DISCLAIMER: This will probably get locked

[Chadd 916]

But simply because something is irresponsible doesn't make it illegal. And do we really want the government deciding what is responsible and what is not?

[kosydar 0]

yes illegal

You can't, the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution and everybody knows you can't change that.

Not true, although its near impossible to accomplish.

[Chadd 916]

yes illegal

You can't, the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution and everybody knows you can't change that.

Not true, although its near impossible to accomplish.

We'll see what happens when the supreme court rules on the case with Washington DC. That's the one way that the law can change quite rapidly.

[David_4x4 0]

They'll ban ammo before they ban guns.

Banning ammo doesnt require a ratification of the constitution, amendments and so forth.

[JR97 2]

Problem is that the pussification of this country

I said the same thing to someone yesterday word for word. Amen brutha.

[usahockey22 0]

Here we go with another gun debate, and I think I made it clear where I stand in the last thread, but in regards to this issue:

1) As a cop, or anybody else - You should not have to worry about legal consequences if you shoot someone down who is pointing a real firearm or a toy firearm at you. Of course in the moment you don't have the convenience to make a good decision, and even if you could you might easily be wrong and get killed. If a gun, or toy gun, is pointed at you, you should assume that it is loaded and deadly, take the first shot as you are lawfully allowed to do in defending your own life.

2) As a toy gun/painted gun/real gun carrier - You would have to be an idiot to point a toy gun, a painted gun, or a real, black gun at somebody else without considering that you could likely get shot yourself for doing so. As such, it is your own fault for being a moron if you get killed in this way, because you shouldn't be pointing guns at unsuspecting people who are going to defend themselves (and should do so). Nobody knows your intentions, so they are going to assume the worst. It is unfortunate when kids are shot for these types of things, but where were their parents to teach them common sense? Kids these days are also gunning people down with real guns, so cops have to assume the worst and shoot first.

BOTTOM LINE: Toy guns and real guns are different. But when you are pointing one at another person, there will not be a difference to that person who thinks his/her life is threatened; that person's reaction will be the same, and the consequences will be dire.

[mrusse01 0]

yes illegal

You can't, the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution and everybody knows you can't change that.

Not true, although its near impossible to accomplish.

I was being sarcastic...the 2nd Amendment is an 'amendment' to the original Constitution; ie. it was originally inadequate so they had to change it.

I find this to be a humerous point to bring up when someone typically rants and raves that "it's in the constitution" as if that somehow proves it's a good idea.

Interesting point someone brought up about banning ammo, although I'm pretty sure a court somewhere would rule that violates the 2nd Amendment.

[usahockey22 0]

The word "arms" or armaments refers to weapons and ammunition. Courts would never agree that bullets are somehow excluded from the 2nd amendment. Even if they were somehow made illegal, there would be a plentiful supply on the black market.

[kosydar 0]

It wasn't that the original Constitution was "inadequate" and they had to change it, it was that the Anti-federalists wanted to limit the power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to protect individual and states' rights. Sure the Constitution has flaws, and things have been corrected throughout time, but its pretty impressive that it still stands as the foundation of the most powerful nation in the world some two centuries later.

[usahockey22 0]

One argument that anti-gun people make (and as many courts have actually ruled) is based on the wording of the first half of the 2nd amendment that reads, "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". Basically their argument is that this amendment was created to ensure defense for the states in the form of a militia, and that individual gun ownership is not protected. If you read it in today's context exactly, "militia" officially means the state national guard units.

When it comes to wording though, you of course need a historical interpretation. In my own view, it is quite clear that the founding fathers intended the 2nd amendment to guarantee gun rights to individuals. At the time it was written, a "militia" was essentially just all the able-bodied men who could be called to arms in the state, and was more a collection of individuals in arms than an organized group. People also needed guns for individual purposes at that time when it came to hunting, defense from criminals in areas with little protection of law, or for possible defense from the British.

If you read the writings of the founding fathers from other sources, it is hard to find any evidence that they did not support individual gun ownership. The bill of rights was directly influenced by Thomas Jefferson's "draft constitution" for virginia in 1776. This constitution expressly allowed individual gun ownership in the words, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms". The bill of rights was also greatly influenced by the British bill of rights that was written a century before the US bill. That one guaranteed the right to bear arms to "the subjects" and did not mention any collective whole that would use guns for defense.

I think if the founding fathers could have predicted the controversy in the future caused by the clause, "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state", they certainly would have left it out. It seems clear from what I have read that their intention was individual gun rights, and that when adopting Jefferson's virginia rights to the federal constitution, they simply included the words about the "well-regulated militia" and the "free state" in order to appease the states with the extra guarantee of strong state militias being protected to uphold the state's rights. At this time in history, "state's rights" was the most heated issue with the new federal government, and the 2nd amendment may well have been one of the key guarantees of liberty that was needed to convince the states to go along with the union.

So you can see why that extra clause was included, as a state that absolutely retains its right for defense by way of arms will always have the option to rebel and be "free" should it come to that. But the inclusion of these words does not change the historical interpretation that individual gun rights are necessary. Some of the arguments made now by gun-control proponents would probably get you laughed out of the courthouse back in the early days of this country; natural law dictates that you defend yourself from threats, and any government that prohibits this could not be seen as a free nation.

Apart from the explicit guarantee of the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment, there are also good arguments to be made that other amendments implicitly allow gun ownership (i.e. the fifth amendment).

[David_4x4 0]

The constitution is there for the individual. The second amendment is there for the individual to protect himself from a tyranical govt. by allowing the individual to take up arms. Whether they be a brown bess or an AR15.

[mrusse01 0]

Whether the founding father supported individual gun ownership (I think they certainly did), is a pointless question to ask some 200 years after the fact.

The important question today is, is individual gun ownership still necessary? Personally, I believe that no, it is not. I'm afraid however that it is too late to do anything in the United States about it, as the political backlash against any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be enourmous, and even if were generally agreed upon, the logisitics of removing the millions and millions of firearms you have would likely be impossible to work.

Maybe in a generation or two we will see a significant change in the political ideology of the american population and it will no longer become acceptable to own and carry firearms as it is today, but quite frankly I'm not holding my breath.

[David_4x4 0]

Whether the founding father supported individual gun ownership (I think they certainly did), is a pointless question to ask some 200 years after the fact.

The important question today is, is individual gun ownership still necessary? Personally, I believe that no, it is not. I'm afraid however that it is too late to do anything in the United States about it, as the political backlash against any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be enourmous, and even if were generally agreed upon, the logisitics of removing the millions and millions of firearms you have would likely be impossible to work.

Maybe in a generation or two we will see a significant change in the political ideology of the american population and it will no longer become acceptable to own and carry firearms as it is today, but quite frankly I'm not holding my breath.

We need gun ownership as much today as in the past. You give up one right, you're willing to give up another right and so forth.

[usahockey22 0]

Whether the founding father supported individual gun ownership (I think they certainly did), is a pointless question to ask some 200 years after the fact.

No it is not. Courts have been debating this very question up until the present time: What was the intent of the founding fathers when writing the 2nd amendment? It also doesn't matter whether or not it's "a good idea" if it's in the constitution. It's written in US law, and until you and the rest of the authoritarian-left can use the legal avenues available to get the 2nd amendment repealed, then you can disagree with it all you want but you won't get rid of it. The only real issue is activist judges who like to make their personal statements from the bench. Thankfully we've got Bush's justices in place for this current 2nd amendment case... :P

[Oberon 0]

Whether the founding father supported individual gun ownership (I think they certainly did), is a pointless question to ask some 200 years after the fact.

No it is not. Courts have been debating this very question up until the present time. It also doesn't matter whether or not it's "a good idea" if it's in the constitution. It's written in US law, and until you and the rest of the fascist-left can use the legal avenues available to get the 2nd amendment repealed, then you can disagree with it all you want but you won't get rid of it. The only real issue is activist judges who like to make their personal statements from the bench. Thankfully we've got Bush's justicess in place for this current 2nd amendment case... :P

This is why all the gun topics get locked. Try to keep the pointless rhetoric and name-calling out of it.

[usahockey22 0]

This is why all the gun topics get locked. Try to keep the pointless rhetoric and name-calling out of it.

No name calling here...just calling it how it is. Strict gun control has been well associated with the more fascist/authoritarian systems of government, and in the United States is now clearly associated with "left-wing" politics. Unless you are unfamiliar with these terms, it's hard to interpret this as "name-calling". Name-calling would be if I called somebody a "Nazi" for advocating gun control. (I'm not)

[mrusse01 0]

I'm not trying to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, I live in Canada and we do alright up here without 'the right to bear arms', thank you.

I guess it's quite remarkable that a tyrannical government hasn't formed in the last 150 years and put us all in concentration camps or something, what with us walking around unarmed and all you'd figure it'd be bound to happen sooner or later. It really has become pretty fascist up here though, I mean compared to the USA we're basically living in the Third Reich.

[usahockey22 0]

I'm not trying to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, I live in Canada and we do alright up here without 'the right to bear arms', thank you.

If you're in Canada, then why the hell are you debating US gun laws anyway? You have no standing to argue one way or the other.

[Oberon 0]

This is why all the gun topics get locked. Try to keep the pointless rhetoric and name-calling out of it.

No name calling here...just calling it how it is. Strict gun control has been well associated with the more fascist/authoritarian systems of government, and in the United States is now clearly associated with "left-wing" politics. Unless you are unfamiliar with these terms, it's hard to interpret this as "name-calling". Name-calling would be if I called somebody a "Nazi" for advocating gun control. (I'm not)

Fascists were also against communism. Is anyone who opposes communism a fascist? It's just a word, but it's an inflammatory word, and it's unnecessary in this debate - yet I believe you chose it deliberately.

[usahockey22 0]

Fascists were also against communism. Is anyone who opposes communism a fascist? It's just a word, but it's an inflammatory word, and it's unnecessary in this debate - yet I believe you chose it deliberately.

I believe you have contributed nothing to this debate, other than recently chiming in about my use of the word "fascist". Perhaps it does have a negative connotation...I will edit my post to say "authoritarian-left" and maybe then you will feel better. ("Left-Authoritarian" is used in literature quite commonly and is not any kind of insult. It is used opposite of "left-Libertarian")

[Rustpot 1]

I'm not trying to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, I live in Canada and we do alright up here without 'the right to bear arms', thank you.

Individual gun ownership isn't illegal in Canada. There are some 7 million firearms in individuals' hands in Canada that are registered. You all just have a tighter system for ownership.

I think it's pretty obvious that you're an anti-gun person. Might I ask why you hate guns so much as to think North America should confiscate and melt them all?

[Chadd 916]

It wasn't that the original Constitution was "inadequate" and they had to change it, it was that the Anti-federalists wanted to limit the power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to protect individual and states' rights. Sure the Constitution has flaws, and things have been corrected throughout time, but its pretty impressive that it still stands as the foundation of the most powerful nation in the world some two centuries later.

Any rights not granted to the federal government in the original constitution were assumed to be state rights. The Bill of Rights was written to grant rights to indivuduals and protect them from state and federal abuse.

[Oberon 0]

Fascists were also against communism. Is anyone who opposes communism a fascist? It's just a word, but it's an inflammatory word, and it's unnecessary in this debate - yet I believe you chose it deliberately.

I believe you have contributed nothing to this debate, other than recently chiming in about my use of the word "fascist". Perhaps it does have a negative connotation...I will edit my post to say "authoritarian-left" and maybe then you will feel better. ("Left-Authoritarian" is used in literature quite commonly and is not any kind of insult. It is used opposite of "left-Libertarian")

Kudos

[Chadd 916]

Guys, stay civil for a change.

[Monty22 833]

We need gun ownership as much today as in the past. You give up one right, you're willing to give up another right and so forth.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.