Inevitable gun control argument thread....

[SewerStarFish]

The Second amendment:
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.

Since this is the US Constitution it obviously applies only in the USA.

What is key is the right of the people which in every other amendment mentioned has been determined by the US Supreme Court to mean the individual. Logically and simply stated: gun control is a literal infringment. Amendments supercede the body of the Constitution and thus no other clauses apply. It's been nearly 7 decades since any 2nd amendment case has been decided in the supreme court -- really seems time for some clarification no matter which side you're on.

Open question: "bear arms" -- carry or shoot?

 

[Che Guava]

It sounds like a Mastercard commercial...

"the look on the burglar's face?....priceless"

The gun is probably $300-400 at minimum. Good concealed-carry holster $50. Ammo $30-40/100rds at most. Concealed carry license can be anywhere from $10 (here in New Hampshire) or 0$ (Vermont) to a couple hundred bucks (the state might require a training class) or so - if it is obtainable at all.

Hmmmm....so anywhere from $400-700 USD for the whole sha-bang, depending on where you live. I was wondering just how accessible home security is, if it depends on arming yourself. I guess that's not too bad....

 

[SewerStarFish]

As an aside for all the non-US posts, I believe the the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution was to prevent the government from so disarming the people that the Constitution could be jeopardized by the government itself.

An earlier post mentioned all the revolution and revolt prior to European gun controls.(Except for the states sponsered US Civil War -- US revolts=1:the Whisky rebellion -- the name itself ominously implies drinking and guns). I'll forget all the civilized bombings in the Irish and Spanish[Basque] "rebellions" as mere abberations. Meanwhile our Constitution has not been suspended as in some third world countries e.g. Nepal, Myramar; nor has an unarmed second class of citizenry been created e.g. peasantry . {minus the obvious issues of state sponsered slavery(Africans), indenture (Europeans&Asians) and genocide(Native Americans) -- whoops}

At the start of WWII the gov't of the United Kingdom was worried that there were not enough armed civilians in the event of Axis incursions -- I would say, "Hah!" but the disturbing event that started this thread makes me wonder how the already in force infringements would ease a coordinated such attack by Al-Qaeda.

In summation: A person's right to life, liberty and happiness is an individual responsibility. If you choose to be unarmed you are surrendering that responsibilty to the state. As evidenced at Virgina Tech, Columbine and elsewhere -- the state's response to threats to your life and well being take time. If you already don't have a right to bear arms I can only hope that you have that time.

 

[IglooDame]

Hmmmm....so anywhere from $400-700 USD for the whole sha-bang, depending on where you live. I was wondering just how accessible home security is, if it depends on arming yourself. I guess that's not too bad....

Heck if you're looking for cheaper and less paperwork, get a used shotgun for $300-400 (has the advantage of being easier for a relatively untrained person to employ), and much less legal restriction.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I'm drawing upon some ancient memory here, but wasn't there a technique where people carved an 'X' on their bullets' tip, and this encourages fragmentation? And that such behaviour was illegal?

No that is pure Hollywood. Taxi Driver I believe. Plus it would be imposible to that with a round FMJ round. Its only possible with old lead or lead tip bullets.

And it is probably illegal in some places because of ignorant legislators who saw Deniro doing this and thought "Gee that looks scary! Lets ban people from doing it"

 

[batteryacid]

I am amazed about people argumenting that gun ownership is allowed in the 2.nd amendment that "the people" have power to defend themselves against their government or "inappropriate application of governmental force" (which seems to be a very diffuse but persistent idea of pro gunners).

I would never have guessed the NRA is a side-branch of anarchism in the US

 

[Rik Meleet]

Its not so much a feeling of insecurity as we dont like being dependent upon others for anything, security included.

The longer one thinks about this statement the more absurd it gets. You are basically saying that you don't like to be a society, but a bunch of loners that happen to live in a secluded area called "USA". Then it suddenly becomes understandable why these situations happen; "I was wronged and since we Americans solve our problems ourselves I will take revenge". Add easy access to guns to the equation and voila ...

 

[Che Guava]

Heck if you're looking for cheaper and less paperwork, get a used shotgun for $300-400 (has the advantage of being easier for a relatively untrained person to employ), and much less legal restriction.

Really? Even in urban areas? Dang.....!

 

[cthom]

The Second amendment:
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.

Since this is the US Constitution it obviously applies only in the USA.

What is key is the right of the people which in every other amendment mentioned has been determined by the US Supreme Court to mean the individual. Logically and simply stated: gun control is a literal infringment. Amendments supercede the body of the Constitution and thus no other clauses apply. It's been nearly 7 decades since any 2nd amendment case has been decided in the supreme court -- really seems time for some clarification no matter which side you're on.

Open question: "bear arms" -- carry or shoot?

er, isnt the key A well regulated militia? regulation means control, and militia implies a controlled group of volunteers. where does this give joe smith the right to bear arms as an individual outside of these controls?

 

[IglooDame]

er, isnt the key A well regulated militia? regulation means control, and militia implies a controlled group of volunteers. where does this give joe smith the right to bear arms as an individual outside of these controls?

Actually militia by US law means all able-bodied males between 18 and 45, IIRC.

 

[El_Machinae]

You can always get proper regulation by eating consistent amounts of fibre.

 

[Little Raven]

Courtesy of Robert Reich...

In the United States, if you're seriously depressed, you can buy anti-depressive drugs — but only if you have a prescription from a doctor.

Anti-depressants are enormously beneficial to millions of people, but they're also potentially dangerous if used improperly. So, you have to see a doctor and get an assessment before you can go to a drug store and purchase one.

But in the United States, in places like Virginia, a seriously depressed or deranged person can walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic handgun and a box of ammunition.

All you need is two forms of identification. You don't need permission from a doctor or counselor or anyone in the business of screening people to make sure they're fit to have a gun.

We can debate the relative benefits and dangers of anti-depressants and semi-automatic handguns, but if 30,000 Americans were killed each year by anti-depressants — as they are by handguns — it seems likely that anti-depressants would be even more strictly regulated.

So why aren't handguns?

To one like me, only marginally involved in the gun-control debate, Robert does raise an interesting point. As a libertarian, I would think that Igloo's response would be that anti-depressants shouldn't be regulated...that you should have the same freedom to buy them that you do a handgun. Or perhaps that anti-depressants aren't covered by the Constitution, and handguns are. But either way, there does seem to be a mismatch here.

 

[Che Guava]

Food for thought, Raven.

I guess my logical counter-argument would be that anti-depressants have the potential to cloud you reasonning, making you more likely to commit an irrational act, wheras guns are simply tools who's use depends on the state of min of the individual before purchasing a gun (or using it), like a car for instance.

But then again, there seems to be a lot more testing that goes into determinig whether you can purchase or operate a vehicle than a handgun. DO you get your guntaken away if you get caught drunk with one?

On another note, while I totally respect the rights granted by the US constitution, I find it a rather silly argument to use in a debate about gun control laws' effects on society...

 

[IglooDame]

Food for thought, Raven.

I guess my logical counter-argument would be that anti-depressants have the potential to cloud you reasonning, making you more likely to commit an irrational act, wheras guns are simply tools who's use depends on the state of min of the individual before purchasing a gun (or using it), like a car for instance.

Why anti-depressants, but not depressants, then?

But then again, there seems to be a lot more testing that goes into determinig whether you can purchase or operate a vehicle than a handgun. DO you get your guntaken away if you get caught drunk with one?

Potentially, yes, you do get your gun taken away if you get caught drunk with one (it could be a felony in some states, and felons usually are prohibited from owning guns). Indeed, the reverse wouldn't be true - a drunk driver could get his guns taken away forever, but a murderer would be able to drive after getting out of prison. Additionally, it doesn't take all that much testing (merely proof of insurance, in some states) to purchase a vehicle. Car dealerships don't call up the FBI and make sure you don't have a criminal record.

 

[Che Guava]

Why anti-depressants, but not depressants, then?

Another good point...looks like a long deabating road ahead

Potentially, yes, you do get your gun taken away if you get caught drunk with one (it could be a felony in some states, and felons usually are prohibited from owning guns). Indeed, the reverse wouldn't be true - a drunk driver could get his guns taken away forever, but a murderer would be able to drive after getting out of prison. Additionally, it doesn't take all that much testing (merely proof of insurance, in some states) to purchase a vehicle. Car dealerships don't call up the FBI and make sure you don't have a criminal record.

No, but the state can take away you license if you commit a crime, are deemed irresponsible or unfit to drive. As for the murderer driving a car, I guess it's a case of punishment to fit the crime: get caught drunk driving, lose you lisence, get caught drunk with a gun...etc...

Which brings me to another point, if it's every american's right to be able to own a gun, why is it that felons aren't allowed to? I mean how many other rights does a felon have strippe dafter he serves his time?

ooops, I forgot that ex-cons can't vote in some states...I must have blocked that form my memory because it made me too angry...

 

[Little Raven]

Indeed, the reverse wouldn't be true - a drunk driver could get his guns taken away forever, but a murderer would be able to drive after getting out of prison. Additionally, it doesn't take all that much testing (merely proof of insurance, in some states) to purchase a vehicle. Car dealerships don't call up the FBI and make sure you don't have a criminal record.

Car ownership and use, on a per capita basis, results in far, far fewer deaths than gun ownership and use. While cars kill a lot of people, they are also virtually ubiqutious in American life...most people use cars multiple times a day. As gun happy a nation as we are, very few Americans fire their guns as frequently as they drive their cars. And besides...cars, while they certainly CAN be a weapon, exist primarily as a form of transport. Guns exist solely to hurt and kill...that is what we're talking about when we discuss self-defense, after all. I don't want to sound preachy, because I don't believe guns to be inherantly evil or anything, but given how stressed out we (as a soceity) get about a joint, or a nipple slip, why should we give a handgun a free pass?

 

[Smidlee]

Let's not forget the planes on 9/11 were not hijacked by guns. If you remove all guns the one with the biggest knife wins.

 

[Che Guava]

Let's not forget the planes on 9/11 were not hijacked by guns. If you remove all guns the one with the biggest knife wins.

Smidlee gets the award for bringing up 9-11 in the most awkward place this week Is there a similar law to Godwin's that relates to 9-11? If not, I humbly suggest we call it "Che's Law"

Back on topic, I really dislike this argument, because it seems to negte the fact that there is a gradient of danger involved with lethality of weapons. Sure, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, but let me remind you that nealry any able bodied person can learn self-defense techniques to disarm someone with a knife, not excluding a popular one I like to call 'running'. I think firearms are pretty far removed from knives in the way that there are very few defenses or escapes from them, not to mention the higher potential for accidents.

There are plenty of good arguments for gun ownership, but I just don't buy this one.

 

[IglooDame]

Car ownership and use, on a per capita basis, results in far, far fewer deaths than gun ownership and use. While cars kill a lot of people, they are also virtually ubiqutious in American life...most people use cars multiple times a day. As gun happy a nation as we are, very few Americans fire their guns as frequently as they drive their cars. And besides...cars, while they certainly CAN be a weapon, exist primarily as a form of transport. Guns exist solely to hurt and kill...that is what we're talking about when we discuss self-defense, after all. I don't want to sound preachy, because I don't believe guns to be inherantly evil or anything, but given how stressed out we (as a soceity) get about a joint, or a nipple slip, why should we give a handgun a free pass?

Or flip it - given how unstressed we are about something fairly serious like handguns, why should we continue to freak out about joints or nipples?

Anyway, car ownership and use isn't (directly, anyway) a constitutional right, and keeping and bearing arms (arguably) is.

 

[Little Raven]

Or flip it - given how unstressed we are about something fairly serious like handguns, why should we continue to freak out about joints or nipples?

I don't know if should, but we certainly do. And I don't see that changing any time soon. Do you?

Anyway, car ownership and use isn't (directly, anyway) a constitutional right, and keeping and bearing arms (arguably) is.

Granted, but this seems to me a weak argument. "Yeah, well, cars and joints weren't around when the founders wrote up the Constitution, but something they called arms that was orders of magnitude less dangerous than the stuff we call arms today was, so there!"

Not exactly compelling, at least from where I stand.