Who said anything about barring? I'm suggesting it leaves it open to local communities to decide how they want to run things. What the 2nd amendment does is ensure that communities can, as a whole, defend their rights agaist oppressors and threats. It's just not about personal ownership/use of guns.noname said:
2nd Amendment Battle Royal
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
It seems to me that the same people who want stricter gun control are the same people that want to ban me from lighting fireworks off on the 4th of July or using my BBQ on my deck. Simply because they are afraid that something bad might happen.
Taking rights away from responsible people is no way to fix the problem of gun violence. Just as taking away the fireworks or BBQ's of responsible people does not affect the amount of fires caused by those items.
The people you are trying to prevent from acquiring these items are the same people who have little regard for the law anyways. So all it succeeds in doing is infringing on honest, responsible people.
Taking rights away from responsible people is no way to fix the problem of gun violence. Just as taking away the fireworks or BBQ's of responsible people does not affect the amount of fires caused by those items.
The people you are trying to prevent from acquiring these items are the same people who have little regard for the law anyways. So all it succeeds in doing is infringing on honest, responsible people.
Here are some quotes:
Thomas Jefferson from the proposed Virginia Consititution in 1776
Thomas Jefferson from the proposed Virginia Consititution in 1776
This quote sometimes is attributed to Thomas Jefferson but its actually from Cesare Beccaria. Jefferson quoted him in Commonplace Book
John Adams in A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States
George Wasington in his 1790 address to Congress
James Madison in 1788
Tenchiro,
You've spoken a couple times about "responsible" gun owners. What makes a "responsible" gun owner?
I'll bet that the vast majority of gun owners (if not all) consider themselves to be "responsible" gun owners (just like everyone thinks they are a good driver; it's all the other idiots out there who can't drive.) What if we had some sort of licensing where a gun owner had to attend some classes and learn how to be "responsible" and properly handle a gun? This is an idea I've been kicking around lately.
You've spoken a couple times about "responsible" gun owners. What makes a "responsible" gun owner?
I'll bet that the vast majority of gun owners (if not all) consider themselves to be "responsible" gun owners (just like everyone thinks they are a good driver; it's all the other idiots out there who can't drive.) What if we had some sort of licensing where a gun owner had to attend some classes and learn how to be "responsible" and properly handle a gun? This is an idea I've been kicking around lately.
Does it matter? They were smart enough to know they couldn't predict the future; they created a living document. We should draw wisdom from them where we can, and adapt to the realities of the modern world where we need to.Old Man G Funk said:
People only demand a strict interpretation of the constitution when it matches their agenda which has nothing to do with the constitution. And then they conveniently ignore the other parts, or claim they're irrelevant. (Wait for it.... here comes the derailment...) It's kind of like the Bible, that way.
It boils down to safe handling, and storage of the gun. Knowing how to use it and there are lots of safety courses around to take. And of course using it for legal purposes such has hunting, marksmanship or self defense.Old Man G Funk said:
If you have kids make sure they can't get access to it, but also ensure that they know how dangerous it is. I would say a safety course should be mandatory for them, and taking them to a range for some target practice is also good. Because a child (or anyone) that knows what to expect from a firearm and how to use it they are going to be far less likely to shoot someone on accident.
Sshhh...a couple of more strict constructionists (which brings up a question: If the constitution is that crystal clear, why do we need those judges anyways?) on the Supreme Court and I'm going to buy Clarence Thomas.ohio said:
Then I'm going to ebay him. Imagine how smoothly a slave market can work with modern technology?
13th Amendment. Strict constructionists do not throw out the amendments. Their point is that if you want to change it, there is a vehicle to do so.Silver said:
Actually, that question was more rhetorical. The real question I had was at the end of the paragraph.ohio said:
So, why don't we make safety courses required for gun ownership, period (i.e. not just for those with children in the house)? We require classes and a test for a driver's license, why not for gun ownership?Tenchiro said:
Hell, we can change that back right after we pass the one that makes the fags wear pink triangles out in public. Won't be a problem.DRB said:
9/11 changed everything, remember?
Strict constructionism is an illusion. Language is based in context, and doesn't stand alone as some kind of clear Platonic structure which holds, conveys, or constitutes some kind of meaning-in-itself.
This is why, as OMGF points out, we need case law and interpretation. And what I haven't done (nor anyone else here) is look up the case law on the subject.
I look at the Constitution with somewhat of a framers' intent mentality...it's like a set of principles on which a business was built. We should look to those principles for guidance and structure, yet be unafraid to reevaluate them and change them conciously if necessary. Still, we should be very careful about abandoning or reversing the principles upon which we're based. Lots of organizations start successfully, then go belly-up as they try to be everything to everyone, leaving behind the things that made them strong, successful, and unique.
MD
This is why, as OMGF points out, we need case law and interpretation. And what I haven't done (nor anyone else here) is look up the case law on the subject.
I look at the Constitution with somewhat of a framers' intent mentality...it's like a set of principles on which a business was built. We should look to those principles for guidance and structure, yet be unafraid to reevaluate them and change them conciously if necessary. Still, we should be very careful about abandoning or reversing the principles upon which we're based. Lots of organizations start successfully, then go belly-up as they try to be everything to everyone, leaving behind the things that made them strong, successful, and unique.
MD
Many municipalities have their own requirements and some are more strict than others. So this may very well be a requirement for many people.Old Man G Funk said:
No True American would oppose gun ownership.
What I'm saying is that if you remove any kind of legal situation where the populace could carry or use guns, it wouldn't take long for even minor gun crimes to become higher priority offences. I'm not claiming this will happen overnight, but it would happen. The problem you currently have is the volume of crimes that include guns. It's 'normal' to use a gun in a robbery. Making them completely illegal (hanguns at least) would be a huge step to changing this normality.MikeD said:
That depends on how well they are resourced. I recognide that if handguns were made illegal today, there would be little change tomorrow, but in a few months pulling a gun would be a bigger deal. Currently as I said gun crime is basically the norm in robberys. You need to change this norm.noname said:
Do you know why they have that blip? Every male in Switzerland does national service and is obliged by law to have a weapon. 99.9% of these are assault rifles. People are trained how to use them very well and they're a little impractical for everyday carry. My observation stands.
I agree. The US has a culture where it is normal to use a gun to commit a crime. You need to change that.
It doesn't matter how big a deal it is, (btw it's a huge deal here) it matters that you have someone with a gun and no cops near enough to do anything about it. It has been proven that when criminals are aware that there will be no forceful resistance it emboldens them.Changleen said:
Police respond to the report of a crime.
I'm quite well aware of the Swiss situation, that's why I pointed it out, practically everyone there has a gun and is trained in how to use it. "An armed society is a civil society" (can't remember who said that)
Just like the death penalty doesn't inhibit would be killers, increased punishment severity will not deter would be armed robbers, it's already a heavy felony with much jail time.
As far as a living document, that's not the job of the judiciary. The job of changing the laws and creating new ones belong to the legislature. The job of the judiciary is to determine if something is within the bounds of the law, or if the law itself is allowable under the constitution. It is not the judiciaries role to alter the meaning of the constitution.
I had to complete a safety/legality training class as well as qualifying at the range before I could apply for my permit to carry a firearm. After that I was subjected to a backround check before the permit would be issued. Does that answer your curiousity?Old Man G Funk said:
It is different in different states but usually fairly strict regardless.
As far as how well they are resourced, try this little exercise when you get some time..........Changleen said:
Pick a large city, find out how many officers it has on duty regularly, get the sqare mileage of the city and divide it by the number of on duty cops.
So what about the guy who does all this, but still thinks his handgun or his ar-15 are sweet home defense weapons? There are plenty of them out there, I am sure they consider themselves responsible and go to their weekly NRA meeting.Tenchiro said:
We all know that in the heat of the moment, most people couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, let alone a human sized target at more than a few feet. All they do is put a few rounds through walls and kill their kids or neighbours.
A carry or carry/conceal permit is a vastly different thing from simply owning a weapon.noname said:
Ah the Swiss...
You know why the Swiss don't murder each other with their rifles on a regular basis? They aren't bat**** crazy.
Saying "The Swiss can do it!" doesn't mean that the happily ignorant average American can do it too.
You know why the Swiss don't murder each other with their rifles on a regular basis? They aren't bat**** crazy.
Saying "The Swiss can do it!" doesn't mean that the happily ignorant average American can do it too.
They're huge-priority offenses as-is, with mandatory sentencing for people who use them.Changleen said:
But the judiciary never creates laws...it fills in the gaps between the words of the law and actual, physical reality. It's entirely necessary that there's someone to do this, because laws are just abstractions and words. For example, we have a right to be free from 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' Someone has to decide what this means where the rubber meets the road, in our current time and place...that's what the Supreme Court is for. The 'activist judge' rhetoric is kind of a bogeyman-distractor in the modern political parlance, especially inasmuch as everyone in politics has an agenda...judges, by the nature of their jobs, are probably the most neutral entities in our political system.noname said:
C'mon, how many gun owners actually do this? It's rare one's ever used in home defense at all, much less with such disasterous consequences. The real problems have to do with criminals using guns to commit crimes.Transcend said:
MD
MD, as for this being about the 2nd amendment, it seems to be about what people are comfortable with, because as has been mentioned before, context is important. Perhaps then only "militias" (National Guard?) should be armed.
I find myself agreeing with this. The state should not be telling individuals how to conduct themselves (seatbelts, smoking), but should have a say if an individial can affect another individual (DUI, smoking in a hospital or gas station). Disregarding suicide and hunting, guns have direct effects on other people.Changleen said:
The cops take a long time to get there, usualy the crime is over before they show up. Think about this, if every one has a gun when 1 person pulls one out every one in the aria has a gun on him.Changleen said:
You say criminals weigh risk vs reward, if no one has a gun there is no risk and that is EXACTLY my point. If I have a gun too there is ALOT more risk, therefore he does not want a part of it.
O and cops with guns is almost as bad as criminals, a monley could take an average cop in a shooting match.
even purchasing a firearm here in VA requires a backround check.Transcend said:
Judges are supposed to be neutral, what they are supposed to be and what they are are two entirely different things. There are plenty of judges out there that don't see there job as upholding/interpreting the law so much as a chance to make a difference. You have to remember that every judge is just a lawer in a black robe, and in many places they run for re-election, making them politicians as well.MikeD said:
But so do cars if used improperly...I don't throw that out as glibly as many in the radical pro-gun lobby do, but it's a fact. Thus, cars are regulated according to certain laws, and I think it's acceptable to do the same with guns. I don't think they should be banned, but reasonable limitations put on them in accordance with a community's (as represented through its state and local gov't) desires. Some communities desire or tolerate guns, others don't.bjanga said:
Certainly, minority rights should be respected, as should a state's traditions, but any unrestricted minority right to own, carry, and possibly employ guns pretty much ends with its intersection of the public sphere...
I just don't think the 2nd Amendment (in conjunction with the 14th, providing equal protection under the law) governs or precludes this type of regulation.
MD
Ed: Apparently, case law on the 2nd Amendment is extremely limited in scope, and hasn't addressed the issues we're dicussing here: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html
Look what happened in Australia when they took away all of the guns several years ago: violent home intrusion robberies increased by over 500%. (the criminals knock, then force their way in when you answer the door) Sure, shootings were way down but overall crime went way up - criminals like unarmed victims. The anti-gun politicians were completely at a loss to explain the crime surge.Changleen said:
You got that right, I had a concealed carry permit for several years and then let it expire - just too much money and trouble to keep it up.Transcend said:
Sure but I could be completely trustworthy and have no blemishes on my record, yet be completely inept with a firearm.noname said:
What's scarier is how many new parents there are who are completely inept and have no business raising children...lol.
John Lott jr. More guns, Less Crime. Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. University of chicago Press c. 1998/2000MikeD said:
check here, plnety of stuff http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Gun_Control/International/Australia/
Also, interesting home office stats from England. http://www.cybershooters.org/PDFdocs/Use of Licensed Firearms in Homicide.pdf
We need a licensing program for sexual activities!1000-Oaks said:
Mentally inept should pay double!
noname said:We need a licensing program for sexual activities!
Mentally inept should pay double!
Wouldn't work, britney and paris could still afford to breed.
He can't because it's a totally bogus claim. Homicides in 2004 were at their lowest since national statistics were first kept in 1993 (i.e before stricter gun laws were in place). Indeed stats for unlawful entry with intent (which covers home invasions), theft and assault were all way down.MikeD said:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument
Of course even before the Port Arthur massacre which precipitated even tighter gun laws in Australia, it was virtually impossible to own a handgun. People who use Australia in any pro-gun arguement don't have a clue what they're talking about.
I'm assuming you are notioning towards more strict enforcement?? If so, I like the way you think.ALEXIS_DH said: