• Fallyn said on Nov 26, 2007....

  same here ..........gonna take this one easy and just simply agree with you. i really don't have anything to add.

• Mamie said on Nov 26, 2007....

  I can't really think of anything good to come out of us having guns...so that is my vote. I agree that the laws are not followed by the creeps who shouldn't have them to begin with so it is kind of like preaching to the choir....

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  I think we have the same general philosophy on guns, but I disagree with your reasoning.
  
  
  "the simple truth is that criminals do not obey the law, so gun control legislation will not prevent criminals from using firearms. legality of drugs doesn’t stop criminals from using or selling them, either."
  
  I used to believe this, and I used to be a republican (I was a member of the young republicans in high school). Then I joined the army and got sent to germany. Living in germany hand a profound impact on my view of life since it provided a test case for many of the memes I'd grown to believe. One of which is the idea that gun control won't reduce criminal use of guns. It simply didn't work out this way in Germany. 
  
  
  My guess is that a lot of criminal use of guns is impulsive in which case having guns around (often legally) leads to criminal use of guns which wouldn't happen if the guns weren't already there.
  
  
  Having said all of this, I'm not a believe in strict gun control, but I think we need some sane regulation of it.

• buckrogers said on Nov 26, 2007....

  You always need some kind of control over guns the same way you can't have a blind man drive a car. People need training and testing to see if it's safe for them to own a gun. It's a nasty world out there and it wont get any better if every idiot had the right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment is so badly flawed and outdated that it should be rewritten so everybody can understand it. The issue is treated as though the Amendment was written by God. It was not written by God, but by men, who, in their day, were still using bow and arrow, swords, and flintlocks. Those days are over and should be the 2nd Amendment, as it is currently written.

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  "2nd Amendment, as it is currently written."
  
  Speaking of it's language, I find it terribly unclear and ambiguous. It refers to "arms" not guns, and somehow ties the issue to militias.

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  buckrogers made a good post on the language of the second amendment.

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 26, 2007....

  I don't really know what to think. You raise a good point...and yet, I think of kids injured/killed by guns their parents didn't keep properly locked away. Then again, the people who wouldn't take time to safeguard their firearms (and the children who might stumble across them otherwise) are probably the same people who would disregard a law if they thought it encroached on their rights.
  
  I really don't know what the best position is. You could mandate safety training/storage training or whatever, but that's no guarantee that people will actually do it. At the same time, it's not fair to give criminals a wide-open path because they're the only ones with firepower in the general populace. I hate guns. :-p
  
  ~Infernal
  

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

  1.  I think if guns are harder to aquire that you will have less people using them.  Criminals might not follow laws but you don't hear too often about how Crips and Bloods are throwing grenades around because they quite simply don't have access to such tools.
   
  2.  As bloc said the 2nd refears to arms.  Not guns.  I can see no reason why that doesn't apply to Abrams tanks and F16 fighters.  So it's not really tin foil hat so much as it was eroded away to such a degree that it's origial purpose is long since gone and now we stubbornly cling to it's corpse.
   
  3.  Good post.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 26, 2007....

  bloc: i don't believe that german citizens have a right to own weapons, do they? are you sure that this is an apples: apples comparison?
  
  buckrogers: good blog entry that bloc linked. in your view, how should the second amendment be re-written? btw, i don't believe that archers were a regular part of any major army of the day by that point in europe, were they?
  
  infernal: no offense, but you're familiar i trust w/ the disparity b/n handgun/firearm deaths/year vs car-related deaths, no? :>
  
  sean: military-grade hardware isn't the same as picking up a 9mm, i don't think. sure, it refers to arms, but by & large, the NRA isn't exactly defending the right to an abrams in every garage or a mark 19 on every hood, either. and thank you. :>
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

  That was sort of my point.  That the idea that criminals don't follow laws and thus banning a given weapon is silly doesn't really hold water with me.   Because they can still only work with the tools that are available.
   
  If you could buy grenades I have no doubt that we would hear of them at least occasionally with regards to street violence.  As it is I'm impressed that we NEVER hear about it.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 26, 2007....

  sean: in which case, i'm left utterly unclear on your views on the matter, now. ?
  
  ed

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  "bloc: i don't believe that german citizens have a right to own weapons, do they? are you sure that this is an apples: apples comparison?"
  
  If we take the assertion that strict gun laws do not reduce criminal use of guns due to criminals ignore laws then when can take a country like germany, with strict gun laws, and see if it holds up. I don't think it does because the term "criminal" is deceptive in this case. I believe that many "criminal" uses of guns are the result of impulsive behavior often by legal gun owners.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 26, 2007....

  OK, fair point, but by the same token, gun ownership in england is criminal and my understanding is that handgun violence has continued increasing there for some time--enough so that british police officers began carrying sidearms in the early 80s.
  
  re: proportion of handguns in criminal behavior and planned vs. unplanned usage is something on which statistics would be most interesting to see. i can't imagine that there really are any, but if you know of some, i'd love to see 'em.
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

  1.  I'm against gun control.  I do believe that the founders designed it to prevent the exact kind of tyranny they found themselves fighting against. 
   
  I think that the terminology was mean (at the time) to include things like cannons and today would logically fall to tanks, missiles and jets. Nobody is trying to take it to that degree for a number of reasons.  I think part of it is that no matter what anybody says about Bush and secret police nobody really believes that we are in any real danger from our government.  A naive belief at best in the long term.
   
  The fact is that we can't defend against the military, not if they are truly willing to fight against us.  If they hold back then maybe.  That's a different issue.
   
  As bloc has again pointed out.  Criminals don't follow laws, but that doesn't make them magical.  If there are  no (or hardly) any guns in a country, then criminals won't use them in crimes because they simply aren't available.  Hense my grenade example.  Grenades are exceedingly difficult for civillians to come across.  And we don't hear about gang members using them.  I have to presume that it's not because they value life but rather because they lack the means to aquire grenades.
   
  Also gun violence in nations with stricter gun control seems to strengthen my stance that if your sole goal is to lower gun violence, enhance gun laws. 

• silverwhisper said on Nov 26, 2007....

  sean: up until last week, washington DC was the most violent city in the union, and had the strictest gun control laws in the land (this was evidently overturned).
  
  yeah, military-grade hardware isn't easy to find, but apparently, you can score a m-2 commercially (although in single shot mode). just sayin'...
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

  Considering how easy it is to drive from Texas to anyplace else I'm not sure that those laws can be viewd in a vacuum.
   
  And obviously there are more things that factor in than merely gun control.  I don' tknow what it is about DC that stands out though.

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  @sw
  unfortunately i don't know of any stats on that topic. Regarding your other point about england. One possibility is that it takes a while after strict control before the number of guns available diminishes. 
  
  
  Here's an interesting parallel. There is a lot of overlap between "secure our borders" people and "give us our guns" people. If someone believes that we can control our borders then surely they also believe that we can control gun smuggling. I.e. you can't tell me that we can't control our borders and at the same time tell me that criminals will be able to get guns no matter what. 
  
  
  p.s. - I know you aren't one of these people ed :)

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

  I'd never really given that any legit thought.  I would argue though that you can control a border and prevent human beings from crossing easier than you can prevent people from bringing through guns. 
   
  TSA recently revealed that 70% of test bombs make it through security.  Granted they covered up with the excuse that if the number was lower that would simply mean that the test had gotten through it would be proof that the test was too simple. 
   
  Take into acount mailing things in peice by peice and I think what shockes me most is that we don't see more illegal firearms cus it doesn't sound that complicated.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 26, 2007....

  sean: yeah, but crossing state lines = FBI headaches...
  
  bloc: that's certainly a possibility--i'd need to look at the figures on that when i have some time.
  
  er...isn't the overlap you're seeing a function of being conservatives more than anything else?
  
  ed

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  on the other side of this argument, we can look at a place like Canada which has very loose gun laws, yet they have very low rates of gun crime. This is why, at the end of the day, I don't view tight gun restrictions as the right tool to deal with crime. 

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

  Well I imagine that the closer you get to socialism the less crime you have (up to a point obviously)
   
  Less starvation/homelessness/can't afford medicine.  Should in turn lower the amount of people who are desperate and turn to crime out of desperation, should again in turn lower crime.
   
  Now I'm sure there is a point at which this breaks down (or more acurrately that when limited supply meets infinite demand it is merely a matter of time before it shuts down) but I would be willing to guess that is probably an influencing factor.
   
  The fact is that human behavior is really really complicated while being terribly simple at the same time.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 26, 2007....

  bloc: fair enough.
  
  sean: um...i'm not at all sure that socialism = less crime. look at the rioting that kept sweeping through france 2 summers ago. the french economy is pretty highly socialized.
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

  I recall that. 

• the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 26, 2007....

  ed: Well, yeah...at the same time, car travel is pretty hard to avoid. I *can* do my best to avoid putting my children in the other situation, you know?
  
  ~Infernal
  

• CreativeWoman said on Nov 26, 2007....

  I see it pretty simply.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  That being said, I'm all for regulations that include permits, gun safety training and background checks for all types of firearms.  I don't really believe that it is the responsible gun owners we have to worry about.  Even with regulations, people who shouldn't have guns will get them if they want them. 
  
  CW
  

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  there have been some convincing studies that link crime rates to economic situations such as increases in the poverty level.

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

  It seems like a natural correlation.  I mean who wouldn't rob so and so to feed themeslves or their children?
   
  Then from there who wouldn't defend what they had, particularly if they didn' thave much.
   
  The only reason why I think studies are even needed on this is because for whatever reason just because something sounds logical doesn't mean that humans will do it.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 26, 2007....

  I disagree with Sean that the authors of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to include cannon and other military grade, crew-served weapons. I don't have any thing to support that except for reasoning and not looking at the Amendment in a vacuum.
  
  I have no doubt that they meant the word "arms" to mean "individual firearms".
  
  Now, much like there are (mostly-) reasonable restrictions on the use of our First Amendment rights, I believe that reasonable restrictions can also be imposed on our Second Amendment rights. Parse the words however you want, but I believe the over all meaning is that the Federal Government (and since the 14th Amendment, the States) shalt not have a blanket ban on all firearms, and should not ban any firearms without a "compelling government interest".
  
  Of course, determining those "reasonable restrictions" is one of those things that we try to do in a democratic society, and I prefer to err more on the side of liberty than on the side of restriction.
  

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  "the authors of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to include cannon and other military grade, crew-served weapons."
  
  I believe the only common weapons at the time were muskets and cannons. Military grade guns didn't exist, but I have no idea if they intended cannons to be included in "arms".

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

  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.
   
  If you aren't allowed weapons of a high enough grade to maintain your state's freedom I don't understand why they would have worded it as such.  I mean it doesn't say a man has a right to protect his home.  It is written in regards to security of a free state. 

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  but it was worded that way prior to the invention of modern weapons. I doubt they envisioned stealth bombers and .50 cal machine guns.

• elleb84 said on Nov 26, 2007....

  there must be a reason why our founding fathers chose to put the right to bear arms in the constitution...

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  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 still haven't heard a good explanation of the militia reference. 

• one_wired_kitty said on Nov 26, 2007....

  I saw this on a bumpter sticker and it pretty well sums up what I think as far as gun control:
  
  "Gun control means using both hands"

  Take away guns and another "weapon of choice" will take it's place.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 26, 2007....

  bloc -- I was reading some defense of the 2nd Amendment and the author argued that "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped". Now I haven't come across that definition before.
  
  I think that the "militia" reference is pretty clear, and that buckrogers hit it pretty good in his blog title.
  
  "well-regulated" is the only part of the Amendment that I don't completely understand. The rest is absolutely clear to me.
  
  "Because having an armed citizenry is important to keep ourselves free from threats both internal and external, an individual right to bear arms is recognized."
  
  I was thinking earlier today that maybe "well-regulated" was supposed to mean homogeneous with regards to social class, unlike European countries were at the time. Using the word "regular" as a base. But I don't know how true that would be or not without looking up period writings.
  

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  @tin
  I think people's parsing of the militia part is wishful thinking at best. I don't think the founding fathers wrote a sentence with two distinct subjects (a militia and people as individuals), but let's say that htey did, how do you complete the sentence for the Militia?
  
  
  The only logical way I can parse the single sentence is to take it to mean that the right to bear arms is tied directly to the militia. Maybe by militia they meant locally organized citizens.
  
  
  
  

• TinSoldier said on Nov 26, 2007....

  Huh? The "militia" is all of the people who can keep and bear arms.
  
  I guess that I don't understand your question.
  
  Let me try paraphrasing again:
  "Having a group of people who own and know how to use guns is a good idea, since we can organize them for the common defense; therefore people as individuals have a right to own guns that shall not be taken away."
  
  How's that?
  

• bloc said on Nov 26, 2007....

  who can organize them? One way to figure out what they mean by militia is to see how they use it in other parts of the constitution. Here is a quote from the part on House powers.

  "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;"

  
  I think it's pretty clear they are talking about the national guard or something like it.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 26, 2007....

  Well I guess that we'll have to disagree then.

• crybabylu said on Nov 26, 2007....

   I  believe we should possess the right to self-defense.  I am not, however, in favor of certain types of guns.  I think a registered hand gun should be sufficient.

  I am not excluding guns used in hunting.

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 26, 2007....

   

  Honestly the phrasing there is terribly poor.  I believe that the problem here is how different the times are.

   

  It's true that the founding fathers likely never imagined anything as powerful as a tank (though to be fair even if it was legal most people wouldn't be able to afford a tank)  So their opinions in regards to such things are difficult to interpret.

   

  Another thing is that we all know what a militia was in the historical content.  They were kind of like local gangs.  Just they weren't bad.  It was the local guys with guns defending their homes.  It might have been against Indians.  It might have been again the Spanish and it might have been against King George or an aspriging King George Washington.

   

  The world has for a lack of better terms stabalized a great deal since then (at least the West has) and these situations are no long realistic.  Today if Hawaii gets attacked we can have, quite literally every single Member of the US military to Hawaii within a week (probably less)  at the time this was written it would take days to get word to some of the outposts.  Forget waiting for them to arrive and help.  People needed to be able to defend themselves.

   

  So no they aren't talking about a national guard, (or it seems unlikely) it seems like they were talking about the world that they lived in.  I know we often try to pretend like the Founding Fathers were omnicient instead of really smart, but they weren't.  The same reason why we hardly even discuss whichever amendment says that we don't have to give soldiers room and board.  It simply isn't a factor anymore.

   

  The world changed.  What's important now is figureing how what is salvagable of their words and how it can properly be applied to the world today.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 26, 2007....

  bloc, here's a link for you:
  http://www.answers.com/topic/militia
  
  Think of "the militia", at the time of the writing of the Constitution, as kind of like a posse in the old west. Maybe less voluntary and more obligated, especially when it came to defending.
  
  The founding fathers were very suspicious of a standing army, even though we ended up keeping one anyway because of other realities.
  
  Hmm, there's a lot at that link but the first few references should do.
  

• cakebottom said on Nov 26, 2007....

  I am a registered democrat, but I'm not going to lie to you--I like guns.  I grew up in the boonies shooting guns, and I've shot my own meal.  That said, I do believe in some sort of gun control.  There is no reason anyone needs to own an M-16.  And while I agree with your point that gun legislation wont stop criminals, I see no point in making it legal for anyone to own an automatic weapon, or to make them more accessable.  I know a few people who, if it were legal, despite the fact that they're "good" people, would go out and buy an automatic weapon for the sheer love of the firearm.  

• hotaka said on Nov 26, 2007....

  It's a tough one. I agree that to criminals it doesn't matter. They'll find guns anyway. And anyone who really wants a gun can still get it (it seems) even if they have to wait a long time or whatever. The right to bear arms, right? Or is it bare arms? I don't know the stats but there are a lot of gun-related accidents at homes where the gun is there "for protection." Since I don't know anyone with a gun and I don't intend to get one I really can't say I stand on either side.
  
  Last Saturday I asked an 11-year old student where she wanted to travel in the world. She replied, "Nowhere. Everywhere is dangerous. Like in America, everyone has a gun." I said that people didn't just walk around with it in the streets. She said, "But they all have one in their homes. America is scary." Two days later I saw on the news a story about another stabbing victim in Japan. It seems every few days someone here gets stabbed, usually by a stalker. Should we have knife control in Japan?
  

• tbs230 said on Nov 26, 2007....

  Ok, so the way I understand it, the right to bear arms was written into the constitution, like TinSoldier said, as a way to allow militia to have firearms in their households...in case the government needed a good spanking. (sorry)
  
  Nowadays, the right to bear arms is said to be an individualistic right that, when the amendments are looked at as a whole, encompasses every American citizen.
  
  That being said, I don't feel that they should remove or reword or rewrite the amendment or ban anyone from having handguns. I agree with those that said criminals won't give a damn, so the only ones we are protecting are the legit hand gun owners.
  
  I've also heard that banning firearms leads to a black market of guns that in the longterm makes the situation worse. I personally agree with this.
  
  I feel they should go the route of the 1st amendment -- give us our rights...but slap so many damn regulations on them that we all have to eventually start carrying around pocket-sized constitutions...
  

• D6fer said on Nov 27, 2007....

  I think any form of firearm should at least have some limited regulation....including proper training....if we need a license to drive a car, then we should have one to fire a weapon.....I have no problem with a short waiting period either....background check...etc

• hotaka said on Nov 27, 2007....

  Did you ever see the SNL sketch where a guy - I think it was Kevin Neilon (spelling?) - is waiting for his request to have a gun in his home to be processed. Their is some kind of waiting period anyway and he is complaining that he just can't feel safe without a gun in his home. Then a burglar breaks into his home at night and he has to confront him, defending himself with a studded mace on a chain!
  
  I understand the argument: the criminals are going to carry firearms anyway so at least I should be able to carry one to defend myself. But I wonder, does pulling a gun on an armed criminal increase your chances of being shot? The criminal can argue it was in self defense and with a good lawyer will get away with it too.
  

• travelr712 said on Nov 27, 2007....

  silver - i'm going to take a little different slant on this question. i'm going to point out something about what you said about guns vs. tanks. while you're right about the fact that bullets just bounce off tanks, there is another element. tanks and planes are battlefield weapons, designed for indescriminate killing. just because you have superior weaponry as such does not mean you'll win the battle, as proven in iraq. in urban warfare, the goal is not to line all your guys up on one side, all the enemie's on the other, and shoot till everybody's dead. it's to try to separate out combatants from non combatants, which is usually an impossible task. combatants dress like everyone else, not in an easily identifiable uniform, so they can shoot at the uniform of the enemy, and then blend back into the crowd, which would require the tanks and planes to kill the good guys along with the bad guys, and ultimately lose the battle. that's the point behind the second amendment, in my view. it's not about one handgun against one tank, it's about 100,000 people in a city, 10,000 with guns, who know the guys with the tanks don't want to commit genecide. it makes bad headlines. can you imagine the nationwide chaos if the gov't sent tanks into chicago and started shooting? the entire country of average joes would pull out their hunting rifles and start shooting fbi agents wherever they found them. that's the importance of allowing private citizens to have weapons. it forces the gov't to be very, very careful about how and when they use those tanks, planes, and batallions.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 27, 2007....

  i lack the time to respond to this properly right now, will return later in the day.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Nov 27, 2007....

  tbs230 said: start carrying around pocket-sized constitutions...
  
  I've actually got one somewhere...
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 27, 2007....

  infernal: true, but the root cause, human stupidity/irresponsibility is still present, no?
  
  CW: i think the last sentence in your post sums up my position quite nicely. :>
  
  elle: i agree.
  
  1WK: i completely agree.
  
  dee: what about simple target shooting? would that not be a legitimate purpose in owning rifles?
  
  cb: i'm not sure, if they're responsible people, if there's a real problem w/ individuals owning automatic weapons. is your concern based upon a fear of collateral damage or something else?
  
  hotaka: re: knife control, i should point out that okinawans devised a means of self-defense despite being completely disarmed by the japanese. :>
  
  tbs: i think that was very well said. :>
  
  d6: i'll confess, i'm surprised by that, i kinda figured you might be in support of fewer restrictions, to be honest.
  
  trav: except that if the government turns on the citizenry, they likely won't care about indiscriminate damage, if you ask me.
  
  bloc: my feeling is that the framers meant precisely that, a loosely-organized group of citizens. we have no militias per se in modern american society, barring some survivalist groups, and i don't know that they're what the framers had in mind.
  
  ed

• crybabylu said on Nov 27, 2007....

  Ed--It depends who is your target?  Ha!  Just thought I would add some    humor...lol, dee

• bloc said on Nov 27, 2007....

  Again, these are the powers granted to the House in the Constitution
  
  

  "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 seems clear to me that their use of militia was in reference to a fighting forced setup and controlled by the government.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 27, 2007....

  But only when called...
  
  That's the thought that occurred to me last night after you had posted it. And that makes sense within the historical context.
  
  Basically it goes back to buckroger's post -- it provides a draft pool for civic defense.
  

• TinSoldier said on Nov 27, 2007....

  From the Wikipedia article:
  

  The original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives, was:

  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. [22]

  Which seems to support the idea that the Second Amendment is meant to support both the right of the states to maintain militias as well as an individual right to bear arms.
  
  
  [snippage...]No official records were kept of the proceedings of the committee, but on July 28, the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment. [25] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
  
  

  A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. [26]

  And if you read further then you can see how the language was whittled down to what we have today.
  
  One of the original proposals by Madison, which was struck down, was to insert the language into "the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action.[22]" (From the same Wiki article).
  
  There's actually some good stuff in there that I need to read more of instead of skimming for supporting arguments.
  

• travelr712 said on Nov 27, 2007....

  silver - true, but then it's not a democracy, so civil rights don't apply, and it's a moot point.

• bloc said on Nov 27, 2007....

  "But only when called..."
  
  
  That would make sense, and the info you linked is insightful as well.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 27, 2007....

  Heh, you know, I think the founders were arguing over the same things that we are arguing today...

• tbs230 said on Nov 27, 2007....

  TS: Do you really? I should get on that.
  
  Ed: why thank you...I do have my moments!
  

• hotaka said on Nov 27, 2007....

  Yes, they did. I think I heard a number of people were armed with sharpened bamboo sticks. Those are serious weapons. In that case, almost anything can be turned into "arms."

• cakebottom said on Nov 28, 2007....

  I think a lot of my fear resides in the thought of automatic weapons being widely available, especially to the wrong people.  Some idiot is more likely to buy an automatic weapon if he can do it easily.  And there's always the fear that bad things (ie: accidents) happen even to good people.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 28, 2007....

  dee: :D
  
  trav: which would make the second amendment not particularly useful in that case, no?
  
  tbs: you're welcome, and you have a lot of those moments, if you ask me. :>
  
  hotaka: or tonfas, or nunchaku...there are a couple others, IIRC...
  
  cb: OK, but as i said to infernal, we don't worry about people buying new cars the way we worry about people buying weapons--and cars do kill several times as many people/year--and car ownership isn't a right enshrined in our constitution. :>
  
  TS: that link was incredibly useful--thank you! :>
  
  ed

• cakebottom said on Nov 28, 2007....

  I don't own a car ;)
  Very good point, though.  Perhaps the fear is of the number of people guns could kill.  More likely, it's that we don't fear cars as much because they don't seem as dangerous, and we're more reliant upon them than guns.
  
  I think I'm only against automatic weapons because they're excessive.  I just don't think you need a machine gun to take out a deer.
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 28, 2007....

  cb: yeah, i'm not sure about a legal right to own an automatic weapon, myself. :>
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 28, 2007....

  This has been said over and over again cake.  The right to bear arms no matter how you choose to interpret it, a miltia or a man in his garage, it wasn't meant to protect a man's right to hunt deer.
   
  This was blatantly about self defense and in order to take out a man you need one of two things.  (and both don't hurt) more skill with your weapon than the other guy has.  An arrow to the throat is just as fatal as as a tactical nuke.  A bigger gun than the other guy.  The beauty of an automatic weapon is that it eliminates much of the skill needed.  You can hand a 6 year old an uzi and tell him point, spray, pray and something will die.  By contrast give him a desert eagle and the only thing he's likely to hit is his ass on the pavement.

• cakebottom said on Nov 28, 2007....

  Regardless of what the right to bear arms was meant to do, my point still stands.  Automatic weapons are excessive.  So let me rephrase: I don't think you need a machine gun to take out the other guy.  Frankly, I don't see anything good about the fact that automatic weapons require little skill.  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 28, 2007....

  i have to say, sean, that the notion of greater ease of use explained that way isn't a particularly good way to argue your point.
  
  ed

• silverwhisper said on Nov 28, 2007....

  interesting--a discussion i'm having elsewhere pointed to the wiki of the second militia act of 1792 (yes, they passed 2 acts of the same name in the same year), in which militia is defined as:
  
  

  every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state.

  
  this would seem separate and distinct from the national guard, which was created by a militia act passed in 1903.
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 28, 2007....

  But that is the point of increasingly powerful weaponry.  If you are any good whatsoever a decent rifle is all that is needed for killing an animal.
   
  If you are simply defending your home a handgun should be sufficient.
   
  An assault rifle is designed to kill people who are trying to kill you back.  It serves no other purpose (other than possibly recreation but then again ANYTHING can be used recreationally.  I'm sure if people had access to tanks we'd have some kind of Tank Glamis obstacle course/target practice)
   
  A tank is designed to kill people who are trying to kill you and make it easier on your part.  Same goes with a cannon.  A cannon was meant to kill people that is it's sole purpose.
   
  The whole idea of a weapon is to level the playing field.  If guns had been around at the dawn of time it's likely that women would have been treated more as equals than they are today.  They would have been more able to bring home food, and defend themselves against aggression rather than being forced to submit.
   
   

• silverwhisper said on Nov 28, 2007....

  dude, nobody uses tanks or cannon as anti-personnel equipment! anti-armor, sure; mine-deployment, absolutely, but anti-personnel?!
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 28, 2007....

  I'm quite sure that cannons were used on people back in the day.

  As for tanks I can't imagine NOT shooting somebody who was approaching. 

  A tank doesn't back any more punch than say artilery and that's used on personell.  Or atleast on areas that are supposed to have personell in them.

  Sides there are people in side the armor.  An Anti-Aircraft weapon (until terribly recently with Predator Drones) might as well be anti-personell.  It's not like it gently removes the metal wrapping and leaves the meat puppet cocooned in love and frisbees.  :-p

   

• silverwhisper said on Nov 29, 2007....

  sean: cannon for anti-personnel use fired grapeshot back in the day, but were more commonly used against fortified positions, i thought. and c'mon, who's wasting main gun ammo on infantry when there's always the risk of other armor on the battlefield?
  
  heh...that last sentence was awesome! :D
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Nov 29, 2007....

  ed -- back in the days of formations and stuff cannon were definitely used against troop formations. Grape shot wasn't used until the troops got danger-close to the artillery.
  
  A rolling, bouncing cannonball could plow straight through ranks of men and horses, tearing them apart. Pretty gruesome, actually. It was one of those times where it was better to be in front than further in the rear -- you could see the cannon ball coming if there was no one in front of you to block your view.
  
  Even today with artillery consisting more of exploding shells and long-range indirect fire, they are used against troops -- whether they are in bunkers or in the open. However, the role of the machine gun was filled by the cannon in the days before machine guns were invented.
  
  Heh. I learned most of this from the History Channel, BTW ;-) .
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 29, 2007....

  well now, color me edumacated. :>
  
  ed

• kumarilata said on Nov 29, 2007....

  I don't like guns.  guns kill.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 30, 2007....

  so do people. ?
  
  ed

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 30, 2007....

  and swords, snakes and elephants.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 30, 2007....

  and cars.

• bloc said on Nov 30, 2007....

  so does water ;)

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 30, 2007....

  Okay bloc wins.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 30, 2007....

  [nods]
  
  yeah, i gotta agree with you there, sean. :>
  
  ed

Comment on "pushing the hot button: guns"

Currently tagged	Guns gun control gun ownership politics founding fathers pushing the hot button 2nd Amendment regulations (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment