Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[DomerInHappyValley]

Regulated in my view of the context means under regulation or rules - like say, the national guard within a state. this is a modern militia in my view.

in your view, the sentence structure lends itself to an intepretation that an example of one possible reason why people should be allowed to bear arms and then making a delarative statement that is broader than the example. Why would they structer the sentence that way? Why would they not give multiple justifications? Why just that one? My thought is because it is essential to the meaning of the sentence and not simply one example of a possilbe list of many.

In my view the comma's are the key.
A well regulated militia ( at that point in time the militia was our Army), being necessary to the security of a free state ( yup no standing federal army need something to protect our freedoms), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.( the people not the government.)
And that was the wording as ratified by congress. The wording as ratified by the states only had a comma between the words state and the.
I've also seen arguments that is was a semi colon and not a comma.

In DC v Heller the supreme court held that the second amendment was an individual right unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes.
Self defense hunting etc etc.
The 7th circuit of appeals just ruled the Illinois law banning concealed carry was unconstitutional by the way and is giving the state 120 days to draft new legislation.

Now laws are in place to protect public safety.
Felons can't have guns and so forth. And I can agree with that.
I even like PA's law that if you want to regain the right you can petition the courts to have it reinstated and the DA and Chief of Police can come speak in open court if they are against it as well as the DA from the state or county you were charged in then the judge makes a decision either yes or no.
But I can not agree with drafting more legislation for an issue that has reams of paper already stating who can and can not own a gun.
I see a lot of people talking about a gun show loop hole. It's not really a loop hole all it states is that a long gun can be sold privately between private parties without a back ground check.
Go ahead and make it so all gun sales have to go through a FFL I have no problem with that just find a way that I'm not gonna have to pay that FFL a 100 bucks for doing the background check every time I purchase a firearm.
Most responsible gun owners that I know already do that and a lot of them just put it on consignment at the gun shop and they run a background check for everyone who wants to purchase.
It's not as easy to go across state lines to purchase a gun as some think.
You can get a hunting rifle that way depending on that particular states laws but you won't get a hand gun that way.

 

[GoIrish41]

You just said it yourself though.

An illegal gun dealer isn't going to purchase or sell guns legally. So why attempt to add more legislation that doesn't account for illegal weapons?

Hypothetically speaking, how do we go about enforcing this legislation with the amount of gun owners out there who bought and paid for their weapons through legal means? Do we confiscate?

Actually what I said was that they would purchase the guns legally in places where there are loose gun laws and sell them illegally in places where there aren't. This is why I'm suggesting federal laws would be much more effective than local ones.

I'm not going to rehash a thousand suggestions that were made throughout this thread, but there are a lot of things that could be done -- registrations, insurance, etc.

and just to expand on this a bit, the reason a dealer can buy guns legally and sell them somewhere else illegally is because there is no mechanism to account for guns. to me, this is the biggest flaw in the system -- the core of the problem. addressing the accountability issue will, in my opinion, go a long way. having accountability in no way infringes on anyones rights and it does not permit the "rights" of gun ownership of citizens to have a negative affect on the safety of any other citizens. why is something like this not acceptable to those who advocate for the right to bear arms?

edit: actually in the post that rally was responding to I did say purchased or sold, so I was wrong in correcting him at the beginning of this post. that was just my fingers working faster than my brain. its late and I had a long day.

 

[RallySon]

Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.

The ''criminals'' are getting the guns from crooked dealers, who would (by seeking profit) also sell to you. In this sense what secures purchase that you do would also affect the criminals.

Although it seems that the guns might be bought by people without any crime background and sold/given to the criminals since like Jadebrecks posted, 80% of inmates that own guns have gotten theirs from famly/friends, streetbuys or illegal means.

OK great, I'm all for going after corrupt FFL dealers, but that would have minimal if any impact on criminals obtaining guns illegally.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

and just to expand on this a bit, the reason a dealer can buy guns legally and sell them somewhere else illegally is because there is no mechanism to account for guns. to me, this is the biggest flaw in the system -- the core of the problem. addressing the accountability issue will, in my opinion, go a long way. having accountability in no way infringes on anyones rights and it does not permit the "rights" of gun ownership of citizens to have a negative affect on the safety of any other citizens. why is something like this not acceptable to those who advocate for the right to bear arms?

Because certain people in this thread believe that even if the gun was stolen from you.
You should be held liable for what the thief does with it.
That's what insurance would lead to.
And trust me there is registration to a point even if the state law specifically spells out that it shall not be used as gun registration.
Any gun bought legally has it's serial number sent to the state.

 

[pkt77242]

One last thing. They aren't a "Gun Lobby". They aren't some group that pushes things nobody wants. They are a representative for 4 Million gun owners in the United States. They are not some gun lobby that has no backing. Why are they so powerful? Because they are representing 4 Million people. You can try to make them out to be the worst group ever but you need to start referring to the 4 Million people backing them....LIKE ME!

The reason why the NRA fights everything every time is simple. It is the same reason ABATE (American Bikers Aimed Towards Education) fights helmet laws. (They are one of the leading advocators for wearing a helmet while riding) Why do They fight these laws that you would think they support? Because once they stop fight on a subject like helmet laws or "assault weapons" then they will get attacked again. Then they will have to defend motor sizes and pistols or shotguns. You give the government an inch it will take a mile. That is why the NRA and ABATE fight this stuff tooth and nail. The longer we fight stuff the longer it takes to get to the last thing we have and eventually complete disarmament (or the outlaw of motorcycles).

They do not represent 4 million people. They represent the gun makers.

something like 75% of NRA members want background checks required for all gun purchases but yet the NRA is against it. Hmm sounds like they are representing them real well.

Also it has already been decided by the Supreme court that handguns and other weapson like that can not be outlawed so stop the "they are going to take all the guns away". It is already settled law.

 

[GoIrish41]

Because certain people in this thread believe that even if the gun was stolen from you.
You should be held liable for what the thief does with it.
That's what insurance would lead to.
And trust me there is registration to a point even if the state law specifically spells out that it shall not be used as gun registration.
Any gun bought legally has it's serial number sent to the state.

I'm actually one of those people ... unless the gun is reported stolen and a police report filed. with the right to bear arms comes the responsibility of owning them in my view.

 

[pkt77242]

Than you aren't listening to the politicians that are putting forth legislation. Those who are are just going to want to pass more laws when they find out the first ones aren't working. (See previous gun laws and now they are trying to pass more because the other ones aren't being enforced or aren't working)



If you don't want to listen to the self defense argument that we need firearms start reading these.
The Armed Citizen

I find it funny. So you can find maybe at best 200 times a year that guns are used in self defense (and I looked at about 20 of them and I don't think I saw any mention of Assault Rifles, almost all were handguns or shotguns). So my studies that I posted still stand. Self defense is rare (though it does happen) and guns are much more likely to kill someone in the househould by domestic violence, accidents or suicide.

 

[RallySon]

I find it funny. So you can find maybe at best 200 times a year that guns are used in self defense (and I looked at about 20 of them and I don't think I saw any mention of Assault Rifles, almost all were handguns or shotguns). So my studies that I posted still stand. Self defense is rare (though it does happen) and guns are much more likely to kill someone in the househould by domestic violence, accidents or suicide.

So we should ban assault rifles for their lack of use? I don't get it

 

[GoIrish41]

So we should ban assault rifles for their lack of use? I don't get it

I think he is clearly saying that the "I need an assault rifle for defense" argument doesn't carry much weight.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I'm actually one of those people ... unless the gun is reported stolen and a police report filed. with the right to bear arms comes the responsibility of owning them in my view.

Ok so I'm at work and someone breaks into my house and steals one of my guns or someone breaks into my cars trunk during hunting season and steals my aught 6 and goes and robs a store before I can file a police report.
The store should be able to sue me or the family of the person who was injured?
That is asinine.

 

[RallySon]

There aren't many statistics for defense against tyranny either.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I find it funny. So you can find maybe at best 200 times a year that guns are used in self defense (and I looked at about 20 of them and I don't think I saw any mention of Assault Rifles, almost all were handguns or shotguns). So my studies that I posted still stand. Self defense is rare (though it does happen) and guns are much more likely to kill someone in the househould by domestic violence, accidents or suicide.

Most people keep their 2000 dollar rifles locked in gun cabinets. While their hand gun is usually kept on them and a shotgun with pellets doesn't need aimed the same way a rifle or pistol needs to be.

 

[pkt77242]

Most people keep their 2000 dollar rifles locked in gun cabinets. While their hand gun is usually kept on them and a shotgun with pellets doesn't need aimed the same way a rifle or pistol needs to be.

Agreed. That is why the arguement that assault rifles are needed for self defense doesn't hold water. I am not Anti gun. Keep a handgun or shotgun for self defense if you want.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ok so I'm at work and someone breaks into my house and steals one of my guns or someone breaks into my cars trunk during hunting season and steals my aught 6 and goes and robs a store before I can file a police report.
The store should be able to sue me or the family of the person who was injured?
That is asinine.

have you read the previous posts talking about how people get their hands on guns? people with no criminal background getting guns and giving them to those who are not allowed by law to have them (felons). This is clearly what I'm talking about here. Two year after the fact, when the police find your gun at a crime scene and you haven't reported it, you don't think you should have any responsibility for that? I think that is asanine. This happens a lot.

What you are describing, I would guess, is much, much more rare. But, you can create scenarios all day long that "proves" the concept of responsible gun ownership is stupid. clearly I'm not writing legislation here, but there would clearly have to be exceptions for scenarios like you described if such legislation was crafted.

Incidently, you shouldn't leave guns in your trunk during hunting season or any other time. A criminal could break into your car, take your gun and rob a store.

 

[GoIrish41]

There aren't many statistics for defense against tyranny either.

what? hahaha

 

[RallySon]

have you read the previous posts talking about how people get their hands on guns? people with no criminal background getting guns and giving them to those who are not allowed by law to have them (felons). This is clearly what I'm talking about here. Two year after the fact, when the police find your gun at a crime scene and you haven't reported it, you don't think you should have any responsibility for that? I think that is asanine. This happens a lot.

What you are describing, I would guess, is much, much more rare. But, you can create scenarios all day long that "proves" the concept of responsible gun ownership is stupid. clearly I'm not writing legislation here, but there would clearly have to be exceptions for scenarios like you described if such legislation was crafted.

Incidently, you shouldn't leave guns in your trunk during hunting season or any other time. A criminal could break into your car, take your gun and rob a store.

Most people do report their guns stolen, and the people who don't report it stolen and they're found at a crime scene, those people are immediate suspects.

The problem with what you're saying is assuming that anyone who steals a gun and uses it to commit crimes isn't going to file down anything on the gun that gives them another charge for burglary or theft.

You're the one making up ridiculous scenarios.

In the end, none of this has anything to do with assault rifles, it's probably the biggest thing that irks me about this. Just look at the statistics. The government is targeting weaponry that is used in a statistically negligible amount of crime. Why is that so difficult?

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

have you read the previous posts talking about how people get their hands on guns? people with no criminal background getting guns and giving them to those who are not allowed by law to have them (felons). This is clearly what I'm talking about here. Two year after the fact, when the police find your gun at a crime scene and you haven't reported it, you don't think you should have any responsibility for that? I think that is asanine. This happens a lot.

What you are describing, I would guess, is much, much more rare. But, you can create scenarios all day long that "proves" the concept of responsible gun ownership is stupid. clearly I'm not writing legislation here, but there would clearly have to be exceptions for scenarios like you described if such legislation was crafted.

Incidently, you shouldn't leave guns in your trunk during hunting season or any other time. A criminal could break into your car, take your gun and rob a store.

Sorry buck season is only 2 weeks long for rifle season and it's an hour ride home to get my gear.

Your idea for penalties for not reporting a gun stolen was tried in Philly. Held as unconstitutional by the state supreme court.
The problem there is wives gift guns all the time.
That's how I know PSP was using pics as a registration when the state law says they can't.
I don't know so I'm asking.
How knowledgeable are you about gun laws?
Have you researched the existing laws?

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Agreed. That is why the arguement that assault rifles are needed for self defense doesn't hold water. I am not Anti gun. Keep a handgun or shotgun for self defense if you want.

But I'm not qualified enough to decide what someone else feels comfortable with using as self defense.
My cousin the Marine just bought an AR 15 for home defense because he is extremely comfortable with the platform.
I have a shotgun for my wife because it is a spray weapon.
I also have a bushmaster with a 30 rd mag for myself because of the extra ammo.

 

[GoIrish41]

Most people do report their guns stolen, and the people who don't report it stolen and they're found at a crime scene, those people are immediate suspects.

The problem with what you're saying is assuming that anyone who steals a gun and uses it to commit crimes isn't going to file down anything on the gun that gives them another charge for burglary or theft.

You're the one making up ridiculous scenarios.

In the end, none of this has anything to do with assault rifles, it's probably the biggest thing that irks me about this. Just look at the statistics. The government is targeting weaponry that is used in a statistically negligible amount of crime. Why is that so difficult?

How is something that happens all the time a ridiculous scenario. Look at the JadeBecks post that was cited a few posts up in this thread. that isn't a ridiculous scenario, that is reality. I'm not one of these people who want to put innefective laws on the books to make myself feel better, but the notion (not from you but from the last several pages of posts on this thread) that the right to bear arms limits us from doing sensible things that keep guns out of the hand of people who shouldn't have them is simply nonsensical. the only thing left to do if these things are off the table is nothing. I don't think we as a society should do nothing when so many people are being killed every year senslessly.

 

[RallySon]

Except all these people that are killed senselessly every year aren't dying at the end of assault rifles. They're dying by the use of handguns.

I mean if assault rifles were even visible on a chart breakdown of violent crimes committed per weapon then I would agree. Right now that isn't the case, and will never be. Your current stance is based on knee-jerk reaction force fed to you by irrational fear mongering by the media.

 

[GoIrish41]

Except all these people that are killed senselessly every year aren't dying at the end of assault rifles. They're dying by the use of handguns.

I mean if assault rifles were even visible on a chart breakdown of violent crimes committed per weapon then I would agree. Right now that isn't the case, and will never be. Your current stance is based on knee-jerk reaction force fed to you by irrational fear mongering by the media.

What stance are you talking about exactly? I've felt the same way about guns since I was a kid when a friend who lived a block away from me was shot by another friend when they decided to take out his father's gun (his dad was a cop) and play around with it. The guy went off, shot my friend through the chest and killed him instantly. I'll by 48 years old and that happened when I was probably 10 or 11 years old, long before you were born. My position has nothing to do with assault weapons and has been part of who I am for many more years before I ever even heard the term assault weapon. If you consider a position that I've help for longer than you have been alive a kneejerk reaction, there is really nothing I can do about that. I worked in the media for almost a decade, so if you don't think I understand how the media manipulates people you are mistaken. If you think I'm easily swayed by that manipulation, I would suggest that you don't know me very well (heck, you don't know me at all). My entire position on this issue has everything to do with keeping people safe because I know how this type of sensless violence can affect families and a community.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

How is something that happens all the time a ridiculous scenario. Look at the JadeBecks post that was cited a few posts up in this thread. that isn't a ridiculous scenario, that is reality. I'm not one of these people who want to put innefective laws on the books to make myself feel better, but the notion (not from you but from the last several pages of posts on this thread) that the right to bear arms limits us from doing sensible things that keep guns out of the hand of people who shouldn't have them is simply nonsensical. the only thing left to do if these things are off the table is nothing. I don't think we as a society should do nothing when so many people are being killed every year senslessly.

I stated a long time back in this thread what would be effective measures while also not punishing non criminals.
Commit a felony that doesn't already habe a life sentence with a gun auto life sentence.
Misdemeanor with a gun auto bump to a felony minimum 10 year sentence no parole.
Dq person with a gun 10 years possibility of parole after 90% of sentence served. Second offense 25 to 35 no parole possibilities.
Use existing laws but increase the penalties.
Unfortunately the person who snaps and goes on mass killing spree isn't easy to guard against and has been going on since Whitman climbed that tower.
For that better trained guards. They don't need to he armed but we need better than what a lot of schools have now. When their mostly their to keep kids from getting out of control.
Better training for teachers and administrators on the signs of some one who could snap for school age children.
Less media coverage showing these morons 15 minutes of fame so they stop thinking they can go out in a big way.

 

[RallySon]

I'm just trying to understand your logic, that's all.

It just seems that if you really wanted to keep people safe from violent crimes you wouldn't want to limit their ability to protect themselves.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

What stance are you talking about exactly? I've felt the same way about guns since I was a kid when a friend who lived a block away from me was shot by another friend when they decided to take out his father's gun (his dad was a cop) and play around with it. The guy went off, shot my friend through the chest and killed him instantly. I'll by 48 years old and that happened when I was probably 10 or 11 years old, long before you were born. My position has nothing to do with assault weapons and has been part of who I am for many more years before I ever even heard the term assault weapon. If you consider a position that I've help for longer than you have been alive a kneejerk reaction, there is really nothing I can do about that. I worked in the media for almost a decade, so if you don't think I understand how the media manipulates people you are mistaken. If you think I'm easily swayed by that manipulation, I would suggest that you don't know me very well (heck, you don't know me at all). My entire position on this issue has everything to do with keeping people safe because I know how this type of sensless violence can affect families and a community.

While a tragedy and I can understand how it has shaped your view points.
I personally can't blame the gun I blame the father for not teaching the son proper gun safety or how to respect what a gun is capable of.
As well as keeping a loaded gun in the house he didn't have control of.
That was my biggest fear as a father how to teach my kids that respect and discipline without imparting any fear.

 

[phgreek]

"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."

History might tell us that at the time, we needed the ability to form militias from ordinary people, and that the expectation is the people bring their own guns to the fight...because in those times, THATS how it was. Even if they were practiced units (militias)...most of them brought their own smoke stick to the fight...yes? It was part of the expectation of being a citizen to be ready to fight, and uncle sugar really didn't outfit its volunteer soldiers so well....

I don't think one can simply divine simplisitc intent here...this is complex.

One might say the reason for the right to bear arms (A well regulated militia [made of common people] , being necessary to the security of a free state) no longer exists because uncle sugar supplies the guns to a 24-7 professional "militia".

One might argue the first half of the sentence was merely ONE justification, almost like a pre-emptive "e.g." because it is the one "e.g." that was on everyone's mind at the time. As well I believe there is some support for the intent to reside in the second half of that sentence (the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed) in contemporaneous writings (especially state constitutions)...although no one ever wants to look to things like that unless it supports their argument.

My read...since I can't ask the authors...I don't know.

I know what carries weight in my mind, likely because I know what I want it to mean...but the language in and of itself can provide no one a sure conclusion, or this argument would already be over.

 

[RallySon]

So let's have an author clear it up

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution

 

[GoIrish41]

I stated a long time back in this thread what would be effective measures while also not punishing non criminals.
Commit a felony that doesn't already habe a life sentence with a gun auto life sentence.
Misdemeanor with a gun auto bump to a felony minimum 10 year sentence no parole.
Dq person with a gun 10 years possibility of parole after 90% of sentence served. Second offense 25 to 35 no parole possibilities.
Use existing laws but increase the penalties.
Unfortunately the person who snaps and goes on mass killing spree isn't easy to guard against and has been going on since Whitman climbed that tower.
For that better trained guards. They don't need to he armed but we need better than what a lot of schools have now. When their mostly their to keep kids from getting out of control.
Better training for teachers and administrators on the signs of some one who could snap for school age children.
Less media coverage showing these morons 15 minutes of fame so they stop thinking they can go out in a big way.

Fundamentally, I'm not against anything that you are proposing. I'm for anything that keeps gun violence from happening. I have additional ideas that involve limiting access of firears, particularly to those who should not have them (felons, the mentally ill, etc.). I think greater responsibility should be tied to the hip of the right to bear arms, and I think universal background checks, household background checks, registrations, ballistics IDing of guns (to avoid the scratching off of serial numbers), insurance requirements and having gun owners being licenced with the type of weapon they own (whether it is bought from a licenced dealer or in a private sale).

I also think that violence in movies, TV and video cames is a contributor to the problem and should be addressed, and that more investment in the identification and treatment of mental illness also need to be on the table.

Anything we can do is better than doing nothing. Clearly you are not in the do nothing camp, but there are plenty of people who are.

 

[GoIrish41]

So let's have an author clear it up

I'm not sure that I've seen anyone in this entire thread say that we should disarm the citizens. I think several are making a case for limiting the amount of firepower that is available to the armed citizenry (which I believe is reasonable).

 

[GoIrish41]

While a tragedy and I can understand how it has shaped your view points.
I personally can't blame the gun I blame the father for not teaching the son proper gun safety or how to respect what a gun is capable of.
As well as keeping a loaded gun in the house he didn't have control of.
That was my biggest fear as a father how to teach my kids that respect and discipline without imparting any fear.

if you agree that the father shared some fault in this incident (and by extension many, many incidents similar to this) ... If you agree that he shared some fault for keeping a loaded gun in the house that he didn't have control of ... then we agree on more than it first appeared. These are the elements of responsibility of gun ownership that I am talking about. Now, it is clear that I might take this further, perhaps much further, than you but we can agree in principal. Given that experience I described, do you feel strongly enough about the responsibility of the father that you believe he should be punished for being an irresponsible gun owner? That is my logical next step -- one that might compel gun owners like him and many, many others across this country to become more responsibile at the risk of some penalty or punishment?

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm just trying to understand your logic, that's all.

It just seems that if you really wanted to keep people safe from violent crimes you wouldn't want to limit their ability to protect themselves.

I just don't think that the way to protect people from guns is to have more guns. its really that simple to me.