The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Meg 368]

I can't be the only one who is tired of rehashing the gun ban argument from the start every week or so.  So let's make this the official discussion gun ban thread so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

To get started, here is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

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.quote>

What does it mean?   What does it not mean?

Is banning guns a good idea?  Would it work?   Why or why not?

As always, discuss the issues and not each other.

[screamingman12 30]

If you can, go ahead and merge this with my thread that is somewhere in the dusty corner of the General Off-Topic forum.

[wir3d 2]

I think that bearing arms is for the safety of the people. I heard a recent rampage that included a guy who killed two people and was stop by another person with a gun. If a law was passed on the no guns then hundreds of people would have died. But since this person had this gun he/she was able to take out the person, before he got to more then 500 hundred people. What could have been 500 people killed was brought down to only 2 people.

[Duke87 1,070]

Ah, good. This has certainly become a frequent enough discussion to warrant its own thread. Now then, to reply to something from the thread that inspired this:

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: GingerBlokey Yeah.

Does this not tell you something about the need to ban guns.

quote>

How's this for a proposal: people from Europe stop telling America what they ought to do, and people from America will stop telling Europe what they ought to do. You do it your way, we'll do it our way. Deal?quote>

Originally posted by: GingerBlokey

On the Europe thing. I ain't telling you what to do but if marshamallows were being used to kill people you would want them banned. Don't you see the logic?quote>

Not necessarily. Many people also consider marshmallows highly tasty and use them for harmless reasons, after all. The question is whether the benefit of keeping them from being misused outweighs the oppression against those who use them responsibly. As a Libertarian, I would of course say no, it doesn't and never can. Though obviously that's an opinion, not a fact. The real trouble with blanket bans is that the baby goes out with the bathwater and they may or may not actually work- and may even end up doing more harm than good (point to prohibition as an example of this for the umpteenth time).

[spa 968]

Originally posted by: wir3d I think that bearing arms is for the safety of the people. I heard a recent rampage that included a guy who killed two people and was stop by another person with a gun. If a law was passed on the no guns then hundreds of people would have died. But since this person had this gun he/she was able to take out the person, before he got to more then 500 hundred people. What could have been 500 people killed was brought down to only 2 people.quote>

Arming people to fight back doesn't work. If it did America, a nation that loves its guns and arms more people then most, wouldn't have one of the worst homicide rates in the developed world.

America is like an alcoholic at the very start of the process. A huge section of the country is in deep denial and won't even admit that they have a problem. It really astounds me. How many high school and university rampages does it really take?

[hym 358]

The majority of Americans don't carry a weapon, though.

[gabetx 1]

W00! Go Second Amendment! Never Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ever Ban Guns!!! Then The Government Will Take Us Over!

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: wir3d I think that bearing arms is for the safety of the people. I heard a recent rampage that included a guy who killed two people and was stop by another person with a gun. If a law was passed on the no guns then hundreds of people would have died. But since this person had this gun he/she was able to take out the person, before he got to more then 500 hundred people. What could have been 500 people killed was brought down to only 2 people.quote>

That was a serious exaggeration.  Here's a couple of much better ones.

Luby's Massacre

Shoney's - Anniston, Alabama

The problem with this whole argument is that guns have been singled out as the scapegoat even though there are plenty of other really good ways to go on mass murders.  Guns have a legitimate self-defense use, and not everyone that owns a handgun is intent on killing people.  I know a guy who owns a handgun among a few other guns, and if he had gotten the thing just to go killing people, Eric Clapton would have died last summer.

[hamsterTK 93]

Well here's my take on it:

What does it mean?   What does it not mean?quote>

Ive always personally though that the 2nd am. was to be understood literally, in context to the time It was written.

But in a more interpretive view, I think the public should have some right to personal self defense guaranteed to them. However, I do not know if guns must necessarily fit into that.

Is banning guns a good idea?  Would it work?   Why or why not?quote>

Well what kind of guns?

I see no need to ban long guns that are typically used by ranchers or hunters to defend or hunt animals.

Small handguns on the other hand need to be more heavily restricted or banned in some places. 9mm's I know are used in the vast majority of crime

To sum it up I am pro gun control but being realistic I am skeptical about a total ban.

[edmonton_stinks 5]

...Or maybe just better gun control, as opposed to a total ban.

I believe the context of that amendment was that Americans were afraid of being attacked by the British. Hence, to maintain a well regulated militia, they needed guns. Militias are not really needed nowadays, but you still can't take away people's guns or there will be a major uproar.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

What does it mean?   quote>

Well, taken literally, it means that I can have a nuclear weapon. 

Hunting rifles can stay, but nothing else has any place in civilized society.

ISF

[Dodge44 2]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK Well here's my take on it:

What does it mean?   What does it not mean?quote>

Ive always personally though that the 2nd am. was to be understood literally, in context to the time It was written.

But in a more interpretive view, I think the public should have some right to personal self defense guaranteed to them. However, I do not know if guns must necessarily fit into that.

Is banning guns a good idea?  Would it work?   Why or why not?quote>

Well what kind of guns?

I see no need to ban long guns that are typically used by ranchers or hunters to defend or hunt animals.

Small handguns on the other hand need to be more heavily restricted or banned in some places. 9mm's I know are used in the vast majority of crime

To sum it up I am pro gun control but being realistic I am skeptical about a total ban.quote>

 

Okay let's say there is a ban on all handguns. How do you propose to enforce this new law? Do you amend the Constitution to allow the Government to search your home, person, or vehicle at any given time without a search warrant? >>

> >

A comparable rewording of the Second Amendment in today's syntax would read: "For a country to remain free it must be able to defend itself. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so that they may be able to defend their country's freedom." Hence when Congress passes any gun control law it is limiting the ability of the country to remain free.

[Micah 16]

Excellent idea, Meg! The CE moderators needed this for weeks! That's all I had to add...

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: zelgadis

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

What does it mean?   quote>

Well, taken literally, it means that I can have a nuclear weapon. 

Hunting rifles can stay, but nothing else has any place in civilized society.

ISFquote>

I beg to differ.  Hunting rifles aren't the only legitimate guns out there, even if you only look at the hunting aspect and completely throw self-defense out of the window.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Can anyone name something that has been successfully banned in the US?

When opium was banned, Germany's Bayer invented morphine. When that was banned they introduced heroin. Yes, Bayer invented modern opiate derivatives to stay ahead of gov't bans.

And a point I made before, if you take away all guns...I could make one. Seriously. In hours. You would all be at my mercy, at least until the cops come. I'm not the kind of guy who is into sadism, so I'd just make you all dance or something. But you get my point. You would just be leaving yourselves helpless before the wolves, and for some of us that makes the least sense of all.

[The_Hutt 11]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Can anyone name something that has been successfully banned in the US?quote>

Common sense, for one.

[crazyyaya 4]

Originally posted by: gabetx W00! Go Second Amendment! Never Ever Ever [...] Ever Ever Ban Guns!!! Then The Government Will Take Us Over!quote>

 

Um...I think the government would have taken over the people if they wanted to by now. Is that actually your reason for supporting the second amendment? 

I hope people realize that the amendment was put into law so that militias could be armed (this was before the government ran an organized military) to prevent the British from invading America. I'm pretty sure the British aren't coming. So once the government began running a military to protect the country, the amendment really became obsolete.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Can anyone name something that has been successfully banned in the US?quote>

An excellent question.

We tried banning alcohol.  That didn't work.  and it gave us an underground network that will transport anything that will sell.  Used mostly for drugs these days but I have no doubt that it would transport guns if they were illegal.

And it's a good question as to how such a ban would be implemented.   Many, many gun owners will not turn them over voluntarily.   A house-to-house search would be illegal.  and if anyone tried to go house-to-house and take all of the guns, I have no doubt that they would be shot.

Even if a gun ban was legal (and I don't think it is), I do not see an effective way of implementing it.

[hamsterTK 93]

Okay let's say there is a ban on all handguns. How do you propose to enforce this new law?quote>

because Guns need bullets, duh.

Ban the sale of ammunition and other accesories for small arms and over time they would be used less and less regardless of how many people owned them. Even if the black market continues to bring in bullets then they will cost more and criminals will be conservative in how they use their weapons.

Also nobody ever said anything about sending the gestapo to take everyone's guns. Gun buyback programs and amnesty periods would come up from time to time for otherwise law abiding people with no record then possesion could just bring a misdeanor.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Okay let's say there is a ban on all handguns. How do you propose to enforce this new law?quote>

because Guns need bullets, duh.

Ban the sale of ammunition and other accesories for small arms and over time they would be used less and less regardless of how many people owned them.

Okay, there is the black market, but If bullets cost a lot on the street, I would imagine some criminals may become more conservative in who they shoot.quote>

And all the rest of the world is going to stop making bullets just because we decided to ban handguns?

[hamsterTK 93]

like I said, the black market price will not be cheap, so the use still decreases. If it's hard to get bullets, then use of the weapons will have to decrease. Do the math.

I'd like to see how many companies will even carry on their present capacity of production when their product is banned in what's got to be it's largest civilian market...decreases supply even more.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Also nobody ever said anything about sending the gestapo to take everyone's guns. Gun buyback programs and amnesty periods would come up from time to time for otherwise law abiding people with no record then possesion could just bring a misdeanor. quote>

Washington, DC has done gun buyback programs periodically for years.  DC still has one of the highest murder rates in the country.

Don't get me wrong; I would like for this kind of stuff to work.  I just don't believe it will.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK like I said, the black market price will not be cheap, so the use still decreases. If it's hard to get bullets, then use of weapons will have decrease. Do the math.

I'd like to see how many companies will even carry on their present capacity of production when their product is banned in what's got to be it's largest civilian market...decreases supply even more.quote>

Yeah, right.  Just because it goes on the black market doesn't mean the cost is going to go up exponentially or even very much.  You're making the mistake of assuming that most criminals plan out series of deeds.  "Let's see.  This guy isn't worth shooting because he's home by himself.  Now, the bank guard tomorrow - need to shoot him.  As for the guy next week, he's not worth the cost of the bullets."  Criminals will pick what they think they need to do the job and to hell with the cost.  Fully automatic weapons aren't cheap, but mass murders will still get those if they think they need it.  I guarantee that the gun that was used in the DC sniper spree cost a pretty penny, as well as the bullets.  The thing is, a pistol wouldn't do the desired job, so they went with what they needed to do what they wanted to do.

On top of that, legitimate gun companies aren't going to go into black market production.  They'll end up just going out of business.  People in places like Mexico and Venezuela don't care.

I'm not trying to pick on Mexico and Venezuela, btw.  I'm just using them as examples since we know at least some of our illegal drugs come from there.

[hamsterTK 93]

I wish DC would not be used as an example of this because it is a small place surrounded by other areas where guns are easily obtained and anyone can pass freely between the two carrying whatever they want.

A nationwide policy would be different.

you're making the mistake of assuming that most criminals plan out series of deeds. quote>

With a gang whose to say that? And it's not like the average thug can shoot perfectly.

On top of that, legitimate gun companies aren't going to go into black market production.  They'll end up just going out of business.  People in places like Mexico and Venezuela don't care.quote>

Oh well.

On the same token, should I be sympathetic to former asbestos mining companies?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK I wish DC would not be used as an example of this because it is a small place surrounded by other areas where guns are easily obtained and anyone can pass freely between the two carrying whatever they want.

A nationwide policy would be different.quote>

We can always use the battle on illegal drugs.  It's a nation-wide policy.

[hamsterTK 93]

Guns don't addict people.

I know where this is going. Look, I am not ignorant, I understand the fact that poverty and the vicious cycles of anger and violence in a person's surrounding are the root of a lot of issues out there, and they come from unequality and institutional racism, which are not present in other first world nations and explains our higher crime rate.

But guns are the ends, not the means. To me it's the part of the equation that could be eliminated the easiest right now while the rest is figured out.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

 To me it's the part of the equation that could be eliminated the easiest right now while the rest is figured out.quote>

The "easiest"?    How?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK But guns are the ends, not the means.quote>

Guns are the means.  People don't kill people to get guns.  People get guns to kill people.

[GMT 389]

didn't anyone ever bother about figures concerning private weapons in the us?

well, here're a few:

- 300 million inhabitants, over 200 million legal(!) weapons in private ownership

- 350.000 armed assaults (as in armed with guns) per year, 11.000 people killed

- a ratio of 3.8 murders per 100.000 inhabitants

these figures are about 1 year old. and seriously, these a figures I don't expect to see in a western, civilized and industrilized country.

a ban of guns would lower it, that's a fact aswell.

But it's also a fact that it would never happen...

[cameron1991 0]

I think there needs to be alot more restrictions on guns in the US. Here in New Zealand its incredibly hard to get a pistol. To get a pistol license, You cant have had any criminal convictions, and you need to join a pistol club and regularly go to their meetings or whatever events they hold. Also a police officer has to come around to your house and observe you and your family for about an hour to see what type of person you are (basically to see whether you have the potential to go crazy and kill someone), check your gun closet and a whole lot of other little things. The rules are so strict that most people dont even bother trying to get a pistol.

Also to note, just last year a mean wielding a knife walked into a gun store and demanded guns, so the store clerk pulled out a pistol and shot the man in the stomach to protect himself and other shoppers.

The police even tried to convict the store clerk of assault and using a gun against another man, but dropped the charges after major outrage from citizens all over NZ.

(That basically shows how strict it is to have a gun in NZ)

Because of all these restrictions, NZ is fairly safe and there are very few incidents involving guns each year (most are accidental). Its so safe infact, that police officers only carry small arms at night and they just completed a 1 year trial using tasers, which they will probably not use ether because they are "too dangerous"

I know the US will probably never end up like this, but if they introduce stricter methods on ownership of guns, there can be alot less shootings and murders...