sandy2 sandy2

Right to bear arms

▼

Right to bear arms

from PolMach Forums
I would like to start a discussion on your analasys of the second amendment to the constitution:

Amendment II

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.
politics
12,753 views 46 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also, If manufacturs aren't allowed to make this weaponry, and you can't import it, then how do you expect criminals to get their hands on banned assault weapons?


Hmm, perhaps by engaging in criminal activities such as smuggling and fencing.

"[Militia:] An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers." Then how can someone who DOESN'T fit this criteria, claim they are protected by the Second Amendment?


First of all, Are you not an ordinary citizen? When the time comes to join an army of other citizens in order to defend your country, will you be unwilling to step up and do your duty? If not, then okay, maybe you shouldn't own a gun. Otherwise, and I hope about 99% of the country qualifies, you should be able to have one.

Secondly, the clause relating to the militia is an EXPLANATORY clause, not a RESTRICTIVE clause. The proper interpretation of the amendment is: "You have the right to keep and bear arms. (And we acknowledge that right because of this particular need.)"

This does not apply to shoulder launched assault rockets. You do not defend yourself with such things. You shoot down helicopters and airplanes with such things.


But what if the helicopter or airplane is the thing that is attacking you?

doesn't the police department and the national gaurd protect your state?


Yes, they do. They are the second and third lines of defense in case of attack. (The Armed Forces would hopefully come first.) But relying solely on them is both unnecessary and unwise. "Defense in depth", resisting an attack all the way down, is preferred over giving an invader just one or two hurdles to overcome. Look at the Maginot line in France if you want to see a good example of putting too much faith in a single method of defense.

So maybe we need mandatory classes teaching everyone how to operate all sorts of different weaponry


I'm sure you intended this to be a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the basic idea that you must be properly trained in the use of any weapon you own is certainly valid. Before you buy that rocket launcher, you should have to get certified in how to operate it. Wouldn't want you blowing up your next-door neighbor by mistake. Of course the certifications for swords, axes, and other edged or blunt weapons would be alot easier. ("Grip the handle, swing and try to connect with the other end.") You don't need to become a fencing expert before you get your zweihander.

In certain countries, like Japan, guns are illegal, and the murder rates are significantly lower than in the U.S


And in certain countries, like Japan, their entire history and culture is completely different from ours, rendering the comparison invalid. The Japanese people, by and large, have NEVER had access to firearms. Only professional soldiers and members of the upper class could ever get their hands on a gun. And this was the case for well over 500 years. Using a gun in the commission of a crime is simply not something they think of.
The fact is, Americans are a bunch of murderous bastards. Taking the guns away will only change the method of our slaughter; it will not significantly impact upon its rate nor suddenly make us a more genteel, pacifistic people.
Reply #27 from PolMach Forums Top
But what if the helicopter or airplane is the thing that is attacking you?
give me the name of one person in this country who has been attacked by a helicopter.
I understand that the basis of your argument is that we as americans need to have the right to have weapons so we can defend ourselves against attack by foreign countries. I don't know about you, but if I'm being attacked by another country, I expect the military and the national gaurd and the police to defend me. The framers of the constitution said a regulated milita was nessecary, not that a bunch of heavy artillery yeilding cilvilians were nessecary. I highly doubt that any court would accept the reasoning that you need a tank or a nuclear war head to protect yourself from an invading army. And then you have the argument that there should be waiting periods, criminal checks and other ways of making sure that guns weren't getting into the wrong hands. Unless you know that canada is invading us tommarow, there is no urgency for you to aquire weapons to prevent an enemy army from taking over.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
So are you people suggesting that if someone is holding up a bank with a rocket launcher then the only way for me to stop this person is by having a rocket launcher of my own? I'm not sure I would safely be able to use that rocket launcher.


First, this is a ridiculous challenge. A rocket launcher has a backblast of something like 30 feet, and would incinerate the bank robber as well as the victims.

But I digress. The simple fact is, most violent crimes in the United States are NOT committed with assault rifles. As a survivalist friend once told me, an assault rifle on full automatic is a pretty ineffective tool for defense, unless you have an almost unlimited supply of ammo.

For the record, however, I DO know individuals who hunt with assault rifles. The fact is, many assault rifles have less kick than other larger caliber arms, and they have sufficient knockdown power for a clean, humane kill without having to track a miserably dying animal through the brush for half a day or more.

One of the biggest problems we have in the US with gun control (although I would be against it in other countries, as well) is the fact that we are a culture that's centered on guns. The guns are already there. I can obtain a pre-ban version of almost any assault rifle ever made; it would simply cost me a little more. The fact that these guns are out there means that the criminals have an almost unlimited supply. Even if we had a "gun turn in" day tomorrow and required everyone to turn in their guns, does anyone realistically expect the criminals to comply? No, on the other hand they'd have a field day. The one thing they could determine as they approached a house with almost absolute certainty, is that the owner was, for all intents and purposes, unarmed. This would remove the deterrent for theft in the first place. Living as I do in an open carry area, I can tell you flat out: there are a lot of thieves out here. We are essentially the meth capitol of Nevada, if not the US, and the chief supply line of meth for the city of Las Vegas. What keeps people from stealing us blind is the fear of getting shot (as any vacant property is automatically looted and often used as a meth lab). Removing guns would remove that incentive.

You can't compare us statistically with Japan in that Japan doesn't have the gun culture that we do. The same goes for countries like England and Canada.
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
I would like to contrast two points made in this thread:

A) there are several countries that have bans on guns that have low gun crime
B) there are several countries with higher guns per capita than the united states that have lower gun crime.

Using weapons in a criminal manner and posessing weapons are completely seperate. If you want to significantly lower violent crime, and not just gun crime, there are a few more effective ways than prohibition. first of all there is trying to eliminate the root cause of violent crime- poverty. Yes there are wealthy violent criminals, but they are the exception. If america were to follow libertarian ideals, then taxes and regulations would be lowered significantly. As a direct consequence, businesses that used to operate in Asia could now afford to employ in the US. More businesses means that the value of labor increases, and less people are in poverty.

Also, by privitizing the school system we can ensure that every american recieves a better education then what they were previously recieving. There is NO realistic way that you can prevent affluent families from sending their kids to schools that will be better than what kids from poor families can afford to go to, but with privitization you have a competetive environment where schools would compete not only on cost but performance.

Furthermore, the legal and police system needs an extreme overhaul. Firstly, victimless crimes need to be legalized. Drug prohibition doesn;t hurt wealthy kids- they can afford lawyers who can make arrangements for the kid to go to rehab instead of jail. Huge amounts of money are spent waging "the war on drugs", and the victims of the "war" are those that its supposedly fought for.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
So since rope and wire can be used to murder someone, lets ban it!
How about your butcher knife in the kitchen? A good friends mom was killed by one.
Do I blame the knife? No.
If you make them illegal then only criminals will have guns.
How about Norway were every male up to 40 has an "Assault rifle" in his home, with ammo.

What is the murder rate there? The stats prove that gun control does not work, and good luck
trying to get mine. (Legally purchased new thank you very much).
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
As a direct consequence, businesses that used to operate in Asia could now afford to employ in the US- WRONG. if laborers in the united states were willing to work for 1 dollar a day, then yes they could move to the USA.

So since rope and wire can be used to murder someone, lets ban it!
How about your butcher knife in the kitchen? A good friends mom was killed by one.
Do I blame the knife? No.
If you make them illegal then only criminals will have guns.- How many people are killed each yeah by rope and wire? Further, I don't want to make guns illegal. I want to make certain guns illegal however. Guns that have no practical purpose. Guns covered by the current Assult weapons ban, and some others not covered by it. Facts don't lie, and the facts are that the violent crime rate has dropped.
YEAR-----------------Number of violent crimes
1993(before ban)-----1,926,020 (2nd highest level ever)
1994(after ban)--------1,857,670
1995----------------------1,798,790
1996----------------------1,688,540
1997----------------------1,634,770
1998----------------------1,531,044
1999----------------------1,426,044
2000----------------------1,424,289

see a trend? I do. The number of violent crimes in 1993, which was the year before clinton signed the ban, was 501,731 more than the number of violent crimes in 2000. This ban is effective. It could be more effective if it included more weapons that people do not need to use to defend themselves. (For example, it is not practical to lug around an assult rifle with you everywhere you go.)
Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
As a direct consequence, businesses that used to operate in Asia could now afford to employ in the US- WRONG. if laborers in the united states were willing to work for 1 dollar a day, then yes they could move to the USA.

People, including you apparently, don't understand that money as expressed in currency, such as the US dollar, is relative. Would it really be so bad to work for $1 a day if $1 a day was enough to pay for food, medicine, housing, education for the kids, some luxuries, etc? If we repealed protectionist tariffs and removed minimum wage laws, while decreasing regulation on business and reducing taxes, the wages for a laborer as expressed in dollars might drop slightly, but the cost of everything that such a person needs- food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education, entertainment, etc- would drop significantly more because of increased competition and lower labor costs. Think about it this way- if you were going to make $20k a year regardless of where you worked, would you rather live in a city or in the country? Its a fact that the poor in cities have a lower standard of living than the poor in the country, mainly because of cost of living and slum issues.
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
I just have to add to this. Deaths involving cars are many times more the frequency than those by guns, but no person is advocating the ban of automobiles. As for us being a gun-centrist country, gun ownership is about the same as those who smoke cigarettes (22%). Only a minority of the populace is an actual gun owner. The fact that we still retain this right is a tribute to Americans who believe that if you take guns away from the people only criminals and the government will have them. But where will we get these fabled weapons if we simply stop manufacturing them, you may ask. Ahem. There is a whole world outside the U.S. and most automatic and semi-automatic guns are illegally imported from such countries as China.

As for the statistics in lower violent crimes, let us keep in mind the context these figures belong in. After Clinton came into office, he signed a bill providing more money to state and local authorities to hire policemen, I would argue that this has more to do with the lowering of violent (but not necessarily gun related) crimes.
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top
You are suggesting that the value of a dollar would sky rocket if taxes were reduced? I beg to differ, though I respect your view. The point of my post however was that gun legistlation in the past has worked. I also don't think that the way to solve gun crimes is to make sure there are no poor.
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
Deference- Once again I am not promoting a ban on guns. No, rather I am supporting a ban on a select few dangerous weapons.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
1993(before ban)-----1,926,020 (2nd highest level ever)
1994(after ban)--------1,857,670
1995----------------------1,798,790
1996----------------------1,688,540
1997----------------------1,634,770
1998----------------------1,531,044
1999----------------------1,426,044
2000----------------------1,424,289


ok, violent crimes include categories such as rape and arson. I am hard pressed to believe the assault weapons ban reduced those. I think it is more probable that harsher sentencing laws which came about around the same time, had a lot to do with it. The fact is, the majority of violent criminals are repeat offenders, and we began to get smart and lock those folks away.

You still have not addressed the fact that, despite the ban, I can still easily acquire many of these assault weapons.
Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
"I also don't think that the way to solve gun crimes is to make sure there are no poor. "-Sandy2

seeing that guns crimes are much more prevalent among poor people than middle class or wealthy people, how can you defend this view?

Doesn't it make sense that we should work to remove or at least lessen the root cuase of violent crime?
Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top
Deference- Once again I am not promoting a ban on guns. No, rather I am supporting a ban on a select few dangerous weapons.

I'm not attacking you Sandy, and I think you are correct in regards to there being some limitations on armaments. Some gun proponents are worried about a "slippery slope" effect with these types of laws, however.
Reply #39 from PolMach Forums Top
Haha. sorry i missinterpreted you.

cwarsh- solving the root problem is not the easiest way to solve the problem. Keeping assult guns and all guns out of the hands of criminals is easier. Locking up people involved in a gun crime for life is easier. And I know that there is no good way for me to put this, so I will be blunt. There are some people who are poor because they are of the type of people who would be involved in a violent crime. Making them wealther would not get rid of their violent attributes. I admit that the ban on assult weapons could not possible be responsible for the reductions in all those crimes. It reinforces the idea however that we are on the right track with what we have done, and it certainly shows that if anything we need to become more strict in enforcing the law and creating anti-crime laws because they have worked in the past, rather than removing currently exsisting bans and easing our crime laws.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
No it is not. When "saturday night specials" were no longer allowed to be imported.
inner city crime rates jumped because the lower income persons did not have $100 or more for a small pistol.
They could buy a small pistol to stop the muggers for under $30 before that ban!
Crime rates rose. while the criminals have fully automatic weapons. (Which can be licensed if you collect)
These cats didn't register them with the ATF so good luck "Keeping them out of their hands."

BTW I dont need anything but a deer rifle. Bolt action to go on a murder spree if I so desired. The tools are there
under your criteria also. just different.
PS. A number of you posters should learn the difference between an Automatic weapon
and an auto loader.. All SEMI-automatic weapons fire one round per trigger pull but reload for the next shot,
until the magazine is empty; this is an auto-loading weapon. An Automatic is like a Machine-gun, M-60 type
or an M-16A1- A4 models that are CAPABLE of firing a burst of three rounds or longer with one pull of the trigger.
It takes a lot of practice to stay on target after the first two rounds go downrange. Let some moron fire auto at me!
Aiming is the important part. (And intent)
Reply #41 from PolMach Forums Top
http://www.nraila.org/images/MGLC.jpg


this chart shows that from 1991 - 2002 as the number of guns increases the number of crimes decreases, proving that more guns = less crime .
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
sandy,

I'm going to back out to "observer" status, as my position is well represented here, and by more eloquent spokespersons. I'm not going to do so, though, until I tell you thanks for a well written article. Even though we'll have to agree to disagree on this one (and, from the looks of things, a lot of issues...lol), I respect your viewpoint and look forward to engaging in conversation with you in the future. Keep it up!
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks gideon.


this chart shows that from 1991 - 2002 as the number of guns increases the number of crimes decreases, proving that more guns = less crime .


During the time the number of guns may have increased, but they were of a non assult type weapon as those were banned. This indicated that the assult weapons ban did in fact work.

inner city crime rates jumped because the lower income persons did not have $100 or more for a small pistol.


I am not trying to ban small pistols. Just large weaponry that is not used nor needed by the average citizen.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
chris rock has the best proposal going actually.  give guns away; charge a couple grand per bullet.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good idea except what about hunting?
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
you better be a really good shot and really love venison  (or you better hope your neigbors have cows)