The Gun Law Discussion

[A.Nonymous]

ALL guns are designed to kill though.

 

[JohnLaird]

Hmm...be careful with the word *ALL*. Plenty of guns are made/designed to be used expressly for target shooting...obviously they can be used to kill but the design makes it rather impractical. There are a lot of rifles out there (even AR-15s) that are so damn heavy all they are good for is bench-rest shooting (and they excel at it). There is also so-called "less-lethal" guns and ammunition to consider (typically special purpose shotgun shells).

There are also gobs of .22 rifles out there. Could it be used for killing? Sure, maybe squirrels and paper. Unless you are skilled enough to hit a person in the temple near point blank it isn't much use for killing people.

That aside...with your logic...are *ALL* knives with a blade >2" designed for killing? Are all rifle bayonets designed for that purpose? Historically all they are used for is as a camp knife or cooking implement. They just get in the way when you stick it on a rifle...good for show. Not much else.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Missouri is trying to pass a bill that would require all "assault gun" owners to turn in their guns for destruction within 90 days.

Still think they do not want to disarm us?

Missouri lawmakers introduce gun confiscation bill | Joe Pags - THE 9-5-0 - RADIO MOJO - Houston's Talk Radio

I do not think it will pass.

Law abiding citizen today and felon tomorrow. The ban also includes certain magazines.

 

[chrlswltrs]

And as for rights changing....I'm sure there are many people that would disagree, actually probably well over half of America.... Womens rights to vote, black peoples rights as a whole?

But if course rights do not change so let's go back to the days if slavery!
As to voter id, I'm not sure if the current systems in place over there, we in Britain have to register to vote, we are then sent a card out in the post with polling details, its quicker and easier to bring it, if you don't, you can still vote without giving any proof..... I don't see anything wrong with this system, as the people who work at the polling stations etc are vetted and I think are volunteers, though I could be wrong as there may be a nominal pay!

I think rights can be added, like in your example, because they did not always apply to certain groups. Rights, however, can not be taken away. They are not given to us by anyone, including government.

With the voting system, it works the same in a lot of states here. The problem is fraud. Take just this presidential election for example. There were areas where Obama received 100% of votes, with 0 votes for Romney, which is a statistical impossibility. There were areas that Obama received as much as 120% of the votes for the registered voters in the area. There have been interviews with people admitting publicly that they voted multiple times which is a crime. The only reason this isn't changed is because without voter fraud democrats could not get elected. Having to show a valid ID would not prevent any legal citizen from voting, but democrats always resist this because they need those illegal votes.

 

[funpig]

People should read the Supreme Court decision Heller which deals with the 2nd Amendment (ESPECIALLY PAGES 52-56):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The Supreme Court is very clear. The 2nd Amendment right to hold and bear arms is NOT unlimited. Private citizens have the individual right to hold and bear arms which are lawful and were "in common usage at the time". The Supreme Court makes it clear that the government can make laws as to who cannot bear arms (eg. felons, mentally ill), where you can bear arms (eg. government buildings, schools or other sensitive areas), how you bear arms (eg. concealed carry) and what type of arms are prohibited (eg. M16 or similar military, machine guns, sawn off shot guns, dangerous or unusual weapons).

The Supreme court separates out the first part (States ability to form and regulate the people as a militia) and second part of the 2nd Amendment (individual's right to hold and bear arms). The latter part only protects the individual to hold and bear weapons which were "in common usage at the time". The court goes on to say that the fact that weaponery has become advanced does not change the court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The court gives the example of people being asked to serve in the militia and only being able to bring their home-owned rifles to fight against bombers. The fact that weapon technology has improved does not entitle gun owner access to advanced weaponery.

I cannot see how anybody can read the 2nd Amendment as the protected right to arm themselves with advanced military-type assault weapons so they can overthrow the United States government in the name of liberty.

 

[chrlswltrs]

People should read the Supreme Court decision Heller which deals with the 2nd Amendment (ESPECIALLY PAGES 52-56):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The Supreme Court is very clear. The 2nd Amendment right to hold and bear arms is NOT unlimited. Private citizens have the individual right to hold and bear arms which are lawful and were "in common usage at the time". The Supreme Court makes it clear that the government can make laws as to who cannot bear arms (eg. felons, mentally ill), where you can bear arms (eg. government buildings, schools or other sensitive areas), how you bear arms (eg. concealed carry) and what type of arms are prohibited (eg. M16 or similar military, machine guns, sawn off shot guns, dangerous or unusual weapons).

The Supreme court separates out the first part (States ability to form and regulate the people as a militia) and second part of the 2nd Amendment (individual's right to hold and bear arms). The latter part only protects the individual to hold and bear weapons which were "in common usage in the time". The court goes on to say that the fact that weaponery has become advanced does not change the court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The court gives the example of people being asked to serve in the militia and only bringing their home-owned rifles against bombers.

I cannot see how anybody can read the 2nd Amendment as the protected right to arm themselves with advanced military-type assault weapons so they can overthrow the United States government in the name of liberty.

Because that was the intent of the second amendment. If our government were to become tyrannical, which is a very real possibility under Obama, the citizens should have the means to maintain their freedom. There are a lot of issues like mental illness that the founding fathers could not have foreseen, but the intent was still the same.

Also, currently the average person can not buy a military type assault rifle. The AR15 which looks like an M16 is not a military assault rifle. The AR15 can fire 45-60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the user because it requires the trigger to be pulled for each shot. The M16 can fire 960 rounds per minute and is a select fire automatic rifle. The AR15 functions no differently than any other semi automatic rifle. It just looks different and has some features designed to make it easier to use for self defense (light weight, pistol grip, easy to attach accessories (scopes, lights, fore grips, etc).

 

[funpig]

Because that was the intent of the second amendment. If our government were to become tyrannical,..., the citizens should have the means to maintain their freedom.

I guess if you repeat this enough on the internet, people will think this is the truth. Those words are not in the Second Amendment. If there is a judicial interpretation which reads in that intent, please point it out. It also flies in the face of the specific prohibition against treason, ie levying war against the government, found in the Constitution.

 

[funpig]

Also, currently the average person can not buy a military type assault rifle. The AR15 which looks like an M16 is not a military assault rifle. The AR15 can fire 45-60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the user because it requires the trigger to be pulled for each shot. The M16 can fire 960 rounds per minute and is a select fire automatic rifle. The AR15 functions no differently than any other semi automatic rifle. It just looks different and has some features designed to make it easier to use for self defense (light weight, pistol grip, easy to attach accessories (scopes, lights, fore grips, etc).

Was an AR15 "in common usage at the time"? If not, according to the Supreme Court, the right to keep and bear it is not guaranteed under the second amendment according to the Heller case. Then its usage may be regulated. The only question is whether the people will elect a government with the clout to do so. Conversely, people could decide to elect a government to allow private citizens to keep and bear nuclear weapons.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Was an AR15 "in common usage at the time"? If not, according to the Supreme Court, the right to keep and bear it is not guaranteed under the second amendment according to the Heller case. Then its usage may be regulated. The only question is whether the people will elect a government with the clout to do so. Conversely, people could decide to elect a government to allow private citizens to keep and bear nuclear weapons.

Yes, the AR15 is "in common usage at the time". The AR15 is currently one of the most popular guns in America, and has been for several years.

 

[sntaylor]

Yes, the AR15 is "in common usage at the time". The AR15 is currently one of the most popular guns in America, and has been for several years.

The original text states that it is weapons that were in use at the time, suggesting to me at least, at the time of writing the second amendment!

 

[funpig]

Yes, the AR15 is "in common usage at the time". The AR15 is currently one of the most popular guns in America, and has been for several years.

You should read the Heller case. "In common usage at the time" refers to the time the constitution was drafted. Semi auto weapons did not exist then. Therefore keeping and bearing an AR15 is not guaranteed under the constitution. Therefore, it may be regulated, but that is up to the government.

 

[sntaylor]

ALL guns are designed to kill though.

To clarify my view...and it is just that!

All guns were invented with the intention of use for killing, since then they have evolved greatly from the huge cannons etc, use of all guns vary, but in the most part, people going out to hunt would not use a hand gun to shoot deer, possibly to defend against a bear but that's about it..... Likewise a huntsman would be unlikely to go shooting deer using a machine gun! These items are meant for killing, in large, humans!

I know that many go to the shooting range etc and use these guns and that's fine, but its generally those same people who are using the example of self defence as a primary reason, therefor it is for killing (as I said before, you don't get taught to aim for limbs as is highly likely you'll miss!)

I'll all again, has anyone here actually had to shoot someone in self defence in their home or on the streets?

Oh and just curious as this debate seems to jump with reason for having guns between use for self defence in home or streets against a bad man, and protection against the government in the form of a militia, I have seen evidence of the right for the militia, where does it state the right to carry for defence etc?

 

[Bob Maxey]

Bad wording by me,I should have said primarily designed for killing.....which hand guns are, naturally I'm sure you could find someone who will use a machine gun or rocket launcher for target practice, this doesn't take away from their original purpose of design.

Yes you can. You must have never shot a machine gun. It ain't like in the movies. Being accurate takes practice. I believe in China there are places people can go to shoot rockets. Perhaps in this country, Bob does not know.

We are getting off track. the Constitution says we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Period. One can argue it until the cows come home, but the fact still remains, it is fundamental and protected right no matter how one wants to twist it in an effort to support their point.

Or it was.

The "Six Shooter" in the old west was carried for protection, killing dinner, and what have you. Interestingly enough, according to some Utah western historians and writers, when you rode into town you usually had to turn your guns into the sheriff.

 

[Bob Maxey]

You should read the Heller case. "In common usage at the time" refers to the time the constitution was drafted. Semi auto weapons did not exist then. Therefore keeping and bearing an AR15 is not guaranteed under the constitution. Therefore, it may be regulated, but that is up to the government.

Are AR-15s considered arms? Where does it say we have the right to keep and bear only a certain type of arms? It says "Arms" and that includes almost all of 'em.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The "Six Shooter" in the old west was carried for protection, killing dinner, and what have you. Interestingly enough, according to some Utah western historians and writers, when you rode into town you usually had to turn your guns into the sheriff.

I live in KS and there are quite a few cities here that started as cowtown. It was not unusual at all for cowboys to be required to check their guns at the sheriff's office upon arriving in town. You would then retrieve them upon leaving. The ideas was that having drunken cowboys running around with firearms was a bad idea.

 

[bigdrew]

We are getting off track. the Constitution says we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Period. One can argue it until the cows come home, but the fact still remains, it is fundamental and protected right no matter how one wants to twist it in an effort to support their point.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was ratified only a few years after the Treaty of Paris. The continental army was disbanded and there was no national military or legion yet, so the protection of the newly formed Union rested on local militias. When Madison wrote the Second Amendment, he chose his words carefully to reflect 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.

It wasn't supposed to be a preordained or divine right for an armed citizenry. There was a purpose to it. That was in 1791. Today, the US boasts the world's most technologically capable military force. National, state, and often local law enforcement provide safety within our borders. No one will argue against a rifle or pistol designed for sport. But, there's no need for American citizens to bear arms for defense anymore; in fact it's doing more harm than good.

Back in the 1790's, only property-owning white males were allowed to vote. This was later changed to all males including free blacks, then all adult males regardless of race, and then women. Likewise, Second Amendment is embarrassingly antiquated, and it needs to be reexamined in the modern context.

 

[chrlswltrs]

No one will argue against a rifle or pistol designed for sport. But, there's no need for American citizens to bear arms for defense anymore; in fact it's doing more harm than good.

You are correct. When someone breaks into your house, tries to mug you, attempts a rape, etc that is when seconds count and can mean the difference between life and death or walking away unharmed or being beaten and hospitalized or losing all of your property and savings. A gun is the great equalizer that can keep 1 person or family safe from a group of armed intruders, or a 110lb woman from being raped by a 250lb 6'6" man.

When seconds count, police are only minutes away. Why would we ever imagine that we would need to protect ourselves??

 

[ElasticNinja]

First off... The second amendment is not a law, it is part of the bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of basic human rights that every person is entitled to and can not be taken away by the government.

Well there is an issue with said bill of rights when the right to own tools of killing is legal, yet there is no right to health, shelter etc.

Israel is an ally though while Iran is openly hostile towards pretty much the entire world.

Iran's external policy certainly hasn't helped its case. That said Israel is quite hostile to Europe, and much of the world themselves. Much more skilled though it must be said, but they have nonetheless ruined their once excellent European rapport (remember the French helped them with their nuclear program - how do they repay us? Help the South Africans).

Anyway, the hypocrisy is that Israel opts out of the MPT, has nukes and is a tiny country. Iran does not have nukes, is party to the MPT, yet is heavily sanctioned. In my opinion, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, within the limits of pragmatism.

 

[funpig]

Are AR-15s considered arms? Where does it say we have the right to keep and bear only a certain type of arms? It says "Arms" and that includes almost all of 'em.

Read the Heller case. The Supreme Court says otherwise. It is a long decision, but I have given you the page numbers.

 

[funpig]

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was ratified only a few years after the Treaty of Paris. The continental army was disbanded and there was no national military or legion yet, so the protection of the newly formed Union rested on local militias. When Madison wrote the Second Amendment, he chose his words carefully to reflect 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.

It wasn't supposed to be a preordained or divine right for an armed citizenry. There was a purpose to it. That was in 1791. Today, the US boasts the world's most technologically capable military force. National, state, and often local law enforcement provide safety within our borders. No one will argue against a rifle or pistol designed for sport. But, there's no need for American citizens to bear arms for defense anymore; in fact it's doing more harm than good.

Back in the 1790's, only property-owning white males were allowed to vote. This was later changed to all males including free blacks, then all adult males regardless of race, and then women. Likewise, Second Amendment is embarrassingly antiquated, and it needs to be reexamined in the modern context.

Also, read the Heller case. The Supreme Court makes it clear that the second amendment enshrines the private individual's right to keep and bear arms ("in common usage at the time") for personal self defence. That is clear. So people will always have the right to own hand guns and rifles for self defence. But the Supreme Court does say say that the type of guns can be regulated as I have stated in my first post above.

The Supreme Court says under the second amendment, citizens do not have an unfettered right to "dangerous or unusual weapons". What is "dangerous or unusual"? Well that is up to your elected government to decide and to pass laws. So it depends on who the people put into office.

 

[ElasticNinja]

So people will always have the right to own hand guns and rifles for self defence.

The constitution can be changed though.

 

[pbf98]

Where does it say in the second amendment what type of gun you must have?

As a foreigner in this debate I do find it hard to get behind the passion towards the constitution and truly understand it, there are obviously some human rights that must be protected, but in this day and age, I feel society has outgrown certain amendments/laws...... from what I can gather the second amendment is technically a law? And there are plenty of laws that will have changed over time, newer ones than those! Speed limits for a start!

"It's the American way"

I think this hits the nail on the head(forgot about your hammer thing already ), I'm looking at it from an outsiders point of view, adding a new dimension into the equation as you guys see it from a for or against argument and I'm actually in both camps and see both points!

Going back to your hammer point though.....of course it's not the hammers fault, but you wouldn't hit your thumb if you didn't have the hammer in the first place!

So let's save everyone's thumbs and ban hammers!

You are correct there is nowhere where it says I must have any specific gun, and on the same note, it does not say which guns I cannot have, it just simply says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Iran's external policy certainly hasn't helped its case. That said Israel is quite hostile to Europe, and much of the world themselves. Much more skilled though it must be said, but they have nonetheless ruined their once excellent European rapport (remember the French helped them with their nuclear program - how do they repay us? Help the South Africans).

Anyway, the hypocrisy is that Israel opts out of the MPT, has nukes and is a tiny country. Iran does not have nukes, is party to the MPT, yet is heavily sanctioned. In my opinion, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, within the limits of pragmatism.

I can't speak to Israel's policy toward Europe. All I know is they have presented themselves to the US as allies. Because of the failed middle eastern policy of several US presidents we are desperately in need of allies in the region. The US cracking down on Israel for having nukes would be akin to the US cracking down on the UK for having them.

 

[saptech]

That's the problem with the US, they are supporting the wrong side in the Mid-East. But I guess it's too late.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I can't speak to Israel's policy toward Europe. All I know is they have presented themselves to the US as allies. Because of the failed middle eastern policy of several US presidents we are desperately in need of allies in the region. The US cracking down on Israel for having nukes would be akin to the US cracking down on the UK for having them.

Comparing the UK to Israel is extremely unfair, however. The UK was one of the victorious powers of WWII, and is a Great Power. It is a peaceful country. It does not oppress others, and while in Europe we can see them as being the ones who throw their toys out of the pram, as a state it is mature and sensible. It is also half of Europe's nuclear defence.

TL;DR, the UK has every right to nuclear weapons, for historical and present reasons.

Israel did not develop nuclear technology on its own. It is a very small country, not a Great Power for sure. It is not a mature and reasonable country. It oppresses others outside the state. And so on. And as I said, Israel cannot be trusted with its nuclear technology, as it has been all to willing to help non-democratic states (1980s South Africa) obtain nuclear technology for no good reason.

Israel does not admit to its ownership of nuclear weapons. It does not allow proper international inspections (unlike Iran). Now, seeing as how it has nuclear weapons, and is pressing for action against Iran for daring to put in the groundwork for nuclear weapons, logically, Israel also deserves sanctions.

That's the problem with the US, they are supporting the wrong side in the Mid-East. But I guess it's too late.

Iran certainly doesn't deserve US support. However Saudi Arabia and Israel, for different reasons, should by rights be ostracised states, not enjoying massive support. Countries such as Jordan, Egypt etc certainly deserve Western support, although perhaps in a different vane.