http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0722998120080311

This should be interesting.

Oldish news. Been waiting patiently for a month or so...

Whats with the need to carry a fire arm?

This place attracts anti-gun Canadians like a cheap hockey game.

Church shootings-that's why

At least you didn't ask what's with the need to own them.

As for why I carry everywhere...VA Tech, Mall shooting, New Life Church, Columbine, etc...I would rather be prepared and have the chance to save my life than be helpless. Thanks for playing.

Rinky, something about how they got their independence...

Oh for pete's sake, you have better odds of winning the lottery than being in a situation where having a firearm could save someone's life.
I'm not against legal gun ownership, but I think most of the rabid pro-gun folks are a bit out there.

Well I guess I should've bought a lottery ticket a couple of months ago then.

Hey Brent, thanks for providing absolutely NOTHING worthwhile to the discussion. I choose to provide myself with the protection I MIGHT need...right that's way out there. Do you wear your seatbelt? Do you have home owner's insurance? Wow...you're a bit out there.

But, you will never EVER understand why I carry because you have your mind made up.

Unless you're in New Hampshire, it's the law.

Are you saying the odds of the two are the same? Or even remotely close? That's funny.

I don't care if you carry, but I agree with Brent...a LOT of gun owners run up the "just in case" argument. That's about as useful as me saying I always carry a parachute with me just in case the plane I'm in is headed to the ground.

Then don't carry. Pretty simple.

You and Brent won't get it, and I don't care that you won't get it. It doesn't matter to me, you're allowed to have your own opinions but I'm not going to bother explaining anything to you...you, just like Brent, have made up your mind so it'd be a wasted effort.

No, I get it. You want to be prepared. There's nothing wrong with that.

But I think a lot of it borders on paranoia. Just like those who are scared to death we are going to be attacked by terrorists and stock up on supplies.

And I don't. Never will. I will never own a gun. But that doesn't mean I don't think you should be able to.

carrying a gun is like having a spare tire around. You may never need it but when you do you really need it.

And you wouldn't lean toward something limiting his access or free use and carry of one either. :rolleyes:

I do not think that me wanting that security is anything paranoid. I am not implying that you are calling me paranoid, but I am just establishing a truth.

The truth is, I do not own a gun, but I have always wanted one "just in case"

Now, to the future poster who wants to quote me on that, I already put the quotes in there.

Have YOU ever been in a situation where you wish you had a gun?

Maybe you have not had a close call, or maybe you have and still feel the same.

http://www.roninwheelers.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1616&highlight=thankful

We all have our ideas of what is overboard. I for one think it is a wise decision, and I apply this same thinking to other aspects of life.

Tyler made some comparisons.

When you drive around do you carry stuff with you?

I have a sleeping bag, 2 blankets, 20 granola bars, drinking water, beef jerky, trail mix, a mess kit, 2 lanterns, 4 9v batteries, a hobo tool, a camp axe, an all purpose tarp, 2 ponchos, a dual burner propane stove,2 propane tanks,a fire extinguisher, some synthetic oil, antifreeze, windshield fluid, jumper cables a battery charger, 4 light sticks, a 201 pc. Fist aid kit, a snake bite kit, 3 cold compresses, and about 200 spare fuses of all sizes. (All of this fits in my lobo rack)

I am sure that everyone keeps some of the above items around. One may think that is obsessive but that is up to them.

The way we feel about guns can be directly related as to how we feel about other things.

Either way, all things CAN be compared in this instance. Whether it is a tool kit in your X or a gun on your person, it CAN be compared.

Which would happen more often? You will probably use the tool kit more often. It is all up to a level of preparedness and to each his own.

This is to say that this should never turn into a debate on whether or not I am ok with your level of preparedness. I am not going to try to get you to take the oil out of your trunk because you probably will not need it, and you shouldn't try to convince me that I do not need a gun. The "might" factor is what applies, and each person has a different depth of how much "might" preparation they need to take.

Whether you think Tyler, or I am excessive or not is not the point and it is not the topic and shouldn't even be discussed.

I find it kind of strange that this topic seems to start a shit-storm every time it's brought up, yet it hasn't even been mentioned on the election trail in the States.....did someone say cheap hockey game? Where? When?... :p

Hmmm, I've been in two situations Brent. Break-in at my then girlfriends apartment in the Hill district and attempted car jacking on 2nd avenue in Hazelwood. Gun saved us both times and I fortunately I didn't have to fire a shot. I will never not carry.

I've never won the lottery though....

Edited to add: I filed police reports in both cases and Pittsburgh Police though "concerned" stated that there wasn't much they could do even with what I thought were decent descriptions of the assailants. Nothing ever came of it, the police were useless at the time of the incidents and unfortunately useless after the fact also. Not panning the Police, just saying they couldn't help us.

Moby, I'm paranoid. I own a fire extinghishers, and have fire alarms in my home. I have car, motorcyclee, health, and life insurance. I also keep a first aid kit in the house and in my vehicles. I have my police, fire department, and ambulance service posted on the fridge and in my cell phone memory.

Yep, I'm just paranoid man. What happens to me or my family if the insurance companies find that I didn't have any fire alarms in my home? What happens if I'm in an accident and I don't have insurance? What does my family do if I am killed and I don't have life insurance? I spend literally thousands on "forced" what-ifs and incase-shit-happens, yet I'm paranoid for spending a couple hundred bucks a year owning and carrying a firearm? Come on, that's BS man.

The second amendment exists so that we can shoot them when they come to take our guns.

Again, I have no problem with gun ownership, I just find a lot of pro-gun folks are a little too serious about it.

Nope, I wouldn't. Like I've said many times - I'm pretty much completely neutral on the gun subject. I am fine with people being allowed to have guns - but I also wouldn't care if limits were imposed.

I mentioned these things in a previous post. The chances of those other things happening...are MUCH more likely than what was used as a reason to carry - the shootings at schools, etc. I'm not talking about instances like those that you have dealt with.

So that's not paranoia...it's economic.

You might be breaking the law - are there any states that allow a license without proof of insurance (or at least proof of the financial wherewithall to cover an accident)?

Sounds economic again.

If you are only carrying for the reasons mentioned - shootings by some nutcase at a school or something, yes...paranoia.

Well, now I know you aren't insinuating it's only for that reason (government). And like I said...I have no problem with you carrying. Have at it. It's not going to make me think any less of you. But if you simply carry it because you think there's a chance you might be at the mall when a nutcase comes through...then it's paranoia. If you are carrying only because you think there's a "chance" someone may come into your classroom with a gun to shoot people...then it's paranoia.

The argument that someone gets a CCW permit and carries a firearm because they are paranoid is completely ridiculous. The reason that people do is because they can. It's a matter of choice. It has nothing to do with paranoia.

I've also seen some people here claim that the odds of being involved in a violent crime are similar to that of hitting the lottery. That is a ridiculous statement born of sheer ignorance.

In the United States your chances of being involved in a violent crime are surprising. It's about one in twenty. Depending on where you live, the odds could be lower or maybe higher. The chances that an average person will be involved in a violent crime are about the same as being hurt in a car accident.

There is also statistical data that reveals localities that opened up and allowed concealed carry had a reduction in gun crime and violent crime in general.

Here in NYC there is a defacto ban on concealed carry. A citizen can get a permit, but it is extremely difficult and virtually impossible for the average citizen. For the most part the people who carry are law enforcement and all with peace officer status; retired law enforcement and retired peace officers; and criminals. The criminals and those who illegally carry far exceed the numbers of those who legally carry.

Moby, The point I'm personally trying to get across is that I carry a firearm for the same exact reason I own insurances and fire prevention equipment etc. Just in case. If my home catches fire, is there any guarantee that a fire extinguisher is even going to help? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd like to have it on hand regardless. I feel the same way about firearms. I lump them right in with flashlights, spare tires, a good wrench, etc. It's just another tool in the bag to me. Most gun owners feel the same way. You see where I'm going with it?

Now what sucks, and I have to use the car insurance as an analogy, like you said, I am forced by law to have that precaution whether I want it or not, but I have to constantly kick and scream on the political front to own a firearm which is just another precaution to me. I'd rate the option to have the ability to protect myself above car insurance any day.

What ever the reason a person has for carrying a firearm, you can label it paranoia or preparedness, either way the end result is usually the same.

Guns can also be a hobby Brent. You know how like cars are your hobby. You know every nut, bolt, and part of the Xterra. You're interested in it just like many people are interested in guns.

Guns are also a constitutional right. You are interested in constitutional rights... at least I would hope so.

The knowledge you have because of your interest in cars has helped other people. The odds are very good that sometime in your life, someone with a gun is going to help you or one of your family members.

Don't knock what you don't know... or intentionally chose not to care about.

What really sucks is that we currently have a ban on guns in this country. No felon can own a firearm of any type.

That ban is working out real well, so lets extend it to the law abiding...

That is about one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Really, it is.

Stay out of malls and classrooms.

And Wendy's. Stick with the drive-thru.

I feel strongly about gun ownership and rights. I own guns for several reasons. I sport shoot; targets, clays etc. I hunt. I have guns for home protection and for self defense. I also CCW, in fact I have a handgun in my waist as I type this.

There are two people who know I carry; a friend who also has his CCW that I shoot with, and the Sheriff who issued it. Not even my wife knows.

Imagine it's the middle of the night, and you hear an intruder breaking into your house...or worse, already in your house. What are you going to do...call 911? What about the time it takes for the police to get there? It's the job of the police to get there, not to be there. It's my job...my responsibility as a husband and soon to be father, to protect my family. Doing so does not mean I'm going to load up and go hunt down the bad guy in my house. I'm going to use my bedside handgun to get to my shotgun, where my family and I will hide out in a room while we wait for the police. Protected. Do not take false comfort in your home security alarm, motion lights and deadbolts etc. They are all good, but are just layers of home security.

I think every responsible law abiding household should have a gun in the home. As far as CCW, it's not for everyone, I understand that. I've decided that it is for me. I've seen all the shootings and terrible things that happen EVERYWHERE at ANY TIME, and decided that I have no interest in being a victim. I can not imagine the feeling of stopping at a Wendy's with my wife for a milkshake only to find ourselves facing the horror of a gunman, and our only chance being that he runs out of ammo.

Of course I'm going to bring this up...what if there was a CCW student at VT, who might have been able to end Cho? Or in the Wendy's? Or any other place where a gunmen has taken out people like fish in a barrel? It's a sad state of affairs that our times have come to people doing just that...walking into a room/school/restaurant etc and just picking people off at will.

If you choose to not carry, that's your choice. I respect that. But you should not speak or think negatively about those who do. I might be the guy at the table next to you, when a hell-bent psycho storms in and opens fire. There's a good chance, that I might be able to save your life. Now, don't get the wrong idea here, I'm not saying I may be your hero pistol packing saving knight. I used the words "chance" and "might", because that's what my CCW gives me; a chance. I'm not a cop. I'm not a bodyguard. I'm just a guy who made the choice to carry a hanggun to protect my family and myself, as a last choice .

It's a big change in lifestyle, to carry a gun. Where I used to put my moneyclip in one pocket and my chapstick and pocketknife in the other...I now stick a holster and gun into my waist. That's a big change. I'd rather not carry it, trust me. But unfortunately, the world we live in does not share the same views as I. I'll tell you another thing about CCW, is that it makes me MUCH more likely to avoid ANY kind of confrontation. I'm not saying that I was a hothead quick to fight etc. before...it's just that carrying a firearm brings a WHOLE new level of responsibility and accountibility.

What I'm saying is, just because YOU might not agree with CCW and gun ownership, does not mean that it's wrong, or that you should look down on those who do. The same as I don't look down on those who do not (CCW that is, I still think a home gun is important).

I know it's quite cliche, but true...
"I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it".

Well put

I'm sure a lot of you have read this book, but it describes what a gun owner should do and be ready to do in various situations. In The Gravest Extreme (1980) - Massad F. Ayoob. This book has great ideas on how to avoid or neutralize a situation before it can escalate to deadly force. It also preaches that, just like the title, firearms should be used in only the gravest extreme.

I live in Naperville, Il, one of, if not the safest city it's size in the nation and yet there is an increase of break-in's and robberies at gunpoint in the area, especially the areas near the tollways as the criminals can be headed back into Chicago before the police even arrive on the scene. They also arrested some teens in my parent’s town who have been doing armed robberies by the new family friendly shopping areas. These 17-19yr olds had semi-auto handguns. You must be 21 to purchase handguns in IL so we know they did not have them legally. IL is also one of two states that ban concealed weapons outright.

I don't think the gun control debate should be so black and white. Both sides should make some concessions to find a common ground. The public should be able to defend itself, but responsibly. I think all gun owners should have to take a safety class before they can take the gun home, not matter if it's a long arm or handgun, or at least a course when they obtain or renew their firearms owner’s card. And anyone who wants to get a CCW permit should take another highly intensive training course like MI has.

Since the subject of tomorrow's oral arguments in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller has been brought up, and since it could turn out to be a landmark case that could affect gun rights all across the country, there are some interesting facts involved with this case.

-- The Justice Department has taken the side of the District of Columbia's ban.... well, sort of. They are using an unusual and thin argument, but it is interesting to note anyway. They have claimed that the circuit court in it's decision used too strict a constitutional standard and should be told by SCOTUS to reconsider its decision.

The Bush administration has always claimed they support the individual rights in the second amendment, but they are using a sneaky method and argument here in order to allow DC to uphold it's ban. Their thin argument is that if the circuit court's ruling is allowed to stand, other federal gun laws may also be seen as unconstitutional such as the ban on "machine guns". They want the case kicked back to the circuit court for another ruling.

Personally I don't agree with that logic and I think the Justice Department favors the ban but they just don't want to say it outright.

-- It's very interesting that Dick Cheney chose to publicly part company and disagree with the administration. That is unusual for a sitting Vice President.

He signed an amicus brief in support of the circuit court's decision last year. The brief was signed by Cheney and a majority of Congress..... 55 senators — (46 Republicans, 9 Democrats) and 250 representatives — (182 Republicans, 68 Democrats).

It's also interesting to note that Democrat Senators Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein didn't sign the brief. Each of them have CCW permits (In a city where it is next to impossible for private citizens to get a permit, Charles Schumer has a carry permit).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/heller-congress-brief-2-8-08.pdf

Actually, I'd stay away from the drive-thru too. This happened a few weeks ago in a bad section of town:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_549987.html

x2

I was ready to make a big long post, but you hit just about every issue.

I understand what you're saying.

I suppose I should have been more specific in why I agreed with Brent...

All those people that went out and bought guns after 9/11 (and to think there weren't a lot would be ignorant)...THAT is paranoia.

If the first reason someone gives for carrying is "9/11, Columbine, Wendy's, etc." and not "to protect myself, my family and my property"...THAT to me is paranoia.

(I'm not getting into the hobbyist at all - I think that's a different reason all together.)

When did CCW come into this? It was never mentioned in regards to paranoia. This is about a gun ban, not a CCW law.

I made no mention of CCW when I said paranoia.

I wasn't specifically addressing anything that you said in particular. But, since you're asking, I'll answer your question.

The topic went into carrying on the first page. You addressed the topic of carrying a firearm. When discussing the topic of legally carrying a firearm you are basically talking about CCW since there are only a couple of places where you can carry without a permit.

[/QUOTE]All those people that went out and bought guns after 9/11 (and to think there weren't a lot would be ignorant)...THAT is paranoia.

If the first reason someone gives for carrying is "9/11, Columbine, Wendy's, etc." and not "to protect myself, my family and my property"...THAT to me is paranoia.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Is that really such a bad thing? Maybe examples such as you have given were events that opened someones eyes to the fact that violence happens any place at any time? If you lived near the Wendy's, for example, and that even made you want to go out and purchase a gun, does that make you paranoid?

Or is it a healthy fear?

I wear my seatbelt every time I get into my truck. Does that mean I fear getting into an accident? No, that means that I realize that it is a possibility.

I wear my sidearm every time I leave the house. Does that mean I fear being attacked? No, that means that I realize that it may happen. What I fear more than being attacked, is being attacked and unarmed.

I personally don't think it is. Not for that specific example. Much like around here in DC around the sniper time.



Apples and oranges. Unless you are in New Hampshire, wearing your seatbelt is the law.

And that's fine. But if you grab the sidearm with the primary reason being, "I may be in a mall when a nutcase comes in"...THAT is paranoia. Just like it'd be paranoia to say, "I'm never going to play golf, because I could be struck by a lightning bolt."

Serious as opposed to the lazie-fare gun owners that leave them lying around for accidents to happen? I'd prefer a serious gun owner to a casual one any day. What's your point here Brent?

Moby: I have a question for you, and I'm not leading you because I'm sure you know what I'd follow with, I'm just asking...

If you were ever in a situation where a gun was pulled on you, do you think that would make you want to carry/be prepared in the even that it would happen again?

Hmmm... gun control is one of those contentious issues, like the legalization of abortion, where any sort of middle ground is achieved with great disgust from one or both sides. Up front let me say I don't have a gun, and I've never even fired one. But I've long since been resigned to the fact that guns are a part of American society. I cannot see it changing in my lifetime.

But to all, I just wonder if this 'right to bear arms' privilege we have in America has been worth the cost? Think of all the thousands of individuals who have been shot by accident. Many more are shot in a momentary fit of rage. And many, many more folks are shot due to criminal activity. Now let's counter this with the folks who have used a firearm in self defense, the primary purpose of bearing arms. From this big picture has the right to bear arms been good for America? Of course for those relatively few who've used a firearm in self defense the answer is a resounding yes. But I suggest for most others the answer is a resounding no.

So should America deny good folks the right to defend themselves with firearms in order to, hopefully, drive down the unfortunate usage of firearms? Alas, all this is just an academic thought. I cannot see America reforming its gun laws to any significant extent. So I suppose both sides of the argument will continue to shout at one another, never giving an inch.

_Lazza

PS - I also suspect very few anti-gun folks are really against responsible sportsmen from owning firearms associated with their sport. Clearly this represents a mere fraction of the firearms in America today.

I wonder . . .

At the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, weren't most firearms the typical muzzle-loaded musket?

The cartridge didn't exist then, did it? What about the multi-shot revolver? Certainly not the Gatling gun . . . did they have multi-round shotguns?

If Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin were around today, to watch a fully automatic AR-15 hose a Mazda 323 into itty bitty bits of confetti, would they still argue for guns in every home?

Or would they shit their pants?

Just wondering.

We are the first country that has a true "gun culture" because we are relatively young. Compare our overall Mace, Battle Axe, Broadsword, and Knife statistics with other countries and see where we stand.

Seriously, if you are a criminal or want to hurt someone, you're going to do it regardless of the implement used. People say "what about Columbine or VA Tech, they couldn't have done the damage they did without guns" to which I say, they could have easily created pipe bombs, poisoned, or set fire to the buildings etc.

The gun has been vilified simply because people in this country have not been given any other "killing instrument" to really compare it to, and other countries came up through the ages killing with knife, axe, and sword long before the gun came on the scene.

Civilians owned and operated cannons and mortars back then. Most black powder rifles and guns were 40 and 50 caliber.

At one time words actually meant something. Now they are bent and twisted to suit whatever irrational fear blows through the skirts of the congressmen.

Fuck the shotgun, then. I want a mortar in the study.

Probably...but that would be a knee jerk reaction. Just like saying we should just go nuke the whole middle east - make it a glass parking lot.

But the "non" knee jerk reaction would be to just make myself more prepared - avoid getting into a situation that might bring it up.

(Yes, I know...it's impossible to guarantee it not happening...but I can minimize my risk without a gun)

Interesting article
Must be why the Sups are going to finally make a decision on it.

I still think we need an unenforceable manditory concealment law. Unenforceable to keep people from random weapon checks by Gov't officials. Strict education doctrine by the age of 18 and or graduation of High School in the proper use of a weapon. Etc.

I like the argument of where the comma's are in the 2nd Amendment. The literal review of the Constitution to fit one's argument. Hence, "The Living Document" Argument. Bunch of BS.

Based on the 2nd Amendment, if you are viewing the wording as a collective right given to a body instead of an individual, then how can we as individuals form a body or collective to protect ourselves from tyranny if we have to have an officiating body (local, state, federal government) allow us to form militias etc in the first place? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So we have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government but only if that tyrannical government allows us to keep and bear arms? WTF?

In any given year between 50,000 up to 100,000 people are killed by accident in hospitals or other medical facilities in the United States. Medical mistakes. Far, far more than are killed by guns. Are you in favor of doctor control? Nurse control? Probably not.

Would I be making a stretch by guessing that a lot of people who are in favor of gun control are also the type of people who would like to see the government take over the healthcare industry in this country? If unionized government workers were in charge of everyone's healthcare, you can be rest assured that the amount of deaths by medical mistakes per year would go up drastically. Those deaths would exceed the number of people who die every year by gunshot.

Far more people die every year due to car accidents. What type of of government intervention would you like to implement to reduce that number?

The right to bear arms is a right directly written into the constitution.

Why are people with histories of mental illness still out there buying guns? The answer is because some people have felt they had a right to privacy. A right that is not written into the constitution.

Quote:

So should America deny good folks the right to defend themselves with firearms in order to, hopefully, drive down the unfortunate usage of firearms? Alas, all this is just an academic thought. I cannot see America reforming its gun laws to any significant extent. So I suppose both sides of the argument will continue to shout at one another, never giving an inch.

The United States is large and vast country. Millions of people live in remote areas that are possibly 20 minutes or more from the nearest available police help.

What type of "reform" are you referring to? Is "reform" by your definition creating more restrictions than currently exist or allowing more honest citizens access to guns?

Define your version of "reform"?

I always got a kick out of that argument. :rolleyes:

How about this: "The First Amendment only applies to the what was available in 1776, such as quill & ink and the printing press. Anything newer than that is up for grabs."

I bet these same folks would up in arms (sorry ) if somebody tried to tell 'em TV, radio or the Internet didn't qualify as 'free speech' or tried to pass 'media control' legislation or ban typewriters with certain 'evil' features.

The guns of our founding fathers were flint-locks. Muzzle loaded, no rifling, flint initiated (thats why there is a delay when firing, the spark from the flint has to travel a small "tube" to ignite the powder) before the cap was founded. Typically .62 to .75 inch bore, thats large caliber. Rounds were true balls, didn't even have Minie Balls yet.

No revolvers, pepper box gun wasn't even made yet. Revolvers were just before US Civil War, if I remember correctly. No gatling guns - those were at the end of the Civil War.

Paper cartridges were used - they contained the powder and ball. You bit the end off, preferably at the ball, poured the powder down, ball next, ram-rod to pack. You then primed the flint tray, and if you didn't spill the powder in the tray, good to fire. I believe you could get 3 -4 shots in a minute, but you could only fire at that rate for 4 minutes until you experienced fouling problems.

These were very deadly weapons, not only because of the weapon, but also the lack of modern medicine. Remember, people around this time were still blood-letting to fix colds and illness.

So would our founding fathers shit their pants today? IMO, probably not. Today's weaponry is amazing, but to people who have never been outside their own county in 1776, flintlocks would have been pretty amazing too. You also have to consider the tactics - lines of men two to four deep who were ordered not to fire until "you could see the whites of the enemy's eyes."

Get hit with a round from those old muskets and you lost the limb, say good-bye if it hit you in the torso; today you can be saved from multiple gunshot wounds, some have even survived with rounds to the head. Hell, my great, great, great uncle took 13 rounds at Vicksburg (Civil War), laid on the field for two days before getting to a doc (they thought he was dead), lost an arm but survived. I think the founding fathers would have shit their pants if they had seen that.

Nice. Have you ever noticed that those who are staunchly for the 1st Amendment are almost always opposed to the 2nd.

Its also funny that the Bill of Rights are accepted as individual rights except the 2nd is somehow relegated to this new class of 'collective' rights.

Does that mean that the 1st only applies to 'official' media like newspapers & reporters?

Does the 3rd only apply if you own your home outright, not the bank or landlord for renters?

When you put things in the proper context this whole concept of collective rights falls right on its face.

Believe it or not, there was oral communication back then.

"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".

This is the Amendment. The way I have always heard this interpreted is the "people", being individuals, had the right to keep and bear arms. It was the "people" after all, that made up the militia of the time.

There is another passage that has always been a curiosity to me related to the 2nd Amendment and what was the Founding Fathers intent. This passage is from the Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security"

How would the "people" do this without the ability of keeping and bearing arms?

For the record, I am a gun owner and advocate. I have shotguns, rifles, an AR 15, and a .22 pistol. All of my brothers and father CCW. I choose not to, because I have two small children, and just as things "could" happen in attack, accidents also happen, even to the best prepared.

I would like to CCW at some point, but its just not time as 4-6 year old kids can hear instructions, but can also be curious. I teach my kids about firearm safety, and the thing they know most right now, is not to touch daddy's guns!

Anyway, as for the SCOTUS, I think they will either kick it back to the lower court or come down somewhere in the middle, that individuals can keep and bear arms, but reasonable regulations will also be somehow defined.

My best friend is quite the firearm enthusiast. It's a hobby for him. I understand that just fine. It's the guys that feel they must own a gun with the expectation that they will have some need to use it against another person at some point that freak me out.

Um...I've never seen an M-4 reduce a Mazda 323 to confetti. That would take a lot of rounds. Hell, I've never seen an M-2 do that, and I've seen one of those shoot a VW Passat that was held together with wire. Even a 60mm mortar wouldn't do it. I love it when people base their experience on Hollywood. Modern weapons aren't the high power things everyone thinks they are. A properly motivated and inventive individual can do more damage with basic tools than a squad of bored paratroopers with their organic weapons. I've seen the results of a 120mm HE mortar landing 5 feet from an aluminum building - a little denting and a starry wall, but the boss still lived in it, after some silicone to keep out the flies.

Oh yeah, as far as not having rifles back then, look up the Battle of Saratoga. Rifles have been around since the mid 15th century.

I prefer not to debate the wisdom of guns vs. no guns, CCW, and so on. I have my own view (reluctantly pro-gun) and others have theirs, and agree or disagree, nobody here is likely to change their mind.

What I'm interested in is the context and true meaning of the words used in the Second Amendment. The challenge is to read it objectively, letting go of your own position in order to determine the truth of what was intended by these words:

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.

I'm no expert on colonial times but my impression is that for the most part, every able-bodied male would have been expected to maintain a weapon and serve when called. That was the only way then to maintain a ready militia. Obviously that's no longer true today. IMO then, it's crystal clear that the SA in the context of the time applied to those who would serve in a "well-regulated militia." For those who disagree, answer this: why is a militia mentioned at all if that's not the meaning?

In modern times, state militias are most similar to the National Guard, though Georgia for one has its own modern version of a state militia . The idea that the SA applies to state militia members is further supported by Section 8 of Article I:

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;

That says the state government is responsible for providing weapons to militia members. The SA says the people may keep and bear arms - not buy or otherwise obtain them. This means they did not intend for people to be able to buy or obtain weapons as individuals, but to keep arms provided by the state and bear them when called forth for duty. Again this would be similar to the National Guard today.

So like it or not, that's one man's opinion of what the words mean in the context of the time. But it's pointless to debate the original meaning because the situation is so different now. Like the criminal justice system, the SA hasn't evolved with the times. We should be debating what laws make the most sense now.

Yes it is.

I've been shot at twice but have never had to use my homeowners insurance. Ive been in one accident. Moby hits the nail on the head, they aren't even remotely close.

FYI I don't own a gun but want to. NJ makes it so difficult.

I see it as two separate points of the same issue. There should be a well regulated (by the government) militia, and the people should be able to be armed. If for anything, to protect themselves from the militia (government) at certain times. When they talk about the right to bear arms they are not talking about the militia.

It is the same as the 1st amendment. Make no law establishing a religion. Make no law restricting free exercise of religion. etc. Two DIFFERENT points in the same amendment on the same issue.

Just my opinion, I'm not saying anyone else is wrong or right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fwmG2tQPUs

Shooting is a hobby, just like off roading. It happens that this hobby has potential benefits as well, but mostly I like to shoot because it is fun. I make a point of taking people who have never shot before to show them that guns are not bad. We have a little training session before we start and everyone I have ever taken has had a blast and wanted to go again.

Some people like burn down Hummer dealerships to save the environment, others like to shoot guns.

Or just read my post on page four. That was a pretty good summary of weapons avaliable to the common man at the time of the revolution. I can go more in depth if anyone would like me to.

I've got a replica of an 1853 Enfield rifled musket (I call it the shoulder cannon, .58 caliber) if anyone wants to shoot it. Lots of fun...

Hmmm..., I think your analogies with health care and socialized medicine are a bit of stretch. To be clear, the gravity of the situation presented by the prevalence of guns in the wrong hands or are misused accidentally is a serious issue. This is why many countries have outlawed/restricted gun ownership. Is it of value for America to pursue a similar path? My answer is yes. Your answer is obviously no. And like I said, this topic rarely receives polite debate.

As for what reform I am might be suggesting, .. I am not suggesting anything in particular. There are people out there who can make proposals based on research and, hopefully, common sense. I'd rather hear what they have to say than suggest something inappropriate.

But as I said in my original posting, I think folks like yourself will continue to have your way ... more rather than less.

_Lazza

If we are going to re-evaluate the SA, then we need to re-evaluate the entire constitution, something the politicians would love to do anyway, and the biggest reason why the SA exists in the first place is to prevent things like that from happening.

You can organize a citizen militia that isn't government sponsored, it's completely legal and allowed for in the Constitution specifically for the purpose of the "people" to protect themselves from tyranny. Many non-sponsored civilian militia's exist today. The term "militia" is used in my opinion because that is specifically how you describe any collection of people assembled to protect or defend something. I mean what else are you going to call it?

Answer me this, if we as "free" men have to wait for an "officiating" entity to allow us the exercise of our rights, then how do we protect ourselves from those entities when they decide to take our rights away? I repeat this often and nobody ever replies to the question.

Blue, you let them take our guns and override the SA and the 1st Amendment will be next and so on, till one day you childrens children will wake up and live in "Tyrannical" government and not even know it, I.E. North Korea for example.

It's already happening because more and more people have no problem giving up one liberty as long as the liberties they agree with are not touched. Basically the "if it doesn't effect me" mentality that is propagated via the government and media continues to take root as it has been for years, we'll sell our SA and FA rights right down the river for the next version of American Idol and the rest will soon follow.

The Constitution was specifically designed and its sole reason for existence is so that the people could cut the head off the snake if it became too hungry and then grow a new one. The SA is critical to that function.

That's a fair position, though we obviously disagree on the meaning of the words . Your point about people who are ok as long as their favorite rights remain untouched is a good one, and applies also IMO to those who condone torture. It's ok as long as you think the person being tortured deserves it or it serves the "national interest", and somehow we trust that the government - not really known for competence - will always make the right decision about who gets tortured and why. If we knew they would, hey, I'd be for it too, but I just don't trust the government to wisely administer anything.

What is so much of a stretch about it? A lot of your argument in favor of gun control seems to be that people are killed accidentally by firearms. Far more people are killed accidentally by other means. If you are concerned about accidental deaths, firearms should be far lower on your list of priorities.

Quote:

To be clear, the gravity of the situation presented by the prevalence of guns in the wrong hands or are misused accidentally is a serious issue. This is why many countries have outlawed/restricted gun ownership. Is it of value for America to pursue a similar path?

No, it is not a value for America to pursue similar paths of other countries. There is no reason to believe that those other countries are right or correct.

It also makes a huge false assumption on your part that other countries are similar to America.

Owning firearms is also a right codified into the founding document of this country.

Quote:

As for what reform I am might be suggesting, .. I am not suggesting anything in particular. There are people out there who can make proposals based on research and, hopefully, common sense. I'd rather hear what they have to say than suggest something inappropriate.

You did use the word reform in your previous post. Yet you seem reluctant to indicate exactly what type of reform you would like to see instituted. You wouldn't have used the word reform if you didn't think there should be changes.

Now you are using the expression "common sense" in relation to gun laws. What is "common sense" gun legislation in your mind? Is common sense restricting guns for honest citizens and leaving criminals the only armed segment of the population?

Criminals don't give a damn about any law. Gun control does nothing but restrict honest citizens from obtaining access to firearms.

We live in a very large and free country. One of the tradeoffs of living in a free society is that the criminal class also has a lot freedom.... and opportunity to ply their trades.

Quote:

But as I said in my original posting, I think folks like yourself will continue to have your way ... more rather than less.

Folks like myself should continue to have our way. First and foremost is because the constitution says that people have a right to bear arms. The people have a right to own guns.

I myself am in favor of certain restrictions, but I am in no way in favor of broad gun control.

You really never indicated very clearly what "your way" is regarding the issue.

You have your answer right there in the Second Amendment...

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

It says "the people". If the founders meant "the state" they would have said "the state".

You can also look for the intent of the founders in the Federalist Papers and the numerous writings and debates regarding the constitution. It is clear the intent is for the people to own firearms.

George Mason once said very correctly I might add... "to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

There was a lot of people camping out in front of the Supreme Court building for the last couple of days in hopes of getting in and listening to today's oral arguments in the case....

Although facts rarely influence debate, here are the statistics for leading killers (besides abortion) in the U.S. for 2004 from the National Center for Health Statistics (a division of the CDC).

1 Diseases of heart 652,486
2 Malignant neoplasms 553,888
3 Cerebrovascular diseases 150,074
4 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 121,987
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries) 112,012
6 Diabetes mellitus 73,138
7 Alzheimer's disease 65,965
8 Influenza and pneumonia 59,664
9 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome 42,480
10 Septicemia 33,373
11 Intentional self-harm (suicide) 32,439
12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 27,013
13 Essential hypertension 23,076
14 Parkinson's disease 17,989
15 Assault (homicide) 17,357

Items 1,4,5,6,11,12,13, and 15 are all largely preventable causes of death by changing the way we live. We should ban monosaturated fats in the US because they cause heart disease. We should ban smoking, cars (and probably skydiving), and soda because they cause emphysema, accidents, and diabetes respectively. We should ban girlfriends, beer, and cholesterol because they suicide, liver disease, and high blood pressure. At least none of the above mentioned are protected by our Constitution.

I note that #15 is homicide in general, not just homicide by guns (handgun or rifle). The rate for gun homicide is between 10,000 and 12,000 people. I'm not saying that murder by gun is excusable, but if we are going to ban guns because they kill a lot of people every year, we should ban a lot of other more dangerous common items like potato chips because they kill way more people annually.

If we are concerned about saving lives here, why then should we ban guns and allow abortion? Abortion prevents more lives each year than any one of the above 15 killers. 839,226 abortions were performed in the US in 2004, not including California or New York--the two most populous states. Just my 2 cents.

Nice post X and Halo. I like the Bobby Lee quote as well; and from Utah? I got to meet this guy/gal.

So why did they even mention the militia? Why doesn't it simply say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? That's the part no one is able to explain.

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.

Here ya go.

Selecting "Homicide" as the "Intent" for "Firearms":

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, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
12,352 - 296,507,061 - 4.17 - 4.15

Vs.

Selecting "Homicide" as the "Intent" for "Poisoning":

2005, United States
Homicide Poisoning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X85-X90, *U01(.6,.7)

Number of
Deaths, Population, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
89 - 296,507,061 - 0.03 - 0.01

Of course Homicidal intent is much more likely with a Firearm, but the stats still show that if someone is going to kill you, it doesn't matter which method they use, thier still going to do it.

Cool stats, Conundrum!

Yes, but firearms make oh so much easier! Reminds me of Arlo Guthrie from "Alice's Restaurant" when he tells his recruiting officer that he wants to join so he can "kill, KILL, KILLLL!!!!". er.., or at least that's how I remember it.

_Lazza

What about "death By Snu Snu"?

You can get anything you want (If you have enough money)...

It would take some doing, but one could go through each possible method and tally them up to find out if "Homicide" other than by Firearm equals the same, less or more than by Firearm.

Then you're going to have issues with let's say the guy that rammed the Van into the crowd today and hurt/killed people (Haven't seen the update). That may be considered homicide, but will it be "intentional" and listed as such in the CDC's stats?

Snu Snu is not an option. :p

Here's intentional homicide with motor vehicles:

2005, United States
Homicide Overall Motor Vehicle Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: Y03

Number of
Deaths, Population, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
38 - 296,507,061 - 0.01 - 0.00

Much lower than I expected with the way the Media covers such events.

How about Homicide by Drowning:

2005, United States
Homicide Drowning Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X92

Number of
Deaths, Population, Crude Rate, Age-Adjusted Rate**
49 - 296,507,061 - 0.02 - 0.01

Much Higher than I expected when you consider how difficult it would be to drown someone. It's higher than poisonings.

OK, in fairness I have to post this. I believe that it's rare for people to actually use their weapons in self-defense. That still may be true but we just had such an incident here in Georgia.

"Eighty-one-year-old Robert Jenkins said he loaded his wife's handgun and tried to scare off a burglar in his Tucker home, but he fired when the intruder rushed him, according to a family friend. DeKalb police said the shooting was justified, and Jenkins will not be charged in the death of the suspect, a man possibly in his 20s who had not been identified Wednesday."

Story

Is that always the standard liberal argument.... anyone who disagrees with you is not "objective"?

If that is the case then you are accusing at least two Circuit Court panels of judges of not being "objective". Possibly also the current Supreme Court.

Your attempt to link the militia clause in the constitution as an argument for the collectivist view of the Second Amendment is a bogus argument. Walter Dellinger representing the District of Columbia made a similar attempt the other day in his oral argument and was shot down by some of the Supreme Court justices.

The Bill of Rights was added to limit the power of the federal government and enumerate rights of individuals. The Anti-Federalists felt that without it, a strong centralized government can become tyrannical.

Almost all of the founders felt people had the right to own their own weapons. They have written about it and many felt it was necessary to protect them from a potential tyrannical government. I already posted one such quote from George Mason who was influential in the Bill of Rights.

There is the concept of the "universal militia" that goes back hundreds of years. It is the entire body of all able bodied free citizens bearing their own arms. All of the founders were well aware of that concept. They were also well aware of the common law right to self defense.

In modern times it is the gun control advocates who argue that the Second Amendment means a collective right, not an individual right. These are the people who wish to disarm the populace. A good argument can be made that these are the tyrannical types many of the founders feared in some of their writings.

The correct interpretation most likely lies in that the Second Amendment grants both collective and individual rights to keep and bear arms. The fact that the founders put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which enumerates rights of individuals cannot be ignored.

The Supreme Court is going to agree with the individual right. They will find that reasonable restrictions can be implemented, but the individual right is going to prevail.

How do you know that? On what are you basing that opinion?

There are all kinds of numbers floating around out there in regards to defensive gun use. Some figures are 1.5 million defensive gun incidents per year. Some are even higher.

Here is one old government report that suggests defensive gun use figures are higher than some government agencies estimate....

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

The problem with accurate figures on defensive gun use is that if no firearms were discharged, the authorities may not even be notified in many cases.

I say we declare ourselves a militia - The Xterra Owners Club Militia. Problem solved - we can all own guns!

Right...this group is "well-regulated"...

Madman, we just disagree and my belief remains, based on our many, many "discussions" on this board, that you have your view and you think anyone who disagrees is 1) wrong and 2) a liberal.

I believe people should have the right to own weapons. But I can also look at things, like the SA, and objectively try to determine their meaning whether or not it fits my own view. In the case of the SA, my best, objective evaluation of those words yields a meaning contrary to my own view. Based on what you've said about the Founding Fathers' other writings, I've not researched that and it adds context, but the fact remains that if they meant to clearly state that the SA applied to individuals' rights, they did a poor job of it.

And about the stats, I suppose my reasoning is that I live in a large, heavily-populated area that is well-covered by local and national news organizations, and it just doesn't happen very often. There's no shortage of crime, either. The flip side for example would be that I believe fires in apartment buildings are fairly common. Why? No, I don't have stats from across the country, but from day to day I frequently see or read of local fire units trying to put out apartment fires. I can either conclude that metro Atlanta has a disproportionate number of apartment fires or that it's just a fairly common occurrence.

People don't debate other people with whom they are in agreement. If I'm arguing a certain point, it's logical to conclude I think the opposition is wrong and they think I'm wrong. The difference between us is that I don't complain about it like you do.

Quote:

I believe people should have the right to own weapons. But I can also look at things, like the SA, and objectively try to determine their meaning whether or not it fits my own view. In the case of the SA, my best, objective evaluation of those words yields a meaning contrary to my own view. Based on what you've said about the Founding Fathers' other writings, I've not researched that and it adds context, but the fact remains that if they meant to clearly state that the SA applied to individuals' rights, they did a poor job of it.

There is much in the constitution that is vague. However, regarding the Second Amendment we disagree. I see it as clearly giving the right of people... individuals... to "keep and bear arms".

Quote:

And about the stats, I suppose my reasoning is that I live in a large, heavily-populated area that is well-covered by local and national news organizations, and it just doesn't happen very often.

Unless an incident of defensive gun use was reported to local authorities, you wouldn't hear about it. The media would not hear about it and therefore the public would not hear out it.

There is also a tendency for the mainstream media to be biased in favor of gun control.

The fact that you don't often hear about defensive gun use doesn't mean it does not occur more often than you think. Unless shots are fired, you won't hear about it at all. Also don't forget that many people who stop a crime by simply brandishing a gun will not report anything to the police out of fear of being charged with some type of violation themselves. Probably the only way to get statistics is to poll and sample gun owners.

The Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice study "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," estimated that 1.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes every year.

Here is an essay that explores defensive gun use and the lack of accurate statistics....

http://www.claytoncramer.com/HowManyDefensiveGunUses.pdf

It seems these people also run a blog that keeps track of major media reports of defensive gun uses. Of course most are stories where shots were fired and someone was killed or wounded....

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

There is an audio file available of the oral arguments in the case at the link below...

DC vs Heller

Excellent Article by Massad Ayoob.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob77.html

Citizens armed to the teeth is what keeps state militias well regulated.

Article was ok, but seems a little dated. Point is still valid though.

So you think Joe Bob and his Glock are going to keep the National Guard in line? Good luck. Let's face it, it will never happen, but if it ever came down to the U.S. military vs. John Q. Public, the public wouldn't have a chance.

BTW, this thread's title reminded me of that ironic scene in Red Dawn where they pan the shot from a "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" bumper sticker to an enemy soldier doing exactly that. It's at the very end of this clip.

Blue who makes up the military? John Q. Public....

If there becomes such a great rift in this country that a revolution or civil war would break out, it would be all encompassing. It might start with civilian uprisings, but everyone would be drawn into it. The government, military, etc. would all fracture and devolve into factions just like it has every time in history. It would not be Joe Bob and his redneck friends vs. the Military. Joe Bob and his redneck friends ARE the military, along with Alan the corporate consultant, Dave and Suzy the nurses in the hospital etc. Why can't people get this? If you're in the military you are more than likely to march with your brothers and sisters than you are against them. Our Civil War is a perfect example of this. The entire nation, people, government, military etc. all split into their respective factions and duked it out. Where did it start? Did the military back then not have more "might" than Joe Bob?

Using a Hollywood movie (no bias in Hollywood?) as an example, especialy a movie that depicts the downfall of the US is not really a good example.

That's why I said it will never happen. It was the same dilemma when JFK had the National Guard out to enforce school desegregation, right? But what if that had escalated? Interesting question.

As a hypothetical question, what would happen if say, the Supreme Court re-interpreted the SA and the government ordered the seizure of all privately-owned guns? My take is that most people don't own guns, so they wouldn't forcibly resist (note I said forcibly, there would undoubtably be protests and legal action). Many (most?) gun owners wouldn't choose to forcibly resist. A relative few would fight it with force. Do you agree? My original point was to that kind of scenario.

Let me state clearly that I do not advocate that on any level. It's a hypothetical question as a followup to your comments on who makes up the military.

I disagree that the Civil War is a perfect example BTW. There were two defined sides and it was government vs. government. But I still see your point.

Finally, the movie wasn't an example, as I said the thread title just reminded me of that scene. Nothing more than that. Also, the movie depicted an attack on the U.S., not our country's downfall. U.S. forces ultimately prevailed.

I think, what would happen is that many law abiding gun owners would instantly be turned into felons if it's a seizure based on the honor system where as you the owner take your gun to a depot etc. I don't think the Fed has the resources to send the Military en-masse or the balls to order local law enforcement to physically search homes without the states going into a frenzy and if the police do start winding up on peoples doorsteps to search their homes, you bet there is going to be violence, and widespread in my opinion as those who do not own guns aren't going to put up with that type of invasion of privacy either. What would be next, searching of your home for drugs just because? Porn, etc.?

If the government can set the precedence for that type of search on the general public, then they'll try to do it for anything. I think it would be extremely bad and that would be the day we truly become a police state. America as we know it would die. That's the whole reason for the SA's existence, and if we let that get stripped away, then everything else will follow.

I respect other people's opinions. If they have a rational and intelligent point to make, it's worthy of respect and some reflection.

However, that doesn't describe some of the things you have said here in this thread. In fact on page 5 you said something that was utterly ridiculous and maybe even kind of dangerous, I ignored it. Maybe it's worth a second look right now.

You said.... "Like the criminal justice system, the SA hasn't evolved with the times. We should be debating what laws make the most sense now."

Is that a statement based on emotion or legitimate constitutional jurisprudence? Maybe you'll explain how an amendment to the constitution, one of the Bill of Rights, is supposed to "evolve" without being re-amended. Without the consent of the people and another Constitutional Convention.

What would you like it to "evolve" into? What law makes sense to you now?

I don't know if the numbers are accurate. The only way to tell is by polling legal gun owners and asking the correct questions to get a decent idea.

Quote:

My concerns with gun ownership are irresponible yahoos, gun nut extremists, and accidental shootings. Everybody should have those concerns regardless of their position on guns or the SA.

And your solution is what?

Is it denying people their constitutional rights because of the behavior of a few?

Should we legislate according to the behavior of the lowest common denominators among us? That is not liberty. That is not freedom. That's not a republic by the people and for the people.

What would happen is there would instantly be a call by the majority of states and Congress to amend the constitution which would negate any such Supreme Court ruling.