Does gun control work???

[martybegan]

Strict gun laws work just fine in NYC.

NYC has had the same basic gun laws since the 70's. The murder rate cannot be correlated to the presence of tough gun laws, because they have been here since the high crime of the 70's and 80's.

The only real experiment to do would be to liberalize (isn't that ironic) gun laws, and see if the murder rate shoots up.

 

[Contumacious]

Not to mention the language of the 10th amendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Not only our 2nd amendment and 10th amendment.
Our State Constitutions.
Here is Arizona's;
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Combined with our Federal and Sate Constitutions we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves.

That's rich. The state's constitution changes the US constitution.

You know what's really rich?

When the Communist Manifesto changes the US Constitution !!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[peach174]

Really?

There is quite an argument about the 2nd Amendment. One side says it allows for unrestricted access to guns. Another side said it codifies the sort of military we should have. And there are strong arguments for either side.

In any case..unless you want to litigate that..there are all sorts of restrictions on the other rights given to citizens by the Constitution. Free speech is one. The practice of religion is another. I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

We are being gunned down in bars, schools, colleges and Churches and we have the right to defend ourself against murders.
Everyone that was at the tea party rallies had permit's. That is why they were not arrested.
There is a big difference between law breakers and law abider's.
Law breakers will always be able to get guns no matter how many laws are passed.

Plenty of "Law abiding" people have had unhinged moments and gone berzerk. There were plenty of people with guns at Gabby Gifford's event. They couldn't prevent what happened.

No there wasn't. Not one person at that event had a gun, and there was no police there.
The one who did have a gun and his permit, was inside another store and did not come out till it was over. He said he felt bad that he was not at the right place at the right time or he would have gunned down the guy before he shot so many.
Had there been people there at that meeting with a gun the guy would have been shot down before before so many were killed and injured.

 

[Iridescence]

guns don't kill people. people kill people.

.......but they help.

I support controling the guns of idiots and crazy people.

Perhaps limiting certain individuals access is wiser than allowing *just anyone* to acquire a gun... there are many other weapons. However, honestly, guns are a preferred choice by many victims over, like, say, a knife or something else... And the definition of an idiot and/or crazy person is perhaps going to be the kicker for this argument. Someone previously convicted of a violent crime should not have ready access to a gun... but then, is that really the answer when there are, again, so many other weapons to choose from? Gun control is important, but training the masses to be mindful of gun safety is far more logical and would be most effective. The best thing to keep in mind when passing laws is to not pass laws that would provoke desperation from the weaker minded individuals without providing them adequate outlets. Many backwoods individuals and deep rooted families value their guns with their lives...

 

[peach174]

Not to mention the language of the 10th amendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Not only our 2nd amendment and 10th amendment.
Our State Constitutions.
Here is Arizona's;
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Combined with our Federal and Sate Constitutions we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves.

Hmm sounds like Militia organizations are illegal in AZ.
Perhaps even the NRA and such gun owner groups.

We the people are the Militia
AZ Sate constitution
1. Composition of militia

Section 1. The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,

 

[Iridescence]

By looking at the following link...

Digging into China

...I'd say no. Weather gun control or non nuclear proliferation pacts people as well as governments will not disarm themselves for fear of hostile human/government aggression. I must ask, does the above link prove my point???

Arms control... is not necessarily gun control. The topic has been mislead... The article does prove your point in many ways. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[General_XVI]

well its hard to say... i believe we have a treaty with china on the nuclear aggression matter.... as to if it works.. i guarentee that if we made them mad enough... well to put it simply a treaty is a piece of paper :\

 

[eflatminor]

Plenty of "Law abiding" people have had unhinged moments and gone berzerk. There were plenty of people with guns at Gabby Gifford's event. They couldn't prevent what happened.

Yet there are millions of examples of where a legally armed citizen did prevent an attack. You want to prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families because an armed citizen didn't stop each and every example of someone going crazy and killing innocent people? Where is the logic in that?

Also, I'm not calling you a liar, but you have proof that "there were plenty of people with guns at Gifford's event"?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Not to mention the language of the 10th amendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Really?

There is quite an argument about the 2nd Amendment. One side says it allows for unrestricted access to guns. Another side said it codifies the sort of military we should have. And there are strong arguments for either side.

In any case..unless you want to litigate that..there are all sorts of restrictions on the other rights given to citizens by the Constitution. Free speech is one. The practice of religion is another. I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

Yes I do have a problem with curtailing someones right to be a moron and yell fire in a crowded theater just like I'm against curtailing someone elses right to bear and possess a firearm. But I'm one of those "crazy" liberty loving libertarian types

I understand the "point" you are attempting to make with the "yelling fire" or "human sacrifice" comments. However you are comparing apples to oranges...yelling fire in a crowded theater, while I still would rather NOT have a law saying you cant, is something that has been proven to cause a dangerous situation for people in the theater. Human sacrifice, while accepted by some religions, would still be considered an illegal murder under our laws...just like assisted suicide is considered murder. Now you are trying to put possessing a firearm in the same category as murdering people for your religion or screaming fire when there isn't to enjoy a panic....i say you are comparing apples to oranges and making an ineffective argument due to your poor choice of comparisons.

As a side note I've carried my pistol into hospitals, the police station, the RMV, the post office, Town hall, many stores and restaurants, to political rallies (including both times I went to visit OWS Boston), at work (I am carrying as I type this), and if I went to church I would have carried it in there too.

 

[Iridescence]

well its hard to say... i believe we have a treaty with china on the nuclear aggression matter.... as to if it works.. i guarentee that if we made them mad enough... well to put it simply a treaty is a piece of paper :\

Is it really *just* a piece of paper? It seems highly unlikely. It may not represent the type of re/inforcement that many seem to think adequate, but there are unmentionables at stake, obviously. China isn't the only one taking their best underground and they know it. Perhaps this is why a treaty isn't satisfying to everyone involved. We cannot afford to be lagging behind them, as a nation... It is not a comfortable subject, as so much is unknown and too many are uninformed, it seems.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Not to mention the language of the 10th amendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Not only our 2nd amendment and 10th amendment.
Our State Constitutions.
Here is Arizona's;
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Combined with our Federal and Sate Constitutions we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves.

Massachussetts Constitution (you should read it and think of how "liberal" my state is when you do...or at least the beginning) Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

 

[peach174]

N.Y. State Constitution;
Defense; militia

Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state.
New Yorker's are the Militia.
Each and every State Consitituion says the militia are the people of each state.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

Good God man! Yelling fire in a crowded theater is NOT practicing free speech! It's USING speech to actually harm another. Just like having a firearm is perfectly legal. Using a gun actually harm another is of course illegal outside of self defense. Such a tired and misguided argument!

As far as concealed weapons...are those places you listed private property? Then what ******* business is it of yours? If you own the bar, feel free to ban concealed weapons. If you don't take your business elsewhere. It's really that simple.

Hence why I told him his argument was inneffective .

 

[Iridescence]

Not to mention the language of the 10th amendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Really?

There is quite an argument about the 2nd Amendment. One side says it allows for unrestricted access to guns. Another side said it codifies the sort of military we should have. And there are strong arguments for either side.

In any case..unless you want to litigate that..there are all sorts of restrictions on the other rights given to citizens by the Constitution. Free speech is one. The practice of religion is another. I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

Yes I do have a problem with curtailing someones right to be a moron and yell fire in a crowded theater just like I'm against curtailing someone elses right to bear and possess a firearm. But I'm one of those "crazy" liberty loving libertarian types

I understand the "point" you are attempting to make with the "yelling fire" or "human sacrifice" comments. However you are comparing apples to oranges...yelling fire in a crowded theater, while I still would rather NOT have a law saying you cant, is something that has been proven to cause a dangerous situation for people in the theater. Human sacrifice, while accepted by some religions, would still be considered an illegal murder under our laws...just like assisted suicide is considered murder. Now you are trying to put possessing a firearm in the same category as murdering people for your religion or screaming fire when there isn't to enjoy a panic....i say you are comparing apples to oranges and making an ineffective argument due to your poor choice of comparisons.

As a side note I've carried my pistol into hospitals, the police station, the RMV, the post office, Town hall, many stores and restaurants, to political rallies (including both times I went to visit OWS Boston), at work (I am carrying as I type this), and if I went to church I would have carried it in there too.

Why? Does your lifestyle demand it? Your profession? It would seem to many that YOU are an aggressor and it is that very kind of attitude that has many screaming for better control. Common Citizens may have every right to own a gun, and even carry it, but an informed common citizen should/would not be *kickass minded* about such freedoms. It should be with humbleness, duty and honor. I suppose I'm just the oddity.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

 

[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.

 

[uscitizen]

I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

Good God man! Yelling fire in a crowded theater is NOT practicing free speech! It's USING speech to actually harm another. Just like having a firearm is perfectly legal. Using a gun actually harm another is of course illegal outside of self defense. Such a tired and misguided argument!

As far as concealed weapons...are those places you listed private property? Then what ******* business is it of yours? If you own the bar, feel free to ban concealed weapons. If you don't take your business elsewhere. It's really that simple.

The Bar??? Guns in bars is not such a good idea.

I support metal detectors at all bars. Somehow it is nice and comforting to know some drunk or jealous husband is not going to bezerk out with a gun.

 

[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.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

 

[eflatminor]

I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

Good God man! Yelling fire in a crowded theater is NOT practicing free speech! It's USING speech to actually harm another. Just like having a firearm is perfectly legal. Using a gun actually harm another is of course illegal outside of self defense. Such a tired and misguided argument!

As far as concealed weapons...are those places you listed private property? Then what ******* business is it of yours? If you own the bar, feel free to ban concealed weapons. If you don't take your business elsewhere. It's really that simple.

The Bar??? Guns in bars is not such a good idea.

I support metal detectors at all bars. Somehow it is nice and comforting to know some drunk or jealous husband is not going to bezerk out with a gun.

Then you should only go to bars with metal detectors...or start your own bar where each patron undergoes an anal cavity search for weapons. Your bar, your rules.