Gun Control, A rational discussion Options

[Bargod]

I thought we'd take this discussion off the pic thread and give it it's own area. I'll start with the quote from Junkie:

Guns don't kill people. Crazy people kill people. With a gun, knife, or a wet noodle people are going to be violent with each other. I have several guns. Most of which have not been fired in years. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to shoot anyone but if someone chooses to come into my house uninvited they very well may get a double barreled chest full. Do I think the average person needs an assault rifle? Hell no. But should they be able to keep guns for defense and hunting purposes? For sure.

I have no bias towards one side or the other and find this an interesting topic. I know many people feel strongly one way or the other. I'm not one of those people.
Having said that, I would like to point out that "Crazy people" don't kill people. The majority of murders are between people who know each other. Guns make murder much easier to accomplish. So, gun owners are often the most successful murderers. This, of course, does not make all gun owners bad people. Anyone can lose their cool and when combined with alcohol can act out in violent ways. This is why it is illegal to carry guns into bars. If some drunk guys get into a fist fight nobody is likely to get killed. If somebody pulls a knife, things are going to get worse. I had two waiters who worked together get into a fight and one hit the other in the face with a pint glass. The glass just missed his carotid artery and his eye. What do you think would have happened if that guy had a gun? The guy who only has a scar on his face would have no face. The buddy of the guy that got hit in the face was close to breaking the attackers neck until I stepped in. What do you think would have happed to that guy after his friends head got blown off. Hell, in his drunken panic he could have shot at me just for being there. These two waiters drank together regularly. They got into a fight over who won the most pool games in the bar they were in before they came to mine. They were betting a nickel a game!!!

I won't say all gun owners are potential murderers, but you are less likely to kill somebody in a murderous rage if you don't have a gun. This is one of the reasons I don't want to have a gun in my house. I like to drink and sometimes I get very pissed off at people.

Guns do protect homeowners. Last year a little old lady living in public housing down the street from me shot and killed an intruder in her home. He was unarmed, but she didn't know that, and he wouldn't have needed a weapon to do bodily harm to her anyway. She's an example of the positive side of gun ownership.

I also don't buy into the "more guns means safer citizens" arguement. Australia has very strict gun control and it's murder rate has gone down. The reason? There are fewer murders involving guns. This means that what could have been a murder is more likely now just an assault.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/06/08/1127171.htm

I personally think Michael Moore is a self agrandizing ego maniac, but he made some decent points in Bowling for Columbine.
It is very unlikely that incident would have been possible if it weren't for the weapons they used. Even if they were limited to revolvers and single shot hunting rifles it would have been a different result.

I don't claim to have any answers, but I'd like to hear other oppinions on this.

[Bargod]

The 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which was the act that Congress passed to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, specified that militiamen purchase and maintain their own weapons. This resulted in a militia system with very little central control or support. There were no penalties placed on states that refused to maintain their militias as required by the 1792 Act. Therefore, the states let their official militia units all but die out. The federal government intervened several times to call out and reform the militia, especially in 1805, 1807, 1812, 1814-1815, 1817, 1826, and 1840, but what was left was filled with drunkenness and gambling, among other vices. Most states officially abolished compulsory militia duty during the 1840s, but left the volunteer units alone which would eventually, a long time later, evolve into the National Guard.

The more pertinant point is that the left's interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is flawed for a number of reasons.

It's not a left vs. right question. Rudy Giuliani is for strict gun control. I believe he is a Republican.

And it's not that proponents of gun control are wrong. The interpretation is at the heart of the matter and so far the Supreme Court has not touched it because Constitutional Scholars generally believe that it would be bad for gun owners because it is the ONLY instance of a secondary condition being given priority over an original condition -> You only have the right to keep and bear arms IF you are a member of a well organized militia. The ONLY time anyone takes the secondary condition as primary is in the second ammendment. However, since the Supreme Court won't deal with the issue they leave it at state levels which is why there are places in the country where it is illegal to own guns.
The supreme court HAS upheld cases stating that owning guns is NOT a personal freedom, which is what PRO Gun people claim. This is why there are so many laws to control guns.

So, the flawed logic is on the side of the PRO gun lobby. The Supreme Court knows that if it were to open this up it would get very ugly very quickly, so has never dealt with the issue directly.

[Capt. Andtennille]

The 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which was the act that Congress passed to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, specified that militiamen purchase and maintain their own weapons. This resulted in a militia system with very little central control or support. There were no penalties placed on states that refused to maintain their militias as required by the 1792 Act. Therefore, the states let their official militia units all but die out. The federal government intervened several times to call out and reform the militia, especially in 1805, 1807, 1812, 1814-1815, 1817, 1826, and 1840, but what was left was filled with drunkenness and gambling, among other vices. Most states officially abolished compulsory militia duty during the 1840s, but left the volunteer units alone which would eventually, a long time later, evolve into the National Guard.

Not familiar with those particular laws, but congress can't pass laws in violation of the Constitution

It's not a left vs. right question. Rudy Giuliani is for strict gun control. I believe he is a Republican.

Rudy Giuliani may be a "Republican" but his big problem with the base is that he is NOT a conservative. BIG difference

And it's not that proponents of gun control are wrong.

It's EXACTLY that the proponents of gun control are wrong

The interpretation is at the heart of the matter and so far the Supreme Court has not touched it because Constitutional Scholars generally believe that it would be bad for gun owners because it is the ONLY instance of a secondary condition being given priority over an original condition -> You only have the right to keep and bear arms IF you are a member of a well organized militia. The ONLY time anyone takes the secondary condition as primary is in the second ammendment. However, since the Supreme Court won't deal with the issue they leave it at state levels which is why there are places in the country where it is illegal to own guns.
The supreme court HAS upheld cases stating that owning guns is NOT a personal freedom, which is what PRO Gun people claim. This is why there are so many laws to control guns.

A court in DC recently ruled that the city does NOT have the right to ban guns. The city is appealing to the Sumpreme Court. Let's see if they take it up.

So, the flawed logic is on the side of the PRO gun lobby. The Supreme Court knows that if it were to open this up it would get very ugly very quickly, so has never dealt with the issue directly.

I guess I and millions of other Americans have flawed logic because Bargod says so. LOL Don't flatter youself.

If you want to see how it gets when things get ugly you can take a little peek at the not-so-distant past. Take a look at Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, Uganda, Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Turkish Armenia (to list but a few) for a preview of a disarmed civilian population. Guns in the hands of government alone have murdered well north of 100 million people during the 20th Century alone, far more than all of the criminals in all of history have murdered with ALL weapons.

Say I were to stipulate that the 2nd amendment was referring exclusively to militia (I'm not), and that "the people" referred to a collective rather than the individual, contrary to ALL of the other times "the people" is used (I'm not), Then what it's saying, by YOUR definition of the sentence, is that there will be NO infringment on the right of "a well regulated militia" to keep and bear arms. If I were to stipulate all of that then a couple of things are obvious. First of all, I'm going to found a militia with some nice rules to keep it well regulated and I'll call it "The Well Regulated Militia" so I can have all the guns I want. Next, those who decide that they didn't want to join my militia would STILL be able to own guns because thier rights DO NOT COME FROM THE CONSTITUTION. I know that part is hard to understand by those on the left, so I will repeat it again and type v e r y s l o w l y.



The Constitution does NOT define what our rights are IT DEFINES THE LIMITS ON THE GOVERNMENT.



So the government could not keep my "Well Regulated Militia" from keeping and bearing arms because the Constitution doesn't let it, and I can have my personal guns because they protect my "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness".

Why on earth are you liberals so anxious to surrender your rights to the government?

[Hellfighter]

....................
I guess I and millions of other Americans have flawed logic because Bargod says so. LOL Don't flatter youself.

If you want to see how it gets when things get ugly you can take a little peek at the not-so-distant past. Take a look at Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, Uganda, Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Turkish Armenia (to list but a few) for a preview of a disarmed civilian population. Guns in the hands of government alone have murdered well north of 100 million people during the 20th Century alone, far more than all of the criminals in all of history have murdered with ALL weapons.

Your logic is exceptionally flawed...

In your list of gun-less civilians you leave out European nations and Canada whose governments don't ravage the local population.

Those horror story nations you list have more to do with whackos taking over rule in their nations or manipulating governments, or the governments being evil in the first place that have supportive armies/generals to do their evil bidding regarding genocides. Citizens facing evil governments won't win with their guns in their gun closets/hidden under floorboards- only armed organized resistance generally with more powerful munitions caches from outside supporters would make any real difference. So no, I don't think just because a farmer in Darfur has a shotgun in his hut, he is intimidating the genocide do-ers from leaving him alone. That farmer will need to go into the remote areas and join a major clandestine military-type unit to persuade the government to back off.

Show me a peaceful government even with an army and police with all the guns at its disposal in society that broadly cares about all of its gun-less citizens and I'll show you a society that lives generally with confidence compared to other societies.

So I dispute your 'guns in the government alone.....' "logic".

Guns and guns in the hands of societies with dutiful politicians/army/police don't kill people as in your sited examples above, its the only Whackos with guns that are the butchers - and if there are enough of them in a society, you and your .45 or shotgun alone will not deter them from their evil goals.

The Militia Act of 1792 is an interesting read.......

So, are militias supposed to overthrow the government when it's out of control, or put down insurrections?


I'm really learning a lot from this whole thing.

Here's another note of interest with Militias, during the War of 1812 at the Battle of Queenston Heights, US Militia units refused to cross a river/bordering with Canada at a critical point in the battle when their reinforcing presence was needed by their comrades battling in out on the Canadian side. They announced their rights to stay on the American side of the border only regarding how far they could be ordered into action.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 09/14/07 4:36pm

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Here's another note of interest with Militias, during the War of 1812 at the Battle of Queenston Heights, US Militia units refused to cross a river/bordering with Canada at a critical point in the battle when their reinforcing presence was needed by their comrades battling in out on the Canadian side. They announced their rights to stay on the American side of the border only regarding how far they could be ordered into action.

For all this discussion, I find that an interesting tidbit/fact. A militia willing to defend it's territory, but with no interest to expand. If only the leaders of most nations had felt the same way throughout history.