And any year where even a thousand people die worldwide in commercial airline crashes is considered a horrible year for air safety...but how many people are afraid to fly, even refuse to fly? Facts often don't enter into the equation.

And BTW, aren't you making a reasonable case that self-defense isn't a valid reason to own a gun?

Not to get off subject and me and madman disagree on the matter of torture, but if you remember that thread, I am against it also as I don't think its effective in obtaining reliable information but that's another topic As far as why militias are mentioned, I believe that term is there to imply any assembled group, be it a government (state) sponsored group or civilian group.

They never mentioned any particular militia. If you want to get picky, they never even defined the word militia.

The definition of the word "militia" can also be defined to include the entire populace of able bodied citizens capable of being called up to military service. Those people have the "right" to keep and bear their own arms. It doesn't say the state or any particular militia will hold onto those arms in storage until being called into service.

Do you have as much of a problem with "privacy" being found in the constitution somewhere as you do with the right of the people to "keep and bear" their own arms?

I need to correct you in that statement.

I never said I supported torture. The discussion was whether waterboarding was torture or not.

You are right, my apologies.

If anyone is interested.... Here is today's transcript of the oral arguments in the case....

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Lawyer Alan Gura on the Heller side of the argument supposedly representing the individual right to own guns did a fairly poor job. It was his first time arguing a case before the Supreme Court. A more experienced lawyer should have been chosen.

In spite of Gura's poor showing, I don't think the case will go badly for gun rights. But then again, you never know with the judiciary these days.

I don't "have a problem" with anything in the Constitution. I merely disagree with some of my fellow citizens on the actual meaning of a certain passage.

The passage says "a well-regulated militia", and "the entire populace of able bodied citizens capable of being called up to military service" is hardly a reasonable definition of "well-regulated".

Look, they could hardly have made the meaning more difficult to interpret had they tried. Unless we figure out a way to exhume the Founding Fathers and ask for clarification, we'll never know what they actually meant.

You may be right. But then I may be right too.

Why do you keep insisting that we will never know the intent of the founders on this issue or any other issue for that matter? I have already stated that many of their opinions on many issues are known in their other writings from the time.

You also are assuming that a "well regulated" militia implies a government militia. It does not.

I'll quote something Justice Scalia said in today's argument....

True, but if you look at quotes taken from those very founding fathers throughout history, you will see that they all were all very much for the peoples rights not only with respect to arms, but all other things expressed in the Constitution. Based on their individual stances, I can't see how the SA can be interpreted any other way personally.

Good thing I have my First Amendment right to express a contrary opinion then.

I'll be the first to admit though that a Supreme Court justice surely has a better perspective on it than I do.

What I find funny is how so many people can take a person's opinion and take it personally. Especially when it cvomes to gun ownership.

I personally don't see the need to carry a firearm every time I leave the house, but I can see why some people do.

That being said, I don't think people need to carry something like an Uzi or Ak-47 or anything more potent than a handgun when they do carry, but other people do.

Some people want to own a gun, fine with me. Some people want to own lots of guns, again, fine with me.
Hell, I'd like to have a gun or two myself. However, there is a responsibilty to gun ownership and gun use, and I feel that people who fail to meet that responsibilty should be punished for it. Severly punished for it.

The first instruction I ever got before I handled a firearm for the first time was not to point the weapon at anything unless I was willing to destroy it forever.

A firearm is a tool, and like any tool it has it's purpose, but can also be misused and cause destruction and damage. That misuse is always the fault of the operator of the tool, not the tool itself.

My opinion, having lost a family member (My great Uncle - a Prison Warden) who was shot during a Prison break attempt by a convicted murderer (who shot his original Victim), is that any person who commits a crime with a firearm should never be allowed to posess one again. Anyone who uses a firearm to kill another person while committing a crime should be put to death, immediately.

That would be the best Gun control.

That's just my opinion.

Wow...now how many people used heart disease to kill someone else?

I can see it now...

Cop: "We have the perp arrested and down at the station."

Reporter: "What was the weapon?"

Cop: "Heart disease!!"

Bogus argument, dude. Pretty much those that you noted as preventable - people do to THEMSELVES.

Interesting post Rockaholic. I agree with much of what you said.

It should be noted that Uzi's and AK-47's are not available to the general public. There is a ban on full auto. It is extremely difficult to legally own a fully automatic weapon. A difficulty most people cannot overcome, so full auto weapons really aren't or shouldn't be part of gun debates.

That is a restriction I agree with by the way.

I also agree with your sentiment regarding the death penalty for felony murder.

Thanks for the PDF NYMM.

Man that was a great read. Very interesting how they are trying to use some precedent and the "Framers'" arguments at the time of the 2nd amendment was created. That Dellinger dude sucks and it was funny to see Kennedy and Scalia cut him off and not let him run on with the Liberal Diatribes.

Really I need to quote the whole exchange, but here's the rationale to ban the handgun, because it can be "easily stolen". BTW - It only takes him 3 seconds to remove the trigger lock and load one. But he conceded it was in daylight. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

Not looking good for D.C.'s ban, but looking awesome for the Law-abiding Residents to finally protect themselves and I predict sudden decreases in crime and a lot of dead criminals. Hopefully the wounded ones won't have a leg to stand on in court. (Pun intended )

[/b]

I'm not "assuming" anything. The document itself says it, go back and read my previous post.

Here, Madman:

===
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(skip to)

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
===

It says "the" militia, i.e. only one for each state, not "a" militia as if there could be many and any Joe Minuteman could organize one. It just seems clear that they believed the states should be prepared in case the new federal government ran amok and tried to rule the way the British monarchy had.

The reason I say we don't know what they meant is because we don't know if they wrote it that way because the document only addresses the powers of government, which wouldn't cover a private militia, or because they only intended for the state militia to exist.

Frankly, I think you have a tough time viewing things objectively.

I could go on and on posting articles about crime rates (including crimes committed with guns) increasing after the ban of guns. This has happened in every place that has banned guns; DC, Chicago, Great Brittain, and Australia. If you ban guns from the regular citizens, it doesn't stop criminals from using them.

In every dictatorship the first thing a tyrant does is take guns away from the citizens. That is why the founding fathers viewed gun ownership as a right, not a priviledge. In a large part gun ownership is protection (or insurance) against tyranny.

I have been shooting gunpowder firearms since I was 8 and have never shot anyone or damaged any property. Responsible gun owners do not commit crimes with guns. Few citizens commit crimes with guns (12,000 gun homicides from 360,000,000 people, or .00003 percent of the population), and few of these crimes are committed by gun owners. Taking guns away from citizens infringes on a constitutional right and enables criminals to rule with impunity.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/guns_england/2007/08/26/27556.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296724,00.html

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/11/gun-bans-lead-to-increase-in-violent.php

Thanks for info and links. Certainly more study is needed to understand fully the link between a gun ban and an increase in crime. There could be other factors causing the increased crime rate. Sometimes these situations aren't as black and white as you suggest (, although sometimes they are!).

As for your statistics, does the 12,000 figure include suicides and accidental shootings? I would assume the number of individuals injured, often severely, by shootings is several fold higher in number (25,000? 50,000??). I would rather look at the annual victim rate (injury/death, criminal usage or otherwise) of gun usage in America to be on the same order as the number of American soldiers that were killed in Vietnam during the 10 year war.

So as you can see, one can interpret statistics in various ways to defend one's position. We can probably agree that America's overall population isn't being decimated by gun usage and that the media over-dramatizes the random gun-related carnage that happens, tragically, once in a while. But I personally believe that with the number of folks killed and injured by gun violence each year, compounded by those relatives who have lost a loved one or who have to care for one maimed by gunfire, the situation in America is very troubling and should not be taken lightly. And honestly, I don't consider taking away one's constitutionally defended civil liberties lightly.

_Lazza

2005, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95, *U01.4

Number of
Deaths, Population rate, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
12,352 - 296,507,061 - 4.17 - 4.15

So 4 in 100,000 die from a firearm. Hmm really doesn't hold water to take them from everyone to save the 4/100K that we don't know the circumstances of the death or why it was by said Firearm. :rolleyes:

Nice Tool for calculating death rates and cause.

Here's a better one.

2005, United States
Poisoning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X40-X49,X60-X69,X85-X90,Y10-Y19,
Y35.2, *U01(.6,.7)




Number of
Deaths, Population, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
32,691 - 296,507,061 - 11.03 - 10.93

So ban all poisons as they kill Aprox. 11 People per 100,000. Almost triple the Firearm death rate above. :rolleyes:

This one has to take the cake.

Let's ban "Unspecified Deaths". We'd save about 3 lives out of a 100K.

2005, United States
Unspecified Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X59,X84,Y09,Y34,Y89.9,Y35.7,Y36.9,
*U01.9,*U03.9


Number of
Deaths, Population, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
8,895 - 296,507,061 - 3.00 - 2.89

Damn those unspecified death thingies

Yeah, I couldn't believe it when I saw it and especially since it is about 1 per 100K less than the "Firearms" one above.

I guess it would be hard for the MSM to portray a grieving family member on the networks who just lost a relative to an "Unspecified" Cause. It's easier to attack something you can show images of to link the "Cause" (Firearm, but we all know it was the Criminal) and "Effect" (The cold body on the floor with blood all over and a bullet hole in it.). That's much more sensational!

Again...bogus comparison.

While I would venture that some of the poison deaths were intentional murders, I'd bet the farm that the *intentional* ones with poison come nowhere close to those of guns.

As usual you missed the point. This is the CDC's stats not mine. I didn't narrow the search I used all cases:
- All Intents The one I used
- Unintentional
- Violence-related
- Homicide and Legal intervention
- Homicide
- Legal Intervention
- Suicide
- Undetermined intent

Certainly if I poisoned you I did it intentionally even if you didn't die. That obviously would not be in these stats. Also not included would be wounding that is not mortal/fatal.

This is Death By () and the CDC's own stats show the minimal likelihood of dying by a "Firearm" with all intents included Vs. other methods of Death with all intents included.

I'll take that farm now.