posted
That's all well and good, but limited reasonable gun control isn't a bad thing. I'm not talking about prying guns out of people's hand, but making it harder for people who should not have guns to get them.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe there are many rulings saying that the government may regulate how a right is used. What it can't do is regulate the right away entirely. So "reasonable gun control" won't be affected by this ruling, if I understand correctly. What will be affected is outright bans, as existed in some cities.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried to be cutting edge and make my own topic since I didn' tsee this one, but the second post was a link here. Oh well.
I want to write a long post outlining the historical context of the 2nd Ammendment and the mentality of the Framers in 1791 and contrast that to the present situation, but alas, no time.
To be quick, as far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Ammendment of 1791 holds little to no bearing in the present case. That's not to say it isn't still applicable in general and doesn't belong in the Constitution. But the reason for its inclusion in the Constitution and therefore what the Framers meant for us by including it in the Constituion holds little to no applicability to handgun ban in D.C. The more I think about it, the more ludicrous it seems to equate the two.
Historical context aside, I still think it's a poor decision, but not necessarily a wrong one.
quote:I want to write a long post outlining the historical context of the 2nd Ammendment and the mentality of the Framers in 1791 and contrast that to the present situation, but alas, no time.
I have a post in the first page of Dag's thread on this same topic that you might want to take a look at. I could have gone much further into detail on it but didn't really have time when I wrote it. I'd be curious to see what you might add or have to say on the subject.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Great. Lets see if we can get the shooting death numbers even higher in Chicago.
I don't understand this stance. It seems to me that the criminals who would want guns to use for murder or for crime would already have guns, whether they could get them legally or not.
Am I wrong? (Completely possible. )
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's my understanding that in a majority of murders that are committed, the victim knew the attacker. It's not all roving street gangs and carjackers.
Frankly for me the silly part of the decision is the whole 'guns for self defense and hunting are sacrosanct' thing. It's not like anyone is going to buy a gun, and when asked what his intentions are, he's going to say "Well I want to murder this guy next door to me, and maybe knock over a fruit stand." I wonder how many weapons used to commit gun crimes were purchased legally, and I'm willing to bet that the answer is really quite high. Trying to set aside a special use for which they are legal just strikes me as utterly silly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, some people who might not otherwise be able to get guns are going to have an easier time of it. I think it is likely that not everyone who has criminal tendancies (or someday will have criminal tendancies) already has a gun. And I think that having a gun is likely to exacerbate situations into shootings where, had a gun not been so readily available, those situations wouldn't end up with shootings.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The second amendment reads: "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."
What that really says is that 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, for that purpose should the need arise, shall not be infringed.
George Bush is already stomping all over the Constitution and our rights, if it wasn't for term limits, I have no doubt that the citizens would essential be powerless against the government.
I have always contended that by adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, the founding fathers created and empowered a new branch of government - THE PEOPLE.
The Bill of Rights insures that even in the direst and most oppressive of times, the people will always have power over government.
What the Bill of Right says, in its entirety, is that the government does not have the power to take power away from the citizens who elected them. The power of a free state should lie in the hands of the people, not in the hands of money grubbing self-serving power-brokers. Though without a doubt those self-serving money-grubbing power-brokers would like to do anything and everything they can to enhance their own power, and limit the power of anyone with the potential to threaten them.
posted
In Britain right now, where gun ownership is extremely limited, they are having an epidemic of knife-related crime. People seem to find a way of hurting other people.
Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks. We can stop banning things once everything that is left is blunt and/or squishy.
No item which has a reasonable and historical non-criminal use, including self defense, should be banned merely on the basis of it's potential misuse.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks.
Yes, but odds are you can't kill as many people as quickly with a knife as you can with an AK47. Much as I disapprove of many of the issues associated with the handgun ban in Britian (I still think it was overly extreme - and yes, the bad guys still have guns), I have to admit that there hasn't yet been another school shooting massacre in the UK since Dunblane.
There are pros and cons.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the point that KoM made is true....this doesn't mean everyone can go buy a gun at Wal-Mart with no strings attached. Reasonable limits are still allowed, and I have no issue with that.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks.
Meet the straw man guys......or perhaps we should just say "welcome back" to him.
Considering how lethal an item can be IS a valid concern, and SHOULD have a MAJOR impact on if regulations should apply to it. When you consider how many forks are used to kill other people, it isn't a fair comparison.
And pretending it is only reduces the strength of your arguments rather than increasing them.
Keep in mind that I agree with the decision, although it concerns me, and I still disagree with your example. It is rather ludicrous, actually.
posted
You've got to admit, on the face of it, the constitution does appear to explicitly protect the right to own firearms more than, say, the right to privacy.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wonder how many weapons used to commit gun crimes were purchased legally, and I'm willing to bet that the answer is really quite high. Trying to set aside a special use for which they are legal just strikes me as utterly silly.
Well... I don't have numbers on hand, but my suspicion is that a lot of guns used in gun crimes were once purchased legally- that is to say, they were stolen from their original owners, and possibly changed hands a few times in between. Both sides get a little vague on the point, but my suspicion is that there aren't huge numbers of weapons being illegally imported into the country and subsequently used in crimes. What would be the point, when they're so readily available in pawn shops and general merchandise stores?
What bothers me about the ruling (aside from the fact that the ruling split completely along partisan political lines) is that D.C.'s law was a handgun ban. Most handguns aren't used for hunting, and the notion that less portable and concealable weapons were apparently not covered by the ban was not considered sufficient availability of "arms" to cover the Second Amendment right.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You've got to admit, on the face of it, the constitution does appear to explicitly protect the right to own firearms more than, say, the right to privacy.
True, but then, at the time of the framing the right to bear arms was probably also enough to ensure a typical landowner's right to privacy. Not so much these days.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think slippery slope is what you were going for. If it were a strawman, then you wouldn't have followed with your point that the relative lethality was a valid justification.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: In Britain right now, where gun ownership is extremely limited, they are having an epidemic of knife-related crime. People seem to find a way of hurting other people.
Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks. We can stop banning things once everything that is left is blunt and/or squishy.
No item which has a reasonable and historical non-criminal use, including self defense, should be banned merely on the basis of it's potential misuse.
I would agree with this if it could be demonstrated that the numbers of knife related murders are equal to the number of gun related murders observed. It also bugs me that no reliable study observing the number of crimes prevented by gun owners exists.
I think hatrackers fall all along the stances between absolute gun control and absolute gun freedom.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people who are really in favor of no guns *must* have absolute faith that our established system of government provides total and complete protection against tyranny and oppression from said government against the people.
To make the argument that things are different now than when the Bill of Rights was written so the people don't need weapons certainly underlines the belief that Americans are exempt from the possibility of corrupt and tyrannical government.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think slippery slope is what you were going for. If it were a strawman, then you wouldn't have followed with your point that the relative lethality was a valid justification.
No...
The straw man was you making an argument that no one else was making....that knives were lethal as well in relation to forks, and that meant they had to be banned as well.... and presenting it as a valid rational against bans on guns. You staked a claim on the slippery slope, to be sure...but you also advanced an argument that no one else mentioned or agreed with, and then refuted it, claiming your refutation invalidated the whole argument.
No one else made that argument, yet you tried to link it to gun control, then refuted your own argument and claimed that also meant a gun ban was refuted.
Classic straw man ....putting forth an argument no one else believes, then refuting your own weak argument and attempting to link it to other, far more valid points.
Not that there isn't a slippery slope element there as well......and I was the one arguing against it. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:you also advanced an argument that no one else mentioned or agreed with, and then refuted it, claiming your refutation invalidated the whole argument.
Not at all. I never claimed anyone was making any such argument. I said that *if* the argument against handguns (vs, for instance knives) was one of relative lethality (and you agreed that *this* was a valid argument so that alone can't be a straw man), then you should extend that argument to other objects. It's a deductive progression. It may be a wrong one, or a logically flawed one, but it's not a straw man fallacy because I simply proposed a conclusion for an argument which you've already acknowledged to be valid.
I have not proposed that banning knives is actually an argument that anyone has put forth.
As long as we're playing "name that fallacy", what I was really doing there was reductio ad absurdum, which isn't strictly a fallacy to begin with.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found MeganMcArdle'sposition(s) on this topic to pretty much mirror mine. I particularly like the points she makes regarding guns as a feminist issue (the only weapon/self-defense tool that puts women on an equal playing field with men. And the post on gun statistics is great.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You've got to admit, on the face of it, the constitution does appear to explicitly protect the right to own firearms more than, say, the right to privacy.
I wouldn't automatically agree with that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Saying that guns should be banned because they are arguably more lethal than knives doesn't work unless you want to also ban knives because they are more lethal than forks. We can stop banning things once everything that is left is blunt and/or squishy.
No item which has a reasonable and historical non-criminal use, including self defense, should be banned merely on the basis of it's potential misuse.
Reductio ad absudum, Matt. The fact remains that the intended uses of firearms are different from those of knives. I just wish that those who site the 2nd ammendment would care to acknowledge that that it doesn't specify the types of arms required to maintain a militia. I think the right is important, but I don't think its limitation is dangerous.
I also don't think that weapons are banned on the basis of potential misuse, considering that their misuse is common, and a matter of public knowledge. If we can recognize that certain weapons are specifically designed or marketed for illegitimate purposes, I don't see a problem with banning them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
DC is a veritable island of isolated gun ban in a sea of readily available guns. The gun ban didn't keep criminals from getting them easily. it just penalized and criminalized otherwise law-abiding citizens for owning them. It had very questionable benefit, and very little impact on crime other than probably just making DC criminals a bit bolder.
Even if a person is anti-gun, and I'm not, they have to realize that pandora's box is open. 90% of the gun laws we have in this country are just a waste of money. Gun laws are incapable of doing what they set out to do. The bans are (or rather, in the case of the DC gun ban, were) propping up the wrong people.
The DC gun ban is gone. Good riddance. I am amused at how Anthony Kennedy is pretty on top of the world right now in terms of effective power. Woo. Also oh god please let's not do the knife comparison gun debate.
quote:I think hatrackers fall all along the stances between absolute gun control and absolute gun freedom.
Make All Guns Illegal Always guys are unsurprising but is there really even one person here who falls into the category of Decriminalize Miniguns And Rocket Launchers?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Make All Guns Illegal Always guys are unsurprising but is there really even one person here who falls into the category of Decriminalize Miniguns And Rocket Launchers?
Why yes, I myself believe that well regulate militias should be permitted to train with those sorts of firearms.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just wish that those who site the 2nd ammendment would care to acknowledge that that it doesn't specify the types of arms required to maintain a militia.
Lots of those who cite the 2nd amendment do acknowledge that. See, for example, Scalia's opinion in Heller.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I think people who are really in favor of no guns *must* have absolute faith that our established system of government provides total and complete protection against tyranny and oppression from said government against the people.
To make the argument that things are different now than when the Bill of Rights was written so the people don't need weapons certainly underlines the belief that Americans are exempt from the possibility of corrupt and tyrannical government.
I was hoping for a response to this--those of you who are for gun bans, is this truly the way you feel?
quote: But all the talk about greater freedoms for gun owners doesn't begin to explain what the ruling means in Chicago, which has seen a recent spate of gun violence.
Nine people were killed in 36 shootings during one weekend this spring. The next week, five people were found shot to death inside a South Side home.
Chicago Public Schools officials say 27 students have been killed by gunfire since September.
Pamela Bosley lost her 18-year-old son two years ago, when a bullet struck him as he helped a fellow student unload instruments outside a South Side Church.
"If you didn't have the guns, we'd still have our children," she said.
Annette Nance-Holt, whose 16-year-old son was killed on a city bus last spring when someone sprayed bullets inside it, was livid with the court's decision.
"I'm still trying to figure out who we are more in love with, our children or our guns," she said. "It's crazy. I'm safer being a deer knowing people are hunting you."
The mere fact that these criminals committed these crimes when such a ban was already in existence really doesn't lend any support to the idea that the ban is doing any good at all. To use a cliche, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
I find the idea insulting that I must love guns more than my child because I happen to be in favor of upholding our constitutional right to bear arms. I happen to not have complete faith that our government provides complete protection from those that would deny us our basic human rights and freedoms. This fact is certainly made clear by the erosion of our personal freedoms in bills such as the Patriot Act. I also do not have faith that our police force is adequate protection from home invasion and violent criminals--simply because they can't be everywhere at once.
I am not content to sit and believe that somebody else, as in government or the police, is going to protect me. I am not a gun-happy or violent person. I am not a member of the NRA. I have never personally fired a gun, although it is on my list of things to learn to do. I absolutely respect that guns have potential for great harm and, as such, need to be treated with great care, respect, and knowledge. I think that the solution to gun accidents is gun education. I believe it is telling that many, if not all, of killing sprees involving guns occur in so-called "gun-free" zones. I think gun owners need to know how to operate all functions of their guns with great ease--so that it is second nature in the dark. I think that people who are afraid of guns shouldn't use them, unless they can get training to overcome that fear. I think you should never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them. (I'm not impressed by people who point a gun just to "scare" a criminal away--yes, you can point it at a criminal and not fire right away to give them a chance to run--but you absolutely must be resolved to pull the trigger if you have to. Otherwise, you're putting yourself in an even more dangerous situation where your gun can be taken from you.)
I think the potential for misuse, accidents, and gun crime are not valid reasons for banning guns. I am happy about this decision, but am not happy about the small margin of victory.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I just wish that those who site the 2nd ammendment would care to acknowledge that that it doesn't specify the types of arms required to maintain a militia. I think the right is important, but I don't think its limitation is dangerous.
Except the 2nd Amendment isn't about the right of the militia to bear arms. It's about the rights of the people.
"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."
Because a militia is necessary, and because the colonists had just spent a long war fighting against a militia, they sought to make sure that the people (which is distinct from the militia) still had the right to keep and bear arms in case the militia ever had to be fought again.
Granted, I'm no Constitutional scholar. But that's the way it looks to me.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, that post was amazing. I bow to your superior patience and devotion to constructing meaningful posts . I want to just copy and paste it and call it a day. But, I did make some claims which I'll try to explain on my own. But man ... you really do have my admiration for putting that much work into a post.
I wrote a nice, lengthy paper a few semesters ago dealing with the standing army controversy, so that's where I'm drawing most of my thoughts from, though you'll have to excuse my lack of citations. More or less, I see the 2nd Ammendment in light of the failure of the Articles of Confederation. To paint a simplistic picture of the American situation, prior to and during the rebellion, American's were somewhat idealistic. They believed, as a result of their oppression at the hands of England, that there was an inherent love of virtue (read as selflessness and propriety) in the people and an inherent love of power (read as selfishness and tyranny) in the government. This ideology was the basis of the Articles of Confederation (again, excuse my simplicity).
Unfortunately, things didn't quite go as planned. People weren't quite as virtuous as originally thought, and this led to a lot of problems (see Madison's "Vices of the American Political System", written in 1787). This manifested itself partly in the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, but the trend towards "licentiousness" and, for lack of a better word, anarchy, was disturbingly prevalent in the post-independence, pre-constitution days.
So what were the founding fathers to do? On one hand they had the ever-present evil of tyrannical governments, but on the other they had this unfortunate reality that "the people", when left to themselves, screwed things up. Essentially, there was virtue in the people, but left unchecked it became licentiousness, and there was power to check that anarchy in the government, but left unchecked that became tyranny.
Yes, this all pretty fundamental, but think about the 2nd Amendment in this context. They needed something which limited both the tyrannical leanings of the government and the anarchical leanings of the people, because both were just as much of a danger to their fragile republic. Given that, they came up with the 2nd Amendment, and I believe they did a darn good job of it. The nuances of the wording have been discussed here and in that other thread enough that I won't be able to add anything new, so I won't even try .
To me at least, knowing that the Framers were actively desiring limits to be put both on the people and on the government in terms of "the right to bear arms" puts a different spin on the situation, almost dictating a necessity for a both/and mindset rather than an either/or. And this is where yesterday's decision stops making sense to me. I said in my previous post that I didn't think the 2nd Amendment was applicable, and I guess I stand by that to some degree because I don't think the Amendment is meant to speak about an individual's right. But in the sense that yesterday's case is speaking about people and government in general, it seems that D.C's handgun ban, Constitutionally speaking, was pretty sound. Keep in mind, I'm in no way a lawyer or even remotely aware of the legal mumbo jumbo (no offense Dag) other than what I read in that other thread. I'm basing my view on the fact that the ban simultaneously worked against the licentiousness of people while not infringing upon either the individuals or the peoples ability to own some manner of "arms". That's not to say the ban was the best thing in the world or even necessarily "right". Arguments can be made that a ban was unnecessary or not useful or whatever. But whether it was effective, ineffective, "right" or "wrong", it doesn't seem to me that the ban is in contradiction to the 2nd Amendment.
But, on a deeper level, the decision was just overall a crappy one to have to make within the framework of the 2nd Amendment. As I said before, the 2nd Amendment is good and vital to the foundation of our nation. It's not outdated or outanything. There are definitely still very important and necessary uses for interpreting it. This just was not one of them. And even if it was, I think the wrong decision was made, since as far as I can tell, the ban was Constitutional. But that's not the point. If these sorts of situations are going to be a big issue in the future, there probably should be another amendment somewhere along the line. I don't know what it would be or whether or not it would be possible. But that's my two cents.
posted
The problem with gun bans though is that it is rather unrealistic to expect that we can rid our country of guns. We have open borders. Lets just say that our governments were able to rid all Americans - legal, law abiding citizens and the criminals - of their guns. Well the next day Joe Schmoe can walk across the border b/w Arizona and Mexico and obtain a few handguns for his criminal buddies, walk back across the next day and distribute them or sell them. He and his cronies could do this several times and continue selling them to the criminal element. It is impossible to completely rid this country of guns. Therefore doesn't it seem prudent to allow the law abiding citizens to own a weapon of equal power to utilize if needed in self defense? I personally don't own a gun and have only gone shooting with my brothers once. I have no plans to own a gun but I also don't want to take that right away from someone that feels the need to own one. In an ideal world we wouldn't need to own guns but we left the ideal world eons ago.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Javert, the colonists were the militia. They didn't fight the militia, they fought the King's Army, or as often, mercenaries hired by the King.
-Bok
Then why does the language change? Why doesn't it say "the rights of the militia to hold arms" instead of "the people"?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even Barack Obama, a longtime advocate of gun control -- but also a one-time professor of constitutional law -- has said he believes the amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership.
Does anyone know if this is true and, if so, where the complete statement on it is?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Katarain: I was hoping for a response to this--those of you who are for gun bans, is this truly the way you feel?
Is there anyone here who is for a TOTAL ban on ALL guns? I've never actually met anyone that wanted to round up all the guns and destroy them. Personally I'm for regulated gun ownership. I think having a gun in your home safely locked away is fine. I think you should have to take a gun safety class before you can get a license, I think you shouldn't be able to have one of you're a violent offender, and I don't think you should be able to carry them on you in public.
quote:From Javert: Then why does the language change? Why doesn't it say "the rights of the militia to hold arms" instead of "the people"?
Because a militia, by its very nature, is made up of "the people."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: and I don't think you should be able to carry them on you in public.
Why?
I mean, assuming the person meets all your other criteria, why shouldn't they be allowed to carry in public? Certainly there should be specific requirements for carrying in public...the type of holster, use of a saftey, things like that.
And if they don't meet all your other criteria, are they really going to care if it's illegal?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Because bystanders could get hit. I can only imagine the disaster VA Tech could have been if half the students had been running around with guns. I think it's just as likely that innocents would've been hurt by vigilantes or by cops mistaking the vigilantes for the criminal in just as many numbers as were hurt the other way around.
Do you know the numbers on officers who are killed with their own guns? It's mind boggling. We need fewer guns on the street, not more.
quote:And if they don't meet all your other criteria, are they really going to care if it's illegal?
That's a horrible argument. Why bother trying to tax people that are really good at tax evasion? Why bother having a drinking age if kids are going to find a way around it and drink anyway? Is your argument really that something should be legal just because people who break the law are going to do it regardless of legality? Lots of people speed, should we not have speed limits?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Javert, the colonists were the militia. They didn't fight the militia, they fought the King's Army, or as often, mercenaries hired by the King.
-Bok
Then why does the language change? Why doesn't it say "the rights of the militia to hold arms" instead of "the people"?
That's a good question. One that's been the subject of many a constitutional law/history student I'm sure.
You are also misreading it. The first clause says a militia is necessary for a free state, not that it is a threat. That is, it is a good thing. In light of the Revolutionary War, I think one can understand why the Framers might have thought as much.
Because bystanders could get hit. I can only imagine the disaster VA Tech could have been if half the students had been running around with guns. I think it's just as likely that innocents would've been hurt by vigilantes or by cops mistaking the vigilantes for the criminal in just as many numbers as were hurt the other way around.
Do you know the numbers on officers who are killed with their own guns? It's mind boggling. We need fewer guns on the street, not more.
quote:And if they don't meet all your other criteria, are they really going to care if it's illegal?
That's a horrible argument. Why bother trying to tax people that are really good at tax evasion? Why bother having a drinking age if kids are going to find a way around it and drink anyway? Is your argument really that something should be legal just because people who break the law are going to do it regardless of legality? Lots of people speed, should we not have speed limits?
Couldn't the knowledge that a lot of people may be holding guns actually hinder others from committing crimes?
Even if they weren't carrying, if everyone in a bank could legally carry a concealed firearm, would you attempt to rob it not knowing how many of them might have a gun?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I can legally enter a bank with a firearm, I'm going to make sure I have 15 armed friends with me, and then I'm going to mow down everyone else there before I proceed to rob the bank. After all, there's no risk to bringing the guns in, and knowing the others might be carrying, I want to minimize the risk so they have to go.
You're not protecting anything. You're ratcheting up the body count.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand correctly, militias (militia?, militiae?) were local organizations of citizen/soldiers. People for whom soldiering was not their profession. Militias were used for local defense against invaders or oppressors.
I think that if we were really being true to what the framers had in mind, states and even cities and towns would have their own militiae - their own little armies.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If I can legally enter a bank with a firearm, I'm going to make sure I have 15 armed friends with me, and then I'm going to mow down everyone else there before I proceed to rob the bank. After all, there's no risk to bringing the guns in, and knowing the others might be carrying, I want to minimize the risk so they have to go.
You're not protecting anything. You're ratcheting up the body count.
Well, you seem to assume the average criminal with a gun will just kill people will-nilly. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I assume the average criminal with a gun just wants the money and will prefer not to shoot or be shot. Thus, if the possibility of shooting or getting shot goes up, they will not rob that place.
I don't know how to tell which of us may be right.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anyone at anytime could be carrying a gun, I would live a much more fearful life. I really don't trust my fellow citizens that much.
I don't know in the bank situation, but I know that in California, the three strike laws leads to the third crime usually being more violent and more likely to escalate. The more desperate a criminal is, the stupider.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
. I want to just copy and paste it and call it a day. But, I did make some claims which I'll try to explain on my own. But man ... you really do have my admiration for putting that much work into a post.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
. 
