Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

[bigrebnc1775]

Yup, dont worry Joe, dont you worry one bit.

I don't.

But the laws are idiotic.

Okay, one more time, gun nuts.

Explain to me what compelling reason there is that Jared Loughner should be able to buy a gun with an extra large clip.... oh, wait, excuse me "magazine"....

What greater good is accomplished there. Please let me know.

I can't think of a damned one. All I see is a sick kid who was made dangerous by stupid, lax laws.

I can't read peoples minds so I say stay armed if a nut shows up with a gun and starts to use it drop him like a hot potato.

Why don't we have more mass shootings at gun shows?

 

[jgarden]

At the invitation of a poster whom I respect, I'm starting this thread as an off-shoot from another (Things I Disagree with Tea Party / Liberals...).

"When you are done with this topic, we can discuss this one in more detail.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

Good post otherwise."

So apparently my new found friend thinks this part of my post was bad. I'm betting it's not because he thinks all guns should be banned...

What's funny is, in the same thread, for the paragraph above, I was called a Conservative who puts human life before property and a Liberal who wants to take away our protection from that tyrannical government that we all know is going to invade ou homes any day now.

So there it is.
If you don't think we need gun ownership at all and can state your reasons why, guess what? I can respect those views. I'm not going to call you names or sling petty insults like some arrogant moron who thinks I know all.
If you think we should have more gun rights and can state your reasons why, guess what? Same thing. Intelligent people can appreciate differing views.

Given that a "tyrannical government" wants guns and ammunition locked away in different locations, what are the chances of an intruder being so obliging as to waiting around for you retrieve you gun and ammunition in order to exercise your 2nd Ammendment Rights.

Statistically, guns in the home are much more likely to be used to shoot someone you know - suicide, domestic violence, an accident. The chances of these occuring far outweigh the "intruder" scenario!

Ok time to play on the merry go round.

What stats?

- for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

- Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009).

- rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Keeping a gun in the home is "a mixed blessing" at best.

For every time a gun used to stop an intruder, there is also
- a 4X chance it will be involved in an accidental shooting
- a 7X chance it will be used in a domestic assault/suicide
- a 11X chance of being used in an attempted/successful suicide

Exercise your "2nd Ammendments Rights" if you want, but don't say you weren't warned!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Given that a "tyrannical government" wants guns and ammunition locked away in different locations, what are the chances of an intruder being so obliging as to waiting around for you retrieve you gun and ammunition in order to exercise your 2nd Ammendment Rights.

Statistically, guns in the home are much more likely to be used to shoot someone you know - suicide, domestic violence, an accident. The chances of these occuring far outweigh the "intruder" scenario!

Ok time to play on the merry go round.

What stats?

- for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

- Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009).

- rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

FIREARMS TUTORIAL

Keeping a gun in the home is "a mixed blessing" at best.

For every time a gun used to stop an intruder, there is also
- a 4X chance it will be involved in an accidental shooting
- a 7X chance it will be used in a domestic assault/suicide
- a 11X chance of being used in an attempted/successful suicide

Exercise your "2nd Ammendments Rights" if you want, but don't say you weren't warned!

Your stats are total bullshit.

 

[Oddball]

Keeping a gun in the home is "a mixed blessing" at best.

For every time a gun used to stop an intruder, there is also
- a 4X chance it will be involved in an accidental shooting
- a 7X chance it will be used in a domestic assault/suicide
- a 11X chance of being used in an attempted/successful suicide

Exercise your "2nd Ammendments Rights" if you want, but don't say you weren't warned!

Source?


Life's tough...Shit happens...Wear a fuckin' helmet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Explain to me what compelling reason there is that Jared Loughner should be able to buy a gun with an extra large clip.... oh, wait, excuse me "magazine"....

Actually it works the other way.

It’s incumbent upon the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest as to why a given right may be preempted; without a rational basis to restrict access to firearms, any such legislation would likely fail Constitutional muster.

That’s not to say, of course, there isn’t a rational basis. But Heller/McDonald makes this a rather difficult hurtle to negotiate.

As I noted earlier, it will take decades to determine where the Constitutional lines may be drawn with regard to reasonable restrictions.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Given that a "tyrannical government" wants guns and ammunition locked away in different locations, what are the chances of an intruder being so obliging as to waiting around for you retrieve you gun and ammunition in order to exercise your 2nd Ammendment Rights.

Statistically, guns in the home are much more likely to be used to shoot someone you know - suicide, domestic violence, an accident. The chances of these occuring far outweigh the "intruder" scenario!

Ok time to play on the merry go round.

What stats?

- for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

- Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009).

- rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

FIREARMS TUTORIAL

Keeping a gun in the home is "a mixed blessing" at best.

For every time a gun used to stop an intruder, there is also
- a 4X chance it will be involved in an accidental shooting
- a 7X chance it will be used in a domestic assault/suicide
- a 11X chance of being used in an attempted/successful suicide

Exercise your "2nd Ammendments Rights" if you want, but don't say you weren't warned!

I'm curious. Where did you get those statistics?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Explain to me what compelling reason there is that Jared Loughner should be able to buy a gun with an extra large clip.... oh, wait, excuse me "magazine"....

Actually it works the other way.

It’s incumbent upon the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest as to why a given right may be preempted; without a rational basis to restrict access to firearms, any such legislation would likely fail Constitutional muster.

That’s not to say, of course, there isn’t a rational basis. But Heller/McDonald makes this a rather difficult hurtle to negotiate.

As I noted earlier, it will take decades to determine where the Constitutional lines may be drawn with regard to reasonable restrictions.

Since you like to quote court cases the lines were drawn out with these cases.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed- off double barrel shotgun. With Justice James Clark McReynolds writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

The Court also added

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
United States v. Miller | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 445 U. S. 55 :: Volume 445 :: 1980 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

The very weapons you gun grabbers are wanting to ban are the weapons the courts have ruled are protected by the second amendment. And further more in miller the court also ruled the weapons had to be owned by the one who was carring it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ok time to play on the merry go round.

What stats?

- for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

- Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009).

- rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

FIREARMS TUTORIAL

Keeping a gun in the home is "a mixed blessing" at best.

For every time a gun used to stop an intruder, there is also
- a 4X chance it will be involved in an accidental shooting
- a 7X chance it will be used in a domestic assault/suicide
- a 11X chance of being used in an attempted/successful suicide

Exercise your "2nd Ammendments Rights" if you want, but don't say you weren't warned!

I'm curious. Where did you get those statistics?

From your local anti gun forum

 

[IndependntLogic]

Keeping a gun in the home is "a mixed blessing" at best.

For every time a gun used to stop an intruder, there is also
- a 4X chance it will be involved in an accidental shooting
- a 7X chance it will be used in a domestic assault/suicide
- a 11X chance of being used in an attempted/successful suicide

Exercise your "2nd Ammendments Rights" if you want, but don't say you weren't warned!

I'm curious. Where did you get those statistics?

From your local anti gun forum

I was thinking more "The Brady Institute On Objective Gun Studies"....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm curious. Where did you get those statistics?

From your local anti gun forum

I was thinking more "The Brady Institute On Objective Gun Studies"....

Well isn't that the number one anti gun forum?

 

[IndependntLogic]

From your local anti gun forum

I was thinking more "The Brady Institute On Objective Gun Studies"....

Well isn't that the number one anti gun forum?

I dunno! I thought I just made it up!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I was thinking more "The Brady Institute On Objective Gun Studies"....

Well isn't that the number one anti gun forum?

I dunno! I thought I just made it up!

I thought the brady center had changed it's name to sound more modern and appealing to the soocer moms of America.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since you like to quote court cases the lines were drawn out with these cases.

It has less to do with ‘like’ and more to do with the fact that opinions are fundamentally meaningless.

Remember that Miller addressed firearms that were uncommon to general use, whereas Heller addressed firearms in common use.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Since you like to quote court cases the lines were drawn out with these cases.

It has less to do with ‘like’ and more to do with the fact that opinions are fundamentally meaningless.

Remember that Miller addressed firearms that were uncommon to general use, whereas Heller addressed firearms in common use.

So what you're saying is, I still can't have my Phalynx Gun System on the front lawn? Sh1t. That would have shown those cartel bastards!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since you like to quote court cases the lines were drawn out with these cases.

It has less to do with ‘like’ and more to do with the fact that opinions are fundamentally meaningless.

Remember that Miller addressed firearms that were uncommon to general use, whereas Heller addressed firearms in common use.

No what miller and lewis both addressed, is that the only weapons under the protection of the second amendment are those weapons that would be equal to military standards.

Miller also added that

that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since you like to quote court cases the lines were drawn out with these cases.

It has less to do with ‘like’ and more to do with the fact that opinions are fundamentally meaningless.

Remember that Miller addressed firearms that were uncommon to general use, whereas Heller addressed firearms in common use.

So what you're saying is, I still can't have my Phalynx Gun System on the front lawn? Sh1t. That would have shown those cartel bastards!

Would you be able to carry it?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Since you like to quote court cases the lines were drawn out with these cases.

It has less to do with ‘like’ and more to do with the fact that opinions are fundamentally meaningless.

Remember that Miller addressed firearms that were uncommon to general use, whereas Heller addressed firearms in common use.

No what miller and lewis both addressed, is that the only weapons under the protection of the second amendment are those weapons that would be equal to military standards.

Miller also added that

that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Aw SH!T!!!!! Now I gotta go buy a flintlock!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It has less to do with ‘like’ and more to do with the fact that opinions are fundamentally meaningless.

Remember that Miller addressed firearms that were uncommon to general use, whereas Heller addressed firearms in common use.

No what miller and lewis both addressed, is that the only weapons under the protection of the second amendment are those weapons that would be equal to military standards.

Miller also added that

that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Aw SH!T!!!!! Now I gotta go buy a flintlock!

Fine but look at the date of the court ruling.

Lewis was made in 1980 and miller was 1939

correction 1939

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Actually there are a slew of gun laws on the books already, which, if enforced, quell many of the public's fears. Historically LE has been lax and even unsuccessful enforcing them, leading to public outcry that stronger more restrictive laws are needed. There is one possible exception, the intention of the Second Amendment, does not envision automatic weapons. As such it could be argued that these weapons do not fall under the protection of the Second Amendment and therefore are illegal.

Otherwise, any discussion or debate over whether or not our right to bear arms could or would ever be taken away by Congressional repeal is surely intended for entertainment purposes only. Congress is the the only government branch with the power to repeal the Amendments to the Constitution and even so the successful exercise of that power requires unanimous agreement. Of that ever happening, we need not fear, since I doubt that Congress agrees on the time. Thus, public concern about the subject can be put out to pasture, as it is unlikely this bunch could reach a quorum to discuss repeal. much less have the votes to do it.

But let's say for argument's sake that Congress by some hook or crook had the votes to repeal a Constitutional Amendment. Can you imagine the number of man-hours and the amount of man-power needed for the task. Not to mention the cost, which would be astronomical.

Statistically the approximate numbers of illegals in the country are a known. However, to date no process or nebulous plan has been hatched by even the most ardent Congressional member as to how to expeditiously find and remove them.

Guns are legal, so it is doubtful that there is much data in existence regarding how many guns there are, who has them and where.. Lacking such vital information reduces any attempt to remove them from anyone. In fact any such undertaking would be on a par course with a flea climbing up a dog's leg with rape on its mind. In other words, IMPOSSIBLE.

Please, don't stop debating the subject, but do stop worrying about whether or not it will ever come to fruition.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually there are a slew of gun laws on the books already, which, if enforced, quell many of the public's fears. Historically LE has been lax and even unsuccessful enforcing them, leading to public outcry that stronger more restrictive laws are needed. There is one possible exception, the intention of the Second Amendment, does not envision automatic weapons. As such it could be argued that these weapons do not fall under the protection of the Second Amendment and therefore are illegal.

Otherwise, any discussion or debate over whether or not our right to bear arms could or would ever be taken away by Congressional repeal is surely intended for entertainment purposes only. Congress is the the only government branch with the power to repeal the Amendments to the Constitution and even so the successful exercise of that power requires unanimous agreement. Of that ever happening, we need not fear, since I doubt that Congress agrees on the time. Thus, public concern about the subject can be put out to pasture, as it is unlikely this bunch could reach a quorum to discuss repeal. much less have the votes to do it.

But let's say for argument's sake that Congress by some hook or crook had the votes to repeal a Constitutional Amendment. Can you imagine the number of man-hours and the amount of man-power needed for the task. Not to mention the cost, which would be astronomical.

Statistically the approximate numbers of illegals in the country are a known. However, to date no process or nebulous plan has been hatched by even the most ardent Congressional member as to how to expeditiously find and remove them.

Guns are legal, so it is doubtful that there is much data in existence regarding how many guns there are, who has them and where.. Lacking such vital information reduces any attempt to remove them from anyone. In fact any such undertaking would be on a par course with a flea climbing up a dog's leg with rape on its mind. In other words, IMPOSSIBLE.

Please, don't stop debating the subject, but do stop worrying about whether or not it will ever come to fruition.

Food for thought, I will also add that any treaty is binding, such as small arms or weapons treaty an could by pass the second amendment without repoealing it.