Just another thread on Gun control

[takentime]

             The Second Amendment

"A well-reulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

                  United States Constitution, 1783

 

     Hello I thought I would start another thread on this subject as the last  was getting quite large. In reading through the last thread I noticed a lot of people didn't see any need for owning military weapons. Than there were some who said they are great for collecting, or for sport (shooting). I must have been very important to the founding fathers as they say militia. My point is it was for keeping military weapons. It was so important they put it right under Free Speech.

      Now my other point is where does it state that we have to have permits and registrations? To my way of thinking that would defeat the purpose because any government that went rogue would know who had the weapons and squash them. If you look at the last part of the amendment it states (not suggests) "shall not be infringed"  I guess that it is just words because it means nothing today. Does that mean our current laws are illegal?

       We are on a slippery slope of losing all of our freedoms. I say we are near the end of that slope. Check out the full scope of the Patriot act if you do not think so. The American people have become sheep and sheep are usually prey.

          I am not a conspiracy nut just a concerned citizen that has seen the changes over the last 30+years. Will we overcome the down ward slide? I hope so but I havve my doubts.

Thank for letting me vent

takentime

 

 

[Lacmeh]

You will notice the term "well regulated militia". I am neither a military person nor a lawyer. But common sense would dictate, that the term "well regulated militia" contains some sort of registration of the participants, laws and regulations for training, handling and owning firearms.
This passage is used by a lot of people to claim right for owning firearms. Well as far as common sense goes, it is the same to register people of the militia or weapons, the ends are the same (government knowing the participants of the militia)
So in Your opinion, every citizen of the USA should be able to buy machine pistols, assault rifles, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, anti aircraft missiles, anti tank missiles, grenades, machine guns, sniper rifles, explosives, tactical A Bombs, chemical battle gases, biological weapons and other military weaponry. Anything less would be an infringement to the right to bear arms.
In the time of the founding of the USA the most devastating weapons wre cannons (hardly bearable at your hip) and guns with 6 shot barrels. For a stickler to this law, only arms, comparable with those available to the forefathers are allowed. Either that or sit down and think, what they intended.

 

[takentime]

You will also note the end "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I have thought about what they intended. I think they intended for the citizenry to have arms so the Government would or could not become a tyranny. That would mean the weopons of whatever period in history we are in. Do you think that good citizens would use military weapons in a bad manner?
As far as chemical and biological weapons go even governments are not supposed to have them. And I doubt few could pay for some of the others you mentioned. Like rocket launchers, anti aircraft missiles, anti tank missiles.
And before we won our independence were we a regulated militia?

 

[Lacmeh]

There are quite a lot odf lunatics out there, imagine what they can do, if it is possible to buy rocket launchers without regulation.
There is a clear line between arms and mass destruction weaponry. It is one thing to protest against the outlawing of knives, but to protest against the outlawing of rpcket launchers one has to be quite deluded.
It is not the point, how many people would be able to buy this weaponry. There will be always groups of people who can afford this, or will buy it even if they can´t afford it.
Machine Pistols are quite cheap, You get them for a couple of hundred dollars on the black market. Anyone can afford this, who has a somewhat decent job.
The government owns chemical and biologicaql weapons, that is a well known fact. Therefore the individual citizen must be able to own them, too. After all those are bearable arms.
I can only conclude, that somewhere the lawgiver has to draw a line between individual fredom and protection of the integrity of the country. Wether one needs to own gunpowdered weapons or not is beside the point. The point is, that there must be a line between means of individual protection and mass destruction. For a person with a bit of common sense, any automated gunpowdered weapon is more a means to mass desatruction than to protection. If You want "protection" against mean robbers and threatening peopel in the middle of the night, a good normal handgun or shotgun is enough. If you want to be able to shoot as much people in a minimal amount of time, You go for Machine Pistols and Assault Rifles.
For me the term "arms" means hand held weaponry to protect myself from individual threats, not hand held weaponry, that can kill dozens of people in a few seconds.
All of the peopel voting for free guns claim to want them only for protection or sports. I wonder, why the same peopel always want Assault weaponry for "protection"...

 

[caley]

However, if everyone were allowed to own military weapons, it would balance out, because if you felt threatened that your neighbor bought a rail-gun, you could just buy a tank to protect yourself.

 

[Brimshack]

takentime:

"Now my other point is where does it state that we have to have permits and registrations?"

Article I, section 8, of th U.S. Consitution (enumerated powers):

"Congress shall have the power to…"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States…"

Cross-apply this to the opening line of the Second Amendment and you have federal authority to regulate the very militia which serve as the rationale for the 2nd Amendment. Under the circumstances, I would say that the federal government is doing considerably less to regulate the relevant matters (guns and the militia) than the 'founding fathers' had originally envisioned. If that doesn't work for you, then simply cross-apply the elastic clause.

 

[seebs]

One problem is that we have to guess at intent, and also at information.

Imagine that we had absolute proof of the following:

1. The constitution was intended to state that anyone could own a gun, for any reason, no need for permits.
2. This was because the founding fathers believed that guns would make law-abiding citizens safer.
3. Guns don't make law-abiding citizens safer.

If we could prove all three of these, what would we do? Would we decide that, since the constitution was written based on false beliefs, we should override it or change it? If so, what if we decide that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are not rights?

Personally, I think the intent was for citizens to be armed so that they could form a militia, but not for them to be armed *only* in the context of said militia. I also believe that, now that the numbers are starting to be in, the net result is that an armed populace is, *overall*, a safer one. Statistics tell us that, within the U.S., when ordinary citizens are better-armed, violent crime tends to go down. It's hard to show exactly how this happens, because you can't collect statistics on "what crimes would have been committed if things were different", only on the ones that *are* committed.

That's the main reason this is tough. I know a woman who owns a shotgun, and lives in a really bad neighborhood. One day, about ten guys with baseball bats chased one of her roommates home and started trying to get into the house. She fired the shotgun into the air, and they dispersed. The cops (who were called right away) didn't show up for another 45 minutes.

I think that single shutgun shell, not even fired *at* anyone, probably saved a couple of people from being raped and probably killed. I don't think there's any police report at all, unless it's "shots were fired around 8PM", with no followup.

Defensive use of guns is very hard to report, but there is some circumstantial evidence indicating that it matters.

In the end, that is enough for me to say that, if some day we find that the Constitution does not actually guarantee an individual right to bear arms, that this would be worthy of an amendment.

 

[Brimshack]

I assume your comments go to the issue of whether or not the government should ban guns, Seebs, and fair enough as far as that goes. I would distinguish this from the question of whether or not the government has the authority to regulate the ownership of said guns. The tendancy to collapse these questions is a deliberate smoke and mirrors technique perpetrated by gun lobbyists far more concerned about their corporate bottom line than any individual rights.

 

[seebs]

That's a good point. As to the regulation question, I am not yet convinced of any particular regulation as helpful; I have no good statistics on them. It's tempting to use anecdotes to show why we want a given law - but it's bad policy.

I would be interested in seeing concrete statistics on the issue.

 

[Brimshack]

I would also agree that there are genuine concerns about the overall helpfulness of many gun control measures. So, that's another thing to distinguish; the question of whether or not Congress has constitutional authority to pass such measures, and the question of which if any would actually be productive?

 

[seebs]

Right. Conveniently, my position allows me to ignore one; I am not convinced that any of the proposed measures help. I have known people with legal guns, and with illegal guns, and who wanted legal guns. The only ones who were at all affected by gun control were the legal people; the drug dealer considered guns an expendable resource; if you use a gun, you throw it in the river or something so it can't be traced to you, and get another one. People with crappy machine tools can home-make guns good enough to kill people. Given that, I'd rather have law-abiding citizens have an easier time getting guns.

It's not that I don't believe this would result in some deaths; I just think it would prevent more.

 

[Dewjunkie]

A militia (by definition) is a group of citizens available for military related service to the country in time of emergencies (Selective Service? Military Reserve? National Guard?). A "well regulated militia" in the late 1700's would have needed members to be readily armed due to the lack of mobilization abilities and a large scale, well funded and equipped military. A militia in the 21st century does not need to be a bunch of guys that can run to the garage and mount the .50 cal. in the bed of the F250 and the (edited to correctly read: ) Gadsden Flag on the hood and holler "let's roll". The Guard or the Reservists are mobilized in emergencies and equipped by their respective units. Using the militia argument for gun lobby is useless.

I am not in favor of strict gun control, but I do believe that some regulation is needed. I agree with seebs that citizens who follow the channels legally should have an easier time acquiring a gun for defense. The Brady Bill does nothing to stop criminals from getting a weapon. It only hinders the citizens who adhere to the law in getting one.

 

[takentime]

I agree with you to a point on the militia. My main argument stems from the last part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Legal gun owners are infringed. If you do not want to own a gun legally it is very easy to get one.

Also if a citizenry is well armed the chance of a tyranical government is lowered a bit.
I live in the country and crime is not that high. I believe it is because most of us have guns. The few times in the last 12 years someone brock into a house they got shot. A good advertisement for not coming around here and being stupid.

 

[Evangelion]

DewJunkie -

A militia in the 21st century does not need to be a bunch of guys that can run to the garage and mount the .50 cal. in the bed of the F250 and the Union Jack on the hood and holler "let's roll".

I'm fascinated. Just how many Americans own a Union Jack, do you think? And why in the world would they be bearing one under these circumstances?

 

[Dewjunkie]

Good catch, Evangelion. I'm retarded. I had the "Gadsden Flag" (Also used as the NAVAL Jack) on my mind and typed "Union Jack". I have edited my post to read what I meant, not what I typed.

Thanks.

 

[Evangelion]

I was genuinely confused myself. I was wondering why you hadn't said "Old Glory."

Cheers.

 

[repentandbelieve]

Absolutly. Handguns have proven themselves to be very effective in preventing predators from victomizing innocent people. I sure would be glad to have one within reach in the event a raging maniac intended to kill of do great bodily harm to a family member or loved one.

 

[Evangelion]

What if the aforesaid maniac also has a handgun?

 

[Jutsuka]

 The Second Amendment

"A well-reulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

                  United States Constitution, 1783


This needs to be cut out of your precious constitution as soon as possible. This was written in atime when i'm certain it was felt necessary, however even laws have to change over time to fit the situation.

This is why I'm glad I live in Sweden, we don't have this in our version of a constitution. We also have very few deaths due to the usage of firearms. Most firearms in this country are huntingrifles. We don't have this quasi-religious attitude americans seem to have towards their "right to bear arms" either...

The fewer firearms in the hands of civilians the better, if you are afraid your goverment will opress you because you can't fight them then mabey it is time you began changeing your goverment...

 

[Gunny]

Reason Gun Controls Twisted Outcome