The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

A lot of those German laws are very similar to US laws. The only difference I see right off is that in some states you MUST show that you have a gun. For example, in Georgia, you can have a handgun in your car, but it has to be on top of the dash so that it is clearly visible. I also don't think we have a law that says the guns need to be on approved gun racks. Most people keep them in glass cases, or other locked racks. Also, most of the military grade weapons in the US are from WWII. After the war, returning soldiers filed the serial numbers off their rifles and kept them.quote>

I think you missed the major differences: all the licenses and the requiered effort to put into them with several tests incl a background check and a requiered one year of membership in a shooting club

[The Boy 0]

Oh crap, I wanted to make a thread some what like this, but it looks like we've already got one going and I wont spam!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Don't Argue With Statistics

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. Is

700,000

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians

Per year are

120,000.

© Accidental deaths per physician

Is

0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of

Health Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

Guns:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.

Is

80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million..)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths

Per year, all age groups,

Is

1,500.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>

(C! ) The number of accidental deaths

Per gun owner

Is

..000188.

Statistics courtesy of FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately

9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,

BUT

ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please alert your friends

To this

Alarming threat.

We must ban doctors

Before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Out of concern for the public at large,

I have withheld the statistics on

Lawyers

For fear the shock would cause

People to panic and seek medical attention

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAHAHAHAH I think this is hilarious, because its true!! If people have questions about the Second Amendment and NOT banning it, and wanting to make a whole huge debate, please PM me! I'm up for it.  

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: The Boy

Oh crap, I wanted to make a thread some what like this, but it looks like we've already got one going and I wont spam!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Don't Argue With Statistics

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. Is

700,000

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians

Per year are

120,000.

© Accidental deaths per physician

Is

0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of

Health Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

Guns:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.

Is

80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million..)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths

Per year, all age groups,

Is

1,500.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>

(C! ) The number of accidental deaths

Per gun owner

Is

..000188.

Statistics courtesy of FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately

9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,

BUT

ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please alert your friends

To this

Alarming threat.

We must ban doctors

Before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Out of concern for the public at large,

I have withheld the statistics on

Lawyers

For fear the shock would cause

People to panic and seek medical attention

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAHAHAHAH I think this is hilarious, because its true!! If people have questions about the Second Amendment and NOT banning it, and wanting to make a whole huge debate, please PM me! I'm up for it.  

quote>

???

[The Boy 0]

What do you mean "???" I'm showing you, your crazy for thinking guns should be banned, you should ban cars too, the whole craze with gun control and stopping people from having them (which WONT happen) is that guns don't kill a lot of people as you think. Cars kill more people than guns I'm sure. Its another ploy I'm sure to just make conservatives mad, because you guys can't put 2 and 2 together.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: The Boy Its another ploy I'm sure to just make conservatives mad, because you guys can't put 2 and 2 together.quote>

Can someone enlighten me about the relationship between guns and non-conservatives being unable to do an addition?

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: The Boy What do you mean "???" I'm showing you, your crazy for thinking guns should be banned, you should ban cars too, the whole craze with gun control and stopping people from having them (which WONT happen) is that guns don't kill a lot of people as you think. Cars kill more people than guns I'm sure. Its another ploy I'm sure to just make conservatives mad, because you guys can't put 2 and 2 together.quote>

(You haven't read my previous post.)

Of course it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill other people... WITH guns.

Making it harder to get a gun makes it harder to shoot someone... so much for putting 2 and 2 together.

[City2TheMax 3]

Here's my stance on the issue:

It seems that in the US more people use guns to kill others than to actually use them for protection. If we banned guns, we wouldn't have their protection, yet we wouldn't have to worry about being shot by one either. Gun smuggling, with strictly enforced laws, would then be quite preventable (especially since the US is only accesible by land from 2 other countries, whereas in the Midle East people can drive through borders to smuggle guns). The only people that should be allowed to carry weapons are the military. I am fine with tasers for police officers, given they won't abuse them.

This law seems to have made more sense back in the days when it was more of a necessity to carry weapons for protection, but these days that law seems to have somewhat outdated itself.

[hym 358]

krbe:

First, various law enforcement agencies have said that most gun crimes are indeed committed with illegally obtained weapons, thus making them black market obtained guns.  As has been said earlier, nearly anything is obtainable on the black market, sometimes even more easily than it is obtain legally.

Second, shotguns and rifles are also easily concealed.  Case in point:  A Houston, Texas student told the city police that he could get just about any weapon he wanted into his school.  The police were skeptical, but willing to go along with his experiment.  He successfully completed the experiment, and when it came time to empty the pockets and show the officers what he had smuggled in, he pulled out 6 small handguns, 12 hunting knives, and reached into his pants and pulled out a 12-gauge shotgun.  That said, I wouldn't call a shotgun "easy to spot."  Even more so when government agents themselves sometimes wear clothes designed to conceal fully assembled assault weapons.

Originally posted by: GMT the 2/3 are based on the statistics of 300mio people owning 200mio legal guns, and not on actual figures.

But nice to know that 200mio guns are owned by about 150mio people.

Makes it even more curious to understand why.quote>

150 million Americans aren't firearm owners.  The 48% statistic was concluded from a poll asking households whether they would own a gun under a specified set of circumstances, a set of circumstances that no sane person acknowledges as ever happening.  The actual gun ownership statistics are much lower.  I only mentioned it because the 2/3 figure fails the sanity check.  If you start running the math, it becomes readily apparent that hunters and gun collectors own a disproportionately large percentage of the legal guns in the US.  While the number of hunters in the US is shrinking, many hunters own multiple guns of varying types, and a single gun collector might own upwards of 40 different guns dependent on his interests, monetary resources, and other factors.

EDIT:  "The Boy" said gun owners.  It's entirely probable for a gun owner to own multiple guns.  My uncle is one of them.  Has 3.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: hym

150 million Americans aren't firearm owners.  The 48% statistic was concluded from a poll asking households whether they would own a gun under a specified set of circumstances, a set of circumstances that no sane person acknowledges as ever happening.  The actual gun ownership statistics are much lower.  I only mentioned it because the 2/3 figure fails the sanity check.  If you start running the math, it becomes readily apparent that hunters and gun collectors own a disproportionately large percentage of the legal guns in the US.  While the number of hunters in the US is shrinking, many hunters own multiple guns of varying types, and a single gun collector might own upwards of 40 different guns dependent on his interests, monetary resources, and other factors.

EDIT:  "The Boy" said gun owners.  It's entirely probable for a gun owner to own multiple guns.  My uncle is one of them.  Has 3.quote>

ok, thanks for the info, helps to understand it better

[JakeMD 107]

I think drugs are a big factor in shootings, as well as gangs. People need their fix, and will do anything to get it. Gangs are another issue. They think they can control what ever area they feel they need to.. yet they are only doing it for drugs or money, or to just prove a point. Its a touchy issue, but the amendment should stay.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: hym ....While the number of hunters in the US is shrinking, many hunters own multiple guns of varying types....quote>

That is untrue. Hunting clubs are reporting increasing numbers, which is why every season we are given fewer and fewer tags. And for the record, you are correct on multiple ownerships by one person. At one point there were at least 53 guns in my house (we're collectors and we hunt).

GMT: There is a LOT of paperwork that goes with owning guns (why do you think waiting periods are so long?).

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: hym ....While the number of hunters in the US is shrinking, many hunters own multiple guns of varying types....quote>

That is untrue. Hunting clubs are reporting increasing numbers, which is why every season we are given fewer and fewer tags.quote>

Well, it doesn't fit with the information I've heard, but fair enough.

And for the record, you are correct on multiple ownerships by one person. At one point there were at least 53 guns in my house (we're collectors and we hunt).quote>

Well, given that my uncle owns 3 and I've held two of them, I'd hope I'd be correct.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: hym ....While the number of hunters in the US is shrinking, many hunters own multiple guns of varying types....quote>

That is untrue. Hunting clubs are reporting increasing numbers, which is why every season we are given fewer and fewer tags. And for the record, you are correct on multiple ownerships by one person. At one point there were at least 53 guns in my house (we're collectors and we hunt).

GMT: There is a LOT of paperwork that goes with owning guns (why do you think waiting periods are so long?).quote>

Is there like a source on the web where I can read the us laws concerning guns? Like a government page or something that has a copy of the written law? I've googled, but I haven't found anything usefull, everything's just rough conclusions or biased articles, but no links or nothing to the actual laws.

EDIT: 53? wow... that's much. I just have to think of 53 guns in compliance to german laws... 2 handguns and 51 rifles, all in approved lockers... gosh... that would take a whole room^^

[north country dude 207]

Originally posted by: krbe .....

2) Again, enforcement of currently existing laws requires money and manpower. Effective enforcement of these laws would also have prevented these violent crimes.quote>

And it's acceptable that states choose to neglect current laws so that more schools get their 15 minutes of fame? Remember, this isn't recent events; and you do get the chance to say what you think about your politicians every once in a while.quote>

Again, it's a matter of States rights versus Federal rights. If you re-read my first post in this topic, you understand what I mean. As for saying what we think about our State and Federal politicians, we do better than that, we can vote.

3) In several instances of school/university shootings, rifles and shotguns were also used.quote>

But the handgun remains the most dangerous, and easiest weapons, for murdersquote>

ANY weapon is easy to use for a murder. Handguns are easily concealed, and therefore the most often used weapon for spontaneous crime. I won't disagree, that it's the most commonly used weapon during a crime.

But the point was, that these horrific crimes were perpetrated with rifles and shotguns, and not just handguns. Laws were broken before the horrible outcomes of these crimes.

4) While there may not have been an effective State law regarding how these unstable people acquired the firearms they used, they violated many Federal laws in doing so.quote>

But that doesn't help at all.quote>

Why not? The laws did exist on the Federal level and these carry harsher penalties. Why didn't the States comply? Who's to say? The fact remains, the laws were already in place, and they did not stop the crime from happening. Making more, doesn't solve the problem, whereas, enforcing the existing laws, or forcing the States to comply with already existing Federal laws does work to a greater extent.

Those Afghanistan tribesmen I spoke of earlier, aren't college or even grade school graduates. Some are illiterate children, yet they can duplicate and manufacture almost any type of firearm. Any type, from automatic handguns to fully automatic AK-47's, plus the ammunition.quote>

And guess who's been helping them?quote>

What are you implying? That the US is behind it?

You would be wrong on so many levels there. The Afghans were doing this long before the US ever showed up on the scene. Before WWI, after WWII, during the Soviet occupation, prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and today. They have always done this, completely on their own.

You also miss the point here. Anyone, with the knowledge can make a firearm and ammunition. People all over the world have been doing this for hundreds of years.

Unless you enact a tyrannical and totally oppressive form of government to enforce the complete ban on all firearms, it will not happen,...ever.quote>

That's why they're so rare.quote>

What's rare? Tyrannical, oppressive forms of government? These aren't rare at all. They exist all over the world. Or total bans on all firearms? That's been done before, throughout history, usually with nasty results. Or both?

You know, it seems that many people outside the US are getting their information just from news reports and presume to understand how our government is supposed to run. Or, they presume that it's<

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: hym krbe:

First, various law enforcement agencies have said that most gun crimes are indeed committed with illegally obtained weapons, thus making them black market obtained guns.  As has been said earlier, nearly anything is obtainable on the black market, sometimes even more easily than it is obtain legally.quote>

That's true, but the vast majority operationg on the black market are those with a criminal profession. By tighter regulations, you would probably get rid of some of those "unecessary" murders that are committed, simply because they are either not planned, or they aren't interested in the long waiting periods and assesments.

Take the 9/11 hijackers: In air school, they weren't that interested at all in landings and special procedures, but rather interested in steering well; if you get a guy like that as student today, you know that the FBI should take a look.

If gun ownership had the same type of regulations like in Germany, he would either have to be a member for a year and hide his intent (basically "be normal", which is hard if you're a misfit most interested in killing as many students as possible) and risk being exposed by his fellow members/the police, or obtain a weapon on the black market, which can be rather hard, depending on the persons, society and circiumstances.

[Somebody 12]

taking away guns makes all americans less free. pretty soon mao and stalin will rise from the dead and take over america. why should the public stay helpless with no protection at the hands of government. you simply should be allowed to have a weapon.

[Micah 16]

It seems that in the US more people use guns to kill others than to actually use them for protection. If we banned guns, we wouldn't have their protection, yet we wouldn't have to worry about being shot by one either. Gun smuggling, with strictly enforced laws, would then be quite preventable (especially since the US is only accesible by land from 2 other countries, whereas in the Midle East people can drive through borders to smuggle guns). The only people that should be allowed to carry weapons are the military. I am fine with tasers for police officers, given they won't abuse them. quote>

Not at all. Once guns are banned, you completely loose the protection; however, the shootings will still continue because, just how drugs are banned and there is a large market for them, there will be a vast market for gang members or other criminals etc. to have guns. People are without a doubt smuggling guns from Mexico. People even smuggle medicine, drugs, and sugar cane from Mexico! So, then you'll have crazed idiots with guns shooting clerks at gas stations for their money, but since guns are banned, the clerks won't be able to carry a gun to defend themselves.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: GMT

Is there like a source on the web where I can read the us laws concerning guns? Like a government page or something that has a copy of the written law? I've googled, but I haven't found anything usefull, everything's just rough conclusions or biased articles, but no links or nothing to the actual laws.quote>

ok, I found this here, interesting to take a look at the main differences between the states.

Interesting aswell that apart from DC only 3 new england states (MA,NJ,NY) require an ownership license

[The Boy 0]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: hym ....While the number of hunters in the US is shrinking, many hunters own multiple guns of varying types....quote>

That is untrue. Hunting clubs are reporting increasing numbers, which is why every season we are given fewer and fewer tags. And for the record, you are correct on multiple ownerships by one person. At one point there were at least 53 guns in my house (we're collectors and we hunt).

GMT: There is a LOT of paperwork that goes with owning guns (why do you think waiting periods are so long?).quote>

I don't like hunting, but I'm not gonna go into a whole huge freaking debate on why I don't like hunting certain animals..  but I gotta say, I don't think you go around shooting people up (including Wendey's)  weekly or monthly, I don't think you hold up 7 11's at night.

GMT: You still don't get it, gun owners (legally owned guns and the owners don't break laws with them is what I'M SAYING).

I have no clue why we've got people that live in other countries saying stuff like "WELL IT WORKED HERE, WHY NOT THERE" has anyone seen our society compared to say a UK society? UK residents are different than us, though they might like the same foods, or the US and UK might be allies and what have you, ITS A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES, ISSUES, AND MANY OTHER THINGS! Get that please. Frankly, this is completely stupid going to Gun Control debates and factors, SWAT-MEDIC are you actually a SWAT medic? I'm just kinda curious as to that. Hym, I'm sure you uncle doesn't go to 7-11's at night, and hold the places up, and commit a robbery with one or two of his guns... right?? Plus, we might need guns in the future, we're like in really bad shape with washington D.C. so.. OK I'M KIDDING I'M KIDDING PLEASE DON'T COME TO MY HOUSE AND ARREST ME. I also think that, if you had say a couple teachers in a school or a principal whatever, that has a gun, it might make schools safer, I know my teacher wont take out a gun and kill me... I don't know about some of you guys lmao.

What we really should be debating is gorebull warming. I'm sorry but this is completely absurd.

[GMT 389]

And you don't read, otherwise you would have seen that I've misread your post (what's actually not that hard with like all bold print, centered and 2 blank lines...)

[The Boy 0]

Originally posted by: GMT And you don't read, otherwise you would have seen that I've misread your post (what's actually not that hard with like all bold print, centered and 2 blank lines...)quote>

Umm, what?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: City2TheMax It seems that in the US more people use guns to kill others than to actually use them for protection.quote>

It seems that way because whenever someone attempts to break into a house or rob a store and ends up getting stopped by simply having a gun pointed at them (not even necessarily shot, just threatened), it isn't big news. But when someone takes a gun and kills people, it is, and the media will talk about it a lot more because it makes a much more interesting story- it seems more common because you see it more in the news. But it is not, in fact, more common. People shooting people in assault/murder make up a decisively small percentage of gun usage. Much more often they are being used in an appropriate, responsible manner. But that's boring, and no one cares. This is why when you watch the news in this country you need to have your brain on full power and actively thinking of how everything might be misleading.

If we banned guns, we wouldn't have their protection, yet we wouldn't have to worry about being shot by one either. quote>

Yeah, because criminals won't buy a gun if they're illegal. Do you have any idea how many illegal guns there are in this country already? Do you really think that number wouldn't go up if we banned them outright?

Gun smuggling, with strictly enforced laws, would then be quite preventable (especially since the US is only accesible by land from 2 other countries, whereas in the Midle East people can drive through borders to smuggle guns). quote>

It's only two other countries, sure, but it's 5522 miles (8885 kilometers) of border with Canada and 1969 miles (3168 kilometers) with Mexico. That's 7491 miles (12,053 kilometers) worth of border.

And if you still think securing all that is easy, just look at how many people sneak into the US from Mexico. People, mind you. Easy to spot and catch- not easy to conceal like a gun. If that many people can sneak over here undetected, at least as many guns can sneak over here undetected.

The only people that should be allowed to carry weapons are the military. I am fine with tasers for police officers, given they won't abuse them.quote>

You're going to have a lot of cops getting shot, then. Seriously, if a crook points a gun at a cop and the cop tries to counterattack with a taser, he's going to get laughed at- and the effectiveness of the police will be greatly undermined. They need guns more than anyone else because it's vital that they be able to overpower any criminals they're going to encounter.

This law seems to have made more sense back in the days when it was more of a necessity to carry weapons for protection, but these days that law seems to have somewhat outdated itself.quote>

While it's true that it's not as necessary as it used to be (there was a time when a household without a gun would be considered unsafe), that doesn't mean the need is gone. And the perceived need certainly isn't gone, either. There are people who can't sleep at night if they don't have a gun locked and loaded at the side of their bed, ready to shoot anyone who might try to break into their house instantly. They certainly won't want to give their guns up.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: north country dude

Again, it's a matter of States rights versus Federal rights. If you re-read my first post in this topic, you understand what I mean. As for saying what we think about our State and Federal politicians, we do better than that, we can vote.quote>

Exactly what I meant.

But the handgun remains the most dangerous, and easiest weapons, for murdersquote>

ANY weapon is easy to use for a murder. Handguns are easily concealed, and therefore the most often used weapon for spontaneous crime. I won't disagree, that it's the most commonly used weapon during a crime.

But the point was, that these horrific crimes were perpetrated with rifles and shotguns, and not just handguns. Laws were broken before the horrible outcomes of these crimes.quote>

Laws might have been broken, but possesion of an illegal firearm isn't as serious as mass murder.

Why not? The laws did exist on the Federal level and these carry harsher penalties. Why didn't the States comply? Who's to say? The fact remains, the laws were already in place, and they did not stop the crime from happening. Making more, doesn't solve the problem, whereas, enforcing the existing laws, or forcing the States to comply with already existing Federal laws does work to a greater extent.quote>

It actually doesn't help at all that a law exists; if there aren't means to enforce them, or those who have the means aren't willing to enforce them, they're useless.

What are you implying? That the US is behind it?

You would be wrong on so many levels there. The Afghans were doing this long before the US ever showed up on the scene. Before WWI, after WWII, during the Soviet occupation, prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and today. They have always done this, completely on their own.

You also miss the point here. Anyone, with the knowledge can make a firearm and ammunition. People all over the world have been doing this for hundreds of years.quote>

I might miss the point, but I'm not wrong: The US was very willing to supply the Afghans with weapons since they fought against the Soviets.

What's rare? Tyrannical, oppressive forms of government? These aren't rare at all. They exist all over the world. Or total bans on all firearms? That's been done before, throughout history, usually with nasty results. Or both?quote>

No, complete bans on guns are rare (amongst civilised nations, which I presume the US is).

You know, it seems that many people outside the US are getting their information just from news reports and presume to understand how our government is supposed to run. Or, they presume that it's US policy that's to blame for the world's ills. Neither statements are true.quote>

Many get it as a part of English education.

The World is to blame for the World's ills. As far as understanding how our government works, unless you actually vote in it,  your opinions don't carry as much weight. I'm sorry, but that's just the hard truth about that.quote>

Americans getting killed aren't a world ill. It means nothing to the world (unless a foreginer is killed of course). Since I don't have a vote my opinion might mean nothing, but the individual American who votes, doesn't have too much influence either: 1/122 295 345 in the last presidential election.

[JEC 101]

To The Boy, I don't really want to get in a debate or anything I just wanted to say something on your statistics. I am not refuting it, I just find it amusing that for guns, the statistics are labeled "ACCIDENTAL" deaths - this is of course only a fraction of gun related deaths from armed robberies, homicide, etc.

And also about your comment on "gorebull warming" - do you not believe in climate change and the extremes of a greenhouse effect, or do you just believe that the issue is being overexaggerated? - if you think the latter than OK, but if you really don't believe in the general science, then please go read a book.

[Meg 368]

Just a quick reminder:

-  Talk about the issues, not each other

-  If you want to discuss global warming, do so over here.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Let me stick out my neck, and offer some insight from the Bible on weapons bans. If you don't accept the source, that's fine. Just scan over it to the next post.

At the time of Christ, it was illegal for civilians to carry swords in Roman territory. This was especially enforced in the rebellion-prone territory of Judea. When Peter cut off the ear of the Roman soldier in Gethsemane, what was Christ's admonishment as he healed the ear? It wasn't 'Hey, you know you can't carry a concealed sword, are you crazy?'. It was 'Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.' and I would think this could especially apply to a burglar shot by a homeowner in the middle of the night, or some cretin who gets shot while robbing a liquor store. The Old Testament has a few things to say about what will likely happen to you if you break into another person' home, or fool around with a neighbor's wife. It doesn't condone shooting an adulterous spouse and their lover (something I have almost done myself), there is the caveat that it is a risk.

 Against violent threats like criminal activity, it is your right and your duty to defend your home and family. 

Norway has very loose gun laws, but an astonishingly low murder rate. This is where the cultural differences make all the difference. The founding fathers wrote reams about the need for an upright citizenry to make our system work. If the people are rotten, then the gov't "By, for, and of the people" will necessarily be rotten as well. The whole system of gov't is threatened by the tendency of the American people to try and avoid personal responsibility, and to expect gov't to protect them from everything that might go wrong.

[ixnayonthetimmay 16]

Response to those who would say that the Second Amendment has little relevance to our society in modern times:

No, the British are not a threat to the colonies anymore. And the "well-regulated Militias" have since been superseded by an even more well-regulated military system.

None of this changes the purpose or the legitimacy of the amendment.

Think for a second about the Thirteenth Amendment. In the United States in 2008, pretty much everyone of sound mind would agree that to enslave another human being is morally abhorrent. Furthermore, if there were any group, organization, corporation or government entity that actually tried to commit it, they would be exposed and society would generally shun and avoid them for utilizing slavery. Does the fact that slavery is societally unacceptable mean that the Thirteenth Amendment should be disregarded for having no relevance?

Lastly, I'd like all of you to consider perhaps that the fundamental right for the people to keep arms was so important to the founding fathers that they made it second only to the freedoms of speech, religion and assembly, and ahead of trial by jury, due process and even cruel and unusual punishment. I can only hope that the importance of what's listed in the Bill of Rights isn't demeaned simply because it is over 200 years old...

[The Boy 0]

Originally posted by: ixnayonthetimmay Response to those who would say that the Second Amendment has little relevance to our society in modern times:

No, the British are not a threat to the colonies anymore. And the "well-regulated Militias" have since been superseded by an even more well-regulated military system.

None of this changes the purpose or the legitimacy of the amendment.

Think for a second about the Thirteenth Amendment. In the United States in 2008, pretty much everyone of sound mind would agree that to enslave another human being is morally abhorrent. Furthermore, if there were any group, organization, corporation or government entity that actually tried to commit it, they would be exposed and society would generally shun and avoid them for utilizing slavery. Does the fact that slavery is societally unacceptable mean that the Thirteenth Amendment should be disregarded for having no relevance?

Lastly, I'd like all of you to consider perhaps that the fundamental right for the people to keep arms was so important to the founding fathers that they made it second only to the freedoms of speech, religion and assembly, and ahead of trial by jury, due process and even cruel and unusual punishment. I can only hope that the importance of what's listed in the Bill of Rights isn't demeaned simply because it is over 200 years old...quote>

Catch me if I'm being mislead... you think that since America has been established and that we in society's don't live in colonies or areas per se that we no longer need a militia because we've already established everything including a relationship with the UK.. is that what your saying?

[Voar Tok 4]

Here's a more thoughts on the topic.

The problem is the proliferation of guns.  If guns weren't accessible, these shootings wouldn't happen.

That's the general thinking of a lot of the people who are highly advocating the overall ban, or serious restriction of guns.  There's a couple of cases in the world that indicate this is wrong.

Starting out, let's analyze Washington DC again (and yes, it is a valid example).  DC had no guns for a while (don't remember if they overturned that recently or not) so a gun-free zone was created.  Criminals knew that they could get a gun from somewhere and go to DC, and no law-abiding citizen was armed.  This is a key point.  The ultimate rule of law is in the hands of the one that controls the force.  Criminals could easily go to other places than DC to rob people (Montgomery County, Maryland isn't far away, and has a much better potential for finding some rich person to rob).  The thing is, DC is unarmed.  Montgomery County isn't as sure a bet.  Criminals like people that can't fight back, and to say that a knife is adequate protection against a guy with a gun is a pretty debatable statement.

Now, there's another country out there that has a significant pro-gun culture sort of like the US.  That's Switzerland.  There's about seven million people there, over two million of them in the military.  That's at least two million people that are armed.  According to wiki, it's pretty easy to get a gun, and what's more, shooting sports are highly popular.  Yet, despite all of that, the Swiss police estimated that a mere 30 something conflicts took place with a firearm in one year.  Multiply that out for a population like the US, and that's a mere 1500 firearm crimes a year.  Why is this so low?  The two best reasons to cite would be the attitude of the population and the fact that everyone knows that everyone else is armed, and they know how to shoot.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: deadwoods

The second amendment part is fairly easy to interpret.

quote>

Actually, it isn't, partly because our Founding Fathers liked run-on sentences and this one isn't even a proper sentence.

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 are the subject and verb of that "sentence"?   I know it sounds like nit-picking about grammar but this will come up in the court case on the DC gun ban.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Still- the fact remains that given how common and accepted guns are in this country, and how many people there are who would rather take their gun and shoot people with it than give it up willingly, a gun ban simply isn't practical because implementing it isn't practical. It'd be too drastic a change, too suddenly. And, even if you could implement it, could you really effectively enforce it? It's doubtful.

American culture and history is big on civil disobedience. After all, it was a big part of the civil rights movement, and other movements before it. If people disagree with a law, they simply won't follow it.... and that's considered acceptable by society. Hell, it's even encouraged. We look at it as standing up for your rights, not disobeying authority.

Our philosophy has always been "government by the people, of the people, for the people". In other words, they only get to do things because we want them to. They're not the boss of us, we're the boss of them. If they displease us, we get to fire them from their jobs by not voting for them. So, naturally, no law can ever be effective so long as there is a significant portion of the population that disagrees with it. quote>

As Dodge44 says, you are dead on.

Originally posted by: north country dude

Every time something tragic happens, you get people saying, "there ought to be a law against that". Guess what? There already is! The law doesn't prevent the crime, enforcing the law does. And that is the problem, and a very complex one. Think about that. quote>

Thank you.  I've been trying to say that.   I am opposed to unenforceable laws because it waters down the "real" laws.  and I don't see how a gun ban can be enforced.

Just for the record, I am not "pro-gun".  I don't like guns.  I think we have too many of them.  I don't understand the sport uses for them.  The only time I've fired one is when my brother dragged me to the firing range.  I went, shot the rifle, shot the handgun, and have no interest in repeating the experience.  It's just not my thing.  However, I do recognize the practical reality of the situation.

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Making something illegal does not make it more difficult to obtain.quote>

Not to sound like I'm trying to tag team anyone, but this comment is very, very much true, and imho, probably needs to be repeated incessantly.  quote>

Thank you, hym.  It seems like I have been repeating it incessantly.   I shall stop.

Originally posted by: fukuda

Can someone enl