Printable View
16,808,538 applications to buy guns in the US as monitored by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If they are all approved it would be enough weapons to arm every member of Nato’s armed forces five times over.
Who says the US is not obsessed with guns?
Michael Moore article worth reading!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...?utm_hp_ref=tw
Enjoy!
Speaking of having a round in the chamber, here's a story where a guy managed to lose his gun in a theatre, loaded and with the safety off, although he claims the safety was on before it accidentally slipped from his holster. Seriously, lack of gun safety amongst gun users is giving the entire community a giant black eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...pologizes.html
My friend's older brother was target shooting at his country home, and he shot himself in the leg with an old Army .45...With the safety on.It was a bad wound and he had to crawl all the way back to the house. The cop who came with the ambulance accidentally shot the gun in the house, again, with the safety on.
I am too lazy to look up the data, but I'd take a wild guess that the US has so many shootings is because the US has so many guns.
The Romans used to say the people will never interfere in politics as long as they have bread and circuses. Guns are an illusion of power.
I dont mind open carry, i served 6 years as an armorer and weapons instructor, majority of accidents r do to to poorly maintaned weapons maintinance or people who never received proper training and safety classes. I beleive taking away our 2nd amendment will inly bring us closer to becoming a socialist goverment, however i agree that thete r that 1% like in evetything else that shouldnt own a firearm due mental reasons. I own a small armory, ive trained thousands of sailors and soldiers and i know irst hand that people kill innocents not guns.
The US Government recognizes that guns are dangerous, they offer a 20 year retirement to those who sometimes carry a firearm, instead of 30. The Armed Forces, Police, Postal Inspectors, Secret Service, etc. turn down many applicants they deem mentally, morally, or emotionally unfit to carry a gun. I'm not sure what percentage. Yet it is totally legal for them to personally buy as many guns as they want.
Who says, "Guns don't kill people..."? In the case of homicides, no coroner ever pronounced a human being to be an immediate cause of death nor the underlying cause of death. The reported underlying cause may refer to arteries torn or severed by penetration wounds, blockages caused by lodged projectiles etc.
Bullets are the underlying cause of death in approximately 70% of the homicides in the U.S. Those bullets were fired with guns. Yes, those guns were fired by murderers. Yet as the availability of high tech firearms increases, those murderers have become more efficient: even though firearm related crime in the U.S. is high, the nonfatal firearm-related crime is down.
If you want to be purist about it, it is the consequence of a bullet at high velocity tearing through human flesh and damaging the vessels, cells, veins, bones etc inside the human body rather than the bullet itself that kills. People who die from malaria often die from liver failure which is a typical consequence of being bitten by a malarial mosquito.
The idea that guns dont kill people, people do is one of the strangest I have heard. Even if it were true the riposte would be -then don't give people guns! But I do understand that if someone was not motivated to pull a trigger the trigger would not be pulled, but this only ducks out the core question -why do people kill?
And why when it's easy to kill are people so likely to do it? Could the average person be a killer if you reduce the effort required to kill and make the deliberative process prior to killing ever shorter? What if people could kill by desiring it at one point in time and the action could be completed just by generating a thought? Who amongst us may have killed if only we had a gun in our hand at our angriest, least controlled moment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Advocates of free speech often decry the attempt to punish thought crimes. They say individuals should not be prosecuted for thinking nasty things or saying nasty things. This is true because we all recognize the distinction between thinking and acting. For this reason the criminal law requires both thought and action, because we can't be entirely sure that thoughts are "willed"; does the process of generating them not feel spontaneous sometimes? It is the combination of thought and action that brings culpability which is based partially on the recognition that the actor had a chance to not have done what he did.
It is with guns and high-tech weaponry that the line between thought and action is blurred. When you hold a loaded gun, the action required to kill is a slight movement of the index finger against a slight pressure. This requires intent, but the specific intent is to move your index finger with the knowledge that it will discharge a bullet and kill someone. With such a simple movement putting into motion an act with such permanent consequences, is it not predictable that we hear murderers complain that they just weren't thinking? In truth, they were doing little more than thinking.
Costa Rica Hunting Ban Passed Unanimously By Congress:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...gn=scribol.com
What you should be worried about in the US!
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The Founding Fathers vs. The Gun Nuts:
The Founding Fathers vs. The Gun Nuts - YouTube
With visibly unhinged conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones on the loose - who achieves the impossible by making Piers Morgan look like a reasonable human being - the gun lobby needs more credible spokesmen. This man is crazy. Maybe he should be deported instead of Morgan.
yahoo.com/alex-jones-piers-morgan-interview-cnn-rant-on-gun-control-113924767.html#MUeDtfn
I'm not sure what to make of Alex Jones. I mean, he's entertaining. I don't take him too seriously. But a lot do.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKADh_XSsyk
Alex Jones...
Armed Mafia Are Stalking Us: Post Piers Morgan Debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0sE9hAXXB4
Wowww......Alex Jones is seriously scarey - and I suspect he has his followers here. He broadcasts to millions, god help us. Little children die, but these nutjobs insist they've the right to own military style guns Jones is unhinged and his bellicosity is truly frightening.
I have just spent nearly a month in the US and it terrifying to see the level of violent hatred and ignorance levelled by the gun lobby against anyone who dares to suggest that there be any further restrictions on guns.
AI remained convinced, as i was on the day of the Sandy Hook slaughter that there will be no successful move to limit this madness. The NRA is too powerful - and the new Congress will blockl all and any attempts to dent this growing madness.
The next big shooting - thirty, forty, fifty deaths?. No chance of change following that either.
The second amendment calls for the right of a "well regulated militia" to have guns - not every ordinary man and woman on the street.
Some quotes which would seem to refute much of what he claims about the Founding Fathers and early America's perception about the right to keep and bear arms:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950] )
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
(James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee - Delegate to the Second Continental Congress
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) -PA Delegate to the Continental Congress
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
On a related note, I personally think that any bans on certain types of firearms or magazines should also apply to both federal and state law enforcement agencies. If something is truly a "weapon of war" then the FBI and state/local police have no business owning it either.
That's not even how it reads - perhaps you missed the USSC clarification of an individual's right to possess arms? Wiki of DC v. HellerQuote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
We can see in NYBURBS post that the concerns of the founding fathers was of tyranny. Militias are formed by ordinary citizens, but it is no longer plausible for a militia to oppose the U.S government with anything like success. Should they also have the right to possess tanks, cruise missiles, f-16's?
With the passage of the 2nd amendment I doubt there was any consideration of these weapons being used in public to cause mass fatalities in such a short period of time.
I also love the conditional statement by NYBURBS about law enforcement. IF they are weapons of war then law enforcement should not have them? Are they weapons of war? I would assume if a gun is too unwieldy to be used in defense of one's home, not fit for hunting, and has been used to effectively spray dozens with bullets, it is a military grade weapon. This just shows that gun supporters have an unhealthy mistrust of their government, of the society they live in, and of the people who risk their lives to help protect them. Sure, if we're talking about military grade weapons (which we are) then limit their use to the military. I hope our legislators can assuage your fear about local and federal law enforcement so that we can address this problem.
The "founding fathers" all had their takes on what should be in and what should not be in the Bill of Rights and they all had their takes on how the Bill of Rights should be interpreted. Those opinions do not constitute the bill, nor are they a guide to its interpretation. We are not bound to the mere opinions that some men may have had two hundred years ago, founders or not. We are bound to the law not as it is opined but as it is written and interpreted by the courts. The second amendment is written as, "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." One originalist interpretation would be people can own and bear muskets, the reason being that the people may be called upon by their government to join properly formed well regulated militia in defense of their nation. A more literal interpretation is people can own and bear arms. However, there is no literal prohibition placed on the federal or state governments against regulating or banning some types of arms. The amendment doesn't even people can bear firearms, it merely establishes the right to bear some kind of arms. The literal text is so ambiguous it can be used to justify the private ownership of nuclear warheads and to justify the banning of every weapon but sharpened spoons. This very ambiguity is why we have a living Constitution. Each generation gets to decide and interpret its meaning within the confines of precedent, reason and common sense. Arming every school principal with a semi-automatic is antithetical to common sense. Allowing arms manufacturers to dictate public firearm policy through the NRA lobby is antithetical to common sense. It's time to confiscate the "man card," boys and regulate the toys.
No you're not bound to their individual interpretation, but it's a far more sound starting area then most places one could look. Aside from that, those lists of quotes were in response to that video where the commentator claimed that defense against one's own government was not a motivating factor in the passage of the second amendment, and the quotes tend to refute that claim. Your argument over how to interpret the constitution is an old one, I don't see myself changing your mind and you're not about to change mine, but I do find it a stretch to think that the meaning of the words in a social compact (aka a constitution) can change. If it could then there'd be little need for an amending clause, or even a constitution for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I've heard this argument before, and yet I can turn on the television and watch a bunch of rag tag Syrians fighting it out with their dictator or I could go watch some footage of Muslims bringing the most technologically advanced military in the world to a grinding halt. Dictators and tyrants don't kill off their entire population, even when they might be able to, because then they'd have no one left to rule over. Additionally, you can go back in history and see for yourself that every tyrannical government has sought to disarm anyone that might oppose it.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Idk, are they weapons of war? Having been in the military, I wouldn't call the AR-15 an exclusive weapon of war, but there are many on the other side of the debate who do. Whether that particular weapon is or isn't is irrelevant to my overall contention that if a weapon is deemed to be too dangerous for civilian use, then it shouldn't be possessed by law enforcement either. There has been a dramatic militarization of the police over the past decade or so, and it's not helping to assuage the concerns of many on the gun rights side of the debate. Go watch some youtube videos of police responses to peaceful protests or the way police handle anyone attempting to photograph/film them.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
PS- The entire Bill of Rights is based off of a distrust of government. Otherwise, why would we need a guarantee that they won't imprison us without trial or that they won't abridge our right to free speech or to worship as we see fit?
Why is it a more sound starting place? Because you say so, or because a slave owning founder who has no comprehension of modern weaponry has a more reasoned opinion on what the modern interpretation should be?Quote:
No you're not bound to their individual interpretation, but it's a far more sound starting area then most places one could look.
I'm sorry but the paranoid contention that citizens need military grade firearms to keep their own government at bay is a testosterone driven fantasy.Quote:
Aside from that, those lists of quotes were in response to that video where the commentator claimed that defense against one's own government was not a motivating factor in the passage of the second amendment, and the quotes tend to refute that claim.
As the meaning and reference of some words evolve, others remain fixed. Meaning shift doesn't obviate the need for amendments. Sometimes the relation between the meaning and the reference of a word drifts to the point that require some contracts be reconsidered. It's not the meaning but the reference of the words in a contract that determine how it is to be practically applied. Certainly the very word in dispute, "arms" has radically changed its reference if not its meaning.Quote:
Your argument over how to interpret the constitution is an old one, I don't see myself changing your mind and you're not about to change mine, but I do find it a stretch to think that the meaning of the words in a social compact (aka a constitution) can change. If it could then there'd be little need for an amending clause, or even a constitution for that matter.
I agree that this is the purpose of the bill of rights but don't you think that the other amendments provide better protection against tyranny? Trial by jury, due process, privilege against self-incrimination, free speech, protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The 2nd amendment by comparison provides very little protection against the state, except in the most extreme circumstance when having a gun is very unlikely to matter. You can use Syria as an example but it was not a relatively stable democracy or any kind of democracy. The people had absolutely no choice if they wanted to oppose their leader but to resort to violence. The 2nd amendment seems unique in that it pre-supposes the abandonment of every other lawful means of resistance.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
In the United States, those who want to resort to violence are the individuals who cannot get their way through the democratic process. Those who oppose many of the laws passed through the legislature, who are upset that their neighbors don't feel the same way they do about every issue. Possessing guns provides very little protection against tyranny and has led to immediate deaths in the near term. IMO this is an insurance policy in which the insurance premiums are just too expensive to cover.
I don't trust individual law enforcement officers but I do have some faith in the rule of law and the process by which laws are passed. I also have faith in the mechanisms in place to oversee and punish the behavior of rogue cops.
Since there is a 2nd amendment, laws cannot abridge the rights that it protects but I think it's a bit of a red herring since banning assault weapons might not be an abridgement on this general right.
But you have to see a sort of contradiction in the concession you make. If the 2nd amendment were really intended to protect individuals against the tyranny of government then perhaps it exclusively protects the right to possess military grade weaponry? This would make its sweep broader but would appear even more unreasonable given the costs and benefits such a protection would create. It would literally turn the man on the street into a walking militia.
What is a "military-grade" firearm? Are you talking about a MilSpec weapon? Those weapons are only for the military because they meet specific requirements for the military. Military-grade firearm is an nonsense term because there is no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Don't be like Carolyn McCarthy when she was asked what is a barrel shroud...:geek:
1.) You can possess a tank. With the right permit, you can operate the main gun. There is a video on youtube of a M18 destroying some things in the desert.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
2.) Can't own a cruise missiles
3.) You can own a jet fighter but it has to be demilitarized plus there are FAA regulations.
Call them firearms, call them guns, call them whatever you wish...nevertheless... the paranoid contention that U.S. citizens need firearms to keep their own government in at bay is a stupid, numbskull, testosterone driven fantasy. Anyone who subscribes to such a lunatic fantasy should be issued round edged scissors and denied any contact with firearms.
:iagree::iagree::iagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Bear in mind that this thread started out scaremongering against a ban that will never happen.
Meanwhile the gun nuts will continue to buy assault weapons with huge cartridge clips and more innocents will die in multiple shootings.
If that's how you choose to define freedom then I for one want no part of it.
Re the "right to bear arms."
NYBURBS might be wrong but he isn't totally wrong. The problem is that the numerous men that helped create this country had issues with standing armies. For example, The Federalist No. 8 called standing armies a "malignant aspect to liberty and economy". You can read state constitutions from that era backing the militia system as the best defense for a "free" state/government. Some of the states (i.e., Pennsylvania and Vermont) explicitly mentions the right to bear arms for self defense too. So, there has always been an innate fear that the "government" could do wrong. American history has shown that it could and will do wrong to its citizens. Therefore, paranoia can be expected when the government starts mentioning restricting rights that have been apart of this country since its founding.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Say what you will, but history is on my side of this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The 2nd Amendment is unique in that it presupposes the failure of all of the other protections. The other protections are more ideal to a peaceful democracy, but it is never guaranteed that our government will remain peaceful. Moreover, the liberal wing of the country is attempting to do to the 2nd Amendment what the Nec-Cons have tried to do to much of the rest of the Bill of Rights (i.e, water it down until it becomes meaningless). One need only look to military commissions, indefinite detention provisions, and executive assassination orders to see how the government attempts to subvert some of the protections that you mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Btw, I'm not advocating that people should grab their guns and run out to the street right now. The democratic process is far more preferable in most cases, and I'm well aware of the bloodshed that would ensue if people ever did revolt. I think the main point of contention between myself and some others is that I can rationalize a point where it would be foolhardy to rely on the system any further, and moreover I do think that a well armed populace is something that keeps those with ill intentions up at night.
PS- What I wrote earlier wasn't meant as a concession on how to interpret the Amendment per se, but more of a realist point of view that there will be some changes to the laws that the courts are likely to give their consent too.
Bear in mind that until the Heller decision, there were essentially complete bans to firearms possession in some areas (NYC still borders on being a near complete ban as they make it extremely difficult, time consuming, and expensive to even get a permit to keep a weapon in your home). There is a deep divide in this country over this issue, the only other issue I can think of as being remotely close in divisiveness is the abortion issue. So while you might view much of this as scaremongering, many of us need only look at the law codes to recall those bans, and there are more than a few in this country that would like to see a return to the pre-Heller era.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
And what - leaving your much vaunted constitutional "rights' aside - is so important about owning semi automatic weapons. Not hand guns. Not shotguns. But the sort used by nujobs and fanatcis to carry out slaughters like Sandy Hook. What do you gun owners NEED them for exactly? I'd love a rational argument on this that isn't circular about rights.
Do you really think the US Government is like Syria and about to turn its military firepower on the populace?
Since when does "need" drive what things we're legally allowed to have? Women don't "need" liposuction, and yet more die from complications than are killed by rifles - yet you want to ban a subset of those rifles - even when those surgeries are not protected by an amendment to the USC?
Last time there was an assault weapon ban even the CDC couldn't find sufficient data to support its effectiveness. It appeared to mostly be about how scary the weapon looked, as the provisions of the ban talked about cosmetic features.
Let's talk first about the mental health system and making records available nationally for the NICS checks to catch before we make another knee jerk reaction that just helps some of us feel better about something being done.
Duuhhhh... lyposuction vs weapons whose only purpose is to kill people. Get real. Yes.. I repeat my question. Why do you gun folks need or want these people killing armaments (thus making them available to those with mental problems) . Do you want them just because your constitution says you CAN? In which case would you want flame throwers, napalm, rocket propelled hand grenades etc if you were allowed? Simple question.
As the meaning and reference of some words evolve, others remain fixed. Meaning shift doesn't obviate the need for amendments. Sometimes the relation between the meaning and the reference of a word drifts to the point that require some contracts be reconsidered. It's not the meaning but the reference of the words in a contract that determine how it is to be practically applied. Certainly the very word in dispute, "arms" has radically changed its reference if not its meaning.Quote:
Your argument over how to interpret the constitution is an old one, I don't see myself changing your mind and you're not about to change mine, but I do find it a stretch to think that the meaning of the words in a social compact (aka a constitution) can change. If it could then there'd be little need for an amending clause, or even a constitution for that matter.
Then why do you guys keep saying guns are "needed" for protection? We're merely rebutting your argument, not suggesting a general principle for the creation or dissolution of rights.Quote:
Since when does "need" drive what things we're legally allowed to have?
I didn't. You are not rebutting any argument I've made. Don't stick me in with "you guys" and I won't stick you in with "those guys." Deal?
Why is *that* the question? Why do you feel the "need" to ban something that is causing fewer than 300 deaths every year?