How the Second Amendment Was Restored

[Tech_Esq]

Personally, i would propably use the Katana (actually the Wakizachi, doubt I have enough room to swing it in an appartment) I have next to my bed, I can propably apply it much faster than loading a gun, since according to most gun laws I would have to stash the gun and the ammunition in different and locked places. In that situation, it would be dark, and I would know the place so we may have one of the few instances where bringing an (oversized) knife to a gunfight (what is the other guy armed with?) may work.
Besides, I would prefer a G-36 (looks way cooler and is easier to aim with, besides its a good bit shorter) whose 5.56 caliber should not go through that many walls.

However, I have not been in this precise situation (fight for my life yes, but a knife armed opponent is something different from a gun toting one, although beeing unarmed sucks in both cases) so I do not know how I would react.

Given the shortened distances in an apartment, you would have no guarantee of being able to bring a G-36 to bare even with stock folded. You may have to engage the target within 6 feet which means you personally are endangered by an unarmed intruder (knows martial arts) or armed with a blade weapon or firearm. Accurately bringing the weapon to bear (aiming) would be extremely awkward in this case.

To my point about going through walls, although you are correct in that the 5.56 NATO round would not penetrate as many walls as a 7.62 x 54 mm round would, with a mx effective range of 800 meters, it ain't stopping at your apartment door. You are still endangering more innocents by using a rifle instead of a pistol.

 

[Skeptik]

They had cannons then. It isn't like the same problem didn't exist.

Listen to the Supremes oral argument in that case. I think you'll see the area where they are drawing the balance.

Was it legal to possess cannons in the early days of the Republic, or could only the military have them?

 

[pegwinn]

The Second Amendment does not say "firearms", but "arms". There is a big difference. I know that. By reviewing my posting history you will see that I have mentioned it before.

"Firearm" is synonymous with "gun".

"Arm" is much more broad, including also everything from rockets to tanks, to crossbows to missiles. Arms is synonymous with "weapons". "Arms" as it was used when the amendment was written meant "accouterments of war". Thus, arms was the normal soldiers/militiaman load.

The literal meaning of the Second Amendment, then, is that the people are allowed to possess any and all weapons, including bombs, rockets, and missiles. Nope

If that's what we want, then the interpretation of that amendment is not necessary, and you and I can have all of the SAMs we want, and keep then next to your favorite airport if we want to. I personally am fine with that. Your actions with the weapons are what matters not the possession. Hence the term "Gun Crime".

Maybe, just maybe, that isn't what the founders of the Republic had in mind, not being able to foresee what "arms" might be available in the 21st. century. The founders wrote exactly what they had in mind for all to see. In this case it is the second amendment.

Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States - NCIPC

Chris, you tried this before. Your link does not substantiate your claim. You should really try harder. But, for the others, here is the text of the link Chris provided.

Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States, 1962-1994
Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3

Executive Summary
Death due to injuries from firearms is an increasingly important public health problem. As a group, injuries from firearms were the ninth leading cause of death overall in 1994 and the fourth leading cause of years of potential life lost before age 65 (NCIPC, unpublished data). During the 33-year period covered by this report, the total number of firearm deaths increased by 130%, from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994. If present trends continue, firearm-related injuries could become the leading cause of deaths attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.

This report reviews the descriptive epidemiology of firearm-related mortality in the United States from 1962-1994. The patterns of overall firearm-related mortality and of homicide, suicide, unintentional death, deaths occurring during legal intervention, and deaths of undetermined intent are examined by race, sex, and age group.

Throughout the 33-year period, suicide and homicide were responsible for most firearm fatalities; they accounted for 94% of the total in 1994. The fluctuations and overall increase in rates of total firearm-related mortality most closely resembled the pattern of firearm-related homicide. Although suicide rates were high and gradually increasing over time, they varied less than homicide rates. The rates for unintentional death from firearms, deaths during legal intervention, and deaths of undetermined intent were low and generally declined over the study period.

Firearm-related mortality affects all demographic groups, but the greatest increases in recent years were among teens 15-19 years of age, young adults aged 20-24, and older adults aged 75 and older. The rates of overall firearm-related mortality for young people aged 15-24 were higher from 1990-1994 than at any other time during the 33-year period. For those 15-19, increases in firearm-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury deaths were especially great. The increase in firearm-related homicide in this age group occurred among all race-sex groups. For America's elderly, rates of suicide by firearm were particularly high, and increases occurred in all race-sex groups except black females, for whom the number of suicides were too small to produce stable rates. The surveillance data in this report are intended to familiarize public health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers with the problem of firearm-related deaths in this country. While these data help characterize the magnitude of the problem and identify groups at risk, there are still gaps in our knowledge. Current surveillance efforts need to be expanded to include information about nonfatal injuries. We also need a greater understanding of the causes of firearm deaths to identify modifiable individual and societal risk factors. Finally, further research is required to plan, develop, and evaluate prevention strategies.

 

[Chris]

Chris, you tried this before. Your link does not substantiate your claim. You should really try harder. But, for the others, here is the text of the link Chris provided.

I expected you to deny the truth.

Yes, the link proves the claim, but requires the rare skill of multiplication.

A skill I believe you lack.

During the 33-year period covered by this report, the total number of firearm deaths increased by 130%, from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Damned right, Kevin.

FREEDOM for all.

Freedom to do what ever you want regardless of outcome.

That's right!

FREEDOM that requires abosoutely no thinking no laws no regulations no government, nothing but the absolute FREEDOM for everyone to do exactly whatever the hell they want.

Anyone who might disagrees in the slightest with me and Kevin is nothing a communist, and not a lover of FREEDOM like you and me, right, amigo?

If you and I want to make anthrax and bombs in our basements who the fuck is our government to object?

We have the second amendment right to own whatever kind of weapons we want, right?

Cause that's real true red, white and blue American FREEDOM!

No one said anything about "freedom to do anything". The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It does not stop the law from infringing on how you use them, nor should it.

But then, you always HAVE been an ignoramus and unable to separate yourself from juvenile "all or nothing" arguments, haven't you?

 

[pegwinn]

I expected you to deny the truth. I haven't. I have denied what you claim to be the truth absent substantiation.

Yes, the link proves the claim, but requires the rare skill of multiplication. The link doesn't prove the claim and only requires reading to see that.

A skill I believe you lack. Ah, there is the personal attack. And yet, even after your devastating wit, you are still unable to prove your assertion.

During the 33-year period covered by this report, the total number of firearm deaths increased by 130%, from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994. So, you are now asserting 38505 per year for each of 33 years? Good luck proving it.

I know you are frustrated, but, don't give up....... this ought to be fun.
BTW, this line of thought was completely discredited the last time you tried it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And furthermore, where does the government get the authority to regulate food or drugs? Not the Constitution.

It could reasonably be argued that the government has the right and the obligation to protect public safety and health by imposing standards on food and drug safety. Mind you, I'm talking about things like requiring a minimum level of sanitation in food processing plants and safety testing of new medications, not restricting fattening foods or such nonsense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But, if you take the Second Amendment to its logical conclusion, and in the light of the recent decision making the right to bear arms an individual right, it should be perfectly legal to own anthrax spores, bombs, missiles, RPGs, or your very own jet fighter, armed with whatever you want.

Somewhere, the matter of what is practical and pragmatic must be applied to the Second Amendment, or anyone can own any arm any time any place. Not even the NRA would support that.

Amazingly enough, the meaning of the Second Amendment is only dependent on what it actually SAYS, not on what you or I or anyone else believes it SHOULD say. If you think the reality SHOULD be something different, then you fix it by amending the Constitution, not by trying to read the words that are already there as something different.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Exactly. Somewhere along the way, someone is going to have to decide what is reasonable regulation of arms. Obviously, a literal interpretation of the second Amendment is not practical in this day and age, even if it might have been given the types of arms available when it was written.

The problem is, any regulation can be challenged as infringement.

How about regulating the use of those weapons? That seems pretty reasonable to me, AND is totally allowed by the Second Amendment, since that only addresses keeping and bearing.

Once again, your idea of "we just won't interpret the law as written, because it's really not practical" makes my blood run cold. If you don't like what the law says, change it. Don't just ignore it or misread it.

 

[Chris]

I know you are frustrated, but, don't give up....... this ought to be fun.
BTW, this line of thought was completely discredited the last time you tried it.

I knew you would continue to deny the truth.

Multiplication was taught in grammer school....perhaps you missed it.

Gun deaths per year in the U.S. increased from 16,000 in 1962 to 38,000 in 1994. Taking a very conservative average of 20,000 gun deaths per year during that 33 year period, we have 20,000 times 33 equals 660,000 gun deaths. During the last 14 years we have averaged about 30,000 gun deaths per year. 30,000 times 14 equals 420,000 gun deaths. 660,000 plus 420,000 equals 1,080,000 gun deaths since 1960. This is a conservative figure. The real number is probably closer to 1,200,000.

 

[Skeptik]

How about regulating the use of those weapons? That seems pretty reasonable to me, AND is totally allowed by the Second Amendment, since that only addresses keeping and bearing.

Once again, your idea of "we just won't interpret the law as written, because it's really not practical" makes my blood run cold. If you don't like what the law says, change it. Don't just ignore it or misread it.

That's what I'm saying. It is not practical, and will have to be changed in one way or another. As for regulating the use of weapons, sure, that needs to be done also.

How would you feel about allowing me to have bombs, and only arresting me if I were to misuse one of them by blowing up the neighborhood school?

The interpretation of the Second Amendment is far from settled.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's what I'm saying. It is not practical, and will have to be changed in one way or another. As for regulating the use of weapons, sure, that needs to be done also.

How would you feel about allowing me to have bombs, and only arresting me if I were to misuse one of them by blowing up the neighborhood school?

The interpretation of the Second Amendment is far from settled.

The "interpretation" is settled, because in the English language, words mean things. It says what it says.

Do I have a problem with you owning a bomb? No, not particularly, unless you're the sort of person who goes around blowing people up for cutting him off in traffic. I have no reason to be bothered by ANY law-abiding, conscientious citizen owning dangerous items.

My point is that the law says what it says. If you think it needs to be modified to accommodate changes in technology or society, then do so properly and legally, not by merely "reinterpreting" language that's quite clear and plain to begin with. I doubt you'd have much trouble getting people behind an amendment to the Constitution outlawing the private ownership of rocket launchers, for example, if you thought that was really a problem. Nuclear weapons are already regulated out of private ownership by the tricky maneuver of prohibiting the sale and ownership of the nuclear materials needed for them.

 

[pegwinn]

I knew you would continue to deny the truth. Spoken like a true believer, onward then.

Multiplication was taught in grammer school....perhaps you missed it. Heh. That's the second time you have made a truly pitiable attempt at insult or sarcasm. And you are still wrong.

Gun deaths per year in the U.S. increased from 16,000 in 1962 to 38,000 in 1994. That is a fact. Good. You even have a source.

Taking a very conservative average of 20,000 gun deaths per year during that 33 year period, we have 20,000 times 33 equals 660,000 gun deaths. Where are you taking the average from? You have now made an unsubstantiated assumption to back up the original unsubstantiated assertion your originally made.

During the last 14 years we have averaged about 30,000 gun deaths per year. 30,000 times 14 equals 420,000 gun deaths. 660,000 plus 420,000 equals 1,080,000 gun deaths since 1960. Heh. Now you are just pulling numbers out of your ass. Come on Chris. That trembling you feel is the foundations of your anti gun sentiment falling apart.

This is a conservative figure. The real number is probably closer to 1,200,000.

Come on Chris. This is strike two. So far you've provided one link and it didn't make your case. Then you pull numbers out of thin air...... Batter up big guy.

 

[Chris]

Come on Chris. This is strike two. So far you've provided one link and it didn't make your case. Then you pull numbers out of thin air...... Batter up big guy.

I knew you wouldn't admit the truth.

Click the link below for the yearly chart of gun deaths from 1965 to 1996....

VPC - Who Dies - Appendix One

 

[LOki]

Are we a better society because 1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960?

If 1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns, you should be able to name some of them.

The sad fact is that you're an idiot, with a retarded aggenda, that cannot grasp the notion that guns don't kill.

 

[LOki]

I knew you wouldn't admit the truth.

Click the link below for the yearly chart of gun deaths from 1965 to 1996....

VPC - Who Dies - Appendix One

What is it with you and your hard-on for gun deaths, that you prefer [some other kind of] death to be more prominent?

 

[editec]

Wrong again. The Second Amendment covers personal weapons and the Constitution forbids strategic weapons even to the States. The only strategic weapons in the 1700's would be the Naval Vessels and States are forbidden to man and maintain their own Navy.

You read the word PERSONAL in the Second Amendment?

You must have the special Gunnies Only edition, then

 

[editec]

Spreading anthrax and setting off bombs are crimes, not rights. Eating food or doing drugs affects nobody but yourself, so what right does anybody have to tell you what you can do to yourself?

What are you , some kind of a freedom hating commie, Kevin?

I said nothing about spreading anthrax or setting off bombs. I merely said you have to right to BEAR them.

You suggest that a strict regarding second amendment gives you the right to own arms and the government cannot limit that right, right?

I totally agree.

It doesn't limit what arms you can own...it just says arms.

Any weapon is an "arm", ergo according to a strict FREEDOM LOVERS' READING of that amendment, we have to right to own nucular weapons, anthrax, cannons, any fucking arm anybody wants.

Machine guns, LAWS rockets, mortar, bombs, biologicals, nuclear weapons....whatever!

We either sign onto that anything goes interpretation, or we sign onto the theory that the second amendment is SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT INTERPRETATION.

And if we agree that the Second Amendment it is interpretable, then we just granted the GOVERNMENT the right to interpret that right down to nothing but granting us the right to own whatever the GOVERNMENT decides THEY DEFINE as an "arm".

 

[Chris]

If 1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns, you should be able to name some of them.

The sad fact is that you're an idiot, with a retarded aggenda, that cannot grasp the notion that guns don't kill.

VPC - Who Dies - Appendix One

 

[Chris]

What is it with you and your hard-on for gun deaths, that you prefer [some other kind of] death to be more prominent?

When the facts are not on your side you resort to personal attacks.

The needless deaths of 1,000,000 Americans should be a concern for all of us. What if 1,000,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists? What would the reaction be?

We lead the developed world by far in gun deaths per capita. We could prevent a lot of those deaths with better regulation of handguns. We can do better.