Gun control/2nd Amendment

[korn469]

What I am arguing is that the government be allowed to create practical legislation regulating the distribution of firearms. Before someone gains a gun license their backgrounds should be checked and if they have a history of violent behaviour they should be rejected. I believe gun training should be mandatory before a license is given and why not treat it like a driver's license. I believe that creating an atmosphere where legal gun ownership is a responsibility, not a right, will have a beneficial effect on the welfare of the people as opposed to the detrimental effect not taking these actions has.

I agree in principle with pretty much all you said. However, I don't think that requiring a gun license will really solve any crime problems, and I think that the government would in practice use a simple thing like gun licenses to enforce other policies and that it would restrict overall gun ownership. I don't think that the government would implement things in good faith.

Just recently in my hometown the head of police asked the town council to ratify a new noise and cruising law. His quote was "your right to free speech ends at my ears." Oliver Wendell Holmes he's not, but I do think that he is a good representative of well intentioned fascists.

I live in a rural area of Virginia which is a very pro gun state. Almost everyone I know has one or more firearms, and there are very few restrictions on owning them. However, the high number of guns coupled with a lack of gun regulations HAS NOT lead to a wave of murder or chaos. I haven't locked the doors at my house until recently, and that is simply because my landlord doesn't like to knock. I don't lock my car doors, and when a murder does occur it is almost a shock. Drugs are a really bad problem here, and there is a very real, very scary oxycotin culture which has destroyed many lives and has helped to increase crime, but armed robbery and gun violence in general is a very rare occurance. The system functions well enough here, and I don't see any need to introduce tons of new laws to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe it is very different in your area, but I doubt that even banning and trying to confiscate guns would control crime in the highest crime areas in america.

I know that crime underwent dramatic drops in New York City and other urban areas, yet I do not credit tough new anti gun laws for those drops. Besides making law enforcement of the existing laws more effective, it appears that improving socioeconomic factors led almost all of the decrease. I think that gun licenses are a solution in search of a problem, and that it is just another oppertunity for government to intrude on people's lives. The Pentagon decided that hey we have the money, we have the technology, lets track every aspect we can for average americans. I have no trust in bureaucracies.

Two weekends ago my cousin had to fly because of his job. They flew from Cincinatti, to Memphis, to Mobile. On the way home they were in Memphis, and Northwestern (north worst) Airlines experienced a computer glitch, and claimed that my cousin and his coworker had flown for free. Then they were rude and provided poor customer service till my cousin and his coworker missed their connecting flight. When they got angry, the woman told them to calm down or she would basically report them as terrorists. This is an example of a completely out of whack bureaucracy, but I'm sure there are others, and I know that the government provides poor customer service on a continuing basis. Except the government has power to REALLY screw with people's lives. Things that are much worse than missing a connecting flight.

Crime and incarceration rates in Europe and Japan are much lower than in the US, and I think it has little to do with guns. Maybe it is the culture, norms, and mores. I don't know,but I think we should find out what it is, before a bunch of well meaning politicians go off half-cocked and implement tons of new laws that don't work. Everyday we lose a little bit of freedom if we just sit back and let the government do what it wants.

[Japher]

The more laws you try to put on something, anything, the more crimes there are to commit. Unavoidable truth.

The trick is to make it so difficult that the criminals will just not even bother.

How to do this? I don't know. Because, ppl should be allowed to have guns without the government breathing down their back to get one. Right to Privacy and all that.

[Odin]

Here are my ideas on gun control:

Ban "Gun Shows," they are good places for people to get guns w/o a licence.

Make gus so they can be only used by the owner. My idea is a unique small "key" that will unlock ONLY the gun it comes with.

To get a licence you must not of commited a felony that deals with violence in the past 15 years and have gone through gun training.



My interpitation of the second ammendment is that states can organize a national gaurd, and that people can carry light wepeons (knives and handguns) for self defense and for resistance against invading armies. We must remember that the U. S. didn't have much of an professional army in 1790, it could of been conquered in no time if a european nation wanted to unless the people could help resist an invasion.

[cia]

IMO, guns were permitted as a reboot if you will, sending an unjust government to its grave if you will. Crime has always existed and the Founders didn't give a rat's pituitary gland about it.

[Ned]

To those who have yet to read the 9th Circuit opinion, I recommend it for one reason; it gives a good summary of the debates surrounding the 2nd Amendment and what the concerns were of those who opposed the Federal constitution.

The Second Amendment was passed so that the Federal Government could not "indirectly" interfere with the States rights to raise Militias --meaning State armies. Much of the debate centered on a proposal that the Federal Gov. be the only party to provide arms to the Militias. It was felt by the anti-Federalists that the Feds could then destroy the Militias simply by not equipping them.

Another way to destroy the Militias was to take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms - for this is the way Militias kept and bore arms.

So the Amendment means what it says, in my view, - but it applies only to laws and actions of the Federal Government. The State governments can regulate the right to keep and bear arms - there is nothing in the constitution that says they cannot.

Finally, the 9th Amendment also applies to the Federal Government. It does not infringe on the State's prerogatives at all.

The Supreme Court has never directly interpreted the 2nd Amendment. We now have conflicting holdings of the 9th and the 5th Circuits. I predict that the Supremes will soon take the issue up, perhaps even the 9th Circuit case that just was decided.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by aaglo


The extreme difference: 300% increase in bullets...

Pull the trigger three times, or pull the trigger once for a three round burst - the difference is about half a second.

But it's not the difference itself. I mean, why do you need those extra 2 bullets? If you try to shoot at something, the first will propably hit and the rest will go who-knows-where...

Personally, with a pistol I can make head shots on a normally moving target better than 95% of the time at 30 meters, and on a stationary target 100% of the time at 50 meters, without using the laser sight on my Sig-Sauer P229. In other words, if push comes to shove, I won't need the second shot when it comes to administering a street IQ test.

But we're not talking about ability to hit a target, we're talking about rationale for blanket prohibition of certain types of weapons. Given that I already stated (in the same post as my responses to what types of weapons should be ownable by the general public) that I have no problem with licensing or background checks, what is the inherent hazard in such a weapon that it should not be available to a properly trained, testably proficient and knowledgable (legal issues, safety, etc.) individual who has passed a background check?

Or is it just that "it is very cool and it makes me feel like a real man" -feeling you get when you shoot 3-round burst...

Feisty, aren't we? Got our panties giving us a little wedgie? If you equate owning a gun or shooting one to a manhood issue, then you probably shouldn't own one. Just because you have something to compensate for, doesn't justify an unconditional ban on something. It's the morons, not the hardware, that's the problem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Federal Government could not "indirectly" interfere with the States rights to raise Militias

Someone on another forum is raising that point and I think it is foolish that the Constitution protects an individual right with the intent to protect a state right. It just seems foolish and doesn't make much sense.

So the Amendment means what it says, in my view, - but it applies only to laws and actions of the Federal Government. The State governments can regulate the right to keep and bear arms - there is nothing in the constitution that says they cannot.

True, but only until the court applies the 14th Amendment to the 2nd and 9th Amendments as they have to all the other Bill of Rights (and they probably will, seeing as if they didn't the 14th Amendment's application of the Bill of Rights to the states becomes a joke).

[orange]

i don't see any problem with background checks, registration, waiting periods, mandatory safety locks, or mandatory training and owning classes for gun ownership, regardless of whether or not someone thinks that it violates the constitution.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Federal Government could not "indirectly" interfere with the States rights to raise Militias

Someone on another forum is raising that point and I think it is foolish that the Constitution protects an individual right with the intent to protect a state right. It just seems foolish and doesn't make much sense.

So the Amendment means what it says, in my view, - but it applies only to laws and actions of the Federal Government. The State governments can regulate the right to keep and bear arms - there is nothing in the constitution that says they cannot.

True, but only until the court applies the 14th Amendment to the 2nd and 9th Amendments as they have to all the other Bill of Rights (and they probably will, seeing as if they didn't the 14th Amendment's application of the Bill of Rights to the states becomes a joke).

Yeah, but Imran, if this is a fundamental right of a state rather than of individuals, the precedent suggests that it will not apply to the states through the 14th Amendment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, but Imran, if this is a fundamental right of a state rather than of individuals, the precedent suggests that it will not apply to the states through the 14th Amendment.

I addressed the question if this is a right of states (which I think is silly) or individuals.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's the morons, not the hardware, that's the problem.

But it's much easier to ban guns than morons...?

[Ramo]

True, but only until the court applies the 14th Amendment to the 2nd and 9th Amendments as they have to all the other Bill of Rights (and they probably will, seeing as if they didn't the 14th Amendment's application of the Bill of Rights to the states becomes a joke).

The Courts applied the other parts of the Bill of Rights to the states in something like the 1880's, 15 or so years after the 14th was passed. If they haven't applied the 14th to the 2nd in the past 120 years, due to inherent conservatism of the Courts and the power of precedent, I don't see them doing it in the next 120 years. Besides, I think it's harder to strech the due process clause in the 14th, to the 2nd, than the other individual rights in the Bill of Rights.

As for the 9th, it's more of a legal guideline than anything else.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


The Courts applied the other parts of the Bill of Rights to the states in something like the 1880's, 15 or so years after the 14th was passed. If they haven't applied the 14th to the 2nd in the past 120 years, due to inherent conservatism of the Courts and the power of precedent, I don't see them doing it in the next 120 years. Besides, I think it's harder to strech the due process clause in the 14th, to the 2nd, than the other individual rights in the Bill of Rights.

As for the 9th, it's more of a legal guideline than anything else.

If the 2nd Amendment is applied to the States thru the 14th, it would make no sense at all. It would read as follows, in effect:

A well regulated [state] Militia, being necessary for a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed [by a State].

Think about that for a second. The State cannot infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that it, the State, may have a well regulated Militia! This is backwards.

This points out that the Second Amendment is all about States Rights.

[Ramo]

I didn't want to get into another gun control debate, but you're misinterpreting the 2nd.

In the Amendment, militia means any able bodied adult man between 18 and 54 (or something like that).

In 18th century English, "regulated" roughly meant "disciplined."

Thus, it reads:

"A disciplined adult population capable of military service being necessary for a free State, [...]" which makes perfect sense.

Also, you misunderstand the usage of "State." It is not a reference to the "states" in the "United States," but is used in the tradional sense: simply a public authority, and the authority it refers to in the 2nd is obviously the USA. As in "Secretary of State."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Most application of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend Bill of Rights protections against actions by the states came out of the Warren Court in the 1960s.

Cases like Mapp v. Ohio, Griswold v. Connecticut, Miranda, and many others that are really the hallmark of the Warren Court.