Does gun control work???

[Navy1960]

That being said, they could have hardly envisioned the advent of high capacity magazines or any number of semi automatic weapons from the AR-15, AK-47 all the way to some who wish to own a M107.

Tell us why you believe that is the case. A properly placed bullet from a AR15 doesn't make you more dead than one from a smoothbore musket. In fact, the .223 bullet probably does LESS damage. Magazine capacity? If that were really a 2A issue, the founders would have banned ownership of more than one firearm. They did not of course. After all, ten guys can fire ten different single shot weapons faster than one guy with a semi automatic and a ten round magazine. Again, what evidence do you have that the founders could not have envisioned an AK47 and that if they could have, they would have restricted certain types of firearms. I believe you are wrong but I welcome you to make your case.

It's very simple, in the case of an AR-15 I have the capaicty with that 5.56 round to kill a lot more people in a shorter period of time than a person with a musket does. I suggest anyone who has ever shot black power try and reload your weapon and shoot the same number of rounds in the same time you can with an AR-15 at the same number of targets in the same time period. None of this really matters anyway, because to me as I suggested they are subject to regulation in any number of ways regardless of the type of weapon they are even it its a an old single action Colt Army. These weapons are items sold across state lines no different than a car or a microwave oven and as such are subject to regualtion under the Commerce Clause. One other thing I was pointing out was that for the most part it was left to the states to decide what was best for themselves and under the 10th Amendment you have another avenue in which weapons can be regulated. My statement was that they could have hardly envisioned todays types of weapons when crafting the constitution and did not include any statement as to they would have restricted them if they would have. What I did say was that the Founding fathers were a bit smarter than people give them credit for sometimes and to suggest that the consitution give a person an unlimited right to own any type of weapon they so choose does not take into account several of the preceeding parts of the constitution that gave states and congress the right to regulate them. I also believe I tried to point out that gun ownership itself should never be attempted to be taken away , but weapon types are and should be subject to regulation.

 

[eflatminor]

That being said, they could have hardly envisioned the advent of high capacity magazines or any number of semi automatic weapons from the AR-15, AK-47 all the way to some who wish to own a M107.

Tell us why you believe that is the case. A properly placed bullet from a AR15 doesn't make you more dead than one from a smoothbore musket. In fact, the .223 bullet probably does LESS damage. Magazine capacity? If that were really a 2A issue, the founders would have banned ownership of more than one firearm. They did not of course. After all, ten guys can fire ten different single shot weapons faster than one guy with a semi automatic and a ten round magazine. Again, what evidence do you have that the founders could not have envisioned an AK47 and that if they could have, they would have restricted certain types of firearms. I believe you are wrong but I welcome you to make your case.

It's very simple, in the case of an AR-15 I have the capaicty with that 5.56 round to kill a lot more people in a shorter period of time than a person with a musket does. I suggest anyone who has ever shot black power try and reload your weapon and shoot the same number of rounds in the same time you can with an AR-15 at the same number of targets in the same time period. None of this really matters anyway, because to me as I suggested they are subject to regulation in any number of ways regardless of the type of weapon they are even it its a an old single action Colt Army. These weapons are items sold across state lines no different than a car or a microwave oven and as such are subject to regualtion under the Commerce Clause. One other thing I was pointing out was that for the most part it was left to the states to decide what was best for themselves and under the 10th Amendment you have another avenue in which weapons can be regulated. My statement was that they could have hardly envisioned todays types of weapons when crafting the constitution and did not include any statement as to they would have restricted them if they would have. What I did say was that the Founding fathers were a bit smarter than people give them credit for sometimes and to suggest that the consitution give a person an unlimited right to own any type of weapon they so choose does not take into account several of the preceeding parts of the constitution that gave states and congress the right to regulate them. I also believe I tried to point out that gun ownership itself should never be attempted to be taken away , but weapon types are and should be subject to regulation.

You can stick that commerce clause shit. Besides, Montana is currently suing the Federal government to restrict any federal regulation over guns produced and sold in the state. Should the commerce clause apply there?

Regardless, you made a poor argument against the AR15. Again, if shot capacity was really an issue, the founders would have restricted each citizen to one firearm. They did not for good reason. Citizens are supposed to have the exact same firepower as the military as we are the last line of defense against a despot commander and chief and the army he has under his control. That is the real reason for the 2nd amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First I've never had an issue with the people owning guns and at least in my humble opinion the founding fathers crafted our constitution with more than a few things in mind when it came to gun ownership. One of which was for self defense, common defense, and hunting, and it does seem to me that had they intended only for a Military to own guns then it would have put that way, but they did appear to make a point in the "Bill of Rights" on the subject. That being said, they could have hardly envisioned the advent of high capacity magazines or any number of semi automatic weapons from the AR-15, AK-47 all the way to some who wish to own a M107. I submit that even in that regard the founders of this nation were not so remiss as to think that there would never be a point where Govt. could not control such things as these in that through devices like the 10th Amendment as well as the commerce clause Guns could be controlled to some degree but the intention that as an American you may own a gun would still remain.

The founding father would have envisioned a militia with weapons that could defend a country. The founding father saw the people as the militia, and the militia was expected to keep and maintain their own weapons.

Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 16

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Of course the Militia was composed of the citizens and nothing in my post suggested otherwise.

But your post did suggest this

That being said, they could have hardly envisioned the advent of high capacity magazines or any number of semi automatic weapons from the AR-15, AK-47 all the way to some who wish to own a M107

Was there any untruth to my statement?

The founding father would have envisioned a militia with weapons that could defend a country. The founding father saw the people as the militia, and the militia was expected to keep and maintain their own weapons.

 

[Contumacious]

These weapons are items sold across state lines no different than a car or a microwave oven and as such are subject to regualtion under the Commerce Clause. .

Regulation as the Founding Fathers used the term means to allow the unrestricted flow among the states..

But if you are using the term to mean that fedgov can use the Commerce Clause as a pretext to infringe on our right to defend our lives you are very very wrong.

.
.

 

[Navy1960]

Tell us why you believe that is the case. A properly placed bullet from a AR15 doesn't make you more dead than one from a smoothbore musket. In fact, the .223 bullet probably does LESS damage. Magazine capacity? If that were really a 2A issue, the founders would have banned ownership of more than one firearm. They did not of course. After all, ten guys can fire ten different single shot weapons faster than one guy with a semi automatic and a ten round magazine. Again, what evidence do you have that the founders could not have envisioned an AK47 and that if they could have, they would have restricted certain types of firearms. I believe you are wrong but I welcome you to make your case.

It's very simple, in the case of an AR-15 I have the capaicty with that 5.56 round to kill a lot more people in a shorter period of time than a person with a musket does. I suggest anyone who has ever shot black power try and reload your weapon and shoot the same number of rounds in the same time you can with an AR-15 at the same number of targets in the same time period. None of this really matters anyway, because to me as I suggested they are subject to regulation in any number of ways regardless of the type of weapon they are even it its a an old single action Colt Army. These weapons are items sold across state lines no different than a car or a microwave oven and as such are subject to regualtion under the Commerce Clause. One other thing I was pointing out was that for the most part it was left to the states to decide what was best for themselves and under the 10th Amendment you have another avenue in which weapons can be regulated. My statement was that they could have hardly envisioned todays types of weapons when crafting the constitution and did not include any statement as to they would have restricted them if they would have. What I did say was that the Founding fathers were a bit smarter than people give them credit for sometimes and to suggest that the consitution give a person an unlimited right to own any type of weapon they so choose does not take into account several of the preceeding parts of the constitution that gave states and congress the right to regulate them. I also believe I tried to point out that gun ownership itself should never be attempted to be taken away , but weapon types are and should be subject to regulation.

You can stick that commerce clause shit. Besides, Montana is currently suing the Federal government to restrict any federal regulation over guns produced and sold in the state. Should the commerce clause apply there?

Regardless, you made a poor argument against the AR15. Again, if shot capacity was really an issue, the founders would have restricted each citizen to one firearm. They did not for good reason. Citizens are supposed to have the exact same firepower as the military as we are the last line of defense against a despot commander and chief and the army he has under his control. That is the real reason for the 2nd amendment.

If Montana has locally produced and sold firearms, then no they should not be subject to the Commerce Clause or Federal Regulation that applies to them. So for example if Montana decided to produce a knock off of the M107 and used locally produced parts for the weapon and it was only sold within the borders of Montana then , there again no it should not be subject to regulations. However, if the weapons produced in Montana are sold across state lines then yes they should be subject to Federal regulations.

You asked me to give you a reason why I believe such weapons as the AR15 are subject to regulation, I gave you one, of course you can choose to not like the reason. As to your suggestions on equal firepower. the 2nd Amendment says the following;

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.

While I agree with you on the premise that one of the reasons for it's creations was a hedge against tyranny it hardly is an unlimted right to arm the "people" on an equal footing with the Military. Even in the latest SCOTUS decision on the subject say's as much, if it were true that the "people" were to be armed on an equal footing witrh the Military then I may suggest a couple of things here, then you an I could go to the local Gunsmith and purchase a USN MK15 CIWS for our front yard. I also might point out that the Military is an all volunteer force and is made up of the "people" you speak of. So yes you an I are allowed under the constitution to own a gun, that I am not disputing, however it's very clear they are subject to regulation in any number of ways, if they were not you might find yourself parked between a couple of M1-A2's at the local Wal Mart.

 

[eflatminor]

While I agree with you on the premise that one of the reasons for it's creations was a hedge against tyranny it hardly is an unlimted right to arm the "people" on an equal footing with the Military.

Actually, that was exactly the intent.

 

[Navy1960]

The founding father would have envisioned a militia with weapons that could defend a country. The founding father saw the people as the militia, and the militia was expected to keep and maintain their own weapons.

Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 16

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Of course the Militia was composed of the citizens and nothing in my post suggested otherwise.

But your post did suggest this

That being said, they could have hardly envisioned the advent of high capacity magazines or any number of semi automatic weapons from the AR-15, AK-47 all the way to some who wish to own a M107

Was there any untruth to my statement?

The founding father would have envisioned a militia with weapons that could defend a country. The founding father saw the people as the militia, and the militia was expected to keep and maintain their own weapons.

My point was to suggest that the Founding fathers could not have forseen the the advent of such wepaons no more than you an I can forsee what weapons will be in use 240 years from now. It was simply used to show that given that fact, they were a little smarter than people give then credit for and there are many devices in the constitution that allow for the Federal, State, and local Govt. to regulate weapons, nont take away the right to own a weapon. Here is a good example, let's say I decided to design a gun that clearly was so badly made it hurt not only the shooter but others, is that gun then subject to regulation? If the unlimted thinking applies to guns then the answer would be no, because it would take away my right to own a gun? My suggestion is that the the founders were a little smarter than that.

I'm not debating the fact that the militia was made up of the people or for that matter that it it was to defend the nation, however it does seem pretty clear in the constitution that they were subject to regulation under the constitution .

 

[Navy1960]

While I agree with you on the premise that one of the reasons for it's creations was a hedge against tyranny it hardly is an unlimted right to arm the "people" on an equal footing with the Military.

Actually, that was exactly the intent.

Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service and to use it for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.

However, he said the new right was not unlimited

Americans have right to guns under landmark ruling | Reuters

 

[Uncensored2008]

.......but they help.

I support controling the guns of idiots and crazy people.

So do cars (#1 weapon used in homicides), knives, axes, baseball bats, golf clubs, toasters and anti-freeze.

Want to outlaw all of those, too?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 16

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Of course the Militia was composed of the citizens and nothing in my post suggested otherwise.

But your post did suggest this



Was there any untruth to my statement?

The founding father would have envisioned a militia with weapons that could defend a country. The founding father saw the people as the militia, and the militia was expected to keep and maintain their own weapons.

My point was to suggest that the Founding fathers could not have forseen the the advent of such wepaons no more than you an I can forsee what weapons will be in use 240 years from now. It was simply used to show that given that fact, they were a little smarter than people give then credit for and there are many devices in the constitution that allow for the Federal, State, and local Govt. to regulate weapons, nont take away the right to own a weapon. Here is a good example, let's say I decided to design a gun that clearly was so badly made it hurt not only the shooter but others, is that gun then subject to regulation? If the unlimted thinking applies to guns then the answer would be no, because it would take away my right to own a gun? My suggestion is that the the founders were a little smarter than that.

I'm not debating the fact that the militia was made up of the people or for that matter that it it was to defend the nation, however it does seem pretty clear in the constitution that they were subject to regulation under the constitution .

I agree the founding fathers could not have envisioned any type of modern day weaponry or the telephone or car or any modern day convenience. But they would have envisioned a militia with weapons that could defend a country. The founding father saw the people as the militia, and the militia was expected to keep and maintain their own weapons.

 

[Navy1960]

These weapons are items sold across state lines no different than a car or a microwave oven and as such are subject to regualtion under the Commerce Clause. .

Regulation as the Founding Fathers used the term means to allow the unrestricted flow among the states..

But if you are using the term to mean that fedgov can use the Commerce Clause as a pretext to infringe on our right to defend our lives you are very very wrong.

.
.

James Madison to James Monroe Aug 7th 1785

Viewing in the abstract the question whether the power of regulating trade, to a certain degree at least, ought to be vested in Congress, it appears to me not to admit of a doubt, but that it should be decided in the affirmative. If it be necessary to regulate trade at all, it surely is necessary to lodge the power, where trade can be regulated with effect, and experience has confirmed what reason foresaw, that it can never be so regulated by the States acting in their separate capacities. They can no more exercise this power separately, than they could separately carry on war, or separately form treaties of alliance or Commerce.

I am not advocating in any manner shape or form using the commerce Clause as a method by which a person's right to defend themselves through gun ownership be taken away. In fact what I am saying is that those guns sold between the states can be regulated under that clause but would never advocate using the Clause as means by which someones right to gun ownership be taken away.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

While I agree with you on the premise that one of the reasons for it's creations was a hedge against tyranny it hardly is an unlimted right to arm the "people" on an equal footing with the Military.

Actually, that was exactly the intent.

I agree. The intent was that the populace would always have enough armament to not be overrun by the govt through arms.

 

[Navy1960]

But your post did suggest this



Was there any untruth to my statement?

My point was to suggest that the Founding fathers could not have forseen the the advent of such wepaons no more than you an I can forsee what weapons will be in use 240 years from now. It was simply used to show that given that fact, they were a little smarter than people give then credit for and there are many devices in the constitution that allow for the Federal, State, and local Govt. to regulate weapons, nont take away the right to own a weapon. Here is a good example, let's say I decided to design a gun that clearly was so badly made it hurt not only the shooter but others, is that gun then subject to regulation? If the unlimted thinking applies to guns then the answer would be no, because it would take away my right to own a gun? My suggestion is that the the founders were a little smarter than that.

I'm not debating the fact that the militia was made up of the people or for that matter that it it was to defend the nation, however it does seem pretty clear in the constitution that they were subject to regulation under the constitution .

I agree the founding fathers could not have envisioned any type of modern day weaponry or the telephone or car or any modern day convenience. But they would have envisioned a militia with weapons that could defend a country. The founding father saw the people as the militia, and the militia was expected to keep and maintain their own weapons.

We are not in disagreement on what the Militia, where I tend to get into a little hot water with my fellow gun owners is when it comes down the regulating them. While I would never advocate for any law that would ban a persons right to own a gun such as laws that ban gun ownership outright, I tend to be of the mind that the founding Fathers were smart enough to realize that the issue of owning a gun was not just so black as to mean that there would never be a point were they could not be regulated. Take for example laws that prohibit convictied felons from gun ownership or people of limited capacity, or taking it a bit further, this applies to any number of constitutional issues from voting to free speech. They are not always so unlimited as to not be subject to some kind of regulation.

 

[Navy1960]

"The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution." Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965)

In Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the court held: "Congress has provided by statute that in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. 109(c).

 

[Navy1960]

Thank you All for the Debate, will try and pick it up later!..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution." Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965)

In Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the court held: "Congress has provided by statute that in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. 109(c).

The national guard aren't allowed to keep or maintain the weapons they carry. The founders did not envision a standing army, not even a "NATIONAL GUARD"

 

[Ringel05]

Abba - Dancing Queen - YouTube

They had trouble with English too. Didn't stop them from writing some killer songs!

Your problem isn't English, it's memory and laziness. Here's a hint: Try going back to where I first asked you to prove a claim you made (and continue to make). Ya know, one of those linky thingies..........

Why?

There's are chart posted where the crime climaxes then comes down. That's around the same time mandatory sentences were imposed for carrying handguns in the city.

The poster tried to make the charge the Sullivan law was ineffective. Well it was..it had no teeth.

Apparently but why don't you do comparisons of other US (and European) major cities/countries that have "lax" laws.

There's another chart here that you will find interesting. You'll notice in the 60s when the gun laws were being instituted the homicide rate steadily increased and then started decreasing but not down to the levels it was at before the introduction of gun laws. Natural trend or Sullivan Law............?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

 

[Ringel05]

Oh and another potential blow to your cause and effect supposition:

BBC NEWS | Americas | New York murders 'at 40-year low'

The soaring murder rate of the late 1980s and early 1990s was largely a result of turf wars between gangs running the crack cocaine trade.

The turnaround in violence from the early 1990s was attributed to the city's zero tolerance policy, which saw police crack down on minor offences and drug dealing.

Notice the report said "it was attributed to" not that it was the actual reason. Did it help, yes, is it solely responsible for the drop........ I seriously doubt it considering police and politicians LOVE to showcase their work as sole proof cause and effect when in truth it's a combination of factors where the law(s) they enacted may or may not have had a starring roll.
I would hazard an educated guess that while The Sullivan Law did have an effect, that effect was extremely minor. It's much more plausible that the cocaine wars in the city had simply run their course and things were returning to "normal" hence the sharp declines in the murder rate.

 

[eflatminor]

While I agree with you on the premise that one of the reasons for it's creations was a hedge against tyranny it hardly is an unlimted right to arm the "people" on an equal footing with the Military.

Actually, that was exactly the intent.

Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service and to use it for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.

However, he said the new right was not unlimited

Americans have right to guns under landmark ruling | Reuters

True, it is not unlimited, just like all other rights codified in the Constitution. Scalia was correct. It is also true that the individual right is not necessarily tied to militia. However, the original intent of the 2nd amendment, which is was in no way changed by Heller or any other recent ruling, is that 'we the people' remain the last line of defense against tyranny. As they say, "The second amendment ain't about duck hunting"...

 

[spectrumc01]

also compared to Detroit, Windsor is pretty nice.....eliminate the gun violence by the Gang Bangers in Detroit and this article would be pointless.....

Of course, the demographics between the city of Detroit and the country of Canada are nearly identical...right? Why didn't you compare Canada to say, North Dakota? I wonder...

Also, it is interesting to note that after enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."

But whatever, don't let facts get in the way of your stance against the Bill of Rights.

1. Windsor and Detroit are obvious comparisons because they are 2 cities in very close proximity, but with totally different approaches to gun ownership and social policies.

2. Toronto is more ethnically diverse than Miami, Los Angeles, and New York City - 49.9% of Toronto's population is foreign-born.
Over 20% of Windsor's population is foreign-born, which is the fourth-highest % for any Canadian city. Visible minorities also make up 21.0% of the population, making Windsor the most diverse city in Ontario outside of the Greater Toronto Area.

3. Windsor and Toronto have nothing in common with North Dakota. Their differences with Detroit stems from the fact that Canadians have invested more heavily in public education and social programs which have attempted to prevent the development of the extreme poverty and hopelessness.

4. The FBI in Detroit recorded 310 homicides in 2010 while the police department indicates that the number was 268. That translates into 1 murder every 1.17 to 1.36 days.
By comparison, the Greater Toronto Area which has a population of 5.5 million (as compared to Detroit's 713,000) had 60 homicides in 2010 (approximately 1 every 6.08 days).

5. The GTA has gangs too, but there is a higher crime rate in Detroit, and most other US cities for a reason and the most obvious difference identified by the police is the ease of access to handguns.

You screwed up your quote, I said no such thing.