Justices agree on right to own guns

[Halofan48]

Wow....man, you are a real loser. Run and tell Mommy...lol Grow some freaking balls, dude... I approached it seriously and then ran into a bunch of children bickering over falsehoods. The "name-calling" is apt and appropriate. Get over it.

Hilarious. I get called names and talked down to, and when I defend myself and end up making them look like the simpletons they are, I get tattled on and told that I am the bad guy.... Bunch of losers...lol

First of all, if you want to engage in a civil debate, you must abide by the rules of the site.

Second, please state who and how you have been insulted so they can also receive punishment.

Third, responding to insults with further insults does not result in beneficial, so please stop.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Roxdog Um, you need to go back to school and take US History 101. Writing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was basically a suicide pact when it was written. The so-called "revolution" barely existed at that point and any semblance of "success" was a half decade away.... Just admit it....you're clueless. Actually, that is simply your ridiculous straw man. Your demented world view makes it necessary for you to employ them. No one is talking about "overthrowing" the current govt. There is nothing unreasonable about law-abiding persons having the ability to defened themselves....unless your a socialist bootlicker.

Writing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was basically a suicide pact when it was written.

No, it wasn't. The Declaration of Independence was a form of political haggling, the signatories and the British government were well aware that in the early stages the rebellion was an attempt to force the British government into conciliatory measures. Of course, intitally the British public and, many in parlaiment, were unwilling to give such measures (though relatively recent scholarship by individuals such as James Bradley, suggests that public support for conciliatory measures was much higher in britain than initially supposed). Certainly within a very short period after the outbreak of the war that minority in favour of conciliatory measures had become a large majority. However in the Americas conciliatory reform had ceased being enough, and independance had become the motive of the rebels.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Roxdog It is self evident and framed within the US Constitution. You should look into it. "God-given rights", "Natural rights", "Unalienable/inalienable rights", "Civil rights"...take you pick.

Here's my twenty bucks, Roxdog. Where in the Constitution does it say any of those things?

And "Civil" rights has nothing to do with God, it has to do with citizens and governments. Look it up.

And the Declaration of Independence was a list of grievances, a P.R. document to gain sympathy to their cause.

.

[Fangrim]

Roxy's suspended, but that's no reason not to further tear apart his position.

Quote by: Roxdog Once again, for people with zero comprehension skills: “The People” and the “well regulated militia” are two separate things. It is a very simple concept. Go read the words of the founders. Standing armies (regulated militias) are dangerous but necessary, therefore the people’s God given right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The end. Appointed men in drag are not necessary to “interpret” what is completely obvious and “self evident”.

The Founding Fathers made themselves clear on their opinions of the evils of standing armies (here Roxy is correct) and the savior of liberty that were the state militia (here Roxy is dead wrong).

Quote by: James Madison "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good Militia."

Quote by: Alexander Hamilton "If insurrections should arise, or invasions should take place, the people ought unquestionably to be employed to suppress and repel them, rather then a standing army. The best way to do these things, was to put the militia on a good and sure footing, and enable the government to make use of their services when necessary. . . "

Quote by: Elbridge Gerry, Anti-Federalist constitutional drafter What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

Standing armies are NOT at all the same thing as regulated militias. The entire point of militias was that they were not standing, and thus did not present the same dangers to liberty as standing armies.

EDIT: Let's tear it up a little more. As to Roxy's statement that

“The People” and the “well regulated militia” are two separate things

...

I'll let David Yassky tell it.

Quote by: The Second Amendment: Structure, History, and Constitutional Change [T]he nature and structure of the American militia have changed radically since the Founders' day. Henigan and Ehrman summarize the "key developments in the history of the militia" as "the split between an organized and unorganized militia; the passage of the militias from state authority to largely federal authority; and the rise of the army as the main defense force in the country. The end result of these changes is the disappearance of anything the Founders would have recognized as a militia. Today we have the National Guard (which, as the revisionists correctly observe, the Founders would have seen as little better than a standing army), and we have self-proclaimed "citizen militias" constituted wholly independently of any government -and mostly, of course, we have the vast bulk of citizens who have no involvement whatever with any form of military organization. These developments certainly constitute a change in "presupposition" as Lessig uses the term. To the Founders, protecting gun ownership by "the people" amounted to more or less the same thing as protecting gun ownership by the "Militia." Now the two are quite different.

[Sonart]

.

You needn't quote Yassky, Fangrim... Alexander Hamilton clears up Roxdog's confusion quite well...

"If insurrections should arise, or invasions should take place, THE PEOPLE ought unquestionably to be employed to suppress and repel them, rather then a standing army. The best way to do these things, was to put the militia on a good and sure footing, and enable the government to make use of their services when necessary. . . "

Obviously in their view, "the people" and "a well-regulated militia" were NOT two separate things.

.

[Muckraker]

I think the responses of many gun supporters in this thread is proof enough that "responsible gun ownership and use" is a questionable position.

In my entire life, I have never met a "responsible" gun owner even though I have met many gun owners.

My grandfather kept loaded rifles in the barn even though he had young grandkids running around unattended (me).

My father kept empty rifles in the closet and ammo locked in a filing cabinet but I took the key off his keyring, got the ammo, loaded the rifle, and pointed it out the window before reconsidering my action because I wasn't quite sure what would happen. I was nine.

A guy I worked with is, what anyone would call, a "gun nut." He has multiple caches of guns in different states. He drives with guns in his vehicle. He talks about his guns at work and about how he could kill anyone from a mile away with his Barrett .50 cal. He also states that if anyone comes to take his guns away he plans to go out in a blaze of glory.

My boss also owned a handgun to "protect his family." He did drugs and made it a habit to go into fits of rage at the drop of a hat. He also drove around with the loaded gun in his car, along with his three young kids.

These are all anecdotes but, as I said, I have yet to meet a responsible gun owner and many people in this thread imply that 99% of gun owners are responsible.

In addition, I have yet to encounter a "need to defend myself." I am in my thirties and, in my entire life, my home has never been robbed. My parents were never robbed. My grandparents on both sides were never robbed. None of my friends were ever robbed. My in-laws were never robbed. In fact, nobody I have ever met in my entire life has ever said their house was broken into. I live in a sub-division of roughly 100 houses and, in the seven years I have lived here, none of these houses have been burglarized.

Again, anecdotes. But my life experience is the exact opposite of what gun supporters seem to say is common. They say that the need to defend yourself is assumed and that most gun owners are responsible.

Here are two factual statements for you gun supporters as well:

1. If someone wants to kill you, you will be dead. The only way you will be able to use your guns to "defend yourself" is if the person committing a crime against you is intending to rob or rape you. In that instance you can then dish out disproportionate justice for the criminal's crime. Nothing's better than blowing the head off a meth addict that is trying to steal some tools out of your garage, eh?

I tried to explain this to my gun nut friend. I said that despite all his weaponry and defenses, if anyone truly wanted him dead then he would be dead unless he knew that someone wanted him dead and he went into hiding. If you don't know someone wants you dead then you have no chance when they put that want into action. Unless of course the killer is completely incompetent...or doesn't have a gun...

2. If a legal entity wants to take your guns then they will take them. Unless you have cordoned yourself off in a branch Davidian knockoff, you go about a relatively normal life outside of your gun fetish. Do you really think that the law will come up to your house, knock on your door, and say "open up! We are here to take your guns!" It's really quite simple. You get in your car to go to work or the store. A cop car follows you and pulls you over. They have you step out of the car. They handcuff you. They go to your house and take your guns. If they don't find all the guns registered to you (and probably more) then they hold you in custody until the whereabouts of those guns are confirmed.

Or, if it truly does turn into the fascist country you hope for, then they would simply refer to item number one. Why bother with legality when they can just pop you while you are watering the lawn? I know many die hard gun folks are drooling for the day that the government oversteps its bounds, or the race war begins, or the zombie infestation starts but, much like the Christians waiting for the end of days, you will be kept waiting.

My mom just went to an estate sale of an elderly couple that had planned for Y2K. Their whole home was filled with ammo, canned goods, and books about Jerusalem. That and the hospital bed, the bedpans, and the oxygen tanks, for they, like so many others, died before the anarchist future they had planned so fervently for came to pass.

I hope for the sake of gun owners that some "responsible gun owner" is able to make the news by successfully defending him/herself from an attempted murder. You need a few of those to outweigh all the stories about the kids of "responsible gun owners" blowing the brains out of groups of classmates or a "responsible gun owner" that decided to stop taking his medication opening up on an auditorium of college kids. Or, of course, a nine year old kid getting the ammo that was locked away, loading a rifle, and pointing it out the window (like me).

[Sonart]

.

Interesting post, Muckraker, with a fascinating point of view.

I wouldn't expect any responses from the gun rights crew for a bit... it may take some time for them to recover from their apoplexy.

Poor Roxy may never recover.

.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Sonart . Interesting post, Muckraker, with a fascinating point of view. I wouldn't expect any responses from the gun rights crew for a bit... it may take some time for them to recover from their apoplexy. Poor Roxy may never recover. .

The funny thing is that the "gun nut" I worked with was also a horrible employee. I didn't hire him but I wound up being his direct boss and I made it perfectly clear to the company owner that I wasn't going to fire him because I didn't want to get shot. Nobody ever did fire him. We just put up with his BS until he left voluntarily. He thought I was his friend, though, so he used to tell me that if he ever went postal he would let me know ahead of time so I could call in sick that day.

Is that responsible gun ownership? Subtly, or not so subtly, threatening everyone around you so they all fear the day you go postal?

Many of the gun owners in this thread that have said they will fight to the death for their guns are basically saying the same thing as my coworker. If they perceive that their guns are at risk then they will start shooting. It doesn't matter if that perception is incorrect, like the story about the person asking for directions. It seems they are ready for a fight and the fact that they have probably gone their whole lives without ever having cause to use the guns is even more of a catalyst.

[lindsay7]

Take a look at that murder rates chart that Sonart posted.. Switzerland has a considerably smaller murder rate than the United States, but yet, Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Military training is mandatory for young men, and they keep their assault rifles at home.

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56x45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, the SIG 510 battle rifle and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.[2]

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I rather like the Switzerland system. One of the reasons that Switzerland was not invaded by the Germans in World War 2 was because the whole country has military training and guns.

Don't be so quick to give up your right to bare arms. One of the first things that a communist or dictatorship government does, is ban the citizens from owning guns. That keeps it nice and easy to push them around.

Don't think that banning guns will lower the murder rate, it won't. I'll use Switzerland as an example again..

The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[11]

My point is, that banning guns prevents the honest citizens from getting them, but do you think the criminals care what the law is? They will use illegally held firearms.

The reason the murder rate in the United States is so high has more to do with poverty and the gangs it creates, than gun law.

You'll notice from the chart that the countries with smaller murder rates are also countries that we know have a stronger social 'safety net' than the United States -- as in, public healthcare, more welfare, etc. Less poverty.

Not that I'm advocating that kind of government. It's not my ideal..


Also, I'm feeling too tired and lazy to actually read all the other posts in this thread after the original post, so if someone has already said all this, I apologize, just ignore me.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: lindsay7 Take a look at that murder rates chart that Sonart posted.. Switzerland has a considerably smaller murder rate than the United States, but yet, Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Military training is mandatory for young men, and they keep their assault rifles at home. Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I rather like the Switzerland system. One of the reasons that Switzerland was not invaded by the Germans in World War 2 was because the whole country has military training and guns. Don't be so quick to give up your right to bare arms. One of the first things that a communist or dictatorship government does, is ban the citizens from owning guns. That keeps it nice and easy to push them around. Don't think that banning guns will lower the murder rate, it won't. I'll use Switzerland as an example again.. My point is, that banning guns prevents the honest citizens from getting them, but do you think the criminals care what the law is? They will use illegally held firearms. The reason the murder rate in the United States is so high has more to do with poverty and the gangs it creates, than gun law. You'll notice from the chart that the countries with smaller murder rates are also countries that we know have a stronger social 'safety net' than the United States -- as in, public healthcare, more welfare, etc. Less poverty. Not that I'm advocating that kind of government. It's not my ideal.. Also, I'm feeling too tired and lazy to actually read all the other posts in this thread after the original post, so if someone has already said all this, I apologize, just ignore me.

Facinating. Ask yourself a simple question. If I proposed legislation tomorrow that had has it's central provision that everyone is the country could keep all their guns as long as they only used them when the government authorized the use and that every home was subject to random ammunition and weapons use tests, who do you think would be the first ones ready to kill me, those who support gun control legislation or those who oppose it? Just asking.

[JaneDoe321]

There seem to be at least two "camps" of gun owners (not including people like police who I understand are required to own and maintain firearms?).

There are those who are either hunters or sport shooters (ie like to shoot at targets on a range, etc).

Then there are those who believe that having guns at home will protect them (from burglars/murderers, invading armies, invading *aliens*, whatever).

There is some crossover between the two groups, obviously.

However, I can at least comprehend the first group, assuming they take decent precautions to ensure that children won't get their hands on their weapons. I don't want to go *play* with them, but I can understant that they have a hobby.

Given that it is obviously unsafe to have loaded (or easily loaded) weapons around small children or stupid/reckless people, unless you get a "Save the Date" request from the Federated Army of Mars or your local Crime Syndicate administration, something warning you in advance of the invasion/intrusion, I don't see how you're really going to have time to a) wake up, b) notice the mysterious rustlings in the dining room as BadGuy Burglar is swiping your grandmother's silver, c) get the key and unlock the ammunition, d) load the weapon and finally e) shoot or at least threaten to shoot Mr. Burglar.

I can't even tie my shoes until I've had a cup of coffee, so the above scenario seems so laborious as to be beyond useless.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Facinating. Ask yourself a simple question. If I proposed legislation tomorrow that had has it's central provision that everyone is the country could keep all their guns as long as they only used them when the government authorized the use and that every home was subject to random ammunition and weapons use tests, who do you think would be the first ones ready to kill me, those who support gun control legislation or those who oppose it? Just asking.

I think the weapons checks are unnecessary, myself.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: lindsay7 I think the weapons checks are unnecessary, myself.

Then you should not tout the success of their system, and claim it as proof that guns can be safe. Either it is a successful working model or it is an example of government repression. Make a choice.

[Halofan48]

So Switzerland has mandatory military training of it's young men to make a militia. Do we have mandatory training and drills for gun owners in the U.S.?

[lindsay7]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Then you should not tout the success of their system, and claim it as proof that guns can be safe. Either it is a successful working model or it is an example of government repression. Make a choice.

It's a better system than banning guns.

I found it interesting what happened to the citizens of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Police confiscated their guns, but didn't stick around to protect them from roving gangs of looters.

New Orleans Gun Seizures Allegedly 'Creating More Victims' -- 09/14/2005

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I can't even tie my shoes until I've had a cup of coffee, so the above scenario seems so laborious as to be beyond useless.

Just living in a country where citizens tend to own guns reduces home invasions, it's a strong deterrant for that kind of crime.

Defending the home Thanks to strict criminal laws, working conditions in Great Britain are the safest in the Western world—that is, if your profession is burglary. On the other hand, if you’re a law-abiding citizen quietly staying at home, you’re at much greater risk in the nearly gun-free United Kingdom, than in the gun-happy United States of America. In late October, teacher Robert Symonds, who lived in the London suburb of Putney, was stabbed to death in his home by a burglar. Last week, in Halifax (near Manchester), 71-year-old priest Father Ingwell was stabbed several times by a burglar. The same week, burglars in the fancy London neighborhood of Chelsea stabbed banker John Monckton to death. Terrifying home invasion burglaries are not rare events in England. Overall, Great Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the United States, and a higher burglary rate. Significantly, only about one-eighth of American burglaries take place while the victim is home, whereas over half of all British burglaries do. One reason that British burglars are so much bolder than their American cousins is that only about 4% of British homes legally possess a gun, whereas about half of American homes do. British police administrators require guns at home to be stored unloaded in a safe, and that ammunition be in a separate safe. No American jurisdiction has such extreme “safe storage” requirements. As a result, an American burglar who breaks into an occupied home faces a significant risk of getting shot. As I detailed in an article in the Arizona Law Review, when an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is about equal to his chance of being sent to prison. According to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are about half a million incidents every year in which an American burglar is scared away by a victim with a firearm.

Reynolds: Unity in the Virgin - Glenn Reynolds - MSNBC.com

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Halofan48 So Switzerland has mandatory military training of it's young men to make a militia. Do we have mandatory training and drills for gun owners in the U.S.?

No, but it's an alternative to banning guns isn't it

[Halofan48]

I suppose. Still wish NLW's would be preferred though .

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Lindsay Take a look at that murder rates chart that Sonart posted.. Switzerland has a considerably smaller murder rate than the United States, but yet, Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Military training is mandatory for young men, and they keep their assault rifles at home.

Yes, take a look. Switzerland may be less murderous than the U.S., but it is still number FIVE out the 37.

And this, Lindsay, is a small, insolated, peaceful agricultural nation that has no history of taming a wilderness, going to war or crime. A quaint, humble land of cheese,watch makers and banking... and they're number five.

How does that work?

Quote by: Lindsay One of the reasons that Switzerland was not invaded by the Germans in World War 2 was because the whole country has military training and guns.

LOLOLOL!!! Yeah, right... Germany takes on the largest, most modern army in Europe, France, and the huge Soviet Empire. But they're terrified of little Swithzland and their militia???

Switzerland was non-political, largely Aryan, and had neutral banks, Lindsay. Germany liked Switzerland the way it was... it's where they stashed all their loot.

Quote by: Lindsay Don't think that banning guns will lower the murder rate, it won't. I'll use Switzerland as an example again..

Oh, please, no! I'm all atremble.

Quote by: Lindsay Not that I'm advocating that kind of government. It's not my ideal..

Got it... other countries are less violent than the U.S. because their poor and middle class people live better.

But not that that's a GOOD thing.

Quote by: Isbskins Facinating. Ask yourself a simple question. If I proposed legislation tomorrow that had has it's central provision that everyone is the country could keep all their guns as long as they only used them when the government authorized the use and that every home was subject to random ammunition and weapons use tests, who do you think would be the first ones ready to kill me, those who support gun control legislation or those who oppose it? Just asking.

Hmmm... let me think,

Quote by: JaneDoe There seem to be at least two "camps" of gun owners

Methinks you're missing a very large third group, Jane. People like the ones Muckraker described, people who simply like to have guns... either because it makes them feel dangerous and powerful, or simply because it's entertaining.

I'm one of the latter... I love shooting. It's a hoot. My father was like that too. He had two shotguns - and 10 gauge and good 'ol double barrel 12 gauge - a 30.06 hunting rifle, a 30.30 classic Winchester, and M1 Carbine, an old German Ruger .22 cal pistol, and a Colt .45. We used to love to go shooting. Alas, it's how he lost his hearing.

I'm just grounded enough to understand that my personal enjoyment isn't justification for our country being the nation of gun addled thugs that it is. And I don't think either of us, my dad and I, have ever seriously worried about defending our homes. We both had dogs to do that.

Quote by: Lindsay No, but it's an alternative to banning guns isn't it

No, it's Switzerland's way of avoiding the expense of supporting a large standing Army. (Obviously they don't need a Navy).

Are you suggesting the U.S.A. do away with our Army, Navy and Marines and go back to neighborhood militias, just so folks could own a gun... whether they wanted to or not?

.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Halofan48 I suppose. Still wish NLW's would be preferred though .

I think citizens owning guns is a deterrant to crime that results in less death for both criminals and citizens.

And if worse comes to worse, it's better that the criminal gets shot than the victim.

[lsbskins1]

Just to be clear on this, I too, grew up shooting guns. It was the greatest treat for me to go with my father and shoot the .22 rifle that was "mine". I killed so many coke cans, in the parallel Coke Can Universe, I'm known as one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. We stopped going after we shot a groundhog and I cried. I think it freaked him out a bit, realizing that even though I was a big old tomboy, I would still cry over a groundhog. But, you know, it is fun and a test of skill but, just like Sonart, I think the cost is too high.