The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Surely this proves that burgulars will expect the owner to be armed and therefore go armed themselves and ready to use arms first. Don't you see this logic.quote>

No, it doesn't prove that a thief will be expecting the homeowner to be armed.  First, most thieves are stupid and aren't going to think through things that thoroughly.  Second, gun ownership statistics indicate that a thief is more likely to encounter an unarmed homeowner than an armed homeowner.  A thief is almost three times as likely to encounter an unarmed homeowner than an armed one, and that number goes higher if you count those who are armed but can't easily access their weapons as being unarmed.  Third, most thieves don't want confrontation with the homeowner, because that's when things are going to turn nasty.  In the event that confrontation happens, most choose to flee rather than fight, because there is no winning outcome for them if they do fight.  In the event that somethings goes wrong, most panic and leave.

The kind of people you're describing aren't simply thieves.  They're murders.  They prepare for confrontation because they expect one.  It's an entirely different psychological mindset that drives them, and they are the kind of people that, even if the homeowner is armed, the situation will likely end poorly for the homeowner.

[sim-fan192 4]

This is simalair to wat Hitler did to the Jews. He took away thier guns do they couldn't fight and thier transportation so they couldn't run. If they ban guns all the good people will turn thier weapins in but will the theives and murder or the varies mafias turn thier Srinpfeilds and Uzis in? I think not! Now, instead of needing Ak-47s and MP5s to scare people and hold them hostage, all the need is a 9 mil.

[Duke87 1,070]

Point is, they weren't British troops. Some were drafted, some were criminals sentenced to serve in the army, some were debtors working off their debt, some were simply impressed.

And, not all of them were from Hanover, either. More than half of them were from Hesse (hence the name "Hessian").

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Point is, they weren't British troops. Some were drafted, some were criminals sentenced to serve in the army, some were debtors working off their debt, some were simply impressed.

And, not all of them were from Hanover, either. More than half of them were from Hesse (hence the name "Hessian").

quote>

Neither were the Australians, Canadians, South Africkans, Indians or indeed even Americans that fought in the British Forces in WW2.

The Royal Families do have a habit of inter marrying each other.

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: Rockstone

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>

Means exactly what you read it as. The right of the people of the United States of America to Keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This is the only topic that I think has no right to be one. People can keep and bear arms without restriction, and that is that. No discussion should ever follow!quote>

You say it is exactly as it is read, but you leave out the militia part... hmm... strange. Unfortunately the militia is not well organized, so when Hank Paulson held congress hostage to push TARP through, this terrorist got away with it. The country, for some time has been in the hands of the banksters, and where is the effectiveness of this amendment?

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: Duke of York

Well....I think that if the Federal Government can tell you wether you can own a gun or not.....They have way to much controle.....Besides they need to uphold the constitution....It is our American right to bear arms....If they take that right,then what is next?quote>

They have already taken the first amendment with the patriot act. Gold and silver are supposed to be legal tender, that has not been upheld since FDR, and many other infractions like the maxium of 28 years for copyright.. thank you very much Disney. Lets face it, the constitution has been burned and replaced by corporations and banks for their benifet.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

The 7th Circuit Court Of Appeals has ruled that, in effect, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to state and local governments. How does that grab you? The ruling came in response to an NRA legal challenge to the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, IL. The NRA is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.

If the ruling is upheld, this will be an unprecedented limiting of Constitutional rights that I can guarantee won't be limited to just the 2nd Amendment. Imagine if the 1st Amendment got the same treatment!

It just might.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

link

and a clip:

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld strict gun control ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill., setting the stage for a Supreme Court battle over whether the 2nd Amendment and its protection for gun owners extends to state and municipal laws.

In a 3-0 decision, the judges said they were bound by legal precedents that held the 2nd Amendment applied only to federal laws.

No fear-mongering necessary.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Another important detail here: what do the current laws in Chicago and Oak Park say?

DC had an outright ban on handguns, which is a step above "strict gun control".

[hym 358]

I thought the existing precedent was that if it violates the Constitution, it doesn't matter who made the law or what level it is.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

The Chicago and Oak Park bans (along with since-repealed bans in Morton Grove and a few other 'burbs) were complete bans, with Chicago's elevating simple possession to a felony. Also, IL has a registration law requiring an FOID (Firearms Owner ID) before anyone can purchase a gun or ammunition, administered and overseen by the notoriously hard-nosed State Police.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Duke87  DC had an outright ban on handguns, which is a step above "strict gun control".quote>

How so?quote>

It's one thing to say that you need to jump through a lot of hoops to buy or own a gun. It's another to say you can't buy or own one, period. The latter is unconstitutional. The former... not necessarily.

So:

Originally posted by: manticorefan

The Chicago and Oak Park bans (along with since-repealed bans in Morton Grove and a few other 'burbs) were complete bans, with Chicago's elevating simple possession to a felony.quote>

This is definitely unconstitutional.

Also, IL has a registration law requiring an FOID (Firearms Owner ID) before anyone can purchase a gun or ammunition, administered and overseen by the notoriously hard-nosed State Police.quote>

This... eh, kinda gray. If you could demonstrate that they're actively attempting to stop people who legitimately can own a gun from doing so rather than just being anal about the rules, then you'd prove it unconstitutional.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The 7th Circuit Court Of Appeals has ruled that, in effect, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to state and local governments. How does that grab you? The ruling came in response to an NRA legal challenge to the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, IL. The NRA is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.

If the ruling is upheld, this will be an unprecedented limiting of Constitutional rights that I can guarantee won't be limited to just the 2nd Amendment. Imagine if the 1st Amendment got the same treatment!quote>

I am dissapointed in the courts, not only for making this idiotic ruling, but for being inconsistent in even their interpretations. If you're going to twist the Constitution into what you want, the least you can do is be consistent while doing it.

Also, have they forgotten the "due process of law" clause of the 14th amendment? It makes federal law apply to the states....

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[yodadrummer 6]

very very simple guys....in order for the state(USA) to remain free the people will need to be able to arm themselves if they please from any threat, whether it be foreign or domestic....NO BANNING OF GUNS..UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: yodadrummer

very very simple guys....in order for the state(USA) to remain free the people will need to be able to arm themselves if they please from any threat, whether it be foreign or domestic....NO BANNING OF GUNS..UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!quote>

What about if that threat is a guy walking into a school with an assault rifle. 

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Originally posted by: yodadrummer

very very simple guys....in order for the state(USA) to remain free the people will need to be able to arm themselves if they please from any threat, whether it be foreign or domestic....NO BANNING OF GUNS..UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!quote>

What about if that threat is a guy walking into a school with an assault rifle. quote>

Banning guns isn't going to stop that, as many guns can fairly easily be built at home.  Case in point: A police officer being contracted to provide night-time security at the dorm building I'm in left a magazine on a table in the lobby.  On the front of that magazine was a little blurb with the words "Build your own [gun type purposefully omitted]!"  The assault rifle it was providing instructions on how to build is considered by US Special Forces to be one of the best assault rifles ever made, and that magazine had detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to build one at home.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Originally posted by: yodadrummer

very very simple guys....in order for the state(USA) to remain free the people will need to be able to arm themselves if they please from any threat, whether it be foreign or domestic....NO BANNING OF GUNS..UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!quote>

What about if that threat is a guy walking into a school with an assault rifle. 

quote>

It happens, ***** happens and life go on,

BUT it is a proven stitistic that no guns cause more crime.

I liv in a town were the guns outnumber the people almost 2:1, and we have NO CRIME- infact up until 2000 you were allowed to bring your shotguns to school. They had to be unloaded, but they were allowed in your locker. or locked up in your truck.

of couse colimbine ended the good ole days of course.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: pepsi71ocean  BUT it is a proven stitistic that no guns cause more crime.quote>

I think this calls for a source.  How did you come to this conclusion?  I don't necessarily disagree, but once you find that source, then try to find how many crimes result in death when a gun is involved.

The absence (read as "restriction") of guns would lead to fewer deaths, but perhaps crime would rise.  I, personally, and willing to see more crime and fewer deaths.

Barbarossa

quote>

My Senior year i wrote a Thesis paper on crime in England after guns were banned, yes gun involved crime dropped however knife and tireiron crime shot up. In the 5 years after guns were banned crime shot up almost 1,000% before finally turning around and going down.

Gun Control doesn't stop crime, and to be honoest i have yet to see a place where guns outnumber the people ina tow that will have crime. I know that where i live, and both my Aunts and Uncles (one in GA and the other in AZ) they have reports of Zero gun related crime.  As for me i sleep with my doors unlocked because i know robbers won't come down to a tow  where everyone has a gun and the "fear" of being caught and shot is worse then that of a town wehre there are more peope then guns.

Since i don't have alot of time i just copied this from another forum the creater his name is toroca and this was part of a 2nd Ammendment thread that came up.

Here is the posts location http://www.simphoni.net/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=15268&view=findpost&p=394914

Here is his post in its entirety.

Let's look at the overall murder rate first. The UK doesn't rank anywhere near the US in terms of total homicides. Here's one of several sources I found that say basically the same thing: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...ders-per-capita

According to that, the US murder rate is 4.3 per 100,000 people, as a national average. That's over three times the rate in the UK, which is listed as 1.4 per 100,000 people.

They break it down a little further, and have a page specifically for murders by firearms. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...arms-per-capita

There the difference is striking, and huge. In the US, it's 2.8 per 100,000. In the UK, it's just a fraction of that, 0.1 per 100,000. Let's put that another way: the US murder by firearm rate is an astonishing 28 times that of the UK. I don't know about the rest of you, but that really makes me wonder where our murder rate would be if we HAD better controls on firearms, since guns account for well over half of the murders in the US, but only 1/14th of the murders in the UK.

Now, if you look at burglaries rather than murders, pepsi's got it right, and the numbers are rather interesting: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_...ries-per-capita

There, the US has 710 burglaries per 100,000 people. But look at some of the countries that come in above the US, with more burglaries per capita. Some of them are surprising, to me anyway. In reverse order, the ones that surprised me: Switzerland, Iceland, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, and topping the list, Australia. Those are all countries that, if asked, I would have guessed probably have lower crime rates than the US. But they don't, at least not when it comes to burglaries. Vid said: "Canadians don't have guns and typically don't lock their doors and robberies are less common here," well, hate to break it to you Vid, but the rate in Canada comes in at 894 per 100,000, which is over 25% more than the US. The UK is worse, with 1,383 per 100,000 citizens. And look at Australia, on top of the list. 2,175 burglaries per 100,000 people. For anyone who's counting, that's a little over three times the burglary rate of the US. Pick any random 100 Aussies, and 2 of them will be burglarized during the year.

Nationmaster's been informative thus far, so let's look at some more stats.

How about assaults? Well, there the US and UK are right together, with 757 and 746 per 100,000, respectively. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_...ults-per-capita

How about rapes? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_...apes-per-capita

Well, the US is high in the list, including above the UK, but we're beaten by Canada and Australia again. The US rate is 30 per 100,000, slightly over twice the rate in the UK. Canada, however, sees 73 per 100,000, and Australia has 78 per 100,000. Both of those are well over twice the US rate, surprising me again.

Finally, let's look at total crimes of all type per capita. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_...imes-per-capita

The US rate is 8,006 per 100,000 people. That's a lot. Supporting pepsi again, the UK comes in a little higher, at 8,555 per 100,000, a difference of about 7 percent. Canada's not far behind the US, with 7549 per 100,000.

Overall, the impression this data gives is that you're more likely to be a victim of a crime in the UK, but you're far more likely to be murdered in the US, and by a gun, at that. So all the guns in the US may contribute to lowering the rate of robberies, but they also seem to contribute to a higher homicide rate.

[Duke87 1,070]

It's been pointed out that what's going on in iran right now is an argument in favor of the second amendment. Can you imagine if those people rioting in Iran all had guns? The regime and its police wouldn't stand a chance!

That, ultimately, was the intent behind establishing arms as a right. Enabling the citizens to overthrow an oppressive government, as our founding fathers had just done. Self defense and home defense are important, yes, but they fall second to defense of the rights of the people.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Originally posted by: Duke87

It's been pointed out that what's going on in iran right now is an argument in favor of the second amendment. Can you imagine if those people rioting in Iran all had guns? The regime and its police wouldn't stand a chance!

That, ultimately, was the intent behind establishing arms as a right. Enabling the citizens to overthrow an oppressive government, as our founding fathers had just done. Self defense and home defense are important, yes, but they fall second to defense of the rights of the people.

quote>

A unarmrmed popluation fears its government more then its government fears its people.....

A good video on a 2nd Ammendment issue with the Supreme Court.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p

"The capaicty of a clip means nothing, it just takes one second to switch clips out.

No matter what kind of gun you have it doesn't matter.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I know someone who fabricated his own 100-round drum for an assault rifle. A rifle that can be converted to full auto pretty easily, I might add. The restrictions on clip capacity are absurd.

[Mayor K 1]

Now hold on a minuet pepsi. your sources seem to be skewed a bit. first of the data is from Nationmaster is 1998-2000 and well its nine years later and everyone knows that most people thought the world was going to end. second off the data doesnt break it down. the data may cover the entire country but it doesnt factor in the location, I mean of course your going to have a higher homicide/rape/crime rate in a city because there is less of a chance that a law abiding citizen will own a gun while out in the country side every man woman and dog owns a guns.

[craizedmanic 0]

To take away the 2nd amendment would not only be a sad day, but it would also be a huge step backwards for this country. I see this topic as a possible crime aganist civil rights. You all are the first to yell about civil rights when it comes to abortion, homosexuals, and anything esle you feel are not receiving those rights. Well what about my right to protect my family, my country. If anyone comes into my house and is threatening my family I will protect them by any means that I can. I will also do the same for my country if need be. You all need to read a history book, with open eyes, and realize this country will not last. Every single super power thruout history has fallen. We will some day as well, and when that happens, well strats to happen, I will not go without a fight. You see I still hold dear to my heart all the sacrafice, through all the years, that made this country what it is. I am still proud to be an American ( not that you all are not), and it means so much to me to be able to stand and say that I am free. However if this right is taken away from us how much longer can we say that.

As for the poster that made the statment about guys bringing assualt rifles into schools. Lets say that a high school kid enters a school and opens fire on the school. The amendment has been taken away. So clearly this kid is breaking the law, but something tells me that he could care less. Before the law was passed, one of the teachers in the school was a well trained marksmen. However with the new law being passed it forced the law abiding teacher to turn in his gun. Now clearly their are no firearms at school, but with his training and his concealment permitt the school board had voted to allow him to carry his weapon, but since the new law passed he no longer had it. I said all of that for this. The kid comes in kills some other kids and wounds many more, but if the teacher had still been allowed to carry his wepon he could have ended the massacre before it got that bad.

You want to take away guns because they kill people( even though they do not. It takes a person to make them deadly) what about alcohol and drunk driving. That right there takes more lives than guns every year. Lets not stop at guns though lets get ride of knifes, hammers, crowbars, baseball bats, etc. All of this can and does take lives. The absence of guns will not end murder or even slow it down.

The removal of this Amendment would only place the law abiding citizens at harm. Even though I think we are already there, because theives have more rights when they break into your home than you do. If they get hurt then somehow you have to pay. Where is the justice in that. They say justice is blind, but now days it clearing stands on the wrong side. What we as a nation need to remember is that there is no grey area. When man attempts to make a grey area common sense will all ways lose.

[cirvianum 0]

Now here from Europe I tell you: say no to guns... Just look at how many school murderers we have had here in Europe for years, and look at yours... I think I needn't say anything else.