General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by 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.

Kaijo, these issues you're raising has been talked about and discussed already, as a matter of fact right on the top of this page (well, last page now), please actually take the time to read through those, instead of rehashing old arguments that does little more than resetting the whole discussion again. At the same time, it'll also help if you go and actually read up on laws and SCOTUS cases such as the NFA, US v Miller, DC v Heller, and McDonald v Chicago, so you can discuss the issue with facts rather than your presumptions.

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 if you had read DC v. Heller, you would've seen how the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

And just like I told Don earlier, the logic you're using here is shaky at best. If you can claim that the right is not infringed even if you ban most of it (all handguns, semi auto rifles, what have you), since certain items (automatic weapons etc.) is already banned. What then is the difference than if one day the government decides to ban most forms of free speech, and insists that it's ok since some form of speech was already prohibited? legal precedents, beware of them.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

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.

Spare me the grandstanding and strawman, I would much prefer if you go learn a bit on the challenges facing police in the US and how they're structured and why, if you really want to discuss the subject. The military is the jurisdiction of the federal government, while law enforcement is almost exclusively the jurisdiction of the state and local government. The two are governed by entirely different authorities and operate under completely different budgetary source and authority. I also don't know why you're trying to drag the political parties into the debate, other than as yet another straw man. If you're hoping it'd make me jump to the defense of the GOP, then you'll be sadly disappointed.

You can keep making your assertion as much as you want, but all it does is showing how little you know about the issue (and how little you've bothered to read or understand my previous response).

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

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.

Because then you have a militarized state, with possible martial law enstated. Personally I'd rather deal with a civilian peace office than a MP, Civilian law is lot more flexible than the UCMJ! Even for civilians living on base!
Kaijo's: why stop there? Get a Battieship! You can by definition buy said items, BUT first you must posses the proper license to have say an RPG or Stinger.
I always wanted my own MP40 sub-machine gun like the Wermacht used, but I don't have $5-15,000 burning a hole in my pocket.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

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.

Oh Vallen I wish it were that easy and I mean that, I'm not being snarky.
Alas, the Supreme court has ruled the police have no obligation to protect us here in the US.The court case most cited is Castle Rock vs. Gonzales.

We are responsible for our own protection which is why we do not have the "right" to be safe from violence.
We have the duty to arm ourselves and protect ourselves from violence in the United States.

[Kaijo]

I'm only saying they have precedent for it. And I suggest you look at "Free speech" zones and other areas where the government has already encroached on Civil liberties. For instance, the 100-mile "constitution free" zone next to our borders. The SCOTUS is a political body, no matter how much they may want to project impartiality, or pure constitutionalism. If they wanted to rule tomorrow to ban most guns and heavily regulate the rest, they will do it... and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. It doesn't matter what you believe.

So I'm only telling you the reality of what could happen. We can whine all day that it wouldn't be fair or right or whatever. It still wouldn't change the fact of a SCOTUS ruling.

Listen, kyp, I want to explain something to you. I come about to my point of view, by the evidence of reality all around us. What happens in other countries, what happens here, and the numbers and data that pop up. You can actually change my mind, if you provide me with other evidence that actually contradicts what we have now, and does so in a convincing manner as to show why the initial data was so flawed.

My mind can be changed.

So, I ask you... what would change your mind? What evidence would someone have to show you, that would change your mind and make you think that maybe, just maybe guns should be banned? Or at least heavily regulated?

Or perhaps what would change your mind to at least acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, our prevalent gun culture is doing more harm than good?

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Kaijo's: why stop there? Get a Battieship! You can by definition buy said items, BUT first you must posses the proper license to have say an RPG or Stinger.
I always wanted my own MP40 sub-machine gun like the Wermacht used, but I don't have $5-15,000 burning a hole in my pocket.

You know, good point. I actually want a bunch of sarin gas. I consider it an arm, a weapon, that I can use to defend myself and my family. I simply rig it to flood my house on command, keep gas masks on hand, so that if an intruder breaks in, I can release the gas! The fact that I can't legally own it, is against the 2nd amendment! I want my right to keep and bear arms!

[Kyuu]

Just a bit of humor here:

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by Kaijo

So, I ask you... what would change your mind? What evidence would someone have to show you, that would change your mind and make you think that maybe, just maybe guns should be banned? Or at least heavily regulated?

In terms of fire power and capability -- what the military and police have -- ordinary civilians should not have. That should be the basic principle towards gun regulation.

Anyone who believes gun ownership is a deterrence to government intervention needs to think again AND/OR advocate increased Rights to the Second Amendment, demanding market access towards more military weaponry. Obviously, the latter would not make sense for blatantly and redundantly obvious reasons.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I'm only saying they have precedent for it. And I suggest you look at "Free speech" zones and other areas where the government has already encroached on Civil liberties. For instance, the 100-mile "constitution free" zone next to our borders.

"Free Speech Zones" have already been declared unconstitutional by some lower courts. The SCOTUS has yet to rule on them.

As for the so called "constitution free zones" the ACLU is challenging that as we post here, and rightfully so.There is no such thing as a constitution free area in the United States outside of the 10-square mile area of DC and even that is questionable.
George Bush Jr. did a lot of damage to the constitution, I'll grant you that, but Obama is following in his footsteps.

The SCOTUS is a political body, no matter how much they may want to project impartiality, or pure constitutionalism. If they wanted to rule tomorrow to ban most guns and heavily regulate the rest, they will do it... and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. It doesn't matter what you believe.

You just defined the reason for the 2nd amendment.

Listen, kyp, I want to explain something to you. I come about to my point of view, by the evidence of reality all around us. What happens in other countries, what happens here, and the numbers and data that pop up. You can actually change my mind, if you provide me with other evidence that actually contradicts what we have now, and does so in a convincing manner as to show why the initial data was so flawed.

My mind can be changed.

Let's see if facts can change your mind.

I think it's time to analyze the comparisons being thrown around about the US verses Canada, the UK, and Australia.
These cherry picked nations used by gun-control advocates do not compare well with the United States when dealing with the issue of murder and/or violent crimes.
Omitting the use of the propaganda term "gun crime" one can see that actual violent crime in the US is not much different than Europe.
However, let us examine first the comparisons of the UK, Canada and Australia with the US using population parity rather than simply Per Capita, since Per Capita is misleading if the populations of the countries being compared aren't even remotely similar.
To gain this equivalency we must compare states of the US to these countries since the populations of these countries are five-twenty times smaller than that of the US.
The violent crime rate of countries like Canada and Australia are not lower than equivalent US states.
The idea that the US should be compared to the UK, Australia, or Canada as a whole is ludicrous, and disingenuous.
The UK only has a population of 63,000,000 people.
The US has 312,000,000, nearly five times more than the UK.
Total violent crime in the US (2010 Census figures) was 1,318,000.
Total violent crime in the UK (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2010) was 962,877 (omitting property crimes that may have involved a weapon).
So the UK has nearly the violent crime of the US, yet 1/5th its population.
A better comparison would be to take the three largest states by population (for density) of California, Texas, and New York state (78,000,000 people).
They had a total violent crime rate of 371,854 (using 2010 Census data).
Thus the UK's violent crime is nearly triple (2.6 times more) that of those states combined.
All of those states have less strict gun laws and more gun owners than the UK, with Texas having nearly no gun laws in comparison to the UK.
The United States has overall more gun owners than the UK has citizenry at 80,000,000+ known gun owners in the United States.
Thus it is to be expected that a country with five times the population should have a significant (at least 5 times or more) the homicide of the UK.
To contrast this, let us take a country like Russia.
Russia has a population of 141,000,000 with a total number of gun owners at 12,000,000 (approx) yet they have 5 times the violent crime (13,100 homicides alone) we have (source Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs report 2010).

As for comparisons of the US with Canada and Australia, the numbers speak for themselves.
Canada's population is 34,000,000.
Australia’s is only 23,000,000.
California alone has 37,000,000 people in it, and even it's gun control laws are less strict than in those nations.
California had 161,133 violent crimes last year (2011) according to the FBI crime stats.
While Canada had 437,000 violent incidents last year (according to StatsCan 2010 report).
Guess which place is safer?
If we're talking violent crime, California.

The population of Texas is only 25,000,000 people, which makes it comparable to Australia.
In Texas, they have virtually NO gun laws compared to Australia,
Yet the total number of violent crimes in Texas was 113,231.
In Australia their total number of violent crimes were 117,873 in 2011.
While Texas does have more murders than Australia, the numbers are so close as to be insignificant in so far as the availability of firearms having any measurable effect.
One can stake the claim that gun ownership didn't do anything to avert these murders, and that is what many (if not most) peer-review studies (like JAMA's) have concluded over the years.
However, depriving US citizens of their right to keep and bear arms for laws that do nothing either way, is clearly an infringement of their inalienable rights and bad policy.

If we compare the US murder rate to Europe as a whole, we find something rather interesting (EU crime statistics 2010).

Land Mass:
Europe- 10,180,000 Sq/KM
US- 9,826,675 Sq/KM

Population:
Europe- 836,398,000
US- 309,496,000

Murder Rate:
Europe- 4.83 per 100,000
US- 4.58 per 100,000

Gun Ownership:
Europe- 12,000 per 100,000
US- 90,000 per 100,000

Europe's murder rate of 4.83 per 100,000 is higher than that of the United States' 4.58 per 100,000, but has only 14% the civilian gun ownership of the U.S.
Conversely, the U.S. has 7.33 times the civilian gun ownership of Europe, but a lower murder rate.

You know, good point. I actually want a bunch of sarin gas. I consider it an arm, a weapon, that I can use to defend myself and my family. I simply rig it to flood my house on command, keep gas masks on hand, so that if an intruder breaks in, I can release the gas! The fact that I can't legally own it, is against the 2nd amendment! I want my right to keep and bear arms!

Sarin Gas doesn't fit the mission of the militia.
You can't use it to repel an invasion (well you could, but the risk to your own people is great).
Certainly cannot use it to put down an insurrection.
Certainly cannot use it to uphold the laws of the union.
Thus it is not protected by the 2nd amendment.
Nuclear weapons, same thing.
Chemical weapons, same thing.
Biological weapons, same thing.
Heavy ordinance (cruise missiles, bombs, tanks, attack helicopters), same thing.
Military small arms, that is a different story entirely.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I'm only saying they have precedent for it.

sigh, the important part is in the detail, a ban on rocket launchers is certainly not the same as a ban on pistols, the SCOTUS isn't made out of robots and AIs, and their response not made out of 0s and 1s. They can tell the distinction between what's reasonable or not.

And I suggest you look at "Free speech" zones and other areas where the government has already encroached on Civil liberties.

So the loss of liberty at one area means that we all should throw in our towel and and say "fk it, take the rest away"?

If they wanted to rule tomorrow to ban most guns and heavily regulate the rest, they will do it... and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. It doesn't matter what you believe.

So I'm only telling you the reality of what could happen. We can whine all day that it wouldn't be fair or right or whatever. It still wouldn't change the fact of a SCOTUS ruling.

Actually I can, so can anyone else - through legislative action. SCOTUS isn't the supreme authority in the land, it's just one of three branches in the government.

Listen, kyp, I want to explain something to you. I come about to my point of view, by the evidence of reality all around us. What happens in other countries, what happens here, and the numbers and data that pop up. You can actually change my mind, if you provide me with other evidence that actually contradicts what we have now, and does so in a convincing manner as to show why the initial data was so flawed.

I have no interest in changing your mind. For all the back and forth we've had, I've never claimed that your viewpoint is wrong. All I've been doing is pointing out what I see is the flaws in your reasoning and arguments. It is my opinion that personal views on subjects like this can't really be "wrong" per se (the legal arguments on the other hand, is much less subjective ). Despite what you may think, I'm actually perfectly fine with people who thinks guns should be banned, that's their own prerogative. What I do take issue with is if they start justifying their views to others with faulty reasoning and factually incorrect information.

As for the specifics, I think it'll be best if you go back and read through our posts again and find what you see as sticking points with my arguments, and we can go from there.

So, I ask you... what would change your mind? What evidence would someone have to show you, that would change your mind and make you think that maybe, just maybe guns should be banned? Or at least heavily regulated?

Hmm, the first things that come to mind would be clear, overwhelming, indisputable proof that private gun ownership is extremely detrimental to society, and a valid method of self defense to replace it.

Though there's really no getting around the keep government in check part that I can see, but then I don't feel as strongly about it as some others for now.

Or perhaps what would change your mind to at least acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, our prevalent gun culture is doing more harm than good?

The possibility is there, but as far as I'm concerned, it's so intertwined with so many other factors that anyone telling you that they know 100% what it is would IMO be blowing smoke up their behind.

Second, and I think this is the more important part. Even if you can show that private gun ownership leads to more lives lost than saved (which IMO would be quite impossible), then I'd still question the need for the type of ban you're seeking.

I've mentioned this in earlier posts, as tragic as lives lost from misuse of firearms are, I don't consider those lives any more or less important than lives lost through other means. I've listed out some easily found figures, but I'll put them here again:

75,000 per year from alcohol
300,000 per year from obesity
443,000 per year from cigarettes.

I'll use the higher number for gun deaths here, which hovers around 30,000 per year and includes suicides and such, since these other three also have a substantial component of self-infliction.

Compared to those three, firearms actually have legitimate uses - hunting, sporting, self-defense, and is also explicitly protected under the Constitution. So I ask you this - where is the outrage and the drive to ban alcohol, unhealthy food, and smoking? they certainly have much less practical use than guns, and together kills nearly 30 times more people than guns do every year.

And no, I'm not actually advocating banning those things, but rather to illustrate a point.

Originally Posted by Kyuu

In terms of fire power and capability -- what the military and police have -- ordinary civilians should not have. That should be the basic principle towards gun regulation.

here's a link to an older post explaining why your idea isn't possible:

http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...20#post4518620

basically, you're asking for a car that's not black in a world filled with nothing but Model Ts

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

"Free Speech Zones" have already been declared unconstitutional by some lower courts. The SCOTUS has yet to rule on them.

As for the so called "constitution free zones" the ACLU is challenging that as we post here, and rightfully so.There is no such thing as a constitution free area in the United States outside of the 10-square mile area of DC and even that is questionable.
George Bush Jr. did a lot of damage to the constitution, I'll grant you that, but Obama is following in his footsteps.

And as I said, none of that matters if the SCOTUS rules in favor of free-speech zones and/or constitution-free zones. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the constitution can be thrown out at the border, so that border guards can search and seize without warrants, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You have no rights at the border, because the SCOTUS ruled that a country has the right to secure it's borders in any way possible.

You just defined the reason for the 2nd amendment.

I'll just say, that I have yet to be presented with any evidence or argument, that the citizens having guns will do anything but Jack and Shit if the president orders the military to invade our towns to suppress dissent. If he decides to order a city bombed, or order a drone strike on US soil. Obama recently signed a defense bill that allows American citizens to be seized and imprisoned without limit, and without any due process.

Is the second amendment doing anything to prevent that? I don't see it. Our rights will slip away, one-by-one, and those will guns will only act when when they come for your guns. But by then, it will be too late anyway. I'd rather people be involved.

And as I pointed out earlier, a computer nerd will be a more valuable weapon than any gun, since they can take control of drones and disable a lot of the electronic warfare the US government depends on. ^_~

[quote]Let's see if facts can change your mind.

I think it's time to analyze the comparisons being thrown around about the US verses Canada, the UK, and Australia.

However, let us examine first the comparisons of the UK, Canada and Australia with the US using population parity rather than simply Per Capita, since Per Capita is misleading if the populations of the countries being compared aren't even remotely similar.

Gonna stop you right there. The rest of the world, and statisticians use Per Capita for a damn good reason: because it is the best equivalency we have. You can't just toss it out on a whim. There are many more things compared between countries other than just gun violence. If you throw out Per Capita, then you throw out GDP.... something the rest of the world relies on for damn good reasons.

As for comparisons of the US with Canada and Australia, the numbers speak for themselves.
Canada's population is 34,000,000.
Australia’s is only 23,000,000.
California alone has 37,000,000 people in it, and even it's gun control laws are less strict than in those nations.
California had 161,133 violent crimes last year (2011) according to the FBI crime stats.
While Canada had 437,000 violent incidents last year (according to StatsCan 2010 report).
Guess which place is safer?
If we're talking violent crime, California.

Interesting use of California here, since California is the only state that still has the assault weapons ban, and thus would be a strong argument in favor of continuing to use it. Probably not the argument you want to make.

The population of Texas is only 25,000,000 people, which makes it comparable to Australia.
In Texas, they have virtually NO gun laws compared to Australia,
Yet the total number of violent crimes in Texas was 113,231.
In Australia their total number of violent crimes were 117,873 in 2011.
While Texas does have more murders than Australia, the numbers are so close as to be insignificant in so far as the availability of firearms having any measurable effect.

I notice you seem to like to use "violent crime." That's not what this entire argument is about. Sure, plenty of countries still have violent crime... but what you should be looking at is actual deaths. The comparison has been trotted out before, but a man in China stabbed 22 people the day a Newtown shooter killed 26 people. All 22 people in China lived. That was a violent crime, but I'm sure those families are glad their loved ones are still alive.

THAT is what this argument is about: death. As much as I love logic, there are a whole lot of people hyped on emotion who are looking for ways to save lives. If you ask those families of the dead children whether they prefer their children being shot and killed, or stabbed and living, you know what they would pick.

That is why I looked at firearm death rate by country. And why I also provided sources(just an fyi, you cited no sources, so regardless of anything else, I cannot accept your numbers). Wikipedia may not be the arbiter of truth; but they do base their information on what is verifiable. We can argue all day about whether wikipedia is right or wrong, but it is the wrong argument. It is the sources that wikipedia relies that we should address. If someone feels so strongly that the sources on wikipedia are incorrect or misleading, then they should take it upon themselves to edit them out using their well-reasoned arguments.

If someone can do that, then my viewpoint will change. There is my line. That is one way my mind can be changed.

Sarin Gas doesn't fit the mission of the militia.
You can't use it to repel an invasion (well you could, but the risk to your own people is great).
Certainly cannot use it to put down an insurrection.
Certainly cannot use it to uphold the laws of the union.
Thus it is not protected by the 2nd amendment.
Nuclear weapons, same thing.
Chemical weapons, same thing.
Biological weapons, same thing.
Heavy ordinance (cruise missiles, bombs, tanks, attack helicopters), same thing.
Military small arms, that is a different story entirely.

Ah, but that is not the argument. The argument is that the 2nd amendment forbids Congress from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms. It doesn't refer to any particular type of arm. That is the argument that gun rights people have consistently put forward, as to why they should be able to own any type of gun they want. It is being sold to us as a binary choice: either we have arms, or we don't.

Again, looking at the past few pages of posts, the argument is that if we want to ban any arms, we first need to revise the 2nd amendment.

Also note that if we are going to go down your route, we have to consider that at the time of writing, military arms was pretty much confined to muskets, cannons, bayonets, and ships. Perhaps some form of explosives, too. So the equipment that citizens could possess, were equal in individual strength to what the military would possess. If we truly want to go by what the founding fathers believed at the time, then the average citizen should be able to possess combat strength equal to what a military person could have.

After all, a militia armed with just handguns, isn't much good against *any* modern military force. If Canada or Mexico decided to invade with their tanks and planes, the militia such as you envision, would barely be a speedbump. In short, a militia of handguns, shotguns, and rifles, is insufficient to the task of defending a free state from invasion. So, do you want it to be up to the task? Or not? Make your choice.

Oh, by the way, you may to consult to Saddam Hussein and the Kurds as to how well sarin gas worked to tamp down an insurrection. Because, frankly, if a city is rebelling, dropping gas or a nuke on the city is the quickest way to quell the dissent.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

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?

My main point is that the constitution needs to be a living document, rather then a dead one. The writers of the constitution in Ireland put down all kinds of ridiculous things, like giving the Roman Catholic Church special privileges, saying a woman's place was in the home, banning contraception... But since then our constitution has been amended dozens of times, and is a much stronger document for it. Besides the bill of rights, the US constitution has only been amended a handful of times.

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?

From my experience, the first things Mobs and Paramilitaries do is get rid of Habeas Corpus, as they often make themselves Judge, Jury and Executioner. Just read about, say, Iran (which is a state where a paramilitary overthrew the government, and has suffered immeasurably for it).

Originally Posted by kyp275

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.

The US is large, but most people live in fairly densely packed Urban areas, that are not so different from any city in Europe or Asia, so in most cases, police response times have no reason to be slow.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

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.

What about the Firearm Owners Protection Act? You can still buy one of the grandfathered machine guns, but not any machine gun that was manufactured after 1986.

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.

I'm pretty sure that missiles, rocket launchers and bombs would be pretty useful for putting down an insurrection, especially if that insurrection is armed to the teeth. Likewise, I'd say Nerve Gas would be useful in putting down an insurrection, or repelling an invasion.

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.

The Supreme Court clearly has a pretty wide mandate to define whether or not a weapon is useful to a militia. I could see a hunting rifle still being of use to a militia, and likewise a military rifle still being of use in hunting. How can you define whether a gun is intended for militia use or hunting use? There's no clear cutoff between the two.

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.

That argument is splitting hairs. Practically speaking you can be arrested for shouting fire in a theater. Under the same logic, you could be arrested if your ownership of a gun endangered another person, or caused them injury.

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.

How is it any different from the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which banned Machine Guns?

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.

Yes, but they can only keep one handgun, which would likely infuriate most gun rights advocate.

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.

That's a crude understanding of the situation. There was not simply the IRA. There was also all the Unionist Paramilitaries. The Unionist paramilitaries, while their stated goals was to "defend the values of Ulster protestants from Irish papism and republicanism" (hence having names like the Ulster Defense Association), while in reality they were armed thugs set on attacking and intimidating innocent civilians in the Catholic Community. And the Republican paramilitaries were little better, while ostensibly defending catholic civil rights protestors, it quickly devolved into a guerilla campaign that targeted innocent Unionists and British Citizens. And if the IRA had "won", I have little doubt that they would have attempted to form a state of a most bigoted and persecuting type, that would have marginalised the rights of the protestant majority in Northern Ireland. As it is, both the IRA and Ulster paramilitaries have morphed into Ireland's most powerful Organised Crime groups. The barrier between paramilitaries and criminals is a very porous one.

As far as I can see, in the modern era every government that's been established by a paramilitaries has been of the most tyrannical kind. In fact, almost all the worst tyrannical governments in existence today were all established by paramilitary organisations, like:
Iran
Taliban in Afghanistan
Cuba
Cambodia
Numerous Sub-Saharan African governments
Maoist China

There have been almost no cases where democratic governments legislated their way into tyranny. The only (obvious) instances are Fascist Italy and Germany, and in both cases it was only achieved through intimidation by the Fascist Party's Paramilitary wing (In Italy they simply marched on the capital and seized it, in Germany they engaged in a sustained effort to undermine the government's institutions from the outside, in fact the Nazis loosened gun control laws, in order to facilitate the arming of it's paramilitary wing). In neither case did the fascists ever actually win a majority in an election (furthermore, in both countries the loss of liberty was facilitated by the mass disillusionment with democracy that occurred after WW1).

If tyranny comes to United States, it will most likely come at the end of a paramilitaries gun. I think it's shortsighted to regard the second amendment as a good defense against tyranny. History indicated otherwise.

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.

I share the fear, but I don't believe we should obey the will of terrorists when devising our laws. Because that's what those people are.

The line between paramilitaries and terrorists, like with criminals, is highly porous.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I'll just say, that I have yet to be presented with any evidence or argument, that the citizens having guns will do anything but Jack and Shit if the president orders the military to invade our towns to suppress dissent. If he decides to order a city bombed, or order a drone strike on US soil. Obama recently signed a defense bill that allows American citizens to be seized and imprisoned without limit, and without any due process.

Actually I had, I'm just not sure if you ever even read it. Take a look at Syria, what did you think the rebels there started with?

And again, stop talking about the US military as some monolithic entity that doesn't have a mind of its own. If the US ever becomes so fractured to the point where armed suppression by the standing military becomes necessary, you'll almost certainly see a split in the military itself as well.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

My main point is that the constitution needs to be a living document, rather then a dead one. The writers of the constitution in Ireland put down all kinds of ridiculous things, like giving the Roman Catholic Church special privileges, saying a woman's place was in the home, banning contraception... But since then our constitution has been amended dozens of times, and is a much stronger document for it. Besides the bill of rights, the US constitution has only been amended a handful of times.

Well, our Constitution certainly doesn't have those kind of ridiculous provisions in there The US Constitution serves primarily as overarching guiding principles, as opposed to the more mundane every day law, which is what you guys apparently did. The Constitution SHOULD be hard to change, protection of basic rights shouldn't be something easily taken away.

The US is large, but most people live in fairly densely packed Urban areas, that are not so different from any city in Europe or Asia, so in most cases, police response times have no reason to be slow.

Only if the only factor you're considering is geographic distance. Really, come over to Detroit, call a cop for help and see how long before they get to you. The same goes for other metropolitan areas - the station may be closer to you, but there is a hell of a lot more crap going on.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by kyp275

sigh, the important part is in the detail, a ban on rocket launchers is certainly not the same as a ban on pistols, the SCOTUS isn't made out of robots and AIs, and their response not made out of 0s and 1s. They can tell the distinction between what's reasonable or not.

So the loss of liberty at one area means that we all should throw in our towel and and say "fk it, take the rest away"?

Actually I can, so can anyone else - through legislative action. SCOTUS isn't the supreme authority in the land, it's just one of three branches in the government.

And how well is that working for you? After all, Congress has banned you from possessing certain types of arms already. And SCOTUS hasn't seen fit to change it.

As I said, it does not matter what you or I believe or want. SCOTUS will rule however they wish, and there is nothing you or I can do about it. Go ahead, though; write your congressmen. We still have the Patriot Act on the books, despite letter writings. We still have warrentless wiretaps, and the telecoms were given immunity from the government for helping to spy on American people.

That's reality.

I have no interest in changing your mind. For all the back and forth we've had, I've never claimed that your viewpoint is wrong. All I've been doing is pointing out what I see is the flaws in your reasoning and arguments.

And as I said, I base my beliefs off hard evidence and data. Your "arguments" mean nothing without evidence and hard data to back them up. So far, you have had little to no authoritative sources to back them up. Just your feelings. Your welcome to have those feelings, just know that I prefer hard evidence and data. Other people can then choose whether to believe feelings or data.

Hmm, the first things that come to mind would be clear, overwhelming, indisputable proof that private gun ownership is extremely detrimental to society, and a valid method of self defense to replace it.

I've actually decided to procure a sonic weapon and/or a blinding weapon. At sufficient levels, it is very good about providing protection without killing, and thus fulfill the self-defense angle. Of course, I've pointed out many options besides these before. But people want guns, even though a blinding weapon would be more effective at providing self-defense. There is no need to aim and hope you hit, with a blinding or sonic weapon. You just point in the general direct and hit the button.

Though there's really no getting around the keep government in check part that I can see, but then I don't feel as strongly about it as some others for now.

I'd agree with you on wanting to keep the government in check. Unfortunately, I don't see guns doing that. All I get is a vague "guns will kep the government in check!" without actually saying how that would be possible. As I mentioned, if the military comes knocking because the president has turned into a dictator/tyrant, they can wipe out cities and rule through fear easily enough.

The possibility is there, but as far as I'm concerned, it's so intertwined with so many other factors that anyone telling you that they know 100% what it is would IMO be blowing smoke up their behind.

Second, and I think this is the more important part. Even if you can show that private gun ownership leads to more lives lost than saved (which IMO would be quite impossible), then I'd still question the need for the type of ban you're seeking.

Ah, I see. Your mindset is such that you believe it is impossible, from the outset, to prove that guns take more lives then they save. So, in other words, there is no evidence that would sway you.

Well, we're done here, then. We'll just leave things like this. You can feel free to ignore what evidence or data or sources I bring up, and continue to go with your gut feelings about the way things should be, rather than how they are. And I'll simply smile and nod at your arguments and simply move on past them.

And we'll let everyone else decide what they'd rather go with: reality or feelings.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Actually I had, I'm just not sure if you ever even read it. Take a look at Syria, what did you think the rebels there started with?

And I'll counter with Iraq and Libya, which couldn't do anything without our help. Fat lot of good their guns did. In fact, they had better hardware then we do! They had decent explosives, RPG's, and AK-47's... which have a semi-auto and full-auto settings.

Oh, and you should take a closer look at Syria... the rebels are actually barely holding anything, and have been constantly asking for help, because they don't have near enough guns or food. And it was only thanks to some European countries providing them with limited Surface-to-Air missiles, that they were able to even shoot down a couple of helicopters. Assad's strategy has been to destroy the food supplies, and starve the rebels, and there is still a good chance it may happen. Already, many in Syria are starving, and are fleeing the country to find food. If he starves them out, he wins.

But even if I give you Syria, it is still 2 to 1. So far, I think I see which side I'm going down. Oh, and if I take your argument about not being able to compare countries, then we can't compare Assad's shitty-ass military with the US's military.

And again, stop talking about the US military as some monolithic entity that doesn't have a mind of its own. If the US ever becomes so fractured to the point where armed suppression by the standing military becomes necessary, you'll almost certainly see a split in the military itself as well.

Absolutely right. In fact, I feel fairly confident that some measure of the US military will side with the populace. In which case, the war will be fought with military hardware... not your puny little shotgun. Your guns may provide some very small measure of use, but nothing that will stem the tide and protect us all.

In short, if a tyrant does decide to seize power in the US, whether or not we survive as a free people... depends on enough of the military siding with the populace. A hand-gun toting civilian who believes he's the next incarnation of Clint Eastwood, is gonna find himself painting the tread of a tank a nice pinkish-red.

So, the argument that guns in the hands of civilians will safeguard against tyranny, is patently false and absurd on the face of it. If you really want the citizens to be able to defend themselves against the government and the military, then we would need surface-to-air missiles at the very least... an arm that is banned from being owned by citizens... in violation of the 2nd amendment.

[Vexx]

The US is large, but most people live in fairly densely packed Urban areas, that are not so different from any city in Europe or Asia, so in most cases, police response times have no reason to be slow.

Yet, they are. Even in the most policed US cities, average response time ranged from 10 to 30 minutes (e.g. Atlanta 12 minutes, Detroit 24, etc). And that's when someone at 911 picks up the phone.

With the advent of cell-only people, it makes locating the call source more difficult and increases response time. It isn't unusual to watch a fire truck or police car going back and forth clearly trying to find an address.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Yet, they are. Even in the most policed US cities, average response time ranged from 10 to 30 minutes (e.g. Atlanta 12 minutes, Detroit 24, etc). And that's when someone at 911 picks up the phone.

With the advent of cell-only people, it makes locating the call source more difficult and increases response time. It isn't unusual to watch a fire truck or police car going back and forth clearly trying to find an address.

Yes, but my point is that the size of the country isn't a good excuse. The reasons are organizational in most cases, not due to physical limitations.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Yet, they are. Even in the most policed US cities, average response time ranged from 10 to 30 minutes (e.g. Atlanta 12 minutes, Detroit 24, etc). And that's when someone at 911 picks up the phone.

With the advent of cell-only people, it makes locating the call source more difficult and increases response time. It isn't unusual to watch a fire truck or police car going back and forth clearly trying to find an address.

A wait time of 30 minutes is not unusal. Police across the planet are always understaffed.

My point is that there is no reason to believe gun ownership is more important in America because of police response times. To say that a gun allows you to sleep at night, implies a lawless nation. The belief is either unfounded, or America is a far more horrible place to live in than I can ever imagine. I didn't have a reason to believe America has turned into the Fallout 3 game, until now.

[kyp275]

Oh FFS... are you doing this on purpose, or are you doing this on purpose?

Originally Posted by Kaijo

As I said, it does not matter what you or I believe or want. SCOTUS will rule however they wish, and there is nothing you or I can do about it. Go ahead, though; write your congressmen. We still have the Patriot Act on the books, despite letter writings. We still have warrentless wiretaps, and the telecoms were given immunity from the government for helping to spy on American people.

That's reality.

Then why are you yammering away about guns? you're obviously so cynical as to think we're already living under an authoritarian state. What, are you just going "well fk, I don't have any rights , those other fkers shouldn't have any either!"?

And as I said, I base my beliefs off hard evidence and data.

and I've pointed out the inherent flaws with your hard evidence and data, I don't give two shits if you're too lazy to do your own study.

Your "arguments" mean nothing without evidence and hard data to back them up. So far, you have had little to no authoritative sources to back them up. Just your feelings. Your welcome to have those feelings, just know that I prefer hard evidence and data. Other people can then choose whether to believe feelings or data.

You know what, this will be my last response to you. You obviously have not bothered to actually read what I wrote, instead parroting the same thing over and over and over again. Have you tried to look up and understand the limitations on crime statistic? maybe ask a law or CJ professor or a professional? look it up on the web? nope.

But you're perfectly happy with using articles that quote sources where the author of said source actually says "dude, don't take this seriously, i got these from wiki man!"

Pure gold.

I've actually decided to procure a sonic weapon and/or a blinding weapon. At sufficient levels, it is very good about providing protection without killing, and thus fulfill the self-defense angle. Of course, I've pointed out many options besides these before. But people want guns, even though a blinding weapon would be more effective at providing self-defense. There is no need to aim and hope you hit, with a blinding or sonic weapon. You just point in the general direct and hit the button.

Now you're a tactical expert too eh? I'm sure you must have a ton of field experiences How about this? you grab your sonic/blinding weapon, I'll take my rifle, and we'll see who walks out alive, and that's just one on one. When it's one vs. two or many? Good luck to you.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure my weapons light is plenty enough to keep you blinded.

Ah, I see. Your mindset is such that you believe it is impossible, from the outset, to prove that guns take more lives then they save. So, in other words, there is no evidence that would sway you.

What I'd like to say here would probably get me banned, so I'll just say that I've gone out of my way to be polite to you and try to engage in an honest discussion, which is far more than I've gotten in return.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

A wait time of 30 minutes is not unusal. Police across the planet are always understaffed.

My point is that there is no reason to believe gun ownership is more important in America because of police response times. To say that a gun allows you to sleep at night, implies a lawless nation. The belief is either unfounded, or America is a far more horrible place to live in than I can ever imagine. I didn't have a reason to believe America has turned into the Fallout 3 game, until now.

No, the difference here is that in the US you have the option to defend yourself in that 30 minute window should the need arises, whereas in other countries, you have the option of thinking "well fk, I hope they'll at least draw a nice chalk outline".

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Again, looking at the past few pages of posts, the argument is that if we want to ban any arms, we first need to revise the 2nd amendment.

The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is merely an expression of the political reality in regard to arms. A significant part of the population (large enough to block legislation) does not have enough confidence in government in general to trust it completely with their safety.

If you want to ban fire-arms, you are going to have to remove the perceived "need' for them, to establish a political majority to change the status quo and a willingness to respect that ban.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

No, the difference here is that in the US you have the option to defend yourself in that 30 minute window should the need arises, whereas in other countries, you have the option of thinking "well fk, I hope they'll at least draw a nice chalk outline".

First, I have serious doubts that I would have such need. Mostly because people who might harm me are not well armed. As long as I don't piss off organised crime, I am good.

2nd, no one does chalk outlines anymore. At some point you got to move away from TV shows and enter reality.

[monir]

Take a break Kyp and Kaijo. You two are having more and more difficulty at maintaining a civil tone. I don't want to resort to post deletion and/or bans.

[Kaijo]

This was posted before monir's post, so I decided to edit it. To respect the mods, I will make this my last semi-reply to what kyp keeps mentioning, and to clarify my position on the gun argument.

The argument is: "Guns are a safeguard against tyranny."
I point out: "By some aspects, we have travled down the road to tyranny, and guns haven't done anything to stop it. Also, if we get tyranny, your guns won't do squat."

I fail to see any argument, data, or source that can counteract that.

And to date, there has been no discrediting of the sources I have cited. Well, there were some grumblings about wikipedia in general, and one set of charts that used wikipedia's data. Unless I missed it, there was no discrediting of the multi-year UN studies, nor the FBI's own data, nor the peer-reviewed papers(such sad the highly respected International Journal of Epidemiology, and the New England journal of Medicine). If someone wants to discredit wikipedia's chart on firearm death rate by country, they'll need to discredit all 15 separate studies. And perhaps one can even knock some of them out on bias grounds. But if so, knock them out, and reform a chart based on what remains. Until then, I will believe what scientists have discovered using studies that actually looked at the rate of firearm death in each country.

But if we cannot accept any source or data point, then none of us can come to any conclusion on the reality of guns around us. We will forever talk past each other. We need to start with what reality is, with what is happening on the ground. Data is a starting point for me, and is where I draw my beliefs. If someone cannot point me to science or data in reality, then I must respectfully decline to believe it.

Originally Posted by Bri

The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is merely an expression of the political reality in regard to arms. A significant part of the population (large enough to block legislation) does not have enough confidence in government in general to trust it completely with their safety.

If you want to ban fire-arms, you are going to have to remove the perceived "need' for them, to establish a political majority to change the status quo and a willingness to respect that ban.

Actually, my argument is more along the lines that guns are pretty much a security blanket. Gives a good feeling to hold and believe that it will do you good, but in reality won't help much. If anything, that is the attitude that I would like to change. As above, I haven't seen any evidence to counter that notion, other than Syria, which isn't a clear-cut case, and is still playing out as we speak. If it gets help, then we may never know if the guns they possessed alone were enough. And if they don't get help, will they win on their own? Or will Assad succeed in crushing them? Mostly because it is unfinished, I don't rely on it as an accurate data point.