"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

This might be the most parsed phrase in the written history of mankind. It's time for this forum to parse it some more. I predict a lively weekend.

First, what is the meaning of the first clause and how is it relevant to today? In 1791 our founders lived in a sparsely populated land. They had the experience of natives and maruaders who made life dicey at times, and locals had to fend for themselves because official help wasn't likely to be there. There was the recent war, and the prospect of the British returning madder than ever if they could ever conclude their business with the French. Local militia - citizens who were also situational soldiers - was a requirement for the defense and well being of the citizenry. Having guns made sense in that context. Swiss and Israelis are modern day incarnations of the citizen-soldier. I think everybody understands why the Israelis do it (whether you favor them or not). Believe me, it worked for the Swiss in 1939-1945. For them, having guns for the purpose of militia makes sense. But does that justification, the whole reason for being able to carry guns, make sense in the United States today? I don't think anybody expects a Smith and Wesson Brigade to suddenly band together to face a Canadian invasion. They sure has heck are dropping the ball in face of the Mexican invasion which is real and relentless.

The second part of this - that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed - is also sorely eroded in our times. The term "arms" as understood in 1791 is not applicable in 2004. The right to bear nuclear arms in your bonus room just isn't going to happen. Last year here in Orange County we had a backyard dug up because of the prospects of chemical/biolgical agents. Nobody argued for the guy's rights to bear those arms. The weight of public safety overrode the weight of the second ammendment. So, to what extent do you have to mitigate a weapon before the second amendment rights kick in? Do we allow Stinger missiles? AK-47 knock-offs? Rubber tipped dart guns?

A similar argument regards exactly who it is that was meant by "the people". By the broadest interpretation, a violent felon who can't get a gun is enduring a violation of his second ammendment rights. But does anybody really want that (besides the felon)? Again, in the interest of public safety, we have curtailed the rights of certain individuals to bear arms. So, where do we draw the line? If we can prevent felons, why can't we prevent non-citizens from having that right. What about people who have not undergone reasonable training and proof of competency? We're on a slippery slope here.

My personal opinion is that the second amendment lacks the clarity and modern day relevance needed to justify the blanket entitlement that the NRA believes is due to every person. We need something more.

Please don't get me wrong. I want people to have the right to carry arms. I want every mugger, every home invader, every raper, every murderer to think that the next crime he commits will be met with lethal force. But what we have now is chaos, and the NRA isn't helpful.

OK, I'll bite.

I'll take your arguments in my own order though because I'm that kind of guy.

The "People" are the people. They are the same people who are in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th . . . amendments. They are the people of the United States and there is no real argument there. Well, at least not one that you will be able to get any traction out of.

"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."

It is interesting isn't it. It mentions two separate entities, the People and the State. We are protecting the freedom of the State in this amendment, but we are doing it by guaranteeing the right to bear arms to the People. Certainly, people make up a state and are the only ones who can protect it, but is this the only reason that people should have a guaranteed right to bear arms? Apparently, the drafter's felt that it was the only right that needed to be protected by constituional amendment. I agree with you that I think their thoughts were mostly influenced by the rebellion that they had just fought and won. I think that they wanted to give their decendants the ability to protect themselves against tyrants who might take control of them down the road. They wanted the State that they were creating to remain free, and the unltimate check on the power of governmental power is a people who has the arms to rise up against it. I take this view in the context of the rest of the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) which deal with those rights which protect the People. Right to free speech and religion, right to not have soldiers billeted in your home against your will, the right to not have the State search your home without a warrant, the right that the State not take your property without compensation or force you to testify against yourself, and such. These are rights to protect personal freedoms, and I believe that the drafters were thinking in a similar vein concerning the 2nd amendment. They limit this power to a well regulated militis because they did not wnat every idiot with a shotgun trying to take down the government. They wanted rebellions to be so necessary that a "well regulated militia" would find reason to move against the State to preserve the freedoms that the State was meant to entail. I think that they really beleived that this would be the ultimate check on Governmental power.

Of course this is not how we discuss the 2nd amendment. We disuss the 2nd amendment as preserving the right of the People to carry a shotgun to hunt foul, a rifle to shoot deer, and a hand gun to protect their home. I doubt if anyone living in 18th century America would have thought twice about having these tools. Every home had a gun of one type or another and noone ever thought about regulating them. I doubt if it entered their minds to limit the use of hunting arms since they were really only tools like a trap or a hammer. State regulation seldom regulated such things at this time anywhere so why would the framers have even considered it? I don't think that they did.

So the question that we should ask first, is does the 2nd amendment even apply to hunting, sporting and self-protection firearms? I think as the framers intended, no is the answer, however, courts have interpreted the amendment as applying to these types of arms, and have protected the right of citizens to bear sporting, hunting, and self protection arms under the second amendment. Because the courts have accepted that argument, and only because the courts have accepted that argument, the 2nd amendment absolutely DOES apply to these classes of arms.

Since we accept that the right to bear arms applies to home kept arms, does that mean that it is an unregulated right? Of course not! The 2nd amendment is as open to court and legislative regulation as any amendment of the constitution. There are far more universally important amendments in the Bill of Rights, which are far more protected as well which are regulated. For instance the Right to Free Speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment is a regulated rights. The Right to free speech does not give one the right to use fighting words to incite a mob to riot. If you use those words you may be both prosecuted in law for what you have said as well as sued for damages. You may not yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. That law is legal and you will spend time in prison if anyone is injured from that word. There are NO absolute rights.

You mention that the regulation of the second amendment is a slippery slope. Well, all law is a balancing of the rights of one party against the rights of another. It is never black and white but merely shades of grey and shades of grey must always be crafted. Personally, I don't believe that any regulatory scheme is a slippery slope. I believe only spurious logic is a slippery slope, and people should guard against it.

In the case of regulating the second amendment, we as a people have long felt free to regulate the manufacture, sale, interstate movement, method of instate movement, type of firearms sold. This amendment has long been regulated to one extent or another, but it has always been regulatable by the government, in the same way that the right to free speech has been regulatable and since it was created, regulated. So, what regulations have we created concerning firearms. We regulate the use, sale, movement, and type of firearm as well as the class of person who can own them. The government licenses who can own machine guns and such licenses have been held constitutional. We limit the number of machine guns in the country to no new imports, and I think that the government hopes that they will all die painful deaths. No machine gun can be registered that was not registered in the grace period after the act was passed. This has been held reasonable regulation. Regualtion is possible.

The question then becomes how much regulation is permissible under the US and various State constitutions. It isn't a slippery slope. It's a balancing of the interests of gun owner's versus society interest in being safe. That's the tension which creates the issue, and it is a political football. It is certain that as long as the second amendment protects the right to bear arms, they cannot be banned, but neither is that right absolute. So the real answer is that the ownership and use of firearms will be determined by the tension that exists gun owner's interests and societies desire to be safe from firearms.

Now to the nitty gritty. There are two ways to ban guns unilaterally in the US. 1 get the Supreme court to rule that the second amendment does not apply to sporting and home defense weapons, but only to State National guards, or get a constitutional amendment nullifying the second amendment. The constitutional amendment is impossible since guns are far too popular in this country to get it passed. So the left tries to convince the legislature to create greater regulation while at the same time trying to get the court to unapply the second amendment to these guns. The court refuses to hear the case, and its current incarnation would never say that so it isn't an issue. So the problem is solely regulation.

The NRA chooses to address the second amendment as an absolute unregulated right solely because it pushes the pendulum further to gun owners' rights. It is an insane position because following the thought that everyone should have the right to bear whatever guns they want is to arm violent criminals with fullyautomatic weapons and noone wants that. The NRA refuses to enter into a discussion about sensible regulation that could curb firearms getting into the hands of crimninals because to do so they believe that they would be opening the door to total registration of all firearms and their eventual confiscation by the government. It's a paranoid position, and I agree that the NRA is only making things worse. There is no legal gun owner in this country who doesn't want to see guns out of the hands of criminals or the limitation of types of arms sold because noone wants their crazy neighbor to have access to a rocket propelled grenade. Modern arms are too frightening to permit into anyone's hands, and that is why the law is open to constant reinterpretation. To try to guess the framer's intent makes no sense since the framers could never have guessed that we would be able to build arms capable of firing 4,000 rounds per second with accuracy, well as much as you need with a mini gun, much less a nuclear weapon. It is up to the legislatures today to determine the rights of gun owners vs the rights of society, and that is a constant process.

Well, that's my 2 cents. Best of luck.

Haze -

I'm not as comfortable with "we the People" being as self-contained and obvious as you are...

Thanks for your thoughtful and informed reply. There is a lot of overlap in our thinking, but you've added a lot more meat. I'm going to lay back some and see what other opinions get posted before I add fuel to the fire.

Any body else?

It's funny how there are so many laws banning certain semi-automatic weapons, but you can get fully automatic weapons with the proper amount of money and registration.

America may be the large "Superpower" now, but just like Babylon, Eqypt, Greece, and Rome, they too believed they were on top and couldn't be overthrown. As things are, in the next 30-40 years China will have this title, due to their science not being regulated religiously (as the churches in the US dictate several laws and research) and if China decided to invade (yes it sounds farfetched now) I would want the 2nd amendment to stand where a civilian militia would have an opportunity to defend their homes, or we can ban all guns and have them or whomever to come marching in and take our freedom. Maybe it won't happen, maybe it will, but we would be arrogant not to think that it isn't in someone's mind.

Originally posted by Astor
...if China decided to invade (yes it sounds farfetched now) I would want the 2nd amendment to stand where a civilian militia would have an opportunity to defend their homes, or we can ban all guns and have them or whomever to come marching in and take our freedom. Maybe it won't happen, maybe it will, but we would be arrogant not to think that it isn't in someone's mind.

Good point. How should this be implemented today 30 years before the need?

First off, I don't want every neighborhood packed with military-class major weaponry, which is what it would take to turn back the yellow threat. Can you imagine if your business happens to take you through South Central LA knowing that the Cripps and Bloods are defending their turfs with M16's? This is the age-old question: How do you make sure that ONLY the good guys get the weapons. And, by the way, who gets to decide who the good guys are?

Second, if you did keep military class weapons in the house, would you agree to be part of a "well regulated Militia". My read of most 2nd Amendment advocates is that they have no intention of being regulated by anybody.

Germany decided not to mess with Switzerland. Besides being a convenient place to store stolen loot, there were simply too many guns and people who knew, and were motivated, to use them. The citizen-militia is an appealing concept if you can work out the details.

My position - we already have laws on these issues. Felons are prohibited from owning guns. Automatic weapons are regulated. Military weapons are regulated, and currently not a big issue - you don't hear about people with RPGs attacking police or robbing armored cars.

Our legal system is adaptable to changing times. I favor generally less interference with personal freedoms, but if a situation develops that we need to revisit some of these issues, I am willing to consider other alternatives. Not to change the subject, because I firmly believe they are the SAME subject - the much maligned Patriot Act is a good example. When it became clear that we needed to restrict our freedoms to protect the populace and prevent terrorism, a new set of legal tools was put in place in the setting of changing circumstances.

Why are we willing to restrict some freedoms and not others? Because circumstances dictated that a change was in order. I do not believe the current circumstances justify further restrictions on personal ownership of weapons.

Guns are cool to have, huh doc?

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Why are we willing to restrict some freedoms and not others? Because circumstances dictated that a change was in order. I do not believe the current circumstances justify further restrictions on personal ownership of weapons.

How many gunshot victims do you see a day in your ER? Would you have the same opinion if you were working County USC or Martin Luther King hospital here in LA?

More people kill themselves with drugs and alcohol and cigarettes than kill others with guns and knives. My feeling is that trying to restrict weapons more would not be effective. I do not like laws which restrict freedom. The smoking laws are getting ridiculous.

I bought my wife a knife (actually a dagger, with double-edge blade) for the house, since she is scared of guns. I know, worthless, but I do work nights, and the knife looked cool.

I was surprised to learn that you can't carry such a knife on the street, it is illegal, but not for home use. Bet that doesn't keep crooks from packing it, but it does keep her from keeping it in her purse. More gun laws would do the same thing imo.

You neatly sidestepped my question, doc.

We are as serious about keeping guns out of the reach of the bad guys as we are about keeping illegal aliens out of the states. In otherwords, there is no political will. That's why the crooks still pack heat even if most of the rest of us don't.

Notice that we DO have the political will to keep cheap, unregulated medicnal drugs out of the country because the pharmacueticals pay to keep it that way. If there were no NRA, but instead a well-heeled anti-gun lobby, we might have the will to do the same with guns too. Funny how that works.

Let me state again that I''m not anti-gun. I want the good guys to have them and the bad guys not. (doesn't everybody?) We're not there, but more importantly, we aren't moving there either. I want to know what we have to do to change. And, yeah, I don't ever expect to live in a perfect world, either.

If China and the US ever came to blows it would be with Intercontinetal Ballistic Missles and not infantry. No militia would ever get a rifle to its collective shoulder.

Banning guns is impossible. Besides the incredible saturation of firearms of all kinds in this country, which are not on any current registration rolls and guns which every day fall out of government sight, the swiss cheese nature of our borders would make the illegal importation of guns so easy that the country would quickly be swamped by cheap Chinese, Eastern European, and South American guns making it easier and not harder for illegal gun owners to purchase firearms. I mean smuggling guns has to be easier than smuggling drugs which can be sniffed by dogs, smuggling parrots which have to be cared for, or smuggling people who are big, bulky, smelly, make noise and often drop dead. Guns are a cake walk to smuggle next to these items, which are already smuggled into this country in great great bulk.

Regulation which is not so noxious as to force a black market is the only way to try to to control firearms. The current system creates a grey market in otherwise legal semi-auto wepons as well as revolvers, but you don't see machine guns turning up on the streets thank God.

England is a good example of this. The creation of the EU and fall of the Eastern Block border has lead to a massive influx of firearms solely into the hands of criminals, and those guns are unlimited in their scope. So there are more firearm crimes in England every year. In Birmingham last year there was a guy thrown out of a bar. He and a couple of friends came back with Uzis and sprayed the room with bullets injuring many people.

At least here the guns are a little slower to use although any gun can kill. The thing that gets me most about bans on AK 47's or whatever is how silly they are. The few times that military semi-autos have been used in crimes, they are normally far less effective than other types of weapons. The guy in the 60's who shot all those people from a tower in Texas did that with an ex-military bolt action rifle at distance. A girl in Penn State shot a number of students about eight years ago with a turn of the last century bolt action peruvian mauser. A woman at the Cherry Hill Mall shot her victims with a number of fatalities using a Ruger .22 rifle. A kid's gun. The type of weapon really doesn't matter. All guns kill.

I don't believe that any debate on firearms has any real meaning until the border smuggling into the US can at least be curtailed, and until firearms owners are enfranchised into the debate, because they are the only ones who have the experience to suggest courses of action that might actually be helpful. Until then the debate is so silly that I have broken out laughing at some of the laws passed.

Oh and Astor's point about being able to get Machine guns, which is a very expensive and difficult license to get, being legal where semi sutos aren't is quite funny. I find that one of the great comedies of modern legislation that I can own and fire and people do own and fire a .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun, but I can't have a simple clip fed marlin .22 in New Jersey. Yup, makes total sense (that's sarcasm).

Originally posted by bernieunger
You neatly sidestepped my question, doc... How many gunshot victims do you see a day in your ER? Would you have the same opinion if you were working County USC or Martin Luther King hospital here in LA?
I assume you mean this question. I currently do not work in a Level 1 or 2 Trauma Center, where EMS has to bring GSWs. If one walks in or is dropped off, I have to see them and try to find someone to take care of them at my hospital (if it is not too bad) or transfer them (if possible).

I did work at a Level 1 Trauma Center for 4 years, and saw probably less than one GSW per day. We don't have the gangs in Texas like you do in Cali. They see more than that downtown now, I'm sure, but I am speaking from my experience.

Which brings up another point. Most GSW victims are not all that productive members of society and come from disadvantaged minority groups and "bad" neighborhoods. Almost all are uninsured, so trauma care doesn't pay well. Many of the good trauma surgeons turn instead to more lucrative and less risky subspecialties like taking out the gallbladders of the well-fed, well-insured, middle-aged. Or the appendixes of their kids. But that's another story.

Part of the problem is that these GSW victims don't have a good lobby group, and they are perhaps not as missed in society as their numbers would suggest. So their problems are overlooked. I'm not suggesting that's how it should be, just telling it like it is.

edit: And why would seeing a bunch of GSWs make me want to restrict gun ownership? I see a lot more car wrecks. A LOT MORE. If saving lives is what you are about, you should lobby for more strict licensing/testing of potential drivers, harsher penalties for impaired drivers, and other car-related safety scenarios. Why not make the minimum driver's age 21? That would save more lives than further restricting gun ownership.

Haze -

You argue that the gun saturation is a fate accompli, and I can't disagree with you. I will argue that it wasn't always like that, and that the reason that it got that way is failure in political will to make guns tough to buy, even though a majority of citizens have always been for tougher gun regulation/enforcement/control (not elimination!). If we had strict and meaningful gun regulation for the last 20 years and an acceptance that guns are a privilege like automobiles intead of a God-given second amendment right, you probably wouldn't be able to say that.

We are already at war with China, but it's not being fought with guns or missiles. It's fought with trade and jobs, and we're losing badly. For a different thread, I guess.

Guns in the UK are still the exception. The massacre in Scotland made the world wide news that it did just because it was so exceptional. Following that there was a campaign to have people turn in there guns for cash. 160,000 guns were turned in which speaks for 1) the saturation may be as great as you say and 2) a lot of people still want to make a no-gun culture work. Here's a 1998 BBC link to the British guns-for-money story. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/164402.stm)

I totally agree with your smuggling assessment, although enfranchising the NRA to participate makes as much sense as putting James Watt in charge of the environment. There has to be a lot - hopefully a majority - of gun owners who really want to be responsible who could participate in a meaningful way.

Let me state again - despite my liberal tendencies - if you are trained in the proper use of guns, if you are willing to register your gun and be responsible for whatever happens to it, if you have a clean record with the law, then I WANT you to have your gun. Everybody else, no.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
And why would seeing a bunch of GSWs make me want to restrict gun ownership? I see a lot more car wrecks. A LOT MORE. If saving lives is what you are about, you should lobby for more strict licensing/testing of potential drivers, harsher penalties for impaired drivers, and other car-related safety scenarios. Why not make the minimum driver's age 21? That would save more lives than further restricting gun ownership.

Good point. Here in Califonia we have an enormous number of illegal aliens who abuse the system and drive without license, proper training and insurance. Why, oh why do we put up with that? Ahh, political will....



I want to thank everybody who posted so far to this thread for the level of discussion. I was really nervous about starting another internet foodfight. The second amendment rarely gets discussed with reasoned voices.

bernieunger,

If you are so concerned about the problems associated with gun violence in a state such as California then maybe you should pay attention to the fact that California has some of the strictest laws on firearms of any of our 50 states. I grew up in Santa Monica and the LA area and I will say that none of my friends who were law abiding citizens carried guns on their persons. Many of the criminals did though. Gangs run rampant in LA. How many 7-elevens or local liquor stores do you think would get knocked over if most of the law abiding citizens in South Central or Compton were carrying concealed?

Here in Washington I can have a concealed pistol and I do. I don't flash it around and I guarantee that if you met me on the street you would have no idea (better for me to know than for criminals to know). I did have to pass an FBI background check to get it. I am not opposed to having a course to complete which would include gun safety for the particular weapons I would own. I think that a lot of people who own a firearm don't know the laws about lethal force and/or don't know gun safety procedures.

Why is it that felons don't have the right to bear arms? This is simple, when they become a felon they lost many rights. If you have committed a felony then you have shown the government (the people) that you are not willing to be governed by the same laws everyone else is. So in turn you give up your rights as a convicted felon.

As Speed-ERdoc stated it isn't guns that kill so many people out there as other problems in our society. When did we develop this fear for guns? I certainly would be more afraid of guns if I didn't have one to protect myself with in a world where the common violent criminal has one (and it isn't for protection). How many violent crimes take place in the home by strangers? I question whether or not a person could protect themselves from the common criminal if the common person can only carry while in their homes. I cringe when I hear someone say, "I pitty the fool who breaks into my house." Chances are they will get car jacked, raped, or assaulted at a location that they didn't expect. If you are expecting and prepared for something to happen the chances are the criminal will figure that out and leave you alone. It's when you least expect it that something usually happens.

Originally posted by 93rdcurrent
bernieunger,

I grew up in Santa Monica and the LA area and I will say that none of my friends who were law abiding citizens carried guns on their persons. Many of the criminals did though. Gangs run rampant in LA. How many 7-elevens or local liquor stores do you think would get knocked over if most of the law abiding citizens in South Central or Compton were carrying concealed?

...

Here in Washington I can have a concealed pistol and I do. I don't flash it around and I guarantee that if you met me on the street you would have no idea (better for me to know than for criminals to know). I did have to pass an FBI background check to get it. I am not opposed to having a course to complete which would include gun safety for the particular weapons I would own. I think that a lot of people who own a firearm don't know the laws about lethal force and/or don't know gun safety procedures.



Let me turn this right around. Why is it that that gun advocates think that gun control advocates are out to take their guns away from them? What I think is needed - and I think most people want - is meaningful gun enforcement, and a simple understanding that guns in the hands of criminals and gangs is a bad thing. The NRA has such a violent knee-jerk reaction to even the most sensible actions that it takes a Columbine before anything gets done.

From what you say, and I presume it's all true, you are perfectly willing to undergo the screening and education to validate your right to gun ownership. No problem here. Even you admit that a lot of owners aren't fully up to speed on their weapons.

Originally posted by 93rdcurrent
If you are so concerned about the problems associated with gun violence in a state such as California then maybe you should pay attention to the fact that California has some of the strictest laws on firearms of any of our 50 states.

And it's enforced with the same degree of intensity as our immigration laws. We need to work on that.

Originally posted by bernieunger
Let me turn this right around. Why is it that that gun advocates think that gun control advocates are out to take their guns away from them?
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), on "60 Minutes" 2/5/95 regarding the assault weapons ban
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
________
HONDA CL200 SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_CL200)

This is such an emotionally charged issue. I certainly don't want anyone taking away my or anyones freedoms if it can be avoided and still live in peace. This is my right and I choose to exercise it. There are many people who do not and that is ok with me as well. I only wish that they didn't try to turn around and infringe on my rights.

I am not a member of the NRA. There are some things they back that I don't agree with. I do as you noted agree that anyone expecting to keep firearms in their home pass a safety course in that particular firearm. They should also be required to have a reasonably secure gun safe to cut down drastically on gun thefts. I believe that the crime for selling a gun to someone without the proper background check and that if you sold a gun to someone illegaly should be severe . The lawsuits that are being proposed might help with that but in order for it to work the legislators trying to put them through will need to limit how broad the scope of liability is. Otherwise these laws won't get very far.

California has some of the highest violent crime problems in the nation and many of the shootings don't get solved. If the average citizen understood gun safety, laws of lethal force, and comprehended what concealed carry meant then what would be the problem with a law abiding citizen carrying a concealed pistol? If I was thinking about robbing a liquor store and potentially 2 out of the 5 patrons in the parking lot and in the store were carrying concealed, I might have to think twice. And I probably wouldn't live long enough to become a serial gun robber.

There are traditionally three arguments, all of which I only see as logically leading to the conclusion that guns should be allowed:

1) strict interpretation. The passage says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" so there should be no limit in the arms private individuals can carry.

2) intent of the framers. This one is much more open to interpretation. However, considering the time period and what was going on, it's clear that the framers's intent was that the individuals should be able to carry sufficient arms to prevent the government from inflicting its will on the people via strength of arms (rather than will of the people). In other words, individuals should have sufficient weaponry to pose a reasonable threat to any paramilitary organization representing a government organization.

3) measure of parity. This is that whole annoying "they only had muskets in the late 18th century, so let all Americans carry muskets now" argument. The people carried muskets because it was the equivalent to what the government had. As the government's weaponry improves, so too should the people's.

The primary objectionable argument I've heard is that "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" should mean that only state-run militia should be allowed to carry guns. Poppycock. It means that the security of freedom relies on the people organizing themselves, rather than relying on the government to do it.

I think a strong argument could be made that the gangs (Crips, Bloods, etc) are probably the best example of who SHOULD have guns according to the 2nd amendment - they are organized for the purpose of pursuing their own freedom, rather than being intimidated by the might of the government to with its ability to overpower them and force them into conditions with which they do not agree.

Hmm, one more idea here.

I certainly hope that the problem isn't the gun itself, but rather people's use of the guns.

Therefore, if all people were appropriately scrupulous with regards to the weaponry they owned, there would be no need for gun regulation because nobody would be using guns badly.

So aren't we really once again legislating morality by limiting guns?

I wouldn't mind having a grenade launcher mounted underneath an AR-15 or an M-16. That way I could take out any neighbors who get out of hand and their whole house... J/K. I am happy with personal defense. These are some good points though. At this point we citizens are way out "gunned" by our government and were there to be any civil war again we would be worse off than the Afgani's were when our military came down on them.

I do have to admit though that the Patriot Act is very SCARY. If you think about it I am probably being looked at right now by some government analyst for putting those two words together on the internet. I am sure that the government would figure out very quickly that I am no terrorist but still it feels weird to know that the government can get away with all the things that created the Watergate Scandal in the name of the Patriot Act and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

Now tell me how our lives haven't changed in the post 9/11 era.

bernie unger said " even though a majority of citizens have always been for tougher gun regulation/enforcement/control (not elimination!)."

but what is more true is that the majority of citizens have 'always' been for tougher gun regulation/enforcement and control of the other guy. which is why gun owners reject most legislation concerning gun control. they want guns out of the hands of the wrong people but none of them think they are those wrong people.

It does seem to be that way. I have to say that I am not the wrong person though. I really don't mind being around other gun owners as long as they practice safety first. Since more families in this country own guns than don't my guess is that most people do practice safety. But sadly there are a number who don't. I would like to see legislation get passed that would require a gun purchaser to show a proof of completion for a training class on the specific gun type they are purchasing. It would not only generate revenue for the government but also for the gun industry as instructors would have to be certified and would in turn charge for certification. Why not regulate the industry this way. We don't need to infringe on anyones rights but instead make the individual a more educated and concsious firearms owner. I also would like to see more gun safes as I mentioned above. Anyone know what the penalty for loosing your firearm is in Israel?

btw i am currently not a gun owner-wife doesn't like them- but was trained in their use started with my dad's sw .357 mag using hand loaded low power .38 rounds when i was in 3rd grade. moved up gradually to the full load .357 rounds and then to other pistols,rifles and shotguns. Plus all the cool things i got to train with in the marines. i have taught marksmenship (mostly rifles) and safety courses, and am 100% behind any law abiding,relatively sane citizen who wants to own firearms for hunting, protection or just plain target practice. but i do agree with everyone who wants to own one having to take a course on use and safety. The NRA runs such course so i dont see why they would be against making them mandatory in some fashion. They already are (safety courses) for hunting in most (if not all) states.

btw i have heard of places that have indoor pistol ranges that you gan go to and rent various pistols to pop targets for an afternoon. anyone know of something like that in the portland or. area?

Lot's of good points tonight and so little time to address them.

Originally posted by PUR NRG
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), on "60 Minutes" 2/5/95 regarding the assault weapons ban
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."


I love this quote. Feinstein is not quite as out there as our other San Francisco lady dems (Boxer and Pelosi). People were still thinking about that massacre in Stockton six years or so earlier, done by a nutcase who should have been in jail but instead was out and about with assault weapons. We could go around all night long arguing whether it was the gun or the nut who did the killing. In my view both should have been locked up. That doesn't mean Feinstein is trying to take away your personal defense hand guns or hunting guns. Neither she nor I care for the half-hearted enforcement of the laws that govern these weapons, or the loopholes that make those laws a joke. This was before Columbine. There is little question in my mind that damage those kids were able to do was multiplied by the easy access to weapons they had no business having.

Originally posted by zoom44
but what is more true is that the majority of citizens have 'always' been for tougher gun regulation/enforcement and control of the other guy. which is why gun owners reject most legislation concerning gun control. they want guns out of the hands of the wrong people but none of them think they are those wrong people.

Ooh, isn't that the heart of the issue. There are a whole army full of Timothy McVeighs living in Arizona who swear that THEY are the right people. A Well Regulated Militia consists of the nightly gathing in a Kingman bar. That is really scary.

If legislative action outlawed the personal ownership of guns, I would see the following outcomes:

1) Criminals would be placed in an advantageous position, because they WILL obtain the firearms of their choice through whatever means necessary. It is incredibly naive to think that if guns were banned they would no longer be available. A black market will always exist.

2) Many law-abiding citizens may be tempted to become criminals themselves by illegally obtaining a weapon for their own protection. Anyone familiar with Prohibition? That worked real well, didn't it?

Even if all guns magically disappeared off the face of the earth, there will always be a criminal element to society, and they will always find a way to kill. If baseball bats became the next weapon of choice, would we outlaw them too? There goes America's pastime... OK, I'm being a bit outlandish here, but the point is made. We live in a sinful world, and there will always be evil in it. Does it really matter what the instrument of destruction is?

Originally posted by khoney
Even if all guns magically disappeared off the face of the earth, there will always be a criminal element to society, and they will always find a way to kill. If baseball bats became the next weapon of choice, would we outlaw them too? There goes America's pastime... OK, I'm being a bit outlandish here, but the point is made. We live in a sinful world, and there will always be evil in it. Does it really matter what the instrument of destruction is?

Yes it does. It's a matter of leverage. Since you're using hyperbole, a guy with a tactical nuke can do a whole lot more damage than a guy with a rubber tipped dart gun. Everybody would agree that the nuke is illegal and that the dart gun is legal. Somewhere between those ends of the spectrum is a dividing line between what should be legal and what shouldn't be. What we're arguing over is where the line is drawn. How lethal should a person be allowed to be, and whether certain people should be allowed to be more lethal than others.

Oh, everybody except Heston who would probably be pleased to have the nukes in his mansion basement if he could get them.

Originally posted by DisneyDestroyer
I think a strong argument could be made that the gangs (Crips, Bloods, etc) are probably the best example of who SHOULD have guns according to the 2nd amendment - they are organized for the purpose of pursuing their own freedom, rather than being intimidated by the might of the government to with its ability to overpower them and force them into conditions with which they do not agree.
I must have skimmed this post too quickly the first time through.

Ummm, let's just say I disagree and leave it at that.

No, sorry, I can't. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard anyone write. "Organized for the purpose of pursuing their own freedom rather than being intimidated by the might of the government" sounds like ACLU-speak for "lawbreakers and criminals." I would stand up for a gang member's right to own a gun, as any other law-abiding non-felon should have that right. If they want to apply for a concealed-carry permit, and are able to meet the requirements, they may even carry a weapon for all I care. I don't think most of them fall into those catagories. And once they abuse that privilege, the full vengeance of the law should fall down upon them with great prejudice.

hehehe

I don't always agree with what I say.

I certainly don't think that Gangs should be free to roam the streets, attacking each other / civilians / 5-0 at will. HOWEVER, I do think that they match up pretty well with the framer's intent for this amendment. The fact that their motive is selfish instead of altruistic should not be confused with the applicability of this right. They are a group of people who wish to fight the government soldiers (aka PoPo), and theoretically should have the right to arm themselves in equal capability to what the Pigs have.

I do agree with you completely that the most important component of the 2nd amendment is missing from most of these discussions - responsibility. I think all rights come with inherent responsibilities, and these are not discussed nearly enough. However, I strongly disagree with people who attempt to enforce responsibility, which seems to smack of punishment before a crime is committed.

Boy how did I miss that too??? I must have half glazed over when I was reading it. There is one big difference between a militia and a gang, can you guess what it is? That's right, you got it. A leagally established militia is made up of citizens for the specific purpose of protecting their rights. A gang on the other hand is specifically organized to intimidate members of other gangs and local citizens in order to control the drug trade and other illegal activities in their areas. Hmmm.... I wonder how they are protecting rights while terrorising neighborhoods. I think in this situation it is the "PoPo" that is protecting rights.

Gangs are not established to control the drug trade. That is a function and a means to gaining power, not a purpose. Their purpose control.

The Police are selectively protecting rights, the same as the gangs are selectively protecting territory. The fact that your tax dollars pays for one does not mean that they are looking out for your best interests, nor for the best interests of the society they are said to represent.

Originally posted by DisneyDestroyer
Gangs are not established to control the drug trade. That is a function and a means to gaining power, not a purpose. Their purpose control.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here at all.
The Police are selectively protecting rights, the same as the gangs are selectively protecting territory. The fact that your tax dollars pays for one does not mean that they are looking out for your best interests, nor for the best interests of the society they are said to represent.
At least I understand the point you are trying to make here, but your viewpoint seems overly pessimistic and sardonic, and not grounded in reality. While the police may not be perfect, can any human or group thereof be so? In general, they do look after our collective interests about as well as can be expected considering their education, training, and reimbursement, the stress and difficulty of their jobs, and the scorn shown them by the public as evidenced by your 5-0, po-po and pig characterizations.

Gangs dont' come together to control drugs. They come together to control their territory. They use the drug trade as a means of accumulating wealth, power, and weaponry - which they use as tools to more tightly control their territory.

As for my discussion of the police, I have plenty of experience with them as individuals. I have worked with and for policemen, and I have a best friend who is a deputy. That has nothing to do with a police force. Individuals may be trustworthy, groups almost never are. There are simply too many opportunities to take advantage of the fact that you can get lost in the shuffle - corruption, bribery, and simple paternalism are regularities of any governmental agency, and I don't believe you can ever get rid of them. It doesn't matter if it's the police, city hall, state representatives, or congress. None of them truly represent their constituency, because it's impossible to make everybody happy in a representative group that large. At the very least, the fact that they're attempting to service millions means that they are forced to make broad assumptions and categorizations, which are inherintly unfair to many individuals (<cough> profiling <cough>). It forces the entire society down to the lowest common denominator, as proved by the people who hope to outlaw guns in any form. They are forced to punish the vast majority of law-abiding and honorable citizens because of the lowest group who are unable to control themselves. The same can be said of the majority of traffic laws, and even drug laws, where the only method of control is BIG sticks - no small sticks, no carrots.

I don't see this as pessimistic, it is a necessary evil of dealing with such large groups of people. That doesn't mean I have to like it.