Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms

[_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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Maybe you still have time to delete your post.

[peleschramm]

Originally Posted by SqueakyOnion

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]

Originally Posted by harper

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]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

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.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

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.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

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]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

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.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

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?

Originally Posted by peleschramm

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/infor...em.asp?ID=2685

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/...s.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]

Originally Posted by kington99

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.

[kington99]

Originally Posted by jamessd

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]

Originally Posted by Naomi

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]

Originally Posted by Naomi

I think I will post some statistics

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION