In wake of recent tragedies gun rights has become an increasingly popular subject in political debates. A question often raised is why gun restrictions aren't necessary or why a certain number of bullets are needed. I will start this new thread of debate argument and discussion by saying that I have little care for statistics of crime rates and suppositions(the fault of which I hope to cover a bit). This is to be a discussion about laws and rights I need not stress the absolute importance of these things its not an argument of emotions or feelings. So first I want to open up the debate of restrictions in general, the amount of weaponry or firepower necessary or what is considered "satisfactory" to those who own weapons, yes this may be a forum regarding gun control, but guns are weapons and the constitutions speaks of "arms" not specifically guns, thus all weapons should really be considered in this. So this brings the question, how many weapons or how much firepower is "satisfactory"? I would like anyone to answer this as they please, questions are open. My personal answer is-A sufficient number of bullets and fire power (or arms) to defend myself or my family from any threat whether it be the home invader the invader from over seas or from my own government. It may seem impractical but the principle is what matters. At Lexington and Concord men died not just for the ability for them to defend their rights but for their children to have the ability to defend themselves from any threat. Yes this extended all the way to artillery pieces and bombs (their were large powder stores). Mass killing were completely possible, remember that guy who tried to blow up The House of Lords? We may think the writers of the constitution were so ignorant of such things as we face today, with mass killings and such occurring often, and we may want or wish to blame such things on our own technology and consider people from that time ignorant. That is far from the truth. The ability was still there. Principles remain true throughout the ages and God given rights surely don't die or change. This also brings me to the next topic I wanted to discuss, ability to commit crimes. Taking away ability is not justified. To attack someone or someones rights simply on the supposition that they could commit a crime is not correct or moral. Simply the ability does not warrant action against a person. Beliefs in someones commitment to wrong is not sufficient to restrict their rights. Innocent until proven guilty NOT guilty until proven innocent. There will always be ways for people to do wrong. No government or restriction of rights can stop this. Only the defence of others rights (and just as importantly the ability to do so) can keep a people safe. Well that is it from me for now. Just some thoughts I thought I could add to this site.
Mrlittlelawyer, You are correct. Somewhere in the federalist papers it even states that if someone showed up for militia duty without proper arms (and other equipment) they could be given such , but would be CHARGED for it. Your reasoning is sound in my opinion because we don't ban Corvettes or Ferraris because the "can" exceed the speed limit, or because they "might" be used recklessly. Having armed guards at school would be little different than setting up a speed trap... everyone in town knows it's there and you make darn sure your are obeying the law when you go near it. What I deem necessary to defend myself, my family, or my country is my own buisiness. It is almost unimaginable that in the United States of America - New York specifically, you are limited to a 16 oz. soda and a 7 round magazine limit - a large part of this country is insane. Don't worry - billionaires in power know what's best for the peasants.
I completely agree with your response and thanks for the support on the subject. I also agree on how unimaginable it is that there are even limits on soda. Its an extreme that is laughable.
I like to look at the Milita Act of 1792 for inspiration, along with the common application of the law back at the time the Constitution was written. The Milita Act said that muskets, rifles and handguns---the best technology of the time---was needed. Destructive devices, like cannons, were an obvious and needed part of warfare. The Act did not require ordinary citizens to have them because they were, "cumbersom, expensive and rare." They did not say they couldn't have them because they were too dangerous or because of their abilities to kill mass numbers of people. Is anyone here so ignorant, so dense that they would believe any of the principal Founding Fathers would NOT have wanted citizens or themselves to have a gun that fired more than 10 rounds? As far as what amount of firepower is needed, that all....depends. For me, on rare cases when traveling, this will go in a pocket: In my trunk, I have this in a bag, without the round chambered: These are for worst case---may as well just copy what the cops have. These stay in the safe most of time.
Why don't American extremist grow up and realise that they live in the Twenty-First Century, not some imagined Eighteenth Century where they can rush around with their babg-bangs squeaking while the French fight a British Army with very limited backing at home? Shooting children is not freedom.
Good morning, I agree shooting children is not freedom. Why would you even suggest this unless you are filled with hate? Please check your blood pressure, change your diet and get more exercise. Hiking is good for mental hygiene also.
Please keep your self civil sir. First off I am no so called "extremist" I simply believe in second amendment rights and that at its fullest. I don't care about your excuse of this being the 21st century. It doesn't matter at all. As I already mentioned even then it was possible to do the same thing as killing children. Just as killing everyone in the house of lords with a bomb. Or attempted assassinations with bombs. The frames of the constitution knew well the risks of having armed citizens. 0 To repeat myself, I could care less about this being the 21st century. The principle and the right is still there and was signed on the constitution as a promise to us (in the US of course) when the constitution was created. Men died for that, many more than in a schools shooting which resulted from the evil and insanity of one man (even more proving how much more horrible we become in our arrogance of the times). Lastly I do not support shooting children. There is no way you could make a logical connection between me wanting law abiding citizens to own guns as is their right and an unlawful evil person entering a school and killing kids. One is law abiding and does not commit such evil acts holding a weapon in their constitutional right, the other is a horrible person not obeying the law and killing people.
Those rifles are pretty amazing, and you make a good point regarding the larger weaponry of war. As for me and the arms I use I only have a 410 shotgun/.22 rifle I bought for when I go hunting with my dad, who has a few revolvers and four shoguns shotguns (two of which aren't really used anymore, just family heirlooms.) Since I am not yet old enough (nor having a enough money) to get a pistol for self defence I normally carry a knife wherever I go. Its good to know other citizens are ready with self defence and home defence. I sure wouldn't want to be a guy trying to take mug you or try and take stuff from your house.
The principle is indeed what matters, but to understand it we need to examine the amendment itself: "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" The purpose of the amendment is to maintain "a well regulated militia", with the freedom to "bear arms" being the means. The amendment says absolutely nothing about preventing Congress from making laws that regulate the number & type of arms, but "shall not be infringed" also appears to be pretty absolute. I think the more important part is the latter part of your argument: Indeed, one could argue that regulation represents an attempt to do an end run around due process rights. So while I'm not fully persuaded that Congress has no power whatsoever to regulate arms, I have not heard any arguments that persuade me most attempts to exercise such a power would pass constitutional muster.
Tell me. Before the first high capacity clip was introduced, were your rights denied because you did not have access? Before the first "military style semi-automatic" weapon was available for public sale were your rights trampled because you could not own one? The courts have consistently found that reasonable regulation of the types and numbers of weapons a person can own is constitutional. If you cannot own a magazine capable of firing 100 rounds without reloading you can still own one capable of firing 10. If you cannot own a firearm designed to kill 20 people in 30 seconds you can still own one that can kill 5 in the same time. So it takes a little longer to complete your mass murder. What else have you to do on that day?
Arguing the absurd is not impressive. The courts don't always get it right the first or several times around. And this is what offends me - the assumption that someone who would own such a weapon is automatically the type who would commit a mass murder, so we preempt their due process rights. Just to be clear, I'm not a gun enthusiast. I "have no dog in this hunt", no emotional attachment to owning a gun.
Interesting response, the problem is that no my rights were not trampled on by not being able to own a high capacity clip, if I were able to think it up in my mind invent it and then make it I probably could, hence why they were invented in the first place. I still had the option, it was just much harder then going and buying one. So no my rights were not trampled on. Also, the number of rounds in one magazine does not truly matter in my opinion, I have seen people reload revolvers faster than others take out an empty magazine and place in another fully loaded one. Also, taking this into the fact the most recent shooting to spark many of the recent gun debates I do not think the magazine or really any type weaponry used would have mattered very much. Then there are also the possibility of having more than one weapon and so on.
I can understand you position but while discussing the second amendment I would like to note that even so there is part which speaks of the citizens being able to keep and bear arms, thus weapons cannot be confiscated nor can they be restricted from being owned.Still I see you point regarding the militia which is interesting and I will think about this.
Emphasis added. The 'part' is not the whole. People like to focus on the 'part' that they like and ignore the rest. My point is that the amendment doesn't actually say that. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And while I said that appears to be "pretty absolute", rights never are 100% absolute. The rights of each person are balanced against those of every other person. It may be necessary to restrict some right to protect another, but the rationale for doing so has to be very solid and not a fallacious slippery slope applied broadly. Which is why due process matters - it mustn't be done arbitrarily. As I said, I remain unconvinced that most attempts to regulate in this area actually pass constitutional muster.
Those that buy their guns legally and handle and store them in a safe way are not out there shooting children. No ban would have stopped what happened in that school in CT or in CO (there was a ban when that was done. Bans only give people a false sense of security and make some politicians look good in the eyes of their supporters, if iI thought the current bill to ban semi auto rifles and high capacity clips would make a real difference I would support it, but history and the facts prove it will do NOTHING to change the crime rate in the USA.
Well, a person who buys guns legally, handles and stores them in a safe way could still end up "out there shooting children", but I get the gist of what you mean. It's a matter of personal responsibility, and nanny state laws are no substitute for that. Edit: A law that penalizes the whole, rather than making actual criminals personally responsible for their crimes, is not a good solution.
Obviously a ban on guns would have saved those children, especially if the advocates of guns were safely locked up. Guns are for people in cowboy films, not in a world where people live. No civilized countries give nutters guns - that is why you have four times our murder rate. Be ashamed!
If owning a gun with a magizine capable of firing 100 rounds without reloading is not for killing lots of people very quickly then, what is it for? Deer hunting? I'm reasonably certain the owner of the guns used in Newtown felt the same as you. then her guns were used for just that purpose after they were used to kill her.
I hate it when a**holes call me a murderer just because I am one of the 100 million law abiding gun owners in the U.S.
That's an extreme viewpoint, and not one connected to reality. A ban on guns doesn't necessarily prevent criminals from obtaining them; it merely makes it harder/more costly. Locking up people for exercising their right to freedom of speech is not how things are supposed to operate in the USA. We fought a revolutionary war to be free from that kind of oppression. Well, if the most extreme liberals had their way, they wouldn't be shown in films, either. (ET, anyone?) You're welcome to your opinion, but that's really all it is. Perhaps we should be ashamed of a culture that promotes murder, but you've got the cause misplaced. Thinking of yourself as superior doesn't make you superior.
So creation of a technology creates the right to own that technology? Sorry. Haven't seen that one in the law books. Perhaps you''d care to show me? Also, the number of rounds matters very much. No matter how fast one is at reloading the simple fact is that using a single shot weapon is slower than one that carries 6 rounds which is slower than one carrying 10 rounds which is slower than one carrying more. That is the reason for creating high capacity magazines. To kill faster.
Killing isn't the same thing as murder. (unless you're a pacifist who can't distinguish between intent and results). No. Why would that be the only possible legitimate purpose? I'm reasonably sure that people who resort to ad hominem arguments like the above in an attempt to personalize the debate and troll me personally will find themselves ignored.
You're not a murderer until you or someone else uses one of your guns for the intended purpose. To kill. Then you ARE a murderer. Would you prefer "murderer in waiting?"
Wow. what a frightening thought. If you really want a personal attack. "I'm reasonably certain the owner of the guns used in Newtown felt the same as you. then her guns were used for just that purpose after they were used to kill her." Was the original quote. Using part of a quote without indicating such is dishonest. As in liar.
Wrong. The guns are already out there and there is nothing the government can do about that fact. The shooter did not buy any guns, he was denied if I recall, he stole mothers guns and killed her in the process. So explain how a ban could have changed a thing? This is America, not Merry Old England, we have four times the murder rate because we have more than four times the criminals and yes they are armed, do you think they care about any bans. I am ashamed that more people cannot act live like civilized human beings, but until people do I will hold on to my weapons, excerising my legal rights is not something I or anyone else should be ashamed of. - - - Updated - - - Killing someone that is attacking you is Not Murder, it is Self Defense, is that really too deep to comprehend?
