posted
The Bill of Rights in general established a Fourth Branch of Government -- The People.
In the system of checks and balances, the People must have real power in order to implement those checks and balances.
As such, the government in an effort to re-enforce its own power and to limit the power of the people, is forbidden from restricting the right of freedom of the press, free expression, free assembly, and it further prevented from restricting the ability of the people to be sufficiently armed that should the need arise, they are capable of forming Constitutional Militias.
I say 'Constitutional' militias, because in the USA, we, the people, have the right of subversion and armed revolution, but only for the single purpose of defending and enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We do not have the right of general subversion or general revolution.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I read as, 'the ability to form 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'.
The People, as a branch of government, have the legal right to have arms of all types, and by extension, the ability to form militias in order to protect and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.
That's why our country works, because the people have very real and threatening power over the government. As soon as the people relinquish that power, there is nothing to restrain the government. And unrestrained government combined with powerless people is the first step to tyranny.
posted
BlueWizard: At the risk of just rehashing previously made gun arguments, can you see the flaw in simply allowing citizens to have arms of all kinds without any sort of controls? Or even if we allow public formed militia's, do we allow militia's to train with air force jets? What about army tanks?
But let's limit this to JUST hand guns, let's say the government became hostile towards the people and tried to use it's military might to beat us into submission.
What good would a handgun be? It would not be effective against a standard army grunt with Kevlar and an assault rifle, much less a mortar, much less a Humvee, much less an artillery placement, much less a helicopter, much less a predator, much less a jet, much less a bomber armed with a nuclear warhead.
To me handguns are good for two things. Keeping the fact I am armed concealed, and having an advantage over an unarmed opponent in a conflict situation where my opposition is at close to medium range. If I need to defend myself I can have a rifle or a shotgun at home. If I need to go hunting handguns are hardly as good as rifle. If I insist on the handicap of a handgun I could rent a handgun, use it and return it.
The vast majority of gun crime involves a handgun. Since handguns neither protect us against the government, nor are they the only means of protecting somebody in the home, it is reasonable the handguns be banned from use until further notice.
Would you be willing to discuss with me the drawbacks to eliminating JUST handguns from the general populace?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Theory, I believe that the citizens have the right to be as armed as the government is. So, yes, bazookas, rocket launchers, machine guns, tanks, etc....
On the other hand, I can see the social draw backs to allowing such extreme weapons. Who is to say various factions of the mafia or drug gangs can't form their own armies to fight one another with the citizens caught in the cross fire?
In my mind the type of gun is irrelevant, and by that I mean I see no need to absolutely restrict citizens from having handguns. Other more powerful guns are a bit trickier, but I do defend that absolute right of some citizens to have heavy arms.
So, I admit that we walk a fine line regarding personal guns in a lawful society. At what point does owning a gun contribute to a lawful society, and at what point does in become the impetus for a lawless society.
I think the balancing point always tip in the favor of citizens. Citizens must always be sufficiently arm or able to be armed that they are a constant and real threat to anyone seeking to take over the government and the country by subverting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
George Bush has come close to this. He has passed laws that I clearly feel are an unnecessary infringement on the Bill of Rights and on the standard checks and balances of the Constitution. However, his actions haven't quite gone so far as to demand citizen armed rebellion. We have to give the system time to work these things out, but we must also be on guard to assure that the System is truly trying to work out the Constitutionality of various governmental actions.
When it become clear that all branches of government are ignoring the Constitution in favor of some self-serving political agenda, then the citizens must us all other forms of countermeasure to bring this to a halt. Truly the citizens are the last bastion of freedom. When they relent, freedom is lost. While they resist by whatever means necessary, the hope for Liberty remains.
At some point, when elections, and protest, and rallies have failed, the last and final resort is armed rebellion against a corrupt government.
Keep in mind that when I talk of arm rebellion, I am speaking of one and only one valid context, and that is to preserve, defend, and enforce the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Arm Rebellion for any other reason is treason, and must be resisted by all necessary force by the citizens.
Ultimately, it is not the government that we must depend on to insure continued freedom; it is the will and the force of a free people who will accept nothing less. Complacency of the people, is the gateway to tyranny.
As to the definition of 'Arms', Arms, which is short for Armaments, does NOT mean muskets or rifles, it mean weapons. Further it means weapons of the day; not that day, but THIS day; modern weapons.
If the citizens of the Colonies had not already been sufficiently armed, they would not have been able to resist the armies of the King. Note that the citizens of the Colonies had arms roughly equivalent to the army they were opposing.
That applies to modern times, citizen must have access to arms roughly equivalent to the force they are opposing.
This is about forming citizen armies, and armies in modern times are not equipped with muskets.
The Second Amendment is not about forming Militias, it is about the right of the individual to be sufficiently armed that should the need arise, they can form the necessary militias.
quote:I think the balancing point always tip in the favor of citizens. Citizens must always be sufficiently arm or able to be armed that they are a constant and real threat to anyone seeking to take over the government and the country by subverting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
OK but we can do that without handguns, I've already said they do little to nothing to level the playing field for this sort of conflict. Can we really not say what citizens can own in this instance without tipping the balance of power in favor of the government? Look at what the Iraqis are using against our government, they are not using handguns, they are using rifles, IEDs, RPGs.
This to me is not a question of erring on the side of the citizenry, it's a question of trading what seriously exacerbates violent crime for something that does us no real good anyway.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What good would a handgun be? It would not be effective against a standard army grunt with Kevlar and an assault rifle, much less a mortar, much less a Humvee, much less an artillery placement, much less a helicopter, much less a predator, much less a jet, much less a bomber armed with a nuclear warhead.
If there is anything we learned from Hong Kong films, one handgun would be no good. You would need *two handguns* to take on any of those up to the jet. For that, you would need Kung Fu...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What good would a handgun be? It would not be effective against a standard army grunt with Kevlar and an assault rifle, much less a mortar, much less a Humvee, much less an artillery placement, much less a helicopter, much less a predator, much less a jet, much less a bomber armed with a nuclear warhead.
If there is anything we learned from Hong Kong films, one handgun would be no good. You would need *two handguns* to take on any of those up to the jet. For that, you would need Kung Fu...
Nah John McLain in Live Free or Die Hard took out a jet without any of those things.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but you're no John McLain and I'm not Jackie Chan who could take out a jet and provide family-friendly entertainment at the same time without breaking a sweat.
Clearly, the two handguns and slow-motion juice would be more reliable for mere mortals like us Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Second Amendment is not about forming Militias, it is about the right of the individual to be sufficiently armed that should the need arise, they can form the necessary militias.
I couldn't disagree more. See my megapost on the previous page for why. Frankly I think the Militia Act that was passed in the early 20th century, I don't remember when exactly, but it turned Militias into National Guard units, was unconstitutional, and we should have something closer to what Switzerland has. We should all have weapons if we want them, and we should be trained, ordered, and organized into local militias.
I'd be okay with amending the second amendment to make it more clear and more relevent to the 21st century, but this country would NEVER be able to agree on what it should say.
BB -
McLain didn't take out a jet, the jet took out itself by stupidly flying under falling debris. At best, McLain is really, really good at dodging. I'd be curious to see what Legolas could have done with a Glock though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another use for hand guns - When hiking in the high mountains in Grizzly country a 44 or 45 is much nicer to carry around than a 7mm mag or .358 rifle.
As far as the militia argument, we have no militia and the national guard may as well be a standing army at this point as much as they are activated. I know they/we are supposedly under state control but who holds the purse strings? The federal government. And each state is only given certain units that would hardly constitute a complete force. For instance, my unit has a system that is carried on a C-130 to operate. But guess what? Our state doesn't have any C-130s so we have to have the cooperation of other states to do our mission. And to get that you have to go to the National Guard Bureau in DC to coordinate. I would venture to say that without federal government cooperation the national guard couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper sack. And I say that in the nicest way.
posted
First and foremost, the National Guard is in no way, shape, or form a 'citizen militia'. In times of peace the Guard takes it's orders from the State GOVERNMENT, and it times of war or conflict, they take their orders from the Federal GOVERNMENT. How can you call them the bastion of free citizens when they are under the command of the very government that is likely the source of the oppression they should be fighting against.
Further, an Organized Militia is irrelevant if the citizens do not have the capability to organize said militia. The problem with an Organized Militia is that they probably keep all their arms in a single location, like the National Guard. That makes them very easy to neutralize in times of national conflict. Only when arms are kept individually can this flaw be overcome.
The only way to be able to form an Organized Militia, is if each citizen has the right to have the arms necessary to for that militia. Otherwise the whole concept of militia is nothing but a token concept to placate the masses. The right to form an Organized Militia is meaningless if you are not also granted the means to form that militia.
Further, standing militias are generally not necessary. But the ability of the citizens to form a militia on a moments notice is VERY VERY necessary. Without the ability to form, the concept is meaningless.
That is like saying, you have the right to drive a car, but you don't have the right to beg, borrow, own, posses, or use said car. The right is nothing, if the same law that grants the right circumvents the ability to carry out that right.
There are true citizen militias, most often found in Montana and Idaho. There politics are usually a little more radical than mine, but they exist under a solemn and immutable right.
Personally, I think there should be more militia, I think every county in the USA should have its own militia hell bend on defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against all enemies foreign and more importantly domestic.
Again, I say that any insurrection, and rebellion is limited in scope by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They can NOT exist and can NOT act to promote any agenda, (social, religious, or political) other that a fair and reasonable interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
When citizens fear government, the door is open to Tyranny. When government fears its citizens, the door is open to liberty.
In conclusion, the ability the HAVE a militia is irrelevant if we are not also granted the means to form the militia.
As to the subject of specifically handguns. I see not reason to eliminate them. We are talking here in the context of Militia, handguns are fair and valid weapons, and therefore must not be restricted.
If they are restricted, then neither the government or the citizens should be allowed to have them. Let the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, and the police carry rifles and shotguns.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying there shouldn't be some limitations on handguns. Way too many people see a few movie and suddenly think they are experts on guns. Most of those people will be dying very soon I can assure you, though how many they will take with them I can't be sure.
Guns are dangerous, we don't let children play with them. Neither should we let idiot adults totally lacking in common sense play with them. So, I'm not necessarily for anyone and everyone owning a handgun, but I see nothing to warrant an absolute restriction on them.
Further, those who do support an absolute ban on handgun are ignoring reality. These people are usually people who have no experience with shooting sports at all, and have no idea or concept of the very large segment of the population, old and young, who enjoy harmless recreation shooting sports.
Australia has so severely restricted guns, that Olympic Shooting Sports athletes have to leave the country to train. That in my view is nothing but political correctness run amok.
An extremely small percent of available handguns are involved in crime, and if you look at rounds fire rather than guns, many many many more round are fired in non-crime related activities than are used in crime. Why should millions of law abiding citizens be punished, for the crimes of a very very few? That makes no sense to me.
Once again, and no offense, but those who advocate the elimination or restriction on handguns have little or no real awareness of handgun in our society. Usually, they are uninformed politically correct fanatics trying to institute a knee-jerk restriction on things they know nothing about. Not all, but most.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ... Way too many people see a few movie and suddenly think they are experts on guns. Most of those people will be dying very soon I can assure you, though how many they will take with them I can't be sure.
quote:McLain didn't take out a jet, the jet took out itself by stupidly flying under falling debris. At best, McLain is really, really good at dodging. I'd be curious to see what Legolas could have done with a Glock though.
He fell on the jet and distracted the pilot who let the debris fall into his engine. But point taken.
Blue Wizard:
quote:Guns are dangerous, we don't let children play with them. Neither should we let idiot adults totally lacking in common sense play with them. So, I'm not necessarily for anyone and everyone owning a handgun, but I see nothing to warrant an absolute restriction on them.
Who is arguing this? I said for hunting purposes people could rent them, I would still be in favor of people being able to own them and go to a gun range and fire them, but they would not have them at an arm's reach.
quote:Australia has so severely restricted guns, that Olympic Shooting Sports athletes have to leave the country to train. That in my view is nothing but political correctness run amok.
OK so maybe the correct path is a step in the other direction? Hong Kong does not allow its' citizens to own guns of any kind, but the police have them, and their instance of violent crime is one of the lowest in the world. Now of course there are other cultural considerations to take into account when looking at Japan and Hong Kong's low instances of violent crime, but a lack of handguns is DEFINATELY a part of the equation. The UK allows people to own rifles and shotguns and keep them at home but they are not allowed to own handguns or take their guns out in public. Their crime rate is also lower then ours by a significant degree, and most of their policeman are not even armed.
quote:An extremely small percent of available handguns are involved in crime, and if you look at rounds fire rather than guns, many many many more round are fired in non-crime related activities than are used in crime. Why should millions of law abiding citizens be punished, for the crimes of a very very few? That makes no sense to me.
I don't know how you think guns a rarely involved in crime. I said violent crime. Obviously guns are not involved in things like, embezzlement, fraud, laundering, perjury, arson, lewd conduct. They are not always involved in things like, larceny, assault, battery, even murder. But it's flat out wrong to say that hand guns are not involved in MOST of all cases of violent crime. The following is from the department of justice,
"In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm."
Now the VAST majority of firearms used are handguns. Yes people occasionally use shotguns, and rifles in crime, but not NEARLY as often as handguns.
As for millions of law abiding citizens being punished, who said that? Since when was a law restricting the owning of a handgun a punishment? Are they going to shoot you with your own gun when you hand it in? When the government says only people 16 and older can drive a car is that a punishment to everyone younger?
Handguns protect hardly anybody, the instances where a private citizen with a gun have helped prevent crime is laughably low. The requirements to own a gun are ridiculously easy. Even most people who are familiar with guns don't know how to properly use them in a criminal situation. How many people do you know have successfully prevented a crime by using their handgun properly?
No offense intended to you but most arguments that we should not band handguns hinge on the language of the constitution, which is stupid as we are supposed to modify it as our needs see fit. It's ridiculous to me that vague wording crafted over 200 years ago is to be adhered to more then our common sense of today. A handgun does not protect the citizenry from it's government, the 2nd amendment protects the citizens by allowing them to form private militias that can be summoned should the government turn against the people, or a foreign country invade our shores.
Again if either of those things happen you will NOT see handguns playing much of a role in the conflict, ask the Iraqi's who are fighting us right now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole militia argument is only going to be valid if the Court takes a collective rights view on things. In my view, if they take the collective rights view they essentially are saying there is no second amendment as there are no militias and not likely to be any militias. Though if they do take that view and we try to organize a DC militia will they be able to then stop us?
Black Blade - I don't think that is the kind of punishment that was implied. He is talking about being deprived of their property and right to own said property.
As for the statistic in the UK, you conviently left one out. The instances of "hot" burglaries (when the residents are home during the burglary) is much higher in those countries where gun ownership is severly restricted.
quote:As for the statistic in the UK, you conviently left one out. The instances of "hot" burglaries (when the residents are home during the burglary) is much higher in those countries where gun ownership is severly restricted.
Not so much convenient as constrained by time, my wife said she will be back in an hour and she said she expected the dishes done by the time she gets back, which will be in about 20 minutes so I need to get to it.
I don't see how that follows, do you by any chance know any explanation WHY in the UK people choose to rob people while they are at home when gun registration is limited?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The implication to be made is there is less risk. I don't think that they intentionally plan to rob them when they are home, simply that it isn't as big a factor in their casing of homes as it would be say in Texas or Wyoming where no burglar in his right mind would enter a home which he knows is occupied.
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: The implication to be made is there is less risk. I don't think that they intentionally plan to rob them when they are home, simply that it isn't as big a factor in their casing of homes as it would be say in Texas or Wyoming where no burglar in his right mind would enter a home which he knows is occupied.
Sergeant
I don't quite follow. In the UK they can still own shotguns and rifles and keep them at home. They are also authorized to use them in self defense, so I am not sure why there is a greater risk of being robbed while at home. Or is it because most people choose not to have guns and so robbers are emboldened?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think you agree with me, but you seem to either disagree with yourself, or not understand how historically militias work. Forming them AFTER you need them puts you at an extreme disadvantage from the group you are trying to fight. The major point of wanting independent citizen militias back then was that they needed to be organized and so that the locals could elect their own officers and not have them chosen for them.
Guns weren't stored at central armories, they were stored in homes, and people generally grew up knowing how to use firearms and they sometimes would get together, maybe once a month or so, for general training and every now and then to elect officers. Forming a militia AFTER you need it means you have no idea what the hell is going on, especially in today's day and age, and you have no training, no ordering, no idea of who knows what, and while you figure all that out, you're being attacked. You need to be able to form and assemble BEFORE the threat gets to you, not while you're being attacked.
I don't think you get how militias traditionally work, but I agree with you wholeheartedly that the National Guard is not a militia. But again, I think you're sort of wrong about adherence to the government. State militias were still under the control of the local state government, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was that way again if the Fed ever attacked their own citizens. If the state ends up being the enemy, then they'll probably stop listening, but you seem to not be allowing for real life circumstances rather than what it says on paper.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I said for hunting purposes people could rent them,...
I'm sorry but this is irrational, if you really think the American people would agree to 'renting' their guns on an as-needed basis, you are somewhat delusional. But on the other hand, I can go to a local combination gun shop/range and rent to-use various guns. I'm not saying 'renting' is a problem, but I am absolutely saying the denial of ownership is a huge problem.
So, I don't so much object to the concept of renting, I object to the idea that the American people will accept this as their only access to guns.
... I would still be in favor of people being able to own them and go to a gun range and fire them, but they would not have them at an arm's reach.
What is the point of owning something if you don't have control of it? Perhaps, your car should be stored in a central government garage, and you have to travel to the garage everyday to pick up your car to go to work. I doubt that you see it, but this is roughly the same as the logic you are proposing.
By the way, do YOU have any experience with guns or various shooting sports??
...Hong Kong does not allow its' citizens to own guns of any kind...
Oh please tell me you are not going to hold Hong Kong up as an ideal society. The Chinese government is unbelievably oppressive and tyrannical. The day the USA models itself after China is the day I join the militia.
BlueWizard said (that's me):
An extremely small percent of available handguns are involved in crime, ...
To which BlackBlade replied:
I don't know how you think guns a rarely involved in crime. I said violent crime. Obviously guns are not involved in things like, embezzlement, fraud, laundering, perjury, ...
Your response was so far off as to make no sense at all. Obviously you didn't read what I said.
There are many many many handguns in the USA, but only a very very very small portion of them are ever involved in crime. That's true. A vast majority of guns are owned by safe responsible people who never even consider committing a crime. You want to punish them, and deprive them of their rights to give yourself a false sense of security. But I am here to tell you, that if you give up your rights, you will have neither safety nor security.
Crimes like parking tickets and fraud are completely irrelevant to the discussion as they do not represent 'gun' crimes. The point is that millions of guns exist, but only a few dozen of them are involved in crimes(as a point of illustration). It is an attempt to put gun crimes in perspective for someone who has no knowledge of the extent of existing guns in our society.
Also, keep in mind that a substantial percent of those guns involved in crime, were NOT purchase legally. So, laws restricting them would have no effect on their existence in the hands of criminals.
As far as Britain, have you read the news from Britain lately?? I think not. How about a 11 year old boy who was walking home from soccer practice who was gunned down in the street for no reason. The kid who did it, with a handgun by the way, rode off on a bicycle. Restricting handgun in England didn't save his life.
How about the girls we were seen brandishing a gun in a Shopping Mall, who were caught on video tape. Store security did nothing, the police took their time getting there, and they still haven't been caught despite crystal clear video images of them.
The same thing happened in a train station, two boys were playing with a gun in the station, and were caught on video, but again, security did nothing and the police took their time getting there, and again, despite clear video tape no news of them being caught.
Yeah, that gun control thing is really working out nicely for them.
And by the way, Canada probably has more guns than anyone except the USA, and they have a very secure society and very little gun crime. It's not the presence of guns that causes death, it's idiots who believe that crime is a glamours and profitable pursuit. Idiots who buy into the whole gansta mentality.
BlackBlade also said'
It's ridiculous to me that vague wording crafted over 200 years ago is to be adhered to more then our common sense of today.
That document set up a system of checks and balances that insure that government stays in the hands of the people. The Constitutional Founders thought long and hard for many years before they added the Bill of Rights.
They had already set up a government that had a system of checks and balances built in. But they knew that wasn't enough. They knew that the only way to protect citizens from government was to give citizens immutable power, and from that idea they created the Bill of Rights. A set of rights that enumerates every way that government has historically and traditionally oppressed it's citizens, and denied government the ability to engage in those oppressive actions.
We see these forms of oppression and denial of rights going on in the world today. The first thing that happens in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan, and many many other countries is to deny freedom of the press, to deny freedom of speech and assembly, and to deny citizens the means to protect and defend themselves.
If you can look at the world today and not see the oppression caused by the absents of the Bill of Rights, if you can't see that today as much or more than ever, the need for the complete and full Bill of Rights empowering citizens, then I am sorry to say that you are living in a fairytale land.
Oppression and tyranny are not vague visions from a distant past, they exist in the world today, and they exist in places that have denied their citizens the very rights we are so eager to throw away.
posted
If you have a US firearms license is there some obligation for you to join a militia should one be formed? How is/would this be controlled?
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Oh please tell me you are not going to hold Hong Kong up as an ideal society. The Chinese government is unbelievably oppressive and tyrannical. The day the USA models itself after China is the day I join the militia.
Thats a bizarre piece of logic. Hong Kong's gun control laws were instituted *before* the 1997 handover by the British government, not after.
Additionally, if anything integration with the rest of China increased crime related activities due to increased arms smuggling with *more lax* controls on arms smuggling. http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/08/05/crim.php
quote: The crime wave has also raised concerns that closer integration with the mainland before Hong Kong's return to China in 1997 is leading to a rapid increase in lawlessness.
What most disturbs the authorities, politicians and, apparently, the public about the robberies is the increasing use of guns and hand grenades, which the police report are coming across the border from mainland China. ... Hong Kong has strict gun control laws, and until recently the number of criminals using firearms was small. But as economic ties between the colony and neighboring Guangdong Province have grown in recent years, weapons have begun to come across the border.
This is in 1991, *before* the handover.
Or is your logic that any ideas that while being foreign in origin, automatically become evil after the Chinese take it over. If that is true, you'd better not use gasoline-powered cars or electricity either, I hear the Chinese government uses those too.
quote: And by the way, Canada probably has more guns than anyone except the USA, and they have a very secure society and very little gun crime. It's not the presence of guns that causes death, it's idiots who believe that crime is a glamours and profitable pursuit. Idiots who buy into the whole gansta mentality.
As a proud Canadian, I'd like to say thank you for such a glowing review. However, the reality is quite a bit different. Canada is not safer because of an unprovable lower level of "ganstas".
A) Canada does not have more guns than anyone but the US, we are actually quite average in that regard, thanks
quote: In a study of gun ownership in selected western nations, Canada's level of gun ownership (21.8%) was similar to France's (23.8%) and Sweden's (16.6%). Of the eight countries compared, firearm ownership was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in the Netherlands (2%).
If you're going to hold up Canada's gun policies as a model, maybe you should consider that you're proposing halving the United State's level of gun ownership to below that of *France.* I'm not sure thats exactly what you intended
B) The vast majority of guns in Canada are actually long guns (households with long guns 95.1%) rather than the handguns (households with handguns at 12%). Thus Canada is not a great example to point at to refute BlackBlade's assertion that a society should ban handguns rather than long guns. Compared to the US Canada has very few handguns *already*
Please, argue all you want about gun ownership in the context of the Unites States. However, please take a bit more care before dragging the rest of us in with false portrayals in order to back up your case.
quote:I'm sorry but this is irrational, if you really think the American people would agree to 'renting' their guns on an as-needed basis, you are somewhat delusional. But on the other hand, I can go to a local combination gun shop/range and rent to-use various guns. I'm not saying 'renting' is a problem, but I am absolutely saying the denial of ownership is a huge problem.
Look you keep saying GUNS when *I* am saying handguns. It sounds like you are trying to pigeonhole me into some sort of, "ALL GUNS = BAD" group.
quote:By the way, do YOU have any experience with guns or various shooting sports??
I've handled rifles and fired them, but beyond that no. Could you elucidate why that matters? Do you have any experience with firing a handgun at a person? Have you had to defend your home from an attacker armed with a gun? If neither are experiences you have had then your question is irrelevant to both of us.
quote:Your response was so far off as to make no sense at all. Obviously you didn't read what I said.
You said that guns are not involved in a majority if crimes, and I was saying, "Well duh if we use ALL crime instead of just VIOLENT crime of course that's true." Non violent crime does not get people killed, people not getting killed is what I am going for.
quote:Also, keep in mind that a substantial percent of those guns involved in crime, were NOT purchase legally. So, laws restricting them would have no effect on their existence in the hands of criminals.
This just isn't true, it would definitely be VERY hard and take ALOT of time to get each and every handgun out of the hands of Americans. There would be alot of opposition, but I am not debating on how we would do it, only that it's a good idea in the first place. The only reason it would be hard to remove handguns from the picture is that gun owners would refuse to observe the law and retain them, that is THEIR fault not the legislation's.
quote:As far as Britain, have you read the news from Britain lately?? I think not. How about a 11 year old boy who was walking home from soccer practice who was gunned down in the street for no reason. The kid who did it, with a handgun by the way, rode off on a bicycle. Restricting handgun in England didn't save his life.
How about the girls we were seen brandishing a gun in a Shopping Mall, who were caught on video tape. Store security did nothing, the police took their time getting there, and they still haven't been caught despite crystal clear video images of them.
Yes yes your two stories totally disprove the idea that banning handguns lowers violent crime at all.
quote:And by the way, Canada probably has more guns than anyone except the USA, and they have a very secure society and very little gun crime. It's not the presence of guns that causes death, it's idiots who believe that crime is a glamours and profitable pursuit. Idiots who buy into the whole gansta mentality.
As Mucus already said they have long arms at home and very few handguns which would be a situation I would like to aim for.
And you seem to have edited out your statements about Hong Kong which Mucus in large degree already addressed. I grew up in Hong Kong, and crime is VERY low there, not because the government is oppressive either. A murder in Hong Kong was so big it was often front page news and a feature of the evening news. It would be a sound byte here in Utah.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
You said that guns are not involved in a majority if crimes, and I was saying, "Well duh if we use ALL crime instead of just VIOLENT crime of course that's true." Non violent crime does not get people killed, people not getting killed is what I am going for.
No, that's not what I said, YOU are talking about crime, though I can see no reason to bring in non-gun crimes into a discussion of guns and crime. I, on the other hand, am talking about GUNS.
YOU are saying handguns are not involved in a majority of crimes.
I AM SAYING, a majority of handguns are not involved in crime.
Surely you must be able to see the difference?
It's about the percentage of available guns that are involved in crime, of all the gun/handguns that exist in the USA, only a small portion of them are involved in crime and an even smaller percentage of ammunition is involved in crime.
With excessively regulating handguns, you are denying the rights of many many safe law-abiding people, in hopes of controlling a very small percent of the population who are hell bend on not obeying the law. If they are hell bent on not obeying the law, what makes you think they will obey the restriction or ban on handguns?
It is absolutely essence of the classic phrase, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
That was the point of my British examples, here we have a country the bans handguns, yet we see KIDS in the street WITH Handguns. So, again, just how well is that ban working? Not so well I think.
As to the British and Hong Kong, they were an occupying force, they didn't want a citizenry that they couldn't control or one that could oppose them. They were acting in the oppressive and tyrannical way that the Bill of Rights is determine to prevent. If the citizens could have rebelled, if they had the means, they likely would have. It is unprecedented for one country to occupy another for as long as Britain controlled Hong Kong.
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, that's not what I said, YOU are talking about crime, though I can see no reason to bring in non-gun crimes into a discussion of guns and crime. I, on the other hand, am talking about GUNS.
YOU said in a previous post, "An extremely small percent of available handguns are involved in crime, and if you look at rounds fire rather than guns, many many many more round are fired in non-crime related activities than are used in crime. Why should millions of law abiding citizens be punished, for the crimes of a very very few? That makes no sense to me," I am making the distinction between crime and violent crime because earlier it seemed you were saying that guns are not involved in much crime in GENERAL. If you are not saying that fine, we don't need to beat this horse.
quote: YOU are saying handguns are not involved in a majority of crimes.
I AM SAYING, a majority of handguns are not involved in crime.
Look the only points I am making are that handguns enable far too many people to commit violent crime while preventing virtually NONE in the hands of the citizenry.
I said earlier, "In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm." Even safe law abiding citizens commit crimes of passion, it's not as if once a safe law abiding citizen ALWAYS a safe law abiding citizen. I'm not controlling ANYONE I'm controlling an ITEM. Of course it would take alot of time to remove the handguns from the general populace, but it would happen eventually. People in possession of a handgun could be punished stiffly until all but the fringe of society have complied. That situation in of itself would CERTAINLY decrease a good chunk of violent crime and make us a safer society. Even if outlaws are the only ones with handguns, people are still armed in their homes and their businesses. It's not as if criminals will suddenly have the advantage.
quote:That was the point of my British examples, here we have a country the bans handguns, yet we see KIDS in the street WITH Handguns. So, again, just how well is that ban working? Not so well I think.
You provided anecdotal evidence claiming it by itself proves that the ban on handguns in the UK does not work. How many other shootings have been prevented because it's still difficult to get a handgun and a person just did not have one on their shelf?
quote:As to the British and Hong Kong, they were an occupying force, they didn't want a citizenry that they couldn't control or one that could oppose them. They were acting in the oppressive and tyrannical way that the Bill of Rights is determine to prevent. If the citizens could have rebelled, if they had the means, they likely would have. It is unprecedented for one country to occupy another for as long as Britain controlled Hong Kong.
Oh please, Hong Kong tolerated British control because they were granted ALOT of autonomy they had not previously enjoyed AND because under British rule their economy grew by leaps and bounds. People from Hong Kong do not have the frontier experience that so many Americans cling to, and hence do not feel the need to own guns. Standards of living continually increase, and there is a culture of non violence, and all these things come together to create a safe environment.
I'm not saying, "Hey get rid of the handguns, and all crime will disappear too!" But I do see handguns as an exacerbating influence that we can't use to protect us from our government, and that we don't need to be safe in our homes or at work. I am fine with allowing citizenry with having long arms at home and at private businesses. I am also in support of the states individual deciding whether they want to ban guns rather then the federal government just doing it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last I checked, the British aren't under martial law, and they've had a general handgun ban for many years. Also, they have almost zero handgun deaths.
I'm not saying banning handguns in our cities will save us from murders, but I do think it cuts down on gun deaths, if by no other means than cutting down on deaths from stray bullets.
The uncharitable side of me wonders cynically if some of those who hate this sort of ban feel that way because they'd like to see more handgun deaths in poor black neighborhoods. I'm not accusing anyone here of such a motivation, but I would, if I didn't know you all better.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: As to the British and Hong Kong, they were an occupying force, they didn't want a citizenry that they couldn't control or one that could oppose them. They were acting in the oppressive and tyrannical way that the Bill of Rights is determine to prevent. If the citizens could have rebelled, if they had the means, they likely would have. It is unprecedented for one country to occupy another for as long as Britain controlled Hong Kong.
See, I have less interest in the gun control issue by itself, but your continuing over-simplification of history in black and white to suit your arguments is quite jarring. This paragraph is just another example.
A) Talk about moving the goalposts, were you not ranting against the "oppressive and tyrannical" Chinese government? Why are you referring to the British now B) "unprecedented" This word does not mean what you think it means.
Hong Kong was controlled for 157 years. Just in Hong Kong's backyard, Hong Kong was conquered from the Manchu Dynasty. The Manchurians controlled China for over 250 years. Just next door, Macau was under the de facto control of the Portugese for even longer. Heck, Britain itself was under control by the Roman empire for hundreds of years.
C) Whether Hong Kong's residents would have even wanted to rebel against the British is heavily dependent on what time period we are talking about.
Keep in mind that for much of Hong Kong's modern history, it has been viewed as a safe haven for many from the warlord period after the overthrow of the Manchu Dynasty, a safe haven from the Chinese Civil War between the Communists and Nationalists, for a short time a haven from the Imperial Japanese, and a safe haven from the Communist land reforms and Cultural Revolution. This is true to the extent that the British actually had to severely curtail immigration from China and many Cantonese families have stories of immigration from China to Hong Kong, including my own.
So would people in Hong Kong wanted to rebel against the British, even given guns, especially in the modern period in which BlackBlade grew up in and is referring to? Almost certainly not, the British were usually the only thing standing between them and the PRC, or the Japanese, or even the Nationalists at any particular point.
This is not to say that life under the British was great, corruption was often a problem, and having a foreign ruler is often troublesome.
However, for the majority of citizens the British government was much better than the alternative to the extent that many Hong Kong residents left before the 1997 handover and only went back after it was apparent that China would keep its word to not make massive changes to the laws and institutions that the British had setup.
"if they had the means, they likely would have"? Give me a break. Guns, especially handguns, are a tiny factor in whether residents in Hong Kong would have rebelled when compared to the larger external forces at work.
Stick to the US where you're (presumably) familiar with the situation.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
9 democratic senators and 68 democratic representatives joined, yet the opening paragraph of the article uses the term "bipartisan majority." To me, the phrase suggests majorities in both parties, not a majority that includes a few members from another party. Do others interpret the phrase as I do, or as the AP used it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read it the same as the AP - "a majority that is bipartisan." It's kind of fuzzy though. I can understand holding out for a bit more equity; it might sound fishy if they only had a couple of dems on board.
Maybe at this point we should take whatever bipartisanship we can get. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I saw it closer to the way Dag did. Bipartisan majority seems to imply some sort of equality of bipartisanship. A largely Republican bill with a could Democratic hangers on isn't that bipartisan.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow "I heard a noise, grabbed my gun, waved it around while yelling at the dark, and scared the boogyman away" fails to impress.
But whether or not guns save lives has little-to-nothing to do the purpose with my posting. It was meant as a commentary on the SCotUS-petition Congressmen themselves against the backdrop of those politicians in yesterday's news links.
quote:Somehow "I heard a noise, grabbed my gun, waved it around while yelling at the dark, and scared the boogyman away" fails to impress.
True. If that were the only one, I wouldn't be impressed either. Of course, the explicit accounts of threatened rape - one with a knife - are a little different than the summary you gave.
quote:It was meant as a commentary on the SCotUS-petition Congressmen themselves against the backdrop of those politicians in yesterday's news links.
I'm sure that incident did not change their mind.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: The phrase reads to me as a majority of the representatives in congress comprised of supporters from both parties.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
My off the cuff prediction based solely on secondhand accounts of the oral argument (which means it's likely wrong): the court will find there is an individual right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation. An outright ban will be held unreasonable. The contours that will need to be filled in, probably by later cases, include which arms are covered by the right and what makes a regulation reasonable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee- It seems Roberts has tried to gather strong majorities for the SC decisions since he has assumed the role of chief justice. Do you see that playing into this decision at all? That is, will a decision be handed down that gets to 7-2 or stronger, but might not answer very much, or will we see a strong decision but with a weak majority?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's hard to predict the numbers - there could be as many as 8 or as few as 5 who think the right is individual, and 3 of those 8 might uphold the ban even in the face of such a right.
Regardless of the numbers, I think the decision will leave much unanswered. The only firm points will be the right is individual and a total ban violates that right.
Of course, this is rank speculation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C.
This doesn't change my earlier guess: a majority will find an individual right to bear arms subject to reasonable regulation; a possibly smaller majority will find the DC ban unreasonable.
We should get this opinion soon.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
posted
The Supreme Court threw out the ban. Justices have no individual power to act in these circumstances.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But point taken.
