Gun control/2nd Amendment

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Discipline makes people behave; regulations govern behavior. I'm not sure there's as strong a distinction here as you're implying. Nevertheless, by this logic, madatory training and licensing of gun owners -- just like car owners -- would have been within the scope of the founder's intent -- regulating by disciplining. That's where this thread started.

It's made even more of a muddle because what are we to make of an explanatory clause anyway? There is no regulation there, only an expression of intent. Seeing as how the entire premise of having States control of the vast majority of the military power of the U.S. was circumvented long ago it has even less usefullness today than it did long ago when there were still organized militias that could be well regulated. The actually useful bits of the Amendment which again limit government powers vis a vis the people is still workable, and thus here we are.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
As for the Revolution, though, the militias did NOT do okay without heavy regulation. Washington complained endlessly about their indolence, insubordination, and extremely high rate of desertion. The regular army did okay, but the militias needed greater regulation, in BOTH senses of the word, and Washington fairly pleaded for it.

Their failures stemmed mostly from lack of discipline IMO, and not from lack of regulations. A soldier who remains at his station for fear of the legal repurcussions of desertion is only marginally better than the one who deserts right off. At least you don't have to feed the immediate coward, nor do you place undue faith in his ability to do his duty when you really need him. Ottoman levies were well regulated, but once they began to break they would tend to flee the field en masse to avoid not only the enemy, but the repercussions of their cowarice from their own leaders. What they lacked was discipline, ie the ability to stand their ground in the face of extreme hardship in the service of a higher goal, whether that was unit cohesion, pride, nationalism etc. An army that serves because of fear is a lot weaker than one that is motivated by something greater than themselves.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

No full auto, but single/3 round burst OK
Same as above
Nope
Yep
Yep
Depends on size/yield
Nope

Already that list would permit people could have their paramilitary activities to "keep their homes safe." Well, I suppose I'd better stay outside the States if you can soon walk around with a few nades in your bag or have a simple SMG in your violin case. I can't see how one can be proud for all that, but maybe MtG finds guns and fire arms "fun", so that he needs a few to protect himself.

Come on, people! You're not supposed to be lurking at home with an arsenal of weapons, right?

[Wraith]

Bah. I bet y'all picked now to start another one of these because y'all know I'm too busy to get involved.

Wraith
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."
-- Sammy "the Bull" Gravano

[Mercator]

I suppose I don't need to bring up [i]Bowling for Columbine[i] anymore?

I think it's the fear that makes Americans want their guns so badly in the first place.

How often have any of you been in a situation involving firearms? How many of you have been burgled, had a gun pointed at you etc. at home or in your neighbourhood? When's the last time anyone was shot anywhere near where you work or live? And if that isn't zero, how many of those times was it a "real" criminal, rather than, say, your neighbour who had a little too much to drink and pulled his gun on you, or something?

[Az]

q:

Automatic sub-machine-guns (mp5, uzi, mac10, etc)
Automatic rifles (M16, Colt M4a1, ak47, etc)
Automatic machine guns (M60, M249 Para)
Explosives (grenades, rockets, etc)
Man Portable Nuclear Weapons

Forbidding those is logical and understandable, if it also includes the exception of light use by the police and armed forcesand armed forces

[korn469]

here are some things to consider

http://www.ballistics-experts.com/Fo...s/Overview.htm

Shotguns are widely believed to be very lethal, and at close range this is certainly true because the multiple projectiles cause multiple wound tracks over a small area – often resulting in one large hole. However, the pellets must be large enough so that each one has sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate to vital areas. Basically, bird shot (7 1/2, for example) can only be guaranteed to be lethal to a range of about 5 yards, beyond 10 yards, or so, the wounds may look severe, but be relatively superficial due to the lack of penetration of individual pellets. Large buckshot pellets will be lethal at considerable range, but practical accuracy, and excessive spread, will limit their effective range to around 40 to 60 yards, depending upon choke and individual weapon characteristics. Those who choose to cut down their shotgun barrel diminish lethality considerably, because they may reduce the overall kinetic energy delivered by a given cartridge by as much as 50%.
Figure 1 shows a human arm which was injured by a 12 gage shotgun at just 10 yards. The shot size was #6, and the shotgun barrel had been sawn down (length not known, but probably around 14"). Note that pellets are spread over a large area (cartridge contained almost 400) and that they had insufficient energy to penetrate much below the surface of the skin - the silver pellets are visible

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/w...aw_report2.txt

Madman shoots 35 in Stockton schoolyard; 30 of those hit survive. That
would have been the appropriate headline. Why did the media dwell almost
exclusively on the five that did not survive?
A military type AK-47 rifle was used. Full-metal-jacketed military type
bullets were used. That 86% of those children recovered from their wounds comes
as no surprise to those who understand this particular bullet's wounding
potential
. Those familiar with the international laws governing warfare
recognize that the military full-metal-jacketed bullet is specifically designed
to limit tissue disruption -- to wound rather than to kill. Purportedly
mandated for "humanitarian" reasons by the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, this
type of bullet actually proves to be more effective for most warfare. It
removes not only the one hit from the ranks of the combatants, but also those
needed to care for him.
Full-metal-jacketed bullets
are prohibited for hunting; they are too likely
to wound rather than kill. Most full-metal-jacketed AK-47 bullets do not deform
significantly on striking the body, unless they strike bone. They
characteristically travel point-forward until they penetrate 9 to 10 inches of
tissue (if a bullet yaws, turning sideways during its tissue path, it causes
increased disruption). This means that most AK-47 shots will pass through the
body causing no greater damage that produced by handgun bullets. The limi
ted
tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the Stockton schoolyard is
consistent with well documented data from Vietnam (the Wound Data and Munitions
Effectiveness Team collected approximately 700 cases of AK-47 hits), as well as
with controlled research studies from various wound ballistics laboratories.
To put the 17 January 1989 Stockton incident in context, it must be
compared with past shootings:
1. Only four of the eleven shot at the ESL Co. in Sunnyvale, CA, on 16
February 1988,
survived. The weapon was a 12 gauge shotgun.
2. Only eleven of the thirty-two shot in the MacDonalds (24 July 1984, San
Ysidro, CA) survived. Of the three weapons used, the deadliest weapon by far
was a pump-action 12 gauge shotgun.
The overwhelming majority of the media coverage of the Stockton shooting
has consisted of misstatements, exaggerations and inappropriate comparisons.
It is ironic, in this country where firearms have played such a prominent
historic role, that the general kn
owledge of weapon effects has become so
distorted. Cinema and TV accounts of shootings constantly distort and
exaggerate bullet effect. When shot, people do not get knocked backwards by the
bullet; nor do they become instantly incapacitated, as usually depicted.
False expectations resulting from these misleading performances have
confused crime scene investigators, law enforcement and military trainers, and
our courts of law. Exaggerations of weapon effects in the post Vietnam era even
affect
ed wound treatment adversely. It is just within the past year, that these
errors in military treatment doctrine have been corrected ("Emergency War
Surgery - NATO Handbook", Washington, DC, GPO, 1988).
 Television accounts showing assault rifles exploding watermelons, newspaper
descriptions comparing their effects to "a grenade exploding in the abdomen,"
and describing organs being destroyed and bones pulverized by apparently magic
"shock waves" from these "high-velocity" bullets must cause the t
hinking
individual to ask: If these rifles really cause such effects, how is it possible
that thirty children (actually 29 children and one teacher) hit in that Stockton
schoolyard survived?
The effects of the media frenzy have been to produce at least a four-fold
increase in the number of AK-47's in California. This immense demand has drawn
stocks of these weapons from all over the USA and abroad. If producers of these
weapons had advertised their effects as portrayed by the media, they would
be
liable to prosecution under our truth in advertising laws. When the same
misinformation is presented by the "free press" it is apparently perfectly
legal.
These are the facts. Why have you not seen them in the reports of this
incident? Ask the media. Ask them also about accountability and
responsibility. Corrections have been offered, in writing, to the "New York
Times", the "San Francisco Examiner", and the "Oakland Tribune", with no
response. Phone conversations with media sources m
ade clear their preference
for the more dramatic misconceptions and exaggerations over verified scientific
facts.
Everyone with a political axe to grind that can be even remotely related to
the Stockton schoolyard shooting is coming out of the woodwork for their share
of the free publicity ride on the media-produced emotional frenzy roller-
coaster. It's really sad, if not downright disrespectful, to see the deaths of
those children used to produce the lynch-mob/three-ring-circus atmosphere ext
ant
recently in the California State Legislature.
The lack of any comprehensive data on gunshot wounds (incidence related to
weapon type, bullet type, outcome, etc.) has long been a serious handicap in
considering how to approach the gun problem. The situation has now been
compounded by unprecedented media zeal. Zeal mixed with misinformation is a
prescription for disaster. The exaggerations used to whip up their emotional
frenzy have, at the same time, deprived the public of the established
facts
about weapon effects.
Gunshot wounds pose a serious problem. Any sensible solution demands sober
consideration of valid data on wound frequency, severity, circumstances, and
treatment. Considering the many thousands of shootings in our urban areas each
year, competent collection of these data on a national basis could, in a short
time, define the problem realistically and objectively. Both sides of the gun
control argument should replace confrontation with cooperation by jointly
sponso
ring a National Gunshot Wound Study. Valid, objective data might then
replace uninformed exaggeration and hysteria as a guide to action.
The assault rifle fiasco brings to light a far more basic problem: Who is
to protect the public from a zealous media whose "cause" takes them beyond bias
to falsehood and fabrication?

[gsmoove23]

Wow, I'm sure glad only 5 of those kids died. I guess the madman should have practised more, that way maybe he could have aimed for the head. Maybe he would have been more effective with a samurai sword.

[TheStinger]

It reminds me of Alan Partridge who said " what people forget about the Titanic is that before the iceberg there were thousands of miles of trouble free pleasurable sailing"

[gsmoove23]

"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."

I see the first part of that sentence as a qualifying term. It is no longer necessary today and I see no justification for blocking practical legislation regulating firearms. High powered weapons are unnecessary, automatic or semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary and what the f*** is the deal with people blocking identity checks? What possible argument could they do this under.

[David Floyd]

It is no longer necessary today and I see no justification for blocking practical legislation regulating firearms.

Pass an amendment and I'll stop (some) of my *****ing.

You can argue necessity all day long, but until you pass an amendment, Constitutionally, you will still be incorrect.

Further, the use of the word "people" is obviously not a collective right - it refers to individual rights, in the same way it does every other time it is used in the Constitution.

[Sava]

David, is your stance on the legality of weapons ideological, or based upon what's defined in the constitution?

I mean, if the 2nd Amendment was worded so that licensing and gun control programs were mentioned, would you still feel that people have a right to own any type of weapon?

[gsmoove23]

DF, if the first statement is a justication then an amendment doesn't have to be passed because with the absence of that justification...

Pass an amendment and I'll stop (some) of my *****ing.

Why would I want to stop any of your *****ing DF(though I doubt it would stop any of it)? You can ***** to your hearts content.

[David Floyd]

Sava,

I mean, if the 2nd Amendment was worded so that licensing and gun control programs were mentioned, would you still feel that people have a right to own any type of weapon?

Yes.

gsmoove,

DF, if the first statement is a justication then an amendment doesn't have to be passed because with the absence of that justification...

You mean the "well-regulated militia part"? Well, first of all, that's not the main clause of the sentence. Further, the word "people", as an individual rights usage of the word, still exists in the amendment. Next, even IF guns were only allowed to militia members, the militia is still codified in US law.

No matter how you look at it, you need an amendment to restrict firearms.

[gsmoove23]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

What I meant was the above statement is offered as a given in the beginning of the statement. In the absence of the given...

I didn't mean that guns should only be allowed for militia members, but in the absence of the need for militias, the uninfringed right of the 'people' to bear arms is in question.

[Japher]

Discalimer (sort of): I didn't read all the posts, but I want to put my two cents in.


Before I was allowed to even fire a gun my father made me take a 2 day, 8 hours/day gun safety course, which is required for a hunting license. I was about 8 at the time.

I went hunting once, fired the gun twice at a moving target, missed both times, and never went hunting again.

I am proud supporter of the NRA. Yet, I feel that requiring a person to obtain a liscense to own a gun, and that the requirements for the liscense include a gun safety course is a good idea. I also see no reason to have to ammend the 2nd ammendment for this, as it does not hinder the persons right to have a weapon.

However, it seems to me that most cases where a gun "accidentily" kills some one, it is not in the hands of the person who purchased the weapon. It is their carelessness in storing the weapon that is a greater threat than the knowledge of safety possessed by the owner.

It is not required that the person who purchases the weapon to store the weapon properly so that no one else may fire it.

I have no idea how to handle this situation, but in my safety class the mentioned nothing on how to properly store the weapon, and, my dad was smart enough to store them well except for a revolver he keeps in his nightstand, bullets right next to it. He did, however, train all his kids and his spouse to handle a weapon and of the dangers.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, you want PART of it around

No, I want it all around. I just think that if it is the will of the people to expand the interpretation of it, it is the right to do so. I don't consider the Constitution sacred.

But that isn't the intent of the Constitution,

Don't care, as those men are dead. Their intent 200+ years ago is irrelevant to modern society.

nor is that allowed anywhere in the document. There is only one mechanism for expanding or contracting the Constitution/Bill of Rights, and that is an amendment.

You can't argue against my belief that the Constitution should be open to the interpretation and desires of the people currently living by saying the Constitution doesn't allow for that, since I'm saying that even if it doesn't allow for that, the will of the people supercedes is more important. That would be circular.

How would it be a waste of time to adapt our Supreme Law to what society wants? That is, unless there is not enough societal support for that adaptation, and what you really mean is what the liberals want.

No, I'm just saying there are many instances when there is a consensus in society for something being right that isn't constitutional, and that to have to go through the arduous ammendment process for all such instances would be a serious hinerance to the country. Ergo the SCOTUS is there to guage modern sentiment and supervise the Constitution accordingly.

Gun control is a perfect example. The American population overwhelmingly, by a huge margin, supports and wants some form of regulation on guns. It varies in degree, but most want it. So SCOTUS has ruled, consistently, that gun regulation is permissible. Your strict view of the constitution doesn't allow for that. I'm saying, so what? Most people want it, the SCOTUS says it's reasonable, so gun regulation is okay.

The recent case of the death penalty for retarded people is another case. The perceptions of society have changed over time, and SCOTUS changed the interpretation of "cruel and unusual" accordingly. I see no problem with this, nor any need to ammend the constitution every time the country's attitude changes in this regard.

Interpretation is fine, but some things are so clear that interpretation is not necessary.

The Constitution is in no way inflexible, provided you have enough support to change it. What could be wrong with that?

From a logistical standpoint, it is a problem. Any society that so rigidly adhered to a document that was so difficult to change would find itself in a terrible position of social and political deadlock. One of a society's strengths is its ability to adapt to changing social trends. Without this ability, stagnation occurs. To have to go through the ammendment process all the time would be disasterous.

So it's simple. Keep the Constitution, but to a certain degree it's open to interpretation and a little bit of fudging. SCOTUS will keep that in reasonable check.

[Sava]

At the risk of sounding stupid, I have to ask... what does the acronym, SCOTUS stand for?

[Az]

Supreme Court Of The United States.

[korn469]

gsmoove23

Wow, I'm sure glad only 5 of those kids died. I guess the madman should have practised more, that way maybe he could have aimed for the head. Maybe he would have been more effective with a samurai sword.

you missed my point, everyone seems to be in an uproar over semi automatic, or fully automatic assault rifles, and nobody seems to really mention banning shotguns, while in reality your average criminal will be more deadly if they are carrying a shotgun instead of an ak

, but in the absence of the need for militias, the uninfringed right of the 'people' to bear arms is in question

also there is still a need for militias to protect a free state! the federal government today is far more intrusive and orwellian than the federal government of 200 years ago, while we don't need militias to protect us from invasion by another country; people organizing to resist the government in peaceful ways when it tries to limit firearm freedoms is a very good thing for all of us, the simple act of owning a firearm has encouraged many people to take a stand against the abuses of power by the federal government, the NRA has done more to help protect people's privacy rights than many privacy organizations like EPIC, simply because it is better funded and connected than those groups

Boris

i feel that even without the second amendment, people would have the right to own firearms because of the nineth amendment

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

if you take this and the second amendment together, then there is a clear case for the individual ownership of firearms

EDIT: just like if you take the 9th and the 4th together you get a strong case for privacy rights, and i'd like to bring up one other point, the government left one of the most important powers to the people, and that is the power of juries, if the framers had of trusted government they would have allowed Judges to decide on a person's guilt or innocence, instead they took that power away from the government and left it to ordinary people

[Sava]

Okay, that's what I thought... wasn't sure... thank you!

[gsmoove23]

Korn, I didn't miss the point, I would ban shotguns too, though I don't see how they are necessarily more lethal. It seems they are more lethal in certain circumstances, no more. However, lethality isn't the only reason for banning such weapons, being able to inflict wounds on people, or many people at distances great or small, regardless of whether they are lethal or not is also a pretty good reason.

As for the necessity of militias to protect citizens from their own government I would argue this is also unecessary in the modern world. The vast difference in power between an organized military today, and any organization of rabble that might call themselves a militia, even if more effective and lethal arms were NOT banned, makes the idea of them being necessary or even effective ludicrous. You've also made a good point yourself, with the great successes peaceful movements have had in the modern age (and certainly the current war on terrorism) violent movements have been called into question.

As for the 9th amendment, (thanks for this, I was unaware of it) I think there is a good case to be made that allowing guns to proliferate legally without various pragmatic and practical regulations is a danger to the general welfare of the people.

[Sprayber]

The Founding Fathers never in their wildest dreams imagine that the consitution would survive as long as it did. They did not persume to speak for citizens 2 hundred plus years in the future. They debated, argued, and compromised their way into a document that is allowed to change over time as the country changes. But one which doesn't change too much too fast. I firmly believe that people should be allowed to own and use weapons as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. However, There has to be some regulation in our present society of some type. The problem comes from the nuts on both sides who either want no regulation at all or want every firearm banned outright. They are the ones that threaten to press the issue to a final solution at some point in the future. But such is the American way.

We still play the game of trying to apply the ideas of Washington, Franklin, and the others to our current situation. Each side claims to be able to channel the spirts of the founding fathers and apply modern problems to old ideas. In a way I guess it's a good thing because at least we still try to fit the ideas of the constitution into modern life.

[David Floyd]

You can't argue against my belief that the Constitution should be open to the interpretation and desires of the people currently living by saying the Constitution doesn't allow for that, since I'm saying that even if it doesn't allow for that, the will of the people supercedes is more important. That would be circular.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to avoid either tyranny by government or tyranny of "the will of the people.

Most people want it, the SCOTUS says it's reasonable, so gun regulation is okay.

If SCOTUS bases it's decision on the fact that most people support it, then gun control is NOT OK, absent a Constitutional amendment.

korn,

i feel that even without the second amendment, people would have the right to own firearms because of the nineth amendment

I definitely agree.

Sprayber,

They debated, argued, and compromised their way into a document that is allowed to change over time as the country changes.

Bingo. Hence, amendments.

I firmly believe that people should be allowed to own and use weapons as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. However, There has to be some regulation in our present society of some type.

That's nice. Pass an amendment.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Azazel

Sorry, there's a typo. It should be exclude. The point was that the forbidden weapons would be allowed to be used lightly by police and armed forces (except for nuclear weapons, of course). I hope this clears things up.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Japher

However, it seems to me that most cases where a gun "accidentily" kills some one, it is not in the hands of the person who purchased the weapon. It is their carelessness in storing the weapon that is a greater threat than the knowledge of safety possessed by the owner.

That's true and that's also why hunting rifles and handguns that civilians can have a license for in Finland, have to keep them in a locked and safe place like a rifle cabinet or pistol box. I think that's at least something that should be done in the States too. But please, for God's sake, don't allow all kinds of weapons for civilian use like DF suggests. That'll only result in more violence and fear, or would you like to see your neighbour going around with e.g. a machine gun?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to avoid either tyranny by government or tyranny of "the will of the people.

And that's why we have the SCOTUS to ensure such tyranny doesn't happen. Often, that is.

[gsmoove23]

Am I the only one that thinks if firearms are not sufficiently regulated they pose a serious threat to the welfare and lives of American citizens thereby making regulations legal under the 9th amendment? I don't think you have to do any shenanigans with the original document, its all right there.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rasbelin

Already that list would permit people could have their paramilitary activities to "keep their homes safe." Well, I suppose I'd better stay outside the States if you can soon walk around with a few nades in your bag or have a simple SMG in your violin case. I can't see how one can be proud for all that, but maybe MtG finds guns and fire arms "fun", so that he needs a few to protect himself.

Come on, people! You're not supposed to be lurking at home with an arsenal of weapons, right?

Actually, I tend to use knives for personal defense - much more effective at close range.

Given that I stated agreement with licensing and background checks, I don't see a need for a blanket prohibition on ownership of those weapon types when licensees for them would have passed criminal background checks, etc.

Besides, skinny-poppers just look cool.

[korn469]

I think there is a good case to be made that allowing guns to proliferate legally without various pragmatic and practical regulations is a danger to the general welfare of the people.

gsmoove23

ok you asked for it, and you've got it, please make your case that guns by themself are a danger to the welfare of the people, and not some other factor. because i'm willing to bet you that your research will uncover areas with relatively high number of firearms per capita have lower crime rates, and possibly even lower number of gun accident rates that areas with low numbers of firearms per capita
EDIT: all of those areas being inside of the US of course, i don't think it would be accurate to compare the murder rate in Washington D.C. to the one in Oslo and blame it on guns

i also read in american rifleman (which i acknowledge is a NRA media outlet, and if you can find another more reliable source i'd accept that) that more people die each year because of bee stings than gun accidents

[gsmoove23]

Well certainly, I think those bees should be regulated. My argument wouldn't be that guns kill people, though I believe that stands on its own. I am not arguing to ban guns. What I am arguing is that the government be allowed to create practical legislation regulating the distribution of firearms. Before someone gains a gun license their backgrounds should be checked and if they have a history of violent behaviour they should be rejected. I believe gun training should be mandatory before a license is given and why not treat it like a driver's license. I believe that creating an atmosphere where legal gun ownership is a responsibility, not a right, will have a beneficial effect on the welfare of the people as opposed to the detrimental effect not taking these actions has. What's so difficult about that?