Help: Gun debate thread

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,Laurel
Date: 16 Mar 00 - 07:55 PM

As a volunteer fire fighter, I have witnessed first hand in the last month the pain and grief brought on by guns due to 2 suicides in my neighborhood recently. At least they didn't take someone else's life. The death which occured last month in our area was caused by stabbing. It has been a rough month. and this is a small rural area, not some crowded urban place.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 00 - 07:58 PM

I know this is a gun debate thread - but isn't anybody going to answer my reasonable question about swords and suchlike? Are they protected by the same bit of the constitution or not?

There must have been a court case sometime.

All the stuff about needing arms to be able to fight the government seems a bit odd. If you want to fight the government, you don't worry about whether you can get arms legally or not. "Oh dear, we can't tool up down at the local gun-store, we'd have to do some gun-running. I suppose we'll have to call off the revolution."

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 16 Mar 00 - 11:03 PM

Hi McGrath, actually we had an incident in Toronto a couple of years ago where an obviously deranged man (social workers called him "cerebrally disadvantaged") was swinging a sword at passersby near a bus. The cops shot him, and for many months the question of was he "actually posing a danger to society" was debated in the papers and the courts. Arguments ensued as to whether his "weapon" was a sword or because of it's length "a knife". Any wonder I sometimes think the human race has too much time on it's hands?

Rick

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Gary T
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 12:43 AM

Hi, McGrath. I'm no expert on this, but I'll tackle it from a common-sense viewpoint (of course, that also means MY viewpoint). Our second amendment says "arms", not "firearms", so any hand-held weapon would be included. Nevertheless, the right assured in this amendment is not so broad as to be beyond regulation. Various local-level laws (state, county, city) restrict what can be done with weapons in public. Often the restrictions are tighter for handguns than for long arms, due to the greater potential for misuse afforded by their concealability and easier, quicker deployment. Swords would likely be less restricted than firearms, but I'm sure there are places where wearing one could be a violation. Certainly brandishing one would be,in most places where the general public is around.

The constitution guarantees the right of ownership and, shall we say, reasonable use. What's reasonable out on your 400-acre farm is different from what's reasonable in New York City. Even the right of ownership is not universal, being prohibited to felons, the insane, etc. And certain classes of arms (e.g. fully automatic rifles) are prohibited, with a few closely-monitored exceptions for bona-fide collectors. As mentioned before, the Supreme Court interprets the laws, so what the second amendment does and does not provide is subject to change, although the Court tends to avoid reversing precedent.

So you could probably wear a sword in some locales, but raising a fuss over the right to do so is akin to insisting on having a good outhouse in the back yard. In this day of firearms and indoor plumbing, swords and outhouses don't appeal to very many folks.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,The Beanster
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 01:01 AM

Thank you, Soddy, for saying what I would have said. If the ignorance didn't p..s me off so much, it would truly amuse me to hear gun-toting, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals quoting the 2nd Ammendment totally out of context in an effort to protect their illusion of power--their guns. An individual has no constitutional right to carry a firearm. People who own guns, if inclined to depression and suicide, are much more likely to actually commit the act with a gun when one is handy AND they tend to either intentionally or unintentionally kill family members with them. Ain't that a happy thought. I guess if you live by the gun...

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: bob schwarer
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 08:40 AM

Two points.

Actualy the neandertal was quite remarkable. Was around for some 100K years. Also had a larger brain than moderns.

Second. "Well regualted" had nothing to do with being under someones control. It had to do with the person being proficient in what he was doing. I can send you a copy of the manual of arms of the time showing what a "well regulated" soldier or militiaman was expected to do.

Bob S.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 08:54 AM

Click

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Gary T
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 09:03 AM

Smitty's first post and Bob Schwarer's last post conform to the principle I've heard that the "well regulated milita" potentially consists of every citizen. Although the National Guard is sometimes called the Militia, it is not the same thing. It is instead essentially an auxiliary branch of the U.S. Army. The citizen milita mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not a regular, organized, ongoing body--it is everyday folks equipped to fight tyranny if and when necessary. Note that the amendment does not say that one must be an official member of the militia in order to claim the right to bear arms, it merely mentions that a free state needs the capability to have one--in other words, the citizens must be capable of effectively resisting an oppressive government. The fact that U.S. citizens have as yet not needed to do this attests to the good design of the Constitution as a whole, but does not render impossible the need to do so in the future (I don't think it will ever happen, but it's not impossible).

This right does not extend to doing whatever one wishes whenever and wherever ones wishes with his weapons, thus the various laws restricting and regulating the possession and use of arms. But the basic right to own them was, and by many still is, considered essential to prevent, and if necessary depose, an oppressive, tyrannical government.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,anthony
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 09:25 AM

I have a limited edition, chrome-plated, custom, accurized Ruger .44 Blackhawk with ivory grips and Charleton Heston's signature engraved on the barrel. Anybody want to trade even up for a 1937 D-18? (Just kidding, really!)

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Elektra
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 10:04 AM

While I don't realistically think the government will be in need of overthrowing anytime soon, Constitution or no, I *do* support gun ownership for personal protection and home defense.

Of course, unlike me (thankfully for them) most people have not been the recipient of legitimate death threats, nor a victim of multiple stalkers... and no, it has never been job related and I am not famous or anything -- it's just plain rotten luck.

While so far the legal system has worked in my favor, I can't keep the police beside my bed for the rest of my life... but I *can* have a little extra "insurance", and I don't find that the least bit unreasonable.

*elektra*

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 12:04 PM

Dear Elektra. You are quite right in saying that personal protection is your own responsibility. Unfortunately the police would tell you to make a prison of your home and lock yourself in it. By doing so they are forcing you to live miserably in fear. However, I do not know of one police officer that isnt happy when he finds a dead criminal and not a dead victim. I can quote many instances where the knowledge that you are prepared to defend yourself with force prevented a crime. Nobody seems to be collecting those statistics. I am not into militia's or any right to bear arms. But I am concerned that people think gun control is the answer. Check out Northern Ireland 300 years history of failed arms control. The Pathans in Afghanistan buy them from manufacturers in Pakistan who use foot operated lathes to make AK 47 clones in their work shops. The mighty Soviet Union failed to control them there too! I do not advocate that people should have unrestricted access to guns but must plead for sanity when trying to control them. The only people who get to suffer are the millions of decent firearm owners who end up paying a fortune for their sport. Now we suffer the vehement anger of people who equate violence with guns. We are accused of being stupid, rabid, worshipping guns, right wing bigots etc. Strange when I am attending range safety instruction and regularly go target shooting with a retired Doctor of Music; and shoot with a retired nurse. Watch my fireman friend who just saved pepoles lives during a fire, compete on the range. They dont seem to fit the mold do they? When you apply moral culpability to inanimate objects, the world is insane. Stop drunk driving and ban automatic transmissions. It was the golf clubs fault your honour not mine... etc ad nauseum. Criminals dont obey laws. the law abiding do, simple logic... If you all want to save more childrens lives, lets remember that more kids get killed by automobiles than guns. They are licensed registered and insured, but how many drunks without a license and driving without insurance kill people every year? I think you anger would be better directed at cars than guns IMO. Yours,Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 12:49 PM

Isn't that like saying, "Oh well, I have the clap, so, I might as well have cancer too?"

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 01:12 PM

I think Dave's point is not like that, kendall -- he was saying it is not the object but the user who needs better control. That's more like saying, "I have the clap -- maybe we should do better health inspections on the cathouses...", if you really want to bend metaphors :>)

Warm regards,

A

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: simon-pierre
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 01:20 PM

Pakistan, Russia, Nothern Ireland... No need to look so far! Just in Canada, there's a strong gun control policy and it does really work (and, may this last forever, there's no NRA). Groups who wear firearms are military, police, organized crimes and sport hunters... and that's too much. I think I'm not the only canadian who is scared to see what happen in USA. I don't think I have «any» right to wear firearm. But I have the right to walk in security in my town, and not be afraid to what could happen to my kids at school.

SP

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 02:01 PM

Well, I know there's been a little bit of trouble over in Northern Ireland over the last few years - but I think if you check the figures, you're a lot more likely to be shot if you're living in the United States than you would be likely to have been shot or blown up in Northern Ireland, even at the height of the troubles. That is especially true if you're a child in schoool.

However, you pays your money and you takes your choice. If Americans are willing to put up with all the killing, that's up to them. But it'd be a bit better if they said "Well, it's a price worth paying for what we see as freedom", rather than trying to claim that somehow having all those guns around doesn't increase the number of people getting shot.

Of course, in theory, it might be that the reason gun deaths are so much higher there than in other countries isn't anything to do with the availability of guns, it's because Americans are intrinsically more violent - but I can't really believe that is true, I think it's a libel on decent people. A libel made by people who claim to be patriotic. Strange.

I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children.

You can always find a Bob Dylan quote to fit.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: MarkS
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 08:03 PM

Well I always thought that if we have a crime problem it is not because we have guns, it is because we have criminals. I remember that during the depression, enemployment and social problems were vastly worse than they are today, and guns were vastly more easily available, but the crime rate was vastly lower. Whats the difference?
Not enough of a social scientist to say. Only can relate that according to FBI statistics, something like 600,000 crimes were prevented because the chosen victim was able to display or use a firearm for self defense. Also can relate that in those states which enabled concealed carry legislation, the rate of violent crime went down after the passage of the legislation.
Seems reasonable - Two victims walk down the street. One is known to be unarmed and for the other, there is a thought that they may BE armed. Who is chosen?
And an aside to McGrath - I prefer to think we could settle our diffences on this issure amicably, preferably at a local pub, over a pint, or two, or seven. But you do illustrate why there is passion on the subject. Do you really think I need an eye or a sanity test? I can read the print on my NRA membership card clearly!

MarkS

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 08:17 PM

Anyone want to say a few words to the folks at Smith&Wesson who decided today to start putting locks, etc. on their guns and developing "print locks" and other safety devices? Seems to be a good start, but I'm already hearing flak from the NRA. S&W had all the lawsuits dropped....a good economic reason.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 08:38 PM

Good for them, Spaw! We had two extremes here, recently. An escaped convict, on the run and having already shot a trooper, showed up at a remote ranch. The rancher and his son were able to subdue him, bring him inside and feed him while help was on the way. They did this with the rifles they trained on him in a crossfire and letting him know what was going on.

On the other end, an "estranged" husband went wild, shot up his house with wife and kids in it, missing the mom by a mere inch or two. She ran to his parents' for protection, along with the kids.

When he was arraigned in court, the judge made note of the fact that HIS entire family asked that he not be released on low bail as they were all afraid of him. When police searched his home, they found an arsenal. His wife has a restraining order against him, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were her. The last guy who got pissed about something like that went out to the ranch where his soon-to-be ex-wife was living and killed her, despite the court order to stay away.

What is the answer? Who knows? As long as people insist on having guns...people will be killed. There have to be compromises, at the very least, thus actions like S&W's, today. I just hope our government and police/sheriff's depts. can get to the point where they can protect the rest of us from those who are seemingly so paranoid.

And lest anyone think I don't know beans about guns, please go read the op/ed piece I posted last year in the thread which I linked at the beginning of this one. Thank you,

kat

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 10:13 PM

In Canada we have laws that restrict the ownership of restricted guns; and to some degree I support these laws. On the other hand I now must pay a fortune to register my firearms and although trained by the military and NRA and passed two provincial hunting safety courses I must now attend another and pay for it... Yeah in Halifax the Local drug dealers just pocket their guns and go down town I have a dozen laws to follow just to go to the local range. Yeah gun contol works just check out Toronto any week you like. Yours,Aye. Dave (unable to afford my sport for the last two years)

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 10:37 PM

Mark - I doubt if there's any duifferences which would make yioui shoot me, or make me refuse a drink. "Do you really think I need an eye or a sanity test? " I wasn't really thinking about you. Possibly Charlton Heston...

More to the point, I'm thinking people like Hamilton, in Scotland who killed all those school children in Dunblane, and had a proper legal licence and was a member of gun clubs and all.

There are crazy people around, and there are people with bad eyesight - and my impression (which may be wrong), and even if you think guns should stay legal, that shouldn't apply to people like that. I would have thought that a National Rifle Organisation would be pushing for rigorous gun control rather than opposing it.

As I said in my previous post, it's clear that a sufficient number of Americans believe that the freedom to own guns is important to stop the one who disagree with them from banning them - but that should go with a recognition that there is a price to be paid for it, rather than denying that there is such a price.

Nobody would claim that cars don't kill thousands of people who otherwise would live out their lives; it is evidently seen by most people as worth the human cost. But supporters of guns don't seem to be willing to bite the bullet and say that.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: MarkS
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 10:56 PM

McGrath - Actually the NRA is pushing for rigorous enforcement of the 20,000 or so gun laws already on the books, and is first in line to champion the incarceration of criminals who commit crimes with guns.
Often, you will read of a murder or a crime committed with a gun, and two paragraphs later you read that the guy who did it had a lengthy record of arrests and convictions for similar acts. you must ask yourself
A. Why is this fellow on the street instead of behind bars, and
B. Why is government demonizing ME?
We should plan on that drink sometime. I'm sure it would be an enjoyable evening! Marks

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,Smitty
Date: 17 Mar 00 - 11:43 PM

To Gary T.: Thank you for the rational explanation of 2nd amendment. Better than my meager efforts... Sorry McGrath, no sarcasm was intended to you or any of our British friends.. On gun ownership, - - - somehow I just keep having horrible visions of folks in africa being hacked to death with axes and machettas by a bunch of goons when just one ole single barrel shotgun in each house would have stopped this nonsense cold!

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,The Beanster
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 12:21 AM

I love this thread. You folks, whether I agree or disagree with you, have put some really thoughtful opinions down and they are a pleasure to read. Having said that, I am all for "terminating" any criminal who is intending to do me or a loved one harm. Also, I would be happy to blow to smithereens anyone who entered my apartment while I was home, whether they were armed or unarmed, so don't get me wrong here. I work with all different types of criminals every day in my job. I just know that if I owned a gun, it is more likely that it would ultimately be used against me than used against the intruder. I wouldn't want to introduce a firearm into a situation where, if I'd left things alone, there would've been none. But getting back, an individual does not a militia make and although I am not a constitutional scholar, I have suffered through my share of classes in constitutional law and it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment is fairly clear in its wording.

I do find it puzzling that pro-gun Americans don't see the apparent connection between us owning so many guns and all the thousands of gun deaths every year in this country. What is it, coincidence?? The rest of the world pales in comparison, statistically.

On the other hand (not to thread creep too much), I think McGrath brings up an interesting question: is the American culture inherently more violent than other cultures? There has been research done that supports this--there has also been research which debunks the theory. Either way, if it's not true that Americans are unusually violent, then it seems that the guns, not the people, are the problem. If it IS true, we're only encouraging more bad behavior from a people who are already prone to violence by allowing them easy access to guns. Both ways, as long as guns are available on every street corner or gun show, we lose.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 09:03 AM

Has anyone but me wondered why women get involved with men who abuse? I'll never believe that men like the guy with the arsenal just suddenly went round the bend. My advice.. Stay the hell away from those creeps!! Sure, nice guys are dull, but, you will live longer with them.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 09:09 AM

Another thing...every jail and prison in this country is full. Thats why so many offenders are on the street. Judges are reluctant to squeeze more criminals into already over crowded pens. It is unconstitutional to do so.(Cruel and unusual punishment) What happens every time a proposal comes before the tax payer to build another prison? NO NO NO!! not in MY back yard, and/or too much money..Folks, I'm afraid that the problem is US. Pogo was right.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,Terapln
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 11:15 AM

I'm writing this from the point of view of someone who has had a great deal to do with guns. I've taught gun safety and marksmanship, run competitive pistol and rifle matches, I hunt and I carry a concealed weapon (with the kind permission of my state govt.) I've been able to do all this beacuse thirteen years ago I was able to keep two men from pushing their way into my home in the middle of the night. My life, and that of my wife was likely saved because I had a gun, and the two men were convinced that I would use it on them.

The gun debate will always be difficult because there is so much emotion involved. Both on the pro side who tend to get upset (rightfully in my view) of others who think that their property should be taken away. And the other side who operate so much on emotion that they think songs are the best political arguments they can make.

The founders (who were truly not perfect, see slavery as an example) were students of history and saw how from the times of the Romans that goverments preserved their power by having strength of arms over the people.

The US has many troubles As a society we drink and drug ourselves into stupors, we go off to work and leave our children to grow up on their own, we sit in our livingrooms and theatres and soak ourselves in violence and filth, and we have immigration problems that nearly no other industrialized nation has.

There has been no real change in pistol or rifle design since the turn of the century. Despite what the media would have you think there have been high capacity semi-auto pistols since the '30s. Guns are more restricted now than they ever have been. Up untill 1968 you could get guns by mail. Now we have 20,000 city, state and federal regulations. We have had a Brady Law for nearly a decade, and nearly none of the people who break it are prosecuted, leaving them to find guns in other ways. In fact federal firearms prosecutions have been nearly non-existant during this presidents term, the same president who now demands more laws.

There are no easy answers, but infringing rights, and passing laws won't change the underlying problems. Untill the people of America come to terms with our birthright and take resonsibility for our lives. Unless we realise that freedom is a actuall living, tangible thing. Freedom means political speech, not getting to say "ass" on TV. Freedom is choosing to worship in the way you choose, not preventing others from doing it. And yes, freedom means the right to defend yourself, and the ability to own the means.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 11:57 AM

The idea of the trigger lock is simply to keep kids from stealing the weapon and shooting someone. Who can argue with that?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 01:53 PM

"Actually the NRA is pushing for rigorous enforcement of the 20,000 or so gun laws already on the books" - so why do oppose the kind of minimal gun control measures they do appear to oppose?

What's wrong with making people wait a reasonable time before they can buy a gun, and providing some kind of proof that they are sane and responsible and competant?

People who value gun ownership should be all in favour of making gun control as rigorous as possible, and making it difficult to join the gun owning elite. To give a daft analogy, if musical instruments could kill people, wouldn't we be all in favour of those kind of rules to cut down the danger of them being misused? Would we think that people who opposed such controls were friends of music?

Why don't sensible people who value the right to own guns tell the NRA to get off their backs?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 04:30 PM

We do. I bought a hand gun a few years ago at a store 50 miles from here. Had to wait a week or so. No problem. Sure, I had to drive an extra 100 miles, but, so what? I also appreciate seeing police officers on the roads too. Old Maine proverb.. if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs...only the one it hits will yelp. I also question that oft quoted thing about gun laws..20,000? sounds like bs to me.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 04:33 PM

I started this thread..can I end it? PLEASE??

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: The Beanster
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 04:48 PM

Kendall--created a monster, eh? lolol

it's alive, It's Alive, IT'S ALIVE!!!

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Midchuck
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 05:13 PM

I don't see why it should end until we have as many posts in support of private gun ownership as opposing it. Could be a real long one - I wonder if Guns and Ammo has a website....I could start crossposting....

Peter.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 06:12 PM

Good try, kendall, but evidently premature...

"Old Maine proverb.. if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs...only the one it hits will yelp."

No, that proverb doesn't seem very clear to me.

Does it mean that, if you're being hassled by a pack of dogs, it's no use throwing a stone to try to protect yourself? So get a gun?

Or is it that, if someone complains about something, it means that they've been hurt by it, and if they don't, it means they haven't? With the implication being that only the people who object to tighter gun controls are going to bother to complain about them, and the ones who would like to see tighter guncontrols aren't going to bother to make their voices heard? Apathy rules?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 07:43 PM

I just tell em, I dont explain em. OK maybe its time for the gun supporters to speak, then we can end this.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Mar 00 - 07:50 PM

Yeah, just sit back and relax Kendall..........'bout time for your back-up light ain't it?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 19 Mar 00 - 11:53 AM

Right...I wouldn't want to run over someones cat..

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: tar_heel
Date: 19 Mar 00 - 04:42 PM

make no mistake about it!!!it's all about government control.everytime some controversy arises,the pesident(bill lewisky)delivers some message for congressional consideration to act upon............tobacco farmers and companies,will soon be out of business!(there is no way they can continue to operate with all the lawsuits and fines).now it's your gun!!!tomorrow it wil be your home and all you own. wake up,america!!!!

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: The Beanster
Date: 19 Mar 00 - 04:55 PM

Chuck,

You're kidding, right?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 19 Mar 00 - 05:02 PM

I sure hope so.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,James
Date: 20 Mar 00 - 07:35 AM

Smitty, do you keep in touvh with the home planet ?

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 20 Mar 00 - 06:56 PM

UNCLE!!!

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,The Yank
Date: 20 Mar 00 - 09:41 PM

There is no specific U.S. Constitutional right to own guns & those that maintain as much simply refuse to face fact. This issue tends to produce strange behavior: normally intelligent and otherwise rational individuals positively foam at the mouth!

The Constitution's wording is specifically "arms" which in the parlance of the day- as well as in modern usage- means weapons of all sorts, including but by no means limited to "fire-arms" or guns [e.g. _Cyclopaedia or, an Universal Dictionary of the Arts and Sciences..._ by Ephraim Chambers, Gent. London, 1752: "ARMS. All Kinds of Weapons, whether for Defence or Offence"].
BR> There are all manner of non-firearm weapons- "switchblade" knives, swords, sword canes, pocket knives with blades over a certain length, 'billy' clubs, saps, etc., etc., etc. - the use, possession, & carrying of which are regulated, restricted, and in many cases prohibited by State and Federal law. Many municipalities also have severe restrictions on possession and/or of firearms of any sort. These regulations and prohibitions have passed the test of constitutionality- or they would have long ago been overturned by the Supreme Court.

With these precedents, and the clear wording of the Constitution, should this nonexistant 'right' to own guns ever face a court challenge it would be quickly laid to rest- which is what terrifies the NRA & their disciples- the Emperor has no clothes whatever! and the public is beginning to catch on. This may help to explain the recent spate of NRA sleaze, lies & underhand tactics.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: bob schwarer
Date: 21 Mar 00 - 08:01 AM

The Supreme Court has avoided the issue like poison.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Midchuck
Date: 21 Mar 00 - 08:16 AM

And yet the Supreme Court has found that a Constitutional right to abortion exists, in the absence of a single word in the Constitution about abortion (and I believe in freedom of choice in that area myself, but I'm still amused by the logical inconsistency the Court will indulge in to give orthodox liberals what they want this week).

The weakness of our Constitution is that it means what the Supremes say it means this week. But it's better than nothing.

Incidentally, I'll accept the argument that the right to bear "arms" means flintlocks and swords and muzzle-loading brass cannon, because that was what the framers of the Constitution were familiar with, and had in mind when it was drafted, if those who argue that theory will accept that, by the same reasoning, "freedom of speech and of the press" means only face-to-face speech and the hard-copy print media, not radio/TV/telephone/internet/etc., since none of them existed then either.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,The Yank
Date: 21 Mar 00 - 09:48 AM

"The weakness of our Constitution is that it means what the Supremes say it means this week. But it's better than nothing."

Think it could just as easily be argued that the ability to interpret the constitiuion is one of its strengths. And the "Supremes" have historically been just as likely to indulge in logical inconsistency to give the orthodox conservatives what they want this week.[No offense intended to Diana Ross]. Don't think you can blame the MONEY=SPEECH decision on the 'orthodox liberals... ;-)

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: Fortunato
Date: 21 Mar 00 - 11:14 AM

On the subject of the availability of guns, I feel confident that no teenager with a knife or a club or fists is going to walk into my chidren's high school and commit mass murder. Rifles and shotguns and pistols are another matter. The children who shoot their school mates are not the children of criminals. They are the children of the gun owner next door. The hunter, the collector, the sport shooter, or perhaps they are children of the housewife who carries a 357 magnum in her SUV just to protect herself from others like herself.

If you have children in school and you're not afraid of the availability of guns then you're not paying attention. regards, Fortunato

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: bob schwarer
Date: 21 Mar 00 - 11:23 AM

Good point about the 1st amendment, Midchuck.

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: kendall
Date: 21 Mar 00 - 11:40 AM

This feels like Walt Disney's Sorcerers Apprentice with Micky Mouse unable to stop what he started..I'm outa here

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: bob schwarer
Date: 21 Mar 00 - 06:48 PM

Likewise

Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 21 Mar 00 - 08:36 PM

One of Jack Handley's Deep Thoughts went something like this:

The blind should get guns instead of seeing eye dogs. Dogs are cheaper and when they start shooting, people will get out of the way. Cars too.