U.S. Gun Control Laws & The Second Amendment

[Punzie]

The New York Times
June 14, 2007

House Votes to Bolster Database on Gun Buyers

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/Rapunzel61/EWNY/Current-Events/mccarthy.jpg
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a co-sponsor of the gun bill.

By JACQUELINE PALANK and IAN URBINA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/u/ian_urbina/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON, June 13 — The House voted Wednesday to close a loophole in gun control laws that allowed the Virginia Tech (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/v/virginia_polytechnic_institute_and_state_universit y/index.html?inline=nyt-org) gunman to buy firearms even though he had been committed to a mental hospital. The Senate is likely to follow suit, marking the first time since 1996 that Congress has approved a measure strengthening gun control.

The bill’s approval, on a voice vote, came on the same day as the release of a report President Bush ordered after the shootings in April at Virginia Tech, in which a student killed 32 people and himself. The cabinet agencies that wrote the report found that schools, doctors and the police were not fully aware of what information could legally be shared in a web of confusing and overlapping privacy laws.

The House bill, a compromise between gun rights supporters and gun control advocates on both sides of the aisle, would provide grant money for states to update the national database that gun dealers use for background checks on prospective buyers. The update would add more criminal records and mental health information to the database.

One of the sponsors of the bill was Representative Carolyn McCarthy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/carolyn_mccarthy/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a New York Democrat who has led other efforts to tighten gun control laws and whose husband was killed by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993. Ms. McCarthy called the bill a “good policy that will save lives.”

Two co-sponsors were her ideological opposites: Representative Lamar Smith (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/lamar_smith/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a Texas Republican who supports gun rights, and Representative John D. Dingell (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/john_d_dingell/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a Michigan Democrat who served on the board of the National Rifle Association (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_rifle_association/index.html?inline=nyt-org). Both the N.R.A. and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence supported the measure.

“This act will ensure that the background check system really is instant and accurate,” Mr. Smith said.

Another gun rights group, Gun Owners of America, opposed the measure. Erich Pratt, the organization’s communications director, said it forces “honest, law-abiding people to have to prove their innocence to a bureaucrat before they exercise their constitutional rights.”

Senator Charles E. Schumer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charles_e_schumer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of New York, said that he hoped to introduce the bill in the Senate without amendments “very soon” and that passage was likely.

“When the N.R.A. and I agree on legislation, you know that it’s going to get through, become law and do some good,” Mr. Schumer said.

Passing an unchanged bill in the Senate is paramount, said Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the N.R.A..

“If this were to turn into a gun-control wish list on the Senate side, we would withdraw our support and go back looking for another way to pass the bill,” Mr. LaPierre said.

President Bush is “broadly supportive” of the measure and is inclined to sign it, said Tony Fratto, the deputy White House press secretary,
although Mr. Fratto said the White House still had questions about how the program would be financed. “We’re supportive of the substance of the bill, the policy,” he said.

The bill provides a right of appeal to those who believe they are unfairly included in the database, which is maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org). That provision was a particular concern of the rifle association.

Since the Brady gun control act was passed in 1993, states have been required to submit information to a national database on people who are not allowed to buy firearms under federal law. Those prohibited from gun ownership include convicted criminals, those involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, and those whom courts have deemed “a mental defective,” meaning they are a danger to themselves or to others.

The last gun-control measure passed by Congress, in 1996, prohibited those convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense from buying or owning firearms.

The report to the president found that complicated laws protecting privacy have confused education, health care and law enforcement officials about the types of information they can legally share concerning dangerous and mentally ill people, limiting the ability of these officials to prevent the kind of violence that occurred at Virginia Tech.

The report, prepared by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice and Education, also found that many states and communities had not done enough to enact emergency preparedness and violence prevention plans in schools.

Additional federal guidelines should be written to clarify how information can be shared legally under federal privacy laws, the report said, and the Department of Homeland Security (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/homeland_security_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) should offer grant programs for joint training exercises for state, local and campus law enforcement.

The federal report comes two days after the state office charged with scrutinizing Virginia’s mental health agencies highlighted other problems in tracking and treating potentially dangerous mental health patients. That report described mental health services in Virginia as being underfinanced and ill-equipped to evaluate whether people are a danger to themselves or others.

Both reports were partly a response to questions raised about the handling by state, local and university staff members of the Virginia Tech gunman, Seung-Hui Cho (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/cho_seunghui/index.html?inline=nyt-per), and his mental health problems, which were demonstrated long before the shootings.

After Mr. Cho made suicidal comments in December 2005, a judge ordered him to have outpatient treatment on campus. But it appears that his condition was not tracked and that he did not receive the treatment when he returned to campus.

The state’s mental health report concluded that it often takes more than a month for someone to receive court-ordered or voluntary counseling for a mental illness, a lag based in part on a lack of financing.

More than half of community mental health providers say they have less capacity today than they did a decade ago, according to the report, which recommended that Virginia officials consider giving health care professionals more time and resources for initial screenings of the mentally ill. The report also suggested that local mental health agencies better monitor and follow up with people receiving counseling in the community.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.

Copyright 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/washington/14guns.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1181903736-s5AYpl7lg/vgC68Epzo08Q&oref=slogin

[Punzie]

To My Congresswoman, Carolyn McCarthy:

I am seeking your advice.

In the past, I have been able to get my mentally-challenged and substance-abusing relatives to therapy because they knew that what they said in therapy would be held in confidence.

My relatives say that if there's any chance that information about them would be put on a computer data base, they would stop going to therapy. Knowing how much they value their privacy, I am certain that they will carry out this threat.

Ms. McCarthy, they really need therapy. They need to stay on their meds and continue with their counseling sessions and support groups. How can I get them to therapy once your law is passed?

Signed,
A Hairy'd Constituent

[Ninjahedge]

Um, that's great.

I understand where that is coming from, but how many would not do this because of this law?

Also, would this only be subject to a comittal by a medical professional or leagal order or would any visit to a psych ward be deemed admissable to a background check?

They need to clarify the line. Also, whether he person was comitted or not, I think that proof of sanity would probably be a better affidavit for gun ownership than proof of instability being an inhibitor.

[Jasonik]

Scenario A:
Over time the minimum for being denied access to handguns will change from being comitted to a mental health facility, to having been ordered by a court to take antipsycotic drugs, to having ever been prescribed antidepressants, to an anonymous tip to a security agency that one was acting suspicious.

Scenario B:
Protesters asking for a new inquiry into 9/11 with testimony under oath etc. are arrested after agent provocateurs who have infiltrated the protest cause violence with the overvigilant police. Upon being processed and questioned, disbelievers of the official gov't story are deemed mentally unstable and a threat to themselves and others and committed to a mental health facility. These people will then be on watchlists and databases all accross the country taking away bill of rights protections and chilling those of other dissenting citizens.

Scenario C:
NSA internet data-mining will find my post here and deem my concern for the threat against bill of rights protections and the potential for proto-fascists and police state homeland security authoritarians to misuse regulations and databases - and deem me 'paranoid' and commit me to a mental health facility, thereby taking away my right to own a handgun and chilling any others from making statements against the rising totalitarian bureaucracy and freedom stealing security justifiers.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Just an question from a perplexed "outsider" - why is the gun lobby, and indeed the whole gun culture so strong in the US?
Surely its a no-brainer?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The central debate over ratification of the Constitution in 1789 was the concept of a strong federal government vs the individual rights codified in the Articles of Confederation (1781), the first governing document of the US. This debate led to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) into the Constitution. The 9th Amendment addresses rights not specified in the Constitution:

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


Over the centuries, the meaning of militia, keep and bear arms, and the punctuation used in the text have further complicated the debate.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Punzie]

I understand where that is coming from, but how many would not do this because of this law?
You're very lucky, Ninja. By asking that question, you're implicitly saying that nobody very close to you has ever been seriously mentally ill and/or a dysfunctional substance abuser.

The answer: anybody who would stay "bottomed out" -- or chance a relapse -- rather than have their problems recorded on a database.

Another problem: people who continue to go to support groups are much less likely to open up. Who at an AA meeting is going to confess that s/he almost punched someone at a bar once?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Scenario A:

Scenario B:

Scenario C:
These scenarios, onerous as they are, arise from a need to temper the consequences of the belief that carrying a handgun is an intrinsic freedom.

[Jasonik]

These scenarios, onerous as they are, arise from a need1 to temper the consequences of the belief2 that carrying a handgun is an intrinsic freedom3.

1. The need of a tyranical gov't to have a docile and unarmed populace?

2. Rights are not given by the Constitution, but recognized as intrinsic and guaranteed protection from gov't intrusion.

3. The 9th Amendment suffices if you twist the 2nd somehow.


If we learn anything from the Framers of the Constitution, it is that government shall never be trusted with the means to oppress citizens. The possibility of these onerous scenarios arises from our abdication of the responsibility to withold from government the tools of tyranny. The people should never give to the government any authority that they cannot rescind.

We are fast entering an era where in popular thought only the police and criminals have guns. Where the act of posessing a gun is criminal on its face. God forbid a fascist police state where the only guns around show up at your door in uniform making demands.

Soon enough merely owning a gun will be a de facto revolutionary act.

[Capn_Birdseye]

To an "outsider" it just seems an archiac law that belongs to a past era, not one that is relevant to 2007, but then I speak as someone who is merely an observer. I read that it is estimated there are over 200 million guns in the US, around 65 million being hand-guns! Thats an awful lot of weaponry! For what purpose are these weapons held? Is there that much hunting in the US to warrant such numbers of guns?

Yes there is the occasional gun-crime in the UK but our cops here remain largely unarmed - long may that continue!

[ablarc]

Is there that much hunting in the US to warrant such numbers of guns?
Hard to hunt with a handgun.

Folks don't trust the police to protect them in their homes, cars or on the street ...and other folks don't trust the government, period --though it's a bit naive to think an armed citizenry can hold off a determined government police state. See Jasonik's posts for a raw statement of this belief.

It's true there would be much fewer killings if no one had a gun. Makes it so easy to off someone you get mad at.

[ZippyTheChimp]

though it's a bit naive to think an armed citizenry can hold off a determined government police state. See Jasonik's posts for a raw statement of this belief.Well. if you're going resist government troops, at least a few people in the nabe should be armed with SAWS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squad_automatic_weapon).

[Jasonik]

it's a bit naive to think an armed citizenry can hold off a determined government police state.

Even more so considering all the firsthand training our military is getting fighting just such a force in Iraq.

[Jasonik]

Well. if you're going resist government troops, at least a few people in the nabe should be armed with SAWS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squad_automatic_weapon).

Will they take out SWORDS (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=657)?

[ablarc]

Even more so considering all the firsthand training our military is getting fighting just such a force in Iraq.
Back home, we don't have fiery Allah and a heaven full of virgins to motivate us.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Back home, we don't have...a heaven full of virgins to motivate us.You've totally ruined Father's Day.

[Jasonik]

Back home, we don't have fiery Allah and a heaven full of virgins to motivate us.

Yeah, I guess Liberty isn't much of a motivator.

[ablarc]

Yeah, I guess Liberty isn't much of a motivator.
Wasn't for the folks in Germany in 1933. Didn't seem to mean much hereabouts in 2004.

[ZippyTheChimp]

2. Rights are not given by the Constitution, but recognized as intrinsic and guaranteed protection from gov't intrusion.This does not answer the question of why carrying a handgun is an intrisic right.

In fact, the statement is ironic, in that it is usually the gun-lobby that trots out the Constitution to "prove" the inalienable right to carry a handgun.

So if the Constitution is only recognizing this intrinsic right, it must originate from some other source. I can only conclude that it is intrinsic to the nature of a human being; and if so, humans in countries with reasonable gun-control laws are actually living in repressive states.

[Punzie]

Yeah, I guess Liberty isn't much of a motivator.
I think that in order to truly appreciate liberty, you have to either have:
- been born without it (or not enough of it), or
- had it taken away from you at some time, or
- had an experience(s) that gave you the feeling that your liberty will never be guaranteed.

In other words, you need a "before/after" basis for comparison.

I'm probably going to get wacked for my opinion, and my defense is, "you had to be there."

[ablarc]

^ The irony is that the government we most need to worry about taking our liberty will be one the gun lobby worked to get elected. It'll be a majority government, won't it, and we'll be subject to the tyranny of the majority, which will wholeheartedly support its assault on freedom. Isn't that what happened in the Thirties in Germany? Now that was a popular government.

Didn't we get a little taste of that right here the last six years?

Free access to guns and eroded liberty. It's OK, it was just a little taste, but I can't imagine why anybody thinks having people own guns will preserve liberty when it's the gun aficionados' preferred governments we most need to worry about.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
That's right.

And gun ownership not so much an expression of liberty, but of American individuality, the pioneer spirit, now largely a myth.

Rapunzel: I don't agree.

[Punzie]

I was talking about liberties in general...http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/Rapunzel61/Smileys/Eek-RollEyes/oops.gif

I, too, don't think that handgun ownership is an expression of liberty.
That embarrassing Second Amendment must be repealed.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I was talking about liberties in general...http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/Rapunzel61/Smileys/Eek-RollEyes/oops.gif
So was I.

[Punzie]

You had to be there.
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/Rapunzel61/Smileys/Razz/smileys_stick_tongue_out.gif

[ZippyTheChimp]

Explanation?

[Punzie]

Zippy, you disagreed with my opinion on the conditions one has to have been in (or be in) in order to truly appreciate liberty. But you didn't specify how you disagree. Maybe it was because it was late at night and you were too tired; maybe you never feel like discussing it...

"I disagree" without qualification gets a razz. Nothing personal.:D

[Capn_Birdseye]

And gun ownership not so much an expression of liberty, but of American individuality, the pioneer spirit, now largely a myth.
"American individuality"? - An interesting concept in a country consumed by "brands" and "designer labels". Thats no disrespect to the US as the UK is going down the same road.
Surely with there being in excess of 200 million guns in circulation in the US, "American individuality", if that is the term we use, is best expressed by NOT having a gun?
Again, as a non-American I always associate guns in America with the right-wing anti-government militia's, (what are they about?), the rabid racists of the KKK etc, the hunting crowd, and the powerful gun lobby.
What are guns for if not to kill? The only decision is what to kill, animals or humans? There ain't much else!
Give peace a chance as John Lennon once said.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
I did say that it is now largely a myth.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Zippy, you disagreed with my opinion on the conditions one has to have been in (or be in) in order to truly appreciate liberty. But you didn't specify how you disagree.I disagreed with the conclusion...
In other words, you need a "before/after" basis for comparison.

...that you need this experience. Sometimes it works, but often that experience produces an irrational response that actually blinds the population to the erosion of freedom.

You had this situation in Germany in 1933 - a humiliating defeat in WWI, postwar economic chaos, a sense that they did not control their own destiny. Burn the Reichstag, blame the Communists, and you have the opportunity for an emergency decree:Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

There are parallels to 09/11. Freedom was lost: the freedom from fear, freedom to get on an airplane, freedom to take a photo anywhere without being questioned.

As a result, we allowed our own citizens to be imprisoned without the Constitutional right of due process.

[Jasonik]

So if the Constitution is only recognizing this intrinsic right, it must originate from some other source1. I can only conclude that it is intrinsic to the nature of a human being; and if so, humans in countries with reasonable2 gun-control laws are actually living in repressive states.3
1. 'our creator', god, 'the spirit in the sky' etc.

2. to people in those countries apparently

3. I have no problem with this statement.

The irony is that the government we most need to worry about taking our liberty will be one the gun lobby worked to get elected.1 It'll be a majority government, won't it, and we'll be subject to the tyranny of the majority2 which will wholeheartedly support its assault on freedom. Isn't that what happened in the Thirties in Germany? Now that was a popular government3.

Didn't we get a little taste of that right here the last six years?

Free access to guns and eroded liberty. It's OK, it was just a little taste, but I can't imagine why anybody thinks having people own guns will preserve liberty when it's the gun aficionados' preferred governments we most need to worry about.4

1. Not necessarily, a uniform policy of preserving individual liberties would include gun ownership but also privacy, free speech, etc.

2. Only in a pure democracy. The strength of our form of government - Constitutional Republic - is that it guarantees the rights of the minority even if a majority would act to stifle them - as such, gun laws are unconstitutional.

3.One with civil rights, meaning the rights are granted by the authority of the government, just as easily taken away by the authority of the government. In the United States all authority of the government is derived from, and therefore subordinate to, the authority of the people. Our rights reside within us and are protected by government.

4. Two separate thoughts here. Pandering to a cause by unscrupulous politicians does not change the merit of the cause. And yes the Bush administraton has been the greatest threat to liberty, arguably, this country has ever seen.

[ablarc]

Two separate thoughts here. Pandering to a cause by unscrupulous politicians does not change the merit of the cause.
True enough. Who can be against motherhood?

And yes the Bush administraton has been the greatest threat to liberty, arguably, this country has ever seen.
Not much hope of redress from the gun-toters who elected him.

Why would this change in the future?

Aren't gun owners mostly control freaks or closet fascists about everything except gun control, where they're libertarians?

[Jasonik]

Aren't gun owners mostly control freaks or closet fascists about everything except gun control, where they're libertarians?

I don't know. Buit libertarians are always anti gun control, anti control freaks and anti fascists.

I think you may be inferring a false relationship causality from the facts.

-Gun control opponents vote.
-Gun control opponents vote for the candidate (on the ballot) most likely to preserve gun rights.
-The candidate (on the ballot) most likely to preserve gun rights is a proto-fascist.
-Gun control opponents vote for proto-fascists.
-Gun control opponents are proto-fascists.

Though the above may pass for logic in this crazy time - it isn't.

Believe me I am horrified by the implications of the situation. Not the least of which is that gun owners will self infer themselves to share the proto-fascist leanings of the one they elected and readily prostrate themselves to government in the name of security. For instance, registering all guns with the local gov't (to be added to a federal database) thereby criminalizing all guns the gov't can't locate- ie. revoke.

The way the political spectrum is set up right now; I fear it's almost inevitable the gov't will gain contol of the vast majority of guns in this country. The only way to protect our bill of rights guaranteed freedoms is to force the government to protect them all. For if we give up one, we effectively give up all.

[Jasonik]

The fundamental right to bear arms for protection is laid out here as it was for the founders.
*****
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=28217&pageno=1)

---Chap. I. Sect. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks
upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it
the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he
builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the
great maxims of justice and charity. His words are, The like natural
inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to
love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal,
must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good,
even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul,
how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless
myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in
other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered
them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as
much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no
reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they
have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals
in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of
bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of
equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several
rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man
is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1.

---Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state
of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to
dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy
himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some
nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature
has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason,
which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that
being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his
life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship
of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one
sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his
business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last
during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like
faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be
supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to
destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the
inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to
preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like
reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as
much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it
be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what
tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or
goods of another.

---Sect. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others
rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be
observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the
execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's
hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that
law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature
would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if
there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute
that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And
if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has
done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where
naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another,
what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a
right to do.

---Sect. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power
over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal,
when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or
boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so
far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his
transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and
restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully
do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing
the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule
than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set
to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes
dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and
violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass
against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for
by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to
preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary,
destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one,
who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it,
and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like
mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT
TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.

---Sect. 9. 1 doubt not but this will seem a very strange doctrine to
some men: but before they condemn it, I desire them to resolve me, by
what right any prince or state can put to death, or punish an alien, for
any crime he commits in their country. It is certain their laws, by
virtue of any sanction they receive from the promulgated will of the
legislative, reach not a stranger: they speak not to him, nor, if they
did, is he bound to hearken to them. The legislative authority, by which
they are in force over the subjects of that commonwealth, hath no power
over him. Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England,
France or Holland, are to an Indian, but like the rest of the world, men
without authority: and therefore, if by the law of nature every man hath
not a power to punish offences against it, as he soberly judges the case
to require, I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an
alien of another country; since, in reference to him, they can have no
more power than what every man naturally may have over another.

---Sect, 10. Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and
varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes
degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature,
and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some
person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression:
in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of
punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek
reparation from him that has done it: and any other person, who finds it
just, may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in
recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the
harm he has suffered.

---Sect. 11. From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the
crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of
punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs
only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by
being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands,
can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law,
remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet
cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he
has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand
in his own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this
power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender,
by right of self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the
crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of
preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order
to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has
a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like
injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the
punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from
the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule
and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and
slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind,
and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild
savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon
this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed. And Cain was so fully convinced, that every
one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that after the murder of his
brother, he cries out, Every one that findeth me, shall slay me; so plain
was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.potowmack.org/

The issue is the relationship between citizen and state. The response on the gun rights ideologies side is that governmental authority can only be tolerated as long as there is an armed populace pointing guns at it. On the other side, it is that the only viable concept of nationhood is where the rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing; that there is a difference between civil society and the State of Nature as indicated in John Locke's The Second Treatise of Government from which the American Revolutionaries and the Framers of the Constitution took much of their instructions. On the gun rights side is a childish, anarchic political fantasy, a childish concept of the political self and the essence of political cynicism; on the other, the operating concepts of the system we live under. As the United States goes off on a global campaign against terrorism, terrorist states, terrorist harboring states and rogue states, the ultimate goal is to establish a viable concept of nationhood in politically dysfunctional parts of the world where the rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. It is the nation state in the present world which is still the vessel for the rule of law, political authority, and the conservative, very unlibertarian heresy of political community. We ought to be able to arrive at some conclusions on what a viable concept of nationhood means in this country.

he issue the gun rights ideologies raise is a logical absurdity. When sovereign individuals in the State of Nature come together to form political community they create a higher law, a governing authority. Again, in political community the rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. The right to be armed outside of the law is the right to individual sovereignty. Individual sovereigns by definition do not consent to be governed, do not give "just powers" to government, do not "quit everyone his Executive Power of the Law of Nature". They exist in the State of Nature before there is law and government. They still want this government to have the "just powers" to secure the rights they proclaim.

Whatever rights are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, have to be consistent with what a constitution is. A constitution is the fundamental law of a political community. A civil right to be armed outside of the law would reduce the Constitution of this political community from a frame of government with "just powers" that derive from the "consent of the governed" to a treaty among sovereign individuals in the State of Nature who give no more than word of honor and promise of good faith.. Sovereign powers, whether sovereign states or sovereign individuals, do not accommodate to a law-giving, law-enforcing authority. They make a treaty not a government. Civil rights are defined in constitutional doctrine by the judiciary. To secure civil rights government needs "just powers" that derive from the consent of the governed. No "consent of the governed" means no "just powers" to secure civil rights or anything else. We are on our own to secure our own rights as individual sovereigns. That is why we need a gun in every pocket. It is not within the powers of the judiciary to reverse the process followed by the Framers of the Constitution from John Locke's The Second Treatise of Government, dissolve law and government, and return to the State of Nature— that is institute anarchy.

[Jasonik]

When sovereign individuals in the State of Nature come together to form political community they create a higher law, a governing authority.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Locke. The sovereign individuals delegate their authority to the government. The powers of the government authority are valid insofar as they are derived and limited to- and by the Natural authority of the individual.
The state of nature
has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason,
which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that
being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his
life, health, liberty, or possessions...
These are the laws.
And that all men may be restrained from invading others
rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be
observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the
execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's
hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that
law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature
would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if
there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute
that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And
if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has
done, every one may do so:
All may apply these laws.
From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the
crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of
punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs
only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by
being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands,
can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law,
remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet
cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he
has received.
The government may be delegated to apply these laws with the discretion of individuals applying the laws- except with regard to material damages.

Nowhere is it justified for the powers of the government to exceed the natural powers of the individual, i.e. if I cannot deny you property or liberty - guns and their use- the power of life preserving defense, neither can the government. Furthermore, nowhere is it justified that extension of the application of common rights held by individuals, to a government authority in any way prevents these so governed from retaining the free exercise of these common rights.
Again, in political community (http://www.cpjustice.org/guidelines/political_community.html) the rule of law (http://www.rule-of-law.info/), the state's monopoly on violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber) and the state's internal sovereignty (http://magictheatre.panopticweb.com/aesthetics/writings/polth-derrida.html) all mean the same thing.
Saying it's so doesn't make it so. First off, within the Union of these United States, internal sovereignty belongs to the States and the Federal government is limited within the country- hence National Guard troops under the comand of Governors (http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1126296246.shtml). This fundamental Federal position was somewhat blurred after the Civil War, but in interpreting the Constitution that blurring is immaterial. Thus the Federal use of force internally has always been limited except to "insure domestic Tranquility." (Though there is some concern about the recent dilution of the Insurection Act of 1807 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act)).

Using Max Weber's Gewaltmonopol des Staates, force monopy of the state, in this context not only undermines the article's final argument, but is antithetical to the notion of the Constitution- that political and governmental authority shall flow from the control of power, not from the duty to protect liberty.
Whatever rights are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, have to be consistent with what a constitution is. A constitution is the fundamental law of a political community.
No problem yet. I note that both the government and the people are bound by the "supreme Law of the Land."
A civil right to be armed outside of the law would reduce the Constitution of this political community from a frame of government with "just powers" that derive from the "consent of the governed" to a treaty among sovereign individuals in the State of Nature who give no more than word of honor and promise of good faith.
The government's powers are "just" because they are the same powers given to sovereign individuals by God- the people "consent" because this is so. There is no such thing as "armed outside of the law." There can be no civil law that contradicts or limits natural law in a free society. Only because the people first have guns (the inherent right of self preservation), can the government even have them. The Constitution of the United States is not a treaty among individuals, it is a contract between individuals and government. The people delegate certain authority, with the stipulation that the government can not assume a power it is not specifically given, and it must "secure the Blessings of Liberty" for the governed and their posterity.

...sovereign individuals in the State of Nature who give no more than word of honor and promise of good faith. In fact the inverse should make individuals suspicious of a government. Here the author cleverly- (if intentional) intimates, by confusing Lockean with Hobbesian states of nature, that people don't desire to enter into peacful agreements and would wish to suspend them at a moments notice. The strength of Locke is that there is no desire for the people to break the "social contract" because they have not given anything up to to enter into it, unlike Hobbes who insists the governed relinquish some of their liberty for the convenience government brings.
Sovereign powers, whether sovereign states or sovereign individuals, do not accommodate to a law-giving, law-enforcing authority.
Only insofar as the "law-giving, law-enforcing authority" doesn't break the original constitutional contract.
They make a treaty not a government. Civil rights are defined in constitutional doctrine by the judiciary. To secure civil rights government needs "just powers" that derive from the consent of the governed. No "consent of the governed" means no "just powers" to secure civil rights or anything else. We are on our own to secure our own rights as individual sovereigns. That is why we need a gun in every pocket. It is not within the powers of the judiciary to reverse the process followed by the Framers of the Constitution from John Locke's The Second Treatise of Government, dissolve law and government, and return to the State of Nature— that is institute anarchy.
Whatever argument this flacid reasoning attempts to 'prove', I can only conclude that a continuation of the "consent of the governed" is contingent on the government's justification as a protector of liberty, justice, and rule of law- not its reformation as an authoritarian police state. Or in the words of one who did all he could to ensure it is so:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
-James Madison. The Federalist No. 46 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm)


Additionally:

U.N. v. Madison (http://www.nysun.com/article/35220)

For the Americans, fighting to forge a free political union, to contradict any principal element of Locke's world-view would therefore be to undercut the whole philosophy as such. Locke's basic principles, insofar as they relate to the Founders' principal political purpose, are these: (1) Reason (not one's unchecked passions or other men's opinions) as the proper and sole tool of cognition and guide to action-and so the basis for asserting men's natural rights; (2) Rights, therefore, as being brought with men into civil society, and not the mere creation of social or political institutions; (3) Government as a protector of rights-and not a provider of privilege, in the sense of furnishing material assistance to some, ultimately at the expense of others (rich or poor; landlord or laborer; farmer, furrier, or ferry boat captain); (4) Private property as sacrosanct; and so (5) Unregulated and politically unassisted markets as the basic rule of economic organization.
-Jerome Huyler How Lockean Was the American Revolution? (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--10-How_Lockean_Was_American_Revolution.aspx)


The Constitution of the United States (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

[ZippyTheChimp]

The government's powers are "just" because they are the same powers given to sovereign individuals by God- the people "consent" because this is so. There is no such thing as "armed outside of the law." There can be no civil law that contradicts or limits natural law in a free society. Only because the people first have guns (the inherent right of self preservation), can the government even have them.If anyone wants to observe the State of Nature in full flower, visit Iraq.

[Jasonik]

That is a specious comment. If anything it is a Hobbesian nightmare foist upon them by outsiders. The Iraquis are being imposed upon by at least 5 different parties. They have no sovereignty to speak of, individual or otherwise. They are like animals in a cage.

I see no path from that mess to what we have without leaving them alone to fight it out and come up with something that works. We are lucky enough to be born in a land where the founders of our government were completely free to make their plan without needing to compromise with an existing power system other than former colonial states. I can only wish this for the Iraqis.


I hope that you appreciate the difference between your assumed lawless, selfish, revengeful, violent anarchy, and the Natural Rights derived from Man's need for self preservation. Remember our unique human trait is reason- with it we don't have to live like savages.

A safe place to sleep = property rights
Recompense for theft or damage = property rights + courts
And on and on...

Some may see government as an authority that keeps people in line, like Giuliani or the aspired to Iraqi police state. Just because they will be given courts, and certain civil rights doesn't mean they are free. Their rights are given by the power, might, and authority of the government- it might as well be King George.
It is so sad to see today in this country such apathy and cynicism toward embracing and holding accountable our government for protecting our uniquely guaranteed set of god-given enumerated (and others not so numerated) rights. For crying out loud, Federal Judges are citing FOREIGN COURT CASES AS LEGAL PRECEDENT!?!

Fine. Rollover. Big Brother will throw you a bone.

[ablarc]

That is a specious comment. If anything it is a Hobbesian nightmare foist upon them by outsiders. The Iraquis are being imposed upon by at least 5 different parties. They have no sovereignty to speak of, individual or otherwise. They are like animals in a cage.
An accurate assessment.

Among their oppressors is a vengeful God and His Prophet.

[212]

Most Americans want more gun control, but support is slipping a bit lately:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[ablarc]

^ That's an opinion poll. Jasonik's talking about eternal verity.

[MikeW]

I haven't read back through all the posts. But it looks like, at long last, we may get a final Supreme Court decision on whether the Second Amendment confers a direct individual right to own weapons (including, but not limited to, handguns).

There's a case out of DC (Parker v. Washington DC), which challenged what is essentially a ban on private handgun ownership. A panel of the DC Circuit overturned the law, and the full Circuit refused to review the ruling. This puts the DC Circuit in direct conflict with other circuits (most noteably the 9th in San Francisco). This means that this is likely heading to the SCOTUS.

Given that between the Reagan and two Bush appointment, the SCOTUS has gotten pretty conservative, I think it's a better than even chance that they'll uphold the DC Circuit ruling and read the 2A as conferring an individual right.

[Punzie]

This thread's title was changed from:
Bolstering the Database on Gun Buyers
to:
U.S. Gun Control Laws & The Second Amendment

[ablarc]

^ Why?

Folks who start threads: why not credit them with knowing what they want to title them --particularly in the case of someone as thoughtful as jasonik. He doesn't need to be second-guessed.

And neither do most of the rest of us. We don't need to be worrying about whether our posts will be "improved" or bowdlerized.

Spammers are fair game, but lighten up your "moderating", Punzi, or you may drive some people away who are the forum's backbone.

[Punzie]

^ Why?

Folks who start threads: why not credit them with knowing what they want to title them --particularly in the case of someone as thoughtful as jasonik. He doesn't need to be second-guessed.

And neither do most of the rest of us. We don't need to be worrying about whether our posts will be "improved" or bowdlerized.
. . .

I am the AUTHOR of the thread! I retitled my own thread!:p:D

[Punzie]

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/Rapunzel61/Adages/Eat-Crow/EatCrow.gif

[ablarc]

^ You beat me to it. I was fixin' to eat crow, but you got there before me. I would have apologized more elaborately if you hadn't.

So you'll have to settle for "Sorry, my bad."

The point about overzealous moderating remains valid.

[Punzie]

You can delete the apology altogether. I'd much rather read about how you're going to tackle down that bird.:)

[ablarc]

Bird flew the coop.

[Ninjahedge]

Abl, she set that up for you.

Why would someone who authored the thread need to notify herself that she changed the title? ;)

[Jasonik]

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Ninjahedge]

Whatever J.

I know you have a lot of good points, and better quotes, but the simple fact of the matter is, the people would not be able to stand with our current military as it is. This is not the same US that the founding fathers started with, planned for or ever imagined.

In order to get back to that, we need to start breaking up the power centers and make this a set of united States, rather than a federal democracy that is sliding slowly towards imperialism.

If we can get the power back in the states, back TO the people, then maybe John Doe having an assault rifle or semi-automatic handgun will mean a bit more.

[Jasonik]

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
-Thomas Jefferson

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
-Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Ninjahedge]

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force."
-Thomas Jefferson

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
-Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-Thomas Jefferson


That's kind of what I was talking about J.

We have to fix the root of the problem first before we worry about the little things.

[Jasonik]

Iniuria non excusat iniuriam

[Punzie]

This thread's title was changed from:
Bolstering the Database on Gun Buyers
to:
U.S. Gun Control Laws & The Second AmendmentAbl, she set that up for you.
Because of problems with my relatives, I have had a long-time interest in seeing to it that nonviolent people who have been involuntarily committed to psychiatric facilities never get on the FBI's NCIC system. I have been fighting my Congresswoman, Carolyn McCarthy, on this since 2002. I started this thread with the express interest of discusussing the 2007 bill; this is a fact of which many people are aware.

It became apparent, however, that other members wished to discuss the broader implications of government databases, gun control, the Second Amendment, and civil liberties. I changed the name of the thread to accomodate the broader interests.
Why would someone who authored the thread need to notify herself that she changed the title? ;)
I was not notifying myself, I was notifying all the of the other participants in this thread, including future participants.


Ninja, I would appreciate if you question my motives in a PM, rather than second-guessing them publicly on a message board.

[Ninjahedge]

Rap. The reason why you generally say that a threads name has been changed is to notify the originator.

The way you stated it was no "I changed the title of MY post , etc etc, you used the same language you used when you changed mine, and others, hence the confusion.

Why are you getting so defensive all of a sudden? You do not like being cajoled?


As for the "Ones wrongs do not justify another's" J, it does not apply here. Even in Latin. Giving a bunch of people the right to have handguns and saying that it is based upon a reasoning that is no longer valid is not a valid chain of logic.

You must first validate the reason, THEN get the other pieces into effect. I believe it will be harder to get states rights back than it would be to get gun ownership rights, ESPECIALLY AFTER STATES RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED. (in the case of gun ownership).

SO if the main reason the right to bear arms was for the security of our individual sovereignty as individuals and local municipalities, that is no longer valid in the light of our growing federal power.

If we can get the military back into the hands, primarily, of the people that comprise it, then maybe the right to bear arms will have more meaning.

[Jasonik]

As for the "Ones wrongs do not justify another's" J, it does not apply here. Even in Latin.
The loss of State's rights and other geovernmental ills do not forgive the denial of Constitutionally guaranteed gun ownership rights.
Giving a bunch of people the right to have handguns and saying that it is based upon a reasoning that is no longer valid is not a valid chain of logic.Huh?
You must first validate the reason, THEN get the other pieces into effect. I believe it will be harder to get states rights back than it would be to get gun ownership rights, ESPECIALLY AFTER STATES RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED. (in the case of gun ownership).?
SO if the main reason the right to bear arms was for the security of our individual sovereignty as individuals and local municipalities, that is no longer valid in the light of our growing federal power.
Again; Iniuria non excusat iniuriam.
If we can get the military back into the hands, primarily, of the people that comprise it, then maybe the right to bear arms will have more meaning.
Yes, a military police state juggernaut would give gun rights meaning.

[ablarc]

Why would someone who authored the thread need to notify herself that she changed the title? ;)
Suppose it depends what you mean by "authored."

By a mainstream definition, Jcqueline Palank and Ian Urbina of the New York Times were the authors; they also appear to have chosen the original title. ;)

[Ninjahedge]

The loss of State's rights and other geovernmental ills do not forgive the denial of Constitutionally guaranteed gun ownership rights.

If the rights were given because of the power that is no longer has, yes indeed it does.

We are talking politics here, NOT religion. You know that some Jews eat pork now, right?

Huh?
?

I give you A because of B. If B no longer exists, how can you validate A until you restore B? Logic.

Again; Iniuria non excusat iniuriam.

Again you are automatically assigning it as a wrong without valid proof. the constitution has that little rider in there that meant for the right to bear arms as an enforcement for state and local soverignity over the national government. If that is no longer viable, neither is the argument that you somehow have a right to keep them.

What you have to do is reinstill what was lost BEFORE you start looking for the fringe benefits.

Get your car back before you worry about what tires you are allowed to put on it.

Yes, a military police state juggernaut would give gun rights meaning.

I don't know if "juggernaught" is teh right term, or if you are being serious or sarcastic, but suffice to say, people are less likely to attack their neighbors than to do the same to someone they do not know.

Suppression of "illegal" activities (which may vary from era to era) are usually handled best by soldiers or guardsmen NOT from that area. Why? They have little, if any connection.

What would happen if you needed to use Texas's military force to tell Texas to do something they vehemently opposed? Would you call in other states military forces? You think you could get a Texas Soldier to force his state to do something different?

I think this brings up a whole HOST of other problems, but it gives people back some of the sense of individuality.

Now if the Feds decided to force Texas, or several states to do what they wanted, then those states could get the support from their civilian population as well as their own military forces to reject the enforcement.

But what would it do now? Besides make people feel like they have more personal power (which can be taken from them faster than they know), what does this gun ownership do?

Crime prevention has already been proven false. State soverignity is not at stake, that is already gone. What does it allow?

[Ninjahedge]

Suppose it depends what you mean by "authored."

By a mainstream definition, Jcqueline Palank and Ian Urbina of the New York Times were the authors; they also appear to have chosen the original title. ;)

DON'T CAUSE TROUBLE YOU HOULIGAN!!!!!!!

[Jasonik]

If the rights were given because of the power that is no longer has...

I'm not going to cover ground I've covered extensively in previous posts. Read the Locke explanation, etc.

Rights are not given by the constitution. They are rights inherent in us as humans that are guaranteed protection from government intrusion by purposely limiting the governments authority.

For the second time:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-Thomas Jefferson

There is no reason to prohibit gun ownership- ownership that does not infringe on other's rights. It is the tyrant's will that wishes posession of all arms.

[Ninjahedge]

I'm not going to cover ground I've covered extensively in previous posts. Read the Locke explanation, etc.

Fair enough.

Rights are not given by the constitution. They are rights inherent in us as humans that are guaranteed protection from government intrusion by purposely limiting the governments authority.

But this is not some "god given" right. I know where you are coming from, but TRTBA is window dressing. Without state power, all gun ownership does is hurt the citizens by putting the power of life and death at he hands of anyone with a license and the will to pull the trigger. While 99% of the people out there would respect this, it is that 1% that ruins the model for everyone.

It did not work in the "wild west" model (crimes and shooting were much higher then, per capita, than now), it would not work here.

For the second time:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
-Thomas Jefferson

But the whole PURPOSE of the "right" to bear arms was not merely for the right to own a gun. The right was to have your own freedoms and the means to protect them. That being the case, a sidearm is not valid. A state guard is. A militia is.

I am not arguing individual rights here, just the logic train you are using. Philosophy works great until you bring it back to "A" and "B".

There is no reason to prohibit gun ownership- ownership that does not infringe on other's rights. It is the tyrant's will that wishes posession of all arms.

Um, it does infringe on others rights by the mere fact that it is something that can END another's life for no other reason than the person owning one desired it. It is not the same as putting people on "even ground". Hell, most fistfights do not end in death, but two guys, a relationship and a gun are a potent mixture, you know?


The importance here is that the freedom of gun ownership was not meant as the end. It was only the means to the broader protection of ones given rights. If those rights can no longer be won, protected, or regained by the possession of a lethal instrument with NO OTHER PURPOSE than to hurt, kill, or threaten to do the same, possession of that instrument can no longer be considered in and of itself as a right.

As soon as people separate the two and realize what was meant by the original authors of the constitution we can get back to the root and stop whining about the fact that you can't bring your 9mm to church. :p

[ZippyTheChimp]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
It's just silly for anyone to think that a handgun is going to afford any protection against government tyranny. When Jefferson made that statement, arms was a good rifle - state of the art for the military. In combat today, a handgun is useless.

What a tired argument. At least it made more sense as a deterrent to crime, but now that crime is dropping, we've tacked back to handguns as the bulwark of all our freedoms.

[ablarc]

Do you own a gun Zippy?

[Punzie]

That thing in his pocket? It could be a gun. Then again, it could be a banana.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Not for quite a while.

I did own an M1911 .45; it saved my life in combat. That may seem to be a contradiction of what I said above, but you had to be there.

I carried it on occasion in 70s New York, but during an incident, I did not have it, or my life today might be very different. I may have posted about it somewhere.

Being familiar with weapons, my experience is that while a rifle or assault weapon is more deadly, a handgun is much more empowering. Maybe because it's concealed, I don't know.

[Ninjahedge]

That thing in his pocket? It could be a gun. Then again, it could be a banana.

It's a rabbit silly woman!!!!!

http://www.quotationspage.com/weblog/wp-content/RogerRabbit.jpg

[MikeW]

Than why does the military buy them by the ten thousend?

I'll agree it isn't a PRIMARY weapon, but it still has it's place. But taking your logic the other way, if the 2A means what it says, I should be able to mound an Ma Deuce on my Hummer, shouldn't I.

It's just silly for anyone to think that a handgun is going to afford any protection against government tyranny. When Jefferson made that statement, arms was a good rifle - state of the art for the military. In combat today, a handgun is useless.

[Ninjahedge]

Than why does the military buy them by the ten thousend?

I'll agree it isn't a PRIMARY weapon, but it still has it's place. But taking your logic the other way, if the 2A means what it says, I should be able to mound an Ma Deuce on my Hummer, shouldn't I.

Don't get picky Mike, you know what he is saying.

A handgun, in the vein of what the 2nd amendment was written, to stand up agains a national governmental entity to ensure the individual and state rights of a region, is nearly worthless.

A handgun, along with a rifle, in the hands of a fully comissioned soldier or officer is not a good comparison.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Don't ever ask why does the military...In the field, we referred to tactical maps as comic books.

But taking your logic the other way, if the 2A means what it says, I should be able to mound an Ma Deuce on my Hummer, shouldn't I.What do you mean, the other way. That's the direction I was going.

Which was the point of my Iraq example. Today, arms should include RPGs, IEDs, and Stingers.

And if the right to bear arms is God given - well Allah is God too, right?

[MikeW]

There has never been a test of usefullness in confronting the goverment. Out of the old Miller decision, a test came out to the effect of asking if a weapon had a legitimate military use. The weapon in that case was a sawed off shotgun. The court decided that sawed off shotguns didn't have a military use.

However, as far as handguns go, that argument falls apart, based on the fact that the military buys and issues handguns.

Don't get picky Mike, you know what he is saying.

A handgun, in the vein of what the 2nd amendment was written, to stand up agains a national governmental entity to ensure the individual and state rights of a region, is nearly worthless.

A handgun, along with a rifle, in the hands of a fully comissioned soldier or officer is not a good comparison.

[MikeW]

They seem to have plenty of them, so it seems to apply there.

But I think we're on the same wavelength. Arms are arms. Any military weapon. I should be able to stroll through Time Square with and M4 slung over my shoulder.

Don't ever ask why does the military...In the field, we referred to tactical maps as comic books.

What do you mean, the other way. That's the direction I was going.

Which was the point of my Iraq example. Today, arms should include RPGs, IEDs, and Stingers.

And if the right to bear arms is God given - well Allah is God too, right?

[Jasonik]

Arms are arms. Any military weapon. I should be able to stroll through Time Square with and M4 slung over my shoulder.
I am kind of surprised (not really) that the response to 9/11 and the color coded threats freaking everyone out, that individuals weren't empowered more hardware-wise. Instead we're supposed to call in a tip or something similarly obsequious.

---

Police can't be everywhere all the time, so what's wrong with having the God given right of self protection?

As for the government being leery of overstepping its authority with an armed citizenry, it seems fair to propose that they feel they can take more rights away because they have vastly superior firepower.

My primary point is that the government is trying to incrementally take away Constitutional rights. It is disturbing to me that most of the conversation here has been trying to justify the taking, or ignore the utility of the right rather than the blatant abdication of public officials' oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution."

As for reinstating the parity of firepower to a level of mutually assured distruction between the federal and local authorities I don't see how that could happen short of dissolving the standing military and distrubuting the equipment and personel to the various states as reserves. In such a scenario the federal bases, schools and training facilities would still be used, but no standing force would be under the federal control without a declaration of war by congress.

[Ninjahedge]

There has never been a test of usefullness in confronting the goverment. Out of the old Miller decision, a test came out to the effect of asking if a weapon had a legitimate military use. The weapon in that case was a sawed off shotgun. The court decided that sawed off shotguns didn't have a military use.

However, as far as handguns go, that argument falls apart, based on the fact that the military buys and issues handguns.


Nope.

You never see an assault force fgo in with only handguns. You jumped right over my point of contension to say "well if they buy it.."

On that rationalle, $500 allen wrenches should be considered protected by the 2nd amendment too... :crosseyed:

[Ninjahedge]

I am kind of surprised (not really) that the response to 9/11 and the color coded threats freaking everyone out, that individuals weren't empowered more hardware-wise. Instead we're supposed to call in a tip or something similarly obsequious.

---

Police can't be everywhere all the time, so what's wrong with having the God given right of self protection?

I hope that is a rhetorical question.

Simply because we, as a people, pose more of a hazard to OURSELVES than any exterior force if we were to arm ourselves to.

Even the NRA does not approve of giving guns out willy-nilly. Most are just gredy and don't want it to be any harder for them to get and keep what they have. They keep making reasons up for it, but it is simply greed.

As for the government being leery of overstepping its authority with an armed citizenry, it seems fair to propose that they feel they can take more rights away because they have vastly superior firepower.

No. They feel that way because we have allowed them to. You are stretching the point a bit. Next time you, or your neighborhood can afford a few Tomcats and an airstrip to use them from, come back and pose that same train of thought.

They are doing it because they can, and they have the political power to do so. Saying that giving people will give them more freedom may in fact work in the opposite drection.

One small group of "disgruntled" individuals could cause the implementation of martial law. Hell, we had something similar with teh Patriot Act (carte Blanche for a miriad of civil rights infractions).

My primary point is that the government is trying to incrementally take away Constitutional rights. It is disturbing to me that most of the conversation here has been trying to justify the taking, or ignore the utility of the right rather than the blatant abdication of public officials' oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution."

I am not going to disagree with you there.

As for reinstating the parity of firepower to a level of mutually assured distruction between the federal and local authorities I don't see how that could happen short of dissolving the standing military and distrubuting the equipment and personel to the various states as reserves. In such a scenario the federal bases, schools and training facilities would still be used, but no standing force would be under the federal control without a declaration of war by congress.

I think that might be what we need. Just like the European Union, North Dakota can vote to send their forces in support of an action. If NJ votes against that, and it is NOT a matter of "national security" (Defense of a sworn ally, active homeland defense on a domestic scale) nobody should force them to give their resources to do so.

The United States should almost be treated as if we were a bunch of VERY friendly allied nations with a collective authority over us that would have the power of whatever resources each state was willing to give it.

In the very least, we would not have to pay NY tax dollars for an Alaskan bridge to nowhere, or a roadway improvement that would increase property values of a campaign contributor (Alaska again, florida roadway).

[pianoman11686]

I don't know if "juggernaught" is teh right term, or if you are being serious or sarcastic, but suffice to say, people are less likely to attack their neighbors than to do the same to someone they do not know.

This struck me as a wildly inaccurate statement, in a group of many others. Most violent crimes are committed among people who already know each other.

Simply because we, as a people, pose more of a hazard to OURSELVES than any exterior force if we were to arm ourselves to.

Um, I don't think that's quite how it works. Please explain to me how historical military campaigns, and even today's campaign in Iraq, somehow don't quite add up to several thousand homicides per year in the US.

Even the NRA does not approve of giving guns out willy-nilly. Most are just gredy and don't want it to be any harder for them to get and keep what they have. They keep making reasons up for it, but it is simply greed.

Every statement like this must be tempered with a consideration of the damaging and disproportionate role that illegal guns - and the crimes associated with them - factor into the equation.

My primary point is that the government is trying to incrementally take away Constitutional rights. It is disturbing to me that most of the conversation here has been trying to justify the taking, or ignore the utility of the right rather than the blatant abdication of public officials' oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[MikeW]

Nope.

You never see an assault force fgo in with only handguns. You jumped right over my point of contension to say "well if they buy it.."

Who cares. Plenty of members of that assault force would have Beretta's strapped to their thighs. That Beretta definitely falls under the category of arms. And, directly by its use as a military weapon, "primary" or not, it would pass the Miller test.

On that rationalle, $500 allen wrenches should be considered protected by the 2nd amendment too... :crosseyed:

An allen wrench, by no reasonable use of the word, could be considerred a purpose designed armament. Now your getting absurd.

[ZippyTheChimp]

However, as far as handguns go, that argument falls apart, based on the fact that the military buys and issues handguns.

Who cares. Plenty of members of that assault force would have Beretta's strapped to their thighs. That Beretta definitely falls under the category of arms. And, directly by its use as a military weapon, "primary" or not, it would pass the Miller test.What are you going on about?

Were/are you in the military? In combat?

[ablarc]

... but during an incident, I did not have it, or my life today might be very different. I may have posted about it somewhere.
Link?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Police can't be everywhere all the time, so what's wrong with having the God given right of self protection?It's useless to debate this, because some will argue that protection from people walking the streets packing handguns is their God given right.

My primary point is that the government is trying to incrementally take away Constitutional rights. It is disturbing to me that most of the conversation here has been trying to justify the taking, or ignore the utility of the right rather than the blatant abdication of public officials' oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution."

The right to bear arms that was codified in 18th century America put firepower in the hands of citizenry that was a real deterrent to government tyranny. That proportionality does not exist today.

Handguns as a safeguard against government oppression is a myth. So what we are left with is an abstract argument - the right to bear arms as the moat in defense of all our freedoms.

But the gun debate is a cultural one. Gun proponents who think of themselves as freedom loving Americans often think of their opponents as ACLU loving elitists. The libertarians are armed and ready behind their front doors, waiting for the military police to barge in. But they've empowered an electorate that installed a government that has already come in the back door, and is cleaning out the house.

[ablarc]

The libertarians are armed and ready behind their front doors, waiting for the military police to barge in. But they've empowered an electorate that installed a government that has already come in the back door, and is cleaning out the house.
There's the rub.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Link?Haven't a clue. It was quite a while ago, and could be in a crime thread, or subway thread.

Briefly...

We lived in Brooklyn Heights in the 70s. I was on a night work project. Clark St station, only elevator access. Two kids tried to rob me and someone else by pretending they had guns. When I found out they didn't, one ran toward the exit with the other guy in pursuit, and I intended to toss the other off the platform.

I don't know what stopped me, but if I had the gun with me, I would have used it.

[ablarc]

if I had the gun with me, I would have used it.
And lots of people do.

Best reason not to own one.

[Jasonik]

Handguns as a safeguard against government oppression is a myth. So what we are left with is an abstract argument - the right to bear arms as the moat in defense of all our freedoms.


Handguns are the canaries in the mine. The fearmongering about Americans not being able to handle personal liberty is the poison gas. What's next? Free political speech? (Oh right we already have 'free speech zones.')

Taking away peoples' self defense forces them to rely on government force for protection. So then; terrorizing of the populace justifies increased govenment authority which justifies itself by applying that authority and it can spiral without check into authoritarianism.

The problem is that most consider gun owners to be the cause of this dynamic- not abuse of government power.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Handguns are the canaries in the mine.Well, 200 million canaries have not done the job. I could just rehash post #81.

The problem is that most consider gun owners to be the cause of this dynamic- not abuse of government power.It's both. One does it, and the other enables (actually encourages) it.

Do you own a handgun, Jasonik?

[Ninjahedge]

This struck me as a wildly inaccurate statement, in a group of many others. Most violent crimes are committed among people who already know each other.

And you are applying it to an ENTIRELY different condition.

A military force is less likely to attack their neighbor, and by neighbor I mean "Bill and nancy down the street" and not Israel and Palestine, then they are to attack someone or something they do not know. Wasn't there a case where that was actually stated in US history where troops stationed in a different part of the country were brought in to stop rioting or student protest?



Um, I don't think that's quite how it works. Please explain to me how historical military campaigns, and even today's campaign in Iraq, somehow don't quite add up to several thousand homicides per year in the US.

Try and tell me how arming ourselves will make it so that war is not going to happen? AT ALL. You are doing an opposing argument by stating something as if it were a diametrically opposed condition.

Arming the people of the US, with handguns, poses more of a risk than it abates. I am not talking military force, I am talking citizenry. Please tell me how you related this to an outright military campaign.



Every statement like this must be tempered with a consideration of the damaging and disproportionate role that illegal guns - and the crimes associated with them - factor into the equation.

Look into how mant deaths are accidental. Also look at how many instances of domestic violence end in serious injury (not death, mind you) without a gun. You think they will somehow decrease with everyone having them? If someone is willing to go to extremes because of emotional circumstance, it is easier to pull a trigger while incensed than to repeatedly stab, or strangle a human being.

Your assertion about illegal guns has very little bearing on my statement. Look at most of the rules set up for gun ownership, and some of the proposed ones.

Things like waiting periods, background checks, training. Some things that even enthusiasts agree to, are still opposed by the NRA lobby and certain hardliners.

Why? Well it is obvious on some. It will hurt/slow the sale of their product. But more importantly, it is an inconvenience to them. Noone out there would be against making a law that would save lives, so long as it did not inconvenience them.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

And I still disagree that ownership of a lethal weapon is some god-given right to the people. It was an instrument to help preserve a freedom we had, not a freedom in and of itself.

[Jasonik]

Do you own a handgun, Jasonik?

I have researched buying one but am really put off by the bureaucracy and databasing I must submit to. As it is now in Massachusetts, local police departments must know the location of owners of all handguns within their jurisdiction. And let's be clear, this information is not so they can call me up and deputize me in case of an emergency.

The Brady laws have had the effect of limiting lawful ownership but doing nothing to combat crimes involving guns.

...licensed gun ownership has dropped 85 percent since 1998, when new gun laws were passed in Massachusetts, but gun homicides have still increased 64 percent, and gun-related assaults have increased 500 percent. source (http://www.goal.org/news/trackinggunowners.htm)

In fact there is a horrible story (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/26/cousin_seen_as_accidental_killer_of_boy_8/) in the local papers today about an 8 yr old kid being shot by his 7 yr old cousin while they were playing with a gun they found around the house. This is clearly a case of criminal neglegence by the parent(s) but I'm sure will be used a a cudgel against lawful gun ownership in the state.

Oh and Rapunzel back to your original concern, there is a congressman who shares the sentiment.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 13, 2007 (http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2640, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act, and I urge caution.

In my opinion, H.R. 2640 is a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment.

H.R. 2640 also seriously undermines the privacy rights of all Americans--gun owners and non-gun owners alike--by creating and expanding massive federal government databases, including medical and other private records of every American.

H.R. 2640 illustrates how placing restrictions on the exercise of one right--in this case, the right to bear arms--inevitably leads to expanded restriction on other rights as well. In an effort to make the Brady background check on gun purchases more efficient, H.R. 2640 pressures states and mandates federal agencies to dump massive amounts of information about the private lives of all Americans into a central federal government database.

Among the information that must be submitted to the database are medical, psychological, and drug treatment records that have traditionally been considered protected from disclosure under the physician-patient relationship, as well as records related to misdemeanor domestic violence. While supporters of H.R. 2640 say that there are restrictions on the use of this personal information, such restrictions did not stop the well-publicized IRS and FBI files privacy abuses by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Neither have such restrictions prevented children from being barred from flights because their names appeared on the massive terrorist watch list. We should not trick ourselves into believing that we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we support.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act illustrates how laws creating new infringements on liberty often also impose large financial burdens on taxpayers. In just its first three years of operation, the bill authorizes new yearly spending of $375 million plus additional spending ''as may be necessary.'' This new spending is not offset by any decrease in other government spending.

[Ninjahedge]

Who cares. Plenty of members of that assault force would have Beretta's strapped to their thighs. That Beretta definitely falls under the category of arms. And, directly by its use as a military weapon, "primary" or not, it would pass the Miller test.

I don;t care if it would pass the Pabst Blue Ribbon test. A handgun is not the primary armorment of the US military, so your comparison is lame.

An allen wrench, by no reasonable use of the word, could be considerred a purpose designed armament. Now your getting absurd.

No, I am illustrating your qualification of purchase by the military as proof of viability in a resistance to a large scale military action or repression tactic is invalid.

[pianoman11686]

200 million. How many of those are legally registered, and how many are illegal? Even better question: what percentage of gun crimes are committed by those who own them legally?

[pianoman11686]

And you are applying it to an ENTIRELY different condition.

A military force is less likely to attack their neighbor, and by neighbor I mean "Bill and nancy down the street" and not Israel and Palestine, then they are to attack someone or something they do not know. Wasn't there a case where that was actually stated in US history where troops stationed in a different part of the country were brought in to stop rioting or student protest?

Why are you talking military all of a sudden? You said, and I quote: "people are less likely to attack their neighbors than to do the same to someone they do not know". I know you're talking about civilians, not the government, so don't try and spin this around into something else. Fact is, violent crimes are more likely to be committed against people that the criminal already knows, not against strangers.

Try and tell me how arming ourselves will make it so that war is not going to happen? AT ALL. You are doing an opposing argument by stating something as if it were a diametrically opposed condition.

Arming the people of the US, with handguns, poses more of a risk than it abates. I am not talking military force, I am talking citizenry. Please tell me how you related this to an outright military campaign.

That's not what I said AT ALL. You claimed we can do more harm to ourselves than external forces can do us. That's also patently false. Case in point: September 11th vs. all the high school shootings that have taken place in the past 20 years or so.

I'd also like to hear more about this increase in risk. Statistical analyses have been done that show no correlation between stricter gun control laws and lower crime.

Look into how mant deaths are accidental. Also look at how many instances of domestic violence end in serious injury (not death, mind you) without a gun. You think they will somehow decrease with everyone having them? If someone is willing to go to extremes because of emotional circumstance, it is easier to pull a trigger while incensed than to repeatedly stab, or strangle a human being.

Um, correct if I'm wrong, but I'd venture to guess MOST people would find it very hard to pull the trigger, no matter how emoitonal. A gun is a powerful object, laden with all kinds of stigma and social myth. Your claim that people will start just firing away as soon as they have one assumes that a gun is not a "big deal" for most people. I think it is.

About accidental deaths: Please. Based on that logic, we should put chain-link fences around every suburban pool so that no more children accidentally drown when they get away from their parents' supervision for a minute. We should also be addressing a litany of other sources of accidental death. I doubt we'll ever fully eradicate it.

Your assertion about illegal guns has very little bearing on my statement. Look at most of the rules set up for gun ownership, and some of the proposed ones.

I think it has a lot of bearing. People that are willing to engage in illegal behavior to obtain a gun will also be more willing to engage in illegal behavior in using a gun.

And I still disagree that ownership of a lethal weapon is some god-given right to the people. It was an instrument to help preserve a freedom we had, not a freedom in and of itself.

What freedom were we exactly preserving, which we no longer have today? Are you saying we just selectively start giving up certain freedoms that are somehow no longer relevant today?

[ZippyTheChimp]

I'd also like to hear more about this increase in risk. Statistical analyses have been done that show no correlation between stricter gun control laws and lower crime.Pointless debate. You can pull out statistics and counter-statistics till you're blue in the face. For whatever reasons, crime has dropped in areas with stricter gun-control regulations, and other countries do quite well with nationwide gun control.

Um, correct if I'm wrong, but I'd venture to guess MOST people would find it very hard to pull the trigger, no matter how emoitonal.Since you capped MOST, I assume you think 51 or 60 percent makes your statement acceptable. Correct yes, but not acceptable.

Are you saying we just selectively start giving up certain freedoms that are somehow no longer relevant today?Are you more interested in preserving the right to carry a concealed weapon, or the underlying right to privacy that the problems of gun ownership are contributing to eroding?

[Ninjahedge]

Why are you talking military all of a sudden? You said, and I quote: "people are less likely to attack their neighbors than to do the same to someone they do not know". I know you're talking about civilians, not the government, so don't try and spin this around into something else. Fact is, violent crimes are more likely to be committed against people that the criminal already knows, not against strangers.

No, I am not. I am not turning ANYTHING around.

Fact is, people are more likely to HURT EACH OTHER when guns are provided than they are to stop an invading military force using the same weapons.

As for ORIGINAL CONTEXT:

If we can get the military back into the hands, primarily, of the people that comprise it, then maybe the right to bear arms will have more meaning. Yes, a military police state juggernaut would give gun rights meaning

I spoke of the juggernaut, and why Jason seemed to be so opposed to a state militia. He implied that somehow making the states more powerful would turn them into Juggernaughts and remove the "right" to individual freedoms like gun ownership. At least, that is what it seemed to be.

What I was saying was that a state militia is less likely to attack/oppress members of its own state than a federal one. Tactics like that HAVE been used in the past where units were deliberately chosen from outside the area being used to eliminate ANY POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.


That's not what I said AT ALL. You claimed we can do more harm to ourselves than external forces can do us. That's also patently false. Case in point: September 11th vs. all the high school shootings that have taken place in the past 20 years or so.

FALSE!!!! You are taking one incident and ignoring all the fatal shootings, accidents that have happened with legal gun ownership. You also ignore the FACT that the kid had psychological problems, but was able to easily buy a gun from a VA shop. You also assume that somehow, if all kids were allowed to bring firearms to class, that someone would have gone Bruce Willis on him and taken him out.

You also fail to see what a potential hazard it would be to have the majority of students, on a COLLEGE CAMPUS, have lethal weapons. Go to a frat party or watch any of the "jackarse" films to get an idea of what people are capable of doing and you will see how this could pose a greater risk than one psycho on a shooting rampage.

I'd also like to hear more about this increase in risk. Statistical analyzes have been done that show no correlation between stricter gun control laws and lower crime.

But strangely enough they have shown direct correlation between gun ownership and shootings? Come on Piano! All we see when these laws are emplaced is how people will go to other states to get the guns legally. Why would someone bother going to VA to get a gun for NY if it was so readily available, illegally, in NY? Gun control opponents seem to talk all the time about how easy it is for criminals to get guns, but sidestep the fact that they are more likely to just take a drive down south and pick it up no muss, no fuss.

Didn't they say that somewhere near 40% of the guns confiscated in criminal cases in NYS came from VA?

If I had the raw numbers, I could probably show a correlation between legal gun sales in a state and the crimes committed by them. Or, to be more fair, ANY gun acquired in the state (not from places like VA) and their own murder rate.


But the thing that gets me is that you know it would be very hard to isolate this statistically unless we found a way to eliminate the effects of economy, police presence and other factors. Saying that there is no study showing something does not always mean that it does not happen, but that the data concerning it is not able to be isolated enough to provide a direct, viable, link.


Um, correct if I'm wrong, but I'd venture to guess MOST people would find it very hard to pull the trigger, no matter how emotional. A gun is a powerful object, laden with all kinds of stigma and social myth. Your claim that people will start just firing away as soon as they have one assumes that a gun is not a "big deal" for most people. I think it is.

You are wrong. It takes a split second of anger to do it, MUCH easier than bludgeoning, stabbing or otherwise harming another individual. You are saying that stabbing someone with a butcher knife is easier than shooting them?

Come on Piano!

About accidental deaths: Please. Based on that logic, we should put chain-link fences around every suburban pool so that no more children accidentally drown when they get away from their parents' supervision for a minute. We should also be addressing a litany of other sources of accidental death. I doubt we'll ever fully eradicate it.

We do. Don't be stupid, it is a law in NJ that you have to have a fence around every pool. And also do not bring in things that COULD be lethal, but whose primary purpose is not killing. I am SO tired of people telling me that you can get accidentally killed by a car and that more people die from cars, etc etc.

A gun does not carry groceries. A gun does not get you to work. A gun does not cool you off on a hot summer day. A gun does not give you exercise.

Stop comparing apples to elephants. They aren't even in the same family.



I think it has a lot of bearing. People that are willing to engage in illegal behavior to obtain a gun will also be more willing to engage in illegal behavior in using a gun.

No, it doesn't. I was not even talking about illegal guns, which is another stanchion of the gun control opponents.

You sidestepped my assertion of death toll through accidental, or purposeful, although unwarranted, owners of legal handguns.

Your statement is disqualified by your own positions statements saying "well criminals will always be able to get guns anyway..."

If that is the case, and we will assume it to be so for this argument, then the crime rates involving them and their shooting would stay about the same. Moderately reduced by threat of potential retaliation from the "new" gun owners.

But what happens to the death toll from accidental shootings? You prevent 60 killings at the university, a thing that has happened only once in many years, but in 1 year you have 60 accidental shootings where one kid accidentally kills his brother, or someone cleans the gun without checking, or a drunk guy at a frat party does not know the pistol he is twirling in front of the ladies is loaded.



What freedom were we exactly preserving, which we no longer have today? Are you saying we just selectively start giving up certain freedoms that are somehow no longer relevant today?

We would be preserving the power of the state. The STATE militia. The 2nd amendment was written as a bulwark against the threat of federal imperialism. As a check and balance against possible domination by a central authority akin to what they rebelled against as a colony of Britain.

If they had the same kind of power play happen, they could just fight to secede.

Now, do you think there is a chance in hell that we could have a viable civil war? You think we would just LET Texas grab Arizona and Colorado and say Adiós?

No.

The right to bear arms was a means to enable resistance against government centralization. That was already lost, as was mentioned, through the back door.

Now all the guys have left is the pistols they kept clinging to while they foolishly lost sight of what they were actually protecting.

[MikeW]

This was a reply to Ninja's post 75.

What are you going on about?

Were/are you in the military? In combat?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
I realized that. But Miller ruling notwithstanding, do you think handguns are a viable weapon in modern combat?

Or look at it this way: Would a squad be deployed with only assault rifles vs, a squad deployed with only handguns?

The relevance in this topic is handguns as a deterrent to a tyrannical government.

[Ninjahedge]

^
I realized that. But Miller ruling notwithstanding, do you think handguns are a viable weapon in modern combat?

Or look at it this way: Would a squad be deployed with only assault rifles vs, a squad deployed with only handguns?

The relevance in this topic is handguns as a deterrent to a tyrannical government.

That is what I am going on.

And since when does service have anything to do with the knowledge that a rifle is a better combat weapon than a pistol anyday.


Hell, my limited exposure in combat sims has not yeilded any different. Noone runs around with a pistol against a bunch of guys with rifles. They just don't.

I have not seen it in film footage, news reels, or even fiction aside from the final shots fired futively by the division commander as he pulls his pistol out to shoot at some guys out of your FOV....



My line of logic is simple:

Gun ownership was granted to the people to help fight to keep their own regional political base/power. The constitution wanted to keep everything in the hands of the people. Gun ownership kept a balance.

Since that time, guns and government have evolved into something different. We have no real strong local government anymore. The system the founders tried to preserve is no longer present.

Arguing that guns are needed while ignoring their original purpose is pointless. The argument should be for restoration of the original system and ideals before we use the constitution, out of context, to "protect" the window dressing. It is useless to ask for outlets when all the wiring has been removed.

As an ADDED point of contention, saying that PISTOL ownership is somehow related ifnores the primary failure of the system in the first place, and then tries to assert itself as a viable instrument of actualization in the protection of a defunct system.

Two negatories on that one. First, obviously, that rifle beats pistol, no