The Second Amendment and the burden of proof

[Valarauko]

The Second Amendment and the burden of proof,
Or
How to win a debate without breaking a sweat

What has always bothered me about debates with anti-gun people is that they always take gun control for granted. “But it’s only reasonable…” they cry, and then insert the most unbelievable suggestion. The ADL should probably get a medal for doing this, as they really the best at it. In their review of the book “Lethal Laws” which speaks of the connection between the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, they wrote that the Nazi Weapons Act is nothing of the extraordinary, containing only restrictions as licensing and registration, with which every “reasonable” person agree, they say. Now, one wonders, how do they define reasonable? I’m pretty much the reasonable fellow, and I disagree completely. So why did they write that? Because they pretty much take this for granted. Gun control is so much a part of their “conditioning” they can’t even imagine a sane person disagreeing with it.
So when you start arguing with an anti-gunner, he nearly always tells you to “prove” that you’re right. And you always get into the argument. Well, actually, DON’T. Why should you prove anything at all? Imagine you’re in court and the anti-gunner is accusing you of a crime in order to put you in prison. Now should you be proving that you’re innocent? No – he’s the one seeking to take away your liberty, so he’s the one who has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are guilty. We’re really dealing with the same thing here. Gun control is a restriction of your liberty. Why should the anti-gun crowd get away with restricting your liberty without at least proving their idea will save that proverbial “one child”? So relax, take a sip of coffee, and simply ask the anti-gunner in question: “If it saves one child, it’s worth it, you say? Well, let me ask you this: you’re out to restrict my freedoms. Now do you have any proof whatsoever that it will work? I mean, gun control has been around for a century, if it worked, we’d probably know by now, right?”
That’s it. The guy’s down. You see, Lott and Lambert might continue arguing whether CCW reduces or increases crime till the cows come home: it doesn’t matter. Scientists from around the globe have explored the effects of gun control for thirty years now. And guess what, practically every scientist who doesn’t work for VPC or some other similar group will agree that there’s no proof that gun control reduces crime. The only question now is whether it increases it or maybe it has no influence on crime and violence at all. And that question is purely academic. Because once you agree that there’s no benefit to gun control, you reach the absolutely inevitable conclusion that gun control must go, because if it has not benefit, but has a very tangible cost to your liberties, (AND an added risk of genocide) then why leave it? Why send jackbooted storm troopers into people’s houses if there’s no positive effect? What is then the justification to all the kitten-stomping, child-burning, and so forth?
Up until now, the gun control crowd has failed to provide proof of their poition. Their only support is their reliance on the difference in murder rates between Europe and the United States. You can point out that back when the major European countries had no gun control at all (less than 80 years ago) they had even less crime. Point out that crime in many of those countries is rising at a terrible speed. Point out that a UK researcher has proved back in 1978 that the difference in murder rates between the UK and the USA is not the result of gun laws. (Colin Greenwood). Point out that Sweden has more murders than the USA. And then you’re done. There’s nothing else they’ve got, really. It’s over. Now, one of the reasons they’ve continued winning for these years is because of an illogical reversal of the burden of proof. Just put burden of proof where it belongs and see their house of cards come crashing down!

[funkyflathead]

1. Nice post n/t

[LibInternationalist]

2. good argument...

... and a DAMN fine nickname

[Valarauko]

3. Thanks

A pro-Gore pro-gunner? TOTAL WOW!!! :-)

[MrBenchley]

4. Tee hee hee....

"the gun control crowd has failed to provide proof of their poition."
Unless you count the overwhelming amount of death and mayhem we've got here...and compare it to places where saner gun laws are in force.

"The ADL should probably get a medal for doing this, as they really the best at it. In their review of the book “Lethal Laws” "
Gee, I wonder where the Anti-Defamation League published a book review? The New York Times? Publishers Weekly? Wonder what the byline read?

For that matter, I wonder what crackpots published it?

http://www.lethallaws.com/#Lethal_Laws:_Gun_Control_is_the_Key_to

"We do not accept PayPal because PayPal has an anti gun policy"

I did find one group reviewing "Lethal Laws"...

"This massive, large format (8-1/2 X 11 inch), spiral-bound book by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan Rice tells the whole, horrifying truth: Gun control is the key to mass murder and genocide!"

http://www.texemarrs.com/071999/lethlaw.htm

Unfortunately, that's a group (actually seems to be a one-man band) that's as crazy as a shithouse rat.....

http://www.texemarrs.com/


"when you start arguing with an anti-gunner, he nearly always tells you to “prove” that you’re right. And you always get into the argument. Well, actually, DON’T. Why should you prove anything at all?"
Ummmm...because otherwise you're just ranting? Besides, one of the clearest indicators that somebody is totally full of shit is their refusal to prove anything they assert.

"gun control has been around for a century, if it worked, we’d probably know by now, right?”"
And we do. Next case.

"Point out that Sweden has more murders than the USA."
Not even close to true....Sweden even has a much lower homicide rate (0.2 per 100,000) than the US (2.97 per 100,000).

http://web.hhs.se/personal/suzuki/o-English/so03.html

[Valarauko]

6. Book review. Mentioned on one of their pagea

Your statistics are BS - they are firearm homicide rate, not total homicide rate.


So how do you prove that gun control works?

[MrBenchley]

10. Gee, then it shouldn't be any chore

for you to give us a link to the page on their website with the review....

Here's their website...

http://www.adl.org/adl.asp

"Your statistics are BS - they are firearm homicide rate, not total homicide rate. "
Yeah? Prove it..

[Brotherjohn]

19. Gun homicides in Sweden are about 1/10th that in the US (per capita).

According to the citation above: 0.2 to 2.97/100,000.

Total homicides in the U.S were 4.55/100,000 (2000).
Total homicides in Sweden were 1.77/100,000 (2000).

4.55 total - 2.97 gun = 1.58/100,000 non-gun homicides in the U.S.
1.77 total - 0.20 gun = 1.57/100,000 non-gun homicides in Sweden.
Gee. Almost a dead heat!

Other industrialized countries with stricter gun control laws:
Canada: 1.59-0.54 = 1.05/100,000 non-gun homicides in the U.S.
UK: 1.61-0.12 = 1.49/100,000 non-gun homicides in the U.S.
Japan: 0.5-0.03 = 0.47/100,000 non-gun homicides in the U.S.

You asked for total homicide rates. You got'em. In all of these cases, non-gun related homicides are on the same order as in the U.S., whereas gun-related homicides are nearly an order of magnitude (or more) below the U.S.

Now, correlation doesn't automatically prove causation, but these statistics cannot be dismissed as "B.S." You can poo-poo them all you want, but they are strong evidence of a inverse correlation between gun control and gun deaths. Until you can propose other differences between the countries that might logically account for such a correlation, then yes, the burden of proof is upon you to show what is behind this correlation and yes, it stands as valid evidence that gun controls save lives.

[Brotherjohn]

32. No answer, eh? Oh, I forgot. You don't have to argue your point.

[Romulus]

33. why are you cherry picking EU countries?

What about "strict gun control industrialized countries" like:

Mexico
Brazil
Indonesia
Thailand
South Africa
Russia?

A better question would be what the poverty indexes of these various countries are in comparison to their murder rates, not to mention gang membership/organized crime rates . . .

[MrBenchley]

34. Who are you kidding, rom?

It was the author of this thread who brought up Sweden and lied about its homicide rate..

And now you want to pretend

Mexico
Brazil
Indonesia
Thailand
South Africa and
Russia

are developed industrialized countries?

[Romulus]

38. gee

And now you want to pretend

Mexico
Brazil
Indonesia
Thailand
South Africa and
Russia

are developed industrialized countries?


All those countries have established manufacturing and electronics/IT industries. Cars are made in Mexico and shipped to the US. Computers are made in Indonesia and Thailand. Russia and SA have even more industrialization/modernization.

Who's the racist now?:think:

[MrBenchley]

39. Like I said, rom...

And now you want to pretend
Mexico
Brazil
Indonesia
Thailand
South Africa and
Russia
are developed industrialized countries

"Who's the racist now?"
Gee, that's easy...just pick any public figure spouting this gun rights horseshit...and odds are it will be some racist piece of shit ilke Sean Hannity or Trent Lott.

[Brotherjohn]

37. I picked the countries most similar to the U.S.

The countries you list have many more factors that make them very different from the U.S., including poverty indices, organized crime, etc. Particularly, great differences in per capita income and poverty levels would have the effect of rendering any differences seen due to other factors invisible. Take one look at the total muredr rate in Mexico, for instance. It is MUCH higher than in the U.S. or most European nations.

You can never have perfect controls with sociological/anthropological data. But one has to at least make a legitimate effort at comparing apples to apples, i.e. countries that share many of the same societal characteristics (income, poverty indices, education levels, technological capability, etc.). At a glance, that is what I did. I did not merely cherry-pick based on what I thought the numbers would show. I picked nations that were similar in many ways other than gun control.

I would venture to guess that countries with similar poverty indices to the U.S., but stronger gun control laws, you would find the U.S. to have a much higher gun homicide rate.

[MadHound]

5. Ahh, but this isn't a court room, it is a democracy.

And in a democracy, the majority always wins(well almost, we'll leave the '00 debacle out of this). It has been shown time and again that the majority of people in this country want sensible laws like registration and licensing. Therefore, being a democracy, we have to follow the wishes of the majority.

Now it is interesting to note that the pro-gun crowd doesn't wish to follow the will of the majority when it comes to guns. Case in point, Missouri's CCW law. Six years ago, the NRA and gun manufacturers pushed through a CCW bill that was promptly vetoed by Mel Carnahan, and since the Dems controlled Congress, the veto couldn't be overridden. So, in an unprecedented move, the NRA and other pro-gunners brought an initiative ballot issue to the public for CCW(known as Prop B). The public voted it down, the majority had spoken, we didn't want CCW in our state. Well, after the '02 debacle, in a move to subvert democracy in our state, the pro-gunners and NRA once again brought a horrible(yes, the mentally ill can obtain a CCW permit) CCW bill before the Mo Congress. It passed, Holden vetoed it, and was promptly overridden by the 'Pug majority. So much for paying attention to the will of the voter, so much for democracy.

But it gets even better! It was brought to the attention of the courts that there is a sentence in our state constitution that prohibits CCW. Well, the CCW law is now under injunction, the pro-gunners are trying to shop around for a judge who will rule favorably on what the defenition of this sentence is(though is plain as day to you and me), and are even talking about rewriting our Constitution. Once again democracy gets kicked to the curb.

Face it bub, this isn't a courtroom, it is a democracy where the majority vote is supposed to hold sway. But apparently when it comes to guns and presidentcies, even proud American traditions like democracy are expendable. And people wonder why our government and our society is going down the tubes. It makes me physically ill.

Congratulations, you to can subvert democracy. Are you happy now?

[Valarauko]

7. And I have to agree with the voice of the majority?

The majority killed Socrates, ya know. And the US of A is a limited democracy, too (the majority is NOT all-powerful)


And your constitution doesn't prohibit CCW, it just doen't JUSTIFY it.

[Brotherjohn]

9. No. But in the real world, the overall issue is not decided in a court...

room, in the way that you say. Sure, some gun control laws might be challenged in court. But the overall issue is not a case of "you're innocent until proven guilty". Even when some laws are challenged in court, it isn't a criminal trial where the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". Simply, that standard doesn't apply to the gun control debate.

It's a case of give and take and debate by people and politicians as to what they want. That was the point, I believe. It's fine for you to say "the burdon of proof is on the anti-gun side", but that doesn't make it so.

[Valarauko]

11. I'm saying that

if arguing with a person who believes in that, I don't have to proof a disadvantage to gun control, it's he that has to proof that advantage. Tha't it. I know that politicians don't care/

[Brotherjohn]

20. So if you simply refuse to back up your opinions, then your opinions...

... will be treated with the appropriate regards (which is none).

This tactic reminds me of Bush saying "there just ARE WMDs in Iraq" and expecting the opposition to prove that there are not.

[MrBenchley]

22. And where does Bush stand on this issue?

Oh, yeah...he's squarely in the gun lobby's pocket.....

"Handgun Control Inc. began airing in seven states a TV ad that includes videotape of a National Rifle Association leader boasting to members that the Republican presidential candidate is all but in the NRA's pocket. Vice President Gore cited the tape in criticizing Bush's record on gun issues.
Also, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo sought to pin Bush down on whether gunmakers are right in expecting Bush to back federal legislation immunizing them from lawsuits already filed by 31 cities and counties. Bush sided with the NRA in signing a Texas state law banning municipalities from suing gunmakers.
Handgun Control paid $20 on the NRA Web site to buy a videotape of a speech by Kayne Robinson, the NRA's first vice president, to California members last February. "If we win," Robinson told the Los Angeles audience, "we'll have a president where we work out of their office, unbelievably friendly relations." Robinson also said the next president is likely to appoint four or five Supreme Court justices. "If we win, we'll have a Supreme Court that will back us to the hilt," he said. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1705.htm

Small wonder the arguments are so similar....

[MrBenchley]

14. On the subject of court challenges...

It's worth noting that the National Rifle Association tells its inbred members that the Second Amendment confers an individual right because the Bill of Rights deals only withg individual, not collective rights.

If that were true, EVERY gun control law everywhere would be unconstitutional...but it's worth noting that the NRA has NEVER gone to court to try to overturn any gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. That's "never" as in not once, no where, no how. (Amusingly, they ARE in court with Ken Starr (there's an ace to draw to) suing to overturn campaign finance reform on the grounds that their COLLECTIVE freedom of speech is abridged if they can't hand out blood money to right wing mororns..

[MadHound]

13. No, you don't have to agree with it

And in the spirit of this great country of ours, you can even work towards bringing the majority over to your POV. However, it is unethical, immoral, and illegal to try and subvert our democracy. Yet that is what the pro-gunners in our state are doing.

And yes, this is a limited democracy, with checks and balances. But when the majority of voters reject CCW, that will of the people should be followed, not have an end-run around done on it. But I suppose you're happy that democracy is being subverted, just so long as you can carry your precious gun concealed.

Oh, by the by, our Constitution DOES prohibit CCW, from the bill of rights:

“that the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person and property … shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.”

Or are you going to try and parse what the definition of "justify" is.

You gun nuts make me sick, subverting democracy, ignoring the will of the people, tearing down our Constitution, just to hide your penile compensatory mechanisms on your body. Are you proud of yourself? Do like the fact that YOU are participating in tearing down our democracy and making shreds out of our Constitution? Does it make you feel like a big man now that everybody(including the cops) is going to treat the rest of the populace as an armed menace? So much for a civil society, eh?

You know what I don't get is the CCW arguement that having CCW will cut crime, because everybody will treat each other as armed. Well, ignoring the fact there are no facts to back this claim up, if you want to intimidate people and not get fucked with, strap that sucker out in the open, right there on your hip. Its legal to do, and once people see that, they'll leave you alone. CCW is nothing but the chickenshit's way out.

[Valarauko]

15. I don't own a gun

Correct. That sentence means that you cannot use your constitution in court to protect violations of the anti-carry law. The legislature is free to legislate.

And why ban CCW in the first place?

[MadHound]

24. Sorry, but you are using pretzel logic there

Perhaps you could explain yourself better. Or is this the only way you can think of to get around the Constituion? What part of "does not justify" do you not understand?

And why ban CCW? Let me number the reasons:

1. A CCW law would force the police and other law enforcement officers to approach each and every person as an armed threat. I don't wish to be treated as an armed felon when all I've done is gone five miles over the speed limit. You may enjoy getting the spread eagle pat down, but I certainly don't.

2. As I said before, this CCW abomination that passed through our legislature will allow the mentally ill to carry concealed. Does this really sound like a good idea?

3. Along with the mentally ill, this bill will also allow guns in bars. What is wrong with this picture?

4. Personal and property rights will be trampled on. While the bill does allow both business and the general populace the option to keep guns off of their premises, this would involve either the expense of a metal detector, or the indignity of a pat down search. Ooo boy, that sounds fun!

5. Guns within easy reach when tempers flare, either drunk or sober. Instead of an out of control dispute escalating to a fist fight, it will now go all the way to a gun fight. Yippee!(by the by, this occurence has happened more than once, in more than one CCW state).

6. Last, and certainly not least, IT IS SUBVERTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN A DEMOCRACY!! If you wish to bring this issue back before the voters, then by all means do it. But don't do a back door deal with the 'Pug-thuglicans when they're in power. Or do you like seeing democracy destroyed?

[Romulus]

27. surprise

1. A CCW law would force the police and other law enforcement officers to approach each and every person as an armed threat.

LEO's are trained to assume this already.


Last, and certainly not least, IT IS SUBVERTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN A DEMOCRACY!!

Most Germans voted Hitler into power, and most Americans supported separate-but-unequal (and still do). What's the point here?

Talk about pretzel logic. . .

[MadHound]

28. You are out there now aren't you?

There is a large difference between cautiously approaching a car, and getting a full spread pat down. You might like that, but I don't.

And apparently in the quest to conceal your penile compensatory mechanism, you are fully willing to subvert the will of the people in a democracy, ie you are in favor of a facist state, eh? Guess what, most facist states don't allow guns, concealed or no.

Sheesh, you people sicken me, willing to throw away one of the best governmental systems in history all so that you can feel like a big man. I don't get it. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

30. By the way...

since someone brought up "separate but equal"...it's worth noting that nearly every racist piece of shit that can be found, high or low, is spouting this gun rights crap and is four-square against gun control...

[Kellanved]

41. untrue

Hitler's party never was elected by an absolute majority. Even with several other parties banned (thanks to the support by the catholic conservatives) his party reached never more than 44% (bad enough).
The problem was that not enough people stood up to defend the young German Republic.

I see no connection to current events, I've just posted this for the record.

To make my point:

[Yupster]

44. Quick nit to pick

Most Germans didn't vote Hitler into power.

Germany had a parliamentary system with many, fragmented parties.

Hitler never got over 40 % of the vote but was able to form a government because other parties joined his coalition government because he only other option was the second largest party which was the communists.

On the other hand, Lincoln won without getting 40 % in our system too, so I guess it could happen anywhere.

[Romulus]

31. guess again

You gun nuts make me sick, subverting democracy, ignoring the will of the people, tearing down our Constitution, just to hide your penile compensatory mechanisms on your body.

Who's the person fixated on sex organs, again? :eyes: And who seems to be projecting their own violent, irrational behavior and lack of self-control onto others? :think:

Are you proud of yourself? Do like the fact that YOU are participating in tearing down our democracy and making shreds out of our Constitution?

I guess that right to petition the government for redress, and that due process stuff is too outrageous for you, eh? I guess the civil rights movement should have just shut up and slunk away after Plessy v. Furgeson was decided and various Jim Crow laws were passed? Or the GLBT movement should have done the same after Bowers v. Hardwick was decided and the numerous state sodomy laws passed? :shrug:


Does it make you feel like a big man now that everybody(including the cops) is going to treat the rest of the populace as an armed menace? So much for a civil society, eh?

Surprise - police are already trained to do this!!!! And guess what - criminals (you know the ones who actually criminally use firearms) are already walking around armed without any permits!! Meanwhile, some people seem to be terrififed of the "unstable" people who go through 22 hours of training, several background checks, and register themselves with the police before being allowed the choice of discreetly carryinf a firearms with them. I guess those same terrified types faint at the sight of armed security guards. And I guess whoever wrote this hasn't traveled to the 45 other states that have some sort of concealed handgun permit process, due to their terror over an "armed menace populace."


You know what I don't get is the CCW arguement that having CCW will cut crime, because everybody will treat each other as armed. Well, ignoring the fact there are no facts to back this claim up, if you want to intimidate people and not get fucked with, strap that sucker out in the open, right there on your hip. Its legal to do, and once people see that, they'll leave you alone. CCW is nothing but the chickenshit's way out.

Yeah, carry openly so that people will freak out and call the cops on you, after which you get arrested and convicted of the felonies of "going armed to the terror of the public" or "armed disturbance of the peace" or even "aggravated assault" because someone was fearful of you.

[MrBenchley]

40. Too TOO funny, rom....

"Yeah, carry openly so that people will freak out and call the cops on you, after which you get arrested and convicted of the felonies of "going armed to the terror of the public" or "armed disturbance of the peace" or even "aggravated assault" because someone was fearful of you."
Jeepers, sane people don't feel safe when there are armed neurotics wandering the streets? Who would have thunk it?

[Romulus]

8. you presuppose

that "licensing and registration" is sensible without explaining what that means.

Licensing = voluntary database of firearms owners, with little else?

Registration = $1000/yr to own a firearm? :shrug:

[Valarauko]

12. I do not.

ADL does.

[MrBenchley]

16. Yeah? Where's that?

http://www.adl.org/adl.asp

[MadHound]

17. Well, let's see here

The majority of people agree that licensing and registering such potentially lethal objects such as trains, planes and automobiles is a good idea, since these can be stolen, used in a crime, used to kill somebody, etc, etc. The majority agree that the sensible notions that are behind these rulings(making it easier to track these items if they're stolen, making it easier to solve a crime involving these items, making it easier to return said items to their lawful owners, insuring that the people who own said items are competent to own and operate said item) should be extended to guns.

Or do you believe that there should be no driver's license, car license and that a three year old can drive too?

[Valarauko]

18. You don't need a license to OWN a car.

Just to drive one on public roads.

[MrBenchley]

21. Tell us...

How do you get the car out of the dealership without a license?

[Brotherjohn]

23. Yes, but you don't need a license to either own OR fire a gun.

That is the inconsistency. When the cops start arresting people for using a gun without a license, then the parallel will be made with guns and cars.

As it stands now, cars are much more regulated than guns, so don't pretend they aren't by saying things such as "You don't need a license to own a car."

[MadHound]

26. No, but you do need to register it

Oopsie!

[Romulus]

36. hmmm

"driver licensing" accomplishes two goals:

1) identification of citizen
2) proof of certification for driving

"registration" accomplishes the following goal:

1) prospectively IDs property for tax purposes

Your concerns:
making it easier to track these items if they're stolen, making it easier to solve a crime involving these items, making it easier to return said items to their lawful owners, insuring that the people who own said items are competent to own and operate said item

Stolen cars are reported after they are stolen. Then the police look for them. Unless they check a VIN number, they can't tell if it's been reported stolen. Gee, firearms also have serial numbers for police to check after they are reported stolen.

How does prospective registration solve crimes when the investigation doesn't start until after the firearm is reported stolen by the owner?

Won't requiring proof of training at time of purchase satisfy the "competency" concern? ID is taken care of already by the driver's license/passport/state issued ID. There is already a national master list of people barred from firearms ownership (called NICS), so there is no need to add another layer on to the bureaucracy by implementing a redundant "firearms owner license."

The only reasonable gun control law is to have all firearms purchasers run through that master list at time of purchase to be sure they are not barred from firearms ownership (aka closing the so-called "gun show loophole," even though such a used gun sale would be valid anywhere else besides a gunshow).

[gbwarming]

25. Still waiting for a link to the ADL book review...... n/t

[Brotherjohn]

29. The Second Amendment guarantees the right...

...to own an object (guns/arms) that was a necessity in more ways than one at the time of the Constitution's writing.

This is not comparable to the right to privacy, free speech or other rights guaranteed in the Constitution which are innate and inborn human rights. This is the right to own a specific inanimate object, because thew founding fathers felt that the populace retaining possession of said object made the Republic safer and more stable. An object whose possession by the populace had benefits that far outweighed the risks it posed. Specifically, because they felt that a "well regulated Militia" was "necessary to the security of a free State" (a part always curiously left out by gun advocates).

Well, times have changed, and the Constitution was written so that it could be amended with changing times. The destructive power of small guns has greatly increased (compare a Glock or an AK-47 to a musket). At the same time, their ability to defend against one's own government, or an invading government, has greatly decreased (compare personal firearms to fully-armed Blackhawk helicopters, fighter jets, B-52s and nukes). Yes, one could potentially sustain an active resistance in the face of occupation with small arms (witness Iraq today). But how many deaths have to be caused by guns in the U.S. before it becomes a question of "what are we actually allowing to happen in the name of preventing a hypothetical?" Besides which, we have a "well-regulated militia". In the past, it was citizens with guns. Today, it is the National Guard, which is actually under the command of individual states, and could rise up against the U.S. if the need arose.

Most mainstream gun control activists simply want restrictions on gun availability, not a banning of guns. As it is now, even if all "existing laws" were enforced, so many loopholes abound that anyone (criminals included) could easily get guns. In addition, almost all of these "existing gun laws" deal with hunting, disposal of lead shot, etc., and most of the few remaining criminal ones can only be enforced after the fact. The fact is most criminals buy their guns legally today, and they would find it much harder to get them if stricter gun controls were in place. As for the law-abiding citizen, the hardest things they would have to go through would be registering and paying a fee. Boo fucking hoo!

PARAGRAPH ADDED ON EDIT:
Sensible laws, while possibly putting up inconveniences for law-abiding citizens, would actually put up OBSTACLES for non-law-abiding citizens. Contrary to the popular catch phrase, sensible laws would not result in "only outlaws having guns": only outright banning would do that (although the total number of guns would probably greatly decrease). But that is not what sensible gun controls propose.

I'm tired of this paranoid "they're gonna take my guns!" shit. Hundreds of thousands if not more have died from guns in this country due to easy access and the prevalent gun culture in our society. Thousands are dying each year. And they are NOT dying in other similar, technologially advanced, FREE societies that have gun controls. Wake up!

[Emoto]

35. Not really...

...to own an object (guns/arms) that was a necessity in more ways than one at the time of the Constitution's writing.

This is not comparable to the right to privacy, free speech or other rights guaranteed in the Constitution which are innate and inborn human rights.

No, this is maintaining the right of self defense.

This is the right to own a specific inanimate object,

No, "arms" is not a specific term.

because thew founding fathers felt that the populace retaining possession of said object made the Republic safer and more stable. An object whose possession by the populace had benefits that far outweighed the risks it posed. Specifically, because they felt that a "well regulated Militia" was "necessary to the security of a free State" (a part always curiously left out by gun advocates).

They knew (as many of us know today) that a gun is merely a tool, and it totally dependent upon the character of the person wielding it.

Well, times have changed, and the Constitution was written so that it could be amended with changing times. The destructive power of small guns has greatly increased (compare a Glock or an AK-47 to a musket).

Irrelevant. Should freedom of the press be limited to the type of printing press they had in 1789?

At the same time, their ability to defend against one's own government, or an invading government, has greatly decreased (compare personal firearms to fully-armed Blackhawk helicopters, fighter jets, B-52s and nukes). Yes, one could potentially sustain an active resistance in the face of occupation with small arms (witness Iraq today).

Indeed. However, the fact that the government has grown larger and more powerful than it has ever been, greatly exceeding constitutional limits, is not an acceptable reason for disarming the populace.

But how many deaths have to be caused by guns in the U.S. before it becomes a question of "what are we actually allowing to happen in the name of preventing a hypothetical?"

To the best of my knowledge, no gun has jumped out of a drawer and slaughtered people. I believe a human must decide to do harm and then act on that thought.

Most mainstream gun control activists simply want restrictions on gun availability, not a banning of guns.

There are many verified quotes from the leaders of these so-called "mainstream gun control activists" (which ought really to be called "those who seek to deprive average citizens of existing civil rights") stating in crytal clear language that confiscation is, in fact, their ultimate goal.

As it is now, even if all "existing laws" were enforced, so many loopholes abound that anyone (criminals included) could easily get guns.

News flash: even if you do go ahead and totally outlaw possession of all guns, who will disarm? The crooks or the honest people? Ever hear of prohibition or the drug war? What makes you think that crooks won't always have guns regardless of the laws?

The fact is most criminals buy their guns legally today,

No. This is completely incorrect. Who told you this? Not even the HCI people think that.

and they would find it much harder to get them if stricter gun controls were in place.

Yeah, just like it is so hard to go get heroin or pcp.

As for the law-abiding citizen, the hardest things they would have to go through would be registering and paying a fee. Boo fucking hoo!

You have obviously never had to deal with such a bureacracy, have you?

I'm tired of this paranoid "they're gonna take my guns!" shit.

Me too. The organizations with this as their goal are as vile as the kkk or nazi party.

Hundreds of thousands if not more have died from guns in this country due to easy access and the prevalent gun culture in our society. Thousands are dying each year. And they are NOT dying in other similar, technologially advanced, FREE societies that have gun controls. Wake up!

You would feel better if they had all been clubbed to death? We have a culture of violence. You are amazingly naive to believe that with the stroke of a pen you could affect anyone but honest people, who are not the ones to fear in the first place.

[Brotherjohn]

43. Didn't have time to answer yesterday.

No, this is maintaining the right of self defense.

The right to self-defense is inborn. The right to own a gun (or other arms) is not. You cannot say a right to own a particular object is innate. You are born with your thoughts, your being, your person. They are part and parcel to who you are, and that is what the First and Fourth amendment protect. If the right to bear arms is inborn, then so is the right to bear cars, or balloons, or chocolate cake.

No, "arms" is not a specific term.

Yes, it is. Arms are not cars, or balloons, or chocolate cake, or anything else. They are arms... weapons. They are a specific type of object. Sure, one could get even more specific, but I suppose if it said "guns" and I said that this was specific, you'd say it was not because it didn't say "Walther PPK"?

(my text)"well regulated Militia" was "necessary to the security of a free State" (a part always curiously left out by gun advocates).

(your text)They knew (as many of us know today) that a gun is merely a tool, and it totally dependent upon the character of the person wielding it.

In trying to justify why they put the "well-regulated militia" phrase in the amendment, it sounds to me like you are making an argument for gun control! In fact, the amendment as written clearly states (in plain English) that the reason for the amendment is that a well-regulated militia is necessary. NOT the right to self-defense and NOT so that any person may have the right to own a gun.

(my text) Well, times have changed, and the Constitution was written so that it could be amended with changing times.

(your text)Irrelevant. Should freedom of the press be limited to the type of printing press they had in 1789?

If the people so desire, then yes. But the fact of the matter is that the principle behind free speech is immutable. The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to own printing presses. We have the right think and believe and express those beliefs without fear of repercussion (Sticks and stones, and all that). But the Second Amendment concerns the right to bear specific manmade objects for a specific situation, and those objects and situations have changed with time. These changes are not irrelevant. The Constitution is a living document meant to be interpreted and amended as conditions change. This is why it has survived so long.

In answer to some of your other points:

I am NOT saying that all arms should be banned. But I am saying that it does not allow for any individual to own any conceivable form of arms, and it does not dis-allow any form of gun control (indeed, a "well-regulated militia" can be viewed as a pretty strict form of gun control).

If there are few to no gun control laws, then nearly every gun purchase is legal. I am not too familiar with the workings of the Brady Law, but if most or all gun purchases require at least some form of background check, then perhaps more criminals are trying to obtain guns illegally. I accept this. But it is the PREVALENCE of guns combined with the LACK OF CONTROL that allows so many guns to get into the hands of so many criminals.

The fact remains thousands die every year. You can say all you want that the "guns" themselves don't shoot people, but the people are still dead. Cars do not kill people, but the people are still dead. We have relatively very strict regulations and control over driving of vehicles in this country.

Heroin or PCP being just as easy to get with the drug war is not a valid comparison. Drugs are addictive. People will find a way. It is a medical issue.

Yes, much of this has to do with the culture of guns and violence in our society, and that is another issue altogether (although I believe the NRA and others promote this culture).

I am not saying "with a stoke of a pen" we could solve this problem. Much has to do with the culture of violence in the U.S. But gun control laws do not simply affect law-abiding citizens. We simply differ on this. You believe that criminals get most or all of their guns illegally, and therefore gun control laws would not affects them. Sure, the most direct immediate effects would be increased beuracracy for law-abiding citizens, and sure, criminals would still try to obtain guns illegally. But, if legislation is approached properly, the more lasting effects would be the gradual removal (of course never total) of guns from the criminal element, while law-abiding citizens would still be able to obtain guns. But it is the prevalence and lack of controls that makes this much more possible and easier for them.

We simply differ in the opinion of whether or not legislation can lower gun violence. I strongly believe the right legislation can, and yes, that means some restriction of gun rights. Again, I would cite evidence (see above posts) from countries with gun violence rates an order of magnitude lower than the U.S.; similar, western industrialized nations with similar poverty and income levels, etc.. But again, I am not for outright banning of all guns, either. I'm not also using big government as an argument that we should ooutlaw guns. If that were the only issue at play here, I would be on your side.

Hey, at least we agree about the paranoid KKK or Nazi style "they're gonna take my guns" groups. We simply disagree on the effects of gun control legislation. For myself, I believe the issue comes down to weighing what are we protecting and at what cost. I think the argument that we need to maintain an ability of self-defense against a rogue government is simply not enough... particularly since it is questionable as to whether that is possible at all by individuals, and the fact that the Second Amendment specifically says the right is there because of the necessity of a "well-regulated militia". I know that over the years, while we have debated this and the potential boogey-man of a repressive regime taking over the U.S., hundreds of thousands of Americans have actually died real deaths. I don't care if those deaths came from guns jumping out of cabinets, jealous lovers, careless kids, gangs, or a repressive government. They are deaths just the same.

[littlejoe]

42. Your logic is as

convoluted as Rush Limbaugh. First of all, your right is not being violated. My right to safety is violated by all you gun toting trigger happy maniacs. It is no coincidence that this is the most gun-happy nation on earth, and therefore the most violent one as well. Get into the 21st. century. This isn't the wild west anymore, and hasn't been for well over a hundred years. And one more thing. If you feel so damned threatened, why don't you move to someplace where you feel safe. I pity people who live in fear.

[karabekian]

45. link to recent Canadian gun control study

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf

This is a good read. I suggest checking out the executive summary as it will give you the gist of the study.

Gun Control is a failure. It was based on false premises and has been shown time and time again that it does nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals. Many Anti-gun legislation shows a large degree of ignorance about guns and many of the proponents have said publicly that they want to get rid of all guns. With this and the CDC study, it is clear that gun control is not effective and there is no reason to prevent law abiding citizens from getting and keeping them. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Far more people die in traffic accidents but we don't see people wanting to ban cars.

[Brotherjohn]

46. The title of that pub alone reveals its bias, not to mention the fact...

...that the Fraser Institute is a very biased organization that, as a rule, supports free market solutions to everything from schools to health care to the environment. They are a very right wing to Libertarian organization. Of COURSE they would promote a paper on gun control titled "The Failed Experiment..."

I might believe something you cite from the CDC, but I question whether the CDC would conclude that gun controls don't work. That is a hard and fast conclusion that would be very hard to draw from clinical data. Do you have a citation of that study so I can read for myself what they conclude and not just your mention and inference as to what it concludes?

[New Lefty]

47. We are not a Democracy

Why is it that everyone believes we are a democracy? We are a republic.

And why are you antigun wingnuts so afraid of an inanimate object? A firearm is only an extension of intent. Its cold steel, beautifully crafted form is merely a tool. A screwdriver is a tool. If misused, the screwdriver is deadly. Yeah, yeah, I know, a screwdriver can't kill you from 50 yards, huh? Well neither can a firearm! A firearm can't think and act.

One of the reason's so many of us are antigun is the same reason we are maligned by so many. So many of us fail to place responsibility on the individual. We blame the gun for violence. We blame the rich for the plight of the poor. This is not progressive thinking. This is stupidity. Bruce Lee, when he was alive of course, could take a broom stick and kill a dozen people in minutes. He never did this because of his intent, because of his responsibility.

If we are ever going to get ahead again in the contest of ideas in this country, we are going to have to accept responsibilty for our actions. We are going to have to hold others responsible for their actions.

[Brotherjohn]

48. First, not that I even said it, but you are wrong. We ARE a democracy.

We are both a Republic and a Democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive, and we are both. I'm tired of hearing that worn refrain, meant to imply that if the majority wants something, they shouldn't get it (but only when you don't agree with it). Get a dictionary.

Arguing the "responsibility" of the gun vs. the person is an old canard that hardly merits answering, but since you brought it up... DUH! Of course the gun itself doesn't kill people. But it makes it a whole hell of a lot easier for people to kill people. Spare me the comparisons with screwdrivers and Bruce Lee's broom stick... guns are many times more lethal than other objects. Yes, guns can indeed kill from 50 yards, although you have to be a good shot. Try even throwing a screwdriver 50 yards. Try killing someone by accidentally dropping a screwdriver, or letting one accidentally fall into the hands of a 3-year-old. Try a drive-by with a screwdriver, and watch as the rival gang members laugh their asses off.

We are not "afraid of an inanimate object", as you say apparently trying to disparage gun control advocates as some sort of "girly-men" or something. We are very concerned that, due to the prevalence and easy access to a very dangerous type of inanimate object, thousands die each year in this country. Yes, yes, not due to the conscious actions of the gun (again, DUH!). But due to the people who has immediate access to them. If you think these same number of deaths would occur without the guns present (that the same murders would have all taken place with knives or clubs, or the same fatal accidents would have occurred in some other fashion), then you are simply not rooted in reality.

We are not "blaming the gun" for the violence. Of course we blame the people who committed the act, but that is not the issue here. After the act is committed, if possible, they are captured, tried and punished. But the issue is trying to PREVENT gun violence. If we are "blaming" anything besides the shooter, it is the prevalence of and easy access to guns for the violence perpetrated by people with guns. That is not at all the same thing as blaming "the rich for the plight of the poor". There are many many things, many steps removed, in that argument. There are also many things which affect rates of gun violence, but the mere presence of guns alone is a prerequisite.

Following your argument that a gun is just a tool, and that intent and responsibility are the issues here, it would follow that everyone should be allowed to own a hydrogen bomb, because, hey, if they use it, it's not the bomb's fault. The PERSON is responsible.

If you agree with that, then you're hopeless. If you don't, then the only difference between us is a matter of degrees of the threat from the arm concerned. While we spend years arguing whether guns or people are responsible, the death toll from gun violence in the United States surpasses that of the Hiroshima bomb many times over.