Gun and gun control

[Kite]

Quote by: Winter wind "Pretty common knowledge" is not a stat. Now I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying, I showed you it's more complicated, so please give me a stat or something.

Violent crime in a large city,
Wikipedia-Crime in New York City
As compared to my home town(its down the page a ways)
Phelps, New York (NY) Detailed Profile - relocation, real estate, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, news, sex offenders

Yes and no. I agree that taking one state and comparing it to another is a poor idea. However, if someone can pull up a list of countries or states and get a correlation or a tread, that would be more fair. (could some one get one please)

I'm not sure what type of correlation or trend you want to see, please specify.

In Afghanistan, they had outside help. In funding, and in political support. The United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, China, and others had their backs. It had less to do with guns then politics and a world wide outcry. The guns made very little difference.

The lack of guns would've made a very large difference however, and where do you think they got the money and connections to buy those guns?

If the United States turns on it's citizens, you go for outside help and failing that, hightail it to Canada.

Honestly, does that really seem feasible to you? Who would we go to help for? Private citizens don't generally have hotlines to major governments, and who would even want to help us anyway, we've pissed off most of our allies with this whole war debacle. As for running to Canada, what if there are armed patrols guarding the border? Should we throw our shoes at them and hope that they cant aim for shit?

I don't care about the government's stance, my question is: would you make any of them legal if you could?

No, because all of the things listed aside from machine guns aren't guns, they're explosives. And what exactly do you mean by the generic term 'machine guns'? Are you talking about an M60 or an MP5?

I'm basically asking where you draw the line on what can be regulated and what can't.

The current regulations of 'you may own non automatic long-arms and non-automatic handguns' seem to be working pretty well. Do you really think you can solve such a large and sweeping problem as violent crime with simple regulations or bans?

I just meant that guns can't be protected from an art stand point, and to question the motives of some gun owners (not you). Some don't have it as a deterrent, some have it because it's a tradition, which is dumb. (I'll also say I'm not wild about hunting, but I don't get to make that judgment.)

The nature of guns themselves pigeon hole themselves to cause violence. You cant change what a gun is for, you cant rehabilitate it to go sell flowers to people stuck in traffic on the interstate. Its an object, it is a tool. The decisions of the person wielding that tool are what makes the difference between a target gun and a murder weapon.

I need the evidence so I can make sure the statistician isn't some joe on the street.

I honestly don't think that your legal citizen status has anything to do with your inclination to kill a person.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: kite Violent crime in a large city, Wikipedia-Crime in New York City As compared to my home town(its down the page a ways) Phelps, New York (NY) Detailed Profile - relocation, real estate, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, news, sex offenders

I'll be the first to say this, but as long as I look over the wiki site, I don't mind people using it.
However, if you looked at my source, you would see he says that the reason for this statistical difference is that crime is thought to be reported more in the city then in the countryside.

Quote by: kite I'm not sure what type of correlation or trend you want to see, please specify.

A list of countries with gun control and a list of countries without gun control and the statistics of violent crimes, and a trend line between the two. Not just two countries but as many countries as possible combine.

Quote by: kite Honestly, does that really seem feasible to you? Who would we go to help for? Private citizens don't generally have hotlines to major governments, and who would even want to help us anyway, we've pissed off most of our allies with this whole war debacle. As for running to Canada, what if there are armed patrols guarding the border? Should we throw our shoes at them and hope that they cant aim for shit?

You really don't have much confidence in the global community. There is an outcry when injustice occurs in other countries, just look at the retribution China had after Tianamin Square. Huge backlash in public face which means something to trade agreements, deals and other things China needs. If the United States government become truely tyrannical, I think the global community would help out if only because a tyrannical country of that much power is a threat to the global community as a whole.

But if you think that you can out gun a tank devision with their asses packed in front of your house. Good luck. (you could be the new James Bond, ya never know)

Quote by: kite No, because all of the things listed aside from machine guns aren't guns, they're explosives. And what exactly do you mean by the generic term 'machine guns'? Are you talking about an M60 or an MP5?

You tell me your stance, I don't know the guns by name, you tell me what guns are the limit.

Quote by: kite The current regulations of 'you may own non automatic long-arms and non-automatic handguns' seem to be working pretty well. Do you really think you can solve such a large and sweeping problem as violent crime with simple regulations or bans?

So you think that non automatic long arms and non automatic handguns are ok, but the other guns aren't? (just clarifying.)

Also why do you support this decision?

Quote by: kite The nature of guns themselves pigeon hole themselves to cause violence. You cant change what a gun is for, you cant rehabilitate it to go sell flowers to people stuck in traffic on the interstate. Its an object, it is a tool. The decisions of the person wielding that tool are what makes the difference between a target gun and a murder weapon.

Thank you.

[Kite]

Quote by: Winter wind I'll be the first to say this, but as long as I look over the wiki site, I don't mind people using it. However, if you looked at my source, you would see he says that the reason for this statistical difference is that crime is thought to be reported more in the city then in the countryside.

I could also say that the reason that there is more crime in cities is because of the abundance of ethnic restaurants. That doesn't make it any more true than your source. The difference between the city and the country is the number of people. If an enormous amount of people suddenly moved into my town, the crime rate would undoubtedly skyrocket, since a certain percentage of the people that moved in would be criminals. Even if crime was reported less in the city and more in the country, there would still be a vast difference in the rates of crime.

A list of countries with gun control and a list of countries without gun control and the statistics of violent crimes, and a trend line between the two. Not just two countries but as many countries as possible combine.

I'll get on that, but to be honest I'm just too lazy today to go out and compile a list right now

You really don't have much confidence in the global community. There is an outcry when injustice occurs in other countries, just look at the retribution China had after Tianamin Square. Huge backlash in public face which means something to trade agreements, deals and other things China needs. If the United States government become truely tyrannical, I think the global community would help out if only because a tyrannical country of that much power is a threat to the global community as a whole.

And what was done? China is still a repressive communist society. Even the internet is censored. The world can throw all the pretty words around that it wants, a country can still simply ignore them.Trade embargoes and taxes are nice, but the best attention grabber is still a bullet whizzing by your head.

But if you think that you can out gun a tank devision with their asses packed in front of your house. Good luck. (you could be the new James Bond, ya never know)

And I suppose my chances of asking the tanks nicely to move will be any better?

You tell me your stance, I don't know the guns by name,

Know thy enemy my friend.

you tell me what guns are the limit.

You answer your own question.

So you think that non automatic long arms and non automatic handguns are ok, but the other guns aren't? (just clarifying.) Also why do you support this decision?

I feel that law enforcement and military should always have an edge up in firepower over the general population, but I don't think that we should be completely de-fanged in case Mr. Bush decides to attempt a coup-detat in February.

Thank you.

I don't think you got the point of what I was trying to say. Guns aren't changeable, however people are. Why don't we look at ourselves instead of using the gun as a scapegoat?

[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Winter wind "Pretty common knowledge" is not a stat. Now I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying, I showed you it's more complicated, so please give me a stat or something.

Kite got the stats thank you kite.

Quote by: Winter wind Yes and no. I agree that taking one state and comparing it to another is a poor idea. However, if someone can pull up a list of countries or states and get a correlation or a tread, that would be more fair. (could some one get one please)

This is an over view of the Bartley Fox law in Mass. in 1972 the Bartley Fox was signed in to law. In Boston homicides dropped by 39%. It looks like a win for gun control and the antigun advocates, and this is what they claimed. And this looked good as long as you don’t look at the law itself. Before Bartley Fox all you needed to own and or buy a pistol was a Firearms Identification Card, be 21 years old, and not be a convicted felon and you were good to go but you couldn’t carry it concealed. Bartley Fox established a new license it was a License To Carry (LTC) it allowed the holder to carry a pistol concealed on their person. You didn’t need the lic. to own a pistol but you did need it to take your gun off your property or to by a pistol or ammo for a pistol. The lic. had a line on it that said (Reason for Issue) when filled out it said either, hunting and target or protection of persons and property. The law itself made no distinction between what the reason for issue was, so it didn’t matter what the lic. said on it, you were allowed by law to carry a loaded concealed handgun on your person. The law was a shall issue law which required the local lic. authority to issue the lic. when asked unless there was a legal reason to deny the request like a felon, or not old enough. This gave the lic. authority no control over lic. everyone who had a pistol at that time got the lic. so you had a massive influx of people who were now allowed to carry a concealed handgun and what do you know crime and homicides dropped.


Now you’ll probably say that this is just a fluke. Sorry there’s more. In the late 70’s the law changed not by the legislature but by a court. A case was tried by a DA who prosecuted an individual that was carrying a loaded handgun with a LTC that said Hunting and Target. The DA felt that you shouldn’t be able to carry a loaded handgun on an H&T lic. and he was successful in his suit. This changed the lic. by setting president an H&T could still carry concealed but not loaded. Now the lic. authority was able to control who was allowed to carry for protection and rarely issued a protection lic. And you guessed it the homicide rate climbed to more than one a day in mass. and toped out around 450 a year in the mid 80’s. Around 1988 the law changed again but it was a technical change brought about by a lawsuit this time though it changed the reason for issue. It changed it form H&T or protection to only one reason (All Lawful Purposes). Now the law was back to the way it was at the start of Bartley Fox and the crime and homicide rates fell to the 1970’s level. This didn’t change the licenses that were already issued since the knowledge wasn’t spread it took 4 years to change all the licenses and that was apx. The time it took to drop the crime and homicide rates.


In 1998 the law changed yet again now there were 2 lic. an (A) lic. and a (B) lic. The A lic. was for high capacity pistols which was above 10 round capacity and to carry for protection which the lic. still had all lawful purposes on it. The B lic. was for 10 rounds or less and you could not carry for protection yet it still said all lawful purposes. The most important change was the licenses were now may issue. This meant that your lic. authority could deny you the lic. with out just cause. The number of people who could carry fell and guess what the homicide rates have climbed above the highs of the eighties.

This over view is mine since I live in the state and have held a lic. to carry since 1978. I have followed this over the years there is no debateing this, it is fact. I know of no other state that has ever gone back and forth on a law as it has here from lax to strict back to lax and then back to strict.

Quote by: Winter wind In Afghanistan, they had outside help. In funding, and in political support. The United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, China, and others had their backs. It had less to do with guns then politics and a world wide outcry. The guns made very little difference. If the United States turns on it's citizens, you go for outside help and failing that, hightail it to Canada.

I disagree. I have never had the opportunity to ask a high-ranking general in the US army to answer this but would love to have the chance. I just think that your opinion on this is simplistic since I did give sonart a number of successful revolts. What would make you think that the American people would be less successful? I think that you are under estimating the tenacity of the American people. I will also say that the US government won't attempt to turn on the public until they have disarmed them first. The second amendment was designed with that in mind as long as the people are armed it is a deterrent to tyranny.

Quote by: Winter wind I don't care about the government's stance, my question is: would you make any of them legal if you could?

They are already legal, that is what NFA is all about. Why would I need to they already are.

Quote by: Winter wind I'm basically asking where you draw the line on what can be regulated and what can't.

The line would be as it is already. If you want to know about NFA ask and I'll explain it.

Quote by: Winter wind I just meant that guns can't be protected from an art stand point, and to question the motives of some gun owners (not you). Some don't have it as a deterrent, some have it because it's a tradition, which is dumb. (I'll also say I'm not wild about hunting, but I don't get to make that judgment.)

Well hunting does serve a purpose. What it does is to control the population of animals. Most animals have predators that naturally control their population helping to keep the population healthy. Natural predators can be dangerous to the human population especially children. In my state coyotes were never seen before the 1990’s. The first 20 years that I lived here I never saw one coyote, now they are everywhere. All that it would take is for you to drive through Pennsylvania just once to realize that deer there need to be controlled. I counted 120 dead once on the turnpike one night.

Quote by: Winter wind I need the evidence so I can make sure the statistician isn't some joe on the street.

I don't know if this will help.
WorldNetDaily: Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily

[Winter wind]

Quote by: kite You answer your own question.

?

Quote by: kite Know thy enemy my friend.

I know enough about guns to know what can do what. I just haven't memorized all the letters and numbers and what gun they refer too (I have school stuff I need to memorize as well...).

Quote by: kite I feel that law enforcement and military should always have an edge up in firepower over the general population, but I don't think that we should be completely de-fanged in case Mr. Bush decides to attempt a coup-detat in February.

Bingo! so the government is allowed to restrict gun, just not all of them. Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Ya can't straddle this issue easily.

Quote by: kite I don't think you got the point of what I was trying to say. Guns aren't changeable, however people are. Why don't we look at ourselves instead of using the gun as a scapegoat?

Ever try banning people, I mean from life (jk)

but really, education is the key here, I just think we shouldn't inflame the situation by giving "ourselves" weapons we can kill people with.

Oh and I was trying to agree with you, but I was tired so i didn't realize what I was saying made no sense.

Quote by: kite I could also say that the reason that there is more crime in cities is because of the abundance of ethnic restaurants. That doesn't make it any more true than your source. The difference between the city and the country is the number of people. If an enormous amount of people suddenly moved into my town, the crime rate would undoubtedly skyrocket, since a certain percentage of the people that moved in would be criminals. Even if crime was reported less in the city and more in the country, there would still be a vast difference in the rates of crime.

The original reason for arguing the rate of crime in cities and towns had to do with murder rates between cities and towns. So I'm going to use your argument for that and say you can't say that murders in places like New York and Detroit have to do with illegal immigrants (and what did this have to do with gun control. Why are we still arguing this?)

Quote by: kite And what was done? China is still a repressive communist society. Even the internet is censored. The world can throw all the pretty words around that it wants, a country can still simply ignore them.Trade embargoes and taxes are nice, but the best attention grabber is still a bullet whizzing by your head.

First off, China has been forced to change drastically from before tianmin square. The original successor to Dong Xiao Ping was put under house arrest, the party leadership was over thrown and a new system was put into place. China will never have the same political culture of freedom is better then equality (or group mentality and fidelity in China's case), but it's slowly getting freer. Things don't happen so fast in the real world.

Also shooting back makes you look like a militant and that's no good. Remember the picture at tianamin square. If the kid standing in front of the tank had been shooting at it with a gun, how much less powerful do you think it would have been?

Shooting back makes the government push harder, in an effort not to look weak. calling foul is better because it gives the government incentives to pull back because they don't want to look like the bad guy.

to trigger

I've seen what you've posted and am think about it. I'm tired, and don't want to spoil the fun with half assed arguments (which is what I've been throwing on this thread for a few parts...not all)

[TRIGGER]

Sonart sorry it took so long I've been busy with winter wind and at home and needed to give you extra attention

Quote by: Sonart {{YAAAWWWN!}} Please don't bore me with this old saw. There are many, many peaceful democracies all around the world that have survived just fine with strict gun control.

There are also many societies that through gun control have enslaved their people and murdered millions of innocents. And what is preventing those democratic governments from becoming tyrannical? They just haven’t found their Hitler yet.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Quote by: Sonart . The major difference between them and us is that we are considerably more violent as a society

Oh really we are a violent society? No our criminals are exceptionally more violent, but the law abiding part of it isn’t. Here is why you can’t compare Europe or any other country to the US. The US has hundreds if not thousands of violent gangs that exist nowhere else in the world. These gangs are violent to the point where murder is just part of taking care of business. Here are just a few AB= Arian Brotherhood, Skin Heads, Bloods, Crips, Hells Angles, Mongols, Devils Disciples, Latin Kings, and MS-13.

I wouldn’t really call the US so violent since homicides comprise less than 1% (.7%) of all deaths in the US. The accidental death rate in the US is 4 times the homicide rate. And if you want to tie it to gun owners there are 100 million gun owners in the US when you tie that to homicides that puts up numbers like .0069 of 1% . If the US was as violent as you say ponder this. There are 100 million gun owners in the US; the population of the US is 300 million. If you do the math that puts it at 1 out of every 3 people in the US are gun owners. If the US or gun owners are that violent or irresponsible don’t you think that the death rate would be a lot higher? Also ponder this if the US gun owners are that violent you wouldn’t be able to walk down a street or turn a corner with out seeing a gunfight every day of your life.

Gun control actually takes lives it does not save lives. Here is a prime example. This is an over view of the Bartley Fox law in Mass. in 1972 the Bartley Fox was signed in to law. In Boston homicides dropped by 39%. It looks like a win for gun control and the anti gun advocates, and this is what they claimed. And this looked good as long as you don’t look at the law itself. Before Bartley Fox all you needed to own and or buy a pistol was a Firearms Identification Card, be 21 years old, and not be a convicted felon and you were good to go but you couldn’t carry it concealed. Bartley Fox established a new license it was a License To Carry (LTC) it allowed the holder to carry a pistol concealed on their person. You didn’t need the lic to own a pistol but you did need it to take your gun off your property or to by a pistol or ammo for a pistol. The lic. had a line on it that said (Reason for Issue) when filled out it said either, hunting and target or protection of persons and property. The law itself made no distinction between what the reason for issue was, so it didn’t matter what the lic. said on it, you were allowed by law to carry a loaded concealed handgun on your person. The law was a shall issue law which required the local lic. authority to issue the lic when asked unless there was a legal reason to deny the request like a felon, or not old enough. This gave the lic. authority no control over lic. everyone who had a pistol at that time got the lic. so you had a massive influx of people who were now allowed to carry a concealed handgun and what do you know crime and homicides dropped.

Now you’ll probably say that this is just a fluke. Sorry there’s more. In the late 70’s the law changed not by the legislature but by a court. A case was tried by a DA who prosecuted an individual that was carrying a loaded handgun with a LTC that said Hunting and Target. The DA felt that you shouldn’t be able to carry a loaded handgun on an H&T lic. and he was successful in his suit. This changed the lic. by setting president an H&T could still carry concealed but not loaded. Now the lic. authority was able to control who was allowed to carry for protection and rarely issued a protection lic. And you guessed it the homicide rate climbed to more than one a day in mass. and toped out around 450 a year in the mid 80’s. Around 1988 the law changed again but it was a technical change brought about by a lawsuit this time though it changed the reason for issue. It changed it form H&T or protection to only one reason (All Lawful Purposes). Now the law was back to the way it was at the start of Bartley Fox and the crime and homicide rates fell to the 1970’s level. This didn’t change the licenses that were already issued since the knowledge wasn’t spread it took 4 years to change all the licenses and that was apx. The time it took to drop the crime and homicide rates.

In 1998 the law changed yet again now there were 2 lic. an (A) lic. and a (B) lic. The A lic. was for high capacity pistols which was above 10 round capacity and to carry for protection which the lic. still had all lawful purposes on it . The B lic was for 10 rounds or less and you could not carry for protection yet it still said all lawfull purposes. The most important change was the licenses were now may issue. This meant that your lic authority could deny you the lic. with out just cause. The number of people who could carry fell and guess what the homicide rates have climbed above the highs of the eighties.

[TRIGGER]

No Trigger, there's actually been quite a few... just no successful insurrections..

In the US? Then name them.

Provided we can break into them. Look Trigger, you can invent all the positive scenarios you want, the result of an armed rebellion in the U.S. today would be a massive blood bath, with the rebels losing badly, and everyone knows it. There are vastly better ways to change the government. India, 1948. The Phillipines, 1986. And many more since. You're rationalizing a national catastrophe for the sake of justifying gun ownership..

India was the end of British rule. Had it been just about any other government at that time it would have been more like 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square or like all the dissidents that were rounded up and executed in the last century. The only reason Gandhi was successful is that it was a democracy in power. Had it been anyone of the communist countries or a dictatorship it would have been a blood bath. Gandhi and his followers would have been buried in unmarked mass graves like the Jews in WWII or in Iraq under Sadam. If you look at the last century your better way happened a couple times in every other case there was a massive loss of life to the tune of 56 million unarmed dissidents that were cut down by their own a murderous tyrannical governments.

It is that gun ownership that is the deterrent to our government turning tyrannical, which is why the founders put the second in the constitution. I ask you, do you want to die at the hands of a tyrannical government with out being able fight back. I would much rather die with a gun in my hands fighting for my freedom than with my hands tied behind me getting a bullet to the back of my head. Which way would you rather go? I would rather go out fighting, than pleading for my life. And you are right it would be a blood bath but don’t underestimate what a well-motivated numerically superior rebellion can do. And not everyone be leaves as you do to the tune of at the least 33% +. If the fathers believed as you do we would still be a British colony and our revolution would have never started.

And personally I don't see that happening, and definitely not before other, less drastic options have been used.

That is my point it is an option of last resort but if we were to do as you suggest (disarm) that option would be off the table. And what would you do if that government just decided not to play your game and rounded you all up and execute you. Then the only ones doing the dieing would be the unarmed dissidents being cut down by the tyrannical government. As I have said all along the gun is the tool of last resort give up that tool and you could end up face down, arms tied behind your back with a bullet in your brain, in an unmarked mass grave.

And yet you would prefer our country continue indefinitely as the most violent, murderous 1st world country on earth just in case something that can't really happen should by some nightmare actually happen.

I can’t tell you how many times I have heard it can’t happen to me. To tell you our society isn’t as violent as you are trying to make it out to be. Since the number of homicides in all the societies are such a minute number when compared to the population and other deaths in those societies. Of deaths in the US homicides account for only .7 %. Accidents are 4.7%, influenza is at 2.5 %. The percentage compared to the population of the US is at .002% of the population that’s 1/20,000th of the population.

YOu really don't get it, do you... either that or you're arguing just to argue. What you're talking about it not "protecting the public against that mindless killing machine". You're talking about unleashing the 'mindless killing machine'..

I am talking about protecting the rights and lives of the public by having an armed deterrent; if we are not armed we are not much of a deterrent are we? And if as you said our government unleashed their mindless killing machine (which is what you think our military is not me) they could do that whether or not there was a revolt. As many governments have done more often than not in the past.

Love v. Pepersack -- [b][i]"In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)..

Lets get some facts strait in 1938 and 1939 when these decisions were written short-barreled shotguns and machine guns were not considered weapons of war. Up to this point the SBS had never been used in war until WW 2 and neither had the sub machine gun either. The only machine guns used in war to this point were considered artillery. They were kept out of the line of sight and were used to rain bullets down on the enemy. This is just history now that this decision Federal statute prohibiting the possession of a sawed-off shot gun is wrong since NFA allows it. Just look it up. And that this person is not in the National Guard doesn’t it make you curious? That they refer to the gun as having no relationship to the militia preservation. "the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." This statement doesn’t say that the defendant is not a militia member, it's that the gun isn't considered a tool of war. This is where the lower courts have misconstrued Miller and any decisions made by these courts on this using the argument that the second is a collective right is wrong and are void since there was no president to that effect set by Miller end of story. You can’t site president if there was no president set. I am not a lawyer but I could rip any lawyers argument apart on this, the facts are very clear on this a false president was set.

I found these links after I wrote the above if this is clear to a layman like my self than any lawyer can see it if they don’t let their agenda or politics cloud their judgment.

Gun Law News - United States vs. Miller (1938)

United States vs. Miller

If that's true, Kite, then why are countries with stricter gun control than ours so much less murderously violent than we are?

I know this is for kite but I have addressed this earlier in this post.

Ever try banning people, I mean from life (jk)

Sorry kite I just had to answer this one. Yes, it's called life with out possability of parol or the death penalty.

[ShadowFox]

Regarding OP

I think we really do need to have a more strict gun control system. The second amendment say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It seems to say that a well regulated militia, which is the right of the people to have, can keep and bear arms, not the people themselves. Otherwise including the part saying a well regulated militia would be unnecessary. Besides, when this was written, they needed a militia to protect against retaliation or invasion from Europe. Since the current day militia is the national guard, it means, in my opinion, that the national guard can keep and bear fire arms, but not the average citizen.

[Kamehameha34]

It seems to say that a well regulated militia, which is the right of the people to have, can keep and bear arms, not the people themselves.

You read it wrong, then.

The bill of rights gave legal rights to individuals, not groups.

What it says is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[ShadowFox]

Then why would it include the part of the regulated militia?

From what i see, it says it's the right of the people to keep a regulated militia that has the right to bear arms in the defense of those people.

[Kamehameha34]

Then why would it include the part of the regulated militia?

So it provides those properly armed INDIVIDUALS the right to organize and form a militia.

[ShadowFox]

They allow fire arms for the militia, but what about those not in the militia or those unwilling to volunteer.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Halofan48 They allow fire arms for the militia, but what about those not in the militia or those unwilling to volunteer.

Doesn't matter. The amendment provides for two individual rights, the right to organize into a militia and to own a gun. The fact that one is dependent on another doesn't mean the rights are a package-deal.

[Winter wind]

It was my fault this thread died, and I've now brought myself to respond.

Quote by: Trigger I disagree. I have never had the opportunity to ask a high-ranking general in the US army to answer this but would love to have the chance. I just think that your opinion on this is simplistic since I did give sonart a number of successful revolts. What would make you think that the American people would be less successful? I think that you are under estimating the tenacity of the American people. I will also say that the US government won't attempt to turn on the public until they have disarmed them first. The second amendment was designed with that in mind as long as the people are armed it is a deterrent to tyranny.

The largest difference that makes this analogy moot is that Russians did not need Afghanistan. It was not vital to their survival as a government. If there was a revolution in America, the American government's survival would depend on their success. The Russian army was not full out attacking Afghanistan. The United States Army would have no trouble keeping the rebellions small

Plus, these are fellow American's your fighting. If the United States got to this point not all of the solders maybe fighting for the wrong reason. They might either disagree with you or be plain ignorant, but that means you kill them? All war is crime.

The best and most long lasting way to change is in the pen, the sword/gun is temporary and creates the wrong atmosphere for change.

This is an over view of the Bartley Fox law in Mass. in 1972

I've shortened the post.

This is because these laws are half assed. You can't only go half way because the person who wants the gun to commit a crime only has to go through a few more hoops while discouraging the average person who wants a gun for protection.

Either go all the way or forget it. Gun control can't be an irritation, it has to be final.

I still think one of the best way is only to allow the public to have defensive weapons, small pistols and the like and make them mandatory to have. Ban the rest.

Also I have a question. Say, one day, a weapon was created like the taser that could non-lethally stop someone, but was as effective as the gun. Something that could knockout someone without killing them. Could we ban guns then?

They are already legal, that is what NFA is all about. Why would I need to they already are.

So your for some regulation on guns.

Well hunting does serve a purpose. What it does is to control the population of animals.

Out of curiosity what is the difference between hunting controlling the population and pollution, litter, and destruction of habitat controlling the population.

I don't know if this will help. WorldNetDaily: Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily

The stat was released by a republican politician. What possible reason would he have to lie? Sorry, but I've heard pols use statistics they have pulled from thin air, how do I know this is no different. I need a better source.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: kame Doesn't matter. The amendment provides for two individual rights, the right to organize into a militia and to own a gun. The fact that one is dependent on another doesn't mean the rights are a package-deal.

Guns have hit a new level then they had when that right was written. Present evolution of the gun must be taken into account. It doesn't matter what wording the Constitution has, the real question is, should we amend that wording.

Oh and same question. If a weapon came out that was as effective as a gun, but non-lethal, should we distribute that weapon and ban guns?