Gun Control V3.0

Please state what gun laws should be and shouldn't be.
Please state your reasons, and the information, that backs it.
PLEASE keep it polite

 

There shouldn't be any gun laws, IMO. It's like trying to prevent work by outlawing tools.

 

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Knives don't kill people, people kill people.

It's like that. If you ban guns, all you are doing is harming the good people.

Good person will not get a gun since it's against the law.

Bad person gets gun cause it's against the law.

Bad person hurts good person, bad person wins.

All banning any type of guns will do is in the end be an ANNOYANCE or a HURT to the GOOD people. Clinton's gun ban hasn't helped reduce ANY crime, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH. You know what? That 'assault weapons ban' as far as I know doesn't even ban an assault weapon, but semiautomatic weapons that Congress sort of randomly picked to be called that.

I have guns, I have a right to own guns, and that will never be changed as long as I am alive and can do anything about it. The only weapon restrictions I would ever consider are bazookas and such, but even then it's quite hard for the American public to have access to such things so it doesn't matter.

Clinton's gun ban is based on a lie. The more gun control laws you have, the worse crime is. Look at Washington, D.C.

 

People can own firearms as long as they're part of a militia and protecting their government from foreign invasion; the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says so.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state[not "state" in the sense that Texas is a state, "state" as in "government"; the United States was newly sovereign(well, by ten years), and they wanted to keep it that way], the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment says nothing about personal protection; it says "security of a free state." The Bill of Rights was written before there was a professional military, so it was necessary for civilians who were members of local militias to be armed so they could be easily called-up to defend their country against a foreign attack or even an invasion(hence the "well-regulated militia").

 

You're putting the emphisis on state rather then free, and furthermore narrowly construing free to mean not controlled by a foriegn power.

Furthermore your entire agurment falls apart when one considers that guns were not limited to militia members.

 

Precisely. Certainly, there is no Constitutional guarantee of firearm ownership for personal protection from other individuals. But I read the Second Amendment as guaranteeing firearm ownership with the intent of keeping the government in check and granting the ability to oppose with force a corrupt government depriving its citizens of their civil liberties -- thus, protecting the free state.

-Paul

 

Furthermore your entire agurment falls apart when one considers that guns were not limited to militia members.

No, because militia members could be any able-bodied adult (white) male, who were the only ones considered to have rights at that time anyway.

But I read the Second Amendment as guaranteeing firearm ownership with the intent of keeping the government in check and granting the ability to oppose with force a corrupt government depriving its citizens of their civil liberties -- thus, protecting the free state.

I take "free" to mean "sovereign." In the context of this time, it's cetainly understandable that the writers of the Constitution were afraid of a European power trying to take the United States for itself. And, like I said, I don't believe "free state" has anything to do with the people.

 

Which is precisely why your arguement falls apart.

Emancipated blacks were allowed to use guns, so were women, so were children.

Edit//

So I suppose
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Means congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion without a European power in control?

 

Emancipated blacks were allowed to use guns, so were women, so were children.

Only because the government allowed them to have the guns; according to the views of that time, those people did not have a right to own them-- they were simply permitted to own them. If there was an uprising of abolitionists and slaves in Virginia, for example, the government could simply forbid black ownership of guns. Theoretically, the government could take away First Amendment rights for minors today because minors are not technically protected by the Constitution.

Means congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion without a European power in control?

I'm not sure I understand your argument. There is nothing about free excercise of religion relating to "the security of a free state."

 

Interesting theory.

One to which the Southern state supreme courts agreed, but I doubt the company would deter you.

Basically your saying non milita gun ownership is a privledge the government can revoke at any time. The mere detail that as initially envisioned and enacted upon the 'privledge' was granted automatically does not deter you from retconning it.

And of course you furthermore neglect to mention that militia's were formed by volunteers, thus it could be reaosnably argued the right to bear arms was granted universally so anyone could volunteer.

Edit// Your theory is that free can only mean not controlled by foriegn powers. Despite the fact that interpretation is both internally inconsistant with the rest of the bill of rights and entirely unsupported by any evidence of the time.

 

If the Second Amendment had simply said something like "necessary to the security of a free nation/people" or "necessary to the security of freedom," I would feel differently. But I think that the Second Amendment was meant for the protection of the country against foreign incursions. I don't see why the writers of the Constitution would write something in to ensure the reinstitution of a free government if the Constitution itself failed. If the government was corrupt and no longer serving the needs of the people to the point where it would provoke a revolution, I don't see why the corrupt government would give a damn about the Constitution and not simply ignore the Second Amendment and take away the peoples' guns. The limits, checks and balances were meant to prevent a overly corrupt or overly powerful government, assuming most chose to follow those limits, checks and balances. If most decided to not follow the Constitution, there's nothing a piece of paper can say about it.

 

Guns, by themselves, may not be inherently bad BUT they can be used with very horrible consequences. This has to be understood and dealt with.

How to deal with it? Make sure some nutjob cannot get a gun, try and restrict their use in crimes, and make sure the people buying them know how to use them and store them safely. Also no private citizen needs a tank in their backyard.

That said, I have no problems with gun control laws or ownership. The reality is guns are here, and will be used. The other reality is that they will be used by people who should not be using them, and accidents will happen. Accidents are easier to deal with, training can be a powerful tool there, forcing training is just smart to do. Same with background checks and waiting periods, do you really want someone who has been in and out of mental institutions getting their hands on a firearm? The idea of a cooling off period to help prevent crimes of passion with firearms makes sense.

 

Oops, I forgot to mention that I think adults with no record of violent crime or mental illness should be allowed to own firearms that suit the purpose of civilian use(i.e. no military-grade weapons like AK-47s or RPG launchers); I just don't think it's a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

Gun control is unnecessary. It hurts me, the good guy, more than it will hurt a bad guy.

[image=http://www.gaboon.com/gun_control_works/gun_control_works.jpg]

The United States no longer has a militia, although we could if needed. We have a federal military for which I am glad, as it is needed these days. A militia would only be needed for defense of an invasion.

Also, I believe you are reading the amendment wrong.

John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

There are dozens more quotes of founding fathers on guns, but I don't want to use them all up in one post

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

A well regulared militia needs to be able to keep the security of a free government, It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It is a right of the people. If it was the right of the government to let militia members own guns then it would have said the right of the government.

 

I think the fact that "a well-regulated militia," "security of a free state" and "right of the people to bear arms" are all placed in the same sentence means that they are connected and not mutually exclusive.

 

I know of three people who have been attacked before and have saved themselves with concealed weapons. According to the NRA magazine, about 70,000 Americans use guns in self defense each year (or was it 700,000). Banning guns would kill 70,000 Americans a year.

 

I don't want to ban guns. I'm arguing against the notion that gun ownership by civilians is guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

If the Second Amendment had simply said something like "necessary to the security of a free nation/people" or "necessary to the security of freedom," I would feel differently. But I think that the Second Amendment was meant for the protection of the country against foreign incursions. I don't see why the writers of the Constitution would write something in to ensure the reinstitution of a free government if the Constitution itself failed. If the government was corrupt and no longer serving the needs of the people to the point where it would provoke a revolution, I don't see why the corrupt government would give a damn about the Constitution and not simply ignore the Second Amendment and take away the peoples' guns. The limits, checks and balances were meant to prevent a overly corrupt or overly powerful government, assuming most chose to follow those limits, checks and balances. If most decided to not follow the Constitution, there's nothing a piece of paper can say about it.

Ah yes, the oft used excuse. Frankly it ignores the very idea the founders may have considered gun ownership a pillar of freedom.

After all, that would be impossible!

Frankly though the confused grammer of the Amendment(four dependent clauses?) leaves it open to interpretation. the mere fact yours isn't the one it started out as seems to ne irellevant to you.

 

the mere fact yours isn't the one it started out as seems to ne irellevant to you.

Who says my interpretation isn't the one it started out as? The founding fathers? Many of the them disagreed with parts of the Constitution, but had to make concessions. Not all of their views are written in that document, nor do their views necessarily agree with the document.

 

Alright then, I would be more then happy to see documentation providing views from them that agree with your interpretation.

 

I think the fact that "a well-regulated militia," "security of a free state" and "right of the people to bear arms" are all placed in the same sentence means that they are connected and not mutually exclusive.

If this were true, why put it in the bill of rights.

It makes no sense to put a militia into a Bill of rights.

 

The people have a freedom to keep and bear arms in the case we need a militia. That is exactly what it means now that I read the other guy's interpretation of it.

We are free to own guns for whatever purpose except to harm others, but the reason it is a right and not a privlege is because the Founding Fathers knew if America were to be free individual citizens should be able to fight against tyranny with our own weapons.

 

The problem with organizations like the NRA is that they consider gun ownership to be a right that is without restriction, when really most of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have restrictions. For instance, you can freely exercise your religion unless aspects of your practice violate laws. If you believe in a religion that says that killing is good, it's fine as long as you don't actually go out and kill someone. Likewise, freedom of speech has restrictions. Some cities, including the town I live in, have laws banning the use of certain profane words in public. Gun ownership should have restrictions. If you commit certain crimes, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun ever again. I also think things like waiting periods, assault weapon bans, and gun lock requirements are a good idea.

 

But I read the Second Amendment as guaranteeing firearm ownership with the intent of keeping the government in check and granting the ability to oppose with force a corrupt government depriving its citizens of their civil liberties -- thus, protecting the free state.

That's the only line of argument that won't very shortly go in a familiar circle, so it's the only one I'm going to discuss. I might consider that justification having some merit two hundred years ago... but today? Marine Corps vs. Michigan Militia, 'nuff said?

Or to put it in longhand: Iraq certainly had no gun shortage, but they did have Saddam for a good long time. And I think the government of the US, where we have this ballyhooed Second Amendment, is somewhat stronger than a tinhorn dictator.



Oh, and the guy posting the Hitler nonsense should read up on Godwin's law.

 

Wow, same arguements from old thread, new faces!

There really is nothing new under the sun.

E_S