BS: The Second Amendment

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:35 PM

They pulled off their revolution in Egypt without stupid stuff with guns.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 11:38 AM

*I* was not gonna refresh this topic....but....

Where did you hear that "...the government of Wisconsin decided that force against the people might be a good idea."???
I just saw a headline saying.." Wisconsin Protesters High-Five, Shake Hands With Police"

WHO is armed & dangerous? Do you really think even the **idea** of a couple of protesters in Wisconsin having guns is relevant? IF those pro-union activists started trashing the buildings or doing more than waving signs and 'sitting-in' were to happen, it would STILL not require firearms to quell things. Tear gas, tasers....lots of things would be used first.
   There is NOTHING about this situation that would suggest the need for guns on either side.

...and what difference does it make what some Middle-Eastern politician says?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 10:36 AM

"anti-gun nuts".    Right.   Now exactly which of us is meant by that delightful description?

I have not seen one posting which would support that position.

As I have said more than once, I am not for restricting rifles any more than they are right now.

I am not even for restricting pistol ownership more than we now have.

Except semi-automatic pistols.

And--still---nobody has come up with any argument why semi-automatic pistols should be owned by anybody but the police and the military.   Especially since: look what is often the weapon of choice in the senseless carnage we read about.

And of course I'd make no move to take semi-automatic pistols from those who now have them.

Just no more sales of them to the general public.

And it is striking how even on Mudcat--overwhelmingly left of center---even this reasonable request is bitterly opposed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 10:05 PM

So, Wisconsin? Bring in the militia? I saw a video of a middle east politcian saying he is in support of the Wisconsin "uprising".

Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain... Wisconsin? Noooooooooo... not in USA... can't happen... they wouldn't sic the National Guard on the protesters would they? But the governor... WTF?

No, they wouldn't... because the protesters are armed and fucking dangerous.

How odd that this thread fell off the page after the governments of the middle east and the government of Wisconsin decided that force against the people might be a good idea.

Debate what the "founders" meant but reality is staring you anti-gun nuts in the face... right now... on the TV... in real time... and people are dying.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:45 PM

What is it that actually drives large numbers of people to extreme acts of violence...killing people? It's organized activity that is aimed toward some specific material or political objective that does it. In other words...

1. War - the biggest organized killer of them all.

2. Criminal activity - the modern drug trade, contraband liquor tade during the Prohibition era...(which was the key drug trade of that time period), robbery, mugging, protection rackets, housebreaking, etc.

3. Revolution, terrorism, and various politically-motivated acts of violence.

4. Oppressive governmental action by security forces upon a domestic population - In this case it's really a war by a government upon various elements of its own people. Extreme examples of this have been seen in: Present-day Burma, Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge, Germany under the Nazis, the Armenian persecution by the Turks, and there are many other examples.

None of these things happened because guns exist...or because drugs exist...or because violent films exist. They happened because organized groups of people devoted themselves very deliberately toward specific objectives they had in mind...either for profit or for some abstract political (or religious) objective that they held dear....and that objective caused them to act violently and take the lives of other people.

That's what we've seen again and again throughout history. Hundreds of millions of lives have been lost needlessly due to people seeking unwise and destructive objectives that required them to endanger other people.

As for the War on Drugs, it's a miserable failure and it cannot succeed. Personal use of drugs should be de-criminalized, in my opinion, and addicts should be treated as people with a medical problem, and supplied with medical aid and prescriptions to manage their habit while they are assisted in getting off whatever they're addicted to.

*****

Moving to another subject altogether, I would agree with olddude that kid culture was far more physically violent when he and I were kids than it is now in modern North America. And you go back a generation or two earlier...it was even more violent. What I mean is, there was a lot of corporal punishment in schools (and by parents) that isn't allowed today...and there was a heck of a lot more fighting between boys back then than there is now. This was partly because kids were a lot more involved in physical outdoor life back then...and partly because the society looked differently on boys fighting back then too. It was considered "normal". Boy, were there ever a lot of fights. I remember. There was a place near the school where guys would go to fight after school, and all their buddies would show up to watch. If that was going on now, the cops would probably put a stop to it, but back then the adults did nothing about it...as long as it was off school property. Then there was the generation before mine...kids who grew up in the 30s and 40s. I knew an old fellow who worked for my dad, and he told me about the fights between rival neighborhood schools in the town of Orillia when he was a kid. He said that all the boys from one school would meet all the boys from the other school at a pre-arranged location after classes and there'd be a huge donnybrook involving maybe a couple hundred or more kids, beating each other up with fists, stones, sticks, whatever was to hand. Incredible. And the adults did nothing about it. He said it could happen two or three times in a week in that small town.

Nevertheless, the society of that time didn't seem to have much of the problems we have now with shootings, and so on, and I'll tell you why: they didn't have a giant illegal drug trade going on in their cities, that's why. It's organized human activity by adults (and young adults) that leads to the problems we see now...not casual violence in itself. It's violence with a commercial or a political purpose that is causing most of the really serious problems in the world.

For that, you must look to the leaders, the kingpins, the commanders who are organizing that violence. That would include politicians, drug lords, secret police chiefs, captains of industry, and some religious leaders in certain places. The rot comes from the top down, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 10:19 AM

The real violence started to occur in the 70's on with the proliferation and profits of the illegal drug trade.

Yup, just about the time the "War On Drugs" hotted up. Sure has caused a lot of collateral damage. Way past time to give up on this obscenely expensive, damaging, and fundamentally useless program.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 09:51 AM

by the way, I apologize for my outburst on this thread. I should know by now not to post when I am having a bad pain day ...
sorry about that

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 09:46 AM

The kid culture in the past was far more violent I think. Remember when your teacher in grade school or high school could deal out corporal punishment. In my middle school God help you if you were a kid that was "autistic". Outbursts were deal with by the "board of education" a wood stick for spanking. Nobody at that time had any idea of disabilities only "unruly children". In the homes the rule was "spare the rod spoil the child" that was the culture of the 50's. You bet playing with toy guns was the norm for a boy growing up .. Yet we had no problems at all .. none.. I think what LH said is indeed true. Crack cocaine, huge drug profit, violence to enforce the territory ... and the incredible rise of addicts ... all contribute to this culture today

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 02:59 AM

I think you've hit it, Little Hawk. For that reason, it seems to me that it should be 'curable'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:12 AM

I think you are absolutely right, olddude, that the burgeoning illegal drug trade is the primary factor causing a great rise in the incidence of violent crimes in the USA...in Mexico...in some other Latin American nations...even on the streets of Toronto, Canada. There are now far more shootings in Toronto yearly than was the case a few decades ago, and it is almost all associated with young members of various drug gangs fighting each other over turf, etc...sometimes killing innocent bystanders who get caught in the crossfire. The majority of these offenders are young Caribbean Blacks, it seems, and most of their victims are people from that same community.

And it doesn't happen because those kids are watching violent movies, it happens because they are dealing illegal drugs and trying to control local territories.

Regarding Japan, I don't think you have anything like a comparable situation in the domestic illegal drug situation...plus, Japanese culture emphasizes public responsibility and obedience to laws in a way that is strikingly different from the more individualistic western societies. You can still drop a wallet on the street or in a Japanese bus, and chances are very good that some private person will recover it, track you down by phone or some other way, and return it with all the money and everything else in it intact. How likely is that in North America? ;-D It's a completely different mindset in Japan than it is here. People are far more law-abiding, despite the existence of the organized criminal gangs (Yakuza)...they have their own longstanding traditional structure within which they work.

While violent movies do de-sensitize people to watching violence on film, and cause them to expect to see more of it, I doubt that they have much to do with causing most violence. Rather, they may help to defuse a good deal of it through allowing people to discharge their frustrations vicariously by watching a video. This certainly seems to be true in Japan where there is a great deal of extraordinarily violent pornography and other sadistic material freely available on film and in magazines...most of it catered to by men. It does not appear to cause those men to go out and actually be violent to anyone.

I think back to when I was a kid. All the boys played "guns" in those days, just as a standard thing. It was part of growing up. It didn't make us violent. What made certain kids violent, though, was this: they witnessed and were the victims of domestic violence in their own homes, violence usually perpetrated by their father. That is the real source of violence in most young people who turn violent, learning by direct experience at home or on the street...not from movies or from playing with toy guns. If violence frequently becomes your actual experience when you are young, if you are repeatedly victimized in that way or if your mother is, then you may start to see it as a normal way of "solving problems"...or maintaining and defending your own identity. If so, then you're heading down the slippery slope to repeating the most tragic errors of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:38 PM

Strings
There are those groups that stand outside the political rallies as you say are completely wrong. They are also very much part of the problem ... However, I would submit they are not the rise in violence. Those groups existed from the time of Washington. The real violence started to occur in the 70's on with the proliferation and profits of the illegal drug trade. You then saw the profits create these rogue bands of drug gangs that will not let anyone (innocent or not) get in the way of their profits. They take ownership of city blocks and enforce it with blood - anyone's blood. Likewise addicts who need the next fix cause the rise in home invasions, street muggings and the like. So now there are two sides, the profit driven gangs and the addicts. As I see it, it comes from one source, illegal drugs. Militia groups, yes they preach the hate but they are not the ones firing rounds into homes mostly (maybe some are) but the real problem is the gangs.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:21 PM

America's 'culture of violence' makes me wonder about Japan. I understand that Japan has an extremely violent literature, from comic books on, and yet their violent crime rate is low.

According to Wikipedia: "Ownership of handguns is forbidden to the public, hunting rifles and ceremonial swords are registered with the police, and the manufacture and sale of firearms are regulated. The production and sale of live and blank ammunition are also controlled, as are the transportation and importation of all weapons."

Why do I think of committed crimes in America as being heavily influenced by our constant exposure to violent content featured in our media, and in our literature and movies when the same thing apparently does not happen in Japan?

Is it perhaps due to the easy availability of firearms in America and the relatively difficult access to them in Japan?

And if so, how does that affect our 'good guy' proponents' views on the right to carry?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:42 PM

McGrath, the Swiss are more civilized in their use of firearms than the trigger happy Americans. They don't carry to political rallies to intimidate people.

The NRA is cold-hearted and responsible for the epidemic of gun violence
in America.

There is a culture of violence in America that has been fostered by the Religious
Reactionary Christian extremists who want to intimidate those who disagree
with their anti-abortion stance as well as the proliferation of militia groups
of a neo-fascist persuasion.

There is a litany of propaganda that is broadcast by those who make money
selling weapons and bribe senators that promote this gun violence. Other countries do not have this problem that America has.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:14 AM

In Alaska the right to keep and wield a sword shall not be abridged.

Fairbanks Incident

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 12:35 PM

Ah, yes, the "pursuit of happiness". I've got a passage in one of my songs that goes this way:

"God save America for a better destiny,
Than the pursuit of happiness at the expense of sanity,
When everything of value falls and every conscience burns,
And men will bulldoze paradise for the money they can earn."


(For those who might object to my use of the word "God" in the above, be advised...it's a metaphor. ;-) And it's a handy one-syllable word too...it works better than any other in that spot.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:47 PM

Kevin didn't maintain thatit WAS part of the U.S. Constitution, PeeDee.

But the pedantry is appreciated, all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:19 PM

It is the United States Declaration of Independence that states:

"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..."

No, it is not part of the Constitution.

Also, early drafts said "inalienable rights" but the final draft used "unalienable".

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:36 PM

I dunno... maybe the Swiss can make it work. They don't have the extreme diversity and frontier mentality we do in the US. They may regret it someday.

Note:57 to 43 is a good margin, but not overwhelming. Many Swiss think caution is better.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:28 PM

In Switzerland they had a referendum today, on whether to tighten up their gun control laws and voted not to, by 57% to 43%. Switzerland rejects tighter gun controls

The point being of course that they saw this as something that should be determined by what people choose, rather than by some notion of "inalienable rights". That seems to me a much more sensible way to decide about things like that, rather than have a set-up where the wishes of a majority would be seen as irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 12:58 PM

Yeah, Jack. I second the motion and not the interpretation given by some of the Second Amendment.

This Tea Party nonsense has gone far enough. How many Gabby Gifford incidents do we need?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

If you are going to have civilization, you need regulation. You have to look at the needs of society balanced against the so called rights of the individual. Does one need a semi-automatic weapon with thirty rounds in the clip to defend your home against intruders? Of course not. But having those weapons available makes it easier for gangsters and psychos such as those in Arizona recently and Colorado a few years ago to maximize their death toll.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 10:59 AM

Exactly, brucie...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 10:49 AM

What we need is guns that fire backwards.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 10:00 AM

I feel the need to address gnu's main point. I do not believe that allowing deadly force in home defense insures the safety of the home owner. Texas has allows the use of deadly force and has a heavily armed population, but home invasions are at least as common as they are in New Brunswick.

But unless things have changed very recently, deaths from overall gun violence are way higher in Texas than in all of Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 10:48 PM

999... sounds good until you figger what that would cost if we caught & convicted a bunch of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 05:12 PM

How about this: people who unlawfully have auto or semi-automatic weapons receive an automatic prison term of life without parole.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 07:43 PM

That's the point I've made over and over, Saul... I mean, if there are "facts" no one would believe them since the NRA has demonized any studies that might go against gun $ale$...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: saulgoldie
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 07:25 PM

Irrespective of how people choose to parse what is known as "the second ammendment to the US Constitution," does anyone have any figures--facts--as to how many intruders have been shot by a resident defending his/her home, or how many of *the wrong* people have been shot who someone *thought* was an attacker?

It is interesting to note that a legal gun carrier was present in Tucson, and had *the safety off* pointing at ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS!! G-d only knows what stopped him from making a very bad situation even more tragic.

Nevermind what a part of the Constitution, written in a different time with vastly different realities and concerns than exist now may or may not have been intended by the authors. The fact--and it IS an unarguable fact--remains that in any given confrontational situation, if there are no guns present, then the likelihood of human carnage goes down precipitously.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 01:12 PM

It does make sense... but the bill 'sounds' to me like what I call the "jaywalking law"... it is illegal to jaywalk in many places, but everyone knows people WILL do it, so they have a law to establish blame in case something bad happens. (I posted a pic a couple of years ago of what is necessary if they actually want to prevent jaywalking in certain areas...it was an 8ft. high welded steel fence with bars about 8" apart.) Prevention of certain types of violence would need similar measures....like metal detectors at courthouse entrances....or.......

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 01:04 PM

Oh, just what we need... Laws telling you that if Bubba has a gun and you have a gun and Bubba threatens you that you have to shoot Bubba or get arrested???

Hmmmmmm???

Beam me up, Scotty...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 12:55 PM

Here is an interesting article on justified self-defense. I don't know where I stand on this, for sure- but 'leaving the scene' when possible makes good sense to me.

Responding with Force or Leaving the Scene

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 07:41 PM

Like I said before, if an independent statistician were to come to the US and do an exhaustive study on handguns and present the findings to the American people I don't think we'd be having these conversations...

Right now there is a major information void... Yes, there have been studies and no matter how they turn out one side or the other blames the stat-men... And that is fair... We just don't have ***acceptable*** information... The entire argument is so contaminated by people's opinions, lobbyists, community groups, Brady & NRA folks that no one can form an intelligent opinion...

Anecdotes are fine but they never tell the entire story...

This is what is wrong with America (and perhaps Canada, I don't know)... We allow ourselves to accept an opinion based on someone's else's agenda... It doesn't matter the issue... I've said it before and I'll say it again: people aren't stupid, they are misinformed...

Okay, some are stupid...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 07:14 PM

I carefully did NOT address gnu. Others are reading, and I was merely referring to his posts.

It is also the case that my opinion was not that already convicted criminals would get guns, but that **potential** criminals could legally get them, and thus, that more guns would also be available in illegal ways. This IS how it happens in the USA. It does...every time there is a gun show, or a robbery of a house where **legal** guns are stored. There ARE statistics to prove this. I live on the I-95 corridor where guns bought 'legally' in Richmond, Virginia are transported to places like Philadelphia & New York and sold illegally.

Now, please do not upset gnu by PMing him. I respect his need to opt out of this, but *I*, as you can tell, have an ongoing concern. I refer to his posts because they represent one classic viewpoint...and one with which I disagree. I suppose that, if this continues, I will have to choose very abstract references and not name anyone. I am NOT attacking a person, but a position.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:33 PM

Ohhhh... I got a PM... and I GOTTA...

Bill D... if I say I am gone, you should leave me out of your posts.

You said... I see that gnu & I can look at exactly the same information and reach totally different opinions about what it means.

Not so. I have proferred arguements and you have ignored or twisted them. As far as you not understanding what I posted, that is not MY problem.

Bill D said... My contention is that if acquiring guns is legal, MORE potential criminal can get guns...legally or illegally.... and will feel the odds are in their favor, since most folks, gun owners or`not, will NOT be ready enough to stop him.

I say, if it is legal and regulated and the police and courts do their jobs, criminals CANNOT get guns. As far as... will feel the odds are in their favor, since most folks, gun owners or`not, will NOT be ready enough to stop him... THAT IS THE POINT OF ALLOWING SELF DEFENSE.

Right... I cannot continue to argue. So, please, Bill D, do not use my abscence from this thread in vain again. It detracts from your credibility.

I enjoy your posts and your humour Bill D, but I must take leave if you will allow. Please do not address me or my posts in this thread anymore. Thank you in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:12 PM

Right, Strings... The NRA is 100% about selling more guns... It's all about $$$$$$$$$...

BTW, like Don I was a member of the NRA back before big $$$$$ got in the way of what they used to be...

And, like who ever said it, these arguments are just going round and round... Nuthin' new in the last 100 posts... Mine included... SOS...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:58 PM

I see that gnu & I can look at exactly the same information and reach totally different opinions about what it means.

When I think of a criminal wondering about his chances of breaking into a house, my instincts tell me that he will NOT seriously expect the owners will be 'armed & ready'. Gnu believes that if defensive weapons are legal, he WILL hesitate because he suspects they ARE ready.
My contention is that if acquiring guns is legal, MORE potential criminal can get guns...legally or illegally.... and will feel the odds are in their favor, since most folks, gun owners or not, will NOT be ready enough to stop him.

Now, you can choose your subjective stance on that quandary. My general belief is that the harder it is to get guns, the **generally** safer we will all be... and all the tragic & unfortunate exceptions to that do not invalidate my reasoning. It is very much like the nuclear arms race in the 50s thru the 70s....each side thought they needed MORE bombs to 'deter' aggression....but the more bombs, the more chances for some VERY unfortunate occurence, accidental or not.

I see Don Firth and Stringsinger mostly agree with me about how it all works. Others disagree... It seems we are testing every day the 'others' theory, and I keep reading about more & more & more tragedies.

Do you really think it is fair for YOU to 'feel' safer while others are dying at those rates?

Once again... the USA leads ALL nations in both per capita guns and gun deaths per 100,000. Isn't it time to try the other path?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:46 PM

The Wild West wasn`t all that wild. Most of what we think we know is the product of Hollywood fiction. fwiw

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:25 PM

`You folks who think you can really protect yourself by owning a weapon are in delusion.`

You may be right, Stringsinger. Any proof for that contention?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:23 PM

The next felon who tries to take you out knows how to use a Glock better than you do because that's his job. In the meantime, a thirtyshot clip can do a lot more damage than for just two macho John Wayners who get into a gun battle. You folks who think you can really protect yourself by owning a weapon are in delusion.

This whole thread begs the question about keeping the guns out of the hands
of nuts and ideologues. The whole of the U.S. is turning into Dodge City.

The NRA doesn't care about people since people kill people and not guns, so they mis-state. Guns didn't invent themselves, they were made for people to kill people, not just for hunting. I never have heard of a knife that had a semi-automatic thirty shot clip or a useful Glock device for killing quite a few people at one time.

When the PTSD hits some of the returning veterans, making Glocks available
on the Gun Show Market, you will see more tragedies like those in Arizona.

There are ways the NRA has made it easy for criminals and the insane
to get these weapons through buying the U.S. Congress and Senate.

No Founding Father, including Jefferson, ever conceived of the ingenious ability of
mankind to kill each other. BTW, there's nothing in the Second Amendment that mentions using rifles for hunting either.

You want the Wild West back? You got it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:08 PM

Gnu, I agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:58 PM

Guns don`t kill people. Bullets do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:54 PM

Bill D... "How would 99% of criminals or various dangerous/deranged people KNOW you were ready and armed? There is no database of..."

Good lord man! Read the posts. THAT is THE POINT!!!! They WOULD NOT KNOW!!!... if the laws allowed home defense with a gun. It ain't rocket science. THAT is why criminals did NOT used to waltz in. But, if they know law abiding... oh, what is the use? BTW, there is a database in Canada because we have gun registration and owner "registration".

Bill D... "olddude & Don M make a very good case for NOT having guns "at the ready"... they are people who I don't 'totally' agree with, but I'd feel safe knocking on their door. I'm not sure I'd be quite so easy about knocking on the door of someone who feels as you seem to."

That's just silly... inane... beyond response.

Bill D... "You quote me:"Bill D... "IF one has weapons right at hand..(as a friend of mine used to do 45 years ago) it requires extraordinary care and training to stay even reasonably safe, and few laws are in place to require that degree of care."

then you say:
"No, it doesn't"

I 'think' you are saying that it isn't hard to be safe with guns "at the ready"....and you seem to be in favor of Canadian laws allowing loaded & ready guns. I cannot believe that most average folks would manage to defend themselves properly, even IF it were 'allowed'. I would bet that relaxing the laws would INCREASE sad statistics...but I hope we never have to test that bet."

I can't speak for "most average folks" but I can speak for me... if you break down my door and come into my house with a gun or a knife or a crew yer goin out feet first.

You would bet that allowing people to defend their homes and families would increase sad statistics... I disagree... less defenseless people would be subject to robbery, rape and murder.

Ìf you don`t wanna come to my house, fine with me. I just wish you would stand outside my door and keep out the criminals. Of course, you can`t... nor can you provide police security to do so.

That`s it. I really gotta go on accounta this thread is a replay of many and it is going nowhere fast. Take the guns away from law abiding citizens and there will be lawlessness. It`s a fact. Whether it`s common criminals or political criminals. It is history. This ain`t fuckin Star Trek.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:19 PM

olddude, this might be the time for YOU to get a clue as to what you are talking about.

Perhaps what you say is true where you are, but there are police departments all over the country and they ALL have their own rules as to the use of Tasers, Mace, pepper spray, and such. And they all have their own rules as to when and when not to use deadly force to stop a suspect, whether threatening or attempting to flee.

There are also (at least here in Seattle—and most other municipalities I know about) police review boards whose job it is to investigate any incident in which a police officer—AND, if I am correct, any private citizen—discharges a firearm, save in such locations as the range at the Kenmore Gun Club. And there are civilian review boards that oversee the procedures of the police review board.

An acquaintance of mine got hauled up before a police review board because he inadvertently found himself on the scene where the police were trying to apprehend a couple (man and wife) fleeing from a crime scene (hit-and-run). The couple had just come out of a tavern, and they were staggering drunk. They got into their car and as they drove off, they sideswiped another parked car. They stopped to assess the damage, and noting that, despite the expensive gouge in the unoccupied parked car, their car was undamaged, so they fell back into their car and were preparing to drive off.

Two police officers who were sitting in their squad car parked nearby, saw the whole thing and, through the bull-horn mounted on the top of the squad car, ordered them to stop. They hesitated a few seconds, then started to make a run for it. My acquaintance drew his Colt .45 automatic (for which he had a concealed weapon permit), stepped out in front of their car, and in a spread-legged crouch and a two-handed hold, pointed his gun at their windshield. They hit the brakes and came to a screeching halt, horrified. But—they could have probably simply run him down before he had a chance to pull the trigger.

And if he had pulled the trigger, he definitely would have been run down!

Trying to play "cowboy" can get you killed!

The police arrested the couple. Drunk driving, hit-and-run, attempting to flee from the police—the book!

By the way, it would not have mattered that much if the couple HAD got away (barring the possibility of further auto accidents). The two policemen had already written down their license number.

But they also arrested my acquaintance. His gun was confiscated and his concealed weapons permit was rescinded. He could have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Driving while intoxicated and hit-and-run, grievous offenses that they are, are generally not considered serious enough to justify the use, or the threat to use, deadly force in order to apprehend the perpetrators.

As for being threatened with deadly force:

"Deadly force" is not an either-or thing. If someone is pointing a gun at me, that's one thing. But if he's coming at me with a switchblade knife or nunchucks, that's quite a different level of "deadly force." Could kill me just as dead as a firearm, but he has to get close enough to me to make effective use of his weapon.

Here's something to point a brain cell or two at:   by the time you're aware that there is a gun involved, chances are that his gun is already out and pointed at you. Now, you CAN try to play "Fast Draw McGraw," but the odds are that you are going to wind up face down in the dust in the main street of Tombstone. Very romantic. Very historical. Also, very dead!

And that's just as true whether you are armed with a Glock and a little red wagon piled high with 17-round magazines OR a can of Mace.

Now is the time to negotiate! That doesn't mean you can't be sneaky. But if you go for your Glock when he's already got a bead on you, chances are you'll earn yourself another eye between the two you already have. Again:   negotiate!

By the way—I'm reading a lot of the same stuff from a couple of people here about the "right to carry" and the use of "deadly force" that I used to hear coming from my gung-ho, too-much-testosterone, gun-toting acquaintance.

Don Firth

P. S. I dropped out of the NRA when I became fully aware of how obstructive the organization was (is) when it comes to matters of trying to enact, both nationally and locally, reasonable legal restraints on the ownership and wielding of firearms.

Who the hell NEEDS a "street sweeper" for hunting deer or defending their home from burglars? How many burglars are you anticipating, really? Oh, that many!?? Well, maybe it would be more intelligent to move to a safer neighborhood.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999----- --sorry for the sixth time today.
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:09 PM

`You can only use deadly force if your life is in imminent danger. If you can stop someone without using deadly force. IE your life is not in imminent danger then you will go to jail for murder be it police officer or civilian if you use your weapon.`


I wish someone had told that to the RCMP foursome who murdered a man in the Vancouver airport a while back.

That`s not aimed at you specifically, Dan. BTW, they used a taser on him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:08 PM

`You can only use deadly force if your life is in imminent danger. If you can stop someone without using deadly force. IE your life is not in imminent danger then you will go to jail for murder be it police officer or civilian if you use your weapon.`


I wish someone had told that to the RCMP foursome who murdered a man in the Vancouver airport a while back.

That`s not aimed at you specifically, Dan. BTW, they used a taser on him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:19 PM

Don, I didn't tut at you. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:19 PM

Police officers are trained to use a taser and pepper spray to subdue a person in regard to an unruly or uncooperative subject. They are trained to Never use a taser or pepper spray for a deadly force situation. If you pull a knife on a police officer I assure you he will shoot you, likewise if you attempt to pull a gun he will do the same. It is all situation dependent, if there is enough distance and a knife is involved an officer will order you to drop it. If you do not as in the case of the guy in DC outside the White House 10 years ago or so, they will shoot you. You can only use deadly force if your life is in imminent danger. If you can stop someone without using deadly force. IE your life is not in imminent danger then you will go to jail for murder be it police officer or civilian if you use your weapon.

Any person police or not that has a loaded weapon near their bed is insane and it will end up in a tragic situation. I am sorry to hear that but a reasonable person who is highly trained won't do that unless the area they live it is so dangerous that they have little choice. In which case I would move.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:09 PM

Some of us hear you loud & clear, Don.....but it is a bit like preaching to the choir.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:07 PM

tut tut

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:01 PM

Used to be a member of the NRA, olddude. And it would be easy enough for me to look up the CURRENT gun laws in various states. I AM internet literate. I've engaged in this argument--from both sides--so many times it bores me to tears.

And you ARE getting a bit abusive here.

One of my aunts was married to a policeman who insisted that when he was working (night shift), she keep a gun in the drawer of the bedside table.

One night he got off early. She heard someone enter the house quietly, tip-toe up the stairs, and come into the bedroom. She sat there on the bed holding the gun with a two-hand hold as he had taught her. Had it not been for a street light glinting on the buttons of his uniform, she would have blown him away.

I can cite a number of REAL incidents, but I fully realize the futility of it.

There is this:   You don't have to use deadly force to stop someone else from using deadly force. All you need to do is STOP them before they can do so. A Taser or a can of Mace can do that quite effectively. A swift kick in the family jewels is also quite effective. It doesn't take much imagination to work out a whole variety of options.

But as I say, I fully realize the futility of what I'm saying.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 10:31 PM

and where do you get off saying handguns are illegal in New York State. They are absolutely legal, YOU NEED A LICENSE ... may help if you knew what you were talking about

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 10:24 PM

Feel free to meet the next felon who wants to take you out with a happy folk song or you can try the "please please don't hurt me" see what that gets ya. Me I will have a glock my choice ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 10:19 PM

What you do Don is don't shoot someone by mistake, you use deadly force in live and death nothing more PERIOD. any person that tried to meet deadly force with non lethal force is a fucking fool who won't survive it

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 09:50 PM

Well, Don... That is were we need to take the wild west (rightie) nation...

How to do that is another problem???

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 09:20 PM

One can blow off the idea of non-lethal deterrents such as the Taser by saying that it's illegal in New York (I thought handguns are illegal in New York), but the Taser is not the only one. As Ebbie mentioned, for example, Mace or pepper spray, or similar products designed for the purpose.

You can't put a .45 ACP semi-automatic on "stun" like Captain Kirk can his phaser, and once you've shot someone—by mistake—the deed is done.

I wouldn't want to have to live with that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 08:30 PM

Well, Bill... Here's the deal... To the NRA the CDC is some commie organization...

No, we need to start from scratch... Just like the Repubs say we have to do on health care reform... Progressives should use the same exact tactics and push for an independent international agency to come in and do the research and give the American people the truth...

It's a sad commentary on out politics when no one, even if they are correct, is trusted in the US of A... But we have become such a corrupt nation that this is what it may take on a lot of different big issues...

We are no better a lot of 3rtd World countries when it comes to telling the people the truth...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 08:09 PM

C'mon Bobert... The Center for Disease Control has no dog in this fight! All they do is try to make life better and collect stats!

People in other countries would have to use stats from here in order to do any analysis

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 07:26 PM

The problem is that everyone is arguing from positions that have little to do with reality...

I mean, yeah, Bill linked a few sites that have stats... I don't believe any stat that originates in the US when it comes to gun control...

I want an independent consulting firm from a neutral country to come in, do the work and then tell the American people what the **facts** are in regards to gun ownership... Nothin' else... I don't give art's ass about any bogus stat that is out there being used by either side...

We need a truce and then we need to get real information... The American people aren't stupid... They are just ignorant...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 06:33 PM

That's because all of you are concerned about perfectly understandable things, but you're probably a lot more wrapped up in articulating your specific angle on it than anything else....and you may be assuming that the other people are for something extreme that they they are in fact not for...but who will ever find out?...because people are too busy emphasizing their particular point to have much energy left over for thinking about other stuff.

Furthermore, how much talk would it take to get everyone in this discussion to agree on every single point? ;-) Or to put it another way, how many bucketfulls dumped out on a given beach would ever succeed in emptying the sea?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 06:15 PM

LIke watchin' a danged NASCAR race...

Round and round and round we go...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 06:12 PM

I dunno, gnu... you SAY:

"Again, you make NO sense. The opposite is true. If the criminals KNOW you can defend yourself with deadly force they do NOT come into your home to steal your guns."

How would 99% of criminals or various dangerous/deranged people KNOW you were ready and armed? There is no database of

olddude & Don M make a very good case for NOT having guns "at the ready"... they are people who I don't 'totally' agree with, but I'd feel safe knocking on their door. I'm not sure I'd be quite so easy about knocking on the door of someone who feels as you seem to.

You quote me:"Bill D... "IF one has weapons right at hand..(as a friend of mine used to do 45 years ago) it requires extraordinary care and training to stay even reasonably safe, and few laws are in place to require that degree of care."

then you say:
"No, it doesn't"

I 'think' you are saying that it isn't hard to be safe with guns "at the ready"....and you seem to be in favor of Canadian laws allowing loaded & ready guns. I cannot believe that most average folks would manage to defend themselves properly, even IF it were 'allowed'. I would bet that relaxing the laws would INCREASE sad statistics...but I hope we never have to test that bet.
..............................................

Don..."If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." is quite trite, but not true, because we are nowhere near that situation.

There are many, many honest people who DO have guns and who will not give them up, even IF they are outlawed. We can't really debate those kind of "what ifs" these days. I KNOW that some sort of gun ownership is here to stay. I am not happy about that, but it is far to late to limit things like England (and other countries)has done. We still have LOTS of limits on police searches.
   All *I* am trying to do is debate how the overall problem can be eased. I think there ARE ways...but it would require 'some' regulation ..both in who can acquire guns and in types & styles. ...and in ammunition.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 04:07 PM

Bill

The old saw from many years ago is true, "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." It's trite but true.

The only way to monitor who has what and it what condition is by random spot checks and that will require the police having the right to break into a home and search and seize. They would be doing this prior to evidence of a broken law(with out probable cause). And that would be breaking at least three Articles in The Bill of Rights.

Of course if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry. (That was sarcasm in case no one could hear it.)

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 03:51 PM

I should point out, I no longer have kids here. Now if I get visitors, then the firearm again goes in the safe dismantled. Kids and guns in the house that are not secure, impossible to manage safely .. never ..
every police officer I know does the same thing when they have kids. Now just me and my wife, sure she knows how to load a clip and knows where it is but again, the other measures would give plenty of time to call the police.

By the way, a taser, pepper spray and the like are illegal in many states. a taser in NY is illegal

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 03:42 PM

When my kids were young GNU, I would not at anytime risk having access to a functioning home firearm. For home defense I have a security system, several dogs and with my training I could fend off pretty much anything if I knew something was coming. (by the way, a noisy dog is better than any high price security system) You will know if someone is trying to break in for sure. No way would I risk my kids. Now if I lived along, different story entirely, I would have access for sure. My concern was not so much at home invasion since I am and always was pretty well protected via those measures. It was when I was out and about .

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 03:10 PM

Arrrggghhhh... I can't stay away.

Bill D... "IF most Canadians had the right to own guns for 'self defense' you'd have the same problem the US has, with criminals and potential criminals also finding it easier to acquire guns."

Again, you make NO sense. The opposite is true. If the criminals KNOW you can defend yourself with deadly force they do NOT come into your home to steal your guns.

Bill D... "It seems to me that IF guns are locked up like Don does...with ammo in a separate room, this means that they are only used for hunting or target shooting...etc., and would essentially be useless in 'home defense'."

Ahhhh... that is what I have been saying!

Bill D... "IF one has weapons right at hand..(as a friend of mine used to do 45 years ago) it requires extraordinary care and training to stay even reasonably safe, and few laws are in place to require that degree of care."

No, it doesn't. As for laws in the US, I cannot comment.

999... "Guns locked up, period."

Yup, and here's the kicker...ammo locked up separately. So, If you have to "unlock" the gun and the ammo separately, it means you are pretty much screwed in a home invasion. The only chance you have is the jury delcaring you innocent despite the fact they know you are guilty. And, BTW, alive. Of course, I live in Canada and a judge can find you guilty no matter what the foreman says.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 02:59 PM

Don Firth brings up a subject that is pertinent. Why use a gun? Why keep a gun for protection? In an emergency, a fired gun is expected to be the ultimate answer- a case of applying capital punishment whether or not it was a capital offense.

There is no recource to a fired gun.

Why not use a temporary disabler? Why not a Taser or a Mace or any of a number of other things that are meant to stop an offender in his/her tracks?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 02:56 PM

By the way, both of my .9mms have eight-round magazines (nine with one up the spout) and came with a spare magazine. Apart from a widespread bloody riot or revolution, in a personal defense situation, I can't imagine having to fire more than a couple of shots at most.

Unless I had gone totally crackers and planned on depopulating my local shopping mall, I can't imagine needing something like a Glock on full auto and a little red wagon full of drum magazines.

Why the Billy Hell are these things available to anyone who walks into a gun shop, anyway!??

(Sheer, raw, unadulterated, irresponsible stupidity!!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 02:54 PM

A glance at this thread gives me an enormous feeling of relief that we are an Atlantic's width distant from the United States.
A couple of years ago in a radio interview, an American journalist living here in Ireland claimed that it was the DUTY of all rural residents to own a firearm, The same lady had lost her job as a columnist for the Irish Times a few years earlier, for describing the para-olympics (a sporting event for the disabled), as grotesque - sums it all up really!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 02:40 PM

It IS illegal in Canada. Guns locked up, period.

Only an idiot would keep a handgun available to little hands. Loaded or unloaded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 02:39 PM

I own several handguns. Two .9mm semi-automatics, two .38 Special revolvers (2" barrels), a small .380 cal. (European .9mm short) semi-automatic (Walther PPK), and a couple of .22s, one a high quality target pistol.

Training? Yes, as the guest of a friend at the Seattle Police Athletic Association range:   formal competitive target shooting and simulated combat situations. I have a license to carry a concealed weapon, and for reasons which I now consider totally unnecessary, I did for a few years.

A handgun is a very "one-way" sort of thing. If you misjudge a situation (and there are many tragic instances of this on record), there's no way of erasing it.

If I felt that I needed to "pack heat" these days, I'd carry something like THIS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 02:38 PM

olddude & Don... those are all reasonable ideas. How do we monitor all those who do not & WILL not get training and keep guns locked up safely?

It seems to me that IF guns are locked up like Don does...with ammo in a separate room, this means that they are only used for hunting or target shooting...etc., and would essentially be useless in 'home defense'. IF one has weapons right at hand..(as a friend of mine used to do 45 years ago) it requires extraordinary care and training to stay even reasonably safe, and few laws are in place to require that degree of care.

(My friend once had a .45 fall out of his hip pocket onto the floor in the university cafeteria. His defense? "the safety was on!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 02:17 PM

Hi Bill

My guns are in one room and the ammunition is in the safe in my shop.
Safe gun ownership has responsibilities attached to it as has often been stated.

Loaded guns with in easy reach of ANYBODY is stupid. Loaded pistols in the bedside drawer are just as stupid. Unfortunately that kind of stupid isn't illegal everywhere.

D

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 02:08 PM

Bill
that is one problem I have, training , training, and more training should indeed be required. When my kids were little. My firearms were locked up. In addition, I pulled the bolts and slides out and locked them in the safe. Ammo was locked up and secure. Now you just have an empty pipe instead of a weapon. People should be required safety training. I don't think that is unreasonable at all. Far too many accidents I think also

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:59 PM

Bobert- The Center for Disease Control is just about as neutral as I can find.
You do have to do some searching to ask it what stats you want.


this guy uses it to argue some points

This one lists death from many causes, including homicides and accidental gun deaths.

Here is a graph of the numbers of gun deaths per year as compared with the number of households owning guns in various countries. The USA is WAY out there with no competition.

If you search a bit, you can find arguments in favor of retaining the 2nd amendment as is, and using some of the same statistics to argue FOR the usefulness of guns for protection. The ones I found started with clear statistics, then made statements analyzing them to assert things like 'decrease of accidental gun deaths in relation to population'. They go on, like this site to simply state that limiting guns is useless because 'criminals think a certain way'. If you look carefully at that page, you see someone simply seeing what he wishes to see and mixing statistics with pre-conceived opinions.

I read ALL sides of this, and try to see the viewpoint of gun advocates, but they lose me when they interpret the statistics from a subjective viewpoint instead of just presenting them for comparison.

When you look objectively at what happens in the US... every day and every year..., it is hard to swallow just because we have this history of 'frontier mentality'. Things are different than they were in 1789...or in 1890. There is still a place for hunting or collecting histroical guns...etc... but NOT for loaded weapons in urban bedroom drawers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:56 PM

The way things are now, any informative TV show about the Amish is likely to increase violence against them by alerting various not-too-bright people that the Amish are a target that won't fight back. It's sad.

There was a movie with Harrison Ford in it back in the 80's about the Amish called "Witness", and it was absolutely great...not only a good thriller, but a tremendously moving love story.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:36 PM

Now Chongo, I seen you with that AK-47 peppering the side of that old abandoned barn after riding there on your chopped out Hog ... so you got no room to talk there fella

Ebbie
absolutely right, I know lots of Amish and they fear nothing. I am only stating what the truth is, they protect themselves by night "shut in" their words not mine. PBS had a great documentary on the Amish. They feel what happens in life is Gods will and they accept it. According to the PBS special the rise in violence against them has increased dramatically over the last decade. My point, one doesn't have to be a victim to also love peace.

:-) Dan

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:22 PM

Aw hell, what would life BE without a little recreational outrage? I got no intention of givin' up MY recreational outrage privileges to some limp-wristed liberal do-gooder namby-pamby flower sniffers who want everybody to make nice all the time and sweep the crumbs under the carpet and pretend the stiff in the hallway is just sleepin'! No sir. Not me. Nor am I givin' my recreational outrage privileges up to some cigar-chompin', NASCAR-watchin', Palin-worshippin' Chuck Norriss wannabee who thinks he's tough cos he opens beer cans with his teeth. Them idiots don't impress me one bit.

I take the bull by the horns every time. When ANYONE disagrees with me about ANYTHING, I know that, number one: he's a parboiled idiot first class, number two: there's no point payin' attention to nothin' he says about nothin', and number three: it's time to give him a good piece of my mind! Yessir.

Recreational outrage is good for the soul, it quickens the blood, it strengthens the heart, and it's fun too. I get a real charge out of readin' the idiotic, moronic things people say about automatic weapons and other neat stuff like that and then pointin' out in no uncertain terms that everything they just said is a buncha complete hooey.

If that don't shut 'em up, I turn to personal insults and observances about their obvious shortcomings. Then I drag in a buncha unrelated stuff like all the other stupid things that I know for sure that they must believe in or they woudn't have had the nerve to disagree with me in the first place about the first thing. It is crystal clear to me that they MUST believe in every stupid thing under the sun, probably always have, and there simply ain't no hope for 'em to ever smarten up, so I don't feel the least bit bad or guilty about tellin' 'em just how stupid I think they are.

I enjoy it. It's excitin' and invigoratin' (specially when I'm out at the bars...), and it helps me know who my enemies are. (I got a lot of enemies.) You wanna know exactly who yer enemies are in this life, cos if you didn't they might take you by surprise. Forewarned is forearmed, and if yer armed with an automatic, so much the better.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:54 PM

olddude, 10:49: "Every night they do "a shut in" locked their families behind closed doors and pray they are not going to be robbed or killed."

I can't speak with assurance as to current conditions or in regards to the most densely populated areas, Oldster, but the Amish are not a fearful people and they have always prayed for God's protection in the night and in the day and on a trip and when saying goodbye- well, you get the idea.

I think the Amish, as a culture, have always been aware of the transitory nature of earthly life and I would be very surprised to learn that things had changed that much in recent years.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:51 PM

Ya' know, what gets lost here are some statistics on the number of folks killed by guns in homes that have them verses the homes that don't... There was a study conducted years ago that gave some very alarming statistics on this... Of course the NRA SCREAMED it out of the conversation... I'm generally not into stats because most of what you read in the way of them is complete BS but statisticians can be helpful when they do not have an axe to grind...

I mean, I'd just like to see an independent consulting firm from a "neutral country" come in and give the American people the ***facts***... I mean, this idea that the NRA puts out that guns save lives is also, I suspect, bogus...

I mean, folks are debating and forming opinions based on mythology...

Just the facts, please... And just the facts on the health care reform bill... And alot of other stuff... It's such a shame that in this information age that we have so much bullshit that reasonable people are holding stupid opinions on stuff based on complete mythology???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:50 PM

Careful, guys! This thread, indeed this very subject could drag any one of you at any moment into the wellnigh inescapable morass of......(drum roll)......


Recreational Outrage!!!!

Yes, Recreational Outrage! it's lurking and waiting to take over your mind, wear out your fingers with furious typing, disarrange your emotional state, turn your mood really ugly, give you more grey hairs, and utterly poison several of your longtime online relationships! It could even lead to threatening PMs!

Recreational Outrage! It's smellier than Shane's socks, darker than octopus ink, more common than falling hair, more vile than halitosis, more unsavoury than haggis, deadlier than the Grympen Mire.

Don't be dragged under! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:46 PM

Sounds like a decent deal...especially if you make motorcycles stop at stop signs too...

Now that WE have some agreement, who's gonna tell the rest of 'em? :>(

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:07 PM

and Bill no loopholes ok, the limits apply to motorcycles and all vehicles. And I won't make any wheelguns with 30 rounds either .. fair?

then we gotta deal
:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:47 AM

Bill if you are willing to limit horsepower, then I am willing to give up semi-auto's and limit magazine clips and such. Compromise works ..
:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 11:32 AM

I am willing to have limits put on the horsepower of cars. I would be willing to see the waste of fuel in NASCAR races eliminated. They already are at the limit of what tracks can handle. Let them start over and race electric cars...or solar power cars.
   Yes, I know all that has as much chance as banning guns....but I DO see that rules could be changed to make highways safer. That wasn't the issue here...but fine, let's control it. *I* would be willing to have every car equipped with an remote shutdown device, and a shutdown trigger in every police car. Modern technology can provide specific signals to unlock your car doors, and I'm sure it could allow police to 'see' the signal of speeding cars and let them slow one down to 30 MPH, or even shut it off. Let's propose it....and then listen to the screams of protest from drivers who don't want their 'rights' to drive like idiots curtailed. Don't you think lobbyists for Detroit would object as loudly as lobbyists for the NRA?

But fine...let's try. I'll back you, even though it is NOT the same issue as guns, which are NOT required for daily commerce in most peoples lives.
------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry that this is so personal for you, gnu...but I do feel you miss my point... IF most Canadians had the right to own guns for 'self defense' you'd have the same problem the US has, with criminals and potential criminals also finding it easier to acquire guns. Having a gun does automatically make you safer....and those 'stats' show that average folks have MORE chance of being injured by their own guns in an accident than being hurt by an intruder. It's hard to grasp when friends are gone and you wish something could have prevented it. If you read this and do not care to reply, be assured I will see why and that I DO see your concerns.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Ok Don M... I DO see that your position is fairly moderate, and you & I could probably agree on a lot of points. We'd have to negotiate on some, though....

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 10:49 AM

As we have the same laws Don that deal with firearms, enforce those like the speeding laws.

By the way, In Lancaster, the largest group that is victimized by violent crime is the Amish. First of all everyone knows they are not nor ever will be armed. They don't defend themselves, they have no telephone. A dream for criminals. Every night they do "a shut in" locked their families behind closed doors and pray they are not going to be robbed or killed.

I admire their dedication to non violence, but that dedication is foolish also. One doesn't have to be a victim to be peaceful and walk the path of righteousness either.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 10:10 AM

Bill D... "IF Canada had allowed defense with guns, it means that, by default, it would also have more offense by guns."

Makes NO sense whatsoever.

The fact that criminals KNOW that law abiding citzens cannot legally defend their families and homes with guns allows them to commit robbery, rape and murder. It is a fact.

I am outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:02 AM

The ability to drive fast and take chances is not a right it is a privilege. If the population voted it in and it was signed into law I'd obey it because it makes sense to do so. But we have laws against speeding, driving recklessly, and while impaired. Why not fully enforce instead of letting people off because.... pick your excuse.

D

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:01 AM

Why then are you not outraged that people build and sell cars that go 180 MPH. Nowhere on any US highway can you go more than 70 or so MPH. yet every single day some crazy bastard rockets down the highway and kills a whole bunch on innocent people. Compare to a crazy bastard that once every so many years flips out and starts shooting people. However there are far more crazies traveling 100 or so down a public highway everyday and you see it everyday on the news. using your logic no car should be made that allows those speeds so where is the outrage at that I ask? I see little difference if the whole idea is the protection of the general public, their safety and well being as you point out here. Even easier is the fact that the constitution does not give anyone the right to a car like firearms are given

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:40 AM

More people die from car accidents caused by excessive speeding in this country than all other accidents or deliberate shootings combined by 10 fold. I think we need to mandate the installation of a governor on every automobile so that no car can operate over 70 mph on the freeway or 40 through a town or village. That will reduce the killing by 10 fold over the limit on any magazine from any handgun. Do you support that also , if not why not?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:32 AM

Don
A Louisville Slugger is a fine option and you sure won't have to deal with gun safes and trigger locks etc. I tend to stick with Sam Colt or a Glock but that option is a fine choice for many. A whole lot easier to handle also and requires little training.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:17 AM

Reread my posts Bill.

I have never said I was in support of people have guns to protect their homes from anybody. Even tho' I run a manufacturing jewelry business and I have precious metals and gem stones in the house.

I said I was in favor of the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights. I said I was in favor of strict   gun ownership laws installed and enforced on a national basis. (I mean to say hand guns) I was in favor of strict enforcement of those laws. I said I was in favor of laws prohibiting over capacity magazines. And in favor of required gun use training before a permit is issued.

As far as protecting a home from invasion that's up to each person to do on their own with the technique they choose. Mine is a Louisville Slugger.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:33 PM

...and as I try to read the news of the day that I missed...

this

They didn't go away and buy fertilizer and rent a truck......

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 08:26 PM

"... they might be alive...."

Yes... might.....

Those are terrible stories. I hate that anyone has to hear that about a friend.... but *I* would rather face a sledgehammer than a 30 shot magazine Glock. IF Canada had allowed defense with guns, it means that, by default, it would also have more offense by guns.

   What can we do but try to maximize the greatest odds for the most people?

I truly have no answer for the traits in some humans that lead them to do horrendous things to others.... but I watch everyday the results when modern weapons are easily available to the evil as well as the good.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 05:39 PM

Bill D... "gnu and Don & OldDude...and others... who argue FOR self-protection by owning, carrying or showing guns. The 'stats' just do not bear you out as pertains to the country in general."

Okay... my buddy had his head cut off and his wife was slashed to death. Another buddy (77 years old) had his head flattened to unrecognizible with a sledgehammer.

Fuck the stats. If they had been ALLOWED, under the laws of Canada, to defend their homes with a gun they might be alive. They didn't even HAVE to own a gun. The fact that they were not ALLOWED to defend their homes with a gun makes ALL the difference in the world.

You stay safe... and lucky... good luck with that. I buy lotto tickets too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:50 PM

The vets could take anything they could ship home. No kidding after WWII. don't know if they were suppose to but nobody stopped them. I know several that still have their 30.06 they carried in the Pacific. One here in town

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:47 PM

"an old vets WWII flame thrower"

Did they allow people to take those kind of things home with them when they were demobbed?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:21 PM

Especially if ya use it at night.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:18 PM

I was watching a TV show where a gunsmith restored an old vets WWII
flame thrower, Now that would get some bad guys attention. A bit hard to conceal I think however.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:11 PM

"it is good to be an armed civilian in this country ... at least your chances of being one of those stats is a whole lot less. "

But a very big whole lot more than if you were living in most comparable places...

However I tend to think there's something in your gun lobby's "guns don't kill people, people kill people". There seems to be something about the USA - compared to, say, Switzerland where gun ownership is higher, that makes you more likely to kill each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 03:47 PM

gnu and Don & OldDude...and others... who argue FOR self-protection by owning, carrying or showing guns. The 'stats' just do not bear you out as pertains to the country in general.

For every instance of one clever or lucky person who DOES manage to thwart a crime by showing or using a gun, there are dozens of deaths or injuries incurred because they were not 'quite' clever, fast or lucky enough when the criminal DID have one. Add to this the hundreds of casualties every year among those who were simply victims because some dangerous person did have one, and the 'stats' simply show that some are 'slightly' increasing their own odds **at the expense of** the majority who are not willing or able to be a trained user.

I just watched (not one hour ago) a couple of videos of security camera video of criminals terrorizing a small business. They entered suddenly and hit, threatened, and in one case shot, a clerk who resisted.
Now, stories of clerks who produced a gun and managed to scare or shoot a robber make very good news stories... especially if it's an old lady... but the dozens of stories every week about clerks who resisted and got SHOT, which don't make the news, are the 'stats' which are relevant.

We are not likely to reduce the number of dangerous people anytime soon.....we could reduce the number and type of gun & ammo available....but as long as people continue to assert THEIR 'rights' and intention to be (or at least 'feel' minimally safer personally, no matter what happens to those mostly nameless, faceless victims who make up the 'stats', we (especially in the US where the % of deaths per 100,000 is 3-10 times most countries) will keep reading sad stories... and having this discussion.
Until MOST gun owners agree to and openly support some serious changes...even if it means losing 'some' of their privileges, nothing much will change.

(and, dammit, Tim McVeigh's totals were only about 10 days worth of GUN deaths. If 4-5 bombs like that happened, you'd have to have FBI clearance to buy fertilizer! Meanwhile, we get mass shootings 3-4 times a year, and shooting of police many more times, and NOTHING is done. Can you tell I am tired of slippery arguments designed to weakly defend what folks have decided to believe, no matter what the contrary evidence staring them in the face?)

I better go watch a golf match or something....

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 03:25 PM

No. It's safer in Canada with your Gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 03:20 PM

Jon... so, Yanks are better shots?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 02:53 PM

Bill D... "THINK about it! People post that they "want to defend their home". Against what?"

Against this.

And, my friend didn't answer the doorbell.

I'll say it again, the Canuck laws have allowed home invasions to become far too frequent.... it's not just nutbars... it's organized crime.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 02:32 PM

Homicides per 100,000 from Wikipedia for the countries 999 listed earlier. (England and Scotland combined). Have added 999's gun homicides.

                 Total    Gun
  USA            5.0      3.98
  Italy          1.2*     0.81
  Switzerland    0.7*     0.50
  Canada         1.8      0.40
  Finland        2.5*     0.35
  Australia      1.2*     0.24
  France         1.4*     0.21
  UK             1.3*     0.11
  Japan          0.5      0.02

* Excludes attempts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 02:05 PM

Hi Bill,

Rigging a truck to explode is not easier than pulling a gun. But of course Tim Killed more people than he could have with a pistol. The point is as you noticed that people bent on killing will kill with what ever handy weapon there is.

I would love to see a weapon less world but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

D

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 01:52 PM

Everyone should invest in a "Ma Deuce" Now that is protection.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 01:35 PM

The stats prove one thing, it is good to be an armed civilian in this country ... at least your chances of being one of those stats is a whole lot less.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 01:31 PM

Also in the midst of a civil war, pdq... You fail to take that into consideration... I mean, if you are going to compare countries then comparing the US to Mexico is flawed thinkin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 01:28 PM

...yep...poor little Mexico...

Mexico, land area: 15th

Mexico, population: 11th (about 15 mil behind Japan)

Mexico, total wealth: 11th

Mexico, Gross Domestic Product: 9th

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 12:45 PM

Gol danged... Having to use figures from 3rd World undeveloped countries, or Mexico which has a major civil war going on between the drug cartels and the government, to justify our murder rates is, in itself, purdy scary...

What next... Justifying our poor health standards against these same 3rd World countries??? Our school system???

Geeze...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 12:36 PM

I just found this gem on the ol' www...
      

Behram, an Indian cult leader was the worst serial killer in recorded history. He was found guilty of murdering 931 people between 1790 and 1830. He reportedly strangled his victims with a cloth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 12:32 PM

"short tempers and bad judgement"

pithy phrase, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:55 AM

Don M... you said yesterday:

"Well Bill the genie is out of the bottle no doubt. And guns are here. If not guns something else cabable of mayhem will work for those wishing to do mayhem. It doesn't take a gun and frankly it is probably easier without one. Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun. He used a rented truck and farm supplies."

No... it is NOT easier without one. You simply made an assertion which is not supported by fact. Rigging high explosives is work and requires some technical knowledge....and frankly, it is not how most criminal minds work. Most gun deaths are family or street violence or during robberies or targeting specific individuals for 'personal' reasons. You do not go rent a truck and spend weeks in preparation to target a member of another gang or to rob the 7/11.
   Besides, in contrast to continued weak laws about guns, congress passed a lot of restrictions several years ago about the purchase of ammonium nitrate. Some say those could be tighter still, but it was DONE!
   Yes...of course those bent to simply doing harm will find some way...even if they have to resort to knives or throwing rocks. But 1)we can't easily restrict knives & rocks...and 2) it is often reasonably possible to dodge or run from knives or rocks....or to simply overpower the guy. If you can remain 5 ft. from a knife wielder, he's not gonna do much damage, and a book or pillow or briefcase can be a useful defense. Those aren't terribly useful against a kid with a .38...even if it 'only' hold 5-6 rounds.
   THINK about it! People post that they "want to defend their home". Against what? Someone knocks on your door....do you answer it with a pistol in your hand? It's someone saying "my car died...can I use your phone?" Do you let them? Do you hold a gun on them while they dial?
It is a fact that a serious % of gun deaths were from guns taken FROM homes during burglaries!

I'm sorry, but the idea of "defending ones home", except in certain places, is largely a mental scenario in which one imagines some simplistic set of occurrences where you are 'threatened' and go get your trusty "2nd amendment remedy" and show those naughty boys who's boss! It-just-don't-work-that-way!

I admit...there ARE those whose daily job or routine takes them into areas or situations where being prepared is reasonable. Let THESE people be trained & licensed and thoroughly screened. Allowing anyone over 18 who hasn't been convicted of a crime 'yet' to buy all these fancy weapons is simply ensuring MORE violence from people with short tempers and bad judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:51 AM

The figures given are for murder by any means, as long as the death was intentional.

It seems fair to compare numbers from Japan and Mexico since both countries have a total ban on private ownership of gun of all types.

Chances of being murdered (intentional) in...

                     Chihuahua (disrtict of Mexico):    1 / 1350 (each year!)

                     Japan:                                           1 / 5,000,000

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:41 AM

Mexico is clearly in a considerably greater state of crisis than the USA, pdq. That shouldn't surprise anyone. I imagine the death rate from violence is a lot higher in a number of impoverished countries, but 999's list was focusing on a group of pretty affluent "first world" societies, that is, societies that should bear fairly close comparison to the USA, and if there's a major difference in violent crime rates then people should look into why that is.

I think there are many different reasons for it. Financial reasons, cultural reasons, legal reasons, commercial reasons, urban conditions, population density, educational levels, and factors associated with the prevalence of the illegal drug trade, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:40 AM

pdq, do your figures relate to gun use in the homocide, or are they to do with ALL homocides regardless of whether the means of offing the person was poison, baseball bat, etc (qm)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:33 AM

Surely "put in perspective" means compared with countries which have a broadly similar level of prosperity and settled society.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:32 AM

"They do say that if you're ready for a war, war will come."

That does sometimes happen, Ebbie. One country, for example, decides to increase the size of its fleet (as Germany began doing in the early 20th Century. Its potential competitors in that respect reacted by increasing the size of their fleets, the UK being particularly concerned that the Germans should not be allowed to rival the British Navy. The increase in launchings of new ships by the British worried the Germans, so they increased their shipbuilding even more. That really worried the English, so they redoubled their efforts to stay well ahead of the Germans....and so on...and so on...

So you had a fullblown naval race underway which cost both nations an incredible amount of money and eventually turned them into deadly enemies. All for nothing. Those bloody damned expensive ships were the main reason that the UK decided to fight the Germans in WWI....after having been allies of those same Germans for generations due to having a common enemy: France. ;-)

So in this case the fact that the Germans and British were getting ready for a war (and so was everyone else, by the way) did inevitably finally lead to a war worse than any of them could ever have imagined.

So, yes, there's something to be said for your argument.

Then there's the psychic angle of visualizing a possible future all the time and thus attracting it...but I won't get into that. It would drive the meat and potatoes people here up the wall. ;-)

Seems to me that a sensible compromise would be to have a gun, know how to use it properly, and keep it in a safe place for if you should ever need it...but not be constantly obsessed with the issue and having "Make my day!" fantasies about it. That's if you want to have a gun...

If you don't, just don't worry about it. Chances are fairly good that you will never have occasion to use one.

I think the wisest course a country can follow regarding being "ready for a war" is to maintain a relatively small military force that is clearly no overt threat to one's neighbours...but is exceedingly well trained and ready at all times if needed for defense. That's the middle ground between having an arms race and being completely unprepared.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:27 AM

Thanks to the person who fixed the table.

Good eye, LH. I don`t know how to interpret the data, but I will posit that the availability of guns leads to the use of guns as a means--a quick one--of killing oneself.

I wonder if there would be a similar co-relation in other areas not mentioned. I`ll check. I`ve spent five years of my life in northern areas, and those winters sure can be depressing. Anyway, I`ll go look.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:22 AM

The US has problems, but we need to put them in perspective.

The intentional homocide rate in the US is 5.0 per 100,000 population.

Others are..

                World          7.6

                Mexico         15

                El Salvador   71

                Chihuahua   74 (part of Mexico)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:21 AM

Well, they have an awful lot of guns in Switzerland, with people being required to have one for what in the States would be called "a well regulated militia", which is handy if they want to kill themselves. It seems Swiss people don't have this tendency to choose to use them on each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:14 AM

Interesting figures, 999. The USA is clearly a society in crisis in a number of respects.

Finland and Switzerland (as well as the USA) have a disproportionately high suicide rate. In the case of Finland, I think it may be due to the long winters causing depression, but I don't know what the cause of it would be in Switzerland.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:13 AM

Ebbie
that is why carrying a pocket watch is a lot more fun. Me I study war no more. But I still enjoy shooting targets. Also remember I was in law enforcement for a time, one better know such things when you work there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:52 AM

Sorry about the stat numbers not lining up.

It is evident from those figures that there is a problem.

---

Fixed table.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:47 AM

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

                        Homicide     Suicide     Other (inc Accident)
  
  USA (2001)            3.98         5.92        0.36
  Italy (1997)          0.81         1.1         0.07
  Switzerland (1998)    0.50         5.8         0.10
  Canada (2002)         0.4          2.0         0.04
  Finland (2003)        0.35         4.45        0.10
  Australia (2001)      0.24         1.34        0.10
  France (2001)         0.21         3.4         0.49
  England/Wales (2002)  0.15         0.2         0.03
  Scotland (2002)       0.06         0.2         0.02
  Japan (2002)          0.02         0.04        0 

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:40 AM

From Wikipedia:

Switzerland

Police statistics for the year 2006[12] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[13]

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:22 AM

I meant, of course, "before he has any gun out".

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:21 AM

Remember, Old, your man had a knife.   You said nothing about a gun.    You have to stick with your original story, or your story does become pulp fiction.   The power of your story was that it was real and happened to you.

And as I said, in your story you did not need a semi-automatic for the desired outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:14 AM

Old--

Wrong.   If you have your pistol out and pointed at his chest before he has any weapon out, as in your story, you have the advantage. And he will know this.

And   besides, your pulp-fiction type story is far less frequent than the pack-back article I cited.   My Jan says she hears about the back-pack type tragedy all the time.   It's the kind of thing they talk about on TV news--which she watches.

There is no reason for people outside the police and military to have semi-automatic pistols..

And you have provided no argument that there is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 09:24 AM

Interesting observation, McG...

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 08:30 AM

I note that while it is assumed in the Second Amendment that there is a preexisting right to "keep and bear Arms" which "shall not be infringed", there is no suggestion that there is a right to use those arms, as opposed to keeping them handy in case militia duty requires them to be produced...

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 03:24 AM

Ah, Oldster. They do say that if you're ready for a war, war will come.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:12 PM

I also know how to fight with one since along with Marshal arts, handguns, I also taught sharp edged weapons to military, police and civilians.

one learns and masters the tools of violence to be the most peaceful

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:02 PM

Oh and i carry one of those also .. it makes the best on handed fish gutting knife anywhere, especially good when my line get tangled and I have to cut out the birds nest I can do it with one hand on the pole. (spring assisted that is not an automatic) There is virtually no difference like I said except for the thumb post to push down to engage instead of a button.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:58 PM

Don a switch blade knife (technically called an automatic knife) is indeed illegal .. however one can get a collector permit ... Now a spring assisted knife, which is pretty much the exact same thing but has a thumb post instead of a button is absolutely legal ... frankly there is no difference

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:13 PM

Hey, if everyone on the plane has a gun then pull over to the next cloud and let my ass off...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:29 PM

I don't know if the law is still on the books, but one could get busted for carrying a switchblade knife.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:46 PM

I think it was Tom Clancy who--in one of his books--pointed out (through a character) that the Constitution and its Amendments was not ever meant to be a suicide pact.

The notion that people cannot defend their homes--as pointed out by Gnu (I think) is a serious flaw. The perp has no damned business being there in the first place, but bleeding hearts--I love using that term because I have been accused of it so often myself--will talk then about socio-cultural-economic backgrounds, etc. F$ck that. The time to handle that stuff is BEFORE the crime. Afterwards, it`s too late for both parties.

Weapons--and that`s what guns are--can be used as toys (target practice), tools (getting food) or offensive things. We see so much of it on TV, it`s no wonder people think it`s OK to carry guns. Most people can`t shoot worth shit, but they carry them. Meanwhile, we sure are strict on folks who get caught with nunchaku.

I wish I knew what the answer is--and I wish you folks did too. However, . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:32 PM

Years back when skyjacking entered the lexicon, Pat Paulsen suggested the way to stop it was to give loaded guns to eveyone who boarded the plane.

He was a comedian.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:18 PM

The current edition of Time Magazine (Volume 177 No. 3) has several excellent articles on the Tucson tragedy.

One, titled 'Fire Away' asks such questions as: 'How could Jared Loughner be considered too dangerous to attend community college but not too dangerous to buy a Glock? Why are we allowed to pack heat to a Safeway when we can't pack shampoo in our carry ons?'

Ebbie asks: Would we all feel safer if everyone who wished to carried guns onto our airplanes?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:04 PM

Ah, yes...recreational outrage. ;-) There's a lot of that around here. It gives restless minds much to chew on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 01:20 PM

No labels. Labels are for stupid people so they don't have to think and can just figure things out by lumping. I think we DO have people who do that here, but most of them I can think of are trolls, or are into RO*, or both.

I don't fit in a mold. I don't think most people do, but I also think most people don't get involved in threads such as this.


*RO: "Recreational Outrage" describes when a poster expresses righteous indignation and gets highly worked up (outraged) over some issue, typically some news occurrence that is completely irrelevant to the person's own life and has no effect on that poster personally. The poster derives (recreational) satisfaction from expressing outrage and moral indignation, frequently including a sense of moral superiority, thus differentiating Recreational Outrage from other forms of outrage.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 01:11 PM

`Gosh!!! Maybe that's the problem in politics these days. Ya think so?`

No, I do not. Many people, myself included, think about the issue and come down where we land on it. On many issues I`d be conservative or even ultra-conservative. On others, I`d be liberal or damned near communist. It all doesn`t fit into tidy boxes and neither do we. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 12:53 PM

I don't see why any thinking person has to define himself as either "a liberal" or "a conservative". To do so, after all, would seem to imply that rather than thinking creatively and independently and judging each situation on its own merits, he merely reacts according to a prearranged script. ;-)

Gosh!!! Maybe that's the problem in politics these days. Ya think so?

I do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 12:28 PM

Well if being a liberal (which I pretty much thought I was more of) means tossing out the Constitution or rewriting it then count me in the card carrying conservative side of the fence. Me I think those guys like Jefferson got it right all the way around. Anymore I just see way too much of this, "wow they should not be allowed to say that (bam lets get rid of freedom of speech)", Hey we don't like religion (lets get rid of the freedom of religion) and so it goes ... yup I am a card carrying conservative for sure. I like my dad's version of America I do

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 10:37 PM

Well Bill the genie is out of the bottle no doubt. And guns are here. If not guns something else cabable of mayhem will work for those wishing to do mayhem. It doesn't take a gun and frankly it is probably easier without one. Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun. He used a rented truck and farm supplies.

We have to enforce the laws as written and put away the criminals when the laws are broken. Committing a crime with a gun in Virginia must carry the same weight as committing a crime with a gun in NY. If a magazine comes with nine rounds then a magazine in same gun with ten rounds in the mag should be worth mandatory jail time. No hobbyist has the need to make a semi auto loader full auto. A person with a pistol should require a permit everywhere in the country and the permit should require training to the same strict standard everywhere in the country.

Of course that's just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:55 PM

and the so what about the little blond, well tell that to Karen and see what she says to you ... Oh gee so what I didn't get killed by a crazy fucker with a knife .. nice comment .. if it were one of your family you would think different or maybe not I don't know ya

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:53 PM

Ron your just as dead from a wheel gun as a semi auto .. no difference. your logic doesn't hold, so instead of one weapon he carries several or uses a shotgun with 9 .38 cal pellets per 5 shot magazine .. dead is dead

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:41 PM

The solution, Don, is to be very careful who we elect so as to minimize the appointment of Borks... it is not to turn every household into a militia or armed camp. My point is that even *IF* we feel safer having 'lots' of guns, and threats from Bork-inspired idiots never happen, the proliferation of violence will continue as long as guns are easily acquired.

What DO you consider a tolerable number of mass shootings?

At some point, we have to institute ways to keep the dumb & incompetent safe...we must have restrictive laws like we do with highway laws. YOU may be able to drive 100MPH safely, but most cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:15 PM

OK, fine, the little blonde was saved.    Sorry, that still does not argue in favor of people outside the military and the police having semi-automatic pistols.

So you have the pistol up against his chest.   It seems possible he may not ask if it's a single-shot gun or a semi-automatic. You don't need a semi-automatic for the desired outcome of this scenario.

And this story pales beside the steady stream of articles, with proven facts, about how semi-automatic pistols, often Glocks, are used in senseless carnage.   I'm particularly struck by the article I cited from the WSJ where a student's Glock went off in his backpack and shot two people, one girl being shot in the head.

Face it, semi-automatic pistols are much more likely to be used by the military, the police and gangsters (as well as unstable people like the AZ shooter) than by Sir Galahads.   The public good which would come from restricting them to the police and military far outweighs incidents like the blonde story.   And as I said, you don't need a semi-automatic for a happy end to that story.   Any pistol will do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:07 PM

I disagree Bill. Precedent is one of the devices used to justify all manner of laws. One of the big worries of many members of the congress was how Bork, Thomas, Souter, Roberts, and Alito would stand on Stare Decisis or settled law.

I followed carefully all those nominations.   As I recall Bork felt all decisions should be revisited. He even stated there were some decisions he had made that he would reverse given the choice. Roberts felt that settled law should be left alone unless some compelling reason said to revisit it. They all nudged around the notion that once they started revisiting settled law a precedent was set to allow constant revision of settled law. I believe this was aimed at going after Roe vs. Wade.

Does it follow that the dominoes would fall? Probably not but I don't want the opportunity to be given either.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:39 PM

Closer to 40, Bobert...but who's counting.

and gno, gnu... it is **irrelevant** what the Wiemar Republic did, or the Nazis did. We are NOT them, and we have no need or tendency to BE them. Better control over guns and ammo does NOT = 'depriving "honest" citizens of their supposed 'rights'. And I guarantee you that even if you feel 'safer' from your government and from the extremely rare home invasion, having more & more guns out there will make you LESS safe in the long run.
The more guns, the more access..legal or illegal... for those who can't be trusted and shouldn't be allowed near them!

You can NEVER 'enforce the existing laws' well enough to prevent more & more violence. You want to just play the odds that YOU will be armed, ready and alert when a criminal decides to make you a target? Fine... there are millions & millions who could not even pretend to be able to own and use a firearm safely & responsibly. We'll just let THEM suffer while all the 'responsible' gun owners sit smugly, congratulating themselves on their preparedness.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:39 PM

Yeah, gn-ze, here in the Sates it's between 80 and 90 who die every day from guns...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:19 PM

Dan... that is my main concern with Canuck gun laws. I applaud our laws with one execption, that being that the laws as written preclude "honest" citizens from defending their homes with guns. We have had an alarming rise in home invasions since the laws were put in place. I have posted to this effect on other threads, including the recount of a lad I knew who had his head cut off and his wife slashed to death.

Gun laws are good but stupid gun laws are worse. The anti-gunners just can't seem to get the logic.

Anyway, it's been done to death in many threads here and elsewhere. I have made my points many times, to no avail. I no longer have the time or patience to bother to try to reason with or educate the anti-gunners. Perhaps someday they will get their facts straight, get their shit together, get organized, get real and be a part of the solution. I ain't gonna hold my breath... while the gun manufacturers laugh all the way to the bank. People die every day because the anti-gunners can see beyond the barrel of the gun. It's sad.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:02 PM

"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, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 06:38 PM

Art... you can say it any way you want but it still happened from 1919 to 1938. Here's the first link I found.

To say that repealing the ban on ownership while requiring registration and permits regarding ownership and banning ownership by some (specifically Jews) was a "relaxing" of the laws is absurd and only detracts from the support of a compromise which may lead to a solution.

Seriously, unless the anti-gunners realize they can never win with the attitude that they cannot trust their neighbours but they can trust the government... well... they are fucked and the situation they wish resolved will worsen.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 06:15 PM

As a point of historical fact, the Nazis did not "force gun registration in the 30s". This is a myth perpetrated by those who would like gun registration (which isn't being advocated by anyone) equated with totalitarian rule. Actually, gun laws under the Nazi government of Germany were laxer than those in effect under the Wiemar Republic.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:35 PM

The Republican Party is unconstitutional because they are not mentioned in the Constitution. Same for Dems, Tory's, Whigs and other parties.

Gun battles, duels, automatic weapons, and a lot of other stuff isn't either.

The Constitution is and always will be open to someone's interpretation of what it said or meant.

I tend to trust Jefferson and Madison.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:25 PM

"Notice that very few are even hinting at banning all firearms, and NO ONE believes it is even possible."

There ya go. Shooting yerself in the foot. Why not support a law that says it is a constitutional right to own guns so that the gunners will support proper regulations to control guns and gun owners.

If ya don't, gun registration and gun owner regulations will be fought tooth and nail by the guuners all the way. The "NRA" ain't gonna let even the "possibility" of a firearm ban and confiscation happen.... and that is their main basis of support. (The Nazis forced firearm registration in the 30s so they could then contol the firearms. Much to the dismay of many.) If the anti-gunners supported a law that absolutely granted the right to own firearms (NOT automatic machine pistols and tanks) then the US could move toward a solution. Until that happens I suggest you stay alert at all times.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:35 PM

Don Meixner asked yesterday:

"Is it possible to give up the freedoms of second article of The Bill of Rights and not expect that the precedent will be set for some group to force us to give up another, like freedom of peaceable assembly or freedom of the press?
"

Of course it is, Don! That is the 'slippery slope' argument, and it just doesn't follow. Every idea must be debated on its own merits, and there is NO reason why reassessing the details of the 2nd amendment in light of societal changes would lead to limiting freedom of the press or any of the basic 'rights'.

Notice that very few are even hinting at banning all firearms, and NO ONE believes it is even possible. We simply need to qualify the ambiguities that allow the NRA to claim that almost anything is permitted.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:24 PM

Because I contracted polio at the age of two, most of my life I walked with a pair of aluminum forearm crutches. Fortunately, I've only been threatened a couple of times.

A brisk upward swing into the goolies with a crutch tends to bring such things to a quick and decisive halt.

Lots of relatively safe alternatives to packing around a piece of lethal ordnance. Being alert and having a few options in mind when a threatening situation presents itself, and not being too fastidious about the well-being of someone who physically attacks you can save the day. Did it ever occur to you that, say, sitting across a table from someone who is making threats of physical mayhem, if you're sitting there twiddling nervously with a ball-point pen, you're all set up to sucker-punch the guy in the throat or face with the pen?

I saw that effectively applied once.

Lots of possibilities.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 11:20 AM

`Instead of killing me and having his way with the little blond he found himself staring down a .45 Colt pointed at his chest. He took off, he was unharmed and so were we. Now what would the rest of you do, tossed a rock at him? Beg him not to hurt you?`

There are people here who would do just that, Dan. I ain`t one of `em.


Message me your e-mail address, ok.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 12:05 AM

and what ass puts a treatment center for drug addicts in the same location as cancer patients. Kinda asking for trouble. By the way the other person with me was Karen's sister who was an intern at the time working for me. He would have had lots of fun with two girls, or maybe he would have just robbed us. Point is, he never got the chance to find out did he. Oh and the police, after I called said "yea it is a bad area you should not work late at night" insane

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 11:46 PM

I told the story before and I will tell it again when myself and two of my employees had to work late at that drug ridden, crime infested cancer clinic repairing their database. When that guy came out of the hedges with a hunting knife and went at the little blond girl who worked for me. Instead of killing me and having his way with the little blond he found himself staring down a .45 Colt pointed at his chest. He took off, he was unharmed and so were we. Now what would the rest of you do, tossed a rock at him? Beg him not to hurt you? Being kind, having a social conscience and considerate should never be confused with being a victim either. I said before I will say again, in the right hands a firearm can be a really good friend. The key is to do our best to make sure it stays in the right hands by laws that make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:45 PM

Is it possible to give up the freedoms of second article of The Bill of Rights and not expect that the precedent will be set for some group to force us to give up another, like freedom of peaceable assembly or freedom of the press?

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:44 PM

Well exactly what other amendments to the constitution would you suggest throwing out, that nonsense one about religious freedom ( I have certainly known more than a few who think the US is a one flavor or no flavor only faith based or NON faith
nation) which neither is true.

I know lots of people that want to toss out that pesky freedom of speech. It should not apply to Liberals, or conservatives, or hate peddlers or used car salesmen..

Now does the government have the right to pass laws that regulate freedom, you bet it does but not toss out the constitution. Like it or not it is there. And for those who enjoy their legal rights to own firearms, we are neither bullies or half wits as people here so like to portray . Most are highly educated probably much more than you could know and have probably done one hell of a lot more for society as you or anyone else (as in your bad citizen quote)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:36 PM

Eat THIS!, ya specist, mango-stealing gun-haters!!!

- Chongo

p.s. 100!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:29 PM

Ron Davies - "Perhaps they can also tell us whether they are also more afraid of the UN's black helicopters or about the danger of fluoride in the water.   I wonder which it is. Maybe they could lie down on the couch and tell us all about it."

Ah! The old scatter gun approach to ridicule, eh, Ron? Bring up a host of nonsequitors to show how silly anyone is who doesn't see things your way. ;-) Okay, let me first say that it's very nice of you to offer your couch. You're a real sweetheart. "Ahhhh..." (lying down and getting comfortable)

Okay. Let me give this some serious thought.

1. Am I scared that the government will take my guns away? Nope. Cross that one off the list. I'm not at all scared about that.

2. Am I scared about the U.N.'s black helicopters coming to get me? Nope. Never have given it a moment's thought.

3. Am I concerned about the ill effects on people's health from using flouridated water? Yessiree. You bet I am. I avoid drinking or using flouridated water as much as I can avoid it, based on quite a bit of serious reading I've already done about it. But.......what the heck are you doing bringing up such diverse subjects as flouridated water or the UN's black helicopters in a discussion about the Second Amendment and gun control? That's what I don't get.

Perhaps you should lie down on my couch and explain that, Ron. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:17 PM

"All you gun-toting bullies are irresponsible citizens and your use of the Second Amendment is risible."

Yeah, tell that to all the people who were slaughtered in the last thousand and more years because they had no means to defend themselves... and tell that to the people who are being murdered today all over this earth. THAT is not risible. THAT is sickening.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 09:08 PM

Walmart, a gun show, or your local gun shop.   Same question.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 09:01 PM

It certainly is striking how ignorant those who like to wrap themselves in the 2nd Amendment are about history.

As I and several others have said more than once, the 2nd Amendment didn't appear in a vacuum.   There were reasons for it which seemed crucial--at the time.

Fear of Britain making an attempt to recover the colonies which had become the US

Fear of a standing army

Fear of Indians especially on the frontier--which of course kept moving West



So it's time for those who feel the right to bear arms is still a crucial right exactly which of these they still fear. Since the rest of us have managed to overcome all of these.

Perhaps they can also tell us whether they are also more afraid of the UN's black helicopters or about the danger of fluoride in the water.   I wonder which it is. Maybe they could lie down on the couch and tell us all about it.

Added to which:

The militia cited in the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be "well-regulated".    Exactly what about buying a gun at Walmart makes you part of a "well-regulated militia"?

Those of us trying for sensible gun control are not even trying to disarm anybody.   What I would be after is a nationwide prohibition on sales of certain types of weapons which keep turning up in this senseless bloodshed we keep hearing about.   

Have as many rifles as you want.

But despite being asked more than once, up to now nobody has told us exactly why anybody other than police and the military should have semi-automatic pistols, for instance.

My concern in large part is the concealed nature of pistols.   If the AZ shooter had had to bring a rifle, it would have been rather obvious when he approached the Congresswoman. And others might have had rifles too--which might well have caused him to change plans--since it appears he did not have a death wish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:28 PM

What Strings said...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:56 PM

The right to bear arms required a well ordered militia and was for the person of defending against foreign invaders. There were no automatic weapons then or the use of hand guns.
Jack booted thugs are defined as the NRA.

Americans are stupid in the use of weapons. Canada and Switzerland have many weapons but the major epidemic of gun violence is in the United States.

The Second Amendment has become virtually inseparable from the insane interpretation given by the Mad Tea Party.

The Second Amendment didn't refer to rocket launchers, hand grenades, machine guns,
automatic or semi-automatic weapons or nuclear devices because the Founding Father's unreasonably assumed that Americans would be civilized in their employment of weaponry.

All you gun-toting bullies are irresponsible citizens and your use of the Second Amendment is risible.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 03:24 PM

Self-insure, or insure thru a Company, same diff. The Jack-booted government thugs are still requiring you to have insurance of one form or another- and its perfectly legal and Constitutional.

Just like health insurance under the recent legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: DonMeixner
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 02:29 PM

I don't know about anywhere else but it is not a requirement that you buy insurance in New York State. You have to show the ability to selfinsure to a minimum standard or buy insurance with the same coverage. Since most people can't post a cash bond so large it is just easier to buy insurance.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 01:10 PM

Pretty much true Bob

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 01:09 PM

Please show us a place in the US where owning a car in mandated by the government.

How about a place where automobile INSURANCE is mandated by the government? Like the entire country, for example?

As usual,PeeDee, you're a bit off the mark.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 01:01 PM

The operative word, Ol-ster is "stable"... That where the rub is... I mean, do stable people get together with their buddies and barge into a family restaurant in packs with guns of all varieties strapped to them on holsters??? No, "stable" people don't but we sho nuff have 'um here in Virginia... Do "stable" people really need an AK-47 that has been modified to fully automatic??? No, "stable" people don't...

The problem is if the real "stable" people say one word about requiring that "stable" people are the only folks that should be able to own guns then the NRA cranks up it's bully-horn...

This is why the US is so out of whack... Too much $$$$$$ in politics and "stable" people can't do one single thing about that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 11:05 AM

People keep trying to compare cars and buying health insurance with gun ownership. There are points to be made, but let's look at the essential question of purchase.

Anyone can buy a car, even if that person will not be old enough to drive it on public roads for years. It is when, where and how that vehicle is operated (on roads owned by the government) that are suject to regulation.

With guns, it is the purchase that is regulated, controlled or completely banned is some jurisdictions. Not the same situation as with cars at all. To be equivalent, you would allow unlimited ownership of guns but restrict their use on public lands or in public places.

Insurance, regarding ObamaCare, it still different. Purchase is mandatory. Please show us a place in the US where owning a car in mandated by the government. There are a couple of tiny towns where gun ownership (and training) is mandatoty, but they have a "conscientious objector" clause that lets anyone who does not what to purchase a gun to "opt out".

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:31 AM

When I first moved to NY state I was appalled that all handguns needed to be registered. After a while I realized that the brown shirts were not going to kick my door in to get my weapons, it was done for other reasons like if the gun is stolen I maybe able to get it back. If my house burned down I can submit an insurance claim and prove I owned them. Likewise if you had to register a firearm purchased at a gun show, you would see a lot less guns on the street. Who is going to buy one for a bad guy knowing that it was purchased by you and registered to you in Virginia ... Lots of things can be done to make the general public safer without taking away any rights from anyone. A total ban like in DC, hell in DC there are more guns then people, look how well that worked - Not .. so some serious thinking and some make sense laws would help and I am sure most gun owners will agree. You don't have to step on the 2nd Amendment to achieve a balance of ownership and safety.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 10:19 AM

Look the whole thing in a nutshell, you don't have to be any more scared of a firearm then you do a car or anything else, if those owning a firearm are well trained, own it in a legal manner and are stable. I grew up surrounded by them and everyone I know carried. Never a problem of any type never an accidental shooting, nothing but these are people that knew firearms since birth. Where the problem lays is the gun laws vary so much from state to state that it is hard to make that determination of good guy or bad guy. In regard to Concealed Carry, have a look at NY's criteria. Like I said before, the finger printing, the FBI checks, the approval of the local police and sheriff and judge and a training certificate. Yet the shooting continue. Why because of so many illegal firearms on the street coming in from other states. A much needed federal standard would make things a lot better for the good citizen who wants to own and harder for the bad guy who wants to own. Nobody who is into the legal ownership of handguns wants to see them in the hands of criminals, no do we want to see a dozen new laws that do nothing to make things better. If they want gun shows, no problem but at least enforce the full background check and put some thing in place to prevent these shopping spree's by bad guys who take them to states like NY. A simple measure like that would help a lot. Passing a dozen new laws that do nothing will not help anything.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 08:57 AM

the Right Wing Loons are wind bagging again

Gee, ya think?? Again? You mean STILL, dontcha? The Birthers are a bunch of lunatics & always have been.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 08:41 AM

Taconicus' BS was self serving.

Saying that everyone but Taconicus was not engaging in reasonable debate was condescending and dismissive, anyone who respects you might find that hurtful.

You have now explained your position. At least now we can compare ourselves to you definition of reason.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 08:33 AM

Hi Joe,

I'd be worried if I was surrounded by people with concealed pistols as well. But if they are concealed how would I know? When my Dad passed away I inherited his hand guns. I couldn't get them out of the safe soon enough.

I had this same discussion with a born again christian I worked with only substitute freedom the press for gun ownership. He was more frightened that literature he didn't approve of was more a danger to him and his family than were the hunting guns he owned. And I find that to be typical of a lot of people on both sides of the debate.

Gee Jack, I didn't think I was being self serving or hurtful.

And Sugarfoot, that may be how the law is interpreted and as Mr. Bumble said, "The law is a ass." Art sent a link to Factcheck .com which claims to have a copy of the birth certificate that is acceptable. If thats the case then the Right Wing Loons are wind bagging again and just stalling the reasonable movement of democracy.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:11 AM

"It is arguable that if he wasn't native born and there by not an eligible candidate then any bill he signs may be unconstitutional and have to be passed again or voided."

So much for the American Dream.

Sugarfoot Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 02:34 AM

Don, I suppose I respect your right to own a gun and all, but don't I have some sort of right to be able to go around in public without being surrounded by people carrying guns? People with guns, scare the shit outa me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:34 AM

"In my view the right to own a gun is simply that, a right. Just as I have the right to have an opinion, say stupid things, and act foolishly now and then. A right is only a part of the covenant that is implied by the constitution. "

According to the second amendment as written and ratified, the only right you have as a gun is as part of a well regulated militia, following that it is logical to presume that the only gun you would have a "right" to own would be subjected to the the regulation of such militias.

I am not saying you can't own a gun. You can own a car, subject to reasonable regulation.

The first post of this thread says in effect that the second amendment is a good thing, but only if you ignore the first half of it which is its stated reason, and luckily for us we can, because our self appointed legal scholar says so.

If you tell me that you believe that that sort of self-serving BS is the only reasonable post here I am disappointed by both your lack of respect for reason and your lack of respect for the opinions of others on this forum. Of course you have a right to make such statements, even if they are hurtful and foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:18 AM

Anyone who uses the made up word "obamacare" obviously has no respect for the Constitution or any other written document. They see words as hammers to be used against others who do not share their views rather than a means of communication. We has the good manners to call the sh

pdq, apparently being one of those people, only gives that one side of a very complex argument. The government says that everyone is required to buy health care, one way or another. They are simply requiring that the commerce be conducted in a certain way. Actually the auto industry is a very apt comparison. The government does not tell you whether or not to buy a car but it does tell you what features the car must have have and it does tell you that you must maintain it. It does that not just for society's good but for your own.

Little Hawk, I do not agree with your implication that all Presidents are equally guilty of flouting the Constitution. I would say that is true about Nixon, Reagan and Bush II, but in my life time, I have seen no evidence of flagrant disregard from the other Presidents.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:12 AM

"obvious to anybody who can read"

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:10 AM

Even if you are in fact still paranoid about a standing army-- (by the way, I advocate a return to the draft, for entirely different reasons)-, nobody is trying to disarm you or the other would-be folk heroes of the US.   You can keep all the rifles you want as far as I'm concerned. But according to your own strict constructionist attitude, you should clearly not have any semi-automatic pistols, since I do believe they did not have them in 1789--or 1802.

And obviously sales of AK-47's should cease forthwith--since it's a bit unlikely that they had them in 1789 or 1802.    Unless of course you think it's a God-given right for gun dealers to supply Mexican drug gangs.   But if it is, please cite the clause of the Constitution which establishes this.

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 11:54 PM

Hey, Taconicus, why don't you read your own post?   It's truly amazing the number of Mudcatters who don't even read what they themselves post.

As Rap points out--and I have mentioned in other threads more than once-- , the main reason the militia were important in the 18th and early 19th century --(in addition to the fear that Britain would take back the North American colonies which had become the US)-- was the fear of a standing army. Your own post spells it out:   :Blackstone's Commentaries 1803:   "Whenever standing armies are kept up and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is under any color or pretext whatsoever prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction".

So it's obvious, to anybody who to can read--perhaps that doesn't include NRA zealots--that the writer of the Commentaries, like many at the time, was deeply concerned about the threat posed by a standing army.

The question then becomes:   why are you still paranoid about a standing army?    Most thinking beings have passed that stage.   Perhaps you haven't.

To be continued

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 11:45 PM

See it here, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 11:26 PM

In my view the right to own a gun is simply that, a right. Just as I have the right to have an opinion, say stupid things, and act foolishly now and then. A right is only a part of the covenant that is implied by the constitution.

I believe that altho' not stated, implicit with the right is the responsibility to use it with care and respect. To respect the laws of the area in which you live, to store it safely, and to know how to use it. Along the lines of even tho' you have the right of free speech you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

The guns I own are interesting old weapons. I have a side by side double 12 made in Batavia, NY. A Stevens Model 12, a 45-70 Trapdoor Springfield model 1884, a .36 Caliber Schutzen target rifle, and a .45 caliber black powder derringer replica. As you can see none are assault weapons with the exception of the Philadelphia derringer which is a replica of the Lincoln assassination weapon.

I don't care for the NRA but Wayne La Pierre is in favor of background checks and shooter safety programs before a gun leaves a store. So do I. That doesn't mean I support Wayne La Pierre. Each state has their set of gun ownership laws which is totally brainless. There should be one law that covers universally. Virginia's idiotic gun laws would have to go. New York's laws are plenty strict and would make a good model. The problem is state sovereignty and state's rights. An example of the messiness of the constitution.

The second amendment to me is inviolate, just as are the other parts of the bill of rights. However the founders, (Jefferson,Adams, Madison, Hamilton,...) gave the people the power to amend the rest of the constitution. I would tell Little Hawk that this is were the constitution is a living document. And the Bill of Rights is a foundation that must remain as originally written.

There is one area of constitutional debate that I think needs to be explored for more importantly than the rights of gun ownership. (That debate is too tied to emotion and personal opinion as this forum shows.) I think that understanding the original meaning of the language and punctuation used in the constitution is the central issue of all constitutional debate. The mutability of the language causes misunderstanding of meanings. (try and define and explain the enumeration clause, this has caused endless debate in constitutional law classes for years) The statement reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
( Which rights? Enumerated how?)

The Commerce Clause seems to be the measure for the Health Care Act.
The government hasn't the right to force anybody to buy anything.

An even bigger constitutional issue; I'd like to see a copy of Obama's birth certificate. To my knowledge it has never been seen and it should fall under the freedom of information act. If he won the election fair and square that's fine. But if he can be recalled there is hell to pay. It is arguable that if he wasn't native born and there by not an eligible candidate then any bill he signs may be unconstitutional and have to be passed again or voided. The same with any decision he made, like nominating Joe Biden as his running mate, right on down the line...

Gun ownership and second amendment rights are a small part of a bigger debate.

And Jack, I don't know Taconicus, he just started the ball, and I don't snipe.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 09:51 PM

This is about the 2nd amendment...

A few years back Rap stated that folks on the left need to buy guns... After watching what is going on in Egypt I'd say it's about time... I mean, like Egypt the US is in a 30 year old the stranglehold of the right wing and I( can see US right where Egypt is in a few years... Mubarak is Egypt's Boss Hog and right now it's the Mitch McConnells and Sarah Palins...

My advice??? Get a gun, learn how to shoot it and load up on ammo...

I hate it that our world is coming to this but where ever we look, including the US, the right wing is in control...

Like I said, I hate it... But given that the right is so well armed I think if it came down to Egypt here in the US the left would be slaughtered...

Now, interestingly enough, back to gun control???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 09:37 PM

The health care bill no more "forces" people to buy health insurance than the mortgage tax credit "forces" people to buy a house.
Don't fall for the spin.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Slag
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 09:13 PM

Sorry, I skipped down when about half-way thru the rehash. Just wanted to point out that our Constitution does not "give" rights to anybody. The US Constitution recognizes the God given rights which are possessed by we who inhabit the land.

And speaking of living upon the land, someone above, mentioned our right to drive the roads. You may not know how very right you are for the rules of the road are maritime laws and if you are "driving" you come under those rules. If you "operate" a vehicle for the purpose of "traveling" you don't. This is a bit of a hot debate right now but please note that our Constitution allows our government control only where interstate "commerce" is involoved.

You want to change the Constitutiion? Fine, the U.S. Constitution provides the proceedure to change it via the amendment process. Be my guest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:49 PM

pdq-- scholars differ

Reagan's Solicitor General thinks it IS constitutional

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:44 PM

from this site

" This mandate is far beyond what the federal government can do under the Constitution, argue those challenging the law in court, who further say if the individual mandate is allowed to stand, there will be no limits on federal power."


This basically the 'slippery slope" argument. "If we allow this, there's no telling what they'll do next!"

The conservatives in general try to frame it as an "you can't tell people what to do" issue.

also from that site: "Defenders of the provision say the health care system and health insurance system clearly fall under the category of "commerce," something the federal government has the right to regulate."

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:44 PM

"What, exactly, is there about the health care bill that makes it unconstitutional? Where EXACTLY is it written?"

Assuming that you really want to know, not just resent the bill's impending doom, here goes.

The ObamaCare bill forces people who do not want health insurance, for any reason, to purchase it anyway. This cannot be justified by the Commerce Clause in the 14th Ammendment because that only regulates commerce. Choosing not to buy simething is not commerce, it is inaction, which your government has no power to regulate.

If ObamaCare were constitutional, the federal government would also have the power to force you to buy a car that you did not want, and the provisions of ObamaCare that tell you the type of insurance you had to buy would also allow the fed to tell you what type of car you would be buying. Completel un-Constitutional.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:28 PM

Mr Simple Englishman coming up. I find it both amusing and tragic that a whole modern nation can cling to some paragraph dreamed up by a bunch of frock-coated men hundreds of years ago, the same blokes who thought nothing of stealing other people's lands and who regarded a black man as a third of a human being. It's all very un-grown up, and it makes me think that a very large proportion of 300 million people think they're John Wayne. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:18 PM

ONE Right-wing activist district judge has declared the health care bill "unconstitutional." Methinks this will be appealed until Hell freezes over, so it's a bit early to claim that Obama flew in the face of what he knows about the Constitution.

What, exactly, is there about the health care bill that makes it unconstitutional? Where EXACTLY is it written?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Crowhugger
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:28 PM

Interesting thread. I popped in to find out what the 2nd amendment is about. I knew it was about my southern neighbour's constitution but I never can keep track of which content goes with which number.


>>"What I think is that there should probably be different rules for rural gun owners, depending on their occupations, etc...than for urban gun owners..." ~ LH

Totally un-Constitutional. <<

Perhaps more unenforceable than unconstitutional? To compare to vehicles again, there are lower speed limits in populated areas, lower again in school zones, as compared to divided highways. Note that this isn't about no guns, it's about restricting them. Farmers can buy purple gas yet taxi drivers and soccer moms can't. There is lots of precedent for different rules based on geography or occupation--e.g. different laws in different states, tax law, zoning by-laws. I s'pose there are those who'd say such things are also unconstitutional. In any case I sure wouldn't want to be the one responsible for defining 'urban' and 'rural' for gun law or any other purposes.

Canada faces challenges similar to NYS in that most of the guns used in crime are smuggled in, not legally purchased & registered, and only a small portion are stolen from homes. A notable exception to these situations is spousal violence where the (registered, often) gun in the home is a weapon of choice. I doubt that better conviction rates for this one kind of violence is what gun law framers were aiming at (pun intended). The widespread fact of smuggled guns supports the notion that it's a law makers' and law enforcement issue, as already pointed out by others.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 06:28 PM

Good point LH.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:21 PM

I think that probably every president you've ever had in office has done things that were unconstitutional and passed legislation that was unconstitutional, Doug. On the one hand, it's a matter of legal interpretation, and on the other hand, most people wouldn't know the difference anyway. They just believe whatever other people tell them about it, and if no one does tell them anything, then they don't even think about it.

If Obama was a Republican, you wouldn't be complaining about him, you'd be defending him. ;-) (whether or not he did things that were unconstitutional)

I'll give you an example. The Constitution specifies that only Congress can declare war. So how do your presidents get around that? Simple! They have wars, but they don't bother declaring them! Thus they circumvent the necessary authorization by Congress. ;-D That's unconstitutional, but no one seems to care except for the odd maverick like Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) or Ron Paul (Republican).

You see, Doug, lying is as commonplace as breathing in the halls of power, no matter which of your parties gets elected, and unconstitutional behaviour is as common as breaking wind.

It just gets mentioned whenever one party wishes to incite part of the public against the other party over some issue....and why? So they can get votes from them, that's why.

You are being manipulated by demagogues who couldn't care less whether something is unconstitutional or not. They have more important considerations in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:19 PM

Bill D... sorry about that, bud. My bad.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: DougR
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:12 PM

Yes, Bobert, it has been reported that Obama taught constitutional law, and I suppose he did. His effectiveness as a teacher could be called into question, though, when one considers that he did not recognize that the health care law he and his fellow Democrats passed was unconstitutional. Shouldn't a teacher of constitutional law recognize that?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 01:39 PM

Bobert - "what do you hunt with a fully automatic AK-47???"




Any damn thing that gets in yer way...

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 01:15 PM

and Bobster, I am revoking your membership in the Red Neck of old Virginie club ... sorry buddie but you don't like George Bush or guns ... so you lost your membership ... sorry to say ... but I did list ya on the pastry of the month club instead I did ... tee hee   

Love ya buddie ... couldn't resist

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 12:58 PM

Hey Bob
I am looking for a .357 can ya pick one up fer me at the gun show? Only wheel gun I have is my .44 mag that I use for deer hunting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 10:17 AM

Yesterday at 5:30 PM I made a plea for stuff related to the stated topic. Now it's all just back to repetitious stream of consciousness ramblings about anything to do with guns......or Bugattis...

I give up...if you bother to read my posts, you know what I think anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 09:16 AM

Palin's scope is on an AK?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:23 AM

Congressmen?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:02 AM

BTW, ya' all... In this morning's Washington Post there is an article about a high school kid who has been expelled for shooting spitwads thru a straw at fellow students...

Hmmmmm???

Meanwhile the grown ups have no problem with ex-con psycho murderers stocking up on fully automatic AK-47s with no background checks??? BTW, what do you hunt with a fully automatic AK-47???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:46 AM

>>Since all reasonable debate about gun ownership and rights and responsibilities ended with the second post I really have to know one thing. Does Amos really own a Bugatti?<<

Thank you for introducing "reason" to this debate. You must have a "reason" for slagging everyone but Taconicus. Would you care to share it. Or are just going to snipe without backing it up?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:34 AM

Watch what you say, LH... The NRA has "agents" in Canada who are there to keep you northern commies in line... You keep talkin' about reasonable gun control for the US and you just may get a knock on the door...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 01:12 AM

Sure. He takes the whole family out for a spin now and agin.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 01:01 AM

Since all reasonable debate about gun ownership and rights and responsibilities ended with the second post I really have to know one thing. Does Amos really own a Bugatti?

Don

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:09 PM

Or...you could build a sort of Berlin Wall all around Virginia and seal 'em all in there for good with their danged gun shows... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:57 PM

Yes, I see what the problem is, guys. Well, you clearly need to enact Canadian gun laws across the USA, eh? ;-) (even if we are too damn near to the North Pole!)

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:27 PM

Sadly what Bobart describes ain't too far from the truth in that state. Again gun show laws do vary state to state, some states a full background check is required. Other states like yours Bob, well sometimes we do but most of the time who cares ... and that is the root of the problem. The Chief of police in NY City said nearly every confiscated illegal firearm they get comes from a purchase at a Virginia gun show. Like I said NYS has the toughest gun laws in the nation but it ain't going to do any good if the bad guys just go down to Virginia and pick up a few hundred and carry them back

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:21 PM

Why stop there, Amos??? Why not buy a hundred AK-47s and one book on how to make them fully automatic... Now you have an army and all you need is the money... No better yet, if yer busy, get yer ex-convict psycho murderer neighbor to do it for you... Hey you can do that in Virginia... Come on down to Richmond town with the dough and a U-Haul truck and we'll help load ya' up... We call that $outhern Ho$pitality...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:18 PM

But Amos, you KNOW that Obama and the rest of those Commie-loving, tree-hugging, socialist Democrats don't want to confiscate your Bugatti! BTW, can I have a ride in it the next time I see you?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 07:48 PM

Seems to me that the key issue is not who should be able to have a gun, but whether or not they are responsible for its ownership. Back in 19 ought something, if you wanted a Stanley Steamer or a Bugatti, you laid down the cash and drove it home. They had no plates, and no licenses were required, and they had no Department of Motor Vehicles anymore than we have a Department of Kitchen Utensils.

But, too many people got wild with 'em, too many folks got scared, damaged or done in in whie using or abusing or being abused by them, so the law built up a carapace of regulations. Primarily to pin down responsibility. You can still go out and buy a Bugatti if you have the cash but ya gots to answer up.

With guns now, you can get one at a gun show that has been through sixteen owners, and slip it in your glove box and go on home. No driver's test, optical check, registration, liability insurance, test on laws, or sobriety check!

Seems odd, now, dunnit?

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 07:31 PM

I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the Constitution should be rewritten each generation - it's too damn bad that wasn't in the Constitution!

The last time (before the 2008 decision) that the Supreme Court looked at a case directly involving the 2nd Amendment was US v. Miller in 1939, and that case was decided entirely on the militia clause that the current Court seems to believe is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:34 PM

America more polarized than Canada? Nonsense - youse guys are a lot closer to the North Pole than we are. Just look at a map.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:09 PM

Yeah, well...that's why I'm glad I'm in Canada! ;-) I do understand you are dealing with a different situation in the USA, Bobert, and it's a lot more polarized than it is here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:05 PM

That's the point, LH...

I mean, the right screams "Obama want's to take yer guns away!!!" with all the conviction of any conspiracy theorists when sensible thing like that are suggested...

See, that's how powerful the NRA... You can't say what you said here and get away with it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:53 PM

Some people do use guns for recreation, and to relive a historical tradition. This was why, for example, I very much wanted a BB gun when I was a boy. I didn't want to kill anything with it. I wanted to symbolically relive some of the heroic adventures I'd seen on TV about Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Wyatt Earp, and a thousand other such figures out of history. How? By shooting my BB gun at tin cans, toys soldiers, and other impromptu targets like that. Pretty much every other boy I knew felt the same way, and the society of the time didn't lay a guilt trip on us for wanting to do that, although our mothers, of course, worried that "you'll shoot out your eye!" ;-) Yeah, there were some boys who shot at birds or other animals or who were silly enough to shoot at each other while playing "guns", but there will always be a few like that. The boys I knew all managed to get through childhood and adolescence without shooting out somebody's eye, though such things do happen now and then. You can try to make life totally "safe", but you'll never succeed.

I miss the society of that time. It wasn't so completely bound up in reaction and counterreaction to every damned thing under the sun.

I know we can't go back there, and I know that we've also gone significantly ahead in some ways, but I still miss it.

I've taken the gun handling course here in Canada, found it interesting and useful, and I can't see why the heck anyone would object to being required to pass such a course in order to purchase a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:30 PM

This is drifting WAY off of remarks about the 2nd amendment and how to interpret it and what to do with it....if anything.
I suppose that's to be expected since there are so many interconnected concerns, but it IS a different issue than how to adjust current gun laws or who should be allowed to have one.

   The point has been made by artbrooks, who usually identifies the points pretty clearly, that it is not at all clear, due to punctuation, exactly what the 'intent' was. I suspect that, since this was an AMENDMENT, they left it open knowing that it could be amended as situations change. And I personally would love to see a few constitutional challenges based on my ideas about the definition of 'militia' and 'well-ordered'.
Challenges would probably fail 1st time out, but we need a wider discussion than just arm waving each time there's another headline grabbing tragedy.....and we KNOW there will be some. Police have been shot in the last couple weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:20 PM

Pass a test in order to know how to use a gun??? Why - that's Un-American. Next thing you know you'll be suggesting that people NOT use guns to celibrate New Years Eve!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:10 PM

pdq: "In the United States, you do not have to register a car or get a license to drive it. . . ."

I don't know what state you live in, pdq, but that sure as blazes doesn't apply in the state where I live. Or in ANY state where I've lived. I had to pass a fairly stringent driving test before I was issued my driver's license. And I had to register my newly purchase automobile and keep an official copy of the registration certificate in the glove compartment. Not to mention the obvious: license plates, complete with number, clean and plainly visible front and back. In addition, I have to renew the car's license every year. And every four years, at the state's option, I have to take another driving test.

There are a number of other restrictions. I can be fined if I'm caught driving without my seat belt—and/or the seat belts of any passengers—fastened. And a law is currently pending a vote of the state legislature to levy a heavy fine, up to loss of license, for texting or talking on a hand-held cell phone while driving .

These laws are for the protection both of me AND of the public at large.

Okay, if a thirteen-year-old is allowed by his parents to drive the pick-up truck around the ranch and do chores or just go joy-riding, I'd say that's the option of his parents. BUT—If he takes the truck or any other vehicle out on the public streets and highways, he—AND his parents—can be busted for it! In this state, a kid can't get a driver's license until he or she is sixteen years old. And if they (or anyone of any age) does not have a driver's license and is at the wheel of an automobile with someone instructing them, they are required by law to have a learner's permit.

Legal restrictions like these, as applied to the handling of firearms, including the passing of a test to establish a person's ability to handle a firearm knowledgeably and safely is not only common sense, it is stupid to do otherwise.

And yes, I own a few handguns (target shooting mostly), and although I was never required to demonstrate my ability to handle them safely, I did receive instruction from someone knowledgeable.

The purpose of a motor vehicle is to transport people and things between point A to point B. The purpose of a firearm, apart from such recreation as popping at empty cans or poking holes in paper, is--let's face it--to kill things.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 04:40 PM

Other than here, LH, there isn't this big debate going on over gun control... Might of fact, it is being avoided like a radiation pit by both the Dems and Repubs... They have enough other wedge issues in the hopper...

I agree that our government is broken but I disagree that it's becasue of two party rule... It's because of the stangle hold the Boss Hog has on our government... We are not all that different than Egypt...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 04:34 PM

I'm saying, Bobert, that the most virulent purveyors of rhetoric on behalf of either the Republicans or the Democrats are the people who are driving the debate on gun ownership to extremes and that that is happening because of the usual partisan divisions. People aren't thinking, they're engaging in stereotyping. People on both sides are guilty of that.

On the conservative side the "liberals" are stereotyped in ways I'm sure you're quite familiar with....limp-wristed, bleeding hearts, soft on crime, favoring the rights of criminals over the rights of victims, effeminate lesbo/gay latte drinking, tree-hugging, Ivy League Evian mineral water sippers...etc...most of which is nonsense.

On the liberal side the "conservatives" are stereotyped in ways that we should all be very familiar with by now: ignorant, redneck, Nascar-watching, simple-minded, fascist, dumbass Bible-thumping, mouth-breathing, kuckle-dragging idiots named Bubba who drive pickup trucks with gun racks in the back and whose biggest dream is to attend Wrestlemania 22. ;-D

Yup, it's easy to just reduce people who don't share your opinions to some sort of gross stereotype like that, and it's fun! I see it done here all the time, and I see the glee (and the malice) with which it is done, because most people here are on the "liberal" side, so they feel quite safe doing it.

It's sort of equally pointless on either side of the debate, because it doesn't touch on any real issues or ideas, it's just emotional bloodletting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 04:04 PM

Democracy, my butt, pdq...

It's called corruption of democracy using the profits made from the proliferation of handguns which are responsible for 30,000 deaths a year to silence voices of reason... That is not what democracy looks like, pdq... That is was fascism looks like...

And, LH, you are also mistaken... The Dems aren't saying squat about gun control because each one of them fully understands that tyhe NRA can take any one of them out of office it is so chooses...

That is the point here... The NRA is more powerful than any Senator or congressman in this country, bar none...

Nuthin' democratic about that... That's the kind of stuff that the Mob (Mafia, Costa Nostra) does... It is anti-democratic, bullying and the kind of stuff that is about to bring down the Egyptian government...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:54 PM

Is a Constitution written in stone, like a holy relic, pdq? Or is it something that can evolve and change to suit changing conditions?

I would hope it is the latter. What I was implying in the phrase you seem to be objecting to is that rural people such as farmers, ranchers, and people who make a living hunting and trapping, for example....as people do in wilderness areas...should probably not have their use and ownership of guns regulated as stringently as people living on Fifth Avenue in New York City...because they may need guns for their ordinary working activities, whereas the man living in New York City does not.

I am suggesting common sense, in other words, rather than a rigid adherence to the letter of some law which may not fit a particular situation very well at all. Imagination, pdq, imagination!

And as for your Constitution, it has grown archaic in a number of respects and it should probably have been reconvened and re-written at a new Constitutional Convention about every 20 years ever since it was first created.

In other words, your society is WAY behind the 8-ball on its Constitution and is attempting, unsuccessfully, to live in the past...merely because you are apparently more interested in worshipping the document than in understanding where it came from or what its real purpose is.

Many other societies have made the same kind of mistake, and so have many religions. They worship their ancient forms and repeat them thoughtlessly rather than being intelligently flexible and creative to meet changing social conditions.

Remember, your Constitution was written by ordinary men! It didn't descend in perfection from the throne of God. Men are fallible. They do the best they can at the time. Each new generation of men must try to improve upon the past...not just slavishly imitate it as if bowing down before an idol.

I don't care if what I'm suggesting is "Unconstitutional". Who cares? I'm suggesting possible ideas that could be implemented, and constitutions CAN be changed. If they cannot be changed, then they shouldn't exist in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:53 PM

I think the Canadian restriction are reasonable, limitations on the size of handguns, the size of magazines (number of rounds before reloading), banning sawed off shot guns and rifles, banning all full automatic weapons for civilian use.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:32 PM

I would like to see our Reps also have some understanding of firearms. There is the absurd proposal to laser etch the bullets so they can track a bullet after it has been fired. First of all bullets fragment and distort when they hit anything. Second of all most serious shooters like myself make our own (called swagging) or Cast our own out of the lead weights used for tire balance. But I see these types of laws and just scream, they serve no purpose and other reps say .. wow good idea. At least understand something about why you are trying to regulate.

Good Grief !!

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:15 PM

Bobert... "1st of all, I am arguing that it is wrong for the NRA to have the power that they have..."

Ahhh, whoa up buddy. I think that's called democracy? Am I missin sommat?

Fuck the 2nd... let's get some common sense. Regulate gun owners and punish, SEVERELY, those who break the law... you know, CRIMINALS... and NOT law abiding CITIZENS. It ain't fuckin rocket science.

Punishing Peter to pay Paul is just stunned as me arse. Why can't the anti-gunners get that into their brains and realize that as long as they profer such absurd bullshit and do not hold their government to enforcing strict laws regarding criminal behaviour and gun ownership that they are actually screwing their own agenda over?

Seriously, are they that stunned? If they want to "solve" this issue, they should step up to the plate, understand the real problems and FORCE their elected reps to get the job done instead of shooting themselves in the foot. Yes, pun most definitely intended.

To recap my main postulate... it doesn't matter two shits from Sunday what the 2nd says.. EVERY human has THE RIGHT of self defense. It's common sense. Anyone or any law that says otherwise is... yup... you got it.. stunned as me arse.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 01:01 PM

"What I think is that there should probably be different rules for rural gun owners, depending on their occupations, etc...than for urban gun owners..." ~ LH

Totally un-Constitutional.

What's next, different rules for men and women? Different rules for different races of people?

We have he concept of "equal protection" for all citizens unless you stand convicted of serious crime or you are legally declared mentally ill.

People should just get used to it. Some people can handle freedom, some can't. That's the way it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 12:49 PM

I take it you mean the NRA's political power, Bobert? What I think is really occurring is that one party (the Republicans) is pandering to the fears of people on the Right to get votes....and the other party (the Democrats) is pandering to the fears of people on the Left to get votes.

And that, in a nutshell, is both what gives the NRA its political clout and what causes people to reduce each other to crude stereotypes. The 2 big parties are doing their usual divide-and-conquer thing to score points and get votes. That is what perverts the situation and drives the debate to ridiculous extremes.

It's wrong for anyone to stifle discussion regarding gun laws, whether he's on the Right or the Left.

I'm not so sure about uniformity in the laws. (?) Do you mean from state to state? How would you achieve that? What I think is that there should probably be different rules for rural gun owners, depending on their occupations, etc...than for urban gun owners...but that gets complicated.

I do agree that gun owners should be required to pass a gun safety training course prior to being allowed to purchase a gun. That is so in Canada. I'm not so sure they should be required to register the gun, however. I would be much more inclined to simply require them to retain proof of purchase of the gun by hanging on to their receipt.

Gun registries are cumbersome and expensive, and I don't see that having a gun registry in Canada has done anything to improve the situation. It has just created a lot of paperwork and administration.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 12:33 PM

Well, I for, one know what I am arguing, LH...

1st of all, I am arguing that it is wrong for the NRA to have the power that they have...

2nd (pun intended) it is wrong for them to use that power to stifle any discussion related to gun laws...

3rd, I am arguing, as Ol-ster has pointed out, that we need uniformity in the laws...

and lastly, we need gun owners to complete gun safety training before they can purchase a gun (which will not only be registered but have ballistic fingerprints on file...

Ain't all that complicated...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

I get the impression sometimes with the gun debate that the more vociferous people on both sides don't really know just what it is that they're actually arguing about, because they are both dealing in vague emotional impressions and overreactions to some kind of imagined extreme that they fantasize about in regards to the people on the other side of the debate.

Americans are not unique in owning guns or in having "a right to bear arms". Plenty of people, for example, own guns in Canada, and always have, and this is true in many other countries as well. It's been customary ever since frontier times, after all, when pretty much every rural citizen had a long gun for hunting purposes and for self-defence against dangerous animals or other dangers that might come up. You will still find that rural people are much more likely to own a gun (usually a rifle) than urban people are, and that has happened because of a long tradition going right back to the first settlement of North America by Europeans.

So what are people actually debating about? It isn't a question of people having guns that's really at issue...millions of people have guns. It's a question of responsible handling of those guns, licensing of guns, training courses in safe use of guns, what places you should be allowed to carry a gun in (either openly or concealed), what animals you should be allowed to hunt, etc.

In other words, it's a lot like licensing and regulating the driving of motor vehicles...another device which can kill people, and very often does kill people....or airplanes...another potentially dangerous device which requires licensing and much training before you are allowed to fly one around in public airspace.

Now, if you look back at the early days of both automobiles and airplanes, there were no regulations at all about them at first. As the number of automobiles and airplanes increased and the population density increased, a great many regulations and laws proliferated regarding their use...up till today when we have a mountain of paperwork to wade through before driving a car (on public roads) or flying an airplane.

The same thing has happened with guns. There were once no regulations about owning guns, there are now some regulations about owning guns. Why should this surprise anyone??? It's happened with pretty much everything else that is at all comparable, so why wouldn't it happen with guns?

Official regulations and paperwork always annoy people, because most people wish to be left alone to make their own decisions. They trust themselves to make the right decisions, don't they? ;-) When society (via the government) decides to make the decision for them, they get annoyed about it! I do. You do. Everyone does. That's life...

And I do personally thing we now live in an over-regulated society...for what it's worth.

But the funny thing is, people don't get that annoyed when the government decides that the other guy should or should not do something, do they? Maybe the people on both sides of the gun debate should start trying to understand and relate to the people on the other side instead of just seeing them as some kind of extreme stereotype. It might help...

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:33 AM

a reasonable assessment PDQ. I along with a zillion other licensed gun toting people agree with that. As long as those restrictions are reasonable you are right on. If for instance someone said, no one can drive because some drive drunk and kill people, that would be unreasonable. Or is Blond people cannot drive cause they are blond. As long as the laws make sense sure thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: pdq
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:22 AM

In the United States, you do not have to register a car or get a license to drive it. It is perfectly normal for, say, a ranch owner to let his teenage son drive the family jeep without training, without the vehicle being licensed or the son having a drivers license. The situation changes when the driver exits private property and goes onto a publically-owned road where he might be a danger to others. The public roads belong to everybody which is why restrictions are required.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:17 AM

I'm also not American, so GUEST,Bardan's caveats apply to me as well. But I'd like to stress that as an outsider I find this an interesting thread, so don't assume that because US-pro and US-anti gun lobbies know each other's arguments by heart it is not worth repeating them once again.

My comment to Bardan, though, would be that because people drive frequently the opportunity to observe and penalise drunk or dangerous driving is common and in itself goes a long way to stopping fatalities. Anyone waving a gun about recklessly (in a crowd, for example) should be stopped as well - I reckon both lobbies would concur on that one - but it's very much harder for the police to observe reckless gun handling in general and so as a way of prevent accidents is not really like the driving example.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:13 AM

All reasonable posts... So far...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:03 AM

I'm not American and maybe it's none of my business, but I thought I'd throw in my opinion (for what it's worth.)

Just because the constitution gives citizens a particular right doesn't mean that right can't be limited. Most laws are a limitation on people's rights (often rights guaranteed in a constitution), but they help keep society in one piece so they're accepted.

I'd compare guns to cars to be honest. They are things that can be useful and can be dangerous. (There are plenty of people who would argue that guns are more dangerous and less useful than cars, but I can't see that washing in America.) Some people just want them to show off, and that's not a problem except when those people show off by endangering themselves and other people.

It strikes me that anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to show that they know how to use it and store it safely. If they are caught using it in a reckless way, it should be taken away from them in much the way people's driving licences are taken away if they drink and drive etc...

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Stu
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:00 AM

A written constitution is an albatross around the neck of a modern, progressive society.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: olddude
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:59 AM

we kinda beat this topic pretty good, but for me, when I find the need to, I carry my .40 Glock and a .380 Colt government model as backup. I am licensed to do so and will but those times that I do are pretty rare cause like I said before, carrying a vintage pocket watch is a heck of a lot more fun then slugging around with a handgun.

I like others that are trained and licensed know we have plenty of gun laws that are nearly impossible to enforce because of things like the gun shows that vary from state to state. Some consistency would be welcomed law wise but I don't want any new laws that will be ignored as I have seen way too often. NYS has the toughest gun laws in the country and it doesn't do anything to stop the crime in our largest cities. That keeps going up .. mostly because of states like Bob's where they go buy an arsenal and illegally transport back to NY. There isn't enough ATF agents on earth to police that.   But I think we can all agree that training training and more training is necessary if one chooses to make the decision to carry a legal weapon.
And required checks to make sure they are not criminals or mentally disturbed people getting a CCP. The problem does not arise from trained licensed people, it arises from criminals and making it harder for them to bring back an arsenal from another state would have my support anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:42 AM

The real issue about the 2nd amendment is that current 'interpretation' is in favor of those who don't want the status quo changed, and we can all imagine how difficult it would be to repeal or revise that amendment. Getting it thru Congress would be 'almost' impossible, and getting enough states to ratify any changes would be totally impossible.

The only possible changes to gun laws are in small details like clip size and registration & sales rules.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:21 AM

Like I said, Jack... You can't... But, fortunately, that is out there in Boss Hog's mean world and, for the most part, not here... Yeah, we get some very dogmatic people here now and then that are absolutely unwilling to discuss issues in a reasonable manner but they are a tiny minority...

BTW, when I was a member of the NRA and on one of the NRA shoot teams it was a much different time... Back then the NRA was into gun safety... Now they couldn't care less... All they want is sales, sales and more sales for their dealers... Gun safety is no longer of any importance to them or they would be all over 30 round magazines for 9mm Glocks...

I mean, I have a long history using guns and still keep up my skills but I have fired a 9mm semiautomatic and after the first round, if it is being fired rapidly then unless you are very highly skilled the target seems to be the safest place to be... I mean, this gun cannot be used safely by someone with average skills in a rapid fire situation, which BTW, these things like happened in Tucson was... Throw in the adrenalin and the 9mm becomes more of hand*grenade* than a hand*gun*...

But the NRA doesn't care...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:17 AM

... The Federalist Papers (generally assumed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton)

Assumed by the ignorant, perhaps.

The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written under the pen name of Publius by James Madison, and John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:20 AM

Bobert, how can you have a rational discussion who tells you he believes this..

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

is actually this..

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:15 AM

Well, one thing that the NRAers don't want, art, is ***any discussion*** about guns!!! Zero!!! Zippo!!! Nada!!! None...

End of conversation...

This is the problem I have with the people on the right... They simply do not want to discuss anything that might either require them to think or, horrors, to compromise... They act like spoiled crybabies and they own the media and have enough $$$$ behind them to have it their way...

The problem with that is you can only oppress people but so long and then you have what we are seeing in Tunisia, Egypt and other middle easter countries...

The left was severely silenced in the 60's and and been given occasional reminders that the right is heavily armed and perfectly willing to kill progressives... I mean, we had the Greensboro Massacre in '79 which was a major reminder... Then every couple years someone who works at a women's clinic is gunned down... Now a congresswoman...

So, we here in Mudville can have this conversation because most of us, if not all of us, are not shills for the NRA or Boss Hog, Inc. but having an adult conversation in the real world not only is not possible but one that the NRA won't permit...

That is the sad reality...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:09 AM

>>2. The definition of the militia at the time was essentially the entire free, adult male population. But in any case, according to the rules of construction, which were well understood at the time, the preamble, while giving a reason for what came afterward, did not in any way define or limit what came afterward. So the bit about the "well regulated militia" doesn't have to be interpreted, because it doesn't affect the main body of the amendment.<<

We have your say so about having "studied constitutional law."

What you have written make it very difficult to believe that your study was at an institute of higher learning. Was it at an NRA seminar?

Lets look at the second amendments.

As passed by the Congress:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Obviously for one who is able to read English, the "well regulated militia" is the reason given in the amendment for the necessity of enshrining the right to bear arms.

It is, as Bobert pointed out, ONE sentence with two clauses, That 'bit about the "well regulated militia"' is literally half of the amendment, there is no "main body" separate from that part.

If it doesn't have to be interpreted why is it there?

There are obviously at least to current versions of the second amendment in circulation the one that is part of the actual constitution and the one seen by those wearing Tea Party blinders. The one that simply says.

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Of course you won't change any minds with that kind of bull crap. I also don't expect you to change your mind once your bull crap has been pointed out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:53 AM

As already noted, we are not going to change anyone's mind by rehashing this topic here yet again. To me, the position taken by some (and I don't want to use a label) that the Constitution is locked in concrete forever, and we are forever bound by the attitudes of people who were writing 220 years ago, is simply wrong. By that, I mean that the interpretation of what is written should be in the context of contemporary (i.e., right now) society - I'm not forgetting about the amendment process.

What I've always found interesting about 2nd Amendment discussions is that people get all wrapped around the axle about subordinate and independent clauses, which are entirely modern grammatical concepts. This discussion is always based upon where the commas were placed in this very brief sentence. However, it is well known that multiple copies of the proposed Bill of Rights were circulated to the states for ratification in 1791...and they were hand-written and not identical. Various versions of that one simple sentence had anywhere from one to three commas in it. (More here, from a pro-gun site.) Some people cite The Federalist Papers (generally assumed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton) in order to derive the "proper" understanding of the statement. Again IMHO, since the Federalists were a political party, anything written by them can only clarify the party's position and can not be used for grammatical clarification.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 11:12 PM

Actually, Bill, far from being standardized the weapons of the US Civil War were anything but. Both Union and Confederate soldiers used the .58 caliber Springfield, the two-band Enfield, the three-band Enfield, the musketoon, and worse. Neither, at the beginning of the Late Unpleasantness, had enough arms on hand and spent several millions of dollars buying whatever they could get from Great Britain and across Europe.

At the time of the Spanish War in 1898 the US military had standardized on the .30-40 Krag Jorgensen rifle, but it was found to be far, far inferior to the Mauser-actioned rifles the Spanish used. In fact, the soldiers often preferred the .45-70 "trapdoor Springfields" used by the militia units. The reasons for this are complex and I shan't go into them here.

Suffice to say that the Krag gave way to the .30-03, which was quickly euthanized and the .30-06 (03 for 1903, 06 for 1906, the year the cartridge was introduced) became "standard" until about 1956, when the .308 Winchester (7.62 x 51 NATO) became the "standard" rifle. Unfortunately, as late as 1970 the US Rifle, Caliber .30, Model of 1903 and Model of 1917, not to mention the venerable M-1, were still in use even though the Army had switched to the US Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M-16 (and its variants in that caliber).

And if you think the rifles were bad, peek at the US military's pistols from the USCW to the present....

Let me give you a simple illustration. In 1968, my National Guard unit was ordered to federal active duty. At the time we were armed with the US Carbine, Caliber .30, M-1 (which is NOT the same weapon OR cartridge as the M-1 rifle). Since we entrained (literally!) "under arms" our carbines were taken from us and we were issued US Rifle, Caliber .30, M-1 (the M-1 rifle of WW2, etc.). Then THESE were taken from us and we were issued US Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M-16A1. When I got to Korea I was issued an M-16A1, which I never saw, and then it was taken and I was issued a US Rifle, Caliber 7.62, M-14 (which I never saw). The ammunition of each of these were ONLY usable by the weapons within the same group. The reason that I didn't see or fire my weapons in Korea was because I was carrying an unauthorized .45 pistol (M1911A1) or a Colt's revolver in .38 Special (a caliber the US Army retired from general issue in 1911, except where it didn't).

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:59 PM

One can study Constitutional Law until the cows come home, Tac...

I mean, lets get real here... Obama taught Constitutional Law and the Tea Partiers "shellacked" him in the midterms because they convinced the people who voted that they knew more than the Constitutional Law than the professor???

Okee dokee???

In the words of Sarah Palin, "WTF???"...

But here's the real deal here... There are 27 words in the 2nd amendment and it ain't a menu of several sentences to choose from like at the local Jeri's Ice Cream so ya' get to pick 'cause it is a long ramblin' sentence... That means only one period so if I have my grammar hat on I say, ahhhhhh, this stuff is inter-realted... Basic grammar...

So I have two problems here... No, actually three...

First: Why is it that gun-rights people do not have an inkling that they are cherry-pickin' the 2nd amendment??? I would bet my farm that if you were to set up a foldin' chair at any of the Virginia gun shows and ask people if they could recite the 2nd amendment that you wouldn't find one single correct answwer... Not one!!!

Second: The "BIG LIE" that is spreading thru *Redneck Nation* that "Obama is gonna ' take yer guns"!!! What a crock of shit... I mean, anyone who believes this is on the IQ south side of a box of animal crackers... OPbama has his hand full, folk, in case ya'll hadn't noticed...

Third: I'd like to see any definition in any dictionary that defines militia as one man...

Okay, thems is jus' fir starters....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:52 PM

"National Guard (which has been pretty much USURPED [caps mine] by the Federal government from its State roles since the end of the draft)."

Interesting choice of verb.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:51 PM

It is true that that 'answer', by itself, will not change many opinions, but it is at least a clarification of certain aspects of history...although I rather doubt the part about... "the Second Amendment was understood, when written, to be a guarantee of the preservation of the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms."

PRE-existing right? Perhaps some understood it that way...perhaps some did not. I'd have to read more.


It is obvious (to me, anyway) that the Constitution needs to be updated and clarified in this matter. In 1780, everyone KNEW what a militia was and what 'bearing arms' to defend the country meant. But those who wrote the document and the amendment had no concept of either the state of the world in 250 years or the advancements in firearms.
   I sincerely doubt they would have been so brief and vague had they known.

No one is arguing whether the Constitution says "right", or that some of it was directly inspired by the attitude of English kings, or that some uses of firearms have been beneficial.....

I AM saying that the **USE** of 'right' in the 2nd amendment to refer to "bearing arms" is a different sense than that of the right to 'freedom', and that it OUGHT to be understood as a 'privilege'.
Now...if I am going to make such a claim, I ought to back it with something more than a 'feeling'....right?
   Ok...when the Bill of Rights was written, everyone knew what a 'militia' was, and that in times of crisis, men might be called on to defend their state or country against something like....well, England deciding to re-take the 'colonies. If they WERE called, they would have been expected to bring with them the weapon(s) they commonly used for hunting and self-protection against various dangers. You know what these weapons consisted of: mostly non-standardized rifles with various firing mechanisms. This continued up about time of the Civil War, during which many changes in firearms were occurring.

   Fast forward a couple hundred years....if the country is threatened or needs to go to the aid of allies, the 'militia'...now known as the Armed Forces, would NOT expected to bring their own weapons. In fact, I doubt they would be allowed to...for various reasons. (standardization...etc..) Also, by this time, the country, most states & even down to many small towns had codified and instituted a trained and paid set of officials and/or soldiers so that it was not necessary to issue general calls to the citizens when help was needed! In special times, a draft was put in place, and the resultant 'militia' was ISSUED arms BY the government....for very good reasons.

So...MY basic feeling is that those who cling to the most literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment are simply ignoring history in order to not upset their personal habits and obsessions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:40 PM

Yes, the Bladensburg Races. Nearly as much fun as the Battle of Stillman's Run.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: EBarnacle
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:36 PM

Actually the rationale for the militia was brought into large disrepute during the War of 1812 when the militia's defense of Washington was termed a race after they ran away in great disarray from the well regulated and disciplined British army.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:31 PM

Let me also hasten to point out what others here already know: I own and shoot firearms. My wife owns those left to her by her late father, who was both a lawyer and a retired Colonel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:29 PM

Yes, I read all of this in my wife's book on Con Law when she was in Law School. But in 1789 there was great antipathy towards a standing Army, the feeling being that the State Militias would be sufficient (given a cadre of professional soldiers to guide them) for the defense of the country -- which is what happened at the beginning of the US Civil War, and which the US Civil War showed would no longer work. Nonetheless, Congress continued with the idea and it still continues as the National Guard (which has been pretty much usurped by the Federal government from its State roles since the end of the draft).

Subject: BS: The Second Amendment
From: Taconicus
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 10:13 PM

Someone asked me to respond about this topic, but I'm posting this in a new thread because the conversation about the Second Amendmentwas taking place in some old thread about rabbis and Glenn Beck.

I studied constitutional law, but the issue is too complex for me to want to go into an argument about it, which I know would never end on this forum. I'll give you the nutshell version and then I'll shut up about it.

1. The answer first: the Second Amendment was understood, when written, to be a guarantee of the preservation of the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), commenting on the Second Amendment, wrote, "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
2. The definition of the militia at the time was essentially the entire free, adult male population. But in any case, according to the rules of construction, which were well understood at the time, the preamble, while giving a reason for what came afterward, did not in any way define or limit what came afterward. So the bit about the "well regulated militia" doesn't have to be interpreted, because it doesn't affect the main body of the amendment.

3. In 1789 the incorporation doctrine did not exist because the post-Civil War amendments did not exist. Accordingly, at the time it was written the Second Amendment prohibited only the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The states, which under the Constitution were considered sovereign nations, still had the general police power and could prohibit or regulate arms if they wanted to. However, practically all of them had in their state constitutions provisions almost identical to the Second Amendment guaranteeing the individual right of the population to keep and bear arms.

Will what I wrote change anyone's mind? Of course not.