My views on gun ownership

[Ieyasu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ) 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Jeff

 

[rageman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Graystar]

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

And 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [blacks] 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, 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...