Second Amendment Reinstated in Washington

[LRH]

So, today I was listening to Fox news radio...for some reason, sometimes I do it just to piss myself off
Anyways, the story about the American Right to Bear Arms being reinstated where it was previously illegal for civilians for 30-something (correct me if I'm wrong) years. Just out of curiousity, what is your opinions on this? I personally think guns are like drugs in the sense that, even if made illegal, people using them for illegal purposes aren't going to buy them legally...so, what the hell's the point? Let em' have their guns. I'm all for background checks, but if someone has a criminal record and they want a gun badly enough, well, they'll probably get one somehow, horrible as it is I realize, coming from a somewhat liberal, that opinion may sound weird, but hey, I'm allowed to swing it to the right every now and again


So what do you think?

[Raggit]

Like most things in our Constitution, the right to bear arms requires responsibility, and the founding fathers may have somewhat counted on us having the intelligence and decency not to totally abuse those rights to the point of actually necessatating their prohibition.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I'm not sure I understand your post.  We've had the right to bear arms and own guns this entire time.  Are you saying they've made it easier to obtain gun licenses than before?  I am also for the right to protect yourself and your family (with lethal force if necessary), and I find anti-gun arguments obtuse at best.  There will always be people who buy guns as a status symbol or to commit crimes, but there are also many people who buy them only for protection or for sports (legal hunting, target shooting).  As a society we have to be a bit more mature than if we were a teacher who caught a kid misusing a toy so we took it away from everyone.  This works in small, localized conditions but hardly applies to millions of people.  It's all about exercising common sense with your rights.

[Vince Twelve]

What he's referring to, ProgZ, is the Supreme Court's recent decision that the ban of handguns that has been in place in Washington DC for some time is to be declared unconstitutional and struck down.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hI_391ceS32bZUKVLu39ejwty3Ew

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Ah, good show.  I'd rather they focused their efforts on getting rid of the Fed, though.

[Evil]

I've had this talk many times before with friends that collect guns. I think everyone should have the right, but under very strict background checks. In the state of Iowa (where I live) there are some CRAZY rules.

You must be 21 to purchase a handgun. There is a waiting period and a complete background check. Sounds good right?

If you are given a handgun as a gift, as long as you are 18, you can own and operate it, as long as it is registered to you.

However, at 18, you can walk into a store, buy an assault rifle, and walk out the door without a waiting period.

Also, all guns are registered to your name and address. But not the exact gun. Some states require you register the serial number to your name and in some cases, they take fired rounds to keep on record. But in the state of Iowa, you just have to prove you own a weapon of a certain caliber and are not required to provide a serial number.

There are some other silly rules too. It's just crazy how they say they are trying to be more strict on gun control, but there are so many loopholes.

[Makeout Patrol]

However, at 18, you can walk into a store, buy an assault rifle, and walk out the door without a waiting period.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Sure, you can do a lot more damage with an assault rifle, but who's going to use an assault rifle during a crime? You're going to need to get to and from the scene inconspicuously, and an assault rifle is anything but inconspicuous; a handgun, on the other hand, isn't suited to anything other than law enforcement, crime, and carrying around just in case you happen to get into a situation in which WHOOPS, you need to kill somebody!


My views on guns are that there's no reason for the average citizen to be allowed to own a functional firearm. If you want to collect guns, take out their firing pins. If you want to shoot guns, go to a shooting range. Unfortunately the culture in the States is that all of the criminals already have them and all of the average folk feel like they need them for their own safety. There should be a complete registry, and if you're found with a gun that isn't registered, there should be an extremely stiff penalty. Furthermore, you should have to complete an accredited safety course to own or operate firearms.

I don't think that the second amendment prevents these sorts of things since it's pretty clear in my view that the right to bear arms is not granted to everybody - just "well-regulated militias." Everybody seems to forget the first half of that particular amendment.

[Andail]

and I find anti-gun arguments obtuse at best.  There will always be people who buy guns as a status symbol or to commit crimes, but there are also many people who buy them only for protection or for sports (legal hunting, target shooting).  As a society we have to be a bit more mature than if we were a teacher who caught a kid misusing a toy so we took it away from everyone.  This works in small, localized conditions but hardly applies to millions of people.  It's all about exercising common sense with your rights.

What are you doing here, Progzy, flamebaiting?
Sweden has strict gun laws and it works well for us. Do you sincerely believe that all arguments that are anti-gun are "obtuse at best"?

I noticed from your other thread about nationalised health care (which by the way works for us as well; 20 bucks for a surgical operation regardless of complexity, and in return we have slightly longer waiting times) that you're out on a right-wing soap-boxing spree, but don't overdo it.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I'm not saying that countries who choose not to have guns are wrong, but saying it's not right for people to own them is, particularly in America where it is one of the foundations of Constitutional Law.  As for socialist-brand health care, I could point you to books on the subject but what would be the point?  It wouldn't influence your opinion because nobody on the internet can convince anyone of anything (except that your opinion in their eyes is invalid).

[Andail]

This isn't so much about if you're right or wrong, Progzmax, it's more about the way you present your case.
Try to understand that not all of your opinions are facts.

[Pumaman]

What he's referring to, ProgZ, is the Supreme Court's recent decision that the ban of handguns that has been in place in Washington DC for some time is to be declared unconstitutional and struck down.

I'm not convinced about whether strict gun control laws actually work -- here in the UK they are very strict but there are still people being shot dead on a daily basis, so they don't seem to be very effective. I would tend to agree that criminals will get hold of guns whatever the law says, and the only thing you change by changing the law is whether ordinary law-abiding citizens can own a gun.

As for socialist-brand health care, I could point you to books on the subject but what would be the point?  It wouldn't influence your opinion because nobody on the internet can convince anyone of anything (except that your opinion in their eyes is invalid).

This is true, and generally the health care, gun crime and religion arguments can never be won. One thing I would say about nationalised health care is that once you go there, you can never go back -- no government would dare to try and take away an existing healthcare system from its electorate.

But if you haven't lived with such a system, you're bound to be skeptical --it was the same in the UK before they introduced the NHS. I would however challenge you to watch Sicko and defend the practices of the health insurance companies depicted there.

[Vince Twelve]

Strict gun control apparently works here in Japan.  All guns are banned with very few exceptions.  Even if you manage to get through the lengthy certification required to own a hunting rifle (the only type of firearm possible to legally obtain in Japan) you cannot hand it to someone else, even to hold.  Holding a gun is illegal.

Every year, there are just a tiny number of violent gun crimes in the whole country, and these are almost always organized crime gangs committing violence against other organized crime gangs.

Heck, even swords are illegal here.

Just a few weeks ago, a young adult decided to run his truck through a crowd of people, and then hop out and begin stabbing everyone he could reach with a very long (pushing the legal limit) knife before he was subdued.  He managed to kill seven people.  (The media of course blamed this on video games.)  Afterwords, politicians were talking about making these knifes illegal across the country.

Strict, yes, but it certainly seems to be working.  (Of course it begs the question if the strict laws are to blame for the low violence rate or if it's some other cultural factor, or both.)  These kinds of regulation would certainly not work in America, since you'd have to get all the guns out first, which would never happen.  Japan is, however, able to stop the trafficking of weapons for the most part.  One of the advantages of being a relatively small island nation, I reckon.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

This is true, and generally the health care, gun crime and religion arguments can never be won. One thing I would say about nationalised health care is that once you go there, you can never go back -- no government would dare to try and take away an existing healthcare system from its electorate.

And I agree 100% with this.

I'm not condemning the UK for a system that's been in place for so long that they don't really remember an alternative, but the more you read on the subject the more you see that competition in the medical industry would result in faster, better quality healthcare than a standardized system (or the current US system of special interests, for that matter).  Note that I'm not saying we actually have this sort of system in America .  Not yet, anyway.

Try to understand that not all of your opinions are facts.

As long as you try to understand that some opinions are based on sound research and reading a variety of views on a subject.

Japan is, however, able to stop the trafficking of weapons for the most part.

I'd cite this as the paramount reason for the lack of gun violence, really.  As long as America has open borders they could never succeed with this sort of approach, and our laws make it unconstitutional to do so, anyway .

[Nacho]

The problem here is that it might not be a "correct" answer... not a 100% correct "position" for restrictive laws toward guns, not one for health care...

Do criminal get guns in countries with restrictions? Sure...
Is the level of accidents with guns in countries without restrictive laws HUGE compared with the countries that do have restrictive laws? Sure, again...

Same with national care system. Here the level of foreign people is 6%. Percentage of foreig people in the Doctor' s clinic? 80%. Are foreign citizens 14 times weaker than the Spanish ones? I think not... I think they come here, they think "Hey, I have a cough! Here they will treat it to me for free!!! Let' s go!!!" (Please, don' t acuse me of "racism"... A high percentage of this "foreign people" abbusing of the health system are tourists from countries who have never been suspected to suffer racism, like England, Germany, etc... not just "Pakis", "Albanians", and "South Americans")

It' s not a problem of inmigration, or nationalities... we also like to abbuse quite a lot:

Almost every SPANISH citizen here picks grandpa' s papers to go to the pharmacy and get free products: "This condoms are for my grandpa... they must be free, lady!" In addiction, telling that the people who went to Urgencies Clinics during the "Russia-Spain" match was (in the whole country) NINE!!! Does that means that their situation, when there is no football and they fill those clinics, was not that serious? Of course.

Let' s go back to weapons: I firmly believe than freedom is better than being told by the government what can and what you can' t do... It shouldn' t be necessary that the government comes here like if you were a kid, and tell to you: "Come on, kid... gimme that gun, you can get hurt... Great! Now I will blow your nose to remove those filthy snots. Blew!"

But...

If there are more kids killed playing with dad' s guns than killed by ciminal bullets something is going wrong. Also, if people leaves guns irresponsibly unnatended at their homes, a simple theft in your house can turn into having a new dangerous and armed criminal in the streets. Unnatended weapons=More weapons into the traffic.

So, the sollution, better than restrictions, better than FORCING people what to do and what not, should be TELLING people what to do. Education. Sensiblization campaings: "National health is for this, and this, and has to be used in this case, and in this". "Weapons are for this and this, and must have been stored in this way"

To summarize... Switzerland is a country where there is a militar weapon in every house and the levels of violence by gunfire are ridiculous. So... are the guns a problem? No, per se. Is the education of the people a problem? Yes.

Prog, I understand that you deffend your right to bear guns, to have them at your home and to shoot some criminal trying to enter to your home and rape your family, because I meet you so long for knowing that you won't abbuse of that right... but you must understant that some people, less responsable than you, will, unless they are educated.

[Radiant]

The right to arm bears, on the other hand...

Seriously though, while as Nacho states the situation really isn't a binary yes/no, I do believe that guns are too easily available in the US and that this causes numerous problems. Michael Moore may be an extremist in the other direction, but some of his points are good.

[Matti]

Seriously though, while as Nacho states the situation really isn't a binary yes/no, I do believe that guns are too easily available in the US and that this causes numerous problems. Michael Moore may be an extremist in the other direction, but some of his points are good.

Forget Moore and his elevated "documentaries", bus his message is still right.

I think allowing every citizen to have a gun is much more dangerous than having no gun against few criminals that are getting their guns illegally. And who would shoot a thief that wants to rob you? Do you really need a gun in your house, just for the possible event that one time a guy might want to harm you? I'd be much more afraid that a lunatic runs berserc or a child accidently shoots me with his parent's gun (just because everyone can get one) than to be "defenseless" in case of being robbed or threatened by someone.

Plus the f***ing weapon corporations should not be supported..

[Andail]

As long as you try to understand that some opinions are based on sound research and reading a variety of views on a subject.

Yes, and you will find such research supporting both sides. It's not like there is only one scientific book covering the subject, and you happened to come across it.

Remember that you're representing a country with an absurd amount of gun related violence, and a health care system so messed up that even insured people can't afford it, and rather go to Indonesia or wherever for their heart surgeries. Maybe you could be just a tiny bit more openminded about other models.

[Raggit]

Ah, but what you fail to realize, Matti, is that if nobody owns guns, and the criminals DO own guns, they will have run of the place, so to speak.

The common people don't buy guns with the intention to murder, they buy them with the intention to defend themselves from those who DO plan to hurt.  Taking that right away just disarms people who want protection, and doesn't stop criminals from getting ahold of guns.  They WILL obtain firearms no matter what, and when the common man is defenseless, the lawbreakers would be able to rape and pillage, as long as they're quick enough to avoid the arrival of the police.  

When there is underlying uncertainty as to whether or not the owner of a house is armed, I think the crooks out there might think twice.  The potential for the owner having a gun is similar to the potential of there being security cameras there:  You never know.  

I've even seen stickers on doors to houses that say "owner is armed."  This will either scare the bad guys off, or let them know how to prepare better.

In the end, the gun in the the common man's closet isn't even there to shoot an intruder, it's there to control him. (or her.)  In most cases you would just have to point it at the criminal to get them under control.

[Matti]

Ah, but what you fail to realize, Matti, is that if nobody owns guns, and the criminals DO own guns, they will have run of the place, so to speak.

The common people don't buy guns with the intention to murder, they buy them with the intention to defend themselves from those who DO plan to hurt.  Taking that right away just disarms people who want protection, and doesn't stop criminals from getting ahold of guns.  They WILL obtain firearms no matter what, and when the common man is defenseless, the lawbreakers would be able to rape and pillage, as long as they're quick enough to avoid the arrival of the police.

Nah, I don't fail to realize that, but that's how it is. In Germany the very minority owns a gun, in fact I never came across someone who does or even wants to. Does this make Germany less safe? Not at all. I dare to state that this circumstance makes it safer. More guns = less safety.

Like I said before: I'm more afraid of an armed population than of some guys somewhere who get their guns illegally. And where do murderers and thieves come from? Not from hell but straight outta society. If everyone was given a gun, more people would consider robbery or murder I'm afraid.

[Radiant]

Ah, but what you fail to realize, Matti, is that if nobody owns guns, and the criminals DO own guns, they will have run of the place, so to speak.

Except that the police still has guns. Of all of the countries worldwide where guns are not as widely available as in the US, most are not in fact run by the criminals.

I'm not condemning the UK for a system that's been in place for so long that they don't really remember an alternative, but the more you read on the subject the more you see that competition in the medical industry would result in faster, better quality healthcare than a standardized system

Not really, because this shifts the focus of healthcare institutions from aiding people, to making money. It means that for hospitals, it will be more profitable to do popular things like plastic surgery or breast enlargement, rather than taking care of the sick.

[Andail]

I think Raggit's view (which is predominant in USA) originates in the concept of inherently good and bad people.
As long as we make sure the good guys are armed, we'll be fine. Best would be if only the good guys could be armed.
Of course, a good guy is one who is innocent. But everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and there has to be a first time for everything. - Unless, of course, you believe that some people are born evil, and that this evil can be detected and recorded, in order to prevent evil people to get a hold of guns before they commit their first gun related crime.

But as Matti said; criminals don't come from hell, armed and ready. They are products of society. Armed with the weapons provided by said society.

If people weren't allowed to buy guns, there would be less demand on the market, factories would produce fewer guns and there would be fewer guns on the streets. Even evil people's guns are manufactured in normal, legal gun factories.
Naturally, USA's biggest problem is that there are too many freaking guns everywhere. If there weren't any guns, people wouldn't be able to shoot each other.

I think that the notion that you can prevent crime with terror balance is so profoundly flawed that it's hard to concieve good counter arguments.
"Let's not break into this house, the owner might have a gun." But burglaries still occur, how can that be? Do they have scanners that can detect which houses have weapons and which haven't? Or could it be that burglars are often either desperate or obdurate or dumb enough to simply ignore that risk? Could it be that they simply bring their own guns, just in case? See what happened there? Escalation.
Because any normal-witted family father would rather just let a couple of criminals take
the dvd-player than engage in a shoot-out with them, risking the lives of the entire family.

If my arguments were wrong, all the gazillion weapons in USA would establish a perfect terror balance, deterring everyone to commit any sort of crime, out of fear of the other people's weapons. Sadly, this isn't the case.

[InCreator]

Guns. Are meant... to kill people.

The less people carry guns, the better - is what I believe. No matter what's the purpose. If you need a gun, instrument to kill people just to be safe, I think it's time to move somewhere else.

Why gun anyway? In a self-defense situation, gun provides very little advantage. If you can get your hands on a gun easily, criminal also can. I don't find owning a firearm something that makes me more safe. Instead, some martial arts training would benefit much more, and would be actually useful even if you manage to live through all your life without an incident - which is much better than carry a gun all the time and never have use for it... And if things go bad, no gun or kung fu will ensure you 100% safety.

Where I live, a firearm is a rarity. Police carry firearms, military does. That's IT. Even common criminals VERY rarely have firearms or commit crimes involving a gun, and when they do, it's either some improvised gun of unknown quality, or really serious criminal, from organized thus more serious crime. Like Russian mafia. But these people don't spend time robbing banks or mugging elderly people on the street anyway.


People don't usually have guns. Sure, there's hunters, grandfathers with what they saved from WWII or some businessmen with gun license, but usually, no gun. Everyone has right to own a firearm for self-defense purpose, but guns are expensive, getting a license means long and costly bureaucratic process to go through, and...
...nobody really needs one.

I find that good.

[Disco]

Remember that you're representing a country with an absurd amount of gun related violence, and a health care system so messed up that even insured people can't afford it, and rather go to Indonesia or wherever for their heart surgeries. Maybe you could be just a tiny bit more openminded about other models.

I agree on all these points. While I understand the fear people may have that at any moment in this violent country they may be broken into and have a gun put in their face, which of (course can and does happen) to say that that is the most likely sort of gun-related violence is completely off. The opposition to gun laws will find the worst case scenario in the newspaper and say that is telling for why average citizens should be able to have guns. All the while presuming that other average citizens like myself will just magically trust them to be armed responsibly.

It doesn't matter to me what sort of gun education or protection reasons people will have for owning guns, those who would choose not to use them or advocate for gun rights like myself (who would never even touch[ a gun, even if unloaded) should not be forced into a situation where the already sky-high number of privately owned guns is made greater as a sort of check and balance on the things that go "bump" in the night.

The constitution-humping that happens whenever gun rights are questioned is another area that annoys. When the Supreme Court was deciding the case of handgun ownership in DC, they were looking at the language to determine what was meant at the time, whether it was intended for the general population or for militias, and based their (split majority) decision on that language. The constitution is supposed to be a living document, but is hardly so. There is always talk about "finding the original intention of the Founders" which after 200+ years I think is way past irrelevant because they are long dead and have no right to govern, not a even a moment beyond their passing.

*******************

Regarding healthcare, the most powerful word to use against a national health service here is the states is to call it "socialist", which while accurate in definition is used very specifically to get people to believe that it is some kind of communist deathtrap and you will suddenly lose any choice in doctor or hospital. It is effective because most people have a lack of knowledge of other systems, or simply accept the current system out of some type of nationalist pride.

I have been uninsured since age 16, and have really no choice but to hope for the best whenever I have a health scare, which has happened from time to time and is rather terrifying. Though I guess I should be glad that I don't have to wait in a long line at the hospital  : perhaps it would be better to die or go into bankruptcy than wait a little while :/



I seriously need to leave this country before it inevitably kills me. If only.

[Pumaman]

The common people don't buy guns with the intention to murder, they buy them with the intention to defend themselves from those who DO plan to hurt.  Taking that right away just disarms people who want protection, and doesn't stop criminals from getting ahold of guns.  They WILL obtain firearms no matter what, and when the common man is defenseless, the lawbreakers would be able to rape and pillage, as long as they're quick enough to avoid the arrival of the police.  

I'm sure I remember reading some research where it turned out that in the US, law abiding people who owned a gun were more likely to be shot than those who didn't.

Think about it -- supposing a burglar enters your house in the night. You get woken up, go downstairs with your gun to investigate. The burglar sees you coming down the stairs with a gun and shoots you dead in response.

On the other hand, if you went downstairs with no weapon, the burglar would not see a threat, and was more likely to tell you to put your hands up and wait for him to leave with your stuff.

And even if the burglar was unarmed, most law-abiding people who own a gun would very rarely need to use it, so they probably wouldn't know how. When the time came, they'd probably forget about the safety catch, or forget to load it, or just not have the balls to pull the trigger. All of which would probably end up with the hardened burglar wrestling the gun off them and ending up more in control than they were to begin with.

[LimpingFish]

I could never feel comfortable around a gun, regardless of it's legal status. Guns are designed to destroy whatever they happen to be pointing at; people, beer bottles, wave after wave of rabid blue-tongued skinks, etc. That alone is reason enough for me.

As for health related matters, I wouldn't step foot in an Irish hospital, unless death was the only alternative. Swimming with disease, corridors choc-a-bloc with people on trolleys waiting for beds; people who, I might add, could be suffering from any number of things, and a Health System Executive that couldn't find it's arse with both hands.

No guns, though!

[Makeout Patrol]

The argument that you need to have a gun in case some robber comes into your house for self-defense or whatever has never sat well with me. If your society is to the point where criminals are entering homes and murdering strangers, there are social issues at play that go much deeper than questions of gun control. A society in which that is a real fear is not a society that I want to be a part of. There's also the implication in this argument that your TV is worth killing someone over, which is absolutely repugnant. Buy insurance if you're worried about your stupid TV.

A gun - and particularly a handgun - is a tool that is designed to kill people. I think it's only responsible to want to keep it out of everyone's hands. Sure, criminals are going to get their hands on them, and they're going to use them... on each other. The threat of crime to ordinary people sure looks sexy on the TV news, but trans fats are a much greater threat to America.

[Raggit]

The argument that you need to have a gun in case some robber comes into your house for self-defense or whatever has never sat well with me. If your society is to the point where criminals are entering homes and murdering strangers, there are social issues at play that go much deeper than questions of gun control. A society in which that is a real fear is not a society that I want to be a part of.

But that's basically where we're at.  People are very distrustful of other people, and senseless acts of violence do occur. 

Recently, two young girls were shot to death along a lonely country road in Oklahoma.  In 2005, a co-worker of my dad's got drunk and went to his ex-wife's house and shot her in the throat with a shotgun.  A couple weeks ago, there was a gunfight in a neighboring town that's even smaller than mine where a man was shot dead in his apartment.   These are all things that are happening around me in what is supposed to be a small community rural area.  This is why I figure that if everybody else out there is going nuts with their gun, I should have one just to at least FEEL safer around these crazies.

A lot of people from other parts of the world say "in my country we don't have guns and it's better and safer that way," but in America, if you suddenly impose strict gun control laws (stricter than they already are,) people won't know how to cope with that or adjust.  Yes, guns are really that important to Americans, and they are the first thing that come to mind when you say self-defense.  I agree, a gun's only purpose is to kill, but I wouldn't use mine in that manner unless I had to.

I've also considered becoming registered to carry a concealed handgun.  Why?  Because of protection.  Do I need it?  Who knows.  But there are a lot of crazy mofos running loose in America, and as I've stated before, I've become less and less at ease.

I don't understand the American love affair with guns and ammo, but it has always been here and it'd be a major shock if all of a sudden they disappeared.  Would it be for the better?  Who knows.  It's one thing I can't imagine. 

[InCreator]

Makeout Patrol, you seem like my post retold. 

Nice to see like-minded people at AGS (for a change).

A lot of people from other parts of the world say "in my country we don't have guns and it's better and safer that way," but in America, if you suddenly impose strict gun control laws (stricter than they already are,) people won't know how to cope with that or adjust.  Yes, guns are really that important to Americans, and they are the first thing that come to mind when you say self-defense.  I agree, a gun's only purpose is to kill, but I wouldn't use mine in that manner unless I had to.

I think it's too late for America.
Guns have become strong part of the culture, and this goes long way through Wild West to initial colonies. Even if government will try to limit firearms, it wouldn't probably work, nor take guns off the streets and homes.

And... isn't America at WAR right now?

But "in my country we don't have guns and it's better and safer that way" is really true, Europe is alot quieter and safer place. People kill people everywhere, but reading a newspaper story about some psycho killing someone with knife still isn't as disturbing as a kid gunning down entire class or anything else in that manner. Other weapons could seem lot more gross in context of crime, but body count in general should still be smaller, I think. If you're insane and have a gun, you're much, much more dangerous to society than one without.

[Babar]

You know, I've generally stayed out of this debate, considering that it is far removed and disconnected from me, and I'd have no idea about any conditions or situations or anything, but I'm curious about that last part. How would a gun give someone protection? It doesn't really protect you from other guns. In fact even more weird: How will carrying a concealed handgun give someone protection? Are there a lot of civilians in America who buy bulletproof jackets and wear them on a regular basis? Somewhere at the back of my head I seem to remember that some of those 'gangsta celebrities' wear them (didn't Tupac?).

Does the right to bear arms include swords? If someone had a big-ass sword always slung across their back, it would definitely work to block other swords (if you had training, I guess). And it'd look cool. Except it might be uncomfortable to have a sword with you all the time.

[Raggit]

How would a gun give someone protection? It doesn't really protect you from other guns. In fact even more weird: How will carrying a concealed handgun give someone protection?

Babar, that's an excellent question.  Guns don't actually protect you from other guns.  I mentioned before that the best use of a gun is intimidation.  When somebody breaks into your house, ideally all you have to do is point it at them.  But it really depends on what kind of crook you're dealing with.  Is a petty crook who only wants your TV?  Or is it a psycopath who is jacked up on meth and is utterly unpredictable?

The same goes for carrying a concealed gun.  It depends on the circumstances, but it would be useful if you ever found yourself in certain kinds of trouble with crackheads/gang members/muggers, or any other kinds of people that lurk the streets of my quiet home town.

The problem is that these kinds of people really don't give two craps who you are or what you're doing.  If you look at them in the wrong way, they'll go off on you and try to start a fight.  You pull a gun on them, and they will hopefully back off, at least for a while until they can round up some of their buddies and corner you at another time with their own guns, knives*, chains*, icepicks*, or whatever they're carrying.

Bottom line: Everybody knows everybody else is armed in one way or another.  The goal is to be more armed than them.

*Have been used by drunken maniacs to threaten people I know 

[Babar]

But then why have it concealed? When dealing with your crackheaded gang member muggers, shouldn't you wear a t-shirt with big writing saying "AK is OK" and having fat bulges in your jacket, and having a ammo belt around your shoulders? That should definitely scare away any crackhead gang member buggers you are dealing with, more so than just standing around looking innocent, until you suddenly see something wrong, and then whip out a pistol in an unstable, unsure, drunken maniac person's face? Isn't that what the crackheaded gang members do? Have a shiny handgun stuffed down their pants and a knife in their boots? At least that is what TV tells me: Bullet notches is rep . Look scary enough, and no one will mess with you.

[Pet Terry]

I've also considered becoming registered to carry a concealed handgun.  Why?  Because of protection.  Do I need it?  Who knows.  But there are a lot of crazy mofos running loose in America, and as I've stated before, I've become less and less at ease.

Wow.

A couple of weeks ago I was returning from a rock festival with my best friend. We had had a fun day and before going back home we decided to go to a pub for some drinks. We were staying at a smallish town near Helsinki and had been to that pub several times before, it's a nice rock pub with nice atmosphere and it has always been fun sitting there with friends.

We got our drinks and went to sit to an empty table in of the corners. Seeing that it was a Sunday night it wasn't very busy there, I think there were only about five other customers besides us. We had been sitting there for about 10 - 20 minutes when a group of three very drunk and loud men came in and sat to a table right next to us. I told my friend that of all the empty tables they had to choose the one closest to us and she agreed, she found it annoying as well. It was obvious that they would attempt to communicate with us sooner or later.

Yes. Shortly after the group had taken on that table they started asking me about my long hair and appearance in general. That's not something you hear often in a place like this (because most of the customers are long haired rockers) and usually I would come up with witty comebacks and stuff, but for some reason my instinct told me not to do that this time. So I tried to answer them as politely and briefly as possible and just ignore them as much as possible. Eventually the group was about to leave, two of them went out and one came to our table. He asked us if we had a problem of some sort and proceeded to lift his shirt, revealing a gun tucked into his pants.

(It's quite amazing how many thoughts can cross your mind when you're endangered. "That was it? This is the end?")

The guy then insisted me to come out and seemed like he was about to explode when I kept declining. Did he want to kick my ass or blow my brains out, that I don't know. But apparently he was really annoyed at my appearance and taste in music. Fortunately, he didn't lose his temper and just left, after which we told the bouncer who called police immediately. No one was hurt, but it was scary leaving the pub a couple of hours later and my friend had to go see a doctor a couple of days later because she couldn't sleep after the incident.

So... it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what's my stance on the matter? That incident was quite possibly one of the scariest moments in my life and only strengthened my opinion on handguns. If I had had a handgun with me, it wouldn't have made me feel any safer.

[Makeout Patrol]

But then why have it concealed? When dealing with your crackheaded gang member muggers, shouldn't you wear a t-shirt with big writing saying "AK is OK" and having fat bulges in your jacket, and having a ammo belt around your shoulders? That should definitely scare away any crackhead gang member buggers you are dealing with, more so than just standing around looking innocent, until you suddenly see something wrong, and then whip out a pistol in an unstable, unsure, drunken maniac person's face? Isn't that what the crackheaded gang members do? Have a shiny handgun stuffed down their pants and a knife in their boots? At least that is what TV tells me: Bullet notches is rep . Look scary enough, and no one will mess with you.

The idea is that if you're going to mug someone, you're going to think twice if people are allowed to carry concealed handguns, because the person you're mugging might draw a weapon and shoot you. Of course, if this is to work, it also needs to be legal to shoot someone to death for trying to take your wallet, which, again, is despicable. Additionally, if you bring a gun into such a confrontation, you're instantly the biggest threat to the other gunman in the room, so if they're going to shoot anyone, it's going to be you.

Recently, two young girls were shot to death along a lonely country road in Oklahoma.  In 2005, a co-worker of my dad's got drunk and went to his ex-wife's house and shot her in the throat with a shotgun.  A couple weeks ago, there was a gunfight in a neighboring town that's even smaller than mine where a man was shot dead in his apartment.   These are all things that are happening around me in what is supposed to be a small community rural area.  This is why I figure that if everybody else out there is going nuts with their gun, I should have one just to at least FEEL safer around these crazies.

Yeah, but the co-worker was shooting someone he already knew, and without knowing the story behind the two girls we can't know whether or not it was a random act. If you feel like you need to buy a gun to protect yourself from your associates, it's time to get new associates; if you feel like you need to buy a gun to protect yourself from strangers, which the criminals-will-always-have-guns argument is premised on, you're either wrong, living somewhere that is run by organized criminals, or in the middle of a civil war. Random acts of violence happen, sure, but not especially often, and having access to guns makes the likelihood of being injured in an argument or accident much higher than the chances of being a victim of random acts of violence.

[Raggit]

Pet Terry,

Do you think that I would get a gun just to harrass people with long hair in bars? 

Makeout,

You can't always get away from bad associates.  They usually follow you, and these situations can pop up out of absolutely nowhere.  Here again, this may have something to do with Americans generally being on the edge 24/7.

[Moox]

I moved to Raleigh North Carolina last year to attend North Carolina State University. In the time frame of a year I have seen one shooting, two stabbings, and almost a dozen cases of robbery both armed and unarmed. Do I live in the ghetto? Absolutely not. In fact, my apartment is in a nice part of the city just minutes away from the state capital building. Basically what I am trying to get at is that American crime is much different than European crime. We can't rely on a piece of paper that says its illegal to own a gun to serve as a deterrent. We need something physical. I myself keep a knife in my pocket and a baseball bat in my backseat, the day I hit 21 I am also applying for my concealed carry permit.

[Pumaman]

Pet Terry,

Do you think that I would get a gun just to harrass people with long hair in bars? 

I think you're missing the point here. Suppose that you had been in Petteri's position, sitting in a bar being challenged by a man with a gun. Now suppose that you had your gun with you, what would you have done? Accept the other guy's challenge to a duel outside and end up getting killed in the process? How would having a gun yourself have helped you?

[Pet Terry]

Pet Terry,

Do you think that I would get a gun just to harrass people with long hair in bars? 

Y-yes?

No, of course not. I just thought I'd share my story, seeing that we're discussing guns here. As CJ said, I don't see how a gun would have helped me in that situation.

[Raggit]

CJ,

If I was in Pet's situation and had a gun, I would've done exactly what he did.  I would've been polite and brief with him, and then ignore him.  When he came up to the table, I would've apologized for whatever I did that pissed him off and hope he goes away, and then call the police if needed. 

The gun isn't there for me to be mr. tough guy.  It's there when all else fails.

Moox,

I too carry a baseball bat in my car.  I don't have a knife, though.  I think you're right: American crime is much different from European crime.  I think it's because we're just a lot more violent and crazy.  Or something.

[Pumaman]

I still don't really understand in what situation a gun or baseball bat would be useful, as a law-abiding citizen. If somebody pulls a gun on you, you're not going to have time to draw your weapon because the chances are they'll have taken you by surprise. Equally, if you're being mugged, the attacker is likely to be too close for you to manage to grab your gun and aim and fire it. What's more likely is that your gun will end up in the hands of the attacker and will be used against you.

And in what situation would having a baseball bat turn out better than simply running away? If you were up against a gang of attackers, they'd easily overwhelm you and steal your baseball bat, and then probably beat you to death with it. On the other hand if somebody started threatening you with a knife, is it better to start a fight using your baseball bat and probably get your arm cut off in the process, than simply to run off? Are you strong and well-trained enough to properly wield a baseball bat and do some damage with it, rather than having it taken off you as you flail around with it?

American crime is much different from European crime.  I think it's because we're just a lot more violent and crazy.  Or something.

I don't buy this. Sure, America does have more violent crime than Europe, but Europe isn't a crime-free utopia where people rob banks using sarcasm. London in particular has had quite a wave of knife and gun crime in recent years, but surely as InCreator says the best way to protect yourself is to learn some self-defence martial arts that might actually allow you to disarm an attacker -- rather than to have an ever-escalating arms race.

[Disco]

Well to be fair, Raggit did say it would be for intimidation purposes only. If I were walking around town and decided to rob some wealthy-looking driver of a nice car with my gun, I would think twice if I knew he baseball bat in his backseat I would run like hell.

[Raggit]

In all situations, resolving the conflict or just escaping to call the cops is always the best course of action.

But having a weapon onhand is insurance against a situation where you can't make peace or run away.

Let me cite a specific example.  A year or so back I posted a thread about a very insecure and clingy girl who became certain within a staggeringly short amount of time that we were soulmates and should be married.  

She had a pysco boyfriend who was possessive to the point of making her check in and out with him before she went anywhere, and as soon as he found out that we (me and her) had been talking, he promptly made a trip to see me at school one day.

I stepped out in the hall to speak with him, and he immediately came up in my face and was making threats and so on.  After I managed to explain that it was HER who was coming onto me, and that I wasn't interested anymore, he seemed remotely satisfied, but made a threat along the lines of, "if I even so much as THINK that there's anything going on, I'll be back."  Fortunately, that confrontation resolved without any real problems.

But after that, I started carrying a bat in the backseat of my car.  The reason is because you cannot predict the behavior of these kinds of people.  Things happen faster than you can imagine, and before you know it, he might have a group of his buddies there to beat the crap out of me if he invented some reason in his drugged-out mind to do so.  If could talk my way out, great.  If I could escape better.  But if it came down to me versus a group of trailer trash punks, I'd rather have a bat or a gun than nothing at all.

This guy is in prison for meth now, and I haven't seen or spoken to her in a long, long time, but I still keep the bat in the car.

The moral of the story is that, in a world (or nation) full of crazy people who have nothing to lose, you never know WHO you're going to inadvertantly piss off, or how far they'll go.  

Disco,

I'm hardly wealthy-looking, and I don't drive a nice car.  I said a GUN is for intimidation purposes.  A bat is useless agaisnt a gun for ANYTHING. 

And further more, I don't worry about being robbed at all.  If all they want is a TV or some other gizmo in my house, no worries.  I can get another.  I'm worried about people who come after ME.

[Snarky]

Recently, two young girls were shot to death along a lonely country road in Oklahoma.  In 2005, a co-worker of my dad's got drunk and went to his ex-wife's house and shot her in the throat with a shotgun.  A couple weeks ago, there was a gunfight in a neighboring town that's even smaller than mine where a man was shot dead in his apartment.   These are all things that are happening around me in what is supposed to be a small community rural area.  This is why I figure that if everybody else out there is going nuts with their gun, I should have one just to at least FEEL safer around these crazies.

A lot of people from other parts of the world say "in my country we don't have guns and it's better and safer that way," but in America, if you suddenly impose strict gun control laws (stricter than they already are,) people won't know how to cope with that or adjust.  Yes, guns are really that important to Americans, and they are the first thing that come to mind when you say self-defense.  I agree, a gun's only purpose is to kill, but I wouldn't use mine in that manner unless I had to.

I've also considered becoming registered to carry a concealed handgun.  Why?  Because of protection.  Do I need it?  Who knows.  But there are a lot of crazy mofos running loose in America, and as I've stated before, I've become less and less at ease.

I don't understand the American love affair with guns and ammo, but it has always been here and it'd be a major shock if all of a sudden they disappeared.  Would it be for the better?  Who knows.  It's one thing I can't imagine. 

But Raggit, how can you be sure that you're not one of those crazy mofos? Or to put it another way, don't you think that a lot of the guns that end up killing people (excluding inter-gang violence) were originally bought to make their owners feel safe against the crazies? This assumption that you have the criminals' guns and the citizens' guns, while having some basis in fact (there is certainly a group of people--gang members, drug addicts, grifters and psychos--who commit a majority of serious crimes, while most of the population is generally law-abiding), assumes incorrectly that only pre-identified bad guys ever shoot anyone for any reason other than self-defense.

I am also not convinced that US crime is all that different from European crime. Yes, there is more of it, and more fatalities (almost certainly directly attributable to the easier availability of firearms). But the impression of anarchy in the streets is driven more by sensationalistic, anecdotal media portrayal across a huge country with a vast population. In fact, society as a whole has become statistically safer (especially if you don't live in the ghetto) when looking at pretty much any time-scale of more than ten years (the Bush administration hasn't been a great period for public safety). It's not like there aren't criminal gangs in Europe too.

Gun control could only work if it was able to stem the flood of guns. Which local laws like that in Washington DC could never hope to achieve. And the second amendment, under the current politically-driven interpretation (not that the opposing view isn't equally politically motivated) ensures that there won't be a federal gun control law with bite. Repealing the second amendment is obviously unrealistic for the foreseeable future, and probably forever. So for now, it doesn't look like there's any way out.

[Raggit]

Snarky,

I think a lot depends on WHO is buying the gun, which is a great reason to have background checks and waiting periods.

I'm not saying guns should be available in every corner shop and Wal-Mart, as they are right now.

I don't have a solution for the violence and gun issues, but I do know that I will exercise my right to own one, so that if I ever need it, I have it.

If you don't feel right about owning a gun, don't own one.  There are self-defense classes and other techniques for defending yourself.

[Andail]

I think a lot depends on WHO is buying the gun, which is a great reason to have background checks and waiting periods.

You're repeating exactly the thing Snarky pointed out the problem with. And me before him.
1. People aren't born criminals. Before they committed their first gun related crime, they also had clean records.
2. A lawfully purchased gun is another gun in your society. One that can be stolen, one that can be used against you, or one that you can use against other, in an unforseen state of desperation or depression. How do we know you will never use that gun? We only have your word for it. There is no icon labeled "good guy" hovering above your head.

[Raggit]

I think a lot depends on WHO is buying the gun, which is a great reason to have background checks and waiting periods.

You're repeating exactly the thing Snarky pointed out the problem with. And me before him.
1. People aren't born criminals. Before they committed their first gun related crime, they also had clean records.
2. A lawfully purchased gun is another gun in your society. One that can be stolen, one that can be used against you, or one that you can use against other, in an unforseen state of desperation or depression. How do we know you will never use that gun? We only have your word for it. There is no icon labeled "good guy" hovering above your head.

Hmm, I didn't think I had suggested that people are either born good or bad.  My apologies if I insinuated such a stupid thing.

I do see your point, but like I said before, I don't really have a solution for the problem.

[Moox]

I think a lot depends on WHO is buying the gun, which is a great reason to have background checks and waiting periods.

You're repeating exactly the thing Snarky pointed out the problem with. And me before him.
1. People aren't born criminals. Before they committed their first gun related crime, they also had clean records.
2. A lawfully purchased gun is another gun in your society. One that can be stolen, one that can be used against you, or one that you can use against other, in an unforseen state of desperation or depression. How do we know you will never use that gun? We only have your word for it. There is no icon labeled "good guy" hovering above your head.

Point one is completely bogus. There are many, many, criminals with an extensive record prior to performing a crime involving a firearm.

[Nacho]

I basically agree with all the arguments told by the "no for guns" group. Whereas freedom to have guns doesn' t necesarilly mean "crime" (Switzerland) in the US, in the way the situation is now, it is. An intensive program of education should be made, IMHO.

I also agree that there are not "natural born criminals" (except some exceptional cases of psychos), but I am not happy about the way some people describe the "path to crime".

A sane person distinguises between good and evil (In fact, not being able to distinguish between one and the another is one of the ways to be declared insane).

All that "We, the society, the capitalist rotten west world pushes the poor opressed minorities to crime" is, IMHO, totally uncorrect. People have allways the opportunity to chose. Of course, if you are poor you' ll have less options, you can even have less "licit" options than "criminal" ones, but still, it is YOU who decide the path you take.

[Damien]

Remember, guns don't kill people, video games do.

[Nacho]

Oh, shit... we won???

[Moox]

Germany was playing garbage. Schweinsteiger missed almost everyone of his free kicks.

[Nacho]

I think I will have to wait till everybody passes the doping control and all that... Those bastards never win... I am genetically preppaired for not seeing them win... 

[Ozzie]

Well, as a German I have to admit, Spain was much better.
Hm, I'm not such a football fan anyway, so I don't care too much.

[DGMacphee]

Just a bit of context because I don't think it's been mentioned yet...

A lot of people have cited that the law is constitutional, making it part of the foundation of American culture. From what I understand though, the right to bear arms came about partially to justify gun ownership for military service. i.e. as an American soldier, you have the right to bear arms. Likewise, the amendment was further justified in case small towns needed to raise a quick reservist army. The amendment was also borrowed from very old English law where people were required to keep and maintain arms in case they were called for military service.

The amendment was never meant for civilians/personal use but civilians basically interpreted as, "I am an American citizen and have the right to bear arms for personal use."

And even though the law was borrowed from English law, the UK has tightened civilian gun ownership through four seperate acts during the 20th Century.

It's an antiquated law and doesn't suit the 21st Century. Basically the amendment needs amending.

[evenwolf]

A lot of people have cited that the law is constitutional, making it part of the foundation of American culture. From what I understand though, the right to bear arms came about partially to justify gun ownership for military service..

This is the fundamental confusion over the right to bear arms.  The constitution is ambiguous about the word "militia".   But most Americans take to interpret the militia NOT as a particular organization which may at some point overthrow a rogue government.  But the militia instead is usually interpreted as each individual with a potential to start his/her own militia... since an organization called "The Militia" could just as easily be corrupted as the government they needed to overthrow.   

Its all very ambiguous and not going anywhere any time soon.   The amendment was actually ratified WITHOUT changing any words and altered the entire meaning:

"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."

"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."

[DGMacphee]

The constitution is ambiguous about the word "militia".

Exactly, which is why I think the amendment needs amending. You're right though, it's not going to happen any time soon.

But the militia instead is usually interpreted as each individual with a potential to start his/her own militia

Which is interesting because the only reason for a US civilians to start his or her own militia is to overthrow the US government, and my guess is the number one issue a US civilian militia would do this is if the government enforced restrictions on gun rights.

[evenwolf]

the number one issue a US civilian militia would do this is if the government enforced restrictions on gun rights.

Exactly.   

I think the amendment needs amending. You're right though, it's not going to happen any time soon.

Most U.S laws started fairly ambiguous, and they've been whittled down by the judicial system.    Picking apart the language and making calls based on the language itself and precedents set in the past.

In general - you write a rule and have NO IDEA what exceptions will arise.   So you have to keep whittling it down.    But as for this issue, the government usually keeps its hands off since the language has been scrutinized by eagles' eyes all these years.   Simply touching one word would be seen as treason by these "militias."

Gun rights factor into the fabric of America and there ain't no way to just pluck them out without a full scale revolution.

[evenwolf]

I'm such a goddamn topic killer.

How could those posts get NO replies?   

[Nacho]

I'm such a goddamn topic killer.

How could those posts get NO replies?   

REPLY!!!

To be honest, Evenwolf... I am not sure if this discussion needs to go any further, too many people agrees in one side. It' s just not funny! ^_^

[evenwolf]

Consensus was formed eh?   Call me when you guys write up the papers for the U.N. meeting.


Until then I'll be watching all these western films about Americans made by europeans. Great movies.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

It's an antiquated law and doesn't suit the 21st Century.

100% disagree.  There's nothing antiquated with a right to self-defensive measures that include gun ownership.  I also don't agree that the language needs re-working.  Most people in the US generally agree with what evenwolf has said, that the term 'militia' was used as a broad, non-federal military term to represent the people of the Republic, who should have the right to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic.  Yes, this includes an out of control government no longer run by and for the people .
 

[DGMacphee]

Most U.S laws started fairly ambiguous, and they've been whittled down by the judicial system.    Picking apart the language and making calls based on the language itself and precedents set in the past.

In general - you write a rule and have NO IDEA what exceptions will arise.   So you have to keep whittling it down.    But as for this issue, the government usually keeps its hands off since the language has been scrutinized by eagles' eyes all these years.   Simply touching one word would be seen as treason by these "militias."

I don't think the laws are that ambiguous, because they were created with a certain intent and context. I think it's more so how people can abuse laws to meet their wants. In other words, loopholes.

Likewise, you say the government takes a hands-off approach, but when a law goes against the wants of the government, they'll also use and abuse loopholes. Consider how different the government's approach is to habeas corpus. One of the main loophole they used to suspend the habeas corpus laws was to say that there was no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution, but just a prohibition against taking it away (These were essentially then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' exact words). My response is "You shittin' me??" How can you prohibit something being taken away without it being granted first (Arlen Specter's words). The Attorney General pretty much defined the language in the constitution to suspend proper legal rights, which is an abuse as far as I can see.

Read this for an interesting look at Gonzales' words: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

Consider the US fought the British to uphold principals such as this because they believed that even prisoners in federal custody deserved rights. That was the intent. There is no real ambiguity in what it provides. But the current administration abuses the intent by finding dumb loopholes to suit their wants.

[evenwolf]

But these loopholes only work when public opinion follows suit.   Many Americans gave up their rights during all the Homeland Security shenanigans because they were convinced doing so was detrimental to their family's safety.   The government slipped one by us.

Yes most laws are ambiguous: The intent of the right to free speech is evident but is consistently being debated in this country over the definitions of "slander" and "libel".      The words slander and libel are probably some of the best words to use in the law because you could never replace the words with a passage such as "No person shall make a false claim with the intent of harming someone else".   We'd end up with court cases where wives are suing husbands over insults they made about their wardrobe.    I mean there is NO possible way to replace the word slander with its meaning, and cover all your bases.   The definition of slander will always need to be battled in the courtroom so that the law remains flexible enough to cover other instances.    (  Language itself is ambiguous, this is something my linguistics professor taught me  .)

Free speech and gun rights ambiguity are virtually identical but I see no need to redraft the law in an effort for clarity.   There will just be another word whose meaning will be equally scrutinized.  We live in a society run by words but many of those words have multiple meanings and loopholes within themselves.  If it helps a person's case he conjugates the word to the point of insanity, or holds power point presentations over the Latin root word in an effort to dodge the law.

Hell, this county had a president who argued what the definition of the word "is" is.   

[Disco]

Well redrafting these laws based on current attitudes would only be reinstated as is by way of circular reasoning i.e. "I believe we should have the right to keep arms in the constitution because it's guaranteed by the constitution" etc.

[Darth Mandarb]

I have always interpreted the 2nd Amendment like this:

"The citizenry of the nation have the right to bear arms so that, should the government ever become [again] the tyrannical type (like King George), they could rise up in opposition and have the weapons (arms) needed for such an uprising (to level the playing field)."

Now ... is this practical in today's world?  Not really.  We may have the most heavily armed civilian populace in the world (do we?) but the firepower our military possesses FAR out-strips anything a militia, that might rise against it, could muster. (that's assuming the military leaders wouldn't turn on the government, but we'll leave that possibility out for now).

I think the people of the U.S. take advantage of (dare I say abuse) the 2nd amendment just as they abuse the 1st amendment.

Just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you should.

Just because you CAN own a firearm, doesn't mean you should.

But we have pop-culture (rap music spot-lighting "thug life"), Hollywood (movies glorifying violence), and fear (all the criminals are so well armed!) pumping the "need" to own a gun into the average American's head and, I'm sad to admit, most Americans aren't the free-thinking type.  Most are highly trained sheep that go with the flow and follow "orders".

Do I think my country would be an inherently safer place with less civilians with guns?  I concede that it's likely to be so, yes.

But fear is a powerful motivator and as long as the "bad" guys have the guns, the "good" guys are gonna want them too.  I am not sure how to solve the problem.

[evenwolf]

I don't mind other nations shaking their finger at us for our gun culture...  it's wholly understandable.   But most will never understand how ingrained gun rights are in the fabric of America.

It doesn't help that the most popular thesis on gun control, "Bowling For Columbine", is riddled with blatant propaganda.  I'm referring mostly to the Charlton Heston speech that was edited together from 2 separate speeches.   If you have a copy watch it, and keep an eye on the color of Heston's shirt.   Details are available in a documentary called "Manufacturing Dissent".

I was with these filmmakers a day or two after this interview.  They's good people and what they say during this interview is ABSOLUTELY true.  I love this interview... the fact that it actually happened on Fox News when fox was expecting these guys just to bash Moore.   It was a tiny glimmer of hope on an otherwise doomed network.

[DGMacphee]

But these loopholes only work when public opinion follows suit.   Many Americans gave up their rights during all the Homeland Security shenanigans because they were convinced doing so was detrimental to their family's safety.   The government slipped one by us.

I disagree. The suspension of habeas corpus didn't have much to do with public opinion. It had to do with the House and Senate approving the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (and during a time when public opinion of the administration was as low as it is now) and now the executive and judicial branches are now fighting it out as to whether the Act is constitutional or not. It's not a case of the government slipping one by us and the public going along with it, it's a case of government intervention into something constitutionally granted and regardless of whether you're an American citizen or not.

I brought it up as a contrast point to government non-intervention of gun rights.

Yes most laws are ambiguous: The intent of the right to free speech is evident but is consistently being debated in this country over the definitions of "slander" and "libel".

I'm still not convinced because context and intent aren't ambiguous. I think it's pretty easy to see why certain laws were established, why certain judges make their decisions. And to say judges make their decisions on language alone is like saying everyone buys cars based purely on colour and nothing else.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I disagree. The suspension of habeas corpus didn't have much to do with public opinion. It had to do with the House and Senate approving the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (and during a time when public opinion of the administration was as low as it is now) and now the executive and judicial branches are now fighting it out as to whether the Act is constitutional or not. It's not a case of the government slipping one by us and the public going along with it, it's a case of government intervention into something constitutionally granted and regardless of whether you're an American citizen or not.

What you're saying here is largely true, DG, but evenwolf is also right in that many of Americans were so damn piss-scared by 9/11 that they'd almost consent to a dictatorship (which is virtually what we have now) to keep them 'safe' from anthrax scares and people flying large objects into buildings.  The special-interest owned media helped fuel these fears and spin them way out of proportion -- far beyond what CIA specialists were saying -- to the point that rational thought was in the minority.  This still doesn't excuse Bush from sanctioning secret prisons violating the Geneva Convention, allowing secret (some say not even judicially approved) wiretap and investigations of 'suspected' terrorists, his flagrant misuse of the Executive Order (up to and including his open dissent at the bottom of recent legislature like 'I respect the ruling of Congress but will not abide by it' which has now set a precedent for future Presidents to effectively ignore legislation), pardoning himself and his cabinet for any and all potential breaches of the Geneva Convention (why pardon yourself if you're not guilty?).  He's essentially made himself a dictator, ignoring public opinion (he regularly says that he doesn't care about public opinion) and the will of the American people.  I'd like to say this all began with the Homeland Security and Patriot Acts but the truth of the matter is it's been in progress at least since Bush Sr.'s time in office.  Clinton certainly did nothing to stop it since he and his wife are both card carrying CFR members, so at what point do you say 'no' to corruption and take back a country you once had faith in?

I think that time is coming, and if you look at several polls taken during this election you'll see that a great many Americans are thoroughly sick of out-of-control government and empire building and want it to stop. 

[DGMacphee]

I disagree. The suspension of habeas corpus didn't have much to do with public opinion. It had to do with the House and Senate approving the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (and during a time when public opinion of the administration was as low as it is now) and now the executive and judicial branches are now fighting it out as to whether the Act is constitutional or not. It's not a case of the government slipping one by us and the public going along with it, it's a case of government intervention into something constitutionally granted and regardless of whether you're an American citizen or not.

What you're saying here is largely true, DG, but evenwolf is also right in that many of Americans were so damn piss-scared by 9/11 that they'd almost consent to a dictatorship (which is virtually what we have now) to keep them 'safe' from anthrax scares and people flying large objects into buildings.  The special-interest owned media helped fuel these fears and spin them way out of proportion -- far beyond what CIA specialists were saying -- to the point that rational thought was in the minority. 

Yes, but what you're saying implies that public opinion is what drove the suspension of habeas corpus, which isn't the case. The suspension happened in late 2006 (5 years after Sept 11, 2001) when support for the Republicans was at a low point (and a month before the 2006 congressional elections where the Democrats achieved a majority in the House of Reps and the Senate). Likewise, opinion polling for the Bush administration was pretty low at this time. If public opinion drove the suspension of habeas corpus, then logically wouldn't people see it at a right move by the Bush administration and raise the support for the Republican party? I checked Bush's polling numbers and he didn't receive and significant bump after signing the 2006 Military Commissions Act (which included the habeas corpus suspension). I mean, if that particular piece of legislation is proof of Bush and Co's commitment to the War on Terror, and if people were as scared in 2006 as you suggest, wouldn't the public support for Bush improve? Likewise, the Republicans lost seats in the 2006 election, and if you think a frightened public supported the Military Commissions Act, they'd support the Republicans.

I don't think you can say the government suspended habeas corpus because the public wanted it. In fact, I don't think the average American at the time knew what habeas corpus was, which is all the more frightening. I mean, which is scarier: the government suspending a right because people are afraid, or the government suspending a right that people won't notice is gone because they don't know what it is?

Just to elaborate a little further, what I'm talking about goes beyond fear of terrorism. What the suspension of habeas corpus means is if the Bush administration says "You are an enemy of the state", you can get locked away without the right to challenge why you're in Guantanamo Bay. It's like a king having a dungeon to lock dissenters. American democracy was created as a means of escaping oppressive monarchy. Habeas corpus a right that seems so much more fundamental to democracy than the right to bear arms. Here's a good video to demonstrate why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQcnJ5i0pxA

But just to go back to my original point, the main reason why gun owners are against a ban on guns is because they're a part of the foundation of the US, i.e. 2nd amendment right to bear arms. But if they're that concerned about protecting the foundation of the country, you'd think they'd do more to protect something like habeas corpus too. (And if they created a militia to storm the White House and uphold habeas corpus, the government can say, "You guys are enemies of the state!" and lock them up.)

That's part of the reason why I don't buy the arguments that people wanted a suspension of habeas corpus specifically. I think they just didn't know what is was, why it was important, or care less about it in any case. If they knew that it was as important as how much they felt about guns, I think the backlash would be bigger, similar to the NSA wiretap backlash. (And regardless, I think the government would have suspended habeas corpus anyway).

Just to blow your minds further consider this: if people from the US do consent to a dictatorship and the US government wants to protect them then, logically, if the US government suspends habaes corpus, shouldn't they also ban guns for fear terrorists will sneak into the country and form a secret army? And shouldn't the American public accept this too?

[evenwolf]

Yes, but what you're saying implies that public opinion is what drove the suspension of habeas corpus, which isn't the case. ..........

In fact, I don't think the average American at the time knew what habeas corpus was, which is all the more frightening. I mean, which is scarier: the government suspending a right because people are afraid, or the government suspending a right that people won't notice is gone because they don't know what it is?................

But if they're that concerned about protecting the foundation of the country, you'd think they'd do more to protect something like habeas corpus too. (And if they created a militia to storm the White House and uphold habeas corpus, the government can say, "You guys are enemies of the state!" and lock them up.)...................

That's part of the reason why I don't buy the arguments that people wanted a suspension of habeas corpus specifically. I think they just didn't know what is was, why it was important, or care less about it in any case. If they knew that it was as important as how much they felt about guns, I think the backlash would be bigger, similar to the NSA wiretap backlash. (And regardless, I think the government would have suspended habeas corpus anyway).............

You're right on the  money, DG.    I don't see where we are arguing at all.   Earlier you quoted me to say "the goverment takes a hands-off approach"  but in reality I said this merely about gun rights.     Maybe you think that I'm saying public opinion DRIVES the issues, but mainly I'm just saying public opinion has to be tampered with if the public actively opposes the issue.

There are LOADS of laws the government can (and has) passed that are unconstitutional but the public is ignorant to the fact.    IMO, this still counts as "public opinion"...  just in the form of apathy.

Apathy kind of does drive the issue when the result is restricting our freedoms.   Isn't that what so many books are about?  I actually find that the government STRIVES for apathy among its citizens, going so far as to turn us off from politics altogether.   The less we pay attention, the more power they can grant themselves.

However, there is no apathy toward gun rights, so public opinion would actively have to be changed.  I stand by my opinion that gun rights are an exception, caused by so many citizens serving as watchdogs to that one issue alone.


Is it ironic that they are losing their other constitutional liberties one by one?  Yes sir.

[Ryan Timothy B]

I'm entering this argument quite late.  I feel anyone who is trying to back up the second amendment with half-assed excuses; by saying a gun is good for 'protection' or to 'make at ease' etc  has pretty flawed logic.


Here's a different view of your flawed logic (this is in the same context):
I think everyone on airplanes should have the right to bare box cutters.  You never know when a terrorist is going to be on that plane.

This way the people can out number the terrorists.


I hope that helped you realize how incredibly odd some of your arguments sound.



Also on a personal note.  I've never wanted to own a hand gun for any reason other than 'this gun would look awesome on my wall'.  I never felt I needed one.  I've never felt any threat to the point where I feel I need one.
Canada does have a few deaths by guns a year, but not often.

I've been to the USA many times before, and any store I went into, which was Walmart and many many pawn shops, all had guns on display.  They were either behind glass counters or hanging on a wall.
I've never felt such an unexplainable urge to want to purchase a firearm just because it looked so damn cool and tempting.  It's probably just the power that movies and shows give to guns.  And the fact that it's right there, in my face, saying "BUY ME!".

Anyway, I believe USA should start slowly at eliminating guns from the population.  The first attempt should be to have it illegal to display guns in any store.  All weapons should be securely in storage away from any customers, young and old. If you want to purchase a firearm you must browse through a catalog displaying what the store has in stock.  All weapons should be in a concealed brown box with no advertising displayed.  Any person opening the box prior to purchase should be fined.

This way, there won't be any impulse purchases or any brainwashing that guns are Ok and Safe; "shit, they are being displayed in Walmart, they MUST be safe."  Buying guns are like buying patio furniture in the USA.

This way there won't be any revolts or angered people.  Guns would still be part of your crazy amendment, just not as visually accessible.

[evenwolf]

Here's a different view of your flawed logic (this is in the same context):
I think everyone on airplanes should have the right to bare box cutters.  You never know when a terrorist is going to be on that plane.

This way the people can out number the terrorists.


I hope that helped you realize how incredibly odd some of your arguments sound.

*Raises hand

"Uh yes, was that supposed to be mind-blowing sir?"

I don't get it.   A metaphor is a metaphor but it isn't an argument.  You still have to appeal to a person's logic.  Many americans DO prefer to carry knives on planes.   I've gotten so far as the airport security check, and remembered I was carrying a knife.   So I handed it off to my friend to mail to me.     Pocket knives used to be allowed until someone broke the precedent of overtaking a plane with one.    The blades themselves are not the issue but the *will* to overtake the plane.    What will we do when terrorists overtake a plane with a sharpened house key?   Ban keys from planes?

Everyone brings keys onto a plane so how do you regulate "no keys".   Keys are designed to open doors, just as boxcutters are designed to cut boxes.   Again, the wielder must have the *will* to turn the object into a threat.   This is more complicated then you make it out to be. 

I think everyone on airplanes should have the right to bare keys.  You never know when a terrorist is going to be on that plane.

This way the people can out number the terrorists... and open their cars when they get to the parking lot.


This post doesn't apply to gun rights.  Just to the poor example you provided.    Anything can be used as a weapon.   Banning that one object won't remove the will to do harm.   Keys, shoes, gatorade, popsicle sticks, magazines... can all be used as weapons.   I happen to think that seeing a weapon, in a store for instance, does not generate the will in a person to do harm.     If you felt violent upon seeing a gun - that reflects poorly on your own mental state.   The will to do harm does not generate itself within the weapon you are holding.  You bring the killing potential to that weapon.  Keys, shoes, gatorade, popsicle sticks, magazines. 

Hence, maximum security prisoners are restricted from gaining access to certain hard materials.

[Ryan Timothy B]

It wasn't supposed to be mind-blowing at all.  I'm just trying to battle stupid pro's with stupid pro's.

[evenwolf]

OK, but what if your audience doesn't agree that its stupid?   I know some gun owners who would want to carry box cutters onto a plane. 

Anyone who doesn't believe in personal safety has OBVIOUSLY never dealt with American police.  I once called in a burglary and was told to hang up because I wasn't old enough.   The 911 operators themselves are unreliable.   I was just waiting around in a big house that had been broken into.   No police on the way.... and when I found an adult to make the call it took the police forever to arrive.  ( we told our friend who was also a 911 operator and she couldn't believe it.  What they said to me was against policy.)

The same argument that goes for "glorifying guns in movies"   also goes for "glorifying the police in movies"


You put YOUR life in their hands.  I'll be all right by myself.  Some of you are nuts to have any faith in them. When you need help - you need it now.   Know what I mean?

[Ryan Timothy B]

OK, but what if your audience doesn't agree that its stupid?

I know some gun owners who would want to carry box cutters onto a plane. 

They must be American.  lol I'm only joking. 

Like I said, people have flawed logic (including me).


There are hundreds of ways to kill people.  A gun just happens to be the most efficient way of doing so.  Just point and click, you don't even have to get close to anyone.  Why it's legal to own the item which is the most efficient way to kill someone, just boggles my mind.


Actually glorifying the police in movies can have a very positive outcome.  If the police look like super heroes, are you really going to push your luck into doing any illegal activities?  (But it's also bad for the population who believe they can rely on the police -- like in your situation)
Also look at CSI, if they get viewers to believe they can catch you by the whiff of your fart (joke), you'll think twice about doing that illegal act. (But it's also bad for helping the criminals prepare for their heist or what-not... "Remember gloves...")

[evenwolf]

Movies glorifying the police aren't bad.    I'm certain someone has been deterred from committing a crime based on what they saw in movies. 

But that sure doesn't help you if a crime IS committed.   The sad reality of the police shows up at your door, and the one movie cliche that holds true is the fact they're eating a donut.   

[DGMacphee]

Even, didn't mean to seem like we were arguing about it, nor to say you made a blanket statement about "hands off/hands on" for all rights. I brought up the issue of comparing governmental approach to two similar rights as a juxtaposition.

You make some good points, Even. But one in particular caught my attention:

However, there is no apathy toward gun rights, so public opinion would actively have to be changed.  I stand by my opinion that gun rights are an exception, caused by so many citizens serving as watchdogs to that one issue alone.

I think this is one of the reasons why I think protection of 2nd amendment rights as something cultural is less to do with defending freedoms and rights (because, as I've demonstrated, no one really gives as much notice about other rights).

So I can only determine that gun ownership is more a symbol of power than a representation of protecting rights.

And this leads to something ProgZmax said earlier that I didn't respond to (my apologies)...

It's an antiquated law and doesn't suit the 21st Century.

100% disagree.  There's nothing antiquated with a right to self-defensive measures that include gun ownership.  I also don't agree that the language needs re-working.  Most people in the US generally agree with what evenwolf has said, that the term 'militia' was used as a broad, non-federal military term to represent the people of the Republic, who should have the right to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic.  Yes, this includes an out of control government no longer run by and for the people .
 

First of all, many countries don't have a Bill of Rights but still have provisions and laws for defense. You don't need a Right to Bear Arms in order to legally defend yourself (and nor do you need guns for self-defense either). So it's a false assumption that you need a right.

Secondly, these same countries without Bill of Rights also have provisions and laws for the Military and Federal Defense. My own country is an example.

Thirdly, the amendment came about as a hybrid of Bills of Right from other countries, most notably England. And the reason why was to assemble a ready reservist army. Plus the US faced a post-war period of lawlessness while they established their government. People needed guns back then because government, laws and democracy were new. But in this day and age you have so many safeguards: the US is the strongest military in the world, has powerful missle defense systems defending the state, have people monitoring international millitary action 25 hours a day. Then domestically, you have the laws, regulations, police, FBI, NSA, etc, etc  With all this fire power, do you think Americans actually really need a right to bear arms in order to feel they're safe and liberated?

Like I said, it's not a necessity anymore. A hundreds of years ago in the US, it was. Owning a gun isn't about liberty and rights anymore. It's about power and hegemony.

[evenwolf]

I didn't feel safe in the situation I described two posts up.     Many Americans have had similar situations where the police were an hour away.    Or their arrival was uncertain.

For most gun owners, having that cold steel in their own hands is all the safety they need.   And I don't blame them.   From the one experience I was shaking in fear...  looking through the hole the robbers had created when they kicked the door in.   You don't just feel safe knowing there is a police precinct in your city.   The officer actually has to be standing right next to you.

[DGMacphee]

Were the robbers armed with guns?

[evenwolf]

I'll never know.   They had left but my heart was pounding thinking they were upstairs.

[DGMacphee]

But if they weren't armed, a gun wasn't a necessity to feel safe when you could use, say, martial arts.

Why not change the Bill of Rights to say, "All Americans have the right to jujitsu or kung fu." (A joke of course, but you see my point, right?)

And if they were armed with guns, they may not have had the right to burgle, but they sure did have the right to bear arms while they burgled.

[evenwolf]

Nonsense.

The point is that 911 ignored me & the police took several hours to arrive.   

[DGMacphee]

So, you're saying law enforcement is inefficient and as a result people should enforce the law themselves? I can see why that should happen in some cases, but other countries are able to do this without a Constitutional right to bear arms.

Like I said, a constitutional amendment for gun rights isn't a necessity anymore, because owning a gun nowdays is more a choice than a necessity.

Also: if you were too young to call 911, what makes you think a minor can legally posses firearms to protect himself?

[evenwolf]

I've made no statement  that I should have been allowed to carry a gun as a 14 year old.   And I was legally old enough to dial 911.    The operator made some bogus shit up about finding an adult.   Because she was too lazy to deal with a potential prank.   ( the actual policy asserts that even prank calls must be checked out by an officer )

Imagine I was a 45 year old man going through the same bureaucratic bullshit while sitting in a darkened basement with my family.    Yes, I'll just pray my jujitsu keeps the multiple ransackers dazzled and amazed while the police are on their way.

Part of the argument for gun control is how organized is modern society guns have become unnecessary, what with the military, the FBI, and the police.  But my whole point, USING MY SITUATION AS AN EXAMPLE, is that those marvels of modern government are NEVER THERE WHEN YOU NEED THEM.

If you go on about this or that how *was I too young to pick up a hammer?* etc, I will go absolutely nuts.   Its absurd.   The point is that the security of the police is only credible WHEN THEY ARE PRESENT.    And they never are.  Lets take one argument at a time.   Forget jujistsu.   I'm talking about the unreliability of law enforcement in times of peril.

I was blocks and blocks away from home.   In a multistory house that I was house-sitting.   I had never been upstairs to know which way to look through doorways-  didn't know the layout.   No adults I knew were anywhere in the area.   As a kid I didn't carry around lead pipes with me.   I was all alone and felt helpless.    My best chance was to run away but I took the leap of faith in calling the police from the downstairs line.

And I was told not to call again.  Unless I found an adult.

All I'm saying is never count on the police unless you just want that scene in Big Lebowski where they ask you about your Creedance tapes.   That's honestly how it is.   I was terrified and there was nothing comforting about the system.   The system that everyone goes on about as if it's fail proof.   Its not.... its completely fail-ful.    Cops just show up and ask what happened.   They don't leap through windows and pull you from harm's way.  Unless you're extremely lucky.

U.S. gun control is a plausible argument... but don't tell me the reason is because I can count on the police.  It's not true.

[DGMacphee]

I'm not saying that you can solely rely on police. I said that they're one of the safeguards as a reason why guns aren't a necessity. And there are more safeguards that aren't the civilian right to bear arms.

Lets take one argument at a time.   Forget jujistsu.   I'm talking about the unreliability of law enforcement in times of peril.

You still haven't given me a concrete answer on this: if you can't rely on law enforcement in times of peril, do you think that validates the necessity of guns to deter criminals?

I don't think it's justified because Brazil has a very open gun market and large public support for guns and that doesn't seem to deter criminals at all because Brazil has four times the amount of gun-related murders the US has and the Brazilian crime rate is one of the highest in the world.

In Australia, we've enforced various gun restrictions over the last decade and the number of firearm homicides and overall crime rates have declined over the last decade.

I'm not saying that crime rates are dependent on banning guns, but I am saying criminals seem to be deterred from crime in very pro-gun countries.

[evenwolf]

You still haven't given me a concrete answer on this: if you can't rely on law enforcement in times of peril, do you think that validates the necessity of guns to deter criminals?

So now we get into the argument of "do legal guns supply the offenders as well as the defenders"?  Absolutely.    I don't argue that this country should be swimming in guns.    But the argument is simple on an individual basis.   This is what almost everybody I talk to says:   "I don't like that the criminals have guns, but here is what I DO know.   When they show up, I want MY gun."

So yes, the inadequacies of law enforcement validates the necessity of individual gun ownership.

In Australia, we've enforced various gun restrictions over the last decade and the number of firearm homicides and overall crime rates have declined over the last decade.

I'm sure gun control has been fantastic in other countries.  The USA is a country that has been oversaturated with guns since before the old west.   Many families have their grandfather's pistol from the war etc.     Antiques and also there are hobbyists who collect hundreds of guns like the dumbfucks they are (these people should be shot and its a wonder they haven't been already).   The guns get stolen, bought legally, bought illegally and end up in the wrong hands.    How long do you think it would take for the current supply of guns in the U.S. to fade away.

Most people would just hide them away anyways.  To be stolen, sold illegally etc.     So that guy hiding in his basement won't feel any safer.  Not for years and years after the policy has been in place.   He's going to want his own gun.

Not to mention,  what we've established about "militias" potentially overthrowing the government should gun rights be infringed. Its just not going to happen any time soon.

I'm not saying that crime rates are dependent on banning guns, but I am saying criminals seem to be deterred from crime in very pro-gun countries.

Am I reading this wrong or did you forget a "not"?   Anyways, I'd be interested to research how many Brazilian murders occur in domestic settings, or to civilians.  Because I imagine there's alot of criminals killing criminals in Brazil, what with all the south american dealings.

[DGMacphee]

So now we get into the argument of "do legal guns supply the offenders as well as the defenders"?  Absolutely.    I don't argue that this country should be swimming in guns.    But the argument is simple on an individual basis.   This is what almost everybody I talk to says:   "I don't like that the criminals have guns, but here is what I DO know.   When they show up, I want MY gun."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that criminals don't seem to care if you have your gun. They'll just keep on committing crimes, according to the evidence.

I'm sure gun control has been fantastic in other countries.  The USA is a country that has been oversaturated with guns since the old west.   Many families have their grandfather's gun from the war etc.     Antiques and what not.   The guns get stolen, bought legally, bought illegally and end up in the wrong hands.    How long do you think it would take for the current supply of guns in the U.S. to fade away.

Most people would just hide them away anyways.  To be stolen, sold illegally etc.     So that guy hiding in his basement won't feel any safer.  Not for years and years after the policy has been in place.   He's going to want his own gun.

But if guns are banned then the cost illegally traded weapons increases which also deters criminals, so that helps too.

Am I reading this wrong or did you forget a "not"?

Yes, I forgot a "not".

[evenwolf]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that criminals don't seem to care if you have your gun. They'll just keep on committing crimes, according to the evidence.

OK I'm not so sure I agree with you but maybe I'm not looking at the same evidence you are.   If I was a criminal selecting a target at random I would NOT rob the redneck with a hand in his jacket.    I'd probably go for the college professor with dreads.   All I know is that the citizens of the district of columbia were sitting ducks before the Supreme Court overturned this law.    Let's look at this as an opportunity to observe the crimerate in D.C. and see if it actually does increase or decrease in the upcoming years.    Should be pretty solid evidence for or against gun control.

But if guns are banned then the cost illegally traded weapons increases which also deters criminals, so that helps too.

Yeah that makes sense.  But the hobbyists want their guns and shame on them.   I hate that gun rights has been exploited to the point of individuals collecting a hundred guns.   Its fucking nuts to think how many murders they'd be responsible for should their collection get raided.   I hate those people how irresponsible they are.   

I concede that constitutional rights are not the driving issue, but merely an excuse, for people too selfish to admit to themselves they just like to play with guns.   I'm a liberal who has come to talk to many of these people, understand their position, and come halfway towards realizing the complexity of the issue.  This issue is never fully realized by the extreme left or extreme right, and I'm not sure it ever will be.

[DGMacphee]

I concede that constitutional rights are not the driving issue, but merely an excuse, for people too selfish to admit to themselves they just like to play with guns.

Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying get across.

I do take your point that criminals selectively target, but I was more comparing overall crime rate averages from countries with variable gun control as my evidence.

[evenwolf]

There was a piece on TV today that I felt was a perfect example of what I'm talking about.    Yes, we have loads of law enforcement in this country.   Their job is to uphold the law, but all too often law enforcement is simply removing the citizen's rights with no jurisdiction:

Lousiana Gun Seizures after Katrina    7:49

Lock and Load!  Let's Help These Victims!  2:06

Some of you will say "The police did the right thing.   The safety of the community is more important than individual rights."    First, Martial Law was never declared.  Second, think about how the constitution is written at this very moment.  This situation DID infringe upon these people's rights.   It doesn't matter if the move was logical or "the right thing to do".   It was plain illegal. Unconstitutional.    Consider that these officers offered no receipts and in some cases destroyed these guns on the spot.     This is after these people were neglected by FEMA and their government overall.    Looters were running rampant in these communities as if it was the apocalypse  -- and its the government's fault.    There was no police or military presence for days and days and days.  The looters were getting away with murder.     So many people had only the guns in their hands protecting themselves and their property.    Then when the government finally arrives they kick the shit out of the innocent civilians and steal their guns away.

I watch this video and all I can think is that I'm just a couple feet away from living in a police state.  This shit is crazy.    People can't trust the police for their personal safety.   It's really just not a factor.