Defending The Second Amendment and The Constitution

[The_Lillard_King]

The threat of people not being able to defend themselves against the gov't vs. easy access to semi-auto for psycho people to shoot innocent kids.

I fall on the side of added protection for the kids.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

The threat of people not being able to defend themselves against the gov't vs. easy access to semi-auto for psycho people to shoot innocent kids.

so ban all guns that hold more than one round? whats the plan, stan

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I fall on the side of added protection for the kids.

they would be safer if they had an armed guard in every classroom, because there will still be dozens of millions of guns even after a complete ban.

well actually, 2 armed guards in every class, just in case one of them is crazy and decides to shoot everyone. maybe 3.

maybe kids can just go to school in prison. maybe they should wear bulletproof vests when leaving the house. actually, many murders occur at home, so maybe everyones kids should be taken away from their famlies and locked in a bulletproof cell. for their safety.

 

[Denny Crane]

i'll call bullshit on that

Bullshit trumps everything?

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right to bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Hubert Horatio Humphrey, 1960

 

[The_Lillard_King]

so ban all guns that hold more than one round? whats the plan, stan

That seems a little extreme for me (probably not for some). I think Obama came out with a tough plan that should take a lot of the guns of the street. I don't have a problem where he drew the line. So I guess the Obama plan is the plan, jan.

 

[Denny Crane]

Don't ban guns at all.

How about we lock anyone up whose gun is used in a crime, any crime, and we throw away the key? If you don't transfer ownership of the gun properly when you sell it, you're on the hook if it's used in a crime.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Don't ban guns at all.

How about we lock anyone up whose gun is used in a crime, any crime, and we throw away the key?

how about we just make murder illegal, and throw murderers in jail for life?

 

[Denny Crane]

how about we just make murder illegal, and throw murderers in jail for life?

We do. I proposed throwing someone in jail for using a gun to steal a pack of gum even.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

they would be safer if they had an armed guard in every classroom, because there will still be dozens of millions of guns even after a complete ban.

well actually, 2 armed guards in every class, just in case one of them is crazy and decides to shoot everyone. maybe 3.

maybe kids can just go to school in prison. maybe they should wear bulletproof vests when leaving the house. actually, many murders occur at home, so maybe everyones kids should be taken away from their famlies and locked in a bulletproof cell. for their safety.

They could do all this, which is why my post was more of a balancing test.

The issue as I see it is a decrease in the right to bear arms (not an elimination) vs. public safety issue that we are currently dealing with in society.

I wouldn't go as far as you are suggesting, nor do I have any fear what-so-ever that Obama's plan would lead to what you are suggesting. But again, I get that some live in fear of Obama and what he might do to this country.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Don't ban guns at all.

How about we lock anyone up whose gun is used in a crime, any crime, and we throw away the key? If you don't transfer ownership of the gun properly when you sell it, you're on the hook if it's used in a crime.

The feds and oregon have increased penalties when a firearm is used. I don't think it acts much in the way as a deterrent.

 

[RR7]

Don't ban guns at all.

How about we lock anyone up whose gun is used in a crime, any crime, and we throw away the key? If you don't transfer ownership of the gun properly when you sell it, you're on the hook if it's used in a crime.

The problem is, you propose any sort of restrictions, and people complain about it infringing on 2nd amendment rights

 

[Denny Crane]

The problem is, you propose any sort of restrictions, and people complain about it infringing on 2nd amendment rights

Like they complain if there's any sort of restrictions on abortions (which aren't mentioned in the least in the constitution)?

I'm not proposing any sort of restriction. Just that someone who owns a gun better be very responsible for it.

 

[donkiez]

If socialized health care was the alternative to strict gun control, would (most) gun advocates still hate it?

 

[Sedatedfork]

Here is an interesting article I saw on a friend's facebook page. I had never heard of this as the reason for the 2nd Amendment before. Pretty interesting. Some will say consider the source, and I don't take the information as gospel. Just an interesting historical perspective I had not heard prior to reading the article.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

 

[Denny Crane]

Here is an interesting article I saw on a friend's facebook page. I had never heard of this as the reason for the 2nd Amendment before. Pretty interesting. Some will say consider the source, and I don't take the information as gospel. Just an interesting historical perspective I had not heard prior to reading the article.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

For yuks, I googled for "second amendment slavery" and there were quite a few WWW pages about the subject. Every one of them that I checked (a couple of pages of results worth) referred to the truth-out.org page as its source.

 

[Sedatedfork]

For yuks, I googled for "second amendment slavery" and there were quite a few WWW pages about the subject. Every one of them that I checked (a couple of pages of results worth) referred to the truth-out.org page as its source.

Check out this Bogus law review article, lol, http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

 

[Denny Crane]

Heh.

My view is that the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment, were all in response to grievances the colonists had with the King and British rule prior.

Seriously. Nobody talks about the 3rd amendment. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." The British forced the colonists to house soldiers before and during the revolution.

I see similar beefs with the British in every one of the first 10 amendments. Like 1st: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - it was British law that its citizens be members of the Anglican Church (state established religion).

&c

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Here is an interesting article I saw on a friend's facebook page. I had never heard of this as the reason for the 2nd Amendment before. Pretty interesting. Some will say consider the source, and I don't take the information as gospel. Just an interesting historical perspective I had not heard prior to reading the article.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Seems to me that the article itself indicated that Madison composed the 2nd amendment originally with no reference to "state militias", and that it was only revised after the state autonomy concerns were raised. Regardless of the history, the main thrust of the 2nd is still about citizens being permitted to possess and use armaments. The "slavery" aspect doesn't change that.

 

[noknobs]

You guys who want to get rid of guns really ought to consider whose ability to defend themselves you are getting rid of.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't know why everyone sees this topic so black and white. The gov't hasn't suggested completely getting rid of guns, you'll still have the ability to bear arms. What is so wrong with banning assault rifles (like that'll happen), or having tougher background checks? Is it because all the women who need to protect themselves from roving packs of rapists need to do so with assault rifles? Is that really what they use, Denny? This is mind-boggling to me that anyone would get so outraged over the banning of assault rifles. Reminds me of little kids who get their shiny toy fire truck taken away. Wouldn't be the end of the world people, somehow I think we'd pull through.

He's been anointed king. he can rule by decree. Congress doesn't have to do its duty anymore; may as well do away with it. Hell, do away with elections as well, since we only need the one political party. Just appoint whoever the king wants to whatever politburo committee that decides what liberties we no longer have and get on with it.

You've truly gone off the deep end...

 

[Denny Crane]

Green font is required for you?

I didn't mention anything about the politicians who want to ban guns - like mayors of certain cities. I was referring to people who've posted here that want to ban them. I'm talking about handguns, too.

As for assault rifles? I think attempting to ban them is all huff and puff kind of stuff. There are plenty of them around, but they're so rarely used in the commission of any crime at all, including the recent shootings (Aurora, Connecticut). I mean, if they banned and somehow eliminated EVERY rifle (assault rifle or otherwise) in the world, it'd cut out about 300 deaths in the USA a year.

I don't oppose background checks. But they're not any sort of panacea either. You go buy one. Someone breaks into your house and steals it. What good did the check do?

My concern about "bans" is about Liberty. If I don't want anything to do with guns, but you want to collect them or otherwise use them in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, then I absolutely have no interest in telling you what to do.

If two guys came at me armed with pistols, I'd think an assault rifle would be pretty good defense.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/electi...olved-in-many-u-s-murders-a-look-at-the-data/

The number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 committed with rifles: 323.

The number involving handguns? A whopping 6,220. Or 49% of the 12,664 homicides committed in the U.S. in 2011, according to FBI data. And that’s a longstanding pattern. See murder statistics by weapon.

The huge gap suggests President Obama’s call for new firearm restrictions would do little to reduce the number people murdered each year – even if a reluctant Congress were to pass all his requests. His proposals don’t really addresss handguns.

...

As for rifles, they are used even less than body parts, blunt instruments or sharp objects to commit murder.

(more at the link)

 

[Sedatedfork]

Seems to me that the article itself indicated that Madison composed the 2nd amendment originally with no reference to "state militias", and that it was only revised after the state autonomy concerns were raised. Regardless of the history, the main thrust of the 2nd is still about citizens being permitted to possess and use armaments. The "slavery" aspect doesn't change that.

Legislative intent is a tricky thing. Each ratifier may have a different purpose in mind.

 

[noknobs]

I was referring to people who've posted here that want to ban them. I'm talking about handguns, too.

Ah, then carry on.

I don't oppose background checks. But they're not any sort of panacea either. You go buy one. Someone breaks into your house and steals it. What good did the check do?

My concern about "bans" is about Liberty. If I don't want anything to do with guns, but you want to collect them or otherwise use them in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, then I absolutely have no interest in telling you what to do.

In that scenario not much. But you can find holes in any scenario the gov't does. There isn't a perfect plan, there never will be. But I've read the 23 executive orders he passed, and I've read the laws he'd like congress to pass (and never will), and I don't see a problem with any of it. It's hardly infringing on our liberties. They seem to be simply trying to make our society a small fraction safer. If, at it's MOST EXTREME, that would result in a few gun collectors unable to collect military style weapons, I truly could give a shit. (Maybe you agree with me, not sure if you're referring to an assault-weapons ban or a total ban on guns)

If two guys came at me armed with pistols, I'd think an assault rifle would be pretty good defense.

What percentage of your day do you have an assault rifle immediately handy? If two guys came at you with pistols already drawn, unless you were already holding your assault rifle like Rambo, ready for anything, I doubt it'd come in handy. And if you have time to get it, load it and aim it, then you'd also have time to call 9-1-1 and get a handgun. I gotta be honest, I don't see stories very often in which a housemom successfully wards off a pack of theives with an assault weapon in a shoot-out like the OK Corral. Do you have any statistics on how many lives assault weapons save each year? Honest question, I have no idea.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/electi...olved-in-many-u-s-murders-a-look-at-the-data/

Thanks for the link. It says that while murder has been on the decline, mass shootings is on the rise. And it says

Yet assault rifles have also been used in several recent mass shootings, including Newtown and Aurora, Colorado. They are easier to conceal than traditional rifles and some can handle much larger magazines with as many as 100 bullets.

A 10-bullet limit on magazines might help to limit the number of people killed in mass shootings, but it probably wouldn’t do much to reduce total murders.

Mass-shootings seems to be the growing problem, and if this could help, why not do it? What hunter NEEDS a larger magazine? What responsible gun owner NEEDS an assault weapon? I simply think it'd do more good than harm.

In 2011, more murders were committed by knives (1,694), hands, fists and feet (728) and blunt weapons such as clubs and hammers (496), according to FBI data.

The solution seems clear. I'd like a complete ban on all hands, fists and feet.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, consider what rhetoric means. It's language intended to persuade people to action. I have zero doubt that progressives want to ban all guns, and it's just a matter of doing it "death by 1,000 cuts" style. That said, people really need to think with their head, not act on their hearts. So to speak. Using your head, you might look at the claim that "mass shootings is on the rise." Really?

NO.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common

 

[noknobs]

Well, consider what rhetoric means. It's language intended to persuade people to action. I have zero doubt that progressives want to ban all guns, and it's just a matter of doing it "death by 1,000 cuts" style.

I've seen the right using a ton of rhetoric, I know what it is and how it's used. You'll have extreme viewpoints on either side. I can't convince you that your "death by 1,000 cuts" theory is wrong, but I'm convinced it is.

Using your head, you might look at the claim that "mass shootings is on the rise." Really?

NO.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common

Uh, Denny, I was just quoting the link you gave... You know, the one you referenced multiple times in defending your argument? Should I discount the entire thing now? Which links that you post should I believe?

 

[Denny Crane]

The marketwatch blog I linked to does not state mass shootings are on the rise. You said it, but you're not alone in using that rhetoric.

The first link disputes whether taking away millions of peoples' assault rifles because a couple of people have abused them lately is a good idea.

The second link disputes whether there is an actual increase in the rate of mass shootings.

Look at post #36 in this thread.

 

[noknobs]

The marketwatch blog I linked to does not state mass shootings are on the rise.

It says,

The irony is, the U.S. has experienced a dramatic and long-term decline in murder since 1980, even as mass shootings seem to have increased. Social scientists aren’t entirely sure why.

 

[Denny Crane]

It says "seem to."

They seem to because a very small number of (terrible) incidents get a lot of press.

So far, I'm seeing the expert criminologists saying that there is no increase. The opposite is true to a degree - since the previous assault weapon ban expired, all types of violent crime has basically been reduced by a full one half.

Here's another story that cites USA Today's own study and a 2nd criminologist:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/mass-killings-common/1778303/

Without more complete records, it is impossible to know whether mass killings increased over those years — though they have become less common since the mid-1990s, according to Grant Duwe, director of research at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, who has studied mass murders.

(USA Today can't prove there's any increase, Duwe says there's a decrease)

But for all the attention they receive, mass killings still accounted for only a tiny fraction — about 1% — of all the Americans who were murdered over those five years. During those five years, more died from migraines and falling out of chairs than were murdered by mass killers, according to death records kept by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Three times as many people perished from sunstroke.

(Ban migraines!)

 

[oldguy]

Green font is required for you?
...The number involving handguns? A whopping 6,220. Or 49% of the 12,664 homicides committed in the U.S. in 2011, according to FBI data. And that’s a longstanding pattern. See murder statistics by weapon.
...

It's interesting that the link seems to treat the words 'homicide' and 'murder' as the same thing. I think the data is based on homicides. Homicides include where good guys kill bad guys. Much more importantly, and probably accounting for over half of gun homicides, is suicide. Those deaths should be parsed out of any 'murder' statistics, as there are plenty of ways to do that without a gun.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

It's interesting that the link seems to treat the words 'homicide' and 'murder' as the same thing. I think the data is based on homicides. Homicides include where good guys kill bad guys. Much more importantly, and probably accounting for over half of gun homicides, is suicide. Those deaths should be parsed out of any 'murder' statistics, as there are plenty of ways to do that without a gun.

Go Blazers

The article links to the FBI report here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

It's definitely Murder Victims they're counting, even though they title the page "Expanded Homicide Data Table 8"


12,664 total by weapon, 8,583 by any kind of firearm, 323 from Rifles

1,694 by knives or cutting instruments
728 by Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)
496 by blunt instrument

 

[Denny Crane]

Another interesting tidbit from the USA Today article:

A third of mass killings didn't involve guns at all. In 15 incidents, the victims died in a fire. In 20 others, the killer used a knife or a blunt object. When guns were involved, killers were far more likely to use handguns than any other type of weapon.