Gun control

[Aesir]

Gun Control is something of an issue in the US, Conservatives don't want the right touched at all, many liberals think it should be controlled, some go as far as to say it should be down right banned.

Here's why guns shouldn't be banned:
Gun bans don't decrease violent crime:

When we ban guns we actually increase the rate of violent crime rather then decrease it, which many pro-ban advocates say. However this is just a total lie whether intentional or not, when states place gun bans on the citizens violent crime goes up. However as we saw in Georgia in the early 2000's violent crime decreased as more people where required to own guns.

The ABC anchor cited the case of Kennesaw, Georgia's law that requires its citizens to own guns, relaying a local police officer's observations that crime had dropped after the law passed. Lieutenant Craig Graydon, Kennesaw Police Department: "Well, after the city ordinance passed, there was actually a decrease in reported crime in the Kennesaw area, especially violent crime." Stossel described two instances in which guns were used by law-abiding citizens to stop criminals, including students at the Appalachian School of Law who went to their cars and retrieved their guns after a gunman attacked their school in January 2002.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12556

Disarming the citizen empowers the government and leads the way to dictatorships:

A classic case of a authoritative government is the lack of firearms the civilian has at it's disposal.

a quick history Turkey established gun control in the early 1900's, a few years later millions of Armenians were rounded up and exterminated. 1938 Germany establishes gun control, a few years later millions of Jews are sent to concentration camps.

It's another general rule of thumb that the more you disarm a citizen the more likely they'll be persecuted by their own government for the sake of "Protection."


So how do we appease both sides of the situation without killing each other? It's simple. Nader put it simply that you treat a gun like a car, you should be licensed to own one, and you should go through proper training to use it. After that all you should have to worry about is making sure your license doesn't expire. This way this ensures that the right people are acquiring fire arms and not the wrong people who will shoot up shopping malls and schools. That combined with cracking down on illegal gun trafficking you should not only lessen the violent crime rate but keep the people from losing their most basic right.

 

[cman]

Gun Control is something of an issue in the US, Conservatives don't want the right touched at all, many liberals think it should be controlled, some go as far as to say it should be down right banned.

Here's why guns shouldn't be banned:
Gun bans don't decrease violent crime:

When we ban guns we actually increase the rate of violent crime rather then decrease it, which many pro-ban advocates say. However this is just a total lie whether intentional or not, when states place gun bans on the citizens violent crime goes up. However as we saw in Georgia in the early 2000's violent crime decreased as more people where required to own guns.




http://newsbusters.org/node/12556

Disarming the citizen empowers the government and leads the way to dictatorships:

A classic case of a authoritative government is the lack of firearms the civilian has at it's disposal.

a quick history Turkey established gun control in the early 1900's, a few years later millions of Armenians were rounded up and exterminated. 1938 Germany establishes gun control, a few years later millions of Jews are sent to concentration camps.

It's another general rule of thumb that the more you disarm a citizen the more likely they'll be persecuted by their own government for the sake of "Protection."


So how do we appease both sides of the situation without killing each other? It's simple. Nader put it simply that you treat a gun like a car, you should be licensed to own one, and you should go through proper training to use it. After that all you should have to worry about is making sure your license doesn't expire. This way this ensures that the right people are acquiring fire arms and not the wrong people who will shoot up shopping malls and schools. That combined with cracking down on illegal gun trafficking you should not only lessen the violent crime rate but keep the people from losing their most basic right.

The culture of the south and north are completely different though. Many people in the south are quite proficient with guns because they have grown up shooting. In the North, especially big cities, very few people are comfortable with guns, so if you tried to instigate that rule in say... New York City, more innocent by-standers would probably be shot accidentally than criminals stopped. This is conjecture ofc, so if someone wants to prove me wrong go ahead.

But the point is that no one law is likely to work well for the whole US. I'm probably pro-ban for big cities, but i don't think any kind of gun control would work with the culture of the rural south.

(Again, this is speculation since i don't have time to find sources now, although i might come back later and get some evidence)

Finally, you can't be trying to suggest that gun control was the reason for the holocaust. Are you?

 

[Aesir]

The culture of the south and north are completely different though. Many people in the south are quite proficient with guns because they have grown up shooting. In the North, especially big cities, very few people are comfortable with guns, so if you tried to instigate that rule in say... New York City, more innocent by-standers would probably be shot accidentally than criminals stopped. This is conjecture ofc, so if someone wants to prove me wrong go ahead.

But the point is that no one law is likely to work well for the whole US. I'm probably pro-ban for big cities, but i don't think any kind of gun control would work with the culture of the rural south.

(Again, this is speculation since i don't have time to find sources now, although i might come back later and get some evidence)

Finally, you can't be trying to suggest that gun control was the reason for the holocaust. Are you?

1. no matter the area when guns are restricted there's a higher rate of violent crime, because despite popular belief guns do help stop violent crime.

2. Your argument of gun banning in cities doesn't work either. In DC there's very strict gun control and all it's done is raise the rate of violent crime. (which is a pretty large City.) So it begs the question even in cities does gun banning work? the evidence says otherwise.

3. No I'm not, what I'm saying is, gun banning is a common thing among authoritarian governments.

 

[cman]

1. no matter the area when guns are restricted there's a higher rate of violent crime, because despite popular belief guns do help stop violent crime.

2. Your argument of gun banning in cities doesn't work either. In DC there's very strict gun control and all it's done is raise the rate of violent crime. (which is a pretty large City.) So it begs the question even in cities does gun banning work? the evidence says otherwise.

Statistics for before and after of DC and other cities to help convince me please?

 

[Aesir]

The DC gun ban began in 1975 the rate of violent crime hasn't decreased a substancial amount, in fact in many years it increased then prior years.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

there's a constant flux of rises and falls, hardly what I would call evidence that gun banning works.

http://newsbusters.org/node/9140

This article shows how incredibly pointless it is to ban guns. From this it's easy to see that gun control laws don't save lives they cost lives.

 

[Kur]

Every school shooting that has occurred in the last 25 years in the US has been in a 'gun free zone'. Had those restrictions not been in place, there may have been far fewer fatalities in these instances.

Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminals will not give up their guns and laws will not stop them from getting guns, as they likely do not get their guns legally anyway.

Requiring a person to own a gun is just as stupid as banning them.

A gun is actually not dangerous at all. It is a hunk of metal.

If the government could somehow magically ban guns from both criminals and law abiding people alike, that would just leave the door open to other weapons such as knives, clubs, hammers, homemade projectile weapons, even swords. All of which would leave much more serious and numerous injuries than a bullet. (usually)

The second amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. These were not stupid men. They knew what they were writing back then.

Not only can you look to the bill of rights, but the constitution itself is a list of the things the government can do. Anything not written in the constitution, the government can not do. There is nothing in the constitution about banning guns.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens. Why punish them for the acts of a very small minority of violent criminals?

 

[M@v]

guns dont kill. People do. If you ban guns or impose stricter laws:
A. people will break them
B. they will find other ways to kill people. My guess would be that stabbings would increase, along with other forms of assault and murder.

 

[cman]

Every school shooting that has occurred in the last 25 years in the US has been in a 'gun free zone'. Had those restrictions not been in place, there may have been far fewer fatalities in these instances.

Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminals will not give up their guns and laws will not stop them from getting guns, as they likely do not get their guns legally anyway.

Requiring a person to own a gun is just as stupid as banning them.

A gun is actually not dangerous at all. It is a hunk of metal.

If the government could somehow magically ban guns from both criminals and law abiding people alike, that would just leave the door open to other weapons such as knives, clubs, hammers, homemade projectile weapons, even swords. All of which would leave much more serious and numerous injuries than a bullet. (usually)

The second amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. These were not stupid men. They knew what they were writing back then.

Not only can you look to the bill of rights, but the constitution itself is a list of the things the government can do. Anything not written in the constitution, the government can not do. There is nothing in the constitution about banning guns.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens. Why punish them for the acts of a very small minority of violent criminals?

For the VTech shooting last year, the kid bought from a reputable store. What other school shootings have the guns been obtained illegally?

Guns are dangerous in the same way as cars. They have the capability to cause very serious harm extremely quickly...

How do you figure that knives, clubs, etc are usually more harmful than guns? They are both capable of causing death, and guns can be used eaily and effectively at long range. How is that less dangerous?

Aside from your (Kur) rediculous conservative bull****, and after looking at several sources, I have decided that Aesir is probably right.

However, I am confused as to why allowing guns would decrease crime. I can't fathom how someone with little to no training is going to scare off a criminal? Guns are fairly hard to aim unless you have practiced. Couple that with the stress of the situation, and it's extremely doubtful that some random city-dweller would be able to hit a criminal. Or maybe the numbers are flawed because, while the crime rate might decrease, accidental gun deaths might not be considered a crime, so they do not represent actual changes or something? It doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[blazedaces]

However, I am confused as to why allowing guns would decrease crime. I can't fathom how someone with little to no training is going to scare off a criminal? Guns are fairly hard to aim unless you have practiced. Couple that with the stress of the situation, and it's extremely doubtful that some random city-dweller would be able to hit a criminal. Or maybe the numbers are flawed because, while the crime rate might decrease, accidental gun deaths might not be considered a crime, so they do not represent actual changes or something? It doesn't seem to make sense.

Most criminals can't shoot guns well either. It doesn't matter. Firstly, the presence of a gun creates intimidation and if one side has a gun while the other doesn't, that side without the gun will most likely just give up anything to make sure they get out of it alive...

Either way, we're not exactly talking about aiming a gun at long range so much as being able to walk up to a person at blank range and shoot them. This power evens the playing field.

The truth is that a child is more likely to die from drowning in a pool then by being shot accidentally. The number of accidental deaths from gunfire is a lot lower than people think (doesn't mean it's not a serious thing to consider, but still...).

-blazed

 

[manhunter098]

People are more willing to shoot a criminal than you may think. And the more people that actually have a gun with them and are able to shoot the criminal the better the chances of someone being willing to pull the trigger on the bad guy.

The issue still is that a criminal who wants a gun, is probably going to be able to get it somehow. The same even applies to school shootings, though to a lesser degree, since if nobody the kid knows has parents who have a gun then he is out of luck, but school shootings arent exactly going to be made more common just because more adults have guns.

Furthermore accidental deaths related to guns are very rare. Most people who own a firearm are intelligent enough to at least keep the safety on if they have it in public, and while I suppose kids accidentally shooting themselves might see an increase, the cases of the owner accidentally shooting another person arent going to increase, and would probably fall as long as you require a license (that would require tests to obtain) to own a gun.


Basically...I really dont see how people having more guns will cause a problem. Criminal access isnt really going to be increased, since they do tend to get their weapons from illegal sources anyways.


Think about this for a second. If you as a criminal are going to commit a crime in the open that would be worthy of somebody shooting you in order to stop. Would you be as likely to do it if you knew any adult could be wielding a gun and be ready to shoot you? Sure, its not a thought that will scare off every criminal, but it will definitely deter a few.

 

[AltF4]

But seriously... I've also never had a strong opinion one way or another on this issue.

I would like to say that guns in today's society is unnecessary and only destructive. But there ARE those who enjoy the shooting of firearms recreationaly. (I guess I can't blame them, shooting stuff in video games is pretty fun. It's gotta be pretty fun IRL too.)

I find the results of the studies Aesir posted a little contrived, though. If you ban something in only a small area, surrounded by somewhere the product is NOT banned, the product might as well not be banned at all. (IE: Fireworks in certain states that ban them.)

I would like to see statistical data comparing whole gun-banned nations versus the likes of the US and such. I would, however, be still more swayed by the freedom issue than by any statistical safety information, unless it were very significant.

I also don't buy pro-gun arguments on the basis of "a well armed militia", as a protection against our own government. (As if a bunch of hicks with 22's can stand any real opposition to the US armed forces.)

 

[snex]

I would like to see statistical data comparing whole gun-banned nations versus the likes of the US and such. I would, however, be still more swayed by the freedom issue than by any statistical safety information, unless it were very significant.

http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/

australia and the UK have country-wide handgun bans. although so does japan. all 3 are island nations and so "going next door" is not a very feasible option for the average criminal. the lack of handguns doesnt seem to be a very good predictor of violent crime overall, but it does seem to correlate in most western societies.

 

[derek.haines]

From all of the statistics I have read, it seems like gun bans do little to keep weapons out of the hands of true criminals (i.e., organized crime, serial killers, violent cults). So, if they're still going to have guns then what's the point?

Petty criminals--that's the point. If you're going to rob a Circle K, you probably won't possess the means to obtain a weapon in a country with a total ban. Most robberies don't start out with a murder in mind, but an inexperienced bandit with a pistol is easily spooked, and it often ends with inadvertent shots fired. If that bandit was forced to do his business with a knife, that twitchy trigger finger aspect could be eliminated, potentially saving the lives of hundreds of cashiers.

Still, it is impossible to directly compare the plight of major US cities to small southern towns or developed Asian nations. Gang violence and the public fear of it has risen to record levels in this country, and with our unique problem we need a problem to fit the solution--the anecdotal evidence and statistics be ****ed. To pass a law stating that no person may carry with them a firearm at any time would potentially put away thousands of gang members, reducing public fear and allowing citizens to once again retake their neighborhoods. To suggest that the people can do that presently with weapons is madness--descending to the level of the oppressors taints not only the process but the outcome. The situation can be accomplished with a simple law.

 

[snex]

Petty criminals--that's the point. If you're going to rob a Circle K, you probably won't possess the means to obtain a weapon in a country with a total ban. Most robberies don't start out with a murder in mind, but an inexperienced bandit with a pistol is easily spooked, and it often ends with inadvertent shots fired. If that bandit was forced to do his business with a knife, that twitchy trigger finger aspect could be eliminated, potentially saving the lives of hundreds of cashiers.

if the petty criminal cant get a gun, then neither can the cashier. so the petty criminal can rob a place with a homemade crossbow. how is the situation improved?

Still, it is impossible to directly compare the plight of major US cities to small southern towns or developed Asian nations. Gang violence and the public fear of it has risen to record levels in this country, and with our unique problem we need a problem to fit the solution--the anecdotal evidence and statistics be ****ed. To pass a law stating that no person may carry with them a firearm at any time would potentially put away thousands of gang members, reducing public fear and allowing citizens to once again retake their neighborhoods. To suggest that the people can do that presently with weapons is madness--descending to the level of the oppressors taints not only the process but the outcome. The situation can be accomplished with a simple law.

in places that outlaw guns, the gang bangers are still running around with guns. they have not been stopped. your idealistic nonsense tells us nothing about how the real world operates. "statistics be ****ed" is what a person says when their argument is clearly wrong but they refuse to yield. statistics are what we as citizens need to care about - we want lower crime rates without sacrificing the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution (one of which just so happens to be the right to bear arms anyway).

 

[blazedaces]

Guys, it would save a lot of lives if we banned alcohol. All those in favor, say I. Good, glad we cleared that up...

Good thing we'll never have to worry about that again...

-blazed

 

[derek.haines]

in places that outlaw guns, the gang bangers are still running around with guns. they have not been stopped. your idealistic nonsense tells us nothing about how the real world operates. "statistics be ****ed" is what a person says when their argument is clearly wrong but they refuse to yield. statistics are what we as citizens need to care about - we want lower crime rates without sacrificing the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution (one of which just so happens to be the right to bear arms anyway).

Where are your "statistics" to back that up? I'm presenting that we have a real problem on our hands that's virtually unique to this country and this country alone, and therefore there exist no statistics to accurately represent the effects gun control could have. You say we want lower crime rates, but present no logical solution to the problem, making you just a further part of it. If the solution you present is that every citizen take up arms and shoot the "bad guys", then I present the solution of moving to Canada.

Guys, it would save a lot of lives if we banned alcohol. All those in favor, say I. Good, glad we cleared that up...

Good thing we'll never have to worry about that again...

It's difficult to draw parallels between prohibition and a potential ban on weaponry. Prohibition banned alcohol because of some misguided Christian beliefs about it's effects on American morality, not because it was outrightly dangerous to the populous. Prohibition presented no logical positive consequences of it's enactment.

if the petty criminal cant get a gun, then neither can the cashier. so the petty criminal can rob a place with a homemade crossbow. how is the situation improved?

A crossbow? Seriously? Even in the supremely unlikely event that a gun ban somehow sent us back to a pre-Renaissance era, a crossbow would still be an improvement because it's more easily seen (it's hard to hide a crossbow in your pocket) and more easily defended against (arrows lack the penetration power that bullets possess).

 

[Kur]

For the VTech shooting last year, the kid bought from a reputable store. What other school shootings have the guns been obtained illegally?

So what? Like I said, a very small minority of people with guns do horrible things so we are supposed to punish all of the law abiding people by banning guns?

Guns are dangerous in the same way as cars. They have the capability to cause very serious harm extremely quickly...

And yet if the VTech incident wasn't a shooting, but rather a guy running people down with a car, you wouldn't be in here trying to ban cars would you?

How do you figure that knives, clubs, etc are usually more harmful than guns? They are both capable of causing death, and guns can be used eaily and effectively at long range. How is that less dangerous?

A knife can cause far more damage to a person than a bullet. Not only that but trying to kill a person with a knife usually involves multiple stabbings. Clubs usually require several hits resulting is crushed bones, internal bleeding, burst eyeballs, etc. A gun is probably the most humane way to kill a person illegally. And there are a lot of other weapons that can be used at long ranges. By the way, most shootings happen at ranges of no more than 10 feet.

Aside from your (Kur) rediculous conservative bull****, and after looking at several sources, I have decided that Aesir is probably right.

Me being conservative has no bearing on whether or not I am right. And you also have no right to call my views ridiculous, or bull****, simply because you do not agree with them.

However, I am confused as to why allowing guns would decrease crime. I can't fathom how someone with little to no training is going to scare off a criminal? Guns are fairly hard to aim unless you have practiced. Couple that with the stress of the situation, and it's extremely doubtful that some random city-dweller would be able to hit a criminal. Or maybe the numbers are flawed because, while the crime rate might decrease, accidental gun deaths might not be considered a crime, so they do not represent actual changes or something? It doesn't seem to make sense.

It only does not make sense to you because you believe (in spite of the evidence) that allowing guns would increase crime. If you would actually put aside your bias, you would see that it actually does make sense.

If you were to rob a house and find the owner pointing a gun in your general direction, are you going to be scared? You don't know if they can aim it, let alone if they even know how to shoot it, but it is a gun and it is pointed at you. It might have 10 rounds in the clip or it might be empty. Do you think a person with no training could hit you from 15 feet away with 10 chances? Are you going to stick around to find out?

The point is that you don't have to fire a gun to scare off a criminal. They don't want your Xbox bad enough to risk dying over.

And you can't sit here and say that "guns are fairly hard to aim" as an excuse when just a few paragraphs before you said that "guns can be used eaily and effectively at long range" to try to back up a different argument.

Yes, a person that has never shot a gun in their life will likely miss a target at 25 yards. It is hard to put a bullet where you want it. But most people who legally own and purchase guns, have had a lot of practice. Even some 'random city-dweller'. You have to realize that even 'random city-dwellers' have cars that can take them to shooting ranges, the country side, or wherever they want to go to legally shoot their firearms.

And yes, accidents happen. Sometimes a person will accidently shoot themselves or others while handling a gun. But so what? Far more people are killed every year by cars, slipping in the bathroom, electrocution, and work related accidents. People who legally own guns almost always have them either locked in a safe, or have a locking device over the trigger so the gun can not be fired.


It all comes down to fear. People who have never handled a gun are afraid of them. They watch movies and listen to stories on the news and think that a gun will just go off because of any little thing. People are afraid of what they don't understand.

But seriously... I've also never had a strong opinion one way or another on this issue.

I would like to say that guns in today's society is unnecessary and only destructive. But there ARE those who enjoy the shooting of firearms recreationaly. (I guess I can't blame them, shooting stuff in video games is pretty fun. It's gotta be pretty fun IRL too.)

It is not unnecessary at all. Why else own a gun legally if not for recreational shooting? hunting, target practice, home security, competition shooting, and if it ever came down to it, overthrowing a corrupt and oppressive government as the constitution allows. And yes, it is fun.

You don't HAVE to kill something just because you have a gun.

I find the results of the studies Aesir posted a little contrived, though. If you ban something in only a small area, surrounded by somewhere the product is NOT banned, the product might as well not be banned at all. (IE: Fireworks in certain states that ban them.)

Not only that but any amount of banning will never get all of the guns out of an area. It will only get the legal ones. And even if the area is not surrounded by places that also ban guns, criminals will set up a large smuggling operation to bring guns in from wherever they can get them.

After this is accomplished, the 'petty' criminals will buy a gun on the black market for $300, go rob a circle K or 4 and sell the gun to some other 'petty' criminal.

I also don't buy pro-gun arguments on the basis of "a well armed militia", as a protection against our own government. (As if a bunch of hicks with 22's can stand any real opposition to the US armed forces.)

The actual phrase is "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."

It is clearly talking about 2 different things. It says that the government can not infringe on a militia, OR the right of the PEOPLE to own guns.

The right to keep and bear arms is not relegated to a militia. It is the right of the people.

Through the correct use of commas the founding fathers combined two statements into one. If you were to replace that second comma with the word 'and' it shows what the second amendment is actually saying.

And if the time came that the US government was in need of overthrowing, the military would not unanimously support the government. There will be those who support the government and those who oppose it. Not to mention, the government isn't going to wipe out the population to keep in power. Once the people decide they have had enough, that's it. The point being that if we do not allow the government to infringe on our rights, there won't be any need to overthrow the government.



And not only 'hicks' own guns. And those guns are not only .22s.

 

[derek.haines]

The actual phrase is "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."

It is clearly talking about 2 different things. It says that the government can not infringe on a militia, OR the right of the PEOPLE to own guns.

The right to keep and bear arms is not relegated to a militia. It is the right of the people.

Actually, there were two versions of that featuring different punctuation. The version you list was the one passed by the House and Senate. The version distributed to the states for ratification is as follows:

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.

The second version clearly refers specifically to the militia. It implies that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is due to the necessity of a well regulated militia.

Things were vastly different back in the day, however. At the time that this was written, there was a certain necessity for a well regulated militia. To be sure, the American Revolution was won primarily by volunteer soldiers who brought their own weaponry, and to the Constitutional Convention this would naturally appear to be the way it would remain for some time. With no organized national military, any conflicts needed the inclusion of a militia. Now, however, we possess a large and well-organized national military, and the idea of a "volunteer militia" has been absorbed into what we know as the National Guard. Ordinary citizens need not defend themselves against foreign invaders any longer, they've pretty much got it under control.

Oh, and, nowhere in the Constitution does it give anyone the right, implied or otherwise, to overthrow the government. That would be treason, and it's generally frowned upon. One of the beautiful things about our governmental system and our country in general is that we believe in the rule of law. During the controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential election, many other countries would've been thrown into revolution with such an outcome. We were content, though, to believe in the law as it was written and accept the reality for what it was without the need for bloodshed.

 

[Kur]

Actually, there were two versions of that featuring different punctuation. The version you list was the one passed by the House and Senate. The version distributed to the states for ratification is as follows:



The second version clearly refers specifically to the militia. It implies that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is due to the necessity of a well regulated militia.

Things were vastly different back in the day, however. At the time that this was written, there was a certain necessity for a well regulated militia. To be sure, the American Revolution was won primarily by volunteer soldiers who brought their own weaponry, and to the Constitutional Convention this would naturally appear to be the way it would remain for some time. With no organized national military, any conflicts needed the inclusion of a militia. Now, however, we possess a large and well-organized national military, and the idea of a "volunteer militia" has been absorbed into what we know as the National Guard. Ordinary citizens need not defend themselves against foreign invaders any longer, they've pretty much got it under control.

Oh, and, nowhere in the Constitution does it give anyone the right, implied or otherwise, to overthrow the government. That would be treason, and it's generally frowned upon. One of the beautiful things about our governmental system and our country in general is that we believe in the rule of law. During the controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential election, many other countries would've been thrown into revolution with such an outcome. We were content, though, to believe in the law as it was written and accept the reality for what it was without the need for bloodshed.

It says the EXACT same thing. It does not refor only to the militia. The comma that is in question is still there. The one between the words 'state' and 'the'.

That comma takes the place of the word 'and' when used in this way. It is used to combine two sentences with different beginning, but the same endings.

Instead of saying:

"A well regulated militia shall not be infringed." and then "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." they combined the two statements with a comma.

It is basically a list. It is a list of things that 'shall not be infringed'.



And I wouldn't count the national guard as any sort of militia, as they are run by the same government that controls the regular military.

And yes, the constitution does say that the people should overthrow the government if the government got too big, too controlling.

That was the whole purpose behind the constitution. To ensure that the people always held more power than the government. The founding fathers were not stupid. They knew that any government always tries to give themselves more power and more control.

the US committed 'treason' when we revolted against british rule.

 

[Eor]

It's only treason if you lose

 

[derek.haines]

It says the EXACT same thing. It does not refor only to the militia. The comma that is in question is still there. The one between the words 'state' and 'the'.

It says the same thing, but it doesn't say the same thing. Ask any English major and they'll tell you the same thing. That comma changes the entire meaning of the sentence.

Take this example for instance:

The US government lost at least a million dollars through the slip of a comma. In the tariff act passed on June 6, 1872, a list of duty-free items included: `Fruit plants, tropical and semitropical'. A government clerk accidentally altered the line to read: `Fruit, plants tropical and semitropical'. Importers successfully contended that the passage, as written, exempted all tropical and semitropical plants from duty fees. This cost the US a fortune until May 9, 1874, when the passage was amended to plug the hole.

Commas can and will change the entire meaning of a sentence. With the sentence in question, it's entirely debatable as to whether or not they were referring to the people as a whole, or the people that would comprise the militia.

And I wouldn't count the national guard as any sort of militia, as they are run by the same government that controls the regular military.

The National Guard does not represent a militia as it existed during the time of the writing of the Constitution, but instead is a modern update thereof. Militias as they existed then today only exist as separatist and extremist groups.

Besides that, the President--head of the federal government--is called in as leader of the militias in times of conflict. (Article II, Section 2, US Constitution) This effectively puts militias under the control of the federal government when it matters, and designates the control to states during all other times--which is exactly how the National Guard is arranged presently.

And yes, the constitution does say that the people should overthrow the government if the government got too big, too controlling.

That was the whole purpose behind the constitution. To ensure that the people always held more power than the government. The founding fathers were not stupid. They knew that any government always tries to give themselves more power and more control.

The Declaration of Independence references this right, but I'm not aware of the passage your refer to in the Constitution guaranteeing the legal right to revolution. The Declaration of Independence, while important historically, does not represent the word of law.

the US committed 'treason' when we revolted against british rule.

And it was illegal then, too.

 

[manhunter098]

Im pretty sure that the capitalized "People" which is in BOTH versions refers to everyone. Not just militias. Furthermore even if the meaning is different in both of them. It still says that everyone has the right to own guns. Even if the purpose for that ownership may be outdated, it still giving the "People" the right to bear arms.

 

[Crimson King]

The problem with banning firearms - police will still have them. There is no reason the police should ever have that kind of power over the population. I have seen enough confiscated police videos to know that there are officers abusing their power, what little they should have to begin with, and if everyone was unarmed but them, it'd create an even more dangerous atmosphere.

Fact is, the police are not here to stop crimes. They are here to do detective work after a crime has been committed. If your house gets broken into, and you are shot, chances are the police will not be able to do much about it. Sorry, but your city is probably too big to find one person.

As for school shootings, anyone using this as a viable argument for why firearms should be banned is an idiot. The person who did the attacking was an insane individual. Had they not used guns they would have used, knives, cars, poisons, or bombs. Anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of chemicals can make lethal poisons and bombs that could wipe out a whole school, and if they don't have the knowledge, the internet can fix that. Next, if my school is ever attack, I know I am as good as dead. Campus response time is around 15 minutes IF you can get to a phone. In 15 minutes, a person with a handgun in a crowded area could do a lot of damage. Where I work, we have two doors, both next to each other. Everyone in there is literally a sitting duck; after VT, I would be edgy whenever the door opened.

The concealed handgun license allows TRAINED individuals to possess a handgun. This does not mean just anyone can go through with it. The test requires mental competency, accuracy testing, and takes place over a few days.

Finally, yes, the second amendment IS about protecting yourself against a totalitarian government. Whenever a government became oppressive, they would ban firearms. It's common sense to do. If the constitution ever took out the amendment, I'd be the first to acquire an illegal weapon because regardless of the constitution, we have a natural right to protect ourselves. People who want to do harm to us will have guns, so why should I?

 

[derek.haines]

Im pretty sure that the capitalized "People" which is in BOTH versions refers to everyone. Not just militias. Furthermore even if the meaning is different in both of them. It still says that everyone has the right to own guns. Even if the purpose for that ownership may be outdated, it still giving the "People" the right to bear arms.

Actually, the capitalization as it is found on http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html--a government website, has "people" starting with a lowercase letter. It simply refers to the right of the people who would be part of a militia to keep and bear arms. And my opinion is joined by 4 of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

...[T]hat the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only.

Finally, yes, the second amendment IS about protecting yourself against a totalitarian government. Whenever a government became oppressive, they would ban firearms. It's common sense to do. If the constitution ever took out the amendment, I'd be the first to acquire an illegal weapon because regardless of the constitution, we have a natural right to protect ourselves. People who want to do harm to us will have guns, so why should I?

We might have the natural right (just like those of life, liberty, reproduction, and the pursuit of happiness), but those are completely unarguable in a debate because they're not legal rights, they're assumed rights. Yes, the Declaration of Independence says:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

But, again, the Declaration of Independence is not the word of law. The Constitution was written as the framework for a successful American governmental system, carefully crafted and thought out by the greatest collection of thinkers in the history of mankind--and they were smart enough to never, ever include the legal right to a revolution. Yes, if people got angry enough with their government, they can rebel. This is true, just as how a person who wants to kill themselves can--it's still illegal, but they can. I'm talking about on the books, law. And America is what it is, and it's been around for as long as it has, because we believe collectively in the word of law.