The Gun Law Discussion

[A.Nonymous]

I'd like to see some real life example of gun registration leading to more illegal guns on the street.

There are communities throughout the US that have passed mandatory gun ownership laws. So everyone in town owns a gun. Have illegal guns gone up in those communities?

Besides, if you have guns, you've got them secured in a gun safe of some sort. Do bad guys steal the entire safe?

 

[copestag]

you must not read the news much............ YES

the case I previously pointed out to you out east where the gun owners information had been place in the newspaper........ they stole the entire safe

so theres your real life example..... thieves broke in to steal guns because they knew they were there...... thanks to registration....... and they stole the safe

the better question is........ can you cite any real world example where registration would prevent crime?

 

[Speed Daemon]

Or... to put it another way...

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

So there is a constructional remit for regulation... but that's the clause everyone sees fit to ignore...

Please speak only for yourself. I was the one who posted the whole text, remember?

The Second Amendment clearly does not call for regulation of firearms. Ignoring the rules of grammar while attempting to inject meanings which weren't written is neither right nor productive.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Which is de facto every single car in the US.

The fact remains that the "guns are just like cars" argument has been debunked. I'm not going to indulge nit-picking, weasel words or any further litigation of this moot point.

The NCIC is NOT such a database. I know.

Sorry but claiming to be a self-appointed authority fails to convince.

The NCIC does indeed keep records of stops, warnings, citations, arrests. convictions and other things. And that's just the part we know about.

In the context of my original assertion, the NCIC does indeed keep cross-checkable records of firearms ownership and vehicle ownership.

 

[Speed Daemon]

...the fact that there aren't any militias in the envisioned sense...

Ah...actually there are quite a few militias that were formed for that express purpose. You're welcome to come to the US and see for yourself.

Believe it or not, but there's a much larger reality. Just because one person is unaware doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Sorry but claiming to be a self-appointed authority fails to convince.

The NCIC does indeed keep records of stops, warnings, citations, arrests. convictions and other things. And that's just the part we know about.

In the context of my original assertion, the NCIC does indeed keep cross-checkable records of firearms ownership and vehicle ownership.

But claiming something that is false without anything at all to back it up makes it true? Got it. I'll take a simple assertion backed by nothing over personal experience any time.

The NCIC does NOT keep a record of stops, warnings, citations, and arrests. Convictions are stored there. I'd love to see your source for the other stuff. It's factually inaccurate. Local agencies don't even store stops nine times out of ten though warnings and citations are SOMETIMES on files, but not usually. That data is stored locally, but may or may not be available nationally depending on whether the locality that has that info wants to play nice. Again, your statement was, "They already use the database that keeps records of all police contact for everyone in the US to make other key decisions." That statement is factually incorrect. Such a database does not exist.

Lost/stolen/missing firearms are in said database, but it's not a database of every firearm in the US. It's also not a database of every vehicle in the US. Stolen vehicles are there. That's it. Even then, they are only the stolen vehicles people have reported and the various municipalities have entered into the system. So, please check your facts.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Please speak only for yourself. I was the one who posted the whole text, remember?

The Second Amendment clearly does not call for regulation of firearms. Ignoring the rules of grammar while attempting to inject meanings which weren't written is neither right nor productive.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you and the legal precedent for regulation of firearms has been set for several hundred years.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I'd like to see some real life example of gun registration leading to more illegal guns on the street.

There are communities throughout the US that have passed mandatory gun ownership laws. So everyone in town owns a gun. Have illegal guns gone up in those communities?

Besides, if you have guns, you've got them secured in a gun safe of some sort. Do bad guys steal the entire safe?

Is mandatory ownership constitutional? There must be a few court cases out there. Which specific communities require that you own guns?

I should think any community touched by a drug problem also has an illegal gun problem because the two go hand in hand.

 

[Bob Maxey]

it says that as as a regulated militia is needed then the right to bear arms isn't to be infringed....
skipping over the fact that there aren't any militias in the envisioned sense .. the second half of the clause is dependent on the first half, ie regulation is required. And it doesn't rule out who is /isn't responsible to do it, or the level at which it should be set.

Not so sure you are accurate. Here is a list and apparently, it is a BIG list of militias broken down by state and county.

U.S. National Militia Directory

I should think those that believe our gun rights only apply to militias will find a way to say the militias that apparently exist are not "legal" (whatever that might mean) and therefore, should not have the right to keep and bear arms.

Let's face it . . . regardless of what the constitution says, many people do not want anyone to own guns.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Founding Fathers on the subject of Militias:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." Zachariah Johnson. Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution 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; …"
Samuel Adams, quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

Read more:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my Concealed Weapons Permit, period."
- Ted Nugent

 

[PrinceCorwin]

Why do these gun law conversations always take such rediculously pointless tangents? There is only ONE point to be made regarding gun legislation and it is undeniable and without argument:

New gun laws (and ANY new laws for that matter) are only adhered to by law abiding individuals who therefor are no threat to any of us in the first place. People who commit crimes with guns DON'T OBEY LAWS!!!!!!! So they will still aquire them. New regulation only affects those that already socially cooperative. Does anyone REALLY think that when the new laws banning AK 47's gets passed, the crips and bloods of LA are gonna say, "damn! we gotta get rid of our gats now!"

What is so hard to understand about this? Get real people. I know these tradgedies touch us deeply and we get infuriated and feel a natural desire for revenge. But focusing that revenge on those that mean us no harm is wrong. And that is exactly at whom these new gun reforms are aimed.

There is no definitive fix, for evil will be with us always... and it will always find a way to circumvent the law.

I mean prostitution is illegal but it still happens. Should we then make it illegal for a woman to wear sexy clothes while walking down the sidewalk at night? No because the prostitutes will simply find a new way to attract their Johns and the result would simply be that women who are not and have no intention to be prostitutes will no longer be able to walk down the sidewalk wearing sexy clothes.

It just seems so simple to me, I don't know why the gun law supporters can't see that they are playing into the hands of the criminals, not fighting them.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Personally, I think women wearing sexy clothes should be mandatory, but only if they are sexy women. But that's another question altogether.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Is mandatory ownership constitutional? There must be a few court cases out there. Which specific communities require that you own guns?

I should think any community touched by a drug problem also has an illegal gun problem because the two go hand in hand.

I would've sworn there were several communities like this, but I could only come up with one. Keenesaw, GA requires all citizens to own a functioning firearm unless they are mentally/physically disabled, felons or have moral objections. They (the town) claims that this law (in effect since the mid 80s) has led to a steep drop in crime in the town overall although outside experts apparently say there is no correlation. In any case, we would expect the opposite. Criminals know there is an entire town of gun owners so it's a honey pot of illegal weapons.

 

[psionandy]

Ah...actually there are quite a few militias that were formed for that express purpose. You're welcome to come to the US and see for yourself.

Believe it or not, but there's a much larger reality. Just because one person is unaware doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.

Thanks for that.. I was of course aware that there are militias.. but the point i was making (and trying not to get sidetracked by) was that a the time of the founding fathers the 'envisioned' milita was instead of the standing army (which could become an implement of tyranny). I'm not sure if most of the organisations listed in your article actually fulfill that role.


There's also the National Guard which could be argued is the Militia.. and of course there is an argument that 'Every indivdual is a one man militia' but you'd have to stretch the point to make that fit with the idea that was originally meant.

Of course then you can have a separate discussion about if the constitution is a document that is 'set in stone' with a completely fixed meaning based on the view of the founding fathers in the 18th century.. or if its a 'living document' which can be continually re-interpreted to keep in line with the will of the people in the 21st century.

But if we go down those rabbit holes in this particular thread who knows where we will end up.


And speaking of tangents and rabbit hole.....

Why do these gun law conversations always take such rediculously pointless tangents? There is only ONE point to be made regarding gun legislation and it is undeniable and without argument:

New gun laws (and ANY new laws for that matter) are only adhered to by law abiding individuals who therefor are no threat to any of us in the first place.

Ok, I'll bite...

The obvious problem with that argument.. is that as by definition criminals are people who break the laws. So why have ANY laws at all.

Thefts are only committed by people who break laws about stealing, so why make stealing against the law. Honest people don't need the laws and criminals ignore them anyway. So why not abolish the lot and have a completely arachistic society?


Even Moses, had the 10 commandments.. how few do you think that a modern country can manage with?

 

[psionandy]

Founding Fathers on the subject of Militias:

Thanks for the quotes Bob.. they've certainly added to the debate...
Now if we assume that "the people = the militia" and that the Militia has an essential role. How do we make sure its " well regulated? After all the founding fathers seem to be very convinced that it needs to be.

Let's face it . . . regardless of what the constitution says, many people do not want anyone to own guns.

and thats the nub of the argument.

you have a lot of people who want to own guns (for a variety of different reasons, some of them good - some of them bad) and a lot of people who want them banned (again for good and bad reasons).

Bottom line is that nobody on either side really wants guns in the hands of dangerous terrorists and criminals. Is anyone going to stand up and say 'Gun crime is great?'

So the proper thing to do, is have a real national debate. One where the issues come first and personal agendas, mud-slinging and political expedience are checked at the door.

But sadly that isn't going to happen... because the bigotry, political self interest etc.. are more important.

Now we all know that ain't gonna happen. So the best we can hope for is for someone (this President or the next?) to listen to the people then put forward a set of proposals. Make his (or her) case. Build a cross party coalition what they believe, and put it to the people. If the people go for it then it can move forward, if not then not...

 

[Bob Maxey]

I would've sworn there were several communities like this, but I could only come up with one. Keenesaw, GA requires all citizens to own a functioning firearm unless they are mentally/physically disabled, felons or have moral objections. They (the town) claims that this law (in effect since the mid 80s) has led to a steep drop in crime in the town overall although outside experts apparently say there is no correlation. In any case, we would expect the opposite. Criminals know there is an entire town of gun owners so it's a honey pot of illegal weapons.

If I lived in a town were owning a gun was a legal requirement, all of my burgles would be out of town. Not sure I would want to take a chance of getting shot.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Thanks for that.. I was of course aware that there are militias.. but the point i was making (and trying not to get sidetracked by) was that a the time of the founding fathers the 'envisioned' milita was instead of the standing army (which could become an implement of tyranny). I'm not sure if most of the organisations listed in your article actually fulfill that role.

In this nuclear age, there's little doubt that relatively small militias without an air force of any kind could actually put down our military. But we still have the right to try. I think that most of us would rather have a chance to die trying over no choice at all. There's also an argument to be made for giving our militias a real fighting chance.

There's also the National Guard which could be argued is the Militia.

That's the problem with The National Guard--it no longer exists to enforce states' rights or do anything under the Second Amendment. It's just another branch of the DOD, along with the Reserves. Telling Americans "this is your Second Amendment rights at work" is a falsehood. I don't think there's any doubt whose orders they'd follow if push comes to shove. IMHO an institutionalized falsehood like the Guard is not compatible with a free society.

and of course there is an argument that 'Every indivdual is a one man militia' but you'd have to stretch the point to make that fit with the idea that was originally meant.

I haven't heard that one before, but it reminds me of those silly "army of one" recruitment commercials. A lone gunman? I think we all can see what's wrong there!

Of course then you can have a separate discussion about if the constitution is a document that is 'set in stone' with a completely fixed meaning based on the view of the founding fathers in the 18th century.. or if its a 'living document' which can be continually re-interpreted to keep in line with the will of the people in the 21st century.

If you're talking about "strict constructionism", there's no basis in reality for it.

Obviously the People can amend the Constitution if circumstances demand it. I don't see any serious movement along those lines, so...

 

[Bob Maxey]

Of course then you can have a separate discussion about if the constitution is a document that is 'set in stone' with a completely fixed meaning based on the view of the founding fathers in the 18th century.. or if its a 'living document' which can be continually re-interpreted to keep in line with the will of the people in the 21st century.

The Constitution should never be thought of (and therefore it is not) as a "living, breathing document." As soon as you do, it becomes a worthless, dead document. That is the beauty of the document; it holds up even in today's world.

This is why it is so hard to change. The founders made it very, very hard to change for a good reason.

If people want a change, it can be changed, but that takes lots of effort. This is a good thing. Do we want the Constitution to be easy to change?

So no, it is not and should never be thought of as a living, breathing document.

FYI: To Propose Amendments

"In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition."

 

[psionandy]

The Constitution should never be thought of (and therefore it is not) as a "living, breathing document." As soon as you do, it becomes a worthless, dead document. That is the beauty of the document; it holds up even in today's world.

This is why it is so hard to change. The founders made it very, very hard to change for a good reason.

If people want a change, it can be changed, but that takes lots of effort. This is a good thing. Do we want the Constitution to be easy to change?

So no, it is not and should never be thought of as a living, breathing document.

FYI: To Propose Amendments

"In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition."

Ok.. apologies to anyone who thinks that i've taken this discussion off topic. If anyone DOES think that, and wants me to stop, all you need to do is say the word and i'll drop this line of discussion here (and we'll do it elsewhere if anyone is interested).

right... and back to the conversation.

Although amending or changing the constitution does require the major formalties, that you outlined, it can be argued that the constitution IS a 'living document' in the sense that its interpretation changes over time.

Certainly the Supreme Court sees its function in that light.

]The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

taken from http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
my emphasis in bold...


Obvious examples include changes in what is considered to by the population as a "cruel and unusall" punishment in the 18th century compared to the 21st, along with changes in the separation of "church and state". I'm sure you can think of lot other (and better) examples.

The constitution has remained the same, but its interpretation has changed dramatically...

 

[PrinceCorwin]

Ok, I'll bite...

The obvious problem with that argument.. is that as by definition criminals are people who break the laws. So why have ANY laws at all.

Thefts are only committed by people who break laws about stealing, so why make stealing against the law. Honest people don't need the laws and criminals ignore them anyway. So why not abolish the lot and have a completely arachistic society?


Even Moses, had the 10 commandments.. how few do you think that a modern country can manage with?

Once again, the point is missed... the crimes committed with the guns are already against the law. Simply making a law against the tools used is pointless. Of course stealing should be illegal. I never said that crimes should not have corresponding laws. But just because stealing is illegal, we shouldn't make owning a crowbar illegal. Many people use them for purposes other than crime, just like guns.

Is the fog starting to lift a little?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Regulating said tools so that less safer tools are not in the hands of the general public is a bad idea how?

 

[copestag]

regulating the tools doesnt take a single tool from the criminals..... who are already using the tools illegaly...... it simply takes them from the honest citizen

as said before....... if regulating guns will remove them from the streets...... we should try making heroine and meth illegal

 

[psionandy]

Once again, the point is missed... the crimes committed with the guns are already against the law. Simply making a law against the tools used is pointless. Of course stealing should be illegal. I never said that crimes should not have corresponding laws. But just because stealing is illegal, we shouldn't make owning a crowbar illegal. Many people use them for purposes other than crime, just like guns.

Is the fog starting to lift a little?

Is anyone calling for all guns for all purposes to be made illegal? I really don't think they are. Rather changes to the system about what types are available for those purposes (including hunting, target shooting, self defence and other legal activities) and changes in how they are purchased etc... The proposals all seem to look like regulation rather than abolition.

Simply having a law against ANYTHING is obviously pointless unless it has a desiried effect, and you won't get that unless its enforced. So clearly what you are crying out for is the law to be well crafted.. and suitable enforcement

Its the logical outcome of what you have posted sir, but i sense that its not really what you want.

Here's an idea of another way you could do it that would target the criminals.

President-elect Reagan was in New York the day after Lennon was shot and was stopped long enough for a reporter to ask him if gun control wasn't the answer. He said, "No, if somebody commits a crime and carries a gun when he's doing it, add five to fifteen years to the prison sentence; it may be a way out." At any rate, I don't think there's any doubt now that one of the first Bills that somebody will put up to the new Congress will be yet another proposal for a federal gun control law.

BBC Radio 4 - Letter from America by Alistair Cooke, John Lennon?s assassination - John Lennon?s assassination

looking through the article its clear to see that not a lot has changed in the last 20 years........

 

[A.Nonymous]

regulating the tools doesnt take a single tool from the criminals..... who are already using the tools illegaly...... it simply takes them from the honest citizen

as said before....... if regulating guns will remove them from the streets...... we should try making heroine and meth illegal

Look at the null hypothesis of your statement. If we made meth and heroin legal tomorrow would we see usage go up, down or stay the same? If the answer is up, then having them illegal does cut down on usage even if it doesn't prevent it entirely.

 

[pbf98]

Look at the null hypothesis of your statement. If we made meth and heroin legal tomorrow would we see usage go up, down or stay the same? If the answer is up, then having them illegal does cut down on usage even if it doesn't prevent it entirely.

I think what he's getting at is the that those drugs are still on the street regardless of the fact that they are illegal. Stating the redundant fact that criminals don't obey laws.

When you said that it reminded me of this little debate (skip to 1:34)

As far as my thoughts on the whole "militia" debate going on, my thoughts are similar to this: