The Second Amendment

[nemo]

I intend to go hunting in the near future, and have recently bought a firearm. As the clerk was running my background check, I began pondering the never-ending gun control debate. I happen to fall on the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" side of the fence. I have heard arguments that attempt to personify these inanimate objects as inherently evil for years now, and still do not fully understand the reasoning behind that thought process.

 

Mr. Brady of the Brady Bill fame was attacked by a man using a gun, and as a result, legislation was passed that restricted firearms purchase and use within the United States. People are killed daily in every city in America through automobile accidents, yet an SUV that gets 8 miles to the gallon does not get villified like a handgun. If someone is intentionally run down with an automobile, the public sentiment is that the perpitrator should go to jail. If that same person was shot by the person who would otherwise be driving the car, the public sentiment is that we need stricter gun control laws. Would someone please explain this to me?

[Buffy]

If that same person was shot by the person who would otherwise be driving the car, the public sentiment is that we need stricter gun control laws. Would someone please explain this to me?

This issue is not black and white. Even in the wild west in many towns, sorry, you had to check your gun with the sheriff when you entered town. It is a complete fallacy that gun control is a recent "bleeding-heart liberal" affectation. The issue *is* who gets the guns, and secondarily, what guns are acceptable, and these are all grey issues that allow for debate and drawing of acceptable lines. I like my 1911 .45, and I don't think the government has the right to take it from me, but I've also had the opportunity to fire an illegal M-16, and I happen to very strongly agree with the assault weapons law: these things are lethal in the extreme, and no one has a justification for owning one any more than they should have the right to own a bazooka or a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. I think guns should be registered and that laws that allow loopholes for "private" sales should be tightened because they're big enough to drive a Mack truck through: you can sell me your own private gun, but when they have these travelling fairs of "private" individuals who are essentially big time gun dealers, there's basically no reason to have any registration whatsoever.

 

Now the only ones I think who can justify their positions against the above are the black helicopter wackos who insist that they're going to need their secret stashes of unregistered automatic weapons to overthrow the new world order government thats going to impurify all of their precious bodily fluids. As Scott McNeely says "there is no more privacy, get over it." Your purchases are all tracked these days, you need to register your car and have a license to drive, what makes guns so special? I don't think "registration" is "infringement" of the second amendment.

 

Hope that helps...

 

Click,

Buffy

[nemo]

I thought Scott McNeely said "Linux is the future... Sun and Red Hat are partners... Open Solaris will kill Linux."

 

I don't think registration is an infringment either - forbidding people to own guns, however, does appear to counter #2. If registration is required, similar to automobiles, then why not allow people to own whatever firearm they choose - just like automobiles? If a person is going to commit a crime with a firearm, what difference does the caliber make? If the concern is the number of rounds per magazine or rate of fire, I don't see the significant benefit of the current gun control laws. At the moment, if a (law-abiding prior to a massacre) maniac wanted to gun down a large amount of carbon-based life forms, he would simply have to swap magazines more often; the ability to pull the trigger three times a second as opposed to 'spraying' generally just ensures a more accurate shot.

 

You say that automatic weapons are lethal in the extreme and that no one can justify owning one, I would think any vehicle equipped with nitrus should fall into that category as well.

 

The last time I was in Israel, I saw a lot of automatic weapons. Everyone had one, and everyone knew how to use one. Outside of the terrorism, there is relatively little crime there. Apparently the spector of return fire serves as a relatively effective deterrant.

[Biochemist]

...I don't think "registration" is "infringement" of the second amendment...

I don't think so either.

 

I actually have no opinion in this issue, and I have never owned a gun. I have heard a couple of folks fear the issue of registration because it has historically preceded gun confiscation by the government in a couple of other countires.

 

I am surprised by the amount of resistance to waiting periods, registration and restrictions on semiautomatic weapons.

[C1ay]

I am surprised by the amount of resistance to waiting periods, registration and restrictions on semiautomatic weapons.

I'm not. I think there are still quite a few americans that cherish liberty.

[Buffy]

I thought Scott McNeely said "Linux is the future... Sun and Red Hat are partners... Open Solaris will kill Linux."

He said the above too! Honest!

... forbidding people to own guns, however, does appear to counter #2. If registration is required, similar to automobiles, then why not allow people to own whatever firearm they choose - just like automobiles?

But you *can't* own whatever vehicle you choose! You can't buy an M1 Abrams! You can't buy a tractor-trailer unless you have a class 3 license to go with it! This is what I mean about it being a grey area. There really are no absolutes! Now because of that, there's lots of room for debate about where to draw the line:

If a person is going to commit a crime with a firearm, what difference does the caliber make?

You have to have good aim to kill someone with a .22. I can assure you that my .45 is likely to require the amputation of a limb, and is likely to cause your skull to fracture rather severely. Caliber *does* matter. So does teflon-coated armor piercing rounds, and hollow-point and multi-material rounds that distort in interesting ways in order to cause the maximum internal damage.

If the concern is the number of rounds per magazine or rate of fire, I don't see the significant benefit of the current gun control laws.

I agree they're not necessarily well written, but that not an argument for no laws! :)

At the moment, if a (law-abiding prior to a massacre) maniac wanted to gun down a large amount of carbon-based life forms, he would simply have to swap magazines more often the ability to pull the trigger three times a second as opposed to 'spraying' generally just ensures a more accurate shot.

Any limits will mean that *on average* there are fewer dead bodies stacked up like cord-wood. To me that sounds like a good tradeoff.

You say that automatic weapons are lethal in the extreme and that no one can justify owning one, I would think any vehicle equipped with nitrus should fall into that category as well.

In many states, nitrous rigs *are* illegal! I'd love to have one, but I'd agree with laws to make them illegal!

The last time I was in Israel, I saw a lot of automatic weapons. Everyone had one, and everyone knew how to use one. Outside of the terrorism, there is relatively little crime there. Apparently the spector of return fire serves as a relatively effective deterrant.

It can. Israel lives in a different reality though: If we get to the point where there's a junior bin Laden on every street corner, we'll end up like that too. Today however, if you went to Oakland or DC and gave every household four Tec-9s, you'd have a blood bath like you would not believe. There is *no* self-control here, there is very little understanding of what *death* means, whereas in Israel, people get up to go to work everyday thinking they have a pretty good chance of getting blown up or shot. I hope we never get there. If we do, we can decide to interpret the second amendment in a way that is appropriate for the situation, but lets not exacerbate the situation in the pursuit of an absolutist goal of extreme and unwarranted interpretation of the law.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

A vehicle is designed to transport objects from one place to another. They can be used to harm people, but that is a massively inefficient use of a vehicle, and not an intention of design. A gun is designed to kill. That is its primary purpose, and as such, special care needs to be taken with them, to make sure that we don't make it too easy for people to kill other people.

[nemo]

Buffy - You make an excellent argument.

To me that sounds like a good tradeoff.

That quote is the definition of why I am opposed to gun control. Tradeoff of liberty for security. We've heard the quote attributed to Ben Franklin and about twelve thousand other people - I won't repeat it again. Criminals, by definition, are going to break the law. The only people this tradeoff will affect are people who are not going to break the law. The dead bodies piled like a cord of wood will come at the hands of someone with an assault rifle / modified hunting weapon in his hands regardless of the limitations you impose on me. The net gain for gun control laws: a restriction of what is supposed to be a right to fuel a PR campaign that has no effect on perpetrators of the crimes the restriction is supposed to affect.

 

[rant]I'm not about to build a compound in Michigan and start writing a manifesto, but I can't wait to hear your argument about the grey area in the Fourth Amendment: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide..."[/rant]

[IrishEyes]

A gun is designed to kill. That is its primary purpose, and as such, special care needs to be taken with them, to make sure that we don't make it too easy for people to kill other people.

And all this time, I thought a gun was designed to shoot a bullet at a target. :)

I don't agree with the idea of everyone owning automatic weapons, but I can certainly understand why people are for it, especially after having this discussion with nemo too many times to count.

As he has said, and I will certainly agree, if we let the government start putting limits on what type, then what will stop them from putting limits on all types? And beyond that, it could go into other areas as well.

Not to be paranoid, but when we start giving away our rights, it just makes it easier for them to be taken.

And legislating things doesn't always make it better, just easier for the government to call something else 'wrong'.

Personally, I can't see the point in an automatic weapon. But then again, I don't see the point in public education, or ever wearing false eyelashes either. I'm just a little slow that way I guess. But it seems that if we say "No automatic weapons because they are bad" then it won't be too long before someone decides that 'really big handguns' are pretty dangerous too. Then shotguns. Then... well, it won't be too long before I get in trouble using a water gun in my front yard, because they 'look' like a gun. That sounds drastic, doesn't it? But have you actually read the "Patriot Act"? :eek:

[nkt]

Personally, I can't see the point in an automatic weapon. But then again, I don't see the point in public education, or ever wearing false eyelashes either. I'm just a little slow that way I guess. But it seems that if we say "No automatic weapons because they are bad" then it won't be too long before someone decides that 'really big handguns' are pretty dangerous too. Then shotguns. Then... well, it won't be too long before I get in trouble using a water gun in my front yard, because they 'look' like a gun. That sounds drastic, doesn't it? But have you actually read the "Patriot Act"? :)

You don't even need to go that far. Just take a look at the 51st state - the UK. We banned machineguns back in 1920, and then everything was fine for a while. In 1956 (we believe) a secret memo was issued by the government, which stated that "self defence is no longer to be accepted as a good reason" for the ownership of firearms. This wasn't really an issue at the time, since most of the jewellers, etc. simply took up "target shooting" on paper at least. A few cases went to appeal, and a few licenses were granted, but the last was in 1965, to my knowledge. The years went by, and more things were added to the "banned" list (Section 5) which requires the authority of the Secretary of State by the 1968 Firesarms Act. This also brought in licensing for shotguns, which, at the time, was nothing more than a trip to the post office and a few pounds for a lifetime.

 

Soon, however, the crime rate began to climb. No more was the number of robberies of jewellers shops and banks in the two to three a year. riminals were becoming bolder, and action had to be taken! So the requirements were tightened again. More things were moved to Section 1 (firearms) from Section 2 (shotguns) and some Section 1 things were moved to Section 5 (banned).

 

The need for a certificate was moved up a notch, too. Now you needed a referee and photos, as well as a security check and home visit. Costs increased. One serious massacre took place, in Hungerford. In spite of the evidence showing that a shotgun and pistol were the two main weapons used, SLRs were banned (sorry, moved to Section 5) for anything other than .22RF, and IIRC large magazine shotguns were moved to Section 1.

 

At some point, CS, Mace, CN, and, indeed, anything "noxious" was banned to Section 5, along with Tasers and the like.

 

In 1996, Dunblane occurred, when a man who was unhinged shot 17 5 year olds to death along with their teacher. First there were calls for a ban. The shooting sports mantained a "dignified silence" for a while. The government insisted on waiting for the report. They then ignored it, and banned all pistols (short firearms with a barrel below 30cm and an overall length below 60cm) over .22RF anyway. The other side won the election, and banned those too.

 

Registration meant that the guns were easily collected, but high compensation levels were arranged, to ease the passage from being trusted to being untrusted.

 

Shooting in the UK has been in a slow decline for years, but that has now picked up massively. Now that the real thing has been banned, lots of criminals are using them, killing far more people ever year than the total deaths from the single massacre. This has, of course, prompted calls for other things to be banned.

 

Blank firers are now heavily restricted, and owning one to the wrong deactivation spec can get you jail time in the range of years. Even airsoft guns are in danger of being caught by a prohibition of anything that "looks like a gun". Meanwhile, back in the real world, people are being shot with pistols so often that they don't even make the front page of the paper any more.

 

Other weird things have happened (or not if you believe in simple cause and effect) like the victimisation rates have gone right up, since no-one gets involved as they are, by law, unarmed. Yet many UK police are now armed, and not just with pistols, but with the type of gear seen in the US only on SWAT personnel. CS gas in carried by all police (yes, that's utterly illegal for you or me, even with a firearms certificate!), a knife, anti-stab vest, baton, and handcuffs (which are an effective weapon).

 

The 9mm pistols and H&K MP5's aren't ringing the armed policemen's bells any more, though, so a new, ultra-high velocity assault rifle designed to go clean through almost all body armour is in the pipeline, to stop the "new generation" of bad guys who shoot back with illegal guns.

 

At the same time as the pistol ban, parliament decided to move some other things to Section 5. Hollowpoint bullet heads, and, in fact, any "designed or adapted to expand" are Section 5! You can, in theory, go to jail for owning a keyring with a hollowpoint dummy bullet on it.* Yes, they are now in the same legal class as a heavy machinegun or anti-tank missiles.

 

Many things in Section 5 now have a minimum 5 year sentence, because a complete ban was so ineffective. Licensing of airguns due to people using the only thing they can legally own, under-powered airguns (12 ft-lbs or below, otherwise it is a Section 1 firearm), to shoot animals, is being called for. Presses, powder and primers are probably going to be heavily restricted, too, such is the power of the myth of the "underworld armourer"...

 

Brocock self-contained air cartridge guns (6 ft-lbs air pistols) are now also Section 5, bringing a 5 year prison term for simple possession, because the rumors that you could convert one to fire real bullets for £80 were belived by idiot politicians and promoted by policemen with an agenda.

 

 

So yes, oppose registration. It is the first step to a complete ban of everything, including pictures of guns. Imagine a country where the rules were like the rules in US schools. That is England. Imagine a country where no-one dares to get involved to stop the commission of a crime, as much for fear they will be arrested and charged, and sent to jail, for preventing a rape or mugging, as for being killed whilst defenceless by the attacker(s). That's the UK. Imagine a country where anything at all that is effective for self-defence is banned, and any item, even your newspaper, will get you sent to jail if the police prove that you intended to use it for defence or yourself or another. Welcome to England. Leave your brains at the door, lest you go mad, or a criminal dashes your head to the ground and kicks you to death for fun... :eek:

 

*An irony is, the expanding bullet ban was never brought in in Northern Ireland, and nor was the pistol ban. Whilst real terrorists are running around with AK-74's and grenades, it would seem more "sanity" prevailed! No talk of an airgun ban there, either!

[Biochemist]

...That quote is the definition of why I am opposed to gun control. Tradeoff of liberty for security. ...

Most laws are trade-offs of liberty for something, often security. Speed laws, drunk driving laws, even anti-pollution and securities laws can be viewed as restrictions on liberty for security (physical or financial).

 

Gun control is not really different.

[Buffy]

[rant]I'm not about to build a compound in Michigan and start writing a manifesto, but I can't wait to hear your argument about the grey area in the Fourth Amendment: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide..."[/rant]

Tee hee! You've got to understand, I'm a raving libertarian. I'm also somewhat practical and believe there are no absolutes ever. For all the same reasons you cite, I'm also for legalization of drugs and abortion. In all cases using all means? No. Government is indeed about people making evolving decisions about how things should work to benefit everyone. Now, given that here are some of my rejoinders:

 

Slippery slope: nkt's story is important to always keep in the back of one's mind, and requires an freedom of speech and open government to guard against. However, the absolutist stance that *any* restriction cannot be allowed because it will only lead to more onerous restrictions later is simply not practical nor a good idea. Give me an amendment and I'll show you a restriction/exception, many right there in the text:

1. Church-State: "private prayer", abortion, creationism, creches in public parks. Free speech: yell fire in a theater...
   
2. Arms (see below)
   
3. Quartering soldiers: in time of war its allowed "as prescribed by law" (note, we're currently "at war"...)
   
4. Search-seizure: it says "unreasonable" and "probable cause" which are interpretable, and have been interpreted to say if your 3rd cousin twice removed is a drug dealer and he visited your house 10 years ago, the government can seize it.
   
5. Criminal rights: Exceptions for "time of war or public danger". Your property can be seized for *any* reason provided "just compensation" (decided by whom?)
   
6. ....
   

I can go on but you get my point, there *have* to be exceptions in order to allow for the complexities of people's beliefs. I worry about many of the exceptions that are creeping into our society and I speak out about them (and get accused of being a godless commie gun confiscator who wants 8 year olds to be toking and fornicating), but I think the Supreme Court exists for a reason: there are no absolutes, and the law should be interpreted contemporaneously because reasonable people may differ in their opinions. You can be on the left or the right and warn about slippery slopes, but its an argument that forces you into a position of absolutism, which I don't think is defensible:

 

Defining partial rights: Where do we draw the line. I asked above, and I'll ask again: should every American have the right to buy shoulder fired anti-aircraft missles? Its an "arm" which is pretty clearly then covered by the second amendment. How about F-16s? M1 Abrams Tanks? .50 Cal machine guns? Flame throwers? Are you really going to make the argument that there should be *no* restrictions? The fourth amendment: reasonable searches is built right into the language. But what's "reasonable"? Is it reasonable for the DEA to confiscate property of those periferally related to drug dealers? Its happening now, and you'd better start complaining about it: no politician these days will go near anything associated with "defending drug dealers". If you ACLU membership has lapsed, please renew it! This constant debate, resolution and modification of the law is essential to making our society work. Its like a good marriage: you do have to work at it or it falls apart!

 

Privacy: I'm actually a strong privacy advocate, but privacy is going away fast. In California, we're fortunate because there's an explicit right to privacy in our constitution. Everywhere else it is under attack, *not* by liberals trying to confiscate your guns, its by the "communitarians" who want to put GPS transmitters in cars to catch speeders, or do random drug testing in schools, or eliminate cash because only criminals and tax cheats use cash. Does registration reduce the privacy of those who own guns? Certainly! Does it help *prevent* shootings? Not with all the loopholes the NRA has driven through legislatures. Does it allow law enforcement to catch bad guys after the fact? Yep, and its getting better! Will increased risk of being caught make criminals think twice about how they proceed with their gun? In some cases and for the people who don't die as a result, that's a very good thing!

 

I agree with Franklin's maxim, but I also agree with Gorbachev: "Trust, but verify"

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[UncleAl]

If Washington shudders in deathly fear of honest citizens buying guns, it should.

 

Several American counties - including one in Jeb Bush's Florida - legislated that anybody passing basic gun safety instruction should be issued a concealed carry permit on request. The only apparent effect of such radical lawmaking was the local disappearance of almost all petty crime, rape, and gang activities. Who wants any of that to happen?

 

Every rifle in 1776 was an assalt rifle. The opposition carried muskets. Pistol for home defense, shotgun for mobs, 30-06 rifle for talking with law enforcement. Support evolution - shoot back.

[Buffy]

If Washington shudders in deathly fear of honest citizens buying guns, it should.

Heh, heh, it *should* but right now "Washington" is the lapdog of the NRA, and its pretty certain you'll get your assault weapons back any day now. And the rig to convert your AR-15 into an M-16 is dirt cheap...I may go into manufacturing...

Several American counties - including one in Jeb Bush's Florida - legislated that anybody passing basic gun safety instruction should be issued a concealed carry permit on request. The only apparent effect of such radical lawmaking was the local disappearance of almost all petty crime, rape, and gang activities.

I know what Unca Al thinks, but I ask everyone else to ask themselves: why didn't that happen in Miami? Does it have to do with the vast ghetto there that has rampant drugs and gangs and shootings which tourists are warned to avoid at all costs? Wanna know what'll happen to the crime rate if anyone can have a license to *carry* Tec-9s? Will they be moms? Or will they be gang members? Will the criminals change their M.O. from yelling "gimme the money or I'll shoot" to simply "Bam! Bam! Bam!" and rifle your pockets and cash register? This idea probably does work really well in those small towns on the highway where there's one petty theif, two gang members, and 10 child molesters, but good luck in the inner city...

 

Beware of the law of unintended consequences....

Support evolution - shoot back.

Now *that's* a proposition I can get behind...and the next Church Lady who shows up at my door with a petition to put Intelligent Design in the school curriculum better be prepared to deal with my .45....

 

Lock n' load,

Buffy

[IrishEyes]

First, while it was great to read both sides, please limit this discussion to the SECOND Amendment. Start a new one on the FOURTH, please.

 

Second, Buffy: what is this? "creches in public parks". I followed and agreed with most of what you said, but had no idea what that was. Throw a girl a clue here, please. :eek_big:

 

Third, this thread just really ticks me off! Here's why - I agree with both sides. I think both sides are 100% correct, and it really upsets me because I feel like I'm fence-sitting. But I am really torn. I don't like the idea of the government taking one of our 'rights' away (yes, I know it happens all the time, but I still don't like it). But I also don't think everyone should be allowed to run around carrying an AK-47, screaming that it's their "right" to do so. I mean, what's the point of that gun? It's sure not elk hunting! (sorry, babe, I just couldn't help myself- payback for the "Irish is old" comment)

Anyhow, this one is causing some tension arund here, so I'm backing out for a bit.

Stick to the topic. Start a new topic on the 4th if you want. Be nice to each other. And keep this great discussion going!!

[Buffy]

First, while it was great to red both sides, please limit this discussion to the SECOND Amendment. Start a new one on the FOURTH, please.

I'll disagree insofar as the debate about the second amendment often occurs in a vacuum that insists that it be interpreted in an absolutist manner, when in fact virtually none of the Bill of Rights is. To the extent that discussion of the other amendments establishes the validity of the interpretation of the second amendment, I'd say the others *have* to be mentioned here. I'll agree that arguments specifically about the 4th should go on elsewhere, but I've been trying to walk the line of using the references *only* to back up my points on the second...

Second, Buffy: what is this? "creches in public parks". I followed and agreed with most of what you said, but had no idea what that was. Throw a girl a clue here, please. :eek_big:

:eek: Really? Oh wait, you're in that part of Virginia where there's no controversy about putting up Nativity Scenes (aka "Creches") on the front lawn of the court house. Ah yes, Virginia, the Christian State... :eek:

Third, this thread just really ticks me off! Here's why - I agree with both sides.

Welcome to the silent majority. Its okay to be on the fence! Honest! Life would be *boring* if everything was black and white. My suggestion? Read Melville...

 

Please don't step out, Irish! If its only us loonies on the extremes arguing (wait as second, I'm in the middle getting shot at by both the nemo's and UA's as well as the "no guns" folks who haven't spoken up yet....), *none* of this will ever make sense!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Turtle]

___Where to begin? I suppose with the 2nd ammendment (GETE). If the citizens don't like the current laws, then they need to banned :eek_big: together & change them. The option (right?) to protect one's life & property by deadly force doesn't change simply because of the technology or era in history.

___I received NRA training in firearms when I was just a boy, & while most the people I have encountered who own guns scare the hell out of me with their carelessness, I have a greater fear of the idiots driving than those with guns. Having a car is no protection from idiot drivers whereas owning & carrying a sidearm at home is some protection against home invasion. In my state, unless you're a felon or otherwise restricted from gun possession, you may carry a concealed weapon on your property with no permit or registration required.

___Ever heard the Beatles' song Happiness is a Warm Gun? I only recently realized it was a Beatles' song & on further probing found that John wrote it. Blimy! I don't remember all the words but the title says it all. It isn't just any gun he's talking about, but a pistol, & it isn't warm because it's been fired, but because it is close carried. Where & when did John have the opportunity to close carry a pistol?

___Anyway, it takes my 1911 Colt .45 about 20 -30 minutes to make me happy & when I'm smiling, the whole world smiles with me. :eek: