Gun Control, Nuclear Proliferation, and Free Societies

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

------

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.

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

Latest Discussions

Back
Top