Originally Posted By Chris in Atlanta >>> Of course, if they had no reason to own the thing, and gun laws prevented ownership in most cases, tragedies such as that could be prevented. <<< This may shock you, but I agree 100% absolutely without reservation. "If no one owned guns privately, then no one would get hurt by them." That is defensibly true logic 100%. unfortunately this part >>>if they had no reason to own the thing<<< is where we ALL disagree.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The supreme court disagrees with you on the interpretation of your own 2nd amendment*** No doubts there. On the other hand, I find it interesting that they interpret it so loosely. AFAIC the wording is far more specific than the interpretation of it (the "militia" in question would be the United States Military would it not? and even if you go the other way, there should be no control laws about any weapons of any type if we're supposed to have the right to FIGHT the U.S. military or any other if necessary, which we don't by a longshot). Talk about legislating from the bench! Seems to me that it should either be one extreme or the other, and yet it's not. It's simply a strange sort of middle ground designed to keep weapons in peoples' hands for no constitutionally justifiable reason. But then again I'm not a justice on the supreme court (yet).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***By the way, the second amendment says NOTHING about home security or hunting or any of the other excuses for owning a weapon these days. 1.) I own them for hunting and home defense. There are many ways to keep them with quick but safe access. Fingerprint safes. Keypad safes. Combination gun safes.*** Interesting that these two comments came back to back (and thanks for your answer, by the way...as I said, I was curious and I'm thinking that's the answer that most folks would have, or perhaps a third group might consist of "collectors"). So, if you would agree that the 2nd amendment doesn't speak to these two reasons, wouldn't you say that it's a bit disingenuous that so many folks cite it as an inalienable right, simply in order to own one for other reasons?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***unfortunately this part >>>if they had no reason to own the thing<<< is where we ALL disagree.*** Why do you say that? I don't feel that way, personally. If I lived someplace I considered to be dangerous, I would certainly give strong consideration to purchasing a weapon for home defense, or at least a large doberman or something. I'm not some sort of "BAN ALL GUNS!" nut, believe it or not. (can't speak for hunting, never interested me although I've enjoyed target shooting in my youth and it was a lot of fun)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***"If no one owned guns privately, then no one would get hurt by them." That is defensibly true logic 100%.*** It's actually defensibly true in practice as well. As proven by the Japan situation, amounting to a statistical ZERO on gun crime and shooting deaths. But, as we discussed, different culture and etc...
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo I hear you clearly. I am NOT going to go here though. Well ok, just a tiny bit maybe... The Supreme Court has spoken and recently. Just last year, for the first time in 200 years, the Supreme Court heard, ruled, and over-turned the Washington DC gun ban, on the grounds that it violated the 2nd amendment. The amendment says that "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,'' They ruled that that the amendment provides an "individual right" just as all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights do. And because handguns fall under the definition of "arms," the court over turned the ban. In essence, the Supreme Court re-interpreted the amendment. And as is written, it stands, probably for the foreseeable future, which lately, that isn't saying a lot. There have been many things that have happened in the past 9 years that I thought I would never see. The one thing most surprising that I am most PROUD of, is that we have elected a non-white person as President! I feel ya that you want to redefine the terms of the 2nd amendment and say that the militia means things like the military, or the national guard, or the local Police, or whatever. That's fine. Who cares? That part of not relevant. But re-read here... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"... The people bearing arms, is not the military, or the police, or the national Guard...those are government agencies bearing arms. Think. Think. Think. WHY would they put this additional phrase (that you say is antiquated) in there? Why? "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" ... ? Hummm...? There is a big picture here. Think about your history lessons.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo I might be wrong, but I suspect that there are places where gun bans have resulted in no basic significant decreases in crime. I'll throw that out there and let you prove it wrong. I'm too lazy to argue that one correctly. ;p
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And because handguns fall under the definition of "arms," the court over turned the ban.*** First of all, thanks for your reply and much appreciated! Secondly though, I'm still waiting to hear about why my right to bear a shoulder mounted missile launcher (with missile) is being infringed by law! Right? p.s. the 2nd amendment doesn't put any sort of limit on the size, type, or potential firepower of all the arms I'm entitled to bear without infringement, right? p.p.s. the 2nd amendment doesn't address the "mentally unstable but non-criminal", which means they have the right to a missile launcher too. Right? (I heard they can't even get a piece! what's up with that!?)
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo ROFL You are right on all counts Mr. X. Yes I suppose that eventually even some lowest level common denominator of common sense has to prevail, even over and above the 2nd amendment. Even though your argument is valid at face value, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. At this time, having admitted you are right in your argument Mr X, I will refer my remaining discussion on the subject to: <a href="http://www.nra.org" target="_blank">http://www.nra.org</a> I'm guessing most people have never darkened the door over there, in spite of the fact that those members aren't the ones who commit daily crimes against citizens here in the US. Oh yes, post your Googled example of one bad apple. Anyway, Consider me beaten at this argument if you like. Good bye.
Originally Posted By Mr X Dude...sorry you feel snubbed. I didn't mean it that way! As I said, I appreciate all your replies and (if you recall) even said that I appreciate the right to bear arms for myself as an American. Please don't forget this is a CONVERSATION (and yes, in conversations sometimes I like to play the devils advocate...so I'm sorry if you took that personally!). Anyway, and I'll go away now, but anyway I appreciated your input, found it to be perfectly reasonable and compelling, and believe that you did a good job in furthering your side of the discussion (and all without any personal attacks from either of us!). Peace, bro.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo >>>Dude...sorry you feel snubbed. I didn't mean it that way!>>> NO NO NO I'm not snubbed nor snubbing you X! I'm just too lazy to contine...
Originally Posted By Mr X I understand. These conversations do certainly get tiring. (when it's a good debate between two or more sincere participants, though, I think it's worth it!)
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo >>>and all without any personal attacks from either of us<<< I hope I'm done with making personal attacks. It's great to discuss without them!
Originally Posted By Mr X Isn't it, though? (I do try my best, although I admit some people do frustrate me a lot)
Originally Posted By hightp Mr X, I can answer some of your concerns. Your example of a shoulder mounted missle would actually be considered an 'explosive device' and not an arm, therefore it is prohibited, kind of like a grenade. I read the Supreme Court's ruling for the Heller case, and the argument was well thought out. At the time the 2nd ammendment was written, the wording had a different connotation. The term Miltia denoted the regular people who were expected to turn up, should they be needed, and 'well regulated' meant those people should be able to train with their arms. The Government still retains the right to call all men (and women, too, I think) up to the age of 50 to active service if needed, so having some knowledge of a militia arm would be a benefit. The ability of the population to own more powerful firearms, like machine guns, was actually addressed by the Supreme Court. It was suggested that since they could overturn DC's handgun laws as being 'Unconstitutional' couldn't they overturn the machine gun law, too? The answer they gave was that they believed there was some need for regulation of arms, by the State. Wether that will be addressed in the future, remains to be seen. BTW, I own several firearms, too. My reasons are similar to what has been already addressed, but I enjoy target shooting and collecting. There is a lot of history to be realized, too.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think there should be far more rigorous fire arm safety classes governed at the state level for anyone who wants a weapon. I think the course should be difficult and in part designed to weed out people that are likely to do something stupid.> I agree, Chris. When I was very young, I used to think "wouldn't it be nice if we could be like Japan, with nearly no guns around, and deaths from gunshots being negligible?" But I haven't thought that way in a long time; that genie was out of the bottle long ago, and it wouldn't work here. But before you can legally drive a car, you have to prove you can operate it safely, lest you hurt or kill yourself or others by operating it unsafely. I think the same should apply to guns. I think a non-felon, mentally competent adult ought to be able to buy one, but I think he/she ought to have to prove competence in using it first. A rigorous course of the sort Chris described, both written and physical. After you've done so, you wouldn't have to do so again (as with the driver's test), and could present your license when you wanted to buy another. Unfortunately, the NRA (which many of my relatives belong to) opposes what I see as common sense restrictions such as this, and even oppose (as a knee jerk, sez I) things like the sale of cop-killer bullets, which exist for the purpose of slicing through bulletproof vests that cops wear. Every police organization I know of favors banning these bullets, but the NRA always has the "slippery slope" argument (ban this and what will you ban next???), and fights any restriction, even what I would see as common sense ones like this. What's ironic is the NRA teaches safety and marksmanship classes itself that could serve as a model for the kind of course Chris mentioned. They blanch at anything mandated, though. But I think if you're going to own a gun, you should damn well prove you know how to use it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What's ironic is the NRA teaches safety and marksmanship classes itself that could serve as a model for the kind of course Chris mentioned. They blanch at anything mandated, though.<< I am good friends with a gentleman who teaches NRA-certified gun safety and marksmanship courses. Everything a person would need to know to safely own and operate a weapon is taught at these courses. I don't understand why they don't want such courses to be mandatory. I understand it is a key right for people to own guns, but I can't understand the resistance to teaching people how to do so more safely.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo >>>I think if you're going to own a gun, you should damn well prove you know how to use it.<<< Agree 100% >>>I don't understand why they don't want such courses to be mandatory. I understand it is a key right for people to own guns, but I can't understand the resistance to teaching people how to do so more safely.<<< Interesting, and I don't understand that either.
Originally Posted By hightp Dabob, the problem with the issues you raise, is that you're equating 'rights' with 'privileges'. According to the Bill of Rights, owning an 'arm' is a right. Rights are available to all, regardless of the circumstances. For example, voting is a 'right'. All US citizens, provided they are of age, are entitled to vote. Poll taxes, the ability to read, etc, were all found to be unconstitutional because they prohibited people (in this case, blacks) from exercising their right. The NRA does oppose restrictions, as you stated, because they oppose what they see as rights being removed from the people. Just as the ACLU would oppose someone proving they can read a sign before they can step into a voting booth. BTW, "cop killer bullets" are mostly a falicy. The ability to penetrate a bulletproof vest is a mostly a factor of velocity. Most handgun cartridges aren't fast enough to penetrate, while most rifle cartridges will do so with no problem. The issue with banning such 'bullets' is that virtually all cartridges in existence since .45-70 was invented in 1873 would be subject to such a ban.
