I'd rather die free on my feet than spend my life on my knees as a slave. call me a fanatic.


I personally don't give a damn if the NRA is asking that or not. I'm the one asking that. why don't these people know how to do this?

Wow, it took six whole pages before reaching this level of hyperbole? Is that a new record?

I find all of this fascinating. I don't personally know anyone who owns a gun. Not that I know of, anyway. Oh, wait. I know one person. He uses it for hunting.

Anyway, I always find it amusing, too, that gun fanatics use these statistics like they do...as though gun laws are the only factor in crime.

Back to Obama:
I don't think anyone has anything to worry about. The country will likely always be awash in guns.

so are you trying to say that gun laws have no effect on crime? or that guns are the cause of gun crime?

found the report I was looking for and I was off, but it's also older....for 75 to 84. The number was that 5 out of 6 people would be victims of violent crime. My bad. too many things on my mind.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf

Baraka_Guru,

Not so much the use of statistics to show that guns are the only factor, but the use of statistics to show that somehow, gun ownership is proportionally related to crime rates is, in and of itself, a fallacy.

If one thinks about it, some European countries may boast lower crime rates--probably true. But then, their population may also be much more homogeneous, right?

Now that's just insulting. I am not a gun-fetishist, though they are certainly a hobby. By mentioning that the pro-gun people who presented 'data' in this thread are in a different category from mainstream gun owners is an ad hominem attack, of sorts.

Sure, the stats I quoted were 'meager' as they were in response to even more vague statistics about how good life is in countries that don't have guns. I am not a statistician, and I am not trying to womp anybody over the head with my knowledge of numbers. Rather, I pulled some simple, basic stats, and presented those. Sure, they may be off a little, but by and large, most modern countries have a pretty good idea of how many people are murdered in a given year. That you can draw any conclusion from them was exactly my point. I wasn't presenting an argument that more guns=less crime, only that the comparisons to Europe were far less black and white than they were presented.

Strict constructionism is not morally bankrupt. There is nothing in the constructionist view to prevent the constitution from being changed. However, the constitution was deliberately written to make it difficult to amend, requiring more than a passing majority or a short lived sentiment for a particular change. This lethargy was designed to make sure we were really committed before we changed the document our country was founded upon, rather than changing it with every new administration. To simply 'interpret' it differently according to whichever way the wind is blowing is not only morally bankrupt as you accused those like me of being, but intellectually dishonest, and fails to provide a clear, unchanging guidline of right and wrong. The constitution is supremely adaptable, to the point where the people can legally implement a dictatorship or monarchy, with a simple amendment.
That we don't change the constitution more often is due to the fact that most of the time people are nearly evenly divided over issues such as the one discussed in this thread.


Oh, and Roachboy, I will be happy to read anything you can show me that indicates the second amendment was not written with the intent of arming the people. Prefereably articles written by those who took part in writing the constitution and the formation of our republic. I will keep an open mind because maybe I have been swayed by the Gun-fetishists who actually created our government.

I do not elevate the second amendment to the 'status of the transcendent.' I don't believe it is any more or less important than the other Amendmendts in the bill of rights. I am violently opposed to some of the recent attacks which have weakened some of our other rights. However, we are currently discussing the 2'nd, and as such I have not discussed the others.

I welcome a discussion with a mediocre undergraduate, as I used to be one. Please tell him to be gentle as I am sure his powers of observation will be all the sharper as he is in college and thus knows everything. Again, why insult those you disagree with?

As far as all the 'arguments' presented, I can sum it up like this: Like it or not the constitution refers to 'the people' several times, and in each of those cases (including the 2'nd amendment now) the supreme court has ruled 'the people' refers to *gasp* the people, and that when the authors of the constitution wanted to refer to a different group, they were perfectly capable of articulating it. For instance, when they refer to congress, they say "congress." So when a "pro-gun fetishist who magically believes owning a gun gives him political agency" such as myself opens a book and reads the constitution, it seems quite clear that the second Amendment simply enumerates the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose for which was because it was necessary to maintain an armed populace for the Militia due to fears about the federal government mainting a large standing army. If you don't like it, try to change it, but dont' try to wave your magic wand and reinvent the english language.

Oh, and furthermore, nobody on this forum has suggested that owning a firearm suddenly makes you *somebody* and that you will all of a sudden be able to get things done. It doesn't.

Have enough intellectual honesty to either present your own argument, critique someone elses, or read politely. Simply denegrating those who have challenged a particular point of view is not a very classy move.

No. I'm referring to what roachboy hinted at: The use of statistics can draw any sort of conclusion you want if you know how to use them. Do you know how hard it would be to accurately demonstrate the effect gun ownership/laws have on crime? If it were easy, there would be little room for debate.

Statistics can benefit both sides of the issue. You can show me where gun laws have had detrimental effects on crime rates, but I could show you stats demonstrating that over half of women killed by guns were murdered by an intimate partner. Where does stat-flinging get us here?

It is, however, the only move he has. The sort of snide, condescending, holier-than-thou-and-smarter-than-God attitude you're referring to is why I no longer debate with RB. One can only see one's argument transmogrified into an unrecognizable strawman and called "incoherant" so many times before the brick wall starts to hurt the head. I suggest you don't try arguing with RB, Slims: if he dislikes your arguement he'll simply label it "incoherant" as if he's some Final Authority, or simply express dismay and disbelief that anyone -still- thinks that way.

He'd be amusing if I didn't know that people just like him have the engines of Force at their disposal, and the ability to turn their irrationality, prejudice, and poor impulse-control into a mass grave.

I just want to say that the idea that anyone could honestly believe that people like roachboy have at their fingertips "engines of force" is funny. I think your conception of roachboy is "incoherent" to say the least. And that assertion is completely distinct from any discussion of gun control.

Dude, nobody is attempting to understand you. Except for the gentlemen in the "delivery van" outside your house with all the surveillance equipment.

I have a safe full of firearms that haven't done much except kill paper. Are they supposed to be doing something else? Do tell.

This thread was delightful. Please stop picking on one another.

I concur. People comprise the independent variable. Crime is crime: it is only the tools that change. The United States is "the most gosh-darn violent country in the universe" because of its citizens and social issues, not the type of tools available with which to bludgeon and blast each other.

...

Didn't I read somewhere that the FBI actually has a task force assigned to crimes committed with blunt instruments like baseball bats?

I support my right to have a gun. It's all the other people that are crazy. ;) I think the right is a little too fearful of what the left will do. They usually have good intentions, but I don't see the second amendment (as it is currently interpreted) going anywhere.

Even if John McCain had won, I would still be thinking about getting a gun. Not so much to defend my home, but my job might make me check on things if the alarm goes off at night. I would be too scared to go into that situation without some type of protection. It could be a mouse, a bunch of kids messing around, a drug-crazed meth head, or a foreign intelligence agent. I'll need to have something to make me feel better going into a dark building with an alarm going off.

I can block a baseball bat. I can't block a bullet. I'll take idiot psychos with bludgeoning weapons any day.

Very well put. I was getting frustrated with formulating a similar response. Then I refreshed the thread and saw this. :thumbsup:

This is a pretty informative video. I'm sure it will be dismissed as "intellectually bankrupt" but nevertheless it does highlight some of the silliness of the "assault weapons ban". I posted this because soon reenacting the Clinton "assualt weapons ban" will be the "common sense approach" to gun control. Funny how this argument never materialized during the election process but as soon as Hussein Obama is elected every gun banner in the lower 48 us jumping on the band wagon once again. It's beginning to feel like 1994 all over again.

Can you block a "magic wand?" j/k

...

Will, the point here is that (violent) crimes will occur with or without firearms. Sure, firearms are far more effective than baseball bats (doesn't your leg agree?) but when you remove legally-purchased, citizen-owned firearms from the equation, you still have XXXk guns out there that with which criminals will use against those who're "doing the right thing" by Johnny "Change-It-Up" Lawman.

It is physically impossible to remove guns from the United States. Why heavily restrict or seize them from law-abiding people like Crompsin? I'm a responsible gun owner... and as the bumper sticker goes, "My guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car."

Re: the OP...which has gotten lost in the discussion.
Is it reasonable to conclude that Obama's voting record is not as "anti-gun" as they come...unless you choose to ignore his stated reasons for voting against particular bills but believe the NRA misrepresentation of his votes?

Is it reasonable to conclude that Obama's position on gun control is not extreme, but rather in line with the majority of Americans?

The general measures he supports like a background check at gun shows and child safety devices are supported by 2 out of 3 Americans.

He supports stiffer prosecution of gun crimes.

And yes, he supports the AWB...and so does a significant the majority of Americans. Harris poll - 71% support, Annenberg poll - 68% support (including 57% gun owners), Consumer Federation of America poll - 67% support (including 56% gun owners).

Public Attitudes Toward Gun Control

SO please, tell me again how Obama's position is extreme or out of the mainstream and not just NRA generated "fear" rhetoric?

well well.

these gun threads make me impatient.
they are always more or less the same thread.
sometimes that impatience gets the better of me.

i stand by the claim about the "data" that's being tossed about here, as almost inevitably happens when the topic of guns comes up, sooner or later.

all i'll add is that multiple possibilities exist for arguing against gun control: that they in themselves (and this is the important part--in themselves) guarantee the possibility of revolt against the state is goofy---even in the arguments from the militia types, guns function as signifiers that are given a political content by the *other* claims that enframe them. the arguments make an analogy between the activities of contemporary rightwing paramilitary sporting clubs and the 18th century militia. from there, a second analogy follows--between the federal government in the 21st century us and the mid-18th century british colonial government. from there unfolds a discourse graft--the contemporary state taxes without representation, the contemporary state is tyranny---these are the political arguments--that you have guns is therefore not the center of your politics--you frame your gun ownership politically by acting as though you can invoke the american revolution, and as if by doing that you generate a coherent radical politics in 2008. i dont think most of the far right folk here even recognize the way their own arguments operate. i just point it out.


the strict construction position is about what i said is was about. what the far right wants to do by way of this position is not only to elevate gun ownership to a transcendent right by disabling the capacity of the constitutional system to modify itself, they want to change the nature of the entire american legal system. thing is that there are already more rigid constitutional systems around and have been for a very logn time. one thing these have in common is constitutional crises. why? because of the rigidity of the order spelled out in them in general.

morality has nothing to do with the above. it's a simple matter of fact that whatever you think of the american system, the capitalist system that the americans have developed, the legal system itself has proven to be remarkably stable BECAUSE it allows for coherent change. the right wants to eliminate that. i think that's goofy. an the rationale, in the end, really is that by reducing the margin for self-alteration, 18th centry gun rights, the conception of which is written into the 2nd amendement (which was written before there was a standing army, before there were standing police forces, etc.)...

all this follows from the fact that i simply oppose the politics of the militia movement, broadly understood.
=======

later: this brings me back around to the op, strangely enough.

what this panic--if that it is---driven by the nra appears to be about really is solidifying a sense of boundary separating its conservative constituency from everyone else. stoking the paranoid fires by linking hyberbolic claims about what obama's administration might do relative to gun control to the conservative canards from a month or so ago about obama as "socialist" has most to do with maintaining this sense of separateness and little at all to do with the world. by that i mean that there is no particular description of what obama might do--there is a voting record, which is interpreted in a tendentious manner (look it up)...there are the Panic Button nouns from the campaign (redbaiting naturally)....so the alienated members of the far right nra are now arming themselves even more.


but if you look at the composition of obama's administration as it has been announced so far, it's pretty obvious that the governing will happen from the center. policy may be more left-oriented or not--the neoliberal legacy is that neoliberalism has to be set on fire and everyone, right left center, knows it---but the centrist governance will place a brake on this--assuming it happens---which we don't yet know.

and the nra doesn't know either.

i could understand maybe this kind of nonsense happening in response to an active policy--but absent ANYTHING from the administration WHICH ISNT IN POWER YET, the nra's fear-mongering is strange.

unless you see it in the terms outlined above. then it makes some sense--it can be a good or a bad tactic, but it definitely is one.

And maybe when you come back to say more, RB, you could try speaking plain english. I'm actually pretty disappointed that you think by using combinations of big and important sounding words while claiming that those who believe the polar opposite of what you do make you sound like you know what you're talking about more than anyone else. It almost makes me want to put you on ignore because you make so little sense.

o get off it, dk.

if you can make coherent counter arguments, then do it.
if you can't then don't.
it is not important to me either way.

but the ball's in your court.

that plain enough?

dk or anyone....

I'll make it simple and ask again:

SO please, tell me how Obama's position is extreme or out of the mainstream when it is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Despite the fact that the NRA and other gun rights organizations outspend gun control organizations by at least 10:1 on campaigncontributions, lobbying Congress and communicating their message to the public.

campaign contributions: Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989.....Gun control advocates, meanwhile, contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989

lobbying: The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.

general communications: Since 1989, the NRA has spent more than $22 million on communications costs and independent expenditures...

OpenSecrets | Gun Control vs. Gun Rights

-----Added 10/12/2008 at 10 : 46 : 15-----

Bonus question:

You dont have to agree, but could it be reasonable for some to conclude that the NRA disseminates false or misleading information in order to generate a continuous flow of contributions necessary to maintain their advocacy efforts?

I'd say no more so than any other lobbying organization like moveon.org or truthout, brady campaign, VPC

Cool...I will take that as a YES (with a qualifier)....the NRA disseminates false or misleading information in order to generate a continuous flow of contributions necessary to maintain their advocacy efforts...and so do other advocacy organizations.

Follow up question: Why do you think the NRA spends more than 10x as much as the Brady Campaign?

NOW...back to the main question, please!

How is Obama's position extreme or out of the mainstream when it is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Are those who hold that position suggesting that 60-70% of Americans are extremists on the issue of gun control?

Note: I am trying to steer the discussion back to the OP and away from any further discussion on the intent of the 2nd amendment.

well, this article is from the nra's pet publication "america's first freedom" and gives an idea of the infotainment that's setting up this nonsense about obama:


this is a little texxtbook of rhetorical devices.
for example, count the number of times the phrase "anti-gun agenda" shows up.

Ringside at the Supreme Court


here's a bit more nra hysteria-mongering:

Gun Ban Barack Obama


this organization's gotten in bed with the extreme right and now has apparently decided to go down with the ship.
from this viewpoint, things they are doing make more sense.
it's all about the nra, not the world.

Apparently, it's not.

I think the problem is many gun advocates aren't ready to take "Hussein" Obama at his word.

Hmm,

While it may be true that Obama shares a belief "in line" with the majority of americans--have people stopped to think that--the majority belief is inherently baloney?

I can't tell you the many times I tell my classmates that I want to go shooting--only to be followed up with questions pertaining to violence.

Me: "Man, I'm totally gonna go to the shooting range after I'm done w/ law school finals."

Classmate: "Oh yea? Which teacher you gonna pretend the target is?"

Me:.......

Shooting guns is the same as shooting hoops. If you're good at it, you enjoy it. There is *ABSOLUTELY NO* violent attachment to them by the majority of law abiding gun owners. The violent spectre is ALWAYS INVOKED by the ignorant.

I'll concede, guns can do some dastardly things. But the majority opinion that guns = bad, is driven by media, namely movies, biased media reports, false information, and the desire to sensationalize guns and resultant deaths.

For example, everyone's heard about the 8yr old boy who shot himself in Massachussetts. But what about the CCW owner who stopped a bank robbery in Kentucky? Another who stopped a bank robbery in Texas? The woman home alone who staved off a burglary with a gun? The Homeowner in NY who did the same?

Something to think about fellas. :)

Hmm, I sincerely hope that you're not using the completely irrelevant detail of the new President Elect's middle name to demean gun advocates by suggesting that we're foolish enough to relate said man with the negative connotations of a deceased Iraqi dictator / bastard and a popular world religion that has been horribly maligned by paranoid "Joe Sixpacks" and the 24/7 numb, violence-'n-fear-driven American infotainment product production machine (media).

...

Also:

LOOKITHAT! THIS IZ JUSSS 'NOTHUR COMMIE KANAHDIAN PLOT TA TAKE MUH GUNS!

I think you're skirting the issue about majority support for specific public policies by bringing up personal anecdotes.

Granted, many among the American public may not be as sophisticated on guns as those practitioners....but the doesnt mean their support of reasonable gun control is baloney.

As to the false information from media, etc....it is matched by false information from the NRA.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 01 : 30 : 19-----
I believe Baraka's comment was in response to an earlier post (#115) by a gun advocate referencing Hussein Obama.

In an earlier post I gave details regarding an accusation made that the NRA gave false information regarding an Obama position. I agree that Obama did not sponser new legislation that would outlaw the use of firearms when defending life in your own home but his vote was clear and the impact of his vote was clear. If he changed his view he could have let us know, but he did not. The other accusations against the NRA are questionable also and certainly not as simple as your "truth o meter" type true/false characterizations suggest.

this link goe to a factcheck.org analysis of the nra's campaign activities against obama, and amounts to a point by point demolition:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ets_obama.html

but hey, it's "the media"...

the know-nothing approach has resulted in zanies and regular folk who happen to like guns mingling in a giant gun shopping spree.
qui bono?
well, gun retailers.

what's the cause?

beyond the nra's attack campaign on obama, just do a search using obama gun control and you find yourself directly in the hall of mirrors that is blog-land in which the same infotainment ricochets from place to place. presumably, if enough folk post the same nonsense, it must be true.

a run on guns...boy, do i feel safer now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07guns.html

DC Dux, I'll take you up on that,

I have six points to make.

First, as of now, gun ownership is limited to those who have no felonious records (generally speaking, as with everything there are exceptions). In addition, Straw purchases are also illegal.

We have in effect, waiting periods, gun background checks and mental checks. Consequently, with the gun laws already in place, the extreme majority of gun owners are limited to law abiding, hard working americans who are as crime prone as you and me.


Second, what is so unreasonable of gun bans right now? It's as if sensible gun control never happened-- *it's already in place. *

Third, the last assault weapons ban restricted pistol grips (on rifles), collapsible stocks (on rifles) and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

With respect, just what the hell does that do? It's as if a criminal who intended to kill people will somehow suddenly be unable to now that they can only shoot 10 rounds instead of 30 rounds before reloading. -Or- if pistol grips on a rifle suddenly make it capable of effectuating mass death.

A murdered person is a murdered person, regardless if the perpetrator used a knife, a baseball bat, or an Ak-47. But the media will pick up on the Ak-47 because it harkens images of terrorists and gangstas. People *LOVE* invoking the Ak-47, but in reality, it's just another rifle.

Fourth, the problem with gun laws is that they're mostly feel good legislation--at the cost of Constitutional right. They. Do. Not. Accomplish. Much. Again, with the examples I drew earlier, one sees geographical areas with *extremely strict* laws--yet have some of the highest crime rates. Of course, there are other factors beyond guns but it goes to demonstrate that gun restrictions are mostly feel good and aren't substantially effective against reducing crime rates.


England Murder Rates vs USA (England after WWII de facto banned guns, yet crime rates continue to rise)

GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide Comparisons (showing that gun control isn't correlated with crime rates)

GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates (further support for that...at the 5% level, there is no significant correlation of gun ownership with homicide rates)


Fifth, DC_dux, while I understand DC has a de-facto ban on guns, I'd reccomend you go out, shoot some, and learn about them. As I stated earlier, the majority opinion on supporting an AWB is supported by an underlying proposition that guns are evil. They are, in effect, no more evil than fireworks, or even chainsaws (fun or useful when used properly, deadly when misappropriated). Furthermore, an AWB will do no more but make it harder for law abiding citizens to enjoy their hobby.

Finally, even if an AWB is supported by the majority population--it does not mean that it is correct. At one point, this great nation supported slavery, jim crow laws and segregation. Were those laws inherently correct because people supported them? I submit to you that they were not. Like I stated before, majority opinion, although given great weight, is not intrinsically correct as it may be based off of false beliefs.

Well the more I read the closer I get to wanting some more "arms" of my own. I think I'll start with a nuclear bomb. After all when in the US I'm assured the right to bear arms. When bearing arms why not go all out and get the best?

The reason you may not want to go "all out" is because, as an individual, your limitations on safely using and delivering a nuclear bomb on an intended target posing an immediate threat upon your life. In addition, people who own weapons for personal protection generally understand and accept the concept of using only enough force to eliminate life threatening risks. Those two factors lead reasonable people wanting a weapon for personal protection to cross nuclear bombs off of the list.

All my years of training and investment in small arms and I should just apply to stereotypical dumbass American motto: "GO BIG OR GO HOME."

Thanks for the hot tip.

We can both find data that supports our position...so lets toss that out of the way.

I'll keep it simple....there are an estimated 240+ million firearms in civilian hands in the US, a nation of 300 million people. Why the fuck do we need more?

That being said...buy as many hand guns and sporting weapons as you want. I dont oppose that. Neither does Obama or most Americans.

But lets also consider...

... an additional safeguard to protect children from accidentally killing themselves or friends with a gun in their home. That number may not rise to the millions, but saving a few lives or a few hundred or a few thousand is worth a mandatory child safetly lock, IMO.

..better background checks at gun shows so those felons you speak of cant purchase weapons at such locations. Will they find underground sources? Probably...but take this one source away.

...many Americans, including many police and prosecutors, simply dont see the need for average citizens to own an AK-47 or any semi-automatic weapon.... your handguns and sporting weapons should suffice for any need...and banning their production and sale will ultimately limit the supply on the streets.

Call if "feel good" or "baloney" if you like. It doesnt make your position stronger.

I chose to look at it as common sense approaches to public safety. And so do most Americans.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 04 : 11 : 31-----
And finally, in terms of your suggestion that I go out and shoot, I dont feel a need to personally experience the thrill of a firearm to have an informed opinion on public policy.

Bud: So I bought a gun.
Mac: Oh yeah? Did someone break into your house?
Bud: No.
Mac: Your neighbor's house?
Bud: No.
Mac: Well, do you live in a high crime area?
Bud: No.
Mac: A medium crime area?
Bud: Not really.
Mac: But you feel that someone breaking into your house or attacking you is inevitable?
Bud: Not necessarily.
Mac: Hmmm... so it's not really for self-defense.
Bud: Yes it is. I need to protect myself and my family.
Mac: From whom?
Bud: Criminals.
Mac: But you said...
Bud: Statistics don't matter. Crime can happen, therfore it will happen.
Mac: That doesn't really make sense. Is there any other reason?
Bud: Obama.
Mac: Oh! You think the government is going to oppress you. Obama's going to go all Hitler.
Bud: Yep.
Mac: Like suspending Habeas Corpus?
Bud: Yes.
Mac: Like kidnapping innocent people?
Bud: Absolutely.
Mac: Like torturing Americans?
Bud: Sure.
Mac: Like taking our guns?
Bud: Oh hell yes.
Mac: Like tapping your phones and emails?
Bud: Wait, they already did all those.
Mac: Yeah, they did. But there was a Republican in the oval office so a vast majority of gun owners assumed everything was fine.
Bud: Look, the Second Amendment gives me the right to have a gun.
Mac: Sure, but it doesn't order everyone to have a gun.
Bud: Yes it does, we need it in order to fight oppression.
Mac: You think having a few guns means that you can stand up against the Army, Navy, Air Force, or even the Coast Guard?
Bud: They won't fire on their own.
Mac: They arrested Tim McVeigh and sentenced him to death without breaking a sweat.
Bud: But he was a terrorist.
Mac: "Terrorist" is just another word for "enemy of the state" now. And if you rebelled against the government, that's what they'd call you and that's what they'd treat you like.
Bud: But there are like 50 million households with guns in the US. Believe me if we all stood up at once...
Mac: But that won't happen. No one in New Orleans even tried to prevent the police from illegally taking citizen's guns during Katrina. No one drove down to Waco to stop the ATF from massacring that cult. No one attacked Guantanamo for illegally holding people without trial or torturing. The police are being militarized, being given military weapons, equipment, and training. There's even an active Army unit stationed permanently inside the US (with more on the way). No one is standing up against them. No militia is resisting.

So why do you have a gun?

Dux,

For the sake of argument, if data and studies supporting your position is present, then by all means present it. I'm open minded and it would be informative.

However, I strongly doubt a ban will somehow greatly reduce the supply that does find its way in to those who want it ("the streets!"). We ban drugs--which paradoxically causes the profit margins to rise, thereby inadvertently creating an incentive for taking the risk to run drugs. First, see my arguments about Mexico. Guns are rampant there despite a ban. Second, think about the prohibition, bans there were of no use to those who wanted to drink (and like illicit drugs now, were manufactured by those who saw an ability to make a profit).

However, I will agree with you on the child-lock. So long as they're not retardedly manufactured to the point where I'd have to fumble with it in the dark when I need the weapon. Ardent 2A supporters will disagree with me there, but to each their own I guess.

I live in a high crime area.

so basically we should change the fundamental makeup and contract between the central government and the people because most people would rather not live up to their responsibility and shove it off on a government entity, something the framers of the constitution strived to prevent?

good call. I'll stay with the radical framers of the US constitution.

dk...you dont speak for the framers unless you were there to participate in their deliberations.

Every discussion seems to come back to a 2nd amendment debate with you and your conclusion that if we dont agree with your interpretation, we are wrong.

Views opposite of yours are no less valid.

Ok, first, I am not an NRA member, and they do produce what is basically propaganda, as do most lobbying organizations.

However, I have presented my case and did so without any 'help' from the NRA. I don't think it is an unreasonable conclusion to think another AWB may be right around the corner. This is because the last democratic administration emplaced a Ban, and now they are in power again and Obama is deliberately dancing around the issue without committing either way. And particularly since, as has been argued on this board, most Americans support another ban. It is a safe bet that with both public support and a supportive administration, such legislation is only a matter of time.



"I'll keep it simple....there are an estimated 240+ million firearms in civilian hands in the US, a nation of 300 million people. Why the fuck do we need more?"

Why not?

"That being said...buy as many hand guns and sporting weapons as you want. I dont oppose that. Neither does Obama or most Americans."

But hand guns are used to commit almost all firearms-related murders. Why would any 'reasonable' person who has decided to ban guns, ignore the weapons that are actually killing people and go after ones that aren't because they 'look scary'?

More people in America are beaten to death every year than are killed by rifles and shotguns combined. I know it's a statistic of sorts, but it is a very basic one. Rifles, and in particular, 'assault rifles' are used in an astonishingly small number of crimes. They were also banned under the last AWB based on cosmetic, rather than functional characteristics. Where's the sense in that?



"... an additional safeguard to protect children from accidentally killing themselves or friends with a gun in their home. That number may not rise to the millions, but saving a few lives or a few hundred or a few thousand is worth a mandatory child safetly lock, IMO."

Ok, sell a trigger lock with every firearm. Done, problem solved, end of story.

But what lawmakers are pushing for are 'smart guns' that just don't work reliably, are expensive, and are an end-run to reduce the number and types of firearms legally available.

If your agenda is just to ban firearms, then have the balls to do so in a straightforward way.


"..better background checks at gun shows so those felons you speak of cant purchase weapons at such locations. Will they find underground sources? Probably...but take this one source away."

Ok, here's the gun show loophole: If you purchase a firearm from a private individual who is not a dealer, then the laws for personal firearms sales apply. Most states require background checks for handgun transfers, but not long guns.

If you are purchasing a firearm from a dealer at a gun show, then the normal laws for purchasing a firearm from any dealer apply, with all background checks.

There is no difference between purchasing a firearm from an individual in a gun-show or out in the parking lot. If you 'close the loophole' you are actually just killing gun shows because people won't bother to go through the hassle when they can purchase straight out of the Shotgun News, legally, without the extra requirements.

Anybody who wouldn't be subject to a background check at a gun show can purchase a weapon through a private transaction anyways.


"...many Americans, including many police and prosecutors, simply dont see the need for average citizens to own assault weapons.. your handguns and sporting weapons should suffice for any need...and banning their production and sale will ultimately limit the supply on the streets."

The first part is true, they don't see the need. Thanks to the constitution they don't have to. And again, how is a semi-automatic hunting rifle materially different from a semi-automatic 'assault-rifle'? And if you limit magazine capacity again to 10 rounds, how many lives will that save? Seems to me like you can get a lot done with 10 rounds if you are a criminal. Why not go 2 rounds?


"I chose to look at it as common sense approaches to public safety. And so do most Americans."

Your 'commen sense' approach completely ignores the real problems and instead aims at weapons that are not typically used to commit crimes ('assault weapons') because they are expensive and can't be easily concealed.

They are also the weapons that *should* be most strongly protected under the constitution as they are the closest to military-type rifles available to the general public.

And how is amending the constitution taking away it's flexibility? I fail to see it.

Bud: I do live in a high crime area.
Mac: The highest crime rate in the US belongs to Detroit. Violent crime was at 2,289 out of a population of about 860,000 in 2007. That means that you have about a 1 in 375 chance of being victimized. Of course the murder rate was only 46. So you have about a 1 in 18,700 chance of being in a situation where it's kill or be killed. Or are you going to shoot someone that tries to take $60 from your wallet?
Bud: Well they're putting my life at risk.
Mac: Not if they're just robbing you. The burglary rate in Detriot is 2,064 and the murder rate is only 46, so obviously even if you are robbed, you're probably not going to be murdered. Are you really going to kill someone for trying to take your wallet or trying to make off with your 24" tv?
Bud: What if they're not trying to rob me?
Mac: You mean someone just walks up to you and starts to attack you for no reason? How likely do you suppose that is?
Bud: I don't know. Are you saying I don't have a right to defend myself?
Mac: Not at all. I just want to know why you have a gun.
Bud: How else can I protect myself?
Mac: For the same cost as a handgun and a few rounds, which are built specifically to kill someone, you can get a better front door with better locks. Passive defense is still defense.
Bud: What if I'm walking down the street?
Mac: Have you ever had someone fill your eyes with mace? Have you ever had someone tase you?
Bud: Those aren't going to stop someone.
Mac: So you're saying that if you are the one out of 18,700, you're not at home or at work (where most people spend most of your time), you're in a place without a lot of people, and you're being attacked by someone who can't be slowed down by mace or a taser, then you want to use your gun?
Bud: Yeah.
Mac: Do you realize how unlikely that situation is?
Bud: Statistics don't matter. Crime can happen, therfore it will happen.
Mac: You said that before, it still doesn't make any sense.

never mind

Not true, there is plenty of evidence to indicate the intent of the Founding Fathers, and much of that has already been presented in this discussion.

Arguments against gun ownership have focused on the 'need' for gun bans, and/or contemporary reinterpretations of the constitution.

Nobody has even attempted to submit articles written by the framers of the constitution or their contemporaries that indicates they were 'against' the second amendment being an individual right.

Feel free to do so.

Your 'every point of view is equally valid' argument is no more valid than my argument that the moon is made of cheese.

Bottom line..it is the Supreme Court that ultimately interprets intent.

And in this rare case, I agree with Scalia (in the DC decision) that the 2nd amendment right is not absolute and is subject to some limitations and restrictions

In the gun case, Justice Antonin Scalia led the majority in analyzing the words of the Second Amendment and the views of its framers and concluding that "they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

...Scalia wrote that the right he was announcing, as with other constitutional rights, "is not unlimited." The ruling should not "cast doubt," he added, on restrictions such as barring possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or forbidding carrying arms near schools or in government buildings. He also indicated that the use of certain types of weapons could be restricted without running afoul of the Second Amendment.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422582170

-----Added 10/12/2008 at 04 : 48 : 26-----
IMO, it is highly unlikely that Obama or the Democratic Congress will take up an AWB anytime soon.

There are so many more pressing problems that the American public wants addressed which was why, in large part, it was not a campaign issue.

Even though an AWB has widespread public support, it is not a high priority for most.

At best, I could see it as a second term issue for Obama as a legacy but still having a difficult road to passage with the makeup of the Democrats in Congress, including 40+ who are from predominantly republican districts.

until they try say exactly opposite of what the framers said. Verification is relatively easy for those who would actually READ the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Once they try to say something that is the opposite of whats in those papers, yeah they are invalid.

dk..I've read the Federalist papers and I assume Scalia has as well.

which should be completely and totally mind boggling, considering the amendment itself says 'shall not be infringed'. Only in a totalitarian/authoritarian mindset can someone actually believe that shall not be infringed means it can be limited and restricted.

It's also blatant disregard for the constitution and bill of rights to restrict the people to 'certain' weapons considering that the framers believed that the people should be equally armed as the standing military is, but hell no we can't have tom dick and harry running around with automatic weapons. much better to have murderous agents of the government killing citizens with automatic weapons. its the only way for 'freedom' to survive. I call it insanity.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 05 : 07 : 39-----
then why do you insist on disregarding them? same with scalia. he is by no means a strict constructionist or originalist.

I call it respect for the Constitution that clearly stated:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...

Ok Willravel...these hypothetical conversations are absolutely of no value to debate.

The responses from Bud are a little skewed, dontcha think? There are a couple of other so called facts in there that are debatable too. Looked up the violent crime rates, from the FBI/DOJ Uniform Crime Reports from 2004 (I don't know where you're getting your numbers from). I want citations if you want to talk about statistics (and to be honest, I think the #'s from your hypothetical conversation are somewhat suspect).

Detroit has 914,353 residents, and in 2004 had 15,913 violent crimes.

Baltimore has 634,279 residents and in 2004 had 11,667 violent crimes.

Detroit had a 1/57 chance of victimization to a violent crime. Baltimore had a 1/54 chance. So, if a person walks alone at 10pm on a empty street, 54 times a year, would that mean they would be subject to a violent crime? I don't know, but I don't like the odds.

(Statistics found at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf).

In addition, sure pepper spray is great, but it only incapacitates if it hits mucous membranes, and would become less effective when faced with multiple attackers/robbers.

And yes, people have gone up to others and committed violent crimes for no reason. I think you remember the youtube video with the crackhead using a baseball bat on a car.

There's an old adage from gun owners--"better to have and not need, than to need and not have."

Just my .02 cents.

_________________
I'm simply applying all of the arguments which I've come across by gun proponents. If you've got something to add, you're welcome to back up Bud.

dk--what original intent/strict construction does in order to compensate for the fact that as a procedure it chops off precedent as a frame for adapting the constitutional system to changing situations/times is to introduce stuff like the federalist papers and the (partial and problematic) accounts of the deliberations around the framing of the constitution itself as substitutes. *that* is a violation of the rules of the constitution itself. the federalist papers have no legal status--as historical documents, they're interesting--but as law, they're historical documents. the minutes of the convention are also historical documents. elevating either set of materials to boundary conditions that shape how the constitution should be interpreted amounts to a basic change in the rules of the game.

i would think you'd know this, given what a Big Deal the "intent" of the framers is to you.

that's why i argue that strict construction is incoherent every time it comes up. i didn't say it this time because i get tired of typing the same things over and over. but that's the crux of the argument. another way: you can't do what you'd like to do. it doesn't and cannot get off the ground.

what would the consequences of it be? well first off it is the "strict" position that rests on an arbitrary definition of what is and is not relevant as boundary conditions that shape legal decisions. so the first thing that would result is a kind of conservative legal despotism masequerading as a return to "basic principles".

it would be consistent if this viewpoint resulted in a considerable restriction of the role and functions of judges--it'd make them like judges are in an ideal-typical civil law system (ideal-typical because in reality, it's not like this--judges interpret)--they'd be functionaries. this because the right fears "judicial activism" which generally means latitude to interpret because latitude to interpret could result in guns being restricted and we cannot have that no no.

a correlate of this is that law would have to be written in a basically different way than it currently is, and enforced much more strictly. i suppose in principle that you'd support that, but i doubt you would once the reality of this vague idea began to be felt.

as to how you'd go about lining up contemporary capitalist social relations with the fantasy world of yeoman farmers...i dunno. it would not surprise me to find in a hypothetical "revolt" far right "patriots" imitating the khymer rouge. ugly stuff. hope i never have to see if i'm right. i doubt seriously i will have to see if i'm right, though, because there is and will be no revolt from the right.

slims: i don't think you understood my argument about original intent/strict construction--hope this clarifies it. skip over the last paragraph...it's not important.

and i'm sure you felt that way after Kelo, right?
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 06 : 13 : 43-----
tell me RB, without all the fancy hyperbole, why you see original intent as damning to the progression of the United States?

Willravel,

And then it turns out all your stats are not supported. So as it turns out, all that fancy talk in your hypo is BUNK. And I would never make the idiotic claim that "crimes can happen, therefore it would happen." (If you think about it, crimes do happen, they don't "can" happen...)

If you want to live up to your signature, quit making hit and run, unsubstantiated claims.

Go shoot and learn about guns, it'll at least remove you from the ignorant category.

Here's the biggest problem with stats like these. ...they give no indication of where in the city these violent crimes occurred.

If I can find it, I will post a map of DC, with all of the violent crimes pinpointed by street/neighborhood last year.

In the case of DC, the vast majority were in neighborhoods where I would have no reason to travel....so my odds of being a victim are reduced significantly.

I can further reduce the likelihood by common sense actions like not using an ATM machine late at night in a dark corner of a street with little pedistrian traffic.

In terms of a home invasion, the best and most secure door and window locks or an alarm system can decrease the likelihood of being a victim.

I dont have a problem that you feel safer with a gun. I feel safe without one by taking simple actions.

therefore guns provide one with consciousness.
q.e.d.

Yea, that's the thing DC_Dux. I live in Baltimore by the hospital and the law school. It's suppoed to be a nicer part of town (but it's really not). Sure, I can avoid the really bad parts of town--that doesn't prevent the bad parts of town from coming in to my area. I get one robbery/mugging alert every other week from someone heading home ("ALERT! Mugging in parking Garage!").

I used to work in DC, it's much nicer than it used to be these days. In contrast, I'd imagine Baltimore is more like what DC used to be. Everyone flees after the 5:00 pm quitting time.

I had to ride the green line home late at night..you know how bad of a rep the green line has right?


Edit: Yep. Placing RB on ignore.

Crime in the United States 2007
Prove it.
DKSuddeth made that exact argument one year ago and he's hardly the only gun proponent to make that argument.
Shooting a gun will not negate statistics and logical arguments.

BTW, going back and editing a post after someone has responded is bad form.

dk.. I dont agree with every decision of the Court, particularly when the majority includes Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

But I respect the institution and dont presume that I know better.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 06 : 34 : 33-----
IMO, the Constitution was intentionally drafted by the framers in vague language in many respects with the intent that it be interpreted and the framers acknowledging that the country in the future might differ from the country at the time.

Willravel,

First, I was editting when you responded, so I apologize if it seems like I went back to edit.

Second, it's stupid to place the burden of proof on me, when you made the argument.

Third, I just disproved your statistic:

Population of Detroit - 860,971

Violent Crime rate - 19,708

Chance of violent crime - 1/43.6

VERY FAR from 1/375 as your hypothetical conversation stated. As such, those hypothetical conversations are all suspect.

Table 8 (Michigan) - Crime in the United States 2007

I rest my case.

so what exactly does that string of decontextualized numbers mean?

Correction:
Mac: The highest crime rate in the US belongs to Detroit. Violent crime was at 2,289 out [for every 100,000 people in 2007 (I missed that part)]. That means that you have about a [1 in 43] chance of being victimized. Of course the murder rate was only 46. So you have about a [1 in 2,173] chance of being in a situation where it's kill or be killed. Or are you going to shoot someone that tries to take $60 from your wallet?

And this is in Detroit, a city much more dangerous than Baltimore. The violent crime rate per 100,000 people in Baltimore is only about 70% of that in Detroit (1,631/100,000). So no, your case isn't resting. The fact is that even in the most dangerous places in the US, statistically you're still safe.

I live down the street from Dick Cheney and I do worry that he may wander around the Naval Observatory grounds one night taking target practice.

I will welcome the Bidens to the neighborhood!

All I know is that if I were stuck in the middle of scenic downtown Detroit on any given evening after 11pm or so, the last thing I would want or need in my pocket is a can of mace. Well, maybe it would stop the giant rats. I'd be better off with a can of silly string, at least I could run for my life with a gang of killers caught up in a laughing fit. Things may be different in sunny California.

then how do you account for the quote in my signature?

What is "an establishment of religion" in the 1st amendment?

What is "unreasonable searches and seizures" in the 4th amendment?

What is "just compensation" in the 5th amendment?

What is a "speedy trial" in the 6th amendment?

Are these terms not vague and subject to interpretation.

constitutional "rights" do have limits. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre. You can't slander people in the press without facts to back it up, etc. I'm not sure why gun rights people can't agree to a reasonable set of limits

And the "gang of killers" would be chasing you why?

We've already established that rights aren't necessarily absolute.

The challenge, now, comes to addressing this outmoded Constitution.

Perhaps I should stock up on body armor.

Oh, wait... they want to outlaw that, too.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 07 : 47 : 49-----
As a yeoman farmer, I find the notion that a vague document can be outmoded rather ridiculous.

Perhaps it is the processes by which we run the country that are in need of a little hemming.

That's a given.

What I meant was that if there is such a great debate on any aspect of the Constitution or one or more of the Amendments, then isn't this indicative of something being out of step?

This is what the constitutional amendments are for. This is why women and "negroes" can vote.

But change is a difficult process for such a conservative nation.

Got some numbers to support that? Everything I've read has Mexico with lower crime stats then the US in almost ever violent crime category. There are more murders here per 100K, over double 13.04 per 100K to 5.62. But all other major categories are half, or less, then in the US. For example in Mexico the number aggravated assaults per 100K was 186.68 in 2004 in the US it was 310.14. Rape-14.26 in Mex. and 32.99 in the US.

There's always been this argument that the numbers for Mexico are low because the general population doesn't report crime. I don't know how you prove or disprove something that isn't being reported. I do know in all the years, nearly 20, I've been coming down here I've never had a problem. Most of the crime seems to be near the border or in Mexico City.

Crime Rates Mexico

In Merida (the largest city near me) the crime rate was reported to be the lowest of any North American city with a population of more then 1 millon in 2003. Lower then any city of that size in the US or Canada. I've walked the streets of Merida all hours of the day and have never felt any unease, certainly have never seen any violence. Recently there's been an increase in drug gang related violent crimes. But the bottom line is if you're not in the drug trade you're at little risk.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 08 : 54 : 18-----
The 2nd Amendment states-

Doesn't say anything about "limitations on safely using" If I have the right to bear arms and that right can not be infringed on then I want a nuke. I most certainly want to be the first in my neighborhood to get one too. If I can't have that I'll take a M-1 Abrams.

Ask the last 4 Detroit mayors why, over the last 40 years. (you'd have to wait until Mayor Kilpatrick gets out of jail on corruption charges.)

Dude, a well regulated militia wouldn't allow that.

Yeah, we're all pretty pissed about that up here in San Jose, which I believe is somewhere between second and third place in that statistic.

..

I think what goes unspoken is the fact that non-democratic governments historically have this strange tendency to 'permanently silence' their critics, dissidents, minorities and other defenseless rabble to the tune of 55 or so million people in the 20th century alone. To these governments, gun control meant just that - no guns for you, all the guns for us. Best I can tell it is garden variety fear...fear of what is misunderstood...fear of The Other Who Has Stuff That Makes Loud Noises.

I can carry several kilos of powdered, weaponized anthrax in my own two hands. Or are we also assuming they have to be projectile weapons? One can likely put liquid chemical and biological weapons in a tranquilizer gun.

BTW, are you familiar with suitcase nukes? The popular held belief is that they've been around for over 30 years now.
Guns don't kill people, idiots with guns kill people. We're not scared of guns, we're just convinced that people generally don't need them.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 10 : 12 : 18-----
The insinuation here seems clear: you assume that if you're armed you're safe from government tyranny. Of course when you really walk through that scenario in your mind, it becomes frighteningly clear how useless small arms would be against the military. They were armed at Waco. How'd that work out?

..

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

"The meek will inherit the earth."

It's the Second Amendment, not us. We're simply using the same axiom you use to excuse owning guns.
Do you think criminals can get guns because there are too many gun laws?
The shrapnel in my uncle's abdomen from Vietnam and the reason a family friend has a leg blown off isn't guns, it's bombs. Do you think the Vietcong could have won with only guns? Or should we legalize bombs?
I'm not arguing to take away guns. I'm questioning the logic of having them. There's also a question as to whether or not the Second Amendment, as it was originally intended, is still relevant. Of course at the core is still the simple issue: Barack Obama is the last person gun owners need to be afraid of. He's a centrist. He could be more progressive in Illinois because Chicago is fairly progressive, but as POTUS, he will be a centrist.

I wonder if the Nazis would have thought twice about implementing the extermination of 6 million ARMED Jews, for example. China, USSR also wiped out their political opponents to remain in power (some say they still do).

I'm no gun nut, just leery of the scales of power tipping too far in either direction. I think a thoroughly pacified, unarmed society is a bad idea for both foreign and domestic reasons.

Now you're assuming a great deal. You really think none of the Jewish people in Germany had any kind of weapons? Many of them were veterans from WW1.

I'm not pacified, btw. I'm just trying to be pragmatic about this whole gun issue.

if you live in a city, your view of easy access to guns tends to be different than if you don't. it isn't rocket science. that's probably why the main argument in the thread that tends toward gun control is that it should be a local matter.

i have no problem with one type of controls in chicago and another in a more rural area. in a city, you see, when more people have guns, there can be more shooting because, well, there's more people and so its a statistical inevitability and because there's more people they're arranged in a dense way, so if there's more people with guns and so more possibilities that the aggregate will be populated, the possibility of bullets that do not hit their target increases and because of that density matter, bullets that do not hit their target are not good they don't just disappear somewhere necessarily.

so you can't blame people who live in cities for thinking that fewer rather than more guns available is intuitively a good thing. but not all environments result in that, so local control. why would you would object to that?

Its good to know that you consider 60-70% of American citizens who support reasonable gun control, including an AWB, to be leftists!

I only wish it were true.

BTW, I know you feel so strongly in your opposition to gay marriage....what is the big deal with gays getting married? how does gay marriage affect you? (threadjack)

..

I dont think any Democrats in Congress signed the amicus brief in the Heller case....correction, a few

It was a purely political act predominantly by Republicans who challenge DC's right to home rule at every opportunity. I wonder how many Republican Senators would have signed the brief if the local law in question represented the will of the majority of citizens of their largest city?

How many times must it be said...Obama's position was clear....DC (or any city) should have the right to enact its own laws that can stand a constitutional test. Not to mention again, his vote with Republicans on the Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment to protect 2nd amendment rights.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 12 : 02 : 00-----
Here's the bottom line for me.

Some of you guys just cant accept the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans can have honest, thoughtful positions that challenges yours for whatever reasons they may believe is valid...without calling them cowards ("scared of firearms"), ignorant of the Constitution, or leftists.

Are the 50+% of gun owners who support an AWB (according to several national independent polls) the ones who are scared of firearms or ignorant of the Constitution or leftists? Or could it be that they honestly dont see the need (or a right) for a private citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon when their home protection and recreational needs can be met with a handgun or sporting rifle.

(ps KirStang...thank you for being one gun rights advocate who can understand and even support why many Americans see the value of mandatory child safety devices as one component of reasonable gun control that they feel is still needed.).

While most Americans are in agreement that "reasonable" gun controls are needed in a civilized society I think the rub is what is considered "reasonable". I predict that if the Democrats pass another AWB their majorities in both House and Senate will go away rather quickly and don't be surprised if they don't lose the White House too. This is why I don't think we will see any movement on this front until Obama's second term. It could be sooner if the Democrats are able to get amnesty passed for all the illegal aliens because then they need the gun owners vote even less but as of right now they really need the gun owners vote. I may be surprised but that's kinda how I see things unfolding. I'll wait until the prices drop back down a bit before I go out and get that AR15 lower I been wanting to add to the collection.

and some of us just can't stand them being ignorant of the constitution. I've known quite a few 'fudds' (that would be those who consider the 2nd Amendment is about hunting) and urban transplanters who feel that we get our rights handed to us from our benevolent government, which is bassackwards and just totally wrong.

They may be any or all of those things, but the one thing for sure that they are is that they are scared of their fellow law abiding citizens and would rather see them limited in their arms instead of providing the means for their own adequate and equal defense.

value or hindrance?

A well regulated militia? I must of skipped over that part of the amendment and only read "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Interesting.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 06 : 37 : 32-----
Think you guys came in 4th with a couple Canadian cities in there first. I'll look around it's cited in one of the many books I bought when considering my move.

Welll, there you go again...thinly veiled attack on those silly country bumpkins who cling to their guns and their religion for succor. Next thing you know we'll have street gangs and drug cartels operating from the farmlands and forests. Just imagine Al Capone or Tony Montana trotting through The Loop on horseback: say hello to my little horsey!

Do you recall reading anything about cannons being illegal to own?

You think the 2nd Amendment means any arms you can carry in your two arms?

Then can I at least have an few RPG's?

Can point out the post where this was covered a few pages back? Not saying it's not there, simply tried of wading through a bunch of snide comments and insults trying to find the posts that actually contain logic and reason.

Huh? I think you mean that violence is the FIRST refuge of the incompetent. It doesn't make sense the way you said it above.

Violence is the last refuge of the reasonable man. You avoid bad situations first, try to talk it out, then do some manly WillRavel-style Mortal Kombat moves... and if those things fail... use your firearm. Firearms are a the great last resort equalizer.

I don't buy the ubiquitous Ghandi-style puppies-'n-sunshine-hugs speech. That stuff is for people adept at lying to themselves about their human limitations. Only a few self-proclaimed saints on the board here would accept some radical crazy DK-style situation like their family being sodomized and themselves being tortured using CIA methods while wearing the glazed-over Jesus-Save-Us smile.

...

I think these some of "fetishist yeoman farmers" are stocking up on guns for the same reason rational people stock up on milk, bread, and toilet paper before a storm: they're being prepared in case something bad happens and don't want to rely on others to help them. Some of 'em are paranoid idjits. Some of them are looking to make money.

...

IMHO, that is the "higher purpose" of firearm ownership: being able to do for yourself instead of having to rely on government-sponsored Dial-A-Prayer such as "911." Much like buying a fire extinguisher for your home, car, or boat... there is a near-zero chance that you'll ever have to use it, but isn't it better to be prepared?

Crompsie, that quotation refers to those who are incapable of accomplishment without violence. Think dictators vs. great leaders. I admit it doesn't quite fit into the context of the thread here.

And, by the way, even Buddhists resort to violence to protect their families.

Personally, I don't see my owning a firearm as a necessity. This might have to do with the fact that my city is one of the safest of its size categories. I really don't know what I would do if I lived in certain parts of the U.S.

So Christopher Reeves and the drummer to that '80s band I won't mention, and Gorro from Mortal Kombat can carry no guns, a handgun, two long guns in that respective order?

I like the logic.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 07 : 44 : 41-----
Yeah, fits like DC_Dux at a NRA banquet.

...

Thing is... I like the choice to own a firearm. Choice is important as it represents the ideals of a free society. Smoking or non, car or motorcycle, pants or no pants... you have choices. There are consequences to some choices (such as eating babies or threatening your neighbor with a pitchfork) but the point is that our society generally allows us to first make choices and then deal with the consequences if the choices we make are unwise.

powerclown, there was no attack meant in that post.

i simply posed a problem. i'll boil it down a bit further for you: the nra position makes living in a city less safe. it might make individuals feel safer, but that comes at the cost of increasing the likelihood of damage being done as unintentional consequence. i don't imagine that to the be intent of an absolutist position about gun control law---if it is, that's a Problem (khymer rouge anyone?)---i imagine that most gown owners who oppose controls altogether do so for reasons that are connected to areas of control, that is they want to be strapped to feel safer or to deal with fear---this obtains for the people who do more than target shoot or hunt, but who carry to "manage" situations---all i am saying is that it is this assertion of control within a chaotic situation that creates the problem i am talking about, simply because not all bullets hit their target.

so in a densely populated area, the "right" to assert control using a weapon, which may make the strapped individual feel safer, comes with the correlate of making the rest of us, who are living in cities and going about our lives, feel that we are less safe. in the course of my life, i've come to know maybe a half dozen people who've been shot. of them, 1 knew where the bullet came from.

on a parallel track, i doubt seriously that a hunter in his right mind would pursue a deer---say---into a town and shoot at it on the streets of that town for the same reasons--unintended consequences in a situation of greater population density.

my main point is that folk's positions about this question typically are functions of associations, and those associations are functions of where they live, of their experience. the other point is that given a self-evident divergence in everyday experience within and without a city, you'd think that there'd be no real basis for opposing locally divergent degrees and types of gun control. this seems an issue where local control is appropriate, don't you think?

Disclaimer:

Firearms, especially handguns, are not magical voodoo protection amulets that ward off the evil spirits of "racial minorities" or "The Man" despite what some disturbed individuals choose to believe.

Firearms are pieces of steel, wood, and plastic that do absolutely nothing without human operation.

Individual human responsibility is such a tough pill to swallow.

true, crompsin---but my point is that the exercise of that responsibility in an urban context is different from the exercise of that responsibility in another context---the limits placed around action or, more precisely, agency, are basically different. something that sometimes happens: a little kid who gets shot while watching television in his or her livingroom by a bullet set into motion within an altogether different situation....where does individual responsibility enter that scenario? from a viewpoint that includes the kid, the irresponsible action is putting the bullets into motion---from a viewpoint that includes only the situation that explains the shooting, things can be entirely otherwise. there are limits to this notion of individual responsibility, in other word, limits which come from the assertion of a collective right not to risk getting shot while watching tv in your living room (to stick with the example above)...

that's the problem--individuals do not operate in isolation.

it's a quote from "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov. It makes sense in the context of the book; when the shit hits the fan, the incompetent always resort to violence, while the competent know how to avoid it

You can't smoke in a preschool; you can't drive your motorcycle through a shopping mall; and you can't go to a ball game without your pants on. You see, this is what some of us are getting at: You have rights to certain things, but there are reasonable limits. (And they aren't merely "as long as you don't infringe on others' rights.") You have the right to private property, but you cannot own certain materials that are banned from private ownership (specifically due to risk of public danger). This isn't an infringement on property rights; it's about reasonable restrictions.

They aren't trying to take all the guns away; they're merely limiting the availability of certain firearms. And, as has been mentioned more than once here, most Americans support that.