Let's start with the 2nd Amendment

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

Now we have to look at history to interpret that. America didn't have a standing army like we have today, with volunteers ready to be deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else they may be needed. It was all about the citizen militias. When "THE BRITISH ARE COMING" it was people who lived in the towns of Massachusetts that fought them back and protected America's very existance.

There also wasn't mass production. There are as many guns as people in America today, but this would have been impossible when the Bill of Rights was written. A gun was a hand made piece of machinery that was too expensive for a lot of people to afford. Certainly it would have been impossible for every American to have one. And the Constitution doesn't say anything about going hunting or defending your home. It's all about "the security of a free state."

A vocal minority has a radical agenda, and has pushed the accepted meaning of the 2nd Amendment very far into Dr Suess land. The NRA has fought hard to protect a felon's (say an armed robber's) right to own, carry, and transport guns, even to buy guns without having to submit to a background check.

Do Tupac and Al Capone really have the right to have such a uniquely deadly weapon just because they're citizens? The actual Constitution sure makes it sound like in today's world, guns ought to be reserved for members of the armed services and police.

Gun control -- When you use both hands to fire.

I have a concealed-carry permit, for which I had to take classes and submit to a background check. I can now purchase a handgun without a waiting period by showing that permit. Now, I'm a responsible citizen and I have no qualms with submitting to a background check. It's not people who have such permits that people need to worry about. Do you really think that the majority of people who use guns to commit crimes obtained those weapons legitimately?

Originally Posted by serandfae

Do you really think that the majority of people who use guns to commit crimes obtained those weapons legitimately?

You're a smart guy. You don't honestly believe criminals who use guns to commit crimes build those guns themselves, do you?

Obviously criminals get their guns through a supply chain. It starts out legal (legitimately) and at some point crosses over into the black market.

I'm certain that's not because the companies that manufacture the guns sell them to Gangsta Rappers (although turning off the tap would prevent the situation getting substantially worse at least), it's someone who's never been convicted of a felony or hospitalized buying guns and then selling them for 2x and 3x the price. It would be a great business market for people with no morals.

Of course this ignores the question of what is really meant by the Second Amendmand and also who should be allowed to own, carry, transport, and since you brought it up, conceal weapons.

Given that there are as many guns as people today, is the idea of getting the guns back from the people even feasible? The criminals certainly aren't going to turn their guns in. Worse, every time tighter gun laws come out, people start stockpiling. None of my friends registered their assault weapons when the law requiring registration came out, and most bought more before the cut off. Every time a new restrictive law comes out, a new gray or black market is born. Given the financial opportunities these markets create, they would be very difficult to eliminate. We would wind up with another expensive "War on Drugs" type battle, with more enforcement, and that much closer to a police state.

Of course all this would require a constitutional amendment, as the constitution clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Some argue that the preceding clause is qualifying, meaning that if a weapon would not be used by a militia, or if the person is not a named member of a state approved citizen militia, or if a 'well-regulated militia' is no longer necessary for the preservation of a free state, then the right no longer applies. It seems pretty clear that these types of interpretations are EXTREMELY debatable, leaving a constitutional amendment the proper thing to do if you really want to limit the right to keep and bear arms.


We should also remember that our Constitution was born of distrust of the government, by people oppressed by their government in terms of speech, religion, and taxes. I don't think its overreaching to argue that one reason for the right to bear arms is to give people the power to fight oppression from their own government in the form of revolution. At the end of the day, I dont think many would argue that if the constitution is to be interpreted, the framers would have wanted to side with peoples rights over the governments rights. Lets also not forget that an armed society is a polite society.

I'm not sure I agree an armed society is a polite society. Just look at the Middle East.

I agree freedom from tyranny of one's own government was more important to the founding fathers than repelling a foreign invasion. I don't think I agree with your assertion that half the text of the Amendment is null and moot because times have changed ( militia > standing army ) but on that point I'd like to bring up another idea. Outkast in a song have a line "While we ranting and raving about gats, they have some stuff that'll blow out our backs - from where they stay at." With the might of our armed forces, the public couldn't defend a revolution if every man, woman, and child had a gun in each hand. And that's assuming they would only use conventional weapons - no nukes, no depleted uranium.

I look at it like this: no one, not the police, not the army, not anyone, should ever own a gun for one simple reason: a gun's sole purpose. A gun is designed to kill, maim, destroy, obliterate, annihilate. It has no positive and productive uses that don't involve killing or destruction.

The problems with guns is that they continue to escalate violence and situations of conflict to the point where pointless wars that ultimately accomplish nothing ensue. We've seen that with the two World Wars. We've seen that with Vietnam. We've seen that with the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. And we're seeing it now in the Middle East, China, and now North Korea. People go around shooting other people because "they're the wrong religion" or "they interfere with the rights of others" or "they're terrorists" or whatever stupid excuse they can come up with to start nuking the crap out of each other. Great idea. Let's kill billions of people with guns and bombs and landmines. Look at what we've really accomplished.

As far as the police having guns, I see no difference between the thin blue line and the black market anymore, and I have no faith whatsoever that a police officer can deploy a weapon in a responsible manner any more than anyone else.

We, as a society, cannot be trusted with weapons. We've proven that time and time again.

Throughout history, gun control was the precursor to total tyranny. It was always justified under pretext of national security. Happened in Rome, Nazi Germany, Stalin run USSR, Mao's China.

And since history repeats itself... Lets take the hint. And as Benjamin Franklin said, They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Gun control in ancient Roman history?

Yeah. Those big sharp metal objects that the legionaries ran around and decapitated people with were guns. Don't question revisionist history.

(That amused me too, but I had to wait for a straight line.)

I think Ronald was referring to Mussolini's Rome .


Guns have already been invented, there's nothing we can do to prevent them from existing, or getting rid of every single gun on Earth.

Also what about hunters? Who may use Guns do defend themselves from wild animals or beasts (OK, maybe not *just* hunters, but anyone who wants to defend themselves).

If the terrorists and oppressors didn't have guns or bombs or whatever, they'd just resort to more primitive weapons, like swords or catapults, there's no really stopping the crazies out there.

It reminds me of this quote:
"You can't say technology doesn't advance, for in every war, they find a new way to kill you"

Originally Posted by jamestl2

I think Ronald was referring to Mussolini's Rome .

I thouight of that, too, but that would have been Italy - Rome was just a city at that point. Plus, arguments based on on historical use of something (gun control) really need to stretch back further into history to the point where you include periods of history when nobody alive today was around.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Guns have already been invented, there's nothing we can do to prevent them from existing, or getting rid of every single gun on Earth.

How does the fact that people screwed up a long time ago mean we need to keep making the situation worse? That's the argument with gun control, Iraq, and just about every other problem we've decided (as a society) not to fix.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Also what about hunters?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution doesn't mention them. Technically, the US Constitution doesn't give hunters (per se) any gun rights. We've sort of assumed anybody can have a gun and you can use it to hunt, but

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Who may use Guns do defend themselves from wild animals or beasts (OK, maybe not *just* hunters, but anyone who wants to defend themselves).

If I punched you in the face, then you took out a knife to fight me off because I was obviously a crazy person, then I killed you with a gun because you pulled a knife on me, I would be guilty of murder. It wouldn't be self defense, because I initiated the violence. It's only natural that beasts don't have the legal rights of men, but there's a pretty easy way to defend yourself against wild animals. I've never been attacked by a polar bear because I've never been within 1000 miles from their territory. Worst I have to deal with is raccoons getting into my garbage, and I'm using bungee cords instead of guns to deal with that.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

If the terrorists and oppressors didn't have guns or bombs or whatever, they'd just resort to more primitive weapons, like swords or catapults, there's no really stopping the crazies out there.

In a room full of people, if I pulled out a sword and tried to kill you with it, I would be stopped before I could do much harm. But if I pulled a gun, even surrounded by 20 people, I could kill you before anybody could stop me. That makes guns fundamentally different from just about any other weapon an individual can possess.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

It reminds me of this quote:
"You can't say technology doesn't advance, for in every war, they find a new way to kill you"

True dat! I'm not sure if I'd call it an advance, though? Alfred Einstein said "Our knowledge is growing faster than our wisdom."

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I thought of that, too, but that would have been Italy - Rome was just a city at that point.

Yeah, that's what I believed he was saying, "Rome" as in "Fascist Italy's Capital".

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Plus, arguments based on on historical use of something (gun control) really need to stretch back further into history to the point where you include periods of history when nobody alive today was around.

Are you referring to times like the American Revolution, Civil War, etc.?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

How does the fact that people screwed up a long time ago mean we need to keep making the situation worse? That's the argument with gun control, Iraq, and just about every other problem we've decided (as a society) not to fix.

What do you mean by "making the situation worse"? Inventing deadlier weapons?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

The Second Amendment to the Constitution doesn't mention them. Technically, the US Constitution doesn't give hunters (per se) any gun rights. We've sort of assumed anybody can have a gun and you can use it to hunt, but

It seems like the FFers implied that "militias" are the ones who should be allowed to own guns. I'm not sure how this relates to everyone else exactly, and whether they intended for everyone else to be allowed to own one or not.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

If I punched you in the face, then you took out a knife to fight me off because I was obviously a crazy person, then I killed you with a gun because you pulled a knife on me, I would be guilty of murder. It wouldn't be self defense, because I initiated the violence. It's only natural that beasts don't have the legal rights of men, but there's a pretty easy way to defend yourself against wild animals. I've never been attacked by a polar bear because I've never been within 1000 miles from their territory. Worst I have to deal with is raccoons getting into my garbage, and I'm using bungee cords instead of guns to deal with that.

And what about the people that live near life-threatening animals (like the people that live in the mountains, or the woods)? Shouldn't they be entitled to a firearm to protect themselves? (Assuming they pass all the laws, are eligible for one, etc.)

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

In a room full of people, if I pulled out a sword and tried to kill you with it, I would be stopped before I could do much harm. But if I pulled a gun, even surrounded by 20 people, I could kill you before anybody could stop me. That makes guns fundamentally different from just about any other weapon an individual can possess.

I don't know if you would really be stopped before you could do much harm, an excellent swordsman could probably do much more damage than some n00b with a gun.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

True dat! I'm not sure if I'd call it an advance, though? Alfred Einstein said "Our knowledge is growing faster than our wisdom."

I didn't realize the musicologist would make a quote like that. (Unless you meant Albert )

I was referring to Ancient Rome - and obviously rifles had not been invented. But the Roman authorities did enact laws barring ownership of other conventional arms such as swords, etc.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

What do you mean by "making the situation worse"? Inventing deadlier weapons?

And continuing to amass more and more of them, knowing some percent goes into the black market. Knowing that criminals don't build their own guns by hand, for every 10 guns that get produced, X will end up in the hands of a criminal. I don't know of any reliable way to find the value of X, but methinks it's too high.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

It seems like the FFers implied that "militias" are the ones who should be allowed to own guns. I'm not sure how this relates to everyone else exactly, and whether they intended for everyone else to be allowed to own one or not.

Well, there were no armies, so after we Declared Independance, it was up to the local townsfolk (militias) to repel the British.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

And what about the people that live near life-threatening animals (like the people that live in the mountains, or the woods)? Shouldn't they be entitled to a firearm to protect themselves? (Assuming they pass all the laws, are eligible for one, etc.)

It sure seems like the Founding Fathers didn't really think so. At least from what they wrote. Truth is guns were too rare and expensive back then for everybody to have one, so that wasn't a question to be answered. Sort of like the right to own a space ship?

Eskimos have lived near polar bears for thousands and thousands of years, and figured out how to not get eaten. Navajos have lived with rattle snakes and coyotes and all kinds of animals we might feel we need protection from today.

If guns were really necessary for protection from wild animals, the human race would have died out before we had computers to talk about this. The fact we dno't need them doesn't have to mean we're not allowed to have them, tho.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

I don't know if you would really be stopped before you could do much harm, an excellent swordsman could probably do much more damage than some n00b with a gun.

You might be right - I don't really know for sure. On the other hand think how much trouble can be caused by an excellent swordsman and a n00b with a gun when it's at random. Like when people do a drive by shooting and a bunch of random people get caught in the cross fire. I still say guns are uniquely dangerous. They represent the most cunning innovative engineering way we've come up with to kill and injure people - perfection at what they were made for.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

The problems with guns is that they continue to escalate violence and situations of conflict to the point where pointless wars that ultimately accomplish nothing ensue.

I once had a gun start talking smack to my wife! Seriously, guns escalate violence? Heres a question. What guns did the 911 folks use.... Answer: None. Box cutters. Shall we outlaw boxcutters, as they clearly seem to escalate violence?

Heres another question. What type of gun was used in Rwanda to kill 80,000 people. Answer: None. They used machettes. Neighbors killing neighbors for a name placed on them by their foreign colonizers. ( I wouldnt be me if I didn't point out that happened on Bill Clinton's watch).

People are murdered in prison all the time. What gun do most use? Answer: None.


Regarding the occupation of a country with a well armed militia, if Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Vietnam have proven anything, it is that no quantity of modern weapons can overcome an armed populous that does not want its current government and/or occupiers. To invade and occupy the U.S. would be impossible. Genocide would be the only real option.

At the end of the day, the constitution still clearly states ""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Those who think the statement of purpose (well armed militia) is no longer applicable should try and get the constitution amended. That leaves organizations for gun control whining to liberal judges for some new "Interpretation" of the law, while the ACLU remains silent. Thank god Dubya gave us several new appointees who will keep that from happening for a very long time.

I once had a gun start talking smack to my wife! Seriously, guns escalate violence? Heres a question. What guns did the 911 folks use.... Answer: None. Box cutters. Shall we outlaw boxcutters, as they clearly seem to escalate violence?

That's assuming we believe the story put forth by the government. A few so-called terrorists with a "weapon" that would generally be fairly easy to disarm before delivering a fatal blow? Come on...anyone who's ever used a boxcutter will tell you those things are about as deadly as kindergarten scissors in most instances.

Not only that, a boxcutter has another useful purpose (i.e. cutting boxes). The question that no one who is against gun control can answer (because there is no intelligent answer to the question) is...what other useful, productive purpose do guns have that does not involve killing, maiming or destroying?

Keep in mind that my stance goes far beyond America...it extends to the world. We build weapons for the purposes of war, and what does all of this really accomplish? Not a **** thing. It's just people blowing up people, and land, and animals, and whatever else happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Like I said, we as a society cannot be trusted to handle weapons.

As far as the other means of killing go, they're still going to happen. I never suggested that they wouldn't. People are still going to brutalize other people. But this is exactly the reason why we shouldn't be producing weapons. If we as a society have shown that we will hurt and kill each other, and we can't even handle our own body parts responsibly (some people still do that), why should we be entrusted with the responsibility that comes from using weapons? You just managed to make my deeper point without meaning to.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

That's assuming we believe the story put forth by the government. A few so-called terrorists with a "weapon" that would generally be fairly easy to disarm before delivering a fatal blow? Come on...anyone who's ever used a boxcutter will tell you those things are about as deadly as kindergarten scissors in most instances.

Are you referring to the 9/11 conspiracy theories here?

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Not only that, a boxcutter has another useful purpose (i.e. cutting boxes). The question that no one who is against gun control can answer (because there is no intelligent answer to the question) is...what other useful, productive purpose do guns have that does not involve killing, maiming or destroying?

You mean you don't like to pull out your AK-47 every time to open up a UPS package? (I also like to occasionally pull out my flamethrower to melt the wrapping tape, things go much quicker this way )

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Keep in mind that my stance goes far beyond America...it extends to the world. We build weapons for the purposes of war, and what does all of this really accomplish? Not a **** thing.

Hmmmm....... seriously though........
I wonder if anyone can name any *good things* weapons have accomplished.

Actually, to answer your question of what guns are good for, I thought the framers of the constitution said it well in the constitution, though I'd add protection of private property and protection from your own government to the list. I'm sure we can we can win over the world with good intentions and well wishing. In the meantime, most of the planet still locks their doors. Countries with private gun ownership have those locks respected, much more so than those without, regardless of size of police force.

Yeah, but it only really applies if the gov't has guns too. If they didn't have weapons, we probably wouldn't even have the second amendment.

What James said. If you need to protect yourself from your own government, that suggests that the people in power aren't the people who should be. We're supposedly in a democratic society; there should be means in which to deal with governments who believe in rule by brute force.

Are you referring to the 9/11 conspiracy theories here?

To some extent, yes. I've never been a member of the tinfoil hat brigade, but I have never accepted the Bush administration's explanation of events. It simply has way too many holes in it, some of which have been proven to be non-factual.

There's a really good movie called Loose Change that you should watch...while there's an obvious slant of its own to the movie (there has to be in order to deliver a contrarian stance), the movie applies a lot of scientific principles to demonstrate how the events as explained could not have possibly occurred. If you get the chance, watch it.