My views on gun ownership


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

mpd239
September 25, 2004, 06:40 PM
I want to start by saying that I'm a young Democrat, generally fairly liberal but with unique viewpoints on several issues.

Anyways, a friend sent me to the website www.a-human-right.com; and through that site I found these forums. In reading the site, and the initial poll, I noticed some illogical questions and statements. I find that insulated issue-oriented internet communities often diverge from mainstream viewpoints, and don't become aware of their radicalism or the illogical nature of some of their views. Don't get me wrong, I come into conflict with fellow Democrats often on issues of gun control, and am generally against it. But I just wanted to point somethings out, and hear some response to what I have to say.

First of all, the Second Amendment has always been a collective right, and only recently has been interpreted as an individual one-- this is historical fact. It's something you should understand regardless of your viewpoint; I am in favor of individual gun ownership as a basic right, but am still willing to recognize this. More importantly, the Second Amendment has not been selectively incorporated to the states. Meaning, the US Constitution is a federal document, applying to the federal government. Selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights by the Supreme Court began in the early 20th century and has covered almost all rights-- but not the 2nd amendment. Thus, regardless of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it does not, at this time, apply to state governments.

But what I really want to talk about is the assault weapon ban. My view on gun ownership is this-- while actual incidents involving defense of property or self with a gun may be limited and unconvincing of the importance of gun ownership, the possibility of a gun held by a victim reduces crime in a manner that cannot be measured. Thus the statistics used to justify gun control should not be related to how many times a gun is used in defense, and the results, but should be cross-country comparisons of crime rates. When you look at statistics such as these, you find that while the US has a higher murder rate than countries with strong gun control, those countries have higher contact crime rates. Therefore there is a tradeoff, it seems-- the more guns, the more murder; but the less guns, the less risk incurred by criminals involved in lesser crimes. So I think a balance has to be found, most likely erring on the side of individual freedom and thus individual gun ownership.

But, assault weapons have little place in modern society. Rifles and shotguns are designed for hunting, for the most part, and semi-automatic handguns are efficient in the realm of self-defense. But weapons like an AK-47 or Uzi are not designed for either-- they are designed for warfare. How can you logically claim otherwise? An AK-47 is not meant to kill one attacker, or fell a deer-- it's meant to efficiently kill several men. That's not something that is necessary or wanted in the modern United States. Thus in your poll, comparing banning assault weapons to banning a specific type of computer-- that's ridiculous. Computers have legitimate uses other than electronic crime, whereas an Uzi used in a drive-by is operating within its primary function. Its wrong to deny fifth graders Microsoft Encarta because of electronic crime; but I think gun enthusiasts should be mature enough to recognize the cost to society legalized assault weapons incur and thus relinquish their right to own such property. Legalized assault weapons enable terrorists and criminals to acquire means without risk, and this will result in more uses of the weapons.

I just think these are some points you should all think about.

If you enjoyed reading about "My views on gun ownership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Linux&Gun Guy
September 25, 2004, 06:57 PM
The 1994 AWB did not ban machine guns like the Ak-47 and the Uzi.

As for your statement according to most of us the reason we should be able to own any sort of gun is because its an American right to do so. Just because a gun can be used to kill people doesn't mean thats what we do with them. We mostly collect and our only targets are steel plates. Modern millitary guns serve a place in the hands of private citizens and that is the primary reason for the Second Ammendment. The second is to resist tyranny from other nations and possibly our own government.

Also the 2nd Ammendment was always a personal right. Read quotes from the founding fathers as to how they viewed the second ammendment.

Gordon Fink
September 25, 2004, 06:58 PM
First of all, the Second Amendment has always been a collective right—this is historical fact.

Son, until you back this one up, the rest of your argument is invalid.

~G. Fink

Drjones
September 25, 2004, 07:04 PM
Hello and welcome. :)


I find that insulated issue-oriented internet communities often diverge from mainstream viewpoints, and don't become aware of their radicalism or the illogical nature of some of their views.

Sir, you will find that most of us here adhere very strictly to what the Founding Fathers had to say about....well.....pretty much everything.

It is positively sickening that in today's world, holding the same views that the Founding Fathers of America held will get one branded an "extremist," "Radical," and other colorful epithets.

It's ok....we're used to it though....


First of all, the Second Amendment has always been a collective right, and only recently has been interpreted as an individual one-- this is historical fact.

You could not be more wrong. Many others will be along in short order to bury you in facts proving you wrong. :)

Hope you've got lots of time to read.


Thus, regardless of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it does not, at this time, apply to state governments.

Here you are correct.

The Second Amendment applies to "The People," i.e.; individual American Citizens.




But, assault weapons have little place in modern society. Rifles and shotguns are designed for hunting, for the most part, and semi-automatic handguns are efficient in the realm of self-defense.

Sniper (hunting) rifles are incredibly effective at hunting humans too.


But weapons like an AK-47 or Uzi are not designed for either-- they are designed for warfare.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Yes, AK's and Uzis are excellent self-defense weapons.

If you recall the LA Riots in '92, the only Korean shops that were not looted and destroyed were the ones whose owners stood on the rooftops with then-legal AK-47's, AR-15's and shotguns, oddly enough.


Tell me why you think a building guarded by a man with an AK survived a rioting mob.


Now tell me again that such weapons have no place in our society.



Its wrong to deny fifth graders Microsoft Encarta because of electronic crime;

But it is not wrong to deny law-abiding gun owners whatever weapons they want, simply because some guns are used in crime?

Explain THAT logic to me.


but I think gun enthusiasts should be mature enough to recognize the cost to society legalized assault weapons incur and thus relinquish their right to own such property.

There are many rights that we could curtail or dissolve entirely in the name of safety.

The question is; "how far are you willing to go?"


Legalized assault weapons enable terrorists and criminals to acquire means without risk, and this will result in more uses of the weapons.

This is a bold-faced lie propogated by the anti-gun lobby and is patently wrong and foolish on its face.

I've got to run and I know many will be along shortly with the truth.

nico
September 25, 2004, 07:06 PM
maybe I'm misinterpreting what you said, but if you really think noone (or the vast majority) here hasn't considered the issues you've brought up, you should come off your horse and look around a while.

I'll let someone else shoot down your 2A arguments, but about the awb you're completely wrong. The fact that you use typical gun grabber rhetoric says that you don't know much about guns. NONE, I repeat, NONE, of the guns affected by the awb shoot more than one bullet with a single trigger pull. They are all SEMI-automatic. Also, the majority of the guns affected by the awb, and the ones you specifically mentioned, are less powerful than the typical deer rifle. The uzi that was banned by the awb is functionally no different than any other SEMI-automatic 9mm handgun asside from the fact that it looks like a sub machinegun. The SEMI-automatic AK47 that was banned by the awb is less powerful than most centerfire rifles and has comparable balistics to the 30-30. They make very good deer rifles for brush hunting as a few people here can attest to.

However, since you apparently know more than us about guns, why don't you explain why the guns affected by the assault weapons ban are more powerful or somehow more deadly than the hunting rifles that you say are OK.
btw, I know I said I wouldn't get into it, but the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Drjones
September 25, 2004, 07:07 PM
I'd like to add that, frankly and no offense intended, but your post shows very clearly that you have never read the actual words of the Founding Fathers on any topic whatsoever.

If you had, you would see how wrong your conclusions are and we would not be having this discussion.

Coltdriver
September 25, 2004, 07:12 PM
First of all welcome to The High Road.

You are wrong about the 2nd amendment. Every amendment to the Constitution is an individual right. If you want a concise assessment of the English used in the 2nd Amendment do a search on my name. I recently posted a treatise on the sentence structure that was written by one of the nations top authorities on the English language. It is unambiguous.

If you read the Federalist Papers you will discover that the Founding Fathers wanted to emphatically spell out the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for a reason. You would learn that the right was emphatically stated in order to provide a deterrence to tyranny. Tyranny in an otherwise orderly society usually comes from the government.

There is not a single government in the past 200 years that has confiscated the guns of its citizens and not began a systematic elimination of some segment of its society with ten years.

There is every legitimate reason for the citizens of this country to have any weapon they want to have. Freedom issues forth from the barrel of a gun. The suppression of freedom also issues forth from the barrel of a gun. The question you are asking is which side of Freedom do you want to be on?

GigaBuist
September 25, 2004, 07:17 PM
Please define what should be an illegal assault weapon.

Without using any brand names, model numbers, or the words "military origin."

I've never seen somebody that promoted the AWB ever able to do this.

Andrew Rothman
September 25, 2004, 07:17 PM
Um, guys, this is this fella's first and only post. T-R-O-L-L.

And he is "...in favor of individual gun ownership as a basic right..." in exactly the same way as John Kerry is: subject to my own irrational biases.

mpd239, stick around a while. Read some, learn some, ask some intelligent questions. If you open your mind and close your mouth a bit, you may yet reach some rational conclusions.

But if you're here to bait us, go away, troll!

mpd239
September 25, 2004, 07:22 PM
The academic world considers the 2nd Amendment to always have been interpreted as a collective right; but I won't go into that because it had little bearing on my argument.

In response to nico, I looked at the AWB and it bans all models of Kalishnikov rifles-- not just a specific model. You can make all of the technical arguments you want-- none of which were backed up with sources, thus rendering them entirely subjective in my eyes-- but the weapons outlawed were chosen due to their popularity in street violence. Thus, those with a criminal mindset apparently feel differently than you do, since they utilized these weapons over a deer rifle.

To the responder who called the terrorist argument ridiculous-- I don't know about you, but I felt a lot safer when I knew it was illegal for a militant Muslim to walk into a gun store and purchase an AK.

And finally, to the person who talked about having a right to own assualt weapons in terms of a gun enthusiast/collector-- you're right, the boundaries eventually become difficult to define. That's why you have to use common sense! By your argument, it should be legal to own an operational Abrams tank-- but I don't think anyone here would agree with that. Society has to come together and draw a line at what is necessary for hunting/self-defense and what is simple excess. Given a choice, society would almost certainly outlaw those weapons as it did in 1994-- gun control is largely popular amongst the American public (perhaps too popular, admittedly). Bush is simply trying to energize his base by letting the AWB phase out.

I never claimed to know more about guns than anyone on this board, and I take offense at the implication. I just posted to share my opinion.

mpd239
September 25, 2004, 07:26 PM
Drjones-- I've read the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, most Federalist papers, and numerous modern writings on the formation of the American state. I'm a Politics student at one of the top programs in the country; I have read plenty. I simply pointed out a widely accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment (widely accepted amongst scholars, no less); there is no basis for insult there. And if you are commenting on my selective incorporation argument, I suggest you do some reading yourself.

Solo
September 25, 2004, 07:26 PM
If I may call your attentiont to a few points:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.
-George Washington, address to 1st session of Congress

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
-Samuel Adams

No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.
-John Adams.

The Second Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. There is no mention of magazine size, rate of fire or to what extent these arms may resemble assault rifles. All rifles were assault rifles in those days. Furthermore, if the gun laws that Massachusetts has now had been in force in 1776, we'd all be Canadians, and you know what kind of weather Canada has.
-P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. Parliament of Whores (1991)

I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating in their purpose.
-Robert A. Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning Red Planet.

You can't get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement.
-Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, referring to the Korean shopkeepers who guarded their property and defended their lives with so-called "assault weapons" during the L.A. riots., Washington Post, May 18, 1993

Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.
-- Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ Deputy Chief, Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, August 1993

The Founders weren't thinking of cell phones, fax machines, computers, the internet, television, or the printing press, either. So, since those items are used to commit bank fraud, credit card fraud, computer fraud, coordinate illegal and terrorist activities, distribute child pornography, communicate dangerous, extremist ideologies, and conduct a wide range of other negative activities that cost the government, the national economy, and private citizens billions of dollars each year, access to them must be restricted. This is not a First Amendment issue, mind you, since the Founders didn't have any idea that these devices would someday exist, and could not have predicted the havoc that would come of them. You are still free to possess your pens and parchment paper, and use them as you please, just as the Founders intended.
-Sgt. Saber

Criminals will always be defined by their capacity for evil, not their tool of choice.
-Anonymous

Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers.
-- Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ Deputy Chief
Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.
-- Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ Deputy Chief, Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, August 1993

If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in reducing death and injury.
-Tom Diaz, of the pro-gun-control Violence Policy Center.

The NRA is right...handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns.
-Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

forquidder
September 25, 2004, 07:28 PM
Reading over your post I see that virtually every assertion that you have made regarding gun ownwership, civil rights, crime statistics, intent of the Second Amendment etc. is false.
If you are truly interested in finding the truth concerning these issues I recomend doing a little homework and comparing each assertion you have made with the actual facts. You may be surprised what you come up with. As it is, your post could have come directly from propoganda disseminated by the Brady Bunch, VPC etc..
Your willingness to take a gander at the website www.a-human-right.com is commendable but it is only the first step in actually finding the real truth about firearms ownership in this country.

pbhome71
September 25, 2004, 07:30 PM
But, assault weapons have little place in modern society.


You will need them, when you come to get mines.

Welcome to THR. I hope that we'll see more of your opinions and points.

-Pat

RavenVT100
September 25, 2004, 07:37 PM
I'm a Politics student at one of the top programs in the country; I have read plenty. I simply pointed out a widely accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment (widely accepted amongst scholars, no less); there is no basis for insult there. And if you are commenting on my selective incorporation argument, I suggest you do some reading yourself.

If you really are a poli sci student at one of the "top programs in the country," by now you'd probably have been taught some critical thinking and debate skills. One thing you should know by now is not to come in with an unsubstantiated argument and then make an appeal to authority with absolutely no tangible evidence to back it up. If you're so sure that the Second Amendment's real meaning is that which you say, you'll have no problem linking a reference, will you? Or do you mean to say that all we need to know is that you're a political science student, and that this fact alone should speak for itself?

I think you need to come down just a tad from your ego trip. You've already demonstrated that you don't really know enough about firearms to properly articulate your argument. We're not all a bunch of uneducated rednecks, you know.

Telperion
September 25, 2004, 07:38 PM
We are not an insulated community. Anybody is welcome at THR, as long they follow some simple rules on civil discourse. Unlike some other sites, we do not boot people for ideological differences, but you will get an earful from our members.

The textual, historical, judicial, and legislative evidence all support an individual rights interpretation. Unlike you, I am willing to cite some sources: to keep things brief, go to www.guncite.com and read the documents on the left side of the page.

I won't respond to any of your comments on the assault weapons ban unless you can give me a precise definiton of what is an "assault weapon".

GigaBuist
September 25, 2004, 07:39 PM
In response to nico, I looked at the AWB and it bans all models of Kalishnikov rifles-- not just a specific model. You can make all of the technical arguments you want-- none of which were backed up with sources, thus rendering them entirely subjective in my eyes-- but the weapons outlawed were chosen due to their popularity in street violence. Thus, those with a criminal mindset apparently feel differently than you do, since they utilized these weapons over a deer rifle.


The AWB did -not- ban everything based off the Kalisnakov design. California has a law that does that, but it never existed at the Federal level.

Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 921 of the United States Code states:

The term ''semiautomatic assault weapon'' means -
.....
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

Those are specific brands. Not covered by the ban were these:
http://www.justinbuist.org/images/two-aks/two-aks-small.jpg

Both purchased legally during the ban and in compliance with the ban. These are not "pre ban" or grandfathered in. They were produced after 1994 and have always been legal.

Regarding their choice in crime, please come up with some data on this one. I've never seen a valid study showing assault weapons were commonly used in crimes. Here's a page that debunks that myth:

http://www.awbansunset.com/crime.html

Drjones
September 25, 2004, 07:45 PM
I'm a Politics student at one of the top programs in the country; I have read plenty. I simply pointed out a widely accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment (widely accepted amongst scholars, no less);

There are lots of things that are "widely accepted by scholars."

It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that they are correct in anything they say or think.


Here's a challenge for you;

Provide us with some concrete evidence that the Founding Fathers never intended firearms ownership to be an individual right.

Drjones
September 25, 2004, 07:45 PM
I'm a Politics student at one of the top programs in the country; I have read plenty. I simply pointed out a widely accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment (widely accepted amongst scholars, no less);

There are lots of things that are "widely accepted by scholars."

It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that they are correct in anything they say or think.


Here's a challenge for you;

Provide us with some concrete evidence that the Founding Fathers never intended firearms ownership to be an individual right.

This request should, of course, be quite simple since the philosopher kings in their ivory towers are so knowledgeable on this topic.

Mal H
September 25, 2004, 07:45 PM
First of all, welcome to THR!

I, for at least one, am glad you are sharing your opinions with us. I trust you will also listen with an open mind as is the case with most of us.

When you say:
The academic world considers the 2nd Amendment to always have been interpreted as a collective right; but I won't go into that because it had little bearing on my argument.

I believe you are wrong on both counts. Second count first - the meaning and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has considerable bearing on your argument. Without it, you most likely would not feel the need to present your argument in the first place. Thank God we have the 2A and we are arguing about it.

Now for the first point. The academic world has not always considered the 2A to be a collective right. Professor Lawrence Tribe (Harvard), one of the nations foremost constitutional scholars, has stated he interprets the 2A as an individual right. Unfortunately the link to an article I had on file is no longer valid, but I did find the wording of the article in an old thread on The Firingline. Please let us know what your interpretation of his interpretation is:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23988&highlight=tribe

Graystar
September 25, 2004, 07:46 PM
I see you’re from New York City. Being a New Yorker myself, I can understand your ignorance. I’ll try to help you out here.

Before the war broke out between the colonies and England, King George tried to empty the armories, thereby depriving the colonies of their ability to fight. The Second Amendment is a direct result of that action. At the time of its passing, the only idea behind the Second Amendment was to prevent the federal government from attempting any action that would disarm the states.

Nowhere else, in the totality of law, does the concept of “collective right” exist. This is a concept that the federal government created to justify the National Firearms Act of 1934. There is a very good reason why this concept exist no place else...it makes no sense. A group of people cannot have any greater rights than those of the individuals that comprise the group. If a state has the right to keep and bear arms, it is only because the individuals of the state possess that right.

You’re knowledge of self-defense with firearms is clearly lacking. The proof is easily available and quite convincing. The National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the federal government every year, and used as a major crime indicator across the country, clearly demonstrates, year after year, that the best way to avoid injury in a violent attack is to fight back with a gun...even better than complying with the attacker. Also, keeping a gun for self-defense has nothing to do with crime statistics. It has everything to do with an individual’s right to fight for his life when faced with a violent offender. It does not matter if gun ownership causes crime to go up or down. What matters is that criminals will always have guns, people have the right to defend themselves, and guns are the best way to do that (as proven by the NCVS.)

As for assault weapons, again you’re missing various points. Several of the banned features are very useful for target shooters. Also, while there are some very good points to be made about the fact that these weapons are not any more dangerous than other rifles, the most important point to realize is that the ban was completely ineffective, and ineffective laws should be removed. As long as an effective law exists, it must be enforced...and that cost money. It’s ridiculous to waste resourced enforcing a law that provides no benefit. It’s much better to get rid of the law and put those resources to better use.

mpd239
September 25, 2004, 07:51 PM
"If you really are a poli sci student at one of the "top programs in the country," by now you'd probably have been taught some critical thinking and debate skills. One thing you should know by now is not to come in with an unsubstantiated argument and then make an appeal to authority with absolutely no tangible evidence to back it up. If you're so sure that the Second Amendment's real meaning is that which you say, you'll have no problem linking a reference, will you? Or do you mean to say that all we need to know is that you're a political science student, and that this fact alone should speak for itself?

I think you need to come down just a tad from your ego trip. You've already demonstrated that you don't really know enough about firearms to properly articulate your argument. We're not all a bunch of uneducated rednecks, you know."

Excuse me? I didn't come here to write a research paper or make a formal argument. I came here to discuss some opinions. And all I've gotten back is subjectivity masked as objectivity due to the inclusion of a "source" (which inevitably has "gun" in the web address) or insults. I will look for a forum that better suits my purposes.

Spot77
September 25, 2004, 08:02 PM
But weapons like an AK-47 or Uzi are not designed for either-- they are designed for warfare. How can you logically claim otherwise?


You don't need a Porsche 930 Turbo to drive the maximum allowed speed limit of 65 mph either.


You see, it's a personal freedom you have ,to purchase a car whose sole purpose is performance handling and speed.

Gunowners should have the choice to own firearms capable of holding 30 rounds, even though they only need one round to punch a hole in a target, knock over a beer can, or >GASP!< shoot somebody threatening their family.

RavenVT100
September 25, 2004, 08:12 PM
Excuse me? I didn't come here to write a research paper or make a formal argument. I came here to discuss some opinions. And all I've gotten back is subjectivity masked as objectivity due to the inclusion of a "source" (which inevitably has "gun" in the web address) or insults. I will look for a forum that better suits my purposes.

Insults? The only insult that has been thrown in this thread is the insult to our intelligence, which you made when you thought you could come in here and expect your opinion not to be held up to review.

What did you think, that we were going to come out and tell you what you wanted to hear? It's obvious that you have preconceived notions about firearms that are based on a lack of knowledge. Don't be surprised when you actually learn something that you didn't think was true.

Kaylee
September 25, 2004, 08:12 PM
I just think these are some points you should all think about.

*ahem*

Well as a young Democrat from New York City, I'm sure you've studied firearms laws, engineering, and social issues much more than us poor yokels from the red states. Certainly your comments show just how well you comprehend the Federalist papers, the politics of the 1790's and the adoption of the Constitution, and the legal and practical effects of the '94-'04 ban. :scrutiny:

In the end though, even if you manage to convince yourself that the crimes of one person justify infringing the rights of a third innocent party, you're still stuck with one basic, unalterable fact.

We already have them.

We're already here.

And neither they, nor we, are going away.

Have a nice day, and please, feel free to search for other people that "suit your purposes."

Solo
September 25, 2004, 08:14 PM
Art's Grammaw didn't approve.

Edit: Sorry about that post.

pbhome71
September 25, 2004, 08:19 PM
Computers have legitimate uses other than electronic crime, whereas an Uzi used in a drive-by is operating within its primary function.


You would be surprise at how much damage computers can do.

Most of college students, use their computer to RIP MP3/DVD, to share copyrighted materials. Many of them use copier to copy text books. We should ban these too, yes? Afterall, STEALING copyright material is unlawful, yes?

And yes, you still need these evil assault weapons, if you want to come and get mine.

-Pat

wahsben
September 25, 2004, 08:30 PM
MPD239 it is obvious you are not interested in learning. Many people here gave you links to things and you criticize them. Yes some have gun in them because that is what we are discussing. You do not provide anything to back up your statements. The CDC, NIJ and many other records kept on crime statistics and gun mortality rates are not gun related sites and they will tell you the AWB was worthless. It seems you only want to discuss things if people agree with you, and most or all of us would if you were anywhere in the ballpark. There is lots of evidence that gun control only aids the criminals and others that would choose to do us harm and you refuse to recognize that because it does not fit with your beliefs. The proof of this is in your statement about the 2nd ammendment. If you really read the federalist papers and other writings of the time there can be no doubt that it was meant to be an individual right. I recommend watching Innocents Betrayed and also read John R. Lott jr. The Bias against guns.

Art Eatman
September 25, 2004, 09:00 PM
mpd239, read the preamble to the Bill of Rights before making a judgement about any of the first ten amendments. The preamble explains the purpose of the BOR. Note there is no mention of police or hunting in the Second Amendment. (I assume that as a poly-sci person you've read the relevant federal laws defining "militia".)

The AWB may have reduced drive-by bayonettings, but I don't recall many of those occurring prior to the ban. Per BATF testimony before Congress during debate on the then-proposed ban, it was stated that some 1% to 2% of guns used in crime were the so-called "assault weapons". Personally I'll believe federally-collected data on crime over "ax-grinder" anti-gun presumptions. Be that as it may, absent the few cosmetic features affected by the ban, mechanically identical rifles were sold all through this last ten years.

FWIW, sales of new firearms in the U.S. each year, per records of the BATF, run about five million per year. I found no breakdown between semi-auto para-military rifles and other rifles...

Art

iamkris
September 25, 2004, 09:10 PM
I will look for a forum that better suits my purposes.

Good riddance...

That was a mind that had no capacity to see anything but what it wanted.

Graystar
September 25, 2004, 09:21 PM
That was a mind that had no capacity to see anything but what it wanted. Typical New York City democrat. :rolleyes:

Logistics
September 25, 2004, 09:34 PM
>>>I will look for a forum that better suits my purposes.<<<

Misses.org forums more suitable to your tastes? They will probably enbrace your 'values' there more and not question your verbal slight of hand in regards to twisting the facts or just not presenting them at all.

~L

R.H. Lee
September 25, 2004, 09:36 PM
The 2nd Amendment is most assuredly an individual right, and it's purpose is to keep government in check. If your view is that the Constitution and BOR are living documents ala Al Gore, then what these documents say is essentially meaningless, as their interpretation fluctuates whimsically with whatever the current "conventional wisdom" may be. Please keep in mind also, these documents do not grant the liberties therein described, they list and codify natural rights of free men. I make a point of that because, as a liberal, you probably think that society confers rights upon individuals, which is an incorrect assumption. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." You have no doubt read those words before. They say what they mean and mean what they say. These documents are intended to limit government's powers, not individual's rights. The United States is a Consititutional Republic consisting of individuals with inalienable rights. We are neither a monarchy nor a democracy, and are neither subject to the tyranny of the King nor the tyranny of the majority.

cracked butt
September 25, 2004, 09:40 PM
Nothing like finding a rusty old revolver, loading it up with blanks, then challenging the local fastdraw sharpshooter to a gunfight.:evil:

Standing Wolf
September 25, 2004, 09:50 PM
First of all, the Second Amendment has always been a collective right, and only recently has been interpreted as an individual one-- this is historical fact.

You've been taking too many lunatic leftists way too seriously. It might be worth your while to go back to the source documents.

Mulliga
September 25, 2004, 09:58 PM
I will look for a forum that better suits my purposes

Meh. Good riddance. :neener:

Russ
September 25, 2004, 10:13 PM
Amazing!

A TROLL who got the message. Oh well, I guess he'll just have to back to Kerry campaign with what he has.

geekWithA.45
September 25, 2004, 10:15 PM
n response to nico, I looked at the AWB and it bans all models of Kalishnikov rifles-- not just a specific model. You can make all of the technical arguments you want-- none of which were backed up with sources, thus rendering them entirely subjective in my eyes-- but the weapons outlawed were chosen due to their popularity in street violence. Thus, those with a criminal mindset apparently feel differently than you do, since they utilized these weapons over a deer rifle.

Actually, the weapons where chosen from a gun catalog, based on how scary and military they looked. This is well documented, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. I'll wager you could even find some of that documentation on a site that doesn't have "gun" somewhere in the name.


-----------------------------
For THR regulars, the rest of my thoughts concerning this arrogant, sanctimonious twerp are dicey with respect to the proprieties of this board. Feel free to check my blog if you're interested.

Andrew Rothman
September 25, 2004, 10:21 PM
Folks, congratulations.

You have, very politely and very truthfully, sent a troll packing in search of easier pickin's.

Total elapsed time: 1 hour, 11 minutes!

I believe that's a new record. :)

mpd239
September 25, 2004, 10:46 PM
"That was a mind that had no capacity to see anything but what it wanted"

I came here with a desire not to argue, but to discuss; I stated right away that I was pro-gun ownership and why. It seems like because I said I was a Democrat you all have to jump on my tertiary points rather than focus on what I really had to say-- why do you need assault weapons? I haven't done thorough research into the AWB or its effects, no, because I have better things to do with my time. Whether or not the law was effective is beyond the scope of what I wanted to discuss. Logically, why do you need an AK-47? Justifying it in relation to a Porsche is ridiculous; sports cars are not designed to kill.

I said I'd look for another forum because after about 10 posts jumping all over minor claims in my original post, I realized I would never be able to engage in a discussion-- you're all just looking for faults or offenses to your mindset rather than considering other points of view. I'm probably more pro gun than the average American citizen. But you all failed to recognize that because I said Democrat in the first sentence, and instead looked for anything in the post that you could attack without considering the things you couldn't. Selective incorporation, anyone?

I was not a troll, just looking for some decent dialogue

rageman
September 25, 2004, 10:46 PM
Guys, just a few comments. I do feel like a good number of us have treated mpd239 poorly. While it was rude to come in and talk about groupthink and groups isolating themselves more, it was equally rude of us to put words in his mouth, such as "since you apparently know more than us about guns," and "I'm sure you've studied . . . much more than us poor yokels from the red states." It was equally rude to then insult mpd239 with such mudslinging as " Typical New York City democrat."

And while mpd never answered the call for proof that "First of all, the Second Amendment has always been a collective right, and only recently has been interpreted as an individual one-- this is historical fact," what has transpired in this thread is not education or taking the high road (in my opinion), but rather us closing someones mind (perhaps forever) against the RKBA.

And mpd239, if you are sitll perusing this thread, please prove your statement that the 2nd has always been a collective right, and then explain why it "has little bearing on your argument." This entire board is centered around the 2nd, and to say that the way we interpret it is incorrect, but is irrelevant to the discussion is, well, ludicrous. Also, I take issue with the fact that you never clearly defined "assault weapon" in your original post. If you take the definition from the AWB, well, those guns were banned merely on what looked "scary." Prove to me that "the weapons outlawed were chosen due to their popularity in street violence" since, as has already been pointed out several times, "Assault Weapons" account for less than something like 2% of all gun crimes. Also, your irrational exclusion of all sources that has the word "gun" in the title is problematic. Yes, they all have "gun" in the title. That doesn't mean that the statistics on these websites are incorrect, however. Perhaps you should look at these websites, and then look at where they get their stats from, be it the DoJ, the NIH, or else where, go look that the original statistics for verification, and then make your decisions.

Anyways, if you are still here and reading, welcome to THR.

rageman
September 25, 2004, 10:55 PM
Logically, why do you need an AK-47? Justifying it in relation to a Porsche is ridiculous; sports cars are not designed to kill.
To turn your statement on its head, why do we need Porsches, logically? How about a Yamaha R1? Or, even, money permitting, that 4-wheeled "motorcycle" beast developed with a Dodge Viper engine? :drool:
Perhaps firstly people are not completely logical, and secondly, "Different strokes for different folks."

Do I need an "assault weapon," or a machine gun? No, I don't. I don't hunt often, my self defense purposes are better suited by a taser or a small knife than a handgun (both legally and situationally), and I am not holding off the Persians at Thermopylae. But damn, it sure is fun as hell to sit down with a gun and pump out a bunch of rounds rapid fire at pumpkins, or to take apart and "modify" the fireworks I get after the fourth. :D But just because I don't have a need for something doesn't mean that the goverment should ban it. Unless you are advocating a movement towards the "great [time] tables" in We, and a situation where any unnecessary action is forbidden.

Graystar
September 25, 2004, 11:01 PM
I haven't done thorough research into the AWB or its effects And that's the problem. Instead of asking about it you came off like you knew it all. So you got a response appropriate for such arrogance.

Gordon Fink
September 25, 2004, 11:03 PM
I didn’t come here to write a research paper or make a formal argument. I came here to discuss some opinions.…

Well, now you’re being honest. Opinions we can discuss.

As others have pointed out already, the banned semi-automatic rifles were no more dangerous than other non-banned semi-automatic firearms. So what was the point of the 1994 “law”?

Why should I be prohibited from owning a rifle or a car or a Bible, so long as I don’t misuse it?

~G. Fink

P5 Guy
September 25, 2004, 11:24 PM
mpd239, you ask why I should be allowed to have an assault weapon or why I need one. Because this is a free capitalist country and I have the resources to purchase one. Why should a moral agent of a free society be barred from owning anything that that moral agent can afford?

ReadyontheRight
September 25, 2004, 11:34 PM
An AK-47 is not meant to kill one attacker, or fell a deer-- it's meant to efficiently kill several men. That's not something that is necessary or wanted in the modern United States.

The ability to efficiently kill several men is certainly wanted by this united States citizen if me and my family are attacked by several men.

Mulliga
September 25, 2004, 11:41 PM
It seems like because I said I was a Democrat you all have to jump on my tertiary points rather than focus on what I really had to say

We have a few Dems in our club. They fit in fine, because guns shouldn't be a political issue - it wasn't 40 years ago, when no less than President John F. Kennedy owned an "assault weapon" (an AR-15) and was a proud honorary life member of the NRA. Many, many Democrats have seen the lunacy of banning weapons based on cosmetic features.

I haven't done thorough research into the AWB or its effects, no, because I have better things to do with my time

And we have better things to do than to argue with you. Please do some research - look up the official, unedited, reports by the CDC or DOJ on gun control. Or you can think logically - what would the average criminal want? A 3+ foot long AK-style rifle that would alert half the neighborhood if he went out walking with it, or a handgun that fits in a pocket? How about a terrorist? A crippled semiauto rifle that looks like an AK-47, or a fully-auto AK that you can find all over the world in vast quantities for little money?

, why do you need an AK-47?

Those who would ban "assault weapons" say you can defend yourself with a handgun or a shotgun. Invariably, those same people have never even fired a handgun or shotgun.

Have you ever fired a handgun, mpd239? It can be difficult to keep all your shots on a piece of notebook paper at 25 yards. And handgun rounds are relatively poor at stopping an attacker. Not to mention the bad guys will probably be carrying handguns, too.

Have you ever fired a shotgun, mpd239? Most shotguns have a magazine capacity of four, and even the largest shotguns can only hold about 9 shots. Are you confident that you can stop any threat with four shells, or even 9? The recoil of a shotgun can be ferocious if you are not used to it.

Compare this to an "assault weapon." Here is a weapon that's easy to shoot (even complete novices can get up and running in no time flat - I took new shooters who soon had no trouble plinking soda cans from 50 yards away), accurate, shoots a more powerful round than a handgun, carries more rounds than a shotgun, and, above all, is reliable and simple to operate.

It is very difficult to conceal, so it is not attractive to criminals. It is relatively expensive, and so is not attractive to terrorists. In fact, most people who own "assault weapons" are relatively successful, middle class folks who can afford all the fancy gizmos you can stick on them ;). You can use assault weapons to shoot targets and hunt, but those are tangential to the reasons for owning them.

Why do I need an assault weapon? Why don't I need one? Do you honestly believe any law restricting weapons will ever have an impact on criminals, who by definition ignore the law? Do laws that say you and I can't carry a concealed pistol without a permit stop those individuals who are willing to break laws saying that you can't rob a store, or rape someone, or murder someone? Will they suddenly say, "Oh, it's against the law, so I better not carry a gun"?

Now it's "assault weapons." What will it be tomorrow? Handguns? After all, no one needs a handgun. And no one needs any gun at all, from your logic. But then why do police carry guns (yes, they even have "assault weapons")? Because they might have to confront criminals and defend themselves? Isn't the same true (probably more so, since criminals generally are smart enough NOT to confront the cops) of the average person? If you were a crminal, would you attack an armed person, or a disarmed person? A home with an "assault weapon" in it, or a home without one?

Gun control is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. It started in America as an attempt to prevent free blacks from defending themselves, but it's a worldwide phenomenon - always used for either cynical political advantage or to disarm a minority before destroying them.

Please, mpd239, think. Think and listen. Guns give claws to the weak - they can make the 80-year old grandmother a formidable opponent to a gang of young thugs, they can make a solitary jogger a safe jogger, they can make a twenty-something yuppie/college student into a master of his or her own fate. Do you really wish the strong to have dominion over the weak?...

schromf
September 25, 2004, 11:45 PM
but the weapons outlawed were chosen due to their popularity in street violence.

Wrong, they were chosen by a feel good factor. How many FAL rifles have been used in crimes? And further the most popular street crime weapons are handguns, followed by shotguns.

Further,

The second amendment is an individual right to protect from tryanny. Hunting had nothing to do with this.

You need to study a little more and not reach conclusions before hand cause you are definately :confused:

ReadyontheRight
September 25, 2004, 11:45 PM
but the weapons outlawed were chosen due to their popularity in street violence.

NO THEY WERE NOT. Please at least do a little studying on the matter before spouting off.

The weapons outlawed were chosen because they "looked" bad. Chosen by legislators from a gun catalog.

If weapons were to be outlawed because of their popularity in street violence, I would guess that .38 Special revolvers and .22 pistols (like the one used to shoot Jim Brady) would be outlawed.

The "street violence" using "assault weapons" you speak of is a Hollywood concoction.

Andrew Rothman
September 25, 2004, 11:51 PM
Don't get me wrong, I come into conflict with fellow Democrats often on issues of gun control, and am generally against it.

Your words say otherwise.


But I just wanted to point somethings out, and hear some response to what I have to say.

Well, you got that. Don't complain that you don't like the responses. You asked for them.

I am in favor of individual gun ownership as a basic right

Unless it is an "assault weapon," which you can't even define.

actual incidents involving defense of property or self with a gun may be limited and unconvincing of the importance of gun ownership

Whoops. Between 600,000 and 2.5 million per year is not limited, and it's pretty damn convincing to me. ("Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control" Gary Kleck, professor of criminology at Florida State University, Prometheus Books; 2001)

the possibility of a gun held by a victim reduces crime in a manner that cannot be measured.

It has been measured. see Kleck G, Gertz M. Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. J Criminal Law Criminology. 1995;86:150-187.



you find that while the US has a higher murder rate than countries with strong gun control, those countries have higher contact crime rates. Therefore there is a tradeoff, it seems-- the more guns, the more murder; but the less guns, the less risk incurred by criminals involved in lesser crimes.

Far too simplistic, of course. The US is a violent place; something like 40% of murders are not committed with a gun. Switzerland's population, in contrast, is armed to the gills, and murder there is darned rare.

Could it be that the issue is, um, cultural, and not a matter of hardware?

But, assault weapons have little place in modern society.

If you can't define it, how do you know?

Rifles and shotguns are designed for hunting, for the most part, and semi-automatic handguns are efficient in the realm of self-defense. But weapons like an AK-47 or Uzi are not designed for either

AKs and Uzis are machine guns. Machine guns were not addressed in the 1994 ban -- they've been tightly restricted since 1934.

Sure, there are some semi-auto versions around, but they do not differ substantially in operation from other, non-"assault weapon" rifles.

gun enthusiasts should be mature enough to recognize the cost to society legalized assault weapons incur

I'll assume you meant "impose" or perhaps "entail," because "incur" makes no sense. Go look it up.

But anyway, what is that cost to society, exactly? Government stats show that less than three percent of gun crimes involve long guns of any kind. Pistols are by far the "weapon of choice" of criminals.

Legalized assault weapons enable terrorists and criminals to acquire means without risk, and this will result in more uses of the weapons.

Okay, how many terrorist assault weapon attacks have there been?

the weapons outlawed were chosen due to their popularity in street violence.

Um, like a fraction of one percent? If that's popular, I'm prom queen.

Thus, those with a criminal mindset apparently feel differently than you do, since they utilized these weapons over a deer rifle.

Go look it up yourself, Mr. Scholar. You're just 99% wrong here.

To the responder who called the terrorist argument ridiculous-- I don't know about you, but I felt a lot safer when I knew it was illegal for a militant Muslim to walk into a gun store and purchase an AK.

The problem is, your arguments are about feelings, not facts. Machine guns are nearly illegal in this country. Get it?

By your argument, it should be legal to own an operational Abrams tank-- but I don't think anyone here would agree with that.

Here's some latin for you, Mr. Scholar. Argumentum ad absurdum.

Society has to come together and draw a line at what is necessary for hunting/self-defense and what is simple excess.

Aha. Here we go. The AR-15 "assault weapon" is not permitted in the hunting of deer. Why? It's not powerful enough!

But you've reached the heart of your argument. "The greater good." You contend that although the vast, vast majority would not abuse an "assault weapon", the fact that a tiny minority might is sufficient to take it away from the majority.

I reject that philosophy.

Here's an admittedly ad absurdum argument:

No one thinks that abortion is a good, nice thing. We pretty much agree it's icky, and it would be better if we never needed to do it, and that every baby was wanted by its parents, right?

So let's do this: Inject every teenaged girl with Norplant, or whatever the current long-term, hands-off birth control is called. When these girls get married, pass a parenting class, and apply for a child permit, a state doctor can remove the birth control.

The fact that most girls and young women would be responsible and careful is beside the point; for the greater good, we need to inject the responsible girls, too.

I don't buy this, of course. It would be a horrible invasion of the privacy and autonomy that every woman deserves.

The cost of freedom is the inevitablility that a few will abuse it. The alternative, limiting that freedom by law, is not the answer. It is a cure worse than the disease.

Oh -- one more thing. In a free society, I don't have to prove a "need" to own something. I can buy it simply because I want it, I can afford it, and I don't hurt anyone with it.

Art Eatman
September 26, 2004, 12:03 AM
A small number of people contributed to the language of the Bill of Rights. It seems to me they would have been consistent in the meaning of the words they used. Most well-educated people are consistent in their use of words, and certainly folks like Jefferson were well-educated.

So, why would a word have one meaning in one amendment and a different meaning in another? How can "the people" refer to individuals in one amendment, and only to groups in another?

It is as legitimate to call "the people" collective in the First Amendment as in the Second. IOW, one must have a preconceived idea of singular vs. collective in the use of "the people" to claim it is collective in the Second Amendment.

Again I refer to the (apparently) never-read preamble of the Bill of Rights as to the intent, the perceived need. In the context of the purpose of the BOR, there is no way it's a collective right. Further, how can a group of restraints on the central government (the purpose of the BOR) simultaneously be restraints on individual citizens? That's absolutely contradictory.

Art

schromf
September 26, 2004, 12:08 AM
I will look for a forum that better suits my purposes.

I have just the site for you:

http://forums.about.com/ab-collectdoll2/start

Yeah, its a forum on collecting Barbie Dolls....Be Gone TROLL........

But you all failed to recognize that because I said Democrat in the first sentence

Actually if you spend some time here we have some very hard core democrates on this board. They gained respect here because their agruements are backed by facts. Read some of the roundtable posts, we have several that are quite charactors, and we nasty republicans end up conceeding points regularly when they are based in fact. If you bother hanging around a little you might be very suprised that we have a sizeable liberatarian presence, you might say we are equal opportunity 2nd amendment rights supporters.

fjolnirsson
September 26, 2004, 12:28 AM
By your argument, it should be legal to own an operational Abrams tank-- but I don't think anyone here would agree with that.

You're wrong. I can think of two off the top of my head.
During the early days of our country, the government regularly issued letters of marque(sp?) to private citizens who owned crew served weapons (ocean going ships bearing cannon) and allowed them to take ships belonging to the enemy.
An Abrams is a crew served weapon, and I see no reason why a neighborhood or private citizen should be denied ownership.
I don't think they should be legal for inner city use, though. The tracks tear up the asphalt.:D

Welcome to THR.

artherd
September 26, 2004, 01:44 AM
Sir- I question your credentials and your qualifications. Please provide tangible evidence of both before I spend my valueable time in debate.

Thank you.

By your argument, it should be legal to own an operational Abrams tank-- but I don't think anyone here would agree with that

One minor point, I know of several privately owned tanks, though none of the Abrams generation (at several $million a pop, I am not surprised!)

Powderman
September 26, 2004, 02:06 AM
mpd239, if you're still here...

As you can see, we are all very strong in our beliefs, as I am sure that you are.

Here are some of my observations. First, though, let me introduce myself.

I live in Washington State, and I patrol one of the most crime-ridden areas of the State. This area is located in the City of Tacoma, WA.

I also patrol outside of the city. Being a Tribal Law Enforcement Officer, I encounter a wide spectrum of calls. Within our reservation boundaries, we have everything from conditions of abject poverty and destitution to multi-million dollar homes.

We also are actively combating a serious gang presence and the attendant violent crime that goes with it. I have been patrolling this area for over three years now.

The weapon of choice for criminals is the handgun. Period. No one wants to carry a huge rifle that can not be concealed readily.

And, as far as militants being able to buy guns from a gun store, please be advised that the vast, VAST majority of crime guns are stolen. There is no vetting or background process required to acquire a stolen firearm. These statements can be verified by taking a look at the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report.

Now, to the brass tacks. While there are many speculations on ownership of firearms and the like, I believe that the true measure of what guns mean to us--and should mean to the American people as a whole--can be found in this essay written on The Firing Line, another firearms related board. This essay can be found here:

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/Metal_and_Wood.html

To all THR members, if you haven't read this yet, you should.

mpd239, this essay sums up what the Second Amendment is about. Please feel free to post in response.

roburado
September 26, 2004, 02:22 AM
Well, my personal choice is the AR-15. So, I'll answer the question of why I would want an assault rifle for personal defense using the AR-15 as an example. To understand the answer to the question of why one would need an assault rifle for personal defense, one has to take into account likely tactical scenarios.

Simply, personal defense with such a weapon would be a close-quarters combat situation. What do people who train for close-quarters combat use for such situations? Short-barreled AR-15s, MP5s. At least, those are the more common weapons in use with such operators. Why not use what they use? They trust their lives to these weapons, because they work well in those situations. Why can't I be allowed to do the same?

Yes, these guns carry magainzines that have 30 rounds or sometimes more. Let's consider a hypothetical example of defending my home against 2 home invaders. Why two? Well, criminals don't usually do that sort of thing alone. I can't recall where I read this, but a study showed that it takes 6 shots fired to achieve one hit according to one law enforcement entity. Now, there are two invaders. I need 12 shots to hit each of them once. They stand a pretty good chance of surviving that first hit. Therefore, they stand a pretty good chance of still being able to fight. 12 shots will probably not stop the threat. To hit them each once more will bring me to 24 rounds. Shouldn't I at least have the right to have 24 or more rounds in my weapon?

SAG0282
September 26, 2004, 02:24 AM
Hey Powderman, I live near Roosevelt Elementary...sounds like you patrol in my neighborhood. If you see my electric blue Focus, come say hi sometime.

This thread has been great, but has failed to address the topic author's specious "collective right" argument.

Now, to the author, go read again the 2nd Amendment and be sure and remember that "militia" reference. Now, here is the Militia Act ratifiied in 1792, which clarifies the issue pretty well;
"Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints . . . ."
Militia Act of 1792, printed in John F. Callan, The Military Laws of the United States (Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1858): 65.
This is further reinforced by both current federal law, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Moreover, it is the official postion of the Justice Department per John Ashcroft.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . ."
Title 10 of the U.S. Code (Sec. 311) also defines the Militia to include "female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." The Code then divides the Militia into two groups—the "unorganized" militia (the body of the people) and the "organized" militia (the National Guard). This two-fold division of the Militia was not added to federal law until 1903.
"‘The people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [and] it suggests that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990).
"In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a ‘militia,’ they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."
U.S. Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary (1982):7.

(Gun Owners of America contributed to this post)


Your parents should demand a refund on your tuition....you're not getting much value out of it.:rolleyes:

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 02:37 AM
Solo,

Where did you get those quotes from? Billy Bob's Beercan page, or the Montana Militia's? The quote from Washington is thorougly bogus, and most of that Jefferson quote as well. The quote from John Adams is nicely mangled, err enhanced, as well. *Sigh*

boofus
September 26, 2004, 02:42 AM
Do you people actually think using logic and reason will change his mind? I just see yet another New Dork City liberal hypocrite. Molon Labe is the only answer suitable for those socialist parasites.

SAG0282
September 26, 2004, 02:50 AM
Yeah, he's a typical closed-minded liberal that disregards fact and logic, but I'm curious to see what he says.

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 02:58 AM
This thread has been great, but has failed to address the topic author's specious "collective right" argument.

Neither did your post, Siegfried_Geringer.

If I were an anti, here's how I'd respond to the evidence you presented...

First you cite the Milita Act of 1792 as:
"Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints . . . ."

Selective quoting. The full text says:
"That every citizen, so ENROLLED and NOTIFIED..." The Milita Act was a statute. It doesn't comment on the scope of the Second Amendment. What if Congress wrote a statute narrowing the eligibility of militia members? Would the Amendment's scope be narrowed as a result? If not, then why quote the frigin' act at all? (That being said, remember I'm arguing as an anti, and the 1792 Militia Act would not be much proof of a 2A individual right, by itself, however I could see quoting the Militia Act after presenting other FAR MORE substantial evidence of an individual right.

The citation of U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990) is not at all pursuasive. The main reason being that many of the justices, who signed that opinion, would argue that the militia clause limits the scope of the right to those people who are members of an active militia. I think it's also foolish to argue that the Supreme Court nowadays supports an individual 2A since they did not overturn the ugly-gun ban.

jefnvk
September 26, 2004, 02:59 AM
An AK-47 is not meant to kill one attacker, or fell a deer-- it's meant to efficiently kill several men. That's not something that is necessary or wanted in the modern United States.

Rearview mirrors were originally designed for the Indy 500, yet I don;t think that any car that has them is by any means a race car. But by your logic, we don't want illegal racing in town, so we should get rid of rearviews.

And personally, the only reason my neighbors shouldn't have an Abrahms is that I would be jealous.

I;d doubt he's coming back

SAG0282
September 26, 2004, 03:02 AM
Funny you should mention Congress, because I quoted the Militia act to follow up with the Congressional subcommittee finding below it.

I did thoroughly address this thank you. The militia act was interpreted as evidence of intent for an individual right by Congress and even Miller brings it up in it's mention of military grade weapons, etc.

And while the justices MAY be in favor of regulation we aren't, the ruling nonetheless rejects the COLLECTIVE rights argument, so it's useful especially given that he used SCOTUS as evidence.

boofus
September 26, 2004, 03:07 AM
If SCOTUS chooses not to do their job and decides to uphold an unconstitutional law that does not make it right. Remember they once ruled that escaped slaves are not humans with unalienable rights, they had to be returned to their former masters. Blatantly unconstitutional but upheld nonetheless.

If the term 'the people' means the national guard, i.e. employees of the state... Then it is obvious there is no freedom of the press unless you are a state run newspaper or television station. All rights not enumerated to the federal government or reserved for the states belongs to government employees (so no abortions or gay marraige unless you are a govt agent)... yadda yadda. Like I said more liberal hypocrisy and doublethink.

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 03:18 AM
You didn't answer my question. What if Congress passed a militia act that narrows the eligibility of militia members?

The militia act was interpreted as evidence of intent for an individual right by Congress

Wow, in 1982 a Senate Republican majority with a few pro-gun Democrats, renders a Congressional document supporting an individual right, and they interpret the Militia Act as evidence of intent of an invidual right. That's real impressive evidence!

This is what boggles my mind. Three jurists who were contemporaries of the Founders, wrote constitutional commentaries explicitly stating that the 2A was an individual right. Instead of offering that as evidence, the first Militia Act, a report by a Republican Senate and a rather irrelevant 1990 Supreme Court decision are proffered.

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 03:24 AM
Boofus, what the bleep are you talking about? I realize it's late, but geez, please try to understand the context of these arguments.

Somebody was trying to offer a 1990 SC decision as evidence that the 2A protects an individual right. I rebutted that assertion. It has nothing to do with whether the Court made the correct decision.

Once again, *SIGH*.

Oh, and by the way...

Remember they once ruled that escaped slaves are not humans with unalienable rights, they had to be returned to their former masters. Blatantly unconstitutional but upheld nonetheless.

Please refer to the Consitution as it was when that decision was rendered. Slaves were declared as 1/3 a person, or some such, originally (for census purposes, I believe).

boofus
September 26, 2004, 03:24 AM
It doesn't say the militia's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

I find it very unlikely that the authors of the BOR would use the term 'the people' several times in such a short document meaning society as a whole in 1 amendment and then individuals in every other amendment.

Plus the word 'keep' implies private ownership. How many people do you know that are discharged from the military that KEEP their arms? You'd get tossed in prison for theft of federal property among other things.

saltydog452
September 26, 2004, 03:29 AM
Without The Bill of Rights, all of 'em, the Constitution is justa piece of paper.

salty..

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 03:31 AM
It doesn't say the militia's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

Yeah, well tell that to the courts and how they've interpreted the copyright clause which is similar in structure:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/39.html)
However, a recent Supreme Court decision may have nibbled on the edges of that claim. (I don't feel like looking it up now.)

Again your argument will be far more pursuasive if you can quote a Founder or a contemporary, rather than just saying so!

boofus
September 26, 2004, 03:33 AM
Last I checked the amendments in the bill of rights WERE written by the framers of the Constitution or founders as you call them.

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 03:34 AM
And while the justices MAY be in favor of regulation we aren't, the ruling nonetheless rejects the COLLECTIVE rights argument, so it's useful especially given that he used SCOTUS as evidence.

Wrong. As I stated many of those justices would argue that the militia clause restricts the right to active militia members only. Or are you going to argue that such a restriction is still an individual right?

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 03:38 AM
Last I checked the bill of rights WERE written by the framers of the Constitution or founders as you call them.

Duh, what the bleep is your point? We're arguing about the effectiveness or validity of some of the evidence offered to support one's interpretation of them.

boofus
September 26, 2004, 03:40 AM
You asked for a quote from the founders. Apparently what they wrote on parchment with their own 2 hands does not count?

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 03:43 AM
You asked for a quote from the founders. Apparently what they wrote on parchment with their own 2 hands does not count?

I did not ask for a quote from the Founders.

boofus
September 26, 2004, 03:52 AM
Again your argument will be far more pursuasive if you can quote a Founder or a contemporary, rather than just saying so!

Are you john kerry by any chance?

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 04:10 AM
I wasn't asking for a quote. I was explaining that the evidence posted supporting an individual right, by a certain poster, was weak. Rather than using that evidence, I suggested, for future reference, to post quotes from founders or their contemporaries that deal directly with interpretations of the 2A. I suggested 3 examples. I wasn't asking for any.

Boofus, it's late out there in Texas. Maybe your reading comprehension will improve with some sleep. (Sorry for being rude, but this is irritating.)

only1asterisk
September 26, 2004, 04:14 AM
mpd239,

You said,

I just think these are some points you should all think about.

I've read what you've written and find no points that haven't been refuted to my satisfaction.

Here is a point that you should think about.
You have chosen to come here and engage us without being informed in the least. Take heed when you are corrected. To us the consequences of firearm ownership are real instead of theoretical and we consider them more carefully than you can imagine.

Please come back when you have either prepared yourself to back your arguments or are ready to be educated.


David

SAG0282
September 26, 2004, 05:31 AM
Ieyasu-

What is is that you're having trouble understanding??


Bill of Rights-Militia Act-Current Federal law...spells that out pretty clearly. Even the "Miller" act that gun control proponents point to acknowledges the militia act set up the expectation of posession of military-style firearms and ruled that the sawed-off shotguns did not qualify as such. At no point did they spell out a "collective right", though it did of course acknowledge the 2A was not immune from regulation. This is from that decision;"The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

What more do you want?? All three branches maintain the 2A is an INDIVIDUAL right...President Bush/Ashcroft, SCOTUS, and Congress. No one has maintained the 2A is immune from regulation, but it's clearly an individual right. Given the value the Founding Fathers placed on liberty and the ability to resort to armed protest in the face of oppression, only a complete moron would suggest the SECOND AMENDMENT to the BILL OF RIGHTS is a right guaranteed to the government. The most popular stance offered by the collective rights camp equates the National Guard to the militia in the 2A...the NG that was established in the 20th century and whose vehicles bear gov't plates. How could ANY student of history POSSIBLY conclude the 2A is collective?

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
(Richard Henry Lee)
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty. . . ."
(Virginia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13 (1776))
"I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
(George Mason)

SAG0282
September 26, 2004, 05:36 AM
Lastly, you argue that many of the justices "would argue" various things. Are you really trying to use speculation as an argument???

Justin
September 26, 2004, 07:53 AM
First of all, the Second Amendment has always been a collective right, and only recently has been interpreted as an individual one-- this is historical fact.

I seriously doubt that I could have any sort of constructive dialogue with this person. The very concept of "collective rights" is as alien to me as whatever may be living on a planet circling around Alpha Centauri.

The very concept of rights being collective; that the rights of a majority somehow supercede the rights of the individual is positively the most asinine concept to come crawling out of the muck of the swamp of post-modernist thinking.

Of course, the idea of the 'collective' civil right is really in vogue right now with those on the supposed cutting edge of philosophy and history. Those who generally tend to espouse this world view lean hard to the left.

Which is ironic. Because if you think collective rights are the way to go, it puts you in tacit approval of the massacre of the Lakota Sioux, the oppression of Irish immigrants, and the forced march of the Cherokee along the Trail of Tears. And that's only in the last couple hundred years of US history. Perhaps we should look at how a 'collective rights' view has helped shape the world.

Let's see, from collective rights we get the Holocaust perpetrated against Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and any other minority group whose rights were obviously not deemed to be part of the National Socialist (Nazi) collective.

We get the pogroms of Pol Pot perpetrated against educated individuals.

And the labor camps, gulags and mass graves of Stalinist Russia as well as much of the oppression that was perpetrated by Mao in China, to say nothing of the heinous stuff going down in North Korea.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that so-called collective rights are no damned civil right at all when it comes right down to the individual. To even think of disputing the concept of an individual's right to life, liberty, and property is anathema to the epistemologies behind the founding of this nation. Assuming that mpd239 is actually working in a politics program at a university it shouldn't be too much of a leap for me to assume that s/he has read Locke, to say nothing of the philosophers that followed in his footsteps; pre-revolutionaries such as James Otis, and modern philosophers such as Ayn Rand, etc.

Kamicosmos
September 26, 2004, 10:17 AM
Just to jump on the dog pile here"

mpd239 wrote:
why do you need assault weapons?
I'm an American, need doesn't come into it. The 2nd A says I can have arms. Doesn't say anything about 'The Need of the People...'

it should be legal to own an operational Abrams tank

I believe it is...I think a member here already owns an older model of tank. I even saw a show about a guy in England, of all places, that owns a WWII British tank, with functional weaponry! And, there's plenty of people that own fighter aircraft: Mustangs, Corsairs, B-17s, MiGs of various types...

I will look for a forum that better suits my purposes.

Democratic Underground is just around the corner...


And for my parting shot: You didn't actually read The Federalist Papers, did you?

R.H. Lee
September 26, 2004, 10:31 AM
The term "assault weapons" as it is currently used is (puposely) misleading.
"Assault weapon" is merely a catchy term which was conjured up by the gun control lobby to aid in its efforts to demonize these guns.

An assault rifle has a mechanism that allows for fully automatic firing, so that as long as the trigger is squeezed, cartridges will continue to be fired in rapid succession until the supply of ammunition is exhausted. These types of firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934, and are not addressed at all in the legislation banning "assault weapons." This is a very important point, as the average person would have a difficult time distinguishing between side by side photos of a fully automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic look-alike.

But despite the similar or identical appearances to military firearms, the functionality of "assault weapons" is no different than any other semi-automatic, which have been available for 100 years. And though the label "assault weapons" is relatively new, this type of firearm is not. For example, Colt began making the AR-15 Sporter, a semi-automatic version of the military M16, almost 40 years ago. The venerable M1 Garand, used by our troops in WWII (and, by the way, is significantly more powerful than more modern "assault weapons"), has been available to civilians for even longer. http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

In other words, an "assault weapon" is a "machinegun". The AK-47 and Uzi banned in 1994 were not machineguns, and are functionally identical to other firearms which were not banned under that legislation. The Bushmaster used by the D.C. "sniper" (another misnomer) was not a machinegun. John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo could have accomplished the same murders with any number of other weapons not banned under the 1994 law, including a single shot rifle.

For example, in his book, "Guns: Who Should Have Them?" author David B. Kopel illustrates this point by writing:

Persons who do not know much about guns may be forgiven for thinking that "assault weapons" are machine guns; these people are victims of what has been, in some cases, a quite deliberate fraud. For example, CBS's Chicago affiliate, WBBM-TV, showed a reporter buying a (then legal) semi-automatic Uzi carbine (small rifle); the report later showed an automatic Uzi being fired, and viewers were never informed that the guns had been switched.

and:

People who get most of their knowledge about guns from television may have different impression of the lethality of "assault weapons" as the result of bad reporting on the part of some stations. For example, in early 1989, when 'assault weapons' had just become a major interest of the media, a Los Angeles television station arranged with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for a demonstration of the "awesome power" of "assault weapons." Using a rifle like the one used by Patrick Purdy in the Stockton shootings, an officer shot a watermelon that had been set up on a target stand. The bullet punched a hole the size of a dime in the watermelon, leaving the large fruit otherwise intact. The television reporter complained that the result was "visually unimpressive." The officer obligingly unholstered his service gun (a Beretta pistol, not an "assault weapon"). Loaded in the officer's pistol were high-performance Winchester Silvertip STHP rounds. He fired once, and the watermelon exploded into tiny fragments. By the time the "demonstration" had been edited for broadcast, viewers saw only the officer holding the "assault weapon" and then the exploding watermelon. Viewers were deliberately misled into believing that the "assault weapon" had caused the explosion. http://www.awbansunset.com/history.html

The focus, hype and hyperole on the AK-47 and Uzi are a red herring designed by the anti gun lobby for the purpose of building public sentiment against these firearms on the basis of their appearance only.

MeekandMild
September 26, 2004, 10:58 AM
The academic world considers the 2nd Amendment to always have been interpreted as a collective right; but I won't go into that because it had little bearing on my argument. Which academic world is this? Are you refering to the academic world of your own teacher and his students or do you include the greater world of NYU plus some of the schools up in Boston and Cambridge?

I won't question any further because it looks like our little droogie has jaunted back to his world from the alternative universe of the rest of the world.

ckyllo
September 26, 2004, 11:14 AM
sports cars are not designed to kill

but they do, more often than guns.

I personaly know 6 people that have died in MVA's. 0 by gunshot.

check with the CDC for the exact numbers.

as to the AWB

what are the EVIL features that make a AW an AW?
1 folding stock, useless to ban since you can fold the stock and pin in place
2 bayonet lug, when was the last bayonetting on record?
3 flash hider, ever seen a pic of a night live fire they still make a flash, just not near the sight post.
4 pistol grip, if they are bad than why do all handguns have them?
5 gernade launcher, if you can afford the tax stamp ($200) for the launcher and seperate stamp for each projectal more power to you. was more of a scare the uninformed.
edit to add: than one evil feature was allowed and you could pick whatever evil feature you wanted. so if they were that bad why could you have one on a post ban rifle?

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 11:47 AM
What is is that you're having trouble understanding??

It's not me, it's you. You continue to fail to address the points I've made. I'll repeat them.

The Militia Act does not by itself, indicate that the 2A was an individual right. It was a STATUTE indicating that those ENROLLED in the militia must bring their own arms when called. So, when the Congress changes (as it did) the Militia law, in the early 19th century, no longer requiring individuals to supply their own arms does that change the scope of the 2A? Of course not, but again, that's why citing the Militia Act when trying to pursuade an anti is a very weak argument.

the militia act set up the expectation of posession of military-style firearms

Again, not pursuasive since it was a law, not a commentary on the 2A. And could easily be interpreted as being meant to having applied soley to those who were ENROLLED in the militia, as the Act itself stated.

You then quote Miller (which you didn't in your original post) but that too is weak. There are several pro-gun constitutional scholars who concede that the Miller decision was ambiguous and could be interpreted either way. I'm not going to waste my time arguing Miller. Again, when trying to pursuade an anti, they won't take your word for it, AND as I stated, there are much stronger/powerful arguments from the Founding period!

No one has maintained the 2A is immune from regulation, but it's clearly an individual right

Again you try to maintain that the Supreme Court holds that the 2A is an individual right and that some regulation is acceptable. I asked you this question before -- Are you conceding that the ugly-gun ban was constitutional and is acceptable regulation and in-line with an indvidual rights interpretation of the 2A?


The most popular stance offered by the collective rights camp equates the National Guard to the militia in the 2A..

No, not anymore. The view now taken by anti's is the "sophisticated individual rights" interpretation. That is, the militia clause restricts the right to active militia members only. See my comments above regarding the Court's interpretation of the copyright clause.

the NG that was established in the 20th century and whose vehicles bear gov't plates.

The NG, when not called into national service IS a part of the well-regulated militia. You seem to be fond of quoting Supreme Court decisions when trying to pursuade somebody of original intent (which I think is a mistake), so along those lines, my claim about the NG is supported by this 1990 Supreme Court decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=496&invol=334#t7

Here's how an anti- would respond to your Mason quote (again there are better quotes):

"The context of 'who are the militia?' was the composition of the militia, not the personal rights of militia men. Under the militia system exemptions were generously provided. Men with money could buy themselves out of their obligation or pay a substitute. "

schromf
September 26, 2004, 12:28 PM
My last comment is this is sad. He never provided a single source for any of his grandeous statements, such as:

The academic world considers the 2nd Amendment to always have been interpreted as a collective right; but I won't go into that because it had little bearing on my argument.

Here he uses the classic, use a bogus fact but refuses to discourse further, or support the statement. Again notice he expects we should buy this dribble as gospel, and then he works on building his discourse on a leading falsehood. The whole agruement was smoke and mirrors such as:


I'm a Politics student at one of the top programs in the country; I have read plenty. I simply pointed out a widely accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment (widely accepted amongst scholars, no less);

Again, which college? widely accepted by whom? And he reads plenty, what Micheal Bellesiles, or Mad magazine?

The sad part he didn't come here to learn anything at all. niether was he willing to do any homework on his part to support his views. I certainly hope he develops his critical thinking skills during the remainder of his work at that top college. Something in my head says Columbia, but it is purely speculation on my part.

My comment to the parents in the audience is this is a product of what you pay $20,000 a year when you educate your children. Isn't a Poltical science degree about learning researching skills and develping critical thinking skills to make a coherent agruement? I failed to observe any of that in this thread......SAD

sekdar
September 26, 2004, 01:12 PM
man, you guys bashed him unneccessarily hard.

i used to be another gun-fearer living in NYC.

i saw the light because my uncle showed me the truth, not bashed me over the head with it :)

HankTN
September 26, 2004, 01:18 PM
Just my first two cents on this forum:

Here are some references that might be useful next time somone comes up with the "most scholars agree that the second amendment is a collective right" agrument:

Reynolds, Glenn H., A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-512 (1995).

This is available at http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html.

One of the most important points in Prof. Reynolds argument is also one of the simplest. If the RKBA is a collective, and not an individual right, the Miller decision would have been radically different. It would have resulted in a dismissal for lack of standing, rather than a remand to a lower court for additional findings of fact concerning the weapon.

U.S. v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001) 270 F.3d 203

This is available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331.cr0.wpd.pdf.

If this does not work, go to the fifth circuit's main opinion page and search for "emerson."

"The shot heard 'round the world" for a renewed understanding of the second amendment in context. The opinion, and its existence, speaks for itself. As a side note, I'm surprised no one has attacked 18 U.S.C. 922(o) in the fifth circuit. When looking at an infringment on an individual right, the government must justify the law by 1) showing a "compelling state interest" and 2) that it has used the "least restrictive means." 922(o), I would contend, fails on both these counts. How many machine guns have been used in crime? Very few. Is there a less restrictive means to keep them out of the hands of criminals? The strict controls imposed in 1934 were more than sufficient.

Additionally, the Nordyke cases out of the ninth circuit (yes, the ninth!) show a very vocal minority of judges strongly support the individual rights view of the second amendment.

Whew. At my hourly rate, I think that was catually more like $75.00 than two cents.

Mal H
September 26, 2004, 01:43 PM
sekdar - "i saw the light because my uncle showed me the truth, not bashed me over the head with it."

The big, big difference in your case and the case at hand here is that you listened! Obviously I don't know you or your uncle, but I'd be willing to bet good money that if you hadn't listened and understood, the head bashing would have started at some point. :) :D

Graystar
September 26, 2004, 01:52 PM
One of the most important points in Prof. Reynolds argument is also one of the simplest. If the RKBA is a collective, and not an individual right, the Miller decision would have been radically different. It would have resulted in a dismissal for lack of standing, rather than a remand to a lower court for additional findings of fact concerning the weapon. This is 100% wrong. The case was not remanded for additional findings.

Do you really think the Supreme Court shirked its responsibility, threw its hands up in the air and said, “Oh, we can’t figure this out...so YOU figure it out!” To think as such is to truly choose to be ignorant of our judicial process. I will say it again, probably not for the last time...

THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT SEND CASES BACK TO LOWER COURTS FOR DECISIONS THAT IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR!!

The court ruled on the status of the weapon...its possess was not covered by the Second Amendment, and that's that. There was nothing else left to determine.

RealGun
September 26, 2004, 02:02 PM
I've read the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, most Federalist papers, and numerous modern writings on the formation of the American state. I'm a Politics student at one of the top programs in the country; I have read plenty.

It is accurate to say that the RKBA is a collective right based only upon actual Court rulings as recently as Silveira in 2002. Neither the collective right nor individual right view is firmly established in technical, real terms. So everyone is wrong to some extent.

Most of the court rulings relate and may continue to relate to keeping guns out of the hands of blacks or believing that the plain enough language in the Bill of Rights somehow needs to be justified, ignoring its ultimate meaning. On more than one occasion the Courts have rationalized or ruled in a ridiculous manner, ignoring plain enough English, only to suit their purpose of maintaining the status quo for the upper class. We know those rulings to be bogus and have ample evidence to back that up. In our arguments, we essentially ignore bad laws and bad rulings in stating our version of the truth. The technical invalidity of those laws and rulings is well documented and quite credibly and objectively. Getting all that fixed has a lot to do with why we are here.

It was a mistake to bring academic arrogance to the party and underestimate who you were dealing with. Unsubstantiated dogmatism is just not going to fly. I am sorry that some may have responded poorly, but you will need to back off and hang out for awhile. Trust me, your initial opinions will change substantially after being exposed to the collective knowledge here and considering it objectively.

The problem seen with anti-gun arguments so frequently is that they are not factual, are outright lies, are out of context, are highly subjective, are founded in biased propaganda and then sincere, or are based in emotion.

Please do not use Court rulings as an academic resource without also knowing the background and aftermath and whether the ruling has any reason to be respected. Unfortunately you will find that the Court system is highly overrated by some and completely disrespected by others. They have their moments, thankfully, but there are some serious integrity problems in the US legal system.

Daemon688
September 26, 2004, 02:20 PM
Collective right?!

Don't let those teachers spout off lies to you. Read the second amendment again. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Just because they talk about the militia first, does not make it a collective right. My teacher in high school told me the same lie, and all that resulted in was an hour longer argument.

Can't use an AK for hunting? That was the most ignorant statement made. You obviously have very limited knowledge of firearms.

A more proper argument would be against normal capacity magazines. A question of "Why do you need 75 rounds?" would be much better statement than saying AK's are designed for warfare. Well, then all guns should just have 1 round. It shouldn't take you more than 1 shot to drop a deer, nor more than 1 shot to stop an intruder, right?

If AK's sole purpose is to kill people, then the same can go for 99% of the handguns being sold. How many people use their 1911, SIG, Glock, etc for hunting? Not many, but i'm sure some do. You also seem to believe that it was impossible to get AK style weapons until recently, here your ignorance shines through.

If you want to stop the selling of your so called "assault weapons" for the sole purpose of preventing crime, then we should stop selling cameras and video recorders for the sole purpose of preventing the creation of child pornography. Is there any logic behind that statement? People both use these for legitmate reasons only the few use them in crime.

Just to let you know, my deer rifle is a remington 700 but it seems a fairly popular weapon for local PD snipers. Should that be taken away from me because it's designed to kill people?

Here is my sporter rifle and all the accessories I bought for it.
Look, even my documents say this is a weapon intended for SPORT and PROFESSIONAL HUNTING.

http://www.thegreatmilenko.com/forum/files/saiga2.jpg
http://www.thegreatmilenko.com/forum/files/saiga.jpg

Oh yeah, with the folding stock I installed after the AWB ended does it make my gun any more dangerous?

http://www.thegreatmilenko.com/forum/files/ak1.jpg
http://www.thegreatmilenko.com/forum/files/ak2.jpg

And for the rest of you, yes it has the 10 US parts, so I guess it isn't a Russian gun anymore :)

Justin
September 26, 2004, 02:23 PM
i saw the light because my uncle showed me the truth, not bashed me over the head with it To reiterate what Mal said, it seems self-evident that you originally approached the subject with a relatively active mind.

It's obvious from the getgo that mpd wasn't here to engage in rational discussion. S/He was here to show all of us gun-totin', knuckle-draggin' inbred hilljacks the enlightenment of his ways. If he had any interest in rational discussion he would never have started off posting stuff like this:

I find that insulated issue-oriented internet communities often diverge from mainstream viewpoints, and don't become aware of their radicalism or the illogical nature of some of their views. S/he never once considered the concept that maybe as an "insulated issue-oriented internet community" that perhaps our depth of knowledge about the legal, mechanical, and social implications of firearms would lead us to draw conclusions different from say, a soccer mom in Secaucus whose only exposure to firearms has been via the mass media.

What's more, mpd came in and made baseless claims that the RKBA has always been a collective right. It's common knowledge that in any given inquiry the burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim. Mpd came to our website, made a lavish claim, and then offered absolutely no proof to back up said claim.

But what do I know? I don't go to NYU. I just went to college at Purdue where we're all a bunch of hayseeds who sit around in the middle of an Indiana cornfield.

:rolleyes:

Sheslinger
September 26, 2004, 02:25 PM
Logically, why do you need an AK-47? Justifying it in relation to a Porsche is ridiculous; sports cars are not designed to kill.

You are missing the point. It does not matter what things are designed to do, what matters is what you do with them. There are 13,000 members on this board and 40-80 million gun owners in the US. Self-defense reasons aside, an average gun owner is a law-abiding person who simply likes collecting guns and enjoys target shooting. Just because I like the way AK-47 sounds does not make me a baby-killer. Otherwise, you would have average gun owners committing murders left and right, and believe me, if this was true, media would have kept us well informed. As to your point that you would feel better if a radical Muslim extremist could not walk into a store and buy an "assault weapon", consider that you have to pass an FBI and local background check before you can purchase a gun from a gun shop. So if a radical extremist is legally ok to own a gun, yes, he will be able to purchase one. As to his intent to go into a mall and shoot a bunch of people, we cannot legislate intent.

I recommend that you get together with some who owns an "assault weapon" and go shooting. See for yourself what the hype is all about. The reason people get so upset at arguments such as yours is just because you don't see a need for something, does not mean that you should prohibit other people from owning the object in question. I could argue that no one needs a private jet, and you will probably say, "But planes are not designed to kill people". Victims of 9/11 beg to differ. Should we take away all the private planes now in fear that they might be used to fly into our houses? I repeat, it does not matter what an object is designed to do but how you use it.

Julie

P.S. It does not matter if some of us think that this person is trying to start something, insulting his intelligence will not help bringing people like him around. A lot of us were ignorant about guns and gun politics at one point or another, but if other gun owners gave up on us because we were liberals, Democrats, new-yorkers, etc, our cause would suffer greatly.

Sheslinger
September 26, 2004, 03:12 PM
One more thing. You have to ask your self - who are they trying to prevent from getting guns when AWB and similar legislation gets passed. There are several possibilities, and if you think about any of them, you will see how any legislation would fail in accomplishing such a task. Instead of banning an object (a gun), look further to see what the desired objective is in the long run.

Group 1 - criminals and/or terrorists can get such guns. This is where most political outcry seems to concentrate. Now think about it - when someone is ok with committing murder, which is already illegal, would they stop and think, jeez, this gun is illegal, I should really get me a Glock or a Remington 700.

Group 2 - law-abiding citizen having a bad day and shooting people over road rage or killing their family. A knife, a baseball bat, a chainsaw would do just as handy.

Group 3 - kids having easy access to parents' guns and shooting themselves. Bad parenting is just that - how many kids drown in pools or get electricuted because of bad parenting? Gun locks will not help if a parent is careless and does not lock the gun.

Note that in all of the examples a person is just as dangerous with a handgun as they as with an "assault weapon". By the way, if you mean a weapon of assault, number one murder weapon in the country is a screwdriver.

Murder is already illegal, why not punish murderers and not "assault weapon owners"?

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 03:21 PM
By the way, if you mean a weapon of assault, number one murder weapon in the country is a screwdriver.

Unless you're trying to play some weird semantics game, where the heck do you people come-up with this crap? Err excuse me, this is supposed to be the highroad... cite please. (The FBI UCR reports that firearms are the #1 murder weapon.)

HankTN
September 26, 2004, 04:04 PM
This is 100% wrong. The case was not remanded for additional findings.

I agree that the entire thrust of the Miller decision regarded whether the firearm in question was within the scope of those arms that an individual was entitled to keep and bear under the second amendment. That is the point. The court could not say whether the shotgun in question was or was not such a weapon. The Court said:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158." 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)

The holding of the Court is equally clear:

"We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings." id. at 183

The Supreme Court can remand a case back to a lower court for additional proceedings when it is excercising appellate jurisdiction. In this instance, the Court was requesting additional findings of facts concerning the weapon.

It is also important to note how this action was determined in the lower court. This was a direct appeal from a court that had sustained the demurr of the defendants and quashed the indictment. A demurr, prior to the enactment of the Rules of Civil Proceedure, was the equivilent of a motion to dismiss. By reversing the lower court's ruling, the Supreme Court did nothing more than say that it was "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." id at 178. In other words, the lower court wa premature in its ruling.

Anyone may, of course, disagree with my analysis. Certainly State and Federal courts have choosen to read more into this case than, I would contend, is warranted by the decision's clear language.

However, the original point remains: The Supreme Court did not dismiss Mr. Miller's individual second amendment claim for lack of standing, as so many lower courts have done in reliance of Miller.

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 04:25 PM
Anyone may, of course, disagree with my analysis. Certainly State and Federal courts have choosen to read more into this case than, I would contend, is warranted by the decision's clear language.

Which is why it's completely asinine to bring Miller into the discussion as it relates to the thread starter's contention regarding the 2A. (I'm not saying you did.)

It's much better to cite relevant passages contemporaneous to the 2A rather than ambiguous court decisions which subsequently have NOT been used to uphold gun rights. I simply refer to the majority of lower court decisions holding that the 2A is not a broad individual right. These decisions have NOT been overturned by the Supremes.

As Realgun pointed out, but stated differently, mentioning these cases is like a self-inflicted head-shot, or at best a body shot.

HankTN
September 26, 2004, 04:59 PM
Which is why it's completely asinine to bring Miller into the discussion as it relates to the thread starter's contention regarding the 2A. (I'm not saying you did.)

Actually, I did bring Miller into the discussion, if only to illustrate a point by Prof. Reynolds. I also agree that the sheer weight of case law out there, most of it binding, argues against the individual right stance. However, I do not agree that the proper response is to allow the advocates of a collective right stance to go uncahallenged in this arena.

Miller says no more and no less than I stated above. In sustaining the demurr, which was not supported by any factual evidence, the Arkansas court took judicial notice that the weapon was within the category of those weapons protected by the second amendment. The Supreme Court simply said the lower court could not do this. Nothing else.

Miller is the foundation upon which the collective rights argument is based. Take that decision away from the advocates of that theory, in the media and the courts, and their house of cards crumbles. There is an old saying in the law: When the facts are against you, argue the law, when the law is against you, argue the facts.

Do not concede that the Supreme Court has ruled on this subject. It has not. Point out that supporters of segregation could have pointed to a long line of Supreme Court cases prior to Brown v. Board of Education to support their position of racial inequality. The collectivists do not even have that much support in the law.

Additionally, I would agree with another point that you have made. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not granted by any court, including the Supreme Court. It is guaranteed under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. True lovers of liberty know that the laws infringing upon that right today are no more constitutional than the laws creating segregation were prior to Brown.

Finally, who has been the voice of the second amendment in the courts? With startling regularity it has been the street criminal raising the challenge, not the stalwart citizen aserting his rights. Most of the cases are indictments incident to an arrest on other charges, including assaults and drug trafficing. Perhaps this is the reason why the Supreme Court has been unwilling to accept the challenge: the courts below reached the right conclusion for the wrong reason, and the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions.

Again, just my two cents.

jke456
September 26, 2004, 05:10 PM
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as it's interpretation by every major commentator and court in the 1st half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."~~Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session, 2/82



as too wether the 2A is a personal or collective right


pretty clear to me

jon

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 05:11 PM
HankTN,

My "asinine" comment wasn't directed at you either. Some other poster had brought it up. I thought your original post regarding Miller was to clarify what somebody else had said about the case.

I have nothing against discussing SC decisions, however some, not you, have oversold them. Also, and more importantly, the original thread-starter's comments were directed towards original intent. And in that context, I'd establish a solid case for THAT before moving on to the Courts. And that's what brought me to this thread in the first place-- the incredibly feable attempt at discussing the 2A's original intent or meaning.

mpd239
September 26, 2004, 05:39 PM
"I won't question any further because it looks like our little droogie has jaunted back to his world from the alternative universe of the rest of the world."

Just wanted to respond to this, the rest of your near-masturbatory arguments will be left untouched--
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll 9/17-9/19

12% of America is satisfied that the AWB has expired

Harris Poll 9/9-9/13

72% of REPUBLICANS favored continuing the ban.

NBC/Wall Street Journal 11/8-11/10 (2003)

78% want to KEEP BAN



Gun control, especially the AWB, is in fact one of the LEAST divisive issues in American politics. Mainstream America supports gun rights, but expects owners to be mature and responsible in curtailing their consumption of goods that can potentially harm society. To claim that I live in an alternative universe is borderline insane.


All polls can be viewed on http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Also, while the American public may not agree with me on the Second Amendment, they do agree on handgun rights-- meaning my view is pretty much mainstream.

12-34hom
September 26, 2004, 05:43 PM
I always love to go to a great BBQ..;)

12-34hom

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 05:50 PM
78% want to KEEP BAN

Yeah, and how many think that the ban deals with full-auto weapons?


From the poll:
In general, do you think gun control laws should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now

Most respondents don't know what the current laws are.

Ian
September 26, 2004, 05:57 PM
Who cares what the majority thinks or feels? The majority has no authority to infringe on human rights.

HankTN
September 26, 2004, 05:58 PM
Ieyasu:

I took no offense at your comment, nor did I think that you meant to give it. My primary reason for posting is to engender constructive debate. The original poster on this thread had foreclosed such debate by arguing for a collectivist interpretation of the second amendment.

The only discussion that can be meaningfully had under that theory is whether the National Guard is a militia and, if not, can an individual sue his state to provide for a militia in its absence. Perhaps we could debate on whether or not Congress is required to issue each adult male citizen of this country an M-4. See Art. I, Sec. 8, para. 16 " To provide for . . . arming . . . the militia." Since I do subscribe to the individual right theory of the second amendment, I reserve those debates for when I run out of other good fiction.

R.H. Lee
September 26, 2004, 06:02 PM
Your polling data, even if accurate, is irrelevant. At one time 80% of Americans thought it was a good idea to own slaves. Fortunately we do not live in a democracy and are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. A "majority" of Americans allegedly voted for algore. Is he in the Whitehouse? Democracy can be described as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. We live under the rule of law. If you don't understand that by now, you'd better rethink your entire educational career.

White Horseradish
September 26, 2004, 06:03 PM
Mainstream America supports gun rights, but expects owners to be mature and responsible in curtailing their consumption of goods that can potentially harm society.

Also, while the American public may not agree with me on the Second Amendment, they do agree on handgun rights-- meaning my view is pretty much mainstream.

Well, how did that H.L Mencken quote go? "No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."



I would love to have a rational point by point discussion with you, mpd. The thing that stops me is the attitude you brought here in your first post. This particular bit I find that insulated issue-oriented internet communities often diverge from mainstream viewpoints, and don't become aware of their radicalism or the illogical nature of some of their views. is what grates me.

You position yourself as some modern day Prometheus coming down from Mount Olympus to bring light to us poor wretches in our radicalism and illogic.

That is extremely condescending and insulting. Perhaps a fresh start with a horse of a smaller stature is in order?

ReadyontheRight
September 26, 2004, 06:09 PM
...near-masturbatory arguments...

Um...Please note the NAME of this forum Chuckles.

72% of REPUBLICANS favored continuing the ban.

Since you're such a intellectual in Political Science, please tell me the meaning of two phrases:

1. Tyranny of the Majority
2. Constitutional Republic

Also -- I still haven't seen a coherent response as to why I cannot have more than 10 rounds in an individual magazine to defend my family.

Most of us couldn't care less if you are a Democrat, a Republican or a Zaroastrian Anarchist Ninja. For the most part, you've received very well-reasoned arguments against your position (which is not very unique by the way - 'You can have whatever guns some "higher authority" approves'.)

We're pointing out that the non-infringed right to keep and bear arms is a key component of this societal miracle we call the U.S.A. If you care to refute what we consider to be fact, we want some well-reasoned arguments.

I haven't seen one yet.

Gordon Fink
September 26, 2004, 06:10 PM
You may have missed them a few pages back, but please answer my questions, mpd.

As others have pointed out already, the banned semi-automatic rifles were no more dangerous than other non-banned semi-automatic firearms. So what was the point of the 1994 “law”?

Why should I be prohibited from owning a rifle or a car or a Bible, so long as I don’t misuse it?

~G. Fink

Justin
September 26, 2004, 06:11 PM
Gun control, especially the AWB, is in fact one of the LEAST divisive issues in American politics. Mainstream America supports gun rights, but expects owners to be mature and responsible in curtailing their consumption of goods that can potentially harm society.

*snort* So a majority of people polled who couldn't tell you the difference between an AR15 and a Walther GSP get to dictate what I can and can't have?

My, that's just fantastic. I'm sure that if polling had been invented in the 18th century you would have found that a majority of Americans believed that slavery was moral.

Or that a majority of Germans really thought that the Jews should be put in concentration camps.

Just because a majority of people believe something doesn't make it right. In fact, I would submit that more often than not the majority of people don't know what they're talking about. They just expectorate an opinion because they think they have to.

Funny how you've not been able to back up any of your original assertions or the rebuttals to them, and have been reduced to resorting to the fallacy of Argumentum ad Numerum.

To claim that I live in an alternative universe is borderline insane. Again, I point out that those with no true understanding of the topic probably are in the majority and do agree with you. But just because the inmates are running the asylum doesn't mean that they're capable of rational thought.

mpd239
September 26, 2004, 06:17 PM
"You position yourself as some modern day Prometheus coming down from Mount Olympus to bring light to us poor wretches in our radicalism and illogic."

I think the polling data I just provided shows how insulated this communities views are.

Trust me, I know all about tyranny of the majority, constitutional republic, elitist theories of democracy formulated in the 1950s and 60s, etc. Public opinion has a limited role in US policy-- BUT AS I STATED, I POSTED THE POLLS IN RESPONSE TO SOMEONE CLAIMING MY VIEWS CAME FROM AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.

R.H. Lee
September 26, 2004, 06:20 PM
You describe yourself as a "liberal". That's unfortunate, because liberalism is a failed concept. It has failed everywhere it's been tried, and anywhere it's so-called "principles" are employed. Communist and socialist countries everywhere (the ones that still exist) are in economic chaos. Goods and services are limited or rationed. Poverty abounds and it's simple to understand; whatever you subsidize you get more of. When you extort money from producers to give to non producers, you get fewer producers and more non-producers. It's axiomatic. Liberals like to think of themselves as benevolent champions of the "underdog", and their methodology is to create more underdogs as a means of acquiring and attaining power. It's all about power, and the exploitation of the less fortunate is just a cost of doing business to the left. Some of the most egregious racism in this country is practiced by the so-called "black leadership", with the message to black men and women that they are powerless, and need special treatment enforced by government mandate in order to gain equal footing. Pit one group against another, create dependency, employ extortion, demonize success and independence; liberalism is the antithesis of the principles that founded this country and made it the benevolent world power it is today. No country in the history of the world has ever had as much power and wealth as the United States, and no country has every used it so beneficially.

If you and your ilk think firearms owership is subject to the whim of "academic" opinion or activist judges with a statist agenda, you are very very misguided. You know why your man Kerry is sinking faster than Ted Kennedy's car? Because he has no core, no principles, and no integrity. He is a classic elitist liberal, the kind who should be on the "endangered species" list.

R.H. Lee
September 26, 2004, 06:26 PM
And by the way, after 5 pages, you, after claiming to be a scholar, haven't engaged ANYONE's argument. You seem to be too busy being "offended". Is that all 'ya got? :rolleyes:

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 06:31 PM
HankTN,

I noticed in your profile you're an attorney. I posted a new thread regarding the copyright clause and the 2A. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

mpd239
September 26, 2004, 06:34 PM
Uh, I never claimed to be a scholar. Keep putting words in my mouth, guy.

Secondly, I am not a Communist nor a Socialist. Neither are liberal-democratic ideologies; they are ideologies unto themselves. Right wing religious fundamentalism is failing miserably in the Middle East; yet I'm not about to compare that to the religious right in the US.

I did not articulate views on anything other than gun control; I don't expect to be judged on any other views. I'm a Democrat but that doesn't mean I follow the party line to a T or passionately embrace John Kerry.

R.H. Lee
September 26, 2004, 06:38 PM
Which is it?

I'm a Politics student at one of the top programs in the country; I have read plenty.

or


Uh, I never claimed to be a scholar. Keep putting words in my mouth, guy.


?

RavenVT100
September 26, 2004, 06:38 PM
12% of America is satisfied that the AWB has expired

Harris Poll 9/9-9/13

72% of REPUBLICANS favored continuing the ban.

NBC/Wall Street Journal 11/8-11/10 (2003)

78% want to KEEP BAN

And how many people who answered the poll thought that assault weapons, as legally defined, were machine guns or exact equivalants of military assault rifles? When polled, the number of people who actually believe this comes pretty close to the amount of people who answered "yes" to "should we extend the ban?" I'm an engineer. A significant minority of people who have gone to college in this country have gone through a differential equations course during their tenure at a university. If I polled all of the United States and asked if arbitrary function f was a first-order homogeneous differential equation, do you think that more than a quarter of the population would even know what that meant?

It's the same thing with the Assault Weapons ban. Most people don't even know what an assault weapon even is. How are they supposed to know how to answer a poll like that if the anti-gun lobby has given them such an emotionally-charged and incorrect set of terminology on which to base their opinions?

Let me ask you a question. What's the fuunctional difference between a modern-day "assault weapon" and the rifles that were used by US troops in World War II, other than magazine capacity? I want to know if you really understand what you're talking about.

In addition to that, in order to clarify your point I think you should explain what accessories flash suppressors and pistol grips are, and how they affect a weapon's rate of fire or lethality. Pretend I'm a ten year old child, who just asked you why assault weapons should be banned, and what the difference is between an assault weapon and my father's semiauto Browning that he uses to hunt deer.

If you can purport to know enough to form a YES or NO opinion on the topic of "should assault weapons be banned," then you should easily be able to answer these questions.

sm
September 26, 2004, 06:40 PM
The Second Amendment is the Keystone in the Archway of Freedom.

R.H. Lee
September 26, 2004, 06:41 PM
I did not articulate views on anything other than gun control; Then provide some reasoning for your "views" other than some abstract "feeling" or some questionable agenda driven media poll.

Engage some of the arguments put forth herein. Quit trying to become a victim. Think. Speak. Articulate. Engage. If you are able.

only1asterisk
September 26, 2004, 06:45 PM
I'm done with you kid. My rights don't come from polls, historic documents, governments or courts. I recognize no limits on them other than those I see fit to impose on myself. You and your 80% (or 65% or 51% or 50.000001%) are irrelevant to me. I simply don't care. The moment laws limit my rights I will simply ignore them as I will you.

David

Justin
September 26, 2004, 06:52 PM
C'mon mpd239, I've posted a measly three times in this thread and you have yet to address or rebut even one of my assertions.

In rereading this thread, Ieyasu is doing a better job of debating/discussing than you are, and Ieyasu is pro-gun! Has the anti-rights movement become so devoid of rational debate that the only way to engage in it is via sparring matches among our own?

I mean, honestly, you have yet to present, support, or give us one inkling of an argument that we haven't already heard from politically and technically ignorant soccer mom types.

Pity.

I would have expected more from a New York University politics student.

White Horseradish
September 26, 2004, 06:58 PM
I think the polling data I just provided shows how insulated this communities views are.

There you go again with the attitude. The polling data you provided has absolutely nothing to with anything I have said. Even if it does prove something about us, you still come off as arrogant and insulting.

Please read what I said, and pay attention this time.

schromf
September 26, 2004, 06:58 PM
near-masturbatory arguments

MPD, You certainly know how to win friends and influence enemies.

GhostRider-Nine
September 26, 2004, 07:01 PM
Nothing like finding a rusty old revolver, loading it up with blanks, then challenging the local fastdraw sharpshooter to a gunfight.

I was thinking more along the lines of bringing a knife to a gunfight. :D :D

Ieyasu
September 26, 2004, 07:01 PM
In rereading this thread, Ieyasu is doing a better job of debating/discussing than you are, and Ieyasu is nominally pro-gun!

Man, my feelings are hurt. I'd like to think you meant to use a different word than "nominally!" Nominally, normally means insignificant or trifling. I am fiercely pro-gun, I just what to see some of the pro's on this thread beef-up their arguments!

mpd239 does seem to be in transmit mode only, ignoring some of the valid points made here.

R.H. Lee
September 26, 2004, 07:05 PM
mpd239 does seem to be in transmit mode only, ignoring some of the valid points made here. It may not be his fault. Perhaps the ever expanding indoctrination curricula has squeezed out any time for critical thinking instruction.

Justin
September 26, 2004, 07:16 PM
Ieyasu-

I went back and forth on whether to use the word "nominally" or not. Suffice it to say, an edit has been made, and those responsible for the mistake have been sacked.

:)

Drjones
September 26, 2004, 07:22 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, if I may make a request from one High-Roader to my fellow High-Roaders (including our new friend, mpd239):

There is far too much arrogance, condescension, ad hominem, etc. in this thread.

I think that most everyone here knows that this is not the way to teach someone about something, nor will it make them sympathetic or willing to listen to your view.

Rather than further what has become an intellectual pissing match, I humbly request that we take this back up on The High Road.

Thanks. :)


EDIT TO ADD: Folks, we have a chance here to educate a young person and turn him into a supporter of gun rights, just like everyone else here. Heck, we may even convince him to go shooting with a NY THR member!

Let's not ruin the chance. :)

Drjones
September 26, 2004, 07:26 PM
mpd:


I think the polling data I just provided shows how insulated this communities views are.


Seriously:

Imagine you live back in the 18th century.

You are a pollster tasked to find out what people's opinions are of slavery.

You do your job only to find that most Americans overwhelmingly support it, or are completely indifferent, with a very small, radical minority holding "insulated views" who oppose it.


Does that make slavery right?

Partisan Ranger
September 26, 2004, 07:26 PM
Please explain to me why the FF identified individual rights in all amendments in the BOR EXCEPT the 2nd. I have yet to read a coherent explanation on that one from any ivory tower in the world.

SAG0282
September 26, 2004, 07:33 PM
The Militia Act does not by itself, indicate that the 2A was an individual right. It was a STATUTE indicating that those ENROLLED in the militia must bring their own arms when called. So, when the Congress changes (as it did) the Militia law, in the early 19th century, no longer requiring individuals to supply their own arms does that change the scope of the 2A? Of course not, but again, that's why citing the Militia Act when trying to pursuade an anti is a very weak argument.

The Militia Act in itself is not the end-all/be-all of the individual rights argument, BUT it is extremely relevant and should be brought up. It is that word that is the source of contention....were it not for that, how would it read. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Not much wiggle room there now huh? Despite your disagreement, the majority of arguments I see equates the National Guard (a product of the 20th century:rolleyes: ) with the militia spelled out by the 2A. So in order to address that, it is fruitful to go back and see in what context "militia" was used in the 18th century. If Congress and constitutional scholars see fit to use it as part of their argument, I don't think it's unreasonable that I do as well. It IS germane to the argument at hand, and it should be included in any reasonably thorough debate of the subject. You seem to be hinting that I'm hanging my entire argument on that, which as anyone can see is NOT the case. You indicate that using the Militia act as evidence to convert an anti is fruitless.....but I've found that virtually anything is fruitless. The anti-gun side is based on little more then hysterical, emotional rhetoric.
You also say that the NG argument is not their central argument....what makes you qualified to speak for them? You've indicated you're an individual rights advocate.....I understand the value of playing "devil's advocate" if you're truly interested in strengthening a debate you find inadequate, but I feel the debate has been overwhelmingly strong for the individual rights crowd already.

You keep saying "Well this is weak, an anti would say this". Quite frankly, I don't care what you assume they would say. This tact of your's lost any relevance when you speculated the argument against Mason....the "whole people" is a pretty simple concept. Only a liberal would pretend there is wiggle room in that statement.

As far as conceding whether the "ugly-gun ban" was constitutional, I would say no were it up to me as a justice. But strictly speaking, it was, since the means of finding something constitutional or not did not find it unconstitutional. I don't think a lot of things are constitutional....but because rights are infringed doesn't mean those rights are any less legitimate, or that they are being infringed.

Graystar
September 26, 2004, 07:46 PM
The Supreme Court did not dismiss Mr. Miller's individual second amendment claim for lack of standing That is EXACTLY what they did.

If you review the court documents you'll that the only ruling made was reversed and remanded. There was no other order made. There was no way that a lower court could reverse that ruling within the context of the current case.

You're looking at it from a layman's point of view without understanding how the legal mechanism being the rulings work. Any appellate lawyer will tell you that the court definitely ruled on the status of the weapon.

Partisan Ranger
September 26, 2004, 07:46 PM
Respectfully, I could not care less what the 'majority' thinks regarding the AWB or gun rights in general. A majority once thought in 1939 (Gallup poll) that we should have stayed out of WWII. Gee, a majority thought so. That must make it right. :rolleyes:

My father is a highly educated guy and generally conservative. Not even he understood what the AWB covered until I explained it to him.

So how specifically do the uninformed opinions of millions of Americans have any bearing upon my natural rights? From what I recall from high school, the FF made this country a Republic to avoid the tyranny of the majority you seem to pine for.

Powderman
September 26, 2004, 08:20 PM
Polls are inaccurate at best, and downright wrong at worst.

mpd239, I too have seen some of the polls, that were supposedly taken objectively.

The biggest poll quoted by gun-control advocates is the one taken by Drs. Kellermann and Reay, stating that "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member rather than an intruder" (1)

This poll is used as the center pin of gun control arguments quite often. However, as is the case with quite a few quoted "statistics", only part of the findings are used.

What most uninformed gun control advocates do NOT realize--and what the leaders of the gun control movement do NOT tell them--is that even the authors of the survey found their data flawed!

You don't believe me?

..."Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived..." (2)

And, please take note of this quote, from a well-noted and published anti-gunner:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology." (3)

Finally, have you checked out the link I provided? It's really worthwhile reading.

______________________________________________________

References:

1. Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.

2. Excerpted from: http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.html#1

3. Marvin E. Wolfgang, "Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 188-192.

Tinker
September 26, 2004, 09:17 PM
mpd239,


You say you came here to disguss gun issues with an open mind, but you almost lead with what could be taken here as an uppidy attitude. From that it appears that you've just been handed a sword of illumination and you've decided to grace this dark, shadowy pit with enough light to make the roaches run with fear.

"I find that insulated issue-oriented internet communities often diverge from mainstream viewpoints, and don't become aware of their radicalism or the illogical nature of some of their views."

Replace "issure-oriented internet communities" above with "college communities" and the same is true. That light you've just been given by your instructors might only work on black light posters.

hillbilly
September 26, 2004, 09:27 PM
Good Lord, people.

This thread was nailed to the proverbial wall in the first five posts.

I'll have to scroll back through to see who did it, but somebody already nailed this one a loooooooong time ago.

Gimme a T, Gimme an R, Gimme an O-L-L!

That spells....TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!

Learn to spot and recognize trolls.

It will save you a lot of time and pointless anger.

Trolls are not interested in debate.

They are interested in stirring up bulletin boards and pissing people off.

Trolll Troll Troll on THR!

hillbilly

sfhogman
September 26, 2004, 09:59 PM
Of course he's a troll.

I've seen this on other boards lately as well. Probably has to do with the upcoming elections, and a lot of young true believers populating the landscape. Or perhaps he's using the boards for one of his ply sci courses. Whatever.

Leave him alone. He'll soon crawl back under his bridge.:o

Jeff

rageman
September 26, 2004, 10:07 PM
Ok, I listened patiently originally, and thought that others on this board bashed mpd unneccesarily. I, however, was wrong. This thread and the original poster is nothing more than a troll.

Intune
September 26, 2004, 10:16 PM
I must respectfully disagree with my boardbrother HB. I am willing to go the extra mile of civility in the hopes that mpd239 is, in fact, looking for answers to serious questions that he/she has posed and not just trolling. We have the convenience/comfort level of facts on our side. Let us, knowing the truth, take that extra measure of diplomacy & apply it here. Mp has had a barrage leveled upon his/her position (which is it, his or her for discussion please?) Mp, on your end, you have had cognitive & concise answers to your initial inquiries that you have failed to address. Constructive dialogue requires such address. The alternative to such requires you to grow warts on your nose and live under a bridge! Hang in there and learn. Lies don’t fly well here, it’s not all conservative Republicans presiding. In fact, we keep a close eye on that crew! ;) The High Road at ALL times.

mpd239
September 26, 2004, 11:01 PM
The reason I haven't addressed any of the arguments is because they mostly concerned the Second Amendment, which was definetly not an important part of my original post.

My main points were
a) the flawed nature of gun rights arguments in using actual incidents of self-defense rather than the threat and risk imposed on potential criminals
b) the need for pragmatism and maturity in owning and legalizing weapons-- regardless of whether the AWB was effective or banned the right weapons

Not one person took me up on serious discussion on either of those points. They all went for the 2nd Amendment part, because that's such a hot topic/cornerstone of ideology. And nobody mentioned anything about selective incorporation, either, because nobody had an effective argument.

I'm not a troll at all, I just wanted some discussion. Instead you all jumped on a minor point that I regret including-- it is subject to opinion and is too controversial; I should have foreseen that yall would focus on that.

Powderman-- that was a study, not a poll. Nothing whatsoever to do with the polls i posted.

RavenVT100
September 26, 2004, 11:15 PM
b) the need for pragmatism and maturity in owning and legalizing weapons-- regardless of whether the AWB was effective or banned the right weapons

How can you even begin to address such a thing without being properly informed on the issue? You've more or less indicated that you aren't, and you don't care to be informed. So why are you even attempting debate?

Not one person took me up on serious discussion on either of those points. They all went for the 2nd Amendment part, because that's such a hot topic/cornerstone of ideology. And nobody mentioned anything about selective incorporation, either, because nobody had an effective argument.

Then it's clear that you haven't read the thread, because I certainly have taken you up on discussion. And I haven't even mentioned the 2nd Amendment.

My initial question still stands- explain to me what the features of assault weapons are and why they pose a danger to the public more so than hunting rifles and other rifles which you would consider "sporting."

nico
September 26, 2004, 11:19 PM
I'll repeat what I said in my other post (and what a few others have said since). Since you're in favor of banning certain weapons, how would you define which weapons should be banned?
You say that the end of the awb was a bad thing, but you haven't even acknowledged requests to define what you think an "assault weapon" is and you seem to think that the guns banned by the awb were somehow more powerful or more "deadly" than "normal" semi-auto guns, both of which are absolutely false. You then try to justify these assertions with typical (and completely untrue) gun grabber rhetoric like "they were the choice of criminals." As someone else said (roughly), if you were made king of the US, what guns would you ban and why? Answers that include the phrases "designed for war," or "the choice of criminals" are not answers. I'm asking about specific classes of weapons and what functionally distinguishes them from "normal" guns.

a) the flawed nature of gun rights arguments in using actual incidents of self-defense rather than the threat and risk imposed on potential criminals
do you mean "the threat and risk imposed by criminals?" If not, I'm not sure what you mean. If you do, how is it flawed to present evidence of guns being used for self defense? And how are actual events flawed, while theoretical possibilities are a good argument for gun control?

Powderman
September 26, 2004, 11:21 PM
Powderman-- that was a study, not a poll. Nothing whatsoever to do with the polls i posted.

Actually, the results were taken from a poll, of households done in a specific area of King County, WA (where I happen to live--but no, I was not one of the households polled).

If I may, I'd like to ask a question.

What kind of car do you drive?

Do you drive it because you absolutely, positively HAVE to have the specific make and model of car that you own?

Or, do personal preferences come into play?

Drjones
September 26, 2004, 11:32 PM
My main points were
a) the flawed nature of gun rights arguments in using actual incidents of self-defense rather than the threat and risk imposed on potential criminals

What the heck are you talking about?


b) the need for pragmatism and maturity in owning and legalizing weapons-- regardless of whether the AWB was effective or banned the right weapons


1) What weapons do you think should be banned?

2) Do you even know what weapons were covered under the recently expired AWB?

3) What the heck sort of "pragmatism and maturity in owning weapons" are you talking about??

4) Do you know that studies show that, on the whole, gun owners are; more law-abiding, hold more prestigious and higher-paying jobs, and are less tolerant of government abuse of its powers than non-gun owners?

In short, gun owners have been empirically proven to be better citizens than non-gun owners.

5) What the HECK are you talking about in point b anyway? :confused:

Graystar
September 26, 2004, 11:33 PM
a) the flawed nature of gun rights arguments in using actual incidents of self-defense rather than the threat and risk imposed on potential criminalsAnd once again you fail to see the problem you create. You didn’t say “to discuss whether the process of arguments using actual incidents of self-defense is flawed.” You came out and stated that it IS flawed...as if it’s fact. THAT is arrogance. And arrogant remarks will get you arrogant replies because there's no discussing with the arrogant person...his mind is made up.

Intune
September 26, 2004, 11:45 PM
Mp, I feel that you should start with a) the flawed nature of gun rights arguments in using actual incidents of self-defense rather than the threat and risk imposed on potential criminals

Nico phrased it nicely with ... how is it flawed to present evidence of guns being used for self defense? And how are actual events flawed, while theoretical possibilities are a good argument for gun control?
Please begin here.

Are you saying that gun-carrying citizens impose a threat and risk to potential criminals? I daresay that’s the point. Absolutely. At each and every turn. Would you propose carte blanc to the thugs?

Please feel free to answer the other well worded opinions first if so moved.

2nd Amendment
September 26, 2004, 11:49 PM
Excuse me...scoot over...let me in here for a sec...thx...

I read mpd's original post, skimmed over the others. Since I am late and haven't read this thing thoroughly I am going to restate a whole bunch of crap, I'm sure. Since everyone is saying mpd hasn't answered things I would suppose this isn't a problem. :)

OK, first off, based on the quotes of the Founders, the motivations behind the creation of the BoR and the prevailing attitudes and court decisions prior to the middle of the 20th century how do you come by the claim the 2A is not adressing an individual Right? What basis do you use to separate it from the other original Amendments? And how do you balance that with the miller Decision itself, which was based on a LACK of evidence presented and which specifically failed to recognize a known military arm in some form as what it was? A decision which also found against Miller(technically) based on the implication his was not a military arm and thus was not protected by the 2A(thus implying the 2A specifically protected military style arms for civilian use/possession)?

How do you come by your apparent assumption military style weapons of the sort "banned by the AWB (note the word "style") are more powerful or deadly than their counterparts? You do understand all the AWB did was ban cosmetic features based on their appearance. Actual use in crime, or "usability in crime" was not a factor. Also, the same firearms continued to be available during the "ban" with no increase or decrease in their use in criminal actions. Likewise standard cap mags continued to be available, just not in new production. Again, with no change in criminal use.

In short, there was no effect by a ban which was designed to have no effect.

Meanwhile the majority of the firearms in question of smaller caliber and less precision than any number of other firearms. In the real world I would much prefer someone be shooting at me with an AK than a good .300 Win Mag bolt gun, especially at a considerable distance. While the rate of fire may be slightly higher from the AK the accuracy, and impact, will be considerably lower. In other words, the "assault weapon"(which you have yet to define according to your own view) is LESS dangerous on several levels.

Next up, why do you seem fixated on polls and public opinion? Public opinion has supported and opposed an amazing variety of things over the millenia and been utterly wrong. ESPECIALLY when that opinion is based in ignorance. The example here, which also still hinges on your own explanation of what you think an AW is, hinges on a difference between full-auto vs semi-auto AND calibers. In other words, the average sheep thinks "Assault Weapon" and sees an Uzi emptying a 40 rnd mag with one squeeze. This is inaccurate and thus invalidates any poll position you can offer, unless you have something where you can demonstrate an understanding of the difference.

Lastly, why do you think this is an insulated enviroment? We do not "exist" only on the internet. The people here are real. They come from every walk of life and every economic and religious and racial segment of the nation. Because they get together here primarily to discuss a specific topic in no way indicates they are insulated from the world or discussions of that topic elsewhere with opposing forces. Your use of the term "insulated" implies a VERY one dimensional grasp of who you are talking to. The fact is I would guess that most of the people here are far better traveled and experienced than you yourself.

Hmm, did I miss restating any of the obvious?

Baba Louie
September 27, 2004, 12:30 AM
mpd239,
WOW what an introductory post/thread!
You know, you may be right... then again you may be wrong.
Legalized assault weapons enable terrorists and criminals to acquire means without risk, and this will result in more uses of the weapons. I'd offer you this. Terrorists and criminals will get them anyway, legal or not. Would you have the citizenry remain defenseless and deal with this proposed event with cowboy type SA or lever action firearms or bird hunting shotguns?

Some guns may be scarier looking or shoot faster or larger bullets, some may require reloading more often, but who is allowed to tell you (or me) what I can or cannot own or to allow the law enforcement agencies and military to own one thing but the lowly tax-paying/voting citizens are prohibited from owning same... unless they can find an earlier manufactured weapon or magazine... in which case, what good is that particular law actually doing but creating a future position enabling total (or more selective) disarmament?
"Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic purely symbolic move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

But to get back to your original post wherein you begin with Oleg Volk's A Human Right website and question the insulated community and slanted questions contained therein.
Yes, we're insulated, but manage to function quite well, rarely wish to depend upon the police to resolve criminal mayhem foisted upon us by ner-do-wells and tend to spin the founding father's words to their actual intent.

Three links on the Second from Professors of Law with no word "Gun" in the website title...
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm
http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.txt
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/231/shelton.html
Once you read them and follow the footnotes, please match three you pick against the logic/arguments contained within the above three.
Please note that most states also have some worded clause contained within them allowing their citizenry the right to keep and bear arms. I wonder why?

Politics = Control and/or Compromise for the betterment of mankind thru taxation and enforcment of more and more legislation.
Legislation = the crystallized prejudices of a community or special interest group passed by elected officials supported by another burden on those who actually generate wealth.
B.O.R. = rules the Fed Gov't may not break (but do anyway) required for implementaion of the Constitution waaaay back when. Without them, it was a no-go. I wonder why the original states demanded this? Hmmmm?
Sometimes, More is Less. Laws/Liberty
Sometimes, Less is More. Laws/Liberty

Oh yeah, Welcome to THR. We need a few more good Democratic Politicans around, ala Zell Miller or Harry Truman

Mulliga
September 27, 2004, 06:13 PM
My main points were
a) the flawed nature of gun rights arguments in using actual incidents of self-defense rather than the threat and risk imposed on potential criminals
b) the need for pragmatism and maturity in owning and legalizing weapons-- regardless of whether the AWB was effective or banned the right weapons

Let's discuss, then.

Not quite sure what you mean by a) - do you mean that the "threat and risk" imposed on potential criminals is a good reason for people to own guns? If so, I'd heartily agree with you.

b) Tell me how a semiautomatic rifle that looks like a fully-automatic military assault rifle is more dangerous than any other semiautomatic rifle. Tell me how a Glock 19 with a 15 round magazine is significantly more lethal than a TEC-9 with a 30 round magazine (personally, I'd take the Glock :) ). Tell me how banning guns reduces crime. And then back it up.

And nobody mentioned anything about selective incorporation, either, because nobody had an effective argument.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm

The SCOTUS hasn't even heard a case on selective incorporation of the 2A since 1876. Officially, it is not incorporated, but that decision stems partly from the infamous 1857 Dredd-Scott case.

"...For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, [b]and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

Note that "privileges and immunities" includes keeping and bearing arms for self-defense.

The phrase "privileges and immunities" appears more than two dozen times in the notorious 1857 Supreme Court case of DredScott v Sandford. The Court concluded that black persons were not entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, which the Court took broadly to include the rights to speak, bear arms, assemble, and travel freely. John Bingham, primary author of the Fourteenth Amendment, said that he used the phrase "privileges and immunities" to specifically overturn the language of Scott v Sandford.

Based on historical evidence, it appears the SCOTUS was wrong in 1876. Wouldn't be the first time...;)

geekWithA.45
September 27, 2004, 06:49 PM
Bottom line on "Incorporated to the states":

It is a judicial doctrine, utterly alien to the Constitution, that flows from another extaConstitutional judicial doctrine, "the presumption of Constitutionality", which (dangerously and insanely!!!) presumes upon the honor and integrity of the legislators, and presumes the constitutionality of laws enacted until proven otherwise.

There is nothing in the 14th, or anywhere else in the Constitution that allows courts to cherrypick rights they favor, or deem "fundamental".

There is nothing anywhere in the Text that suggests that SCOTUS must rule positively on an element of the B of R for it to have full force and effect.

Read Barnett's "Presumption of Liberty" for background on this.

morganm01
September 27, 2004, 07:02 PM
I haven't done thorough research into the AWB or its effects


Maybe you should have?

Bill Clintons administration already did the research for you. Here is what they found...

"the ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds"

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Kind of puts a damper on the whole argument that these assault weapons are more efficient at killing than ordinary guns.

Question for you: How does a law that only restricts the law abiding citizens with clean records reduce murder, when 80% of the murders in the country are commited by those in a GOVERNMENT SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAM (such as parolees and probationaries, and as such are forbidden by law from possesing ANY sort of firearm)?

And don't be so sensitive, there are nuts everywhere....you have an ignore function you can use for them.

MAURICE
September 27, 2004, 07:16 PM
sports cars are not designed to kill.
And neither is an AK-47. Or any other gun. They are designed to propel a bullet down a barrel. What you do with it is up to the user. More law abiding citizens use them for lawful purposes than criminals use them for non lawful purposes. Why punish the majority for the crimes of the minority?



My AR-15 has never killed anyone, and hopefully it will never have to.

Aaron C
September 27, 2004, 08:01 PM
One more note about the sports cars vs assault weapons thing... I wouldnt even begin to know how to find this information, but Im willing to bet that FAR more people die in high speed auto crashes than by legally owned assault weapons, or even all legal and illegal and even illegal FULL AUTO assault weapons in the USA.

On top of that, here's something else to hurt your brain.

Are most high speed car accidents with Porches and Lambo's? No. They are usually with POS cars driven by morons, at speeds much faster than a Chevy Cavalier was intended to go. Someone with a Porsce is more likely to be carefull with his beloved trophy that costs him 900 dollars a month.

My point here is that although Sports cars can drive faster and look sharper, they arent any more dangerous being driven at 120 into a tree than a cheap old Toyota Corolla or a Chevy Caprice. Any car is capable of being misused, weather it is designed to be driven at inter-gallactic speeds or just for going around town. A S&W .38 revolver can be shot at someone and kill them just as easily as a $3000 FN FAL with all the bells and whistles.

120 miles per hour is 120 miles per hour, no matter what you're driving.

And a bullet to the head is a bullet to the head.

Michigander
September 27, 2004, 08:22 PM
Let me ask you:

Let's assume the AWB had no sunset provision and was still in effect. And let's assume that the ban had at least a slightly positive effect in reducing crime.

Now what? Is that it? Is that the end? Is that good enough?

Then we all go home happy.

Or...

Or what? If someone could show conclusively that the AWB reduced overall crime by 0.00026%, or better yet, show that the 82% of the general public believe the ban is a good thing, then maybe the ban could be extended to include other features?

What is the logical extension?

Gordon Fink
September 27, 2004, 08:23 PM
Why should this semi-automatic rifle …
http://www.colt.com/law/images/ar15a3.jpg

… be banned, while this semi-automatic rifle …
http://www.springfield-armory.com/images/rifles/LoadedStandard.jpg

… should not?

Both are used in very few crimes.

Why not ban this handgun …
http://www.swfirearms.vista.com/userimages/162420_large.jpg

… which is used in many illegal shootings?

None should be banned. They all serve useful purposes that should not be forbidden to law-abiding citizens. Criminals are already prohibited from owning and using any firearms.

~G. Fink

Cosmoline
September 27, 2004, 08:23 PM
MPD--you have waived your Second Amendment argument and, as was pointed out earlier, your understanding of the AWB was flawed. You have now moved to these vague positions:

"a) the flawed nature of gun rights arguments in using actual incidents of self-defense rather than the threat and risk imposed on potential criminals
b) the need for pragmatism and maturity in owning and legalizing weapons-- regardless of whether the AWB was effective or banned the right weapons"

As to a), the answer lies in the old saying--if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. There are conservatively at least 100 million functioning firearms in the US. Probably a lot more. Outlawing them would only remove them from the hands of law-abiding citizens--leaving them totally exposed to assault by well-armed criminals. There is no correlation between more firearm laws and lower crime rates. Look at South Africa or Brazil for good examples.

b)Currently, the laws in all fifty states have minimum age limits for firearm ownership--thereby satisfying your valid concern regarding maturity. I'm not sure what you mean by "pragmatism." Perhaps you can explain.

I live in Alaska, one of the best armed states in the union with the most liberal gun laws. Virtually every home has firearms and many people pack heat. I fear many things here. I fear getting in a terrible accident on the Parks Highway in winter. Just this morning I passed the smoking hulk of a passenger car on my commute, and I have seen many other fatal accidents in the past few years. I fear falling into certain bodies of water around here, as they are bone cold and lethal. I fear large bruins. But I do not fear getting mugged. Even if I am unarmed, I know my fellow citizens have my back and I have theirs.

mpd239
September 27, 2004, 08:55 PM
"If you do, how is it flawed to present evidence of guns being used for self defense? And how are actual events flawed, while theoretical possibilities are a good argument for gun control?"

Almost everyone on this board fundamentally misunderstood my first point.

One of the most important aspects of power is that great power is VERY RARELY USED.

If incidents of self-defense using guns are common, then guns obviously are not an effective deterrent because the risk they pose to criminals is not enough to prevent crimes. This is what I was getting at. I can't stand when gun rights activists cite cases of successful self-defense and when gun control advocates retort with the old "more family members are killed than criminals" adage. NEITHER OF THESE STATISTICS MATTER.

What matters is that the greater risk posed to the criminal deters him from invading a home or attacking an individual. Meaning, if there is a probability of say 25% that a gun is in the house, whether or not a gun is in a specific house will have no bearing on the criminal's actions-- the game is simultaneous, a home owner chooses to buy a gun independent of a criminal's decision to invade a home. Thus the presence and threat of gun ownership reduces crime in and of itself; the use of guns is irrelavent.

Drjones
September 27, 2004, 09:07 PM
Hi and glad to see you're still with us. :)


If incidents of self-defense using guns are common, then guns obviously are not an effective deterrent because the risk they pose to criminals is not enough to prevent crimes. This is what I was getting at. I can't stand when gun rights activists cite cases of successful self-defense and when gun control advocates retort with the old "more family members are killed than criminals" adage. NEITHER OF THESE STATISTICS MATTER.


Well, at least you got one part right:

Statistics do NOT matter indeed.

My RIGHTS do not depend on statistics nor what "greater good" might be served.

It would not matter if the "statistics" said that 100,000 people were killed each year by handguns, while "only" 1,000 were saved, that would not justify infringing upon my god-given right.


Further, did it ever occur to you that crime is rampant in this country and the deterrent effect of an armed citizen is so low because we do not have ENOUGH guns?

Think about it; if criminals KNEW that at least 1 out of 2 or even 3 people were armed and ready to shoot criminals, what do you think would happen to the crime rate?

One more question:

You think that the deterrent effect of guns is low, and as such, that somehow justifies infringing upon the RKBA. (How you make THAT logical leap, I cannot fathom.)

Question: What do you think would happen to the crime rate if there were NO guns and NO deterrent to criminals at all?

(HINT: Look at England where they've banned all guns. They now have the highest crime rate IN THE WORLD.)



What matters is that the greater risk posed to the criminal deters him from invading a home or attacking an individual. Meaning, if there is a probability of say 25% that a gun is in the house, whether or not a gun is in a specific house will have no bearing on the criminal's actions-- the game is simultaneous, a home owner chooses to buy a gun independent of a criminal's decision to invade a home. Thus the presence and threat of gun ownership reduces crime in and of itself; the use of guns is irrelavent.

Right.

The potential that a criminal's intended victim will be armed is a deterrent to crime.

mpd239
September 27, 2004, 09:57 PM
"Think about it; if criminals KNEW that at least 1 out of 2 or even 3 people were armed and ready to shoot criminals, what do you think would happen to the crime rate?

One more question:

You think that the deterrent effect of guns is low, and as such, that somehow justifies infringing upon the RKBA. (How you make THAT logical leap, I cannot fathom.)

Question: What do you think would happen to the crime rate if there were NO guns and NO deterrent to criminals at all?

(HINT: Look at England where they've banned all guns. They now have the highest crime rate IN THE WORLD.)"


I'm going to respond to your second question first: I NEVER said the deterrent effect of guns is low. I proposed this theory as a counter to the traditional arguments for/against guns; claiming that I think gun ownership acts as a deterrent, and therein lies value. I very much believe that the deterrent works; and I actually USED the Britain example in my first post, I believe. But in it I qualified saying that in the US, murder rates are higher, whereas in the UK, contact crime is higher. Thus there is perhaps a tradeoff. Also, I think that a good proportion of the citizenry in the US is incapable of safely owning a gun. Whether or not you'd like to admit it, having a device so capable of human destruction in a home is a tough decision to make-- and it's yours to make, I never denied that. So yeah, I think that gun ownership acts as a general deterrent to crime regardless of whether or not a specific individual owns a gun; but I don't think that necessarily justifies increasing gun ownership (there has to be an optimum level somewhere, what it is I have no idea), because many segments of the population cannot responsibly own a gun.

DRZinn
September 27, 2004, 10:03 PM
You can make all of the technical arguments you want-- none of which were backed up with sources, thus rendering them entirely subjective in my eyes--
Nor did you quote a single source to back up any of your arguments. That alone does not make you wrong, nor does it give me reason to automatically discount your assertions. This is not a court of law, the burden of proof is much much lower. Allow a little latitude. The rest of us do.

To the responder who called the terrorist argument ridiculous-- I don't know about you, but I felt a lot safer when I knew it was illegal for a militant Muslim to walk into a gun store and purchase an AK.
That really gets to the heart of the whole thing. You FELT safer. That's really the only advantage of any of these ridiculous laws, and it's far outweighed by the infringement of civil liberties, and the fact that you are not, in fact, any safer, but less safe.

jefnvk
September 27, 2004, 11:02 PM
My main points were
a) the flawed nature of gun rights arguments in using actual incidents of self-defense rather than the threat and risk imposed on potential criminals
b) the need for pragmatism and maturity in owning and legalizing weapons-- regardless of whether the AWB was effective or banned the right weapons

A) I believe that many of these arguments came about from liberals porclaiming that no gun would be effective against a threat, that no matter how well trained a person was in using the weapon, that it would be taken away and used against them

B) I don't think that you will find many people here that are saying that any 8 year old should be able to buy a rifle without their parents consent. Likewise, I would bet that most people here have never threatened another person with a gun, and if the did, then it was provocation from the other party.

For your original post,
But, assault weapons have little place in modern society.
That right there is an opinion. There is no reason to have anime in a modern society, yet I could care less if someone were to watch it.
Rifles and shotguns are designed for hunting, for the most part, and semi-automatic handguns are efficient in the realm of self-defense.
Let me remind you first off, that most so-called 'assualt weapons' are, in fact, rifles. Most rifles you claim have a real purpose, hunting, are designed on weapons originally made for the military. Mausers were originally used by many countries for war, yet today they are one of the most commonly reproduced bolt action rifle.

But weapons like an AK-47 or Uzi are not designed for either-- they are designed for warfare. How can you logically claim otherwise? An AK-47 is not meant to kill one attacker, or fell a deer-- it's meant to efficiently kill several men.
What somethign was originally meant to do has no bearing on what it is used to do. Because Jeeps and Humvee's were originally designed for military use, by your logic, no civilians should own them. Yet, they are popular because of the same reasons that semi-automatic military variations are popular. Well tested, proven, reliable, easy to use, fun. Semi-automatic versions of military weapons are just that. They have found alternate uses as target guns, defense guns and fun shooters for those who are tight on the budget.

That's not something that is necessary or wanted in the modern United States.
Again, an opinion. I would believe that if you were to conduct an internet poll, you would find a majority of people wanting to ban smoking, too. Does that mean that we should?

Thus in your poll, comparing banning assault weapons to banning a specific type of computer-- that's ridiculous. Computers have legitimate uses other than electronic crime, whereas an Uzi used in a drive-by is operating within its primary function.
And guns do too. Target shooting is a sport that I enjoy. Would you ban baseball bats if they were used in crimes? Do you honestly think that someone doing the drive-by would voluntarialy hand over their Uzi when you came for them? Also, I believe you are confusing 'assualt weapons' with submachine guns. Do you know what a semi-automatic Uzi is? Simply a huge, bulky, inaccurate 9mm handgun. What makes you think that a 9mm Uzi is any more dangerous than a 9mm Beretta 92?

Its wrong to deny fifth graders Microsoft Encarta because of electronic crime; but I think gun enthusiasts should be mature enough to recognize the cost to society legalized assault weapons incur and thus relinquish their right to own such property. Legalized assault weapons enable terrorists and criminals to acquire means without risk, and this will result in more uses of the weapons.
Do you know that any weapon legally purchased in a gun store must have a background check completed? That, if you are not a citizen, you can't buy one? And what purpose would buying a semi-automatic copy of an AK, for about $300 do? When fully automatic weapons are available in Iraq for nothing, and the Mexican borders are flooded with illegal immigrants crossing, why wouldn't they simly carry them across the border?

Simply put, I am asking how putting a bayonet mounting lug, a flash hider, and a collapasable stock on my legal rifle is going to affect national security, the safety of my neighbors, or will in any way affect you.

hops
September 27, 2004, 11:07 PM
Ok, all. Toss your guns, vote for Kerry, hold hands and sing along - and the all the world's evil's will be washed away.

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah

Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

credit for this song go to peter, paul and mary, IIRC correctly.

mpd239
September 27, 2004, 11:19 PM
I don't know where that came from, hops, seeing as I've been advocating gun ownership. Way to read!

jefnvk:

First off I know a lot of those statistics come from liberals; I was criticizing libs as much as gun rights activists who use those kinds of statistics.

The problem with much of the logic on this board is that you use poor examples in making arguments; a Jeep is NOT comparable to a weapon. Jeeps weren't designed to efficiently kill enemy soldiers, they were designed for efficient transportation! Thus, civilian models serve the same purpose-- transportation! Sure, Jeeps were designed by the military-- but for a purpose that translates flawlessly to civilian society.

"What makes you think that a 9mm Uzi is any more dangerous than a 9mm Beretta 92?"

As far as I know, many of the weapons included in the AWB are easily modifiable; for instance the Tec-9 can be made into an automatic weapon with relative ease, right?

I know all about background checks and citizen requirements. Problem is, some terrorists are citizens with clean backgrounds; and some citizens with clean backgrounds would be willing to buy weapons for terrorists. That makes a potential attack a lot easier than one in which the weapons are imported from the Third World.

mpd239
September 27, 2004, 11:22 PM
Also, to those that contradicted my statement about AWB weapons being the favorites of criminals:

"A study of crime statistics between 1991 and 1994 by James Alan Fox, dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, indicated that the more violent the crime, the greater the chance a TEC-9 is used."

"Its manufacturer, the Miami-based Navegar, has advertised the gun's "excellent resistance to fingerprints,"

mpd239
September 27, 2004, 11:27 PM
I think this quote from the same article (salon.com) is pretty interesting:

"The American people have never wanted to outlaw guns, or prohibit law-abiding American adults from owning a firearm. But the American people are a sensible lot, and they know no freedom is absolute. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but slander or incitement to riot is not. Freedom of the press is vital, but libel and kiddie porn are not.

No less obscene is the argument that any law that would make us all a little safer -- say, banning cop-killer bullets -- is the first step in a totalitarian government taking control of us all and turning our nation into a Socialist republic. Such an argument is just plain insane"


Would any of you argue that child pornography is a God-given right?

goalie
September 27, 2004, 11:27 PM
I know all about background checks and citizen requirements. Problem is, some terrorists are citizens with clean backgrounds; and some citizens with clean backgrounds would be willing to buy weapons for terrorists. That makes a potential attack a lot easier than one in which the weapons are imported from the Third World.

What you describe is illegal. If someone is willing to break the law, will adding another law work as a deterrent? What you suggest regarding "assault weapons" is akin to a 20 mph school zone having problems with people driving by the kindergarten at 90 miles an hour during recess, and lowering the speed limit to 15 mph in order to stop it.

FWIW, some of use here have actually used firearms in self-defense. It is not an abstract or a statistic when the reason you can still look into a mirror in the morning is riding on your hip.

goalie
September 27, 2004, 11:29 PM
.

Graystar
September 27, 2004, 11:32 PM
Also, to those that contradicted my statement about AWB weapons being the favorites of criminals:

"A study of crime statistics between 1991 and 1994 by James Alan Fox, dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, indicated that the more violent the crime, the greater the chance a TEC-9 is used." You are creating associations that don't exist. If a weapon is a favorite of criminals, then that means it's popular. Just because a particular weapon was used in a few high-profile crimes doesn't make it a favorite of criminals.

For the record, surveys of criminals relating to weapons used indicate that high quality revolvers are the firearms of choice for criminals.

R.H. Lee
September 27, 2004, 11:33 PM
Also, to those that contradicted my statement about AWB weapons being the favorites of criminals:
OK. Let's go on the assumption that statement is true. Were these "AWB weapons" obtained legally by the aforementioned criminals? Further, how many firearms of any kind used in crime are in the hands of the criminals illegally? You see where I'm going with this.

Justin
September 27, 2004, 11:37 PM
Also, I think that a good proportion of the citizenry in the US is incapable of safely owning a gun. I'm going to quote the cultural anthropologist father of a childhood friend who once made a very hefty impression by telling me the following. As he put it to me:

Nobody gives a good god damn what you think. Only what you can prove.

As you can imagine, this made somewhat of an impression. As a result I tend not to make baseless accusations about entire classes of people.

Now, allow me to proceed.
According the most recent ATF stat that I can find, they estimate that as of 1997 there are roughly 65 million gun owners in the USA. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this number has not changed*, and that there is only one firearm per gun owner**.

Now, in 2001, according to the CDC, there were 29,573 firearm-related deaths. This includes all firearm related deaths, irrespective of cause. There were also 63,012 nonfatal gunshot wounds in that year.

Adding these two numbers together we get a grand total of 92,585 firearms related injuries and deaths.

Now, plugging these numbers in and solving for percentage shows us that there are approximately 0.142448% gun related injuries/deaths for every gun owner.

In other words, the rate at which firearms result in any injury or death, negligent or otherwise, even assuming that each incident was caused by a different person, is so small as to be statistically insignificant!

So much for American gunowners being incapable of safely owning firearms.

:rolleyes:

Of course, even if the rates were actually statistically significant, it wouldn't matter for me. I personally handle firearms on a daily basis, and have never had a negligent discharge. So, quite frankly, I don't really care. I am obviously capable of handling firearms in a safe manner and see no reason why my civil rights should be infringed upon because of someone else's negligence.


*Gun ownership has steadily increased every year in the United States.
**A gross oversimplification. Many gunowners possess multiple firearms.

R.H. Lee
September 27, 2004, 11:38 PM
say, banning cop-killer bullets -- What, exactly, is a "cop-killer bullet"?

The pornography reference is what's known as "reductio ad absurdum". Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd", traceable back to the Greek ç̔ åéò ôï áäõ*áôï* áðáãùãç, "reduction to the impossible", often used by Aristotle) is a type of logical argument where we assume a claim for the sake of argument, arrive at an absurd result, and then conclude the original assumption must have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result. This is also known as proof by contradiction. It makes use of the law of excluded middle — a statement which cannot be false, must then be true.

Solo
September 27, 2004, 11:40 PM
This may be useful....

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the ten most commonly used firearms in crime are, and have been for quite some time,
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic
Notice that there is not one ‘assault rifle’ among the list.

Justin
September 27, 2004, 11:44 PM
No less obscene is the argument that any law that would make us all a little safer -- say, banning cop-killer bullets -- is the first step in a totalitarian government taking control of us all and turning our nation into a Socialist republic. Such an argument is just plain insane"

First off, I defy you to find even one incident in which a cop was killed with "cop killer" bullets.


Would any of you argue that child pornography is a God-given right?

Wrong. Fallacy by way of red herring. Child pornography, by it's very nature, involves violating the civil rights of another human being. Possession of ammunition, regardless of its hydraulic properties, does not.

WEAK!
http://www.kartelle.com/actors/southpark/cartman/Cartman.jpg

RavenVT100
September 27, 2004, 11:44 PM
mpd239,

I really hate to say this, but your unwillingness to familiarize yourself with even the basic technical and factual information concerning firearms whilst continuing to make arguments which would require the aforementioned knowledge is quite intellectually dishonest.

It really doesn't matter how intelligent you fancy yourself, the bottom line is that you honestly don't know what you're talking about, and until you do, there isn't going to be any worthwhile debate to be had.

This will be my last response to this thread. I am sure most others will follow suit.

schromf
September 27, 2004, 11:49 PM
As far as I know, many of the weapons included in the AWB are easily modifiable; for instance the Tec-9 can be made into an automatic weapon with relative ease, right?

Actually no it can't. The ATF is all over guns that can be easily converted. This is a violation of a 1934 Federal firearms act.

This applies to AK's, FN's, AR's and a whole laundry list of other firearms. The parts are not interchangable, nor can they be easlily modified, even the recievers are different, which in effect makes it a whole new gun.

Now this isn't to say that someone with criminal intent, and a full machine shop at their disposal, and a pretty good skill set couldn't try briefly, but 10 years of jail time is on their short term employment prospects.

A recent example was Randy Weaver, and the Ruby Ridge fiasco. There are also a couple of bankrupt companies that tried this dance, but not quite to the extent of making true machhine guns. Prison time is almost a guaranteed outcome for those who try.

Get a copy of Shotgun News, this is the who's who of firearms dealers, all of the recievers that could be used in machine guns are legally destroyed, usually by flame cutting the recievers, and are useful only as disply items.

R.H. Lee
September 27, 2004, 11:54 PM
So far, your arguments for firearms restrictions are based on:
1) Public opinion (questionable polling data)
2) Public safety (questionable crime statistic data)

I would submit that neither of these criteria are compelling enough to invalidate the 2nd Amendment. As has been pointed out, all of us here have firearms under our direct control 24/7. In my case I've owned no less than 100 different firearms over the last 35+ years. None of them have ever been involved in a crime while they were under my control. Are you under the false assumption that guns cause crime?

Grey54956
September 27, 2004, 11:56 PM
Hi MPD239,

First, let me welcome you to THR. I know things are a little heated on this discussion, but that really just indicates that there are a lot of people who feel passionately about the issue. And, while tempers may fly around here sometimes, I asure you that we are generally a very friendly group.

On to the topic at hand:

The AWB really accomplished next to nothing. I suspect that it was designed not to control crime, but rather to aggitate the public and instill fear and loathing in the general populace. The weapons that were banned are no more deadly than any number of weapons manufactured after the ban.

The use of so-called assault weapons in crime has largely been fictionalized. The data is bogus. While these weapons have been used before, they are far, far less likely to be used than non-banned weapons, namely handguns.

As far as the weapons being easily converted to fire fully automatic, I asure you that this is not the case. Most of these weapons have actions that would be very difficult to modify. That is not to say that it couldn't be done, but rather that it would be very costly to do so, and would require specific technical expertise. Bolts would have to be remachined, trigger groups would have to be redesigned / remanufactured, gas cylinders would ne to be adjusted, metal stampings would need to be manually reformed, etc. etc. The cost would be prohibitively high, and should anything go wrong, the device will be so much scrap. Modifying a weapon for fully automatic fire is not necessarily as easy as buying a cheap conversion kit, it requires engineering talent the majority of the population does not possess.

The resistance to finger prints thing seems fairly irresponsible, and I hate to see people market products making these kinds of claims, but there is an explanation to it as well. Oils on your skin are about the most harmful possible thing to the finish (blued or otherwise) of any steel firearm component. The acids in the oils will aggressively corrode the finish, leaving it looking utterly awful. For this reason, a great many people prefer non-polished finishes like bead blast finishes, brushed finished, polymer coatings, etc. They generally don't stain as badly, and if they do stain, they generally don't show it to badly. Of course, some people go for stainless, but there is usually a significant price differential.

Remeber, too, that most military styled devices are a product of form following function. From an engineering standpoint, most so-called-assault-weapons are masterpieces. They are extremely efficient and reliable. They work, plain and simple, and they work in the most extreme conditions. They have to. And this is one of the reaons that many gun owners like the civilian versions of the military weapons. They often have the same tendency toward reliability. If you look through these forums, you will sometimes find a report of a device that would not fire, misloaded, didn't extract a spent cartridge, or suffered some material or mechanical breakdown. Generally, these posts are accompanied by swears, complaints, advice not to purchace similar devices, and so on. Most gun owners do not like their weapons to fail. For this reason, many of us are drawn to these military-styled weapons. Their primary quality is reliability.

You can't really argue crime statistics based soley on guns. There are a lot of other, far more significant factors, such as population density, local economic conditions, age, race (although studies tend to gloss that one over), geography, etc. etc. Personally, I suspect population density and economic conditions are primarily responsible for most violent crime. Removing some weapons aren't going to reduce crime, because they were never the source of the problem.

Mulliga
September 27, 2004, 11:57 PM
As far as I know, many of the weapons included in the AWB are easily modifiable; for instance the Tec-9 can be made into an automatic weapon with relative ease, right?

Wrong. Not to mention doing so (or even having an unregistered machine gun in your possession, or having unregistered machine gun parts in your posession) is a felony that will get you hard prison time.

No less obscene is the argument that any law that would make us all a little safer -- say, banning cop-killer bullets -- is the first step in a totalitarian government taking control of us all and turning our nation into a Socialist republic. Such an argument is just plain insane"


Would any of you argue that child pornography is a God-given right?

What is a "cop-killer" bullet? The very term is a creation of the sensationalist media.

Is it any round that can penetrate body armor worn by police officers? Whoops, every single rifle round in existence can do this.

Is it any handgun round that can penetrate body armor worn by cops?
Whoops, a .357 magnum can cut through Type IIA armor.

Is it anything the anti-gun folks say it is?
BINGO!

Child pornography (which, by definition, infringes upon the civil rights of the individual) doesn't even enter into the debate.:confused:

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 12:16 AM
Raven, good for you. If you aren't recognizing the logic behind my arguments, I'd rather you leave.


"In other words, the rate at which firearms result in any injury or death, negligent or otherwise, even assuming that each incident was caused by a different person, is so small as to be statistically insignificant!

So much for American gunowners being incapable of safely owning firearms."

Justin: Your analysis misses an important bias: the rest of Americans have chosen NOT to own guns, for whatever reason. Thus applying your statistics to the 235 million or so Americans that do NOT have guns is an extrapolation. I was talking about expanding the ownership of guns, saying that many Americans aren't capable of safely owning them. You did not prove that those Americans that don't own guns can own them safely, you proved that those that DO own guns can own them safely. Obviously there is a fundamental bias at work there.

And Solo: Ok, so those are the most popular. But I would venture a guess that many of the crimes involved muggings in which you can't carry a large weapon, and so a concealable and accessible revolver or semi-automatic pistol is preferred. But the most violent crimes, like school shootings, often have involved weapons such as the Tec-9. (Columbine shootings involved a Tec-DC 9.)

The point of the child pornography argument is that there are practical limits to rights in ensuring society. Freedom is extremely important to democracy, obviously, in most cases I consider myself to be libertarian on social issues. But any sensible person realizes that it gets to the point where there is a threshold-- once you cross it, there is a tradeoff between freedom and order. Which is why the US, as much as it values freedom, is not anarchy. You can speak freely, but that doesn't mean you can scream FIRE in a theater without consequences, nor can you bring a group of white supremacists to a Jewish function and yell anti-Semitic threats.

Grey54956
September 28, 2004, 12:20 AM
Interesting Quote from Salon.com (well known for being biased...)

"The American people have never wanted to outlaw guns, or prohibit law-abiding American adults from owning a firearm. But the American people are a sensible lot, and they know no freedom is absolute. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but slander or incitement to riot is not. Freedom of the press is vital, but libel and kiddie porn are not.

No less obscene is the argument that any law that would make us all a little safer -- say, banning cop-killer bullets -- is the first step in a totalitarian government taking control of us all and turning our nation into a Socialist republic. Such an argument is just plain insane."


Freedom is an interesting concept. Freedom is very fundamental to American society, but we forget that freedom is a double edged sword. We must be free to err.

I would argue that freedom of speech may protect your ability to say or print things that are disagreeable to the public, but that doesn't mean that you won't get prosecuted for breaking the law. If I print a flier to incite a riot, publish a slanderous article, or shout protests at a politician, it is my right to open my mouth or fire up the copy machine. However, if I break any laws while doing so, that is my fault and I can probably expect to be sued or prosecuted for it.

The same is true for firearms. Whether I use such a device for good or ill, it is my choice. If I choose poorly, I can expect to be punished for my actions.

Freedom is about giving people the choice between right and wrong. Taking freedoms away are not the answer. Do we ban computers, faxes and copiers, because they could be used to print illegal material. Heck, I bet a copier could make thousands of copies of porn per hour. They are seldom used that way.

Sheslinger
September 28, 2004, 12:23 AM
I know all about background checks and citizen requirements. Problem is, some terrorists are citizens with clean backgrounds; and some citizens with clean backgrounds would be willing to buy weapons for terrorists. That makes a potential attack a lot easier than one in which the weapons are imported from the Third World.

I am sure that none of us want terrorists to get guns but if someone is a citizen with a clean record, they should be able to purchase a gun. Period. You can't prosecute someone if they have not committed a crime.

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 12:23 AM
By the way, I didn't use the term "cop-killer", it was just in the quote.

Grey54956
September 28, 2004, 12:23 AM
You can scream fire in a theater, but you will be prosecuted.

However, the US doesn't cut out your tongue to prevent the possibility of screaming fire. Maybe we need a ban on tongues. They can be used improperly which is dangerous to society.

Ieyasu
September 28, 2004, 12:24 AM
Siegfried_Geringer -

The Militia Act in itself is not the end-all/be-all of the individual rights argument, BUT it is extremely relevant and should be brought up. It is that word that is the source of contention....were it not for that, how would it read. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Not much wiggle room there now huh?

It's not necessarily the "people" that is the source of contention, assuming that is the word you're alluding to. Anti's view the militia clause as being restrictive. As I mentioned, the Militia Act from 1792 required ENROLLMENT in the militia. Even that is irrelevant. It's a statute. It has little relevance on what the 2A meant.

The Act itself does not shine any light on whether the right referred to in the 2A extends to militia members only.

It's useless to quote Mason or any other Founder espousing a militia "composed of the body of the people." The militia is defined by statute. Other Founders, such as Hamilton, preferred a select milita. The Senate eliminated the description of the militia as composed of the "body of the people" from the 2A. It was the Congress that could determine the make-up of the militia and how they were to be armed.

Despite your disagreement, the majority of arguments I see equates the National Guard (a product of the 20th century ) with the militia spelled out by the 2A

You misunderstand. The National Guard when not in the service of the national government is a part of the well-regulated militia. What I contend is that fewer "scholars" nowadays argue that it's a state's right being protected, rather, the right extends to active militia members only because the militia clause narrows the scope of the right.

When some pro-gunners get all worked-up insisting that the National Guard is not a part of the well-regulated militia, it actually undermines an individual rights interpretation of the 2A. Why? Because then you're going to be told since we no longer have a militia, the 2A is an anachronism. However, since we still have a militia they can't use that tact to claim obselesance. Regardless of how the militia is supplied its arms, regardless of whether the militia is defined as the whole body of the people, or a less encompassing group, it's the people, regardless of whether they're in a militia that have the guaranteed right. That's why, especially when dealing with a first time poster, I wouldn't get into militia minutiae. That line is simply not pursuasive.

As I've mentioned previously, I'd just quote the 3 jurists who were contemporaneous to the Founders that said the right protects an individual right, outside of active militia duty. That keeps it simple and let the poster take it from there.

I also wouldn't quote Supreme Court cases. By your own admission, you say the Supreme Court's decision to not overturn the ASW ban is constitutional, although you disagree with it. Thus, when arguing original intent, why purposely wander into that thicket and claim the Courts support an individual 2A right, when it won't even protect the kinds of weapons that would be useful to a militia? That unnecessarily puts you on the defensive.

Solo
September 28, 2004, 12:24 AM
And Solo: Ok, so those are the most popular. But I would venture a guess that many of the crimes involved muggings in which you can't carry a large weapon, and so a concealable and accessible revolver or semi-automatic pistol is preferred. But the most violent crimes, like school shootings, often have involved weapons such as the Tec-9. (Columbine shootings involved a Tec-DC 9.)


Most school shootings involve Tec-9s and other such weapons? Proof please. You yourself said that this was a guess.

Cosmoline
September 28, 2004, 12:26 AM
Also, I think that a good proportion of the citizenry in the US is incapable of safely owning a gun.

It's an interesting point of view, and I applaud you for being open about it. I believe this concept lies at the heart of most arguments against private gun ownership. Is a citizen with a rifle dangerous? YES, most certainly. Probably a whole lot more dangerous than you realize. A trained citizen with a rifle can control a radius out to four hundred yards and beyond. One hundred yards--a football field--is point blank range. At fifty yards it's very difficult to miss. A citizen with the freedom of speech is also extremely dangerous. A citizen with access to the press is even more dangerous. His words can enflame millions, and cause untold destruction and chaos. A citizen with access to the ballot box is even more lethal, as he can elect madmen.

The bottom line is, we've heard all this before. The message is always the same--the people cannot be trusted. They must be RULED. Disarming them is a key element of this plan. Indeed it is essential.

I find arguments that armed citizens will create bloodbaths as absurd as the archaic arguments against a free press. The state I live in disproves the notion, while gun control paradises such as DC and Chicago are crime ridden.

GhostRider-Nine
September 28, 2004, 12:27 AM
Now this isn't to say that someone with criminal intent, and a full machine shop at their disposal, and a pretty good skill set couldn't try briefly, but 10 years of jail time is on their short term employment prospects.

A recent example was Randy Weaver, and the Ruby Ridge fiasco. There are also a couple of bankrupt companies that tried this dance, but not quite to the extent of making true machhine guns. Prison time is almost a guaranteed outcome for those who try.

Just as a side note.....Randy Weaver was never charged with trying to convert semi's to full auto. He was charged with selling a "sawed off shotgun." Which BTW he maintains to this day that it was the legal lenth when he sold it....AND this was a charge he was aquitted anyway.

RavenVT100
September 28, 2004, 12:28 AM
Raven, good for you. If you aren't recognizing the logic behind my arguments, I'd rather you leave.

Thanks for the laugh.

Actually, it's not logical to claim that you have the facts when you do not. I've seen you state several things in this thread that are factually wrong. I've confonted you about it twice and asked you to clarify why the features of so-called assault weapons are dangerous, and what they do. You've chosen to ignore that, probably because you don't know.

Anyway, that's it. I'm done wasting my time. This is a waste of your time, too.

And Solo: Ok, so those are the most popular. But I would venture a guess that many of the crimes involved muggings in which you can't carry a large weapon, and so a concealable and accessible revolver or semi-automatic pistol is preferred. But the most violent crimes, like school shootings, often have involved weapons such as the Tec-9. (Columbine shootings involved a Tec-DC 9.)

Explain the difference between the Tec-9 and a .38 revolver, and how those differences serve to facilitate a school shooting.

I'm not even going to return to the thread; that's how confident I am that despite your ill-placed arrogance, you'll be unable to provide even the simplest justification for your hyperbole.

schromf
September 28, 2004, 12:45 AM
Randy Weaver was never charged with trying to convert semi's to full auto. He was charged with selling a "sawed off shotgun." Which BTW he maintains to this day that it was the legal lenth when he sold it....AND this was a charge he was aquitted anyway

No ???? Shirlock. Being as Ruby Ridge is about 35 miles from my house in Northern Idaho, I think I am reaonably aware with the facts. The reason the Idaho jury aquitted him ( which the Feds were mightly PO'd about ) was that they felt the Feds used unreasonble force, and didn't properly serve a search warrant.

It is still altering a firearm to a illegal configuration. I wasn't trying to say he was attempting to make full auto's, just the severity of the consequences for ATF violations.

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 12:46 AM
Raven: Tec-9 is capable of holding a 36 bullet clip, .38 revolver holds 6. .38 takes far longer to reload its 6 bullet capacity than loading a Tec 9. I assume a .38 fires a more powerful shot.


"Most school shootings involve Tec-9s and other such weapons? Proof please. You yourself said that this was a guess."
I quoted a study above that found the more violent a crime, the greater chance that a Tec-9 was involved.

Cosmoline: Don't misinterpret what I said, I didn't say that in arguing that guns should be illegal! An earlier poster used my theory of gun ownership as deterrent to justify expanding gun ownership to all citizens; that's why I said that.

Solo
September 28, 2004, 12:48 AM
"Most school shootings involve Tec-9s and other such weapons? Proof please. You yourself said that this was a guess."
I quoted a study above that found the more violent a crime, the greater chance that a Tec-9 was involved.

The (JBT)BATFE contradicts your study.

Mulliga
September 28, 2004, 12:51 AM
I was talking about expanding the ownership of guns, saying that many Americans aren't capable of safely owning them

So now, of course, it comes out. The fundamental question: can an ordinary person be trusted not to commit murder?

Literally millions of people will go out hunting this season. Yet for all these guns, handled by people from all walks of life, and all backgrounds - the number of accidents is incredibly small. Murders are basically unheard-of.

How is it that most people cannot own a gun safely? Are most people murderers? If I hand you or your father or your best friend a gun, will they suddenly go out on a killing spree?

But the most violent crimes, like school shootings, often have involved weapons such as the Tec-9. (Columbine shootings involved a Tec-DC 9.)

First of all, "school shootings" are incredibly rare. That you even mention them shows how much the media have drilled in scary images regarding guns into the American psyche. How many school shootings have taken place where you went to school? One a year? One every five years? None?

Second of all, do you know what the most dangerous weapons were in Columbine? It was the killers' sawed-off shotguns. That's right, a common hunting shotgun is more dangerous in close quarters than a crappy Tec-9 "assault pistol."

GhostRider-Nine
September 28, 2004, 12:57 AM
No ???? Shirlock. Being as Ruby Ridge is about 35 miles from my house in Northern Idaho, I think I am reaonably aware with the facts. The reason the Idaho jury aquitted him ( which the Feds were mightly PO'd about ) was that they felt the Feds used unreasonble force, and didn't properly serve a search warrant.


Sorry Watson, I didn't know that I needed to be Randy's neighbor to know the facts of the case. What search warrant? He was not charged for anything found at his house, but for a sale to an informant. He was aquitted because Gerry Spence chewed up and spit out the feds case, or lack of one. And BTW, you did imply that he was making full auto's.

Justin
September 28, 2004, 12:59 AM
Your analysis misses an important bias: the rest of Americans have chosen NOT to own guns, for whatever reason. Thus applying your statistics to the 235 million or so Americans that do NOT have guns is an extrapolation.

Agreed that my numbers only apply to gun owners. However, you have yet to actually back up your statement via fact or even anecdotal evidence. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (assuming something is true because it isn't proven false) by way of Dicto Simpliciter (sweeping generalization.)

I was talking about expanding the ownership of guns, saying that many Americans aren't capable of safely owning them. You did not prove that those Americans that don't own guns can own them safely, you proved that those that DO own guns can own them safely. Obviously there is a fundamental bias at work there. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that gun control is ok because those who do not choose to own guns are negligent in handling firearms. This begs the question that if they choose to eschew firearms ownership, why should we be concerned with whether or not they can safely handle a firearm? This is like saying that speedboats should be outlawed because those who don't own them can't possibly know how to operate them safely.

You are, of course, ignoring the facts that more Americans own guns now than even two decades ago, that the shooting sports enjoyed a growth rate in excess of 25% last year, and that rates of accidental shootings have been declining for at least the last decade.

On top of that, I'll throw a large heap of anecdotal evidence your way.
When I was in school I was one of the range safety officers/instructors for our university's rifle and pistol club. I taught many people how to safely handle firearms, including a very large number of foreign students who had never even seen a firearm outside of the movies. We never had even one accidental shooting.

Justin
September 28, 2004, 01:03 AM
By the way, I didn't use the term "cop-killer", it was just in the quote. Doesn't matter. By the very fact that you used the quote, the burden of proof is upon you to provide factual evidence to back it up.

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 01:03 AM
mpd239:

You assert that we are ALL engaging in ad hominem attacks and retreating back to tired old Second Amendment arguments.

You ask that we revert to your original question. To me, you original point centers on your assertion that:

"...it's (an 'assault weapon') meant to efficiently kill several men. That's not something that is necessary or wanted in the modern United States.... "

Please, please answer a very simple question as I've posed a few times now: WHAT IF you, your mother, your father, your friends, your children, your family are ATTACKED by "Several Men" (!).

Will you allow me to defend myself and family from one attacker, but not two? Three, but not five? Ten, but not twenty?

Of course, there's a point at which it becomes absurd, but what purpose, exactly, does an arbitrary magazine capacity limit ON LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS serve?

Law-breakers can just fashion their own magazines out of simple sheet-metal. They can also do a very easy procedure and illegally (per a 1934 law) make a still-legal AK-47 clone into a full-auto (and inaccurate BTW) "assault rifle".

More likely, they will just bring along a "gang' of rapists or plunderers.

I hope your Political Science professors have at least thought you that young men in groups can easily be motivated to commit all sorts of appalling acts, whether with fists, sticks, swords or guns. Legislation alone does not stop anyone. FORCE, or the threat of force stops such acts.

Furthermore, the real-world statistics for gunfights range from 30% to 90% of shots MISSED by trained law-enforcement agents. With a 10-round magazine limit, you are restricting the BEST-TRAINED to only incapacitating 1-3 attackers.

The entire point of self-defense is to "efficiently kill several men". Very, very few people really want to do so, but I personally want to be adequately prepared to so do if needed.

If you watch war movies or even news clips of war footage, you often see soldiers fighting in bombed-out buildings. Those buildings are no different than the buildings in which we all work, play and live. They are the result of one part of a society thinking it can TAKE what it wants from some other part of society. That part of society that can kill enough people to make the rest capitulate becomes "The Government". This is still happening all over the world.

In the United States, the Founding Fathers - giants upon whose shoulders we all stand - said "Not Here, Not In Our Country."

Refugees from totalitarian regimes have flocked to the USA, saying "Never Again." Every part of U.S. society is as well-armed as any other.

You may consider this barbaric, but think about what ONE ITEM you would want in your domicile if both the electricity and all communications went out in NYC for a week. I'm guessing it's a firearm with a heck of a lot of rounds.

This is the heart of our passion for the basic right to keep and bear arms and our hatred of silly, feel-good legislation like the so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban. That ban had nothing to do with criminals and everything to do with eventually banning all guns from American citizens. One step at a time.

Why do you think some politicians wanted to create the term "assault weapons"?

If you can't think about that, I don't think you can think.

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 01:07 AM
"Second of all, do you know what the most dangerous weapons were in Columbine? It was the killers' sawed-off shotguns. That's right, a common hunting shotgun is more dangerous in close quarters than a crappy Tec-9 "assault pistol."

As far as I know, the guns produced about equal casualties; and the Tec-9s in a much shorter amount of time.

Not a common shotgun, either, SAWED OFF-- condemned even by the NRA as illegal. I mention school shootings because the purpose of outlawing assualt weapons is not to eradicate most crimes, but to prevent the most violent crimes from happening.

Raven I missed the second part of your question.

How they facilitate a school shooting? Are you joking? Let's say the kid has 50% accuracy, for argument's sake. Tec-9 he kills 18 people per clip, say 2 seconds to aim and 1 second per shot, 3 seconds each, he goes through a clip in 1:48, killing 18 people.
With a .38, let's say he takes the same 2 seconds to aim, same 1 second to shoot, so 3 seconds. But let's say it takes 30 to reload his weapon. Takes 18 seconds to empty the gun, killing 3 people. Plus 30 to reload. 48 seconds to kill 3 people. That's 7.5 people compared to 18 in 1:48.
I'd say there's a serious advantage to the Tec-9.

*The times here may not be technically accurate, they are just used to illustrate the situation.

Justin
September 28, 2004, 01:07 AM
Tec-9 is capable of holding a 36 bullet clip, .38 revolver holds 6. .38 takes far longer to reload its 6 bullet capacity than loading a Tec 9. And your point is? Outlawing Tec9's would only force those who would have used them to switch to a different weapon. Doesn't matter if you're shot with a Tec-9 or a Glock. Dead is dead.
BTW, you can breathe a little easier though, Intratec went out of business a couple of years ago.

I quoted a study above that found the more violent a crime, the greater chance that a Tec-9 was involved. Cars that are painted red are involved in a statistically larger number of accidents and speeding violations. Should we also outlaw red cars?

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 01:09 AM
"The entire point of self-defense is to "efficiently kill several men". Very, very few people really want to do so, but I personally want to be adequately prepared to so do if needed."

Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

...OTHER than foreign invasion or another conspiracy theory.

morganm01
September 28, 2004, 01:10 AM
You can speak freely, but that doesn't mean you can scream FIRE in a theater without consequences,

oohh no he di'int.:banghead:

But we ARE still allowed to walk into a theatre without having our vocal cords removed aren't we. If there was a fire we would be lawfully able to yell "fire" wouldn't we. That analogy doesn't hold true for guns.

In many states you MAY NOT leave your home without your gun stowed away and locked up making it perfectly useless in case of a fire.

schromf
September 28, 2004, 01:11 AM
Ghost,

Sorry I went back and read what I posted, it wasn't clear I admit. The jury really did get stuck on the search warrant issue ( or lack of serving it ). The first shots were fired by his son who saw armed men approaching a very rural setting. I would have to dig on facts whether the son fired first or the Feds, but I seem to remember it was the son who was killed.

This case started a poop storm in our state, first the feds never bothered notified local law enforcement, then did afterword during the standoff. Our state senator introduced legislation at the federal level because of the Feds actions.

There was also some sympathy on the jurys part, due to the family members the Feds killed, and then the lying by the several of the agents totally discredited the feds case, it went downhill from there.

Solo
September 28, 2004, 01:11 AM
Not a common shotgun, either, SAWED OFF-- condemned even by the NRA as illegal. I mention school shootings because the purpose of outlawing assualt weapons is not to eradicate most crimes, but to prevent the most violent crimes from happening.

Hold on... if an illegal shotgun and an illegal pistol were used in violent crime..... an illegal assault weapon will not be?

Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

Road rage incidents, muggings, rape.....

Justin
September 28, 2004, 01:15 AM
How they facilitate a school shooting? Are you joking? Let's say the kid has 50% accuracy, for argument's sake. Tec-9 he kills 18 people per clip, say 2 seconds to aim and 1 second per shot, 3 seconds each, he goes through a clip in 1:48, killing 18 people.
*yawn* Tec 9's are notorious for jamming with maddening regularity. You forgot to factor for that. Also, the magazines and magazine well tend to be poorly fitted making it difficult to reload the weapon with anything approaching efficiency.

With a .38, let's say he takes the same 2 seconds to aim, same 1 second to shoot, so 3 seconds. But let's say it takes 30 to reload his weapon. Takes 18 seconds to empty the gun, killing 3 people. Plus 30 to reload. 48 seconds to kill 3 people. That's 7.5 people compared to 18 in 1:48.
I'd say there's a serious advantage to the Tec-9.

Bad fallacy. Jerry Miculek can reload a revolver than most people can reload an auto loader. Heck, I don't even like revolvers or shoot them very often, but I can reload one in about 15 seconds without the aid of moonclips or speedloaders.

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 01:15 AM
Oh... And unlike some Democratic Presidential candidates, I HAVE been a hunter all my life. If my interest in guns had anything to do with hunting, I would be much more interested in the right to keep and bear the recurve bow or the atlatl (http://www.atlatl.com/).

I know it pains your argument that I revert to the Second Amendment, but it ain't about hunting pheasants.

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 01:19 AM
Justin: So we shouldn't make the gun illegal due to poor quality? Bad argument.

Also, the average person planning a shooting rampage probably isn't as skilled at loading a revolver as you are.

Even at 15 seconds, the Tec-9 is still more efficient.

Solo
September 28, 2004, 01:21 AM
Justin: So we shouldn't make the gun illegal due to poor quality? Bad argument.

Why should poor quality guns be made illegal?

Warbow
September 28, 2004, 01:21 AM
mpd239 wrote:

Raven: Tec-9 is capable of holding a 36 bullet clip...

You make it sound as if the Tec-9 has some special feature so it can use high-capacity (holding more rounds than standard capacity) magazines. That's not the case. All handguns are capable of using magazines which were made for them, whether they hold 10 rounds or 100 rounds.

Justin
September 28, 2004, 01:23 AM
So we shouldn't make the gun illegal due to poor quality? Bad argument. So long as the design isn't prone to catastrophic failure, no. If someone wants to buy an ill-fitted jammomatic with the ergonomics of a yak in heat it's no skin off my nose.

Graystar
September 28, 2004, 01:23 AM
Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home? Check Australian news. After all guns were banned, home invasions rose by 21% and started involving groups of men.

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 01:24 AM
But the most violent crimes, like school shootings, often have involved weapons such as the Tec-9. (Columbine shootings involved a Tec-DC 9.)

School shootings have DROPPED since 1992, the first year in which "school shootings" were tracked.

Justin
September 28, 2004, 01:27 AM
Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home? Firearms ownership does not need to be justified based on what might or could happen. America is a free-market economy. Neither I or any other gun owner should have to justify or rationalize choice in firearms any more than the number of cylinders under the hood of a car.

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 01:28 AM
Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

Can you guarantee that no more than three evil men will ever attack someone at the same time?

Drjones
September 28, 2004, 01:28 AM
No less obscene is the argument that any law that would make us all a little safer -- say, banning cop-killer bullets

Sir, frankly and with no offense intended, but that you quote the above as some sort of evidence for your argument shows just how truly unarmed you are for a debate about firearms and the Right to Keep and Bear them.

There is no such thing as a "cop-killer bullet."

Never has been.

It is PURELY an invention of the leftist anti-gun lobby.

I'm beginning to see, and I hope you are, how thoroughly indoctrinated you have been by the left-wing media.

Do you realize that you know absolutely NOTHING about the technical aspects of firearms?

So you trying to tell people (including us) how things should be is EXACTLY like you walking into the office of the best neurosurgeon in the country and telling him what to do. (Assuming of course that you have no knowledge of neurosurgery.)

There is NO difference.

Please understand: I'm not trying to mock you in any way, I am simply stating a fact.

You should hang around here, learn a little bit about guns, maybe actually shoot one, and THEN try to form some opinions.

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 01:29 AM
"You make it sound as if the Tec-9 has some special feature so it can use high-capacity (holding more rounds than standard capacity) magazines. That's not the case. All handguns are capable of using magazines which were made for them, whether they hold 10 rounds or 100 rounds."

Raven asked for comparison of .38 and Tec-9. .38 aren't capable of using magazines.

Graystar: I never advocated a total gun ban, this is like the ninth time I've said that.

"America is a free-market economy. One does not have to justify choice in firearms any more than the number of cylinders under the hood of their car."

Ok, Justin, then why can't I legally buy cocaine?

Solo
September 28, 2004, 01:30 AM
Ok, Justin, then why can't I legally buy cocaine?

Some of us think you should be allowed to do so. The government disagrees.

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 01:31 AM
Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

I appreciate your spunk here, but are you really arguing that no one has ever been attacked by a force of more than THREE men?

Drjones
September 28, 2004, 01:34 AM
Also, I think that a good proportion of the citizenry in the US is incapable of safely owning a gun. Whether or not you'd like to admit it, having a device so capable of human destruction in a home is a tough decision to make-- and it's yours to make, I never denied that. So yeah, I think that gun ownership acts as a general deterrent to crime regardless of whether or not a specific individual owns a gun; but I don't think that necessarily justifies increasing gun ownership (there has to be an optimum level somewhere, what it is I have no idea), because many segments of the population cannot responsibly own a gun.


1) What does one have to do, what criteria must one meet in order to be "capable of safely owning a gun"?

2) Who gets to decide what the criteria should be?

3) Since you claim to believe that owning firearms is a basic human right (at least I think you do), how can you demand that people meet a certain criteria before they are allowed to exercise what is supposed to be a right?

4) Do you agree that if one has to pass a test of some sort in order to do something, that it is no longer a right, but merely a privilege, which can be revoked at will of the issuing authority?

5) This is a serious question: Many members of the media have shown themselves unworthy of our trust and guilty of misleading the public. Most notably, and most recently, Dan Rather.

How would you, mpd239, feel if I proposed that one had to pass an honesty, ethics, and morality test in order to get a license to practice freedom of speech?

I await your response.

Warbow
September 28, 2004, 01:35 AM
mpd239 wrote:

Raven asked for comparison of .38 and Tec-9. .38 aren't capable of using magazines.

And? The Tec-9 is just one of many handguns which have high-capacity mags made for them. What's so special about it that it deserves the "assault" label?

Justin
September 28, 2004, 01:36 AM
Ok, Justin, then why can't I legally buy cocaine? Because of a bunch of puritanical prudes in DC. Are you saying that the cure for reduced freedom is to reduce it even more?

Drjones
September 28, 2004, 01:39 AM
Not a common shotgun, either, SAWED OFF-- condemned even by the NRA as illegal

Can you tell us exactly what makes a SAWED OFF shotgun so much deadlier than a non-SAWED OFF shotgun?

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 01:42 AM
"I appreciate your spunk here, but are you really arguing that no one has ever been attacked by a force of more than THREE men?"

Of course not. I just don't think it's practical to envision that type of situation.

Uh, DrJones, could you stop reading my posts in such an ahistorical context? I never said that people incapable of owning guns safely shouldn't be allowed to purchase them. A previous poster had said that more widespread gun ownership would further deter criminals, and I responded that many Americans can't own a gun safely, and so there would be a tradeoff. Theoretical, not talking about a policy enforcing safety tests.

"Are you saying that the cure for reduced freedom is to reduce it even more?"

No, I'm saying that there are pragmatic limits to total freedom in a democratic republic based on law and order.

Justin
September 28, 2004, 01:45 AM
I say poe-tay-to, you say pah-tah-to.

As a social utilitarian, the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove that encroachments on personal liberty will actually have some sort of net benefit.

And even then I'd still disagree with you because your epistemology is fallacious.

Solo
September 28, 2004, 01:48 AM
Of course not. I just don't think it's practical to envision that type of situation.

Ordinary people are attacked by groups of men fairly often (ie, Austrailia, England). As they say, it pays to be prepared.

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 01:49 AM
mpd239:

You speak interms of "statistics" and a "balance" in society.

What if your optimal societal balance is such that your purchase of a gun is the next to set the gun ownership off balance? "Statistics" show that if you buy a gun, gun ownership gets pushed beyond the XX% that "experts" have deemed as "safe" in our civilized society.

You find this out the day that your wife was violently threatened by a car full of gang members she somehow "dissed" who you fear might be bringing in reinforcements. They know where you live.

Tell me how you convince the Police to post a 24/7 guard. Tell me how you can afford a bodyguard. Tell me why that bodyguard only gets 10 rounds. Tell me how many days the Police or bodyguard really give a rip about your life.

Solo
September 28, 2004, 01:54 AM
You find this out the day that your wife was violently threatened by a car full of gang members she somehow "dissed" who you fear might be bringing in reinforcements. They know where you live.

But of course, these situations are not practical :rolleyes:

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 01:57 AM
"I appreciate your spunk here, but are you really arguing that no one has ever been attacked by a force of more than THREE men?"

Of course not. I just don't think it's practical to envision that type of situation.

Have you ever been in a situation even REMOTELY SIMILAR to such a situation?

If you have, please post under "Strategies and Tactics"

If you haven't, who the he** are you to tell anyone, anywhere about anything to do with our rights?

I really do appreciate that you are meeting our arguments, but is nothing getting through? I haven't yet found an "I'll grant you that" in your arguments.

Mulliga
September 28, 2004, 01:58 AM
Of course not. I just don't think it's practical to envision that type of situation.

http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/3757240/detail.html

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/news/stories/20040808/localnews/1004868.html

Uh, yeah...:rolleyes:

Bob Locke
September 28, 2004, 02:00 AM
mpd239,

Several points to be made.

1.) The examples you offered several posts ago (child pornography, slander, libel, etc.) as restrictions on our rights all involve the actual infringement on the rights of another person. Not the potential to infringe upon their rights, but an actual violation. My ownership of any weapon or form of ammunition for that weapon represents no direct or indirect violation on the rights of another person. You are, therefore, advocating for prior restraint based on a mere possibility. I hope you see the fallacy in that.

2.) Attempting to control the actions of the animate (humans) by limiting access to the inanimate (firearms) is foolhardy, at best. Prohibition, the "war on drugs", a legal drinking age of 21, are all examples of this, and none of them prevented anyone who was of a mind to acquire those things from doing so.
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
3.) The majority is often wrong, and the fact that a majority is of a certain opinion has no bearing on the rights of the minority. If you're a poly-sci student I think that needs no real explanation.

4.) There is no way a reasonable, learned person can review the documents and quotes from the time of the writing of the Constitution and come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is anything other than an individual right.
"On every question of construction (of the meaning of the Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and, instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed". - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322.
5.) The 2nd Amendment exists as a check on the government's power to dominate the people. It may shock your sensibilities, but the fact is that Madison, Jefferson, and company greatly feared that the day may come when the government would infringe on the rights of the people so severely that the people would need to rise up and put that government down by force of arms. To allow the government to dictate to the people what the terms of that potential engagement might be (see: "assault weapons ban") tilts the balance of power away from the people.

6.) True "assault weapons" (those capable of selective, full-auto firing) are not and were never part of the discussion. This point has been totally ignored by the press, and intentionally so as it suits their agenda and purpose. The Uzi's, TEC-9's, and AK's banned in 1994 required one pull of the trigger to fire one round from the barrel. Granted, their magazine capacities are greater, but that is nothing resembling a deterrent for a criminal as 10-round magazines are plentiful and he or she could simply carry more magazines if more rounds are desired. The argument made by them, and accepted by you, is false on its face.

The reason this debate gets so spirited at times is that many of us believe that maintaining our rights is ultimately dependent upon our ability to tell the government "no". A cursory review of history across the globe will back this up. The great atrocities of the last several decades were perpetrated by governments against unarmed populaces. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al. could never have succeeded had the people had the means to forcibly resist them. The Founding Fathers understood that power's great aim is to gather more power, and that the people, from whom just power is derived, need to maintain the capability to control that power.

Hope that helps.

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 02:04 AM
Mr. Locke -- Way to go! Excellent points!

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 02:10 AM
ReadyontheRight:
"What if your optimal societal balance is such that your purchase of a gun is the next to set the gun ownership off balance? "Statistics" show that if you buy a gun, gun ownership gets pushed beyond the XX% that "experts" have deemed as "safe" in our civilized society."

Of course I'm not arguing that we should enforce a balance, just that theoretically one does exist. It's self-enforcing, really. Those that shouldn't own a gun probably won't; those that are interested in guns and learning to shoot properly probably will.
And I think it's pretty out there to think that the average American is going to face attack by 3 or more men. Have any of you faced that situation?

Bob Locke: You make a good point about libel and child pornography, but I think that the general intuiton to be gleaned from those examples stands as a useful parallel.

Also, your #2-- that's untrue. Yes, if you try hard enough, you can get alcohol while you're under 21. But it's a lot harder; and a lot riskier than if you are over 21. I'm not arguing for or against the drinking age; I'm just telling you that as a 19 year old college student, ability to drink alcoholic beverages is severely limited by the law and those of us who do drink incur risks far greater than someone 21 or over. The illegalization acts as a deterrent in order to REDUCE use, not eliminate it.

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 02:11 AM
One more thing, again, people are reading my posts in an ahistorical context.

I didn't argue that because the American public is for more gun control, Congress should enact it. Obviously tyranny of the majority is something to be avoided; but I was accused of belonging to an "alternate universe" and so used those poll numbers to show that my views belong to the mainstream.

Graystar
September 28, 2004, 02:14 AM
Graystar: I never advocated a total gun ban, this is like the ninth time I've said that. And I didn't suggest that you did. You made it seem like a gang of 3 will never invade a home and I was just pointing out that it happens often in Australia.

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 02:21 AM
mpd239 -- There have been posts where more than three attackers have been held off by a single person. The ability to fire more than 10 rounds at a time seems to be effective, even if it's just anecdotal and not statistical.

Why is a limit of 10 rounds the magic number?

Are there other aspects of the Assault Weapons Ban you support?

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 02:27 AM
I never advocated a total gun ban, this is like the ninth time I've said that.

Ah -- But others would use your good intentions to do so:

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

-Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton California
ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991-

Bob Locke
September 28, 2004, 02:29 AM
Bob Locke: You make a good point about libel and child pornography, but I think that the general intuiton to be gleaned from those examples stands as a useful parallel.
I have to disagree. No parallel exists. There is a distinct and substantial difference between a direct infringement on the rights of another person and the mere existence of the possibility of an infringement.
The illegalization acts as a deterrent in order to REDUCE use, not eliminate it.
Thank you for making my argument for me. Now let me enlighten you as to how you just conceded the entire discussion.

It is illegal for people under 21 to buy alcohol, yet it happens. The alcohol itself is not illegal, but the act of buying it, for those under 21, is.

Your argument in this debate is that certain firearms should be illegal, in and of themselves, based on numerous arbitrary features.

Do you see the inconsistency in your position?

ReadyontheRight
September 28, 2004, 02:30 AM
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." --U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95--

THIS is what we're fighting.

2nd Amendment
September 28, 2004, 02:43 AM
Hmm, personally I found getting alchohol at 18 as easy as at 21. Walk in to a bar or liquor store and buy it. Buy it from a friend. Buy it from a friend's half-drunk old man... Everyone I have known seemed to find it similarly easy. All the law did was provide a punishment if caught and not getting caught was amazingly simple.

jefnvk
September 28, 2004, 02:45 AM
As far as I know, the guns produced about equal casualties; and the Tec-9s in a much shorter amount of time.

I'm sorry to tell you , but the 12ga is going to put a lot bigger unrepairable hole in you at the close range that a shooting in a hallway would take place.

A study of crime statistics between 1991 and 1994 by James Alan Fox, dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, indicated that the more violent the crime, the greater the chance a TEC-9 is used

Anyone that believes that the more 'violent' (please define this) a crime is, the greater the chance that the TEC-9 is used, should really be questioning their source. The simple fact is that criminals are going to use whats available. They don't exactly make up a shopping list and go off to Wal-Mart. Anyone determined enough to sit down and determine the exact gun they need/want is probably going to be comitting the crime one way or another.

The American people have never wanted to outlaw guns, or prohibit law-abiding American adults from owning a firearm. But the American people are a sensible lot, and they know no freedom is absolute. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but slander or incitement to riot is not. Freedom of the press is vital, but libel and kiddie porn are not.

I agree with this completely. Slander, incitement and porn are all misuses of their rights. When someone misuses a firearm, they lose that right. But, as we do not go around prohibiting students from forming anarchy clubs, out of the fear that they may incite uprisings, we do no go around banning guns because someone may misuse them.

As for cop-killer bullets, I am sure you know that Ted Kennedy was demonizing the .30-30 as a 'cop-killer'. He just happened to pick a very popular deer hunting cartridge.

Cosmoline
September 28, 2004, 02:46 AM
Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

I can. My roommate, a woman, was threatened with rape by three teenaged hoods. She prevented the assault by simply pointing a .357 at the fellows.

Fact is, criminals are usually cowards. They prefer to hunt in packs. Whether that's the pack who tried to rape my friend, a pack that rapes a woman in a park, or a pack that robs a liquor store. In all these situations, firepower is a valuable option.

mpd239
September 28, 2004, 09:41 AM
"Thank you for making my argument for me. Now let me enlighten you as to how you just conceded the entire discussion.

It is illegal for people under 21 to buy alcohol, yet it happens. The alcohol itself is not illegal, but the act of buying it, for those under 21, is.

Your argument in this debate is that certain firearms should be illegal, in and of themselves, based on numerous arbitrary features.

Do you see the inconsistency in your position?"





No, Bob Locke, my argument is that the sale of said weapons should be illegal.

ckyllo
September 28, 2004, 09:47 AM
Columbine shootings involved a Tec-DC 9

now how did the ban that had been in place for several years do anything to prevent this?

look at all the evil acts with firearms over the past 10 years and ask your self how did the ban prevent them?

if a shooter can count to 10 and reload with a round in the chamber, the sustained fire can last until all loaded mags are empty and at no time is the shooter left with a empty firearm. leaving no open area for someone to attack and disarm while reloading.

as for using a revolver, ever heard of a new york reload? revolver shooters would carry more than one revolver sometimes 4 or even 6 on their persons. when one went dry simply draw the next. in case your wondering on how to carry 6 guns shoulder, hip and small of back on left and right sides.

RealGun
September 28, 2004, 10:11 AM
I can think of "pragmatic" ways to dismiss other rights. I have a number of points I could argue but have decided not to bother. Knock yourselves out. The objective was to have you lost in the trees, while the premise was to set aside the 2nd Amendment.

Mulliga
September 28, 2004, 10:20 AM
No, Bob Locke, my argument is that the sale of said weapons should be illegal.

They tried this with alcohol, too. Didn't work very well then.

nico
September 28, 2004, 10:49 AM
No, Bob Locke, my argument is that the sale of said weapons should be illegal.

yet, you haven't offered a single fact as to what distinguishes "said weapons" from those that you consider OK to prove your argument. And, you've completely ignored every request to do so. I'll say it again:

WHAT FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES WOULD YOU USE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GUNS THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND GUNS THAT SHOLD BE LEGAL????

and again

WHAT FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES WOULD YOU USE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GUNS THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND GUNS THAT SHOLD BE LEGAL????


and again

WHAT FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES WOULD YOU USE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GUNS THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND GUNS THAT SHOLD BE LEGAL????

are we going to get a response this time?

btw, as a college student who recently turned 21, I have never heard of anyone who has ever had any trouble getting alcohol when they wanted it regardless of age so your example is worthless.

Solo
September 28, 2004, 11:05 AM
And I think it's pretty out there to think that the average American is going to face attack by 3 or more men. Have any of you faced that situation?

My uncles were beaten to death by a gang when they were kids, so I can give you one example.

The Real Hawkeye
September 28, 2004, 11:45 AM
mpd239, from the start, your facts have been grossly in error. You are, it would appear, an uncritical sponge in the milieu of leftist academia. You simply absorb propaganda with intellectual passivity, and then arrogantly come here to "enlighten" those of us who have long been in the habit of thinking critically and actually bothering to study facts and history.

I really feel sad for you. You have been duped, and you lack the basic thinking skills needed to even begin to understand the fundamentals of the argument, let alone undupe yourself. And yet you are so convicted. That's the really sad part. If this weren't so, it would be so simple to open your eyes. The proofs are so abundant, and yet we cannot persuade you merely to open your eyes and take them in. This is likely because you are, by long training and/or disposition, a statist. Your view of the world is literally turned up-side-down in relation to the Founders of this once great nation. You are probably a hopeless case, I'm sorry to say.

Intune
September 28, 2004, 11:56 AM
Of inmates who carried a firearm during their offense, 8 in 10 had a handgun
Inmates reported that a handgun was their preferred firearm; of those carrying a firearm, 83% of State inmates and 87% of Federal inmates said that they carried a handgun during the offense for which they were serving their longest sentence.
Offenders sentenced for homicide or for robbery reported the most extensive
use of firearms.

Homicides by Weapon Type

Year 1991 Handgun-13101 Other gun-3277 Knife-3909 Blunt object-1252 Other weapon-3161

Source-DOJ

Why in the world would you be calling for a ban on “assault weapons” when these are the facts? If one REALLY cared about reducing homicide, handguns and knives would be the obvious targets. Yet, they’re not. Hmm… :confused:

Intune
September 28, 2004, 12:20 PM
double

Sungun09
September 28, 2004, 03:04 PM
Trust me young un, you aren't unique on anything. History repeats itself.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with subtle twists of meanings. I was an antigunner until I was in my late 20's. A friend of mine convinced me by saying - The government doesn't want you to have one, therefore, shouldn't you ?

I've seen nothing in the last 40 years to convince me otherwise.

My advise to you, get a gun, read history, mature...

If you enjoyed reading about "My views on gun ownership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!