The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[hym 358]

The US Supreme Court is expected to strike down the Chicago and Oak Park gun bans.

[Duke87 1,070]

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is urging the court not to do anything that would prevent state and local governments "from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence."quote>

Okay, I object to this. Can we not lobby the supreme court, please? Their job is to look at the constitution and determine if laws or parts of laws violate it, not to make rulings based on what you or anyone else wants. Shut up and let them do their job!

[DazzaDazza 29]

PFB

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460

I know it doesn’t affect me but I would like to see a law saying: you can only use deadly force to protect your property when your person or other person is under direct threat or harm. Sooting at unarmed people I don’t think is justified, and using excessive force I think is also unjustified. I will say if as guy storms into you house and the only thing he wont to do is to  harm you then yes you can uses deadly force. But using excusive force to stop petty crims crates a bad culture of valance and killing.quote>

Using (deadly) force to defend one's life and property against those who would initiate force against one's life and property does not create a culture of violence and killing. It actually discourages violence and killing.

Self-defense does not justify self-offense (i.e. assault or murder).

I just don’t think that you should be able to do something like that,  stoping someone form harming, killing, sexual assault and so on is one thing, and I would think I have the guts to try and stop that happening, but chasseing some down the street with a shoot gun and shooting people in the back to stop petty crime  make you just as bad  it not worse as the person who is robbing the hoses, but I’m speaking from the outside though, I wouldn’t  stand for that behaviour if it was happening in Australia.quote>

Chasing someone down the street and shooting him would be an assault from the point when the threat from him was neutralized (i.e. when he exited the house or the area of the property).

 

Indecently I found the gun laws hear in Australia, and I’m guess that this type of gun control would not be too popular in the USA. But it dose work o.k.quote>

That depends on how you define "working".

 

In Australia, access to firearms is limited to persons with a genuine need. This includes government and policequote>

Oh, yes, of course. The government would always go out of the way to exempt their people from the law that oppresses the other citizens .

sporting shooters with valid membership of an approved club, recreational shooters or hunters that produce proof of permission from a landowner, primary producers, pest controllers and bona fide collectors.quote>

In other words, everyone that the government wants to allow firearm possession to, except the innocent homeowner.

All governments have agreed that self-protection is not a genuine need.quote>

Should we care what governments agree on? They have a vested interest in keeping firearms away from the people, to better enable them to increase their own power. Also, if self-protection is not a genuine need, why do they have such marvelous security systems around their own property (like military bases).

 

That’s not what I was taking about, by bad… what I was tiring to say is  the robber can’t acutely take your house,  unless you live in a motor home, when the robber goes you still own the house so defending it is rather pointless.quote>

Ha. You would think differently if it was your property that was being robbed.

[DazzaDazza 29]

Patricius Maximus Wote :

Chasing someone down the street and shooting him would be an assault from the point when the threat from him was neutralized (i.e. when he exited the house or the area of the property).

Well my friend according to the article Mr.horn did just that and he was well with in his rights to do so, I know Duke87  will probably disagree with me, and I can see where he is coming from in parts, but I think the law is to heavily focus on the protecting “items” that being property or personal belonging,

 

That depends on how you define "working".

 

Well I think it working; I fell safe with out a gun, do you? yes there are gun hear in Australia, I’m not stupid, yes we have shooting, and if you rally wont to get a gun illegally I would dare say you could, but guns are hard to find hear, there ant guns shops every where, the people with gun aren’t generally using them to rob a houses, most shooting seem to be between people that know each other anyway. Petty criminal don’t seem to have them, there aren’t any high school shooting and so on ,(not saying there wont be in the future) so yes I can say it working.

 

Innocently gun control was introduced in after the  Port Arthur massacre where a sicko went on a rampage killing 35 people, although even after this may people still didn’t wont to see gun control, but I guess the government was brave enough at the time to introduce  it, and so far we have not had a repeat of it, why because gun are harder to find, with the current gun control he would be able to purchase the type of guns he did and the amount of them he did, so yes gun control works.  

 

oh, yes, of course. The government would always go out of the way to exempt their people from the law that oppresses the other citizens .

 

What???????? Where do you live, your profile says Vancouver, but the way you’re talking you live in North Korea or one of the Africana nations     

                      

In other words, everyone that the government wants to allow firearm possession to,

except the innocent homeowner

.

 

I would like to point out why would you rob a houses when someone is home anyway, most of the time you came home to find your houses robed, so what your gun going to do for you then, it was probably stolen along with you T.V, well I guess congratulation are in order, your gun will probably be used to commit other crimes.

 

Should we care what governments agree on?

That was a legal statement, stating that all states and territories agree on gun control   basically saying the law is nationally    

They have a vested interest in keeping firearms away from the people, to better enable them to increase their own power.

 

Well that’s a rather ridicules comment, your implying that the government have taken guns off us so the can control us, o’h yes the Australian the same government the just spent 2 billon on new fighter jets that are already outdate, thay can’t even run a bunch of hospitals, or build a proper freeway, yet some how they are trying to control us,  hears a tip there are 30 million Australians and 1000 polys, how exactly are they going to control us.  also a security system for the home is manly a deterrent and nothing more, it dose stop the robbery it informs people that there is one happening (or that it is faulty like the one next to me that goes off every week for no reason whatsoever) 

 

Also, if self-protection is not a genuine need, why do they have such marvelous security systems around their own property (like military bases).

 

It’s pretty self evident 

 

Ha. You would think differently if it was your property that was being robbed.

 

I will say the same thing I said before, I have insurance all my stuff get replaced  

Duke Worte :

Okay, I object to this. Can we not lobby the supreme court, please? Their job is to look at the constitution and determine if laws or parts of laws violate it, not to make rulings based on what you or anyone else wants. Shut up and let them do their job!

 

I would agree with you hear, lobbing only makes the governments do stupid thing, there more likely to push the law too far the other way, thus making it fail from the start,   

      

 

[sneakeypete 16]

Ah yes, i love the double whammy of people going on about how "xx shouldn't be done because the government is to incompetent... but we need to keep our guns otherwise they'll opress us!"

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Some governments are more efficient than others. Look at 1930's Germany vs. 1980's USSR for a contrast on how efficient government is.

Efficiency of government is not really the issue here. At issue here are the liberties of mankind, as protected in the country we are discussing by the Constitution of the United States.

The Second Amendment to that same Constitution clearly and incontrovertibly says that "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".

There should be no controversy about that sentence. If you can read English, it is evident that a person's right to possess firearms is legally protected from governmental interference. And, yes, it is binding on the states and cities, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the states (and thus cities) did join that land.

People means people. It does not mean the government, military, militia, police, or whatever exclusive club you can gin up that can have their liberties protected while others are oppressed.

I think that the discussion has waded too much into policy, and not enough discussion has been given as to liberty or the legal basis for a gun ban.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

The Second Amendment to that same Constitution clearly and incontrovertibly says that "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>

"clearly"?   That isn't even a proper English sentence.

People means people. It does not mean the government, military, militia, police, or whatever exclusive club you can gin up that can have their liberties protected while others are oppressed. quote>

So why is a "well-regulated militia" mentioned?

[sneakeypete 16]

It says, to me, a non american, that at least owning a gun should require you to be part of one of these well regulated militias. You also haveto take into account the historical context. that was written at a time when armies comprised of people who'd joined up and been sent to a unit with a few weeks training. Owning a rifle would give you a little experience for the army as that's what you'd use. these days most people own a pistol and never intend to join the army (or a militia). And we have tanks, planes, rockets etc these days, none of which they had when that was written.

Realistically though, how do you really think owning a gun is going to stop the government from doing what it wants to do to you? they have, if they wanted, many more insidious ways to control you that a gun simply won't do anything about. To say "guns give us the ability to fight back against the government" seems to me to say "guns give us the ability to stage a bloody uprising" or similar, as anything done to the government by force is effectivly that.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Ah yes, i love the double whammy of people going on about how "xx shouldn't be done because the government is to incompetent... but we need to keep our guns otherwise they'll opress us!"quote>

An interesting point you bring up here.

As tempting as it is to call that a constradiction, though, let's consider the following:

- competence at running and managing a system and competence at enforcing laws are two entirely different things

- a government need not be competent at the former to be competent at the latter

- a government need not be competent at the former to enact unjust laws, which can then be competently enforced

- incompetent law enforcement does not necessarily mean ineffective law enforecement, it can mean overpowered, iron-fisted, draconian law enforcement. A lack of intelligence can mean stupid brute force is used instead

- the possibility always exists that the government will become more competent... competently oppressive

- most importantly, guns still allow us to protect ourselves from each other, regardless of what the government is like

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

You also have to take into account the historical context. that was written at a time when armies comprised of people who'd joined up and been sent to a unit with a few weeks training. Owning a rifle would give you a little experience for the army as that's what you'd use. these days most people own a pistol and never intend to join the army (or a militia). And we have tanks, planes, rockets etc these days, none of which they had when that was written.quote>

Well, if we're going to play the historical context card....

From Thomas Jefferson's letter to Colonel William Smith, 11/13/1787:

what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance ?  Let them take arms.quote>

Samuel Adams at the Massachusetts convention of 1788:

said Constitution {shall} be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions. quote>

James Madison, from Federalist Paper #46 (1788):

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with armsquote>

Thomas Paine, from "Thoughst on Defensive War" (1775):

They supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian;

while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and

the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.

The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be

preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but

since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single

nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up.

Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of

them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the

weak will become a prey to the strong.quote>

Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist Paper #29 (1788):

if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.quote>

....beyond all that, bear in mind that any group of people can form a "militia", and that "regulated" does not necessarily imply regulation by any government. The word certainly has that connotation today but the Bill of Rights was written in 1789... "regulated" literally just means "controlled", and says nothing as to by whom. Any business is "regulated" in that the boss controls the business and has authority over his employees. Even street gangs are "regulated" in that someone is the gang leader who calls the shots.

Thus "Well-regulated militia" just means "a group of people with a decent sense of organization that can fight". The NRA could be considered a "well-regulated militia".

Also, current existence of a "well-regulated militia" is not necessarily as important as the capability to form one if need be.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

 

Indecently I found the gun laws hear in Australia, and I’m guess that this type of gun control would not be too popular in the USA. But it dose work o.k.quote>

That depends on how you define "working".

 

In Australia, access to firearms is limited to persons with a genuine need. This includes government and policequote>

Oh, yes, of course. The government would always go out of the way to exempt their people from the law that oppresses the other citizens .

sporting shooters with valid membership of an approved club, recreational shooters or hunters that produce proof of permission from a landowner, primary producers, pest controllers and bona fide collectors.quote>

In other words, everyone that the government wants to allow firearm possession to, except the innocent homeowner.

quote>

As an Australian citizen I can honestly say yes, I think our gun laws work very well for us. I feel a lot safer with the laws than without them. I've never felt the need for a gun of my own (or on any other non-police/non-military person) for defence in my entire life. I can walk around the city fairly safely on my own most of the time.  Against most of the kinds of crimes that we do have a knowledge of martial arts would be a more effective defence than a gun. I don't live in constant fear of our government or our police turning against us. If they did guns wouldn't help us anyway. I also don't have to live with the fear that every second person walking down the same street as me has a gun on them and who knows what their mental state is?

[DazzaDazza 29]

duke wrote :

 a government need not be competent at the former to enact unjust laws, which can then be competently enforced

if there incompetent...  then they wouldn’t be able to enforce the law, no matter how just you may think they are, that’s what makes them incompetent

the possibility always exists that the government will become more competent... competently oppressive

 no there isn’t, you need the support of people to enforce oppressive behavior, the police,  the military and so on, if you don’t have them you nothing, never going to happen in the US, also you have the most powerful weapon of all, the media, and they love stories of governments behaving badly, they would wip up a feeding frenzy so bad that with in 5 minutes, people would be tearing down the gates of white house. With in a day the president at the time would be stacked and you would bed going to the voting poles to get a new one . 

 

Barbarossa wrote :

It is no longer 1789. The Founders had no idea what kind of weaponry would exist in the future.

 

 

That’s very true, I wonder what the speed limits on the roads where back in 1789, duke87 with your current thinking there should be any at all, you should be able to dive as fast as you wont because that’s how they did it back then, but you cant, they introduced laws to stop people form doing just that, that’s what laws are there for to protect people, gun control takes gun away from people that should have them

                  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460

if they're incompetent...  then they wouldn’t be able to enforce the law, no matter how just you may think they are, that’s what makes them incompetent quote>

Uh... no. A government, like any other person or entity, is not just as a blanket statement competent or incompetent. They can be good at some things and bad at others... they can be good at making and enforcing laws but bad at managing programs. Running a public school system (for instance) has nothing to do with having the police enforce a gun ban. In particular, the former requires brains (which the government generally does not have), while the latter can be achieved with simple brute force (which the government is quite capable of).

the possibility always exists that the government will become more competent... competently oppressivequote>

no there isn’t, you need the support of people to enforce oppressive behavior, the police,  the military and so on, if you don’t have them you nothing, never going to happen in the US, also you have the most powerful weapon of all, the media, and they love stories of governments behaving badly, they would whip up a feeding frenzy so bad that with in 5 minutes, people would be tearing down the gates of white house. With in a day the president at the time would be sacked and you would bed going to the voting poles to get a new one. quote>

Okay, first of all, elections in the US don't work like they do in most other coutries. We can't "sack" the president. No matter how much the country comes to disapprove of Barack Obama, he will be president until noon on January 20th, 2013 unless he dies, resigns, or is removed from office by impeachment (which would require that the senate convict him of a crime). And in any of those cases, we still wouldn't be running to the polls to elect a new president - Joe Biden (currently the vice president)  would become president for the rest of Obama's current term.

There's no such thing as "calling an election" in the US. Our elections occur on a set date (first Tuesday after the first Monday in November), and all elected officials have set terms of office. They cannot be forced out of office before their term is up except by impeachment. Popular disapproval and scandal can and does lead people to resign, but you cannot force them to do so, and this only happens on an individual basis.

As for the media, they do love scandal, and they are a powerful force, but they generally don't work in favor of the people, they work in favor of their own agenda. FOX will generally avoid being critical of something conservative but readily criticize something liberal. CNN and NBC will avoid being critical of something liberal but readily criticize something conservative. This is why liberals hate FOX, and why conservatives carry on about "spin in the liberal media". The media in our country, like the government in our country and like a lot of things in our country, is not about working for the greater good or tacking corruption and other evils. It's about one side of the political aisle versus the other, and each cares first and foremost about scoring points for their team and furthering their own existence - not about being honest or achieving anything.

All this, by the way, encourages incompetence and inefficiency, because being productive is not anyone's aim.

Barbarossa wrote:

It is no longer 1789. The Founders had no idea what kind of weaponry would exist in the future. quote>

That’s very true, I wonder what the speed limits on the roads where back in 1789, duke87 with your current thinking there should be any at all, you should be able to drive as fast as you wont because that’s how they did it back then, but you cant, they introduced laws to stop people form doing just thatquote>

Well, first of all, speed limits are an entirely different matter because, unlike bearing arms, there is nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to drive as fast as you want.

That said, I don't like speed limits as they exist and really would rather they be considered to be merely advisories and recommendations, not be something legally enforceable (I do believe Germany does this, actually). Our police should be chasing actual criminals, not people who are committing trivial infractions such as driving too fast or not wearing their seat belt.

that’s what laws are there for to protect peoplequote>

In theory, yes.

In practice, laws have this uncanny tendency or protecting not "people", but some special interest, or giving power to the government. Or simply trying to achieve something but failing, even backfiring. For this reason, all laws are bad unless proven good. Don't legislate it unless it's demonstratable beyond a reasonable doubt to be a good idea.

gun control takes gun away from people that should have themquote>

That was probably a typo, but you accidentally got it right.

[DazzaDazza 29]

Uh... no. A government, like any other person or entity, is not just as a blanket statement competent or incompetent. They can be good at some things and bad at others... they can be good at making and enforcing laws but bad at managing programs. Running a public school system (for instance) has nothing to do with having the police enforce a gun ban. In particular, the former requires brains (which the government generally does not have), while the latter can be achieved with simple brute force (which the government is quite capable of).

That make no sense what your saying, of curse there go nothing to do with each other, I don’t rally understand the point you are trying to make, that’s like me saying eating a apple and driving a car are tow different thing, one you need to concentrate the other you just need the put it in you month and eat   

Also if your doing nothing wrong then you don’t have anything to worry about  

Okay, first of all, elections in the US don't work like they do in most other coutries. We can't "sack" the president. No matter how much the country comes to disapprove of Barack Obama, he will be president until noon on January 20th, 2013 unless he dies, resigns, or is removed from office by impeachment (which would require that the senate convict him of a crime). And in any of those cases, we still wouldn't be running to the polls to elect a new president - Joe Biden (currently the vice president)  would become president for the rest of Obama's current term.

There's no such thing as "calling an election" in the US. Our elections occur on a set date (first Tuesday after the first Monday in November), and all elected officials have set terms of office. They cannot be forced out of office before their term is up except by impeachment. Popular disapproval and scandal can and does lead people to resign, but you cannot

force

them to do so, and this only happens on an individual basis

 

   

 

Waite….. I thought you live in a democracy, ummmm maybe there need to be a disclaimer “ we have the greatest  democracy in the world”, but only every 4 years, in between that we are powerless.     Please do you think laws would stop a president from getting the sack or a government? What is stoping your people from doing that.   His is not your supreme lender, he is your president, voted by the people, and he is replacerble, expandable, like any other person that runs a large organization if he is completely incompetent he gets the sack no matter what his contract says, but what your saying is instead of just sacking the president or the government at the time, you will need your gun to over power him and his government, seems rather silly to go to all that effort,  

     

As for the media, they do love scandal, and they are a powerful force, but they generally don't work in favor of the people, they work in favor of their own agenda. FOX will generally avoid being critical of something conservative but readily criticize something liberal. CNN and NBC will avoid being critical of something liberal but readily criticize something conservative. This is why liberals hate FOX, and why conservatives carry on about "spin in the liberal media". The media in our country, like the government in our country and like a lot of things in our country, is not about working for the greater good or tacking corruption and other evils. It's about one side of the political aisle versus the other, and each cares first and foremost about scoring points for their team and furthering their own existence - not about being honest or achieving anything.

All this, by the way,

encourages

incompetence and inefficiency, because being productive is not anyone's aim.

 

 

They work on ratings, and money, nothing more, the more viewers the more money,

 

Well, first of all, speed limits are an entirely different matter because, unlike bearing arms, there is nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to drive as fast as you want.

That said, I don't like speed limits as they exist and really would rather they be considered to be merely advisories and recommendations, not be something legally enforceable (I do believe Germany does this, actually). Our police should be chasing actual criminals, not people who are committing trivial infractions such as driving too fast or not wearing their seat belt.

 

But what’s the difference between the two, why is owning a gun more important then speed limits.  O’h yes ones in the constitution and other is not,  the speed limits are there to protect people from killing them selves and other people gun control is exactly the same, Germany has autobahns e.g free ways that there is not speed limits but I do believe there is still speed limits out side of the autobahns,

 

  

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460

 

Waite….. I thought you live in a democracy, ummmm maybe there need to be a disclaimer “ we have the greatest  democracy in the world”, but only every 4 years, in between that we are powerless.     Please do you think laws would stop a president from getting the sack or a government? What is stoping your people from doing that.   His is not your supreme lender, he is your president, voted by the people, and he is replacerble, expandable, like any other person that runs a large organization if he is completely incompetent he gets the sack no matter what his contract says, but what your saying is instead of just sacking the president or the government at the time, you will need your gun to over power him and his government, seems rather silly to go to all that effort,  

    

quote>

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy. There is a difference. In a republic there are certain "rights" that cannot be taken away from a person or group, no matter how small that group is in relation to the larger population. In a democracy the majority can remove the "rights" of a minority.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460

Waite….. I thought you live in a democracy, ummmm maybe there need to be a disclaimer “ we have the greatest  democracy in the world”, but only every 4 years, in between that we are powerless.     Please do you think laws would stop a president from getting the sack or a government? What is stoping your people from doing that.   His is not your supreme lender, he is your president, voted by the people, and he is replacerble, expandable, like any other person that runs a large organization if he is completely incompetent he gets the sack no matter what his contract says, but what your saying is instead of just sacking the president or the government at the time, you will need your gun to over power him and his government, seems rather silly to go to all that effort,  quote>

Duke is completely right.  In the US, elections happen at fixed times, regardless of whether anyone wants the to come earlier or later.  Hate the President and wish he could be voted out of office right now?  Too bad.  Love the President and wish an early election could be held for him to hold power longer?  Can't do that either.  The President's "contract" is for 4 years, no less, no more.  That period of time cannot be changed without changing the Constitution itself, which would require 2/3 of the federal Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with such a change.  So, yes, I think that no law is going to change the terms of his contract as no law can supersede the Constitution.

Additionally, Duke never said we'd need guns to force him out.  Unless he wants to make a monumental fool of himself, he will simply leave when his term is complete.

But what’s the difference between the two, why is owning a gun more important then speed limits.  O’h yes ones in the constitution and other is not,  the speed limits are there to protect people from killing them selves and other people gun control is exactly the same, Germany has autobahns e.g free ways that there is not speed limits but I do believe there is still speed limits out side of the autobahns,quote>

Remember: The Constitution is the highest law in the land in the US.  If any law is found to be in violation of the Constitution, that law must no longer be enforced.  Doesn't matter how badly people think the law is needed, the law must be removed.

[DazzaDazza 29]

Sam Wrote:

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy. There is a difference. In a republic there are certain "rights" that cannot be taken away from a person or group, no matter how small that group is in relation to the larger population. In a democracy the majority can remove the "rights" of a minority. 

 

Interesting most American I meet believe they live in the greatest democracy in the world, but what your saying is there technically wrong       

 

hym Wrote:

 

Additionally, Duke never said we'd need guns to force him out.  Unless he wants to make a monumental fool of himself, he will simply leave when his term is complete

.

 

 

Duke Wrote:

 

the possibility always exists that the government will become more competent... competently oppressive

 

Duke Wrote:

 

The ultimate purpose is supposed to be so people can protect themselves from the government. i.e., if the government becomes oppressive beyond repair, it's the right and the duty of the people to overthrow it. To do that, people need weapons.

 

, you don’t need guns weapons to overthrow the government, one of the argument being used is you can’t get rid of our gun just incases we (as in you) need to use them against the government. My argument is, that need is completely baseless, not in the world we live in now,

 

Remember: The Constitution is the highest law in the land in the US.  If

any

law is found to be in violation of the Constitution, that law must no longer be enforced.  Doesn't matter how badly people think the law is needed, the law must be removed.

Yes but the point was made before that the Constitution was conceived along time ago in a different time and world, and I would agree, times change,  I just don’t see the point of living in a world with mass shooting and that seem to happen just about every mouth, that your hole country seems to be abhorred about and wonder why it happens and how to stop it, that’s there is a high level of gun valence on the streets, and yet when it comes time to wont to fix at lest some of it anyway, you don't won't to change anything, you would rather sit and watch TV and be saddened buy the senseless loss of life then change your Constitution so you have sticker gun control,

 

 You all say it is your right to own a gun that it is in the Constitution and there is no law higher than that and it should never be changed, I wonder where the rights are of the people that lay dead from all this violence are, away. There got taken away, but guess there life means nothing al long as the Constitution still stands

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460

Yes but the point was made before that the Constitution was conceived along time ago in a different time and world, and I would agree, times change,  I just don’t see the point of living in a world with mass shooting and that seem to happen just about every mouth, that your hole country seems to be abhorred about and wonder why it happens and how to stop it, that’s there is a high level of gun valence on the streets, and yet when it comes time to wont to fix at lest some of it anyway, you don't won't to change anything, you would rather sit and watch TV and be saddened buy the senseless loss of life then change your Constitution so you have sticker gun control,

 

 You all say it is your right to own a gun that it is in the Constitution and there is no law higher than that and it should never be changed, I wonder where the rights are of the people that lay dead from all this violence are, away. There got taken away, but guess there life means nothing al long as the Constitution still standsquote>

quote>

I never said the Constitution should never been changed, and I don't think anyone else has either.  Nevertheless, the Constitution is the highest law of the land and any law that contradicts the Constitution is itself illegal.  Enacting a system of gun control like is seen in many other developed countries would almost certainly require amending the Constitution.  There isn't the popular support in the US to do that.

[screamingman12 30]

I know I have not been active in this discussion for a while now, but I will bring up something relevant.  

There is a link between the presence of weaponry (firearms were the focus of these studies) and the likelihood of people to engage in violent acts. Having said this, I don't think the idea that many mass shootings would be prevented by harder access to handguns is that much of a stretch. 

To provide an easy to relate to example, lets say you happen to be sitting at home and you have a loaded handgun on your coffee table. Your neighbor knocks on your door and when you answer he says "I slept with your wife last night". What would you do, would you grab the gun or wouldn't you? 

The way people react under spontaneous conditions is not always predictable or logical, providing an enabler for these actions is usually not the best idea, there is a reason why slightly more than 11,000 US citizens are killed by firearm use every year. 

That being said, there are other issues at stake here. I think the main question is how did the United States get a little more than the lion's share of the world's crazies? 

By the way, the idea that being in places where lots of other people have guns (i.e. Fort Hood) will prevent shootings doesn't seem to work anymore. 

[DazzaDazza 29]

So is it the gun control that is unpopular or the fact that the Constitution has to be change, also some of the gun control being put fallowed (correct me if I wrong) are simple thinks like

You can't carry a gun around in public

There is a cap on the amount of guns you can have

If you are a convicted felon then you can't get gun ether,

The first two don't rally contradict with the Constitution your still allowed to own a gun there are just resection on what you can do with it and how many you can have. The last one seem like common sense to me, they have some has little disregard of all the other laws

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460

So is it the gun control that is unpopular or the fact that the Constitution has to be change,quote>

It's both.  For it to have any legal validity, the Constitution has to change, but for the Constitution to change, there has to be sufficient popular support for the change.  That support doesn't exist, so the Constitution won't change.

You can't carry a gun around in public

There is a cap on the amount of guns you can have

If you are a convicted felon then you can't get gun ether,

The first two don't rally contradict with the Constitution your still allowed to own a gun there are just resection on what you can do with it and how many you can have. The last one seem like common sense to me, they have some has little disregard of all the other laws quote>

In the first case, whether you can carry a gun in public is a matter for the individual states to decide (most states allow you to carry a gun in public except for certain venues).  As for the second, I suspect that if someone seriously attempted to cap the number of guns you can own, there would be a legal battle over whether such a law is legal under the Second Amendment and there is a reasonable chance it would be struck down as unconstitutional.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460

if your doing nothing wrong then you don’t have anything to worry about quote>

But then who gets to decide what is or isn't wrong? That's a dangerous power for any entity other than the individual to have.

Please do you think laws would stop a president from getting the sack or a government? What is stoping your people from doing that.   His is not your supreme lender, he is your president, voted by the people, and he is replacerble, expandable, like any other person that runs a large organization if he is completely incompetent he gets the sack no matter what his contract says, but what your saying is instead of just sacking the president or the government at the time, you will need your gun to over power him and his government, seems rather silly to go to all that effort quote>

Okay, point of clarification: the definition of "government" in the US is different from elsewhere. It's typical in most countries for "the government" to refer to the current prime minister and parliament members, and any election is said to "elect a new government". In the US, every two years we "elect a new congress" (we're currently on the 111th congress), but our "government" refers to the governmental system as a whole, and thus "a new government"  would mean a complete scrapping of the current system and the founding of a new one. That has not happened since the constitution was written in 1787.

So, yes, the idea of us taking up arms just to force Barack Obama or any congressman or senators out of office is silly... and that's not what anyone's talking about when they talk about using arms to defend against the government (although four of our 44 presidents were assassinated while in office). What's meant is two things:

1) since the government (US definition) knows the people are armed, they are deterred from becoming opressive knowing they can be overthrown if they do

2) if the goverment does become oppressive, then it can be fought back into line or outright overthrown - which means starting from scratch and completely changing the way things are done. Think French Revolution.

They work on ratings, and money, nothing more, the more viewers the more money, quote>

Indeed. And they get better ratings by being partisan rather than fair and honest. Because, you know, people want to hear themselves agreed with, not be told the truth whether they like it or not.

But what’s the difference between the two, why is owning a gun more important than speed limits? Oh yes, one's in the constitution and other is notquote>

You say that sarcastically, but it is a good serious answer.

More down to earth, however, consider this: the faster you drive, the more dangerous it is. That's pretty much undebatable, so, speed limits, if followed, do in theory actually protect people (the "if followed" part is an iffy point, though. And there are other iffy points).

On the other hand, while in some ways you can protect someone by taking a gun out of their hands, in other ways you can protect someone by putting a gun in their hands. Speed limits are an obvious protection. Gun control is not.

 

Germany has autobahns e.g free ways that there is not speed limits but I do believe there is still speed limits outside of the autobahns,quote>

 

Point is, they have no speed limits on the autobahnen, and yet you don't hear on the news all the time about horrible accidents happening there. People don't go and drive 200 mph when they're not given a limit. Indeed, changing the speed limit has little to no effect on how fast most people actually drive. People obey their own judgment, not signs.

Interesting most American I meet believe they live in the greatest democracy in the world, but what your saying is there technically wrong quote>

There seems to be a difference in how exactly "democracy" is defined, here. Looks like Sam is taking "democracy" to mean "parliamentary democracy". What we have could be called just a "republic" or it could be called a "republican democracy". Either way, though, our system is democratic in the sense that we elect our government. We're just unusual in that we do so on scheduled dates rather than as called for, and in that we (in theory, anyway) vote for people, not parties. The key other quirk is in that congress normally plays no role in deciding the president, he's not like a prime minister. Instead the people elect him... semi-directly. In a fashion not unlike how a prime minister is chosen, actually, except that it's done through a separate body that exists solely for that purpose (the electoral college) and is disconnected from anything else. You can vote for a presidential candidate from one party and a congressman from a different party. To my knowledge, in a parliamentary system that is not possible.

Yes but the point was made before that the Constitution was conceived along time ago in a different time and world, and I would agree, times change, I just don’t see the point of living in a world with mass shooting and that seem to happen just about every mouth, that your whole country seems to be abhorred about and wonder why it happens and how to stop it, that’s there is a high level of gun violence on the streets, and yet when it comes time to wont to fix at lest some of it anyway, you don't won't to change anything, you would rather sit and watch TV and be saddened buy the senseless loss of life then change your Constitution so you have stricter gun controlquote>

It's easy from the perspective of a society that does not have guns ingrained as part of its culture to say that we just don't care about people getting senselessly shot and killed. Indeed, some more liberal people here would say that as well.

The reality is, however, that we very much do care... but we see it differently. Guns can save lives too, you know. They are not just weapons of agression. 11,000 people are killed in the US every year by gunfire... How many of them were suicides? How many of them were in self defense? How many of them would have killed multiple people had they not been shot first? How many of them still would have been killed anyway except by a different means had the killer not had a gun? And, most importantly, how many of those killers would still have their gun anyway even if it was illegal?

Be careful with statistics. They can tell some of the worst lies if misinterpreted or misrepresented. Someone who is clever can manipulate statistics to say anything. 

 

You all say it is your right to own a gun that it is in the Constitution and there is no law higher than that and it should never be changed, I wonder where the rights are of the people that lay dead from all this violence are, away. There got taken away, but guess there life means nothing al long as the Constitution still standsquote>

The constitution has seen 18 changes over the course of its history (bill of rights + 17 later amendments). It can and does change, and in some cases should. But you're simply not going to be able to get enough support to ammend the constitution to allow a gun ban. People don't want to give up their right to bear arms. And you know what? They shouldn't have to.

Do note that only once has the constitution ever been amended to take a right away from people rather than grant it to them - prohibition (ban on alcohol). And that turned out to be such a huge fiasco that people soon realized how big a mistake it was and the constitution was amended again to reverse it!

Any constitutional amendment banning guns would likely be a repeat of that history.

Originally posted by: screamingman12

By the way, the idea that being in places where lots of other people have guns (i.e. Fort Hood) will prevent shootings doesn't seem to work anymore. quote>

Fun fact: soldiers on bases in the US do not carry guns around with them, thanks to Bill Clinton. If they did, you can bet your ass the lunatic would've been shot a lot sooner and killed far fewer people!

[DazzaDazza 29]

hym @  i guess you can’t make every on happy all at once

Duke worte :
 

But then who gets to decide what is or isn't wrong? That's a dangerous power for any entity other than the individual to have.

 

Well the government do, that’s what they get paid to do, make decision for the good of the country, sometimes they can be unpopular but most of the time there fore the best, I say most because there have been some shockers.     

 

So, yes, the idea of us taking up arms just to force Barack Obama or any congressman or senators out of office is silly... and that's not what anyone's talking about when they talk about using arms to defend against the government (although four of our 44 presidents were assassinated while in office). What's meant is two things:

 

So I guess you can put you gun away, your government / politicians / parties aren’t out to get you , as for the rest of the world, well…………

 

More down to earth, however, consider this: the faster you drive, the more dangerous it is. That's pretty much undebatable, so, speed limits, if followed, do in theory actually protect people (the "if followed" part is an iffy point, though. And there are other iffy points).

 

 

People can’t be trusted that’s why there are speed limits, it the same with guns people cant be trusted   also with out laws people would be doing what they wont, and you don’t want that. Yes you are right there are other iffy points, like the people that can’t drive but think they can, like one of my friend who is a car nut and has been playing to many car racing games, now he “tries” to be like a race car driver whenever he take the wheel, I personally don’t get in the car with him, because he cant drive, I guess that the same with guns,  Some people shouldn’t have a one         

 

 

In other ways you can protect someone by

putting a gun in

their hands

 

Fundamentally I disagree with that statement, (although that was predicable)             

 

Speed limits are an obvious protection. Gun control is not.

 

I’m guess you have a gun, wouldn’t you feel more protected if there where less guns around?   

 

Point is, they have no speed limits on the autobahnen, and yet you don't hear on the news all the time about horrible accidents happening there. People don't go and drive 200 mph when they're not given a limit. Indeed, changing the speed limit has little to no effect on how fast most people actually drive. People obey their own judgment, not signs.  

 

Well the autobahns are a controlled environment all the other road laws are still in place, like you going to a shooting range, or going hunting,       

 

 

how many of those killers would still have their gun anyway even if it was illegal?

 

Yes they have drugs as well, and they probably don’t pay there taxes, most murders are from people that they know, I guess if the people you know need guns for protection and are always looking over there shoulder, then you better get some new friends      

 

Be careful with statistics. They can tell some of the worst lies if misinterpreted or misrepresented. Someone who is clever can manipulate statistics to say anything.

 

Yes but how many of those 11,000 would have been saved if guns where not that assessable,   guns can kill quicker then most other weapons that are found on the streets take a automatic weapon for example if you have used them you would know how essay it is to fire a couple of rounds out, a gun you can shoot people from afar a knife you have to physically go up to them and stab them. I guess you can call most other weapons the lesser of two evils.   

but you are right  statistics like that are always manipulated especially buy the media

 

 

[morriswalters 16]

Locked, Loaded, and Ready to Caffeinate

By IAN URBINA

For years, being able to carry a concealed handgun has been a sacred right for many gun enthusiasts. In defending it, Charlton Heston, the actor and former president of the National Rifle Association, used to say that the flock is safer when the wolves cannot tell the difference between the lions and the lambs.

Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Greg Dement was served a Starbucks drink in Seattle last week as those with opposing views on customers carrying arms made their position known.

Related

• Fearing Obama Agenda, States Push to Loosen Gun Laws (February 24, 2010)

• Room for Debate: States' Rights vs. Gun Rights

• Times Topic: Gun Control

But a grass-roots effort among some gun rights advocates is shifting attention to a different goal: exercising the right to carry unconcealed weapons in the 38 or more states that have so-called open-carry laws allowing guns to be carried in public view with little or no restrictions. The movement is not only raising alarm among gun control proponents but also exposing rifts among gun rights advocates.

The call for gun owners to carry their guns openly in the normal course of business first drew broad attention last summer, when opponents of the Obama administration’s health care overhaul began appearing at town-hall-style meetings wearing sidearms. But in recent weeks, the practice has expanded as gun owners in California and other states that allow guns to be openly carried have tested the law by showing up at so-called meet-ups, in which gun owners appear at Starbucks, pizza parlors and other businesses openly bearing their weapons.

“Our point is to do the same thing that concealed carriers do,” said Mike Stollenwerk, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org, which serves as a national forum. “We’re just taking off our jackets.”

The goal, at least in part, is to make the case for liberalized concealed weapon laws by demonstrating how uncomfortable many people are with publicly displayed guns. The tactic has startled many business owners like Peet’s Coffee and Tea and California Pizza Kitchen, which forbid guns at their establishments. So far, Starbucks has resisted doing the same.

The open-carry movement is a wild card in gun rights advocacy and in some ways is to the N.R.A. and other mainstream gun rights advocacy groups what the Tea Party movement is to the Republican Party.

Newer, more driven by grass-roots and the Internet than the N.R.A., open-carry groups are also less centralized, less predictable and often more confrontational in their push for gun rights. In the last year, there have been at least 140 formal and informal meet-ups at coffee shops and restaurants in California alone, organizers say.

Some gun rights advocates see risks in the approach.

“I’m all for open-carry laws,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights advocacy organization in Washington State. “But I don’t think flaunting it is very productive for our cause. It just scares people.”

Robert Weisberg, a gun law expert and a criminal justice professor at Stanford University, described the open-carry activists as “a liability” for the N.R.A., in particular.

While the N.R.A. is almost always going to support the increased deregulation of guns, Professor Weisberg said, the organization keeps its distance from open-carry advocacy because it does not want to distract attention from its higher priority of promoting the right to carry concealed weapons.

“Add to this that the N.R.A. is a very disciplined, on-message organization,” he said, contrasting the N.R.A.’s approach with the free-wheeling nature of some open-carry advocates.

Asked to comment on the open-carry movement, Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the N.R.A., said the organization “supports the right of law abiding people to exercise their self-defense rights in accordance with state local and federal law.” He declined to comment further.

Gun control advocates have raised particular concerns about open-carry laws because under these laws in many states, gun owners are not required to have a permit or any sort of training or testing.

The first meet-ups by open-carry advocates started nearly a decade ago in Virginia, but they became popular more recently in California because the law there makes it difficult for people to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

“It is a discriminatory issue in California,” said Paul Higgins, 43, a software engineer who runs a Web forum called CaliforniaOpenCarry.org. “If you are politically connected, if you’re rich, if you’re a politician, if you’re a celebrity, you get a permit. Otherwise, you don’t.”

Mr. Higgins said the meet-ups were not meant to be confrontational. The hope, he said, is that if other restaurant or cafe patrons are uncomfortable with guns being displayed so conspicuously, pressure will increase on lawmakers to consider changing the law so that weapons can be carried more discreetly.

Mr. Stollenwerk, the co-founder of OpenCarry.org., who is a retired Army officer from Fairfax County, Va., said the meet-ups were also meant as chances for gun owners to exercise and advertise their rights in states that allow people to openly carry firearms. More than 27,000 members are registered for his group’s online discussion forum, he said.

Gun control advocates say the open-carry movement’s real aim is to push the envelope and to force companies to take a public stand on the issue.

”You have to wonder where their next frontier will be,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Will gun owners start trying to carry firearms openly into banks, on subways and buses, in schools?”

For Starbucks, the debate has become a headache.

After California gun owners began holding meet-ups in January at Starbucks, the Brady Campaign began sending out petitions to pressure the company to forbid weapons. Starbucks released a statement saying it would not turn gun carriers away from its cafes, and would instead continue to comply with local laws and statutes.

“The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores,” Starbuck officials said. They said the company did not want to be in the middle of the controversy.

Other businesses have taken a different tack — and are embracing the movement.

The East Coast Pizza Bar and Grill in Walnut Creek, Calif., about 25 miles east of San Francisco, invited gun owners to host open carry meet-ups. At least 70 people attended one last Sunday, many carrying firearms, said the owner, Jessie Grunner, 30. And over a dozen returned on Thursday night for more.

“Frankly, I wasn’t sure how I would feel in that type of situation, and it really turned out to be a total nonissue,” Ms. Grunner said.

“The families were great,” she said. “These were very gracious people.” The fact that customers wore sidearms, she said, “just faded into the background.”

 

A version of this article appeared in print on March 8, 2010, on page A11 of the New York edition.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460

Well the government do, that’s what they get paid to do, make decision for the good of the country, quote>

People can’t be trustedquote>

And see, here we're butting up against the culture clash.

Australia/Europe: the government knows what's best, people can't be trusted

US: people know what's best, the government can't be trusted

Keep that in mind when considering US policy. We generally have a far more individualistic view, whereas much of the rest of the world leans more collectivist.

 

I’m guess you have a gun, wouldn’t you feel more protected if there where less guns around?quote>

I don't, actually, but that's primarily because I don't live on my own just yet and the area I live in is actually among the safest places in the country. We're comfortable leaving our doors unlocked around here.

Once I do move out, I will of course be looking into getting a gun.

As for the question fo whether I'd feel more protected if there were fewer guns around... no, quite the opposite. My grandfather has a gun, and I feel safer when I'm visiting him in his apartment knowing that.

 

Well the autobahns are a controlled environment all the other road laws are still in place, like you going to a shooting range, or going hunting,quote>

Going hunting happens in a controlled environment, now?

As for freeways, yes, it is safer to go faster on them than on local streets (well, generally speaking, anyway) because they are designed with that in mind. But that doesn't mean people will go driving freeway speeds on local streets if th speed limit is removed.

...but again, we come back to the trusting people versus trusting the government problem. I trust that the vast majority of people will drive prudently, speed limits or no speed limits. I do not trust the government to set speed limits reasonably or enforce them reasonably - don't let anyone eever tell you that speed traps or cameras are about safety, that's a lie. They're about revenue enhancement, plain and simple.

 

On the matter of the article:

Concealed, unconcealed... either's fine with me, let the carrier decide. In a way, unconcealed is better. Someone who is looking to do damage with their gun wouldn't likely be displaying it for the world to see. On the other hand, concealed weapons are also good because of the effect that just becuase you don't see one doesn't mean they don't have one... which can make for nasty surprises to any would-be muggers, rapists, etc.

As for openly carrying guns in banks, buses, schools, etc.... sure, why not? If someone tries to rob the bank while someone with a gun is there, they're less likely to succeed. And a teacher or professor with a gun (or student, in the case of college) could prevent another Columbine or Virginia Tech from happening. Besides deterring the rampages in the first place, then you can cut them short if someone does decide to go on one. Either way, it saves lives.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[DazzaDazza 29]

Originally posted by:

Duke87

Going hunting happens in a controlled environment, now?

 

Yes, when you are hunting you are always on the lookout for other hunters, (well I am), and what other people are doing around you, this come back to proper training with a gun. They know you are going to fire a gun and same for you, so you are more careful. You take the right steps so accidents don’t happen, It a controlled by every one knows that your there to hunt.

 

 Concealed, unconcealed... either's fine with me, let the carrier decide. In a way, unconcealed is better. Someone who is looking to do damage with their gun wouldn't likely be displaying it for the world to see. On the other hand, concealed weapons are also good because of the effect that just becuase you don't see one doesn't mean they don't have one... which can make for nasty surprises to any would-be muggers, rapists, etc.

 

Don’t you think your just asking for it? Your almost baiting people to start something with you, my personal opinions is people that need to carry around a gun like the pictures have self-esteem issues and feel the need to look powerful, or the are the complete opposite they are argent pigs how like to intimidate people with a weapon.but  people like that normally get what’s coming to them.       

 

As for openly carrying guns in banks, buses, schools, etc.... sure, why not? If someone tries to rob the bank while someone with a gun is there, they're less likely to succeed. And a teacher or professor with a gun (or student, in the case of college) could prevent another Columbine or Virginia Tech from happening. Besides deterring the rampages in the first place, then you can cut them short if someone does decide to go on one. Either way, it saves lives.

 

No this just means the robber will shoot everyone fist before they can react, crating more shooting, take a automatic weapon for ensample, the robber could shoot a hole room before anyone even knows he was there, your theory doesn’t work, the person that is shooting first always has the advantage over people tying to react especially if there not expecting it. Also this come back to what if he doesn’t have a gun, and someone ells get a bit trigger happy and shoots him dead, shore you can say “so what, he deserved it” that not the point whether some people think deserved it nor not, that just make a mockery of your Justus system, and puts laws into “other peoples hands, and what they think is right or wrong…….  as I said people can be trusted         

Also life doesn’t work that way, you are only engorging more shooting, your also banking on the affect that every one with a gun is going to be a hero, people act differently in those type of situations the shock of it actually happing to them might render them useless,  do you rally won’t to see old western style shoot outs between people do you?, how do you know that the person trying to shoot the gunman down doesn’t miss and shoot a innocent person what happen then? It better no one as a gun then every one,             

 

 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa