Obama: Dont stock up on guns
 

Obama: Don't stock up on guns :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: 44: Barack Obama

If you go by Obama's voting record, he is as anti-gun as they come. Though in the article he is quoted as saying "I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment. Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear."

The question is what to believe?

I think the answer is in the statement: "Don't stock up on guns"

Since when does a president care about what people are purchasing and storing?

Ever hear a president say "Don't stock up on TP, or Food, or gasoline, or emergency supplies, or hunting equipment, etc?" Nope, because they don't care whether you feel compelled to stockpile those things. The fact that Obama is making a statement on the subject indicates he is alarmed by the increased number of recent purchases and is trying to discourage people from buying firearms.

Oh, and "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear" because if they keep a weapon he bans, they will become 'unlawful gun owners.'



I don't think we will see any form of new (successful) firearms legislation for at least a year after Obama takes office, and then the success of that legislation will depend on the level of popular support for the president and the congress. The 94 AWB really came back to haunt the democrats, so I doubt they will be so brash in the future. However, if their approval ratings are high, they may burn a little political capital in order to further an issue they really believe in...increased restrictions, but this time with no sunset clause.

Obama has consistenly supported extremely harsh gun-control legislation and continues to indicate support for another AWB, a national Concealed Carry Ban (even though that should be up to the individual states), and other 'reasonable' firearms safety legislation. I guess firearms are the safest when they are not owned by citizens.

The NRA is not stupid.

Much of their rhetoric about Obama's record on gun control is false or misleading.
The false and misleading claims keep those contributions coming in to the NRA....and that is their goal.

Until there is widespread support for new or expanding federal legislation, including the AWB, it wont happen. Obama cant do it w/o Congress and many Democrats in swing districts are not on board and never will be.

In many ways, it is comparable to some religious groups and their fight to save Christmas from the liberal elites....it makes for great fund-raising....but its pure political theater.

Yes, Obama has a horrific state senate voting record. par for the course in illinois politics.

any new gun control legislation will have to be prompted by dems in the house and senate but probably will never get out of comittee, though if it did, Obama sure wouldn't veto it and lay it at the feet of the congress.

that being said, the only real lesson learned from the 94 AWB was to not talk about it. When it comes, it will come as quietly as possible, probably being added as an amendment to some absolutely necessary spending bill and then promptly being challenged in the courts.

It's almost amusing to watch so many people vote known anti-gunners in to office so they can have their 'change', yet turn right around and participate in actions diametrically opposed to the people they elect in to office.

What voting record?

Obama voted with the Republican majority on the Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment that passed 84-16:

To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

....not the 16 Democrats (Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Feiinstein, Kennedy, Shumer.....) who voted against it.

His vote on the Firearms Protection Liability Act was based on the belief that gun manufacturers should not have blanket liability protection that NO other industries in the country have.

His position on gun control in general is that it may, in some circumstances, be a local issue. If the majority of citizens of DC or San Fransisco or Bedford or Wichita want to enact local crime prevention laws that includes gun control that may go farther than the Brady Act and pass a Constitutional test, that should be their right.

Its called federalism, something the right wants on other issues, but not guns...go figure.

I don't see the left wanting "federalism" on any other constitutional amendments? . Why would the 2nd amendment be any different than the 1st or the 3rd, 4th or the 5th...... go figure. ......

THIS JUST IN: There are more important things in life than firearms... like having a President under 80 years of age with an IQ above 80.

The bullshit political system in the country gave us two viable options on election day.

If I just voted on the issue of who was pro-gun... it would go against my other beliefs and common sense. I can't do that. I've seen 8 years of bullshit. I can't do it anymore.

There are a lot more important issues in the country than who can own an AR-15 clone.

...

I'd trade some of my guns for a country that made my military service mean something.

...

Hey, you wouldn't understand this, would you? Nah, guns solve all your life problems, apparently.

I'm not aware of any strong liberal opposition to a state attempting to limit individual rights guaranteed under the 1st, 3rd or 5th amendments as long as it is not in conflict with the 14th amendment. The issue most closely related would possibly be gay marriage; where the issue is a total ban as opposed to a lesser limitation of rights.

But, hey, I wouldn't be surprised if you prove me wrong. IMO, the difference is conservatives generally use a "states rights" argument to advance their cause much more so than liberals.

And it still wont take away from the fact that many conservatives (who stand for states rights) do not believe in states rights when it comes to gun control if it means a state limiting or restricting (not banning) those rights in a manner that still protects an individual's 2nd amendment.

However, the issue is Obama's voting record on gun control and I could have made my point w/o the snarky comment on federalism.

i've often wondered if there is some collective psychological linkage between the gun thing and other aspects of libertarian conservatism--like rejecting the notion of the social, of working through organizations, leaves one isolated and powerless. if you run this through the illusions of a lockean state of nature, the fact that there's no material scarcity minimizes the isolation and powerlessness, turns it into something that seems opposite---but if you factor in material scarcity, these features return. and unlike early 18th century fictions built into texts on political theory, the world is unpredictable, so in real life, things fluctuate. one can go from being ok to really reallynot being ok very quickly. and your ideology pushes you toward dealing with these fluctuations from a position of no power. so having a lot of guns around is reassuring. l
ike crompsin said above, they seem to solve life's problems.
except, of course, they don't.

i've said before, but anyway--my position on gun control is that it should be a local matter. i favor tight controls in a city like chicago. in a more rural area, maybe not--people do hunt for example----but hunting in chicago is most likely to be hunting people, and that doesn't make sense to me.

the nra's total opposition to any and all controls based on generally sloppy versions of the slippery-slope argument cannot have traction on its own merits, it seems to me. this explains the venture into collective psychological speculation. it's all more than passing strange.

I love me some single-issue voters. Nothing boosts Republican voting numbers like gun owners and pro-lifers. Seriously, where would the GOP be without them?

I've been in a lot of gun control debates recently and I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of where the line is drawn in terms of legally arming oneself. The 2nd Amendment does not mention the word "gun" anywhere in it's text; it says the right to "arm" oneself. So does the 2nd Amendment protect my right to own a flamethrower? C-4? Weapons grade uranium? Gatling guns? Surface-to-Air missiles? "No, of course not, that's unreasonable" is usually the response, yet any suggestion to limit the types of guns that can be owned suddenly becomes this anti-American cluster hump.

I think gun owners should be treated the same as car owners. Your guns (cars) need to be registered in your state, you should be legally required to have gun (car) related insurance, and you should need to pass a practical test to receive a state issued gun (driver's) license.

dont even attempt to 'understand' me with this crappy diatribe. You take a serious look at the things going on in this country and try to convince me that one party really cares more about the people over the other party. It's bullshit and you damn well know it. The economy is in a spiralling freefall and its the fault of BOTH parties players in power. You say firearms are not that important, lets see how you feel in two years.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 23 : 34-----
no big surprise that the biggest nanny staters feel that the 2nd Amendment should require government permission to exercise while they should leave all the others the hell alone.

You want to treat gun ownership like car ownership? Fine, that means that I can buy any damn gun I want including .50 caliber machine guns. That means that I can carry any gun I buy anywhere and to any state or city that I want. That also means that as long as I'm not blatantly violating any law, the police can't stop and harass me because i'm wearing a gun.

And, like driver's licenses, a requirement to renew every few years. People have felt we're on the brink of a revolution since...well...the Revolution. It says more about you than it does about the state of our country.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 28 : 14-----
Actually, I'm all for allowing people to purchase all sorts of firearms. That said, there's no reason why you can't wait 6 months for your purchase, be subjected to a background check (in any and all buying situations, none of this loophole bullshit), and be required to demonstrate a basic level of skill in order to obtain the proper license. We should have a legal process available to go before a judge in urgent matters of self-defense, such as abusive partners, in order to expedite the gun-purchasing process when necessary.

i'll ignore the "nanny stater" jab, as I'm anything but that.

using the car/gun analogy, I think owning bigger guns could work, but then you'd be looking at a higher class of license (much like truck licenses, boat licenses, etc.)

I find it a little disturbing that you're so glib about the responsible ownership of a deadly weapon.

and every election cycle brings us closer. Do you really believe it's just coincedence that northcom is in the US now?


do we have to wait 6 months to buy a car? do we need a background check for a car? do we need a government permission slip to sell a car to your brother in law? and there already is a legal process for restraining orders, completely one sided, but it's there.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 32 : 51-----
whats glib about it? if you screw up with your gun, you lose it and spend time in jail. it's called accountability, something this country has been lacking for a long time. thanks libs.

If you screw up with your gun, people die or become critically injured. If you screw up with your car, people may die or become critically injured. What's so bad about requiring a demonstration of aptitude for both?

Listen, I'm sitting here saying you can have all the guns you want, of any type, you just need to show a certain aptitude and responsibility. That's a far cry from wanting to take away particular guns.

As for the waiting period, people don't buy a new car in the heat of the moment in order to run someone over. Someone with no history, on the other hand, may very well purchase a gun in the heat of the moment in order to exact revenge on someone. Aside for immediate concerns of self-defense, I can think of absolutely no reason why someone can't be patient for 6 months before they get their gun. Is that such a terrible compromise in order to have any and all the guns you want?

What really grabs me is that people run around saying "I gotta have my gun!" and then when I carry a knife the same people shriek and exclaim "Oh god that's scary! You can't have that!"

It astonishes me that the prevailing attitude in this country seems to be that people should be able to buy an assault rifle, but if they carry a knife that's three inches long they should go to jail.

There truly is no limit on the 2nd amendment, except for the one that the supreme court (in my opinion) unwisely blew straight through - namely the bit about being in an organized militia.

Since there's no limit, yes, you can have a nuclear missile if you can afford one. You can have a tank, or a flame thrower, or that ultimate weapon of mass terror, a bowie knife.

the major problem with requiring aptitude and competence to exercise a right is where do you draw the line? do we start with a score of 50%? maybe 75%? and should we just end up saying if you can't be perfect with your gun, you don't have that right? Next, do we hold those requirements equally across the board for all? or do we start making exceptions for federal agents and state/local law enforcement? then judges? prosecutors and politicians? or should we just go right ahead and throw them the exemptions immediately since they get to write the laws anyway? It's great that you're promoting unrestricted gun ownership. It does leave me to wonder what other rights you think should be strictly regulated.


it is to me. should we start having 6 month waits on car ownership? house ownership? that last might not be a bad thing considering the mortgage bailout fiasco we're dealing with. what say you? a 6 month wait for government approval before you buy a house? maybe 3 month wait before renting an apartment? just to make sure you don't default on rent? A year long wait on buying an animal to make sure you're responsible enough to take care of another life? how about a 3 year wait before having children so the government can license you for parenting classes?

you see where this goes? it's called slippery slope for a reason. Of course alot of people would rather dismiss this theory because 'it couldn't happen here', but look whats been going on for the last 90 years.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 59 : 21-----
it's ludicrous, isn't it? I think you should be able to carry that knife, or a 6 inch knife, a friggin sword if you want.

First, there are still limits on the 2nd Amendment. Stupid and illogical limits, but that's our nanny state of bliss for you.

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment does not say that the right of the militia can keep and bear arms, it says 'the people'. it merely states that a militia is necessary. In those famous words of old, 'I ask you, who is the militia? It is every able bodied citizen save a few public officials'.

If you can backpack that nuclear missile, go for it. I don't see it happening, but there it is. In truth, using logic and common sense, one should be able to realize that 'arms' as it states in the 2nd, is talking about any arm that a individual soldier would carry in to war. Therefore, missiles, rockets, and aircraft launched ordinance should obviously be disallowed, but then we're having to deal with people that don't agree about private gun ownership and obfuscate the issue with jackassed interpretations.

If gun owners didn't take up arms against the government during the past 8 years, they never will

Looking at your first point. Obama, as a State Senator, voted against legislation legislation that allowed a loop hole for gun owners who violated local gun laws when they used their guns for self-defense in their home. So on one hand we have local gun law and on the other we have the issue of the use of a fire arm when a person's life is threatened in their own home. The NRA's position and the position of the legislation Obama voted against, is that a person should not be subject to local criminal penalty if they properly use a firearm in their own home to defend life even if the ownership of the weapon violated local law. The type of penalty a gun owner could be subjected to could not only be criminal but would open the door for civil penalty, in affect Obama's position is to allow local law, ban a federally protected right and to elevate the status of a criminal to that of the intended victim. The issue bringing this to the fore front in Illinois was a gentleman who shot a burglar in in self-defense in his own home, which was the finding of the judicial system. Obama's vote would have subjected this man to criminal and possible civil penalty for defending his life in his own home.

The loophole applies even if the home owner possessed the gun illegally.

But the larger issue for me is the fact that the NRA spends $millions, including an estimated $40 million this year to falsely define or mischaracterize Obama's (and congressional candidates) positions on gun control.

Could it be because they can't defend their position on the facts.....since, according to most polls, a majority of Americans share Obama's position of supporting reasonable federal gun control along with some level of state/local autonomy.

"Well. . . Regulated. . . Militia."

Since when are all the people well-regulated?




Oh no. You're not gonna get away with inserting crap that isn't there. It doesn't say anything about it having to be small enough to carry while walking around. If you can blow right through the well-regulated-militia clause, claiming that as far as the intent of the framers is concerned, said clause is irrelevant, you certainly can't start adding clauses that they never wrote in.

Yeah, one needs to read all the clauses. A well-regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." This implies that a militia that isn't well-regulated could compromise this security. And "the people" relates back to "militia." They are talking about the same people: ordinary citizens who might at any moment need to take on a soldier's role. I don't read this as a blank cheque on arms ownership.

well regulated, when inserted in to the 2nd Amendment did not mean what people think it means today. Well regulated meant well trained, well versed, and in good working order. It had absolutely zilch to do with a government ordered standing army, especially considering that the founders mistrusted standing armies. If the people aren't 'well-regulated', whos fault is that? If you're not well regulated, that is your fault.

I'm not getting away with anything because nothing of what I said is circumspect. If you'd read the actual historical documents like the federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, and the constitutional convention documents, you'd know what I was saying is completely truthful. I'm not 'blowing through' any clause whatsoever and am not claiming that it is irrelevant. Can you show me one single shred of evidence from the founders era that indicates that the 'well-regulated militia' meant anything other than able bodied citizens?
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 00 : 02-----
What do we show up with when we need to become soldiers?

Scalia, in writing for the majority opinion that ruled the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, noted that the ruling does not mean that 2nd amendment rights cant be limited or restricted.
But I cant believe we are having another discussion about the 2nd amendment again...rehashing the same old arguments for and against.

I would like to see the discussion focus on the tactics of the NRA of spreading false and misleading information that led the OP to suggest that "If you go by Obama's voting record, he is as anti-gun as they come."

Obama can't amend the Constitution. Obama can't establish legal precedence. If you're scared about guns, you're looking in the wrong place for an antagonist.

If you look at recent polls, a majority of Americans support an individual's right to own guns....with reasonable gun control measures and restrictions, while opposing an outright ban....much like Obama.

Guns

That presents a problem for the NRA, which might explain their tactics of vilifying any elected official or candidate who supports any level of gun control.

Obamas Illinois state senate record clearly shows that he is totally anti-gun. Do you think the NRA looked at a black politician and surreptitiously said 'lets give him an F'???

The NRA is being totally honest when they talk about his voting record, as it stands in Illinois. Obamas own words before and after Heller clearly show that he's paying lip service to which ever camp he needs to be in at the time. 'what works in cheyenne doesn't work in chicago'???? If anything, chicago is in need of more guns in the right hands, not more gun laws to prevent citizens from defending their homes.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 14 : 09-----
while I pay very little attention to what the NRA has to really say, the majority of americans that support 'reasonable' gun control show themselves to be more afraid of what their fellow americans COULD do instead of what actual criminals ARE doing.

the NRA chose to go far right (politically) with an all-or-nothing approach to gun rights, and now that the presidency (and much of the populace) is veering away from that stance, the NRA will suffer.

Remember the folks stocking up on generators and water for the disaster that was going to happen for T2K? They've moved on to guns for the Obama administration.

Obama is inheriting 2 wars, an economy that is in the toilet, and is on record as wanting to fix health care as a priority. He'll never get around to gun legislation, even if he wanted to.

Most objective interpretations of Obama's record in IL that I have seen would express it differently...that Obama has consistently supported local/state autonomy to enact their own measures that can withstand a constitutional test...and reasonable federal restrictions.

Positions held by a majority of Americans.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 22 : 34-----
You're right to some extent...I am more afraid of a kid accidentally shooting a friend while playing with a gun in his house or a spouse shooting his/her partner after an emotional confrontation because a gun is handy than I am of a criminal entering the house and shooting someone.

But on the other hand, your conclusion is an ignorant generalization.

perhaps you'll take the time to explain the A rated democrats from the last two election cycles then?
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 34 : 44-----
This is not possible given the State of Illinois constitution and home rule authority. No village/town, or city can have ANY gun law that is less strict than state law, but a locality can implement a gun law that is more strict than state law. If a state senator votes to implement strict gun laws which would prevent localities from having looser laws, he is not supporting local autonomy.


given your statement directly above, how in the hell is that ignorant then?

Didnt Obama vote against the state law that would have provided a loophole to a local ordinance? Isnt that supporting local autonomy?


I was speaking for myself..I dont represent the American people and I have no idea how many would agree with my example.

The ignorance is in the generalization.... "that the majority of americans that support 'reasonable' gun control show themselves to be more afraid of what their fellow americans COULD do instead of what actual criminals ARE doing.". I would love to see the data.

And even if you have the facts to support your conclusion.....whats wrong with Americans supporting or opposing gun control for reasons that differ from yours?

Guns (and other arms). Try to keep up here. :)

In a very disadvantaged sort of way, yes. What if there was a locality that wanted to allow it's citizens to own machine guns in Illinois? Would Obama have voted for that?

From what i've seen, just on here even, my generalization has proven true. Some examples....

1) why shouldn't civilians own machine guns

2) why should 'assault weapons' be banned

3) who needs more than one gun? one gun a month?

So far, 'reasonable' gun control legislation affects only a single entity and that is the person that would abide by the law. The person who doesn't give a damn about the law isn't affected by it until AFTER he/she commits the crime and possibly is caught. Tell me what is 'reasonable' about gun control laws that the criminal is not going to abide by?
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 50 : 52-----
this doesn't square with part of your last comment

so how do you differentiate the arms that the people can own and bear without being infringed (that 'shall not be infringed' part is kind of important also) and still prevent the 'blank check' on firearms ownership?

The "right" is tied to the "well-regulated militia," which is tied to the "security of a free state." If a well-regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state, "blank cheques" probably aren't a good idea.

So you basically agree that in the case of that one vote in IL for which he has been vilified by the NRA crowd, Obama supported local autonomy, which has been his position of record.

Extending that to a hypothetical is disingenuous.

I did not say that. I used but one example.

NRA double speak :)

That 'right' is not tied to membership in the militia. The amendment says

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 does not say

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,therefore the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the people are the militia and that well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then the people shall not have their right to arms infringed.

If the militia is no longer well regulated, the right does not go away, it just means that the state is less secure.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 02 : 04 : 13-----
kind of like your 'objective' interpretation of Obamas gun voting record. :thumbsup:

The sentence is grammatically incorrect by today's standards, so we have to rely on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that citizens have a right to have guns for defense, but said clearly that there are limits on the freedom. What's more to say? I'm sure some disagree with the decision, but that's the law. Deal with it or change it.

we're heading onto the planet militia here, aren't we?
what is the point of this exactly?

maybe the militia movement is gearing up for a new round of zany actions, kinda like the stuff that enframed the oklahoma city bombings. i look forward to the new black helicopter sightings and the new adventures of zog and all the other lunacy particular to that tiny sector of the far right at the level of media. back in the day, this sort of thing would make me laugh and laugh.

but giving militia groups machine guns, or making it easy--at all--for them to get (for example) machine guns is a really really bad idea.
these groups are in themselves arguments for gun control.

RB, here's my question for you.

In a hypothetical scenario, and just go with me here, say something happened between now and jan 20th, catastrophically tragic, and Bush decided to pull a Lincoln by suspending the constitution and 'temporarily' putting off the inauguration. Say he did this with a sizable portion of the military and fed agencies along with Blackwater and a previously unknown group of mercs.

What recourse would you have? what recourse would you want?
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 02 : 21 : 17-----
if it wasn't grammatically incorrect when it was written and it was understood by all at that time, why would it need to be re-interpreted by a court 200+ years later? Did it's meaning really change? or just a definition of a word?

Thanks for attempting to clear this up. It's quite confusing. In modern convention, the sentence is actually confusing because of the commas. (As Will has commented on.) I read this interesting article that offers a modernized paraphrase of it for us (bearing in mind the grammatical conventions of the day in comparison to today):

Since a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State[,] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

But the article goes on about how it is still unclear. The right shall not be infringed by whom? (They suggest it should have been written in the active voice: e.g. "The Federal government shall not infringe....")

But the most interesting point in the article to me was how they point out that since the clause "Well-regulated militia..." is there, instead of just "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," it cannot be ignored. What does this mean, then? To me, it seems, the "right" falls under the context of the militia, and that "the people" have the right to bear arms only within the confines of what would be considered "well regulated," i.e. no blank cheque. Also, "the people" is a collective noun. Foggy. The second amendment isn't about an individual's right; it's about a group's right. The group should be well-regulated, as the framers have suggested. (Again, no blank cheque.) Do you not want this "security" for your "free state"?

It was grammatically incorrect when it was written, actually.

The intent of the Second Amendment, originally, was to legally protect the right of insurrection against oppression. It had absolutely nothing to do with self-defense. The "well regulated militia" referred to the militia present at the time of the signing, which consisted of able-bodied males between 18 and 45. The intent was that a militia would be a counterbalance for a federal military. Nowhere does it say that a well regulated militia refers to the entire population.

But times change, which is why the framers wanted the courts to be able to interpret laws and the legislature to be able to pass amendments. Sedentary laws cannot endure

Of course all of this is moot. The SCOTUS gave a ruling a few months back and it's surprisingly clear. You can have a gun, but there will be reasonable limits.

dk---i don't feel any particular motivation to have this conversation again. i really don't--others may be more into it, so i'll let them play along. suffice it to say that i can imagine no circumstance under which we would have a common cause. revolutionary politics that are not retrograde, that are not based on recycling categories like "nation" and which do not entail a kind of collective flight back to an 18th century that never was as it is imagined ("strict construction" and all it entails) converge on a politics that i find anathema----an armed movement that originated from up inside these politics would put me in the strange position of having to think, and think quite hard, about whether to support the state in acting against it. i could go on about this, but there's no point.

thing is that were there a revolutionary movement that i would participate in, dk, i expect that it would top the Man on your hit list as soon as you found out about it.

so because the political viewpoints are so close to antithetical, i don't see us talking about the same things AT ALL when it comes to radical politics.

so there's no reason to accept the terms of your hypothetical situation.

i'll leave you to this now.

After having read the federalist/anti-federalist papers, I pondered two conclusions about the Second Amendment.

One, that the 2nd Amendment was a concession by the federalists to give confidence to the anti-federalists that firearms in the hands of the people would never be restricted. That the 'well regulated militia' was a unifying force made up of the people to ensure freedom and security from an overbearing central government. Remember that these people had experienced firsthand oppression by the military arm of their king.

Two, that the federalists were adamant that the security of a free state/nation REQUIRED a standing army, or a 'well regulated militia', but that to guarantee that the people would never be subject to future oppression from this standing army, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would never be infringed so that their power would be greater than the standing army, should it be necessary.

Since the ratification of the 13th Amendment, It has been accepted that the bill of rights only restricts the federal government and that the 14th Amendment applies those restrictions to the states as well ONLY WHEN the USSC incorporates that right under the 14th. This makes little sense considering that the entrance of a state in to the union is a two way contract with the union and the state, the state accepting the terms of the constitution and the union protecting the rights of the people in that new state. Prior to the slaughterhouse cases, I know of no such USSC case that even hinted that the bill of rights didn't apply to the states as well.


the people is no more collective in the 2nd than it is in the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 9th.

One must remember that the constitution is not an outline of the rights that belong to the people, but a legal document that enumerates specific powers that the federal government is given. The bill of rights was the concession to ensure that certain rights would NEVER be trod upon by the central government, something that the founders were all too familiar with. That is why it absolutey galls me to hear people say that rights are not absolute, that they all are allowed limitations and restrictions. This was a judicial theory that justice Holmes put forth in 1919 concerning a case about the espionage act and it's implications against free speech. Until then, it was considered that rights were absolute or they were not rights.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 02 : 59 : 53-----
are you saying that madison, hamilton, and others who were considered scholars were actually high school dropouts?

Those able bodied males were citizens though, not regular military. Does that negate a right of the people then?

I vehemently disagree that the founders wanted the courts to interpret laws based on the future. The founders realized that change was inevitable and put in a very exact method of amending the constitution if needs be changed.

great, is reasonable limits going to one day be single shot muskets again? bows and arrows?

when will people realize that if you put the direction of your lives and rights in the hands of government, they will become severely limited.

Double-post

DK, thanks for the outline. I'll need some time to digest that. (This is a learning experience, as a Canadian here.)

But one more thing: If rights are absolute, does this mean they cannot be taken away for any reason? What do you say about the inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Should everyone do away with the death penalty, for example? (I won't even get into liberty....)

If you can show me where I wrote "drop outs" I'll go buy a gun right now.

Grammar wasn't as well regulated then as it is now. That's the simple truth.
The militia mentioned was supposed to be state militias, which the ant-Federalists fought for. It was a counterbalance for the federal army.
They were the one's that set up the system. They wanted the courts to rule on the laws. You're arguing with the founders.
Slippery slope fallacy.
No one here is doing that.

I understand that we have the 2nd amendment. I understand the term "slippery slope." I understand freedom. Believe me, the less the government meddles with our personal lives, the better. My question is just... why guns? Why does it seem that guns are the fulcrum of personal freedom debate? Why is the gun lobby so much more vocal than the gay lobby or the sex lobby or the abortion lobby or the drug lobby? The government has their hands in all of these things that are far less volatile, and is smothering them. Yet we have the gun argument, which is louder and more influential.

I don't own a gun and don't really see a need for one. I understand that many people do own guns and use them for recreation and protection. I suspect, though, that removing the right to own particularly dangerous guns does not completely hinder those two uses. Maybe I just need an education on why an automatic gun is more effective at deterring an intruder from harming you. In my perspective, I look at it in terms of the roleplaying game paradox: a sword may be copper or it may be steel, but if it chops into you, you're just as dead. We're not in a role playing game where you need a mightier sword to fight mightier enemies. You don't need explosive ammunition or magical enchantments. The threat of one bullet from any gun is enough to deter the common criminal. Unless they have a vendetta against you, which would be your fault.

It's not like the lack of a particular gun will prevent you from having a fully appreciated and legal relationship with your significant other. Guns, to me, are the last bastion for those who think they're alone in the world and that others are out to get them. This may not be entirely true, but I'm thinking logically here, and that seems to be the only logical explanation. Why the need to arm yourself excessively if you don't feel threatened? This perception is antiquated and paranoid. Don't get me wrong here, I think a healthy amount of distrust will keep you alive, and I'm as subversive as they come. Still, this world has far more infrastructure and civility than when the Bill of Rights was drafted. We're not under threat of invasion and, trust me, all the firepower you stock in your shed won't protect you if they really want to get you.

Besides, you'll have to approve stem cell research if you want to be able to hold more than 2 guns at a time.

The right to self preservation is inherent and is sometimes called the primary right of man. This has been known since even before the constitution. Nowhere am I saying that the 2nd applies to self defense. That is an abomination imparted by Scalia.

really will? who decided that the right of the people in the 2nd now belonged to a national guard? Because last time I checked, changes in the constitution had to be done by 3/5ths majority in the house and senate and then by 3/5ths of the states. How does a right of the people become a right of the national guard without having gone through the amendment process? It doesn't, so the so called right of the national guard is BS. It's invalid. Illegal even.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 03 : 21 : 56-----
As you digest what I posted earlier, consider the 5th Amendment in regards to your above question.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Okay, so the right to life, liberty, and property has limits. Thanks.

I believe everyone here can attest to my protestations against ANY government meddling whether it's guns or gay marriage, or anything else for that matter. I do get your point though and as i've debated many times on this and other boards that a person without a gun is a subject while a person with a gun is free to choose.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 03 : 26 : 43-----
Thats not what the 5th says. It says that they cannot be deprived of them without due process of law. HUGE difference. I think you know this.

You don't see the possibility of a right being legally taken away as a limitation of that right? Please outline this difference you speak of.

[quote=Willravel;2570800]If you can show me where I wrote "drop outs" I'll go buy a gun right now.

Grammar wasn't as well regulated then as it is now. That's the simple truth. [/QUOTE
I don't know what college or university that james madison got his degree from, but i'm pretty sure it was 'regulated'. I'm still dumbfounded to see you sit here and try to claim that the founders were somehow less literate than we are today.

the 'state militias' were the citizens of that state will. there was no national guard back then. When the militia was called, farmers and townsfolk grabbed their muskets, not enlisted soldiers of the virginias 83rd infantry reserve.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 03 : 32 : 06-----
your right to life is absolute, up until you break a law that violates anothers right. If you violate anothers right, then you are subject to fines and imprisonment, even death through due process of law. That is not a limitation or restriction. It's a fine line, but a very visible one. in other words, through due process of law, you lose a right. Through limits, you have less of a right.

Again, grammar wasn't as standardized 300 years ago as it is now. That's the simple truth. It's not a slight against the founding fathers.
No, the militia 300 years ago consisted of anyone who wanted, but it didn't include all citizens. There were plenty of colonials that sided with the British, refused to fight, or even fled.

Really, though, the Second Amendment is about state militias. Read up on the works done by anti-Federalists. It's all there. Garry Wills is an idiot.
Do you believe in the death penalty?
Nevermind.

Fair enough, but this means that rights are not absolute. There are no degrees of absolution (absoluteness?). If rights were absolute, Americans could not be imprisoned nor sentenced to death—ever—not legally, anyway.

That said, other rights must have similar potential to be "lost." For example, one's right to bear arms could be lost (or otherwise limited) if a "due process of the law" determines that the number or type of arms is unreasonable. How does the recent SCOTUS ruling factor in, in this respect?

again, we're not imposing limits, we're talking about losing that right through due process of law. limits or restrictions would be like saying you have the right to life here, here, and there, but not here or there.

this is incorrect. A convicted violent felon LOST his 2nd Amendment rights because he violated anothers rights. reducing the number or type of arms ownable is a restriction.

Where is the due process of law that says the people can own machine guns made before may 19, 1986, but any machine gun made after that date is illegal?

do you see the difference?

I didn't say it had to be a government-ordered standing army, but it does have to be well regulated. You sitting on your front porch polishing a shotgun is not well regulated.



Granted. You were completely accurate in that the 2nd amendment's authors did not implicitly intend us to carry missiles because they didn't know what a missile was.

By this logic, you no longer have the right to free speech except orally and in a newspaper. Government can forbid radio, TV, and the internet (including TFP) from saying anything it wants, because the founders didn't specifically mean speech via electronic medium.

The right to free travel only exists on horseback, horse-drawn carriage, or on foot. Park your car, you have no constitutional right to drive it anywhere.

They didn't know what an air force was either, so it's perfectly OK for the government to require you to quarter military aviators in your home.

Shall we keep dissecting it in this way, or can we agree that "right to bear arms" does not only refer to pistols and swiss army knives?

If I knew how to shoot and clean that shotgun, march in formation and fight in small fireteam size groups, yes, I was well regulated. That is exactly what the founders were talking about because that is what they were.



your attempt to use the 'negative rights' theory was expected. When faced with two choices of positive rights or negative rights, the authoritarians usually go negative rights.

tell me, where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say that these rights are limited by technology or the times? nowhere, but I do know where it says that the rights held by the people are in no way, shape, or form dictated by technology or the times.

why have speeding laws if people are going to speed?

why have murder laws if murderers are going to murder?


this is a truly silly argument

Alexander Hamilton wrote, in the Federalist Papers, that a well regulated militia referred to both a state of preparedness with rigorous and persistent training. Let's say you take a sample of 100 Americans totally at random. How many of these individuals do you suppose have the training necessary to function in an armed, "fire team" sized group in a military or militia type of situation?

A majority of the US is not in any sense of the phrase well regulated. Why? A majority of Americans do not need any such training in their daily lives. As I said, times change.

Great! Tell ya what. I do agree that we need to be able to resist the government should it become tyrannical. I'm somewhat surprised that the people loudly extolling this view didn't start shooting at some point over the past 8 years, but let's just pretend they were temporary sheep.

You'd be fine if people could only buy a gun if they could shoot and clean it, march in formation, and fight in small fireteam size groups?

And just how many non-veteran gun owners do you think fall into that category?





Yes, considering it was you who advanced that theory by telling me I don't have the right to keep and bear missiles.


Nowhere. Thank you for proving my 2nd amendment argument right for me. We can now have missiles, should we be able to afford them.

Those same founders also acknowledged that the militia MAY fall to disarray. Nobody knew what the militial would become after time, but that the right should still be protected in case it didn't. If those 100 people feel they need no such training, then they only have themselves to blame. you say times change, do rights change then? If so, how long til the right to privacy or speedy trial becomes moot?

If you can tell me, with all honesty, that the framers of the constitution knew that their rights could come and go with the changing times and show me absolute proof of this in their writings, then i'll be the first to apologize.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 04 : 36 : 07-----
I was ready to kill if agents ever attempted to serve me with a warrant based on the patriot act, were you?

why would i not be?

a more appropriate question would be, why don't they?


semantics and reality do not equal a negative rights theory.

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you can carry that bad boy in to combat, then yes, you have that right. :rolleyes:

And as soon as that happens, it's no longer well regulated and the issue is moot. If the militia issue is moot, the Supreme Court needs to step in and make a modern ruling on the interpretation of the Amendment. As they have.
Slippery Slope.
The Amendment process is perfect and indisputable evidence of this. The right to own slaves, which was in the Constitution once upon a time (Article 1, Sections 2, 4, and 9), has since disappeared because of the amendment process (14th).

again, you'd rather see our lives directed by an arm of the government, in this case 9 people wearing robes, instead of in the hands of the people as was originally intended. Welcome to your oligarchy.

but no less valid, is it.

this is NOT evidence that the founders wanted the constitution and their rights interpreted with the changing of time as compared to the ability to amend the constitution via the people. you're seriously confusing the two methods.

I have no clue what this means. Care to break it down?

Simple: sensationalism

Obama cannot take my guns*












*I don't have any. Never will.

Oh, so the meaning is thuggish?

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

so 2 guns is better than one. Gotcha.

oh, by the way, i'm 33 and have never needed a gun. Just lucky?

I certainly didn't say anything about your right to carry a gun. In fact, I believe I made the same point about equalizing, but in a different way. Now, does it matter what KIND of gun you have?

My life has nothing to do with a gun, so this argument doesn't apply to me.
All logical fallacies are invalid, logically.
Amendments change the Constitution. If 2/3 Congress proposes a new amendment which is ratified by 3/4 of the Senate, then that's now a part of the Constitution. Slavery was allowed originally in the Constitution. That right was removed via an Amendment.

I'd say yes, considering that the fbi last reported that a person stands a 1 in 4 chance of being a victim of violent crime.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 05 : 21 : 51-----
I was just trying to provide you an explanation over my statement that confused you. I didn't take it as you questioning my right to a gun or not.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 05 : 26 : 17-----
I didn't mention 'gun' in this particular part. You said that the times changed and one part was gone, so the supreme court 'corrected' or reinterpreted that amendment. That is an explicit approval of having 9 judges determine your rights and their status.

until it actually happens. The slippery slope is not a fallacy because some actions have precipitated that slope.

once again, CHANGING the constitution and REINTERPRETING to keep with new times are two different things. and actually, THAT change didn't outlaw slavery because owning other people had been illegal for some time. What the 13th and 14th Amendment did was change the status of blacks to people instead of property and then qualify them with the same rights as whites.

Ok, the second Amendment guarantess an individual right (of the people) for a collective purpose. The right continues to exist, and is still guaranteed by the constitution wether that purpose remains or not.

with regards to whether the 2'nd amendment refers to 'militias' rather than 'people' (even though it definately says people) I pulled this from GunCite.com:

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. "
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."


Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

And:

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "

my guess is that the vast majority of gun owners would crap their own pants if the government decided to turn on its own citizens (which it won't). If you think you have a chance of standing up to the US Government, guns or no guns, you're fooling yourself. Such an action by the government would be swift and thorough.

Oh, and don't forget Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. "

Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:

"[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"



I don't mean to bombard with quotes, and I have tried to keep them very short and to the point, but I think it is important to see how the people who actually wrote the constitution, or who were early justices in the new government felt about the second Amendment.

1 on 4 chance of being a victim of a violent crime? Source?

Thats the first I've seen that statistic.

I do know that approx. 5 million violent crimes (and decreasing in recent years) are committed in the US annually....a nation of 300 million.

Deerwood: You are very wrong, provided two crucial preconditions are met:

1: The people have some means with which to resist, even if those means are humble.

2: The people are so aggrieved by their government that they are willing to support it's armed overthrow.

If the government is more or less acting in the best interests of it's people, successful insurrection is not possible, it will sputter out and die. If that government has turned bad, then no amount of technology can prevent revolt from within if enough people stand and fight.

According to the DoJ, the figure 1s just over 20 victims per 1,000 persons

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

1 out of 4? I dont think so/

This is fantasy. If this was true, no cops would ever be killed by criminals in the line of duty. If I was a mugger, and thought that you had a gun, I might just be more likely to kill you before I made my "I'm finna rob you" intentions clear.

it's this mentality that results in over 100X more gun-related homicides in the US than any other Western country

I'll try to find a link to it. I know it was an FBI crime report that came out in 99 I think, but not positive.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 06 : 33 : 38-----
you're looking at the wrong stat. i'll find the link and post it.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 06 : 34 : 19-----
fine. whatever.

My first 5 million estimate was a guess.

The FBI uniform crime reports has it an about 1.4 million violent crimes last year.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/imag...ntcrimefig.gif

Violent Crime - Crime in the United States 2007

In any case, it is no where near 1 out of 4 chance of being a victim of a violent crime.

Its more like less than 1 out of 100 chances and it has been for at least 20 years of FBI stats:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html

and many of those crimes happened to the same person, which makes the chances even less

and even w/o arming yourself, you further decrease the odds by being smart (avoiding particular neighborhoods or situations) and being aware.

I guess one could avoid crime altogether by never leaving your damn house, right?

I have 20+ years of living in Washington DC, leaving my damn house (condo) on a daily basis and never a victim.....smart and aware.

Can it happen...sure. I dont live in fear and I dont feel a need to arm myself.

ditto, but I lived 12 years in Chicago. I often had to walk to/from the subway late at night and I was never victim. nor were any of my friends. or anyone I knew. guess we were ALL lucky

Mexico has one of the worst crime rates anywhere. Guns are banned there. Go figure.

If one thinks about it, there's an odd correlation (somewhat) between strict gun laws and high crime rates. I live in Baltimore where I hear about mugged people on a daily basis. Yet MD has some of the more restrictive gun laws. Similarly, NJ has one of the strictest gun laws but contains Newark, one of the high crime cities.

In contrast, NH has *extremely* lax gun laws. You rarely hear about egregious crime rates there.

note the differences in demographics between NJ and NH

also, many European countries have extremely strict gun control laws and their gun-related homicide rates are 1% of America's

I'll concede, the difference in population make-up could account for the difference in crime rates. What about Texas and Mexico? Bordering 'states.' One with lax gun laws and one without. One with high crime rates and the other without...

Just a thought. :)

No. To be blunt, I'm not crazy enough to think it would do any good. I'd be dead, and painted as an anti government mountain man lunatic.



That's not an appropriate question at all because it's not germane to the conversation. You know damn well the NRA is not saying "only peopel who know how to fight in small fireteams have the right to a gun."

I find this thread informative. Just wanted to say a quick thanks for starting it, and another thanks to everyone who has contributed to this compilation of opinions and facts.

Which ones?

I know Germany's Gun-related homicide rate is about 1/10'th that of the United States, and I believe that to be the lowest in Europe. It certainly isn't 1%. Let's at least keep approximations to the same order of magnitude.


It should be worth noting, that despite the lack of guns in european countries, non-gun related homicides are also a fraction of non gun-related homicides in the united states.

The only European country with a higher non-gun related homicide rate is N Ireland, which also has a higher gun-related homiced rate than the US.

People just aren't mixing it up in Europe the way they do in the United States. It's cultural. Sure, firearms provide an easy instrument for the commission of a crime, but they also allow for easy defense.

Like those determined to commit suicide, if you take away a single method available, most people will simply use whatever is still available to get the job done; but they will get the job done.

Shit, even if you remove all gun-related homicides altogether from the United States Homicide Statistics, we would still have a higher murder rate than most of Europe, and Australia.

Oh, and how do you account for the Swiss, with their love of automatic weapons and a very heavily armed populace? Their murder rate is one of the lowest in Europe, below England, Germany, France, etc.

I shouldn't have used the word "rate", sorry. I meant 1% of the total homicides, which doesn't take into account population differences.

No worries,

but that's *almost* a tautology. If you take away guns, more crimes will be committed without them. The only salient measure is whether the confiscation of firearms actually reduces crime overall, or just encourages a mugger to use a knife, etc. Most statistics in Europe / Australia indicate increasing violent crime rates even though firearms laws continue to be tightened. Contrariwise, more and more firearms are purchased and put in the hands of private citizens every day in the United States, and our Violent Crime rates are down nearly 50% since 1980 despite the increase in firearms ownership.

Also, as indicated by the Swiss, if America can get rid of it's 'jackass quotient' the homicide rate in this country would be far lower, irrespective of whether firearms are legal. It's fueled by ignorance, the drug trade, and the romanticization of the 'gangster' lifestyle.

the "data" in this thread adduced by the gun fetishists--which is a different category than folk who simply own guns---is so meager that anyone can draw any conclusion they want from it. there is nothing more to be said about it.

i find strict construction to be intellectually bankrupt. what it does functionally is attempt to eliminate the adaptability of the constitutional order that the united states has operated with SOLELY in order to elevate a self-evidently 18th century-bound amendment about guns to the status of the transcendent. this is typically buttressed with a kind of pseudo-historical argumentation that is not even worthy of a mediocre undergraduate. it is shocking that anyone buys this nonsense.

i find the idea that having a gun magically gives you political agency to be even more astonishing.

this far right political worldview has not even caught up with 1848.
the united states truly is the jurassic park of reactionary politics.

unbelievable.