Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[kandrathe]

...If I have to "prove" that I will not use my "deadly weapon" (a car) to kill someone, by blacking out, so should those that have shown they might drive under the influence or snap psychologically and buy or steal a gun.

Mostly, because we don't have the inalienable right to drive a car. So, due to the history of deadly recklessness of a few, the State has highly regulated the manufacture and operation of vehicles on public roads.

But, there is a tension between those who would rather hold to account those who cause the problems, versus those that want written never ending tomes of law to prevent any problems from ever happening. The issue with the first is that you end up like it is in Mexico, where people would rather flee from the scene than be held accountable for what they've done. The issue with the 2nd approach is that we all end up locked in our homes for fear that we might harm ourselves or others.

[Taem]

I need to jump in and comment on this because, to me, it betrays a strong undercurrent to the entire discussion that is often ignored or overlooked.

The Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights states:
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.

Appointed by James Madison, the 2nd amendment was written by George Tucker, who further commented on his text;

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."

A supreme court justice, Joseph Story, appointed by then President Madison wrote; "The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

I think that clarifies both what they meant at that time by militia, and the intent of why they felt that arms should be kept by citizens. A more recent review and decision is DC vs Heller. From the wikipedia summary; "The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved"

What then is the purpose of ...And when do we draw the line and say "Your right to 'Because I feel like it' no longer trumps the security of our State"?

Who decides whether you get a weapon sufficient to defending against what your foe may be wielding? The number of rounds needed is related more to the accuracy of the shooter, and the number of foes they may be facing. If I lived near the border in Texas or Arizona, my requirements may be different than those around my house. I'm more worried about the rafter of 20-30 wild turkeys camped in my front yard.

Did you guys get a chance to read the link I provided? It's very short and completely related. As a matter of fact, I believe it answers all these questions and more. I'll just quote it:

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!
My work, and the work of Thornwell Simons ^ | 07/12/2001 | Lazamataz
Posted on 4/18/2002 8:59:28 AM by Lazamataz


Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!

This argument comes up from time to time during gun control arguments. An anti-gun person who intends to use it as a strawman argument usually offers it facetiously or sarcastically. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument.

The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Even professors who can only be described as extremely left-wing have come to this conclusion. For example, the prominent law professor Laurence Tribe, has reluctantly concluded that this Amendment explicitly upholds the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.1

The writings of our Founding Fathers reveal that there were two sociological reasons to uphold this natural right: To prevent crime, and to defend against a rogue domestic government. As example of the Founders thoughts on the crime-deterrent effect of civilian firearms possession, I give you Thomas Jefferson:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." 2

And as an example of how the Founders felt about civilian firearms possession as regards keeping our government 'honest and upright', I give you, again, Thomas Jefferson, who warns:

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.3

And from John Adams:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. 4

Therefore, we can reasonably suppose that the Founders intended us to have access to every manner of weapon for defense of home and of liberty. However, therein lies the rub: Does every manner of weapon mean access to nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons?

Our Founders were just men, men of proportion. They drew their ideas for our constitution from the writer and philosopher John Locke. Locke believed that the state of nature implied a law of nature, which is that "no one ought to harm another in his life, heath, liberty or possessions." Ergo, there were "natural rights" to life, liberty and property.5 Locke puts forth that we own our own bodies, and thusly we have the right to own and control ourselves.

THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE

If you have the right to own, then you also have the right to assert ownership -- otherwise known as "protect" -- that which is yours. The right of self-defense flows naturally from this right, and is enshrined by our Founders as the Bill of Rights, and even is quite prevalent in the Declaration of Independence. If you have the right to self-defense, then it naturally follows you have the right to effective tools to exercise that right. In simple terms, it makes no sense to say you have the right to drive on highways, but then ban automobiles. Again, the learned Mr. Jefferson agrees:

"The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless." 6

THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED

Another right flows from John Lockes principles: You also have the right to be undisturbed. In his words, "....liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others....". You have the right of 'quiet enjoyment' of your belongings, including your body, so long as you do not molest or act aggressively or violently to another. Nor, of course, do you have the right to disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings by molesting, acting aggressively, or acting violently to another person.

Take these two rights together: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.

Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:

• Knife
  
• Club
  
• Sword
  
• Dirk
  
• Mace
  
• Pistol
  
• Rifle
  
• Shotgun
  
• Cannon shooting ball shot
  

The following tools are slightly more questionable, since they are somewhat less able to be directed with great accuracy, and thusly are less discriminating. They have a larger chance of violating an innocent persons 'quiet enjoyment' of his property during the suppression of a criminal attack:

• Machine gun
  
• Machine pistol
  
• Small explosive device
  
• Satchel charge
  
• Antitank rocket
  

The following tools are completely indiscriminate, and may harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

• Nuclear device
  
• Large explosive device
  
• Fuel-air explosive
  
• Biological weapon
  
• Land mine
  
• Chemical weapon
  
• Booby trap
  

Hopefully, this will lay to rest once and for all the straw man offered by so many antigunners. Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

I think most of us will agree with this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which I think provides answers to both Chesspiece Face and Kandrathes' view on weapons and militia. Thoughts? Here was one reply in that article I found interesting enough to quote:

How will a land mine or booby trap, emplaced upon my own property, "violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property"? Consider that I live alone and have no pets, and also that the property is prominently posted "No Tresspasing".

Human intervention is required in order for any weapon to be considered 'discriminating', since the discrimination must come from someone with the capability to make that discriminative decision. Therefore -- since these two weapons lack human intervention -- discrimination is impossible and they fall into the final catagory of weaponry.

Anyhow, good day. Time to get back to work !

[kandrathe]

For a single individual, of course your example holds, but when you're talking about guerilla warfare where the citizens of the US fight a huge militia from the shadows, nobody wins! We haven't even come close to squashing the Taliban yet, despite blasting their leaders with drones daily, and Viet Nam? How about most of the wars during the Arab Spring?

The US loses guerilla wars when it gets tired of fighting them. It is unlikely that they're going to get tired of fighting on their own soil. As they said about the game of thrones - win or die.

-Jester

I'm pretty tired of our southern border war, and I don't live there. For now, it appears Sinaloa has won, and Juarez has lost. In the black market of drugs and guns, we get the drugs and they get the guns. "Peña has declared Calderón's aggressive campaign against cartels and drug trafficking to be a failure. He is likely to look for another solution, one that might resemble the "pax mafiosi" - the mafia's peace as it's known in Italy - or the "understanding" PRI had with drug lords when it was in power before, Payan said."

Or, in other words, if you can't beat them, join them.

[kandrathe]

Anyhow, good day. Time to get back to work !

I pretty much agree, but for nuances. I think it is reasonable for a person (police or civilian) to be armed sufficient to defend themselves from the "normal" criminal. So, it's not whimsy, or even about controlled lethality (although I agree on that part too).

Currently, the worst case scenario (I'm thinking more like a rancher shootout with the Juarez cartel here) we citizen would normally face would be on the level of an AK47 or M16 variants, with the standard 30 round magazine. The practical rate of fire for them is 100-150 rpm in burst, however... Army ammo guidelines (10 Kg) would suggest the maximum rounds carried for AK to be about 300, and for M16 about 900 -- but, the real sustained firepower limitation is barrel heating which limits the effective rate of fire to about 12-15 rpm (similar to a bolt action). If you had to defend yourself in this type of scenario, you'd want enough "firepower" to hold out until the authorities arrived to take over which could be 30 minutes or more depending on how far away they might be.

But, I think it should mostly be up to the lawful citizen to make up their own mind on how they choose to defend themselves without also becoming a threat (e.g. rockets, mortars, tanks, nukes). Philosophically, I'm somewhat ambivalent about automatic weapons, or mortars, or tanks. They really are more "Army" weapons, than "Militia" weapons. I think a civilian should be able to get a limited use permit to own one if they can document their need for one. An example, would be a company that is seeking to build military weapons to sell to our, or other nations military.

[eppie]

So but what about criminals who have served their time in prison. Why does the 2nd amandment not go for them, and the mentally ill? Who are we to deny them the right to defend themselves. In other words we do think that certain 'conditions' are so important we just forget about the 2nd amandment.
To take this a step further. The militia groups of crazies who think their government is after them. To me they are a risk group that could become violent, and so should not have access to guns.....however they are probably the strongest opponents of regulation.

The few posts about size of weapons were all wrong anyway. Let's not forget that 'the army' in the days the 2nd amandment was made did not own automatic weapons, kevlar suits, tanks, guided missile etc.
So if the 2nd amandment is your argument you should also allow the public to buy bigger stuff. Everybody know you don't stand a chance with a simple 6-shooter against armored vehicles patrolling your streets.
So or you agree with me that the 2nd amandment is really outdated and makes as much sense as literally following the bible or you don't agree and think it is really necesarry to defend yourself, but then you should also be consequent and allow bigger weapons to be bought.

Anyway nothing will change, the NRA and weapon industry can write extra good profits every time something awful happens because gun sales go through the roof and it is always best just to trust big and powerful cooperations. (who interestingly enough are the ones that sell guns to the army that all those 2 amandment nutters are afraid off).

[kandrathe]

So but what about criminals who have served their time in prison. Why does the 2nd amandment not go for them, and the mentally ill? Who are we to deny them the right to defend themselves. In other words we do think that certain 'conditions' are so important we just forget about the 2nd amandment.

The Law™ -- as a part of punishment takes away "liberty" and rights from felons. Those deemed to be incompetent (too young, or mentally incapable) have their rights restricted and administered by guardians.

To take this a step further. The militia groups of crazies who think their government is after them. To me they are a risk group that could become violent, and so should not have access to guns.....however they are probably the strongest opponents of regulation.

Some of them may be mentally incompetent, but in order to restrict their rights they would need to do something that would initiate a due process.

The few posts about size of weapons were all wrong anyway. Let's not forget that 'the army' in the days the 2nd amendment was made did not own automatic weapons, Kevlar suits, tanks, guided missile etc. So if the 2nd amendment is your argument you should also allow the public to buy bigger stuff.

The American plains natives had bow and arrows, spears, and war hammers made from stone -- against army troops with rifles (a step up from smooth bore muskets). Had the weapons been equal on both sides, it is clear to me that the tactics of the Native American warriors were most often superior. The 2nd amendment asserts the rights of the people to defend themselves from their adversaries, foreign and domestic. The Americans were outmatched by the British Empire well up until World War I. The only advantage we had in the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812 was that we lived here, and the British had little means to occupy and control such a vast territory indefinitely. Also, the northern colonies were an integral part of the British Empires war production where we made guns, and gun powder, as well as liquor, tobacco, and other raw materials used to supply the British Empires wars and conquests.

For the first century of the US existence, most any of the European empires could take some territory at whim, but the mostly civilian militia engaged in what was considered the "ungentlemanly" asymmetric tactics of guerrilla warfare (or what we now call terrorism). We were protected by being far away from Europe, and we didn't have much of a standing army, or navy until after WWI and especially after WWII.

Everybody know you don't stand a chance with a simple 6-shooter against armored vehicles patrolling your streets. So or you agree with me that the 2nd amendment is really outdated and makes as much sense as literally following the bible or you don't agree and think it is really necessary to defend yourself, but then you should also be consequent and allow bigger weapons to be bought.

I would like to not conflate this topic with Christianity. When fighting hypothermia, I would have a better chance with some inadequate clothing, than being buck naked. When the times comes that citizens are defending themselves from criminals, or insurgents wielding heavy armor, then yes, the 2nd amendment would guarantee our right to defend ourselves with RPG's. It is the government and societies duty to not allow our peace to be so eroded.

Anyway nothing will change, the NRA and weapon industry can write extra good profits every time something awful happens because gun sales go through the roof and it is always best just to trust big and powerful cooperations. (who interestingly enough are the ones that sell guns to the army that all those 2 amendment nutters are afraid off).

I don't think they are afraid of "The Army", so much as "An Army" being used against the populace. The wound that much of America seems to have forgotten was the abuse of the colonists by the British empire's armed forces. Objectively, it was propagandized, and the flames of insurrection were fanned by what were then considered by the empire to be treasonous rebels.

But, it is part and parcel to why we have in our US Bill of Rights, and oddities like the prohibition of military forces being quartered in civilian homes. The colonists, most of whom were formerly from Britannia, enjoyed "rights" in the motherland (English Bill of Rights from 1689* ). But, they found in America that they were left to the whims of corrupt governors, and military despots. The rights they enjoyed as British subjects ended out of the sight of England. The colonists tried very hard to have the King extend their rights to the new land, but in the opinion of many of the colonists he was tyrannical and unfair. It led to the Declaration of Independence, which outlines the grievances they suffered. Many of these grievances were explicitly prevented in the language of the US Bill of Rights.

* The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

The *real* origin of the US seemingly odd attitudes on religion and guns, are historically related directly to King James II, then to King William III and Queen Mary II, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In religion, by the actions of the Monarchy to assert one set of religious beliefs on the people. With guns, by the actions of James (II & VII), to disarm Protestants, and arm Catholics. Many of those disenfranchised left Europe for America, where they could be free of what was considered unfair Imperial tyrannies.

So, all in all, we can blame the Dutch!

[eppie]

This is a good story kandrathe, but the point i was making is that these things you say are not clearly specified in the second amandment. Ergo, you give an interpreatation an use a lot of ifs. And all those ifs are based on your views and not on the rights to bear arms.
So if one can argument that it is not a good idea to allow people to own patriot missiles or mortars i can argument that you can also just draw the line at knives, or clubs instead of automatic rifles.

And what would actually be good about allowing a technically sane militia member to own arms and not allowing someone that has been in prison for mail fraud to own one? Or even someone who served his time for any kind of crime? The chance a militia member misuses his firearm seems higher to me!

[kandrathe]

This is a good story kandrathe, but the point i was making is that these things you say are not clearly specified in the second amendment. Ergo, you give an interpretation an use a lot of ifs. And all those ifs are based on your views and not on the rights to bear arms.

Well, it's not really me. It's the writings and jurisprudence of the SCOTUS, and people involved with law going back hundreds of years. For example, from 1765, see William Blackstone's -- Commentaries on the Laws of England

Me personally? I think there is a reasonableness for citizens to be armed sufficient to defend themselves from the threats they face. We don't need tanks for everyday use. For all the political puppet theater in play now, the only provisions that Obama proposed that I'd question as unjustified would be the one restricting guns that look scary or carry more ammo. If you are looking at guns that commit murders, by far, it is hand guns in the urban areas. The entire category of rifles both sporting and other accounts for less than 3% of gun deaths. "Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns." The dangerous part of a gun is the bullet, the barrel, and the trigger -- all the rest is decorative wallpaper and ergonomic design.

You wouldn't be surprised to know that I have a number of guns locked safely away. Some of them are antiques that I inherited from my fathers father who bought them when he first came to the US, or from my mothers father who was a police officer for most of his life. They have sentimental value to me, but I don't plan on shooting them ( much). My father and I hunted together when he was still living, and my mother is a former pistol target ace who in her 80's still enjoys going to the range for some competitive target shooting. My dad had about a dozen hand guns before he died, and offered them to me -- and I said no -- they had no value to me. I also advised him to sell them, as I felt most of our other relatives were either untrained, or too tempestuous to perhaps not regret the decision. In his words, "I don't want to give a chainsaw to a 12 year old and expect him to not cut his leg off." Me and my two boys each currently have a BB gun, which we use to practice target shooting in the back yard on the weekend when the weather permits. Someday, when they are ready, they will graduate to .22 rifles. But, for now, the BB guns are a fun way to teach them range safety.

For gun sales between any two parties, it would be nice for the government to a) facilitate the felony criminal history background check, and b) ensure the successful background check information was not used to create a national gun register which could be misused. Currently all licensed gun dealers can do this for their own sales, so I would piggy-back private sales this way as a service much like the use of a notary public. Lawful gun owners don't want their guns to end up being used to commit crimes either.

The largest population of gun abuse is committed by criminals who have already been incarcerated and/or have domestic violence issues. If you want to cut down on deaths from guns, then start where they occur most frequently with criminals. A big help would be to figure out how to end the drugs prohibitions that are fueling the Mexican drug cartels, with the illegal smuggling of drugs into the US, and the return smuggling of guns into Mexico. You kill the drugs cartels by killing the black market. I would conservatively estimate that over half our crime, prison, and gun deaths problems are related to the sales and trafficking of illegal drugs.

Then, if you want to tackle the rare and highly sensationalized incidents of rampage killing or guns used in suicide, then we need to focus on how those mental health conditions occur and how to get those suffering into treatment (and possibly committed guardianship).

I'm also not opposed to promoting current technological advances that would make firearms safer, such as certain sophisticated biometric locking mechanisms that would render the gun useless in the wrong hands (e.g. children, attacker, stolen). It's cheap and reliable enough to implement for house and car door lock, so with a little engineering, I'm sure you could fit it into the grip or stock of a gun. The typical responsible gun owner doesn't want their guns misused either. If we make it desirable and easy, then everyone will jump on board with no need to cram it down societies throat with a law. I think for the type of gun that is kept in a dresser, and not in a safe, a trigger lock, or a biometric lock would be responsible. In law, however, this has been before the SCOTUS who ruled that requiring a gun to be locked up prevented it from being readily available for use in defending yourself.

So if one can argument that it is not a good idea to allow people to own patriot missiles or mortars i can argument that you can also just draw the line at knives, or clubs instead of automatic rifles.

Much of our social norms adhere to the more ancient laws of common sense.

And what would actually be good about allowing a technically sane militia member to own arms and not allowing someone that has been in prison for mail fraud to own one? Or even someone who served his time for any kind of crime? The chance a militia member misuses his firearm seems higher to me!

Felons can petition the State courts upon proof of their rehabilitation (some years of non-offense after probation) to have their rights returned, such as voting, or self defense, and etc. Until a person violates the trust of the society, we operate on the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. There is a problem in our legal systems where in the name of "getting tough on crime", we've made more, and more offenses "felonies" which is considered the most serious of crimes. There is no mechanism short of a presidential pardon to expunge a Federal felony conviction. But, then, this is another reason why the federal government should leave criminal matters to the states. Our federal government was never supposed to be in the role of domestic law enforcement.

One last thought: I haven't found any correlation in research of firearms misuse to people who may seem to belong to paramilitary or militia organizations. Anecdotally, it is probably the opposite actually. From the days when I lived in the rural boonies, the highest incidence of "gun nuts" and people who carry hand guns were also former military or off duty people who carry guns for their jobs. They are well trained, and they are used to having a weapon (safely) with them. It is no more logical to assume that all animal rights activists are potential bombers.

[Taem]

The few posts about size of weapons were all wrong anyway. Let's not forget that 'the army' in the days the 2nd amandment was made....

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with my post in regards to THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE and principle of THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED? It is very clear in that article I quoted why some weapons should be discriminated against based on their chance to cause harm to innocents. You are clearly offering a strawman argument to evoke a response from posters to defend their right to own "any" weapon, just so you can point out later how ludicrous that is; your anti-gun sentiment shines through! Try re-reading this and realize just how anti-gun you come across:

Anyway nothing will change, the NRA and weapon industry can write extra good profits every time something awful happens because gun sales go through the roof and it is always best just to trust big and powerful cooperations. (who interestingly enough are the ones that sell guns to the army that all those 2 amandment nutters are afraid off).

----------

So if one can argument that it is not a good idea to allow people to own patriot missiles or mortars i can argument that you can also just draw the line at knives, or clubs instead of automatic rifles.

There was this also;

So if the 2nd amandment is your argument you should also allow the public to buy bigger stuff. Everybody know you don't stand a chance with a simple 6-shooter against armored vehicles patrolling your streets.
So or you agree with me that the 2nd amandment is really outdated and makes as much sense as literally following the bible or you don't agree and think it is really necesarry to defend yourself, but then you should also be consequent and allow bigger weapons to be bought.

Giving ultimatums that citizens should be allowed to have any type of weapon OR that the 2nd amendment is broken is the pinnacle of your strawman argument right there. By reasoning citizens should be allowed to have their own "big weapons", and by this I assume you mean nuclear warheads, and you based that on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then I find it hard to believe any rational conversation about gun ownership can be produced using such extremes.

Besides, it seems President Obama disagrees with you: assault weapons ban.

[eppie]

The few posts about size of weapons were all wrong anyway. Let's not forget that 'the army' in the days the 2nd amandment was made....

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with my post in regards to THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE and principle of THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED? It is very clear in that article I quoted why some weapons should be discriminated against based on their chance to cause harm to innocents.

No Meat, I am arguing that the main reason always mentioned for which people are supposed to be allowed to own guns, the 2nd amendement, is taken very seriously and literally by those people, while all the side laws (who can actually own own, what size is allowed, how many) are just discussed a bit case to case and depend on the heat of the moment.

If you think taking a few 100 year old piece of writing has all the wisdom you need to govern a 21st century country, why would you then start to make your own interpretation of it like you wish.

If 300 years ago a gun would give you some reasonable defence against your (or the british) government (what the 2nd amendment is all about), nowadays it doesn't. So if you say people should be allowed to self defend using arms you should not limit that to the same type of weapons they had 300 years ago. You should upgrade it to modern days standards.

We also don't use the same rules of driving that we used when the first cars were build. Society has changed and new rules have to be made.


And this has nothing to do with if I like guns or not. I already wrote I would probably get one if I would live in a country were it is so common and legal as it is in the US. So strawman my ***

I have changed my opinion around this topic a few years ago (actually through discussions on the lounge). I understand, respect and see the legal basis for the right to own fire arms.
My objection in this thread are two:

-first I think the arguments used by most people in this discussion are wrong (I hope I have expressed my self in an understandable way in my answer to you)
-second; a society as a whole will become more dangerous when guns are widespread. So there will be more gun related deaths among 'good people' (if I am allowed to use an overisimplified American expression)
Legal guns are safer for those who are among the top % of best shooters, but less safe for the rest of the population (among who kids).

By the way...where did I speak about nuclear warheads?? If I talk about defending yourself I obviously don't mean a nuclear warhead. From that last remark in your reaction I make up that you didn't understand what I tried to say???

So once more (hoping it is clear): If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is that allow people to wear arms in order to defend themselves form their government, a small fire arm will not do anymore.....the more weaponry evolves and becomes better, the more a citizin shouöld be allowed to own if the 2nd amendment is what is important here.
If you disagree but are in favour of owning guns (I am giving you the argument you could have used against me) you should change the 2nd amendment. You should remove the (to me useless) part about the well regulated militia, and just make it about being allowed to protect yourself against any threat (such as a gunman pointing a gun at you in your house).
If you change the 2nd amendment this way there are far less issues about the type of arms because it is clear that a gun would suffic, and not an anti-tank grenade or a bazooka.

[kandrathe]

... the main reason always mentioned for which people are supposed to be allowed to own guns, the 2nd amendment

... or in other words, the right of self defense.

... why would you then start to make your own interpretation of it like you wish.

I said, we don't. The courts do.

If 300 years ago a gun would give you some reasonable defense against your (or the British) government (what the 2nd amendment is all about),

...a single shot smooth bore musket -- requiring about a minute to reload. And, again, the 2nd amendment is not only about defending yourself from the government, but also just defending yourself.

...nowadays it doesn't. So if you say people should be allowed to self defend using arms you should not limit that to the same type of weapons they had 300 years ago. You should upgrade it to modern days standards.

First, who is to say it doesn't work. Look at Syria. Yes, the regime had tanks, missiles, war planes, etc. Eventually, the rebels with enough former regime military defectors, using small arms over took military bases and acquired the "Army" weapons needed. Had they been brandishing torches and pitchforks, the task would have been harder, or have failed. Second, we have updated to modern standards for small arms -- semi-automatic, accurate to 500 to 1500 yards, high velocity and more reliable. The principle point of the political experiment called the US is that it is the people who govern the people, and that our rights are innate and not given to us by the government. If (when) the government becomes so corrupted that it is no longer adhering to the Constitutional laws, then the citizens have the duty to overthrow such an illegitimate government. Peacefully, if possible.

-second; a society as a whole will become more dangerous when guns are widespread. So there will be more gun related deaths among 'good people' (if I am allowed to use an overisimplified American expression) Legal guns are safer for those who are among the top % of best shooters, but less safe for the rest of the population (among who kids).

On this, we agree. It is a fantasy dream or a nightmare depending on how you'd implement it. Even if all the 'good people' willingly forsook owning weapons through some pro-active campaign to stamp out violence, a certain minority of 'bad people' would still commit murders with guns. Most likely, it is about the same number of murders that are committed now. The nightmare scenario would be a government led ban on the ownership of weapons -- forcing the 'good people' to be bad, just as they did during prohibition.

So once more (hoping it is clear): If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is that allow people to wear arms in order to defend themselves from their government, a small fire arm will not do anymore.....the more weaponry evolves and becomes better, the more a citizen should be allowed to own if the 2nd amendment is what is important here.

if you struck from their government, a small fire arm will not do anymore. Then, agreed. But, also within the common sense boundaries of what is practical and normal in the society. In the US, machine guns were only banned in 1986. There were not an excessive number of machine guns bought, or used in crimes before 1986. So, why the ban? It was political theater, which at that time the NRA went along with to get changes made to the more restrictive 1968 federal gun control laws. What did work for these extraordinary weapons (machine guns), was that to own one, you needed to be registered and have your fingerprints on file with the ATF. Going back to 1934, there have been two recorded murders with legally owned machine guns, one by a police officer killing a police informant. Even in the heat of our ongoing drug war, about 1% of all homicide involves the use of illegally smuggled machine guns.

If you disagree but are in favor of owning guns (I am giving you the argument you could have used against me) you should change the 2nd amendment.

At this point, we don't really need to. The original intent is very clear, and the way it is written is intentionally vague about specifics. What it entails is that the citizens have an inalienable right to self defense, and that the federal government shall not disarm the citizens. This is now been reviewed by numerous judicial actions, creating a body of case law supporting the rights of citizens to defend themselves, and rejecting attempts by governments to disarm them. As technology changes, and the norms of what a reasonable weapon would be for a citizen to own changes, then the law still fits. For example, if we moved to hand held lasers, any ban on magazine capacity becomes pretty moot.

[Taem]

Thank you for explaining your point of view to me eppie, I really do appreciate it. Yes, I did misunderstand you, sorry about that. In regards to your point of view, I do disagree with it, but I still respect it. And with that, I think I have nothing further to add to this conversation.

[eppie]

Thank you for explaining your point of view to me eppie, I really do appreciate it. Yes, I did misunderstand you, sorry about that. In regards to your point of view, I do disagree with it, but I still respect it. And with that, I think I have nothing further to add to this conversation.

Hej Meat!

Yes this gun issue is something that I changed my mind on (partly) through discussions on the lounge.
It boils down to defending yourself directly (however successful that may be, but at least you have the right) versus an on average safer society.
The choice you make between the two is something every person has to make for himself and you can use any argument you want but it is just a question of what you find more important.

I am just a bit frustrated that the whole discussion gets polluted by this 2nd amendment (because it is just silly), together with the fact that there is a vast financial interest among some groups (those that make the weapons).

[Occhidiangela]

The guy that starts these kind of threads is not interested in intelligent debate. He just post something he knows will trigger some people and he just hangs back and watches....how do you call someone like that again?

Pot, meet kettle ...

Just a note for you to consider, eppie:

You don't live here. It's not your issue. Your input is thus unwelcome (as you are merely a busybody) and irrelevant.

The same goes for the rest of you who do not live under our Constitution, and our laws.

Take care of your own problems and issues. You have them, in plenty.

Occhi

[Mavfin]

The guy that starts these kind of threads is not interested in intelligent debate. He just post something he knows will trigger some people and he just hangs back and watches....how do you call someone like that again?

Pot, meet kettle ...

Just a note for you to consider, eppie:

You don't live here. It's not your issue. Your input is thus unwelcome (as you are merely a busybody) and irrelevant.

The same goes for the rest of you who do not live under our Constitution, and our laws.

Take care of your own problems and issues. You have them, in plenty.

Occhi

I would actually say that Eppie and any other people who don't live here can have an opinion and voice it, sure. But, when it comes to laws being enacted, those opinions are *automatically irrelevant* because they don't live here and have NO stake in how any laws come out. Those laws won't affect them in any way, shape or form.

Just keep in mind, anyone who's not a US resident/citizen who is telling us all how we should live our lives: turn it around and ask how you would feel if we tried to dictate Canadian or EU or <your country> law to you? ('We' being the US Lurkers, not our government.) I would never presume to tell Canadians or Europeans what their laws should say, but, it seems that most of you seem to think you know better than anyone how things should be in the US, when you don't even live here.

(I'm not blanket saying this to anyone anti-gun in the thread. I know Shoju is a US citizen. I disagree with his opinion, but at least he's got a stake in this, since he lives here.)

[Chesspiece_face]

Currently, the worst case scenario (I'm thinking more like a rancher shootout with the Juarez cartel here) we citizen would normally face would be on the level of an AK47 or M16 variants, with the standard 30 round magazine. The practical rate of fire for them is 100-150 rpm in burst, however... Army ammo guidelines (10 Kg) would suggest the maximum rounds carried for AK to be about 300, and for M16 about 900 -- but, the real sustained firepower limitation is barrel heating which limits the effective rate of fire to about 12-15 rpm (similar to a bolt action). If you had to defend yourself in this type of scenario, you'd want enough "firepower" to hold out until the authorities arrived to take over which could be 30 minutes or more depending on how far away they might be.

But, I think it should mostly be up to the lawful citizen to make up their own mind on how they choose to defend themselves without also becoming a threat (e.g. rockets, mortars, tanks, nukes). Philosophically, I'm somewhat ambivalent about automatic weapons, or mortars, or tanks. They really are more "Army" weapons, than "Militia" weapons. I think a civilian should be able to get a limited use permit to own one if they can document their need for one. An example, would be a company that is seeking to build military weapons to sell to our, or other nations military.

Is this a realistic threat on the southern border? I am aware enough of the drug conflicts that occur there but have to admit to a level of ignorance when it comes to actual armed conflicts between our citizens and the cartels. If there are realistic examples of this I'd be interested in looking into them. On the other hand, it seems like a ripe example for people to run to for hypotheticals as opposed to real examples of 'need'. If that's the case it's not much better than a Red Dawn claim to the need for a certain type of weapon. Invading Russians (or North Koreans in the new remake is it?) isn't a very realistic argument.

In other realistic examples of adequate force to defend oneself and property I go back to looking at weapons strictly as tools and for their functionality. If someone was breaking into my home with an assault rifle I frankly wouldn't want to have 'equal' force as them. The risk of a full-out high caliber shoot out in the halls of my home are not something I deem as a reasonable outcome. It seems much more reasonable to want an accurate, small profile hand gun to remove the threat. Or conversely a shotgun. That's me though, and really besides the point.

I think the main point I wanted to get at, and may have entirely skipped over in my original post, is the default call to arms against the Government whenever an election or vote doesn't go the way you want it to. The Second Amendment is not a guarantee to majority opinion and an evolving society, culture, and Government isn't the same as Government overreach.

[kandrathe]

Is this a realistic threat on the southern border? I am aware enough of the drug conflicts that occur there but have to admit to a level of ignorance when it comes to actual armed conflicts between our citizens and the cartels. If there are realistic examples of this I'd be interested in looking into them. On the other hand, it seems like a ripe example for people to run to for hypotheticals as opposed to real examples of 'need'. If that's the case it's not much better than a Red Dawn claim to the need for a certain type of weapon. Invading Russians (or North Koreans in the new remake is it?) isn't a very realistic argument.

It does happen; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Krentz

Occhi is closer to the action in Texas.

I think the main point I wanted to get at, and may have entirely skipped over in my original post, is the default call to arms against the Government whenever an election or vote doesn't go the way you want it to. The Second Amendment is not a guarantee to majority opinion and an evolving society, culture, and Government isn't the same as Government overreach.

Yeah, I'm a bit tired of the "tree of liberty, yadda yadda yadda... " stuff whenever a vote goes against their positions... When the executive branch dissolves Congress, then I might get revolutionary...

[Jester]

I would actually say that Eppie and any other people who don't live here can have an opinion and voice it, sure. But, when it comes to laws being enacted, those opinions are *automatically irrelevant* because they don't live here and have NO stake in how any laws come out. Those laws won't affect them in any way, shape or form.

But the US is not an island, and your guns do not vanish upon contact with Canadian or Mexican soil.

Canada shares the world's longest undefended border with the United States. The US has a serious problem with legally purchased firearms (mostly handguns) being stolen and flooding the black market, and those guns find their way over borders.

There is enough unclassified data on the illicit gun trade in North America to establish the importance of guns smuggled from US sources in arming criminals in Canada and Mexico. The immediate result is a somewhat higher murder rate in Canada and a vast intensification of drug crime conflict near the Mexican border. But the United States is not the only source of guns to criminals in Canada and Mexico. The current importance of US sources reflects the basic economic facts of the situation: suitable guns are easily obtained on the open market in the United States and can be smuggled to Mexico at fairly low cost using routes and connections that have been well established for other sorts of contraband. -The illicit firearms trade in North America

So, no. This does affect other countries, including one of mine. I'll accept "keep your nose out of our business" the day the US succeeds in keeping guns from crossing the border.

-Jester

[Mavfin]

So, no. This does affect other countries, including one of mine. I'll accept "keep your nose out of our business" the day the US succeeds in keeping guns from crossing the border.

-Jester

So, we have sole responsibility for *your* border?

What about your responsibility for it? Also, obviously (this argument is used in favor of allowing illegals from Mexico to stay here, so I'll use it on you.) there's a *demand* for those guns up there. Remove the demand in your country, and no one here will smuggle guns across the border that *your* people aren't doing a good enough job of watching. We're probably not looking for guns leaving, you know. We allow them. Canadian border people are the ones who should be looking for them.

Or, perhaps, Canada needs to clean up their own issues and not blame them on us?

[eppie]

The guy that starts these kind of threads is not interested in intelligent debate. He just post something he knows will trigger some people and he just hangs back and watches....how do you call someone like that again?

Pot, meet kettle ...

Just a note for you to consider, eppie:

You don't live here. It's not your issue. Your input is thus unwelcome (as you are merely a busybody) and irrelevant.

The same goes for the rest of you who do not live under our Constitution, and our laws.

Take care of your own problems and issues. You have them, in plenty.

Occhi

Occhi.

First; whenever I post a new thread, I continue to be involved in the discussion....wouldn't you say that is a big difference?

Second; your comment about us not being allowed to input in this discussion.....you made the same comment a few weeks ago, and everybody that reacted on that told you were wrong (to put it nicely) I indeed am not allowed to vote in the US but I sure as hell can comment thread here on the Lounge-.

By the way, what happened to you man? You used to be sharp.....now it seems you show signs of dementia.