Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

[Missourian]

The courts have ruled that gun bans are constitutional... Look up US v. Miller. And I would argue that the 2nd Amendment is about militias, not private gun ownerships. - a WELL REGULATED militia.

The ‘collective right’ argument was made in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and rejected by the Court:

The right to bear arms is ‘clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia.’

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

As the Court noted in Heller, Miller is not on point with the issue because the latter didn’t address the meaning of the Amendment, rather the type of firearms subject to its protection. In Heller the Court did not rule out gun regulation altogether, stating ownership was an individual right, along with the right to self defense. And because Americans overwhelming defend themselves with handguns, it was un-Constitutional to ban their possession.

The issue isn’t gun regulation per se, but what type of regulation is excessive and what passes Constitutional muster.

Even if one subscribes to the living breathing document theory (which I don't)...it's hard to interpret "shall not be infringed" as anything but...well...shall not be infringed.

 

[JoeB131]

You want to talk about deterrents. People dont break into other peoples houses around here because we are all armed. My wife carries a pistol with her everywhere. I have loaded guns in every room of my house. Most everybody around here is like that. Break into a house and you die. Its that simple. Those kinds of detterents cant be measured.

That just means the bad guys case the house, wait until no one is home, and then steal the guns. Most guns used in crime began their lives in the homes of nice, respectable people.

USATODAY.com - States with high crime see more guns stolen

 

[BoycottTheday]

Dont forget they are tying to take your ammo away from you to, the EPA is behind this, they just wont admit it. stock up before its to late.

NRA Seeks To Protect Hunters Interests In Lawsuit Seeking Ban On Lead Ammunition

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, it was called the Kellerman Study, and it found that in Seattle Washington, for every case of an intruder being killed by a homeowner, there were 39 suicides, 3 accidents and 1 domestic murder. Kellerman moved his study to other cities and got similar results.

Even if we take the conclusions at face value...adding suicides is a glaring error.

How can we protect you from you?

The evidence concludes that countries without guns have the same or higher suicide rates and countries that had gun restrictions enacted like England and Canada didn't reduce the suicide rate, it only transferred the firearm suicides to other methods, like leaping and poison.

Remove the suicide statistics and you are safer as a gun owner.

Well, no you're not. First, compared to other industrialized countries, we have a much higher suicide rate.

We are at 11.1, per 100,000 people compared to 9.2 for the UK, 9.5 for Germany, and 5.2 for Italy. Canada is a little higher at 11.6, but their gun laws aren't as restrictive as the UK's. Japan is the leader in the G-7 countries with 24.6, but it's a non-Christian culture that is more accepting of suicide in general.

A gun in the house makes it easier for people to kill themselves.

Second, even taking out the suicides, there are more deaths from accidents and domestic murders than in home defense.

 

[BoycottTheday]

You can cite all the stats you want, from my dead cold fingers, thats when you take my weapons.

 

[California Girl]

GunCite - Gun Control Web Site: A Gun in the Home


Serious Flaws in Kellerman

We can go back and forth

yes, we can. So I have to go by sensible statistics. Things I know of personally.

Number of people I know who've killed intruders - 0.

Number of people I know of who've been killed by guns in their own home - 2, including a next door neighbor of mine.

Kellerman's stats unfortunately sound pretty reasonable to me.

Things I know of personally:

Number of people I know who have successfully defended themselves using a gun against someone intent on doing them harm: 2

Number of people I know who have used a firearm to deter a burglar: 1

Number of people I know who have been killed by their own gun: 0

 

[JoeB131]

You can cite all the stats you want, from my dead cold fingers, thats when you take my weapons.

Oooookay.... not helpful.

And this is the problem with this debate, in a nutshell. Much like the abortion debate, the loud voices on the fringe drown out the sensible voices in the middle.

The Gun Grabbers and the NRA Gun Nuts have been taking whacks at each other for so long, neither sides sees the ludicrousness of their position.

I wouldn't want to live in a country where the government is searching your house to find out if you have a gun, but I don't much like the notion that we live in a country where Jared whatshisname who shot Gabby Giffords can walk into a gun store, and buy a gun and an extra large clip of ammo, despite the fact he was diagnosed as a schizophrenic.

The sensible middle position is that you should have the ability to own a gun in the same context that you are able to own a car- only after you've been trained, licensed and insured to do so.

That position, of course, will gain no traction with gun grabbers trying to get the camel's nose into the tent, and gun nuts who want to shoot the camel on sight.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is a system of check and balances that keep the 3 branches of govt in check. What is the check that keeps the govt in check with me and you; an armed population. We have the right to defend oursleves from others and an overbearing govt.

That being said; what defines a weapon? A knife, pump shotgun, semi-automatic rifles, fully automatic rifles, explosives.

Personally i beileve that we have to draw the line at what will give you more fire power than those who would do you harm. Street gangs and police both use full auto wepons so we should be allowed to have them also. RPGs are pretty silly you will do more damage to yourself and your property than you would do to an intruder. Armour piercing ammo should be legal.

We should teach our children to handle guns safetly and with responsibility.

In all but 17 States Fully Automatic Weapons ARE legal. You must get a federal License for one but you can own them and use them.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Im getting tired of reading about what you dont like to be honest Joe.

 

[JoeB131]

Im getting tired of reading about what you dont like to be honest Joe.

And I should care, why?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Remove the suicide statistics and you are safer as a gun owner.

one small part of the equation southpaw, you're leaving out the 'idiots with guns' part

~S~

Let's repeat that one more time

Remove the suicide statistics and you are safer as a gun owner

You will be removing the idiots with guns when they kill themself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My personal opinion is that the federal Government has no right to ban or restrict ownership of Firearms at the basic level. The exceptions obviously are if you are in jail or on probation or out on parole. Once you have done your time you should have the right to own fire arms. If our laws are to lenient on crime make them stronger.

The Government has no Constitutional authority to punish someone with the loss of a given right while they are not serving time determined by a competent Judge.

Having said that one CAN petition for the right to own firearms again, you do so through the Secretary of the Treasury. Of course what are the chances he will approve?

The Government does have a right to regulate what is a basic firearm. I do not believe that fully automatic weapons should be free and clear without some Government oversight. We discovered rather quickly what happens otherwise in the 20's and 30's.

Only semi automatic rifles and handguns and shotguns ( and lesser versions like single shot or revolver, etc) in my opinion are covered by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court generally agrees. In 1939 they ruled that a weapon must be of use or used by the military to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. I argue they clearly meant personal weapons not fully automatic or crew served Weapons. They left in place with the 39 ruling the laws on such weapons restricting them to a Federal License and allowing individual States to outlaw them completely.

The so called assault weapon ban under Clinton was illegal. For lots of reasons, the biggest being it was superficial it judged a weapon on looks not capability. It banned semi automatic weapons simply because they looked like military weapons, in direct violation of the Supreme Court ruling in 1939.

One can own explosives with the proper license, that is not covered by the 2nd Amendment in my opinion. One can own a cannon if they get the right license and paper work. Again not part of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment provides two clear rights, one to the individual citizen to own, possess and carry a firearm and to the States to keep and maintain a Militia.

Almost every State has no militia. The National Guard is the FEDERALIZED portion of said militia. Every State has a right to keep Militias outside those controlled by the Federal Government and I argue every State without a militia is in violation of their citizens rights and is not providing adequate protection as expected by its citizens.

State Militias are where anti tank, artillery , tanks and such belong. Every State should maintain a militia and drill it every month. There are many uses for a State militia besides defense. At one time militias were our law enforcement, they could aid in police work, fire fighting and other State functions during training periods.

Every able bodied man and woman aged 18 to 50 should be in the militia with exceptions granted for critical jobs. Each person should train 2 days a month.

My personal opinion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The other reason given is that you want to be able to protect your family. BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents.

This is utter bullshit.

Yep he's a gun owner.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My personal opinion is that the federal Government has no right to ban or restrict ownership of Firearms at the basic level. The exceptions obviously are if you are in jail or on probation or out on parole. Once you have done your time you should have the right to own fire arms. If our laws are to lenient on crime make them stronger.

The Government has no Constitutional authority to punish someone with the loss of a given right while they are not serving time determined by a competent Judge.

Having said that one CAN petition for the right to own firearms again, you do so through the Secretary of the Treasury. Of course what are the chances he will approve?

The Government does have a right to regulate what is a basic firearm. I do not believe that fully automatic weapons should be free and clear without some Government oversight. We discovered rather quickly what happens otherwise in the 20's and 30's.

Only semi automatic rifles and handguns and shotguns ( and lesser versions like single shot or revolver, etc) in my opinion are covered by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court generally agrees. In 1939 they ruled that a weapon must be of use or used by the military to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. I argue they clearly meant personal weapons not fully automatic or crew served Weapons. They left in place with the 39 ruling the laws on such weapons restricting them to a Federal License and allowing individual States to outlaw them completely.

The so called assault weapon ban under Clinton was illegal. For lots of reasons, the biggest being it was superficial it judged a weapon on looks not capability. It banned semi automatic weapons simply because they looked like military weapons, in direct violation of the Supreme Court ruling in 1939.

One can own explosives with the proper license, that is not covered by the 2nd Amendment in my opinion. One can own a cannon if they get the right license and paper work. Again not part of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment provides two clear rights, one to the individual citizen to own, possess and carry a firearm and to the States to keep and maintain a Militia.

Almost every State has no militia. The National Guard is the FEDERALIZED portion of said militia. Every State has a right to keep Militias outside those controlled by the Federal Government and I argue every State without a militia is in violation of their citizens rights and is not providing adequate protection as expected by its citizens.

State Militias are where anti tank, artillery , tanks and such belong. Every State should maintain a militia and drill it every month. There are many uses for a State militia besides defense. At one time militias were our law enforcement, they could aid in police work, fire fighting and other State functions during training periods.

Every able bodied man and woman aged 18 to 50 should be in the militia with exceptions granted for critical jobs. Each person should train 2 days a month.

My personal opinion.

Sarge the only firearms the courts have considered protected by the second amendment are those of military value.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Im getting tired of reading about what you dont like to be honest Joe.

And I should care, why?

You are a liberal, liberals dont care about the constitution as it is written.

So make another one, see what happens.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When I refer to our need for guns against the govt I am refering to "we the people". When we all decide that our govt has become tyranical and needs to be replaced then that requires an armed citizenry. Thats how our war for independence was won when the British became to tyranical. Govts fear armed citizens because then we have recourse when they become to overbearing. Thats why the govt wants to take them away.

I don't subscribe to the worship of the Founders a lot on the right do. They were a bunch of rich slaveholders who didn't want to pay for a war (The French and Indian War) that they provoked and they benefited from.

I credit them with establishing a good enough system that allowed something good to come about. Usually revolutions lead to things being a lot worse for everyone when all is said and done.

We won our war against Britian because France and Spain (no lovers of democracy there) decided they were going to get some payback on England for screwing them over in the last couple of wars. Not because there were a bunch of plucky guys with squirrel guns. We won because guys from Europe like Pulaski, Lafayette, Von Stueben (who was as ka-weer as a square donut) came over and showed our guys how to fight a war.

So, oddly, my fellow right wingers, we owe our freedom today to a Gay Prussian officer who showed the hillbillies how to march and stand in formation.

5 star post Joe, sadly lost on the 2nd Amd nutters who equate freedom to firearm ownership.

Sader still to think we'd really be something if we had such attention paid to the other 26

~S~

When your right to defend yourself is taken away you become a subject, ask the Jews from Germany 1933 oh that's right you can't 6 million were killed by their government.
Oh maybe you can ask 20 million russians from Stalins years., never mind they were killed by their government also. Damn who can you ask? Oh and before you say it, how did the russian military stand up against the lesser equipted fighters in afghanistan? How is our military doing against them?

 

[JoeB131]

[
When your right to defend yourself is taken away you become a subject, ask the Jews from Germany 1933 oh that's right you can't 6 million were killed by their government.

Actually, most of the Jews killed in World War II weren't in Germany. In fact, only 130,000 German Jews were killed. (Most had fled the country before then.) Most of the Jews killed were in Russia and Poland, where they did give it the old college try to fight the Germans off first. So guns didn't make that much of a difference.

The Holocaust Victims

Oh maybe you can ask 20 million russians from Stalins years., never mind they were killed by their government also. Damn who can you ask?

And gun availability didn't help that much, there, either. In fact, before the Stalin Purges, they had a fairly nasty civil war between the Reds and the Whites. Lots of guns available when the Tsar's army collapsed and deserted en masse during WWI. The Allied Powers even gave more guns to the Whites. Didn't help any. The Whites Lost. And the ones not lucky enough to get out were killed. And then Stalin killed his fellow Reds he didn't trust that much. So you can argue gun availability made stuff a lot worse.

Oh and before you say it, how did the russian military stand up against the lesser equipted fighters in afghanistan? How is our military doing against them?

Well, in that case, again, you had an outside power arming them with high quality weapons, not plucky guys with squirrel guns. And in reality the Soviet Union fell before the Communist government in Afghanistan did. So it's hard to argue that they actually Drove them out.

But let's look at that. What if we didn't get involved. What if we just let the Soviets colonize afghanistan, replace Islam with a secularist society, taught women how to read? Would an socialist Afghanistan be less of a problem to us than an Islamist one? We were the ones raising rattlesnakes and complained when we got bit.

Now all that said- one more time- I DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS. I don't think it would be practical with 200 million guns already out there. That horse has left the barn.

I just don't subscribe to the mythology that if the stuff really hit the fan, and our government turned on us, gun ownership would really make matters any better. Like we are going to turn off American Idol long enough to get off our fat asses and do anything about it.

 

[sparky]

Remove the suicide statistics and you are safer as a gun owner.

one small part of the equation southpaw, you're leaving out the 'idiots with guns' part

~S~

That doesn't mean anything to me Sparky...Show Me.

Fair enough then, how's both sides?>
GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004) - Gun Owners Of America

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington CeaseFire

and in the middle>
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[
When your right to defend yourself is taken away you become a subject, ask the Jews from Germany 1933 oh that's right you can't 6 million were killed by their government.

Actually, most of the Jews killed in World War II weren't in Germany. In fact, only 130,000 German Jews were killed. (Most had fled the country before then.) Most of the Jews killed were in Russia and Poland, where they did give it the old college try to fight the Germans off first. So guns didn't make that much of a difference.

The Holocaust Victims

Oh maybe you can ask 20 million russians from Stalins years., never mind they were killed by their government also. Damn who can you ask?

And gun availability didn't help that much, there, either. In fact, before the Stalin Purges, they had a fairly nasty civil war between the Reds and the Whites. Lots of guns available when the Tsar's army collapsed and deserted en masse during WWI. The Allied Powers even gave more guns to the Whites. Didn't help any. The Whites Lost. And the ones not lucky enough to get out were killed. And then Stalin killed his fellow Reds he didn't trust that much. So you can argue gun availability made stuff a lot worse.

Oh and before you say it, how did the russian military stand up against the lesser equipted fighters in afghanistan? How is our military doing against them?

Well, in that case, again, you had an outside power arming them with high quality weapons, not plucky guys with squirrel guns. And in reality the Soviet Union fell before the Communist government in Afghanistan did. So it's hard to argue that they actually Drove them out.

But let's look at that. What if we didn't get involved. What if we just let the Soviets colonize afghanistan, replace Islam with a secularist society, taught women how to read? Would an socialist Afghanistan be less of a problem to us than an Islamist one? We were the ones raising rattlesnakes and complained when we got bit.

Now all that said- one more time- I DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS. I don't think it would be practical with 200 million guns already out there. That horse has left the barn.

I just don't subscribe to the mythology that if the stuff really hit the fan, and our government turned on us, gun ownership would really make matters any better. Like we are going to turn off American Idol long enough to get off our fat asses and do anything about it.

Clueless here's a fact when firearms were taken away from people they were killed at the hands of their own government. End of story.

 

[JoeB131]

[
When your right to defend yourself is taken away you become a subject, ask the Jews from Germany 1933 oh that's right you can't 6 million were killed by their government.

Actually, most of the Jews killed in World War II weren't in Germany. In fact, only 130,000 German Jews were killed. (Most had fled the country before then.) Most of the Jews killed were in Russia and Poland, where they did give it the old college try to fight the Germans off first. So guns didn't make that much of a difference.

The Holocaust Victims



And gun availability didn't help that much, there, either. In fact, before the Stalin Purges, they had a fairly nasty civil war between the Reds and the Whites. Lots of guns available when the Tsar's army collapsed and deserted en masse during WWI. The Allied Powers even gave more guns to the Whites. Didn't help any. The Whites Lost. And the ones not lucky enough to get out were killed. And then Stalin killed his fellow Reds he didn't trust that much. So you can argue gun availability made stuff a lot worse.

Oh and before you say it, how did the russian military stand up against the lesser equipted fighters in afghanistan? How is our military doing against them?

Well, in that case, again, you had an outside power arming them with high quality weapons, not plucky guys with squirrel guns. And in reality the Soviet Union fell before the Communist government in Afghanistan did. So it's hard to argue that they actually Drove them out.

But let's look at that. What if we didn't get involved. What if we just let the Soviets colonize afghanistan, replace Islam with a secularist society, taught women how to read? Would an socialist Afghanistan be less of a problem to us than an Islamist one? We were the ones raising rattlesnakes and complained when we got bit.

Now all that said- one more time- I DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS. I don't think it would be practical with 200 million guns already out there. That horse has left the barn.

I just don't subscribe to the mythology that if the stuff really hit the fan, and our government turned on us, gun ownership would really make matters any better. Like we are going to turn off American Idol long enough to get off our fat asses and do anything about it.

Clueless here's a fact when firearms were taken away from people they were killed at the hands of their own government. End of story.

And when are you actually going to present a case of that happening. Beause the three examples you cited were cases where the people involved had plenty of guns, but the other side had more guns and were more willing to use them.

Your example of Stalin was particularly weak, since Stalin's enemies had plenty of guns, and died anyway.