Quote :

"I'm talking about issues similar to road rage, which happens often. In a situations like these the use of a guns is vastly different then the use of a blunt object. Most people can run from blunt objects or try to defend themselves. Its hard to run from a gun."

The problem is, you're focusing on the tool used to comit the crime, not the crime itself. Whether it's a gun or a bat, threatening someone with violence over them cutting you off is a crime, and that is what needs to be dealt with. Issue harsher penalties if you like but don't take away my rights or anyone elses just because some jack off with too little brain matter can't keep his anger in check. Punish him, not me.

Quote :

"As far as taking away freedoms, I believe you have the privilege to own a gun."

Thankfully for me, the constitution disagrees with you. The right of the people to bear arms is well enumerated and assumed to be preexisting. That is the constitution does not grant that right, that right is a natural right of the people. The constitution merely forbids the government the power to infringe on that right.

4/26/2007 2:25:24 PM

Quote :

"^Again with the Guns are the same as hammers. So lets get this out. Anything can be used as a weapon. No argument. Guns are a unique type of weapon. A weapon that has dramatically changed history. Guns are a different more dangerous type of weapon. also, we are talking about self defense, not murder. And person, with a gun, who is afraid for there life is a scary prospect."

4/26/2007 2:43:46 PM

^^ we could always amend that the bare arms thing to exclude guns.

4/26/2007 3:47:17 PM

Take my guns away! I can still fight the government with my laaaaaaaaaaser beam!

4/26/2007 5:06:47 PM

Quote :

"we could always amend that the bare arms thing to exclude guns."

Yes, you could. And Bush could amend the first amendment to exclude talking about the executive branch, that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Furthermore, doing so would be a vicious step away from the founding ideals of this county as a government for the people by the people. By amending the constitution in such a way you would not only be ignoring the fact that the amendment does not grant a right, merely enumerates that right, but you would also enact a violation against the 10th amendment and start us down the path of suggesting that the government has the right to determine which rights you have.

Furthermore, you would be rather hard pressed to convince anyone that bare arms does not include guns, when guns existed at the time the constitution was written.

But yes, you could amend the constitution. But not only would you have to repeal the second amendment, you would also have to amend the constitution to give power to the government to restrict the right of the people to bear arms. Even if you presume that without the express forbidding of that power, the government implicitly has that power (a dangerous assumption), you still have to explicitly grant it to the federal government, as the 10th amendment reserves any rights not specifically granted to the federal government to the states or the people.

However, until you amend the constitution, the right to bear arms is just that, a right, not a privilege. Also note that as much as you like to use the licensing a car argument, you have every right to drive and operate any motor vehicle you choose, provided you do so on your own private property. The only thing you need the license for is to drive it on public roads maintained with public funds. It's a very fine, but very important distinction.

4/26/2007 5:28:46 PM

Quote :

"He wasn't suggesting that an individualist doesn't interact in economic and other senses--it is largely a matter of agency."

You can't survive in a modern society as an individualist. We have the nice shit we have now because we worked together. If we tried to live on our own and completely protect ourselves and completely supply ourselves, we'd never get anything done, we'd be spending all day growing some potatoes and patroling our land to ever get anything worthwhile done. It's economies of scale, bigger stuff works better, that's why we don't live in warring fuedalist states anymore.

Quote :

"Apparently, you've been suckling on the societal teat for so long that you don't even recognize the meaning of the word "individualism.""

I know what individualism is, I just don't like it.

Quote :

"Thankfully for me, the constitution disagrees with you."

"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."

That could be interpreted a lot of ways, and doesn't neccesarily grant you the right to own a gun.

Quote :

"Furthermore, you would be rather hard pressed to convince anyone that bare arms does not include guns, when guns existed at the time the constitution was written."

Arms has a lot of meanings, like you said, they had guns then, if they wanted to make sure it was specifically refering to guns, I think they would have said it. Additionally, no where in there does it say anything about you privately owning the guns, it says something about a miltia. You wouldn't even have to change the constitution to do it, all it would take is a new supreme court precedence.

4/26/2007 5:38:18 PM

Quote :

"You can't survive in a modern society as an individualist"

was it marx that said that? maybe engels? lenin?

4/26/2007 5:42:49 PM

Quote :

"^^ we could always amend that the bare arms thing to exclude guns."

maybe it's just me, but I think that one act would cause more violence than this country has seen since the Civil War

Quote :

"As far as taking away freedoms, I believe you have the privilege to own a gun. But, just like any other privilege there are rule and standards that must be maintained"

did you have ear plugs on in history class? oh wait, let me guess, public school history class right?

crap like this is why I despise government education

it's not a privilege, it's a right... it's nothing like driving a car

Quote :

""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.""

Quote :

"That could be interpreted a lot of ways, and doesn't neccesarily grant you the right to own a gun."

no, it seems pretty cut and dry to me, the govt maintains a military(militia) at home, and the PEOPLE keep and bear arms to keep the government in check... you fail to remember that the founders had just fought off an oppressive regime and won freedom for this country, and by their wording it looks to me like they wanted to avoid that again. Some of you need to look at the original Miller decision of 1934(iirc it was arkansas or oklahoma), not the supreme court decision that miller lost in '35 or '36 because he was nowhere to be found and his lawyer didn't bother to show up for the trial since it was in DC.

Technically all these "hunting firearms" that nobody cares about banning are the true "illegal" guns, Civilians are supposed to have access to all military small arms that the "militia" carries, and no, don't give me the, "OMG YOU WANT AN APACHE OR A F22 RAPTOR" bit, not every serviceman back then had heavy armament or cannons, but all had rifles.

Quote :

"Furthermore, you would be rather hard pressed to convince anyone that bare arms does not include guns, when guns existed at the time the constitution was written."

Quote :

"Arms has a lot of meanings, like you said, they had guns then, if they wanted to make sure it was specifically refering to guns, I think they would have said it. Additionally, no where in there does it say anything about you privately owning the guns, it says something about a miltia. You wouldn't even have to change the constitution to do it, all it would take is a new supreme court precedence."

in turn you could say that they used the word "arms" (hmm... arms, armament, armory= wepaons) because they didn't know what firearms were to be used in the future, but wanted to make sure they were included.

if they meant just the government having "arms", they would not have put a comma after state and militia, nor would they have used the term PEOPLE

just look at quotes from the founding fathers, it's obvious that they wanted citizens to be peaceably armed and if necessary, able to to keep the government in check


from the other thread

Quote :

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

the problem that some of these anti-gun people have is that pesky little comma followed by the word people instead of militia once again

which is really what makes the 2nd amendment strong in the first place

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 6:55 PM. Reason : ..]

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 6:56 PM. Reason : v]

4/26/2007 6:52:58 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, you would be rather hard pressed to convince anyone that bare arms does not include guns, when guns existed at the time the constitution was written."

BUT LASER BEAMS DIDN'T!!

4/26/2007 6:55:06 PM

^^^^ individualism: "the principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action."

After all the consensus--read groupthink--talk and actions, it's hard for you to grasp the concept of individualism, isn't it, comrade? Power to the Politburo, am I right?

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 7:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2007 7:14:31 PM

Obviously we live in a society of cooperation. As you said, our economy is built upon it. However, that doesn't mean people absolutely can't do anything for themselves. I may not have built my washer and dryer, but I am the one that uses them. I don't pay other people to wash my clothes, nor would I want anyone putting their grubby hands on my tighty whities. I may have played no part in manufacturing the parts that go into my computer, but I prefer to buy all the components seperately and assemble them myself rather than let Dell or somebody do it for me. There are some things that I have to let others take care of for me because I don't know shit about it (car maintenance, for instance), but there are some things that I prefer to micro-manage on my own. That's individualism, at least in part. It's not that you live independent of anyone and everyone else, it's that you can make it on your own without a whole lot of support.

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 7:25 PM. Reason : sort of what ^ said]

4/26/2007 7:24:43 PM

Quote :

"was it marx that said that? maybe engels? lenin?"

That was all your's truly, in their time you could survive as an individualist.

Quote :

"maybe it's just me, but I think that one act would cause more violence than this country has seen since the Civil War"

I bet we'd see the most violent peaceful protests down in washington ever. What are the gun nuts going to do, take their little peashooters and march on washington? Just start killing random people? Come on. They're just a bunch of pussies like everyone else and they wouldn't do shit but whine about how bad it is, because they really don't have any other options, they could try to march on washington, and invetibly be killed in the process, but I'd be willing to bet they'd just hand their guns over while kicking and screaming like a hurt little girl.

Quote :

"no, it seems pretty cut and dry to me"

Then you must not know much about law. That is very flexible speech, arms doesn't dictate firearms, guns, pistols, rifles, or anything. Arms could be steak knives.

Quote :

"you fail to remember that the founders had just fought off an oppressive regime and won freedom for this country, and by their wording it looks to me like they wanted to avoid that again"

You fail to understand that they wanted to make a very loose constitution because they had no idea what would happen in the future, control of the meaning of the document is left to the supreme court to interpret as they see fit.

Quote :

"just look at quotes from the founding fathers, it's obvious that they wanted citizens to be peaceably armed and if necessary, able to to keep the government in check"

They also thought slavery was OK, why do we need to listen to a bunch of old dead racists? They're dead, they've been dead for hundreds of years, why in the world would we use them to dictate modern law?

Quote :

"There are some things that I have to let others take care of for me because I don't know shit about it (car maintenance, for instance), but there are some things that I prefer to micro-manage on my own. That's individualism, at least in part. It's not that you live independent of anyone and everyone else, it's that you can make it on your own without a whole lot of support."

I agree with you, but you don't seem to understand the context of this debate. These people here blame individuals for not being "individualistic" enough to be able to protect themselves. And while I to do things for myself, I certainly would rather someone else take care of killing people. I've never wanted to kill anyone, and I simply couldn't see myself doing it. I'd push old ladies out of the way to get away from a killer, because I don't want to have anything to do with that situation. I hope you can see what I'm getting at here.

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 8:50 PM. Reason : ]

4/26/2007 8:47:57 PM

Quote :

"It's economies of scale, bigger stuff works better"

So why the push to make the rights and responsibilities of self defense smaller? Why take the ability of defense away from the people and consolidate it into the hands of a few individuals, who by their very nature can not be nor protect everyone at all times? If economies of scale mean bigger is better, why are we shinking our personal defenses?

Quote :

""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." That could be interpreted a lot of ways, and doesn't neccesarily grant you the right to own a gun."

Hardly. The constitution recognizes three distinct groups, the government, the states and the people. The right to bear arms is explicitly listed as a right of the people, as is the right to free speech and the right to privacy. To interpret the phrase "the right of the people" to mean anything other than individual rights would mean to change the interpretation of EVERY right that we hold dear.

Furthermore, the militia is defined by the US code as :

Quote :

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

So even if you restrict it specificaly and only to the militia, at least until one is 45 years of age, they have the right to a gun.

Quote :

"Arms has a lot of meanings, like you said, they had guns then, if they wanted to make sure it was specifically refering to guns, I think they would have said it."

Conversely, had they meant to exclude guns, they would have said it. Further, since arms is a general term for weapons (of various sorts) it could easily be argued that arms was specifically used because the framers intended to include all arms current and future, without explicitly enumerating one so that no one would argue against any particular arm. Tasers could not have been imagined then, but would you suggest then that you don't have a right to own a taser?

Quote :

"Additionally, no where in there does it say anything about you privately owning the guns, it says something about a miltia."

Are the people the militia? Does only the militia have a right to free speech?

Quote :

"They also thought slavery was OK, why do we need to listen to a bunch of old dead racists? They're dead, they've been dead for hundreds of years, why in the world would we use them to dictate modern law? "

Good question, when do we throw you in jail for your seditious talk of communism?

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 9:03 PM. Reason : dsfal;j]

4/26/2007 8:59:16 PM

Quote :

"Why take the ability of defense away from the people and consolidate it into the hands of a few individuals, who by their very nature can not be nor protect everyone at all times? If economies of scale mean bigger is better, why are we shinking our personal defenses?"

We're not shrinking them, we're consolidating competing services. Look at it this way, say you've got 4 branches of your company, making a total of 100 products. Suppose you could consolidate into one bigger branch and make the same number of products and only have to pay for one building/power/electric/reception staff/etc.

Quote :

"The right to bear arms is explicitly listed as a right of the people, as is the right to free speech and the right to privacy."

The right to privacy is one of those that the courts read between the lines to make, kind of our gun laws, it could completely change with a different interpretation. Freedom of speech is much different. If you look at how it was worded, it was very specific.

Quote :

"Furthermore, the militia is defined by the US code as"

We've already talked about how difficult it would be to change the constitution, but we're leaving the scope of that, so I ask you, how difficult do you think it would be to change the US code for a militia?

Quote :

"Conversely, had they meant to exclude guns, they would have said it."

That's exactly my point, they didn't want to do either, they wanted that to be left up to the supreme court, thus why they worded it so vaugely.

Quote :

"Further, since arms is a general term for weapons (of various sorts) it could easily be argued that arms was specifically used because the framers intended to include all arms current and future"

You think they wanted to include cannons and explosives? Even the most insane gun nut will not argue that the right to bare arms should not be restricted in some ways. Do you think that people should be able to own mines? grenades? sarin? All of those could fall under the term "arms".

Quote :

"Good question, when do we throw you in jail for your seditious talk of communism?"

They aren't the only ones to support free speech. I'm not suggesting that everything the said was wrong, and I'm certainly not saying everything they said was right either, I'm saying you shouldn't say "the forefathers wanted it such and such" as a supporting reason. What they think is irrelevant.

4/26/2007 9:41:03 PM

Quote :

"We're not shrinking them, we're consolidating competing services. Look at it this way, say you've got 4 branches of your company, making a total of 100 products. Suppose you could consolidate into one bigger branch and make the same number of products and only have to pay for one building/power/electric/reception staff/etc. "

But it's not the same thing. Allowing citizens to arm and defend themselves takes no resources from the police, the FBI or the military. If nothing else, it provides them with more resources as less time must be spent on training members of the police and military, who are drawn from the set of citizens anyway. If the same company could have random employees producing extra products at no additional cost to the company, the company would be insane not to allow it.

If we can have extra security and defense for no additional cost to the tax payer or the police, are we not insane for rejecting it?

Quote :

"The right to privacy is one of those that the courts read between the lines to make, kind of our gun laws, it could completely change with a different interpretation. Freedom of speech is much different. If you look at how it was worded, it was very specific. "

Perhaps that is the problem, that we are allowing the courts far too much leway in determining the rights which we have (an answer which is quite clearly outlined in the 10th amendment). Furthermore, how is the first amendment any more or less clear than the second? They both explicitly state that the right described shall not be infringed by the government.

Quote :

"We've already talked about how difficult it would be to change the constitution, but we're leaving the scope of that, so I ask you, how difficult do you think it would be to change the US code for a militia? "

Lukily for us, we have more to go on than just the militia clause so changing that part is irellevent, it only deals with a portion of your argument (and an incorect one at that).

Quote :

"That's exactly my point, they didn't want to do either, they wanted that to be left up to the supreme court, thus why they worded it so vaugely. "

Or arguably it was worded so broadly so that there would be no need to interpret, it would cover all cases.

Quote :

"You think they wanted to include cannons and explosives?"

I don't think it was impossible. At that time, many armerments for the military and the militia were privately owned or financed.

Quote :

"Even the most insane gun nut will not argue that the right to bare arms should not be restricted in some ways. "

Indeed. But there is a difference between reasonable restrictions and unreasonable. We ban certian forms of speech (e.g. threats) but allow for others, even if that speech may be dangerous (e.g. the recent article in an NCCU paper calling for violence about the duke rape case).

Quote :

"Do you think that people should be able to own mines? grenades? sarin? All of those could fall under the term "arms"."

Not neccesarily, but I do believe there needs to be valid, pressing and strong reasons to infringe on your rights.

Quote :

"They aren't the only ones to support free speech. I'm not suggesting that everything the said was wrong, and I'm certainly not saying everything they said was right either, I'm saying you shouldn't say "the forefathers wanted it such and such" as a supporting reason. What they think is irrelevant."

Why is what the founding fathers of the laws for this country irellevant to a discussion about the laws of this country? The constitution was established with a very clear purpose. That purpose is outlined in the thoughts of the founders. To ignore their thoughts and ideas and purposes on our country and it's founding priciple laws is intelectualy dishonest and does a great disservice to everything they did and fought for in creating this country.

The constitution wasn't written over a cup of coffee or during an all nighter before a kegger, it took many months of deliberation and discussion by some of the best and brightest minds of the time. They said what they said with purpose and to ignore all of that is to invalidate the entire purpose of what they did.

4/26/2007 10:19:47 PM

I'm posting in an effort to bring down the average post size of this thread.

I think waiting permits and stuff is good. You can still use those guns to serve in the state militia

4/26/2007 10:26:22 PM

Quote :

"So even if you restrict it specificaly and only to the militia, at least until one is 45 years of age, they have the right to a gun."

By restricting it to men between the ages of 17 and 45 and only women in the National Guard, doesn't this section create a definition of a militia a violation of several other laws? Do you agree that this section of the US code is valid or don't you? Do you think that you, yourself, will lose the right to bear arms on your 45th birthday? Does your father have no constitutional right to bear arms? Your mother, who, I assume, was never in the service, has she never had the right to bear arms?

4/26/2007 11:09:04 PM

Quote :

"Allowing citizens to arm and defend themselves takes no resources from the police, the FBI or the military. If nothing else, it provides them with more resources as less time must be spent on training members of the police and military, who are drawn from the set of citizens anyway."

The point is that if safety is inadequate, money would be more effectively spent on people who only take care of that rather than everyone individually trying to better their own safety. For example, if we were having a food shortage, it would be more effective to spend money on farms rather than everyone trying to grow their own.

Quote :

"If we can have extra security and defense for no additional cost to the tax payer or the police, are we not insane for rejecting it?"

But it does come at a cost, if we instituted gun control, the price of guns would be much higher, and guns would be much more difficult to find. In Japan the going rate for a bottom-rung handgun is about $8 grand, if you can find a place to buy it.

Quote :

"Perhaps that is the problem, that we are allowing the courts far too much leway in determining the rights which we have (an answer which is quite clearly outlined in the 10th amendment)."

Changing their role would require changing the constitution.

Quote :

"Furthermore, how is the first amendment any more or less clear than the second? They both explicitly state that the right described shall not be infringed by the government."

It should be easy to see if you read them both. The first amendment states that congress may make no law prohibiting free speech, it then goes into actually defining what speech it is talking about specifically. The second amendment uses broad terms like "arms" and "militia". It is very clear that the first amendment is much more specific than the second.

Quote :

"Lukily for us, we have more to go on than just the militia clause so changing that part is irellevent, it only deals with a portion of your argument"

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

Quote :

"Or arguably it was worded so broadly so that there would be no need to interpret"

That's idiotic, a broad law requires interpretation to enforce whereas a specific one leaves no room for it. Let's look at an example, say congress passed a law that said "downloading copies of music is illegal". We've got several broad terms here, what constitutes music? Is a speech considered music? It's an audio file. And what constitutes downloading? Just from the internet? Another device? These would be left up to the courts to determine.

Quote :

"I don't think it was impossible. At that time, many armerments for the military and the militia were privately owned or financed."

Do you think they intended all arms? Do you think they would allow a private person to have a military bigger than their own?

Quote :

"Indeed. But there is a difference between reasonable restrictions and unreasonable."

Yes, but who determines that if it is not clearly stated in the law? The courts. The supreme court could just as well determine that handguns are unreasonable or that all firearms are unreasonable arms. They have that power. Now congress could change the constitution to specifically allow firearms, then the congress would no longer have that power.

Quote :

"We ban certian forms of speech (e.g. threats) but allow for others, even if that speech may be dangerous (e.g. the recent article in an NCCU paper calling for violence about the duke rape case)."

Yes, and it is the supreme court that has decided what is ok and what is not, and they can overturn their previous decision at any time.

Quote :

"Why is what the founding fathers of the laws for this country irellevant to a discussion about the laws of this country?"

They're irrelevant to deciding what modern law is or should be because they don't live in the modern world.

4/26/2007 11:27:42 PM

the constitution isnt irrelevant here in the united states, comrade

4/26/2007 11:29:15 PM

I never said the constitution was irrelevant, I said what the founding fathers thought or wanted is irrelevant.

4/26/2007 11:31:59 PM

that kind of contradictory...i mean they wrote the constitution with their thoughts and wants for the country in mind

4/26/2007 11:35:10 PM

Quote :

"Yes, and it is the supreme court that has decided what is ok and what is not, and they can overturn their previous decision at any time. "

wrong

4/26/2007 11:35:49 PM

^if you want a response you'll have to go into a bit more detail, if you don't you might as well have just posted 'pad'

Quote :

"that kind of contradictory...i mean they wrote the constitution with their thoughts and wants for the country in mind"

That doesn't matter, we have the power to change it as we have. There's no reason not to make laws as we see fit, even if some dead guy might not have agreed with it.

4/26/2007 11:58:37 PM

We do have the power to add or ratify amendments, true...but why would we ban guns from law abiding people only? Why would we change an amendment so fundamental that its the 2nd amendment listed when all it would do would make it so only the criminals had guns?

4/27/2007 12:02:17 AM

First off, I'm not suggesting that we change the constitution, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating that it wouldn't be neccesary to change the constitution to institute gun control, only the court's ruling on it. Some state would have to pass some law banning firearms, then there would be a case brought up to the supreme court to decide whether that law is unconstitutional, then if the court decided that it wasn't by their interpretation of the constitution, the law would pass, and guns would no longer be allowed in that state.

Additionally the concern isn't whether or not criminals will have guns, the concern is how many criminals will have guns.

4/27/2007 12:16:21 AM

but what good would it do if guns werent allowed in a state? it would assure that people couldnt buy them through legal channels in that state...it would not do anything to account for the existing illegal/stolen guns in the currently in the hands of criminals and it would not stop people from getting them out of state and sneaking them in, unless you plan to have security checkpoints at every border into that state...so constitutional or not, what practical good would come of doing this?

4/27/2007 12:20:12 AM

Quote :

"but what good would it do if guns werent allowed in a state?"

I don't know, but that doesn't really have anything to do with how our government is set up. It could be a federal law as well, it's just much more likely that a law like this would pass through a state legislature much faster than it would the senate and congress.

4/27/2007 12:26:28 AM

Quote :

"Yes, and it is the supreme court that has decided what is ok and what is not, and they can overturn their previous decision at any time. "

pad

4/27/2007 12:57:55 AM

close, no quotebox

4/27/2007 2:00:34 AM

Quote :

"By restricting it to men between the ages of 17 and 45 and only women in the National Guard, doesn't this section create a definition of a militia a violation of several other laws? Do you agree that this section of the US code is valid or don't you? Do you think that you, yourself, will lose the right to bear arms on your 45th birthday? Does your father have no constitutional right to bear arms? Your mother, who, I assume, was never in the service, has she never had the right to bear arms?"

I never said I wanted to restrict it that way, as the militia clause of the constitution is not a restrictive clause. I was merely pointing out if you wrongly limited the scope of the second amendment to the militia, it still provides for individuals to own guns, just not all the individuals.

Quote :

"The point is that if safety is inadequate, money would be more effectively spent on people who only take care of that rather than everyone individually trying to better their own safety. For example, if we were having a food shortage, it would be more effective to spend money on farms rather than everyone trying to grow their own."

But the government or society do not spend money as a whole on arming and training individuals for their own defense. That is an expense the individual takes on. Therefore, no money is being diverted from the pooled defense, it's merely being diverted from other personal edeavors. For someone who's so gung ho about everyone contributing to the collective, you're amazingly against collective defense and responsibility.

Quote :

"But it does come at a cost, if we instituted gun control, the price of guns would be much higher, and guns would be much more difficult to find. In Japan the going rate for a bottom-rung handgun is about $8 grand, if you can find a place to buy it. "

Clearly the idea of allowing citizens to arm and train themselves in self defense is contrary to implementing the types of gun control in japan or the UK. Allowing people to be armed, and allowing them to train in self defense with those arms provides a greater level of security to the people at no additional cost to society.

Quote :

"Changing their role would require changing the constitution."

Or simply putting more emphasis on strict interpretation of the constitution and the laws. The court has no power to determine what rights the people have, that is clearly outlined in Amendment 10 of the constitution. The court merely has the power to determine whether the government has violated the bounds of the rights the people have given.

Quote :

"It should be easy to see if you read them both. The first amendment states that congress may make no law prohibiting free speech, it then goes into actually defining what speech it is talking about specifically. The second amendment uses broad terms like "arms" and "militia". It is very clear that the first amendment is much more specific than the second."

"Speech" is a very broad term, which is why we still to this day have court cases over pornography as speech, or promoting government overthrow or sedition. Both amendments are broad, and rightfully so, specifically because the founding fathers wanted to avoid people doing exactly what you are trying to do now. They didn't want people saying "Well it isn't explicitly stated, so you must not have the right to do that." They wanted the exact opposite, which is why the 10th amendment exists.

The constitution outlines the rights of the government, not the rights of the people. It is assumed from the basic premise of the constitution that the people have all rights, and that for the purposes of creating an effective government and union some of those rights are surrendered. What those rights are, are clearly spelled out, everything else is reserved to the people.

Quote :

"I don't really understand what you're saying here. "

I'm saying that how easy or hard it is to change the definition of militia is irellevant, because for all it matters the second amendment could read:

"Defense against rabid bengal tigers, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

and it wouldn't mean that the right to bear arms is limited to hunted rabid bengal tigers. The first clause of the amendment is not a restrictive clause, it is meant to provide an example.

Quote :

"That's idiotic, a broad law requires interpretation to enforce whereas a specific one leaves no room for it. Let's look at an example, say congress passed a law that said "downloading copies of music is illegal". We've got several broad terms here, what constitutes music? Is a speech considered music? It's an audio file. And what constitutes downloading? Just from the internet? Another device? These would be left up to the courts to determine."

Presumably, since we are all capable of reading and understanding english, then we would apply the definitions of the given words to the law. This is the problem we have today. We've stopped applying real definitions to words in favor of applying our own twisted versions of words on to the laws. In your example, clearly if the law writers intended to include speeches, they would have said downloading copies of music or speeches is illegal as a speech is not music. If they had meant to include all forms of audio recording, they would have said that as well. Why do we presume that laws are crafted to be futher reaching than their stated claims. Strict interpretation would save a lot of headaches.

Quote :

"Do you think they intended all arms? Do you think they would allow a private person to have a military bigger than their own?"

Given that the constitution doesn't even allow for a federal standing army, my answer would be yes. I think it's quite clear they intended the federal government to have to draw is military from the militias and private armies of the states. Most of the country saw that as well as we didn't have any standing army until the world wars.

Quote :

"Yes, but who determines that if it is not clearly stated in the law? The courts. The supreme court could just as well determine that handguns are unreasonable or that all firearms are unreasonable arms. They have that power. Now congress could change the constitution to specifically allow firearms, then the congress would no longer have that power."

Outright bans against any arm is unreasonable as clearly the people have the right to bear arms. When I say reasonable restrictions I mean such things as background checks and similar ideas. All arms are included in the term "arms". The infringement of one's right must only be implemented because the exercise of that right would clearly violate the right of another citizen. It's also worth noting that clearly until recent history it was not believed (and I feel rightfully so) that the court or the government had the power to determine what arms someone could own, hence the first "gun control" was a tax stamp.

Quote :

"Yes, and it is the supreme court that has decided what is ok and what is not, and they can overturn their previous decision at any time. "

But the supreme court is not the ultimate answer, nor does a supreme court decision mean that something is right. The supreme court could say a thousand times over that the 2nd amendment only applies to sling shots, but that doesn't mean they're right.

Quote :

"They're irrelevant to deciding what modern law is or should be because they don't live in the modern world."

Which is of what importance to their relevance? Is the modern world so different from years ago that their intent can not be applied? If so we should scrap the whole constitution and start over. If nothing they said or wanted is relevant to modern law, what do we even care what they said. The hell with the courts then, what they wanted is irrelevant in this modern time. If their intention and wording of the law is irrelevant then that would apply to their contsruct of the courts.

Quote :

"I'm stating that it wouldn't be neccesary to change the constitution to institute gun control, only the court's ruling on it. Some state would have to pass some law banning firearms, then there would be a case brought up to the supreme court to decide whether that law is unconstitutional, then if the court decided that it wasn't by their interpretation of the constitution, the law would pass, and guns would no longer be allowed in that state."

And I argue that you are very wrong. Just because the court rules a certain way, does not mean they are right. And if they are wrong, it is the duty of the people to alter the law and over turn the decision and in some cases outright disobey the law. When the supreme court decided slaves weren't people, were they right?

4/27/2007 9:15:13 AM

I think that Kris fails to realize that a repeal of the 2nd would spark more violence in this country than has been seen in modern times


I also think he doesn't realize that the only way communism can take over here is with a revolution also, a bloody one using *gasp*, guns

4/27/2007 9:26:44 AM

^No way, maaan! Through the power of tie-dyed shirts, smoking weed and rock-n-roll, we'll take over the country through civil disobedience! Fight the power, maaan!

4/27/2007 10:40:30 AM

Quote :

"I think that Kris fails to realize that a repeal of the 2nd would spark more violence in this country than has been seen in modern times"

You must not have read what I said about that earlier:
I bet we'd see the most violent peaceful protests down in washington ever. What are the gun nuts going to do, take their little peashooters and march on washington? Just start killing random people? Come on. They're just a bunch of pussies like everyone else and they wouldn't do shit but whine about how bad it is, because they really don't have any other options, they could try to march on washington, and invetibly be killed in the process, but I'd be willing to bet they'd just hand their guns over while kicking and screaming like a hurt little girl.

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

Quote :

"But the government or society do not spend money as a whole on arming and training individuals for their own defense. That is an expense the individual takes on. Therefore, no money is being diverted from the pooled defense, it's merely being diverted from other personal edeavors."

You're looking at it the wrong way. You see when any one person in a society wastes their money on something that could have been spent a better way, it effects all of us. That's why I'm looking at it as society-wide spending.

Quote :

"For someone who's so gung ho about everyone contributing to the collective, you're amazingly against collective defense and responsibility."

I like the police and military and such, I don't like vigilantes who get a hardon thinking they're Jack Bauer.

Quote :

"Allowing people to be armed, and allowing them to train in self defense with those arms provides a greater level of security to the people at no additional cost to society."

I just explained that. It does come at a cost, more innocent people may have guns, but more criminals will as well. In Japan the only people who own handguns is the mafia, which really isn't that big. It simply because they cost so much and they are so hard to find. Thier idea of a crime wave is a muder a week nation wide.

Quote :

"Or simply putting more emphasis on strict interpretation of the constitution and the laws."

So you're just going to ask them nicely or what?

Quote :

"The court has no power to determine what rights the people have, that is clearly outlined in Amendment 10 of the constitution."

The tenth amendment has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The constitution is specifically vauge on certain things to allow cases to be done on a case by case basis by the supreme court.

Quote :

"The court merely has the power to determine whether the government has violated the bounds of the rights the people have given."

The court also has to determine the specifics on the bounds of the rights through their interpretation of the constitution.

Quote :

"Speech" is a very broad term, which is why we still to this day have court cases over pornography as speech, or promoting government overthrow or sedition."

Correct, and who determines what is speech protected by the first amendment and what isn't? The Supreme Court. In the same way they can determine what is a firearm protected by the second amendment and what isn't.

Quote :

"The first clause of the amendment is not a restrictive clause, it is meant to provide an example."

The two are related, if it wasn't neccesary, they wouldn't have put it in there.

Quote :

"Presumably, since we are all capable of reading and understanding english, then we would apply the definitions of the given words to the law."

Ok, by definition a nuclear warhead is an arm. Should the government not infringe on people's right to keep and bear nuclear warheads? It is up to the SC to decide what the constitution specifically means by some broad term like "arm".

Quote :

"Given that the constitution doesn't even allow for a federal standing army, my answer would be yes."

Article 1 section 8.

Quote :

"Outright bans against any arm is unreasonable as clearly the people have the right to bear arms. When I say reasonable restrictions I mean such things as background checks and similar ideas. All arms are included in the term "arms"."

Handgrenades are an arm. So is Sarin gas.

I don't see how you can keep this up. You clearly think that the word "arm" must be interpreted, why then don't you understand that it is up to the courts to interpret it?

Quote :

"But the supreme court is not the ultimate answer, nor does a supreme court decision mean that something is right. The supreme court could say a thousand times over that the 2nd amendment only applies to sling shots, but that doesn't mean they're right."

Right or wrong doesn't matter. We are talking about if gun control would require a constitutional change, and it wouldn't, just a different decision from the courts.

Quote :

"If nothing they said or wanted is relevant to modern law, what do we even care what they said."

We don't care what they said, we only care what the law is now. By chance it could be the same law that they had, but there's no reason to keep it that way if a change is justified.

Quote :

"Just because the court rules a certain way, does not mean they are right. And if they are wrong, it is the duty of the people to alter the law and over turn the decision and in some cases outright disobey the law. When the supreme court decided slaves weren't people, were they right?"

Once agian, being right is irrelevant. Right now the supreme court has the power to allow laws that ban firearms. If you don't want them to have that power, you either have to change the constitution to specifically state what arms are and are not protected. And you could obviously just elect lawmakers that wouldn't pass such laws, but somewhere the laws will inevitably be passed, it's just a matter of time.

And there's nothing I love more than that macho-man "AINT NOBUDY TAKIN MY GUN" rambo bullshit. It's so funny. If the government told you that you had to hand it over, you'd do it.

4/27/2007 12:46:34 PM

Quote :

"What are the gun nuts going to do, take their little peashooters and march on washington? Just start killing random people? Come on. They're just a bunch of pussies like everyone else and they wouldn't do shit but whine about how bad it is, because they really don't have any other options, they could try to march on washington, and invetibly be killed in the process, but I'd be willing to bet they'd just hand their guns over while kicking and screaming like a hurt little girl. "

A bunch of Iraqis with "peashooters" seem to be giving our military quite a hard time. And if our citizens have nothing more than mere "peashooters" it's because of people who continually sacrifice their rights to "feel safe". If our people are powerless to stop the government from revoking a basic tenet of our country, it is because we have allowed the government to take that power from us.

Quote :

"You're looking at it the wrong way. You see when any one person in a society wastes their money on something that could have been spent a better way, it effects all of us. That's why I'm looking at it as society-wide spending."

So what spending would have stopped this massacre?

Quote :

"I like the police and military and such, I don't like vigilantes who get a hardon thinking they're Jack Bauer."

No one said anything about vigilantes. I'm talking about people armed and trained to protect themselves.

Quote :

"I just explained that. It does come at a cost, more innocent people may have guns, but more criminals will as well. In Japan the only people who own handguns is the mafia, which really isn't that big. It simply because they cost so much and they are so hard to find. Thier idea of a crime wave is a muder a week nation wide. "

Japan also has government inspections of homes for firearms. It's also a largely homogeneous society compared to ours. I don't think we want the system that japan uses (well maybe you do, but I don't, and clearly the people who set up our government didn't either.

Quote :

"So you're just going to ask them nicely or what?"

People holding the government more accountable would be a nice start.

Quote :

"The tenth amendment has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The constitution is specifically vauge on certain things to allow cases to be done on a case by case basis by the supreme court. "

It has everything to do with it. The supreme court does not have the ability to determine if you have the right to something. Merely if your rights are being infringed. It's a very important distinction.

Quote :

"The court also has to determine the specifics on the bounds of the rights through their interpretation of the constitution."

In relation to other rights. In other words, the court determines where your right infringes on someone elses right. They do not determine if you have the right in the first place.

Quote :

"Correct, and who determines what is speech protected by the first amendment and what isn't? The Supreme Court. In the same way they can determine what is a firearm protected by the second amendment and what isn't."

The problem is, the second amendment says all arms, just like the first amendment says all speech. The only way the court can restrict something is to find that the exercise of one right is a violation of another right. But in all cases you are (supposed) to be presumed to have the right in the first place. The court doesn't get to determine whether a particular firearm is an arm, it is. The court can only decide if your keeping and bearing of that arm infringes on another person's rights.

Quote :

"Ok, by definition a nuclear warhead is an arm. Should the government not infringe on people's right to keep and bear nuclear warheads? It is up to the SC to decide what the constitution specifically means by some broad term like "arm"."

Right. It is an arm, and thus protected by the 2nd amendment. What has been decided is that the posession of that arm violates other people's rights and is therefore regulated, but assuming you could posses such an arm without violating other people's rights, you would be allowed to keep and bear it under the second amendment. Again, it's a fine distinction, but a very important one.

Quote :

"Article 1 section 8."

Apparently you didn't pay attention in history:

Quote :

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

No standing federal army.

Quote :

"Handgrenades are an arm. So is Sarin gas. I don't see how you can keep this up. You clearly think that the word "arm" must be interpreted, why then don't you understand that it is up to the courts to interpret it?"

No, I don't think it needs to be interpreted. It's quite clear. What needs to be decided is whether the keeping and bearing of a particular arm infringes on the rights of another to the point where it is neccesary and proper to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights.

Quote :

"Right or wrong doesn't matter. We are talking about if gun control would require a constitutional change, and it wouldn't, just a different decision from the courts. "

Effectively it might, but only insofar as the people are willing to accept the rule of the courts. Right and wrong do matter because it determines whether our government is still representing the people.

Quote :

"We don't care what they said, we only care what the law is now. By chance it could be the same law that they had, but there's no reason to keep it that way if a change is justified. "

Why does change even have to be justified if we don't care what they said? Just change it and fuck history, tradition or intent.

Quote :

"Right now the supreme court has the power to allow laws that ban firearms. If you don't want them to have that power, you either have to change the constitution to specifically state what arms are and are not protected. And you could obviously just elect lawmakers that wouldn't pass such laws, but somewhere the laws will inevitably be passed, it's just a matter of time."

They don't have that power. They have the power to determine whether a law infringes on my rights, or whether the exercise of my rights infringes on another. That is all. There is no need to make the amendment any more specific. It clearly covers all arms, else it would specify the arms it covers.

Quote :

"If the government told you that you had to hand it over, you'd do it."

You may roll over and submit your rights without a second thought, but I personally would not.

4/27/2007 2:54:41 PM

http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/47/45/

4/27/2007 3:47:37 PM

Quote :

"A bunch of Iraqis with "peashooters" seem to be giving our military quite a hard time."

Our military can easily take out the ones with peashooters, it's the ones with explosives that kill people. Additionally you're comparing rebellion agianst an occupying force to a revolution, which simply isn't an accurate analogy.

Quote :

"And if our citizens have nothing more than mere "peashooters" it's because of people who continually sacrifice their rights to "feel safe"."

Do you really think you'd want to spend the money to have the weaponry neccesary to wage war agianst the united states army even if you had the right to own it.

Quote :

"So what spending would have stopped this massacre?"

In all likelyhood, no measures could be taken to ever completely stop this.

Quote :

"Japan also has government inspections of homes for firearms. It's also a largely homogeneous society compared to ours. I don't think we want the system that japan uses (well maybe you do, but I don't, and clearly the people who set up our government didn't either."

It is legal to own firearms in Japan, just not handguns.

Quote :

"People holding the government more accountable would be a nice start."

The judicial branch was set up to have little accountability to the people. The idea behind it is to protect agianst the tyranny of the majority.

Quote :

"The supreme court does not have the ability to determine if you have the right to something."

It has the ability to determine what your specifics of your rights entail.

Quote :

"The problem is, the second amendment says all arms"

It says "arms" not "all arms".

Quote :

"What has been decided is that the posession of that arm violates other people's rights"

How does me owning something violate someone else's rights? How does me owning a hand grenade infringe upon anyone else?

Quote :

"Again, it's a fine distinction, but a very important one."

Who makes that distinction? Could whoever makes that distinction not just as easily put firearms on the other side of the line?

Quote :

"What needs to be decided is whether the keeping and bearing of a particular arm infringes on the rights of another to the point where it is neccesary and proper to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights."

So then a firearm could be put on the other side of that line without having to change the constitution?

Quote :

"Right and wrong do matter because it determines whether our government is still representing the people."

It seems that you define morality by popularity. Who says the people are right? If the majortiy of people supported gun control, would you accept it?

Quote :

"Why does change even have to be justified if we don't care what they said?"

That's the way burden of proof works, a new idea must be justified first.

Quote :

"They have the power to determine whether a law infringes on my rights, or whether the exercise of my rights infringes on another. That is all. There is no need to make the amendment any more specific. It clearly covers all arms, else it would specify the arms it covers."

That's not the way the constitution works. It is the supreme law of the land, no one can say "well this infringes upon such and such rights so I can ignore the constitution". If that was the case you would need to change the constitution, not ignore it. It is their job to decide what the constitution means and whether or not some law does not adhere to it. If the constitution protected all arms, then any law restricting any type of weapon would have to be ruled as unconstitutional.

Quote :

"You may roll over and submit your rights without a second thought, but I personally would not."

Maybe in dreamland you'd be Rambo shooting people left and right, but in the real world, you'd hand over the gun in a second. You'd just bend over and ask for more.

4/27/2007 3:59:04 PM

Quote :

"I bet we'd see the most violent peaceful protests down in washington ever. What are the gun nuts going to do, take their little peashooters and march on washington? Just start killing random people? Come on. They're just a bunch of pussies like everyone else and they wouldn't do shit but whine about how bad it is, because they really don't have any other options, they could try to march on washington, and invetibly be killed in the process, but I'd be willing to bet they'd just hand their guns over while kicking and screaming like a hurt little girl."

you are severely underestimating gun owners in this country. Plenty of people own firearms in this country, many of them being well educated and well financed. You also seem to think that an armed rebellion would be targeting the military. The military would not be the ones going door to door asking for weapons(unless you live in New Orleans. I honestly would take 5 or 10 people that I know with firearms over any 5 or 10 BATF agents. It's a known fact that many of these guys miss their target, are completely inept and routinely shoot each other in urban combat. Most of the BATF agents shot in Waco were hit by bullets from their own weapons.

I know personally if I were to "rebel" against the govt with my own stuff, it wouldn't be from my own home. It would be on the streets or in their home. How would politicans and random BATF agents know who on the street had a gun or not? How would they know whether or not the random guy that pulled up beside them at an intersection was about to shoot them in the head and drive off?

Quote :

"And there's nothing I love more than that macho-man "AINT NOBUDY TAKIN MY GUN" rambo bullshit. It's so funny. If the government told you that you had to hand it over, you'd do it."

you may love the nanny state and would do anything they asked of you, I for one will not relinquish my right to have firearms without a fight. If it were to be at my door, thats fine, I'd lose, but not before multiple other people caught bullets fired from my weapons and not before I had a video camera and a phone and I was connected to a news station also. The people would know explicitly why I am fighting and why I died also.

you have a skewed vision about things like this

I suggest reading "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross... it's an interesting look at gun culture and what could happen in a situation just as this

4/27/2007 6:34:55 PM

Quote :

"You also seem to think that an armed rebellion would be targeting the military. The military would not be the ones going door to door asking for weapons"

You're right, you'd have to have at least moderate success for the military to be called out, which isn't very likely. Most of you would probably be killed by police officers.

Quote :

"I know personally if I were to "rebel" against the govt with my own stuff, it wouldn't be from my own home. It would be on the streets or in their home. How would politicans and random BATF agents know who on the street had a gun or not? How would they know whether or not the random guy that pulled up beside them at an intersection was about to shoot them in the head and drive off?"

So explain to me your plan. You're going to assinate people? You think they wouldn't hunt you down and put you in jail for life? Are you really willing to completely ruin your life or end it for absolutely nothing?

Quote :

"I for one will not relinquish my right to have firearms without a fight."

I'd be willing to bet that you, Mr. Internet Badass, might tell a pretty heroic little action movie here, but I think if the police came to your door asking for your gun, you'd hand it over.

Quote :

"I suggest reading "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross... it's an interesting look at gun culture and what could happen in a situation just as this"

I've read pet sematary, and it's an interesting look at what could happen if there was a burial ground that brought people back to life. And while both of these might be interesting, niether is likely to happen. Our lives are too comfortable here in america for us to be willing to risk them for something as stupid as a hobby being outlawed.

4/27/2007 7:12:28 PM

Quote :

"You're right, you'd have to have at least moderate success for the military to be called out, which isn't very likely. Most of you would probably be killed by police officers."

obviously you have no idea what a LEO's success rate is at hitting a target vs civilian gun owners... let me clue you in, it's not in the govt's favor. Most government officials that are issued a firearm are inept at operating them. I guess if they came to my door with machine gun toting armor clad "cops", I'd die. But do you not think that most gun owners know that in that situation they would be out armored and out gunned... I have plenty of weapons that would punch through a standard vest without much of a care, even if it didn't punch through, mr. bodyarmor is done for the day. I'm willing to bet that you'd be quite surprised at the success rate of citizens if they turned arms against the government. I'm not advocating it, because I have good personal friends that would be after me, but I'm also not above doing it if the need were to arise.

Quote :

"So explain to me your plan. You're going to assinate people? You think they wouldn't hunt you down and put you in jail for life? Are you really willing to completely ruin your life or end it for absolutely nothing?"

I would think that planned and choreographed "assassinations" against higher value targets would make a much bigger statement than some jackass standing in his door battling a lowly swat team just "doing as they were told". How the hell would anyone hunt you down if they have no clue who did it?

if they were willing to come after me with machine gun toting thugs to take my property, I wouldn't be too concerned with jail time... If I were to be involved in crime or anything that could get me significant jail time, the last thing I'd do is go to jail.

Quote :

"I'd be willing to bet that you, Mr. Internet Badass, might tell a pretty heroic little action movie here, but I think if the police came to your door asking for your gun, you'd hand it over."

I'm not being an "internet badass", I'm just not willing to relinquish my rights as a citizen of this country as easily as some others are. and btw, no, I wouldn't hand it over, to put it simply

Quote :

"I've read pet sematary, and it's an interesting look at what could happen if there was a burial ground that brought people back to life. And while both of these might be interesting, niether is likely to happen."

apples and oranges, one book is 3/4 history with 1/4 fiction, the other is well, entirely fiction. The book I am talking about uses HISTORY to set up the final section of the book, which it may seem off the wall and crazy, but it's certainly not out of the realm of reality, if you actually had a clue what I was talking about you'd already know that.

Quote :

"Our lives are too comfortable here in america for us to be willing to risk them for something as stupid as a hobby being outlawed."

I don't think being able to defend myself is a "hobby"

4/27/2007 7:34:21 PM

Quote :

"But do you not think that most gun owners know that in that situation they would be out armored and out gunned... I have plenty of weapons that would punch through a standard vest without much of a care, even if it didn't punch through, mr. bodyarmor is done for the day."

And do you not think that the government, after dealing with that situation once would most certainly come better prepared to the next house. You guns might do a good enough job agianst the common theif, but what could they do agianst an armored vehicle?

Quote :

"I would think that planned and choreographed "assassinations" against higher value targets would make a much bigger statement"

I don't think terrorism would make a big enough statement to scare the US government from enforcing it's own laws.

Quote :

"How the hell would anyone hunt you down if they have no clue who did it?"

You really think they wouldn't find out? How many people have gotten away with assination?

Quote :

"apples and oranges, one book is 3/4 history with 1/4 fiction, the other is well, entirely fiction"

Fine, replace pet sematary with the da vinci code or something.

Quote :

"I don't think being able to defend myself is a "hobby""

As I'm illustrating, you can't really defend yourself.

4/27/2007 8:00:50 PM

Quote :

"You guns might do a good enough job agianst the common theif, but what could they do agianst an armored vehicle? "

4/27/2007 8:14:39 PM

i was talking with someone about guns the other day

so like hypothetically...if britain or france's army ran out of weapons they wouldnt have anymore- if our army ran out of guns, a lot of citizens could hypothetically "donate" their guns to the army

i kinda like citizens having guns now

4/27/2007 8:19:49 PM

Out of all the world wars the only notable instance of a country running out of weapons was russia, being that they had just gone through a revolution and had both a budding new government and only recently achieved industrialization. Unless we had been completely overrun the chances of us running out of firearms is very slim. Firearms are cheap, tanks and jets cost the equivlent of millions rifles, if we didn't produce a few jets and instead spend the money on firearms we'd have enough to arm everyone in the country a few times over. Additionally privately owned firearms would barely be a drop in the bucket, especially considering most americans own small handguns.

4/28/2007 2:15:33 PM

Quote :

"especially considering most americans own small handguns. "

Most gun owners own several firearms. From my experience 4-5 is the average. Cant have enough of a good thing

4/28/2007 9:27:34 PM

owning more won't make them any less ineffective in real combat

4/28/2007 11:48:30 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Switzerland and the gun

Quote :

"Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols. This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries. Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives. Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home. Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to. Few restrictions In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not. The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced. Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions. But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection. Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue. Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society. Low crime But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated. Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated. It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation. Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility. From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country."

4/30/2007 10:19:37 AM

haha germany completely avoided them too

germany would have rolled through there eventually, but it wasn't worth the casualties they would have taken

4/30/2007 10:40:27 AM

haha apparently one person agrees with Kris

good luck

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/OPINION04/704250310/0/OPINION

4/30/2007 2:24:50 PM

I agree with stricter laws. It's our duty to keep and bear arms. Cops should give a ticket for a $50 fine to anyone not carrying a gun!

4/30/2007 3:04:52 PM

Guns are not for everyone. Not everyone should have one and certainly not carry it with them. The laws in place were strick to get a hand gun you have to get a permit then go and wait 6 days to get it. Give it up every time there is a shooting people say that gun laws aren't strick enough. Yet I see plenty of people still dying from drunk drivers but no one has try to pass a law that requires the breathalizer machine to be used in ever car. Get off your soap box.

4/30/2007 3:32:53 PM