his face from the nose down was concealed) came towards me on the trail, and walked past. The path is one big loop, so as I approached the other side of the park, I looked over to where my car was parked, several hundred feet away, and saw the same guy hanging out near it. I had never carried my gun with me as my permit is only good for target and hunting, but that day I decided I would be breaking the rules from that point on. I was scared, and didn't know what I would do if the guy was still there when I finished walking the loop and ended up back at my car. Luckily, maybe it was because the guy never had any bad intentions, or maybe it was because I had a very large, wolfish looking dog with me, but the guy wasn't there when we got to my car. We got in and took off quick, let me tell you. Would I ever shoot anyone? Never if they were just taking my TV. But to save myself? I hope I could. Even knowing it would require years of therapy to get over it, if ever.

Another example: again, walking my dog in a nearby cemetary. We're getting ready to leave, walking towards my car, when a terribly vicious looking and sounding dog crossed the street to come after us. The dog was not after me, he was after my dog (the previous story notwithstanding, my dog is a pushover and doesn't fight.) I got between both dogs and yelled my head off. It probably only lasted a couple of minutes, but it felt like an hour. I kept getting between them, the other dog snapping and growling the whole time. My heart has never beat faster than it did that day; I thought my dog was a goner. Finally the owner came out and profusely apologizing, controlled his dog. There was no need to pull a gun in this situation as the dog was only concentrating on my dog: I could have kicked the dog if necessary; I wouldn't have had any reason to kill it. But if the circumstances were different and the dog was trying to attack ME, I would shoot it. No apologies. If I had a stick in hand instead of a gun on my person, I would attempt to beat the dog off, but have you ever seen those shows where they have the people dressed up in all the padding and let a dog loose on them? You probably wouldn't do so well against a vicious dog if all you had was a stick. Recently in my area, a policeman was attacked by a pit bull. He shot it. The media ran the story into the ground for a day or two, but after the powers that be investigated, the man faced no charges.

[cathwood]

I was walking my dog in the local park a few months ago. I live in the country, so it's often deserted. A man wearing a camo face mask (sort of like the old cowboy movies: his face from the nose down was concealed) came towards me on the trail, and walked past. The path is one big loop, so as I approached the other side of the park, I looked over to where my car was parked, several hundred feet away, and saw the same guy hanging out near it. I had never carried my gun with me as my permit is only good for target and hunting, but that day I decided I would be breaking the rules from that point on. I was scared, and didn't know what I would do if the guy was still there when I finished walking the loop and ended up back at my car. Luckily, maybe it was because the guy never had any bad intentions, or maybe it was because I had a very large, wolfish looking dog with me, but the guy wasn't there when we got to my car. We got in and took off quick, let me tell you. Would I ever shoot anyone? Never if they were just taking my TV. But to save myself? I hope I could. Even knowing it would require years of therapy to get over it, if ever.

Another example: again, walking my dog in a nearby cemetary. We're getting ready to leave, walking towards my car, when a terribly vicious looking and sounding dog crossed the street to come after us. The dog was not after me, he was after my dog (the previous story notwithstanding, my dog is a pushover and doesn't fight.) I got between both dogs and yelled my head off. It probably only lasted a couple of minutes, but it felt like an hour. I kept getting between them, the other dog snapping and growling the whole time. My heart has never beat faster than it did that day; I thought my dog was a goner. Finally the owner came out and profusely apologizing, controlled his dog. There was no need to pull a gun in this situation as the dog was only concentrating on my dog: I could have kicked the dog if necessary; I wouldn't have had any reason to kill it. But if the circumstances were different and the dog was trying to attack ME, I would shoot it. No apologies. If I had a stick in hand instead of a gun on my person, I would attempt to beat the dog off, but have you ever seen those shows where they have the people dressed up in all the padding and let a dog loose on them? You probably wouldn't do so well against a vicious dog if all you had was a stick. Recently in my area, a policeman was attacked by a pit bull. He shot it. The media ran the story into the ground for a day or two, but after the powers that be investigated, the man faced no charges.

Interesting... I have faced similar situations and never felt the need for a gun. Not having one has never made the situation end badly.

Digital1, ofcourse you were scared in the first example, both our societies indoctrinate women to be scared of men.

I don't understand why either of those situations made you feel that you needed a gun. Perhaps that's just the difference in our societies. I would think I needed a big stick, or to walk somewhere else, or to take self-defence classes or to get a more aggressive dog.

[Gilby]

I would think I needed a big stick A stick is an arm... shouldn't those be banned too? I mean, just think of the damage and harm such can cause another if used?

[Shoots Water Rats]

You question the meaning of the term militia. Words in the Constitution should be generally understood according to their usual and most know signification. The usual meanings of the word "militia" in 1789, was "the standing force of a nation" and "train-bands."

The founding fathers were against having a standing army The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a army.

The phrase "well regulated" means a level of preparedness
Regulated meant "to adjust or direct."

Under the worst Amendment, "well regulated militia" means "well managed body of people trained to fight a war"; and the people in the militia are the only ones granted a right to keep and bear arms.

The meaning of "well regulated militia" trumps the meaning of "people", according to the rule of construction which says that, where the parts of a law don't concur, the means should be sacrificed to the more important end being sought. See Federalist No. 40 for a good example of how the rule was applied a legal expression where the parts don't concur.

[harper]

Must be an election year. Here we have a non-unicyclist joining a unicycling forum to post in a thread and attack the bill of rights. I wonder if he's into MUni or freestyle.

[Shoots Water Rats]

attack the bill of rights. You have to ascertain the meaning of the Bill of Rights before you can determine whether its being attacked. I will wager that you can't articulate a coherent, fair, common sense set of principles you use to determine what it means.

[unstable]

The Supreme Court settled this in the Heller case: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Case closed.

[poofengle]

Is the right to free speech for the individual or for the United States as a whole? Does it grant the president the right to say whatever he wants? Or does it protect against censorship and suppression for each member of society?

It's for the individual, as are all the amendments. Except in the eye of gun controllers. For some reason people think that the second amendment is the only one that doesn't pertain to each individual person. For some reason, they think the right to own a firearm is only good for a group of people in a nation-wide militia. But it is not so.

Every amendment in the Bill of Rights was made to protect the individual's rights and limit the power of those in control.

The founding fathers were fed up with the Brits running their lives, so they broke away and set up a system so that a large, controlling government could never again control America. And that's just what the second amendment is, a protection against a large all-controlling government.

By no means does this force each and every person to own a gun, it merely allows everybody the right to choose.

[harper]

You have to ascertain the meaning of the Bill of Rights before you can determine whether its being attacked. I will wager that you can't articulate a coherent, fair, common sense set of principles you use to determine what it means.


Hey, Shoots, a second post. What do you ride, my man, besides selective amendments?

[Shoots Water Rats]

The Supreme Court settled this in the Heller case: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Case closed. Heller was judicial activism. It should be ignored.

[Shoots Water Rats]

Is the right to free speech for the individual or for the United States as a whole? The First Amendment's free speech clause doesn't contain parts that don't coindice. The Second Amendment does.

Every amendment in the Bill of Rights was made to protect the individual's rights and limit the power of those in control.

What individual right does the First Amendment's establishment clause protect?

What individual right is protected by the Ninth Amendment which denies the right to a jury trial to the parties in a suit at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars?

the second amendment is, a protection against a large all-controlling government. You have that backwards. The object of the Amendment is to secure the government.

it merely allows everybody the right to choose. Present and explain the coherent fair, objective, common sense rules of legal interpretation you applied to arrive at that conclusion.

[Shoots Water Rats]

Hey, Shoots, a second post. What do you ride, my man, besides selective amendments?

Here's what I'm trying to ride.

http://brandscycle.com/itemdetails.cfm?id=5455

[Gilby]

Words in the Constitution should be generally understood according to their usual and most know signification. The usual meanings of the word "militia" in 1789, was "the standing force of a nation" and "train-bands."

OK, so a standing force of a nation is an army in your definition, or is it the people who actively go on defense? If it was an army, then they would have used that term. A band of trained people is simply people forming groups and training with each other. Becoming skilled in their defense.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a army.

It grants the power to create an army as needed for defense. But it does not provide for making a standing army.

Regulated meant "to adjust or direct."

Under the worst Amendment, "well regulated militia" means "well managed body of people trained to fight a war"; and the people in the militia are the only ones granted a right to keep and bear arms.

You say managed, I say trained/prepared. Your idea conflicts with your mention of train-bands.

The meaning of "well regulated militia" trumps the meaning of "people", according to the rule of construction which says that, where the parts of a law don't concur, the means should be sacrificed to the more important end being sought. OK. That may be the case with the interpretation of an amendment. Nothing in the constitution can trump the inalienable rights of an individual to life, liberty and property. Having the adequate means to defend oneself to maintain their rights trumps any legislation. The rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, we're rights before the Bill of Rights existed. The Bill of Rights was added due to the concern that this newly created government may misconstrue their powers in the future. It's a good thing the anti-federalists succeeded in getting the Bill of Rights added as it has slowed down the tyranny of the US government, though it hasn't been enough.

[goldenchickenIV]

.

[Shoots Water Rats]

OK, so a standing force of a nation is an army in your definition, or is it the people who actively go on defense? If it was an army, then they would have used that term. A band of trained people is simply people forming groups and training with each other. Becoming skilled in their defense.



It grants the power to create an army as needed for defense. But it does not provide for making a standing army.



You say managed, I say trained/prepared. Your idea conflicts with your mention of train-bands.

OK. That may be the case with the interpretation of an amendment. Nothing in the constitution can trump the inalienable rights of an individual to life, liberty and property. Having the adequate means to defend oneself to maintain their rights trumps any legislation. The rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, we're rights before the Bill of Rights existed. The Bill of Rights was added due to the concern that this newly created government may misconstrue their powers in the future. It's a good thing the anti-federalists succeeded in getting the Bill of Rights added as it has slowed down the tyranny of the US government, though it hasn't been enough.

All I know that that the foremost legal mind in Virginia during the Earl Days of the Republic said the Second Amendment meant "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."

[Shoots Water Rats]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms was understood to mean that the people had a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense, not for personal defense. (See the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.)

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. --Massachusetts Constitution of 1780

If you're not in the militia or the arms in question are not being used for the common defense, you have no right to keep them under the Second Amendment.

[Gilby]

Nothing is said that prohibits the ability to keep and bear arms in that. In case you didn't read this thread, here is the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

If your claim is that the people have no right to keep and bear arms, then how can the government have arms if the government gets it's power from the consent of the people? The people would not be able to give this power to the government if they do not have the power themselves.

[Shoots Water Rats]

Nothing is said that prohibits the ability to keep and bear arms in that. If you mean the Constitution doesn't grant the Federal Government general power over the keeping and bearing of arms, then I agree with you.

In case you didn't read this thread, here is the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776: What does that have to do with ascertaining the meaning of the Second Amendment?

If your claim is that the people have no right to keep and bear arms, then how can the government have arms if the government gets it's power from the consent of the people? The people would not be able to give this power to the government if they do not have the power themselves.
That's good point. But, the U. S. Government wasn't granted the power to keep and bear arms, but if it was, that means the people gave theirs away? Does it not?

[Gilby]

That's good point. But, the U. S. Government wasn't granted the power to keep and bear arms, but if it was, that means the people gave theirs away? Does it not?The people can't give it away in the constitution. The constitution is a document that was created by others. These other people cannot create something that takes away the rights of you and I. We are not part of this contract. We are simply beneficiaries of this organization that was chartered. To put it simply, nothing in the constitution can infringe on my inalienable rights. The people bound by the constitution are those that are officers of the government, that's why they have to take the oath of office. Simply being born does not make one bound to it. A contract is only binding when it has consent of those being bound by it. As mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, government can only receive its power through the consent of the governed, so surely a constitution does not have unanimous consent of all the people and therefore does not bind all people.

[unstable]

The Constitution does not grant rights. It guarantees them.

[johnfoss]

All I know that that the foremost legal mind in Virginia during the Earl Days of the Republic said the Second Amendment meant "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."This offers fuel for interpretation, but does not change the Constitution.
If you're not in the militia or the arms in question are not being used for the common defense, you have no right to keep them under the Second Amendment....In Massachusetts, right? Your supporting information comes from the constitution of one state. Do you have a coherent fair, objective, common sense rule of legal interpretation you applied to conclude this applies outside of MA? :)

[kevinalexandersmith]

If you're not in the militia or the arms in question are not being used for the common defense, you have no right to keep them under the Second Amendment.Any arm can be used in the common defense and we are all in the militia. The militia is made up of any citizen willing step up when there is a need to fight. Any citizen may be militia so any citizen may keep and bear arms.

I find it unlikely civilians that just fought their old government in their own back yards would then establish a government that takes away their power to do it again.

If the founding fathers had meant for only the army to be armed then they would have disarmed the citizens back then.

I am a militia of one.

[Shoots Water Rats]

The Bill of Rights is a limitation upon government not upon individuals

The Bill of Right came about because the Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The Second Amendment's object was to prevent Congress from abusing its power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", by neglecting "to provide for arming the militia", by declaring "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."

George Mason during the Virginia Ratification Convention expressed a widespread distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. … Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. … But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,—yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,—what chance is there for preserving freedom?

The Second Amendment was meant to be protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, or national guard, as we call it now. The American people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states. Such a circumstance has never happened, but this amendment would prevent it. The Second Amendment does not give anybody or everybody the right to possess and use firearms. The states may very properly prescribe regulations and permits governing the use of guns within their borders."

[harper]

The Second Amendment's object was to prevent Congress from

Hey, Shoots. Isn't that supposed to be "objective?" Wow, nine posts all in one thread. How's the riding going? We haven't gotten a progress report recently.

[johnfoss]

The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, or national guard, as we call it now.I'm not really familiar with how the National Guard(s) works. Are they separate operations, under the control of each state? Who owns the hardware? Do the states buy the tanks and other "arms" from the federal government? If so, why is it called "National Guard?"

How's the riding going?I thought this was JC. You can't have it both ways.

[JJuggle]

Business is up in at least one industry.

Fears of a Dem crackdown lead to boom in gun sales (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_re_us/obama_gun_sales;_ylt=ArUXcQSLm4mkuYGdDp2V3qKs0NUE)

[Jerrick]

Ive been thinking for a few months to go out and get me a nice high-powered rifle.

Our house already has quite a few blackpowders. Shotgun, rifles, pistols. Some are antiques, some are kits my dad built. A few of them are mine, and they are great fun to shoot with. I love the large cloud that sits in the area for a long time when you go out shooting on a non-windy day.

But, while he is pretty old school about guns, I think my collection should be fairly high tech.

Time to start saving up. :)

[kevinalexandersmith]

Ive been thinking for a few months to go out and get me a nice high-powered rifle.

Our house already has quite a few blackpowders. Shotgun, rifles, pistols. Some are antiques, some are kits my dad built. A few of them are mine, and they are great fun to shoot with. I love the large cloud that sits in the area for a long time when you go out shooting on a non-windy day.

But, while he is pretty old school about guns, I think my collection should be fairly high tech.

Time to start saving up. :)You might like cowboy acton shooting (http://www.cowboyactionshooting.org/)

[Shoots Water Rats]

The individual right to keep and bear arms interpretation of the Second Amendment advanced by the NRA and other Anti-American groups is just a way those who attach their affections to tyranny disguise their real goal, which is to take away the right of the several states to provide for an organized, armed and trained state militia.

[Gilby]

Your interpretation of the right to bear arms is just a way for those who attach their affections to tyranny to disguise their real goal, which is to take away the right of the people to provide for self-defense from tyranny.

The right of an individual to bear arms does not prevent a state militia from existing and protecting those in the state.

Rights come from a person's mere existence, not from any government. Your position takes the side that rights come from governments, and ultimately, if this is to be accepted, then we get tyranny.

[disgruntleddave]

Well, I'm Canadian but I'll still chime in.

I personally don't think that there is any logical reason in this day and age for people to believe they have the right to carry around a weapon like a gun. One bad decision or mistake and peoples lives are ended or changed forever.

I think that the second amendment, if you choose to interpret it as the right in general (not the right for a common defense or whatever other interpretations you can have), is outdated and unnecessary in this day and age.

[harper]

I think that the second amendment, if you choose to interpret it as the right in general (not the right for a common defense or whatever other interpretations you can have), is outdated and unnecessary in this day and age.

And soon the other nine shall follow.

Why do you guys keep feeding the troll (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1136069&postcount=114)?

[Gilby]

Why do you guys keep feeding the troll (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1136069&postcount=114)? Because trolls are a tasty rare delicacy. Before going in for a kill, they are best being a little plumped up first.

[BillyTheMountain]

nothing in the constitution can infringe on my inalienable rights.

I hate to break it to you, but in the truest sense, there are no inalienable rights.

It's a myth.

[Shoots Water Rats]

Your interpretation of the right to bear arms is just a way for those who attach their affections to tyranny to disguise their real goal, which is to take away the right of the people to provide for self-defense from tyranny. How are we going to defend ourselves from a tyrannical federal government if we don't have the power to organize, arm and train a state militia, if Congress neglects them? Who's going to have the power to provide for the organizing, arming and training of the state militias, if Congress neglects its duty to do so?

The right of an individual to bear arms does not prevent a state militia from existing and protecting those in the state. By misinterpreting the Second Amendment to grant an individual right to keep and bears arms, you destroy the correct interpretation, which is that the right of the state militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the state militias don't have this right, Congress can destroy the state militias by simply neglecting to provide for them under Article One, Section Eight, Clause Sixteen which reads,

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Rights come from a person's mere existence, not from any government. Your position takes the side that rights come from governments, and ultimately, if this is to be accepted, then we get tyranny. We're not hear to debate the theory of natural rights. We're trying to ascertain the meaning of the Second Amendment.

[Shoots Water Rats]

And soon the other nine shall follow.

Why do you guys keep feeding the troll (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1136069&postcount=114)? Why do you go around being a troll by hurling personal attacks on those who have an opinion you don't believe is the political correct one?

[Shoots Water Rats]

The militia wasn't the whole people. It was a select corps of moderate extent that was well trained.

The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.

--Alexander Hamilton

[MuniAddict]

Starts :10 into the vodeo. The language is unambiguous and totally clear:

http://thatvideosite.com/video/1804
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUf-v8fluiU)

[skrobo]

haha, the day you take Guns out of Texas... is the day we succeed from the union.
i don't see why not have guns? are you guys really that big of pussies? stop being little girls. guns have obviously not killed you and more than likely have not hurt you. you really need to figure out that Guns are not the end of the world, in fact, once they are gone, you are defenseless against the government as a whole, and they can do whatever they want to you. Guns have a definite use in hunting, farming, and not to mention the MILLIONS of people employed by the firearms industry.
without guns ... how do farmers keep animals out of their crops? would forcing them to construct fences not cause all kinds of problems that are not solved by hunting a few days a year?
also, there are a BUNCH of people that are dependent on hunting as a supply of food, you aren't only outlawing guns... you are outlawing ways of life that have gone on for a long time and aren't going to go down without a fight...

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Skrobo, stop being a sexist.
Skrobo, fences are better alternatives to shooting animals.
Skrobo, take it from someone who actually lives in farmland.
Skrobo, you'd be killing animals at least once or twice a week, not a few days a year.
Skrobo, Texas really isn't all that great...

Personally though, I think that guns are generally safe with very tight regulation.
But I think people should test out of a 'stupid' test so we don't have MORE idiots with guns.

[skrobo]

Skrobo, stop being a sexist.
Skrobo, fences are better alternatives to shooting animals.
Skrobo, take it from someone who actually lives in farmland.
Skrobo, you'd be killing animals at least once or twice a week, not a few days a year.
Skrobo, Texas really isn't all that great...

Personally though, I think that guns are generally safe with very tight regulation.
But I think people should test out of a 'stupid' test so we don't have MORE idiots with guns.

sexist, no, its a figure of speech, i don't mean i hate women by it, or think of them in a different light, its more of a joke... get over it already, i know you might take it as a personal insult...

shooting animals... hmm... so you're anti hunting ... go figure...

i may not live on a farm, but i think of the endless rows of fields w/ small patches of brush between them here, huge farm area, small brush area for the animals to live on. there are not as many animals, if the field is in the middle of a forest, no duh you're going to be killing more animals if you want to keep them from eating the crops.

Texas...
hmm
because we(the majority of the ppl in texas) aren't accepting of things like anti-gun laws and gays means that we aren't the best thing in the world as far as your perspective goes, but what can i do about that? to each his own.

[johnfoss]

haha, the day you take Guns out of Texas... is the day we succeed from the union.I wish you "success" with that. Didn't you guys already try it, in 1860 or so? You lost.
i don't see why not have guns? are you guys really that big of pussies? stop being little girls.Pussies? Girls? Did someone say something about not having guns? Link, please.
not to mention the MILLIONS of people employed by the firearms industry.Like the meth industry, the asbestos industry, the Agent Orange industry and the Chinese baby-food-with-melamine-in-it industries? It would suck to put all of those people out of work too.
...you aren't only outlawing guns... you are outlawing ways of life that have gone on for a long time...Again, you who?

[Zzagg]

Aahh Skrobo!
You've been on my ignore list for too long, I had to log off in order to read your delighfull prose...:(
Always a pleasure and full enjoyment, welcome back to my "non ignore list", dude.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

sexist, no, its a figure of speech, i don't mean i hate women by it, or think of them in a different light, its more of a joke... get over it already, i know you might take it as a personal insult...
use straight, white, male as an insult and then I'll believe you.
using 'girl' as an insult seems like an insult.

shooting animals... hmm... so you're anti hunting ... go figure...
I prefer hunting over factory farming any day. I have issues with hunting but in general, I feel it's FAR better than factory farms.

i may not live on a farm, but i think of the endless rows of fields w/ small patches of brush between them here, huge farm area, small brush area for the animals to live on. there are not as many animals, if the field is in the middle of a forest, no duh you're going to be killing more animals if you want to keep them from eating the crops.
jeez dude. Take it from me and everyone else, fences keep out animals really well. Out here we have fences that are too high for deer to jump and they're tightly meshed at the bottom so small animals can't slip through.
They work.

to each his own.
Unless you've changed, you havn't been very good at seeing the wisdom in that.

[Gilby]

The militia wasn't the whole people. It was a select corps of moderate extent that was well trained.
The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.

--Alexander Hamilton

While I understand Hamilton was not a friend of liberty, as he essentially wanted to bring the monarchy system to the USA, by wanting a mercantilist system and a president who had office for life, among many other tyrannical policies (and yes, I know, he has effectively won, and just look at the economic problems we have ended up with), let us dissect that statement. You claim that it means that the government has authority only to train the select few (ie. to create an army). It does not define the term militia at all. All this statement really means is that the government can have programs to train the willing to be part of the "well-trained militia". Obviously, if a war comes, they can choose to only select those that are well-trained. It doesn't limit anyone from training to be one of those select few.

BTW, I choose not be one of those select few, as today, those select few are people who have choosen not to defend the principles of the founding of this country, but to defend those who claim to have authority over everyone in this society.

So, Water Rat hunter, see the videos in my sig.

[skrobo]

jeez dude. Take it from me and everyone else, fences keep out animals really well. Out here we have fences that are too high for deer to jump and they're tightly meshed at the bottom so small animals can't slip through.
They work.


i've watched 10 deer jump a highfence, all in a row.
unless you have extra high highfences ... most deer can jump one, they just don't know it.

i'm not saying fences don't work, i'm saying that they are VERY impractical sometimes.

as far as the wisdom in to each his own ... ? you've missed part of the wisdom as well my friend

... and the sexist thing... white and male don't have negative connotations in your mind? why not?
i'm sure they do in the african american population. so you're a white male, and you need to grow a pair? is that a better thing to say? or does the sexuality of that offend you as well?

do you really have to go through and nit pick everything i say? does it make you feel better? really?

[kevinalexandersmith]

Like the meth industry, the asbestos industry, the Agent Orange industry and the Chinese baby-food-with-melamine-in-it industries? It would suck to put all of those people out of work too.What about the automobile industry John?

What kills more people, guns, meth, asbestos, and bad Chinese food all put together or automobiles?

That’s why I call for an immediate ban on all automobiles. People have no protected right in the constitution to own and drive cars.

Some may say; You can’t ban cars because they are part of our way of life. They are part of our freedom?

OK so maybe there are some applications where the police or the military might need cars, but not regular people. The government can use cars for us.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

What about the automobile industry John?

What kills more people, guns, meth, asbestos, and bad Chinese food all put together or automobiles?

That’s why I call for an immediate ban on all automobiles. People have no protected right in the constitution to own and drive cars.

Some may say; You can’t ban cars because they are part of our way of life. They are part of our freedom?

OK so maybe there are some applications where the police or the military might need cars, but not regular people. The government can use cars for us.

Although people are often killed by cars, the purpose of cars is not to kill or injure people. Whereas the purpose of guns IS to kill or injure.

[johnfoss]

What kills more people, guns, meth, asbestos, and bad Chinese food all put together or automobiles?Indeed, a motor vehicle can be a deadlier weapon than any handgun.
That’s why I call for an immediate ban on all automobiles. People have no protected right in the constitution to own and drive cars. Good luck with that. :)
Some may say; You can’t ban cars because they are part of our way of life. They are part of our freedom? Yes to the first part, I wouldn't go so far as the second part. But there are a lot of reasons why you can't (successfully) ban personal, fast transportation, at least not without a very long transition period.

Let's assume you are not living in a glass house yourself. Do you live in the suburbs without a car? How do you get around? It's much easier if you live in a city. If you live in a rural area it's a major problem. It's not like you can take a train from the farm. Our economy depends on us being able to move long distances.

But unlike a gun, a car is not intended to put metal into meat. We can make smarter cars. If we can make cameras with face detection, we can make cars with people detection. My car has "Laser Cruise Control" (Toyota). It will maintain a safe distance behind the car in front of it. It's an awesome feature, making my car a notch safer than cars without it. If you're really serious about this crusade, after listing all the other dangerous devices we use every day, like bathtubs, you might want to focus your energy on mandating better safety features in cars.

In America, I would rank cars with alcohol, as one of those "evils" we have chosen to live with. On the guns there is less agreement.

[kevinalexandersmith]

If you're really serious about this crusade
Of course, I'm not serious. I don't want to ban anything. I love freedom. I think banning guns is as ridiculous as others would think banning cars is.

The point I’m feebly trying to make is:
If it’s about saving lives rather than controlling the public, than there are better causes than gun control. I don’t have a specific link, but I bet if you look you’ll find more children are killed each year by any of the following items than guns:

Cars
Bicycles
Swimming Pools
Doctors

So let’s ban them all!:p

Yeah I know, doctors also save lives, but so do guns!:)

[johnfoss]

I think banning guns is as ridiculous as others would think banning cars is.Oh. Who wanted to ban guns?
...I bet if you look you’ll find more children are killed each year by any of the following items than guns:
Cars
Bicycles
Swimming Pools
Doctors
[/QUOTE]How about one thing at a time, then? Just because one thing kills less people than another doesn't mean it should be ignored, does it? Besides, kids getting accidentally killed is probably a tiny part of the major problem with illegal guns. Mostly they get used in the commission of crimes, often involving drugs. People get shot, on purpose, over the most trivial things. To me that's more of a problem than the accidents people have with legal guns in their homes.

[kevinalexandersmith]

I’m hoping to get people to think with those examples. By not banning swimming pools for example, people are implying that a little bit of fun and sport is worth the lives lost. In my thinking fun and sport are not nearly as important as freedom and liberty. With an armed society you get a little bit of fun and sport but more importantly you get a little bit of freedom and liberty.

If your concern is more about illegal activity with guns, then the solution is to enforce the laws that are being broken, not to enact more laws that will only be further broken. It’s already illegal to murder, assault, rob, rape, etc. So what sort of legislation or social steps would you propose…

[harper]

I’m hoping to get people to think with those examples.

That's just crazy talk, Kevin. You can always get people to react but they have to want to think on their own.

[SkierAlex]

lol America is really stupid. There's something like 4x as many gun related deaths is America per capita than New Zealand. In New Zealand it is much harder to get a gun licence and you aren't allowed to buy handguns or anything semi automatic or anything like that.

[harper]

lol America is really stupid. There's something like 4x as many gun related deaths is America per capita than New Zealand. In New Zealand it is much harder to get a gun licence and you aren't allowed to buy handguns or anything semi automatic or anything like that.

See what I'm talking about now, Kevin?

[kevinalexandersmith]

I suppose you’re right, Harper. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.

[Gilby]

Whereas the purpose of guns IS to kill or injure.

While that is one purpose, there are others, such as the protection of life, liberty, and property.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

i've watched 10 deer jump a highfence, all in a row.
unless you have extra high highfences ... most deer can jump one, they just don't know it.

i'm not saying fences don't work, i'm saying that they are VERY impractical sometimes.
The fence probably wasn't made to keep out deer then. Deer can only jump so high.
You make the fence higher. It works. Trust me. People don't make them lower if they want to keep out Deer. Jeez...


... and the sexist thing... white and male don't have negative connotations in your mind? why not?
i'm sure they do in the african american population. so you're a white male, and you need to grow a pair? is that a better thing to say? or does the sexuality of that offend you as well?
White and male do tend to have negative connotations in my mind.
White males have been responible for 90% of the dick-moves made in the world.

I asked you if you'd use white male as a diss word, cause you're a white male.
If you have nothing against girls, but still use them as a derogetory term, you should be able to use 'boy' as a diss.
Seriously, why use a group of people as a diss word?
What do you have against girls? You strike me as very sexist.
Would you say that in front of a girl?

Actually wait... YOU probably would...


do you really have to go through and nit pick everything i say? does it make you feel better? really?
believe me, you were on my ignore list for a while.
I thought you might have changed a bit so I took you off, but then I saw this.

I nitpick because you've got so much stuff screwed up.

I know that you use 'girl', 'gay' and 'retard' as insults.
Would you use 'nigger'?

might as well if you use the others.

[skrobo]

The fence probably wasn't made to keep out deer then. Deer can only jump so high.
You make the fence higher. It works. Trust me. People don't make them lower if they want to keep out Deer. Jeez...
... the fence was the height of every other highfence i've ever seen, 10-12 feet... i'm not saying it doesn't work, i said that most deer just don't know they can jump a fence that high...but they CAN a lot of times.


If you have nothing against girls, but still use them as a derogetory term, you should be able to use 'boy' as a diss.
Seriously, why use a group of people as a diss word?
What do you have against girls? You strike me as very sexist.
Would you say that in front of a girl?
Actually wait... YOU probably would...
lol
i do say that in front of girls, but around here, its taken very lightly. I do call people little boys/girls ambiguously.


believe me, you were on my ignore list for a while.
I thought you might have changed a bit so I took you off, but then I saw this.

I nitpick because you've got so much stuff screwed up.

I know that you use 'girl', 'gay' and 'retard' as insults.
Would you use 'nigger'?

might as well if you use the others.
calling someone a nigger is screwed up. that is a different story and you know it as well as i do, even if it is hard to see from your perspective, why don't you just realize that we have different outlooks, and live in different situations.
i've changed, yes, you have too, such is life
if i'm calling someone a faggot i can see a gay person speaking up, but if i'm calling someone a little girl, it isn't an insult at you... why do you even care? if it offends a person i actually know or have met on a [their] personal level i'll probably change something... until then... oh well

i am often offended by the same things you are, but only in more extreme ways.

p.s. you associate groups w/ stereotypes as well. (dick-moves??wtf were you just telling me off about??) it just seems that you take an opposite viewpoint. perhaps you shouldn't be talking unless you can tell me that you have no grouped stereotypes. perhaps it is so engrained in us as people that we can't fight it off, i'm not saying there isn't anything wrong w/ it, but i don't see it as a big deal to get a point across. now if you want to argue more, go ahead, but i don't see what more there is to say.



back on topic:
i'm all for guns regulated only to keep them out of the hands of criminals that have committed physical assault crimes against other people w/ intent to cause serious damage to the person.

[dan de man]

i personaly see it as

would have been great to have stopped guns becoming so interwoven into society ,but now they so interwoven,guns are needed to stop themselves

[ThisGuyIKnow]

While that is one purpose, there are others, such as the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Which is done by killing, injuring, or threatening to kill or injure.

[kevinalexandersmith]

Which is done by killing, injuring, or threatening to kill or injure.Yes. Most attackers are deterred simply by the brandishing of a weapon and the realization that the would be victim will fight back. In those scenarios no one gets hurt.

If you are unwilling to kill or injure to protect yourself or your loved ones from being killed, then guns aren't for you. I'm certainly not saying you should have a gun. From your comment it’s clear you shouldn’t.

If it's choice between my wife, my son, or the guy that’s going to kill them, I'll shoot to stop him.

It would be nice if the assailant survives. However, If I’m not prepared for the fact that he might not live, then I better not shoot, not even to wound, because he just might die. Either you’re prepared to kill your target to stop him or you don’t fire.

If you know you’d never decide to take the chance of killing someone to stop them then you can decide to never own or even pick up a gun, That’s also part of our freedom. But don’t make that decision for others. Those who decide others should not use guns must use guns to enforce that decision. So if you don’t want to use guns don’t decide others shouldn‘t.

P.S. I describe a “him” as the assailant because I’m sexist.

[Zzagg]

Those who decide others should not use guns must use guns to enforce that decision.What an hypocrite statement!
Do what I say, not what I do
or better:
You CAN'T use a gun because I do...
Either there's something I haven't figured out because english isn't my born language or this statement completely tears your argumentation on freedom appart.:confused:

[Gilby]

Either there's something I haven't figured out because english isn't my born language or this statement completely tears your argumentation on freedom appart.:confused:

Like all laws, laws against gun ownership are enforced through the use of guns (or other arms) by law enforcement.

[harper]

If it's choice between my wife, my son, or the guy that’s going to kill them, I'll shoot to stop him.

It would be nice if the assailant survives. However, If I’m not prepared for the fact that he might not live, then I better not shoot, not even to wound, because he just might die. Either you’re prepared to kill your target to stop him or you don’t fire.



I think you're sugar coating this a little bit. I may be nit picking but I can't think of any instance in which someone protecting themselves is expected to "shoot to wound." I agree with your statement "shoot to stop." People are really not very big targets to anyone who is under duress. I have always heard that the correct attitude for defensive shooting is 1.) shoot for the center of mass (the big target) and 2.) shoot until the attacker is stopped completely. This may mean that the attacker is merely wounded but that should not be your intent as a victim. Acquiring something small as a target like a limb while under duress and attack is not considered prudent.

Edit: I just reread the part of your post that I highlighted and it is obvious that I'm just agreeing with you. As Emily Litella would say, "never mind."

[kevinalexandersmith]

I think you're sugar coating this a little bit.The sugar coating was to try and make it more palatable to reacting, non-thinking taste buds.

Sorry for the confusion, If I just say “never shoot to wound” it sounds like blood lust unless people think about the reasoning. It’s amazing how many people don’t get a simple concept like, “If you are unwilling to kill, don’t shoot.”

I agree, always aim center mass. A hit anywhere has more stopping power than a miss.

[sigve]

I think the US should just ban ALL weapons, and disband the military completely. Then we should all hold hands, sing Kumbiya, and ask the terroists pretty please to be nice and not kill us or anyone else. There, problem solved, and now all the other countries will love and respect us again! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

haha and the USA would lose even more millions..
they get MANY percent of their income from the weapon industry, but i think they should remove all weapons.. USA has more murders than most other contries as far as i know, and im pretty sure it's because of the second amendment!

[JJuggle]

Sorry for the confusion, If I just say “never shoot to wound” it sounds like blood lust unless people think about the reasoning. It’s amazing how many people don’t get a simple concept like, “If you are unwilling to kill, don’t shoot.”

I agree, always aim center mass. A hit anywhere has more stopping power than a miss.
My understanding is that you shoot to kill. If you only wound, you might be sued. Also, if you admit to only trying to wound that is tantamount to admitting that deadly forced was not required, hence you are subject to prosecution.

I am slowly coming around to viewing limitations on firearms as being not unlike the war on drugs. Any attempt within reason to limit supply is futile. If the attention is not on demand, the exercise is pointless.

I wont say I don't support efforts to require waiting periods, limits on automatic firearms, and other measures. But people love their guns as much as almost anything else in their lives. Legislating against such passion is fruitless.

[BillyTheMountain]

If you are unwilling to kill or injure to protect yourself or your loved ones from being killed, then guns aren't for you.

Can you imagine Jesus being willing to kill or injure to protect Himself or His loved ones from being killed?

It would have changed history. There'd be no crucifixion. There'd be no christians if Jesus were more like Kevin....

[BillyTheMountain]

My understanding is that you shoot to kill. If you only wound, you might be sued. Also, if you admit to only trying to wound that is tantamount to admitting that deadly forced was not required, hence you are subject to prosecution.

I am slowly coming around to viewing limitations on firearms as being not unlike the war on drugs. Any attempt within reason to limit supply is futile. If the attention is not on demand, the exercise is pointless.

I wont say I don't support efforts to require waiting periods, limits on automatic firearms, and other measures. But people love their guns as much as almost anything else in their lives. Legislating against such passion is fruitless.

because they are both wars on big corporations and profit.

[kevinalexandersmith]

Can you imagine Jesus being willing to kill or injure to protect Himself or His loved ones from being killed?

It would have changed history. There'd be no crucifixion. There'd be no christians if Jesus were more like Kevin....I think we can all agree that I'm a sinner.

[johnfoss]

It's too bad the common gun has to be so lethal, when in most cases all we need to do is stop someone. The hard part is to stop them so they don't shoot back, especially if they have a "regular" gun. Would you point a taser at someone who's pointing a gun back at you? I wonder if anyone has done any studies on this. Does the shock make them pull the trigger while still being aimed? That would be bad.

But tasers are great at stopping people. While you're being tased you really can't do much of anything else. Or rubber bullets. But in Kevin's situation, with an armed assailant threatening your family on the sidewalk, rubber bullets just might not do it. At that point I wouldn't care what's in the gun...

[skrobo]

It's too bad the common gun has to be so lethal, when in most cases all we need to do is stop someone. The hard part is to stop them so they don't shoot back, especially if they have a "regular" gun. Would you point a taser at someone who's pointing a gun back at you? I wonder if anyone has done any studies on this. Does the shock make them pull the trigger while still being aimed? That would be bad.

But tasers are great at stopping people. While you're being tased you really can't do much of anything else. Or rubber bullets. But in Kevin's situation, with an armed assailant threatening your family on the sidewalk, rubber bullets just might not do it. At that point I wouldn't care what's in the gun...

i would shoot someone if they were threatening immediate harm to me or my family members. there is no question in that. so our per capita for gun related crimes is higher than new zeland... ok, but what about people being knifed there? what about people being beaten to death with baseball bats?
i'm pretty sure that those are higher. its not what the weapon is, its the fact that people can't control themselves and go kill other people.
that said.

... i have heard that in Texas a person has the right to shoot/kill someone for entering their property if they say "leave or i'll shoot"... and a few things happen... is this the case in other states/is it true?

[Shoots Water Rats]

They wrote the 2nd amendment with the militia and individual rights in mind. They wrote the Second Amendment to be ambiguous and difficult to interpret. There's no point trying to get in their heads. Just apply the rules of legal interpretation, accept whatever results and say to hell with it.

The learned judge wrote, BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it. The cause which moved the legislators to make the Second Amendment was the need for "a well regulated militia" to secure the state. Therefore, we should understand the word "people" in the sense that best achieves "the security of a free state." Since a "well regulated militia" is deemed essential to achieving that goal, it appears that "people" should be understood in the sense of that particular signification that would best achieve a "well regulated militia." The signification of "people" that would most likely result in a "well regulated militia" is "well regulated militia" or the "state."

The best way to ensure the existence of a well regulated militia is to make sure it provided with arms. The founders who made the Original Constitution believed the best way to ensure that the state militias were provided with arms was to grant Congress the power to provide arms to the militias. To protect against Congress neglecting to arm the state militias, the best safeguard would be to grant the states the right to arm their own militias, if Congress neglects to do so.

For several reasons, an individual right to keep and bear arms wouldn't be the best way to ensure that the militia was armed. For example, the individuals would have no duty to keep the type of arms a well regulated militia would need.

[Gilby]

The cause which moved the legislators to make the Second Amendment was the need for "a well regulated militia" to secure the state. Therefore, we should understand the word "people" in the sense that best achieves "the security of a free state." Since a "well regulated militia" is deemed essential to achieving that goal, it appears that "people" should be understood in the sense of that particular signification that would best achieve a "well regulated militia." The signification of "people" that would most likely result in a "well regulated militia" is "well regulated militia" or the "state."

You are neglecting the objective, which is a "free state". Among other threats to a free state, the State itself is a threat to a free state. Having the state choose who can and cannot have arms prevents "the people" from ensuring a free state as the State is then in control of those who have arms. Besides, if they really meant "militia" instead of "people", they would have used that term.

My fellow humans and I, secure our free state by having the right to be armed and to fight an unfree state should that arise. Of course, we don't live in a free state anymore and therefore they try to tell us we can't arm ourselves.

[Shoots Water Rats]

Evidence that the founders didn't expect the members of the militia to provide their own arms
They expected the states to arm the militia


The town shall at the expense of the town, shall provide for, and furnish the militia with arms and equipment, which shall remain the property of the town.

--An act for regulating and governing the Militia of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed June 1793


Does this evidence totally destroy the theory that the members of the militia were supposed to provide their own arms?

[Gilby]

Does this evidence totally destroy the theory that the members of the militia were supposed to provide their own arms?
It's irrelevant. Government subsidizing the availability of arms does not preclude the ability of an individual to have their own.

[Shoots Water Rats]

The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained according to a system of military discipline. If Congress had exclusive authority to provide for the militia, it might neglect the militia and thereby disarm the states. Therefore, it was necessary to grant the states power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglected to do so. The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a state must have a well regulated militia for security. The second clause should be interpreted to grant the states the power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglects to do so. Otherwise, the states would be at the mercy of Congress.

[Jerrick]

Water Rat, do you unicycle?

[Gilby]

The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained according to a system of military discipline. If Congress had exclusive authority to provide for the militia, it might neglect the militia and thereby disarm the states. Therefore, it was necessary to grant the states power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglected to do so. The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a state must have a well regulated militia for security. The second clause should be interpreted to grant the states the power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglects to do so. Otherwise, the states would be at the mercy of Congress.

And the 3rd clause? The right of the people to provide this?

OK, while I don't disagree with your specific claims here, as the 2nd amendment may very well limit the U.S. government as to what they can legislate. It really begs the question, who makes up the State or the Union? A bunch of individuals, right? The State nor the union would exist if the individuals did not consent to it, right? As the Declaration of Independence claims, do each of us not have the right to consent whether we are governed or not by certain entities?

[Gilby]

Water Rat, do you unicycle? No, he does not.

[Jerrick]

No, he does not.

Ah ok. I remember Harper asking but didnt remember the answer.

[harper]

Ah ok. I remember Harper asking but didnt remember the answer.

He posted a link to a picture of a unicycle that he claimed he was trying to ride. The guy has only posted in this thread and only every few days. I think he's a troll that just hops in to post anti-gun propaganda on fora around the world.

[MLArthur]

Water Rat, do you unicycle?
No, he does not. He is going around to every forum he can find on the net to troll on this subject repeating the same ridiculous crap everywhere he can.

The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained according to a system of military discipline. If Congress had exclusive authority to provide for the militia, it might neglect the militia and thereby disarm the states. Therefore, it was necessary to grant the states power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglected to do so. The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a state must have a well regulated militia for security. The second clause should be interpreted to grant the states the power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglects to do so. Otherwise, the states would be at the mercy of Congress.http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/showpost.php?p=4021312&postcount=349
http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/showpost.php?p=3987635&postcount=275
http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/showpost.php?p=3853138&postcount=174

http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/showthread.php?t=167327&page=7#post4021312

I suggest you guys that he has insulted with his trolling go to all the other sights he has been pissing people off at and link to his other forum trolling. Eventually he will have absolutley no place to go. I have found nine so far, but I bet he is doing this in dozens of forums.

[MLArthur]

He posted a link to a picture of a unicycle that he claimed he was trying to ride. The guy has only posted in this thread and only every few days. I think he's a troll that just hops in to post anti-gun propaganda on fora around the world.
Yes, this is proven.

[MLArthur]

Here's another one: http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=193009&forum_id=98&jump_to=3998677

[maestro8]

He is going around to every forum he can find on the net to troll on this subject repeating the same ridiculous crap everywhere he can.

I don't know what is more ridiculous: a multi-forum troll, or his stalker...

MLArthur, we've got our own troll detectors here, and they're working just fine. Why don't you and Shoots Water Rats find a hotel room somewhere and "work out your differences" in private, eh?

[Gilby]

MLArthur, we've got our own troll detectors here, and they're working just fine. Why don't you and Shoots Water Rats find a hotel room somewhere and "work out your differences" in private, eh? I'll bet $5 on the one with the gun.:)

[MLArthur]

I don't know what is more ridiculous: a multi-forum troll, or his stalker...

MLArthur, we've got our own troll detectors here, and they're working just fine. Why don't you and Shoots Water Rats find a hotel room somewhere and "work out your differences" in private, eh?

I apologize for intruding on your space here, but I had to do it because there is nothing that pisses me off more than a prolific troll disseminating false information about such an important issue all over the country.
I put up with his activity for as long as I could and I can no longer stand it.

Once again, my apologies.

[poofengle]

So guess what I'm getting for christmas (well, money towards it)

A new biathlon rifle :~)

Biathlon is a fringe sport inside the fringe sport of cross country skiing, so finding gear for it is really hard. But someone's selling their rifle and I'm finally getting my own biathlon rifle :D instead of using my slightly modified normal rifle (it didn't work too well with the cold and all)

That's certainly not me, but this is the same rifle i'm getting (minus the many sponsorships haha)
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z113/poofengle/787.jpg

I'm excited

[kevinalexandersmith]

I wanted to do biathalon once. They use 5-shot, bolt-action, .22lr, with iron sights right? It's so hard to control you're shakes when your freezing and exhausted.

I think we just found a new uni-sport.

"Shoot the Lobster" anyone?

[SqueakyOnion]

"Shoot the Lobster" anyone?

Lobsters are people too, you ignorant scum! :eek::mad::mad:

[Shoots Water Rats]

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power, to provide for a well regulated militia, from the states?

[Shoots Water Rats]

My learning to unicycle is on hold until I recover from knee surgery.

[Gilby]

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power, to provide for a well regulated militia, from the states?Where are they withholding the power?

[BillyTheMountain]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-24/trayvon-martin-case/53756296/1?csp=34news

[BillyTheMountain]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-24/trayvon-martin-case/53756296/1?csp=34news&AID=4992781&PID=4166853&SID=18vkar43bsoo5

[harper]

Those look like really interesting links that you want us to blindly follow, Billy. Are they at all related to the topic? Do you have any original thoughts of your own to add? Is there a reason that you didn't add a poll or some emoticons?

[BillyTheMountain]

The Gun Free School Zones Act states:[6]
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Can we bring our firearms to NAUCC? Or UNICON? In Washinton State several years ago, NAUCC and UNICON were held on school grounds.

Who will protect the MUni riders from the artistics? Harper?

[harper]

In Washinton State several years ago, NAUCC and UNICON were held on school grounds.



That's Warshington state.

[Nurse Ben]

So, some people want guns, some people don't want guns, and some people don't anyone to have guns. I suppose we can look to the constitution for guidance, as those folks were the ones that signed the paper that in part led to the creation of this nation, BUT, they're long dead and there thoughts and feelings no more apply to the United States of America then they do to the current state of the economy, police action in the Middle East, or the War on Drugs.

Face it, arguing that we need to follow a two hundred year old doctrine is silliness.

Now, you want to argue for personal rights? Okay, why should an individual have the right to harm another person? Wait, we don't have that right? Okay, so maybe in certain situations, like if our life is at risk? Okay, so what if we're not so good at judging that risk, what if we kill someone by accident?

It seems to me that the ability to own a gun sets us up for failure, both the shooter and the shootee. It's sorta like asking a teen if he'll ever drive drunk. Well, if he drives, then yeah, he could drive drunk. There are only three things that can be done to curtail this potentiality:

1) Outlaw Drinking
2) Outlaw Driving
3) Arrest him when he's caught driving drunk

So here's the dilemna as I see it:

I don't own a gun, I don't commit crimes (that I'm aware of), but I am concerned that someone will harm me with a gun. I am not comfortable owning a gun, I have read the statistics and gun owners are at greater risk of injury or death by a gun if they own one; either they are more likely to be in a gun related action or their own gun is used on them.

So how can I keep myself safe if guns are legal? If, as a society, we take door #3 (wait until a crime is committed), then we are doing nothing to protect society other than arming a militia who are not all capable of practicing good judgement.

It's hrd to have gun crimes without guns, just saying...

[Gilby]

It's hrd to have gun crimes without guns, just saying...

It's hard to have knife crimes with guns, just saying:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[maestro8]

Face it, arguing that we need to follow a two hundred year old doctrine is silliness.

All in or all out. If you want to throw away the 2nd amendment, you'll have to do so with the 1st, 3rd, 4th and so on... 'cause they're all written on the same parchment.

why should an individual have the right to harm another person? Wait, we don't have that right? Okay, so maybe in certain situations, like if our life is at risk? Okay, so what if we're not so good at judging that risk, what if we kill someone by accident?

We can kill each other by any manner of accident. It's easier to kill people with a car than it is a gun. But given the amount of freedom you'd have to curtail in order to "prevent accidents" (something which can never happen), is the perceived reward worth the cost? I say no.

It seems to me that the ability to own a gun sets us up for failure, both the shooter and the shootee.

When you assume everyone is a murderer, then of course you'll come to this conclusion. Why not assume there is good in people?

I don't own a gun, I don't commit crimes (that I'm aware of), but I am concerned that someone will harm me with a gun.

How concerned are you? Do you walk around wearing a bullet-proof vest?

You know, you can do that to mitigate your concern without impacting my freedom to own a gun... why must you instead insist that my freedom should be taken away?

I'm a responsible, educated citizen, am in good physical and mental health, haven't committed any crimes, have even passed a number of government-sponsored background checks. Why on Earth shouldn't I be allowed to arm myself?

I have read the statistics and gun owners are at greater risk of injury or death by a gun if they own one; either they are more likely to be in a gun related action or their own gun is used on them.

Statistics can be skewed to prove any point you wish to make.

So how can I keep myself safe if guns are legal?

See above.

It's hrd to have gun crimes without guns, just saying...

But there's no way to eradicate guns from society. There is no "without guns". Let's begin the discussion from there, otherwise we're just farting in the wind...

[wobbling bear]

But there's no way to eradicate guns from society.
Well I survived in "no guns" societies... but for the US (where people assume the right to own a howitzer to defend their home is a gift from god) there is a very simple solution that will satisfy everybody (including the NRA!)
- it will be illegal to carry a gun with a caliber less that 3 inches
- every gun should be painted in pink with big balls for the ammunition round ....
that will reinforce the "manly" attitude of proud gun owners!:D

[JJuggle]

But there's no way to eradicate guns from society. There is no "without guns". Let's begin the discussion from there, otherwise we're just farting in the wind...
I happen to like farting in the wind, but I also happen to agree that there is no "without guns".

Hence, I choose to believe, for example, that I am safer that hunters get to own guns and go out and shoot defenseless animals. I think if they didn't there would be a lot more angry violent people with nowhere to turn to vent their rage and people like me and my family would become their targets.

[harper]

Well I survived in "no guns" societies... but for the US (where people assume the right to own a howitzer to defend their home is a gift from god) there is a very simple solution that will satisfy everybody (including the NRA!)
- it will be illegal to carry a gun with a caliber less that 3 inches
- every gun should be painted in pink with big balls for the ammunition round ....
that will reinforce the "manly" attitude of proud gun owners!:D

As a US citizen I am awaiting the gift of a pink, 3-inch Howitzer with big balls from God to validate my masculinity. It still has not arrived and I feel like a sissy. Do I petition God for this shortcoming?

[Nurse Ben]

But there's no way to eradicate guns from society.

You mean like polio or small pox?

If we begin a discussion with where we are and insist that we can't "eradicate" the problem, then we are just "farting in the wind".

Guns are a problem when they are used innapropriately. Now if that's not a loaded response...

I don't want any guns, anywhere, for any reason, but of course that's not reasonable, so how about taking a more progressive stance:

Require more training to own a gun
Require a more thorough background check
Require regular updates for training, background checks, etc..
Require all weapons to be personalized to prevent diversion (electronic lock)

If someone really wants a gun and feels like they "have the right", then they will not be uncomfortable with earning that right. Seriously, owning a gu like driving a car, is a privilage.

We don't get rights, we earn them, otherwise they are stripped away, yes?

[maestro8]

You mean like polio or small pox?
That metaphor won't work. You can't pick up polio and rob someone with it.

If we begin a discussion with where we are and insist that we can't "eradicate" the problem, then we are just "farting in the wind".
But starting by assuming it's a given is just a load of hot air. How on earth do you propose we get to "a world without guns"?

Require more training to own a gun
Require a more thorough background check
Require regular updates for training, background checks, etc..
Require all weapons to be personalized to prevent diversion (electronic lock)
These laws already exist in many states. What good will more laws do?

Look at drugs. We have many laws against drugs, yet they're just as easily available as cigarettes and alcohol.

So how do we get rid of guns?

The answer is "we can't" and "we shouldn't".

It's better to deter and/or detain those who misuse guns. Much easier to do that if everyone were armed, than if only criminals were armed.

[BillyTheMountain]

That metaphor won't work. You can't pick up polio and rob someone with it.

You're irrelevant and concrete reasoning is nutty!

Nations like China and Singapore can nearly wipe out gun possession and drug possession, as they once did for STDs and other social problems.

A war on guns would be easier to win than the war on drugs.

[maestro8]

You're irrelevant and concrete reasoning is nutty!

Almost as nutty as the Nurse's suggestion that we ditch the bill of rights. I'm still waiting to hear his reasoning on that one.

A war on guns would be easier to win than the war on drugs.

I agree. But it's like saying it'd be easier to move Mt. Everest than to move the entire Eurasian continental plate.

Both wars go against forces that are fundamental to being human: the need for security and the need for gratification.

You just can't stop those forces without stripping us of that which makes us human.

[wobbling bear]

Both wars go against forces that are fundamental to being human: the need for security and the need for gratification..
uurgh I do not see the direct link between "need for security" and "need for owning a gun" .... it may seem obvious to you .... and it is not for lot of people in strange countries far far away :D

[nick]

We don't get rights, we earn them, otherwise they are stripped away, yes?

No.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It doesn't matter if you're from the USA or not, I find that to be a universally applicable statement.

I would go so far as to say that as long as my pursuits don't infringe on any other person's rights, I have the right to those pursuits.

The problem, of course, is that just because I may be a responsible gun owner, that doesn't mean that everyone else will be as well.

[BillyTheMountain]

Almost as nutty as the Nurse's suggestion that we ditch the bill of rights. I'm still waiting to hear his reasoning on that one.

Actually, YOU were the one with the all-or-nothing thinking about that.

Guns in the USA, like diseases, are a health problem, and the nurse has expertise.

[BillyTheMountain]

No.

You don't have any rights if I can take them away from you.

[harper]

You won't have any rights if I can take them away from you.

There, Billy. I fixed that for you. Actually, being voluntarily defenseless (you sweet, little lamb), you would be rather hard pressed to take Nick's rights away from him.

[JJuggle]

Guns in the USA, like diseases, are a health problem, and the nurse has expertise.
I have heard it suggested that the left abandon any and all objections to gun ownership of any kind in exchange for the right accepting a single payer universal health care system.

[harper]

I have heard it suggested that the left abandon any and all objections to gun ownership of any kind in exchange for the right accepting a single payer universal health care system.

I think this is a great idea. No one objects to me owning a bazooka and, since I'm married, someone else pays for my health care.

[BillyTheMountain]

There, Billy. I fixed that for you. Actually, being voluntarily defenseless (you sweet, little lamb), you would be rather hard pressed to take Nick's rights away from him.

Hey, they took away your right to smoke marijuana to self medicate your mental illness, without raising a weapon;)

[BillyTheMountain]

I think this is a great idea. No one objects to me owning a bazooka and, since I'm married, someone else pays for my health care.

be honest, Greg, you're storing up nuclear material for more than a bazooka. Then NRA supports you in this, and in your supply of cop-killer bullets and bullet proof vests;)

[harper]

Hey, they took away your right to smoke marijuana to self medicate your mental illness, without raising a weapon;)

Yes, very sad, that. I have such a difficulty acquiring marijuana and narcotics now without my rights.

Then NRA supports you in this, and in your supply of cop-killer bullets and bullet proof vests

What's a "cop-killer" bullet? Is that one that only selectively kills policemen? I think that would be quite a technological feat. Where does one acquire such a thing? I've never seen them advertised.

[johnfoss]

I have heard it suggested that the left abandon any and all objections to gun ownership of any kind in exchange for the right accepting a single payer universal health care system.And that would totally work, of course. Like a health care law being passed, after being heavily watered down. But then contested in court, probably forever. No finality there. And if there were, how do you get anti-gun people to not just take up their cause again after waiting a respectful few minutes? :o

What's a "cop-killer" bullet? Is that one that only selectively kills policemen?And where can I get gangbanger-killer bullets? Darn it, if we can't get those guys to learn how to shoot (so they hit the other gangbangers and not innocent kids), I'd like to supply them with some of those!

[Nurse Ben]

The problem, of course, is that just because I may be a responsible gun owner, that doesn't mean that everyone else will be as well.


Who, other than you, says that you're a responsible gun owner? Seriously, your responsibility is simply unproven, and to prove it either means you give up your gun or shoot someone.

Almost as nutty as the Nurse's suggestion that we ditch the bill of rights. I'm still waiting to hear his reasoning on that one.


Ditch them, no, upgrade yes. Do you really think that people living over two hundred years ago would have any clue as to what is best for our society? If they had, then why do we have such a struggle balancing current issues with past precedent?

There are many things we do that, given govt intervention or lack thereof, we would do differently. Is it so hard to envision a world where right is not managed through force of arms?

The real reason to do the right thing is because it is right. I'm not a religious man, but this issue seems to beg a question I often see written on bumper stickers and church signs: What would Jesus do?

In place of "Jesus", feel free to use Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, etc...

Guns in the USA, like diseases, are a health problem, and the nurse has expertise.


Thanks Billy, that's exactly where I'm coming from.

Has anyone here read "The Forever War"?

[harper]

Who, other than you, says that you're a responsible gun owner? Seriously, your responsibility is simply unproven, and to prove it either means you give up your gun or shoot someone.


Is that in the same way as to prove your responsibility as a unicyclist you have to either give it up or run over someone? I'd chew on that for a while if it didn't taste so bad.


Ditch them, no, upgrade yes. Do you really think that people living over two hundred years ago would have any clue as to what is best for our society? If they had, then why do we have such a struggle balancing current issues with past precedent?


Which of these should be "upgraded" and in what way? The struggle balancing current issues with past precedent can be compared to today's children playing games and forever trying to bend the rules to favor themselves.


There are many things we do that, given govt intervention or lack thereof, we would do differently. Is it so hard to envision a world where right is not managed through force of arms?


Are you serious? Is there anywhere in the world where someone's version of "right" is not being forced by arms right this minute?


The real reason to do the right thing is because it is right. I'm not a religious man, but this issue seems to beg a question I often see written on bumper stickers and church signs: What would Jesus do?


Other than to point out the completely inaccurate use of the phrase "beg the question" I see no reason to address this at all unless it is to urge you to steer yourself away from a bumper sticker philosophy and mentality.


Thanks Billy, that's exactly where I'm coming from.


What else should be within the realm of the CDC? This selective jurisdiction based on questionably treatable conditions is disturbing at best.


Has anyone here read "The Forever War"?


No, but I have read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Is this related somehow?

[Nurse Ben]

Is that in the same way as to prove your responsibility as a unicyclist you have to either give it up or run over someone? I'd chew on that for a while if it didn't taste so bad.


So all things are weapons, therefore all people are potential killers, my my, that is quite a quandry ;)

Harper, now really, you seem to be suggesting that just because might is being used somewhere that this justifies the continued use of might elsewhere.

Though "right and wrong" do vary by place and culture, there is a common theme in social organizations (society), the question(s) is what will be allowed to prosper over others.

The Forever War is good reading, an old science fiction novel that uses relativity to take thousands of years "social maturity" and compress it into a single lifetime, with a conclusion that is not all that unexpected.

If you can't envision a better tomorrow, then why take part in this discussion?

[harper]

So all things are weapons, therefore all people are potential killers, my my, that is quite a quandry


You were unaware of this until just now?

So all things are weapons, therefore all people Harper, now really, you seem to be suggesting that just because might is being used somewhere that this justifies the continued use of might elsewhere.


It may seem that way to you and that does not surprise me. Might will always be used, justified or not.

Though "right and wrong" do vary by place and culture, there is a common theme in social organizations (society), the question(s) is what will be allowed to prosper over others.


I think it is more along the lines of who will prosper over others. I think the previous point covers that.

The Forever War is good reading, an old science fiction novel that uses relativity to take thousands of years "social maturity" and compress it into a single lifetime, with a conclusion that is not all that unexpected.


I would only stress the word fiction in the previous sentence.

If you can't envision a better tomorrow, then why take part in this discussion?

I do envision a better tomorrow. One without people banding together trying to control the lives of others.

[maestro8]

I do envision a better tomorrow. One without people banding together trying to control the lives of others.

Ah, Harper. Sometimes I just wanna reach through the monitor and squeeze your rosy cheeks, you big hunk of a nuclear physicist, you...

So, has anyone taken Nurse Ben's unicycle away yet? I'm afraid he's out riding irresponsibly, since he doesn't have The Great Unicycle Wizard's Grand Approval of Responsible Unicycling sticker on his helmet.

[nick]

I love that you wrote this:

Do you really think that people living over two hundred years ago would have any clue as to what is best for our society?

Followed by this:

What would Jesus do?


Other than to point out the completely inaccurate use of the phrase "beg the question" I see no reason to address this at all

"Beg the question" is the new "I could(n't) care less."

[BillyTheMountain]

Other than to point out the completely inaccurate use of the phrase "beg the question"

They no longer allow begging on the NYC subway system, begging the question is outlawed:eek::eek:

[BillyTheMountain]

Ah, Harper. Sometimes I just wanna reach through the monitor and squeeze your rosy cheeks, you big hunk of a nuclear physicist, you...

There's just another way in which you are completely misguided, victim of myths and mythology, and Harper might not correct you ...

[BillyTheMountain]

I do envision a better tomorrow. One without people banding together trying to control the lives of others.

Really?! Where everyone is free to rob, steal, kill, and shoot, without you and your goodniks trying to control?! Truancy and DWIs for kids, too??!

That's not MY idea of a bette tomorrow.

[harper]

That's not MY idea of a bette tomorrow.

I'll bette it's not.

[maestro8]

There's just another way in which you are completely misguided, victim of myths and mythology

Funny you say this Billy. You seem the misguided one. Harper's so lovable I had to put an entire state between us just to keep me from spending every day at his house playing canasta and drinking root beer until the wee hours of the morning.

Harper's no myth. He's as real as the little electrons spinning 'round in your pinky toe.

[Nurse Ben]

I do envision a better tomorrow. One without people banding together trying to control the lives of others.


And you got on me about my blinders to force being used in other countries...

So, you'd prefer anarchy over societal controls?

Who knows, maybe we'll get there sooner than you think:

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2010/03/17/Police-chief-paints-grim-picture-as-125-officers-get-pink-slips.html
http://www.berksmontnews.com/articles/2012/01/04/boyertown_area_times/news/doc4efcaa2a3e540398195104.txt
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/mt-laurel-may-reduce-police-force-transfer-library/article_93ecbdf6-4f3f-11e0-bdb4-0017a4a78c22.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/01/portland_police_propose_cuttin.html
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/26/news/economy/cops_state_budget_cuts/index.htm

Better arm yourselves :rolleyes:

How many ogun owners will never use their gun(s)? So if the arument is "I have a gun just in case", then why don't you have other things like sprinklers in your home? Owning a gun is easy and cheap, sound familiar? It's an arms race unless we control the arms.

I am far less concerned about being harmed by "less lethal" means, so if there were no guns, I would feel more secure.

It is a mindset, those who believe in force; might makes right, they prefer to own guns. Okay, own your guns, it's your right in the USA, but don't tell me that you are peaceful or that you are a safe gun owner, that could be no further from the truth.

Walk the talk.

I do have a question for the peeps: Do you any of you work with "pre-criminals" or criminals, either juvenile or adult?

[harper]

Okay, own your guns, it's your right in the USA, but don't tell me that you are peaceful or that you are a safe gun owner, that could be no further from the truth.


I am peaceful and I am a safe gun owner (as well as a gun safe owner). I guess I'm just a rebel. I see a challenge like that and I have to respond.


I do have a question for the peeps: Do you any of you work with "pre-criminals" or criminals, either juvenile or adult?

I am a pre-criminal, I suppose.

[maestro8]

So, you'd prefer anarchy over societal controls?

This is a false dichotomy. Society can be self-regulating. As the saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

How many ogun owners will never use their gun(s)?

Responsible gun owners practice regularly with their weapons.

But as for use in self defense... 'tis better to have and not need, than need and not have. Just like a fire suppression system. And, yes, I have fire extinguishers throughout my house and in my cars.

I am far less concerned about being harmed by "less lethal" means, so if there were no guns, I would feel more secure.

You're still assuming there's a "no guns" option, without telling us how we'd ever get there...

Another saying: don't bring a knife to a gun fight. "Less lethal" only means you're being kind to your aggressor while he robs, rapes and murders you.

don't tell me that you are peaceful or that you are a safe gun owner, that could be no further from the truth

...says the guy who wants to see me left defenseless, at the mercy of armed criminals. Don't tell me you're compassionate.

[Gilby]

So, you'd prefer anarchy over societal controls?

Anarchy! I dream that we can achieve that someday. Imagine being in a voluntary society.

Now, your question seems to present that anarchy and societal controls are exclusive of each other, but all societies have societal controls, even an anarchist society. You don't need a government (ie. a territorial authoritarian monopoly) to have law and order.

And, yes, I should be able to own a nuclear weapon, either in full, or as being a member of a protection service provider.

[nick]

As the saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."


What? It seems to me that the opposite is true. I think a big part of the problem with gun ownership in America is that people have the feeling that owning a gun suddenly turns you into a "big man" who no longer needs to follow the rules.

What if I choose not to own a gun? Can people then just be jerks to me because I can't threaten them with deadly force?

Is it okay for someone to shoot me dead, just because they think I'm being disrespectful?

How do you explain the notoriously bad manners of the Crips and the Bloods?

How do you explain the notoriously bad manners of North Korea?

I think if you want to argue for gun rights, this is not the way to do it.

[johnfoss]

As the saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."Sayings are a dime a dozen (so the saying goes). Are there good examples of polite societies of people that are armed? The Old West does not come to mind. :)

In any case, there is much to be said for the power of personal responsibility and a society that takes it, and uses it to maintain order. In other words, people being nice on their own, and not needing a courtroom to achieve it. But we don't live in that society. Adding guns won't make people nicer. I'm not sure what will make people nicer, but arming everyone would not work in today's American society.

And, yes, I should be able to own a nuclear weapon, either in full, or as being a member of a protection service provider.If Unicyclsit.com somehow came into possession of a nuclear weapon, I might not be scared. Long as Unicyclist.com has the security forces to protect it from theft or nefarious use.

[maestro8]

I think a big part of the problem with gun ownership in America is that people have the feeling that owning a gun suddenly turns you into a "big man" who no longer needs to follow the rules.

There's your problem right there. Not my problem. Your problem.

[nick]

There's your problem right there. Not my problem. Your problem.

If you're an American who is in favor of second amendment rights, I would say that the proliferation of such people in our society is more your problem than it is mine.

Gun ownership isn't really an issue I care greatly about (either way). But, from a practical in politics kind of a view, if you really want to protect your right to own a gun (or several), you probably want to be promoting responsible gun ownership.

[BillyTheMountain]

How do you explain the notoriously bad manners of the Crips and the Bloods?

They may take that comment as bad manners on YOUR part ....