Anti-gun laws working well in England Merged Rifle In Every Pot

[sitarro]

Hey Gump,
I just picked up my latest fire arm the other day, an Israeli Baby Desert Eagle from an Israeli friend of mine. It isn't registered, I'm not going to register it and I fired it on New Years( of course not being a wigger or a person of color, I fired it correctly and not at the sky)...... Yee Haaa!

 

[Dr Grump]

Grump you keep contradicting yourself, you have said in multiple posts that you have no problem with people haveing guns. By extension that would mean in your mind there is not a problem with guns, yet you want to get rid of them.

Why would you want to get rid of something that is not a problem?

I think certain firearms should be limited and people should be licensed. I used to be a fan of registration until I spoke to a few pro-gunnies about it, and their take. Changed my mind (see Canada for the reasons). So, no, I don't want guns taken away wholesale. Hell, I don't even want waiting periods.

 

[Dr Grump]

You must live in a state where that State law is in effect, like Mass or CA or MD. One reason why those states suck.

You'd be wrong.

 

[Ninja]

Forrest, your head is so far up your ass you could wear it as a hat.

Er, you're the one reinterpreting it.

I interpret the second amendment the same way I interpret every amendment; that is, literally. My interpretive process consists of reading it, and accepting what is says at face value.

Whether you like it or not, "arms" means "guns" or "firearms" or whatever equivalent word you'd like to use.

Think about it, genius. Why do we have words like "armory"?

Better yet, why is it that when the police say "the suspect should be considered armed and dangerous" anyone with an IQ over 50 will take that to mean that the suspect is thought to be in possession of a gun?

You can prevaricate all you want. You can try your hardest to turn this into a semantics argument. I don't blame you; that's all you have.

Of course it is a living, breathing document.

You'd be singing a different tune if we were talking about the first amendment.

You and your Democrap ilk sang a different tune when the USA PATRIOT Act was passed.

Something about it violating the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments.

But the constitution is a living, breathing document, right?

The founding fathers certainly could not have foreseen people crashing airplanes into skyscrapers, as neither existed at the time.

Obviously we needed a more modern interpretation.

What was the big deal?

 

[Dr Grump]

I interpret the second amendment the same way I interpret every amendment; that is, literally. My interpretive process consists of reading it, and accepting what is says at face value.

Really? What's your definition of a militia? And if you do read it literally, how come arms means guns and firearms, and how come you obviously don't mind arms meaning current types of firearms, but not muskets (as was the type of weaponry available back then), but object if it is expanded to include tanks. And if you weren't frothing at the mouth so much, and actually read the posts, the tank example was brought up by a pro-gunny, not me.

Why do we have words like "armory"?

And what types of weapons can you find in armouries? Hand grenades?

Better yet, why is it that when the police say "the suspect should be considered armed and dangerous" anyone with an IQ over 50 will take that to mean that the suspect is thought to be in possession of a gun?

And....????

You can prevaricate all you want. You can try your hardest to turn this into a semantics argument. I don't blame you; that's all you have.

Considering I didn't bring up the tank example in the first place, it seems I'm not the only who is arguing semantics.

You and your Democrap ilk sang a different tune when the USA PATRIOT Act was passed. Something about it violating the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments.But the constitution is a living, breathing document, right?

For a start I'm not a Dem. Never have been, never will be. As for the Patriot Act, if it did indeed violate those amendments then you think that is a good thing? Maybe the GoP should have tried getting an amendment through. But, just so you know, I don't give a shit about the Patriot Act. Haven't read up on it, and don't care about it. Would hardly affect me...

 

[Emmett]

It sometimes befoozles me to watch adults get frustrated when attempting to debate. You see, debating is suppose to be a discussion. I say this because there seems to be a problem understanding that in this "discussion".

How could we go from talking about the effect taking firearms from law abiding citizens in England has had to the childish back and forth of this discussion.

This subject is real simple. There should be no reason why a law abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and carry a gun, ANYWHERE! I would imagine the surviving relatives of the folks shot to death in resturants while enjoying a meal by some disgruntled x dishwasher would wish their loved one would have had one. The same goes for the unfortunate victims at Post Office facilities, office building massacres and other random shootings. These things happen. The victims are always innocent, and usually "unarmed". Now, if one of these types of incidents happens to me, well, the result will be quite different. What you are going to have is a DEAD crazed lunatic laying in the foyer of an establishment with a great big gaping blood oozing hole located somewhere within about an inch of being slap between their eyeballs. That said, if YOU were the person seated next to me in that establishment you are going to be damn happy that I had the damn gun I assure you. Now, if you can disagree with that statement, help yourself.

I don't think you are going to care if the gun is registered, rather I have been convicted of a crime or not, where I got the gun, how it was purchased, I don't even think you will care if the Second Amendment allows me the right to have it. At that particular moment you are just going to thank God that I did.

The issue of Guns, Gun Control and the Second Amendment are all well and good but there are those of us who just believe that we have the "right" to defend ourselves, PERIOD. Criminals will always have guns. You don't counter a gun with a knife, a bat, a pole or your fists. Taking away law abiding citizens guns will mean that only the criminals will have guns. Where is the sense in that? It is just a stupid propisition. STUPID! Just Stupid.

We all want the world to be a safe place, but it isn't always and isn't ever going to be that way. I personally hope noone ever needs to use a gun to defend themselves but guess what! It happens all the time and it is better than being killed!

 

[Dr Grump]

These others "don't" because of what reason Dr. Grump? Would that reason be that regulations like licensing, registration, waiting periods, ect. restrict gun ownership only for the "others" you speak of?

The others do not have the ability to cause as much damage so quickly as a firearm.

Not very far at all if teachers were allowed to have guns on campus.

Or if they hadn't had access to the types of arms they did?

What about two civilized people with guns? I'd say no shooting OR bruises. I object to your premise--that owning guns is in some way a problem for civilized folks--as I have from the beginning.

I'd say the vast majority of the time there would not be a problem, but then there is the occasional problem. It is the frequency of the occasional problems. How many Columbines are acceptable? Once a month? Year? Decade?

The lessons of US in Viet-Nam and USSR in Afghanistan, for openers, suggest there's quite a bit that can be done. Cell organization appears to be rather daunting to centralized command. The premise of tyranny requires the tyrant to spare the lives of some of those he would oppress, otherwise he can't be a tyrant--defenders of liberty don't have to spare the lives of any of their oppressors. You underestimate the inherent weakness in the tyrant's premise.

In some cases tyrants don't want to have people to suppress, or the ones they do, like it that way. That aside, having a few guns against the ordinence that the US military has, would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. It would be over pretty quickly...

I once read an argument--or maybe I made it once, I can't remember every battle I've fought--that there is some distinction to be made between "arms" and "ordinance." The argument being that "arms" is not inclusive of "ordinance" therefore the right protected by the 2nd, does not extend to ordinance. Whether I made that argument or not, I'm not sure I buy it.

Neither do I to a degree. Snowman seems to be the one who has a problem with the definition of arm. I guess this is where people's interpretations come in, even though Snowman believes it's all pretty straight forward.

Also, FYI, firearms are a sub-set of "arms," which the right to keep and bear thereof, is mentioned rather prominently in the 2nd Amendment.

Is it a subset? Was that part of teh FF's interpretation too?

 

[sitarro]

Or if they hadn't had access to the types of arms they did?

A speeding car in a crowded parking lot could easily have killed and maimed more. An explosive is even more effective and very easy to get recipes for. Your arguements are absolutely useless and beyond silly.

Idiot constituents of Democrats are the problem, not the guns they use. The useless human refuse from New Orleans that are destroying every place that was foolish enough to take them in are perfect examples, all Democrats. You must be so proud to call them your brothers and sisters.

 

[Ninja]

What's your definition of a militia?

I don't think my definition of what constitutes a militia is relevent.

It's quite obvious where you plan on taking this so I'll just say one thing: The second amendment doesn't say "the right of militia members" but rather "the right of the people".

And if you do read it literally, how come arms means guns and firearms

????????????????????????????????????

Maybe you should ask the people who invented the words "firearm" and "gun." I have no clue about their etiology or how they came to be synonymous with "arms." What's important is that they are.

Let's pretend there was an amendment that spoke of "the right of the people to keep automobiles" and I took this to mean "the right of the people to keep cars and trucks," that would be a literal interpretation, no?

how come you obviously don't mind arms meaning current types of firearms, but not muskets (as was the type of weaponry available back then)

The second amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear muskets."

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

For the reasons outlined in my previous post (which were not refuted), "arms" is synonymous with "guns" and firearms."

The founding fathers used a blanket statement, "arms," instead of specifying particular firearms by make and model which would be ok for private ownership.

It was clearly their intention was for private citizens to have access to any type of firearm.

...but object if it is expanded to include tanks.

Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe because...

A TANK ISN'T A FIREARM?

Tell you what - call up a gun store tomorrow and ask if they have any tanks in stock. Or nukes for that matter. LMAO.

As for the Patriot Act, if it did indeed violate those amendments then you think that is a good thing?

Someone needs to work on his sarcasm recognition...

I don't give a shit about the Patriot Act.

I guess I had you pegged wrong.

My beef with the anti-2A crowd centers on how they usually argue for a "modern" interpretation of the second amendment but a constructionist interpretation of the first (and yes, the people on my side who want a literal definition of second amendment but hold little regard for the first are equally hypocritical).

However, it's clear that you have an equal disdain for all sections of the constitution.

We disagree but at least you're being consistent. I'll give you that.

 

[Annie]

Related:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-06-Sat-2007/news/11822416.html

Jan. 06, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

CONVENIENCE STORE SHOOTOUT: Manager kills suspect

Customers call man hero in robbery scare

By LAWRENCE MOWER
REVIEW-JOURNAL

A convenience store manager shot and killed a robbery suspect and injured another Friday after the men entered his North Las Vegas store and took the manager and several customers hostage.

The two suspects held up the American Mini Market at 2564 Las Vegas Blvd. North on Friday afternoon, North Las Vegas police said. Then, the robbery suspects bound the store manager and several customers using zip ties and tried to rob them, police said.

The manager, whose name was not released, escaped from the ties and retrieved a gun stashed inside the store. Shortly after 2 p.m., the manager exchanged "a bunch" of shots with the suspects, North Las Vegas police spokesman Tim Bedwell said...

 

[LOki]

I think certain firearms should be limited and people should be licensed.

What types of firearms should be limitited, and upon what (rational, I hope) basis?

The 2nd Amendment is an appropriately licenses people to keep and bear arms--see? half your wish for the US was already granted over 230 years ago!

Really? What's your definition of a militia?

I don't know what snowman's definition of militia is, but the commonly held definition back in the day was, "every able-bodied man" of a certain age.

These days, in our less sexist and racist culture, "every able-bodied man" would include women and non-white folks too.

The current legal definition of militia in the US is:<blockquote>"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.</blockquote>

And if you do read it literally, how come arms means guns and firearms, and how come you obviously don't mind arms meaning current types of firearms, but not muskets (as was the type of weaponry available back then),...

Firearms are included in the set "arms", and I think you mis-represent snowman if you assert that his objection to "arms" being limited to muskets is somehow an objection to muskets being considered "arms."

...but object if it is expanded to include tanks. And if you weren't frothing at the mouth so much, and actually read the posts, the tank example was brought up by a pro-gunny, not me.

Again, I think you mis-represent snowman if you assert that his objection to tanks being relative to the discussion of gun ownership is somehow an objection to tanks being considered "arms."

Perhaps your problem is just in his frothyness.

And what types of weapons can you find in armouries? Hand grenades?

Let's say you can--what of it?

You can prevaricate all you want. You can try your hardest to turn this into a semantics argument. I don't blame you; that's all you have.

Considering I didn't bring up the tank example in the first place, it seems I'm not the only who is arguing semantics.

Here, I'm going to have to firmly disagree with snowman--you don't have a semantic argument--you should stick to principles.

This subject is real simple. There should be no reason why a law abiding citizen should not be allowed to own and carry a gun, ANYWHERE! ...[WERDZ] restaurant shootings, Postal workers going Postal, dead lunatic on the floor, applause, etc....[/WERDZ]... Now, if you can disagree with that statement, help yourself.

I can disagree--not with sentiment, but the actuality. Along with 2nd Amendment rights I believe in private property rights, thus I must believe that a restaurant proprietor must have the right to insist his patrons are disarmed, just as I would have the right to insist my house-guests be disarmed. I also understand the implication that such insistence places a certain onus of resposibilty upon such property owner regarding the safety of the guests--a responsibility that both the gun-grabbers, and their governmental proxies, refuse to accept.

The issue of Guns, Gun Control and the Second Amendment are all well and good but there are those of us who just believe that we have the "right" to defend ourselves, PERIOD. Criminals will always have guns. You don't counter a gun with a knife, a bat, a pole or your fists. Taking away law abiding citizens guns will mean that only the criminals will have guns. Where is the sense in that? It is just a stupid propisition. STUPID! Just Stupid.

Truth.

No. I don't feel guns cause violence. I feel that the people who wish to cause harm using them have a way of carry out violence that others means don't.

These others "don't" because of what reason Dr. Grump? Would that reason be that regulations like licensing, registration, waiting periods, ect. restrict gun ownership only for the "others" you speak of?

The others do not have the ability to cause as much damage so quickly as a firearm.

What?

The diproportionate means of the "others" to carry out violence, compared to the means of those "who wish to cause harm" is a consequence of these "others" being disarmed of their guns while those "who wish to cause harm" are not.

Or if they hadn't had access to the types of arms they did?

The teachers weren't allowed have access to guns is my point--and if you bring up how those two sociopaths had access to guns, I'll point out that there is not one of the current gun-grabbing regulations that had any effect on their illegal access to the weapons they used, and even if they did, there is no guarantee what-so-ever that the carnage would have been less. It might have been much worse if you consider the effect a greater reliance on the IEDs included in their assualt might have been.

I'd say the vast majority of the time there would not be a problem, but then there is the occasional problem. It is the frequency of the occasional problems. How many Columbines are acceptable? Once a month? Year? Decade?

You want to compare risks? Let me be generous--go ahead and compare TOTAL gun deaths (not just Columbine style) in the US, to accidental automobile deaths in the US, or accidental hospital deaths in the US.

When you're done, you can bring this argument back if, and only if, you'll do the intellectually honest act of demanding that autombiles and health-care be eliminated, for the enhanced safety of society, before guns are.

After all, "How many [accidental car deaths or iatrogenic deaths] are acceptable? Once a month? Year? Decade?"

Fair?

In some cases tyrants don't want to have people to suppress, or the ones they do, like it that way.

Those tyrants aren't a problem for other people, are they? And those people, who don't mind their oppression, don't mind me having my guns, and access to more of them, right?

That aside, having a few guns against the ordinence that the US military has, would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. It would be over pretty quickly...

That's not the lesson the US, and it's vast ordinance it possessed, learned in Viet-Nam. It's not the lesson that King George, owner of the prime superpower of his time (and all that superpower's ordinance) learned 230 years ago. It's not the lesson the USSR learned in Afghanistan. It's not a lesson you're prepared to accept.

Neither do I to a degree. Snowman seems to be the one who has a problem with the definition of arm. I guess this is where people's interpretations come in, even though Snowman believes it's all pretty straight forward.

As I suggestest earlier--I think you mis-represent snowman's position.

Is it a subset? Was that part of teh FF's interpretation too?

Yes. Certainly.

 

[Dr Grump]

A speeding car in a crowded parking lot could easily have killed and maimed more.

Are driver's licensed? Are cars registered? Try against Einstein...

 

[sitarro]

Are driver's licensed? Are cars registered? Try against Einstein...

So are you saying that someone who is planning on killing numerous people with a vehicle would always use their own registered vehicle rather than steal someone else's registered vehicle to commit the crime? I guess that is why registering firearms is a great idea because a criminal would always be Democrat(stupid) enough to use his or her own registered handgun to commit a murder right? Don't let anyone call you an asshole gump because really, you're not...... hehehe.

 

[eots]

hold on to your weapons the nwo is on the march those guns are all thats holding them back

 

[Dr Grump]

What types of firearms should be limitited, and upon what (rational, I hope) basis?

I have no problem with guns that are used for target shooting or hunting. You think it fair to hunt a deer with a full auto?

The 2nd Amendment is an appropriately licenses people to keep and bear arms--see? half your wish for the US was already granted over 230 years ago!

I heard the second amendment was something written on paper that only reinforced what was a God-given enumerated right...

Again, I think you mis-represent snowman if you assert that his objection to tanks being relative to the discussion of gun ownership is somehow an objection to tanks being considered "arms."

You'd have to ask him, but that is definitely how I see his take on things. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong on that. Snowman?

Perhaps your problem is just in his frothyness.

Possibly.

Let's say you can--what of it?

Is that arms? Are RPG's? Are tanks? You know where I'm going with this.

Here, I'm going to have to firmly disagree with snowman--you don't have a semantic argument--you should stick to principles.

Semantics and principles do have a tendency to cross over on occasion. Depends on how "tight" the argument becomes..

What? The diproportionate means of the "others" to carry out violence, compared to the means of those "who wish to cause harm" is a consequence of these "others" being disarmed of their guns while those "who wish to cause harm" are not.

LOL. Tis funny how a single letter typo can change the whole meaning of a post! I said others but meant other. Other being baseball bats, knives, chains...I think you took me to mean others, which would mean people. If you look at the original post I said "others means", which makes no sense, I meant other means...my bad...

The teachers weren't allowed have access to guns is my point--and if you bring up how those two sociopaths had access to guns, I'll point out that there is not one of the current gun-grabbing regulations that had any effect on their illegal access to the weapons they used, and even if they did, there is no guarantee what-so-ever that the carnage would have been less. It might have been much worse if you consider the effect a greater reliance on the IEDs included in their assualt might have been.

And thus is the quandry of a society awash with guns...(IMO)

You want to compare risks? Let me be generous--go ahead and compare TOTAL gun deaths (not just Columbine style) in the US, to accidental automobile deaths in the US, or accidental hospital deaths in the US. When you're done, you can bring this argument back if, and only if, you'll do the intellectually honest act of demanding that autombiles and health-care be eliminated, for the enhanced safety of society, before guns are. After all, "How many [accidental car deaths or iatrogenic deaths] are acceptable? Once a month? Year? Decade?" Fair?

Far from fair. How about you be a bit more intellectually honest. Let's compare the number of accidental car deaths with accidental firearms deaths. Then let's compare homicides via car and homicides via firearm (hell, we can even not include suicides if you like)...

Those tyrants aren't a problem for other people, are they? And those people, who don't mind their oppression, don't mind me having my guns, and access to more of them, right? That's not the lesson the US, and it's vast ordinance it possessed, learned in Viet-Nam. It's not the lesson that King George, owner of the prime superpower of his time (and all that superpower's ordinance) learned 230 years ago. It's not the lesson the USSR learned in Afghanistan. It's not a lesson you're prepared to accept.

Thing was, in all those cases, even the American revolution, if the oppressors had got down right dirty, the outcomes would have been vastly different. Hanoi would be a parking lot, ditto Afghanistan, and if George had been a total toe rag a whole generation of men, women and children would have been wiped out.

As I suggestest earlier--I think you mis-represent snowman's position.

I'd have to await his answer, although I am a little amused that he seems to have ignored the point re who brought up tanks in the first place.

 

[Ninja]

Snowman?

Still awaiting a reply to my last post.

Ball's in your court snookums

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't think my definition of what constitutes a militia is relevent.

It's quite obvious where you plan on taking this so I'll just say one thing: The second amendment doesn't say "the right of militia members" but rather "the right of the people".

Where am I planning on taking this? So when the FF wrote it they were not talking about the militia and the people in tandem? If not, why mention the term militia at all?

Maybe you should ask the people who invented the words "firearm" and "gun." I have no clue about their etiology or how they came to be synonymous with "arms." What's important is that they are.

Are they?

Let's pretend there was an amendment that spoke of "the right of the people to keep automobiles" and I took this to mean "the right of the people to keep cars and trucks," that would be a literal interpretation, no.

What is an automobile? A motorbike? Train? Space shuttle? Thing is, they weren't that specific...no matter how hard you try/wish it were so...:0)

The second amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear muskets." It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." For the reasons outlined in my previous post (which were not refuted), "arms" is synonymous with "guns" and firearms.".

Are they? Where does a firearm stop and a tank begin?

It was clearly their intention was for private citizens to have access to any type of firearm.

Unless you have spoken to a FF, you have no idea what they intended. That sentence has been open to so much scrutiny since its inception, to try and claim that you know their intention is not only arrogant, but bordering on laughable.

Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe because... A TANK ISN'T A FIREARM? Tell you what - call up a gun store tomorrow and ask if they have any tanks in stock. Or nukes for that matter. LMAO.
.

Ok, I've had my fun, now I'm gonna call you on it. I don't really expect you to answer, because on at least two occasions you have avoided the question. Why? Because it means two pro-gunnies would have to disagree with each other, and we wouldn't want to cause a fuss would we? So here goes. Go to post 62. Then get back to me. You will note for at least the THIRD time I was not the one who brought up tanks. A pro-gunnie was. Care to take up the issue with him, or are you all mouth and no action? Take your time....

My beef with the anti-2A crowd centers on how they usually argue for a "modern" interpretation of the second amendment but a constructionist interpretation of the first (and yes, the people on my side who want a literal definition of second amendment but hold little regard for the first are equally hypocritical). However, it's clear that you have an equal disdain for all sections of the constitution. We disagree but at least you're being consistent. I'll give you that.

Actually I have very little consideration for the constitution at all, it hardly affects me....

Your turn Sweetie Pie...

 

[LOki]

I have no problem with guns that are used for target shooting or hunting.

Neither do I--obviously.

You think it fair to hunt a deer with a full auto?

No. Nor Do I think it fair that you limit the ONLY VALID REASONS to own a firearm is for target shooting and hunting purposes.

I would never (and don't) object to hunting regulations that prohibit the use of fully automatic weapons for hunting. I don't object to hunting licenses either.

So I'm still hoping you'll discover your rational criteria for limiting what arms can be owned.

I heard the second amendment was something written on paper that only reinforced what was a God-given enumerated right...

Truth. It is the appropriate license. Yes. I'm still behind that.

Is that arms? Are RPG's? Are tanks? You know where I'm going with this.

I'll again say, Yes--what of it? And no, I don't know where you're going with this, mostly because I'm hoping you're going somewhere other than the "regular folks don't need RPGs" trail, which is so weak on its face that I'm surprised it gets brought up, every time it's brought up.

Semantics and principles do have a tendency to cross over on occasion. Depends on how "tight" the argument becomes..

Fine. You still have no semantic argument.

LOL. Tis funny how a single letter typo can change the whole meaning of a post! I said others but meant other. Other being baseball bats, knives, chains...I think you took me to mean others, which would mean people. If you look at the original post I said "others means", which makes no sense, I meant other means...my bad...

No problem, but I'll still stick to what I posted. My retort to what you meant to post really will only amount to the notion that guns being a more effective murder weapon than a baseball bat does not confer upon the baseball bat some kind of moral superiority that makes the baseball bat less a murder weapon than a gun; that licensing, and registering a basebal bat would have the same effect on a murderer, and his victim, that registering and licensing guns has--that being nothing.

Regardless of the plethora of other rationalizations presented by the gun-grabbing crowd, the actual point of gun registering and owner licensing is the creation of gun confiscation lists--nothing else.

And thus is the quandry of a society awash with guns...(IMO)

What quandry? There are guns, there are decent civilized folks who own guns, there decent civilized folks who don't own guns, and there are those who fear that decent, civilized folks should (if they wish to) own alot of guns, and that those decent civilized who don't currently own guns, might do so in the future.

There is no quandry--but there is a question: Why do some people fear decent, civilized folks with guns? What plans do these "fearful" have for the decent civilized folks, such that armed, decent, civilized folks present such a problem that disarmament must occur first?

Far from fair. How about you be a bit more intellectually honest. Let's compare the number of accidental car deaths with accidental firearms deaths. Then let's compare homicides via car and homicides via firearm (hell, we can even not include suicides if you like)...

I see your point Grump, but if you want to bring it back to just homicides, I'll just point out that murderers are murderers regardless of the weapon they use--murder is what make a person a murderer, and NOT the posssesion of a gun--so to be fair, and intellectually honest about it, I'll generously (despite the undeniable fact that killed means dead, but not neccessarily murdered) NOT deduct murders and suicides from the gun related death toll, while fully allowing you to deduct murders and suicides from the automobile and iatrogenicly caused hospital death toll. I ask only that you calculate the risks, and with intellectual honesty focus your concern where the risks are greatest--if risk to society is the actual rationale for forcibly restricting a person's free action.

Thing was, in all those cases, even the American revolution, if the oppressors had got down right dirty, the outcomes would have been vastly different. Hanoi would be a parking lot, ditto Afghanistan, and if George had been a total toe rag a whole generation of men, women and children would have been wiped out.

History argues differently. Fighting people in their own backyards has an extra cost--particularly if you intend to rule them afterward.

Where am I planning on taking this? So when the FF wrote it they were not talking about the militia and the people in tandem? If not, why mention the term militia at all?

Not to take away from snowman's reply, but more out of having the window open and being on a roll...

The militia was mentioned to introduce the US Government's interest in the people's right. Where the federal government had no jurisdiction in hunting, target shooting, etc., used for arms, they had a constitutionally granted power to call uppn the militia, and a constitutional mandate to the security of a free state.

What is an automobile? A motorbike? Train? Space shuttle? Thing is, they weren't that specific...no matter how hard you try/wish it were so...:0)

To a purpose, Grump, and that purpose was NOT to limit what the right to keep and bear arms meant, to those arms which their ancestors were technologically limited to, to those arms which they were technologically limited to, or to limit our progeny to those arms that we are technologically limited to.

Are they? Where does a firearm stop and a tank begin?

What's the point? Let's say there's no line of demarcation. Let's say arms includes all weapons. Let's adopt (for discussion's sake) that peculiar insistence, from the anti-gun crowd, that the right to keep and bear arms is neccessarily a militia issue, thus asserting that the point of the 2nd was to assure that military weaponry was possessed, in as substantial a way possible, by the people and not just the government.

Unless you have spoken to a FF, you have no idea what they intended. That sentence has been open to so much scrutiny since its inception, to try and claim that you know their intention is not only arrogant, but bordering on laughable.

No it's not. Besides, there are plenty of writings, by the Founding Fathers, appurtenant to the Bill of Rights, regarding their intentions. Your demand that only speaking face to face with a dead-guy, is the only way to ascertain his intent, runs right past the border of laughable into the hysterical.

Actually I have very little consideration for the constitution at all, it hardly affects me....

Then let us not discuss further the point of the 2nd Amendment? Does it remain that irrelevent? If so, I'm game because I'd rather not refute each and every disingenuous anti-2nd Amendment argument ever presented.

The question starting this thread was essentially: Have the more stringent gun control laws, recently passed in England, served to protect the English people from violent crime in England?

The answer to that question is clearly "no"--that answer includes murder.

It is clear that gun control laws should have an effect on the use of guns in murder, but it is also clear, at least in England, that gun control laws have no redeeming effect on the murder rate. It is also clear that gun control laws should have an effect on the use of guns in total violent crime--but it is also clear, at least in England, that gun control laws have a detrimental effect on violent crime rate in England, and the civilized folks who are victim to this same rising violent crime rate.

Grump, your assertion seems to have been that gun control laws have a civilizing effect on a society--as civilized as the English were before these gun control laws, in the case of murder you cannot say the English have become more civilized, and in the case of violent crime in general--it appears that since adopting more stringent gun control laws, the English have become LESS civilized, if the rate of violent crime is to be considered an indicator for degree of civilization.

Since you're apparently not under the juristiction of the US Constitution, I'm hoping this turn away from the 2nd Amendment suits you.

 

[Dr Grump]

So I'm still hoping you'll discover your rational criteria for limiting what arms can be owned.

I'd include hunting vermin too. That IS my rationale. Whether you like that or not is another matter.

I'll again say, Yes--what of it? And no, I don't know where you're going with this, mostly because I'm hoping you're going somewhere other than the "regular folks don't need RPGs" trail, which is so weak on its face that I'm surprised it gets brought up, every time it's brought up.

Why is it weak? I think the 2nd itself is intrinsically weak because it doesn't spell out clearly enough 1) What the militia is supposed to do 2) Exactly what types of arms come under the definition. You and I having the debate is proof enough IMO..

No problem, but I'll still stick to what I posted. My retort to what you meant to post really will only amount to the notion that guns being a more effective murder weapon than a baseball bat does not confer upon the baseball bat some kind of moral superiority that makes the baseball bat less a murder weapon than a gun; that licensing, and registering a basebal bat would have the same effect on a murderer, and his victim, that registering and licensing guns has--that being nothing.

I wouldn't bother registering any type of firearm. Waste of time. How often is a baseball bat used in a murder? Ditto a firearm? I agree re your moral superiority analogy, what I do disagree with - strongly - is that you are giving both the baseball bat and firearm equal billing as a means for killing, which is disingenuous to say the least. You'll argue dead is dead. I'll argue how many military personal are given a baseball bat and how many are given a firearm after basic training? That alone confers the superiority of a firearm as a weapon of distruction.

Regardless of the plethora of other rationalizations presented by the gun-grabbing crowd, the actual point of gun registering and owner licensing is the creation of gun confiscation lists--nothing else.

That is totally untrue. Registration (if there could be some way of doing it in a cost-effective way - there isn't as far as I can see) would be a way of keeping tabs on firearms. However, where I'm from, licensing is in NO way any type of confiscation list. Somebody with a firearms license doesn't necessarily mean they have a firearm. The sole purpose of having a license is sitting a test that lets the police know you have at least a minimal proficient working knowledge of firearms, and they'll do a background check to make sure you're not a loony tune. There might be a side effect of creating a list, but that is definitely not the main reason, and to my mind only the "govt are out to get me" conspiracy theorists hold your POV in that regard.

There is no quandry--but there is a question: Why do some people fear decent, civilized folks with guns? What plans do these "fearful" have for the decent civilized folks, such that armed, decent, civilized folks present such a problem that disarmament must occur first?

I don't fear decent, civilised folks with guns, it's the loony tunes that are the problem. You don't have to be disarmed. Just licensed and limited to the types of firearms. If you are so decent and civilised, why would you want a fully automatic weapon similar to say an AK47?

I see your point Grump, but if you want to bring it back to just homicides, I'll just point out that murderers are murderers regardless of the weapon they use--murder is what make a person a murderer, and NOT the posssesion of a gun--so to be fair, and intellectually honest about it, I'll generously (despite the undeniable fact that killed means dead, but not neccessarily murdered) NOT deduct murders and suicides from the gun related death toll, while fully allowing you to deduct murders and suicides from the automobile and iatrogenicly caused hospital death toll. I ask only that you calculate the risks, and with intellectual honesty focus your concern where the risks are greatest--if risk to society is the actual rationale for forcibly restricting a person's free action.

I agree re a murderer being a murderer. As for the rest, you are purposefully muddying the waters. What is wrong with my initial assertion? It is the honest thing to do no? I wouldn't have a clue what the risks are dying from under the knife as opposed to a firearm.

.History argues differently. Fighting people in their own backyards has an extra cost--particularly if you intend to rule them afterward.

Iraq under Saddam, Iran, Soviet Union, Congo, Uganda - any place with a true tyrant seems to rule with an iron fist. How many of those countries had insurgencies, and if they did, did we ever hear of any "rebels" in the Soviet Union having success against Stalin? All those countries were either 1) awash with arms 2) or people had the means of getting them.

To a purpose, Grump, and that purpose was NOT to limit what the right to keep and bear arms meant, to those arms which their ancestors were technologically limited to, to those arms which they were technologically limited to, or to limit our progeny to those arms that we are technologically limited to.

Cool, so now all we need to do is decide what an arm is...

No it's not. Besides, there are plenty of writings, by the Founding Fathers, appurtenant to the Bill of Rights, regarding their intentions. Your demand that only speaking face to face with a dead-guy, is the only way to ascertain his intent, runs right past the border of laughable into the hysterical.

I have never read the writings of your founding fathers. What I do know is what I have picked up from messageboards. And what I have seen, like the 2nd, are furious arguments from both sides trying to interpret what your FF's said. It's a freaking minefield, because both sides are adament - beyond a reasonable doubt - that their interpretation is the correct one. So, no Loki, not hysterical. I've seen it happen many times...

.Then let us not discuss further the point of the 2nd Amendment? Does it remain that irrelevent? If so, I'm game because I'd rather not refute each and every disingenuous anti-2nd Amendment argument ever presented.

Nor I, every pro one...

The question starting this thread was essentially: Have the more stringent gun control laws, recently passed in England, served to protect the English people from violent crime in England?

No, but that was not the intent. It was intended to stop a certain type of violence from occuring in England.

It is clear that gun control laws should have an effect on the use of guns in murder, but it is also clear, at least in England, that gun control laws have no redeeming effect on the murder rate.

How do you know? In order for you to know this, you would need to now how many murders WOULD have occurred via a firearm, but since there are restrictions since the new laws were in place, you'll/we'll never know how many lives have/have not been saved due to those restrictions.

It is also clear that gun control laws should have an effect on the use of guns in total violent crime--but it is also clear, at least in England, that gun control laws have a detrimental effect on violent crime rate in England, and the civilized folks who are victim to this same rising violent crime rate.

I cannot reiterate enough the lack of firearms in the country pre the legislation. I went to school over there for three years. I reckon I had an immediate circle of about 30-40 friends, but knew about 150-200 plus others. None of their parents had a gun as far as I knew and I lived on the periphery of a large city - almost rural (this was in the late 70s/early 80s when these restrictions were not even close to be in place). I would also love you to prove how the gun control laws have had a detrimental affect on violent crime rates in England.

Grump, your assertion seems to have been that gun control laws have a civilizing effect on a society--as civilized as the English were before these gun control laws, in the case of murder you cannot say the English have become more civilized, and in the case of violent crime in general--it appears that since adopting more stringent gun control laws, the English have become LESS civilized, if the rate of violent crime is to be considered an indicator for degree of civilization..

Really? In what way. Seems their homicide rate is dropping.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp
Is that due to their laws? Actually, you'll notice in the notes that the worst year was 2002/3, which was when Harold Shipton was caught. He killed at least 200+ people over a long period of time. He was a doctor, who for want of a better term, put old people to sleep without their consent. He was a murderer who didn't have a gun. No amount of guns would have saved those people. It was only his greed that got him caught.

Since you're apparently not under the juristiction of the US Constitution, I'm hoping this turn away from the 2nd Amendment suits you..

Sounds fine to me.

 

[Ninja]

why mention the term militia at all?

To make it clear that in addition to having the right to bear arms, Americans also have the right to assemble as armed citizens.

Are they?

Yes.

What is an automobile? A motorbike? Train? Space shuttle?

"Automobile" connotes a four-wheeled vehicle. So your space shuttle example doesn't fly (no pun intended ).

they weren't that specific...no matter how hard you try/wish it were so...:0)

You're the one who implied that that 2A only gives us the right own muskets. Sounds pretty specific to me.

Have you been paying attention? My point throughout this entire exchange has been that they were intentionally un-specific.

Where does a firearm stop and a tank begin?

Uh, can you drive a firearm?

try and claim that you know their intention is not only arrogant, but bordering on laughable.

I find your assertion that the constitution confers privileges, and not rights, to be laughable.

Because it means two pro-gunnies would have to disagree with each other, and we wouldn't want to cause a fuss would we?

Wrong. We gun owners are not like the libtarded pod people. We disagree with eachother all the time, whether we're talking about the scope of the 2A, or if 9mm is an acceptable personal protection round, or if the Springfield XD is as reliable as the Glock, etc, etc, etc...

So here goes. Go to post 62. Then get back to me. You will note for at least the THIRD time I was not the one who brought up tanks. A pro-gunnie was. Care to take up the issue with him, or are you all mouth and no action? Take your time....

You were not the first one to use the tank example, however you did use it.

I would disagree with anyone who tried to claim that the 2A gives them the right to own a tank, or a nuclear warhead for that matter, for reasons that have already been discussed ad nauseum (and not refuted).

However, I also see laws banning private citizens from such ownership as being totally useless.

Both are so expenive so as to be almost unattainable by the average citizens

Those with the financial means to acquire a tank/nuke/WMD/whatever, who also have a strong desire to do so, WILL do so regardless of what the law says.

Finally, I'm unaware of a rash of crimes committed in the US with tanks or nukes.

To put it simply, if a state wants to grant its citizens the right to own tanks and nukes, fine. However I don't think the constitution grants these rights.

Actually I have very little consideration for the constitution at all, it hardly affects me....

Really? Reading your sig I think it does.

By the way, your comment about hunting with an automatic weapon was absurd.