My brother was a security guard at a relatively insecure apartment complex in Minneapolis and before he was able to carry a gun, he carried such non-lethal weapons as pepper-spray and baton. The problem with these (and a Taser), is that they are unreliable and you either have to get very close to the attacker, or have incredible aim. Miss, and you will only make your attacker more determined to do and/or your family harm. Honestly, it isn't worth it to me to risk my life or my family's life in order to save that of someone who's trying to do me bodily harm.

An effective non-lethal means of self-defense would have to be intimidating as well as incapacitating. It would have to be effective when used on any part of the body, and be able to travel through heavy clothing. Lastly, it would need to be fast acting/shooting, as you generally only have seconds to react in a life-threatening situation.

Well, yes, you are. If you want to define ammunition as "military grade", the reader assumes you know what "military grade" ammunition is. Or were you just dressing up your post a bit?
Well, if you define your stances in life by the quotes of murderers that up to you I guess.

Of course guns kill people. They also protect people. A strange dichotomy to be sure...


Please go back and read the thread. There is no arms race. The deterent is being shot, not being shot with a bigger gun than you happen to be holding at the time.

But earlier in the thread I said:

...and...
And in the spirit of righteous indignation that you display below, don't tell me how I feel about taking another mans life. It is completely out of your realm of experience.

If handled improperly. I handle mine properly. Now what is your beef?


I could just as easily decide to plow my car through a famers market, were I suddenly to snap and go on a homicidal rampage. The nice thing about living where I do though, is some sane, law-abiding citizen would very likely put an end to my crime spree with the very weapon you hate.
Well, we can go with well known and excepted definitions, or we can attempt to glean your meaning from the fathomless depths of your mind...

I prefer the former. However, if you insist on the latter, I will be happy to start using my own definitions of words and terms as well.


Well, then I suggest you read the piece of legislation in question and find the wiggle room. It is very specific. Black and white, some would say.
If you have a problem with the military, please start another thread, and I will deal with that issue there.

I own a 30/30 rifle that I use when I'm home to shoot gophers and such to keep them from digging holes that break cattle legs. I don't really have much to say either way, only that in certain circumstances guns are useful. Same token, different side: you don't need a .50 automatic sniper rifle to go dear hunting with ...

ctembreull v. debaser

It's interesting to see two people with seriously polar opposite beliefs try to come to a consensus about Gun Control.

I can't resist throwing in my perspective, as I believe I am somewhere between the two of you on this issue.

First, about that Second Amendment:
"A well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Let's remember when this was written, so we can take it in context. Over 200 years ago, when smoothbore muskets were state-of-the-art firearms. Most adult males had one, for hunting and such. Over half the population was involved in producing food, most as farmers. There wasn't a standing army, nothing like what we have now. The militia was all the men of the town who could use their muskets and defend the town. They were like "citizen soldiers".

Next lets read the whole sentence and notice the comma halfway thru. The first part of the sentence is the "justification" part, where the need for a militia ie. citizen soldiers is located. The second part of sentence is the actual rule of law "the right of the people to keep and bear arns shall not be infringed". For a definition of people, see the first sentence of said constitution, as in "We the people", all law-abiding citizens is the meaning here.

So the basic concept is, all law-abinding citizens who may be needed in the militia to keep security and defend the free state may keep and bear arms.

Why is this a good idea?
The people in this thread have pretty much covered them all, self-defense, crime deterrent, slow police response, dictatorship deterrence.

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

Second, does size matter?
Yes, Not much for diameter, but for length absolutely.

The longer the barrel the more inherently accurate the weapon can be.
The shorter the barrel the more easily concealed.

Diameter mostly affects how many shots you can get on target because of recoil, but its only takes one well aimed shot of any caliber to end a lethal confrontation.

And I'll take any firearm, even a little .22 deringer over any other self-defense item, lethal or non-lethal, if I want the best chance of saving my life or a loved one's.

----------------------
Gun Control?
Not if it takes away my right as a law-abiding US citizen to keep and bear a firearm for lawful self defense. Requiring gun owners to be trained in use, care and responsibilties of firearms ownership would be OK with me.

Restricting citizens from having Military style fireams is also OK with me. We don't really need sniper rifles, bazookas and machineguns to defend our homes and loved ones from street criminals.


FYI, I am a licensed Concealed Carry Weapon and Firearm license holder and a licensed Armed Security Guard in my state, so I am the Militia ;P

A question to answer your own: Are teflon rounds, caseless rounds, and tracer rounds military-grade ammunition? If so, then why on earth should they become available under any circumstances to anyone outside the military?

Yep, Hinckley was a murderer. How, exactly, does that invalidate what he said?

Hmm. Criminals get guns. People get guns to protect themselves. More criminals get more powerful guns because people are getting guns. More people get more powerful guns because more criminals get more powerful guns. That's an arms race. It's on a slightly smaller scale than the origin of the term, but it scales well enough. The Cold War didn't erupt into a nuclear exchange in large part because of the idea of mutually assured destruction. The human mind tends to recoil from the idea of depopulating the globe. Statistics indicate it's not nearly such a stretch to depopulate a small section of the street. So if everyone gets guns because everyone else is, even if just for protection, it's only gonna take one good bar brawl to touch off a moderate-scale battle. At this rate, the metaphysical difference between Oakland and Beirut will be negligible sooner, rather than later.

Because as safe as you claim to be, for every person as safe as you, there's at least one more, probably more, who is not. Time to enforce safety, much in the fashion we do with automotive vehicles. Tests, licensing, and insurance would be an acceptable start.

The only people I can think of who would say that gun legislation is black and white are those who are either naive, hermits living in cages, and hopeless idealists. Tax laws are supposed to be in "black and white", too, you know.

I'm so happy for you that you like your guns so much. You'll hopefully pardon those of us who do *not* subscribe to Mao Tse-tung's philosophy that "power grows from the barrel of a gun." I think I'd rather spend my time and energy making life safer without having to resort to packing heat.

Exactly how can you make life safer without anyone having to resort to packing heat?

While this sounds really good and is quite idealistic, the stark truth of man's entire existance is: Might makes right.

The firearm has only been around for a few hundred years, before that it was knives, swords, bows and arrows, clubs and way back when . . . rocks.
The basic concept is the same.

It's not the weapon, it the wielder of that weapon.

A disarmed public is vulnerable to many situations where life will not be safer, from enemies foreign or domestic.

Difficult. Very difficult, in fact. It's not like I'm saying this would be easy. I start with safety, though. For example, you have a right to own a car. It is a privilege to be able to drive it. You earn that privilege by learning and demonstrating the safety aspect, and acquiring insurance to make sure you are financially responsible for accidents that happen with your car. Same with guns. You have the right to own them, using them should be a privilege earned in much the same manner.

I think that's actually a fairly good start; some states already are moving in this direction.

Very true. So perhaps instead of eliminating guns altogether (something I vehemently oppose), we can try to keep the power climbing to a minimum. Sure, might makes right, but you don't need an AK-47 to be mighty.

Sure, but a sword isn't what you want when, to quote Samuel L. Jackson, "you absolutely, positively have to kill every motherf***er in the room." I can speak from personal experience with this; I fence (saber) and do live-steel show combat. I somehow doubt I could clear out an office filled with my "evil coworkers" with my saber; with an AK or even a legal semiautomatic pistol, it would become infintely easier. I have a bit of a problem with people acquiring the ability to pick off people they don't like, or even people at random, at 300 meters from cover - case in point, the D.C. sniper.

(Note to debaser: Malvo was military. Being in the military isn't even an automatic guarantor of gun safety.)

In some ways yes, in some ways no. It's facile to say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - as often as not, or probably more, it's a person with a gun. That points directly to having perhaps more stringent background checks, the aforementioned licensing, learning, and insuring, and so on and so forth.

But owning a gun is not a guarantor of safety. Personal responsibility is required. Too many people ain't got it. Too many of them have guns.

In my military experience I have never encountered teflon or caseless ammunition. As far as I know they are not used my the US military. As for tracers, why would you want them? They are no more powerful than a normal round, in fact less so. The military uses ball ammo, that is a jacketed round that is far less lethal than an equivalent calibur of hunting round that you can buy at Walmart.

Very well:

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." - Daniel Webster

Now who holds more weight?


But criminals don't get "bigger" guns. They just move to places where no-one is armed (like California). There isn't an "arms race". Criminals use whatever they can get their hands on. I am just as comfortable carrying a .38 revolver as I am any other gun. I am not worried that someones weapon may be "bigger" than mine...

The world is jamm packed with idiot. I think a solid education is an acceptable start.

We are were talking about the legal definition of an assault weapon, remember. It is very specific. Stop dodging the issue.
I think this goes back to the hopeless idealist reference earlier...

Ever hear of John Lott? He's the only person to do real, extensive research into the statistics of guns and gun violence, and his findings are not what the anti-gunners want to hear.
You should know that he was not looking for that kind of result when he began the research.

His detractors and other gun opponents don't have the same research to back up their opinions. In fact, they mostly just mi-quote his books in order to back up their own claims.

To those of you doing all this arguing against guns:
How much of what you think you know is verifiable? Based on real research? There is an awfull lot of old-wife's tales, and urban myth, and "common knowledge" out there. All bullshit.

Do some research on Australia and Britain's ban on gun ownership, and see what kind of results have been showing up there.

I don't know why I'm posting again. I know you won't be swayed by logic or facts, or be willing to look at this objectively. That's why it's such a usefull subject for politicians. Emotional subjects are what get people elected, because facts don't matter.

You mean Mary Rosh, don't you? Too many questions exist about Lott/Rosh's credibility, honesty, and integrity. Allegations exist and have not been refuted that he fabricated a large portion of his data.

Yeah, I've heard of this Mary Rosh chick.

No, I mean John. He's defended his work before. All the data is there, but no one is going to pull it all out into the light of day because it would show he's not lying. This guy is such a thorn in their side that they would have done it a long time ago.

Kind of like that "scholar" who falsified all his data claiming early Americans didn't own guns. In spite of this book having been denounced by other academics, his award revoked, job lost etc. there are still people who want to say it's really the truth. A publisher has already bought the book with the intent to keep it alive. Because that's all the anti-gunners have to work with: spin and lies.

While I spent a short stint living in Vegas, I lived in an apartment and the beedroom had sliding glass doors onto a small enclosed patio. I awoke one night and someone was outside on the patio. I got out of bed, got my gun and proceded toward the door. Before I got there the person jumped out of the patio and left.

What would have happened otherwise, I can not say. But I am glad I had my gun.

I have. But it was at like 2 in the morning and not in the best part of town.

And no, I didn't drive across town just to take my .45 into 7-11.

As far as I konw, teflon bullets are illegal now since they will pass through kevlar, but then again so will a .22.

What's the deal with tracers? The only thing special about a tracer is the phosphorous on the end so you can see it at night. You can buy them at just about any gun show for just about any caliber.

Keep this in mind:

1. You do not have to have a license to buy a car.
2. You do not have to know how to drive a car to buy one.
3. In some instances (rural areas) children are allowed to use a car without a license on their property.
4. Some vehicles are not required to be registered.

Here's a brief interview with Prof. John Lott:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Other than teflon rounds, which can defeat vests, I don't see why the fact that an military force uses the ammo should make it inappropriate for civilians?

Besides the question about tracers posted by hrdwareguy, what's wrong with caseless ammo?
Teflon is bad for cops wearing vests so I'll grant you that, but what's up with the others? Or is it just that you figure that it's bad because it's military? The real question to be answered would be why should it not be available?

But you do have to have a license and insurance to drive it off the lot.

See above.

But to use it on public roadways requires a license, registration, and insurance.

Neither is my fencing saber, nor are any of the other edged weapons I possess and carry.

I'll ask again: we license people to drive, which entails training and knowlege of vehicular safety. Why don't we do so with guns? Every car on American soil since the advent of the VIN (vehicle identification number) has one, and is registered with both national and state-of-registration governments. Why don't we do the same with guns? (Yes, I've heard the argument about filing off serial numbers. It's easy for forensic techs to recover the serial even from a filed-down gun).

I've already dealt with the issue of Prof. Lott. If you want more information, then I will direct you to http://whoismaryrosh.com, where you can read all about the good Professor for yourself.

This is from an excerpt hosted on that site:
Lott has admitted to using the Mary Rosh sockpuppet to defend his own work. Credibility? He don't need no stinking credibility!

There should of course be some level of control over who is allowed to purchase a gun. However, an outright banning of gun ownership is not neccisary. There are many people who enjoy hunting and target shooting. These people have the right to engage in these activities if they want to.

But that doesn't stop people from acting illegeally and driving without license and insurance.

But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, does it? As near as I can remember, caseless ammunition is a slug set directly into a block of solid propellant. This propellant is more energetic and burns cleaner, so that a greater portion of the reaction energy is available to propel the slug from the weapon with greater velocity and efficiency. It also produces no "brass", the spent propellant casings ejected by semiautomatic weapons after the round has been fired. Brass, by the way, is a fairly critical tool in forensic analysis of gun crimes. There is no conceivable civilian use for this ammunition. But how long d'you think it'll be before it's the ammo of choice for people who don't want to leave behind clues? I'm pretty sure that I'm not the first to come up with that idea, either. What I can't be sure of is whether the other folks who've thought of it are as nice as I am.

That depends upon whether Mr. Webster, great orator though he was, had actually said something that invalidated Hinckley's comment. This particular snippet doesn't.

You can't possibly be serious in claiming that nobody in California is armed. Have you ever been to East Palo Alto? Oakland? Emeryville? East Los Angeles? Compton? Tracy?

If this is true, then why not take steps to limit what they can "get their hands on?" Right now, they're getting their hands on guns. Your stated counter to that is to have more people get guns. That's an arms race.

General educational policy is not germane to a discussion on gun control. I'm talking here about the requirements we place on people to drive cars, and why we have nothing even remotely so stringent in the case of firearms. You have to have a license and insurance to drive a car, and that car must be registered. Why don't we do similar things with guns, which are vastly more efficient in killing people than cars are?

That's a bit hypocritical, given the way you sidestepped the issue of gun education and insurance. But I'll let that slide with just a polite mention. My point is that laws are not black and white. I chose to make that point by drawing a comparison with another type of law. The plain point is that the words of laws take much longer to change than do the things those laws deal with. This creates gray areas. Gun laws are not nearly so black and white as you like to think they are. Neither are tax laws. Nor any other law, for that matter.

Idealistic? Not so much. Hopeless? Not a chance. Pragmatic? Very.

Yep. So, now, you tell me why driving a car without some of the mandatory documentation and training is a crime, while using a firearm with a similar lack of documentation and training is not?

Target shooting is fun
 

Criminals get guns either way.
Criminals kill just as easily with legal weapons as they do with their illegal variants.
So fuck it, bring on the guns!
Registration is nice because it helps keep the established psychos and social misfits from getting a gun to easily. It also discourages casual gun ownership to a s mall degree.

The restrictions such as they are retarded, limiting pistols to 10 round clips accomplishes exactly what? It means I need to buy more clips to hold the 50 or 60 rounds I usually do at the range, and I have to reload more often.

The same thing is annoying with shotguns also. No more then 5 shells? Also considering a pistol grip to be part of the restrictions is retarded... Not that I need one anyway for skeet shooting.

I'm not asking for an uzi or a full auto m4, weapons which serve only to kill people and don't have other purpose. Ban em, see if anyone gives a crap, no one can afford the ammo anyway...

If I seem slightly out of context it's because I made it to 60 posts and then stopped reading.

BTW does anyone know what is up with the restrictions on weapons in congress?
The current bill is due to expire soon, will they renew it or replace it?

Will proper weapons be available afterwards?

/me drools over 17 round mags for my GL-31

I never said it didn't exist, just that it wasn't "military" (though our 120mm rounds are caseless ;) ). I know about the technology, and also that there is only one production weapon in the world that fires it, and criminals arent very likely to have one (in fact probability=0.0). Most criminals who would think ahead to buying a weapon that fires caseless ammo could probably figure out that picking up their brass would work just as well...
California has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. They also have the highest rate of gun crime. See a pattern?
And how do you propose to keep criminals from getting guns? Pass a law?
I was refering specifically to gun education, not general education. There should be mandatory gun safety classes for all students in public schools.
See above.
Ok, you just don't get it. Here is the text of the Assault Weapons ban, defining what an assault weapon is. I want you to point out to me the specific areas that are "gray". Help me out, because I'm not that sharp.

I have yet to see your so called pragmatism suggest any solid course of action that has any hope of working.

Please elaborate....

How is making the law abiding population less armed, and lessing the effectiveness of the arms possessed by the law abiding population, logical or even a good idea?

The number of types of caseless weapons "in production" is a misleading argument: several more are in development; one has even been tested by the U.S. Army, as well as the German army. Now, given the rate at which technology advances, how long d'you think it'll be before someone gets the bright idea of producing a caseless weapon for the masses?

Good news for the dumb ones, then: before long, they won't have to worry about their brass when they shoot someone!

Two points. One, you claimed that people "don't have guns" in California. Exactly how is this possible if California has the highest rate of gun crime? Two, I've never said that more restrictive is the answer. Smarter, yes. Better-defined, yes. More formative, yes. More restrictive, not necessarily.

That's traditionally the way you do it in this country, yes. You pass a law to deal with conduct deemed unsafe, or unfit for society. It's quaint, I know, but I prefer it to the alternative. How about you?

On a less flippant note, the whole point is to pass laws that make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, and that make it easier for law enforcement to do something about it when they do, and to make the rest of us generally safer in the meantime.

Mmmmmm, no. We don't force students to learn to drive, we let them do it at their option, BUT we do require it if they're going to drive on our streets. We have driver's education programs and schools; why not gun education programs and schools? I don't believe in forcing people to learn about guns any more than I believe in taking all the guns away.

As far as your posting of the AWB goes, let's examine a rifle from the hypothetical weapons manufacturer WM, who makes wooden workalikes of Heckler and Koch weapons (which are not mentioned specifically under the ban, so lookalikes and modifications are technically legal). Assume he sells a rifle, called the WM-16, that has no threading for a silencer, a wooden or polycarbonate stock, and no bayonet - it has only the pistol grip. That hypothetical weapon, the WM-16, would be legal under the ban. And it would be every bit as deadly as any of the weapons listed in that ban.

That's what we call a gray area.

I'm sorry you feel that way, although I'm compelled to point out that you've got no basis in fact to make that claim - just your own opinion - since some of what I'm talking about has never been tried before.

Why, sure. I own a fencing saber, a basket-hilt claymore, and a rapier patterned after a Danish dueling rapier from the early 18th century. I also own a dirk and a sgian dubh - Gaelic for "black knife". The dirk and sgian dubh are ordinarily carried when wearing the kilt, as part of traditional costume. The swords are used at Scottish highland events, where a group of friends and I perform live-steel combat reenactment.

Whyever d'you ask?

You do huh, basket-hilt claymore huh.....

sketch not to self don't piss this guy off he will stick claymore on the side of your house.

Fencing is tight I'd do it if i could spend anymore money. I've already bought 800 dollar golf irons and a new 600 dollar snowboard this year. More computer parts are going to be needed soon as well i'll get slaughterd by my girlfriend if i buy anything else frivilous.

The.Lunatic

You've precisely nil to worry about. In all honesty, not one of those blades has ever touched another person's skin. Nor, if I do it right, will they ever. If ever they do, it'll probably be the last time I ever fight. The way we do it is when we "strike" in combat, we draw the blade across our opponent's shirt. The blade cuts the shirt and the blood-pack taped underneath in a thin plastic casing (with a thick leather pad under the bloodpack in case we get too close to the skin). Voila, instant "sword wound." We've rehearsed the combat to a fare-thee-well, so we know exactly when we'll strike, where we'll strike, and how to react when it happens.

Fencing's much the same - we wear all that protective gear - padding, masks - for a reason.

When not in use, the blades are locked up and well out of reach of anyone. These are not things you mess around with, y'know?

Well the G11 was tested in 1990, and nothing has been done since. So that is how fast technology advances...

California has the lowest gun ownership per capita as a result of its restrictive gun laws, yet it still has the highest rate of gun violence.

The point is that criminals don't follow the law, so a law designed to keep guns out of their hands would be pretty pointless. There are thousands of gun laws on the books, very few of which are enforced. Yet someone always crys for more.
Gun safety should be part of the health course taught at all high schools. Is it not a public safety issue? That way you would drasticly reduce the number of accidental shootings, which makes up a high proportion of the number you quoted earlier.
Well, I am a bit confused about the "wooden workalike" bit.

If it is in fact made of wood, it would not function as a firearm.

If you are refering to the stock and furniture being made of wood, it is absolutely irrelevant.

If someone makes a weapon with the features you described it would not be an assault weapon. There is no gray area.

Yes it would be functionally identical and every bit as lethal, but it would not be an assault weapon.

Do you see now why I think most gun legistlation is a fucking joke?

Look at the guns I posted earlier in the thread, can you tell which is an assault weapon?
How to stop gun violence:

If someone uses a gun in the commision of a crime, sentence them to 20 years without parole. That will solve the problem.

So you do not carry them in public then?

Not true. The G11 has been updated several times and was tested as recently as two years ago, according to a brief research run - apparently, it's close to being a candidate for a next-generation assault rifle for the U.S. Army.

What part about restrictive not necessarily equaling better was I not clear on?

There's more than one way to use the law to lessen the number of guns available to criminals. Example: more stringent background checks, with longer waiting periods, and more intelligent recordkeeping (more on the order of state DMVs) will dry up any of the legal channels, and there are other things to deal with the illegal ones. I was reading recently about means of linking biometrics and guns, actually - sounded moderately interesting. Still not ready for prime time, but promising all the same. The point is that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and rejecting ideas simply because they would require some work to implement is nothing short of defeatist.

Some states teach driver education in schools, but only at the elective level. If it were handled similarly, I'd favor it. Besides that, focusing education on schools leaves out the huge percentage of the population who are out of school. Hence the need for elective programs for adults. Either way, a certification program and liability insurance should be mandatory, as well as registration (as mentioned earlier). Anything less is simply half-assed.

Reductio ad absurdum? Somewhat silly. I've never yet heard of a gun whose moving parts are wood. But stock and body, that's another issue. Y'know, the way people used to make 'em before polymers, carbonates, and sheet-steel.

According to that law. But according to any objective standard of reality? That's an assault weapon. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely delusional.

Do you see now why I'm more content to rely upon my own definition? You know, that definition which you'd spent so long trying to convince me was purely arbitrary in the face of a law which you have now turned around and repudiated.

I'd say 40. Life if the victim dies.

Roughly half the time, they're carried on private property. The other half, they're on public property as part of historical reenactment.

According to local law enforcement, the dirk and sgian dubh are the only two "questionable" pieces as they're the only ones you actually wear (y'know in the movies where the hero wears his sword across his back? 99% of those portrayals are for crap). But as they're part of native dress in a historical/cultural context, they're permitted in public. It's a similar circumstance to the knives that Sikhs are religiously obligated to carry.

The funny part is that the law enforcement fellows I talked with were themselves in kilt - wearing the the sgian dubh in the top of the boot or kilt-hose, and the dirk on the police utility belt along with the cuffs, radios, and guns.

The funny thing, though? In all the years I've done the Scottish events, maybe a third of the people are carrying the traditional weapons, sometimes less. That's a pretty low rate. But there hasn't been a single violent incident at any of these events for as long as I've been doing them. There was one guy who got a cracked skull when he was hit with an errant caber, but that's not a violent crime. Interesting, isn't it?

Because there are no laws to enforce it. And at this point in time, there never will be. There is to much animosity toward the government and big brother already.

So just to throw out another thought.

We seem to be gettin all worked up about assult weapons and military grad ammo. What about the 10 year old kid down the street that got a brand new CO2 powered BB gun for christmas and puts someones eye out?

Strange, I have the same experience in regards to the ten years of gun shows I have attended (minus the caber, naturaly). Of course almost everyone there is armed to the teeth.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about WW2 reinactors (and the weapons they carry)?

The next weapon the military will field will be the OICW, which fires 5.56mm ammunition, just like the M-16.

Do you not feel it should be a balanced against the hardship it would cause to legal gun owners?

First, no insurance company would touch that. If they did the premiums would be so outrageous that only the wealthy could afford to legaly own firearms. But why would the poor need to defend themselves. Never mind that it would be a de-facto registration of gun owners.

The reason gun safety should be mandatory is that it is the people who wouldn't take it who are the ones who usually accidentaly shoot themselves or others. They either think they know it all already, or they never think about it at all.

What does the mterial the stock is made of have anything to do with it at all?
As is most gun legistlation passed to date.

I never said I agreed with the law. I was just trying to show you that if you wanted to arbitrarily toss around a term as loaded as "assault weapon' (no pun intended), that you might want to understand what one is, or at least what the rest of the people involved in this debate (on a national level) consider one to be. You also now know that the definition is completely arbitrary, having nothing to do with the capabilities of the weapon in question.

Why not, but the death penalty if the victim dies.

Whereas the Germans, the Belgians, and probably a good number of other European armies to follow, will likely go with caseless.

A balance always has to be struck, but I'm okay with a bit of hardship on legal gun owners so long as the hardship on the illegal ones is greater. This is one of the reasons that *smarter* laws, not necessarily more draconian, are what I want.

Here's why I think you're wrong: a person killed in a car accident is no less dead than a person killed with a gun. The opportunities for legal action and liability are certainly no less. But insurance companies do cover vehicular liability. I believe insurance companies would touch it, and they'd make it affordable, too. The reason why is revenue. If the number of gun incidents is so much smaller than the total number of guns owned, then the insurance companies make money. It's the same thing that they do with cars. They profit because the number of vehicular liability claims is so vastly smaller than the total number of vehicles insured.

As far as the de-facto registration of gun owners, you're completely right. That's another reason why I favor it.
I think that guns should be registered much as we do cars. Cars are marked in multiple locations with their VIN, which can be removed but it's non-trivial to do so. Guns should be the same; marked in multiple locations with their "GIN". That'll cut down, if not eliminate, the ability of people to "deregister" their guns with nothng more than a Dremel tool. You pay a nominal fee every year to keep your car registered. That works for guns, too. $5 or $10 per gun per year. When you transfer a car to a new owner, you have to notify the state of that transaction. Guns should require the same process. That'll crimp one of the larger sources of criminal weapons: guns purchased legally and then transferred to a new owner without paperwork. Most folks wouldn't want to pay a fee each year for a gun they don't own, and I don't know of a whole lot of people who would be willing to do so on a large scale. Every couple of years (at least here in CA), you have to have your car smog-checked. I like the idea for guns - not a smog check, but an ownership check. Once a year you go in, the gun is scanned, your ID and paperwork are scanned with it, you hand over $5, and your gun is re-registered for another year. We voluntarily put up with these "hardships" for our cars, which can kill but not nearly so efficiently as guns. Why don't we have similar circumstances for weapons?

I don't disagree with this, but continue to assert that it shouldn't be a mandatory bit of school education. You wanna get a gun? Fine, take your class, pass your test, and you're set. You don't wanna get a gun? Then save yourself the hassle.

Quote:

What does the mterial the stock is made of have anything to do with it at all?

It doesn't. The fact that the gun stock is made of wood was something I put in there to make my hypothetical assault weapon more believable. After all, this was a small gun-maker, quite likely without the opportunity to make polycarbonate weapons.

I was rather well aware of the gun laws, actually, before you posted the text. My point was that that law is swiss-cheesed with holes. Therefore, it's an arbitrary definition. If I'm going to be confronted with one person's arbitrary definition and my own, I'll use my own, thanks. I'm quite aware that some may disagree. That's why my definition was originally presented as just that: my personal definition. By the way, if you don't agree with the law, that means you have your own personal definition of what an assault weapon is. Pretty arbitrary, I'd say.

Which is exactly why it needs to be fixed. Smarter laws that scale to fit evolving circumstances, not more and more laws, more rigidly defined.

Not the death penalty (except perhaps in egregious cases), mainly because I don't really think too highly of the death penalty as it exists today. Too many questions and too many problems. I also tend to think that life imprisonment is a fate worse than death, which suits me just fine. At least there's no real way of quibbling with the definition of "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or reprieve".

I'll take your word for that, as I've never been to a gun show.

I can't give a blanket answer to that, because there's all sorts of reenactment troupes. I trust all the guys I fight with, mostly because I know that each and every one of us is pretty well trained and has a long record of safety. I don't know that about each steel reenactment group, to say nothing about WW2 reenactors.

That said, the weapons they carry make me moderately nervous. A lot of them are Springfields and Garands and the like, which aren't much more than the hunting rifles in use today. It's the guy with the BAR that makes me a bit twitchy. That said, my opinion of the situation is complex. I much prefer the Civil War and Revolutionary reenactors. Those weapons were massive, but at least they took a good 30 seconds to load, aim, and fire for the most talented of them.

It's a complex issue, it really is.

People whose beliefs are based on emotion cannot be reasoned with.

My stance on gun control?

First of all, I need two. (See avatar). Feet should be about shoulder-width apart. As for controlling recoil, stiffining the arms too much will lower accuracy, but having the arms too loose will take longer for you to reset to a firing position. This can be overlooked when, though, when only one shot is to be fired.

I hope that cleared everything up for everyone.

I've already engaged this debate long ago. I posted various scholarly articles refuting Lebell's position. I'm not going to go through all of it again; not to mention, the copyright issues.

If you can get into the databases, go for it--I can't tell if people not on campus will have access.

http://www.lib.uci.edu/online/subject/crim.html

Here are some non-scholarly sites. Go to the actual page because each statement has a source link--which I assume is going to be scholarly (I haven't checked each one of the links).

EXPOSING MYTHS SURROUNDING THE GUN ISSUE

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since their gun bans of 1997.
TRUTH: Since 1997, the overall UK crime rate has fallen by 27% according to the British Crime Survey. Burglary has dropped 39%. Vehicle thefts have dropped 32%. Violent crime has declined 26%.(source). The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. (source).

MYTH: Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.
TRUTH: Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.

MYTH: Guns don't kill.
TRUTH:Guns make it easier to kill people. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source). Guns simply make it easier to kill. Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide (source).

MYTH: Guns are used defensively 2.5 million times each year in the US.
TRUTH: Gary Kleck conducted a survey which concluded that 2.5 million people in the US each year use guns to defend themselves. One percent of the US population is between 2 and 3 million. So if only one percent of the survey respondents had answered the survey dishonestly that would make the results of the survey inaccurate by millions. It is also interesting to note that according to US Department of Justice Statistics guns are used defensively less than 100,000 times each year (source).

MYTH: People in Switzerland are heavily armed. There is an assault weapon in every Swiss home.
TRUTH: It's true that Swiss soldiers are required to keep their assault rifles at home. How big is the Swiss Army? 400,000 (source). There are about 3 million Swiss households (source).400,000/3,000,000= 0.133. Therefore, there is a military assault rifle in about 13% of Swiss homes.

MYTH: The handgun ban in Washington D.C. caused an increase in crime.
TRUTH: The handgun ban has prevented 47 deaths each year (source)

MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.
TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other (source). So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Other nations like the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd.

MYTH:Gun ownership is a protection against political tyranny.
TRUTH: Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime (source).It certainly didn't protect the Iraqi people against political tyranny.


Second Amendment Cases

"....In this case, we must decide whether this amendment grants constitutional protection to an individual whose possession or use of machineguns and pipe bombs is not reasonably related to an organized state militia. We hold that it does not.... As a member of Georgia's unorganized militia,[fn12] Wright claims that he has a constitutional right to possess machineguns and pipe bombs because these weapons are used by contemporary militia fighting forces....A careful reading of Miller, however, strongly suggests that only militias actively maintained and trained by the states can satisfy the 'well regulated militia' requirement of the Second Amendment. As the Miller Court emphasized, the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment was to 'render possible the effectiveness of' the governmental militia described in the Militia Clauses of the Constitution.[fn16] Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Thus, the Second Amendment 'must be interpreted and applied with that end in view....'" U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)

"Appellant was convicted in the district court for the District of Kansas of knowingly possessing an unregistered machine gun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)....The second constitutional argument that appellant advances is that the prosecution here violated his right to bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment.[fn1] Defendant presents a long historical analysis of the amendment's background and purpose from which he concludes that every citizen has the absolute right to keep arms. This broad conclusion has long been rejected. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206....The purpose of the second amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, supra at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia. The Court stated that the amendment must be interpreted and applied with that purpose in view. Id. To apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy. This lack of justification is even more apparent when applied to appellant's membership in 'Posse Comitatus,' an apparently nongovernmental organization. We conclude, therefore, that this prosecution did not violate the second amendment...." U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977)

"Appellant, Peter B. Thomas, argues that the City of Portland, Maine, and various city officials infringed his constitutional rights by denying him a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Established case law makes clear that the federal Constitution grants appellant no right to carry a concealed handgun. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (second amendment applies only to weapons that have a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.')...." Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41

"Douglas Ray Hickman appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees, who denied Hickman a concealed weapons permit. He complains, among other things, that the appellees' permit issuance policy violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. We have jurisdiction over his timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1291, and affirm on the basis that Hickman lacks standing to sue for a violation of the Second Amendment...We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. We conclude that Hickman can show no legal injury, and therefore lacks standing to bring this action...." Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)

"Wilbur Hale appeals his conviction of thirteen counts of possession of a machine gun pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(o) (West Supp. 1992) and three counts of possession of unregistered firearms pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (1988). He argues....that the indictment violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms....we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons....The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,' the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818....After carefully examining the principles and implications of the then recent Miller decision, the First Circuit concluded that the existence of any 'reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia' was best determined from the facts of each individual case. Id. Thus, it is not sufficient to prove that the weapon in question was susceptible to military use. Indeed, as recognized in Cases, most any lethal weapon has a potential military use.[fn4] Id. Rather, the claimant of Second Amendment protection must prove that his or her possession of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia. See id. at 923. Where such a claimant presented no evidence either that he was a member of a military organization or that his use of the weapon was 'in preparation for a military career', the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of the weapon. Id. Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's possession of a military weapon to be 'reasonably related to a well regulated militia.' 'Technical' membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an 'unorganized' state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the 'reasonable relationship' test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or 'sedentary' militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin, 530 F.2d 103...." U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992) U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)

"This appeal concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Morton Grove's Ordinance No. 81-11,[fn1] which prohibits the possession of handguns within the Village's borders. The district court held that the Ordinance was constitutional. We affirm....The second amendment provides that '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.' U.S. Const. amend. II. Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia....Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.[fn9]" Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982)

"A jury convicted[fn1] James Cody of making false statements to a licensed firearms dealer in connection with the purchase of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a) (6)....We find no merit in the contention that § 922(a) (6) violates appellant's Second Amendment right to bear arms. Since United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), it has been settled that the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms. The Second Amendment's guarantee extends only to use or possession which 'has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' ....We find no evidence that the prohibition of § 922(a) (6) obstructs the maintenance of a well regulated militia...." Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.)

"Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, William H. Becker, Chief Judge, for, inter alia, failure to make appropriate entries and to properly maintain records as required of a federally-licensed firearms dealer, and he appealed....With respect to a possible infringement of Second Amendment rights, we need only look to the rationale of the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939): 'In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of (the weapon) at this time 167 has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument'....Thus, in light of the defendant's failure to present any evidence indicating a conflict between the requirements of "922(m) and 923(g) and the maintenance of a well regulated militia, we decline to hold that the statute violates the Second Amendment...." U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)

"Defendant was convicted before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Miles W. Lord, J., of violating the omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968...The next contention raised is that ' 1202(a)(1) violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. We do not agree.... ....Although ' 1202(a) is the broadest federal gun legislation to date, we see no conflict between it and the Second Amendment since there is no showing that prohibiting possession of firearms by felons obstructs the maintenance of a 'well regulated militia.'" U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971)

"By virtue of 1996 amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968 which prohibit persons convicted of domestic violence offenses from possessing firearms in or affecting commerce, Jerald Gillespie can no longer carry a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). As a result, he has lost his job as a police officer. Gillespie filed suit against the City of Indianapolis[fn1] seeking to have the statute declared unconstitutional and his employment with the Indianapolis Police Department preserved. The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the statute....The Second Amendment provides that '[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.' U.S. Const. amend. II. The link that the amendment draws between the ability 'to keep and bear Arms' and '[a] well regulated Militia' suggests that the right protected is limited, one that inures not to the individual but to the people collectively, its reach extending so far as is necessary to protect their common interest in protection by a militia...." Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999)

"This case requires a determination of whether certain provisions of the National Firearms Act as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq., are an invalid infringement on the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution...It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right....It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the States or that defendant's automatic membership in the 'sedentary militia' of Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees...." U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.)

"According to her complaint, in September, 1990, April Love tried to purchase a handgun at a shop in Prince George's County, Maryland.... On September 21, Corporal Ernest Pletcher reviewed the application and a computer printout from Maryland police and Federal Bureau of Investigation files. He discovered that Ms. Love had been arrested on four occasions....Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an individual federal constitutional right to 'keep and bear' a handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right....She is wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876).[fn5] Moreover, even as against federal regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right...." Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)

"Major Henry Johnson was convicted by a jury of transporting a firearm in interstate commerce after having been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He appeals, challenging the district court's instructions and contesting the constitutionality of section 922(g). For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with Johnson's arguments and affirm the conviction....The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia...." U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)

“Appellant Raymond Rybar, Jr. was convicted following a conditional guilty plea to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. Section(s) 922(o), which makes it 'unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.' On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in rejecting his challenge to that provision as beyond Congress' commerce power and as violating the Second Amendment. Neither challenge is persuasive....In support, Rybar cites, paradoxically, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a firearms-registration requirement against a Second Amendment challenge. Rybar draws on that holding, relying on the Miller Court's observation that the sawed-off shotgun in question had not been shown to bear 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' Brief of Appellant at 24-25; Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Drawing from that language the contra positive implication, Rybar suggests that because the military utility of the machine guns proscribed by Section(s) 922(o) is clear, a result contrary to that reached in Miller is required, and the statute is therefore invalid under the Second Amendment....We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its 'possession or use' and militia related activity....Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to 'the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,' as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. " U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)

"At stake in the present appeal is the vitality of several key provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968,[fn1] a statutory program which restricts the right to bear arms of convicted felons and other persons of dangerous propensities.[fn2]....U.S.Const. amend. II states: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' Arguably, any regulation of firearms may be violative of this constitutional provision. Nevertheless, the courts consistently have found no conflict between federal gun laws and the Second Amendment, narrowly construing the latter to guarantee the right to bear arms as a member of a militia...." U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)

"Appellant, here petitioned the district court to enjoin the City of Philadelphia from enforcing its ordinance which regulates the purchase of firearms and transfer of same. Appellant's theory in the district court which he now repeats is that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that. As long ago at least as 1939 the United States Supreme Court held that there must be "* * * some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". There is nothing whatsoever of that kind in this appeal. It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)...." Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973)

"Appellant Dennis E. Friel was indicted by a federal grand jury with two counts of possession of firearms by a person convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. "922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). [FN1] Appellant was convicted, after a jury trial, on both counts. He raises six issues on appeal, all of which we reject....Appellant argues generally that ' 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. Specifically, he asserts that the limits imposed by ' 922(g)(1) violate the constitutional right to bear arms. The Supreme Court plainly has held that the Second Amendment-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'-applies only to firearms having a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia....'" U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)

....These holdings, when considered within the broad intent of the Act, highlight the established principle that there is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)...." U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975)

"In 1999, the State of California enacted amendments to its gun-control laws that significantly strengthened the state's restrictions on the possession, use, and transfer of semi-automatic weapons popularly known as 'assault weapons.' Plaintiffs, California residents who either own assault weapons, seek to acquire such weapons, or both, brought this challenge to the gun-control statute, asserting that the law, as amended, violates the Second Amendment....The district court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims. Because the second amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that consitutional provision....'Militia' appears repeatedly in the first and second articles of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the second of two government-established and -controlled military forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and navy which were subject to civilian control shared by the president and Congress, and, second, the state militias, which were 'essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to "federalization" at the command of the president.'...."Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002)(PDF file)

"....After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license, D.C.Code ' 22-3204 (1981), possession of an unregistered firearm, id. ' 6-2311, and unlawful possession of ammunition, id. ' 6-2361....We now hold that D.C.Code '' 6-2311, 6-2361, and 22-3204 (1981) do not violate the second amendment. We affirm appellant's convictions....We agree with numerous other courts that 'the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.'....The purpose of the second amendment is 'to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia.'.... Appellant cannot show that possession of a handgun by an individual bears any relationship to the District of Columbia's desire and ability to preserve a well regulated militia...."(Sandidge v. United States)

After reading all the court opinions, it's clear that courts have "found" that the right to keep or bear arms is only as part of a state militia. This is the way the courts have "chosen" to interpret the Second Amendment. It's based on a political agenda.

I covered this a page ago. The first part of the sentence is suppose to be justification, the second part the actual rule of law.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the law.

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the justification for "people" having weapons.

Militia is:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

(source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)


Remember when this amendment was added, over 200 years ago, without a standing army, when citizens were the soldiers.

Bottom line, every law that infringes on law-abiding citizens keeping or bearing arms is violating the Second Amendment.

We have just become accustom to having our rights infringed by the Federal Government.

Ok. I'm a newbie here, and I don't want to step on toes or appear to be trolling. HOWEVER;

I, and every other person, have an unalienable, Human, Civil right, to defend our Lives and Liberties by any means needed. This is not a right "granted" by a piece of paper or a FedGov fiat or decree; this is a right which we all posess by virtue of simply being Human.
This means, IMO, that any restriction on the type, configuration, number, calibre, firing rate, or appearance of our weapons of choise is morally wrong. Any suppression of an individual's ability to exercise this right is, similarly, wrong.
Just as it is our right to speak our minds, love whom we will, petition for redress of greivance, to be tried openly and by our peers, it is our right, everyone's right, to posess whatever Arms we chose for the defense of our Lives and Liberties.
Some will say that the 2nd Amendment references only the National Gaurd. Why, then, does the Militia Act define the Militia as all persons eligible for military service? Why, then, does it specifically say that there is a branch of the Militia SEPERATE from the Nat'l Gaurd? Why, then, did the National Gaurd only come into existance in 1913, hundreds of years after the 2nd Amendment and Militia Act were passed?
Because, as Madison said, the Militia is "the whole body of the People." Jefferson warned us at great length against ever allowing ourselves to be disarmed, to any degree, by any person or means.
Some will mention the phrase "well regulated." They point to this and say "they meant for the State to regulate the Militia! To control it!"
Wrong again. In the parlance of the 1790s, "regulated" meant "properly functioning" not 'controlled.' If you take a clock to your clockmaker and ask him to "regulate" it, you are asking him to make certain that it keeps time accurately. Similarly, if you take a rifle to a gunsmith and request that it be "Regulated," the gunsmith will test and, if needed, modify the rifle to ensure that it functions properly with the desired charge and projectile weight. "Well regulated" does NOT refer to Govornment control, it refers to the Militia ( as defined by the Militia Act ) being in proper order and ready to deploy as needed.


Do you ask me to believe that when the 1st, 3rd-8th Amendments say "The People" they mean you, me, and Joe Sixpack, but when the 2nd Amendment says "The People" what it -really- means is "The States?":rolleyes: Please do not insult my intelligence, or that of the men who wrote the documents I cite; men much wiser than I.

Your post is about the most literal interpetation of the 2nd ammendment.
I believe this is exactly what our forefathers meant when writeing it
I applaude you.
As far as the Militia is concerned, The state of michigan constitution outlines two malitia's
1. an organized well regulated malitia
(national guard, coast guard, and reserves)
2. an unorganized Malitia made up of ALL able body citizens between the age of 18 and 47

Gun control in Australia has always been reasonably strict but now they a proposing, through a buy back system that all guns over 38 cal be handed in.
I belong to a gun club and there has only been 1 incident in twenty five years in that club with a registered firearm(a guy committed suicide when the club was closed).
The point being,people who own guns legaly arn't really of any concern,its the criminals who dont give a rats that are the problem,and no gun control laws will stop them.

Nice post elijah, I have been staying out of this debate because I didn't know of anyway I could make constructive headway rather than just restating everyones position.

I think you just managed to bypass all the back and forth arguments and go straight for the heart of the matter.....whether or not americans have a right to own firearms.

I think that that would be murder. :D

You don't have the right to carry out a death sentence. Only a judge (or a jury) would.

And essentially, using a gun to kill a criminal for petty theft, robbery, or even armed robbery, is murder. Plain and simple. The penalty for armed robbery isn't even the death penalty.

In my country, its quite simple. Armed robbery gets you life. Firing a shot during an armed robbery (whether you hit anyone or not) gets you a long drop off a short rope.

Yes. Guns are banned. Armed robbery cases? i think the last one was 5 years ago.

You know thatswhat I thought...but congress made four of my firearms illeagal to own and expected me to turn them over to authorities without compensation

My father taught me to use guns, I will teach my children to use guns, I will teach them how to be responsible with a firearm.

Now, when YOUR children and MY children or however many generations down the line it is when something happens to set the nation in an uproar.

Your side will be dead weight and only slow us down. Wonder what happens next.

"MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.
TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other (source). So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Other nations like the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd. "

Well, seeing I'm from chi-town, i don't expect you to know this.

Government took away alcohol, the outlaws had alcohol.

As we speak, people are coming across our borders.

Do you really think that eliminating guns in the US will keep criminals from owning them?

Oh no, its illegal for a US Citizen to own a hand gun.....they are a criminal, the perform illegal things for a living.

my idean of gun control..using both hands=) the way i see it , if you think its guns that are the problem your way off. there are any of about a 1000 items that can be used to kill someone, if its not guns then its gonna be knives or hell you can even kill someone with a pencil if you wanted...so what do we do ban all pencils? get rid of guns and the only people that are gonna have guns are criminals, then you have a situation where decent people cant even defend themselves. I look at it this way, i dont belive in God or an afterlife or what not ..so i belive that no matter what weather its a gun or a frikin nuclear weapon, you should beable to defend your life(the only one chance you get at it) with whatever weapon it takes=)

oh , and for those ppl that posted if you outlaw guns that fewer criminals will have them ...wake the fuck up...drugs are outlawed..howmany ppl do you know that smoke weed? think about it..criminals will have guns and the decent folk will be defenseless agains them.

THe statistics are against gun control.

Saving a space since I don't have time for a lengthy rebuttal, but from a casual perusal of the "scholarly" articles refuting my position, I'm not impressed.

Smooth, do you bother to read the sources for the stuff you post?

Here's a little tidbit:

So in otherwords, the gun control pundits are taking this article out of context to 'refute' gun ownership while ignoring the other facts presented, namely that gun homicides are up and that crime is back at levels when guns where legal...

granted, most of this has probably been said before, but...
self, thoughts: 1. gun control means using both hands
2. the human body is a more destructive weapon than a gun ever can be.
3. anything can be used either as a weapon in and of itself, in some way, or be used as a component of a weapon.
4. if you ban all "weapons" in schools, you're left with an empty cell made for solitary confinement. with nobody in it.

I just love the myth/fact presentations. I wouldn't even waste someone else's bandwidth looking up that balderdash.

As for the driver’s licenses vs. firearms licenses point of view...

THERE IS NO AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES preventing the infringement of driving privileges.

Sensible gun control is NEEDED...that is for sure. We don't want children (under 12, I think) with firearms, nor do we want felons with them. Probably don't want mentally retarded or the blind to use them either. I'm sure a reasonable list of restrictions could be developed.

AS for the weapons themselves. IF THE GOVERNMENT or its agents get them...SO DO THE PEOPLE. PERIOD. No restrictions what so ever on the types of ~arms~ the people can posses.

There is a method to modify this creator-given and constitutionally guaranteed right (2/3 of congress, and ratification by all states, I believe). We should give that a try for once....

out,

bear

Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment
By Robert Greenslade and Clause Ellsworth
As shown in a previous article “The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” the wording of the Second Amendment is easily understood if it is read through the preamble to the Bill of Rights. Since the publication of this article, some groups and individuals have attempted to assert that the preamble to the Bill of Rights does not reflect the intent of the Amendment. After laughing ourselves silly from this absurd assertion, the authors decided to humor these individuals and examine the wording of the Second Amendment without resorting to the preamble.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence claims the only purpose the Second Amendment was “to limit the ability of Congress to interfere with the states’ right to keep and maintain armed militias.” If this statement was an accurate description of the intent of the Founders, then the Amendment would have been worded as follows:

Article II. A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to maintain Armed Militias shall not be infringed.

If the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to limit the ability of Congress to interfere with the states’ right to keep and maintain armed militias,” then why mention the people in an Amendment that applies to the States? Not only would that have been confusing and misleading, but unnecessary as well.

Apparently, this organization believes “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” as used in the Second Amendment, actually means “the states’ right to keep and maintain armed militias.” It appears from this statement that George Orwell’s newspeak is the lexicon of choice for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Another problem with their statement is the assertion that States have “rights.” This infers that the States get these so-called “rights” from the Constitution, the Amendments, or the federal government. Contrary to this innuendo, the States exist independent of the Constitution or the federal government. They do not acquire any rights or derive any powers from the Constitution. If the above statement was correct, then it would be the only place in the Constitution, or the Amendments, where the Founders attempted to protect the so-called “rights” of the States from the federal government.

In reality, the several States do not have rights, as the term is commonly understood, they have powers. When they entered into the Union with their fellow States, they delegated, not surrendered, a portion of their sovereign powers to their agent, the federal government. Every power not delegated is known as a “reserved” power. The power to disarm or interfere with the State militias was not one of the powers delegated to the federal government. Thus, the power of the States to maintain armed militias has never been surrendered to the federal government. Therefore, the above interpretation of the Second Amendment has no constitutional basis in fact because the power to maintain armed militias was one of the powers reserved by the States when they adopted the Constitution.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in their zeal to re-define the words used in the Second Amendment through a linguistic slight of hand, has lost sight of a very important fact. When the States ratified the Constitution, seven States ratified the document with a stipulation that their delegates in Congress push for amendments to the Constitution. Although only two of these States specifically requested a bill of rights, all seven requested an amendment that would reserve, to the States, every power not delegated to the federal government. The proposed amendments would reserve powers, not rights. These proposals would lead to the adoption of the Tenth Amendment. Since the States did not surrender the power to maintain armed militias, the Tenth Amendment, in the words of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, “limited the ability of Congress to interfere with the states’ right to keep and maintain armed militias.” Thus, the comprehensive reservation of state power through the Tenth Amendment made any so-called “States’ right militia amendment” totally unnecessary.

The above statement by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence can also be disproved through a linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment. In the authors’ opinion, the modern confusion concerning the wording of the Amendment can be traced to what appears as irregular language in the first part of the Amendment. From a grammatical standpoint, the Amendment has two components. It contains a dependent clause and an independent clause. A dependent clause is a subordinate clause while an independent clause is the main clause. This triggers a question concerning the structure of the Amendment: does a state militia depend on the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms or does the right to keep and bears clause depend on the existence of a state militia? The Second Amendment reads as follows:

Article II. 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.

Standing alone, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is an incomplete thought. By itself, it does not express an idea and needs additional information to give it meaning. This part of the Amendment is the dependent or subordinate clause. Thus, the militia clause depends on the existence of the right of the people to keep and bears arms.

In the alternative, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” standing alone, is a complete thought. This part of the Amendment is the independent or main clause. By itself, it does express an idea and does not need any qualifying information to give it meaning. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not depend on the existence of a State militia.

There is another way to make the Amendment easier to understand without changing its meaning. If the word “being” with replaced with “is” and the word “because” added to the beginning of the sentence, the Amendment would read as follows:

Article II. Because 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.

In grammar, the word “because” can be used at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a dependent clause. As shown above, the first part of the Amendment is a dependent clause. Therefore, it is, and would have been acceptable to use the word “because” at the beginning of the Amendment. The word “being” means to exist. (It exists therefore it “is”) This change maintains the intent and sentence structure of the Amendment but makes it read in a manner that is more in tune with modern sentence structure.

Opponents of the individual right are attempting invert the sentence structure of the Second Amendment and make the militia clause the independent or main clause. This explains their assertion that the right to keep and bear arms is a “collective right” that pertains to the State militias. Organizations like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are attempting to make the right of the people to keep and bear arms dependent on the existence of a State militia. Since the States had the power, not the right, to maintain armed militias prior to the adoption of the Second Amendment, the assertion that the purpose of the Amendment was “to limit the ability of Congress to interfere with the states’ right to keep and maintain armed militias” has no constitutional basis in fact.

Irrespective of how organizations like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence attempt pervert the original intent of the Second Amendment, the principle of limited government and sentence structure of the Amendment negates their militia interpretation.



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

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/07/greenslade.htm



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

When I get my nuclear bomb there will be no more talk about gun control.

[Previous post: Just kidding Mr. Ashcroft. Pay no attention to me.]

Ok, I don't have the energy to safeguard myself by stating how I know everyone here is responsible, etc., so I'm gonna assume you all know I believe it to be so.
However, in response to this:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xell101

Quote:

Yes. People kill people. But why make it easier for them?[/qouote] Criminals wont have legally obtained weapons.

A valid point, but how about the drunk, the kids, the irresponsible, the scatterbrained who leave their legally purchased weapon where their 5-year-old can reach it, the mentally unstable who slipped through the "screening process", etc.?
I agree with the earlier post that stated "Sure, people kill people, but why make it easier for them?"

" Ask any cop and they will tell you, they are there to solve crimes, not prevent them."

A cop actually said that?! Wow....
I'm happy I live in a country where they want to prevent it...

If I have an unalienable right to defend myself by any means possible, I chose a nuclear bomb. I'm taking everyone with me if it's my time to go. Posse up, Militia boys!

Good thing that isn't what it says.

Actually, that is what it says.
And frankly, the idea of private citizens having nukes doesn't bother me...for one thing, most people are smart enough not to commit suicide with one; a suicide wants to kill -himself-, not people arund him. For another, a policy of MAD with Washington might have some positive results; like politicians actually doing what they're supposed to, for one. Which was, incidentally, the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment. See my earlier posts on this for further citations.