Geez, you're right. Some dangerous things are legal. So, let do the flipside. Let's legalize all drugs. Let's do away with speed limits. Stop signs too. People should be able to do whatever they want. Let's stop the regulations on explosives. And why are my rights violated every time I get on a plane? From now on, no more pesky questions or searches.

Obviously, I don't believe in the above. Point is, at some point we set a limit on something. Also, there's one really really big key difference when it comes to guns and all the rest. Guns are made to kill. That's why they exist. Alcohol, drugs, cars, do not exist just to kill what they are pointed at. They are not tools of violence. No army is has ever been equiped with snowboards, Toyota Echos, and a case of beer!

Yes, shit happens. But guns are tools of criminals. They're also can become the tools of fools. Men angry at their wives, drunks or druggies out of control. People who otherwise might be too cowardly to be harmful, become deadly with ease. No freak has ever stabbed 20-30 people to death, or even 5 for that matter, but anyone can become a killing machine with a gun. And again, the only point of a gun, it's existance, is to kill. Humans or animals. So regulate the hell out of it, make sure hunters and collectors can get their guns but try and slow down the idea that everyone and his dog needs one. Anyway, again, all IMO.

And finally, to be clear, no I do not want a ban on all guns. When it comes time to overthrow our governments in 30-40 years, yes, we'll need them!

I think most of these numbers are completely distorted. I know its not you doing the distortion, but most groups will pick and choose the data just as you mentioned earlier in this topic. Look at this info here and the links where you can go and see the actual numbers yourself.

Gun-related deaths in the USA


Statistics and causes
The definitive source for US injury death statistics is the Centers For Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention & Control website which provides statistics on all deaths by injury, not just gun deaths. To get the number of gun deaths for a year just set the Cause of Injury to Firearm. If you only want to know the number of child gun deaths per year then choose the custom age range and input 0 years ( <1 ) as the lowest age and 17 years as the top age. Be sure to select "No Age-Adjusting Requested" if you are only interested in a particular age group.

Note that the CDC child gun death figures are typically half of the figures that the gun control lobby publishes. The difference is in the definition of a child. The gun control lobby counts young adults that are 18 or 19 years old as children, but they do not count 20 year olds as children. You can choose from one of two possible reasons, depending on your level of cynicism: 1. The standard CDC age groups used to go from 0-19, 20-39, etc and the gun control lobby couldn't figure out how to select a custom age group. 2. Counting 18 and 19 year olds as children doubles the number of so-called child gun deaths, and more child gun deaths means more support for gun control.

In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. Historically the 18 through 24 age group is the highest crime-committing group. At age 18 part-time drug dealers leave school and become full-time drug dealers. Despite the propaganda from the gun control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are the group of so-called children most likely to be shot by their fellow criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news stories in any city newspaper. School shootings are so rare that every one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper.

Older people's gun deaths are most likely to be suicides. Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.

The best way to prevent gun deaths is to treat depression and other mental illness, teach children not to sell or use illegal drugs, treat drug addiction, and have police concentrate on enforcing drug laws. However, the gun control lobby says that we should spend billions of dollars on gun registration and gun licensing instead of using the money to treat depression and combat drugs. Click here for some sensible ways to prevent gun violence.

The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to the CDC. Note that it is extremely easy to prevent accidental gun deaths by following Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety. Click here for a free downloadable brochure that illustrates the four rules.



More resources
First check out the links on my Gun Safety and other firearms information page. You can also find more great gun-related links in My Bookmarks including gun safety, technical information, politics, why the Fifth Amendment allows convicted felons to ignore gun registration laws, the failures of the Brady Bill and other so-called "gun-control" laws, and gun and ammunition suppliers. Just look at the section under General > Guns.


Home
Back to "Gun Safety and other firearms information" page

This page contains 100% post-consumer recycled HTML.
All rights reserved by Rex Tincher.
©2000
Please contact me for permission to reuse my content.
Email comments and problem reports to: webmaster@tincher.to
Absolutely no junk email accepted. Spammers will be larted.



Edited because the links didnt come out right,

Click on this to see the links to the sites:
http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

Nothing, you can't use the #'s from people whose purpose is to promote one side of the arguement or another. Go to the sources. You will see most of that info is wrong. I already posted numbers from the CDC that dispute #'s you got from Dr. Agenda.





That's just 15-34 year olds. You can go to the CDC website and see the complet figures yourself.
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF...intentional.pdf
The CDC doesn't have an agenda, they are just providing information. The information that you are getting from Gun Rights pages are either blatent lies, or misrepresentations, or #'s that are cherry picked to make it appear to be true.

You have to go to the actual sources of these #'s and look for yourself.

Also, smoking is banned in more places every day. Trans Fats are banned in I believe Chicago and New York.

*edit*
Oh, yeah. I'd have to go back and find it, but I think on one of the pages form the DOJ they say that more WIVES murder their HUSBANDS than vice versa. How? With their HUSBANDS gun, lol.

Oh, and btw, the stats you brought to the table are obviously cooked up by pro-gun lobbies. The one about 2.5 million "defences" per year saving 400,000 live seems especially ludicrous. I'd like to know what psyhic knows when someone waving a gun prevented a death from occuring.

Stats show less than 200 actually legitimate kills of criminals in self defence per year, yet somehow 400,000 lives are being saved!?! That's utterly perposterous! "Only" 16,000 people in America are murdered in the first place, which is still one of the highest murder rates in the 1st world, so how the hell do guns save 25 times as many people as get killed by them, and you still end up with one of the highest murder rates?

Give me an f'en break. If anyone believes that, I got 400,000 bridges to see you. That was a totally made up number. I suspect the person who chased Big P and his car their friend off was able to claim his saved the lives of everyone in their apartment building. In reality, he saved his car from being stolen. And luckily for Big P, he didn't get spotted and get his head blown off, and his criminal firend and him didn't engage in a shoot-out and hit a pregnant woman passing by.

You see, guns and crime and everything...it's not a black and white issue. Except it is in the American constitution, so unless you change it, yes, it's your right. That doesn't necessarily make things safer or better for society in general though.



Completely distorted?? For the love of God, did you read the source for the one you just quoted? It was the US census bureau! It was a calculation of ALL accidental deaths! It was a pure, completely objective source, it wasn't even a website talking about guns. Yet you dismissed it outright, and grabbed some stats from a pro gun lobby group. Sorry, I guess this debate is at an end. I obviously can't win when I quote your US Census Bureau and get told the numbers are distorted.

Are you kidding me? Are you just trying to be a complete dip shit and trying to pull my chain here? The results of a SURVEY showd that 2.5 million civilians had used firearms to do what they considered to be saving lives. Is that hard for you to believe? Or should I maybe go and get a written sworn testimony from each one of them for you? Take what you want from the SURVEY here.

Have you seen the movie Demolition Man? From all your posts, you seen to be one of those happy happy joy joy people from that community.

Sorry, I did not dismiss a quote from the U.S. Census bureau. I dismissed a quoted from Chuck Anesi's web page where he posted some distored figures that who knows how he got to. Like I said, go on the actual link I provided to you and do your own studies. And try not to drink before you come on and accuse me of something thats completely bs. Theres a big difference between U.S. Census bureau and Mr. Chuck Anesi's websites, dont you agree?

Chuck Anesi's site uses, labelled quite clearly, stats from the US Census Bureau. It says it right on the graph. IN FACT at the end he adds the comment "Remarks: So stop obsessing over guns and airplanes, OK?", but you are too dense to read down to that and actually figure out I got an objective source.

As for your so-called stat of 2.5 million Americans, who published it? What the hell was the criteria? Who determined whether lives were saved? A bunch of right-wing NRA members who self report they saved their family 10 times last year with their gun? Yeah, that's scientific. And I saved 100 babies last year because I use recylced grocery bags.You think 400,000 people were save by people brandishing guns, yet only 200 potential murderers were killed? Get real.

The only reason you think you chain is being pulled is because you can't dispute what I say without relying on pro-gun lobby propoganda, and instead have to dismiss governement statisitics.

And frankly, you've now called me a dipshit and an ass in this debate. Go screw yourself Nothing.

I don't know what CDC info that Tincher guy is looking at, but his info doesn't jive with the info on the CDC page I linked to. Suicides are seperated from everything else. Accidental gun deaths is it's own thing. It's all very clear.

Anyone can go on the Census website and use their own different elected stats to pull numbers up. Yes, the bar graph is based on the numbers from Census Bureau, but what boxes did he select to get those totals? For example, look at the list provided on the Bureau's list:



1. What was the intent or manner of the injury? (Select one)
All Intents
Unintentional
Violence-related
Homicide and Legal intervention
Homicide
Legal Intervention
Suicide
Undetermined intent

2. What was the cause or mechanism of the injury? (Select one)
All injury Suffocation
All injury and adverse effects Terrorism
Adverse Effects Transportation-Related
Adverse effects, overall : The ICD-10 codes for some categories have been updated.
Medical care, adverse effects Transportation-Related, overall
Drugs, adverse effects Motor vehicle, overall
Cut / Pierce Motor vehicle, traffic
(categorized by injured person)
Drowning Motorcyclist
Fall Occupant
Fire / Heat Pedal cyclist
Fire / Burn Pedestrian
Fire / Flame Other
Hot object / Substance Unspecified
Residential fire / Flame Pedal cyclist
(includes mv traffic and other)
Firearm Pedal cyclist, other
Non-Firearm Pedestrian
(includes mv traffic and other)
Machinery Pedestrian, other
Natural / Environmental Transport, other land
Overexertion Transport, other
Poisoning Other specified and classifiable
Struck by /against Other specified / NEC
Unspecified

3. Select specific options.

Census Region/State Year(s) of Report
United States Northeast South Midwest West Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 to 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999

Race Hispanic Origin
All Races White Black American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Other (combined)
All Non-Hispanics Hispanics

Sex Output Options
Both Sexes Males Females Standard Output Text Only


or



Advanced Options (not required)


Select age groups.
All Ages (includes unknown age)
Age Groups 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Unknown to 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Unknown
Custom Age Range <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85+ Unknown to <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85+ Unknown


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

Compare injury rates using age-adjusting.
Select Standardized Year for Age-Adjusting:
Use 1940 1970 1980 1990 2000 as the Standard Year.
No Age-Adjusting Requested


So you can see its easy to distort the numbers based on any of the single objects they are clicking on. Yes, the numbers came from the U.S. Census Bureau, but what do they reflect? You nor I can say.

You come across in most of your posts as an errogant ass. Maybe its just me. I like gaming with you and all, but you seem to brush me the wrong way with many of your posts. Dont know if others feel this way like I do, but thats why I probably came across harsh to you. Dont mean to.




The website he linked it to show the site www.cdc.gov I believe that is the correct site? I just put in the criteria that he mentioned and came up with the same numbers he did. What exactly is not jiving. What criteria are you looking at that is different than what he is looking at?

You can take there beer, home, car and anyhting eles you want BUT you be damn if you try and take a american guns away from them.

I'm looking at the table of accidental deaths. You don't have to enter any variables or anything. It just presenting the #'s in a tabular form. I linked to it earlier.

I think I know what's up. I think one chart is only counting "accidental" deaths, like from a kid dropping a loaded gun, and the other may be counting "accidental" deaths like somebody fired a gun at random and "accidentally" hit somebody they didn't think would get hit.
Maybe that's the difference. I'll have to go back and look later. Right now I'm off to the gym.

Regardless of all the stats anyone throws at me, no one can convince me other that I should not be allowed to keep a handgun in my own home. The bottom line is I have that right and just because there is accidental deaths due to handguns, that is not reason enough to take that right away from me. How many accidental deaths were there due to other things such as smoking cigarettes and falling asleep, or drunk driving accidents. No-one is talking about banning smoking totally or banning drinking totally. Dont give me the crap about weapons being maked for killing. Tell me that smoking doesnt kill you. Also, tell me how drinking does anything other than distort your actions enough to have you do something you wouldnt regret later. Im just comparing them, not saying there should be a ban on smoking or drinking. So please dont twist my words around.

I agree that the guidelines for applicants trying to receive these guns could be stiffer, even much more stiffer than it already is, but a ban is completely wrong to me. Most of the people that try to obtain guns the legal way, are actually honest hard working people. Most criminals get them through other means. A ban would only effect the honest people of the USA.

You are not alone my friend. Liberals are like that.

Oh yeah, and you guys don't sound arrogant at all. Get over yourselves. When people debate opposite sides of an issue, the other side usually sounds arrogant and self serving. However, it'd be nice if some people could realize that ahead of time and that way they might not feel the need to add petty insults to the debate.

Thats my point exactly.

That's the spirit! Keep debating! There goes this "rational discussion".

How about this for rational discussion. You folks in other countries can do what your laws allow and we'll follow our constitution. What Nothing was referring to (if I may be so bold) is that our Constitution, the founding document that defines the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth, guarantees it's citizens the right to keep and bear arms. He and I (and millions of others) are not going to let ourselves or our families become statistics by bowing TO the statistics.



Someone in an earlier post brough up an anolgy of fire detectors. Statistically I'll never need mine but you can be damned sure I HAVE them. Same with my guns.

People don't kill other people with fire detectors.
Our constitution has been amended many times. Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean that it can't change.
I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some say guns protect these rights. Some think guns threaten these rights.

I think I know how to fix this.

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.

How about everyone who wants to own a gun has to join their state's National Guard unit? That would be closer to what's mentioned in the second amendment. I mean, owning a gun isn't being in a "well regulated Militia".

It looks to me like we need a pistols only server to go along with
the rifles only server. Then you posters can go on it and shoot
it out with each other....

JIM

I hope none of my posts sound malicious. I might have made a few smart-alecky remarks, but mostly I'm interested in a good back and forth about gun control. I find it's the best way to get informed about things. I've always been one to debate topics, even if I have to choose a side I don't believe in. I not only find the back and forth of it intellectually stimulating, but I find that I usually don't know nearly as much about a topic as I thought I did. So these types of things expand my knowledge and that always makes me happy.

A perfect example of this is my comment about the National Guard. Having read up a little bit more on the second ammendment, the main arguement about "the right to bear arms" is whether or not this right is solely for people in a militia. Some constitutional scholars say that the way it is written it is clear that the intention was that Americans had the right to bear arms if they were in a Militia, which were deemed needed to supplement an Army (when armies were only raised to wage war). Others have said that the INTENT of the "right to bear arms" was to show that ALL Americans have guns, so don't mess with us (in my words, not the constitutional lawyers, lol). Also, the "right to bear arms" isn't a guaranteed freedom, which is why states can set gun control laws as the deem fit.
So, what this really boils down to is a Supreme Court (not the current one, that's for sure) deciding that "the right to bear arms" is conditional to being in a militia. If they find this true, then gun ownership rights change drastically. Militias are well defined legally and were basically turned into the National Guard with the passage of the National Defense Act (I think, I read this right before work). So, my joke about being in the National Guard was actually close to what many constitutional scholars actually believe (I didn't know this when I made the comment, I just thought it was funny).

So, this is why I like to talk about things like this. I've learned a lot in the past few days that I previously had almost no knowledge of.

The problem sir, wth your thesis, is that you are not using the correct definition of "Militia". Here is what the 1930 World Book Encyclopedia said (before all the gun-grabbers got to re-write the books):

MILITIA, mil ish' ah. In its most common application, this term refers to a body of armed citizens. The militia of the United States is made up of all able-bodied male citizens, and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention of becoming (sic) citizens, who are not under eighteen or over forty-five years of age. All such persons are liable to conscription in time of war, with the exception of certain Federal and state officials, workmen in armories, arsenals, etc., and members of specified religious sects. The militia is subdivided into the National Guard, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia, the latter consisting of the great body of unenlisted citizens.

So you see, we ARE the miltia. Besides, the milita portion of that statement is not a requirement. Take the next sentence as an example:

A well regulated media, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear opinions, shall not be infringed

Surely you would not take that to mean that you can't have or express an opinion unless you are part of the established media. Same thing with arms and militias.

In any event, the U.S. Constitution is designed to limit the power of GOVERNMENT, it does not grant powers to citizens because those come from God. From the Declaration of Independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Hey Capt. We are on the same wavelength man. Great post.

Thanks and Dittos!!

If one were to be literal then, women do not have the guaranteed right to bear arms at all, nor do men over 45. Isn't that correct?

Not at all. I was correcting the incorrect interpretation of the term militia. It was probably defined even more broadly during the founding of the country since boys younger than 18 and men older than 45 were certainly considered part of the militia.

The more pertinant point is that the left's interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is flawed for a number of reasons. The milita definition is one but that doesn't really matter because it doesn't require eligibility or membership of any militia to retain your rights to bear arms. Read my example regarding the media and opinions.

I'm not at all familiar with the Constitutions of other countries, but ours is designed to limit the powers of government. All rights are natural and retained by the citizens.

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.



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.

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




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

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



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.



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?

United States vs. Miller is not what you think it is. Some of it was based on the commerce clause (pesky thing that has been stretched waaaaaaaaay beyond it's original intent) and a sawed off shotgun. If the militias would commonly use sawed off shotguns the case may have turned out very differently. It's not much of a stretch to stay within this ruling while allowing citizens to have bazookas.

I'm not saying that it's the way the supreme court reads the constitution because I say so, I quote precedent that the Supreme Court uses to define the second ammendment. I also pointed out that their are laws that define what a "well regulated militia" is. I know that their are people involved in militia's all over this country. I can not say whether they fit the actual requirements or not. These regulations started pretty much after the revolution, so I'm guessing the founding fathers knew more about what they thought a militia should be than anybody alive today. The National Guard is what the state militia's became.


I'd also like to point out, once again, that this is not a left vs. right issue and your insinuation that I'm a liberal is getting annoying. I'm trying to keep this civil and now you're attacking me. Let's try to get back to the actual issues.

And once again I will point out that if what you claim is true, that you have an inalienable right to bear arms, then why is it legal for states to make laws stating what guns you can and can't have and how they can be stored, etc...
Because THE SUPREME COURT says it is not your inalienable right. It hinges on the militia aspect.
I didn't make this stuff up. I just started learning about it.



Just because you say this doesn't make it true. It ensures the rights of people. The right to vote, the right to a fair trial, etc...

Those are not LIMITS on the government.

Just to finish trying to understand you (please type s l o w l y so me and Bargod can understand), I would also assume that since you are against govenment limits and controls of people's life and liberty that you also...

1. Believe in gay marriage, as it is not government that should have to right to impose limits on the definition of marriage, or really any issues of morality

2. Believe Bush and Co. have seriously violated many of your privacy rights by data mining your credit card records and using various search and seazuire techniques without warrant.

3. Believe the Iraq war was illegal according to your laws because only congress has the right to declare war, yet did not

4. Believe that you are overtaxed, and thus would seriously want a massive reduction in the size of government including various government programs AND the size of the military, as the US spends more than the next 20-50 countries in the world COMBINED on its military.

Or, if you don't believe in the above, perhas you are neo-conservative, meaning you are interventionist, believe in big miltary, do not dissaprove of massive government spending as much as WHERE it is spent (miltary, farm subsides good, welfare bad).

Just trying to understand, since in this gun debate you keep throwing out the "liberal" label. But the problem is people mean different things by those words. Your strict interpretation of the constitution would seem to peg you as a libertarian actually if it extends beyond merely the gun debate, such as being offended by attempts to expand government data collecting without warrants, or trying to justify torture, or whatever (constitution guarantees against unreasonable search and seziure, for example, and rights to lawyers). However, maybe by "liberal" you merely mean "Democrat" and by "conservative" you would mean generally Republican. If that's the case, I'm not sure everyone fits those labels in this debate.

congress can't pass laws in violation of the constitution eh? so i guess that whole civil war thing kinda disproves that because according to the const. the people can overthrow the goverentment anytime they want.

I think that hunting weapons should always be allowed in the U.S. That consists of small caliber rifles, shotguns, and small-caliber revolvers. Those are what poor folks who eat game need to stay alive need.

My family grew up dirt poor, we sharecropped to have a rickety farmhouse to live in and my dad worked in the local factory for just enough pay to get the bare necessities. If we hadn't of been able to hunt and fish and have our garden and chickens, we could not have made it. We also needed our guns to kill snakes, foxes, and other animals who attacked the sharecropped livestock we tended and our chickens, etc.

So, I learned to respect guns, clean & care for them, and use them at a very young age. I started hunting with my dad about age 10. My dad also put me in charge of reloading shells about that age, and he started me competing in trap shoots and etc, I guess I started competing when I was about 11 or 12.

So, it's a REALLY big scare for families who still live like we did when there are any sort of rumblings that the government might take away guns.

Now, having said that, I also know the flip of the coin, on why gun control would be a great thing to happen in the U.S. One of my brothers is a nut-case. He's one of those back-woods anti-government revolutionary types who has stockpiled weapons and whatnot ... a-way out in the backwoods. He has enough bad weapons, ammo, and God knows what else, to destroy... well, a lot, and he's convinced the day will come, always real soon now, when he and his cohorts will use these weapons to overthrow the U.S. He's dangerous and should be stopped. But they all know the law and bob & weave themselves under the radar ad-infinitum. And he sure seems to be hooked into a gigantic underground red-state network who are all marching in lock-step together, waiting, making small strikes that can't be traced here and there, but mostly waiting. And it scares the be-jesus out of me everytime I think about it.

So, yes, I think the U.S. needs to clean house about guns. But not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, not hurt those who need to have guns to protect their livestock and hunt to feed their families. And this is the scare that causes the "Jed Clampetts" into siding with the "Timothy McVeighs" if you know what I mean.

I stand corrected. Congress is not supposed to pass laws in violation of the Constitution. They do this all of the time however. I am a Yankee, but I do believe that the South had every right to secede.

[quote name='Capt. Andtennille' date='09/13/07 7:42pm' post='160543']

[/quote] I stand corrected. Congress is not supposed to pass laws in violation of the Constitution. They do this all of the time however. I am a Yankee, but I do believe that the South had every right to secede.
[/quote]


hooray for civilized agreements!

but as for the south having the rights to secede, I think that they could have done more to talk (this is awakward considering im a shoot 1st ask later type of guy) but remember all, the const. was a totally radical and EXPERIMENTEAL thing, it was never ment to last this long. (and please correct me on my facts with the south, the civil war is not my forte)

The Militia Act of 1792 is an interesting read. Here are some excerpts:



Does that mean that these are the only legal weapons for a well maintained militia, lol. That would actually be a funny take on gun control.



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

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

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

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.



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.

"To place any dependence upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter."

-George Washington

It is starting to look like the second ammendment was purposely left vague so that Adams wouldn't have to hear it from either side of the issue... yes gun ownership goes back to the writing of the constitution.

In Virginia's constitution, the first in the nation, they say-
"A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State."
There is no mention of citizens rights to bear arms.

Pennsylvania's constitution says-
"[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State."

The Dick Act of 1903 made state militia the National Guard.
The National Guard Mobilization Act, 1933, made the National Guard part of the Army.
The Total Force Policy, 1973, - Requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.) [from the national guard page]

So, the militia is there and it's well trained etc. etc. and it is well provided for by the state with weapons. So it is in the realm of possibility that the second amendment could be repealed (although I realise this is totally unlikely) and the constitution would still be followed with it's rules for militias.



Actually, the constitution puts Congress in charge of raising Armies and the Militia, so any laws regarding the army and militias are Congress' job and protected by the constitution.



Article 1. Section 8. US constitution - Powers of Congress

The whole campaign is facinating too... Canadians had their own local militias too including a small coy. of blacks [as did the Americans at New Orleans -a crazy,brave bunch of Haitians] . In a way the bands of nativeson the Canadian sidecould be described as 'militias' too.

The battles in the campaign could only be described as brutal as those in Europe [Napoleonic Wars] and its unfortunate most Canadians aren't aware of the War of 1812 and its importance after for the country, and the intensity of the fighting on both sides by all combatants and officers that included many militia units on both sides.

I have to clarify U.S militia units would cross the border when the situation was in their favour. At Queenston Heights the militias on the US river side could see Canadian reinforcements arriving to turn the tide of battle, plus the fear-inspiring whooping calls of the 'canadian' natives [kinda impressionable like stuka bombs falling I guess] combined with the Americans literally getting pushed back /off their initial toe-hold on a cliff [canadian river-side] on which the battle centered, all swayed the militia men to take a pass from going into a dubious situation by bringing up the boundaries of the obligations -it wasn't too late to sway the battle, but they chose not to.

States rights issue and I could support allowing gay marriage in states that choose to do so as long as the other states aren't forced to honor them.
No laws have been broken

Congress authorized the actions in Iraq. Haven't you been paying attention?


I absolutely believe we are overtaxed. Contraray to your limited understanding of the charter of the U.S. Government, defense is actually one of the things they are SUPPOSED to do. We could lower taxes by stopping all the spending that is NOT defined in the Constitution (Social Security, welfare, Health care, education, etc.) and I would be all for it.
Here is my working definition of conservatives and liberals:



CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.


Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.



LIBERALS – believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

[/size]

[size="2"]

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

The problem with "CONSERVATIVES" is they feel they have the right to define "traditional American values". I'm a middle of the road kind of person but George Bush and his version of the Republican party has def. pushed my views to the left.

To quote Comic Book Guy (Simpsons Fame) Worst President Ever

Back on topic. Go Guns, yeah Guns.

I never once claimed that the current bunch are conservatives. History will be kinder to Bush than current polls, conversely, history will be much harder on Clinton.




Guns are good.

Just a quick question for you guys on this topic. Are all the "pro guns" people in ths discussion from the midwest or areas where hunting is more prevalent? Please don't take this as a slight, my family is all from the Green bay area. I'm just curious if people who may have grown up around guns, i.e. hunting are more likely to fall on the "pro guns" side of the fence. I was raised around guns and taught to shoot, handle them, clean, etc but not to hunt. To be honest with you, i don't really care if people own guns. The "hunters" are not the ones I worry about.

Shazbot

Well, Im from Chicago. I hunt Deer every year. I own a 2 Shotguns and 2 handguns. I use the Shotguns for hunting purposes, and I own the handguns for sport shooting at ranges and also for protection reasons. I know the chances of me actually using the handguns for protection reasons are slim to none, but I feel a little safer knowing we have them if needed.

well, I'm from MN (vikequeens > Green Bay Slackers ) and I kind of grew up around guns, my uncle was more into hunting than my father and we do have a various assortment of shotguns, including a new 16 gauge that i got for my b-day and my father carries a wather when hes at for (CCL FTW) and then we have my grandaddy's colt 1911, I found out not to long ago that he actually was in the battle of the bulge kickin some ass while my grandfather on my mothers side was in the pacific theater. But in all I am personally more into target shooting than hunting and when i turn 18..well lets just say that my money might "dissappear"

He Shazbot.

My family is from southern Wisconsin but I currently live near Green Bay. My guess is that people who are used to the government providing from them are more apt to want gun control and the people who provide for themselves want gun freedom.

Capt. Adntennille

I guess another problem i have with the whole conservative versus liberal thing is:

1)If Conservatives believe in making their own way then do they deserve to recieve Social Security checks at retirement? Do they deserve help from FEMA if their homes are destroyed by a tornado, etc. Do they deserve to use the government created road system? The reason why i bring this up is, I think people, whether they want to admit it or not, are a mix of both conservative and liberal viewpoinnts. The people who fall on the either the far left or right, are the ones to worried about (gun owners or not)

Sorry, kind of off topic again.