The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[vgcpapa 5]

xxbydesign: That's a really great but long post. I agree with some of the points you've made, but there are a few things that I should point out.

I thought it might be a good idea to actually post the 2nd amendment here, to distinguish between what it is believed to say as opposed to the actual text:

"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>

It's a good idea to post the actual second amendmet. However the text you've posted is not exactly right.  The Official second amendment is:
"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."

You got the punctuation correct, just not the capitalization. There are implications which I don't want to go into of what the different capitalizations mean.

That whole life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing? Yeah, that's the Declaration of Independence, not an actual binding legal contract; the Constitution of the United Sates does not say that you have a right to exist. Bummer.quote>

14th amendment: "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. " 
Also 10th amendment.
But also if you are going to examine the constitution from a historical perspective, it doesn't seem right to isolate it from other colonial/revolutionary/early America.

3. One last thing I want to point out is that: yes the Bill of Rights are amendments and the constitution can be changed (amended). But the constitution and most amendments restrict the power of the gov't and grant/protect the rights of people. As far as I am concerned only one amednment attempted to do the reverse and we all know how that ended. For those of you who might not know what I am talking about: 18th amendment/ Prohibition, which was repealed by the 21st amendment.
I guess I will conclude that the constution can be changed, but it SHOULD NOT be changed if it prohibits or infringes the rights of people.
As for my take on the the whole gun issue thing, well that can be discussed later.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: screamingman12

It's simple: you have a neighborhood full of guns, some guy gets mad, he grabs his gun and clips a couple of the people that offended him. By doing so, he has acted on impluse, noticing his gun(s) in his cabnet, he grabs one and prepares to "inflict justice" with it, without really thinking the situation through. If the offender were to meet the offended party with a gun (and supposidly use it) then the gun crime rate would go up, as somebody just got shot. quote>

That is technically a possibility, just like it is technically possible to accomplish the same thing with knives.  Furthermore, to prevent such a scenario from ever happening, you'd have to eliminate gun ownership in the US, which is:

1. Illegal following the ruling of the Supreme Court unless you pass the 28th Amendment (which isn't happening any time soon)

2. Effectively impossible since the black market will transport anything that is banned.

Considering that such a scenario has been possible for as long as the US has been around, and has only happened a few very rare times, I'd say the probability of such a situation happening is effectively nothing.quote>

Knives are safer than guns, people don't seem to realize this. If someone attacks you with a knife, they have to come within 1-2 feet of you to hurt you, in which space you can fight back. Someone can point a gun at you from 10-20 feet away, and you can't do anything to them.

"A few rare times?" What? that is what contributed to most of the school shootings that have taken place (with exception to VT, and you can thank your friends at the NRA for not closing that loophole). Had they not had ready access to guns, they would not have inflicted the amount of death that they did

Consider something else, the NRA doesn't get all of its money from public fundraising. They are effectively a lobby for the gun industry, and get massive checks from them as well. As a corporation, you don't want your paid lobby to help put restrictions on the product you are selling, do you?

[JanYpe 17]

"A few rare times?" What? that is what contributed to most of the school shootings that have taken place (with exception to VT, and you can thank your friends at the NRA for not closing that loophole). Had they not had ready access to guns, they would not have inflicted the amount of death that they did quote>

"His" friends at the NRA, who were responsible for VT? Let's stick to the subject instead of making cheap personal shots.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: screamingman12

It's simple: you have a neighborhood full of guns, some guy gets mad, he grabs his gun and clips a couple of the people that offended him. By doing so, he has acted on impluse, noticing his gun(s) in his cabnet, he grabs one and prepares to "inflict justice" with it, without really thinking the situation through. If the offender were to meet the offended party with a gun (and supposidly use it) then the gun crime rate would go up, as somebody just got shot. quote>

That is technically a possibility, just like it is technically possible to accomplish the same thing with knives.  Furthermore, to prevent such a scenario from ever happening, you'd have to eliminate gun ownership in the US, which is:

1. Illegal following the ruling of the Supreme Court unless you pass the 28th Amendment (which isn't happening any time soon)

2. Effectively impossible since the black market will transport anything that is banned.

Considering that such a scenario has been possible for as long as the US has been around, and has only happened a few very rare times, I'd say the probability of such a situation happening is effectively nothing.quote>

Knives are safer than guns, people don't seem to realize this. If someone attacks you with a knife, they have to come within 1-2 feet of you to hurt you, in which space you can fight back. Someone can point a gun at you from 10-20 feet away, and you can't do anything to them. quote>

The safety of knives is relative to a lot of factors.  Yes, the odds of being killed by a knife from 10-20 feet away is much lower than a gun, and yes, using a knife to attack someone usually forces you to get within arm's reach of the person.  However, consider this also.  Few Americans know how to properly defend themselves against a physical assault.  Even fewer know how to defend themselves against a violent assault with a weapon (such as a knife).  If you do not know how to properly defend yourself, which most Americans don't, your odds of survival are slim.

A few rare times?" What? that is what contributed to most of the school shootings that have taken place (with exception to VT, and you can thank your friends at the NRA for not closing that loophole).quote>

First, I was talking about the scenario you mentioned, namely a neighborhood full of guns.  I can only think of one time in all of America's 200+ year history that such a scenario has ever happened.  However, since that wasn't what you were driving at, I'll move on from that.

As for the school shootings, a "neighborhood full of guns" is not what contributed to them.  Statistically, only 28% of American homes have any kind of gun in them.  That's far from "full of guns."  Second, notice where those shootings took place--a place where all the victims were unarmed.  Think about it: If you want to murder dozens of people, do you go to a place where it's reasonable to believe they're all unarmed, or do you walk right into a shooting club full of ex-military commandos?

Had they not had ready access to guns, they would not have inflicted the amount of death that they did quote>

Had they not had ready access to guns...they could have made explosives instead that could have killed hundreds instead of just dozens.

Consider something else, the NRA doesn't get all of its money from public fundraising. They are effectively a lobby for the gun industry, and get massive checks from them as well. As a corporation, you don't want your paid lobby to help put restrictions on the product you are selling, do you?quote>

I think it's a well accepted fact that the NRA has a pro-gun bias, and that they aren't going to be promoting gun control legislation.  However, just because they are biased to a certain direction doesn't mean that their arguments are inherently wrong.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: hym

First, I was talking about the scenario you mentioned, namely a neighborhood full of guns.  I can only think of one time in all of America's 200+ year history that such a scenario has ever happened.  However, since that wasn't what you were driving at, I'll move on from that.

As for the school shootings, a "neighborhood full of guns" is not what contributed to them.  Statistically, only 28% of American homes have any kind of gun in them.  That's far from "full of guns."  Second, notice where those shootings took place--a place where all the victims were unarmed.  Think about it: If you want to murder dozens of people, do you go to a place where it's reasonable to believe they're all unarmed, or do you walk right into a shooting club full of ex-military commandos?

quote>

Not the exact scenario, but the same basic concept. if someone/someplace has ready access to loaded guns, the death/crime rate will be higher because people will act on impluse, rather than thought.

Had they not had ready access to guns...they could have made explosives instead that could have killed hundreds instead of just dozens.

quote>

Not exactly, as explosives require a great deal of time, thought, and skill to make. You would have to be pretty determined to use them, not the people that do school shootings, who are really ticked and decide to point a gun in someone's face

I think it's a well accepted fact that the NRA has a pro-gun bias, and that they aren't going to be promoting gun control legislation.  However, just because they are biased to a certain direction doesn't mean that their arguments are inherently wrong.quote>

It means that they are ignoring the other half of the equasion. Fixing the exorbitant gun-death rate in the US will be a multi-means process, with gun control being a fairly major part, but not all of it. Every time a legislator brings this up, the NRA takes the gun control half and runs with it, rather than listening to the whole argument, like educated people.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Had they not had ready access to guns...they could have made explosives instead that could have killed hundreds instead of just dozens.

quote>

Not exactly, as explosives require a great deal of time, thought, and skill to make. You would have to be pretty determined to use them, not the people that do school shootings, who are really ticked and decide to point a gun in someone's facequote>

With the knowledge available to people because of the internet and given the right materials, an IED like a Nailbomb could be constructed in a few hours... you just need to make sure it doesn't explode in your face like it did to some guy in Devon a few months ago.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Had they not had ready access to guns...they could have made explosives instead that could have killed hundreds instead of just dozens.

quote>

Not exactly, as explosives require a great deal of time, thought, and skill to make. You would have to be pretty determined to use them, not the people that do school shootings, who are really ticked and decide to point a gun in someone's facequote>

With the knowledge available to people because of the internet and given the right materials, an IED like a Nailbomb could be constructed in a few hours... you just need to make sure it doesn't explode in your face like it did to some guy in Devon a few months ago.quote>

IEDs like that don't always work, when Columbine happened, they tried to use some to blow up the cafeteria, but they didn't go off. Also, the process of looking up how to make and making and IED involves more thought (and second guessing) than grabbing a gun out of a case and pointing it at someone, which can be done in a few seconds, as opposed to two hours.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Originally posted by: hym

First, I was talking about the scenario you mentioned, namely a neighborhood full of guns.  I can only think of one time in all of America's 200+ year history that such a scenario has ever happened.  However, since that wasn't what you were driving at, I'll move on from that.

As for the school shootings, a "neighborhood full of guns" is not what contributed to them.  Statistically, only 28% of American homes have any kind of gun in them.  That's far from "full of guns."  Second, notice where those shootings took place--a place where all the victims were unarmed.  Think about it: If you want to murder dozens of people, do you go to a place where it's reasonable to believe they're all unarmed, or do you walk right into a shooting club full of ex-military commandos?

quote>

Not the exact scenario, but the same basic concept. if someone/someplace has ready access to loaded guns, the death/crime rate will be higher because people will act on impluse, rather than thought.quote>

Not true.  On top of that, there's real evidence to support the contrary.  There's the Luby's Massacre in Texas where everyone was unarmed and twenty-something people were killed or injured.  There's the Shoney's in Alabama where someone was actually armed and the only two people killed were the people trying to rob the place.  There's Washington DC which used to ban guns and, not to coincidentally, was also known as the murder capital of the world.  There's west Chicago, where handguns are banned (if I remember correctly) and I don't know if you've been there recently, but it's the only place I know of in the US where cops pull you over for a routine traffic stop while wearing bullet proof vests and one of them having a primed shotgun in their hands.

Had they not had ready access to guns...they could have made explosives instead that could have killed hundreds instead of just dozens.

quote>

Not exactly, as explosives require a great deal of time, thought, and skill to make. You would have to be pretty determined to use them, not the people that do school shootings, who are really ticked and decide to point a gun in someone's facequote>

Which real evidence would seem to support otherwise.  The man who did the VT shootings had to go and buy the guns.  Obviously, he was determined.  The guys at Columbine had videos of themselves practicing with the guns that they shot days before they went and pulled off their school massacre.  Both of them had clear intent.  People just snapping and going on a shooting rampage isn't usually how it works.  If it was, gun-free zones wouldn't be the most popular targets because people who are pissed and want to point a gun in someone's face aren't going to be asking themselves "gee, where can I go where I can shoot everyone and no one can shoot me back?"

[CltcDrgn 0]

To Che: I do think I can make a correlation when it comes to living in a city where people legally own assault weapons. Criminals would have to be out of their minds to commit violent crimes in nation where every able bodied citizen can have weapon. I would also like to say that if someone was dumb enough to come into my home to commit a crime, they had better realize I will defend my home and family using whatever means I have available, be it handguns, knives, baseball bats, whatever. You can see how well gun bans are working in N Korea and Cuba. You can also see how well handgun bans are working in other nations as well. Chicago, which is close to where I live, has the some of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. Why? Because criminals know that law abiding citizens in Chicago are banned from owning a handgun, so they can't defend themselves. All those kids shot this year so far, the handgun ban hasn't saved them. It only means that the gangbangers and common thugs can get their hands on "ILLEGAL" weapons, and use them with relatively little risk of being fired upon themselves. So please tell me how a handgun ban has made Chicago safer? Really, I would love to know? Oh and on a more personal note, using the image of a murderous thug like Che, shows poor judgement. He was neither a hero, or a patriot, just a very smart, violent thug like Stalin, Castro, Saddam Hussein and others like them.

[Red1530 1]

There are two versions of the Second Amendment.  The one that was passed by Congress read:

 "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."  

The version distributed to the states read:

 "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."  

Both versions are used in government publications.  However in Heller, the Supreme Court used the one passed in Congress.  It seams that most of the mass shootings were planed out well before they occurred.  Also the government will not be always able to protect you.  Just ask the people involved in the L.A. Riots and Hurricane Katrina until they were disarmed.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: vgcpapaOne last thing I want to point out is that: yes the Bill of Rights are amendments and the constitution can be changed (amended). But the constitution and most amendments restrict the power of the gov't and grant/protect the rights of people. As far as I am concerned only one amednment attempted to do the reverse and we all know how that ended. For those of you who might not know what I am talking about: 18th amendment/ Prohibition, which was repealed by the 21st amendment.

I guess I will conclude that the constution can be changed, but it SHOULD NOT be changed if it prohibits or infringes the rights of people.

As for my take on the the whole gun issue thing, well that can be discussed later.quote>

This is important. Amendments to the constitution exist to protect people's rights, not limit them. Let's go item by item here, because it's July 4th and because i feel like it:

Amendment I

December 15, 1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.quote>

Amendment Numero Uno. And with good reason, as it is the most fundamental. Through freedom of speech and freedom of the press, other freedoms are protected by people being kept informed. Religion naturally fits in there, too, since that is (among other things) a sharing of opinions, and it's also a type of assembling, although that part is supposed to refer to assembling to protest in particular. And petitioning the government, the final ingredient, enables people to take action other than that that they take at the ballot box- to specifically write to the government about specific issues and ask for things to be done.

Amendment II

December 15, 1791

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>

The one in question here, and perhaps the most controversial one. Both due to guns being an issue in todays world and due to the historical context being radically different to the situation today, making it difficult do decide what exactly it means in today's world. Still, the supreme court has spoken that it does protect an individual right, and so it shall stand.

Amendmend III

December 15, 1791

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.quote>

It might seem odd that smething so specific and so unheard of would get its own amendment, but it's important to remember that in the revolutionary era this was not unheard of and it was in fact one of the major issues which lead to the revolution: the Quartering Act which forced citizens to provide shelter and hospitality to British troops if they so demanded it. It was the crown's way of avoiding having to pay to quarter its troops. And understandably it pissed more than a few people off who were subject to it.

Amendment IV

December 15, 1791

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.quote>

Basically, the cops can't bust into your house and ransack it without a good reason too. This is a protection against government oppression. In modern times, this is also extended to things like wiretapping and it's where the whole "right to privacy" thing comes from, even though that's not explicitly stated (something which a lot of people often like to point out).

Amendment V

December 15, 1791

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.quote>

When someone "pleads the fifth", this is the fifth that they're pleading. The right to remain silent and refuse to answer any questions where answering them may incriminate you when you are on trial.

In here is also the forbidding of double jeopardy (putting someone on trial twice for the same crime), and forbidding of the governement to simply seize property for any purpose without "just compensation". Basically, if the city wants to knock your house down to build a new school, they can do that forcibly but they need to pay you for your house, they can't just take it from you and not give you anything in return.

Amendment VI

December 15, 1791

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.quote>

"Speedy trial" is admitedly rather ambiguous, but it's nevertheless an important concept. Spelled out is the idea of being tried by an impartial jury of your peers as opposed to people who may have something against you, the idea of being required to be made aware what you're accused of, the right for the trial to be public so people can look in and make sure no funny business takes place, and the right to have a lawyer assist you whether you can afford one or not.

Amendment VII

December 15, 1791

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.quote>

This speaks of lawsuits. That is, civil court cases rather than criminal court cases.

It's also important to note that twenty dollars at the time that amendment was written was quite a significant sum of money. Adjusting for inflation that's more like a few thousand dollars today.

Amendment VIII

December 15, 1791

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.quote>

Excessive bail is prohibited so that people can't be forcibly held in jail since they can't possibly pay it. And then you have the cruel and unusual punishment part. Which is a bit another ambiguous but important thing. It was perhaps intentionally left ambiguous so that it could be reinterpereted as times changed. According to some people, the death penalty would fall under that. The supreme court decided at one point that it did, but that decision was shortly overturned and the death penalty remains constitutional on the federal level in the US, though not on the level of some states (but state constitutions are separate documents).

Amendment IX

December 15, 1791

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.quote>

A general statement that just because it doesn't say you have the right to it in the constitution doesn 't mean you don't have a right to it.

Amendment X

December 15, 1791

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.quote>

The "state's rights" amendment. If the feds don't have the power to do it, it's left up to a state by state basis. In more recent years, however, there has been a shift toward doing things on a federal level instead of a state level in despite of this amendment.

Amendment XI

February 7, 1795

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.quote>

The first amendment not part of the original bill of rights. What it says is that cases against a state are to be heard by the courts of that state, not by federal courts. This amendment was added in response to a supreme court decision which decided the opposite based on previous text.

Amendment XII

June 15, 1804

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.quote>

This big long hulking amendment establishes the idea of having running mates- voting for a single President-vice president package. Under the original system, the winner was president and the runner up was vice president. For obvious reasons, this would not work after the division of parties. Could you imagine having George Bush as president with Al Gore or John Kerry as vice president?

The way the electoral college worked was necessarily altered, too. A vote for president and vice president, rather than two votes for president per elector.

Amendment XIII

December 6, 1865

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.quote>

The first of the reconstruction amendments. This one formally and explicity forbids slavery. It also begins the tradition of stating that congress has the power to pass legislation to enforce the amendment.

Amendment XIV

July 9, 1868

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.quote>

Another huge one. This one makes former slaves US citizens and guarantees them the same rights other citizens already have.

Amendment XV

February 3, 1870

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.quote>

The last of the reconstruction amendments. No denying someone rights on the basis of race. Unfortunately, it would be almost another hundered years before this amendment was fully enforced and the rights it guaranteed realized.

Amendment XVI

February 3, 1913

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.quote>

Prior to this amendment, the federal government did not have the power to collect an income tax. An income tax is a direct tax (a tax that you can't avoid paying by avoiding doing what's taxed), which in the original constitution is expressly forbidden. Remember, taxation was a huge issue in the revolutionary days and an income tax was the last thing people wanted back then. But times changed and the taxes the federal government collected on individual items and from tariffs became insufficient to fund new programs the government wished to start. And so they were given income tax. This amendment is arguably single most responsible for making the federal government what it is today, as it enabled the government to grow to sizes previously impossible.

Amendment XVII

April 8, 1913

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.quote>

This amendment changes the way senators are chosen. Orignally, they were appointed by state legislatures. After this amendment, they were directly elected by the people of the state. The state legislature reatins the right to appoint a senator should a seat become vacant, however.

Amendment XVIII

January 29, 1919

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.quote>

The infamous prohibition amendment. Arguably one of the greater blemishes on our nation's history, with the notorious distinction of being the only amendment to the constitution to later be repealed.

It came out of a greater temperance movement, mostly on the part of protestants who opposed the use of alcohol on the grounds that it caused people to sin and become unsavory.

The unintended consequence of this amendment however, was that due to outright prohibition being a controversial idea, many people refused to obey the law and continued to drink. It thus lead to an explosion of organized crime and black market trafficking which has had effects lasting to this day- namely, that effectively banning anything is virtually impossible since anything can be effectively distributed on that black market, which is still in place trafficking other drugs, unregistered guns, illegal immigrants, and other things.

On another note, this amendment began the tradition of the "seven years" clause, nullifying the amendment if it failed to be ratified within seven years of being proposed.

Amendment XIX

August 18, 1920

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.quote>

This amendment granted women the right to vote, which they previously did not have. Just in time for the 1920 presidential election.

Amendment XX

January 23, 1933

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.quote>

This amendment moved inauguration day up from March 4th to January 20th. In the days of old, the gap of time between election on the first tuesday after the first monday in November was necessary for a newly elected official to prepar to travel to the capital and get set up there. But times changed, transportation became faster, and this amount of time became excessive and began to slow things down and interfere with progress. So the time was shortened.

Amendment XXI

December 5, 1933

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.quote>

This amendment repealed the 18th amendment, ending prohibition on the federal level. States and localities retain the right to restrict or outright forbid the sale of alcohol within their jurisdictions.

Amendment XXII

February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.quote>

This amendment made law the unofficial precedent set by George Washington but broken by Franklin D Roosevelt of a president not holding more than two terms in office.

Amendment XXIII

March 29, 1961

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.quote>

This amendment granted people in Washington, DC the right to vote for president by granting the district three electoral votes, wheras it previously had none. It's worth noting, though, that people in the District of Columbia remain unrepresented in congress as they do note vote for any representatives or senators.

Amendment XXIV

 January 23, 1964

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.quote>

This amendment forbids poll taxes. That is, you can't be required to pay a fee in prder to vote or to register to vote. This was an issue because it was a way which soutern states were preventing blacks from voting, since being less well off they were generally unable to afford to pay such fees.

(see next post for continuation)

[Duke87 1,070]

(continued from previous post)

Amendment XXV

 

February 10, 1967

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.quote>

This amendment spells out exactly how succession to the office of president in the event of the president dying, resigning, or becoming unable to serve works. The process outlined in the original constitution was a bit ambiguous and had lead to some controversy.

Amendment XXVI

 

July 1, 1971

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.quote>

This amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. This was in response to controversy over the situaton in Vietnam, where young men were old enough to be drafted into service and sent off to war but not old enough to vote.

Amendment XXVII

 

May 5, 1992

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.quote>

The most recent amendment (so far, anyway), and one which a lot of people forget about since it doesn't affect the lives of ordinary citizens. It merely prevents congress from raising their own salaries. They can only raise the salaries of subsequent congresses.

Note here, how, with the exception of the 18th amendment (which was subsequently repealed), all of these amendments either guarantee rights to the people or standardize workings of the government. There are no amendments which limit the rights of the people. And that is very important.

It's also another reason why the second amendment must stand.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Had they not had ready access to guns...they could have made explosives instead that could have killed hundreds instead of just dozens.

quote>

Not exactly, as explosives require a great deal of time, thought, and skill to make. You would have to be pretty determined to use them, not the people that do school shootings, who are really ticked and decide to point a gun in someone's facequote>

With the knowledge available to people because of the internet and given the right materials, an IED like a Nailbomb could be constructed in a few hours... you just need to make sure it doesn't explode in your face like it did to some guy in Devon a few months ago.quote>

IEDs like that don't always work, when Columbine happened, they tried to use some to blow up the cafeteria, but they didn't go off. Also, the process of looking up how to make and making and IED involves more thought (and second guessing) than grabbing a gun out of a case and pointing it at someone, which can be done in a few seconds, as opposed to two hours.quote>

It can be quite a task to acctually make it work... and you won't know if it will work untill you try and detonate it. 8 times out of 10 it usually doesn't, but it depends on the persons expertise on the subject. An ex-army guy [take the provisional IRA] is obviously more likey to succeed than an angry kid/s [like Columbine] who picked the stuff up off the internet or by other means, but theres always a possibility. If a person truely wants to kill and maim in a pre-meditated fashion instead of shooting a few people, then they will try and aquire a bomb.

Originally posted by: CltcDrgnYou can see how well gun bans are working in N Korea and Cuba. You can also see how well handgun bans are working in other nations as well.quote>

 

I don't know if this is sarcasm, but comparing a Gun ban in a developed nation to somewhere that can barely sustain itself is quite pointless since most of the crime is aggrivated by the corrupt Government system. Not much can be done about crime when the government actively helps criminals in order to make money.

Oh and on a more personal note, using the image of a murderous thug like Che, shows poor judgement. He was neither a hero, or a patriot, just a very smart, violent thug like Stalin, Castro, Saddam Hussein and others like them.quote>

Do you say that to everyone who dons something with Che on it? He's just a T-Shirt salesman these days, nothing more... people don't need to agree with what he did before they buy something with him on it, its just another peice of Andy Warhol thats went out of control... I can't say it would be the same if he'd did Stalin instead.

[Red1530 1]

I would like to point out that the Twenty-seventh Amendment was originally proposed with the first ten.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

You can see how well gun bans are working in N Korea and Cuba. You can also see how well handgun bans are working in other nations as well.quote>

Yes. The US or any other country can become oppressive like those two countries. If no one has a gun, then the government is free to do whatever it wants without fear of retaliation. This is a dangerous thing.

Chicago, which is close to where I live, has the some of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. Why? Because criminals know that law abiding citizens in Chicago are banned from owning a handgun, so they can't defend themselves. All those kids shot this year so far, the handgun ban hasn't saved them. It only means that the gangbangers and common thugs can get their hands on "ILLEGAL" weapons, and use them with relatively little risk of being fired upon themselves. So please tell me how a handgun ban has made Chicago safer? Really, I would love to know?quote>

I agree with this argument. Same with both criminals and government. If there is no risk of retaliation, they can do whatever they want.

Note here, how, with the exception of the 18th amendment (which was subsequently repealed), all of these amendments either guarantee rights to the people or standardize workings of the government. There are no amendments which limit the rights of the people. And that is very important.

It's also another reason why the second amendment must standquote>

Yes, it is.

Oh and on a more personal note, using the image of a murderous thug like Che, shows poor judgement. He was neither a hero, or a patriot, just a very smart, violent thug like Stalin, Castro, Saddam Hussein and others like them.quote>

He's just a picture people put on T-shirts. Che in my opinion is vastly overrated. He didn't really do much, except become associated with Fidel.

Also, from the Current Events rules:

-Remain on the topic of the thread you are posting on

-Do not critisize a person's sexuality, religion, race, culture, ideas, or opinions. While it is alright to disagree with somebody, it is not alright to personally attack another member.

-Displaying hatred towards a specific country, race, religion, gender, government, group, or sexuality will not be tolerated. If you do have hateful opinions, please keep them to yourself.

-Treat other people[religions, cultures, beliefs, races, etc.] the way you would want your self[religion, culture, beliefs, race, etc.] to be treated.quote>

- Patricius Maximus

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Which real evidence would seem to support otherwise.  The man who did the VT shootings had to go and buy the guns.  Obviously, he was determined.  The guys at Columbine had videos of themselves practicing with the guns that they shot days before they went and pulled off their school massacre.  Both of them had clear intent.  People just snapping and going on a shooting rampage isn't usually how it works.  If it was, gun-free zones wouldn't be the most popular targets because people who are pissed and want to point a gun in someone's face aren't going to be asking themselves "gee, where can I go where I can shoot everyone and no one can shoot me back?"quote>

I avoided VT for a reason. He was mentally unstable, and keeping guns out of the hands of the insane goes unsaid. In fact, shortly after VT, Gov. Kane tried to close the loophole that allowed him to get the guns, but for some reason it was shot down (I suspect the NRA, and other pro gun people, but that's just me). For the sake of argument, let's assume we have stable, prudent people, who are capable of acting on rage just like anyone else

Not true.  On top of that, there's real evidence to support the contrary.  There's the Luby's Massacre in Texas where everyone was unarmed and twenty-something people were killed or injured.  There's the Shoney's in Alabama where someone was actually armed and the only two people killed were the people trying to rob the place.  There's Washington DC which used to ban guns and, not to coincidentally, was also known as the murder capital of the world.  There's west Chicago, where handguns are banned (if I remember correctly) and I don't know if you've been there recently, but it's the only place I know of in the US where cops pull you over for a routine traffic stop while wearing bullet proof vests and one of them having a primed shotgun in their hands.quote>

Was the guy who committed the Luby's massacre sane? I have a feeling that he wasn't

As for the Shoney's, there is a very large difference in walking into a place with a gun and actually using it. There is a good chance that the robbers would not have actually used their weapons, but they ended up dead because someone was ready to use theirs. Who knows if the robbers would have actually killed someone, and I can only hope that the shooter was arrested for the murder of two others.

The reason that the DC ban did not achieve desired results was that it was not followed up by similar legislation in suburban MD and VA, criminals would just buy guns there, legally, hide them in their trunks, and drive back to DC, clip a few people, and the crime rate would go up. I expect the murder rate in DC to double, if not triple, since the ban was lifted.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Which real evidence would seem to support otherwise.  The man who did the VT shootings had to go and buy the guns.  Obviously, he was determined.  The guys at Columbine had videos of themselves practicing with the guns that they shot days before they went and pulled off their school massacre.  Both of them had clear intent.  People just snapping and going on a shooting rampage isn't usually how it works.  If it was, gun-free zones wouldn't be the most popular targets because people who are pissed and want to point a gun in someone's face aren't going to be asking themselves "gee, where can I go where I can shoot everyone and no one can shoot me back?"quote>

I avoided VT for a reason. He was mentally unstable, and keeping guns out of the hands of the insane goes unsaid. In fact, shortly after VT, Gov. Kane tried to close the loophole that allowed him to get the guns, but for some reason it was shot down (I suspect the NRA, and other pro gun people, but that's just me). For the sake of argument, let's assume we have stable, prudent people, who are capable of acting on rage just like anyone else

Not true.  On top of that, there's real evidence to support the contrary.  There's the Luby's Massacre in Texas where everyone was unarmed and twenty-something people were killed or injured.  There's the Shoney's in Alabama where someone was actually armed and the only two people killed were the people trying to rob the place.  There's Washington DC which used to ban guns and, not to coincidentally, was also known as the murder capital of the world.  There's west Chicago, where handguns are banned (if I remember correctly) and I don't know if you've been there recently, but it's the only place I know of in the US where cops pull you over for a routine traffic stop while wearing bullet proof vests and one of them having a primed shotgun in their hands.quote>

Was the guy who committed the Luby's massacre sane? I have a feeling that he wasn'tquote>

One could argue that desire to go kill people you don't even know constitutes insanity, but aside from that point, the people both in the VT massacre and the Luby's massacre were both sane enough to carry out deliberately planned shootings.  They didn't just snap and go start killing people.  One of the interesting things about mass shootings is that the perpetrator rarely just brings a gun and whatever ammo he happens to have on hand.  He usually brings a small arsenal.  While the amount can be debated, that indicates some degree of planning there.  The only people that a gun ban is going to keep unarmed are the law-abiding citizens.  People with intent to shoot other people are still going to get their guns.

As for the Shoney's, there is a very large difference in walking into a place with a gun and actually using it. There is a good chance that the robbers would not have actually used their weapons, but they ended up dead because someone was ready to use theirs. Who knows if the robbers would have actually killed someone, and I can only hope that the shooter was arrested for the murder of two others. quote>

True, but there's something that's been left out here.  Why do thieves tend to take guns with them?  They take them because one of two things is going to happen.  They're either going to run into a place where no one is armed and everyone will freak out and do what they ask, or they're going to run into a place, someone will be armed, and they're going to need them to keep themselves safe.  When people try to rob a bank, who's the first person they try to find and why?  I'll even give a hint - it's the only person in there that they know is going to have a gun and will use it.

And FYI, I don't think that the guy who shot the two people trying to rob the Shoney's was arrested.  I don't know what the law in Alabama says, but I have a strong feeling that it basically says that you can use deadly force against anyone trying to harm you or anyone else.  And the intent to cause harm was there, because the two guys trying to rob the place were herding the workers into the walk-in freezer.

The reason that the DC ban did not achieve desired results was that it was not followed up by similar legislation in suburban MD and VA, criminals would just buy guns there, legally, hide them in their trunks, and drive back to DC, clip a few people, and the crime rate would go up.quote>

If that was reason why it didn't work, then the war on drugs should be a smashing success in places like Kansas and Missouri, where stuff like LSD is banned not only in their states, but in ever state that touches them and in every state that touches states touching Missouri and Kansas.  The reason why it didn't work isn't because it didn't get adopted in the surrounding areas.  The reason why it didn't work is because, as has been said before, it's very easy to ban activities, but nigh unto impossible to ban material goods.  And the underground distribution system is everywhere.  About seven or eight months ago, a man was arrested for distribution of LSD.  This guy lived less than 500 feet from me.  Now, it some cases, you can tell something us up (this guy had the personality of someone operating on the down-low for lots of reasons) but most of the time, the black market will be operating in someone's veritable back yard and no one will know it.

I expect the murder rate in DC to double, if not triple, since the ban was lifted.quote>

Personally, I expect it to go down, but I doubt we'll be talking about then when they start to get an idea in the next two to five years.

On an additional note, someone once did a study of the number of deaths in Baghdad versus the number of deaths in DC.  It was noted that if you took Baghdad and increased it's population to the size of DC (and increased murder rates proportionally) Baghdad's murder rate was still less than half of DC's.  The significant difference between the two places - one you can't own a gun.  The other, you can walk around with a loaded AK-47 in your hands and no one looks twice at you.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

As for the Shoney's, there is a very large difference in walking into a place with a gun and actually using it. There is a good chance that the robbers would not have actually used their weapons, but they ended up dead because someone was ready to use theirs. Who knows if the robbers would have actually killed someone, and I can only hope that the shooter was arrested for the murder of two others. quote>

Whose definition of murder is being used here?  As far as the law is concerned, murder is killing someone without a legally justifiable reason.  Self-defense is killing someone with a legally justified reason.  The former is illegal, the latter is perfectly fine as far as the law is concerned.  It is understood that American's have the right to life.  It is also understood that if Person A threatens the well-being of Person B, Person A has forfeited his right to his life.  The exact particulars vary with the applicable laws, but generally, it is not unreasonable to believe that an armed robber might use his weapon, therefore, it is considered not unreasonable to injure/kill him before he has a chance to harm others.

For decades, if not centuries, that has been the general position US law has taken.  It is not a position unique to the US; the ancient Romans considered lethal self-defense to be a justifiable response to physical assault.  Other nations and civilizations have held similar views on the issue.  One could go so far as to say that lethal self-defense is even sanctioned by the God of the Bible; the Israelite's laws said a man who killed another in self-defense shouldn't be punished.*

So, frankly, I can't see where the Shoney's shooter went wrong with shooting the two would-be robbers.

Note:  I'm not using that last comment as a serious argument for my point.  Rather, I mentioned it as an example for those who might be interested of a widely recognized god sanctioning lethal self-defense.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

One could argue that desire to go kill people you don't even know constitutes insanity, but aside from that point, the people both in the VT massacre and the Luby's massacre were both sane enough to carry out deliberately planned shootings.  They didn't just snap and go start killing people.  One of the interesting things about mass shootings is that the perpetrator rarely just brings a gun and whatever ammo he happens to have on hand.  He usually brings a small arsenal.  While the amount can be debated, that indicates some degree of planning there.  The only people that a gun ban is going to keep unarmed are the law-abiding citizens.  People with intent to shoot other people are still going to get their guns.quote>

Those people usually have some history of violence/mental illness. As I said before, it's common sense (and the law) to keep guns away from crazy people. Yes, they were sane enough to plan it, but a normal person (say you, for example) would know that it is morally incorrect to do randomly run into a school and kill whoever happens to be there, and yes, I think that the desire to go on a mass killing rampage constitutes insanity.

True, but there's something that's been left out here.  Why do thieves tend to take guns with them?  They take them because one of two things is going to happen.  They're either going to run into a place where no one is armed and everyone will freak out and do what they ask, or they're going to run into a place, someone will be armed, and they're going to need them to keep themselves safe.  When people try to rob a bank, who's the first person they try to find and why?  I'll even give a hint - it's the only person in there that they know is going to have a gun and will use it..quote>

But in doing so, they wouldn't really be keeping themselves safe, they would clip the guard/cop that was in there, and then they would just point it at people and yell "put the money in the bag @#$*%" there have also been situations in where people have robbed banks/etc without guns/weaponry of any sort, it doesn't attract as much attention, plus, if you get caught, you don't run the risk of getting charged with using a firearm to commit a felony.

If that was reason why it didn't work, then the war on drugs should be a smashing success in places like Kansas and Missouri, where stuff like LSD is banned not only in their states, but in ever state that touches them and in every state that touches states touching Missouri and Kansas.  The reason why it didn't work isn't because it didn't get adopted in the surrounding areas.  The reason why it didn't work is because, as has been said before, it's very easy to ban activities, but nigh unto impossible to ban material goods.  And the underground distribution system is everywhere.  About seven or eight months ago, a man was arrested for distribution of LSD.  This guy lived less than 500 feet from me.  Now, it some cases, you can tell something us up (this guy had the personality of someone operating on the down-low for lots of reasons) but most of the time, the black market will be operating in someone's veritable back yard and no one will know it.quote>

The drug war didn't work because users develop and addiction to drugs, and will obtain them whether they are legal or not. I doubt that someone could develop an addiction to guns the way someone could develop an addiction to LSD

On an additional note, someone once did a study of the number of deaths in Baghdad versus the number of deaths in DC.  It was noted that if you took Baghdad and increased it's population to the size of DC (and increased murder rates proportionally) Baghdad's murder rate was still less than half of DC's.  The significant difference between the two places - one you can't own a gun.  The other, you can walk around with a loaded AK-47 in your hands and no one looks twice at you.quote>

Did that study include suburban areas and cultural/racial differences? Baghdad and DC are different places, with different cultures, America has a somewhat violent culture, which is why gun control is only part of the issue. There was a study done a while ago noting that in LA, although the murder rate decreased 33%, the media coverage rate increased by 800%, another part is getting the media to stop scaring people.

Edit:

Whose definition of murder is being used here?quote>

I just define murder as killing someone intentionally

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: hym [...] Note:  I'm not using that last comment as a serious argument for my point.  Rather, I mentioned it as an example for those who might be interested of a widely recognized god sanctioning lethal self-defense.quote>

It is not necessarily wise to drag in old "civilisations" and their ways to handle their problems. Remember, God used to sanction things he'd be but in prison for today.

[Shingure 56]

I agree with screamingman12 on the final part about the Media to stop publising it or publising it that much. In Philly if someone gets shot there is a 90 percent chance that it will be shown on television. Honestly I think that America is using violence as a crutch for it's poor journalism skills. You can use most of that space that is used for violence to promote something like education or something that helps lower the crime rate. Most times crime takes place between the age groups of 15 to 30 . Honestly if you were to channel that energy into keeping kids and young adults busy doing some constructive ( not destructive ) then this and the other crime discussions would be quiet.

Also knives are safer... Agreeing with that previous statement. Yes , sure. A foot away or two could mean the difference of life , death , or serious injury...But what about if you throw it? Still not as deadly as a gun, You can at least see a knife being thrown at you. If someone where to fire a bullet at you , you wouldn't be able to effectively dodge it or even see it for that matter.

---

"I doubt that someone could develop an addiction to guns the way someone could develop an addiction to LSD"

Oh really , Say that to someone who has a house full of guns and states that it's for their protection. Honestly one is enough. From what I seen this person had a good 10 or 11. And had more somewhere in their house. If people can get addicted to foreign oil then they are able to get addicted to guns no doubt. Someone had even stated to me before that they couldn't live without their guns...Honestly that sounds like addict talk am I correct?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: hym [...] Note:  I'm not using that last comment as a serious argument for my point.  Rather, I mentioned it as an example for those who might be interested of a widely recognized god sanctioning lethal self-defense.quote>

It is not necessarily wise to drag in old "civilisations" and their ways to handle their problems. Remember, God used to sanction things he'd be but in prison for today.quote>

Like I said, it's not being used as a serious point in the argument, but rather, simply as a side comment to those who are interested.  Some Americans argue that US law shouldn't allow anything God forbids, or shouldn't forbid anything God allows.  Those who don't care about "God" are welcome to simply ignore the comment as one that has no bearing to them.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Whose definition of murder is being used here?quote>

I just define murder as killing someone intentionallyquote>

Just checking on your definition here . . .

If a police sniper kills a gunman who is holding people hostage, is that murder?

If someone decides to commit suicide-by-cop, that does make the policeman a murderer?

If a burglar breaks into a home and is assaulting family members and the homeowner shoots him, is that murder?

If a soldier finds Osama bin Laden and kills him, is that murder?

If a soldier sees someone about to set off a bomb that would kill or injure dozens of people but the soldier shoots and kills the guy before he can set off the bomb, is that murder?

If you or I see someone about to set off a bomb that would kill or injure dozens of people but we shoot and kill the guy before he can set off the bomb, is that murder?

It can be complicated, which is why the law sees various degrees of murder.  I can't cite the exact difference between "first degree murder", "second degree murder", "justifiable homicide", "involuntary manslaughter", and so forth but I do know that the circumstances play a large part in it.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Just checking on your definition here . . .

If a police sniper kills a gunman who is holding people hostage, is that murder?

If someone decides to commit suicide-by-cop, that does make the policeman a murderer?

If a burglar breaks into a home and is assaulting family members and the homeowner shoots him, is that murder?

If a soldier finds Osama bin Laden and kills him, is that murder?

If a soldier sees someone about to set off a bomb that would kill or injure dozens of people but the soldier shoots and kills the guy before he can set off the bomb, is that murder?

If you or I see someone about to set off a bomb that would kill or injure dozens of people but we shoot and kill the guy before he can set off the bomb, is that murder?

It can be complicated, which is why the law sees various degrees of murder.  I can't cite the exact difference between "first degree murder", "second degree murder", "justifiable homicide", "involuntary manslaughter", and so forth but I do know that the circumstances play a large part in it.quote>

I should have added "without prior deadly actions being conducted". To stay with the example, it would be murder to kill a guy who stuck a gun in your face, because he may not use it, and hasn't shot you yet. but if the guy comes in, points the gun at you and fires a few rounds at you, not necessarily hitting you, then it is justifiable to kill him, because he expressed his intent beyond a doubt to do harm.

Oh really , Say that to someone who has a house full of guns and states that it's for their protection. Honestly one is enough. From what I seen this person had a good 10 or 11. And had more somewhere in their house. If people can get addicted to foreign oil then they are able to get addicted to guns no doubt. Someone had even stated to me before that they couldn't live without their guns...Honestly that sounds like addict talk am I correct?quote>

But if that person were to be removed from their guns, they most likely wouldn't go through violent withdrawal symptoms, as that person would experience on LSD or any other addictive drug. They would freak out for a couple days, and then get better when they realized that not everyone in the world wanted to shoot them, and people who have 10 or 11 guns for the guise of "protection" need to get in touch with reality.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

It can be complicated, which is why the law sees various degrees of murder.  I can't cite the exact difference between "first degree murder", "second degree murder", "justifiable homicide", "involuntary manslaughter", and so forth but I do know that the circumstances play a large part in it.quote>

While this is by no means how ever state does it, I thought I would post this as a point of reference.  Below are explanations of how the Texas penal system describes the above-mentioned degrees of murder.

First Degree Murder:  Pre-meditated or passion killing

Second Degree Murder: Otherwise known as "involuntary manslaughter" - killing someone not because you intended to, but because you were being stupid and your actions got them killed

Justifiable Homicide: Not specifically mentioned, but it sounds very similar to the state's section on defense of a third person.

Criminally Negligent Homicide: Someone gets killed because someone else isn't following the law.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

I should have added "without prior deadly actions being conducted". To stay with the example, it would be murder to kill a guy who stuck a gun in your face, because he may not use it, and hasn't shot you yet. but if the guy comes in, points the gun at you and fires a few rounds at you, not necessarily hitting you, then it is justifiable to kill him, because he expressed his intent beyond a doubt to do harm. quote>

Pointing a gun in someone's face is sufficient threat of harm to justify shooting him. Sure, he may not use it, but then again, he may. And if he does, you're dead. Would you want to take that risk? I know I wouldn't. Shoot him before he shoots you. Doesn't matter whether or not he was actually going to shoot you. That's not a chance you're expected to take. It's not like you're killing an innocent person since someone pointing a gun at you has already committed a crime by doing so.

And why the hell would he point a gun at you if he wasn't going to use it? As a means of bluffing? That's not a situation where bluffing makes sense. Because, well, he might get shot himself.

Point being, killing someone who points a gun at you is still self defense. There is enough intent of harm already expressed and there is an immediate threat to your life.

Shingure

Oh really , Say that to someone who has a house full of guns and states that it's for their protection. Honestly one is enough. From what I seen this person had a good 10 or 11. And had more somewhere in their house. If people can get addicted to foreign oil then they are able to get addicted to guns no doubt. Someone had even stated to me before that they couldn't live without their guns...Honestly that sounds like addict talk am I correct?quote>

That's not addiction, per se. That's paranoia. He only feels safe with a gun in every room.

Some people are like that. Besides, having ten guns isn't really any more of a threat or danger than having one. It's not like he'll be using them all at once. It's just about having selection and accessibility.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

It can be complicated, which is why the law sees various degrees of murder.  I can't cite the exact difference between "first degree murder", "second degree murder", "justifiable homicide", "involuntary manslaughter", and so forth but I do know that the circumstances play a large part in it.quote>

Assuming Wikipedia is correct, this is the basic gist most of self-defense laws concerning what constitutes "justifiable homicide."  An individual is expected to make an attempt to retreat to safety if it is reasonably possible.  If not, use of lethal force for protection and to end the situation is considered warranted.  However, this "duty to retreat" has been relaxed by the concept of "Castle Law."  Under "Castle Law," homeowners are allowed to use lethal force as a first response inside their own homes, without prior warning that the homeowner has intent to kill.  Some states expand that right to include places of business and the like.  Only Iowa and Pennsylvania have no easily recognized Castle Law concept.

The following states all have variations of the Castle Law concept:

-Alaska

-Colorado

-Connecticut

-Hawaii

-Maine

-Maryland

-Massachusetts

-Michigan

-Missouri

-Ohio

-New Jersey

-North Carolina

-Rhode Island

-West Virginia

-Wyoming

Some states choose to take the Castle Law concept a step further and follow what's known as the "Stand Your Ground" concept.  The "Stand Your Ground" concept takes "Castle Law" concept of "no duty to retreat" and extends that right to places outside the home.  In the 1895 case of Beard v. US, the Supreme Court ruled in defense of the "Stand Your Ground" concept saying a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack "intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."  Furthermore, in the case of Brown v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in support of the "no duty to retreat" concept proposed by the "Stand Your Ground" statute, said "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Following in that line of legal argument (and also following a Florida legal battle), the following states have "Stand Your Ground" clauses in their laws:

-Alabama

-Arizona

-Florida

-Georgia

-Indiana

-Kentucky

-Louisiana

-Mississippi

-Oklahoma

-South Carolina

-Texas

-Tennessee

Furthermore, the following states are considering their own versions of "Stand Your Ground" laws:

-Montana

-New Hampshire

-Pennsylvania

-Washington

-Wyoming

Finally, some things of note:  Under the "Stand Your Ground" statute, it is understood that there has to be a reasonable risk of physical harm before lethal force is authorized; "preemptive self-defense" is not considered legal.  In some states, the "Caste Law" concept allows a homeowner to kill an intruder even if the homeowner knows that there is no intent on the part of the intruder to inflict any physical harm.

Originally posted by: screamingman12

I should have added "without prior deadly actions being conducted". To stay with the example, it would be murder to kill a guy who stuck a gun in your face, because he may not use it, and hasn't shot you yet. but if the guy comes in, points the gun at you and fires a few rounds at you, not necessarily hitting you, then it is justifiable to kill him, because he expressed his intent beyond a doubt to do harm. quote>

Beyond a doubt?   People can doubt anything.  It could just as easily be argued that the shooter didn't intend to hit you, but just frighten you.  Few reasonable people would believe such an argument, but then few reasonable people would believe that sticking a gun in someone's face doesn't constitute a reasonable risk of physical harm.  Using the "without prior deadly actions being conducted" definition, it would be murder to kill me if I shot you in the foot.  Why?  First, I haven't killed anyone, so I haven't conducted any "deadly actions."  Second, people don't usually die if they're shot in their foot, so it would be unreasonable to shoot me on the premise that he might die from being shot in the foot.  Heck, that definition could go so far as to argue that, I can't be "taken out" till I kill someone else.  I could theoretically shoot every person in a building, but so long as none of them die, no one has the right to kill me to stop me from harming others. 

I know you don't believe a person has the right to harm another innocent individual.  Nor does the law.  However, it is understood that sometimes, the only way to stop an individual from harming other innocent people is to kill the threatening individual.  That is why the law makes provision for such scenarios.

[jammoe 0]

I'll dig in.

The historical background of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to support the right of the American population to keep weapons to use to overthrow the government. That's the conception. This was a period where the country was being run by armed revolutionaries, most of them idealists and/or wealthy property and slave owners who didn't like, for various reasons, British colonial rule. So they fought a violent armed revolution. And they thought it was good that they did that, so they said hey, let's constitutionally protect this. It was fun.

It had almost nothing to do with personal defence.

I forget the stats exactly, but if you have a gun you're something like 3 or 4 times as likely to kill your spouse then you are to kill someone doing something illegal, in a situation that sensible people would consider at least similar to valid self/other-defence.

It's not about personal defence. In abstract thought experiments, and isolated real cases, a person can use a gun to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. But if you look at the overall sociological effects, gun culture encourages gun crime, like killing a family member, and gun control reduces it.

Now on the other hand, if you support the armed overthrow of the American government, you'd be on good grounds for supporting the amendment in its original conception. Not that I'm advocating violence against the American government, though given their history of nuclear sabre-rattling and so on, it could conceivably entail more harm-reduction than personal use. Still though, I don't really support this, I'm just saying that if you want to be obsessed with the Constitution - and something that the term "amendment" explicitly denotes as an edit, but we won't go there for now - then that's the idea you have to have.

Just one edit. As regards arguments that have to do with rare "public" mass-murderers (eg. school shootings), these folks are extremely marginal. Not to minimize the meaning of the thousands of lives they've taken and the thousands more they've destroyed, the fact is they're a tiny proportion of murders, or gun murders. Most murders are things like spouse murder (usually husband->wife, but certainly not always) and other murders directly related to sexual relationships, murders of family members (like parents) not involved in sexual relationships, strangers or acquaintances in bar fights, murders in the commission of a crime like robbery, those sorts of things. If you're interested in the most practical things you can do to prevent murder, it's that that you have to look at. That's where the real problems are. The other things are a tiny issue.

Moreover, there's not much you can do about rare psychopaths who want to kill a lot of people and have the will. We live in too "free" and technologically advanced a society, with too little sense of a community and too much alienation. I don't think gun control would help with this sort of problem any more than arming random people could solve it. But it could reduce a lot of angry husbands who kill their wives, not all of them at all but a lot.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: jammoe I'll dig in.

The historical background of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to support the right of the American population to keep weapons to use to overthrow the government. That's the conception. This was a period where the country was being run by armed revolutionaries, most of them idealists and/or wealthy property and slave owners who didn't like, for various reasons, British colonial rule. So they fought a violent armed revolution. And they thought it was good that they did that, so they said hey, let's constitutionally protect this. It was fun.

It had almost nothing to do with personal defence.quote>

The historical background of the Second Amendment was that not everyone wanted a standing army, but rather have citizen militia (yes, in response to the earlier statement by someone that citizens should never be the militia) that would leave the farm fields to defend the country against something or someone and then return to their horse-drawn plows when the threat was over.

I forget the stats exactly, but if you have a gun you're something like 3 or 4 times as likely to kill your spouse then you are to kill someone doing something illegal, in a situation that sensible people would consider at least similar to valid self/other-defence.

It's not about personal defence. In abstract thought experiments, and isolated real cases, a person can use a gun to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. But if you look at the overall sociological effects, gun culture encourages gun crime, like killing a family member, and gun control reduces it.quote>

There is no solid evidence to suggest this, while the Swiss are living proof that a mass gun permeation into the society does not arbitrarily encourage gun crime.  There's better evidence that a mass gun permeation discourages gun crime, since everyone is armed and (theoretically, like in the case of the Swiss) knows how to use the thing.

Just one edit. As regards arguments that have to do with rare "public" mass-murderers (eg. school shootings), these folks are extremely marginal. Not to minimize the meaning of the thousands of lives they've taken and the thousands more they've destroyed, the fact is they're a tiny proportion of murders, or gun murders. Most murders are things like spouse murder (usually husband->wife, but certainly not always) and other murders directly related to sexual relationships, murders of family members (like parents) not involved in sexual relationships, strangers or acquaintances in bar fights, murders in the commission of a crime like robbery, those sorts of things. If you're interested in the most practical things you can do to prevent murder, it's that that you have to look at. That's where the real problems are. The other things are a tiny issue.

Moreover, there's not much you can do about rare psychopaths who want to kill a lot of people and have the will. We live in too "free" and technologically advanced a society, with too little sense of a community and too much alienation. I don't think gun control would help with this sort of problem any more than arming random people could solve it. But it could reduce a lot of angry husbands who kill their wives, not all of them at all but a lot.quote>

It's not going to cut down on that either.  Any modernly equipped house has more than enough ways to kill someone, most all of which would be completely accessible to anyone who wanted them.  A woman who had a dental practice not far from where I live was thrown in jail a few years ago for running her husband over three times after she caught him in a love triangle.  Another woman in a city not far from where I live had some grudge against her husband, so she convinced him to let her tie him up to the bed posts (I think you can see where that one was going) and then proceeded to stab him forty-two times with a plain kitchen knife.  You can ban the guns, but if one spouse wants to kill the other one, they're still going to be able to do it - and still be able to do it almost effortlessly.  Take, for example, the guy who is accused of drowning his wife while they were on their honeymoon in Australia (I think it was Australia).  You can't outlaw something and expect people to quit killing each other because they aren't allowed to have it.  It doesn't work that way.

[screamingman12 30]

I'm not sure if anyone else shares my ideas about this, but I just don't see why someone would need to own 10 or 11 guns. At most, they need to own 1, It's these people that should get mental help, as they need to wake up to the fact that not everyone in the world is out to get them. If people feel they need that many guns, they should be considered a potential threat, because if they get mad, everything in the immediate vicinity will go to hell very, very quickly.