# Gun Control, Nuclear Proliferation, and Free Societies



## Phil Elmore (Jan 16, 2003)

A thread on gun control at another forum touched on the usual arguments ("Guns have only one purpose..." "If those parents had been more responsible, that little girl who shot herself would be alive today," etc.), plus the concept that the USA's interference with other nations' development of nuclear weapons constituted the failure to recognize their rights to arm themselves for self-defense.  I wrote the following as a reply and thought I'd share it here:

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

Guns have one purpose, and one purpose only:  to launch projectiles at high speed in a direction away from the firearm.

All tools -- firearms, hammers, kitchen knives, jacks, battery-operated "massagers," tire pressure gauges, toothpicks, fireplace pokers, electron microscopes, egg beaters, toasters, wrenches, "Salad Shooters," and Garden Weasels included -- can be misused.  Inanimate objects possess neither volition nor intent; their presence or absence no more _causes_ crime than the presence of my toaster _forces me_ to make toast.  Certainly my toaster facilitates the cooking of bread -- but in its absence, if I wished to make my bread warm, there are numerous ways to make this happen regardless of laws forbidding the consumption of toast.

The government of a free society can and should make a good faith effort to protect its citizens before the fact -- but when those efforts infringe on individual natural rights, we no longer live in a free society.  Residents must constantly ask themselves:  what level of _prior restraint_ are we willing to accept?  At what point does treating all individuals as criminals who have not yet committed crime constitute a violation of individual rights in the name of such _prior restraint?_

Advocates of firearms prohibition seek to create a world in which people who wish to do harm cannot do harm because they lack the physical means -- but this is impossible, and reality has quite clearly taught us that disarming the law-abiding merely empowers those who retain ill intent and do not care what laws they break.  Even in a world where all firearms could be magically erased, human beings would be at the mercy of the most aggressive, the strongest, the most numerous -- and thus society's predators would have license to do as they wished, in the absence of the equalizers that make average citizens less attractive prey.

Beware, in seeking to find meaning in the "gun control" debate, the fallacious thinking of inappropriate analogies.  Nations are not individuals, and nuclear weapons are not tools of individual self-defense.  If I choose to use my handgun against a mugger while others are within twenty feet but not in my direct line of fire, I am exercising my right to self-defense.  If, however, I choose to to use my hand grenade to accomplish the same feat, I am both dangerously suicidal and a threat to all others in the vicinity -- and thus my action is not an issue of individual self-defense, but a _political_ problem affecting all in the room.  

A single nuclear weapon is a not a knife clipped to the nation's metaphorical front pocket, nor a Glock in a shoulder holster;  it is a lighted stick of dynamite thrown in the general direction of the enemy.

A nuclear arsenal is not wood-grain glass-fronted case full of shotguns in metaphor;  it is a butane lighter in a room whose occupants stand ankle-deep in kerosene.

"Mutually Assured Destruction" -- the doctrine on which nuclear proliferation as "self-defense" on the national scale is based -- is not applicable to _individual arms_, which is what handheld weapons like firearms and knives happen to be.  We do not buy handguns and then hold them to our neighbor's heads twenty-four hours a day while they hold their guns to _our_ heads, each of us hoping no one will pull a trigger.  It is not an applicable analogy.

For those interested in more information on natural rights and from where our innate rights are derived, please see "Manifesto of the Mind: Natural Law, Rights, Property, and Government" here:

http://www.philelmore.com/objectivism/rights.htm


----------



## Cthulhu (Jan 16, 2003)

I do not advocate banning firearms in the United States.  However, I do believe that there should be more regulation and control, in particular, a national system of licensing, similar to driver's licenses.

But that's just my wingnut view.  

Cthulhu


----------



## chufeng (Jan 16, 2003)

Blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for fat people...

Nice post.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## arnisador (Jan 16, 2003)

I find Rand's Objectivism interesting. I view it as an outgrowth of Peirce's Pragmatism though historically this is not entirely historically accurate.

I have had mixed thoughts upon reading that the sniper victims' families will sue the gunmaker. My first thought is that it's preposterous, and yet lawsuits like this often force safety and other improvements (locks, fingerprinting of bullets, closer supervision of guns and investigation of gunbuyers, etc.). When the British officer was stabbed and killed recently they pointed out how rare that was in the UK. It's surely different here. Guns are easily gotten and too often misused, be it by accident or design.

The tool analogy is of limited value--this is a tool which, when properly used, kills things. One might argue somewhat facetitously that in that regard it's simialr to tobacco! While I agree that the extreme of comparing it to a nuclear weapon is too much of an exaggeration, there's a heap paradox here--I don't mind if you own a slingshot, but where do we draw the line as we proceed to crossbow, revolver, semi-automatic small caliber pistol, fully automatic pistol large caliber pistol, automatic rifle,... (please forgive me if I misuse gun terminology--I am not a gun, er, firearm person). Is a shotgun or rifle a weapon of individual defense? Submachine gun? Are you prepared to give a list, or a definition that can be applied case-by-case?

There's also the practical issue--guns are used to kill lots of people. Outlawing malfeasance and stupidity to eliminate homicides and accidental deaths is impractical. Like it or not, restricting guns could in principle work (though prohibition as we know has its own set of problems). You're arguing a philosophical point about rights and a practical point about individual self-defense; I might grant that philosophically you should be allowed to have a gun, but I might say that politics is the art of compromise and that attacking the problem where one can may be the only approach. How many cities have made spray paint illegal or restricted?

There is a whole board for topics like this where we have only a forum!


----------



## chufeng (Jan 17, 2003)

In fact, in MOST places where gun control laws are strict...violent crimes escalated after the laws were enacted...why? Because the bad guys kept theirs and the threat of being shot by a law-abiding citizen vanished. Conversely, in those areas where permits to carry concealed (a sort of licensure, if you will) are common...there is less violent crime.
There are plenty of laws on the books regarding violent behavior...if they were applied more strictly, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## M F (Jan 17, 2003)

> How many cities have made spray paint illegal or restricted?


   Many.  The question is, how many of those cities have seen a decrease in vandalism?  I would wager, none.


----------



## Seig (Jan 17, 2003)

In some ways, it is sad.  There are arguments both pro and con, all I know is that I have to have three different gun licenses and do.  Maybe, if more people had to go through that to be able to obtain a firearm....nah.  The fact of the matter is that there are laws already in place.  The problems stem from enforcement of said laws or the lack thereof.  I will not condemn the already overworked police officers nor the ATF.  They have their hands full and I salute their efforts.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jan 17, 2003)

I agree with the problems enforcing gun laws.  There should be a national set of laws instead of having different regulation practices in every state.  For example, in Florida, it is _very_ easy to get a concealed weapons permit, but more difficult in say, Massachusetts.

Having different sets of regulations and penalties for every state makes it that much more difficult to enforce those laws for any single federal law enforcement agency.

Cthulhu


----------



## Kirk (Jan 17, 2003)

There should also be a nation permit to carry.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jan 17, 2003)

That's what I mean, a national set of regulation covering all aspects of gun legislation and control.

Fat chance of that happening.

Cthulhu


----------



## MountainSage (Jan 17, 2003)

Gentlmen and women,
Get off the fence folks!  The gun debate is foolish for many reasons.  The two most important, in my humble opinion, are that you will never be able to legislate intelligents/ common sense and our constitution protect the "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS". I own a few rifles, but use them very little, shoot coyotes, marmets, and the occassional domestic dog from town( I am a sheep rancher).  Beyond these activities I have little use for guns, but do not deny anyone else the right to own.  I strongly disagree with any requirement to license ownership, it only services two purposes: For states to collect money from citizens and a record of who has guns, usually the law abiding people, notthe criminals.

Mountain Sage:soapbox:


----------



## Elfan (Jan 17, 2003)

Actually I think gun control is an example of something that is best left up to the individual states.  I live in Massachusetts.  The gun control laws that are in place here and desired by the populous would not be appropriate in say Montana.  Conversly the increased gun freedom in Montana would not be desired by the peopel of Massachusetts.

------


> our constitution protect the "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS"


The 2nd amendment to the US constitution protects the right of states to have militias, like the rest of the Bill of Rights it is intended to limit the power of the *federal* government, not the states.


----------



## Jill666 (Jan 17, 2003)

I disagree- I'm currently in the first stage of jumping through many hoops to get a liscence (How the HELL is that spelled- it's the small words that get me lol). I have never been convicted of a violent crime, and just want to protect myself. Meanwhile, I personally know several people who have unregistered guns, one of whom is a felon.

The weapons we own my husband has qualified for- God forbid he should go on another business trip and I need to shoot an intruder. I'll be legally screwed. (But breathing)

I just have what I admit is a pet peeve about the powers that be getting in my business a bit too much for my taste. I've called the cops on two addicts pissing in my front hall, waiting for my crack-dealing ex-neighbor. Fifteen minutes later they show up, after I've told them to get lost & gotten into an argument with the neighbor in question. But if I run a red light- all of a sudden those same cops are freakin' Johnny-on-the-spot.

Massachusetts needs an enema. 

:soapbox:


----------



## Cthulhu (Jan 17, 2003)

If I remember correctly, MA gun laws (particularly licensing) are much more strict than those of FL.  In FL, you just need to take a firearms safety course, not be a convicted felon, and not have been recently certified insane.  This is for a concealed weapons permit, by the way.  I believe these are the requirements for just a Class B LTC in MA, which lets you buy a handgun, but not carry.  As long as you're 21 and go through the mandatory waiting period and background check, you can buy a gun without needing any sort of license in FL.

Cthulhu


----------



## yilisifu (Jan 17, 2003)

To support gunm rights, I strongly suggest joining the NRA.  Although they have been the butt of many jokes and many political skirmishes (they are usually billed as the bad guys by the left-wing types), they have done more than any other organization in helping us maintain our right to bear arms.

   During the Clinton administration, we came VERY close to losing that right.  I watched in awe as Barbara Walters spoke disparingly of people who own "semi-automatic machine guns" (????) and Peter Jennings gave tremendously inflated statistics regarding the number of gun-related deaths in the U.S. (he was later forced, by the NRA and it's membership who sent him over a million letters DAILY for a week.....to recant what he had said).

   The fact is that there ARE powerful people out there who do NOT want you to be able to obtain or carry a firearm of any kind and they will do whatever they can get away with to ensure that they get their way.

   I remember that during that same administration, Sen. Kennedy (who can't swim, either) actually tried to pass a bill which would have OUTLAWED ALL MARTIAL ARTS WEAPONS!  Yep.  I actually SAW it.  Fortunately, none of the idiots who wanted to pass this legislation could decide what constituted a "martial arts" weapon and the whole gimmick fell apart.

   But the point is that they TRIED.  And they're not finished trying, either.

   When Washington, DC made the ownership of handguns illegal, their violent crime rate soared.  Their homicide rate rate increased dramatically.

   A small city in the south decided to pimp Washington and New York and actually required, by law, all citizens(of that town) over the age of 21 to carry a firearm when in public!  You could be issued a ticket for NOT having one!
   Their violent crime rate dropped to almost zero immediately.  This was something they hadn't foreseen......

   If the government takes your guns, they will then go after your swords and spears...at least as long as we have people like Kennedy in public office.  The threat is very real.

   Join the NRA.  Keep your right to bear arms.

                                               :soapbox:


----------



## TLH3rdDan (Jan 17, 2003)

no amount of firearms legislation will prevent felons from obtaining what they want... if i wanted i could walk to a few select areas of nashville... yes nashville tn... and purchase anything from a 22 pistol to a MP-5 for the right price... it happens everyday... regardless of how many laws you pass and how many guns your take off the streets... the fact that remains is that those with the right amount of money and the total disrespect for the law and human life can obtain what they want when they want it in order to accomplish their crimes... besides say we got rid of all firearms in the united states... some how managed to have every person in the country who owns a gun both legally and illegally both law abiding and criminal to turn in the guns... and we somehow magically prevent them from ever entering into our country...and they were all distroyed... do you really think that would prevent violent crimes such as murder, rape, and robbery... what would we outlaw next? knives? baseball bats? glass bottles? razors? forks? spoons? nails? as long as there is hate and jealousy and greed there will always be violence... as long as man can think we will always come up with a way to kill or hurt each other... what the ulitimate??? pad every inch of the world and put us all in bubble suits capable of defelcting every posible means of harm??? the thing is that people or violent... we have been killing each other from the dawn of time that will not change... simply do your best to enforce the laws we have (which are not being enforced half as well as they should be) and teach and educate the people as best as you can... sorry for the rant and rambling lol


----------



## Cthulhu (Jan 17, 2003)

1.  There is no way you can get every U.S. citizen to turn in their firearms.  Won't happen.  That would only end in extreme ugliness.

2.  Create and enforce federal regulations and guidelines for firearms to be followed by every state.  Every state will have the same requirements for ownership, carry licenses, etc.

3.  Create and enfore *strict* penalties for those who do not comply with these laws (basically, criminals and the wingnuts who thing the gov't is out to get them).  For example, if a convicted felon is caught with a firearm, back to the hokey-pokey they go, do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200.  For a long time.  

4.  A requirement for gun ownership should be a mandatory safety course, like many states do with driver licenses.  If someone is injured due to carelessness on a gunowner's part, penalties will be severe since the legal ownership of the gun indicates the person was aware of the safety rules they broke.  So, if your kid gets a gun and shoots someone, you go to the hokey-pokey for being stupid enough to leave the gun readily available.

5.  Great Cthulhu thinks all weapons should be banned, as the taking of human life should be the sole right of His Evilness  

Cthulhu


----------



## MountainSage (Jan 17, 2003)

At least we know there is some common sense in Oregon and Iowa.  A-men yilisifu.

Mountain Sage


----------



## J-kid (Jan 18, 2003)

Fire arms protect us,
In Some countrys which they have banned guns law bidding citizeins had to hand over there guns wal street thugs did not.
The rate of Murders have gone up in those countrys due to the cops not having guns and people unable to protect themselves.
Go figure,  Guns are good but you have to have gun safty and control.


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by M F _
> *Many.  The question is, how many of those cities have seen a decrease in vandalism?  I would wager, none. *



My hometown actually did.

High school/junior high age kids were buying spray paint and using it on the walls.  The adults of the community were really pissed and passed a city recommendation that nobody under 21 could buy spraypaint.  The places selling spraypaint unanimously decided to go along with it.

the graffiti was greatly reduced, simply because the kids couldn't get a hold of the paint, because the adults wouldn't buy it for them (this is the most important part!) and the stores wouldn't sell it to them.  It only worked because the whole community supported it.

This argument, however, won't apply to gun control.  There are many ways to kill someone, and only one to spraypaint a wall (yes, they could use buckets and brushes, but that takes forever and is a real good way to get caught).


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 18, 2003)

I've seen some interesting points here.

I absolutely support the right of the individual to bear arms.

However, I think it should have the same restrictions on it that driving a car does.  

1.  take a class in how to use it and in safety and proper storage.  Even people who already know how to drive have to take driver's ed.

2.  you receive your "gun license" after completing a written and physical exam for that weapon.  (Class C would be handgun, class A rifle, etc...).  The classes should be cheap.  

3.  The guns should be registered, with a "fingerprint" taken.  (shoot gun at something, take bullet and record what it looks like. every gun leaves special unique marks on the bullets).  This way, if the bullet from a murder comes back as "not found" then all registered guns can be excluded from being the murder weapon, for the most part.  (there are ways to alter this fingerprint, but most people don't think about doing it.)  If it comes back "match found" you go talk to the gun owner and establish the location of the weapon.
we license cars to identify them. license guns for the same purpose.

4.  stolen guns should be reported asap.  You report your car stolen, why not report your gun?

5.  To operate a gun if you are under the age of 18, you must have a licensed adult supervising, and receive a "learner's permit" by taking an age appropriate safety class.


A gun is merely a tool.  However, it can be a dangerous tool if you don't know what you're doing, and don't keep it away from other people who don't know what they're doing.  You wouldn't let someone with no knowledge of driving use your car...why let someone with no gun knowledge use your weapon?

A gun is a tool. Like any tool, it can be misused.

A weapon is an inanimate object.  Inanimate objects are neither good nor evil.  The moral status of the weapon depends on who's holding it, who it's pointed at, and the intent of the party in control.


----------



## MountainSage (Jan 18, 2003)

You folks are glazing over a couple important points.  Your requlation ideas are great, but rules of any kind are only followed by the law abiding people, not criminals.  The second is that no matter how many classes a person takes if they don't have common sense the class won't teach it to them.  These two point limit the value of any system of registration of weapons.

Mountain Sage


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *You folks are glazing over a couple important points.  Your requlation ideas are great, but rules of any kind are only followed by the law abiding people, not criminals. *



The UK has ahd good luck in this regard--shooting deaths are rare. Part of it is that the police don't regularly carry weapons which helps avoid an arms race with the criminals, i think.


----------



## yilisifu (Jan 18, 2003)

Mountain Sage hit the nail squarely on the head.  The reason that no amount of legislation will ever impact the use of firearms by criminals is because criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.

   Licensing procedures and classes...only law-abiding citizens will obey such laws.  Criminals will not.

   I think also that one of the reasons why the UK has reduced the number of gun-related incidents is because they REALLY come down hard on anyone caught using such a weapon in the commission of a crime.


----------



## superdave (Jan 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfan _
> *Actually I think gun control is an example of something that is best left up to the individual states.  I live in Massachusetts.  The gun control laws that are in place here and desired by the populous would not be appropriate in say Montana.  Conversly the increased gun freedom in Montana would not be desired by the peopel of Massachusetts.
> 
> ------
> ...



I guess the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means nothing.  The people, means just that, the people. Not the National Guard, which is an extention of the military.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by superdave _
> *I guess the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means nothing.  The people, means just that, the people. Not the National Guard, which is an extention of the military. *



Not at the time that document was written though. Of course, the document also endorsed slavery and denied suffrage to women, for example. It was a product of its time and we should be amazed by how timeless it has proved--but we should not take its timelessness as a given in all circumstances.

Firearms technology has advanced considerably since then also--at that time the gun would blow up in your face a fair amount of the time and took time to reload. The gun is a deadlier weapon today.


----------



## yilisifu (Jan 18, 2003)

I must have missed the parts which endorse slavery and deny suffrage to women.  Where are those in the Bill of Rights?


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *I must have missed the parts which endorse slavery and deny suffrage to women.  Where are those in the Bill of Rights? *



This is why I said "the document" by which I meant the Constitution as a whole. Even the Bill of Rights uses (and means) "man" where we would now interpret it as "person" however, and surely as interpreted then would have been taken to mean "free man" only.


----------



## TLH3rdDan (Jan 18, 2003)

great in theory... bad in reality... it would never work... simply changing the brand of ammunition used can alter the print slightly not to mention the fact that over time the barrel heats and is altered by the heat yet again changing the print... it is not as simple as it seems... the print you got from the first round fired would be totally different from the print taken from the 500th round fired... not to mention all it takes is a couple of quick passes with a rat tail file to change the lands and grooves of any barrel... the best thing that they can do is educate the public and strictly enforce the current laws... not to mention as others have stated make the laws uniform across the country...


----------



## chufeng (Jan 19, 2003)

Another thought along these lines but not necessarily addressed in our country's founding documents:

"How were people to settle new tracts of land?"

A family might be able to carry 6 months or a year's worth of food (not including meat)...they couldn't run to Safeway if they ran out of flour, or if they needed some venison, etc.  It takes awhile to produce enough livestock and homegrown produce to feed a large family (you can't eat the bull or the breeding cow or your meat syupply runs out pretty fast)...Those who supplemented by hunting would need a means to cleanly, and quickly kill their food...bow and arrow is not always quick and traps aren't always reliable...owning guns in the early days of this nation was a necessity if we were going to expand, just from a survival point of view...that includes the rare (notice I said RARE) instance where a large beast with sharp teeth and claws threatened you, a family member, or your livestock.

OK, back to the original discussion...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 19, 2003)

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/constitutiononslavery.html






> Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.
> 
> The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.
> 
> Fact:  The rhetoric in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence about liberty, freedom, being created equal, and so on, was seldom considered applicable to blacks, slave or free. Seen a subservient race, they were excluded from consideration as members of society and had few rights.


----------



## yilisifu (Jan 19, 2003)

Thank you!

   However, that is in the U.S. Constitution, not the Bill of Rights which is the one quoted, saying "People's right to bear arms......"

   But thank you just the same.  Most interesting.


----------



## Elfan (Jan 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TLH3rdDan _
> *no amount of firearms legislation will prevent felons from obtaining what they want... *



The idea is not to make it impossible but to make it much for difficult.  Traffic laws do not stop people from speeding, however, they do slow them down as most people don't want a hefty ticket if they are caught.




> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *I must have missed the parts which endorse slavery and deny suffrage to women.  Where are those in the Bill of Rights? *



On slavery:  
"Section. 9. 
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "

"Importations of persons" is of course a reference to importing slaves.  

EDIT, forgot this one: Article 1, clause 3: 

" Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "

As stated 2 posts ago all other persons are slaves.

The constitution does not, however, deny, women the right to vote.  It leaves eligibility to vote up to the states (a few allowed all property owning persons to vote for a little while until people realized that property owning women could then vote).  Of course other then those rare exceptions women were almost never allowed to vote.  The 19th amendment allowed women to vote in 1920.




> _Originally posted by superdave _
> *I guess the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means nothing.  The people, means just that, the people. Not the National Guard, which is an extension of the military. *



2nd Amendment
"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. "

Please note the commas.  For the past 200+ years this has been interpreted by the courts to not refer to any special right to bear arms beyond normal property rights.  Again the Bill of Rights limits the *federal government* not the states.  The amendment protects the right of the states to have militias.  

The definition of a militia from American Heritage: "- An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 
- A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 
- The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. "

Now that to me sounds a lot like what the state National Guards are *supposed* to be.   I agree that today the National guards seem to be nothing more than an extension of the reserves to be called up to support  every major military adventure abroad.



Note I got the quotes from the site of my favorite Rep. in Congress right here: http://www.house.gov/paul/


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Jan 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by superdave _
> *I guess the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means nothing.  The people, means just that, the people. Not the National Guard, which is an extention of the military. *


Taking it out of context certainly works yes, but the Supreme Court, has ruled on this more then once. Owning guns is a privilage, not a right. One of the largest misconceptions about the bill of rights concerns this. Oh the joys of having a parent as a goverment scholar/teacher.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *   However, that is in the U.S. Constitution, not the Bill of Rights which is the one quoted, saying "People's right to bear arms......"*



The Bill of Rights constitutes the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Amendments become part of the document--that is, the Bill of Rights is not merely an addendum to the Constitution, it alters the constitution. Every amendment becomes part of the document. That is, you're making a distinction that isn't there. The order of the amendments is of historic interest but they are incorporated into the Constitution itself.

It's all one document; the amendments just show the order in which it was changed.


----------



## chufeng (Jan 19, 2003)

Well...for anyone who thinks the 2nd amendment only refers to state militias and NOT individuals...

Come and get 'em...

The fact remains...those who would break the law WILL out-gun ordinary citizens...they will buy whatever they can lay their hands on. 

But, if the bad guys think that they may get shot at (like in Texas, for example) they will more than likely think twice before committing a crime against a civilian. 

Rules and regulations will NOT stop the flow of black-market gun sales...

The laws on the books are sufficient to deal with violators...they just need to be inforced more rigorously...but in Seattle, it takes 7 (seven) auto-thefts (grand-theft; auto) before the perp will spend a night behind bars...with this kind of law enforcement, one should NOT ban guns, or restrict there use, but, outlaw the sh!theads who let the bad guys walk...

IMHO

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## superdave (Jan 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Hollywood1340 _
> *Taking it out of context certainly works yes, but the Supreme Court, has ruled on this more then once. Owning guns is a privilage, not a right. One of the largest misconceptions about the bill of rights concerns this. Oh the joys of having a parent as a goverment scholar/teacher. *



When did the Supreme Court rule on the meaning of the second amendment? Seems to me that they keep ducking the issue.


----------



## yilisifu (Jan 20, 2003)

They do (keep ducking it).  Some pliticians insist that this amendment refers to state militias and not individual citizens.  Others argue that it DOES refer to individual citizens.  The Supreme Court has managed to stay clear of the issue, but sooner or later it will have to rule.


----------



## Elfan (Jan 20, 2003)

The 2nd amendment is 2nd (no pun) only to the 3rd amendment for fewest Supreme court rulings.  However, that doens't mean it has been ignored.  This is most objective summary of Supeme Court rulings I could find:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/supreme_cases.html

This is the text of what most of the sites I looked at seemed to feal was the most important case if you really want to read it:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 20, 2003)

the most pressing argument that I have heard that the second ammendment refers to militia and not individuals:

look at the text of the constitution...

when it uses the word "people" in other contexts, and even in the declaration of independence, its referring to "we the people" people, as a whole, a collective.  not as individuals.  

when the constitution wanted to refer to individuals, they used the term "man" rather than "people."


~~~~~
I support the right to bear arms. I'm going weapon shopping next week.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Jan 21, 2003)

Take the guns out of crooks and criminals hangs first, then we can all happily surrender our guns too.  We don't need guns if criminals don't have guns.


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 21, 2003)

but its virtually impossible to make sure the criminals don't have guns. they don't respect our laws, and our  law enforcement can't be everywhere.  if we had the power to stop guns from getting in the hands of crooks, we'd have the power to stop crime alltogether.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Jan 21, 2003)

Then the citizens should be allowed to bear arms for self defence.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Jan 21, 2003)

Don't quote me here, but I believe it is the state of Vermont where they have this "exile" law. If you commit a crime with a firearm, you are to be locked up in out of state prisons for 5 years. I forgot the details. But the "exile" clause strikes fear into the heart of criminals (not the hardcores, of course) b/c they will be cut off from visit by their homeboys, their families etc. By the time they got out, they found themselves outsiders.  I read that gun crimes dropped significantly as a result. They have even captured unarmed robbers b/c these people did not want to be caught with a gun on them. LOL.

Sorry I don't remember the specific details of this method.  I read it in an article in the Reader's Digest a while back.


But the bottom line is,all gun control measures should target ONLY criminals and not ordinary law abiding gun owners.


----------



## M F (Jan 21, 2003)

> The 2nd amendment to the US constitution protects the right of states to have militias, like the rest of the Bill of Rights it is intended to limit the power of the *federal* government, not the states.



All it takes is a basic grasp of the rules of the English language to understand that this statement is false.

"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
."

http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm

This is long, but if you want a detailed analysis of the Second Amendment, analyzed by English language rules, then this is essential reading.  One of the formost experts of English usage explains in detail why this, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"  is not limited in any way by this, " A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State".
-edited because I forgot to add the link.


----------



## Elfan (Jan 21, 2003)

"2nd Amenedment Sisters's Foundation Inc." might have a slightly biased view on the matter. ;-)

BTW if you are going to argue from a gramatical point of view please include all the commas:  

"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. "


----------



## M F (Jan 22, 2003)

You are right that the 2nd Amendment sisters may be a bit biased.  But I don't believe that the Professor who gave this opinion was biased.  I may be wrong.  After reading several writings from the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, I don't believe I was wrong about the intention of the 2nd Amendment .  If I can find links to these writings I will post them. 
     The problem with all of this is that each side will use information that seems biased when looked at by those on the other side of the argument.
     I had not noticed the omission of the comma that you pointed out, thanks for the correction.  I do not believe that it changes the meaning of the Amendment, though.


----------

