Jump to content
csbrown28

Let's Have An Honest Discussion About Guns

Recommended Posts

 

The point of a waiting period is that if you should be driven to anger to the point you want to kill someone that you can't go to a gun store on a whim and use your new gun to kill someone.

 

Is there any statistics that show how many guns used in crime were purchased within a day/week/month of the crime? If so then maybe there is justification. If not, your idea would be a solution searching for a problem.

 

Is this a real problem or one contrived in an attempt to "do something?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the part of the 2nd Amendment that refers to a Well Organized Militia mean that our military is doing it all wrong? Our forces should all look like this....and well organized?

 

militia.jpg

 

Instead of this...

royal-marines-afghanistan.jpg

 

I personally don't think our founders were that short-sighted. However, I could be biased. I love our Constitution.

 

 

 

The military is our well regulated militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The military is our well regulated militia.

 

I know....that's fine. I was trying to disprove the musket only theory. We say "modern military" when we talk about the first part of the second amendment, and then MUSKETS about the second part. I'm for modern military....it is necessary for a free state. However, the right of the people to keep and bear modern military style weapons shall not be infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion of original intent is pointless, and furthermore, fruitless. The supreme court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to own firearms. It also sets precedent for there to be restrictions on those firearms. Restrictions we most certainly have, with over 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country already.

As for a ban on semi automatic rifles or "assault weapons". That was tried and failed. According to the Justice Department, the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban had no impact on crime or homocides.

All rifles combined, according to the FBI, make up 4% of firearm related homocides. "Assault weapons" are a subset of that category, and the percentage is around .2%. That works out to around 20 deaths a year from "assault weapons". In other words, if all of the "assault weapons" suddenly vanished from the country, there would be no way to tell using homocide statistics. The number is far lower than the deviation from year to year. It is impossible for a ban to have an impact. All it will to is make, otherwise law abiding, citizens be labeled as criminals as has occured recently in New York.

In 2000, 20% of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. – most of which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion of original intent is pointless, and furthermore, fruitless. The supreme court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to own firearms. It also sets precedent for there to be restrictions on those firearms. Restrictions we most certainly have, with over 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country already.

 

As for a ban on semi automatic rifles or "assault weapons". That was tried and failed. According to the Justice Department, the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban had no impact on crime or homocides.

 

All rifles combined, according to the FBI, make up 4% of firearm related homocides. "Assault weapons" are a subset of that category, and the percentage is around .2%. That works out to around 20 deaths a year from "assault weapons". In other words, if all of the "assault weapons" suddenly vanished from the country, there would be no way to tell using homocide statistics. The number is far lower than the deviation from year to year. It is impossible for a ban to have an impact. All it will to is make, otherwise law abiding, citizens be labeled as criminals as has occured recently in New York.

 

In 2000, 20% of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. – most of which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

 

 

Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals.

 

 

And that same partisan Supreme Court also ruled that corporations are people.

 

Having laws on the books is one thing, enforcing them is another.

 

 

From NY Times:

 

The text of the Second Amendment creates no right to private possession of guns, but Justice Antonin Scalia found one in legal history for himself and the other four conservatives. He said the right is not outmoded even “in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.”

 

It is not just liberals who have lambasted the ruling, but some prominent conservatives like Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The majority, he wrote “read an ambiguous constitutional provision as creating a substantive right that the Court had never acknowledged in the more than two hundred years since the amendment’s enactment. The majority then used that same right to strike down a law passed by elected officials acting, rightly or wrongly, to preserve the safety of the citizenry.” He said the court undermined “conservative jurisprudence.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know....that's fine. I was trying to disprove the musket only theory. We say "modern military" when we talk about the first part of the second amendment, and then MUSKETS about the second part. I'm for modern military....it is necessary for a free state. However, the right of the people to keep and bear modern military style weapons shall not be infringed.

 

 

 

If that's the case, we should all be able to run around with a belt fed full auto nuclear bazookas???

 

 

72201_10151234050026267_629234103_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Before I answer you, have you read through what the founders were discussing on page 1 of this thread before you tried your own analysis of the second amendment? Look at the historical context on all the discussions and writings from the founders regarding liberty and a republic by the "people".

 

If you haven't done that, you are making your own interpretation of the second amendment. Everyone will have their own opinion. Ask the SCOTUS what they think.

 

 

The question I'll ask to you if you think our founders didn't know how to write is....why wasn't it written this way.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, has the right to keep and bear Arms, and shall not be infringed.

 

 

Why do you think they tossed in "right of the people"? and took out "has" which would be essential to how you think it should have been written. Can you propose how else it should have been written (keeping as accurate to the original wording as possible).

 

 

Because back then "the people" were the militia. We have a well regulated militia, we now call our military. Our military is in charge of our security, along with the police force, the Highway Patrol, the FBI, the CIA, and the National Guard. We don't need "all of the people" armed, because it doesn't create security. What it has created is an uncivilized society, where people live in fear, with thousands of gun deaths and injuries each year. That is NOT a well regulated militia, it's armed crazies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And that same partisan Supreme Court also ruled that corporations are people.

 

Having laws on the books is one thing, enforcing them is another.

 

 

From NY Times:

 

The text of the Second Amendment creates no right to private possession of guns, but Justice Antonin Scalia found one in legal history for himself and the other four conservatives. He said the right is not outmoded even “in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.”

 

It is not just liberals who have lambasted the ruling, but some prominent conservatives like Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The majority, he wrote “read an ambiguous constitutional provision as creating a substantive right that the Court had never acknowledged in the more than two hundred years since the amendment’s enactment. The majority then used that same right to strike down a law passed by elected officials acting, rightly or wrongly, to preserve the safety of the citizenry.” He said the court undermined “conservative jurisprudence.”

 

I laugh when people say that people on the right support the weapon restrictions...so...it must be a consensus. Guns aren't a liberal/conservative thing. I know a lot of Democrats who are gun owners and Republicans who are anti-gun. It isn't about liberal/conservative. It is about freedom vs. totalitarianism.

 

 

If you lean towards individual liberty and freedom, you will lean pro-gun. If you are more of a statist, you will be more anti-gun (well at least in the hands of citizens) and very pro gun for police and military.

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I laugh when people say that people on the right support the weapon restrictions...so...it must be a consensus. Guns aren't a liberal/conservative thing. I know a lot of Democrats who are gun owners and Republicans who are anti-gun. It isn't about liberal/conservative. It is about freedom vs. totalitarianism.

 

 

If you lean towards individual liberty and freedom, you will lean pro-gun. If you are more of a statist, you will be more anti-gun (well at least in the hands of citizens) and very pro gun for police and military.

 

Mr Patriot,

 

I found the interview between the two interesting. I respect both for meeting and having a conversation and I think a lot of people here could learn by their example.

 

Having said that, at about the 30 min mark Penn talks about what I'll call, unmitigated freedom. You should be able to do what you want as long as your not taking Government money or imposing on the freedoms of others using force.

 

Here is my question to you as a Libertarian, do you think that wealth can be used to influence people to the point that it can be considered force.

 

In other words, if I live in a town of 50,000 people, and I have more wealth then the entire town combined (let's say several times over), should I be free to used my wealth to influence people through advertising and any other means to further my agenda as long as I don't (using a Libertarian term) "hold a gun to anyone's head?

 

I think the problem is that money can be used just as forcefully as a gun. It seems to me that the ultra wealthy are the ones that benefit most from total unmitigated freedom.

 

I'd support a lot less Government if people had equal access to a world class education system. An education system based on evidentiary principles, not politics or dogma.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No effort is being given to debate the facts I have presented, and that is disappointing. As has always been the case, you may not like a supreme court decision, but that is the final word on a ruling.

Seeing as my post apparently will garner no other response than essentially saying the supreme court does not matter. Lets try a different approach.
Why would you have guns banned?
If it is to reduce crime, please post proof that would work.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No effort is being given to debate the facts I have presented, and that is disappointing. As has always been the case, you may not like a supreme court decision, but that is the final word on a ruling.

 

Seeing as my post apparently will garner no other response than essentially saying the supreme court does not matter. Lets try a different approach.

Why would you have guns banned?

If it is to reduce crime, please post proof that would work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, all you have to do is gather up 2/3 of the house and senate and add a Constitutional Amendment. That is our democratic process for making changes to a very outdated Constitution, written by men who thought women and black people didn't count as people..

 

Ban guns? Did I say ban guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No effort is being given to debate the facts I have presented, and that is disappointing. As has always been the case, you may not like a supreme court decision, but that is the final word on a ruling.

 

Seeing as my post apparently will garner no other response than essentially saying the supreme court does not matter. Lets try a different approach.

Why would you have guns banned?

If it is to reduce crime, please post proof that would work.

 

 

 

 

I agree with your basic positions. The SC and the constitution could be wrong though. Slavery and prohibition are two great examples of how opinions change over time. I'm not trying to compare guns to slavery in anyway here.

 

My point is those who argue for the anti-gun side say that just because the SC has ruled that an outright ban is illegal does not mean they may not rule a different way if the anti-gun people get a political wave going and change the attitudes of enough people. So with that in mind, they believe that a SC ruling is not in any way a final ruling.

 

If the SC court came out and said that a weapons ban is legal the right would come out and say the same thing ie, although the SC ruled a gun ban is OK that does not make it right or final and they would push hard to have it appealed or for an amendment or whatever to get it changed.

 

For those stuck on one side or anohter there is no logic you can present to unentrench them from their side because they are not arguing from the same basic premises.

 

And the discussion of how gun bans/control reduce crime will never be answered to you responsibly because it cannot be won by the anti-gun crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, all you have to do is gather up 2/3 of the house and senate and add a Constitutional Amendment. That is our democratic process for making changes to a very outdated Constitution, written by men who thought women and black people didn't count as people..

 

Ban guns? Did I say ban guns?

Indeed. But the amount of people in this country who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment is so low it doesn't even register.

Also, the comment about black people not counting as people. I do know what you are referring too, and a little critical thinking would enlighten you as to the reason a black man in America at that time only counted as a third of a person. Because of slaves. What was happening at that time was allowing people to quite literally purchase more representatives. Which, our founding fathers were against. So they included that as a precaution. They knew that one day soon the issue of slavery would be settled and they didn't want the south to be able to purchase government power to stop it.

Enough with the red herring though.

 

If you do not propose a ban, than what do you propose? I can put up random facts all day long, but if I don't know what specific point I am arguing against, it won't do much good. So please explain your position on firearms and what you would have done about them if you had the final say.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion of original intent is pointless, and furthermore, fruitless.

 

I'm just going to take umbrage with this statement. It' is, IMO, the point. The question is, is the logical foundation upon which gun rights were established still exist? Has there been some paradigm shift in thinking or behavior that would cause us to ignore the intentions of those who created the 2nd amendment?

 

Failure to learn from history often dooms us to repeating it.

 

In my mind there has not been a large enough change in the the way people behave or in the way that Government operates to justify the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. Having said that I think enough has changed that we could improve upon the 2nd amendment in a way that balances the framers original intent against societies fears about the way our culture views firearms.

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm just going to take umbrage with this statement. It' is, IMO, the point. The question is, is the logical foundation upon which gun rights were established still exist? Has there been some paradigm shift in thinking or behavior that would cause us to ignore the intentions of those who created the 2nd amendment?

 

Failure to learn from history often dooms us to repeating it.

 

In my mind there has not been a large enough change in the the way people behave or in the way that Government operates to justify the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. Having said that I think enough has changed that we could improve upon the 2nd amendment in a way that balances the framers original intent against societies fears about the way our culture views firearms.

Fear is the worst reason of all to justify policy change. That is the exact thing that was used by dictators, tyrants, and genocidal maniacs since mass media was available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fear is the worst reason of all to justify policy change. That is the exact thing that was used by dictators, tyrants, and genocidal maniacs since mass media was available.

 

Where is "fear" used as a justification for change anywhere in what i wrote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where is "fear" used as a justification for change anywhere in what i wrote?

"... balances the framers original intent against societies fears about the way our culture views firearms."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"... balances the framers original intent against societies fears about the way our culture views firearms."

 

Ok, I feel dumb....I missed that....Poorly worded on my part....

 

Ok let me rephrase...

 

Balances the framers original intent against the risk that firearms present within society.

 

In other words, can we decrease risk without violating the original intent of the Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crime has continued to drop regardless of laws passed to strengthen or loosen gun laws. The only instance of gun laws actually having in impact on crime in this country was after the Gun Control Act of 1968, which saw a massive increase in crime. However, this too is more likely a result of the proliferation and availability of drugs, and the governments efforts to stop those drugs and the use of them. Two thirds of gun homicides in this country are criminal on criminal activities. Otherwise known as gang warfare. These gangs exist purely because of the "war on drugs" that has inadvertently allowed them to flourish. As the police forces become more and more militant in training and armament, the gangs arm them selves more and more, then they turn these weapons on each other to secure more profit from selling drugs. The more "turf" they have, the more money they make, the more drugs they sell, the more guns they acquire, the more people they kill. It is a vicious cycle that revolves around drugs.

I am all for more reasonable gun laws. But banning any type of firearm is unjustified at best and borderline tyrannical at worst. I would not oppose universal background checks. I own several firearms and have had to PAY for a background check on every one of them. Which is fine. I would propose the government have to pay for those background checks, but it is only 10 dollars so it is no big deal. I am torn on whether medical records should be included in a background check though. Purely because I do not think the government could successfully keep that information secure. I do see the merit in the proposal, but it is just a security issue and privacy issue to me. So, I have mixed feelings on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crime has continued to drop regardless of laws passed to strengthen or loosen gun laws. The only instance of gun laws actually having in impact on crime in this country was after the Gun Control Act of 1968, which saw a massive increase in crime. However, this too is more likely a result of the proliferation and availability of drugs, and the governments efforts to stop those drugs and the use of them. Two thirds of gun homicides in this country are criminal on criminal activities. Otherwise known as gang warfare. These gangs exist purely because of the "war on drugs" that has inadvertently allowed them to flourish. As the police forces become more and more militant in training and armament, the gangs arm them selves more and more, then they turn these weapons on each other to secure more profit from selling drugs. The more "turf" they have, the more money they make, the more drugs they sell, the more guns they acquire, the more people they kill. It is a vicious cycle that revolves around drugs.

 

I am all for more reasonable gun laws. But banning any type of firearm is unjustified at best and borderline tyrannical at worst. I would not oppose universal background checks. I own several firearms and have had to PAY for a background check on every one of them. Which is fine. I would propose the government have to pay for those background checks, but it is only 10 dollars so it is no big deal. I am torn on whether medical records should be included in a background check though. Purely because I do not think the government could successfully keep that information secure. I do see the merit in the proposal, but it is just a security issue and privacy issue to me. So, I have mixed feelings on it.

 

 

 

Essentially we agree.

 

It's not the laws that are in place, but the content of the laws that matters. I'm all for evidence based thinking rather than emotional thinking. I think we can agree that, when it comes in firearms, check your emotions at the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Essentially we agree.

 

It's not the laws that are in place, but the content of the laws that matters. I'm all for evidence based thinking rather than emotional thinking. I think we can agree that, when it comes in firearms, check your emotions at the door.

I agree, but I must admit that some times my emotions get the better of me when it comes to discussing gun rights. Especially when I start talking about the trampling our rights received in 1934 and 1968 and 1986 and 1994. But, if you are ever curious on how to get me fired up... The ATF is the way lol. They have demonstrated them selves to be nothing more than Americas gestapo, and have violated, on multiple occasion, every right an American has. From planting evidence, to illegal search and seizure to killing peoples pets, to murder to false imprisonment. The list of their violations is staggering. I know this is off topic, but I worked my self up a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And that same partisan Supreme Court also ruled that corporations are people.

 

Having laws on the books is one thing, enforcing them is another.

 

 

From NY Times:

 

The text of the Second Amendment creates no right to private possession of guns, but Justice Antonin Scalia found one in legal history for himself and the other four conservatives. He said the right is not outmoded even “in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.”

 

It is not just liberals who have lambasted the ruling, but some prominent conservatives like Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The majority, he wrote “read an ambiguous constitutional provision as creating a substantive right that the Court had never acknowledged in the more than two hundred years since the amendment’s enactment. The majority then used that same right to strike down a law passed by elected officials acting, rightly or wrongly, to preserve the safety of the citizenry.” He said the court undermined “conservative jurisprudence.”

 

The current generous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment dates more or less from the late 70s and early 80s, when a conservative scotus, a newly politicized NRA, and gun enthusiasts in the Reagan administration started to run amok. The fact that most people--liberal and conservative--think it predates this time is testament to the power of money to influence popular opinion.

Edited by jayjay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The current generous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment dates more or less from the late 70s and early 80s, when a conservative scotus, a newly politicized NRA, and gun enthusiasts in the Reagan administration started to run amok. The fact that most people--liberal and conservative--think it predates this time is testament to the power of money to influence popular opinion.

Yep. Pretty much around the time when people started wanting to take peoples guns, all of a sudden other people started saying "hell no!" Imagine that. Also, do some research into the supreme court case that ruled on the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934. In which every court up to the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional, then, miraculously, the attorney who was supposed to represent the side arguing it was unconstitutional did not appear for the supreme court.

I would post the whole story, but, it is sort of off topic. You can research it your self though, if you feel so inclined.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. But the amount of people in this country who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment is so low it doesn't even register.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There certainly is a lot of support for gun bans, going by several different polls. One more Sandy shooting, and this country will have its fill.

 

 

(Reuters) - About three-quarters of Americans surveyed support proposals to ban the sale of automatic weapons, ban high-capacity ammunition clips and expand background checks on all gun buyers, according to an online Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...