"Welcome to the Wild West!"

[RetiredGySgt]

This thread was titled correctly and if anything it is proof positive we are still a primitive species of animal. If your world is scary and unknown a gun is required for your safety even though the chances of it being any use probably averages the same as winning the lottery. Lots of people armed does not make the world safer. The truth is more likely that your chances of dying by gun increase as guns increase. Statistically that seems obvious yet some still feel secure holding in their pocket their grown up security blanket. What needs to happen, and is happening slowly with all the recent deaths is that the concealed gun idea changes in peoples minds from security to insecurity. In The US due to the NRA and the silly interpretation of the 2nd amendment that ain't gonna happen soon.

More guns = more deaths. Simple fact in America.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/00news/finaldeath98.htm

There is no real evidence more guns equal more deaths. And your contention that accidents will result is also false, less than 1000 accidents occur a year with firearms usually. Care to figure the percentage of 200 million guns versus 1000 accidents?

Further there is absolutely NO evidence that less restrictive gun laws leads to more shootings, in fact there is evidence that in places where less restrictions are on weapons LESS crime occurs.

Your claim is patently false. And has been shown to be false time and time again.

 

[midcan5]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=firefacts

 

[Shogun]

statistically, the average individual will never engage in a fiery car crash that illustrates that seatbelts save lives....

is this in any way reflective of the necessity of seatbelts as an option for those who choose to wear them in the event of one?


anti-gun liberals are the blacksheep in my political family.

 

[LOki]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=firefacts

How quaint.

Just Facts.

More facts.

 

[midcan5]

statistically, the average individual will never engage in a fiery car crash that illustrates that seatbelts save lives....

is this in any way reflective of the necessity of seatbelts as an option for those who choose to wear them in the event of one?

But that is your decision about safety, it does not impact me in an accident. Having weapons everywhere is quite a different orange. And gun regulation is great stuff, just like seat belts, not anti-gun but pro common sense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But that is your decision about safety, it does not impact me in an accident. Having weapons everywhere is quite a different orange. And gun regulation is great stuff, just like seat belts, not anti-gun but pro common sense.

Once again less people die every year due to guns then due to cars. Your analogy is ignorant. My owning a gun or a million guns does not effect you in the least. In fact with 2 to 300 MILLION guns in private hands the chance gun violence will effect you is very remote. It is more likely you will be injured or die in a car accident then from a firearm.

Remind me how you want to ban cars again.

Crimes go DOWN in areas with less restrictive gun laws. They go down because criminals do not , normally want to run the risk of being shot by their intended victim.

 

[Larkinn]

And just how would you interpret the 2nd Amendment?

"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."

Shall not be infringed is pretty strong wording. How is it's interpretation silly?

You part of a militia? No? Then hand over your gun.

 

[Larkinn]

Once again less people die every year due to guns then due to cars. Your analogy is ignorant. My owning a gun or a million guns does not effect you in the least. In fact with 2 to 300 MILLION guns in private hands the chance gun violence will effect you is very remote. It is more likely you will be injured or die in a car accident then from a firearm.

Remind me how you want to ban cars again.

Cars serve an integral part of the US economy. Guns don't.

Crimes go DOWN in areas with less restrictive gun laws. They go down because criminals do not , normally want to run the risk of being shot by their intended victim.

Care to cite evidence of this? And let me remind you that you said they go down in areas...so you'll need to cite evidence where there was strict gun control, they lessened it, and crimes decreased while in other places they were going up or remaining the same.

 

[Shogun]

Cars serve an integral part of the US economy. Guns don't.


I wonder if cops would agree with you.


and, cars are no more a prerequisite to US culture than any other fun new piece of technology that we've wrapped our lives around.

 

[Larkinn]

Cars serve an integral part of the US economy. Guns don't.

I wonder if cops would agree with you.

Ah cops who are well known for their economic analysis.

and, cars are no more a prerequisite to US culture than any other fun new piece of technology that we've wrapped our lives around.

Culture!= economy.

 

[jillian]

I wonder if cops would agree with you.


and, cars are no more a prerequisite to US culture than any other fun new piece of technology that we've wrapped our lives around.

Actually, ask a cop how much money gets funneled into the economy by license fees, registration fees, traffic tickets and parking tickets.... then get back to us. ;o)

As for cars not being prerequisite to our culture, prerequisite??? ummmm... maybe, but certainly are inextricably bound with our culture.

 

[Shogun]

so is fast food, porn and the internet...


all of which carry a specific societal risk. Last I heard, the market share of girl on girl dvds are not why porn is legal. Nixing guns won't keep life from happening to people; the good and the bad.


also, to say that guns are not an intrinsic part of our national history and culture that respects individual liberty is a little silly.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You part of a militia? No? Then hand over your gun.

Define militia.

 

[Larkinn]

Define militia.

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Its unclear. The entire amendment is pretty unclear. I find it interesting that everyone says we can have some limits on it, but that its somehow obvious that some limits are constitutional and others are not.

 

[Gunny]

You part of a militia? No? Then hand over your gun.

The Second Amendment doesn't make owning a gun contingent on being in the militia. It makes the militia necessary to a free state, and further states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

And if you are registered for the draft, consider yourself in the militia because you can be called up at any time.

 

[Larkinn]

The Second Amendment doesn't make owning a gun contingent on being in the militia. It makes the militia necessary to a free state, and further states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ah, yes, Gunny the constitutional scholar

Actually it has three different statements followed by a comma and then says "shall not be infringed". Its unclear exactly what shall not be infringed, and its unclear whether they mean that only citizens in the militia can bear arms or not.

And if you are registered for the draft, consider yourself in the militia because you can be called up at any time.

Well thats an awesome interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Anyone (mentally ill, felon, criminal, whatev) can have a gun as long as they are male and between the ages of 18 and...what is it 40 or something?

 

[Gunny]

Ah, yes, Gunny the constitutional scholar

Actually it has three different statements followed by a comma and then says "shall not be infringed". Its unclear exactly what shall not be infringed, and its unclear whether they mean that only citizens in the militia can bear arms or not.



Well thats an awesome interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Anyone (mentally ill, felon, criminal, whatev) can have a gun as long as they are male and between the ages of 18 and...what is it 40 or something?

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7

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

Here ... Constitutional scholar THIS, nimrod.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I am going to assume that these are seperate definitions and not tied together, since a couple contradict a couple others. I will try to dispute them as they pertain to the 2nd amendment and the principles behind its creation.

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

The military is irrelevent in the case of the 2nd amendment. It is controlled by the federal government, including all National Guard units, and therefore cannot be considered criteria for militia as it pertains to the amendment. The basic principle behind the amendment was protection from the government and a physical deterrent from adopting monarchy. Therefore any organization controlled by the government fails the framers litmus test for militia.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

Do you know of such groups? I don't. The National Guard was debunked above. This could be any organization that calls itself a militia. Too broad of a definition.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

So basically anyone registered for Selective Service can own a gun. This means that women can't own guns. Also, does this mean that at age 27 you will have to give up your guns? Since these individuals could be tapped for govt. Military service at any time, then this contingent would be corrupted and not favorable to the original purpose.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

This could be a right wing militia group that operates out of a cabin in Montana or the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. So ding ding, I am in a militia. I get to keep my guns. LOL

Its unclear. The entire amendment is pretty unclear. I find it interesting that everyone says we can have some limits on it, but that its somehow obvious that some limits are constitutional and others are not.

I find the amendment absolutely clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Ah, yes, Gunny the constitutional scholar

Actually it has three different statements followed by a comma and then says "shall not be infringed". Its unclear exactly what shall not be infringed, and its unclear whether they mean that only citizens in the militia can bear arms or not.



Well thats an awesome interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Anyone (mentally ill, felon, criminal, whatev) can have a gun as long as they are male and between the ages of 18 and...what is it 40 or something?

It is 18 to 26, actually.

 

[Larkinn]

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

Here ... Constitutional scholar THIS, nimrod.

Umm...you just cited a case which infringed on the right to bear arms, which you said couldn't happen. Further they cited the militia requirement, which I said had may come into play and you seemed to dismiss.

Why exactly did you cite this case again?