America are gun nuts pt 2

[Timothy]

A proposal for rational gun control

Although I would personally like to see as many civilian-owned guns eliminated from mainstream society as possible, I realize that this is not a politically realistic goal. Thus, I present my own plans for gun control that I would consider a valid compromise. Perhaps policy discussions can start from these.

1. A national system for registering guns and ammunition. Part of the reason New York City has stiff gun laws and high gun death rates is that anybody can go from New York to a state with less restrictive laws, get a friend who lives in the state to buy the guns for them, and take those guns back to NYC. (Yes, I am aware this is illegal, but it happens.) First, a national system would prevent this by scaring those "friends" into not buying the guns legally and selling them illegally, for if the guns are used in an illegal crime, that person can be held accountable. Second, a national system would be more helpful in tracking crimes after they have happened, to bring the perpetrators to justice.

2. Instant background checks on people attempting to buy guns or ammunition. Brady is still patchwork, and does indeed have its flaws in tracking felons. Felons and ex-cons should not have access to weapons, and many misdemeanors and juvenile crimes should also count against a person's record.

3. Stiffer sentences for gun crimes. This has been the position of the NRA for quite some time, and it is certainly one with which I agree.

4. Gun education. Many guns are involved in accidents that could easily have been prevented by a little care or forethought. Perhaps gun purchasers should be required to take lessons in gun safety, at the purchaser's expense. Again, the NRA has long been a proponent of gun education.

5. General education. Study after study has concluded that there is a direct correlation between lack of education and violent crime. Every dollar spent on education now will prevent countless dollars worth of crime damage in the future. Think of all the private and public funds used to pay for gun violence -- hospital bills, funerals, insurance bills, the actual cost of buying firearms. Now invest that money in education, and watch the crime rate drop.

6. Hand grip ID tagging. This is technologically probably still in the future, but it would be a good goal to work for. The theory is, each gun is "registered" to one's person palm prints (the legal purchaser of the gun), and only that person can fire that gun. If another person tries, the gun simply will not fire. Thus, stolen guns become useless, and cannot be used to harm anybody in the course of a crime.


http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm#A%20proposal%20for%20rational%20gun



though this was pretty interesting.

[Timothy]

Responding to the Pro Gun Cliches
For far too long, people's views of the gun control issue have been driven by the slogans, cliches and rhetoric of the gun lobby. Since becoming a gun control advocate, I've heard them all--and I learned to respond to them all!

At one time the simplest cliches were sufficient--ones like, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." As Americans have grown more concerned with the level of gun violence, those simple cliches don't work any more. Other phrases, such as "law abiding citizens," "we already have 20,000 gun laws," and "one more law won't stop criminals" have become common props for the gun lobby.

In the end, those simplistic cliches and slogans don't solve our gun violence problem. Only action on a variety of fronts will address this shameful problem. But the gun lobby will continue to trot out its cliches, so I'm providing my brief responses to each of them. Since the cliches of gun supporters are short, mine will be the same.

These gun control advocates just want to take away our guns!
Well, some do. But most of us respect hunters and collectors and others with a legitimate need for guns. We just want to do more to close loopholes, keep them from children and irresponsible users, and make society safer. Besides, with more than 220 million firearms in this country, taking away guns would be impossible!

It's unfair to punish responsible gun owners with restrictive laws just because of the acts of irresponsible gun owners!
That's true. Life can be unfair. The problem is, it's tough to define a "responsible" gun owner. One way to do that is to conduct a background check when selling a gun, to at least make sure the buyer isn't a felon or wife beater. But many pro gun advocates aren't even willing to support that type of step.

Furthermore, we don't wear labels that say we're responsible. Today's responsible gun owner can become angry and use it in anger, as we see all too often. We can't write laws that define "responsible" owners and exempt them from all laws--laws must be written for all.

If we lock up criminals and keep them there, we'd have no problem!
This country has been doing that: prison sentences have been lengthened and we've built thousands more prison cells. And what has happened? Still more shootings, by others not (yet) in jail.

The fact is that not everyone who uses a gun illegally is a felon before that moment. The boys who killed my son became felons when they took possession of the 9mm handgun and pulled the trigger. Even if they had been arrested for the threats they had made, they would not have been locked up for life. The fact is that guns are too plentiful and too easy to come by.

When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.
As pointed out earlier, it is not the goal of most gun control advocates to remove all existing guns-200 million firearms is too many to remove! We're talking about the kinds of guns available, the capacity of gun clips, and reasonable controls on access.

More important, there is the irony of their statement! Gun supporters worry so much about criminals with guns. But one thing that enables criminals to have such an arsenal of guns is the sheer volume of guns and the ease of purchasing guns in this country-something that the NRA and others have promoted! Go figure!

We need guns for our protection! You can't take away this right.
Well, our family has managed to get by without a gun all our lives, but we understand others may feel safer with them. But does one need a 357 Magnum to protect their home? Or an AK-47? No. There are only people who want them, not need them.

We believe that it's time America say we can't afford the risk of these dangerous weapons. Besides, studies have shown that far more people are killed by their own guns (or because of them) than are used to protect their own lives.

We need weapons to protect ourselves from a tyrannical federal government.
No, we need to protect ourselves from those who say they need weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government! No reasonable person thinks the U.S. Military is going to be engaged in hand-to-hand, door-to-door combat with civilians. They would face mutiny. No, logically a tyrannical minded army would use its arsenal of far more powerful weapons. So shall we allow people to have bazookas? Tanks? Rocket Launchers? Surface to Air Missiles? ICBMs? Why not just let us all have our own nuclear weapons? Where does it all end?

Isn't it time that America say it's had enough with the dangerous, paranoid, militia types who promote conspiracy theories and maintain their own weapons arsenals? We've seen the hateful consequences of these people in Oklahoma City, Montana, and other places.

What have you got against the NRA, anyway? They're not the enemy!
Sure, when they are involved in safety programs, they're a good organization, and we respect many of its members. But the NRA has a dark side. They fought the Brady Bill, the assault weapons ban, and most gun control legislation. For that they deserve our condemnation.

The NRA is unduly influenced by a group of people who promote unfettered access to guns and high-powered weapons. This is counter to the beliefs of most Americans, and it has also led to many moderates leaving the NRA.

Automobiles kill 40,000 people a year. Nobody's calling for THEIR elimination!
How ironic to hear this statement from gun supporters! No, people don't call for eliminating cars. But because they can be dangerous, we do require that cars and their users be registered, insured and that users be tested before using them. But we don't do that for guns. We require little other than a background check, which is far short from registration. No testing is required.

Knives are used to kill people. Will you want to outlaw knives next?
No of course not. Knives are a tool. They help us cut or slice things we can't or don't want to with our hands. To stab or slash someone is to misuse that tool. A gun is designed to shoot. To shoot at people is immoral, but it is not misusing the tool.

Additionally, a knife can't kill multiple people from a distance. A Tec-9 gun can.

Mr. Mauser is so deep in grief that he can't think rationally.

This is something you'll hear them say about me or about any other victim who calls for gun control. They find it impossible to take on our facts and our reasonableness, so they try to simply dismiss or condemn us. Paul Thomsen, of Fort Collins, Colo., said in a letter to the editor, that "he is so overwhelmed with justifiable grief that he is incapable of rational thought or action."

I can assure Mr. Thomsen that I capable of grieving and thinking at the same time! We can't be so easily dismissed. In fact, I would contend that when you've been through a tragedy, sometimes some things become more self evident to you, despite your grief. Grief can make some things come more into focus.

(Mr. Thomsen's patronizing attempt to dismiss me was a poor one. He went on suggest that tragedies like Columbine could be prevented if we just let teachers carry concealed weapons. Oh, sure, the answer to increasing gun violence is to have more guns! By presenting such a ludicrous argument, he helped me more than his own cause, for most people are clearly concerned about the the prospect of having teachers carry guns. We need to demonstrate to ordinary Americans these ridiculous. extremist views of the gun lobby.)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
No, people with easily-accessible guns kill people.

Rather than pass more regulations, enforce the hundreds of laws already on the books!
We have a better idea: How about both? Let's do a better job of enforcement AND add laws that close loopholes. After all, the hundreds of laws have not stopped us from having 200 million firearms and over 15,000 gun homicides per year. Plus, we suspect that the NRA's enforcement complaint is just a smoke screen; if the federal government really did make a very strong effort to better enforce ALL existing gun regulations, the NRA would probably then scream bloody murder (oops, poor choice of words)!








http://www.danielmauser.com/cliches.html

[SLCPUNK]

? ? The term "Militia" did not have the meaning back in 1787 that you and many of the proponents of your view give it.? The Virginia Bill of Rights, where the phrase was taken from, defined Militia as: "the body of the people, trained to arms."? Madison also took this interpretation in Federalist 46, in saying that it provide a readily defense of liberty against the standing army that the Constitution proposed.? Also, it is an odd place to find a provision about a guarantee for a militia in a list of individual rights.

Yea...and?

How is this breaking down my post?

That definition for militia goes all the way back to the 1500s in England, well before being used here.

? However, the meaning that liberals attach to the 2nd Amendment is completely wrong.?

Why are you making this a liberal thing? I know many people (left and right) who understand the ammendment for what it is: something written in a time period much different than today. Only a portion is used "right to bear arms" to advocate gun "rights" in this country. It is misleading and a non-honest approach.

Instead of changing the meaning of the amendment (which is the usual approach to liberal change of the Constitution), they should try and change it by amendment.? Do it democratically instead of trying to argue that the Second Amendment doesnt mean what it actually says.?

You are creating a strawman argument and trying to tear it down.

Strawman: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument

[GnRNightrain]

? ? The term "Militia" did not have the meaning back in 1787 that you and many of the proponents of your view give it.? The Virginia Bill of Rights, where the phrase was taken from, defined Militia as: "the body of the people, trained to arms."? Madison also took this interpretation in Federalist 46, in saying that it provide a readily defense of liberty against the standing army that the Constitution proposed.? Also, it is an odd place to find a provision about a guarantee for a militia in a list of individual rights.

Yea...and?

How is this breaking down my post?

Because in your post, and your post in the other thread, you claim that those that are pro-gun rights misread the amendment by only reading part of it.  Im saying that such a reading is misguided.

That definition for militia goes all the way back to the 1500s in England, well before being used here.

Probably does.  But that is besides the point.  You interpret a document based on what it textually means and what the intentions were.  In fact, the definition I quoted is from the Virginia Bill of Rights, which was the main model for the US Bill of Rights. 

?

However, the meaning that liberals attach to the 2nd Amendment is completely wrong.?

Why are you making this a liberal thing?

Because this tends to be an issue that is pretty split down the middle between conservatives and liberals.  Most people that make the faulty interpretation of the 2nd amendment, as you did, are on the left.  But that is besides the point, you would be wrong even if you were a conservative.  I guess not all liberals are for gun control?  Over generalization.  Sorry.

I know many people (left and right) who understand the ammendment for what it is: something written in a time period much different than today.

Fair enough.  This is exactly the argument I made in m last post.  I think policy wise, a unfettered right to bear arms might not be the ideal thing.  However, change the law and the amendment through democratic means, instead of rewriting the second amendment and giving it a meaning that it doesnt have. 

The reason I mentioned liberal judges is because they tend to be the ones that do this most often.  Although, a fair share of conservative judges are also activist.

Only a portion is used "right to bear arms" to advocate gun "rights" in this country. It is misleading and a non-honest approach.

My argument is that it doesnt matter if you read half of it or the whole thing.  It means the same thing.  It is just as dishonest to change the definition of militia to today's meaning (but you dont have a problem with that), and then claim that it was never the intent for there to be an individual right to bear arms.  In fact, it is more misleading because, as I explained, the former approach doesnt contrast with the actual original meaning of the amendment. 

Instead of changing the meaning of the amendment (which is the usual approach to liberal change of the Constitution), they should try and change it by amendment.? Do it democratically instead of trying to argue that the Second Amendment doesnt mean what it actually says.?

You are creating a strawman argument and trying to tear it down.

Perhaps you dont understand the argument then.  I hope I explained it better.  In summary, your reading of the amendment is wrong.  Furthermore, those gun rights advocates who only read half of the amendment are more honest then those that are completely changing the meaning of the amendment.

[jgfnsr]

I must be the exception to my fellow "fear based, gun nut" Americans.  I've never felt the need or desire to have own a gun.

That said, I've also never felt the need to deprive law-abiding U.S. citizens the right to own guns either.

Fact is, you can regulate guns until hell freezes over, but criminals will always find ways to get them and use them.

[SLCPUNK]

In summary, your reading of the amendment is wrong. 

You are reading it wrong and have proved nothing. Anybody with a brain can see what it means.

Furthermore, those gun rights advocates who only read half of the amendment are more honest then those that are completely changing the meaning of the amendment.

More honest? By quoting only half something to make their point? I guess your definition of the word honest differs from mine as well.

[SLCPUNK]

I must be the exception to my fellow "fear based, gun nut" Americans.? I've never felt the need or desire to have own a gun.

That said, I've also never felt the need to deprive law-abiding U.S. citizens the right to own guns either.

Fact is, you can regulate guns until hell freezes over, but criminals will always find ways to get them and use them.

You condradict yourself.

Saying "criminals will always find ways to get them" is fear based.

The big bad wolf is coming to get you and you need to protect yourself.

Bullshit.

Strict gun laws locking up those found with guns will eliminate the problem.

Caught with a gun? 10 yrs mandatory in jail. Done, end of story.

Two week amnesty period to turn guns in with no questions asked. After that, the law applies.

Apply a zero tolerance for guns.

Plus, again, you are ignoring the realty of gun ownership in this country. That people are more likely to be harmed with their own gun than a strangers vs used to actually protect themselves.

Bottom line is that we are a violent, fear based, society, run by MONEY, money that is funneled from the NRA to our jerks in washington who no longer care about our safety, but rather campaign funds.

[GnRNightrain]

I knew you wouldnt refute anything I wrote. ?Classic post of yours.

In summary, your reading of the amendment is wrong.?

You are reading it wrong and have proved nothing. Anybody with a brain can see what it means.

Actually, I proved that both textually and structurally, there is no way it can have the meaning that you give it. ?There are more arguments to this if you want me to spell them out? ?Since you dont challenge the ones that prove the point, I doubt you even want to hear them. ?You come up with nothing other than the word "militia," which I have told you meant something different at the time the Constitution was ratified. ?

Now I dont know whether you really believe I am wrong, or if you are just stubborn as usual and dont want concede something to me. ?However, if I am wrong tell me how I am wrong instead of just saying I am reading it wrong. ?Refute what I am saying! ?I refuted your reading of it, now refute mine.

Some how I doubt you will.

Furthermore, those gun rights advocates who only read half of the amendment are more honest then those that are completely changing the meaning of the amendment.

More honest? By quoting only half something to make their point? I guess your definition of the word honest differs from mine as well.

They may be only quoting half of something, but as I stated, their quote is the meaning of the amendment. ?They quote it to mean an individual right. ?Since we dont use the term militia how it was used back then, I doubt people are going to go around quoting it as the meaning of the amendment. ?Especially since people like you take it out of context. ?Certainly it is not right to only quote half of it, but answer me this:

Who is more honest? Those that quote half, but whose interpretation of it is the same of what it actually means? ?Or those that dont that try and change the meaning of the amendment by changing the meaning of the terms in the amendment? ?On the one hand, it retains the same meaning. ?On the other hand, it gives it a whole new meaning. ?Now which one better serves an agenda?

[SLCPUNK]

Actually, most Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd amendment was meant to be an individual right.

Link please?

"Most scholars" is logical fallacy and not accepted from me.

The term "Militia" did not have the meaning back in 1787 that you and many of the proponents of your view give it.  The Virginia Bill of Rights, where the phrase was taken from, defined Militia as: "the body of the people, trained to arms."

This is what I wrote.

The meaning dates back to England around 1500 or so. It never has changed "meanings" as you claim.

 Instead of changing the meaning of the amendment (which is the usual approach to liberal change of the Constitution), they should try and change it by amendment.  Do it democratically instead of trying to argue that the Second Amendment doesnt mean what it actually says.  This is the problem with the judges on the far left, the create rights that they believe should exist in the Constitution, and they take out those that they dont believe should exist.  It is a rewriting of the Constitution.  Liberals make it sound like the Judiciary only promotes liberty and individual rights, however, they always ignore the rights that have been diminished and written out of the Constitution.

On to strawman argument.


You have not broken down or proved anything wrong.

Sorry.

[D]

I think guns give people a false sense of security, I would never own a gun, I even sleep with my doors unlocked cause I dont fear anything.

Just cause u own a gun doesnt mean u wont get murdered or robbed either.


People love power and guns give people a sense of power, an illusion of invincibility.


I dont like the anti American sentiments, I love my country and with all due respect to others I wouldnt wanna live anywhere else, so if people are gun carrying maniacs, I just consider that a fair trade off for being able to do what i can do.

People who criticize my country need to take a look around their country and realize that everyone has problems and things wrong within.

[GnRNightrain]

Actually, most Constitutional scholars believe that the 2nd amendment was meant to be an individual right.

Link please? "Most scholars" is logical fallacy and not accepted from me.

I can cite you tons of people that interpret it the way I have. ?I have talked extensively about this subject with Constitutional Law professors have told me such. ?Each one I have talked to laugh about the argument you claim and say that not even the liberal professors claim that. ?Can you find me one legal scholar who actually believes the interpretation you give it? ?

The term "Militia" did not have the meaning back in 1787 that you and many of the proponents of your view give it.? The Virginia Bill of Rights, where the phrase was taken from, defined Militia as: "the body of the people, trained to arms."

This is what I wrote.

The meaning dates back to England around 1500 or so. It never has changed "meanings" as you claim.

Nope it doesnt. ?How can you change the meaning of a term that someone else wrote and still say it means what that person wrote? ?How do we know what anything anyone writes means? ?How do I know that when you first wrote "militia" that you were rereffing to something analogous with "state like" armies? ?I know this because I know you live in the 21st century and that you are an american that speaks English. ?If I dont look at the context in which something is written and dont give it the meaning they assigned it then I am not interpreting what they are saying. ?What judges do that basically give words changed meanings is rewrite the Constitution. ?The Constitution only has any legitimacy because it was a document that was ratified popularly by the people. ?What was ratified was the meaning of the document at the time it was ratified. ?If you or anyone doesnt like that meaning then you can change it by the process provided in the Constitution. ?However, there has been a movement to try and fuck the majority and instead push agendas through judges that give certain terms changed meanings depending on what fits their agenda. ?That is not figuring out what the Constitution meant when it is ratified, it is giving it a meaning.

So to answer you question, No. ?I dont think that the meaning of Militia that was put in out Constitution changed.

 

Instead of changing the meaning of the amendment (which is the usual approach to liberal change of the Constitution), they should try and change it by amendment.? Do it democratically instead of trying to argue that the Second Amendment doesnt mean what it actually says.? This is the problem with the judges on the far left, the create rights that they believe should exist in the Constitution, and they take out those that they dont believe should exist.? It is a rewriting of the Constitution.? Liberals make it sound like the Judiciary only promotes liberty and individual rights, however, they always ignore the rights that have been diminished and written out of the Constitution.

On to strawman argument.


You have not broken down or proved anything wrong.

Sorry.

Yes I have. ?Re-read the posts. ?However, you have failed to answer my replies with any meaningful response.

[jgfnsr]

You condradict yourself.

Saying "criminals will always find ways to get them" is fear based.

That criminals will always find a way to obtain and use guns isn't fear based.? It's cold, hard reality.? If anything, you're fooling yourself.

The big bad wolf is coming to get you and you need to protect yourself.

I never said or alluded to this, so don't put put words in my mouth.? I don't pretend to know all the reasons law-abiding citizens desire to have weapons.? And frankly I don't care.? As long as they are law abiding, they don't need a reason.? At least one that would satisfy you anyway.?

Strict gun laws locking up those found with guns will eliminate the problem.

Caught with a gun? 10 yrs mandatory in jail. Done, end of story.

Two week amnesty period to turn guns in with no questions asked. After that, the law applies.

Apply a zero tolerance for guns.

Ha!? Now this is bullshit.? While I'm all for tough laws and zero tolerance, I'm aware that they don't "prevent" anything.? Have tough laws and zero tolerance stopped the drug problem or drunk driving?? No.? The same would apply to guns.

Plus, again, you are ignoring the realty of gun ownership in this country. That people are more likely to be harmed with their own gun than a strangers vs used to actually protect themselves.

I suppose that's a risk those who want to legally own guns are willing to take.? Like I said, I've never been on of them.

Bottom line is that we are a violent, fear based, society, run by MONEY, money that is funneled from the NRA to our jerks in washington who no longer care about our safety, but rather campaign funds.

I agree that our society, like most, is violent and has a lot of reason to fear.? But I'm not about to lay all the blame for gun violence at the feet of the NRA or anyone else in particular.? Once again, if anything, the NRA is just your own "big bad wolf."

[journey]

I think guns give people a false sense of security, I would never own a gun, I even sleep with my doors unlocked cause I dont fear anything.

Just cause u own a gun doesnt mean u wont get murdered or robbed either.


People love power and guns give people a sense of power, an illusion of invincibility.


I dont like the anti American sentiments, I love my country and with all due respect to others I wouldnt wanna live anywhere else, so if people are gun carrying maniacs, I just consider that a fair trade off for being able to do what i can do.

People who criticize my country need to take a look around their country and realize that everyone has problems and things wrong within.

You're totally right.

I think gun laws should be changed to improve on safety. Illegalizing guns won't help, because like Nut-job said, criminals always find away. Someone mentioned prison sentencing for owners of guns as a method, but I think that's a bit extreme. However, it would be beneficial for everyone if guns were harder to obtain.

[SLCPUNK]

I can cite you tons of people that interpret it the way I have.? I have talked extensively about this subject with Constitutional Law professors have told me such.? Each one I have talked to laugh about the argument you claim and say that not even the liberal professors claim that.? Can you find me one legal scholar who actually believes the interpretation you give it??

Another logical fallacy.

"I know somebody who said this to be true" does not make you correct.

There are plenty of people who believe what I said. How foolish of you to think otherwise. You have spoken extensively with your law professors since this thread opened yesterday? Whoah buddy....that's pretty extensive. I mean being the weekend and everything...

In fact what I have said is a common argument. One last time: This was written in a different era, and meant for the citizens to arm themselves and aid the army, defend their land blah blah blah. It is totally outdated and does not apply to the life we live today. It was not written so that we can own 38 pistols on our nightstands and glocks in our gloveboxes. That is not what it was written for. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this.


Nope it doesnt.? How can you change the meaning of a term that someone else wrote and still say it means what that person wrote?

What?

Who changed the meaning of anything?


? How do we know what anything anyone writes means?? How do I know that when you first wrote "militia" that you were rereffing to something analogous with "state like" armies?? I know this because I know you live in the 21st century and that you are an american that speaks English.

 If I dont look at the context in which something is written and dont give it the meaning they assigned it then I am not interpreting what they are saying.? What judges do that basically give words changed meanings is rewrite the Constitution.? The Constitution only has any legitimacy because it was a document that was ratified popularly by the people.? What was ratified was the meaning of the document at the time it was ratified.? If you or anyone doesnt like that meaning then you can change it by the process provided in the Constitution.? However, there has been a movement to try and fuck the majority and instead push agendas through judges that give certain terms changed meanings depending on what fits their agenda.? That is not figuring out what the Constitution meant when it is ratified, it is giving it a meaning.

More strawman bullshit.

This is hogwash and has nothing to do with why America loves it's guns. It's off topic. You are trying to build up an evil liberal machine that hates America and then tear it down.

Total bullshit. And based on how you usually write, I have to wonder if you even wrote that.


Yes I have.? Re-read the posts.? However, you have failed to answer my replies with anmeaningful response.

Your posts are strawman arguments and make no sense to me, sorry.

My opinion is straight forward and is easily understood. I'd say many people believe the same thing.

[SLCPUNK]

I think guns give people a false sense of security, I would never own a gun, I even sleep with my doors unlocked cause I dont fear anything.

Just cause u own a gun doesnt mean u wont get murdered or robbed either.


People love power and guns give people a sense of power, an illusion of invincibility.


I dont like the anti American sentiments, I love my country and with all due respect to others I wouldnt wanna live anywhere else, so if people are gun carrying maniacs, I just consider that a fair trade off for being able to do what i can do.

People who criticize my country need to take a look around their country and realize that everyone has problems and things wrong within.

You're totally right.

I think gun laws should be changed to improve on safety. Illegalizing guns won't help, because like Nut-job said, criminals always find away. Someone mentioned prison sentencing for owners of guns as a method, but I think that's a bit extreme. However, it would be beneficial for everyone if guns were harder to obtain.

It is extreme, but what are the punishments in other countries with low or rare murders???

Imagine a law being passed outlawing guns. Everybody had to turn their guns in. They had two weeks to do so. Legal or illegal guns would be turned in.

After that, a stiff penalty for gun posession. It would fill up jails yes. But in the long run it would cut down on crime, murder, accidents, and the jails would be less full in the long run because of this.

Anybody who jumps up and down and says "no way this will work" is not taking into account other countries with strict laws that won't tolerate bullshit.

It's just a lose thought anyway. Really at this point, with this many guns out there , this much money involved, it would never happen. But the thought of having zero guns out there sure is nice to think about.

[SLCPUNK]

The overwhelming prevalence of firearms in America - and specifically handguns - has created a dangerous situation in which our society has paid the ultimate price.  As you read this, there are approximately 192 million firearms in the United States, including roughly 65 million handguns.1 

Handgun violence in America has become a problem of epidemic proportions that absolutely must be cured.  Since 1962, more than one million Americans have been killed by firearms in homicides, suicides and unintentional suicides.2  More than 65% of these were committed using handguns.3  Every single day in America, there are approximately 89 people who are killed from firearms - a whopping one every 16 minutes.4  In addition to those who are killed with firearms, every year there are approximately 115,000 firearm-related injuries in the United States - one every 4 1/2 minutes.5  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, "It is estimated that 20,000 people per year are left paralyzed by a bullet from a handgun; the approximate number of people paralyzed and the lifetime medical costs are analogous to those of the polio epidemic of the 1950s."6

The easy access to firearms in the United States inevitably leads to a dangerous situation in which hundreds of thousands of people's lives are drastically affected.  Criminals, terrorists and others routinely purchase firearms illegally at gun shows, through the mail, over the internet and through newspaper ads.

Firearms that are legally purchased continue to end up in the hands of criminals on too many occasions.  Every year, there are anywhere between 350,000 and 590,000 cases of stolen firearms.7  These firearms are then used in the course of additional crimes.  According to one recent survey, 32% of all incarcerated felons who had used a handgun in the course of a crime had obtained that handgun by stealing it.8 

The financial burden of firearm injuries and deaths to the American taxpayer are unbelievable.  Costing roughly $938,500 per gunshot injury,9 the medical expenses alone for gunshot injuries tops $4 billion per year.10  In addition to this, the American taxpayer ends up footing most of the bill for these gunshots - at least 80% of the total cost is picked up by taxpayers.11 

Sources:

1. Cook, P. and Ludwig, J.  Guns in America.  Police Foundation.  1996.
2. Fatal Firearms Injuries in the United States, 1962-1994.  Violence Surveillance Summary Series.  No. 3.  1997.
3. Deaths: Final Data for 1996, 1997.  National Vital Statistics Report.
4. Hoyert, DL, Kochanek, KD, et al.  Deaths: Final Data for 1997.  National Vital Statistics Report.  1999.
5. Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries - United States, 1993-1998."  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  CDC Surveillance Summaries.  Vol. 50, No. SS-2.  April 13, 2001.
6. American Academy of Pediatrics.  "Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population."  Pediatrics.  Vol. 105, No. 4.  April 2000.  PP. 888-895.  www.aap.org/policy/re9926.html.
7. Cook, Molliconi and Cole.  "Regulating Gun Markets."  The Journal of Marketing Research.  Vol. 86, No. 1.  1995.  PP. 59-92.
8. Cook, and Ludwig.  "Guns in America, Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Summary Report."  Washington, DC.  Police Foundation.  1996.  P. 15.
9. Miller, TR, Cohen, MA.  "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States."  Accident Analysis and Prevention.  1997.  Vol. 29, No. 3.  PP. 329-341.
10. Kizer, KW, Vassar, MJ, et al.  "Hospitalization Charges, Costs, and Income for Firearm-Related Injuries at a University Trauma Center."  Journal of the American Medical Association.  Vol. 273, No. 22.  1995.  PP. 1768-1773.
11. Wintemute, GJ, and Wright, MA.  "Initial and Subsequent Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries."  Journal of Trauma.  1992.  Vol. 33.  PP. 556-560.
   
 

[D]

I think in order to have certain freedoms u have to deal with other freedoms that arent necessarily good.

1st amendent for example, we have the right to free speech but a whole lot of profane,evil horrible things go with it.

If u take away guns, peoplewill just find something else to kill each other with, so do u ban knives and other potentially lethal objects as well?

They need to find a way to crack down on illegal gun sales.

people who register their guns and buy them legally and use for protection, those people to me arent the problem, its the criminals who obtain them by illegal means.

they should however pass a law that if u own a gun and your child kills himself or someone else with it, that the owner be charged with first degree murder.

I guarantee that would make people use more caution with their firearms.

I personally think its ridiculous to own a gun, I mean u are protecting yourself from people trying to protect themselves.

sad part is, owning a gun could actually get u killed when otherwise u may not have got killed.

if someone breaks in, they may just want to rob u and leave, if u pull a gun and miss and they shoot u, they could actually get away with self defense.


people are also pussies today and scared to pack an ass whipping

I know that I try my best to let things go cause Im truly afraid of fighting and whipping someone's ass. Im afraid that theywill shoot me now.

couple years ago this goofy bastard kept trying to get me to fight him.

I know this guy carries a gun and I know and He knows that I would absolutely break him in half

so the fact he acted so brave had me cautious and even though I hated that motherfucker with a passion, I let it go cause I just knew the reason he was being brave was cause he had a gun.

Had i beat his ass, Id be dead right now. so im very very cautious.

[journey]

I think guns give people a false sense of security, I would never own a gun, I even sleep with my doors unlocked cause I dont fear anything.

Just cause u own a gun doesnt mean u wont get murdered or robbed either.


People love power and guns give people a sense of power, an illusion of invincibility.


I dont like the anti American sentiments, I love my country and with all due respect to others I wouldnt wanna live anywhere else, so if people are gun carrying maniacs, I just consider that a fair trade off for being able to do what i can do.

People who criticize my country need to take a look around their country and realize that everyone has problems and things wrong within.

You're totally right.

I think gun laws should be changed to improve on safety. Illegalizing guns won't help, because like Nut-job said, criminals always find away. Someone mentioned prison sentencing for owners of guns as a method, but I think that's a bit extreme. However, it would be beneficial for everyone if guns were harder to obtain.

It is extreme, but what are the punishments in other countries with low or rare murders???

Imagine a law being passed outlawing guns. Everybody had to turn their guns in. They had two weeks to do so. Legal or illegal guns would be turned in.

After that, a stiff penalty for gun posession. It would fill up jails yes. But in the long run it would cut down on crime, murder, accidents, and the jails would be less full in the long run because of this.

Anybody who jumps up and down and says "no way this will work" is not taking into account other countries with strict laws that won't tolerate bullshit.

It's just a lose thought anyway. Really at this point, with this many guns out there , this much money involved, it would never happen. But the thought of having zero guns out there sure is nice to think about.

I understand what you're saying, and I wish it could be that way, but this isn't a perfect society. Look at the war on drugs. Although drugs are illegal in the States, there's more drugs than ever. People are overdosing everyday. The prisons are packed more than ever before.

To me, it is extreme to sentence someone to prison for owning a gun. There's an Australian lady who is facing a life sentence or possibly death in Indonesia, because they found pot in her suitcase. I don't want America to turn into that kind of extreme society. Not everyone who owns a gun is going to kill someone with it. It's the criminal element that needs to be scrutinized.

[sandman]

The overwhelming prevalence of firearms in America - and specifically handguns - has created a dangerous situation in which our society has paid the ultimate price.? As you read this, there are approximately 192 million firearms in the United States, including roughly 65 million handguns.1?

Handgun violence in America has become a problem of epidemic proportions that absolutely must be cured.? Since 1962, more than one million Americans have been killed by firearms in homicides, suicides and unintentional suicides.2? More than 65% of these were committed using handguns.3? Every single day in America, there are approximately 89 people who are killed from firearms - a whopping one every 16 minutes.4? In addition to those who are killed with firearms, every year there are approximately 115,000 firearm-related injuries in the United States - one every 4 1/2 minutes.5? According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, "It is estimated that 20,000 people per year are left paralyzed by a bullet from a handgun; the approximate number of people paralyzed and the lifetime medical costs are analogous to those of the polio epidemic of the 1950s."6

The easy access to firearms in the United States inevitably leads to a dangerous situation in which hundreds of thousands of people's lives are drastically affected.? Criminals, terrorists and others routinely purchase firearms illegally at gun shows, through the mail, over the internet and through newspaper ads.

Firearms that are legally purchased continue to end up in the hands of criminals on too many occasions.? Every year, there are anywhere between 350,000 and 590,000 cases of stolen firearms.7? These firearms are then used in the course of additional crimes.? According to one recent survey, 32% of all incarcerated felons who had used a handgun in the course of a crime had obtained that handgun by stealing it.8?

The financial burden of firearm injuries and deaths to the American taxpayer are unbelievable.? Costing roughly $938,500 per gunshot injury,9 the medical expenses alone for gunshot injuries tops $4 billion per year.10? In addition to this, the American taxpayer ends up footing most of the bill for these gunshots - at least 80% of the total cost is picked up by taxpayers.11?

Sources:

1. Cook, P. and Ludwig, J.? Guns in America.? Police Foundation.? 1996.
2. Fatal Firearms Injuries in the United States, 1962-1994.? Violence Surveillance Summary Series.? No. 3.? 1997.
3. Deaths: Final Data for 1996, 1997.? National Vital Statistics Report.
4. Hoyert, DL, Kochanek, KD, et al.? Deaths: Final Data for 1997.? National Vital Statistics Report.? 1999.
5. Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries - United States, 1993-1998."? Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.? CDC Surveillance Summaries.? Vol. 50, No. SS-2.? April 13, 2001.
6. American Academy of Pediatrics.? "Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population."? Pediatrics.? Vol. 105, No. 4.? April 2000.? PP. 888-895.? www.aap.org/policy/re9926.html.
7. Cook, Molliconi and Cole.? "Regulating Gun Markets."? The Journal of Marketing Research.? Vol. 86, No. 1.? 1995.? PP. 59-92.
8. Cook, and Ludwig.? "Guns in America, Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Summary Report."? Washington, DC.? Police Foundation.? 1996.? P. 15.
9. Miller, TR, Cohen, MA.? "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States."? Accident Analysis and Prevention.? 1997.? Vol. 29, No. 3.? PP. 329-341.
10. Kizer, KW, Vassar, MJ, et al.? "Hospitalization Charges, Costs, and Income for Firearm-Related Injuries at a University Trauma Center."? Journal of the American Medical Association.? Vol. 273, No. 22.? 1995.? PP. 1768-1773.
11. Wintemute, GJ, and Wright, MA.? "Initial and Subsequent Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries."? Journal of Trauma.? 1992.? Vol. 33.? PP. 556-560.
? ?
?

you accuse anyone with a different opinion from yours of having opinions based on fear. but you post this shit that starts out with a phrase that is meant to put fear in you mind. 

the assault weapon ban was one of the biggest pieces of political propaganda of the last 20 years. and if you took a second to learn about it and not just repeat what you hear our liberal media report about it, you would know it was a joke.

for example, the ban focused much on the STYLE of automatic weapons, like ones with bayonets on them and other "military" style weapons.

so gun manufacturers just changed the style of the guns to make them fall under the "sport"category. so you could still get the same guns, they just looked different.

and despite what the dems and our liberal media tell you, fully automatic AK-47s are still illegal without the ban.   

[GnRNightrain]

Exactly the response I expected from you.  Let me try one more time.

I can cite you tons of people that interpret it the way I have.? I have talked extensively about this subject with Constitutional Law professors have told me such.? Each one I have talked to laugh about the argument you claim and say that not even the liberal professors claim that.? Can you find me one legal scholar who actually believes the interpretation you give it??

Another logical fallacy.

"I know somebody who said this to be true" does not make you correct.

Its not a logical fallacy.  I have talked to many prominent people in the field that discuss and write on this stuff on a daily basis.  They pretty much tell me that not very many law professors, on the left or the right, read the amendment to have an original meaning as you claim.  Of course, there are those that believe that the meaning of the Constitution changes overtime.  But that is not what we were arguing in the first place.  Our argument was over the original meaning. 

But answer me this: If you are are going to argue that the amendment was written at a different time for a different time, why not just be honest and throw the amendment out and acknolwldge that you want to throw out one of the Bill of Rights?  Instead you try and change the meaning of a term in the amendment to essentially do the same thing?  Very deceitful if you ask me.

There are plenty of people who believe what I said. How foolish of you to think otherwise.

Of course you cant name any reputable law professors that have such a view point.  I wish you would because I would love to read their work.  Here are a couple of law review articles that support my position:
Willam Van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 Duke L.J. 1236 (1994)
43 Ariz. L. Rev. 439
45 Emory L.J. 1139= Randy Barnett

You have spoken extensively with your law professors since this thread opened yesterday? Whoah buddy....that's pretty extensive. I mean being the weekend and everything..

You make up shit out of thin air.  I said I have spoken extensively with Constitutional Law professors on the subject.  I didnt say since the thread opened.  Believe it or not, but you are not important enough for me to go do research on a subject to counter your arguments. 

In fact what I have said is a common argument. One last time: This was written in a different era, and meant for the citizens to arm themselves and aid the army, defend their land blah blah blah. It is totally outdated and does not apply to the life we live today. It was not written so that we can own 38 pistols on our nightstands and glocks in our gloveboxes. That is not what it was written for. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this.

I dont know if this is your way of conceding my point?  But I argued about what the original meaning meant.  You are arguing that the second amendment is no longer needed.  I dont necessarily disagree with you on this point.  However, I disagree with you, and the left for that matter, in how they go about getting rid of the second amendment.  They change the meaning of the term through judicial interpretation.  I refer you to my first point, at least be honest about what you are doing.  Either admit that it is no longer needed and write it out of the Constiution, but dont interpet it to say what it doesnt.  Of course, you could try and popularly change the amendment, but that is too tough to do.  Your kind would rather impose on the people through the judiciary what you think is right for america, instead of letting america decide for itself.

Nope it doesnt.? How can you change the meaning of a term that someone else wrote and still say it means what that person wrote?

What?

Who changed the meaning of anything?

You asked if I think the meaning changes.  I said no.  I basically told you what the original meaning was.  Your response was that it was written a long time ago, and that it no longer applies to today.  You then asked me if the meaning changes.  So basically you conceded that you changed the meaning of it.

Of course, I refer you to my point last time.  Once you start to change amendments through interpretations and decide that certain ones apply today and others dont, you essentially get rid of our Constiution and you let the fate of America be decided by 5 justices.  Be prepared, for as you like justices writing the second amendment out of the Constitution, you may not like them writing other amendments out of the Constitution.  Certainly we live in a much tougher time where there are greater terrorist threats (that can do a lot of damage) than there were during the founding era.  Should we change our search and seizure provisions?  Should we change our 5th amendment right to self-incrimination provisions to meet these new needs? 

? How do we know what anything anyone writes means?? How do I know that when you first wrote "militia" that you were rereffing to something analogous with "state like" armies?? I know this because I know you live in the 21st century and that you are an american that speaks English.

 If I dont look at the context in which something is written and dont give it the meaning they assigned it then I am not interpreting what they are saying.? What judges do that basically give words changed meanings is rewrite the Constitution.? The Constitution only has any legitimacy because it was a document that was ratified popularly by the people.? What was ratified was the meaning of the document at the time it was ratified.? If you or anyone doesnt like that meaning then you can change it by the process provided in the Constitution.? However, there has been a movement to try and fuck the majority and instead push agendas through judges that give certain terms changed meanings depending on what fits their agenda.? That is not figuring out what the Constitution meant when it is ratified, it is giving it a meaning.

More strawman bullshit.

This is hogwash and has nothing to do with why America loves it's guns. It's off topic. You are trying to build up an evil liberal machine that hates America and then tear it down.

Then you dont understand the argument.  It is at the center of the whole point I am trying to make.  Once you try to impose erroneous readings of the Constitution on the people, you are essentially allowing 5 justices to change everything.  This is how you view the second amendment.  The argument logically goes much further than that.  There are many out there that cant change things democratically so they go to the courts and basically have the judges overturn democratically passed legislation or amendments.

Total bullshit. And based on how you usually write, I have to wonder if you even wrote that.

I guess that is a compliment and a backhand in the same sentence.  Well, thanks for the former.  I am not trying to impress anyone with my writing ability on this board.
Anyway, it is not total bullshit.  It is the reality of the situation, and it is exactly why I get so worked up about this stuff.  People dont understand the logical implications of the argument that you are making.  It is done all the time.  Just remember, the first time the Supreme Court read the Constitution as it wished, we got Dred Scott and a Civil War.

Yes I have.? Re-read the posts.? However, you have failed to answer my replies with anmeaningful response.

Your posts are strawman arguments and make no sense to me, sorry.

My opinion is straight forward and is easily understood. I'd say many people believe the same thing.

I know many people believe the same thing.  However, it is flawed and that is what I am trying to project in my arguments.  While there are many people that believe the Constitution changes in meaning, there are few that actually believe the original meaning of the amendment is not an individual right to bear arms.  I put forward the evidence, yet you fail to challenge any of my assertions.  That is because you cant.  Instead, you say that the meaning of the amendment changes.  Well fine, I know many have that misguided point of view, but it is not what we were originally discussing.  Perhaps that is just your way of conceding the former point.

You can label my arguments what ever terms you want to.  However, your lack in ability to refute them, of course along with the name calling, shows the merit of my arguments.