General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

For some of the anti-gun extremists, they'd like to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning a gun. This would, of course, skyrocket other options in self-defense since the US simply doesn't have a preventative law enforcement protocol here as such. I've heard swords are absolutely terrifying when used effectively. (Stows the feminist argument *for* firearms for now).

*If* we're going to increase regulation or reduce the number of "loose" guns out there ... somehow banning black toasters while letting chrome toasters pass mostly results in dilution of respect for the law (and the law writers).

I agree.
And a sword properly wielded is a deadly weapon in CQB.

[ChainLegacy]

Are swords regulated? I know certain types of knives are. As far as I know, Japan (incidentally) also has a law in place banning swords that stems back from the Meiji Restoration sword ban, though I don't know the exact particulars of it.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Indeed, but I think even you can see that there's a difference between a ban on gatling gun/bazooka, and what would essentially be a ban on a vast majority, if not the entirety, of modern firearm.

From a constitutional standpoint there's no difference. The government can define was are and aren't the appropriate firearms for people to own, and has done so in the past. This reinstated restriction may be something you disagree with, but it is not right to call it unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Machine guns are also legal to purchase[/URL], but very expensive and regulated heavily (which I contend is uncontstutional at this point, the NFA of 1934 did its job fine).
Rocket launchers and grenade launchers are also legal to buy with a class 09 FFL.
Here are the FFL classes available to citizens of the US:

Isn't making a firearm only legal for a small number of licensors almost the same as banning it? Because you're still preventing the vast majority of people from ever owning it.

•3) Weapons which are not of a military nature or useful to the common defense are not useful to the militia and thus not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

•4) There IS a “litmus test” for determining what weapons are and are NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment, and that test is simple: the weapon must be of a military nature and useful by the militia to a) uphold the laws of the union (Constitution and Bill of Rights), b) put down insurrections, and c) repel invasions.

Then why can't civilians buy machine guns, bazookas, bombs, grenades, missiles, rocket launchers or tanks? Surely all those weapons also pass that litmus test?

It's not a matter of being a good or bad thing, it is whether or not it is lawful in the US, and clearly the SCOTUS has already ruled on this through Presser vs. Illinois, US vs Miller, and DC vs Heller. The argument is over, the 2nd amendment protects such weapons and the collective rights model is dead.

None of those cases address wither or not a certain class of weapon can be banned. They just say you have the right to keep a weapon, but none of them say you have the right to keep any weapon. As far as I'm aware, the average person cannot buy a machine gun for the purposes of self defence. How is this any different?

Registration does not equate to competency as Nancy Lanza proved. Under Connecticut law all of her weapons were registered, and it did nothing to prevent this event.

What's that got to do with what I said? Your rights can be annulled. You do not have an unconditional right to free speech, or to bear arms. You can't use free speech to shout fire in a crouded building. A similar allegory could be made regarding guns.

As for Israel. I wouldn't model your gun policies on a state that is in a perpetual guerrilla war. Furthermore, in Israel you cannot legally keep a gun unless you live in a dangerous area (IE the settlements). You certainly aren't allowed to own a gun in Tel Aviv.

It is obvious that the 2nd amendment is a deterrent to tyranny put another way, it is to prevent a political party from abusing and twisting the federal government into a totalitarian state.

I live in a state with an extensive history of paramilitary activity. They usually end out creating totalitarian states, not stopping them. Like these guys.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

From a constitutional standpoint there's no difference. The government can define was are and aren't the appropriate firearms for people to own, and has done so in the past. This reinstated restriction may be something you disagree with, but it is not right to call it unconstitutional.

Setting aside the constitution part for a moment, you're getting me and gundam mixed up My response was solely about the issue with your previous comment on military-grade weapons, I certainly didn't say anything about the constitutionality of such a ban.



Now, to the constitution

I find it interesting that you're adopting quite the literalist interpretation here. But I think it's important to point out that it's up to the SCOTUS to interpret them, and generally speaking the SCOTUS tends to frown upon interpretations that become a run-around of the spirit of the law as they see it. This is why the anti-gun crowd couldn't just get ammunition banned even though it's not explicitly mentioned in the 2nd Amendment - as doing so would institute a de facto ban, since ammo is an inherent part of a functioning firearm. I'd imagine that claiming that people can still own guns while instituting what is effectively a blanket ban falls under the same category, and far exceeds what was considered "reasonable regulation" under Heller. The letter of the law is important, but so is the court's interpretation of the intent of the law, as it is impossible to write laws that would cover all the possibilities. This goes for everything from SCOTUS ruling on the constitution to a county court dealing with your everyday crime cases. I mean, really, all you have to do is to look at how the Commerce Clause has been used throughout the years to see just how far something can be stretched .

Moreover, there certainly hasn't been any "reinstated" bans, and if they do get reinstated, it'll certainly be up to the SCOTUS to determine its constitutionality, as it's guaranteed that it'll be challenged in court.

What's that got to do with what I said? Your rights can be annulled. You do not have an unconditional right to free speech, or to bear arms. You can't use free speech to shout fire in a crouded building. A similar allegory could be made regarding guns.

Indeed, but IMO your idea of a mass ban is more in the vein of "You have the freedom of speech...you just can't say anything I disapprove of", rather than the "yell fire in a theater" scenario.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I find it interesting that you're adopting quite the literalist interpretation here. But I think it's important to point out that it's up to the SCOTUS to interpret them, and generally speaking the SCOTUS tends to frown upon interpretations that become a run-around of the spirit of the law as they see it. This is why the anti-gun crowd couldn't just get ammunition banned even though it's not explicitly mentioned in the 2nd Amendment - as doing so would institute a de facto ban, since ammo is an inherent part of a functioning firearm. I'd imagine that claiming that people can still own guns while instituting what is effectively a blanket ban falls under the same category, and far exceeds what was considered "reasonable regulation" under Heller.

Yes, but we also have to recall that the amendment in itself has been interpreted in different ways since it's creation. For instance, from what I can see, for a very long period the amendment was solely interpreted to be pertaining to a militia, and not to personal self defense. I think it's important to note that the framers of the constitution could not have foreseen the society we live in today, and I think if they were living today they'd be fine with restrictions being in place. After all, Dynamite, Machine guns and Bazookas had not been invented in 1776. And in 1776 the United States was a largely rural society with no large(by our standards) towns or cities.

However I wouldn't advocate a ban that would de facto make guns pointless. In the US, people should be able to own a gun, and ammunition for that gun. But I think it's well within the spirit of the constitution to limit particularly powerful firearms.

Moreover, there certainly hasn't been any "reinstated" bans, and if they do get reinstated, it'll certainly be up to the SCOTUS to determine its constitutionality, as it's guaranteed that it'll be challenged in court.

It was "banned" from 1994-2004 without any peep from SCOTUS, why should it be different now?

Indeed, but your idea of a mass ban is more in the vein of "You have the freedom of speech...you just can't say anything I disapprove of", rather than the "yell fire in a theater" scenario.

I'm not arguing about what type of ban there should be (I'm not expert enough to really say how it should be, though I personally would prefer more complete bans then the average american). Right now, I'm just arguing against the idea that restrictions or bans of any kind are unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional for fundamental rights to be violated under certain circumstances as your rights do not extend to recklessly endangering the lives of other people. Guns are dangerous things, and reckless use of them can endanger other people's lives, in much the way that reckless use of speech (like crying fire in a theater) could also endanger people's lives.

Now the extent of how large the restrictions should be is a tricky question, but I don't see why any restrictions at all is somehow controversial.


Also, more generally as an aside, I find it worrying that so much attention gets put on defending gun rights, and far less on much more fundamental centuries old principles like Habeas Corpus. Banning guns is not the inevitable lead up to tyranny (almost every democratic government in the world has extensive gun control laws), while Habeas Corpus is a fundamental ingredient of democracy, it's much more important to securing our freedom.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Yes, but we also have to recall that the amendment in itself has been interpreted in different ways since it's creation. For instance, from what I can see, for a very long period the amendment was solely interpreted to be pertaining to a militia, and not to personal self defense.

Indeed, but it's also important to note that in even those times the term "militia" refers to pretty much the entire male population of the country, save the kids and the old. It's certainly not the National Guard that many today assumes it is, as the Guards were not established until the early 1900s.

I think it's important to note that the framers of the constitution could not have foreseen the society we live in today, and I think if they were living today they'd be fine with restrictions being in place.

Speculating on what the framers would've done if they are alive today is a pointless exercise in futility that serves little purpose other than passing amusement. I can say that if they were living today, they'd say "fk drafting a constitution, imma go watch some jersey shores", and it'd be just as valid or invalid as your assertion.

I also dispute that technology advancement angle. Should the government be able to abolish free speech and infringe on people's privacy over the phone and internet because the framers could not have foreseen them either?

It was "banned" from 1994-2004 without any peep from SCOTUS, why should it be different now?

Because the SCOTUS (or any other federal court) cannot unilaterally exercise jurisdiction - a legitimate challenge must be brought before it can rule on anything. For example, Congress can pass a law that completely bans free speech, but if nobody challenges it, then the SCOTUS can't rule on it.

AFAIK, during the 94 AWB, there was never any real attempt to challenge it in court due to the perceived liberal leaning of the court - it's better to not sue at all than to sue and get an unfavorable ruling, setting a precedent against yourself in the future. It's a much different picture today though, with a slight conservative leaning in the SCOTUS, and more importantly with DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago clearly established the ground rule.

Right now, I'm just arguing against the idea that restrictions or bans of any kind are unconstitutional.

take that up with gundamfan, not me

Now the extent of how large the restrictions should be is a tricky question, but I don't see why any restrictions at all is somehow controversial.

Not sure why it's hard to see, it simply boils down to each individual's point of view.

Also, more generally as an aside, I find it worrying that so much attention gets put on defending gun rights, and far less on much more fundamental centuries old principles like Habeas Corpus. Banning guns is not the inevitable lead up to tyranny (almost every democratic government in the world has extensive gun control laws), while Habeas Corpus is a fundamental ingredient of democracy, it's much more important to securing our freedom.

I would say it's the same reason why gun deaths causes so much controversy, yet barely anyone cares about deaths cause by alcohol/cigarette/obesity etc., despite them killing far more people - lack of shock value. Gun control/Gun right is something far more tangible for people to relate to and take sides on. Habeas Corpus? you'd be lucky if half of the people you ask on the street even know what it means.

On a side note, should the day when there's a need to demand habeas corpus ever comes, an armed populace would probably make a much more convincing argument than an disarmed one. Just go ask the Syrians, how seriously did Assad take them before they got their own weapons?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Are swords regulated? I know certain types of knives are. As far as I know, Japan (incidentally) also has a law in place banning swords that stems back from the Meiji Restoration sword ban, though I don't know the exact particulars of it.

In the US, a sword is just a "sharpened edged stick". A greatsword or broadsword doesn't even have to be very sharp (dull as mud is ok). Swords are largely unregulated, considered collectible/decorative for the most part. Knives get more attention because they're concealable.

You wouldn't get through a security gate with either, mostly because guards think water bottles are deadly weapons. I have walked through a number of security points with my cane (which has a steel core, a bone handle and is kind of a nasty tool but hey, I'm limping when I use it).

Realistically, I'm not expecting to wander around with sword ... though I have done that in chain mail and viking gear. Downtown. At NASA. Never even questioned. Mostly it would be a home defense tool. Heck, I have machetes for brush clearing, too.

Fear my potato rifle and cannon?

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Are swords regulated?

They're not a problem. When they do become a problem, you bet your *** that there should be a push to regulate those too.

[Bri]

Countries that have strict fire-arm bans in place often restrict other forms of weapons as well for obvious reasons.

The guiding principle is the monopoly of violence by the state as described by Weber. This is a two edged sword (pun not intended) as it forces the responsibility on the state to protect it's citizens from violence.

This is not the case in the US. The responsibility has historically been shared by both citizen and state. As can be seen in the second amendment but also in the lack of crime prevention by law enforcement as described earlier by Vexx. You can't really implement large scale gun restrictions without rethinking the legal foundations.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Bri

Countries that have strict fire-arm bans in place often restrict other forms of weapons as well for obvious reasons.

The guiding principle is the monopoly of violence by the state as described by Weber. This is a two edged sword (pun not intended) as it forces the responsibility on the state to protect it's citizens from violence.

This is not the case in the US. The responsibility has historically been shared by both citizen and state. As can be seen in the second amendment but also in the lack of crime prevention by law enforcement as described earlier by Vexx. You can't really implement large scale gun restrictions without rethinking the legal foundations.

Did you just state that the American government doesn't protect its citizens from violence as much as other nations?

Then that isn't a sign that America needs more guns; that's a sign to get the hell out of the country. Excuse the hyperbole, but if one need guns to feel safe, I expect such nations to be something akin to Afghanistan. I don't know if your claims are true or not, only that it gives the impression that Americans don't obey laws.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Did you just state that the American government doesn't protect its citizens from violence as much as other nations?

Then that isn't a sign that America needs more guns; that's a sign to get the hell out of the country. Excuse the hyperbole, but if one need guns to feel safe, I expect such nations to be something akin to Afghanistan. I don't know if your claims are true or not, only that it gives the impression that Americans don't obey laws.

The law simply allows greater leeway for self defense action. The size of the country and law enforcement response times have always required a significant amount of self-reliance for protection. It's not about disobeying laws.

In some countries, violence out of self-protection is a justifiable transgression, not a right. It really depends what role the state plays in society, I'm not judging simply stating differences.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Bri

The law simply allows greater leeway for self defense action. The size of the country and law enforcement response times have always required a significant amount of self-reliance for protection. It's not about disobeying laws.

In some countries, violence out of self-protection is a justifiable transgression, not a right. It really depends what role the state plays in society, I'm not judging simply stating differences.

America is not that large as a country, and it certainly doesn't have a police force that have slower response times than other nations.

If you need a gun to protect yourself despite your tax dollars paying for the existence of a police force, then the question is if the military budget should be shrunk to pay for better police. No point having a strong army if your cops can't be relied upon domestically.

[Kyero Fox]

I would like them to stop getting on Video Games, Make it so store workers can refuse to sell to a older person who is buying a game for their kid. Otherwise they can get fired by the "Boss"

If a kid comes in and a older person. pay attention and if they are trying to buy them a game rated out of their age range, Refuse to sell it to them.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Kyero Fox

I would like them to stop getting on Video Games, Make it so store workers can refuse to sell to a older person who is buying a game for their kid. Otherwise they can get fired by the "Boss"

If a kid comes in and a older person. pay attention and if they are trying to buy them a game rated out of their age range, Refuse to sell it to them.

What does that have to do with this thread?

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

America is not that large as a country, and it certainly doesn't have a police force that have slower response times than other nations.

If you need a gun to protect yourself despite your tax dollars paying for the existence of a police force, then the question is if the military budget should be shrunk to pay for better police. No point having a strong army if your cops can't be relied upon domestically.

Actually Vallen the police are not obligated to protect you, they're obligated to investigate crime. Essentially when you call the police, your calling for assistance or help. And they will respond, but the response times aren't exactly earth shaking.

And on another note to Don, in the Second Amendment it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Sure they could amend that, but could you just imagine the outcome?

[kyp275]

adding to what lost said,

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

America is not that large as a country, and it certainly doesn't have a police force that have slower response times than other nations.

If you need a gun to protect yourself despite your tax dollars paying for the existence of a police force, then the question is if the military budget should be shrunk to pay for better police. No point having a strong army if your cops can't be relied upon domestically.

Heh, if the third largest country in the world is "not that large", what would you consider to be large? especially when the first and second (russia and canada) both have substantial amount of uninhabitable land.

As for police response time, it varies GREATLY depending on where you live. Remember, police departments in the US is largely a local affair - there is no central policing authority, the vast majority of the work is handled(and funded) on the city/county level by they're own department, or if they don't have one (and yes, many cities DONT have police dept.), by the county sheriff. You can have response times that ranges from 5-10min, to 40, 50min, and sometimes even longer. For some it'll be due to an overextended or incompetently managed department, in some cases it'll be because of geographic limitations.

[Kaijo]

The 2nd amendment is a right to bear arms. Arms can mean anything: swords, knives, handguns, assault rifles, Stinger missiles, tanks, fighter jets, etc. So, technically, we shouldn't ban any of those. Since we have, then the 2nd amendment has already been violated with bans, and those with guns have done absolutely nothing about it.

What if I want to play with tanks with my friends? Shooting off real live ammo from an M-1 Abrams tank with all the trimmings? Shouldn't I be allowed to buy and own one right off the assembly line?

The real truth is, even the first amendment has some infringements; the oft-referenced "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" for example. Or speech that leads to the harm of another.

So we don't need to change the 2nd amendment at all. The Supreme Court has re-interpreted the amendments various times before, and we already ban people from owning certain arms. So banning handguns is no big deal, and the courts have a ton of precedent for it.

And we obviously need to do some banning and more gun regulation, since the US has far more gun death and violence than the vast majority of other civilized countries. The only reasons to own one are sporting and hunting, so we can narrow the law down to just those two aspects, and heavily regulate them.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

From a constitutional standpoint there's no difference. The government can define was are and aren't the appropriate firearms for people to own, and has done so in the past. This reinstated restriction may be something you disagree with, but it is not right to call it unconstitutional.

Okay, DQ I took the time this morning (2 hours) to make this post as informational and concise as possible to answer your queries.

Under our constitution the Federal government cannot define what are and are not protected arms (they don't have that power outside of amending the constitution).
The Supreme Court judges the statutory laws based on the US constitution.
They are supposed to base any decision of arms using the meaning of the 2nd amendment as illustrated by the notes, congressional hearings, and speeches given by the founding fathers themselves.
The SCOTUS has judged that the 2nd amendment is an individual rather than collective right in DC vs. Heller, so they essentially ended the practice of banning arms.
They did this (according to Scalia) to protect law abiding citizens.
Owning firearms (heck any arms) in the United States is not a privilege, we are not subjects to a king or monarch. Under our system the government is our servant not the other way around.
That is the primary difference between the US and many other countries, especially the Common Wealth countries and Japan.
We've no King, or Emperor, thus our rights are considered to be natural in that we have them from birth, not as a result of society or government (even democratic government).
That is not my opinion, that was the opinion of the founding fathers.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Liberty is synonymous with "Free State" and the 2nd amendment states the following:

A well-regulated [trained] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Thus we the citizens of the US are free people in the sense that we have inalienable rights that are protected by the constitution.
Among those rights is the right to keep and bear arms since all citizens are part of the militia (well able bodied males, ages 17-45 at the very least).

Isn't making a firearm only legal for a small number of licensors almost the same as banning it? Because you're still preventing the vast majority of people from ever owning it.

First off the law doesn't do that. The NFA of 1934 is still open to anyone who pays the $200.00 tax and is elligible. As I have already stated, the amending of that law is an infringement that should be challenged in court.
Gatling guns are legal as are fully functional cannons.

Then why can't civilians buy machine guns, bazookas, bombs, grenades, missiles, rocket launchers or tanks? Surely all those weapons also pass that litmus test?

I already showed you that citizens in the US can purchase machine guns, and some destructive devices. However, the "litmus test" set up by Miller vs. US would not allow for missiles, rocket launchers, or bombs since those are useless for putting down an insurrection or upholding the laws of the union. They would be useful for repeling an invasion.

None of those cases address wither or not a certain class of weapon can be banned. They just say you have the right to keep a weapon, but none of them say you have the right to keep any weapon. As far as I'm aware, the average person cannot buy a machine gun for the purposes of self defence. How is this any different?

You didn't read what I posted, or you're confusing me with KYP.
Again I'll re-post the US vs. Miller decision:

“…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense…”

The Supreme Court is stating in Miller that a double-barrel hunting shotgun is taxable because it is not a military weapon in common use
Here is a picture of the same kind of weapon that Miller had in his possession before he died (he was a bootlegger):

Savage Model 411 "Coach" shotgun in 12 gauge.





That was deemed taxable under the NFA of 1934, but not bannable.
Anyone who passes a background check (FBI detailed check, not the instant check system) can still buy one today.
But the Supreme Court deemed that weapon was not a military weapon useful to the militia.
In that case they declared that the militia was the abled bodied citizenry of the US and not the National Guard.
So yes, the SCOTUS did declare what weapons are not bannable and what weapons are.
Military and Paramilitary style rifles are not, hunting and sporting weapons are.
You must understand, the founders of this country modeled the militia after the Athenian model.

What's that got to do with what I said? Your rights can be annulled. You do not have an unconditional right to free speech, or to bear arms. You can't use free speech to shout fire in a crouded building. A similar allegory could be made regarding guns.

No, in the US rights are not nullifiable. In the US we do have the right to say any damn thing we want, but there are consequences if we abuse that right. I can yell fire in a crowded theater, but if someone gets hurt I am responsible for it. Same thing with the 2nd amendment, I have the inalienable right to own any military style weapon, but if I were to take my Class III machine gun out and murder a bunch of people with it, I am responsible and deserve the death penalty for it.
So this "oh you don't have an unconditional right to free speech" is a strawman argument when applied to the United States.

The origin of that "argument" came from Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919), when the Supreme Court explored the limits of First Amendment protection of free speech.
That decision was amended in Bradenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969). In Bradenburg, the Court held a person could not be punished for using offensive or infammatory language, but only by inciting "imminent lawless action," with "lawlessness" being a likely outcome of the speech.

When applied to the 2nd amendment, the simple ownership of a machine gun, or paramilitary weapon is not a cause of "imminent lawless action" especially when combined with proper militia training in the CMP (which is why I want that to become mandatory, and have written both my senators about it, and all reps).
Thus, the 2nd amendment does not protect the use of arms for lawless purposes (robbery, murder, rape, theft, or other criminal enterprise).
Therefore, in the context of gun control a gun control law like the Brady Law is constitutional so long as it doesn't outlaw or ban any weapons, but only attempts to prevent the lawless use of arms.
Whereas the 1994 assault weapon ban was clearly unconstitutional since it was not intended to prevent lawlessness, it was intended to disarm the law abiding popluation.
Punishing the people who obey the laws is counterproductive to preventing lawless actions. Especially when your country is innundated with MS-13, Crip, and Blood gangs who can (and do) smuggle weapons across the US/Mexican border both into and out of the United States.
Heck even Navy Seals are getting caught selling real assault rifles from Iraq to Mexican Drug gangs.

As for Israel. I wouldn't model your gun policies on a state that is in a perpetual guerrilla war. Furthermore, in Israel you cannot legally keep a gun unless you live in a dangerous area (IE the settlements). You certainly aren't allowed to own a gun in Tel Aviv.

Unless you are a member of the IDF or a reserve member of the IDF. I know an Israeli gentleman whom I used to work for at his gunshop as the gunsmith. He was very clear on what the Israeli laws were for and who they restricted, basically just the Palistinians and anyone thought to be simpathetic to them.
Make no mistake about the prejudice of the Israeli government. I'm sympathetic to their cause, but I'm not going to sugar coat their attitude towards the Palistinians.
As the article you linked to clearly states:

Israeli law does not guarantee the right to bear arms as the US Constitution does.

They have no 2nd amendment, and thus are subject to the whims of the Israeli government with regard to owning arms. The US is unique in that it does have a garauntee. Therefore, by combining the Israeli policy with the 2nd amendment, we get a cheap, affordable, and useful defense of schools via CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit holders being allowed to carry in schools by repealing the Gun Free Zone Act of 1995.
It won't stop all of the deaths in an attack, but it has a much better chance of lessening the damage than any ban will.

I live in a state with an extensive history of paramilitary activity. They usually end out creating totalitarian states, not stopping them. Like these guys.

But the IRA was trying to free Ireland from England, that's not the same situation as what is happening in the US. We don't have any large scale paramilitary groups trying to overthrow the government (yet). The few we do have are placated by the fact that they can have a paramilitary style weapon, go plink at a range with it, and bitch about the government all they want. If the US government crosses the line of the 2nd amendment however, well, then we have a problem as this NY state Mayor pointed out a few days ago.

I share his sentiments. Especially when we remember why Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah building in the 1990s. It was due to the 1994 assault weapon ban, the Waco Massacre by the ATF, and the Ruby Ridge murders by federal agents, by his own admission. He was one person who did a lot of damage, now imagine millions of people pissed off enough to do that.
Not something I want to see, nor have to live with while its going on.
No gun control law is worth that level of violence.

Originally Posted by Kyero Fox

I would like them to stop getting on Video Games, Make it so store workers can refuse to sell to a older person who is buying a game for their kid. Otherwise they can get fired by the "Boss"

If a kid comes in and a older person. pay attention and if they are trying to buy them a game rated out of their age range, Refuse to sell it to them.

I wish they'd get off that subject as well.
Maybe rated "M" games should have a warning label added to tell idiot parents not to buy their kid the game if he's on psychotropic anti-depressants or has mental issues?
It wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza's obession with "Call of Duty 4" but not much would have stopped Lanza except either his mother committing him, and/or an armed presence at that school.
That's about all.

[Vexx]

I'll just note that the Bill of Rights doesn't define what "rights" a citizen has. Rights are intrinsic. What it defines are the limitations on any government to infringe on those natural rights. That may *sound* subtle but it is quite different.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

adding to what lost said,



Heh, if the third largest country in the world is "not that large", what would you consider to be large? especially when the first and second (russia and canada) both have substantial amount of uninhabitable land.

As for police response time, it varies GREATLY depending on where you live. Remember, police departments in the US is largely a local affair - there is no central policing authority, the vast majority of the work is handled(and funded) on the city/county level by they're own department, or if they don't have one (and yes, many cities DONT have police dept.), by the county sheriff. You can have response times that ranges from 5-10min, to 40, 50min, and sometimes even longer. For some it'll be due to an overextended or incompetently managed department, in some cases it'll be because of geographic limitations.

So... Your response to "the cops are not able to help me" is "I need to buy a gun" rather than "the police needs more funding"?

And let me repeat the question; if the GOP cares so much about using the military to protect the citizens from external threats, why can't the same funding dedication go through the police force?

It is okay to spend money on fighting people over seas, but it isn't okay to fight criminal elements inside the country?

If you NEED guns to defend yourself from criminals, you need better police period.