Justices agree on right to own guns

[The Dunedan]

I'd never shoot you if you didn't have a weapon. That's what God made sticks for. You shoot someone who aggresses against you with lethal or potentially lethal force, or aggresses against another person thus. If you managed to take my stick away as I was beating you about the head and shoulders with it, that would prove pretty conclusively that you were a physical threat to me with your bare hands. If needed, -that's- when I'd shoot you. In my State, it would be perfectly legal for me to do so, since you were trespassing on my land, staying after I told you to leave, and disarmed me as I attempted to subdue and eject you.

Of course, this assumes you could get the stick out of my hands as I'm beating you about the head and shoulders. If you didn't manage it, I'd just cudgel you off down to the road. If you were knocked unconscious, I'd drag you to the road and call an ambulance.

Unarmed burgalers are why God made hickory sticks. Armed burglars are why Colt made his revolver. Suffice to say that I am prepared for either with the gifts of both.

As regards your comments on the law: Would you tolerate, say, the Gov't denying Muslims the right to pray in public, teach their children Arabic, and make the Hajj? That's how we look at such a thing. A calculated, forcible cultural attack. When we see guns being melted or chopped after one of those rediculous "gun buy-back" programmes, it has the impact of a Rabbi watching Sturmtruppen burn Torah scrolls. Firearms are the means by which we protect our lives and liberties, both of them gifts from God and our ancestors and nothing to throw away lightly.

If the Gov't imposed or threatened to impose full Nazi or Soviet-type censorship, for instance, would you not be enraged? That's how important this is to us. Believe it or not, we're not the stereotype you love so much. We treasure or at least respect the rule of Law. But we recognize, just as I'll credit you by assuming you would in the case above, that certain rights are inviolate. Period. The End. And that violation of them may warrant resistance and dissent. I hope you would recognize the need for resistance to censorship, remembering that it is with this same regard that we gunowners approach the 2nd Amendment.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: The Dunedan I'd never shoot you if you didn't have a weapon. That's what God made sticks for. You shoot someone who aggresses against you with lethal or potentially lethal force, or aggresses against another person thus. If you managed to take my stick away as I was beating you about the head and shoulders with it, that would prove pretty conclusively that you were a physical threat to me with your bare hands. If needed, -that's- when I'd shoot you. In my State, it would be perfectly legal for me to do so, since you were trespassing on my land, staying after I told you to leave, and disarmed me as I attempted to subdue and eject you. Of course, this assumes you could get the stick out of my hands as I'm beating you about the head and shoulders. If you didn't manage it, I'd just cudgel you off down to the road. If you were knocked unconscious, I'd drag you to the road and call an ambulance. Unarmed burgalers are why God made hickory sticks. Armed burglars are why Colt made his revolver. Suffice to say that I am prepared for either with the gifts of both. As regards your comments on the law: Would you tolerate, say, the Gov't denying Muslims the right to pray in public, teach their children Arabic, and make the Hajj? That's how we look at such a thing. A calculated, forcible cultural attack. When we see guns being melted or chopped after one of those rediculous "gun buy-back" programmes, it has the impact of a Rabbi watching Sturmtruppen burn Torah scrolls. Firearms are the means by which we protect our lives and liberties, both of them gifts from God and our ancestors and nothing to throw away lightly. If the Gov't imposed or threatened to impose full Nazi or Soviet-type censorship, for instance, would you not be enraged? That's how important this is to us. Believe it or not, we're not the stereotype you love so much. We treasure or at least respect the rule of Law. But we recognize, just as I'll credit you by assuming you would in the case above, that certain rights are inviolate. Period. The End. And that violation of them may warrant resistance and dissent. I hope you would recognize the need for resistance to censorship, remembering that it is with this same regard that we gunowners approach the 2nd Amendment.

This is what I know and understand: No right that, by it's assertion, renders society manifestly more trecherous for a majority of the members of that society, is inviolate. You, by asserting that right, do not protect yourself from the danger you claim to fear, and on the great ledger sheet of benefit vs. harm, force society to come out on the negitive end of the equation. Please explain how protecting religious freedom or thwarting censorship would create that same danger to society. I appriciate that you consider this right to be inviolate, but you are ignoring the plain fact that many nations, just as free as the US, curtail the "right" you wish to protect and are not now examples of Facist or Dictatorial hell-holes. What you feel and what you can demonstate are vastly different. I do appriciate the fact that the law, as it stands, does not completely agree with my position. Yet, I would never advocate shooting those who sought to enforce the law as it exists simply because I disagree with that law. And that stance is based on the fact that we live in a society where people have the protected and functioning right to participate in and effect the outcomes of said rule of law. I would fight against a sytem that imposed laws that effected the rights of individuals to live in reasonable freedom without benefit of participation. Democratic process is democratic process, and if the majority of the people feel and can demonstate that an aspect of law is needed and just, they have the right to enact that law. How do we function otherwise?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Dunedan My argument is this: I am not hurting anyone.

Well given that we're the most violent, murderous nation in the civilized 1st world, Dunedan, obviously SOMEONE is, certainly more Americans per capita than in other countries, and it's really absurd to suggest that there's not a problem because YOU happen to be a peaceful guy. That's like saying back in the early '60's that, gosh, I'M not a racist, so why is it necessary to pass civil rights laws? Or, gosh, I'M a safe driver, so why require registration of cars, licensing of drivers and enforcement of traffic laws?

The fact is, not everything is about you, Dunedan.

Quote by: Dunedan and any country along the lines Sonart Et Al propose is hardly a place I'd want to breathe the air of anyway.

Oh absolutely... Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, Ireland, Scotland, Japan, and Europe... horrid little places.

Quote by: Dunedan Sonart, unless you are personally comfortable with killing or imprisoning a minimum of 850,000 people, piss off.

Hell, Dunedan, America already has the largest per capita prison population in the world, us being so "Tough on Crime" and all. America, the new Gulag Archipelago. How much worse do you imagine I can make it?

Besides, I'm not interested in taking your arsenal... I'm sure you really, really need it. I just want people to start seeing gun ownership as a privelege they have to earn, not some gawd given right and to get past Americas love affair with guns, gun violence and the idea that guns solve problems.

Quote by: Dunedan I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of center-punching anyone who comes through my door with the intent of disarming me.

Have I said anything anywhere that even remotely suggested disarming you? After all, you sound like such a peaceful, pleasant, rational person.

Quote by: Dunedan My gun is on the table, so to speak. You hide yours behind "laws" and fancy language,

Yessiree, to hell with the rule of law, let's just see who's quickest on the draw. Dunedan, you've used 4 paragraphs to describe how willing you are to shoot someone -- not for threatening you or your family -- but for thinking to confiscate your guns, even lawfully. This is why the U.S. is the violent, murderous nation that it is, America's culture of gun lust and our mythological belief that guns solve problems, when the obvious reality is that they only create problems.

Quote by: Isbskins For love of country, I might walk into your space unarmed and attempt to remove the gun from your hands using nothing but the physical force I could muster so that you would be forced to shoot an unarmed individual to show the world the full faced ugliness of your own b.s. mental gymnastics. Who's the coward now?

There it is. The idealistic courage of a Martin Luther King, Jr. vs.the violent bluster of a George W. Bush. You tell me which is the American way?

Quote by: Isbskins No right that, by it's assertion, renders society manifestly more trecherous for a majority of the members of that society, is inviolate.

BINGO!! I couldn't possibly have said it better. Defending a "Right" that makes life more dangerous for everyone, simply because you 'like the idea' of having that right, just smacks me as immoral... there's really no other word for it.

Quote by: Dunedan I own a great many guns, none of which have ever to my knowledge been fired in anger. I'd never shoot you if you didn't have a weapon.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what Rodney Peairs thought, just before he shot an unarmed teenage Japanese exchange student dead for daring to walk up to Peair's house to ask directions to a nearby Halloween party.

.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Sonart BINGO!! I couldn't possibly have said it better. Defending a "Right" that makes life more dangerous for everyone, simply because you 'like the idea' of having that right, just smacks me as immoral... there's really no other word for it.

I would agree, if what you say is true. However, the evidence points in the opposite direction -- that an armed populace is a safer once.

[Roxdog]

Quote by: Nono One-man militias, roxy?

Yes. Or no. WTF ever. Once again, BECAUSE militias are necessary, the right of the "THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"...You can call yourself fried chicken, it matters very little to me...

Quote by: Nono Nobody likes guns better than a full-blooded fascist.

Um, what? WTF are you talking about?

[Roxdog]

Sonart, you can post Brady bunk all day long, it doesn't change the fact that you are a liar and a fascist...Appointed men in drag can make "laws" stating the sun doesn't shine....but it does. YOU are an "anomoly"...You bootlicking coward.

[Kite]

Quote by: Sonart . Well given that we're the most violent, murderous nation in the civilized 1st world, Dunedan, obviously SOMEONE is, certainly more Americans per capita than in other countries, and it's really absurd to suggest that there's not a problem because YOU happen to be a peaceful guy. That's like saying back in the early '60's that, gosh, I'M not a racist, so why is it necessary to pass civil rights laws? Or, gosh, I'M a safe driver, so why require registration of cars, licensing of drivers and enforcement of traffic laws? The fact is, not everything is about you, Dunedan.

Then why not ban cars? They cause far more deaths than guns. Your logic is flawed.

Oh absolutely... Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, Ireland, Scotland, Japan, and Europe... horrid little places.

Also places that are much better policed or far less violent to begin with.

Hell, Dunedan, America already has the largest per capita prison population in the world, us being so "Tough on Crime" and all. America, the new Gulag Archipelago. How much worse do you imagine I can make it?

What does prison population have to do with anything?

Besides, I'm not interested in taking your arsenal... I'm sure you really, really need it. I just want people to start seeing gun ownership as a privelege they have to earn, not some gawd given right and to get past Americas love affair with guns, gun violence and the idea that guns solve problems.

First, if you want to obtain a gun legally, you need to provide at the very least an american ID, and many times it goes farther with a background check and a criminal record check. So at this point it already is a privilege. Also, since when do all of the american people love gun violence and think that guns solve problems? Any responsible gun owner will tell you that a gun is a very last resort, and that calling the police or talking things out are much better way of solving problems than brandishing a weapon.

Have I said anything anywhere that even remotely suggested disarming you? After all, you sound like such a peaceful, pleasant, rational person.

Thats a smart decision, since there are MANY people that would do far more than punch you if you tried to disarm them. Those are the people you have to worry about.

Yessiree, to hell with the rule of law, let's just see who's quickest on the draw. Dunedan, you've used 4 paragraphs to describe how willing you are to shoot someone -- not for threatening you or your family -- but for thinking to confiscate your guns, even lawfully. This is why the U.S. is the violent, murderous nation that it is, America's culture of gun lust and our mythological belief that guns solve problems, when the obvious reality is that they only create problems.

Guns have never created problems. They have only made it easier for people who can get their hands on them to create problems. I also find it amusing how you exclude only yourself from our 'murderous population'. The beliefs that this nation was founded on are important, despite your claims of them somehow being 'out of date'. Then again in your police state fantasy world I suppose not being under the thumb of the government is an obsolete ideal.

There it is. The idealistic courage of a Martin Luther King, Jr. vs.the violent bluster of a George W. Bush. You tell me which is the American way?

They both are, since they both came from America. They just decided to pursue their goals through different methods. To suggest that violence is un-american is simply ignorance on your part.

BINGO!! I couldn't possibly have said it better. Defending a "Right" that makes life more dangerous for everyone, simply because you 'like the idea' of having that right, just smacks me as immoral... there's really no other word for it.

Since when does morality have anything to do with law? People have different morals, therefore laws with morals built into them are always controversial and usually fail. Also, since your busy doing away with our rights as a nation, why not take away the first amendment too, since free speech threatens the status quo so much. Hell, take away the whole damn bill of rights, since its soooo out of date. And they are all definatly dangerous to the police state that you envision. If you don't like the laws in this country there are plenty of other places where you can get robbed and not be able to defend yourself, so why not stop complaining and do something?

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what Rodney Peairs thought, just before he shot an unarmed teenage Japanese exchange student dead for daring to walk up to Peair's house to ask directions to a nearby Halloween party. .

So the actions of one irrational person should decide the fate of all normal people who wish to own a firearm? That makes sense. Using that logic, you should not allow anyone to use the internet, because one guy decided to download child porn, and no one should be able to own camcorders because one guy decided to pirate a movie. What a great system.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Morgan Freeman I would agree, if what you say is true. However, the evidence points in the opposite direction -- that an armed populace is a safer once.

Morgan!! Nice to see you dude! Seems like it's been a while.

And no, the evidence doesn't point in the opposite direction. Every ranking I've ever seem puts the U.S. among the most violent, murderous nations in the civilized world. You saw my chart where the U.S. is the most murderous among the 37 wealthiest nations.

Murder rate per 100,000 -- United States -- 24th

Firearm Homicide rate per 100,000 -- United States -- 8th

% of murders with guns -- United States -- 7th

Quote by: Roxdog Yes. Or no. WTF ever. Once again, BECAUSE militias are necessary, the right of the "THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"

And which militias are currently necessary for the security of the United States? And no, the National Guard is part of the U.S. Army.

Quote by: Roxdog Sonart, you can post Brady bunk all day long, it doesn't change the fact that you are a liar and a fascist...Appointed men in drag can make "laws" stating the sun doesn't shine....but it does. YOU are an "anomoly"...You bootlicking coward.

Sorry, Roxy... I don't source Brady or Handgun Control or the NRA, etc. But thanks for the well considered rebuttle.

Quote by: Kite Then why not ban cars? They cause far more deaths than guns. Your logic is flawed.

Nah, based on how often each is operated, guns are several hundred times more deadly than automobiles.

A while back I responded to this silly comparison with that point, and my worthy opponent responded with, "Yeah, sure, prove it."

So I did. I went through the whole excercise, complete with linked sources... the number of guns in the U.S - around 2 million - the number of registered automobiles - around 2.5 milllion... how many times a day automobiles are operated day, how many miles on average are they driven, how many times a year guns are used in crimes, how many times a years they're used for defense against crimes, how many hunbers in the U.S., how often on average do they go hunting, how many indoor and outdoor shooting ranges exist in the U.S., how many patrons on average attend shooting ranges, etc. etc. etc.

I'll go through it again if you insist, but you really won't like that result... like I said, when comparing the number of times Americans get behind the wheel of a car to the number of times Americans pick up and fire a gun, guns were literally hundreds of times more deadly.

And YET, unlike those more deadly firearms, Americans are REQUIRED BY LAW to register an automobile before they can drive it, must pass a test and be licensed before they can operate an automobile, and must be insured before they can drive their car.

And oddly enough, I don't see Roxdog declaring they can have his drivers license when they pry it from his cold, dead hands.

Quote by: Kite Also places that are much better policed or far less violent to begin with.

Says who? We're the wealthiest, baddest nation on earth, the toughest on crime, with the highest prison per capita prison population in the world, and you say other countries are better policed???

And less violent to begin with??? Yeah, because they were saturated with the mythology of gun culture, gun violence, the code of the West, John Wayne, Dirty Harry, Rambo. etc. etc.

Quote by: Kite What does prison population have to do with anything?

With the nonsense that we should focus our attention on criminals, not guns. With the largest prison population on earth, exactly how focused on criminals are we supposed to get? And has it reduced gun violence??? Not a whit.

Quote by: Kite Any responsible gun owner will tell you that a gun is a very last resort, and that calling the police or talking things out are much better way of solving problems than brandishing a weapon.

Yeah, yeah, and a responsible car owner will tell you to drive defensively, always signal, buckle up, etc.

We still have to register our cars every year, insure them and get a license to drive.

Quote by: Kite Thats a smart decision, since there are MANY people that would do far more than punch you if you tried to disarm them. Those are the people you have to worry about.

Yeah, I'm so proud we're such a peaceful people whose priorities are straight. Take my kids, take my car, but by gawd I'll kill ya if you try to take my guns!

Quote by: Kite Guns have never created problems.

Nope... it's the dang bullets that cause the problems.

Quote by: Kite They have only made it easier for people who can get their hands on them to create problems.

Yes indeedy, and we just happen to live in a country where it's really easy to get our hands on them.... hell, just go to any gun show.

Quote by: Kite To suggest that violence is un-american is simply ignorance on your part.

To the contrary, I'm saying that it's VERY American... I'm just unhappy that it is and would like to see us change it.

Quote by: Kite So the actions of one irrational person should decide the fate of all normal people who wish to own a firearm?

Because it's not just one irrational person, (and by the way, mister Peairs was ACQUITTED) it's the 30 to 40,000 firearm deaths per year... the 3.6 gun murders for every 100,000 Americans.

Quote by: Kite Since when does morality have anything to do with law? People have different morals, therefore laws with morals built into them are always controversial and usually fail. Also, since your busy doing away with our rights as a nation, why not take away the first amendment too, since free speech threatens the status quo so much. Hell, take away the whole damn bill of rights, since its soooo out of date. And they are all definatly dangerous to the police state that you envision. If you don't like the laws in this country there are plenty of other places where you can get robbed and not be able to defend yourself, so why not stop complaining and do something?

Because I don't have to take away anything, Kite.

Based on the current law of the land, based on our Constitution and the Supreme Court, we already do NOT have an individual right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment, based on it's original intent is MOOT... it's meaningless... a well-regulated militia is NOT necessary.

I'm just saying it's for the better, so get over it
.

[Kite]

I guess your missing the whole part where it says 'citizens right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon'. It says we should have a well maintained militia, yes, but the second part is a separate statement. And as long as there is government corruption and those in high places that would seek to do us harm there will always be a need for a good militia.

[Roxdog]

Sonart, you might as well be working for Mrs. Brady herself. You are using all the same long debunked tripe...We understand you are a gungrabbing, bootlicking coward but try to at least tell the truth.

Here is a much-needed history lesson, since you've proven you know next to nothing about US history by posting utter falsehoods....

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

[Roxdog]

and which militias are currently necessary for the security of the United States? And no, the National Guard is part of the U.S. Army.

Ha....the standing Army/Navy/Marines/NG are the "well regulated militia", genius. We are "the people". Do try to keep up...

Nah, based on how often each is operated, guns are several hundred times more deadly than automobiles..

Based on reality, in America, cars are more deadly than guns. Fact. Wording it cleverly doesn't change the nature of reality.

Based on the current law of the land, based on our Constitution and the Supreme Court, we already do NOT have an individual right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment, based on it's original intent is MOOT... it's meaningless... a well-regulated militia is NOT necessary. I'm just saying it's for the better, so get over it

Get over yourself, you traitor..."A well regulated milita" is referring to a standing army, NOT THE PEOPLE,, you freaking retard....

[Kite]

Hey come on rox keep it civil.

[Matt W]

No more insults, please.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Kite I guess your missing the whole part where it says 'citizens right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon'. It says we should have a well maintained militia, yes, but the second part is a separate statement.

No Kite, it's not a seperate statement; the first clause qualifies the second... "you have the right to keep and bear arms, PROVIDED THAT it's necessary for the maintainance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clauses 15-16."

The thing is, you don't have to take my word for it. The definition I just stated has been the standing precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court since they ruled on United States v. Miller in 1939, and the vast majority of the Federal Courts have confirmed and expanded on that ruling since then; that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a COLLECTIVE RIGHT of States to arm militias, not an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own guns.

Here, Read for yourself...

Since you apparently missed it, that's what this thread is all about... the first case in 70 years in which the Supreme Court will actually rule on what the 2nd Amendment does or doesn't mean.

Quote by: Kite And as long as there is government corruption and those in high places that would seek to do us harm there will always be a need for a good militia.

Yeah? Which militia is that?

Quote by: Roxdog Sonart, you might as well be working for Mrs. Brady herself. You are using all the same long debunked tripe...We understand you are a gungrabbing, bootlicking coward but try to at least tell the truth.

Really? Then perhaps you can explain why it's significant that the Supremes are currently ruling on Heller v. DC.

Don't you find it interesting that the NRA and the gun lobby has been telling you that you have right that, for the last 70 years, the Courts have actually ruled you don't really have. And even more specificallly, with the constitutionality of all kinds of laws being challenged before the Court every year, not once in 70 long years has he NRA or any other part of the gun lobby or the gun industry attempted to challenge any of the "20,000" onerous gun control laws as violations of your 2nd Amendment rights.

C'mon, Rox, explain it to me... if the Brady Bill was so horrible, why didn't the NRA simply challenge it before the Supreme Court as a violation of your guaranteed right to bear arms? Hmmmm?

Quote by: Roxdog Ha....the standing Army/Navy/Marines/NG are the "well regulated militia", genius. We are "the people". Do try to keep up...

No, the standing Army is the standing Army... exactly what Washington and other founders did NOT want, and why they differentiated between the 'Army' 'Navy' and the 'Militia' in the Constitution itself. See for yourself... here's the United States Constitution. Try actually reading it.

Quote by: Roxdog Based on reality, in America, cars are more deadly than guns. Fact. Wording it cleverly doesn't change the nature of reality.

No, Roxy dear, on a per use basis, they're not. But hey, there's lies, there's damn lies, and there's statistics.

.

[improvident]

Quote: Quote by: Kite Also places that are much better policed or far less violent to begin with. Says who? We're the wealthiest, baddest nation on earth, the toughest on crime, with the highest prison per capita prison population in the world, and you say other countries are better policed??? And less violent to begin with??? Yeah, because they were saturated with the mythology of gun culture, gun violence, the code of the West, John Wayne, Dirty Harry, Rambo. etc. etc.

Since your good with numbers and all.. think you could check up on the percentage of prisoners who are in there for killing someone.. or trying to kill someone specifically with a gun? im going to guess a rather low number :(

[lsbskins1]

Oh, the 2nd Amendment also says "well regulated" not "well maintained" and that would be a huge difference in meaning. Regulated means it is controlled. And who would be doing that controlling? Ummm, state governments. The same state governments that might need a fighting force they could call upon if say, an independent Native American tribe were to figure the white man had taken more than his fair share of the land and needed to be attacked. Or a fighting force they could call upon if Spain figured they wanted Florida and Georgia. See, way back when, you couldn't get troops mustered into your area in a few hours. It might take weeks or months. Do you really believe George Washington was afraid HIS government would stomp on the rights of Virginia or Massachusetts? It was about state regulated and controlled fighting forces that could respond locally much more efficiently that national forces. Read the amendment and it will become obvious to you, but only if you are willing to read with your eyes and not your heart.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: improvident Since your good with numbers and all.. think you could check up on the percentage of prisoners who are in there for killing someone.. or trying to kill someone specifically with a gun? im going to guess a rather low number :(

Why does it have to be for killing someone? There's all sorts of gun crimes, but... what the heck.

NOTE: There are about 160,000 federal prison inmates, compared to the around 1.2 MILLION inmates in state prisons, so federal inmates, a larger percentage of whom are in for drug offenses (around 60%) make up about 10% of the total U.S. prison population.

Percentage of State Prison Inmates -- 2004
Violent Crime -- 52% (I assume that includes any crime committed with a gun)
Murder -- 11%
Property Crime -- 21%
Drug Crimes -- 20%

"...the FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that almost 2 million violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault were reported to the police by citizens. About 582,000 of these reported murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults were committed with firearms. Murder was the crime that most frequently involved
firearms; 70% of the 24,526 murders in 1993 were committed with firearms."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So let's see... of the million violent crimes, about a quarter were committed with a gun. Therefore, of the 41% of State prisoners in for violent crimes, (subtracting the 11% in specifically for murder) 11% used a gun. And of the 11% of state prisoners in for murder, 70% used a gun... let's call it 7% of the total for murder, which, added to violent crimes, is around 18% of the State prison population.

18% is not overwhelming, Improv, but neither is it insignificant... approximately equal to the State prison percentages for both drug and property crimes, while around 31% were violent crimes committed without a gun.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Study Finds 2.6% Increase in U.S. Prison Population

"Although many advocates of prison change have blamed drug arrests for the significant growth in the prison population, the report found violent crimes responsible for 64 percent of the increase in the number of men in state prisons from 1995 to 2001. Violent crimes also accounted for 49 percent of the increase in the number of women in state prisons in those years.

In total, 49 percent of inmates in state prisons last year were serving time for violent crimes, the report said. Twenty percent were serving time for drug offenses, 19 percent for property crimes, and 11 percent for public-order offenses, like drunken driving, parole violations and contempt of court.

But in the federal prison system, which with 163,528 inmates is now larger than any state system..."

"...48 percent of the growth in the number of prisoners from 1995 to 2001 was accounted for by drug crimes and only 9 percent by violent crimes.

The number of inmates in federal prisons for gun crimes increased by 68 percent from 1995 to 2001, as Congress, President Bill Clinton and President Bush pushed to federalize some illegal gun possession cases."

.