ok people..the smoking Gun...your take on Gun control...

In other words, you don't know what to say back to us. It's you that keeps bla bla bla'ing about liberties being more important than safety. In this case, the liberty to own guns being more important than the safety of people. It's YOU that have said your liberties are more important than the lifes lost.

 

I am a senior in college and I'm currently taking an American Philosophy class and we have a term paper due on April 11. I have decided to do my topic on Gun Control and the 2nd ammendment.

I will dive into the subject and when I'm done writing this paper I will post it on this site. It will take weeks of research and writing it, but so far I have the following books on the subject to help me get started.

1. More Guns Less Crime: John R. Lott, Jr.

2. Gun Control: Harry Henderson

3. Gun Control: Threat to liberty or Defense against Anarchy by Wilbur Edel

4. The Politics of Gun Control Robert J. Spitzer

5. Gun Control and the Constitution: Robert Cottrol

6. A well Regualted Militia: The battle over gun control by William Weir.

7. The Priviledge to keep and bear arms Warren Freeditan

8. The right to keep and bear arms: Earl Kruschke PhD.

I will tackle both sides of the issue and then attempt to find a middle ground of where we as Americans should go in the next 100 years, because the way things are going right now is not acceptable in my eyes and in other Americans eyes when it comes to this right to bear arms. There are many view points and will give each there own due time, and then either agree or disagree with it and come up with a possible resolution.



5.

 

BANG! BANG!
(reloads)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Click. Click.

Is this topic dead yet?

 

Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the
radio the other day and you have to read his reply to
the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and
children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws
you got to love this!!!!

It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR)
interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine
Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy
Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things
are you going to teach these young boys when they
visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing,
canoeing, archery, and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit
irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly
supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a
terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be
teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even
touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to
become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a
prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended

 

MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE
Might I also recommend you look over the court decision from the 5th Circuit for U.S. v. Emerson?

You might also want to look at stuff written by David Kopel as well for the legal.philsophical side. Gary Kleck provides a good complement to Lott on the practical side of gun control as well. Robert Wright, too ("Under the Gun" and "Armed and Considered Dangerous").

KaineDamo:

The fact is, I have responded. The misuse of guns by others has no bearing on my rights to own guns anymore than somebody yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has with regards to my right to speak my mind about politicans in this country.

Those who misuse guns give up that right through their misuse. I have no problem with that. I have a problem when I have the right taken away from me when I have done nothing wrong.

If you cannot grasp that concept, or understand why a number of people would feel very strongly about such a thing, then further debate would be pointless.

 

I've heard that interview before. You know I don't have a problem with a kid learning how to use a gun. I encourage it. I like the fact that before they EVEN TOUCH the gun they will be trained. That is how it should be with everyone who thinks they need a gun and that is what I've been talking about for the past page. Mandatory gun training, and trigger locks.


You know I can always become a real ahole about this whole topic and say if you purist want to go word for word that the 2nd amendment states then people should only own Muskets and Flintlocks. That was the weapon used up until 1865. Plus no where in the 2nd amendment does it say that people have the right to have a concealed weapons permits and such. So basically if you want to stick to it then you get the firepower available at the time and not semi and automatic weapons. I don't want to hear that the amendment was broad and stuff. It clearly states what it set out to say. That a militia which was constructed out citizens have the right to bear arms, because what good is it to have a militia if your citizens who make up the militia can't have a weapon. Plus it says "When necessary" so unless there is some war going on then the need to keep and bear arms isnt' needed.

 

Kaine, if you are referring to me, it would be prudent to look over this thread as I have been involved since the beginning. Say whatever it is you desire, but to claim I cannot argue anymore is folly to say in the least about you and your paltry statements.


What you did?

1)constructed a straw man(pretty much all your arguments are directed at targets that do not make up anything resembling a significant number of gun owners or RKBA supporters
2)Used false dichotomy(it's not disarmed citizens OR wack job gun nuts)
3)Ad hominem attacks
4)Argument from adverse consequences(people can't be armed because...BAD THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN)
5)Begging the question/assuming the answer--You automatically assume gun control actually limits deaths from firearms, when the opposite(statistically) is true. But it's your assumption as a starting point, that is the main problem.
6)you even managed to throw in observational selection
7)And to finish it off, you employ "weasel words," which would be your constant harping on "militia" when you don't even know the contemporary usage of that time period, NOR do you look at the much plainer language of "the right of the PEOPLE(not some state-run system) to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed.

Something interesting?

Samual Adams "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -- Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

Because...

Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia-"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

Which means...

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania-"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

For protection...

Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania-"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts-"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

The above describes what tyrants do, Also...

Alexander Hamilton, of New York-"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29

And lastly...

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage t

 

I agree. Kids should be taught about drugs from an early age (such as which ones get them high the quickest) to make them more responsible drug users as adults.

 

For one thing this isn't about drugs.
Secondly, even though drugs are outlawed, people still use them. You can find out a drugs effectiveness all over the internet. Hell, you even learn about what you said in D.A.R.E., or at least I did.
Thirdly, owning and bearing arms is a right, while drugs are not.
Fourth, the outlaw of drugs are legislation in morality, which by principle is wrong.
Fifth, teaching gun safety helps to reduce gun-related accidents(murder is something totally different), though mandating a requirement to enact your rights are, by principle and Constitutionally, wrong.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

Moriate, what would you have us do to deter the school and public shootings?
Also, what if one of your children were to find your gun and have an accident?
Exactly how many deaths would it take for you to change your closed mind on this?

 

"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."
Note that the right to bear arms is not granted by the amendment. Instead its existence is presumed, probably as part of the general right of self-defense. Note also that since the founding fathers made this right second on a list of ten, they must have believed that it was especially important."

Yeah back in the 18th century Moriarte. Back then keeping arms to protect a newly formed country like we were was NEEDED. We sure as hell knew the British may have walked away, but remember we ended up fighting them again less than 20 years later. Plus you had threats from the Spanish, so having the citizens of 13 different colonies who if needed could be rounded up to defend our country was needed back in the 18th century. Look at today Moriarte. We have the strongest military in the world and we are 50 states now. We were highly unstable and word did not travel fast back in the 18th century. Plus the right to bear arms was needed big on the wild frontier where you had no laws protecting property until later on in the 19th century in which it could be enforced by law enforcement. We have both today. Back then it was a family vs nature/Indians/animals, and each family had a standard 1 shot musket. Not a AK-47. How hard is that for you to realize in what your arguing? Your talking 18th and 19th century government and culture when it has no bearing today. We are majorly different from the way we were back in the 18th century and that is a fact.

Like I stated earlier, if you want to go word for word of the 2nd amendment and keep bringing up 18th century political philosophy and ideology then people today should be owning muskets and not handguns or rifles. If you think nothing should be changed and we should stay pure to the word then stay true to the firepower. Plus NO WHERE in the 2nd amendment does it speak of caring weapons on your person, or like we have today a concealed weapons permit. It's not there.

While I've been doing my research I came across this which might be of interest. "Noted legal scholars have recently termed the Second Amendment "Embarrassing" and "Terrifying" Former Chief Justice Warren Burger has indicated his belief that the amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights was a mistake, a rare public admission on the part of a Supreme Court justice concerning the supposedly sacrosanct Bill of Rights. Conservative columist George Will and Liberal New York Congressman Major Owens have urged repeal of the provision guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms."

Further more if we got rid of gun shows all together then there would be no question in the matter would there. I've been to them before and you have scum walking around and most gun dealers there are scum also. They will do anything for a quick buck. The whole purpose for a gun show is to get cheap guns which may or may not be legal. You tell me why people just can't buy a weapon at a respectable/legal/by the book gun shop? Gun shows are part of the problem and MUST BE SHUT DOWN.

 

Taking away guns is not going to curb the anger that these children had towards themselves and others. You take away one instrument, they will use another, and nothing gets accomplished. The problem is, people want feel good legislation that does not do anything, but makes people think that at least something is done, but in fact nothing is done to solve the problem.
While guns are not the problem, there are many reasons behind why some of them did what they did. With Columbine it was the atypical geek being bullied by the jocks and those in the in clique. Through their disposition, how they were raised, and mostly since all the warning signs pointing to violence were disregarded, it resulted in the deaths of many kids that did not deserve death. You could blame the increased violence in the media, the breakdown of the family or even the sexual revolution of the 60's.
What I am getting at, is that the problem is so complex and deep rooted, that most people want a quick fix to the solution to the problem that was decades in the making. They don't want to have to become committed to a long term solution, because again they want results, and they want results NOW without having to think or care about it overmuch.

And no, again I do not have a closed mind. I know of both sides, and I disagree with gun control. You see, these measures to control our liberties, hurt us in the long run. To manipulate how we use and enact our rights controls how we operate, controls what we can and cannot do. To take away firearms does not take away the problem of accidental deaths, or violence. Firearm accidents are the among the lowest in this country, and a lot of people here fail to recognize that...I should say conveniantly fail at that.

YOU want to restrict how I use MY rights because of the minority that abuse them? That is not right at all, for the majority, M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y of gun owners are responsible. You want to gaurd against every eventuality...you cannot. There will always be accidental deaths, there will always be people who abuse their rights, but that is the way it has to be in order for ALL OF US to have our rights in full. Otherwise, we would constrict our rights to try and gaurd against every eventuality and that would lead to despotism and no rights whatsoever.
You may argue that these restrictions are not taking my liberties away, but they are taking a piece of it away, it is putting more constrictions on how I use my rights, so in effect it is a small piece that is taken away, and the whole is made up of those fewer parts i.e. slippery slope.

Ah yes, the age old "well what would happen if YOUR child had an accident with a firearm"? Pfff, well the fact is I am responsible with firearms, and I would instruct my own children on the proper handling and safety of guns and have them go through the classes my father had me go through. And if an accident occured, that is just what it is, an accident. Something unnintentional and unexpected. Of course it depends on the situation of the accident, but I would still be in favour of owning firearms. Does that make me cold-hearted? No it does not. Does that mean I would sacrifice my own family? No it does not. The fact is, what you asked is an accident, and I would have to deal with the results of it. It all depends on how I educate my own child and how responsible I am with my own firearms and also how my own child thinks and feels about himself and others. If you are wondering why I am slightly ambiguous well...I do not have children and your hypothetical question I hope never comes to be and I expect it will not.

But I will stress again, the government has no right to tell me how to store and operate my own firearms, simple as that. For them to tell me how to store them, is just one more way for them to control how I enact my 2nd amendment right, which they cannot do and would lead to more "safety" meausures. Why would they enact more "safety" measures after that? Well because those "safety" would not have worked in the first place, s

 

"What I am getting at, is that the problem is so complex and deep rooted, that most people want a quick fix to the solution to the problem that was decades in the making. They don't want to have to become committed to a long term solution, because again they want results, and they want results NOW without having to think or care about it overmuch"

I've said countless times that it will not be a quick fix, but it's better than sitting back and doing nothing. I know it's complex, but something must be done. It's like waxing a car. You've done one coat and it looks good and should last for 6 months, but you know another coat will work wonders, so you put another safeguard on. Okay stupid comparison, but my point is that if we impliment these rules AND ENFORCE them then things will change. Not over night or in a year, but over time you will see that so called low gun related death rate drop more.

"Taking away guns is not going to curb the anger that these children had towards themselves and others. You take away one instrument, they will use another, and nothing gets accomplished."

Yes but if they don't have access to guns then I would rather have the kid show up with a knife then a gun. Instead of 20 dead you might have one dead or injured with the knife, so having those extra barriers will not only make it harder for them to get guns, but eventually after looking for them, either they will sober up and snap back into reality, or chose another weapon of choice. It will not be a gun though.

I want to tell you a situation that I saw the other day on TLC which sums up why people and guns don't mix. It was a special about Repo men. Well in one case a Repo man had to repo a truck which the owner hadn't paid payments in 3 months. Well everything is going as planned until the boyfriend of the woman who owned the truck got involved. He starts fighting with the Repo man who is WELL WITHIN HIS LEGAL RIGHT to take that vehicle. Well the guy then trys to get into the truck to retrieve a gun, so he can shoot the repo man. The struggle happens, and the boyfriend yells at the 14 year old kid to go in the house and get his rifle and shoot the repo man. Well the Repo man is trying to drive off while other people are trying to get the boyfriend from getting in the truck. Suddenly the 14 year old starts shooting at the repo man tow truck. The repo man decides to rush the kid and knock the crap out of him and he grabs the rifle and breaks it in the street.

Lets see all the things that went wrong here. First off the gun shouldn't be in the truck. Second a 14 year old has no business shooting that rifle. Third I don't know how it ended but that boyfriend and the kid should have been hauled off to jail for attempted murder and shooting a gun in a street full of people.

It's cases like this which just goes to show why people don't need guns.

 

MASTER_JEDI_BEEFCAKE:

George Will has done a 180 on that after 9/11, and now supports leaving the 2nd Amendment in. See: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20011105.shtml for the column in question.

 

Great thing about the founding fathers. They knew they weren't perfect. They knew they were going to make mistakes. So, they designed a goverment where the people have the power to change laws that are wrong for that time. Changing an amendment isn't the ultimate sin, its how the founding fathers wanted it.
It is time, and it has been time for many years, for the laws about guns to be changed drammaticly. That way, your "liberty" (what a joke) will no longer be your right. It is the right thing to do for this time. No one deserves to hold so much power (the power over life and death) in their hands, wether they think they can handle it responsibly or not.

 

It defies belief what importance some people give to those "Founding fathers" as if they were the prophet Mohammed and their words shall not be changed until the end of the universe.
Guys, we're not talking about some cult or religion here. The Founding Fathers were politicians and politics and laws need to be practical and made for the modern times!!
And whoever believes that gun ownership is a "God-given right" has some serious issues. I hope I never have to meet such a person in my life.

Salman Rushdie wrote an article recently in which he's scared of a new religious cult in the US - Patriotism. People are so patriotic in the States that they actually believe anything the politicians tell them. They might even accept somebody like George W. Bush as president.

 

Everyone thinks they're Michael Moore these days.




Rushdie = insightful (edit: having trouble finding that article....link?)
Moore = grossly inaccurate, polemic, despicable


// end rant

 

KaineDamo and Tukafo:

KaineDamo: They also had a pretty good idea of human nature, and a lot of what they have done has proven to be pretty wise down the road.

Tukafo: If you came here to the U.S., I think both of you might find a lot of these folks who believe gun ownership is an important right to be very likable folks, and you'd probably hit it off with quite a few of them.

For example, rather than spend time arguing over this, I'd much rather be talking baseball or the NFL (the Brewers kicked butt yesterday afternoon - hope Wade Miller enjoyed his shower...).

I must disagree with Rushdie about the concern about growing patriotism. I am a big patriot, but I also can admit that our country had screwed up big time (the internment of the Japanese-Americans, for example).

You will also find that, with the exception of the fringe left, Americans HAVE accepted George W. Bush as President, and a lot of them like the job he is doing.

 

"No one deserves to hold so much power (the power over life and death) in their hands, wether they think they can handle it responsibly or not."

No one does? What do you mean by "no one"? Does that mean everyone like the normal citizen...the policeman...the military? What if I thought the police or military couldn't handle it properly? Of course you would argue that we need the police and military to have them to defend ourselves from within and from without.
What about those that need them to defend their person? What about the right to life? We have the right to life and to defend our life through any means necessary and if a criminal can get that power over MY life, I have the right to protect my right to life with that very same power.
Guns are just recognized as the most effective tool in doing this, for the aggressor and the defender, and no matter what, abusers i.e. criminals will have them and I have a right to own them to defend myself from those that would try to exert that power over me.

"And whoever believes that gun-ownership is a "God-given right" has some serious issues. I hope I never have to meet one."

Oh poor me, I will never see such an elightened individual *gag*. As I explained above, gun-ownership is tied heavily in the right to life and liberty, and to defend ones life by any means necessary...n-e-c-e-s-s-a-r-y.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

I think you guys are throwing the word "gun" around here like it's going to give you a paper cut. These things are DANGEROUS! A gun, BY DEFINITION, is meant to, kill something, or someone. What the heck are you training people to do with guns? Kill people, right? Look what's happening in Israel, I don't think that's helping at ALL.

Also, I don't know what a bunch of people with rifles (ah, killing animals, how CIVILIZED) or some other gun are going to do against our government, should it become corrupt and opressive. It's not the 1700s anymore. The goverment has access to all kinds of weapons that certainly would discourage any kind of rebellion.

 

"Guns are just recognized as the most effective tool in doing this, for the aggressor and the defender, and no matter what, abusers i.e. criminals will have them and I have a right to own them to defend myself from those that would try to exert that power over me."

Give me proof that they are the most effective tool. There are plenty of alternatives.

Plus Emperor Dan brought up something good which I'm going to add to my paper. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear "ARMS" no where does it say "GUNS" Take a look back to when it was written arms to defend yourself was more than a Musket which at the most wasn't the best means of protection. Fired one shot and took a 45 seconds to a minute to reload. Hopefully it didn't blow up in your face or misfire. They were not that accurate. They couldn't be used if they were wet. Other weapons which were considered arms back then would be:

knives

blades/swords

Hacket

Other farm tools like pitchforks.

Bow and arrows

Now in Europe there were laws against bearing arms which were swords bows and arrows or sharp objects.

So my point is that we can't take the word Gun and connect it will Arms because there were certainly better ways of defense back then. I for one would use a sword back then, because I can duck from a musket shot get up and while the silly bastard is reloading I can run him threw.

So I think if your going to pick apart the 2nd amendment it should start with the word arms.

 

Yes! Ban all guns in America! That'll solve all problems with violent crimes!

Look at hard drugs! We banned all of them and now we have no drug problems! Are we brilliant or what?

Pleaaase...

Switzerland has a lot of guns, and very little crime. Why? They know how to use the guns. I'm all for guns, only if you educate the people who use them. Is Switzerland perfect though, nope, but it's far from a dangerous place to be.

And saftey locks:
What am I going to do if someone broke into my house and my key is missing? Do I tell him, "Wait! I can't find my key! Time out!" That won't be much help. What's wrong with having unloaded guns with ammunition in a separate place?

 

Mori

--You automatically assume gun control actually limits deaths from firearms, when the opposite(statistically) is true

Just curious where you get this. Does this mean that when guns are limited, more people get killed by them? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

uh, for some reason this didn't update when I posted. Up ya go!

 

Emporer Dan:

"Also, I don't know what a bunch of people with rifles (ah, killing animals, how CIVILIZED) or some other gun are going to do against our government, should it become corrupt and opressive. It's not the 1700s anymore. The goverment has access to all kinds of weapons that certainly would discourage any kind of rebellion."

---

The following is one account of a discussion. A similar version appears in the "Ayoob Files" portion of the January/February 2002 American Handgunner.

He discussed the matter further in the current issue (May/June 2002) of American Handgunner in response to a question from the reader:

*

In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.

Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.

Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question. "You are right," he told the Americans. "We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."

*

In 1941, the Zero was probably the best fighter in the Pacific Theater (the P-38, F4U Corsair, and F6F Hellcat did not reach service in that theater in large numbers until 1943).

And don't think modern fighters can't be shot out of the sky. A lot of our losses in Vietnam were caused by the 7.62x39mm round fired by the AK-47 and SKS rifles of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. This round, by the way, is far less powerful than the .30-06, which is one of the more popular hunting rounds in the U.S.

And at Pearl Harbor, at least one of the aircraft shot down was shot down by a M1903 Springfield rifle, a rifle little different from the hunting rifles used by a good portion of this country's 15 million-plus hunters.