Do gun laws make you safer?

[Dizbuster]

Guns and violence



Paul Craig Roberts Washington Times

Blaming violence on guns and fanning hysteria over accidental deaths to children from firearms are staples of antigun propaganda. Media help gun-control zealots spread false information that gun ownership and self-defense are certain paths to injury and death. Handgun Control Inc., gives erroneous advice that if you are attacked, the best way to avoid injury "is to put up no defense." Anti-gun zealots blame the actions of criminals on guns and argue that disarming law-abiding gun owners is the best way to reduce the crime rate.
Scholars such as Gary Kleck, Don Kates and John Lott have demonstrated the falsity of these claims. Now comes an important new book from Harvard University Press. "Guns and Violence" by Bentley College history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm brings new evidence that guns reduce violence.
Professor Malcolm's carefully researched book is a study of guns and violence in England from the Middle Ages through the present day. When the English were armed to the teeth, violent crime was rare. Now that the English are disarmed, violent crime has exploded. Indeed, crime in England is out of control.
Offering instruction for the U.S., the English experience will be covered in a subsequent column. Professor Malcolm presents many facts about guns and violence in America, and it is to these we turn first.
Did you know that water is 19 times more dangerous to a child than a firearm? In 1996, 805 children died from accidental drownings and 42 died from firearm accidents. (Gun control zealots inflate "child" firearm deaths by including teenage drug gang members killed in turf battles.)
Bathtubs are twice as dangerous to children as guns. Fire is 18 times more dangerous to children than guns. Cars are 57 times more dangerous. Household cleaners and poisons are twice as dangerous.
Did you know defensive gun use prevents far more crimes than the police? National polls of defensive gun use by private citizens indicate that as many as 3.6 million crimes annually are prevented by armed individuals. In 98 percent of the cases, the armed citizen merely has to brandish his weapon. As many as 400,000 people each year believe they saved a life by being armed. Contrary to Handgun Control's propaganda, in less than 1 percent of confrontations do criminals succeed in taking the gun from the intended victim.
Did you know that the testimony of incarcerated felons supports the large number of defensive gun uses? Thirty-four percent of felons said they were scared off, wounded or captured by victims who turned out to be armed.
Convicted felons say they are more deterred by armed victims than by the police. In the U.S. where roughly 50 percent of households are armed, only 13 percent of burglaries occur with residents at home. In contrast, in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 50 percent of home burglaries take place with the residents present.
Gun control zealots claim that the availability of guns is the primary cause of homicides. Between 1973 and 1994, the number of guns in private ownership in the U.S. rose by 87 million. During this period, both the homicide rate and the percent of homicides committed with firearms dropped.
Another test of the relationship between guns and violence is provided by the concealed-carry laws now in force in 33 states. Gun control zealots predicted that traffic accidents and other altercations combined with an armed public would result in a bloodbath. Professor Malcolm confronts this false prediction with empirical evidence: "In all the decades of experience with concealed-carry laws in an increasing number of states, there is only one recorded incident of the use of a permitted handgun in a shooting following a traffic accident, and that was determined to be a case of self-defense."
The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime. Their restrictive gun laws produced 1,400 more murders, 4,200 more rapes, 12,000 more robberies, and 60,000 more aggravated assaults.
Professor Malcolm disproves the claim that family members are the main victims of gun ownership. This myth results from FBI reports that most victims are "known" to the murderer. In the category of "known to the murderer," the FBI includes members of rival drug gangs, prostitutes and their pimps, and even cabdrivers killed in robberies by "customers."
Far from the picture of hot-tempered spouses turning the family firearm upon one another in moments of rage, it turns out that 90 percent of adult murderers have prior criminal records involving major felonies. Three-quarters of juvenile murderers and their victims have an average of 10 prior criminal arraignments.
The English Bill of Rights guarantees English citizens "arms for their defense." Politicians and bureaucrats stole this right from the people by subterfuge. In England today, only outlaws have guns. Sens. Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, are working to duplicate the English calamity by stealing gun rights from the American people. Do these three senators represent the criminal lobby? Are they trying to create a black market in guns?
This is the first of two parts.


Paul Craig Roberts is a nationaly syndicated columnist.

[DEAD ZONE]

Depends on what you mean.No laws,no,thats dangerouse.

Some{i.e. murderers cant legally get tehem ect.} yes.

The majority of ours,no.

[Serendipity]

...crime in England is out of control.Crime, by definition, is out of control. In the US the gun genie is not going to return meekly to the bottle, I accept this and can also accept that the right to gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is needed in the US. However, over here the changes needed to turn us into a safe-but-gun-owning society are HUGE. You can change the legislation tomorrow, all, that will happen is that criminals with no criminal record will arm themselves to the teeth. The cultural change needed to turn us into gun-owners is huge, and we're a conservative lot - we don't accept such change easily.

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20020801.shtml

A strech or reality?

God help you Brits.

[Dizbuster]

I can't wait until the Dems and "Brady" bunch bring this brand of Utopia to us poor savages here in the states!!!:D ;) :rolleyes: ;) :D

[BeetleJuice]

How many laws have been passed in the last 30 years or so? What was wrong with the existing laws that they needed THOUSANDS more added to or to supercede the existing laws? Why is it a group wants to take away the RIGHT granted in the 2nd when its that very amendment thats made this country what it is?
Granted, this country isn't perfect, and the government seems to be drifting from its original charter "of for the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and of the PEOPLE" rather than for the special intrest, corporations and individual greed. But give me an example of a perfect government.
Trying to take away guns will always look good on paper but the practical application will never work. It is too entrenched into our society that we have the right to bear arms for protection, "sporting" (i.e. hunting, etc...), and whatnot.
Unless there is a rewriting of the Constitution, then they will never rid this country of something that was garanteed in the original charter that founded this nation.

[DEAD ZONE]

Every new gun law has the same title attached.
MEANINGFULL GUN LAWS

Well if the new ones are meaning full,that must mean the old were not,were worthless and should be repealed.

[Serendipity]

Did you know that Paul Craig Roberts talks a load of very predictable boring rightwing crap?

Did you know that a person's chances of being mugged in London are six times higher than in New York City?I would like to know where he gets his figures from. If he has the integrity he seems to exude, he would cite his sources. Certainly there are areas of London that are very dodgy, but I lived there for years - in a working-class area of North London, not the safe WestEnd - and didn't see any violent street crime, never mind being a victim of it. I gather things have got worse recently, I concede.

Off the top of my head, in the US in an average year over 20,000 people are killed by gun-owners. This includes legitimate self-defence, police shootings, accidents, etc. In the UK fewer than 50 are killed - and this is seen by most Brits as an unacceptably high figure. As our friend would put it, connect those dots.

Scaremongering articles like the one Roberts wrote are less than helpful.

Yes, there's plenty about the British justice system that needs changing. I personally wouldn't mind the legalization of personal firearms for property- and self-defence purposes, although it would lead to an increased deathtoll. Of course, guns themselves shouldn't be blamed for this - remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people :rolleyes: and while guns may be perfect, people (even us wonderful Brits) are not.

[Phreakmeister]

Stricter gun laws (and ofcourse law enforcement, because laws are nothing without enforcement) mean that criminals have more trouble to get their hands on guns and weapons. The only people who oughta have weapons, should be those who have a licence to own a weapon. A licence should come after a course, in which a person should learn everything there is to be learned about the gun (so that accidents are prevented as much as possible), in which a person should be taught responsibility in handling the gun, gun ethics, etcetera. Licences should be given on a strict need-to-own basis. Only people who really need to have guns, such as police officers, ought to be able to get guns.
To see the effect of this, just look at The Netherlands, for instance, where there are very strict gun laws (some of the strictest in the world). In The Netherlands, there were only 180 cases of homicide and manslaughter combined in the year 2000. In other words, on 15 to 16 million people, there were only 180 murders. Chicago however, for comparison, had a murder rate of 698 homicides (so manslaughters not included) on about 2.8 to 3 million people. So on 1/5th of the population of The Netherlands, there were almost four times as many cases of homicide as in The Netherlands for homicide and manslaughter combined.
Imho, gun possession should be strictly limited. Sure, it won't eliminate crime, but the figures show that it can help reduce crime. If you can't fight the crime, if you can't fight the criminals, fight the tools of the crime.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Serendipity
Did you know that Paul Craig Roberts talks a load of very predictable boring rightwing crap?

I would like to know where he gets his figures from. If he has the integrity he seems to exude, he would cite his sources. Certainly there are areas of London that are very dodgy, but I lived there for years - in a working-class area of North London, not the safe WestEnd - and didn't see any violent street crime, never mind being a victim of it. I gather things have got worse recently, I concede.
his,dont know.But here are some.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm

Off the top of my head, in the US in an average year over 20,000 people are killed by gun-owners. This includes legitimate self-defence, police shootings, accidents, etc. In the UK fewer than 50 are killed - and this is seen by most Brits as an unacceptably high figure. As our friend would put it, connect those dots.
News flash.Before Britains gun laws,your murder and death rate by firearms was still lower than ours.And even if you removed gun deahs from the u.s. rate,we still would out pase you in britain.And britains rate of crime was lower before these laws.So conect those dots.
And we can show the swiss and others as counter examples..

Scaremongering articles like the one Roberts wrote are less than helpful.

Yes, there's plenty about the British justice system that needs changing. I personally wouldn't mind the legalization of personal firearms for property- and self-defence purposes, although it would lead to an increased deathtoll. Of course, guns themselves shouldn't be blamed for this - remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people :rolleyes: and while guns may be perfect, people (even us wonderful Brits) are not.
Exactly.And the criminal know that and uses it to his advantage.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Stricter gun laws (and ofcourse law enforcement, because laws are nothing without enforcement) mean that criminals have more trouble to get their hands on guns and weapons.

Not really.Criminals by definition do not obey laws.They do not walk up to a dealer and buy a gun.they get them on the black market and by other illegal means which no law will prevent.
Gun control as a whole has not worked to reduce violent crime rates in this country. A large amount of the research on gun control measures, particularly that referenced by gun control advocacy groups, is technically poor. Out of the 21 most accurate studies, 17 found that gun control laws did not reduce violent crime rates; two studies resulted in ambiguous results and two studies indicated a negative (inverse) effect on violent crime rates. Furthermore, of the 21 studies, the most comprehensive one tested the effects of 19 different gun control laws on six categories of violent crime. The researchers found that of 102 direct tests, only three demonstrated definitively that a particular measure worked in reducing the rate of a particular violent crime. Fifteen tests yielded ambiguous results; the remaining 84 tests yielded negative results. The authors concluded that the various gun control laws have no overall significant effect on violent crime rates. Summarily, the body of research on the effects of gun control laws cannot be considered supportive of their efficacy.

A gun control law that has spawned a lot of controversy is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act or Brady Bill. The Brady law requires a mandatory five-day waiting period between the purchase and acquisition of a handgun from a federally licensed dealer. During this waiting period it is determined whether the prospective purchaser of a handgun is a person prohibited ownership of handguns by any State or Federal law. Despite research demonstrating that waiting periods do not lower violent crime (see above), the Brady Act went into effect on February 28, 1994.

When the Brady Bill was signed into law, eighteen states and Washington D.C. were automatically exempt from the law because they already had stricter gun control laws. These exempt states and D.C. accounted for 63 percent of the nation's violent crimes and 58 percent of the nation's murders. Two of the originally exempt states, California and New York, have the highest and second highest number of murders and violent crimes, respectively. By 1997, ten more states had become exempt from the Brady Bill. The 28 exempt states and D.C. accounted for 75 percent of all violent crimes and 70 percent of the murders in the nation. In fact, California and New York have more violent crimes than the remaining 22 states subject to the five-day wait.

The Clinton Administration was constantly misquoting the Bureau of Justice Statistics regarding the number of persons denied handgun purchases under Brady. The numbers compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics need to be viewed with skepticism, since they often do not take into account states that have become exempt under Brady. Despite the number of persons claimed by the President to have been denied handgun purchases under Brady, the actual number is 3 percent, or less, of prospective owners per year. This means that 97 percent of persons attempting to purchase handguns from federally licensed dealers are law-abiding citizens. The actual number is undoubtedly higher since a study conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that half of the denials in the first year of Brady enforcement were wrongly dispensed due to clerical errors and other technicalities, and later reversed.

Using crime rate data for all 3,054 counties in the U.S. between 1977 and 1994, John Lott completed an analysis of the Brady law's impact during its first year. His research demonstrated that the law had no significant effect on murder or robbery rates, while rape and aggravated assault rates experienced significant increases.

The GAO also determined that in the first 17 months of Brady enforcement, only seven individuals were convicted of illegal attempts to purchase a handgun, and only three of these were sent to prison.

Additionally, the part of Brady that incorporates local police forces to do the federal government's bidding has been ruled unconstitutional. Yet, the current administration wants to keep the five-day waiting period in effect even though that provision of the bill expired . Although that administration claimed that it detered crime, the only thing Brady does for sure is criminalize the law-abiding citizen.

Sources: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997). David B. Kopel, ed. Guns, Who Should Have Them?, (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1995). Donald A. Manson and Darrell K. Gilliard, "Presale Handgun Checks, 1996," U.S. Department of Justice, 1997. Donald A. Manson and Darrell K. Gilliard, "Presale Handgun Checks, 1997," U.S. Department of Justice, 1998. Don Manson and Gene Lauver, "Presale Firearm Checks," U.S. Department of Justice, 1997. Sarah Brady, "Statement of Sarah Brady Re: New DOJ Report On Brady Law Success." Handgun Control, Inc. News Releases. (21 June 1998). Available: <http://www.handguncontrol.org/e-main.htm> (30 June 1998). "The ?Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act' Does It Live Up To Its Name?" ILA Research & Information Division Fact Sheet. (1 May 1997).

John R. Lott Jr., More Guns, Less Crime, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998).

The only people who oughta have weapons, should be those who have a licence to own a weapon. A licence should come after a course, in which a person should learn everything there is to be learned about the gun (so that accidents are prevented as much as possible), in which a person should be taught responsibility in handling the gun, gun ethics, etcetera. Licences should be given on a strict need-to-own basis. Only people who really need to have guns, such as police officers, ought to be able to get guns.

LOL!!Police shoot more inocent people than lawfull licened to carry gun owners do.
"From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

This type of argument arises directly from Marxist ideology, that the things one should be allowed
to have in some way must depend on a demonstration of need. This has no place whatsoever in the
free country of America: people can aquire whatever they want, and need has nothing to do with it.
Nobody needs sports cars, art, entertainment or pets, or even indoor plumbing, formal clothing,
paint, or spices, either, since none is essential for survival. Anyone who argues about "needs" with
respect to firearms ownership should be reminded of the Marxist origin of the concept, and faced
with whether he has anything he could do without - and why he has it when he doesn't need it. Does
he have a rug, let alone wall-to-wall carpeting? Does he need it? Does he have any musical
instrument, or even a tape or CD player? Does he need it? People have gotten along for millenia
without these things, so the answer is no, probably not. Ban them? No doubt, this argument will
rapidly turn into "but, guns kill people" - which is covered elsewhere.

With regard to "needing" a gun. Who gets to decide? On what basis? With what expertise?Do you REALLY "need" your computer?Do you "need" a television?Do you "need" a credit card? Do you "need" the income you are generating?Do you "need"......yada, yada, yada?Are you getting the point here? One persons "needs" are not necessarily the"needs" of others.So...do you set yourself up as the arbiter of who "needs" what, and if so, what does your special knowledge consist of?People that are of the mindset that want to decide what others may or may not do are called POLITICIANS and they are of the lowest of scum.
The Constitution is worth nothing if it is valid to throw out amendments because of one's view of "the evolution of history and the role of the federal government" renders them obsolete. I hope you are not trying to advocate that the supreme court as well as the founders are incompotent in the constatution and we now know better?That is treachery and the road to despotism.Dictators use the same reasons to justify their brand of order and "safety" as i see you using.That scares me !!There is a big difference between sound reasons and reasons that sound good.

[DEAD ZONE]

Licensing a right is not only a direct violation of the constitution and the law{here anyway} it is the road to dening any and all other rights under the sham of "Licensing".


To see the effect of this, just look at The Netherlands, for instance, where there are very strict gun laws (some of the strictest in the world). In The Netherlands, there were only 180 cases of homicide and manslaughter combined in the year 2000. In other words, on 15 to 16 million people, there were only 180 murders. Chicago however, for comparison, had a murder rate of 698 homicides (so manslaughters not included) on about 2.8 to 3 million people. So on 1/5th of the population of The Netherlands, there were almost four times as many cases of homicide as in The Netherlands for homicide and manslaughter combined.
Imho, gun possession should be strictly limited. Sure, it won't eliminate crime, but the figures show that it can help reduce crime. If you can't fight the crime, if you can't fight the criminals, fight the tools of the crime. [/QUOTE]
And make sure there are plenty of vicyoms that cant fight back.

this is a good example of how anti-guners minipulate numbers .We can just as easily take switzerland and isreal and prove gunproliferation is far better and safer .Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate. There are to many variables for cross country comparing.It is an illagitamate practice.Inter country comparing is another issue.
Crime Factors According to the FBI

Population density and degree of urbanization.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Selection of cases is one of the faults of the typical claims involving comparisons of different countries relating to firearms and different kinds of violence. The country comparisons also suffer from the fact that the comparisons never have true measures of gun possession or account for all the applicable differences (besides gun laws) between the countries compared.

Violence rates differ dramatically across countries. A widely held view is that these differences reflect differences in gun control and/or gun availability, and certain pieces of evidence appear consistent with this hypothesis. A more detailed examination of this evidence suggests that the role of gun control/availability is not compelling. This more detailed examination, however, does not provide an alternative explanation for cross-country differences in violence. This paper suggests that differences in the enforcement of drug prohibition are an important factor in explaining differences in violence rates across countries. To determine the validity of this hypothesis, the paper examines data on homicide rates, drug prohibition enforcement, and gun control policy for a broad range of countries. The results suggest a role for drug prohibition enforcement in explaining cross-country differences in violence, and they provide an alternative explanation for some of the apparent effects of gun control/availability on violence rates.{JEFFREY A. MIRON
Bastiat Institute and Boston University}
See study here:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE/journal/issues/v44nS2/012211/brief/012211.abstract.html

By thw ay.Licensing: New York is a prime example of how this is nothing but an excuse for banning guns to all but a special hiarchy class.Class discrimination pervades the process. New York City taxi drivers, who are more at risk of robbery than anyone else in the city, are denied gun permits, since they carry less than $2,000 in cash.

[DEAD ZONE]

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

(Source: "More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).

I personaly have had to brandish my weaon to prevent a gang of thugs from assualting me ,my brother and sister inlaw.
Aint nobody getting my equalizer.

[Phreakmeister]

May I ask DZ for his moral justification for the right to own guns?

May I ask DZ how he can explain, that the US is the only country in the world with the school shooting syndrome? How can DZ justify, that 12-year olds can easily get their hands on guns, to kill the teacher and the class after a D?

In what way is banning guns comparable to banning freedom of speech or freedom of religion? When banning guns, you ban a lethal object, just like banning strychnine (the rightwingers will now say "it's not the guns that kill people, it's the people who kill people". To them I say: "Does strychnine kill people? No, people who supply strychnine kill people. So should we therefore legalize strychnine?"). When banning freedom of speech, you're banning a freedom. In what way can banning a lethal object and banning a freedom be compared?

The need for guns is completely different from the need for wallpaper, carpets, computers, etc. As you may or may not have noticed, bullets don't fly out of computers, wallpapers or carpets. Bullets are ejected from guns. Now how do we determine this need? Easily. Does a police officer need guns? Yes. Does a private or an army officer need guns? Yes. Does the military police (I don't know if you have that on your side of the Atlantic) need guns? Yes. Does a computer programmer need guns? No. Does a racing driver need guns? No. Does a car engineer need guns? No. Does a politician need guns? No.

You used the rightwing dogma, that "criminals will get their hands on it anyway, so why not legalize it anyway?" Criminals will get their hands on their victims anyway, so why protect people who receive threats? Criminals will deal in cocain anyway, so why not legalize cocain? To prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, we need law enforcement. State-licenced gun stores oughta sell guns only to people with state-licences. There should be a strict control there, whether they stick to the rules or not. Law enforcement should prevent people from buying guns elsewhere. You don't sell cars to someone who doesn't have a drivers licence. Then why do you sell guns to someone who doesn't have a gun permit?

Guns are meant to be in the hands of those who have been trained to use them, properly, such as police and armed services (only while these people are working to protect citizens!), not for every man and his dog!

Weapons are best put in the hands of those who hate to use them, not into the hands of people who want to use them.

A study conducted by the Heartland Institute called "Taking Aim at Gun Control" concluded recently that between 1973 and 1992 handgun ownership increased by 110 percent, from 37 million to 78 million. During that time the crime rate steadily rose also. If we look to other parts of the globe, we will find much stricter gun control. Some countries do extensive background checks and psychological tests. Others have much stricter licensing requirements. Some prohibit gun ownership. But, not surprisingly, they all have one thing in common - a much smaller number of deaths due to handguns.
Just look at the facts from the Mennonite Central Committee news service: In 1992 handguns killed 13 persons in Australia, 33 in Britain, 36 in Sweden, 60 in Japan, 97 in Switzerland, 128 in Canada and 13,429 in the United States! (http://www.kcstar.com/democracy/stories/gnedit.htm)
In 1993 nearly 2 percent of the labour force was in prison (Freeman, 1995) and, yet even with such a high level of incarceration, the crime rate in the USA remains one of the highest in the world.(http://www.labor.net.au/evatt/washington.html)

You say, that having an unsafe object flying through society (i.e. guns) makes society safer. I would call this "pretzel-logics". Does driving without a seat belt create less car accidents? Does driving without brakes make safer? Does flying without a pilot make flying safer? No. Then why does having an unsafe object like a gun all of a sudden make society safer?

[Phreakmeister]

Basically, gun ownership was not a historical, founding tenet of American life. Very few Americans owned guns until the Civil War; when the North created a lot of guns for the army, they let the soldiers keep them after the war. This created a big glut of free guns floating around in the society; the urban crime rates soared. This is the origin of widespread gun ownership in the country.

The NRA was founded after the Civil War, but it was only a social club for retired Army sharpshooters. It only became a powerful political lobby within the past few decades. The whole little legend they've put together about gun ownership being quintessentially democratic and American isn't entirely true.

[Dizbuster]

May I ask DZ how he can explain, that the US is the only country in the world with the school shooting syndrome? How can DZ justify, that 12-year olds can easily get their hands on guns, to kill the teacher and the class after a D?

Gee Phreak, you must have flunked Geography or current events, Germany currently holds the record for the "deadliest" school shooting, America and England(actually Scotland) come in tied for 2nd if I remember the number of dead correctly for the scottish school murders.

So target shooters, hunters, and collectors have no need for guns because they might be dangerous? With that logic, maybe we need to more closely monitor and liscence cars, baseball bats, and bricks, all of which can cause death.

You know, if I hadn't of had my trusty 6 shooter with me back several years ago, I might not be here to take you to task for saying no one but those who"need" them should have guns.
You see, here in Texas, and in fact across much of the US, we have these things called rattlesnakes, and people who enjoy the outdoors as I did at one time, can run into them unexpectedly. Only quick reflexes, and having my gun kept me from being bitten by a western diamondback, when I blundered into her "nest", during a hike. If I had of been bitten, the likelyhood that I would have made it to a hospital was low, I was on some property we had just purchased, which was in the middle of nowhere, and I was the only one on the property at the time.

I guess, since I am not a cop or soldier, I didn't need that gun!

You spout that antigun BS to anyone who has lived in a rural setting here or most anywhere in the US, and they will look at you as if you sprouted another head, then tell you that is just plain stupid.

Unless you are an American, or have lived over here for awhile to fully appreciate our culture and way of life, then all I have to say to you is, you do not know what you are talking about.

Oh, and tell Pym about how "safe" your country is with all your gun laws.

[Phreakmeister]

Yes, Germany and the UK hold the podium for deadliest shooting events. And you know why? Because there, there were deadly incidents. In Dunblane, Scotland, one man entered a primary school, and started to spree, killing 16 children and a teacher. In Erfurt, Germany, an ex-pupil entered the school, and started to spree, killing 13 teachers, two students, and one policeman, and injuring 10, before killing self.
At this site (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html), you can find a nice timeline of recent school shootings. Just take a look at the huge amount of American school shootings on the list. 25 of the school shootings are American, 9 are non-American.
In the countries you mentioned, the school shootings are incidents. In the US, it's a syndrome. So no, I didn't flunk Geography.

The talk about "cars, bricks and baseball bats" is another rightwing tinko philosophy. You may or may not have noticed, but actually guns are designed to kill. You probably agree with me on that, right? Guns are not designed to paint the wall or to mow the grass with. Guns are designed to kill. Baseball bats are designed to play a sport with. You should know that, as an American. Cars are designed and meant to take a person or a cargo from A to B with. Bricks are designed to build walls with. In all of these cases, the lethal purpose of the object is "collateral damage". In the case of guns, however, killing is the primary objective.

Ok, people in the outback need guns to defend themselves from for instance snakes. But can you tell me the likeliness for someone in the Bronx to run into a western diamondback? (The only Diamondback someone in the Bronx might run into is an Arizona Diamondback) Just because you and others in the outback need to defend themselves from snakes, every single person in the country has to have the right to buy guns?

I'll admit right away, that I don't know what living in the US is like. I was born and raised in The Netherlands. What I do know, is the harm guns do. What I do know, are the effects of guns. What I do know, is that countries with gun control have much less crime than countries without.

You say, that despite the avalanche of gun accidents and shootings, in short of gun abuse, the US is safe and the policy of the US government is right. At the same time, you use incidents in The Netherlands, Germany and the UK to "prove" that our policy is wrong. Now isn't that a strange way of handling the issue?

[Dizbuster]

I have not personally said whether your policy is right or worng, not my call since I do not know that much about your population, for all I know all of you walk around stoned on hash and are incapable of any type of coordinated action, much less being able to shoot someone with a gun.

Right now, I live in a city, so I am not as likely to run into a rattler, coral, or copperhead or one of the other poisonuos kind of snakes we have around here. I can however, drive 30 minutes, and be in the country, replete with all manner of creatures who could do me harm. To tell the truth, I am more afraid of the human "creatures" who live in the city with me.
Guns are made to propel a projectile at a target, just like a bow, atalat, sling, or even thrown rock. Guns are not made ONLY to kill things, otherwise the olympics would be a much bloodier get together than it is now, don't you think?
Like Archery equipment, which also was "made" to kill, guns can be used for sport, if you have never been target shooting, then I think you have been deprived, but then that is a personal opinion. Many of the people I know who own guns would consider them as something they have for sport, not necessarily for self protection, much like the dual purpose you can put a baseball bat, axe, knife, car, whatever, to. That is why guns are sold in "sporting goods" stores along with baseball bats, footballs, golf clubs, etc... they are considered by many, to be a sporting item.

Since I am a law abiding, honest person who knows how to handle and use firearms, I do not want the government telling me I can't, just because there are a few idiots out there who misuse the technology. Much like your right to disagree with me, I hold the freedom dear and not subject to negotiation with a government that can and will abuse any power it gets.

[Phreakmeister]

Well, you (and DZ) said that gun laws make (in this case US) society safer. I say they don't. I may hope, that both of us are looking for a safe society. Therefore, a policy that promotes the safe society, is a good law, right?

I too run the risk of meeting a venomous snake on a daily or near-daily basis. Where I live, the adder (Vipera Berus) (I think they're called vipers in America) roams. Through some stroke of luck, I have never encountered one, but the possibility is there when every time I leave my house.
Archery and guns were primarily designed for killing, in war-time. The ancient Greeks used arch and bow to kill or mame the enemy. Their training in this grew to the sport of archery. After a while, they started to use spears. Training in this grew to Javelin. The same goes for guns. Guns were designed/invented to kill or mame in time of war. The training in guns led to shooting sports.

Sure, a lot of people shoot for hunt or for sports. Although I personally think hunting for fun should be illegalized (what's the fun killing innocent animals?), there actually are harmless bullets. You still have the joy of shooting, but no harm is being done. I'm afraid I don't know the English word for these kind of bullets, but as soon as I have found it, I'll let you know.

Sure, guns can be used as sporting goods. The problem is, however, that most people who use guns, don't use them for sports.

There's no doubt in my mind that you are a law-abiding, honest, decent citizen. The problem in any society, including the American society, however, is that not everyone is. There are an awful lot of @$$holes out there, and we gotta stop them one way or the other. I hope you agree with me on that. And when decent people own guns, sure, that's none of my business, but we gotta get the guns out of the hands of the @$$holes. And the way it is now, it can't happen, simply because the constitution gives EVERYONE, including the @$$holes the right to own guns.
Gun possession should be a right of the responsible, of the wise, of the decent. And in order to limit gun possession to the decent members of society, an amendment of the constitution might very well be necessary.
I don't know if you have children or not. If so, would you want them to get involved in accidents? Would you want one of your children to be the next school shooter? I sure hope not.
We HAVE to limit gun possession, otherwise the entire society will go down the drain. Decent citizens having guns is not the problem, @$$holes and angry student having guns IS.

[DEAD ZONE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phreakmeister
May I ask DZ for his moral justification for the right to own guns?

The basic right of self defence,the responsibility of family defence,property rights and the fact that there is no moral justifyccation to deny any of this .

May I ask DZ how he can explain, that the US is the only country in the world with the school shooting syndrome? How can DZ justify, that 12-year olds can easily get their hands on guns, to kill the teacher and the class after a D?

Its not.Gernmany has recently experianced the same,as have some other Europeans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1953425.stm

The Erfurt massacre is the worst school shooting in Europe since a gunman killed 16 children and their teacher in Scotland in 1996.

You must lead a sheltered life.

In what way is banning guns comparable to banning freedom of speech or freedom of religion?

You ban the peoples defence against bodily harm,protection from a hostile government, the ability to protect their family ,property and ALL THOSE OTHER LIBERTIES."...the second amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like [in] Grozny, [and in] 1776, when they take your independence away." - Bob Dornan, January 25, 1994 response to Clinton's State of the Union address]

When banning guns, you ban a lethal object, just like banning strychnine (the rightwingers will now say "it's not the guns that kill people, it's the people who kill people". To them I say: "Does strychnine kill people? No, people who supply strychnine kill people. So should we therefore legalize strychnine?").

Actually,strychnine is legal.I have some in posions i got legal over the counter.If you want to ban lethal objects,what about knofes,bleach ,cars bathtubs,pools{which kill more children than guns} and any number of hous hold everyday chemicals and objects.Even anti-freez.You are very selective in what you want to call a lethal weapon.How about we ban ammonea nitrate fertilizers and diesl fuel.Thats what they used on that building in O.K. city.Killed more people in seconds than any machine gun ever has or could.

When banning freedom of speech, you're banning a freedom. In what way can banning a lethal object and banning a freedom be compared?
All ready asnwered.See above.

The need for guns is completely different from the need for wallpaper, carpets, computers, etc.no it is not.I have no wall paper and my sister has wood floors.These are not needed.Only in your mind {biased by gunaphobia} is this so.

As you may or may not have noticed, bullets don't fly out of computers, wallpapers or carpets. Bullets are ejected from guns. Now how do we determine this need?
They dont fly from guns unles fired.Lets sit a loaded gun on a table and see how long it takes before it just up and starts firing at folks?

So you admit it is not the gun that does harm,but now the bullet!Carpets have toxins in them.If they burn,the smoke can kill quickly.They also can leatch out.computers have toxins as well.There was recently a story in the news about how they wanted old computers recycled due to that very fact.Computers can be used to lean how to make bombs,homemade guns ect.So they are exactly like a gun.Read a story a couple of days ago about a kid that lost his arm.He tried making a homemade bom from directions he got off the computer on the net.
Computors.Lethal,NAHH!!!!!!

[DEAD ZONE]

Does a police officer need guns? Yes. Does a private or an army officer need guns? Yes. Does the military police ([i]I don't know if you have that on your side of the Atlantic) need guns? Yes. Does a computer programmer need guns? No. Does a racing driver need guns? No. Does a car engineer need guns? No. Does a politician need guns? No.

For starters,our politicians not only have guns,they have hired thugs calle security with machine guns.

Second,this is clearly shown that your mentality is that some people are plane worthless.Their lives are worth nothing.
Does a police officer need guns? Yes. Does a private or an army officer need guns? Yes. Does the military police (I don't know if you have that on your side of the Atlantic) need guns? Yes.

Why.Whats the difference.A person wants to harm them.their life is worth killing some one for.BUT THE AVERAGE JOE IS WORTHLESS WHEN HE IS THREATENED.We should just let mommy and sister and wife be raped,our kidds assualted and killed because we are not the above mentioned special class of worthy life.
I know sport shooters and common joe folks that are far more proficient with weapons than most of the cops hear.They practice.They are not stupid,despite what you may think.



You used the rightwing dogma, that "criminals will get their hands on it anyway, so why not legalize it anyway?"

Wrong dear.I never used any such thing.I never advocated allowing CRIMINALS to have any weapons.Its the Non criminals that YOU are disarming that I defend.Its sad that you cant see the difference and consider all people criminal by nature.

Criminals will get their hands on their victims anyway, so why protect people who receive threats?

See above .You are arguing a non point hear .I never advocated no laws.Thats anarchy.

Criminals will deal in cocain anyway, so why not legalize cocain?
No.The reason to legalize drugs is that making them illegal not only does not stop their use,it empowers and inriches the criminals.That is a proven fact.Legalising them in Europe has proven that their use drops.Same thing for guns in the hands of lawfull citizens.

In examining data between 1977 and 1995, Lott and Landes found that deaths and injuries from mass public shootings - like Wakefield - fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. "Right-to-carry" laws, also known as "shall issue" laws, require issuing authorities to provide a concealed carry handgun license to all qualified applicants. Massachusetts is one of 18 states without such a law.

During the 1977-95 time period, there were 19 deaths and 97 injuries in states without right-to-carry laws, but only one death and two injuries in states which had such laws. In addition, where data were available both before and after passage of right-to-carry laws, the average death rate from mass shootings dropped by up to 91% after the laws took effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.

Never do the firearm prohibitionists consider the real risks posed by civilian disarmament. Many of them view successful self-defense as an affront to their ideas of order and of government supremacy."



To prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, we need law enforcement.Absolutly.Never argued anything else.

State-licenced gun stores oughta sell guns only to people with state-licences.Why?The first part maybe,but why the second?Why this need for a special class of life?In order to carry a consealed weapon,training and a course must be pased.Simply to have one,no.

There should be a strict control there, whether they stick to the rules or not. Law enforcement should prevent people from buying guns elsewhere.So only the government should be allowed to control And therefore have the guns.Same old ellitist argument.See previous posts.

You don't sell cars to someone who doesn't have a drivers licence. Then why do you sell guns to someone who doesn't have a gun permit?

You need to look at the laws before you go make claims that are not true.
You can legally sale a car to any one.A 5 year old can go in to a dealer and buy one if he has the money.Nothing illegal about it.He cant legally drive it on PUBLIC streets.He can drive it on his own property{like i did when i was in jr. high}.A license is not required to buy a car or to drive one on your own property. You need a license to drive your car IN PUBLIC. If you want people to have a license for carrying their
gun in public, fine.You are pro-conceal carry,glad to hear it.

Ban is the contemporary substitute for the more primitive, taboo, and there is some evidence that humans were affecting and observing taboos even before they were a fully erect species. This proves that it doesn't take much intelligence and reasoning skill to point a finger, shake the head, and grunt, which is basically what most contemporary bans amount to.

I have observed over the years that the vast majority of those who want to ban guns and ban euphoric drugs know extremely little or absolutely nothing about either entity. And in many cases the inspiration for their verbalized finger-pointing, head shaking grunts derive either from having gotten too close to a flame to realize that fire has its good and useful purposes as well as its hazards, or from nothing more than aping the admonitions of some equally ignorant ape.

The substance of the two bans referenced in this topic is mostly fabricated nonsense, most of which is analogous to primitive superstition and ghost stories.
But unfortunately the majority of Americans, including some who are well educated, are no less susceptible to this kind of mass hysteria than were their most primitive ancestors.

The bottom line is it's much easier to affect a taboo, or subscribe to a popular one, than to learn the underlying facts about it.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Yes, Germany and the UK hold the podium for deadliest shooting events. And you know why? Because there, there were deadly incidents. In Dunblane, Scotland, one man entered a primary school, and started to spree, killing 16 children and a teacher. In Erfurt, Germany, an ex-pupil entered the school, and started to spree, killing 13 teachers, two students, and one policeman, and injuring 10, before killing self.
At this site (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html), you can find a nice timeline of recent school shootings. Just take a look at the huge amount of American school shootings on the list. 25 of the school shootings are American, 9 are non-American.
In the countries you mentioned, the school shootings are incidents. In the US, it's a syndrome. So no, I didn't flunk Geography.And what you fail to see is that your statement still fails.There are manymore gun laws,restrictions ect. now especially on children than there were before 1968.And we have school shootings still.You logic on ban um or control um falls flat.They had shooting clubs and kids carried their 22 rifles on the subway to school befor then.They could go to any store and but a rifle or shot gun,no questions.Now we have controls and you site the school shootings??
I point out to you it only makes sense that they would target schools since,they are well know hangouts for those kids enemies.You know,the targets.Also they are known to be ,GUN free zones,so no threat of their victoms shooting back.
Educate yourself on school shootings.You might be suprised.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/schoolreport.html
As i noted,there are many factors in crime and kiling and you ignore them and preffere a body count only.

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 1998 (Estimates) (Source: National Health Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999)
All Automobile:
children 0-4/ 800
children 5-14/ 1,800
"Children" 15-24/ 9,300

Falls:
0-4/ 80
5-14/ 80
"Children" 15-24/ 240

Poisoning by solids, liquids:
0-4/ 30
5-14/ 40
"children" 15-24/ 600

Pedestrian1:
0-4/ 170
5-14/ 410
"Children" 15-24/ 554

NOTE:Pedestrian fatalities are also included in Motor Vehicle fatalities. They are broken-out on a separate line to illustrate how often pedestrian fatalities occur.

Drowning:
0-4/ 500
5-14/ 350
"Children" 15-24/ 650

Fires, burns:
0-4/310
5-14/ 260
"Children" 15-24/ 230

Suffocation by ingested object:
0-4/ 140
5-14/ 60
"Children"/ 60

Firearms:
0-4/ 30
5-14/ 80
"Children" 15-24/ 310

Fatal gun accidents often receive national attention. Subsequently politicians demand mandatory firearms safety classes for all gun owners, yet many more lives could be saved by randomly selecting and educating a group of drivers rather than gun owners,not to mention the populace at large regarding, administering first-aid, how to eat, and basic common sense safety habits. (It is not being suggested that such training be offered or mandated.)
Doctors' negligence kills annually three to five times as many Americans as guns, 100,000 to 150,000 per year. With sad irony it has become vogue for medical politicians to claim that guns, rather than medical negligence, have become a "public health emergency."




The talk about "cars, bricks and baseball bats" is another rightwing tinko philosophy. You may or may not have noticed, but actually guns are designed to kill. You probably agree with me on that, right?Guns are not designed to paint the wall or to mow the grass with. Guns are designed to kill. Baseball bats are designed to play a sport with. You should know that, as an American. Cars are designed and meant to take a person or a cargo from A to B with. Bricks are designed to build walls with. In all of these cases, the lethal purpose of the object is "collateral damage". In the case of guns, however, killing is the primary objective

i disagree.As you pointed out,its the bulets that kill,not guns.Without bulets,they are just expensive clubs,oe rocks in the case of a pistole.The only purpose of a gun is to kill. This is the basic principle underlying much of the ant-personal rights lobby's arguments and is used to justify some of the statistical manipulations they perform in order to support their case. Unfortunately for the gun control lobby, they are wrong. There are many people who buy guns with the intention of never using them to kill. Some people like to collect guns, especially those representing a specific era or time. Other people enjoy "plinking" or recreational shooting at non-living targets just as other people enjoy the practice of archery without every going bow-hunting or bow-fishing. Still other people like to shoot competitively. Some enjoy taking part in historical reenactments that involve firearms. Let us not forget those who purchase firearms purely for the purpose of protecting themselves. Many people are quite content to drive off an attacker using the mere display of a firearm, without ever actually firing it. There are many legitimate reasons for owning a gun that have nothing to do with killing.A gun is a tool used to shoot projectiles. What you shoot the projectiles at determines if there is any killing done. Your teeth were designed to tear flesh (and kill?) too BTW. A hammer can build homes or crush skulls.
I shoot more ammo in a month than all the crooks in all the crimes in this whole town (pop over 1,00,000) do all year. Haven't killed a thing.
"[Knowledge is neither good nor evil, but takes its character from how it is used.] In like manner, weapons defend the lives of those who wish to live peacefully, and they also, on many occasions kill [murder] men, not because of any wickedness inherent in them but because those who wield them do so in an evil way."
So tell me,whats wrong with killing a murdere or rapist going after your wife or kids?Nothing in my book.
And bats are desighned to be swung and hit something,that something{not necessarily a ball} flies at a fast rate of speed ,if hitting something,it can easily kil it.
What kind of sick sport are we playing here? :)

Cars are made to travel up to 150 mph or more.Can you honestly say they are not desighned to be dangerous,flying along in public like that?Why does anyone need to travel that damned fast anyway?

mowers are desighned to spin a sharp blade and cut.What they cut depends on the type of blade and their use.Kinda like a gun.It just launches a bullet.the intent is dependant on the user.Wether for targets{like the olypic designed guns} or anything else.


.

Ok, people in the outback need guns to defend themselves from for instance snakes. But can you tell me the likeliness for someone in the Bronx to run into a western diamondback?The 2 footed deadly kind,very likely.Here we go with this special class stuff again.


(The only Diamondback someone in the Bronx might run into is an Arizona Diamondback) Just because you and others in the outback need to defend themselves from snakes, every single person in the country has to have the right to buy guns?
See above and no one said EVERYONE had the right.Derainged loonatics, convicted murderes ect. do not.

I'll admit right away, that I don't know what living in the US is like. I was born and raised in The Netherlands. What I do know, is the harm guns do. What I do know, are the effects of guns. What I do know, is that countries with gun control have much less crime than countries without.

Not true,as I already proved earlier.Some Countries with stric control have higher rates than some that dont.there are many factors involved with crime.You are ignoring the benifical effects of guns totally.

You say, that despite the avalanche of gun accidents and shootings, in short of gun abuse, the US is safe and the policy of the US government is right. At the same time, you use incidents in The Netherlands, Germany and the UK to "prove" that our policy is wrong. Now isn't that a strange way of handling the issue?
He used your own logic,did he not?

Ask yourself the same quetion?

[DEAD ZONE]

[i]
You say, that having an unsafe object flying through society (i.e. guns) makes society safer. I would call this "pretzel-logics". Does driving without a seat belt create less car accidents? Does driving without brakes make safer? Does flying without a pilot make flying safer? No. Then why does having an unsafe object like a gun all of a sudden make society safer? [/B]

Not so.I never advocated publicly shooting guns at random into crodes ect.
Its no more dangerouse than the other objects that do the same,like planes,cars ect.And they are in public areas.The only reason for publically firing a weapon is the same one the police us.And cops kill more innocent people than concealed weapons holders do.
the rest of this rant makes little sense,sinse guns dont operate on their own and randomly blastina away is not nor has it been advocated.Thats as close as your analogies even get and thats a strech.

[Phreakmeister]

I'm getting the feeling you belong to the rightwing of the Republican Party. Am I right or not?

Second,this is clearly shown that your mentality is that some people are plane worthless.Their lives are worth nothing.

This is called stigmatization. If you can't find decent arguments, start yelling at the opponent.
There is a difference between rating people's lives and supporting gun control. Surely, I rate people's lives. Just like any other person. My girlfriend happens to mean more to me than Bin Laden.
So the fact that I think gun possession should be limited means that I think some people's lives are worth less than other people's lives? Then do you think that a drivers licence should be limitless as well? Because why should a 16 year old get a drivers licence and a 15 year old not? Ofcourse, the exams. But why can a 16 year old get a driving exam (18 in europe) and a 15 year old not? But then it's discrimination, letting someone who did pass the exam drive, and someone who didn't pass the exam not.
If we have driving exams and driving licences, why not the same for guns?

Over here, hardly anyone has guns. In your philosophy, we should be getting murdered by the minute. Yet oh miracle: our crime rates and our murder rates are way lower than the US. How can this happen, if we don't have guns? Makes you wonder. If life can also be lived without guns, then why is gun possession deemed so vital? Surely Europeans aren't a completely different animal species, right?

I know sport shooters and common joe folks that are far more proficient with weapons than most of the cops hear.They practice.They are not stupid,despite what you may think.

Problem is however, is that not everyone, not even in good ol' USA is a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen. There are actually morons out there. Sure, there's no problem with decent people having guns. The problem comes, when the morons of society have guns. Those people should lose their guns. I hope you agree with me on that. And the only way to achieve that, is to drop the 2nd amendment, and legislate gun possession, and restrict gun possession to the responsible people out there.

I never advocated allowing CRIMINALS to have any weapons.Its the Non criminals that YOU are disarming that I defend.Its sad that you cant see the difference and consider all people criminal by nature.

I've said it to Diz, but I don't mind telling it to you too. Guns in the hands of responsible people is no problem. The constitution however gives EVERYONE the RIGHT to own guns, including the morons in society. I won't deny, that one day guns will completely disappear, voluntarily, from everyday life, but I'm realistic enough to know that that's an illusion. I thought we oughta LIMIT gun possession to those mentally and physically able to handle a gun. This for instance includes bankground checks. Persons with a criminal record imho should be disallowed to own a gun.
I do not intend to reach a TOTAL disarmament. What I intend, is a RESTRICTION of armament to the responsible people. The only way to restrict that, is to drop the 2nd amendment, which gives EVERYONE the right to own a gun. Gun possession shouldn't be everyman's right, it should be the right of the responsible and the wise.

Why?The first part maybe,but why the second?Why this need for a special class of life?In order to carry a consealed weapon,training and a course must be pased.Simply to have one,no.

Easy. It's the state's responsibility that gun possession is restricted, as I've said time and time before, to the decent and responsible. Permits help restrict gun possession. Handing out a permit should happen after shooting courses, lessons in "gunnology", but also after mental tests, a check of the psychological and mental background, and a check if the person has a criminal record. If the person passes all of those tests, then there is no problem in handing out the permit. Or do you want guns in the hands of psychopaths or rejected teenagers?

So only the government should be allowed to control And therefore have the guns.Same old ellitist argument.See previous posts.

No, the government should control gun selling, to make sure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands.

there is no moral justifyccation to deny any of this

If gun possession is a RIGHT, guns can get in everybody's hands, including the @$$holes who are not intent on using the guns for peaceful purposes. Perhaps there's no moral justification for a ban, but there's definitely no moral justification for complete freedom of guns.

Gernmany has recently experianced the same,as have some other Europeans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1953425.stm

The Erfurt massacre is the worst school shooting in Europe since a gunman killed 16 children and their teacher in Scotland in 1996.

What I'm about to say, is what I've just said to Diz: 25 school shootings in the past few years in the US, and nothing's wrong. 2 school shootings in Germany and 1 in Scotland, and all of a sudden it is ever so unsafe in Europe. Despite the avalanche of gun abuse, the US is said to be safe. Incidents in The Netherlands, Germany and the UK "prove" that Europe is so unsafe. Now isn't that a tad strange?
At this site (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html) you can find a timeline of school shootings of the past 6 years. 25 of them were in the US, 3 were in Germany, 1 was in The Netherlands, 1 was in Scotland, 1 was in Yemen, 1 was in Canada, 1 was in Sweden and 1 was in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
An investigation of the Mennonite Central Committee news service has shown, that in 1992, handguns killed 13 persons in Australia, 33 in Britain, 36 in Sweden, 60 in Japan, 97 in Switzerland, 128 in Canada and 13,429 in the United States...

knofes,bleach ,cars bathtubs,pools{which kill more children than guns} and any number of hous hold everyday chemicals and objects.Even anti-freez.You are very selective in what you want to call a lethal weapon.How about we ban ammonea nitrate fertilizers and diesl fuel.

Guns were designed to kill people. That is their primary objective. Knifes are designed to cut food. Bleach is used for, among other objectives, dying hair. Bathtubs are designed to take a bath in (oh sweet surprise). Pools are designed to swim in. Anti-freeze is to prevent stuff from freezing. Ammonium nitrate fertilizers are used to make the soil fertile. None of these have killing as a primary objective, contrary to guns.

They dont fly from guns unles fired.

If only you know how many guns accidentally fire, without someone pulling the trigger. Especially the Walther P5 I think it was is infamous for that.

So you think that every single person in the US should have the right to possess guns? Then I really wonder how you were trying to prevent school shootings from reoccuring. (I may presume that you don't want anymore school shootings to happen, right?)

[DEAD ZONE]

A study conducted by the Heartland Institute called "Taking Aim at Gun Control" concluded recently that between 1973 and 1992 handgun ownership increased by 110 percent, from 37 million to 78 million. During that time the crime rate steadily rose also. If we look to other parts of the globe, we will find much stricter gun control. Some countries do extensive background checks and psychological tests. Others have much stricter licensing requirements. Some prohibit gun ownership. But, not surprisingly, they all have one thing in common - a much smaller number of deaths due to handguns.
Just look at the facts from the Mennonite Central Committee news service: In 1992 handguns killed 13 persons in Australia, 33 in Britain, 36 in Sweden, 60 in Japan, 97 in Switzerland, 128 in Canada and 13,429 in the United States!

[/B]This may simply have been a reaction to the rissing crime rate.I would arm myself if it started rissing.If we banned handguns,the murderer would simply shift to more deadly weapos such a ssawed off shot guns and then they would cry for more gun laws because of the increased death associated with these more deadly weapons,ect. ect. ect.if a ban actually did curb handgun misuse, the tragic result would be to greatly increase homicide unless long guns also were effectively banned: the major criminological work on this point is fittingly titled "Handgun-only Control -- A Policy Disaster in the Making". [Gary Kleck's paper of that title appears in Firearms and Violence, note 6 above.]



If you give a study,you better give it in context.Now,The rest of the story:

Advocates of gun control see in these statistics not the wide distribution of the tools for self-defense or recreation, but rather an enormous potential for private violence. Indeed, if gun owners were substantially more violent than their fellow citizens, the streets would run red with blood. Or more precisely, country lanes would run red with blood, since gun ownership is considerably more prevalent in rural than in urban areas. The fact that rates of violent crime are much higher in urban areas than in rural and suburban areas is just one of many pieces of evidence suggesting that the simplistic, but popular, theory that "guns cause crime" is wrong.

Gun owners are not, in fact, more violent than citizens who do not own guns. Indeed, the evidence suggests that they tend to be a bit less prone to violence. Gun owners are better-educated, more middle-class, more affluent, and somewhat older than average Americans. Gun owners have roughly the same personality characteristics as non-owners, and indeed it would be strange if they did not. As psychologists Edward Deiner and Kenneth Kerber put it:

Since about one-half of the households in the U.S. contain a gun, it seems somewhat unrealistic to attribute severe abnormal characteristics to the average gun owner (unless one is willing to see considerable pathology in most people).

The prevalence of firearms in private hands constitutes a practical limitation on what gun control laws can be expected to accomplish. Some of the more phobic anti-gun activists have urged that all guns should be "outlawed"; but such proposals are no more sensible than asking that toasters or automobiles or pet dogs be "outlawed." At most, one could hope for regulation of firearms ownership and rules for their use, but the feasibility of strict mandates, let alone the proscription of whole classes of commonplace household items, is dubious indeed.

Nevertheless, we do not lack for laws. It is commonly estimated that more than 20,000 federal, state, and local firearms laws are on the books in this country, and more are being written all the time. There is little evidence that these laws have restrained crime. Nor is there much reason to believe that still more laws would produce additional public benefit. The reasons why are examined in this study.

If firearms caused crime and violence, one should expect to see gun owners noticeably more criminous and more violent than those who do not own guns. One finds no such thing. In fact, the population as a whole has been growing noticeably less violent.

As criminologists well appreciate, the problem of crime and violence in this country has become largely concentrated in the poorest neighborhoods of large and medium-sized cities. Young men, African Americans in particular, have experienced a startling increase in victimization over the last decade.

None of this comes as much of a surprise if one considers the scissors of (1) poor life chances in the middle-class world (owing to the disintegration of families, poor educational opportunities, and so on) and (2) growing opportunities in the drug trade that result from our ever-more-vigorous efforts to suppress drug use by suppressing supply. The most important reason for criminal behavior is that the income that offenders can earn in the world of crime, as compared with the world of work, all too often makes crime appear to be the better choice.

In medieval England, criminals always had access to firearms through "illegal" means. Today, expansive surveys show that only about seven percent of handguns owned by violent felons were obtained through legitimate channels.[James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms 186 (1986).]

Guns don't increase national rates of crime and violence -- but the continued proliferation of gun-control laws almost certainly does. Current rates of crime and violence are a bit below the peaks of the late 1970s, but because of a slight oncoming bulge in the at-risk population of males aged fifteen to thirty-four, the crime rate will soon worsen. The rising generation of criminals will have no more difficulty than their elders did in obtaining the tools of their trade. Growing violence will lead to calls for laws still more severe. Each fresh round of legislation will be followed by renewed frustration.


In 1978 the Carter Administration's National Institute of Justice funded a complete review of extant social scientific literature on guns, to be done by the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Center. This encyclopedic work set the benchmark and point of departure for all later research in the field. Begun with the expectation of ratifying the anti-gun views its senior authors admittedly shared, it ended instead with an almost unrelentingly negative evaluation of the entire corpus of gun control literature.
If firearms increased violence and crime, then rates of spousal homicide would have skyrocketed, because the stock of privately owned handguns has increased rapidly since the mid-1960s. But according to an authoritative study of spousal homicide in the American Journal of Public Health, by James Mercy and Linda Saltzman, rates of spousal homicide in the years 1976 to 1985 fell. If firearms increased violence and crime, the crime rate should have increased throughout the 1980s, while the national stock of privately owned handguns increased by more than a million units in every year of the decade.

I suggest you go hear for a real accurate assesment of how numbers work and wethere the rate is as bad as your study says.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

I already gave you countries with strict controls that have higher rates than us. But maybe some europeasn saying it futile will convince you.
See next post:

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE

This may simply have been a reaction to the rissing crime rate.I would arm myself if it started rissing.If we banned handguns,the murderer would simply shift to more deadly weapos such a ssawed off shot guns and then they would cry for more gun laws because of the increased death associated with these more deadly weapons,ect. ect. ect.if a ban actually did curb handgun misuse, the tragic result would be to greatly increase homicide unless long guns also were effectively banned: the major criminological work on this point is fittingly titled "Handgun-only Control -- A Policy Disaster in the Making". [Gary Kleck's paper of that title appears in Firearms and Violence, note 6 above.]

Over here, hardly anyone has guns. In your philosophy, we should be getting murdered by the minute. Yet oh miracle: our crime rates and our murder rates are way lower than the US. How can this happen, if we don't have guns? Makes you wonder. If life can also be lived without guns, then why is gun possession deemed so vital? Surely Europeans aren't a completely different animal species, right?

I'm afraid I don't have the time to react now, but I'll be back

[DEAD ZONE]

"The main purpose of this paper has been to examine the viability of firearms registration and the control of the licensing of people to use and possess firearms. I have read many articles on the matters and interviewed several people from both sides of the fence. Without meaning to pre-empt some of the areas under examination I find conclusively that firearms registration is an exercise in futility." - Senior Sergeant S. W. Waterman, Victoria Police Inspectors' Course No. 51 - 1986
New Zealand:

And what does gun control have to do with violence?

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before." - Inspector Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control, (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972) p. 243

"At first glance it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private
ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime, yet that is precisely what the
evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated
to the availability of a particular type of weapon. The numbers of firearms required to satisfy the
'crime' market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls
have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history
of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have
restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime." - Inspector Colin
Greenwood, "Shooting Back," Police Review, 10 November 1978 page 1668

Inspector Greenwood (England) took a sabbatical from his police duties to study gun control at
Cambridge. He started off supporting gun control.


"In none of the cases examined in this study was the existence of these [gun registration] records
of any assistance in detecting a crime and no one questioned during the course of this study could
offer any evidence to establish the value of the system of registering weapons." - Inspector Colin
Greenwood, Firearms Control, (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972,) p. 246

The Australian ban has had no effect on the overall homicide rate, though it will take several more
years to have enough data to strongly confirm that:

"In other words, those who commit homicide in Australia are individuals who have circumvented
legislation and will be least likely to be affected if further restrictions on firearms ownership are
introduced." - Jenny Mouzos, "The Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms Used in Homicide,"
Australian Institute of Criminology, No. 151, p 5

New Zealand:

"The Police remain opposed to registering all firearms, the previous system (of firearm registration)
was inefficient, ineffective and expensive." - Chief Inspector G Jones, Coordinator: Firearms &
Tactical Groups, March 18 1992 in a letter to the Auckland, New Zealand, Fish and Game Council

The error of gun control is the assumption that gun availability contributes to the severity of
violence. It doesn't.

"Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy
drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. . . . Consequently, it is doubtful whether, for the average gun owner, the risk of a gun accident could counterbalance the benefits of keeping a gun in the home for protection--the risk of an accident is quite low overall, and is virtually nonexistent for most gun owners." - Gary Kleck,
Point Blank p 304-305

Dr. Kleck (who began his research intending to prove gun control "worked") is kind enough to
mention benefits in that last sentence. You appear to have ignored the possibility that widespread firearm possession is beneficial.

"[W]hen used for protection, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a
psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show
little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any
meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places,
or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression." - Toch, H. and Lizotte, A.,
"Research and policy: The case of gun control." In Suedfeld, P. and Tetlock, P. (eds.)
Psychology and Social Policy. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1991

Dr. Toch is another former gun control supporter.


Registration has only been useful for confiscation. If it had been useful as a crime fighting tool,
wouldn't HCI and other similar organizations fill their webpages with details of such stories? You
won't find any. Not even one. There are reasons for this:

"For registration to lead to the solution of crime, all of the following five elements would have to
prevail:

(1) A gun was used in the crime,

(2) the gun was left behind at the scene of the crime, or was lost by the offender somewhere else,
(3) the police recovered the gun,

(4) the criminal was not arrested at the scene of the crime or on the basis of information unrelated to the gun, (if he had been so arrested, the gun would be redundant in identifying the suspect), and,
{5) the criminal had either registered the gun, using his true name or other uniquely identifying attributes, or the registered owner of the gun could somehow lead police to the criminal."

Gary Kleck, Point Blank, (NY. Aldine de Gruyter, 1991)


"...Consequently, when medical journal authors report that there is little evidence on a given topic, it may often really mean only that they made no serious effort to find any or chose not to report what they found. For example, in an article published in 1996 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Douglas Weil (research director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, affiliated with Handgun Control) and a colleague claimed that "there is little published research on the effectiveness of gun laws" (Weil and Knox 1996:60). In fact, there were, at the time this article was published, at least forty-five empirical studies of the impact of gun laws on violent crime, suicide, and gun accidents (Tables 8.4 and 11.1). Weil then proceeded to inaccurately claim that "with little dissent, these studies are generally supportive of the thesis that well-tailored gun laws can have a beneficial impact" (ibid.:60), when in fact the studies have generally indicated that gun laws, whether "well-tailored" or not, have no measurable impact on violence rates (Chapter 11; PB;Chapter 10)...." Page 42, Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns emphasis added.


"It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply
because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and thus that much homicide
would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that
supports this view." - James Wright and Peter Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous,
(Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1986)

Dr. Wright is a former president of the American Sociology Association. When he began the
federally funded research that culminated in this book, he was in favor of strict gun controls.

"It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal." - Marvin E. Wolfgang, Patterns in Criminal Homicide,
(University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958) p. 82
Dr. Wolfgang is one of the founders of modern criminology. He was on record as stating that even police should be disarmed.

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Basically, gun ownership was not a historical, founding tenet of American life. Very few Americans owned guns until the Civil War; when the North created a lot of guns for the army, they let the soldiers keep them after the war. This created a big glut of free guns floating around in the society; the urban crime rates soared. This is the origin of widespread gun ownership in the country.

The NRA was founded after the Civil War, but it was only a social club for retired Army sharpshooters. It only became a powerful political lobby within the past few decades. The whole little legend they've put together about gun ownership being quintessentially democratic and American isn't entirely true.

Whats the source.Anyone can make wild claims.

Was it because this idiot was proven a fraud,lier and cheat by his own leftist pro-gun control people when he did his study.

If its Bellesiles,I will eat your lunch on proving him a fraud.
Are we ready to rumble??

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Well, you (and DZ) said that gun laws make (in this case US) society safer. I say they don't. I may hope, that both of us are looking for a safe society. Therefore, a policy that promotes the safe society, is a good law, right?

Only some.I dont want a multiple convicted rapist or a murderer to be able to go get one at wal mart.

Where I live, the adder (Vipera Berus) (I think they're called vipers in America) roams. would that be a death adder?
Very dangerous.They are not like other snakes that slither away upon your aproach for the most part.The dont move when you aproach.You step on them and wham!!


Through some stroke of luck, I have never encountered one, but the possibility is there when every time I leave my house.
Archery and guns were primarily designed for killing, in war-time. The ancient Greeks used arch and bow to kill or mame the enemy. Their training in this grew to the sport of archery. After a while, they started to use spears. Training in this grew to Javelin. The same goes for guns. Guns were designed/invented to kill or mame in time of war. The training in guns led to shooting sports.

Lets take this designed to kil mame thing and go with it.
Are any of you aware that modern "assualt" rifles were specifically designed NOT to kill,but to wound?the germans studied it before ww2 ended and found that a wounded solcier removed not only himself but several others from the field in order to take care of him.A dead soldier di not.

Sure, a lot of people shoot for hunt or for sports. Although I personally think hunting for fun should be illegalized (what's the fun killing innocent animals?),
Actually,many of them are not harmless and ,given the intelegence and chance,would go after you in a heart beat.Even the white tail deer{not that large} is rated as the most dangerouse animal to hit if you are driving rural roads.If they come into the car {broken windshiels are common} they use those hoofs and antlers as deadly as any knife or club.Antlers are there for goring enemies.

Sure, guns can be used as sporting goods. The problem is, however, that most people who use guns, don't use them for sports.
Care to back that up.

There's no doubt in my mind that you are a law-abiding, honest, decent citizen. The problem in any society, including the American society, however, is that not everyone is. There are an awful lot of @$$holes out there, and we gotta stop them one way or the other. So lets go get them,not the legitamate lawfull citizen.You will have to because they are armed illegally already.Banning does not prevent anything.

In medieval England, firearms could easily be self-manufactured, making total prohibition virtually impossible. Now, one-in-five handguns confiscated by the Washington, D.C. police is handmade; and during the wars in Southeast and Southwest Asia, local artisans were able to produce functioning AK-47 replicas in their backyard foundries.[ T. Markus Funk, Comment, Gun Control and Economic
Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-In-Point, 85 , ]


I hope you agree with me on that. And when decent people own guns, sure, that's none of my business, but we gotta get the guns out of the hands of the @$$holes. And the way it is now, it can't happen, simply because the constitution gives EVERYONE, including the @$$holes the right to own guns.First ,define @sshole.the constitution does not allow everyone period to have them.Thats not true.Those in rebellion and subversive treasons swine for example.

Gun possession should be a right of the responsible, of the wise, of the decent. And in order to limit gun possession to the decent members of society, an amendment of the constitution might very well be necessary.no it is not.Thats already provided for.Who gets to define all these terms is critical.

I don't know if you have children or not. If so, would you want them to get involved in accidents? Would you want one of your children to be the next school shooter? I sure hope not.
We HAVE to limit gun possession, otherwise the entire society will go down the drain. Decent citizens having guns is not the problem, @$$holes and angry student having guns IS.

No argument with this .

King Charles I, unhappy with what he considered the unreliability of the militiamen when it came time to fight for "unpopular causes," established his own field army. Charles I's ultimately failed attempt to disarm English civilians provides another valuable lesson to those who today wish to ban the private possession of firearms. The lesson is that firearms prohibition, or rather prohibition in general, is nearly impossible to implement effectively without the jettisoning of personal liberties.I wouold qualify that by saying,those who are unworthy,murderes,rapists ect. are exempt from this statement.They have forfitted their right by choice and action.[This is a reality that Professor Malcolm points out in various chapters of her book, but of particular interest is Chapter 5: "Enforcement of Arms Restrictions." see also Howard Abadinsky,
Drug Abuse: An Introduction 232 (1989) ("The greater the pressure to 'do something about drugs' that is placed on the enforcers of the law, the greater is the temptation to avoid the significant constraints of due process in favor of unlawful (but often effective) shortcuts."); Auberon Herbert, Salvation by Force, in The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other Essays by Auberon Herbert 227, 234 (Eric Mack ed., 1978) (suggesting that even when one possesses a great amount of force, it is not an easy task to compel people to do what they do not want to);
Ethan A. Nadelman, The Case for Legalization, in The Drug Legalization Debate 17, 26 (James A. Incardi ed., 1991) ("[A few years into alcohol prohibition Americans] saw that more laws and police seemed to generate more violence and corruption, more crowded courts and jails, wider disrespect for government and the law, and more power and profit for the gangsters...."); see generally Daniel D. Polsby, The False Promise of Gun Control, Atlantic Monthly, Mar.
1994, at 63 (arguing that it is not any easier for law enforcement to repress the illegal firearm trade in smaller cities versus the United States as a whole).]

The Constitution is worth nothing if it is valid to throw out amendments because of one's view of "the evolution of history and the role of the federal government" renders them obsolete. I hope you are not trying to advocate that the supreme court as well as the founders are incompotent in the constatution and we now know better?That is treachery and the road to despotism.Dictators use the same reasons to justify their brand of order and "safety" as i see you using.That scares me !!There is a big difference between sound reasons and reasons that sound good. Lets no go jacking around with something that is totally unecessary.

[DEAD ZONE]

I hope all those amswered your questions.
Pardon if some came over as rude,but i dont like people screwing with my rights and safety.

Fox News By Jon Du Pre 07/06/2000.
"We know that criminals are still getting guns on the street through the black market," said Luis Tolley of Handgun Control Inc.

Well ,well,well.Seems weRhgt wingers{formerly wing nuts or gun nuts }have been calling it right the entire time.
Actually though, I am all for the sissy left wingers calling for further bans on guns, it makes more and more people go out and buy them, buy ammunition and call up folks like me and us "not normal " folks to ask for lessons on how to shoot them. What is most amazing is that the louder the liberals shriek for gun control, the more military style weapons get purchased. You guys keep it up and I'll bet there will be more assault weapons in the hands of civilians than in the hands of the military. Way to go liberals!!!! You have found your purpose in life - too bad it isn't the one you wanted.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
I'm getting the feeling you belong to the rightwing of the Republican Party. Am I right or not?
No.Bush is a joke.i am more of a libratarian.The only difference btween the dems and repubs is who they want to steal from and who they want to give to.One for vote buying from derilic unachievers and the other from big buseness.
But anyone who is not left of clinton is considdered a rightwing fanatic to Europeans.



This is called stigmatization. If you can't find decent arguments, start yelling at the opponent.

no ,its called stating your view in everyday language.Words mean things and emphasis is sometimes needed.

There is a difference between rating people's lives and supporting gun control. Surely, I rate people's lives. Just like any other person. My girlfriend happens to mean more to me than Bin Laden.
So the fact that I think gun possession should be limited means that I think some people's lives are worth less than other people's lives? Then do you think that a drivers licence should be limitless as well? Because why should a 16 year old get a drivers licence and a 15 year old not? First,note how you avoided your own question by changing subjects.
Apples and oranges.We are speeking of guns and self defence.Wether a child gets anything is not his or her choice.They are not adults and unable to make informed adult decisions.I never advocated arming children so please dont deflect the true meaning of my post by trying to redefine them.
By the way,I had a semi auto rifle of my very own when I was 12.

The evidence is in: The simplest way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is to buy
them a gun and teach them how to use it responsibly."When it comes to preventing youthful violence, the Second Amendment apparently works better than the so-called solutions being proposed by politicians, such as a ban on assault weapons or mandated 'child-proof' safety locks on guns." Says who? Says a detailed study by the federal government entitled "Urban Delinquency andSubstance Abuse."
The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In an attempt to determine the relationship between "problem behaviors" like drug use, teen pregnancy, and crime, child psychologists tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, NY. The findings were a slap in the face to "conventional wisdom" about children and guns,and a sharp rebuke to the vote by the U.S. Senate to enact new gun-control laws that impact on teenagers.
According to the study:
Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so (21%).
Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house (24%) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74%).
Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%).
"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use [than boys who own illegal guns] and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns," the study reported. If the federal government knows that children and guns are not -- in and of themselves -- a dangerous combination, why are so many politicians demanding that new laws be passed to "protect" children?
"Politicians[and the gun hate groups] are apparently more interested in demonizing guns -- and repealing the Second Amendment on the installment plan -- than they are in facts.But as this study shows, if gun ownership by kids is not the problem, banning gun ownership by kids can't be the solution."
"Deciding whether to give your son or daughter a gun is a serious decision that every parent will have to make. Many parents may decide that their children are not mature enough to responsibly and safely learn how to use a gun, and you have to respect that decision."But the point is: Parents are better able to make that decision than a bunch of poll-driven politicians in Washington, DC. Parents seem to understand that the best way to reduce gun crimes by juveniles is to promote more responsible gun ownership -- not more irresponsible gun bans."


Gun prohibitionists endlessly repeat the mantra that high rates of juvenile gun crime are due to the increased availability and lethality of firearms. This theory is dangerous. And it's nonsense.
First, mere availability of firearms does not turn juveniles into criminals. A National Institute of Justice study of tenth- and eleventh-grade boys found that one-third had "easy access" to firearms (meaning 1,200,000 boys nationally); eight percent possessed three types of guns (320,000); and two percent (80,000) carried guns all or most of the time. But the number of tenth- and eleventh-grade boys who perpetrate firearms crime is much lower than 1,200,000.
Moreover, the assumption that firearms are more available to young people is not true. Homicide by youths reached a relatively low rate in 1984-'85, then sharply rose through 1994, and has since declined significantly. Almost all of the increase, and almost all of the recent decline, was firearm related. Murders with other weapons remained stable.
As Franklin Zimring observes in his book American Youth Violence, the "proportion of homicides committed with guns did not increase among adults, so no general increase in handgun availability seems to explain the sharp increase in youth shootings."
American youths have had ready access to deadly weapons from the first day that Indian settlers crossed the Bering Strait. Easy access to firearms has been a constant since the first day that white settlers landed on the Atlantic Coast. During the nineteenth century, New York City's juvenile street gangs (e.g., the Bowery Boys, Fly Boys, Smith's Fly Gang) carried pistols - but rarely used them.
A 1958 study of youth gangs (W. Bernstein, "The Cherubs are Rumbling," in Gang Delinquency and Delinquent Subcultures, J.F. Short, Jr. ed. 1958) found that street gangs were regularly offered guns for sale by persons specializing in selling guns to such groups. A revolver could be bought for $10, an inferior gun for less. But the guns that were owned by the gangs were rarely used - and when used, they were almost exclusively used for threats, and rarely fired.
Before 1968 (a period when youth gun violence was much lower), there was no federal law (and in most states, no state law) against children buying guns in gun stores. The 1990s mark a period when legal restrictions related to youth acquisition of guns (such as laws banning even parental gifts of handguns to children, and laws requiring that guns in homes with children be secured from the children) rose to a record high; it is the same period in which youth firearms violence rose to a record high.
Firearms are hardly more lethal than in the past. Semiautomatic firearms were invented over a century ago and have been common ever since the introduction of the Colt .45 pistol in 1911. For all the excitement over 9mm semiautomatic pistols (which predate World War I), these guns remain inferior in stopping power to the venerable Colt. [That depends on type of ammo].
Moreover, there has been an important shift in the last fifty years by American gun-owners away from rifles and shotguns, and towards handguns - at least for home protection. Rifles and shotguns are much more lethal than handguns, so the most important change in gun-owning patterns has been a trend towards less lethal firearms.
Although legal controls on firearms for adults and juveniles have increased significantly in the last thirty-five years, so has the number of guns. Gun density could be said to make guns more available to juveniles, in that more guns owned means more guns available to be stolen. Yet more guns available to be stolen surreptitiously by juveniles does not seem like a net increase in "easy access" compared with the pre-1968 ability of juveniles in most states to buy guns in gun stores.
Youths in the year 1950 had "easy access" to guns, but they committed virtually no gun crimes. Youths in 2000 face vastly more legal restrictions, and commit vastly more armed crimes. Fixating on today's imaginary "easy access" to guns is a deadly distraction from serious thought about genuine social changes that have resulted in so many more young criminals than half a century ago.
We can't even begin to answer the challenging questions about social decay over the last 50 years if we allow ourselves to be distracted by the dystopian fantasies of the gun prohibition lobby.





Ofcourse, the exams. But why can a 16 year old get a driving exam (18 in europe) and a 15 year old not?
For starters,that not correct.A hardship can be granted to those younger than 16.I dont particularly care fro arbitrary ages any way.Parents can decide that and if there is an incident,then THEY will be held acountible.That alone will make them think twice before allowing a youngster to get behind the wheel.


But then it's discrimination, letting someone who did pass the exam drive, and someone who didn't pass the exam not.
If we have driving exams and driving licences, why not the same for guns?
The car analogy is not the way you should go.As I already said,the drivers license is not needed unless on public property.On private,its not needed.

[/B]

[DEAD ZONE]

Over here, hardly anyone has guns. In your philosophy, we should be getting murdered by the minute.
This is a clear mischaricterisation.Go back and reread.I never even hinted of such and actually said there were many factors involved in crime.You must be getting desperate to blantatly mistate my position that way .

Yet oh miracle: our crime rates and our murder rates are way lower than the US. How can this happen, if we don't have guns? Makes you wonder. If life can also be lived without guns, then why is gun possession deemed so vital? Surely Europeans aren't a completely different animal species, right?

See above.go back and read the real facts again.The ones cited and sourced.You had a lower rate before your gun laws than we did and actualy some of you have a higher rate now that you do have controls.It is fascinating to read the growing flood of news reports in the British press about the exploding rate of violent crime in the UK, especially gun crime. Many stories about gun crimes mention the harsh gun laws enacted after the "Dunblane Massacre" in 1996. The reporters seem perplexed at the failure of these laws to reduce crime, but never seem to make the connection that would occur to most Americans.

Scholars Joseph Olsen and David Kopel pointed out a few years ago the uncanny relationship between the enactment of English gun laws and subsequent increases in crime. Even a small child could look at the 100-year graph showing the crime rate vs. gun laws and see the tragic conclusion.

A new book by respected history professor Joyce Lee Malcom explains how twin attacks on gun rights and self-defense rights have made England into the most crime-ridden country in the developed world.
The strictest gun laws on the planet have effectively disarmed law-abiding citizens, allowing criminals to run amok with illegally owned guns, knives and even fake guns. Instead of a gun-free society, they have created a situation where guns are more useful and valuable to criminals than ever before. A thriving black market imports guns from Eastern Europe and distributes makeshift guns produced by local craftsmen out to make a quick pound.

'In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man Is King'




Problem is however, is that not everyone, not even in good ol' USA is a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen. There are actually morons out there. Sure, there's no problem with decent people having guns. The problem comes, when the morons of society have guns. Those people should lose their guns. I hope you agree with me on that.
Depends on how you would define moron.Your argument is akin to saying "we do not want to ban cars, we just want reasonable car controls like, no automatic transmissions (semi-auto firearms), no mufflers (silencers), no lead-free gas (steel core"cop-killer" ammo), max of three gears and gas tanks limited to 5 gallons (mag capacity less than 11,proposed to make it less than 6) horsepower limited to 50 (no 50 cal rifles), no Ferraris or Porches
of any kind (assault weapons), no cars owned by minors for any reason, no private sales - cars must be bought and sold only to car dealerships, no car shows, no Yugos or other inexpensive cars
(Harlem town Saturday night specials) ..."

Be honest: would the above limits infringe on your right to keep and drive cars even if that were a Constitutionally protected right, which it isn't? If so, then the limitations you put on guns violate gun rights. Despite claims to the contrary. Can you even say with a straight face that these
groups do not wish to violate the rights of law-abiding citizens? They can, and they do. Decent seems to be only those working for the state.Kinda like what the nazis said.Sorry ,but it is.It seems to you ,that moron would be anyone who felt they needed a weapon for protection.I hope I am wrong there but I am wondering.
I already made clear that there are some that not only should not have but do not by constitutional law have the right to weapons.I begin to wonder if you are reading these. Licensing or registration can lead to confiscation of firearms and actually has in most cases.It also is futile as has already been shown.You will not disarm the undesirables.
Arbitrary Delays
Arbitrary Denials
Arbitrary Fee Increases
Ect.



the second is to be read in light of the debates at the convention.It is not cart blanche .For example ,it was originally only for freemen.That was delt with by banning slavery.

And the only way to achieve that, is to drop the 2nd amendment, and legislate gun possession, and restrict gun possession to the responsible people out there.

Dead wrong because who gets to decide.The second and the law already do that.Unless you are God and can read minds,which I doubt.Even the strict laws such as those in new england are not full proof and serve to disarm far more lagitamate people than anything else.
At least your honest in admitting you want to trash the second.Most anti folk do not.


I've said it to Diz, but I don't mind telling it to you too. Guns in the hands of responsible people is no problem. The constitution however gives EVERYONE the RIGHT to own guns, including the morons in society.
Wrong.Read the founders on the issue and see there debates.Your stetment is flat not true.You cannot base law on what might happen .Everyone is guilty there.

I won't deny, that e day guns will completely disappear, voluntarily, from everyday life, but I'm realistic enough to know that that's an illusion. I thought we oughta LIMIT gun possession to those mentally and physically able to handle a gun.
And they already say those that want to home school,belive heavily in religion ect are mentaly ill to a degree.THATS exactly why we dont need anymore Mental tetsts.Its a joke.

Its already against the law for those with a history of mental problems to get a gun.You have trashed the idea of guilty till proven inocent.Could these testers be counter by some other "expert".If not,its just arbitrary dictatorial rule.


This for instance includes bankground checks. Persons with a criminal record imho should be disallowed to own a gun.
So ,a speeding ticket.thats technically a criminal record.Depends on the criminal record.In Mass.,its a felony to catch a lobster thats under size.Do you think thats worthy of gun banning?Forgetting to measure or mismeasuring a lobster before you eat it?
I already said Thatsome should not have them.background checks,well,that all depends on how and who does them.they are easily abused{I can prove it if ya want} and manipulated.there are ways to make them work,but the fed seems totaly disinterested in that.


I do not intend to reach a TOTAL disarmament. What I intend, is a RESTRICTION of armament to the responsible people. The only way to restrict that, is to drop the 2nd amendment, which gives EVERYONE the right to own a gun. Gun possession shouldn't be everyman's right, it should be the right of the responsible and the wise.

See above.It does no such thing and your method is simply a cover for an elitest class.



Easy. It's the state's responsibility that gun possession is restricted, as I've said time and time before, to the decent and responsible. Permits help restrict gun possession.
Deny you mean.
Who is decent and resposible?the jews were declared no to be.Your ideas are very similar to what the nazis did.Very scarily similar.

Handing out a permit should happen after shooting courses, lessons in "gunnology", but also after mental tests, a check of the psychological and mental background, and a check if the person has a criminal record.
They already check that.If its done right,not a problem,except for the mental tests bit.thats a laugh.
Are these good examples of common sense?
Third-grader suspended for gun key chain.
http://www.greenbaynewschron.com/page.html?article=104279
Cobb school calls wallet chain a weapon, suspends [sixth grade] girl, 11

story on 9-28-2000, by Yolanda Rodriguez.
[Different]Michigan third grader suspended for having gun toy
http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500299211-500477675-503265666-0,00.html

And you want thes state employees to administer Mental tests . :lol

[DEAD ZONE]

If the person passes all of those tests, then there is no problem in handing out the permit. Or do you want guns in the hands of psychopaths or rejected teenagers?
Another disingenuous argument.
Its already illeagl for juviniles to get them.Same for mentaly history folks.
The fact that , non-registering or licensing proposals are never acceptable to the government is powerful evidence that firearms registration and licensing and eventual confiscation or banning is actually a goal of the "background check" despite assurances that it is merely to keep guns out of the hands of criminals which they can't do anyway given criminal sources of firearms from theft, the black market, and homemade 'zip' guns.

When will this start to happen?

"It's illegal for any one who is mentally disturbed to own a gun.
Anyone who wants to own a gun is mentally disturbed.
Therefore, it's illegal for anyone to own a gun."


No, the government should control gun selling, to make sure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands.

they already do and it does not work.not even in Britan were they are banned.
thats a pipe dream.A false sense of security.All you do is criminalise thousands of otherwise lawfull citizens.thats rediculous.Law abiding citizens don't like being treated as criminals by the government, or anyone else.

Of course I'm going to pass a criminal background check. It's offensive that my government is going to assume, with no reason given, that I'm a criminal for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

Pretend there was a department store in town, and every time you wanted to leave the premises, you had to first be patted down by a security guard. It's a bit of an inconvenience, but it stops shoplifters and as long as you're not stealing anything, you have nothing to worry about.

Would you resent being treated like this?

Would you continue to shop there?

Now pretend that the government set up a urinalysis machine in your bathroom. Every time you took a leak, if it detected any illegal substances in your urine, it would lock the bathroom door and automatically call the police. But as long as you're drug free, the machine will let you piss in peace.

Would you object to one of these being installed in your house?

Now, let's fine tune the first example to more closely resemble the gun situation.

Back to the department store example. Pretend in addition to the exit with a security guard to pat everyone down, there was also another door in the back. It had a big sign
"DO NOT EXIT WITH THIS DOOR, ALARM WILL SOUND, VIOLATORS
WILL BE PROSECUTED."

But 364 days a year, the alarm was disabled. Shoplifters used this door to avoid being searched by the security guard at the legit exit. A few of them were caught every year on the one day the alarm was activated, but 99.7% of them got away clean. The
security guard patting shoppers down at the legit exit only caught the shoplifters who were too stupid to know about the back door. But of those shoplifters he caught, he only called the police on about one in a thousand. The other 999 had to go put the merchandise they were trying to steal back on the shelf. 995 of these would instead leave via the back door.

Now how do you feel about being patted down by the security guard to see if you're shoplifting?

If gun possession is a RIGHT, guns can get in everybody's hands, including the @$$holes who are not intent on using the guns for peaceful purposes.
See previous.Already been there.It is easy to get them on the black market or even make your own.

Perhaps there's no moral justification for a ban, but there's definitely no moral justification for complete freedom of guns.no,and that has never been advocated.Who have you been readding,not me .



What I'm about to say, is what I've just said to Diz: 25 school shootings in the past few years in the US, and nothing's wrong. 2 school shootings in Germany and 1 in Scotland, and all of a sudden it is ever so unsafe in Europe. Despite the avalanche of gun abuse, the US is said to be safe. Incidents in The Netherlands, Germany and the UK "prove" that Europe is so unsafe. Now isn't that a tad strange?
At this site (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html) you can find a timeline of school shootings of the past 6 years. 25 of them were in the US, 3 were in Germany, 1 was in The Netherlands, 1 was in Scotland, 1 was in Yemen, 1 was in Canada, 1 was in Sweden and 1 was in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
An investigation of the Mennonite Central Committee news service has shown, that in 1992, handguns killed 13 persons in Australia, 33 in Britain, 36 in Sweden, 60 in Japan, 97 in Switzerland, 128 in Canada and 13,429 in the United States...

you are picking an isolated type of weapopn now.You have shifted fron guns in general to a specif type.And this is proof that you did not even look at my link.this type of statistical manipulation has already been answered.

Ill try and put it in a nut shell.
The school shootings were a recent fad{for lack of a better word}.It is not an epodimic by any means.What was and is wrong was adressed at the study provided that you ignored.

if you ban hand guns{which are the weapon of choice fo bad guys},then they will shift to far more deadly types.The studies and serveys have shown that.Your ban would kill more people than it would save and then you have grounds to scream for evn more controls.

you ignore the facts that there are many different reasons for these incodence and guns are not it.



Guns were designed to kill people. That is their primary objective.wrong.this was shown false already .

Knifes are designed to cut food
Ever used a bowie knife for that.Oe a bayonet{nothing more than a knife}.

. Bleach is used for, among other objectives, dying hair. Bathtubs are designed to take a bath in (oh sweet surprise). Pools are designed to swim in. Anti-freeze is to prevent stuff from freezing. Ammonium nitrate fertilizers are used to make the soil fertile. None of these have killing as a primary objective, contrary to guns. yes they do.Depending on use.And guns are not primarily for killing as has been clearly demonstrated.But keep repeating that to yourself if it makes you feel better.



If only you know how many guns accidentally fire, without someone pulling the trigger. Especially the Walther P5 I think it was is infamous for that.

guns do not fire themselves.they must be manipulated to do so.you can get them to without a triger pull if you ,say through them to the ground hard just right maybe,but modern firearms do not fire at randome.
The trigger of the p5 is Double Action, with frame mounted decocker at the left side of the frame. P5 also featured addtional internal safeties, such as firing pin safety, which removes the rear part of the firing pin from under the hammer, unless trigger is pressed, and also a firing pin block which disablet the forward movement of the firing pin unless the triger is pressed. The trigger bar disconnector disables the firing unless the slide in fully closed. This allows the gun to be carried in "condition two", with round chambered and hammer lowered, safely, and ready for action in DA mode.

So you think that every single person in the US should have the right to possess guns? Then I really wonder how you were trying to prevent school shootings from reoccuring. (I may presume that you don't want anymore school shootings to happen, right?) [/QUOTE]
no,and that was never what i said.i actually said the opposit.But if you insist on making atributing things to me that a clearly did not say and actuallysaid the opposit and will not look at the info I provided{I gave you the coutesy} there is little reason to continue.

the same way they were before the selective dates you used.

It worked and a perp would not last long if he tried.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Over here, hardly anyone has guns. In your philosophy, we should be getting murdered by the minute. Yet oh miracle: our crime rates and our murder rates are way lower than the US. How can this happen, if we don't have guns? Makes you wonder. If life can also be lived without guns, then why is gun possession deemed so vital? Surely Europeans aren't a completely different animal species, right?

I'm afraid I don't have the time to react now, but I'll be back For the very reasons i already provided.There are many factors involved and as even your european friens i posted said,guns and their availiability have little to anything to do with it.

1. England and Canada's murder rates were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.[Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154.]
The murder rates in England, Canada and Japan have risen tremendously since passing their gun control laws.[For example, Great Britain's Pistols Act of 1903 has not stopped murders from increasing. In 1902, there were 181 murders; in 1904 there were 208 murders. By 1974, the number of murders in the country had risen almost 200% since before the passage of the 1903 Pistols Act. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 132, with Greenwood, "Comparative Cross-Cultural Statistics," in Don B. Kates, ed., Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out (1979):44.) Moreover, from 1946 through 1969, the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent. (Greenwood, Firearms Control, at 158.)
See also Kevin Helliker, "As Gun Crimes Rise, Britain is Considering Cutting Legal Arsenal," The Wall Street Journal, 19 April 1994; Clyde H. Farnsworth, "Tough Gun Control Near Approval in Canada," The New York Times, 17 October 1991; John E. Woodruff, "A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.]

Most crime rates in England have now surpassed the rates in the U.S.:
In 1998, a study conducted by a British professor and a U.S. statistician found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study that was published by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."["Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says" Reuters, 11 October 1998. See also "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96," Bureau of Justice Statistics (October 1998).]

The murder rate in the United States is higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."[See BJS study, supra note 134 at iii.]

If you take away just a few of the major cities{D.C. newyork ,L.A.} the rate drops like a rock.These are heavy on gun bans and gun controle.

United States: Take away the guns, and there is still more murder. United States' NON-GUN murder rate is higher than the TOTAL murder rates in England, Canada or Japan. In other words, Americans kill each other more often with weapons other than guns -- such as with knives, fists and feet.
It is absurd to claim that the U.S. has more murders because it has more guns. If one were to "magically" make every gun disappear in the U.S., the hard fact is that Americans would still kill each other -- without guns -- more often than the citizens of England, Canada or Japan kill each other will ALL types of weapons.The heaviest gun ownership is in rural America.Their murder rate is along Europes line,so accordding to you,we should be being slaughtered out here every day,blood running in the streets if guns were the reason.
The problem is not the type of weapons used, but rather, the failure in America to keep violent criminals off the street. [The criminal justice system is a revolving door which continues to throw violent offenders back onto the street. Nationwide, 70% of murderers (under sentence of death) have prior felony convictions.131 This number does not include criminals who have plea-bargained their felonies down to lesser charges. {Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Update, at 4.}


4. Violence by any other name is still violent -- Many countries with strict gun control laws have higher violence rates than the United States does. Consider the following rates:


High Gun
Ownership Countries

Country Suicide Homicide Total
Finland 24.4 2.86 27.2
Switzerland 24.45 1.13 25.58
U.S. 12.2 7.59 19.79
Israel 6 2 8
{Israel's total violence rate is lower than the total rates in England/Wales or Canada.}

Low Gun
Ownership Countries

Country Suicide Homicide Total
Romania 66.2 n.a. 66.2
France 21.8 4.36 26.16
W.Germany 20.37 1.48 21.85
{inlude east and its worse}
Japan 20.3 0.9 21.2

Do you know what a RIGHT is? It is that which you don't have to ask permission to do. You don't need to ask permission from the government to breathe. You don't need to ask permission from the government to practice your religion. Why should you require permission from your government to have a tool needed to defend your life? Do you have a right to remain alive? Is self-defense a human right?

The government did not and does not "give" us our rights.
The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, does not "give" us our rights. The Constitution merely states that some rights are inalienable, part of being alive. One of those rights "shall not be infringed," period.

When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the Sixth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the First ;Censored by the Ministry of Truth. Have a nice day.

Around the same time that 6-year old Kayla Rollins was
shot and killed by the 6 year old son of a crack dealer, using a firearm at a school, a 7-year-old killed 6 year-old by shooting with an air rifle. Both represent elementary-aged kids shooting and
killing one another, and both resulted in one death, but the latter story only made local news and garnered no national attention. One is led to believe that school shootings are more newsworthy than other shootings - a clear bias since shootings are shootings. Since guns are now essentially banned from schools, practically the only time people have guns there is because they are criminal.Wether at a school ,your back yard or the mall.Death is still death.Isolating schools is another minipulations.

[DEAD ZONE]

A picture with your name on it, and a class will never stop someone from abusing something. Crime causes punishment.

You cannot protect people from committing accidents that harm no one. You punish them for crimes.

You might help an old lady accross the road, preventing her from getting hit by a car, but you can't pass laws stopping old ladies from crossing.

THERE IS A PRICE FOR FREEDOM!

[DEAD ZONE]

Phreak:
By the way,When was the last time the dutch army wan a war?'

this is to funny.

The BBC reports Belgian soldiers may be facing a similar problem:

The Belgian Defence Minister, Andre Flahaut, has ordered an investigation after reports that soldiers were carrying fake guns during the country's annual military parade.

Reports in the Belgian media say fake guns are popular with some troops because they require less maintenance.

But critics say the practice raises the spectre of a toy army.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2195180.stm


"The artificial guns not only need less maintenance, but involve less paperwork, as no licence is required to carry them."
THEIR ARMY NEEDS A LICENSE TO CARRY THEIR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



:(

[DEAD ZONE]

More children are killed playing football in school than they are by guns. That's right. Despite what
media coverage might seem to indicate, more children die playing high school football, than they do by firearms at
school. The most recent year on record shows that 18 football players died during the school year ending in June,
2000 (from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc.), as compared with 9 students by firearms.[The University of North Carolina conducts yearly surveys to determine the number of high school football fatalities. See David Williamson,
"New study finds 18 football players died in 1999 season, eight paralyzed," University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (August 14, 2000) at
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/unc-nsf081100.html on the internet. For school firearms deaths, see Dr. Ronald D. Stephens, "School
Associated Violent Deaths," The National School Safety Center Report (September 22, 2000) at http://www.NSSC1.org on the internet. ]

[DEAD ZONE]

Though the
number of firearms
owned by private
citizens has been
increasing steadily
since 1970, the
overall rate of
homicides and
suicides has not
risen.[Prof. Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and their control , w/ supporting data from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1972 to 1995]

[Phreakmeister]

This is a stunning conclusion to make after such a wild discussion, but I think we agree. It looks as though we both want the same, we just use different words to express it...

We both see no problem in decent people having guns. We both see the problem in "indecent" people having guns. We both favor gun restriction.
The only thing we have different opinions on, is whether gun possession is a right or not.

By the way,When was the last time the dutch army wan a war?

And may I ask in what way that is relevant?

You might help an old lady accross the road, preventing her from getting hit by a car, but you can't pass laws stopping old ladies from crossing.

True, but you can put traffic lights on places a lot of old ladies cross roads. You can draw "zebra's" on the road to help old ladies cross. You can ban old ladies from crossing roads on certain places (for instance on the highway...)

Pretend there was a department store in town, and every time you wanted to leave the premises, you had to first be patted down by a security guard. It's a bit of an inconvenience, but it stops shoplifters and as long as you're not stealing anything, you have nothing to worry about.

Would you resent being treated like this?

If the store has its entire profit stolen away, then what is wrong with searching?

Wether a child gets anything is not his or her choice.They are not adults and unable to make informed adult decisions.

If only you knew how mature a lot of children are, and how immature a lot of "adults" are...

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
This is a stunning conclusion to make after such a wild discussion, but I think we agree. It looks as though we both want the same, we just use different words to express it...

We both see no problem in decent people having guns. We both see the problem in "indecent" people having guns. We both favor gun restriction.
The only thing we have different opinions on, is whether gun possession is a right or not.I think thats oversimplified a bit.

I dont beleive the right should be with held if no one has had ant serious criminal record.They are innocent till guilty.

I think you have it reversed.





And may I ask in what way that is relevant?

I am still pissed about the bosnia incodent.They are nuts,IMHO.
And its probably not worth much. :lol




If the store has its entire profit stolen away, then what is wrong with searching?
thats a bit far fetched dont ya think?



If only you knew how mature a lot of children are, and how immature a lot of "adults" are...

I worked with the public far many years,i have seen more than you think.

[weldordave]

(Monty Python rythym) guns,guns guns,guns,guns,guns,guns,guns---Oh, wait, that was spam!!:lol

[Phreakmeister]

I think that gun possession is not a right. But that's just a matter of your definition of the word "right", whether you see gun possession as a right. According to dictionary.com, a "right" is:

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.

But the discussion on whether gun possession is a "right" or not mainly is a linguistic discussion, and I think is not relevant.

I think thats oversimplified a bit.

I dont beleive the right should be with held if no one has had ant serious criminal record.They are innocent till guilty.

I think you have it reversed.

True. I think, that licences shouldn't be withheld if a person has no criminal record and no mental problems, whereas you think they shouldn't be withdrawn if that is not the case.

thats a bit far fetched dont ya think?

Perhaps, but it was mainly meant as hyperbolic. I exaggerated it, to state my point. If an entrepreneur suffers from repeated theft, then I think it's more than reasonable if he serached every customer, and I think that the customers who are being searched should respect the feelings of the entrepreneur, given the circumstances.

I am still pissed about the bosnia incodent.They are nuts,IMHO.
And its probably not worth much.

You mean Srebrenica?

[weldordave]

Your definition of "right" is why Americans have guns. By law, By tradition, and By nature. We carry guns to ensure humane treatment.
GUNS HOLLAND: Assasination Mar 7-8 2002
School shooting 1989(?) 60 miles south of Amsterdam?
200 more hits, let's check 'em out.
WOW, at least WE don't have a "holier than thou" attittude!

[Phreakmeister]

I've talked about this before. One school shooting in The Netherlands and: "Oh my god, it's so unsafe there". 25 school shootings in the US in the past few years, and "No, we don't have gun problems".

Talking about that school shooting here: wanna know why it happened? A Turkish family ordered the son to shoot the guy his sister was dating. He was told by his parents to "save the honour of the family".

[Dizbuster]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
I've talked about this before. One school shooting in The Netherlands and: "Oh my god, it's so unsafe there". 25 school shootings in the US in the past few years, and "No, we don't have gun problems".

Talking about that school shooting here: wanna know why it happened? A Turkish family ordered the son to shoot the guy his sister was dating. He was told by his parents to "save the honour of the family".

Well then, how did he get the gun, if they are illegal in the Netherlands?

This would actually serve to reinforce the point that, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Strict gun laws only work to disarm the good guys, the people who obey laws, and may, in some cases, save your life because they were armed.

The second point, is I didn't know that The Netherlands had the same population as the USA, otherwise, comparing the "raw" numbers of school shootings is comparing apples to oranges.

School shootings are more an indication of a failure on the part of parents and teachers to control the little heathens they are supposed to be watching over, preventing the immature ones from acting on impulse or emotion, rather than with reason.

[aclu14]

I should put this in the oxymorons thread - "Whoever invented guns should be shot."

I believe guns dont kill people , people kill people!!!!!! My husband & I Shoot handguns for sport. I also believe if people (adults & children) are taught gun saftey ,handling, storage ,etc. there would be less "accidental shootings". Just my opinion!!:rolleyes: :p :wave

[weldordave]

HOW DID A TURK GET A GUN IN HOLLAND???!!! It is sooooooo much better there. Population. How many are you, with how LITTLE land?????????????????????????? Want to compare with the U F'en S???? You don't even compare to a city HERE! What a complex to be so insignificant.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by Dizbuster
Well then, how did he get the gun, if they are illegal in the Netherlands?

He got it on licence in 1996 (guns are not illegal here, they are restricted). I have found a site about the subject, but I'm afraid it's in Dutch, so I don't think that will be of much use for you.

The second point, is I didn't know that The Netherlands had the same population as the USA, otherwise, comparing the "raw" numbers of school shootings is comparing apples to oranges.

The USA have, as far as I know, about 250 million people, right? The Netherlands has 16 to 17 million people, so about as many people as Los Angeles, in a country about twice the size of New Jersey.

School shootings are more an indication of a failure on the part of parents and teachers to control the little heathens

Please stop insulting us pagans ;)

Originally posted by weldordave:
HOW DID A TURK GET A GUN IN HOLLAND???!!!

Licence.

How many are you, with how LITTLE land??????????????????????????

As I said to Diz: As many people as Los Angeles, in a country twice the size of New Jersey.

You don't even compare to a city HERE!

Would you call Los Angeles "not a city"?

[ILENSER]

The answer is get a sword.....I have only three guns, one shotgun two pistols...all stored as should be...also no children in the house anymore....
I have over 80 swords...
you cant conceal a sword, they wont go off by accident, you can out run a sword but not a bullet, they look nicer than guns, you can practice with swords in your back yard, you cant do that with guns unless you live in Alabama :D .

They are more noble.

[Dizbuster]

Originally posted by ILENSER
The answer is get a sword.....I have only three guns, one shotgun two pistols...all stored as should be...also no children in the house anymore....
I have over 80 swords...
you cant conceal a sword, they wont go off by accident, you can out run a sword but not a bullet, they look nicer than guns, you can practice with swords in your back yard, you cant do that with guns unless you live in Alabama :D .

They are more noble.

well, actually, I used to practice shooting in my "backyard" all the time, as well as the front.
Of course was living in the country at the time, so there you go!
As far as swords, well, for the small apartment I now live in, anything above a Gladius would be cumbersome, that is why I will stick to my Kukris. ( two of them, one a ghurka issue, the other about the size of a short sword. Great for lopping off extremities that might be grabbing for the wrong thing:p

[aclu14]

:lol @ Alabama

Yee Haw!

[DEAD ZONE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phreakmeister


L.A. is no where near the size of new jersy.One of the primary factors in statisics is how many people are cramed into a small space.that raises violent crime and nurder.

So its not laws or guns,its other factors.

Even licensing does not work {at least for the turks}.

[weldordave]

Would you call Los Angeles "not a city"? [/B][/QUOTE]
Not at "twice the size of NJ". You have the population of an American city, but yet are twice the size of an American state. Adjust your stats thusly, then talk sh1t.

[Sjax]

Originally posted by ILENSER
I have only three guns, one shotgun two pistols

You have only got three guns?!?

I have never owned a gun in my life, and neither have any of my friends, but what do you know, none of us have been shot.

What are you gonna do with three guns anyway, you cant fire them all at once, can you?

Apart from that I agree. Swords are more noble.

[Phreakmeister]

According to both of you, The Netherlands is insignificant, and we don't compare to an American city. Yet oh behold, we have as many people as Los Angeles. So in population we certainly compare to a city, namely one of the biggest cities (9th largest) in the world. And also in size, we are twice the size of New Jersey, and half the size of Scotland. So also in that area, we are not quite as insignificant as the two of you think us to be.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
According to both of you, The Netherlands is insignificant, and we don't compare to an American city. Yet oh behold, we have as many people as Los Angeles. So in population we certainly compare to a city, namely one of the biggest cities (9th largest) in the world. And also in size, we are twice the size of New Jersey, and half the size of Scotland. So also in that area, we are not quite as insignificant as the two of you think us to be.

Your post is irrelavant and you know it.Any statistician, or criminologist would tell you to your face.

Some people assume that a statistic stated in print or in the media must be, by definition, truth. This is wrong both because people can be mistaken in what they say or write, and because some people purposely lie with statistics. Statistics are purposely and mistakenly misused extensively in the gun control debate. To recognize the misuses, one must have some understanding of statistics. In addition to this misuse, much of the info one should have and understand is in statistical form. For both these reasons, a person wanting to know the truth about guns and their relationships to crime and violence needs to be able to understand statistics more than for most other issues.


You demostrate ,you have no clue.

Selection of cases is one of the faults of the typical claims involving comparisons of different countries relating to firearms and different kinds of violence. The country comparisons also suffer from the fact that the comparisons never have true measures of gun possession or account for all the applicable differences (besides gun laws) between the countries compared.

When statistics are stated about small subsets of an overall population, it is a safe bet that someone has searched through the available data to find something that appears to support what they want to say (rather than showing the whole picture that doesn't). If someone does this you can be sure they are telling you a lie.


Crime Factors According to the FBI

Population density and degree of urbanization.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Just to name a few.

We can use your method and pick tiawan.Heavy gun control and a murder rate higher tyahn the u.s.Thus proof{by your method} that gun laws are failures.

[weldordave]

Right! Damned skippy! 10-4! Adjust your stats!

[DV8]

Originally posted by ILENSER
... you can out run a sword but not a bullet...
lol. Really? Even if I... chuck it?:D :p :rolleyes: :p :D

[nacho cheese]

Did you know that a person's chances of being mugged in London are six times higher than in New York City?

Registered Assaults in 2000
New York: 60090
London: 150271

With New York having about twice the popolation compared to London, those number above would translate to 6 to 1 ratio. But the difference is that New York's stats are aggravated assaults, while London's stats include all, more or less serious assaults. So those stats are not comparable.

[TAHUTI]

I have a brilliant solution for those who think they need guns for self-defense: Tranquilizer guns. You know, the type they use on those nature shows to knock out lions and elephants without harming them? The stricken goes down instantly. A tranquilizer gun could incapacitate an intruder or would-be attacker long enough for the police to arrive or for the vigilant citizen to use a piece of rope and hog-tie him, just in case he comes to before the authorities show up.

Now, that seems like one beautiful solution to me. The burgler is down intstantaneously, your precious property unharmed. May not even have to worry about plastering up the bullet hole in your wall and painting over the bloodstains. Your lifetime investment would stay virtually mess-free.

But, I have a feeling that most gun-mongering red-blooded cowboy types wouldn't go for that. You see, the self-defense thing is only and excuse. They all grew up watching cowboy movies and Rambo and so on, and it really is their secret fantasy to get the once-in-a-lifetime chance to shoot someone dead and not only get away with it, but be able to brag about it.

[DEAD ZONE]

Problem is,that in the U.S.{ New York} they report all assualts{agrevated or otherwise}.they go on record wether anyone was convicted or not.

britain only puts them on record I beleive if their is a conviction.

Or am I mistaken

[nacho cheese]

Or am I mistaken
Remember, never admit that you might be wrong, I won't :D

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by nacho cheese


Registered Assaults in 2000
New York: 60090
London: 150271

With New York having about twice the popolation compared to London, those number above would translate to 6 to 1 ratio. But the difference is that New York's stats are aggravated assaults, while London's stats include all, more or less serious assaults. So those stats are not comparable.

Are you sure here? I dont think so.Mugging is not defined as agravated assualt.they are 2 different things.
The US DOJ, Bureau of Justice Stats.
Do not clasiffy them the same either necessarily.

[nacho cheese]

Correction:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm
aggravated assaults in New York:60090

http://www.go-london.gov.uk/crimereductio/crime_stats_links_(london).asp
Violence against the person in London: 157405
-more serious violence 7134
-less serious violence 150271

[Phreakmeister]

Now let's get some facts about guns straight:

Are guns strictly necessary to defend oneself from intrusion on private property?
No. Although guns are/can be useful to prevent/ward off illegal intrusion, the experiences in other countries show, that this is not a strict necessity.

Is gun possession a natural right?
Yes and no. The answer depends on one's definition and interpretation of 'natural rights'. Natural rights are those rights that are indispensably necessary for man to fulfill his potential on this earth. They are "natural" because they derive from the nature of man and the nature of existence itself. Natural rights are, in other words, the conditions that are necessary for a nation of people to realize their birthright. It should be understood that Natural Rights are not rights that have been determined to have actually been recognized or exercised at some early stage in the development of mankind, neither do they necessarily represent actual conditions that existed when man was in his prehistoric "natural" or uncivilized state. Rather, they are rights that are the heritage of man as can be reasonably determined by examining his nature and his potential for optimum existence in this world. They are his birthright regardless of whether mankind actually has enjoyed these rights at any previous stage of development, and it is that inherent entitlement that makes them "natural."

Is gun possession a positive right?
No. Positive rights grant access to a good. For example, a positive right to healthcare would mean that the State is providing the healthcare or payment thereof on your behalf. Gun possession is not provided for by the state, although in some cases states have given the opportunity for gun sales, which makes that gun possession is not a positive right.

Is gun possession a negative right?
Yes. In the case of negative rights, no one may prevented access to a certain good, although neither the State nor any person other than oneself is responsible for acquiring it.

Are guns in the hands of "the right people" a problem?
No, as long as "the right people" remain "the right people".

Are guns in the hands of "the wrong people" a problem?
This is a self-answering question. All the school shootings, for instance, reveal the terrible danger of guns in the wrong hands.

Are guns in the hands of children a problem?
Not if those children handle the gun wisely, but it is a fact that not all children handle guns wisely. It is in everyone's interest to keep the guns out of their hands.

I just want to know where you come up with this stuff, Phreak? So, in not so many words, you dislike the ownership of firearms, am I right?

Your post is irrelavant and you know it.Any statistician, or criminologist would tell you to your face.

Some people assume that a statistic stated in print or in the media must be, by definition, truth. This is wrong both because people can be mistaken in what they say or write, and because some people purposely lie with statistics. Statistics are purposely and mistakenly misused extensively in the gun control debate. To recognize the misuses, one must have some understanding of statistics. In addition to this misuse, much of the info one should have and understand is in statistical form. For both these reasons, a person wanting to know the truth about guns and their relationships to crime and violence needs to be able to understand statistics more than for most other issues.


You demostrate ,you have no clue.

Selection of cases is one of the faults of the typical claims involving comparisons of different countries relating to firearms and different kinds of violence. The country comparisons also suffer from the fact that the comparisons never have true measures of gun possession or account for all the applicable differences (besides gun laws) between the countries compared.

When statistics are stated about small subsets of an overall population, it is a safe bet that someone has searched through the available data to find something that appears to support what they want to say (rather than showing the whole picture that doesn't). If someone does this you can be sure they are telling you a lie.


Crime Factors According to the FBI

Population density and degree of urbanization.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Just to name a few.

We can use your method and pick tiawan.Heavy gun control and a murder rate higher tyahn the u.s.Thus proof{by your method} that gun laws are failures.

You are a very smart person, and I applaude this post.....

First off, I have to bear in mind that this guy lives in the Netherlands. In much of Europe, their opinion on citizens' ownership of guns is almost the polar opposite of ours. It's been ingrained that guns are bad and that the average citizen does not deserve to own one. This type, it is almost impossible to argue with successfully, as their opinion is so ingrained into them that it is a physical part of them.

However, there are some points that I would (if you could be persuaded) debate on:

1. Guns=Strychnine. Strychnine is a poison, pure and simple. The average American uses their gun as a self-defense mechanism or as a hunting tool. These school shooters are an abnormality, as are freaks like the two DC snipers.

2. Even without guns, if a person is inclined to commit violent acts, they will still find methods of doing it. Ever since guns have been outlawed in Brittain, they have had issues with people carrying knives- so much that the police have had to switch over to armored vests made to stop knives rather than bullets.

3. Liscences. We already require background checks, and there are laws concerning who can buy and sell guns. However, there is still a massive loophole- the person who purchases the item (be it a gun or a car) doesn't always have to be the one with physical posession.

I'll post some more as I get the ideas and loopholes.


Maderic.......

[Phreakmeister]

I do not dislike the ownership of firearms. I don't have any guns myself, and I don't see why I should, but I have no problem with decent, law-abiding citizens owning guns, as I've stated time and again. What I have a problem with, is when the not so decent people (the freaks in society) get their hands on guns. The guns should be jerked out of their hands right away, asap. And if it is necessary to repeal the Second Amendment to reach that goal, then so be it.

I have to bear in mind that this guy lives in the Netherlands.

So because I live on this side of the pond, and you live on the other side of the pond, you are right and I am wrong?

the average citizen does not deserve to own one

So that's why we have gun concealment?

This type, it is almost impossible to argue with successfully, as their opinion is so ingrained into them that it is a physical part of them.

Look who's talking

The average American uses their gun as a self-defense mechanism

And that is one thing I have commented on. Guns are indeed helpful in case of self defence, but let's be honest, it is not a STRICT necessity.

3. Liscences. We already require background checks, and there are laws concerning who can buy and sell guns. However, there is still a massive loophole- the person who purchases the item (be it a gun or a car) doesn't always have to be the one with physical posession.

And that's why it is in the common interest to register guns.

But don't you see that gun registration will lead to, evventually, a dictatorship? That is exactly what Hitler did when he came to power.......

[Phreakmeister]

What does gun registration have to do with Hitler?
So because 1 leader of 1 country has 1 day decided to restrict gun possession, the entire concept is wrong?

Besides that: your post is wrong: The law was not made up by Hitler... It was a law from the Weimar Republic (1918-1933), the predecessor of the Third Reich. The law was used to disarm both Nazi's and Communists, but was used by the Nazi's to prosecute their political opponents. It wasn't even Hitler's law.

For more information about the myths on Hitler's gun laws, check out http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html.

And remember: you can lie 1000 times and you can still be right the 1001st time you say something. Hell, Hitler even started a campaign to make people aware of the dangers of smoking. Over 60 years ago he started a campaign just like all the anti-smoking campaigns we see today. And I'm sure you don't agree with keeping people ignorant of their use of toxins, right?

If people want to smoke...let them smoke....By now it is common knowledge that smoking kills people.....If they want to smoke, then by all means let them smoke.....I'm so sick to death of seeing anti-smoking ads.......


Maderic......

[Phreakmeister]

True, but now people have been taught the dangers of smoking, because of anti-smoking campaigns. Hitler was the first to make the people aware of the dangers of smoking. Before that, noone knew because noone had been told. Hitler was the first to tell them.

[nacho cheese]

Do you know how much smoking costs to national economy? In Finland the sum was about €100m (1993), while in the USA it was $50 billions. It is estimated that 1/3 of those costs is paid by non-smokers. So even if I don't smoke I still have to pay taxes to cover the costs of smoking.

http://www.tupakka.org/asp/tiedote.asp?groupcode=66
(link in Finnish)

[Phreakmeister]

The most well-known estimate of costs associated with tobacco abuse in Australia was undertaken by Collins and Lapsley on behalf of the Department of Community Services and Health in 1991. This study estimates the total cost of tobacco abuse for 1988 as $6.8 billion, representing nearly 50% of the total cost of drug abuse in Australia.

Source (http://www.nsma.org.au/costs.htm)

Just to get things clear: this study looks at the community costs of smoking ONLY in Australia ONLY in 1988...

For $6.8 billion you can feed and educate 5,782,312 African children for 12 years, and still have money left...

I'm pretty sure that before Hitler, people did have the concept that if you smoke, you could die.......I don't think that they were that ignorant.....

Maderic....

[Phreakmeister]

How should one know if:

1) One has been kept ignorant, and
2) Smoking has been socially accepted and in fact is a must?

I'm sorry to have to tell you, but Adolf Hitler was the very first politician to start a smoking awareness campaign. The first.

[Idnew]

Okey Dokey if we are finished debating gun laws then I will close this topic. Want to debate smoking then start a new topic.

And you two try to be nice to each other ok?

I understand that, Phreak....I',m talking about the fact that you said and I quote: "no one knew because noone had been told. Hitler was the first to tell them."..... I'm saying that I think people knew that smoking was deadly before Hitler or any politicians told the people that....

Why haven't you answered my PM?

But just some thoughts....

Maderic.....

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Now let's get some facts about guns straight:

Are guns strictly necessary to defend oneself from intrusion on private property?
No. Although guns are/can be useful to prevent/ward off illegal intrusion, the experiences in other countries show, that this is not a strict necessity.

Is gun possession a natural right?
Yes and no. The answer depends on one's definition and interpretation of 'natural rights'. Natural rights are those rights that are indispensably necessary for man to fulfill his potential on this earth. They are "natural" because they derive from the nature of man and the nature of existence itself. Natural rights are, in other words, the conditions that are necessary for a nation of people to realize their birthright. It should be understood that Natural Rights are not rights that have been determined to have actually been recognized or exercised at some early stage in the development of mankind, neither do they necessarily represent actual conditions that existed when man was in his prehistoric "natural" or uncivilized state. Rather, they are rights that are the heritage of man as can be reasonably determined by examining his nature and his potential for optimum existence in this world. They are his birthright regardless of whether mankind actually has enjoyed these rights at any previous stage of development, and it is that inherent entitlement that makes them "natural."

Is gun possession a positive right?
No. Positive rights grant access to a good. For example, a positive right to healthcare would mean that the State is providing the healthcare or payment thereof on your behalf. Gun possession is not provided for by the state, although in some cases states have given the opportunity for gun sales, which makes that gun possession is not a positive right.

Is gun possession a negative right?
Yes. In the case of negative rights, no one may prevented access to a certain good, although neither the State nor any person other than oneself is responsible for acquiring it.

Are guns in the hands of "the right people" a problem?
No, as long as "the right people" remain "the right people".

Are guns in the hands of "the wrong people" a problem?
This is a self-answering question. All the school shootings, for instance, reveal the terrible danger of guns in the wrong hands.

Are guns in the hands of children a problem?
Not if those children handle the gun wisely, but it is a fact that not all children handle guns wisely. It is in everyone's interest to keep the guns out of their hands.

Most of this has been delt with already but.You say guns are not needed in all cases for defence,and not a positive right then present health care as being posotive right.

Well you could not be more wrong.
First off,health care is not needed in all cases.The sniffles or a cold do not require a doctor.On the other hand,a bad apendix does.

Defence may not be required by the gun if a little unarmed punk invades a 200 lb guys house,but if its the 200lb guy invadding a petite 95lb ladies house,she not only has the positive right {by nature } of selfe defence but the need for a gun as well.{dont try the get a dog,use pepper spray ect. bit either.Cops will tell you thats stuff can not only back fire but be usless aginst a drugged up rapist.}

By the way,Doctors' negligence kills annually three to five times as many Americans as guns, 100,000 to 150,000 per year.

Actually,the state was required to provide its militia with firearms here.They just choose to ignore it now.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Now let's get some facts about guns straight:

Are guns strictly necessary to defend oneself from intrusion on private property?
No. Although guns are/can be useful to prevent/ward off illegal intrusion, the experiences in other countries show, that this is not a strict necessity.

Is gun possession a natural right?
Yes and no. The answer depends on one's definition and interpretation of 'natural rights'. Natural rights are those rights that are indispensably necessary for man to fulfill his potential on this earth. They are "natural" because they derive from the nature of man and the nature of existence itself. Natural rights are, in other words, the conditions that are necessary for a nation of people to realize their birthright. It should be understood that Natural Rights are not rights that have been determined to have actually been recognized or exercised at some early stage in the development of mankind, neither do they necessarily represent actual conditions that existed when man was in his prehistoric "natural" or uncivilized state. Rather, they are rights that are the heritage of man as can be reasonably determined by examining his nature and his potential for optimum existence in this world. They are his birthright regardless of whether mankind actually has enjoyed these rights at any previous stage of development, and it is that inherent entitlement that makes them "natural."

Is gun possession a positive right?
No. Positive rights grant access to a good. For example, a positive right to healthcare would mean that the State is providing the healthcare or payment thereof on your behalf. Gun possession is not provided for by the state, although in some cases states have given the opportunity for gun sales, which makes that gun possession is not a positive right.

Is gun possession a negative right?
Yes. In the case of negative rights, no one may prevented access to a certain good, although neither the State nor any person other than oneself is responsible for acquiring it.

Are guns in the hands of "the right people" a problem?
No, as long as "the right people" remain "the right people".

Are guns in the hands of "the wrong people" a problem?
This is a self-answering question. All the school shootings, for instance, reveal the terrible danger of guns in the wrong hands.

Are guns in the hands of children a problem?
Not if those children handle the gun wisely, but it is a fact that not all children handle guns wisely. It is in everyone's interest to keep the guns out of their hands.

The evidence is in: The simplest way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is to buy
them a gun and teach them how to use it responsibly."When it comes to preventing youthful violence, the Second Amendment apparently works better than the so-called solutions being proposed by politicians, such as a ban on assault weapons or mandated 'child-proof' safety locks on guns." Says who? Says a detailed study by the federal government entitled "Urban Delinquency andSubstance Abuse."
The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In an attempt to determine the relationship between "problem behaviors" like drug use, teen pregnancy, and crime, child psychologists tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, NY. The findings were a slap in the face to "conventional wisdom" about children and guns,and a sharp rebuke to the recent vote by the U.S. Senate to enact new gun-control laws that impact on teenagers.
According to the study:
Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so (21%).
Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house (24%) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74%).
Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%).
"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use [than boys who own illegal guns] and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns," the study reported. If the federal government knows that children and guns are not -- in and of themselves -- a dangerous combination, why are so many politicians demanding that new laws be passed to "protect" children?
"Politicians[and the gun hate groups] are apparently more interested in demonizing guns -- and repealing the Second Amendment on the installment plan -- than they are in facts.But as this study shows, if gun ownership by kids is not the problem, banning gun ownership by kids can't be the solution."
"Deciding whether to give your son or daughter a gun is a serious decision that every parent will have to make. Many parents may decide that their children are not mature enough to responsibly and safely learn how to use a gun, and you have to respect that decision."But the point is: Parents are better able to make that decision than a bunch of poll-driven politicians in Washington, DC. Parents seem to understand that the best way to reduce gun crimes by juveniles is to promote more responsible gun ownership -- not more irresponsible gun bans."

Back before the 1960`s gun laws ,kids carried their rifles to school,evn on the subways of new york ,for marksman ship practice.IT was a class given by the public schools.No problem then.Now they are made out to be the forbuidden fruit that every kid wants bedcause mommy and daddy said they cant touch.

[DEAD ZONE]

As for hitler,Phreak is partially correct.

IP"There is hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68). Adolph Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The Gestapo (Nazi National Secret Police) enforced it.
We base our right in the founders and the constituion.It is the anti-righters that base their "laws" in nazi works. Law abiding firearm owners in Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey must carry identification cards based on formats from the Nazi Weapons Law. Nazi based laws have no place in America. The gun control act of 68 gave federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C., the power to decide what kinds of firearms you can own. The framers of GCA '68 borrowed an idea -- that certain firearms are "hunting weapons" -- from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, "sporting purpose," was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in GCA '68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so. The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.
The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them. In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.
" ... we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of [the European Law Division -- ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied" (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).Who is the you here? sen Thomas J. Dodd. At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency -- chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) -- held hearings on bills: (1) "To Require the Registration of Firearms" (S.3604). (2) "To Disarm Lawless Persons" (S.3634) and (3) "To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry" (S.3637), among others."
The United States 1968 Gun Control Act is a near parallel copy of Hitler's 1938 Nazi Weapons Act, as proven by Assistant District Attorney Brian Farley of Lawrence, Kansas during his testimony against a statewide "assault weapons" ban.

THE U.S. GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968. Under this Act: every law abiding firearm owner had to prove that he/she was law abiding; firearms dealers had to record purchases and sales of firearms on behalf of the federal government. Federal and/or state bureaucrats (un-elected civil servants) got the new and broad power to decide who, among law abiding persons, may own and/or carry firearms and under what conditions what type of firearms may lawfully be owned. The vague concept of "sporting purpose" as a way of classifying firearms was introduced. Transactions in ammunition had to be recorded (this is no longer so). Ammunitions that were "legal" were subject to control by bureaucrats.
"The Nazi gun law required a "Firearm Owner Identity Card." In Illinois, a person who wants to own a firearm has to get a "Firearm Owner Identification Card" complete with photograph. This takes 4 to 6 weeks. This "FOID" card is the direct descendent of the Nazi "Firearm Acquisition Permit" (Waffenerwerbschein).
In Massachusetts, a "FOID" (Waffenerwerbscheine) card is necessary to own a firearm. To transport a pistol, even in a locked gun case in a locked trunk requires a "carry permit," the direct descendant of the Nazi "Firearm Carry Permit" (Waffenschein). To get this permit, or a permit for general concealed carry, three (3) letters of reference are required, as is a safety course at applicant's cost, a test of one's knowledge of firearm law, and a talk with the chief of police. The chief of police may still withhold the permit. If he agrees to issue the permit, the applicant is then finger printed.
In New Jersey, an applicant must first get a "Firearm Purchaser Identification Card" (Waffenerwerbschein), which requires finger printing. There is a special document for would be handgun owners, the "Permit to Purchase a Handgun." It is valid for 90 days, (extendable for 90 days for "good cause") and only for one handgun. Copies of this permit must be sent to the issuing authority (the local police) and the state police; the seller keeps a copy and the purchaser keeps a copy. Concealed carry permits (Waffenschein) are only rarely issued and are valid for no more than 2 years. A "justifiable need" must be shown, but the term is not defined. The local police chief must approve it. His approval is reviewed by the Court in the applicants county of residence.
For the Nazis, society was the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consisted in using individuals as instruments for its social ends. Individuals rights were only recognized in so far as they were implied in the rights of the state. The state was conceived as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the state. The Nazi state was viewed as an embodied will to power and government. The Nazi's ruled under Police Power. The essential method of the police power is that of regulation, restriction, or prohibition, but not that of taking for public use. This power or means is used where the government does not desire ownership of anything, but wishes rather to control the conduct of individuals. Sometimes regulation is much easier when a license is required. Some courts here in America have held that the taking of a few dollars for licenses, the primary purpose not being revenue, is an exercise of the police power. The courts have held that where "regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." In operation, it may be defined as the power of the state (government) to regulate the conduct of individuals to the point of complete prohibition of certain acts of conduct or even to the destruction of the things involved. This belief in the police power is the theory that animates a number of dictatorial and totalitarian regimes throughout the world today.
The Nazi Doctrine rejected the whole idea of democracy and representative government. Rules of morality do not apply to the state or to its workers when serving the state (absolute immunity). Fraud, treachery, torture, even murder, are right if committed in the interest of the state (Waco, Texas). The people, incapable of governing, must be led by an "elite," a group or party that is able to seize and to hold power. Freedom of speech, press, thought, and religion must not be permitted; they are foolish democratic ideas, like elections and representative government. The state is not simply a means to attain the welfare of men. Instead it uses men to achieve its higher purpose, and that purpose is nothing less than power, power and more power. To avoid war and seek peace is only democratic weakness. War is the very life of the state in Nazi doctrine. As strange as it may appear, Nazi ideas have been imported into the United States, and have found secret as well as open and avowed recruits among both ordinary American citizens and many elected officials. One need only look to Washington D.C., as well as to elected public servants in the Union States, where you can find many supporters of the Nazi Doctrine."
If any of this is not correct,please let me know.

[Phreakmeister]

DZ, there are a few faults in what you posted.

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
It is the anti-righters that base their "laws" in nazi works. Law abiding firearm owners in Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey must carry identification cards based on formats from the Nazi Weapons Law.

That is such load of bs. First of all the comparison is totally irrelevant. This is a discussion about pro's and con's of gun laws (and imho the pro's outweigh the con's, but nvm), not about who had gun laws in history. This is not a contentual discussion/argument. This comment says, that gun laws are bad "because Hitler had gun laws". In other words: if Hitler had had a beard, beards would have to be outlawed. Hitler was a vegetarian, so veggies are wrong. Hitler didn't smoke, so not smoking should be outlawed. This argument does not tackle the gun laws themselves one single bit.
And besides that, it is wrong. German gun legislation is not Hitler's law. It is legislation that Hitler kept in place after accession. The comparison between Hitler and gun laws is wrong and irrelevant.

The framers of GCA '68 borrowed an idea -- that certain firearms are "hunting weapons" -- from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny).

Again, it was not a Nazi law. It was a German pre-Nazi law.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928.

Not true. The nazi's gave a different interpretation to that very same law.

The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

We call that "comparing apples and pears". Hitler did not get into power because his opponents didn't have guns. I wish the world was that easy. Hitler got into power because of voters' dissatisfaction with the incumbent politicians, despair over the economic crisis, anger over the Versailles treaty and agreement with Hitler's economic plans. Not because his opponents didn't have guns.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law.

Nothing was enhanced. As said before, the interpretation was redefined.

The United States 1968 Gun Control Act is a near parallel copy of Hitler's 1938 Nazi Weapons Act, as proven by Assistant District Attorney Brian Farley of Lawrence, Kansas during his testimony against a statewide "assault weapons" ban.

And may I ask in what way that is relevant for the discussion whether gun laws are sound or not?

Under this Act: every law abiding firearm owner had to prove that he/she was law abiding;

Isn't it better that law-abiding citizens prove they are law-abiding, before being allowed to get guns, than that non-law-abiding citizens show that they're non-law-abiding before guns are taken away from them? Preventing is better than curing.

"The Nazi gun law required a "Firearm Owner Identity Card." In Illinois, a person who wants to own a firearm has to get a "Firearm Owner Identification Card" complete with photograph.

And in what way is a similarity in name relevant?

The state was conceived as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the state.

Wasn't it the late John F. Kennedy who said in his inaugural speech: "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Kinda like the same concept, isn't it?

This power or means is used where the government does not desire ownership of anything, but wishes rather to control the conduct of individuals.

Let's be honest: there is a difference between an AK-47 and a can of Coca Cola, to put it bluntly.

In operation, it may be defined as the power of the state (government) to regulate the conduct of individuals to the point of complete prohibition of certain acts of conduct or even to the destruction of the things involved.

And what is so wrong about prohibiting certain acts of conduct?

This belief in the police power is the theory that animates a number of dictatorial and totalitarian regimes throughout the world today.

Again, comparing apples and pears. There is absolutely no link between whether or not a government advocates gun control and the other policies, for instance on the area of freedom of speech, it follows. No link whatsoever.


Freedom of speech, press, thought, and religion must not be permitted;

Again, there is no link between "freedom"-policies and gun control. And besides that, it is totally irrelevant to any discussion to compare natural rights and positive/negative rights.

One need only look to Washington D.C., as well as to elected public servants in the Union States, where you can find many supporters of the Nazi Doctrine."

Name one.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister

That is such load of bs. First of all the comparison is totally irrelevant. This is a discussion about pro's and con's of gun laws (and imho the pro's outweigh the con's, but nvm), not about who had gun laws in history. This is not a contentual discussion/argument. This comment says, that gun laws are bad "because Hitler had gun laws". In other words: if Hitler had had a beard, beards would have to be outlawed. Hitler was a vegetarian, so veggies are wrong. Hitler didn't smoke, so not smoking should be outlawed. This argument does not tackle the gun laws themselves one single bit.
And besides that, it is wron

g. German gun legislation is not Hitler's law. It is legislation that Hitler kept in place after accession. The comparison between Hitler and gun laws is wrong and irrelevant.

You misse the point completely. Just pointing out the FACT that amny of the present laws here came from nazi typed laws.That is documentable .Like it or not.I am not talking similarity,I mean they were used as the model.These very nazi ideas were found in the posession of the very maker of our laws.They were the model.



Again, it was not a Nazi law. It was a German pre-Nazi law.

Not completly true.Some were as i sadi,you are partly corect.Some were not.They were the nazis doing.



Not true. The nazi's gave a different interpretation to that very same law.

It is true.It was a clear addition to the law,not a clarification.



We call that "comparing apples and pears". Hitler did not get into power because his opponents didn't have guns. I wish the world was that easy. Hitler got into power because of voters' dissatisfaction with the incumbent politicians, despair over the economic crisis, anger over the Versailles treaty and agreement with Hitler's economic plans. Not because his opponents didn't have guns.

Nor did i say such.We call this a straw man. The gun laws did not save it which was exactly the laws intent.That was the point.With out the ability to resist,the armies suport sealed the nations fate.They had the guns,remember.



Nothing was enhanced. As said before, the interpretation was redefined.

Did you read that before you posted it.Yo just agreed that it was changed.You call it redefining.THAT IS CHANGING.You agree with me but refuse to amit it.If it meant this then but something else later then it was changed and or enhanced.Try and call it anything else you like,it still was changed.



And may I ask in what way that is relevant for the discussion whether gun laws are sound or not?

The post was suplamental to the hitler argument you and another already started.If you did not want it discussed here,you should not have kept after it.

Besides,do you support nazi laws.I do not.They have no place in a free society where gun control is the issue.



Isn't it better that law-abiding citizens prove they are law-abiding, before being allowed to get guns, than that non-law-abiding citizens show that they're non-law-abiding before guns are taken away from them? Preventing is better than curing.

Fist part NO!!![for emphasis,not yelling]
It turns our judicial system on its head.You are advocating a guilty until proven innocent idea instead of the other way around ,By operating from the presumption of guilty until proven innocent.thats tyranny.The criminal should have had them removed upon his conviction . Non-violent felons are also denied. Catching a lobster that is too short is a felony in Maine. A
high school student has been charged with felony wiretapping for recording his high-school chemistry class. http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/national/ap990.htm
Background registration checks in there present form turn the right to become armed into a privilege: if you have to ask somebody permission to transact, it isn't a right any more. "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others." - Fulton Huxtable.
http://www.fatalblindness.com/FREEDOM990621.htm#ISSUES
Criminals can and do get weapons from other sources.

i have no poroblem with a check on BUYING a weapon if its done in the correct maner hat does not infringe as the present one does.




And in what way is a similarity in name relevant?

Go back and look again.Similarity in name had nothing to do with similarity of action ect.



Wasn't it the late John F. Kennedy who said in his inaugural speech: "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Kinda like the same concept, isn't it?

Yes on the quote,no on his meaning.It was not in reference to violating the principls upon which that nation was founded.The right of the individual.You misquote him grossly here.

We can take you idea and apply it to every federal welfare progrm on the books as well.But that seems not to bother you much.



Let's be honest: there is a difference between an AK-47 and a can of Coca Cola, to put it bluntly.

There is?Coca cola was originally a cocain laced drink.Thus the name.The means of food production and many other seemingly inocent items can be just as much a weapon as an ak47 {whicjh by the way,has been illegal to own sinch the 1930`s weapons laws unles you have a special license which few have}.The essential method of the police power is that of regulation, restriction, or prohibition, but not that of taking for public use.
You missed it again.



And what is so wrong about prohibiting certain acts of conduct?
Some courts here in America have held that the taking of a few dollars for licenses, the primary purpose not being revenue, is an exercise of the police power. The courts have held that where "regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." In operation, it may be defined as the power of the state (government) to regulate the conduct of individuals to the point of complete prohibition of certain acts of conduct or even to the destruction of the things involved. This belief in the police power is the theory that animates a number of dictatorial and totalitarian regimes throughout the world today.
So in contect,its clear that it was not the prohabition of Some acts, but where they go to far in the area of a totalitarian state.The restriction of fereedom that hurts no one in otherwords.

You seem to have a contect problem these days.



Again, comparing apples and pears. There is absolutely no link between whether or not a government advocates gun control and the other policies, for instance on the area of freedom of speech, it follows. No link whatsoever.

Not true.One of the first things a totalitarina does and has done is to confiscate the weapons of private people.From Cambodias pal pot{?} to stalin and castro.The link is easily made.




Again, there is no link between "freedom"-policies and gun control. And besides that, it is totally irrelevant to any discussion to compare natural rights and positive/negative rights.
See above.it fits perfectly.
As long as guns are, the arguments are fun, but pointless.

Can´t understand what ´...nation of people...´in your rights post has to do with anything. Natural rights refers to the rights of *sovereign individuals*

The natural right we are referring to here is the right of self defense - self preservasion.

they start with one right,they end with them all.




Name one. [/B]

just one.
Senator Diane Feinstein

Charles Schumer{suprised because he is jewish}

Darn near any of them from California,where they used lists of registered weapons for confiscation.Add New York as well.



Joseph Biden --- used his position on the U.S. Senate Judicial Committee to clear the way for gun control legislation targeting the 92% of Americans that do not commit crimes, thus, eliminating a loophole in the criminal justice system. Biden also drafted and supported legislation for computer software "trapdoors", thus enabling government agencies to surreptitiously penetrate the private communications of private citizens, including those that might evade reasonable gun control favored by industrialized nations such as Germany.

Sen. Bill Bradley
"I'm considering all the alternatives," the former New Jersey lawmaker said Monday in an interview with reporter Ron Fournier. Mr. Bradley already has endorsed a " handgun card, " a photo identity card required of anybody carrying a handgun.

[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step.

[Phreakmeister]

This will be a very lengthy post, I can predict that, but here it goes anyway.

Pro gun rights activists use the faulty argument, that guns are necessary for self defence. Yet they overlook the point, that for instance in the case of a sniper, there's nothing a gun will do to help you. Guns can be helpful in some cases, but this certainly isn't strictly necessary. If it were strictly necessary, all of Europe would be obliterated by now. Pro gun rights activists say, that gun possession is necessary to preserve freedom and democracy. They say that without guns, dictatorships and autocracies will take over power. This is not true either. Europe is not quite invaded with guns, to say the least, and democracy thrives in Europe. At the same time, there are loads of countries where the presence of guns in society has become cultural heritage. Looking at the theory of Pro gun rights activists , these countries would have to be a safe haven for democracy. Just a few names of such countries shows, that this theory is wrong. Countries like Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan are filled with guns, possible even more so than the US. According to the afforementioned theory, these countries would have been sound democracies. Yet reality shows quite the opposite. These countries have been/become autocracies. Omnipresence of guns is no guarantee whatsoever for democracy. It is also said, that a lack of guns brought Hitler into power. This is one of the worst mistakes anyone trying to state a historically sound thesis can make. Hitler was elected in fair elections, by an electorate desperate over the economic crisis, dissatisfied with mainstream politicians, angry over the outcome of World War I and over the treatment of Germany after WW1, who had confidence in Hitler's economic plans, who could connect to Hitler's mode of speech (Hitler was the first German politician ever to use ordinary people's language), who were inspired by Hitler's speeches, some (it has to be said) who agreed with Hitler's racial theories. Just like the Gun Control Law of 1928 tried to disarm Hitler's opponents, it also tried to disarm Hitler's followers. The Gun Control Law tried to disarm anyone who strove to overthrow the Weimar government. The reason the Weimarer government was overthrown eventually was not because of a lack of guns, because a revolution never took place. Hitler got into power through ELECTIONS, not through REVOLUTION. Presence or absence of guns/firearms wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever. Some may say, that these guns might have been used for an assassination of Hitler. They forget, that people who plan assassination attempts get their hands on guns anyway, legally or illegally. Gun legislation does not make any difference in democratic election victories, regardless of who the victor is. Hitler later used gun legislation to persecute his opponents. According to the law, he also had to persecute his own followers for violation of gun control legislation. The fact that Hitler didn't do this, the fact that Hitler put his own followers above the law, can not be blamed on the law.

The fact that the gun control legislation was put in place by Hitler or used by Hitler, or any of the kind, is not of any importance or relevance. There is no link whatsoever between the Holocaust and gun legislation. People who used this argument in fact state "Person X did A, which was horrible. Person X also had law B. Since A, committed by person X, was horrible, B is horrible as well". What is being done here, is judge plan X by the horrors of plan Z, not by its own standards. The argument that Hitler came up with the law, if true, is of no relevance whatsoever, because it does not tackle the law itself, but it merely looks at the maker of the law, thereby blocking out any content-based discussion.

You call it redefining.THAT IS CHANGING.

I never talked about redefining legislation. I talked about redefining legislation interpretation. Which is entirely different.

[Phreakmeister]

A few statements I found on the Internet about this subject:

German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his. (...)
The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect. (In other words: Hitler never needed to eliminate gun possession among his people, because noone would have tried to hurt him anyway)
(...)
The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man's character.
(...)
Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler's government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler's government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
(...)
At the end of the Second World War, American GIs (...) were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet (...) zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.

Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.
(...)
The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies.

[Phreakmeister]

Now back to your post, DZ.

The post was suplamental to the hitler argument you and another already started.If you did not want it discussed here,you should not have kept after it.

Well, the reason Hitler got into this, is not because of me. Maderic came with exactly the same argument as you just did: he linked Hitler with gun control, in the hope of thus proving the invalidity of gun control.

Besides,do you support nazi laws.I do not.They have no place in a free society where gun control is the issue.

I prefer to look at the laws, and not who came up with the laws before me. I support gun control, and if it was the nazi's who came up with it (if it were true), then so be it. I prefer to look at WHAT is being done, not WHO does it.

Fist part NO!!![for emphasis,not yelling]
It turns our judicial system on its head.You are advocating a guilty until proven innocent idea instead of the other way around ,By operating from the presumption of guilty until proven innocent.thats tyranny.The criminal should have had them removed upon his conviction . Non-violent felons are also denied. Catching a lobster that is too short is a felony in Maine. A
high school student has been charged with felony wiretapping for recording his high-school chemistry class. http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/national/ap990.htm
Background registration checks in there present form turn the right to become armed into a privilege: if you have to ask somebody permission to transact, it isn't a right any more. "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others." - Fulton Huxtable.
http://www.fatalblindness.com/FREEDOM990621.htm#ISSUES
Criminals can and do get weapons from other sources.

So what you're basically saying here is: shooters (such as the Washington Sniper) should only lose their guns after they have shot someone (possibly to death)? "We wait for him to kill, and then we act". We call it "closing the well after the cow has drowned". I seriously hope you do not want that to happen.

Yes on the quote,no on his meaning.It was not in reference to violating the principls upon which that nation was founded.The right of the individual.You misquote him grossly here.

Oh my God. Thomas Jefferson speaking. What I meant to say was: he also talked about the people serving the nation, instead of the nation serving the people. Let's face it. Which is something you accused the nazi's of.

There is?Coca cola was originally a cocain laced drink.Thus the name.The means of food production and many other seemingly inocent items can be just as much a weapon as an ak47 {whicjh by the way,has been illegal to own sinch the 1930`s weapons laws unles you have a special license which few have}.The essential method of the police power is that of regulation, restriction, or prohibition, but not that of taking for public use.
You missed it again.

And that's exactly why I wrote behind the comparison "to put it bluntly". Pro gun rights activists tend to compare firearms to food or anything of the like, which is a gross miscomparison.

but where they go to far in the area of a totalitarian state.

So in other words: trying to restrict or regulate possession of a deadly weapon is a totalitarian thing to do?

Not true.One of the first things a totalitarina does and has done is to confiscate the weapons of private people.From Cambodias pal pot{?} to stalin and castro.The link is easily made.

That is utter utter utter utter bullsh1t. The fact that a certain government, as said before, tries to regulate or restrict the possession of a deadly weapon equals religious, racial, ethnic discrimation? Equals violation of the freedom of press? Equals violation of the freedom of speech?

And besides that: the post is wrong. Cambodia enacted gun control in 1956, 2 years after its independence in 1954. Pol Pot only got to power in 1975. The reason Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge won the civil war, was not because of a lack of guns among his population, but because the US had bombed the entire infrastructure of Cambodia to the ground in the Vietnam War, which severely hampered the opportunities of government forces to fight the Stalinist rebels. Pol Pot never had to disarm Cambodia, because Cambodia had already been disarmed for the past 20 years.
Also the Stalin-argument is wrong. Yes, the Soviet authorities required gun registration. And after that, the authorities demanded all guns, for use by the Red Army. The problem is, that this law was enacted in 1918. Stalin only came to power in 1929, 11 years later.
And because a man named Fidel Castro has enforced gun laws, gun laws are bad? First of all, the name of Castro in this list is totally out of place. I'm not praising him, but it goes one step too far to compare him to the likes of Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler and Stalin. And besides that: if Castro enforced gun control, it means that before that, there was no gun control. Well, that didn't stop him from gaining power, to say the least. Which should have happened, if the argument that "gun rights" are necessary to save democracy was right.

Natural rights refers to the rights of *sovereign individuals*

The natural right we are referring to here is the right of self defense - self preservasion.

Natural rights refers to "a set of principles, based on what are assumed to be the permanent characteristics of human nature, that can serve as a standard for evaluating conduct and civil laws. It is considered fundamentally unchanging and universally applicable." In other words, natural rights deal with innate characteristics of mankind. And let's face it: we are not born with a gun in our hands. And no, the right we are referring to here, let's stick to the subject, is the right to bear arms, which is, in whatever way you look at it, a positive or a negative right. Whether the right is positive or negative depends on the interpretations of "positive rights" and "negative rights". But in no way, shape or form is the right to carry a man-made object a natural right.

they start with one right,they end with them all.

So every country where gun control is enacted, is a dictatorship and every country where gun rights are respected, to put it that way, is free? Then how come, as I said before, Europe (gun control) be so democratic, while Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq (gun rights) are not quite democratic, to say the least? Or is there no link after all between firearms policies and human rights policies?

Senator Diane Feinstein

And what makes her a supporter of the Nazi doctrine (Uebermensch-theory, Lebensraum, etc.)?

Charles Schumer{suprised because he is jewish}

And what makes him a Nazi?

Darn near any of them from California,where they used lists of registered weapons for confiscation.Add New York as well.

Enforcing gun registration has nothing to do with Nazi sympathies. So unless you can prove that they believe in racial superiority, territorial expansionism, ethnic brotherhood, etc., there is no way you can prove their support for the Nazi doctrine.

Joseph Biden --- used his position on the U.S. Senate Judicial Committee to clear the way for gun control legislation targeting the 92% of Americans that do not commit crimes, thus, eliminating a loophole in the criminal justice system. Biden also drafted and supported legislation for computer software "trapdoors", thus enabling government agencies to surreptitiously penetrate the private communications of private citizens, including those that might evade reasonable gun control favored by industrialized nations such as Germany.

So because he "cleared the way" for gun control legislation, he is a nazi?

(BTW. Just a question: How do you know it's 92%? Where did you get that number?)

Sen. Bill Bradley
"I'm considering all the alternatives," the former New Jersey lawmaker said Monday in an interview with reporter Ron Fournier. Mr. Bradley already has endorsed a " handgun card, " a photo identity card required of anybody carrying a handgun.

So because he has endorsed a certain type/design of permits, he is a Nazi?

[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step.

So because she thinks that military weapons should be banned from society, she is a Nazi?

[DEAD ZONE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phreakmeister
[B]Now back to your post, DZ.

No gun rights person has claimed or said that guns ALWAYS will protect you in ALL situations.That is a straw man argument becaus enothing beter could be found.

Nor did they say guns alone will secure fredom and demovcracy.Another strawman.It is the possibility of such tyrany happening.And it has as example given already.

Anyone saying a lack of guns brought hitler to power is wrong.I never said it.What it did do is weaken the ability to resist once hitlers dictatorial aims were clear.

The fact that the gun control legislation was put in place by Hitler or used by Hitler, or any of the kind, is not of any importance or relevance. There is no link whatsoever between the Holocaust and gun legislation. People who used this argument in fact state "Person X did A, which was horrible. Person X also had law B. Since A, committed by person X, was horrible, B is horrible as well". What is being done here, is judge plan X by the horrors of plan Z, not by its own standards. The argument that Hitler came up with the law, if true, is of no relevance whatsoever, because it does not tackle the law itself, but it merely looks at the maker of the law, thereby blocking out any content-based discussion. not so.The ability of the warsaw geto to hold off the germans proves that weapons could have been used to make the germands pay to high a price for the halecaust.Your alfabit is wrong.It is not what because person x ha law be,it was because he changed law b to x in the first place.not that he had lawb.law b did not cause the problem.It was its changing to law z by x that was.For the umpteenth time.

[DEAD ZONE]

I never talked about redefining legislation. I talked about redefining legislation interpretation. Which is entirely different.
No,it is not.That spin is thesame garbage we get from the "living document" bunch on the constitution. redefining is reinterpreting.You changed the rules and the meaning.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
A few statements I found on the Internet about this subject:





i think thats close to what I have been saying.
No problems worth mentioning in that post

[sinecure]

Hello, everybody. :wave

WOW!! Reading through six pages of this cut/paste festival all at once is enough to give a guy a colossal headache! Actually, I ended up just skimming much of the statistical arguments after awhile. But I think I came away with the following crucial elements of the discussion.

Let's see.... there seems to be the Animist position-- "Guns are just bad... they are inherently evil, 'cause they were both invented and made solely to kill people and other living things." And we all know that dying is a bad thing... unless "dying" happens to the axe-murderer, rapist, robber, druggie, or other enemy who is hell-bent on harming or killing YOU or your family. ...Of course, if you are really incredibly fortunate, some guy you are paying [read: "policeman/soldier"] steps in to do the deed FOR you, and you and the family are safe. Personally, I'm just not that lucky... but then, perhaps you are.

Then ther is the Personal Liberty position... "Self-defense is my natural right." The counter-argument seems to boil down to: "Yes, but if there weren't any guns, you'd have nothing to fear." Of course that is the difficult-to-apply-in-every-case "proportional resistance" philosophy... the essence of which seems to be: "If you are forced to defend yourself, you must do it with the least amount of force it takes to get the job done." I believe that pointing a gun at an aggressor-- and explaining to him in a rude and threatening manner that you are fully prepared to use it-- seems to get the beligerent's cooperation with a minimal use of force... ask any policeman about how well this technique works.

I don't know if I should sell all my guns and move to one of the European Utopias where there is nothing to fear but taxes and Big Government... or go down to the local sporting goods store, fill out the dozen or so forms that allow my criminal record [or lack thereof] to be checked, show my photo ID so that it may be cross-referenced to the gun's full description and serial number, hand them my credit card, wait the requisite 15 business days, then buy the required trigger lock [it's a California law :rolleyes: ], sign a statement that I have a gunsafe in which to keep it, and then take that cool little Glock [with the two federally-mandated 10-round capacity magazines] home with me, all the while shaking my head at how easy it was for me to put another gun "on the street" :rolleyes: in the USA..

Yes, it's a tough decision....:wink

[DEAD ZONE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phreakmeister
[B]Now back to your post, DZ.



Well, the reason Hitler got into this, is not because of me. Maderic came with exactly the same argument as you just did: he linked Hitler with gun control, in the hope of thus proving the invalidity of gun control.

No I did not.I even agreed with a lot of your post.What hitler did was change the law to more stringent ones aimed at specific groups and in preventatives ways the original did not.
I never used hitler to "prove" guncontrol invalid.thats easy enough by looking at the factors involved{some places it may work,some it will not}.Just to show what it can lead to,and to show its failures{like the weimer gove tried and failed,handding hitler an already pasified anti-gun crowed.}

[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
-- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951

I prefer to look at the laws, and not who came up with the laws before me. I support gun control, and if it was the nazi's who came up with it (if it were true), then so be it. I prefer to look at WHAT is being done, not WHO does it.
You better because a philosophy can be a dangerouse thing when its fruits are ignored from history.
Not all laws are bad that a dictater has{murder ,rape ect.}.But ones as I described and their philosophy can be very dangerouse.


But lets get back to the rights thing.
So what you're basically saying here is: shooters (such as the Washington Sniper) should only lose their guns after they have shot someone (possibly to death)? "We wait for him to kill, and then we act". We call it "closing the well after the cow has drowned". I seriously hope you do not want that to happen.

Untill he or anyone does break the law,you cant do a thing.Unless you have dictator blood in your vains and wish to make all humans out as potential killers and nut cases.You might as well add rapists ,child molesters and a host of others to the list.This is basically the old, "But the First Amendment protection of free speech does not prohibit the government
from banning the yelling of Fire! in a crowded theatre - and it should, as if such were to be yelled,
death or mayhem could result argument.

People aren't muzzled before being admitted to theatres. People don't have to check their tongues at the door, or pass background checks in order to be admitted to the theatre. They
are only charged with a crime if they break the law. Not so with gun control: one is expected to check wepaons at the door, or even be prohibited from ever getting them (e.g. Washington DC)
before you have committed any crime. It's because you might do so. This is called "prior restraint" and has been found to be unconstitutional.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who
has them we can do that. ...If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." - Vermont
State Senator Mary Ann Carlson
This is what you are saying Phreak.
Um, if you haven't committed a crime yet, what would you be arrested for?Or why deny rights without prior cause.

Besides,you already said if someone wanted to do something,they could get a weapon to do it if they wanted no mater what.The sniper was determined and broke the law to get his.



Oh my God. Thomas Jefferson speaking. What I meant to say was: he also talked about the people serving the nation, instead of the nation serving the people. Let's face it. Which is something you accused the nazi's of.

once again you give a half truth and suround it with a huge lie.Thats getting real irratatinh Phreak.

I said,they used the state as the only thing of importance over individuals period.No room for desent.no rights of the individual,only the colective.That is hardly jfk in any way.He was no Borg.

"Resistance is futile.You will be asimilated".GET IT.



And that's exactly why I wrote behind the comparison "to put it bluntly". Pro gun rights activists tend to compare firearms to food or anything of the like, which is a gross miscomparison.

No it is not.Without food,you die dear.Its real simple.Whoever controls it,controls life and death .It can be laced,tanted,and or used as a weapon just as any other.




So in other words: trying to restrict or regulate possession of a deadly weapon is a totalitarian thing to do?

Depends on what you mean and how far you take it.that was clear enough by my posts but you ignored it again and saw what you wanted.I already said I do not disagree with checking on a buyer if its done in the proper maner.You seem to have missed that as well.



That is utter utter utter utter bullsh1t. The fact that a certain government, as said before, tries to regulate or restrict the possession of a deadly weapon equals religious, racial, ethnic discrimation? Equals violation of the freedom of press? Equals violation of the freedom of speech?

Its proven historical fact that the example I gave did this.If you dont like it,thats your problem.Without self defence,you have none of the above.I did not say all restrictions by gov did as you once again tried to imply with this stetment.


And besides that: the post is wrong. Cambodia enacted gun control in 1956, 2 years after its independence in 1954. Pol Pot only got to power in 1975. The reason Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge won the civil war, was not because of a lack of guns among his population, but because the US had bombed the entire infrastructure of Cambodia to the ground in the Vietnam War, which severely hampered the opportunities of government forces to fight the Stalinist rebels. Pol Pot never had to disarm Cambodia, because Cambodia had already been disarmed for the past 20 years.[/i]

No it was not.I did not say gun control removed all guns.The Roge went door to door and made sure all weapons were gone once they were in power.They and other sects were armed , by all sides.Gun control and total banning and confiscation are not mentioned a synonims by me.Get it strait will you.


Also the Stalin-argument is wrong. Yes, the Soviet authorities required gun registration. And after that, the authorities demanded all guns, for use by the Red Army. The problem is, that this law was enacted in 1918. Stalin only came to power in 1929, 11 years later. Not true.or ,once again,a half truth. Sytalin was in high power from the start,behind Lenen himself and trsky was a close second.They had their hands in it from the beginning.And the red army was was a select group.Gun countrol has nothing to do with not arming the military.


And because a man named Fidel Castro has enforced gun laws, gun laws are bad? First of all, the name of Castro in this list is totally out of place. I'm not praising him, but it goes one step too far to compare him to the likes of Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler and Stalin.

I only compared him in regards to gun control confiscation.Nothing more.We are not talking regulation,or background checks here.

And besides that: if Castro enforced gun control, it means that before that, there was no gun control. Well, that didn't stop him from gaining power, to say the least. Which should have happened, if the argument that "gun rights" are necessary to save democracy was right.

Are you serious here.Man,you have gone off the deep end.What type of laws?To what extent?Any particular requirements or groups ect. ect?
What an idiotic over generalization.



Natural rights refers to "a set of principles, based on what are assumed to be the permanent characteristics of human nature, that can serve as a standard for evaluating conduct and civil laws. It is considered fundamentally unchanging and universally applicable." In other words, natural rights deal with innate characteristics of mankind. And let's face it: we are not born with a gun in our hands.
We are born with the desire,right and will of self defence and defence of property.We are given the brain with which to devise better means to maintain this.A gun is a tool.Nothing more or less.

[DEAD ZONE]

And no, the right we are referring to here, let's stick to the subject, is the right to bear arms, which is, in whatever way you look at it, a positive or a negative right. Whether the right is positive or negative depends on the interpretations of "positive rights" and "negative rights". But in no way, shape or form is the right to carry a man-made object a natural right.

Yes it is . The natural right we are referring to here is the right of self defense - self preservasion.Self defense is a natural right of every living creature. If that creature has the intelligence to use artificial implements to further their own existence, then more power to them. Man is such a creature. Why fight a tiger with my bare hands when I can use a rock, or stick, or spear, or bow, or sword, or FIREARM? Same thing applies to any situation. It’s just an extension of self defense. And on top of that what man has any right to govern another? Who are you or anyone else to tell me what I can and can’t have. What I can own and not own, build and not build? No man owns me, no man governs me. One who is free in spirit will always be thus, regardless of whether they are free in body. Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Is gun possession a positive right?
No. Positive rights grant access to a good. For example, a positive right to healthcare would mean that the State is providing the healthcare or payment thereof on your behalf. Gun possession is not provided for by the state, although in some cases states have given the opportunity for gun sales, which makes that gun possession is not a positive right.

How can one assign a + and a – quality to rights? Not only is it inane, it is an effort in futility because the right will exist whether or not you see it as helpful or detrimental. Since a right by it’s very definition is inalienable, it doesn’t really matter, does it? And what does the state providing something have to do with a positive right? Just because Uncle Sugar doesn’t give it to you makes it bad? I don’t remember receiving my gov’t granted Orvis flyrod, but that doesn’t make it negative does it?

Is gun possession a negative right?
Yes. In the case of negative rights, no one may prevented access to a certain good, although neither the State nor any person other than oneself is responsible for acquiring it.
See previous,

Are guns in the hands of "the right people" a problem?
No, as long as "the right people" remain "the right people".

Guns in anyones hands are not a problem, as long as the ‘good people’ always have access to them, the problems will take care of themselves. As long as the armed ‘good guys’ always out number the armed ‘bad guys’, the bad guys won’t live very long to perpetuate violence and disorder, now will they?Once they out number us good guys,all is lost .


Are guns in the hands of "the wrong people" a problem?
This is a self-answering question. All the school shootings, for instance, reveal the terrible danger of guns in the wrong hands.
Again, see above. If good people have guns too, the bad people extinct themselves by their own stupidity in short order. As for the school shootings, if the criminals (yes criminals, for if they are old enough to murder someone, then they surely aren’t children anymore…) would have been shot during the enactment of their crime, the problem would have been solved in short order, no?Israel learned that arming the schools stops the bad guys cold for the modt part. How many more school shootings do you think would have happened if the criminals who perpetuated the crimes saw the other criminals being shot by the teachers in self-defense. I dont think many.

the experiences in other countries show, that this is not a strict necessity

Ignores many factors and the countries that show just the opposit.

For example, a positive right to healthcare would mean that the State is providing the healthcare or payment thereof on your behalf


Now, this whole positive, negative right thing just confuses the hell outta me. But the part that really gets me is what you said in the quote (above), the "state is providing..." Hold up, right there, what does the state have to do with my rights? Those were given to me prior to government´s existance. Including "state"(as in "the entity that makes laws and grants priveleges") in the same sentence with "right" is a good way to get ridiculed in these parts.

Who decides who has "good hands" or "bad hands"? The liberal media, the government? You? Me? This is exactly what the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from, encroachments of the majority. That´s just a bad argument. A "logical fallacy", if you will.

And a gun in a child´s hands is just as natural as a baseball bat or an axe. Anyone who would allow a child to hit people with bats or axes or to shoot them with guns needs to have those children taken away from them, and probably shouldn´t have had them in the first place.


"Germany already has strict laws governing the right to a gun, but experts say the country is awash with illegal weapons." --(CNN, "18 Die in German School Massacre", April 26, 2002)

Has not worked well there.Britain could use some self defence about now.

To get to the issue of guns we have to move from the natural rights to Constitutional rights. Now we are talking about ´arms´.

Historically ´arms´ in this context referred to those used militarily. The Constitutional right of individual citizens to posses arms suitable for military use. Supported by SCOTUS´ Miller decision.





So every country where gun control is enacted, is a dictatorship and every country where gun rights are respected, to put it that way, is free?
never said that.Gun control is a broad term.I have already repeted that i am not against some aspect.So dont set me up as being against any "Gun control" unless you are more specific and define what you mean by "gun control".

Then how come, as I said before, Europe (gun control) be so democratic, while Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq (gun rights) are not quite democratic, to say the least? Or is there no link after all between firearms policies and human rights policies?

First,see above.Then look at other countries and not your select few.U.s., swiss have easy gun laws and tiawan and,rushia and china do not.We could make such comparisons all day.The idea of individual rights and governments is not exactly the same thing anyway.



And what makes her a supporter of the Nazi doctrine (Uebermensch-theory, Lebensraum, etc.)?

Match her desires up with the step by step method of shikelgrobers bunch.Licensing a natural right.Using that to exclude those you dont think need it because you dont like them or their class or political ideas are not yours.That is what they do in new york and some california towns .You can get a license,but no one who is not special can ever get one.The aplications just sit.



And what makes him a Nazi?
i did not say they were nazis.They do support some of the same laws and even use a method or two.
See above.



Enforcing gun registration has nothing to do with Nazi sympathies. So unless you can prove that they believe in racial superiority, territorial expansionism, ethnic brotherhood, etc., there is no way you can prove their support for the Nazi doctrine.

Never said they were.Said they supported nazi ideas in this area.And their use of methods and models of nazi laws is just that.So stic to the subject and issue which is gun control,gun laws and restrictions,not races ect.
Its called a contect dear.The nazi doctrine of gun banning is the issue.



So because he "cleared the way" for gun control legislation, he is a nazi?

See above
positive negative rights thing you brought up.

[DEAD ZONE]

(BTW. Just a question: How do you know it's 92%? Where did you get that number?)

By his legislation.Estimatting the gun ownership and who the legislastion will now effect.Kinda like what california did.
Wednesday, January 28, 1998, in Rocklin, California, Mr. William Doss presented his SKS Sporter rifle to local law enforcement for confiscation -- a firearm previously and expressly deemed acceptable initially by California Attorney General Dan Lungren (R). Popular with shooting enthusiasts,it was legal under California's Roberti-Roos "Assault Weapons Control Act". onlylater after getting letters asking to the effect if such weapons were ok,Lungren reversed course and pronounce the guns illegal.Now he had a list of guns to confiscate by the letters and inquires sent!
"In California, the dream of the gun ban movement has been realized. California is confiscating guns and threatening law- abiding citizens with prosecution.
It was right out of the pages of a police state manual. First there was mandatory registration of certain named "assault weapons." Anyone who wanted to keep one of the named firearms must have owned it prior to June 1, 1989, and had to register it by March 30, 1992. Registration gave the state a list of owners.

The Attorney General’s Gotcha!

Many owners of the named firearms did not comply with the law, so Attorney General Dan Lundgren allowed persons to register them after the deadline. Fearing criminal penalties for possessing an illegal firearm, many owners reported their firearms under Lundren’s "amnesty" program.

In August 1998, however, a California appellate court held the Attorney General could not legally allow the gun owners to register their weapons after the March 1992 deadline. That ruling came after many owners had already identified themselves by registering late. The Attorney General had led the law- fearing lambs into a trap: citizens had voluntarily informed the state that they were felons.




Lesson:Dont ask,dont hint and never give the government any info on your weapons!They will try and nail you as a felon anyway.


So because he has endorsed a certain type/design of permits, he is a Nazi?

Never said that.Se previous.Supporting nazi type laws means you supported nazi type laws.Nothing more or less.



So because she thinks that military weapons should be banned from society, she is a Nazi?

Never said that.She does not just want those banned.She has said so.Those were just the start.The nazis did similar.Start with this,end up with those.
Even gun banning groups have said the "assualt weapons" bann was futile and only a first tsep.That is served no crime prevention purpose.

Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.), said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases," Clay said.
Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke signed the Communitarian Network's The Case for Domestic Disarmament, which among other thing said:


There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.

Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.), said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control.

You are ignoring or distorting the nazi issue so ,I will give you last word on it even though, so we can get back on track.The positive negative rights thing you brought up.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
How can one assign a + and a – quality to rights? Not only is it inane, it is an effort in futility because the right will exist whether or not you see it as helpful or detrimental. Since a right by it’s very definition is inalienable, it doesn’t really matter, does it? And what does the state providing something have to do with a positive right? Just because Uncle Sugar doesn’t give it to you makes it bad? I don’t remember receiving my gov’t granted Orvis flyrod, but that doesn’t make it negative does it?

When I have the time, I'll respond to more of your arguments, but for now I'll reply this one. But to be continued.

The terms "positive" and "negative" do not imply a moral judgement. What they refer to, are this:

The "positive" in positive rights refers to the fact that to satisfy these rights, other people must provide them. They require action from others, instead of inaction. A "right" to health care is such a right. In order to fulfill it, a doctor must be enslaved. The doctor may be paid of course, but then others are required to pay the bill.

Positive rights are not compatible with real rights, or "negative rights". The positive rights requires actions on the part of others. Negative rights requires that no man can be forced to do anything he doesn't want. The two are incompatible. Positive rights are accepted at the expense of negative rights. They cannot coexist, since they are polar opposites.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister



The terms "positive" and "negative" do not imply a moral judgement. What they refer to, are this:

The "positive" in positive rights refers to the fact that to satisfy these rights, other people must provide them. They require action from others, instead of inaction. A "right" to health care is such a right. In order to fulfill it, a doctor must be enslaved. The doctor may be paid of course, but then others are required to pay the bill.

Positive rights are not compatible with real rights, or "negative rights". The positive rights requires actions on the part of others. Negative rights requires that no man can be forced to do anything he doesn't want. The two are incompatible. Positive rights are accepted at the expense of negative rights. They cannot coexist, since they are polar opposites.

Who does the interpreting, exactly?

And doctors are not enslaved.Thats nuts.No one is forcing them against their will.

People in countries where gun rights are not respected are not free men (or women). They do what the government says because they have no other recourse, not because what the government says is inherently right.

And Europe democratic? Gimme a break! That place is a hotbed of social ills. Most of those countries are coming apart at the seams, Europe started two (count them two ) World Wars, how many people died in Yugoslavia? Were those counted as firearms homicides in the crime statistic? No! What about the IRA in England? Europe has killed more people in thier history than any other region, ever, on the earth.
Why aren´t people running to Europe for freedom and good jobs? I´ll agree that some are, but the majority of the traffic, as it always has been, is coming this way.

You pointed out the inherent problem with gun control yourself, probably without even seeing it. All the gun control laws in the countries you mentioned were enacted with the public good in mind, and then used by dictators, who came much later, to remove firearms completely from the populace. Even when the guns were removed from the people before the dictators came to power, it just shows that the government did not allow thier citizens to be prepared for that eventuality, and did thier people a great disservice.

Castro and his rebels were cheered on and aided by most of the population of Cuba, who were tired of the Batista regime, so thier having guns wouldn´t have stopped Castro, because they didn´t want to shoot him. Castro was an idealist at the beginning, I believe he truly thought he was trying to help people.

I disagree that a can of coca cola that has been used to commit a homicide is any different than an AK47 that has been used to commit a homicide . They are now both murder weapons. The can of coke in my refrigerator and the Remington 12 gauge in my gun cabinet are also the same, they are both inanimate objects that require a human to exploit them to thier fullest potential. Do you know why "gun rights advocates" compare guns to other inanimate objects? Because guns are inanimate objects!

Only 8% of the 6.3 million serious violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault, involved a firearm according to the FBI over at the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. What other inanimate objects were used to commit those crimes? Knives, Baseball bats, cans of soda? So, if there were no guns tommorrow, 5.8 million rapes and sexual assaults, robberies, and aggravated and simple assaults would still happen this year. You just can´t legislate away human nature.

Which gets us back to the real point. What problems will restricting firearms solve? I mean really, what will making it harder for me to legally purchase a gun help with? Criminals, by thier very nature, break laws (they probably wouldn´t be criminals if they didn´t). So, what is making more laws, that only me and you and people like us obey, supposed to fix?

Guns are.

I´m not trying to be metaphysical here. In fact I´m being just the opposite. Guns DO exist in our society. The goodness or badness is irrelevant at his point. There ARE 250 million guns in private hands here in the U.S., and there is virtually NOTHING that can be done to change that. Whether you like guns or hate guns... guns are.They are easily smuggled into western europe from the east despite all the laws.
You may change the minds of some people as to whether or not they as individuals choose to keep a gun. Folks like me and many others here are trying to change the minds of others as to the topic. To my mind, all of the "statistics" are nonsense, as are the comparisons with the U.S. to some other countries. We are not them. We have an armed society, and personally I find that to be a VERY good thing.

Guns are.

All of the gun control folk must wake up and realize that they are trying to plow the seawith heavyer restrictions and banns. The only hope that we have in cutting down on senseless gun deaths is education. Not the PC bull$hit in state schools, but real education in the safe and proficient use of guns.

Your arguments are fun and your statements are thought provoking, but after all is said and done... guns are.


Arguing the fine philosophical points of gun control is fine.But I rail against the gub´ments efforts to resrict my right to keep and bear arms, mainly because such restriction only make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Criminals ignore the laws which are passed, only good people are intimidated.


As far as the different types of rights, we can have all kinds of wild debates about them and never reach a conclusion. But from the simplest point of view, what gives anybody the right to take something away from me. If I´m standing in a spot, a spot that belongs to me, and I have a gun in my hand, and I have not nor am not doing anything with the gun besides holding, then what right does anybody have to take the gun away from me? If I want to shoot the gun on my spot, at my spot which I am standing, then what right does anybody have to stop me?

Natural rights, from my view, are rights that we observe in nature. Survival of the fitist is one the status quo in nature. I´m not sure we would want to live with the ideals of pure natural rights. Under natural rights, if you use my definition, then we have the right of self defense, but then again we have the right to attempt to take something from others that does not belong to us. So from natural rights, men created the idea of God given rights. This introduces the ideal that natural rights are valid, except at the point where you violate somebody elses natural rights. In other words you retain the right of self defense, but you are not allowed infringe on their right to keep an object. If you try and force your will upon them, their objects, or their use of objects, then you have violated those rights and will be punished in like kind.

So no matter the definition of rights and wether or not you base your beliefs on natural rights or God given rights, then we still have the right to own or keep objects. Guns are.

Now if you use the gun, or any object, to force my will upon another and take what is theirs, either their objects or life, then that is the point at which I may be punished.

[DEAD ZONE]

phreak:

´ll lay money down in opposition to your comparative insinuation that an AK-47 and a can of Coca-Cola aren´t equally capable of relieving some unfortunate of his miserable life.

Further, while I will concede that you have a right to hold and express your beliefs, I find your overly enthusiastic defense of history´s most oppressive and murderous totalitarian regimes and the political machinations that enabled them, to be repugnant.

Your discussions thus far seem to reveal an overt admiration for political strategies and tactics that have, in every case of their real world application, resulted in the enslavement of helpless populations and to documented governmental attempts at genocide.

Are you a recent graduate of a public school, or what?

We are not them, who commits the most crimes in this country? The black underclass, there I said it. Now, I know what you´re thinking "Ohmygosh, slick´s a racist", but I´m really not, I´m a realist.

Look at the prison populations, ask a cop, Blacks commit more crimes than anyone else in this country, they are also the victims of the most crime in this country. How many of those countries you try to compare to ours have huge black underclasses, seething with anger at imagined (or maybe unimagined, I haven´t decided yet) injustices.

The government created this problem, with the welfare state.Claiming the states check can replace daddy is a disaster. I would probably take free money, too, if everyone around me had been raised on it.

Look at the cities with the highest crime rates in the country, besides having the strictest gun control, they also have the largest black populations. That´s what we need to fix, but can´t, because it would not be politically correct for us to admit it.

Now, I worked with a lot of black people in my life, and I don´t think, for a second, that they are inferior to whites. The men I worked with were educated, hardworking, and didn´t think that I owed them something because some white folk in the bygone owned thier great-great grandpas. I worked under many as well.

If you really want to make crime go away, the inner city is where you need to look, not in my gun cabinet. But, noone will ever do that because it would not be "PC".

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Who does the interpreting, exactly?

Every person individually. Depending on how you interpret the possession of a man-made object, gun-possession is either a positive or negative right. Positive rights require a certain action, negative rights require the lack of such an action.

And doctors are not enslaved.Thats nuts.No one is forcing them against their will.

To enslave also means: to bring into servitude. In other words: let them work. And let's face it: if you go to a hospital, you let a doctor work.

People in countries where gun rights are not respected are not free men (or women).

Damn, I feel so oppressed, knowing that I can't have guns. Gee, I sure wish we'd start a revolution, to get dem dictators off our backs. Could you help us? Please? *cynical*

And Europe democratic? Gimme a break! That place is a hotbed of social ills. Most of those countries are coming apart at the seams,

Name one country, besides Yugoslavia, falling apart. One. (and no, Russia isn't Europe, Russia is for the major majority Asian)

Europe started two (count them two ) World Wars,

Yes. One in 1914, one in 1939/1940. You do know that those WW's are 90 and 60 years ago? You do know that most people who lived then are dead now? You do know that 80 to 90% of Europe was born after 1945?

how many people died in Yugoslavia?

263,000 died in Bosnia, 20,000 in Croatia, 12,000 in Kosovo.

What about the IRA in England?

You mean in Northern Ireland?

Europe has killed more people in thier history than any other region, ever, on the earth.

Well. we've had several thousands of years for that. You only had about 200 years to kill. And still you're catching up very fast. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, just to name a few. That adds up. And that Civil War of yours. Not really a friendly family gathering, was it?

Why aren´t people running to Europe for freedom and good jobs?

Then look closely to all the refugees that are floating in on Italian and Spanish coasts. All the refugees. All the immigrants. All the Eastern Europeans who are now heading our way. Look closely, and then think again.

I´ll agree that some are, but the majority of the traffic, as it always has been, is coming this way.

Actually: no.
In 1965, there were 14,728,000 immigrants in Europe, compared to 12,695,000 in North America.
In 1975, there were 19,504,000 immigrants in Europe, compared to 15,042,000 in North America.
In 1985, there were 22,959,000 immigrants in Europe, compared to 20,460,000 in North America.
In 1990, there were 25,068,000 immigrants in Europe, compared to 23,895,000 in North America.
I admit, that immigrant groups are more present in the US than in Europe. There are two reasons for that:
1. The US itself is an "immigrant society", whereas Europe is a "native society"
2. Clustering gives immigrant groups a more important role in local politics. The best examples of this are Chinatown (San Francisco), Little Havana (Miami) and Little Italy (New York).

You pointed out the inherent problem with gun control yourself, probably without even seeing it. All the gun control laws in the countries you mentioned were enacted with the public good in mind, and then used by dictators, who came much later, to remove firearms completely from the populace. Even when the guns were removed from the people before the dictators came to power, it just shows that the government did not allow thier citizens to be prepared for that eventuality, and did thier people a great disservice.

Castro and his rebels were cheered on and aided by most of the population of Cuba, who were tired of the Batista regime, so thier having guns wouldn´t have stopped Castro, because they didn´t want to shoot him. Castro was an idealist at the beginning, I believe he truly thought he was trying to help people.

You miss Hitler in that area. Hitler won the elections fair and square, you can't deny that. Guns wouldn't have changed anything about that.

I disagree that a can of coca cola that has been used to commit a homicide is any different than an AK47 that has been used to commit a homicide . They are now both murder weapons. The can of coke in my refrigerator and the Remington 12 gauge in my gun cabinet are also the same,

And how were you planning to kill someone with a can of coca cola? Throw it against someone's head?

they are both inanimate objects that require a human to exploit them to thier fullest potential. Do you know why "gun rights advocates" compare guns to other inanimate objects? Because guns are inanimate objects!

This is the favourite game of gun rights advocates: wordplay.
When someone says: "Guns kill people," they say: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Okay, fair enough. "People use guns to kill people." "No," gun rights advocates say, "people use bullets to kill people, not guns." "Okay, people use bullets to kill people." "No," they say, "bullets have to be shot in order to kill someone." "Ok, still fair enough. People use guns to shoot bullets in order to kill people." "No," they say, "it can also be used to shoot a piece of wood." All this frivolous wordplay is no argument whatsoever. It drives the attention away from the nucleus of the issue: guns are murder weapons. That is just a plain fact. And yes, not the only murder weapons, but still murder weapons. And as such, very dangerous (to say the least) when ending up in the wrong hands. Which is easier than some may think in "the gun bazar" (as one Al Qaeda detainee in Guantanoma Bay called it) America is.

Only 8% of the 6.3 million serious violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault, involved a firearm according to the FBI over at the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. What other inanimate objects were used to commit those crimes? Knives, Baseball bats, cans of soda? So, if there were no guns tommorrow, 5.8 million rapes and sexual assaults, robberies, and aggravated and simple assaults would still happen this year. You just can´t legislate away human nature.

May I remind you, that, as I said before, in every single European country, "inanimate objects" such as knives or baseball bats are illegal for improper use. Playing baseball (which is a very tiny sport here, but nvm) is not illegal, carrying a baseball bat in a demonstration is. Using a meat knife to prepare food is not illegal (besides in the rare event of cannibalism ofcourse), going e.g. to the jewellery carrying a meat knife is.

What problems will restricting firearms solve? I mean really, what will making it harder for me to legally purchase a gun help with? Criminals, by thier very nature, break laws (they probably wouldn´t be criminals if they didn´t). So, what is making more laws, that only me and you and people like us obey, supposed to fix?

There are several kinds of gun-related deaths. In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the US.
Firstly, there are gun-related accidents, such as the example I mentioned of a 3-year old girl playing with a gun, accidentally shooting dead her mother. In 1999, gun-related accidents took 824 lives in the US. Stricter gun laws won't eliminate all of these deaths, but will certainly reduce the number.
Secondly, there are shooters "in spite of". These are the criminals you were referring to. They will kill anyway, regardless of the legislation. Stricter gun legislation may reduce the number of deaths caused by this group, but it probably won't be significantly.
Thirdly, there are shooters "because of". These are the individuals that shoot because of the availibility of guns. If gun laws had been stricter or better enforced, these individuals wouldn't have gotten hold of firearms and therefore wouldn't have shot. The best known category in this group is the category of school shooters. Almost every single school shooter starts the killing spree because of an easy availibility of guns. Stricter gun laws and better law enforcement will definitely reduce the number of lives taken by "shooters because of".
The most well-known kind of gun-related deaths is suicide. These people can only be stopped by treatment or better understanding or whatever.

For more information about the dangers of (almost) unlimited gun possession for children, check this study by the Harvard School of Public Health (http://www.joycefdn.org/spotlight/hsphstudy.html). For more information about the US compared to other industrial nations, check this study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html)

[Phreakmeister]

They are easily smuggled into western europe from the east despite all the laws.

Well, they don't have to be, because over here, we have a policy which is, I admit, stricter than on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Guns are not illegal, guns are concealed. In order to get a permit, one has to show the ability to load and unload, charge and decharge a weapon (pardon me if I use the wrong words here, English is not my first language), take apart and reconstruct the weapon (what matters is that it is done safely, not perfectly or quickly), shoot, use the aiming equipment and master the direction of shooting and "backlash" (again, it's safety that counts, not precision). Valid reasons for application are: self defence (sounds familiar?), shooting for sport, hunting, professional activity (security, private detective, etc.) and other reasons (e.g. heritage, remembrance, financial investment, personal interest, etc.). The applicant will have his/her criminal record (if existent) inquired, his/her mental state of mind and his/her connections with violent/militant political organizations.

What you were saying, was (and is): "Innocent until proven guilty. As long as people are law-abiding, let them keep their guns." I have already said, that when people show, that they are not law-abiding, it's already too late. If you wait for people to use a firearm to kill, before you act, it's already too late. But that's not the issue here. You already said, that cars can be seen as deadly weapons as well. Looking at your statement about gun possession ("Innocent until proven guilty"), I have one question for you:
What would you do in the following case:
1. Let someone drive a car, no questions asked, and if (s)he causes an accident, take away the car
2. Let someone get a drivers' licence, only after having proven to be able to handle a car, and then let him/her drive a car.
In other words: we have this neat system of drivers' licences for cars (I know, for the drivers, but let's not get into that now). Why not have the same system for firearms as well?

To my mind, all of the "statistics" are nonsense,

I won't say a word......

We have an armed society, and personally I find that to be a VERY good thing.

May I draw from that sentence the conclusion that you find the opposite (an unarmed society, such as the rest of the world, some places excluded) a very bad thing?

The only hope that we have in cutting down on senseless gun deaths is education. Not the PC bull$hit in state schools, but real education in the safe and proficient use of guns.

Well, that may help in some cases, but not in the case of gun accidents and of "shooters because of".

Your arguments are fun and your statements are thought provoking

The feeling's entirely mutual

Criminals ignore the laws which are passed, only good people are intimidated.

As said before: criminal won't significantly be stopped with this gun law. But "shooters because of" will be.

As far as the different types of rights, we can have all kinds of wild debates about them and never reach a conclusion. But from the simplest point of view, what gives anybody the right to take something away from me. If I´m standing in a spot, a spot that belongs to me, and I have a gun in my hand, and I have not nor am not doing anything with the gun besides holding, then what right does anybody have to take the gun away from me?

Who's talking about you here? Noone. This is not about people like you, this is about the morons in society. Which there are. In any society. Including the US. Not everyone with a gun is a moron, but there are morons in the possession of guns. And they are too grave a danger to be ignored.

If I want to shoot the gun on my spot, at my spot which I am standing, then what right does anybody have to stop me?

Self-defence?

So no matter the definition of rights and wether or not you base your beliefs on natural rights or God given rights, then we still have the right to own or keep objects. Guns are.

We can have all kinds of philosophical debates and discussions about the nature of objects, but you make one mistake: natural laws, in any way, shape or form, draw back to nature. Man-made objects (whether it's a car, a newspaper, a gun, a book, glasses, anything) are made by mankind, sooner or later in evolution. No matter how valid these rights are, they belong to the human world, not to the natural world.

Now if you use the gun, or any object, to force my will upon another and take what is theirs, either their objects or life, then that is the point at which I may be punished.

Exactly. And it's those who do that we are talking about.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Further, while I will concede that you have a right to hold and express your beliefs, I find your overly enthusiastic defense of history´s most oppressive and murderous totalitarian regimes and the political machinations that enabled them, to be repugnant.

Your discussions thus far seem to reveal an overt admiration for political strategies and tactics that have, in every case of their real world application, resulted in the enslavement of helpless populations and to documented governmental attempts at genocide.

I do not, in any way, shape or form, applaud to any of the dictators you've mentioned so far. In fact, I do not applaud to any dictator whatsoever, but then again, "one man's dictator is another man's hero." I do think Castro isn't all that bad, but he's certainly not good either. In theory, I support his ideals. Too bad he doesn't live up to the ideals he had in 1958. Cuba is not paradise on earth, all the boat refugees show that something there is horribly wrong, but it sure is a lot better than Khmer, Nazi-Germany, Iraq, North Korea, China, etc. I do find Fidel Castro a major improvement compared to Fulgencio Batista. But then again, it doesn't take all that much to be better than Batista. I find monsters like Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler repugnant. I come from a WW2 resistance family, which I am very proud of (insofar as it can be something I personally can be proud of).

I share your revulsion over dictatorial regimes. Then why my reactions? Easy.
The relationship you stated to exist between the presence of guns in society and the rise of dictatorial regimes, and to present an absence of guns as the cause for dictators to grab power, is a gross distortion of history. There are dictators in gun-ridden societies (Saddam for instance), there are dictators in gun-free societies (Fidel Castro), there are gun-ridden democracies (Switzerland, the US), there are gun-free democracies (European Union). Dictatorships have arisen in gun-free societies (Pol Pot), dictatorships have arisen in gun-ridden societies (Taleban). Dictators have disarmed the population (Idi Amin), dictators have armed the population (Mobutu). Suggesting any link between political/democracy policies and firearms policies is wrong. There is no link.

Are you a recent graduate of a public school, or what?

Actually: no, thank you.

We are not them, who commits the most crimes in this country? The black underclass, there I said it. Now, I know what you´re thinking "Ohmygosh, slick´s a racist", but I´m really not, I´m a realist.

1. The fact is that every ethnic group has its shady personalities, but that does not result in the listing of any and all members of a group as having criminal intent.

2. No, I don't think you're a racist. If those figures are true. And do you have any scientific/statistic proof to share with us?

3. You know what is even more damaging to every single country in the world? White-collar crime. Corruption, nepotism, etc.

4. Research shows that blacks comprise 62.7% and whites 36.7% of all drug offenders admitted to state prison, even though federal surveys and other data clearly show that this racial disparity hardly bears any relation to racial differences in drug offending. There are, for example, five times more white drug users than black. Relative to population, black men are admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of white men. In large part because of the extraordinary racial disparities in incarceration for drug offenses, blacks are incarcerated for all offenses at 8.2 times the rate of whites. 1 in every 20 black men over the age of 18 in the US is in state or federal prison, compared to 1 in 180 white men. In 7 states blacks constitute between 80 and 90% of all drug offenders sent to prison. In at least 15 states, black men are admitted to prison on drug charges at rates that are from 20 to 57 times greater than those of white men. These racial disparities in drug offenders admitted to prison skew the racial balance of state prison populations. In 2 states, one in every 13 black men is in prison. In 7 states, blacks are incarcerated at more than 13 times the rate of whites. You don't tell me, that black people are thàt much more criminal than white people.

Look at the prison populations,

See previous comment

Blacks commit more crimes than anyone else in this country, they are also the victims of the most crime in this country.

Proof please.

How many of those countries you try to compare to ours have huge black underclasses, seething with anger at imagined (or maybe unimagined, I haven´t decided yet) injustices.

Great Britain, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, just to name a few.

The government created this problem, with the welfare state.Claiming the states check can replace daddy is a disaster. I would probably take free money, too, if everyone around me had been raised on it.

What the f*** does supporting the unemployed and the elderly have to do with crime rates???

Look at the cities with the highest crime rates in the country, besides having the strictest gun control, they also have the largest black populations. That´s what we need to fix, but can´t, because it would not be politically correct for us to admit it.

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report of 1999 (http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/data/city1999.htm) (quite a reliable source, I would say), the city in the US with the highest crime rate in 1999 was West Palm Beach, Florida. Second on the list is Miami Beach, Florida. Third on the list is St. Louis, Missouri. The entire top 10 looks like this:
1 West Palm Beach (Florida)
2 Miami Beach (Florida)
3 St. Louis (Missouri)
4 Orlando (Florida)
5 Atlanta (Georgia)
6 Monroe (Louisiana)
7 Tuscaloosa (Alabama)
8 Fort Myers (Florida)
9 Kent (Washington)
10 Kansas City (Missouri)
Florida, Missouri, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama and Washington all have very non-rigid gun laws. And as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), only St. Louis, Orlando, Atlanta and Kansas City have significant black communities.
What about the big cities?
23 Miami-Dade (Florida)
27 Detroit (Michigan)
42 Dallas (Texas)
57 Seattle (Washington)
79 Minneapolis (Minnesota)
84 Oakland (California)
85 Memphis (Tennessee)
93 Portland (Oregon)
94 Chicago (Illinois)
95 Washington DC
102 Milwaukee (Wisconsin)
121 Phoenix (Arizona)
122 New Orleans (Louisiana)
144 Philadelphia (Pennsylvania)
145 Houston (Texas)
153 Austin (Texas)
173 San Antonio (Texas)
180 Cleveland (Ohio)
209 Cincinnati (Ohio)
216 Boston (Massachusetts)
257 San Francisco (California)
284 Indianapolis (Indiana)
289 Denver (Colorado)
308 Anchorage (Alaska)
323 Honolulu (Hawaii)
349 Los Angeles (California)
424 New York City (New York)
427 San Diego (California)
512 Anaheim (California)
581 San Jose (California)
The total list features the 718 cities in the US of population 40,000 and above.

[RayH]

There are plenty of gun laws on the books. All that is necessary is to enforce the existing laws.

In times past, a felon in possession of a firearm was considered a "minor offense." But in California, it's a "STRIKE." You need no BS about whether or not the firearm was stolen or just found in my couch. A convicted felon in possession gets locked up big time.

[Phreakmeister]

Mother Of All Mom Marches Can Stifle Gun Lobby
by Jesse Jackson Sr

When mothers speak, wise men and women listen.

Today, Mother's Day, hundreds of thousands of mothers -- across lines of race, religion and region -- will join the Million Mom March for sensible gun control. Their message, like the wisdom mothers have dispensed for generations, is plain and powerful: guns are killing too many in this country. The time for excuses, delay, or inaction is over. We need to take steps now to get guns off the streets and out of the hands of people who should not have them.

Not since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy were shot, have so many been so united in this cause. The thousands who will march in Washington and across the country on this Mother's Day are speaking out not for a dream, but for an end to the nightmare of gun violence.

The mothers are calling for action: licensing and registration to ensure that gun owners have safety training and cannot sell guns to children, criminals or the dangerously disturbed.

They want gun safety measures like gunlocks on every gun sold. They want an end to political doublespeak. They don't accept the gun lobby's false claim that instead of new laws, we need better law enforcement, better parenting, and better schooling. The mothers don't think these are choices. They want measures that will bring guns under control -- licensing and registration, and better enforcement and better education and moral instruction.

Nothing is more painful than to lose a child. Nothing can shake one's faith more than to have an innocent child killed by a stray bullet. The mothers call the names where children have been lost -- Flint, Columbine, Jonesboro, the National Zoo -- and say that we have not done enough to keep guns out of the hands of kids.

Ask your mother whether it makes sense that a convicted felon like Buford Forrow, Jr., the white supremacist who fired on the children at day camp in Grenada Hills, California, was able to buy deadly weapons at a flea market. Explain to your mother why we license and register drivers and cars, but don't demand the same when it comes to gun buyers and guns.

The National Rifle Association has just about convinced politicians that by posing tough on enforcing the law, they can continue to protect guns rather than kids. The mothers are saying clearly that they are not falling for the sham.

A recent, comprehensive study of gun laws in all 50 states reveals that states have many laws against the illegal use of guns, but almost no laws to keep guns from those who should not have them in the first place. A grieving mother gets little solace from prosecuting the child who shot her child. Thirty-five states lack any form of licensing or registration, making it impossible to track guns as they are resold with no questions asked.

Against the gun lobby's disinformation, the mothers are asking people to look at reality.

Today in America, it is too easy to get a gun without a license. Today, in America, 80 of us will lose our lives to gun violence -- wrong place, wrong time victims, unlocked and loaded in the house victims, neighbor killing neighbor victims, drive-by shooting victims. Today in America, gun violence will claim the lives of 12 -- the same number as those massacred at Columbine High School -- and will do so every single day. Today, in America, mothers are saying it is time to act.

The mothers could just make the difference. For years, a broad majority of Americans have supported sensible gun control. But a mobilized minority spearheaded by the NRA with its big money politics and hardball tactics has blocked progress. Now mothers are saying that they expect action and will hold politicians accountable.

When mothers began to move against drunk driving, politicians learned to ignore the liquor lobby and listen to their constituents. Now the politicians may learn to ignore the gun lobby and listen to their mothers.

I counsel those who have lost loved ones. I know that there is no greater sorrow than a mother grieving for a lost child, or a child weeping for a lost mother. And there is no greater shame than a society that puts its mothers and its children at needless risk because it won't take common sense steps to control guns.

Today, mothers across the country are calling upon us to move beyond posturing and politics. They call upon us to take action to protect the children. Surely, it is time to listen.


Jesse L. Jackson is president of the National Rainbow Coalition.

[sinecure]

So, it's the Moron Mothers against he Evil NRA.... according to rhymin' Jesse Jackson, huh?

Hmmm, you don't suppose the reason that the NRA has so much power be because membership is in the millions? And because those millions are the ones most likely to vote? And because politicians are SUPPOSED to do the will of those who elect them? Therefore we, as members of the NRA, decide what the laws will be? Nahhh, that can't be it. :wink


You guys seem to like quotes... here you go--no thinking required.--

"The weak, and those unwilling to make the struggle, soon resign their liberties for the protection of powerful men or paid armies; they begin by being protected, they end by being subjected."
William Brunetti

"There are two kinds of people in this world: those with guns, and those at their mercy."
Effernick Cart le Shaster

"Debates are for people who care what others have to say... In other words, for those without the guts to shoot the SOB who disagrees with them."
Alphonse Capone

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."
Benjamin Franklin

:lol Now, while SOME of those quotes were manufactured just for this post, they have as much truth to them as any other.:wink

People ask me why I carry a gun on my person in public, and why at home I'm seldom further than an arm's reach away from a gun. I smile and tell them, "It's for the children."

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Every person individually. Depending on how you interpret the possession of a man-made object, gun-possession is either a positive or negative right. Positive rights require a certain action, negative rights require the lack of such an action.

Not much time,but:

So basically it is what ever the individual defines.This meands your post is nothing but a personal opinion and carries no more weight than i feel or I think so.

Well,you opinion is no more valed than anyone elses so your positive negative thing is just a lot of relative hot air.



To enslave also means: to bring into servitude. In other words: let them work. And let's face it: if you go to a hospital, you let a doctor work.

Bull.you are confussing to employ with enslave.No one is forcing the doctors to do anything they do not wish to.They can leave the profession any time they like.





You miss Hitler in that area. Hitler won the elections fair and square, you can't deny that. Guns wouldn't have changed anything about that.

HUH?You were the one claiming hitler could not be put in that catagorie.I did not and the ones I used fit.So now you complain that I did not add hitler so you coulsd say I was wrong?????????????????
What is this fetish you have with hitler?

[DEAD ZONE]

For more information about the US compared to other industrial nations, check this study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

I find this rather amussing.The site given is actually a pro gun cite that posts this in order to refute it.You apparently were unaware that this study is blantatly false and misleadding.

America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western," "industrialized," or "advanced" nation. Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?. . .Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise.


Your referenced article appeared in :
* AP article originally featured in CNN interactive U.S. news

* Los Angeles Times, "Chicago Sues Gun Makers and Sellers", p 1, Nov. 13, 1998

* 1997-98 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center, p 2 (citing two newspapers and the United Nations Study on Firearms Regulation)


"Gun death" statistics are frequently cited, in the manner above, to strongly suggest that guns are the cause behind the high violent death rate in the U.S. As in the case of the Los Angeles Times article, no mention is made that over half of those violent deaths are suicides. The CNN article mentions gun homicides and gun suicides, but fails to show us the total violent death rate of other countries, not just gun deaths. For example, in Japan, where gun ownership is rare, its total suicide rate is higher than our total suicide rate.

Combining gun suicide and homicide deaths creates a sensational comparison with other countries, but only clouds and distorts the many factors actually behind violent death rates. Looking at only gun deaths, it is easy to get the false impression that, because of guns, the United States is the most violent country on earth.

Rather than being the "league leader" in violent death rates, as the sensational and misleading media reports suggest when focusing exclusively on guns, though the U.S. is still high, its violent death rate is not orders of magnitude higher than other countries.

see here: http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

The "gun death" statistic is seldom referenced within its proper perspective and context. Also rare is the article that mentions the number of lives saved through defensive gun use and that our homicide rate is at a thirty year low and still declining

see; http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

and http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
The FBI site you praised.

Inequality and Violent Crime - A paper from the Journal of Law and Econmics (April 2002) concluding that income inequality has a significant and positive effect on the incidence of crime.

Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis - Another paper from the Journal of Law and Econmics (October 2002) concluding that "results suggest a role for drug prohibition enforcement in explaining cross-country differences in violence, and they provide an alternative explanation for some of the apparent effects of gun control/availability on violence rates."

[DEAD ZONE]

So every country where gun control is enacted, is a dictatorship and every country where gun rights are respected, to put it that way, is free? Then how come, as I said before, Europe (gun control) be so democratic


Being "so democratic" is not a virtue, Phreak. As my friend Michael Z. Williamson said, "Democracy is more dangerous than fire; fire can´t vote itself immune to water." True "democracy" is mob rule.

Even worse than "mob rule" is a society built up on a "the mob rules" mentality but set up such that whimsical dictates are passed off by government wholly above the mob. Take, for example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair´s new proclamation that he´s authorizing the banning of chewing gum to fix the so-called "scourge of anti-social behaviour."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,12188,823892,00.html
[NOTE: I tried twice to make that URL work, to no avail. Maybe the comma gives our computer gremlins gas. Make sure you copy the whole thing to your browser if you want to read about Tony Blair the Dictator -- comment on it in the 11/2/2002 Newslinks.]

While it´s highly unlikely that even the ruling mob of "voters" would agree to such a thing -- banning chewing gum -- it´s also quite clear that even things as simple as chewing gum are under the sheer dominating control of government.

You may find that people around here hold little respect for "democracy" when "democracy" seeks to step outside the boundaries defined within the painstakingly crafted documents that are the foundation of American government. The Bill of Rights was not and is not a request; we don´t really concern ourselves with whether or not people think the rights explicitly covered in the Bill of Rights are "negative" or "positive" so much as we care that they are honored.

To punctuate the point on "democracy," please contemplate the fact that Adolf Hitler was voted into power as you yourself keep saying. You may even have other tales in your memory banks about how people voted for something that turned out rather poorly -- for the affected people, and for Liberty. Suffice it to say that enough ignorant masses will vote for anything they are programmed to vote for -- whether that programming happens in schools, through media channels, through books written by blatant liars like Michael Bellesiles, etc.

I believe it was James Bovard who said, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what have for dinner." But it isn´t much more than that when you get right down to it -- a mob will vote for anything the individuals within the mob collectively desire... even if their desires are explicitly off limits under The law.

Another applicable quote: "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." --Edward R. Murrow

People who promote that our nation is a "democracy" are not only wrong, they are purveyors of a dark lie whose strength grows, with each passing year, by the ignorance of its promoters.

Socialists like those in Britain cry out for democracy, because even as dysfunctional and immoral a form of government as it is, it´s still better than the gum-banning system of government to which they ignorantly and obediently pay hommage. And as for the true dictatorships like Iraq, where democracy looks like a dream come true -- pity them, for one day they may get what they ask for.

Basic, individual rights must be at the core of any governmental system that wishes to profess a love of true freedom. The rest are at best con artists, and more likely are the near ancestors of future executioners.

[DEAD ZONE]

As for the harvard study.

Its not convincing at all.

The lead researcher, Dr. Matthew Miller, said the study could not definitively prove that increased gun ownership alone was linked to the childhood fatalities. But the researchers said other factors were unable to account for the differences.

This is bull.Where is the Regresion analysis reauired to make such a statement?

Regression analysis is based on the idea that, if a number of different things each partially cause or prevent some result of interest, the relationships between all the things and the result can be represented by an algebraic equation the different parts of which can be determined given enough sets of data on the various things. The equation would be like:

C0 + CxX + CyY + CzZ + etc. = RESULT

Some of the factors included in actual analyses are likely to be logarithms, squares, square roots or other mathematical functions of the actual factors for which correlation is being tested. This is done because the relationships between those factors and the end effect are not linear, so using the mathematical functions permit the analysis to be more accurate.


They have none and therefore it is an opinion based on bias and nothing but a propaganda sheet.

They took 5 of the wealthiest states and 5 of the poorest and compared apples to oranges.


?The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns,? they wrote, ?is not entirely explained by a state?s poverty, education or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal non-firearm violence.?

see abovbe.

The researchers looked at children from 5 to 14 in 50 states from 1988 to 1997. They also compared death rates in the five states having the most gun ownership?Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia?with the five states having the lowest ownership rates?Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

The two groups of states have about the same number of children, the researchers said. The first group had 253 accidental firearm deaths among the young. The second had 16. In the same period, there were 153 child suicides by gun in the first group and 22 in the second. For homicides, the numbers were 298 and 66, with killings that did not involve guns about the same for the two groups.

[b]A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.

The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).
For a clearer perspective:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no20/vo12no20_guns.htm

The CDC is known for its anti gun biased studies.At one point they were threatened with loss of fundding because of it.

Besides,Gun deaths are hard to have WITHOUT A GUN.

Death in general is not.

Having a bathtub in your home dramatically increases your odds of dieing in it.

Having a pool dramatically increases your odds of being drowned in it.

Having an automobile dramatically increases your odds of dieing in an accident.

Having natural gas appliances in your home dramatically increase the odds of you being burned to death.

Need we continue?


As for my sources for PERCENTAGES of black v. whites and crime:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Being "so democratic" is not a virtue, Phreak.

Not calling it a virtue. Not calling it a fault either.
What I was trying to do, is counter your statement, that guns are necessary to save democracy. If this were true, an absence of guns would create autocracies. I'm not trying to pretend that Europe is paradise on earth, because it's not. Just like the Old World has its good sides, it has its bad sides. Just like every single other region and continent in the world. But despite its faults and demerits, Europe still is quite free and democratic, certainly in comparison to other regions on this planet. Which shouldn't have been possible, if your thesis that guns are necessary to save democracy were true.

True "democracy" is mob rule.

True. The only way to have true democracy, is to have a parliament made up of every single citizen. In the US, this would mean 230 million people (how many people in the US currently have voting rights?) in parliament. That is impossible. The only time there was true democracy was in ancient Athens, and that could only be achieved by denying voting rights to women, immigrants, slaves, etc. True democracy is an illusion.

Take, for example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair´s new proclamation that he´s authorizing the banning of chewing gum to fix the so-called "scourge of anti-social behaviour."

What chewing gum has to do with anti-social behaviour is beyond me, but other than that, the plan isn't all that bad. First of all, chewing gum is dangerous to animal welfare. Chewing gum pollutes the cities. "And if I wanna see chewing camels, I'll visit a zoo, thank you very much." But that discussion is irrelevant to all that. That is for another thread, time, place, whatever.

You may find that people around here hold little respect for "democracy" when "democracy" seeks to step outside the boundaries defined within the painstakingly crafted documents that are the foundation of American government.

What do you personally see as the boundaries of government action?

The Bill of Rights was not and is not a request; we don´t really concern ourselves with whether or not people think the rights explicitly covered in the Bill of Rights are "negative" or "positive" so much as we care that they are honored.

So do I. But you called gun possession a "natural right". Which (how many times have I said this so far?) it isn't. Gun possession is either a positive or a negative right, depending on your viewpoint, but not a natural right. But I immediately admit that such philosophic and semantic discussions are irrelevant to the discussion itself.

To punctuate the point on "democracy," please contemplate the fact that Adolf Hitler was voted into power as you yourself keep saying. You may even have other tales in your memory banks about how people voted for something that turned out rather poorly -- for the affected people, and for Liberty.

I immediately agree with you. But whatever your views are on Hitler, you have to give even him some credits. He did manage to get the German economy out of the recession, he was the first German politician who talked the language of the people. I hate his viewpoints from the bottom of my heart, but I can understand why people supported him

Suffice it to say that enough ignorant masses will vote for anything they are programmed to vote for

You don't have to say that to someone from the country of Pim Fortuyn :wink

blatant liars like Michael Bellesiles, etc.

I've read a little about him, but pardon my ignorance. Explanation required please.

Socialists like those in Britain cry out for democracy, because even as dysfunctional and immoral a form of government as it is

You mean democracy is dysfunctional and immoral? Or socialism?

And as for the true dictatorships like Iraq, where democracy looks like a dream come true -- pity them, for one day they may get what they ask for.

Well, let's be honest: it still beats Saddam...

[DEAD ZONE]

I immediately agree with you. But whatever your views are on Hitler, you have to give even him some credits. He did manage to get the German economy out of the recession, he was the first German politician who talked the language of the people. I hate his viewpoints from the bottom of my heart, but I can understand why people supported him

And as the saying goes,even a busted clock is right at least twice a day.

Musalinie{?} got the trains running on time.

Belesilles:

Its common knowledge here the phony "history" that anti-gun professor Michael Bellesiles dreamed up about early America. Now he's leaving Emory University in disgrace because even leftist academia couldn't stomach his lies.

A three-person committee composed of scholars from Harvard, Princeton and the University of Chicago found that Bellesiles' work showed "evidence of falsification," "egregious misrepresentation" and "exaggeration of data," the Washington Times reported today.

"[H]is scholarly integrity is seriously in question," the panel concluded in its 40-page report.

Bellesiles' 2-year-old book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," contradicted historical scholarship by claiming that Americans in colonial times and the early 1800s had few guns.

Look Who's Inventing

"America's gun culture is an invented tradition," wrote Bellesiles, grinding his ax in full view.

Foes of the Second Amendment to the Constitution lapped it up, but scholars pointed out that he made it up.

His thesis hinged on probate records that may have listed firearms owned by the deceased. "Every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed," the committee concluded. Bellesiles "appears not to have been systematic in selecting repositories or collections of probate records for examination, and his recording methods were at best primitive and altogether unsystematic."


There is a load of info on him. Try here for one.Pan down to ARMING AMERICA

http://www.claytoncramer.com/unpublished.htm

And as for guns being soley mueder weaopns.Thats another untruth.I have owned them since I was 8.Never murder anyone.

The only purpose of a gun is to kill. This is the basic principle underlying much of the gun control lobby's arguments and is used to justify some of the statistical manipulations they perform in order to support their case. Unfortunately for the gun control lobby, they are wrong. There are many people who buy guns with the intention of never using them to kill. Some people like to collect guns, especially those representing a specific era or time. Other people enjoy "plinking" or recreational shooting at non-living targets just as other people enjoy the practice of archery without every going bow-hunting or bow-fishing. Still other people like to shoot competitively. Some enjoy taking part in historical reenactments that involve firearms. Let us not forget those who purchase firearms purely for the purpose of protecting themselves. Many people are quite content to drive off an attacker using the mere display of a firearm, without ever actually firing it. There are many legitimate reasons for owning a gun that have nothing to do with killing.A gun is a tool used to shoot projectiles. What you shoot the projectiles at determines if there is any killing done. Your teeth were designed to tear flesh (and kill?) too BTW. A hammer can build homes or crush skulls.
I shoot more ammo in a month than all the crooks in all the crimes in this whole town (pop 500,000) do all year. Haven't killed a thing.
"[Knowledge is neither good nor evil, but takes its character from how it is used.] In like manner, weapons defend the lives of those who wish to live peacefully, and they also, on many occasions kill [murder] men, not because of any wickedness inherent in them but because those who wield them do so in an evil way."

Muerder and killing are not the same anyway.

[DEAD ZONE]

Mother Of All Mom Marches Can Stifle Gun Lobby
by Jesse Jackson Sr

That clown is is a "publicity whore" and NO ONE with any working brain cells should listen to what he has to say. He will do or say anything to get his name in the headlines.

You should read a little more about the Million Morons March, how peacefull they are. They maybe the media darlings but they are far from angels. Check on their activities during the Philadelphia Convention.


this guy is a known race baiter and manipulater.You will not win any points using him.It just hurts your case.He is a joke.ROFL.

Blatant Hypocrisy: Examples

Million Moms For Vigilante Shootings, in Washington DC where handguns are banned.

One Million Mom March member, Barbara Graham (Lipscomb, Martin), joined the MMM because her son was killed "by a gun." But the MMM fell short and she took the law into her own hands by shooting (with a handgun of course) the man, Kikko Smith, she thought killed her son. Police seized
four guns, including a TEC-9 sub-machine gun, from her house. [Horrors! An arsenal!! And did she pay her $200 tax on the machine gun? And were they all registered as required by law in
Washington DC?] http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40501-2000Jul13.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/metaksa/metaksa09-28-00p.htm

By the way, the man she shot is paralyzed for life - and didn't kill her son. And other Million Moms are backing her at the trial(!) [For possessing illegal and even banned guns in Washington,
DC? For shooting someone who she thought killed her son? For helping to reduce gun violence?Just what do the Million Moms support? Censorship and vandalism? Illegal lobbying by a tax-exempt organization?]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37911-2001Jan23.html

She's been convicted (but this story conveniently neglects to remind the reader of her Million Mom affiliation): http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15185-2001Feb1.html

the so-called Million Moms was founded by Donna Dees-Thomases, a former who didn't lose any loved ones to guns, and in fact is the sister of Susan Thomases, a Hillary Clinton confidante, a she is also a former publicist of Dan Rather, exposing the Million Moms as a political entity and not an upwelling of grassroots outcry.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/metaksa/metaksa09-28-00.htm
They deal in Lie. Education is not the same as deceit and propaganda. Repeating lies such as the "13 kids a day" and "43 times more likely to kill family than intruder," long after they have been discredited does not count as education. (For example, the gunfree.org website gives the 43-to-1 stat on its "junk gun"
"fact" sheet: http://www.gunfree.org/content/resources/resc_pubpolicy_junkguns.html) Fact: Of all the academics who have switched sides in the gun control debate after having studied the issue,
every single one has switched to the pro-rights position, even some who were die-hard "gun
control" supporters who wanted to prove their case scientifically, by conducting a study themselves:
Gary Kleck, John Lott ... some of the most ardent "gun control" opponents, began as supporters
but then switched sides.

Let's take a look at the "education" that comes from the Million Moms, from the Violence Policy Center, from Handgun Control Inc, from the Bell Campaign, from JoinTogether, from the Silent March, and see if the terms they choose ring true as Education? or Propaganda?

carry permit: "license to kill"
the gun culture: "the gun cult"
firearm gifts: "straw purchases"
scoped deer rifles: "sniper rifles"
private seller: "unlicensed dealer"
50 cal. rifles: "military sniper rifles"
self-defense advocate: "right-wing extremist" 18-20 year-old gun owners: "kids with guns" mandatory purchase delays: "cooling-off periods" unwilling to capitulate: "unwilling to compromise" 75,000 people on the D.C. mall: "the Million Moms" armor-piercing or steel-core ammo: "cop-killer bullets"
http://Keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=404 total prohibition on currently legal firearms: "gun control" military-pattern semiautomatic firearms: "assault weapons" (Unless carried by Black Panthers - then, they're "rifles.") generally declining youth violence: "gun violence epidemic" inexpensive handguns: "Saturday night specials," "junk guns" full- or normal-capacity magazines: "high-capacity magazines" 19 year old legal adults: "kids," "children" (as in 12 "kids" a day) licensed gun dealers who lack a storefront: "kitchen table dealers" gun shows: "tupperware parties for criminals," "illegal arms bazaars" instantly creating thousands of armed, paper criminals: "reducing crime" use of taxpayer money to fence and destroy stolen firearms: "gun buy-backs" Dan Rather's publicist and Hillary Clinton's lawyer's sister: "Just an ordinary Mom" Glock pistols with multiple ounces of steel in the slide: "undetectable plastic guns"
http://Keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=404
15-year-old inner city gang members with multiple violent felony arrests: "kids," "children"

All of the above uses of words in quotes: "education"

A few ten thousand people become the "Million Mom March," and are heroines for "fighting the good fight" - but four million Americans as NRA members, working to protect our heritage are a scary "special interest group."
Here and here are "educational" "fact" sheets issued by the Violence Policy Center - edited for truthfulness. Here's another:
http://Keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=812 Here is the take by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons on the VPC's report.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm "A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns and Self-Defense."



Guns are inanimate objects that do not walk around and kill people on their own. This seems too stupid to bother pointing out - but some people just don't get it. For example, here's one right here: http://209.25.215.117/gun/guns_watch.html
Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell for being fat, or blaming Jim Beam or Chevrolet for drunk drivers, or the Zippo Corporation for arson.
MADD goes after criminals - drunk drivers - and not certain models of cars or brands of drinks. This is implicit acknowledgement that cars don't kill people, people kill people. Behaviors like firearms murder are already criminal - why isn't this good enough? Guns also save people, and gun control kills people. Setting the issue of rights aside, intellectual honesty requires considering whether guns in America are a net benefit or a net liability, not just considering the costs in the absence of the benefits. (Returning rights to the question forces one to consider the possibility that freedom, even if measurably less safe in the short term than serfdom, might still be preferable.)

One more thing about guns being just a murder weapon.If the only purpose of guns is to kill then why do on-duty cops carry them? Is it because their
duty is to go around killing people? (Do they have quotas?) Or because they are effective crime deterrents and self-defense devices?
Not all killings are homicides, and not all homicides are murders. Grizzly bears which think you are lunch, or a rabid raccoon or the neighbors nasty pit bulls which live to maul you to death http://www.newsday.com/news/daily/dogs129.htm might be justifiably shot. Murderers, or terrorists threatening to kill hostages, or rapists who have had their way with your wife and are now heading for your daughters (damn trigger lock!!) are legally justifiable to kill. Thus, that guns are made to kill (but not only to kill) is not necessarily evil, necessarily a justification to ban or restrict them. After all, the police aren't the only people who will come across these creatures - and if you don't have a gun, you may likely die. (You might be a pacifist and choose not to kill other beings even at your own peril, but gun control arises out of the motivation to force this belief system on others by disarming them in their cars, at work, or in schools, or by taking away certain types of firearms from them, or their ready access by requiring "safe storage.")

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Musalinie{?} got the trains running on time.

Mussolini*

And as for guns being soley mueder weaopns.Thats another untruth.I have owned them since I was 8.Never murder anyone.

Guns are not solely murder weapons. But let's face it: it is what they were designed for. Guns were not designed to mow the lawn or blowdry your hair, but to eliminate opponents.

There are many people who buy guns with the intention of never using them to kill. Some people like to collect guns, especially those representing a specific era or time. Other people enjoy "plinking" or recreational shooting at non-living targets just as other people enjoy the practice of archery without every going bow-hunting or bow-fishing. Still other people like to shoot competitively. Some enjoy taking part in historical reenactments that involve firearms. Let us not forget those who purchase firearms purely for the purpose of protecting themselves. Many people are quite content to drive off an attacker using the mere display of a firearm, without ever actually firing it.

And these people won't be hurt one single bit by proper gun concealment. Problem is, as said before, that not everyone is like that. The morons in society need to lose their guns, one way or the other.

"they also, on many occasions kill [murder] men, not because of any wickedness inherent in them but because those who wield them do so in an evil way."

And this has to be stopped one way or the other. And if you wait for these people to act before you act, it's way too late.


As I said before: we have this neat little system of drivers' licences for cars. Why not have the same system for guns?

[DEAD ZONE]

As for those coming here v. there.Your numbers are misleadding.If an albanian who cant afford passage to the u.s. chooses second best,its still second best.I doubt they will risk the atlantic verses the short ride to europe.Legal imigration and ilegal are 2 seperate things.When you calculate that in,we beat you.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
As for those coming here v. there.Your numbers are misleadding.If an albanian who cant afford passage to the u.s. chooses second best,its still second best.I doubt they will risk the atlantic verses the short ride to europe.Legal imigration and ilegal are 2 seperate things.When you calculate that in,we beat you.

I doubt that. Look at all the illegal immigrants here. In Spain, in Germany, in The Netherlands, everywhere. The US gets its immigrants from Latin America, Europe from all over the world. Look at all the boat refugees. Or do you think Dover was an exception?

[Phreakmeister]

THE WASHINGTON METRO AREA SNIPER SHOOTINGS
Lessons for Sensible Gun Laws

Police have apprehended two individuals in connection with the Sniper attacks that took the lives of 10 people in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and seriously wounded three others. While the investigation continues, it is clear that stronger gun laws would help law enforcement solve gun crimes and help prevent gun violence.

A National Ballistics Database would have provided law enforcement with a vital tool in the sniper investigations, and could have helped to catch the killer before so many people died. The firearm confiscated from the two suspects and forensically linked to the sniper shootings is a new weapon that entered the market earlier this year. If a nationwide ballistic fingerprinting system had existed, police would have been able to trace the bullets to a specific gun. According to the New York Times (October 24, 2002), the gun was a Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle - modeled after the military M-16 - that was sold in June 2002 to a distributor in Washington State. This information was confirmed by Richard Dyke - the chairman and principal owner of Bushmaster, and George W. Bush's former campaign finance chair in Maine. Dyke resigned from the Bush team after the Jewish daycare center shooting in Los Angeles because the shooter had a Bushmaster in his possession.

The background check system needs to be strengthened and we should require background checks for all gun sales to keep prohibited people from falling through the cracks. John Allen Williams (a.k.a. John Allen Mohammad) was subject to a domestic violence restraining order, which makes it illegal for him to own or purchase a firearm. He managed to buy a firearm despite this restraining order. Police need more time to check the backgrounds of dangerous people like this and the records need to be updated and computerized. In addition, we need to ensure that prohibited purchasers like the sniper are not able to buy guns through sales that currently do not require background checks, such as at a gun show or through a newspaper/internet ad.

The federal assault weapon law banning military style semiautomatic weapons needs to be enforced and renewed. The Bushmaster is a copycat assault weapon modeled on the military's M-16 and it should not be sold. In enacting the assault weapon law in 1994, it was clearly the intent of Congress to ban all semi-automatic assault weapons. That's why it banned not only several specific models, but also "copies or duplicates" of those guns. One of the listed models is the Colt AR-15. There is a strong argument that the Bushmaster used by the sniper is a "copy" of the Colt AR-15 and is therefore banned under existing law. If the Bush Administration is serious that existing gun laws need to be vigorously enforced, why has it allowed this gun to be sold? Why is it not using the broadest possible interpretation of the existing statute to enforce the intent of Congress in enacting the ban?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Guns are not solely murder weapons. But let's face it: it is what they were designed for. Guns were not designed to mow the lawn or blowdry your hair, but to eliminate opponents.

No they are not.see previous.Next time you se an olympic shooting event,notice the guns.They were never designed to do more than hit a target.Just like any competative weapon.

Assualt weapons were originally designed to wound not kill.so by you logic they should be allowed because they are not designed to kill.
"Assault rifle" is a term coined in Nazi Germany. Three characteristics define the rifle: (1) They are capable of select-fire, namely, full-auto and/or burst mode, in addition to semi-auto.Civilian versions of military-style assault rifles, for example, the AR-15 which is patterned after the full-auto military M-16, are only semi-auto and therefore not true assault rifles. The media refuses to
understand this distinction. (2) They fire a cartridge of only intermediate power - stronger than handguns, but weaker than, say hunting rifle cartridges. The Nazis found that a killed enemy soldier took one enemy out of the war, but a wounded soldier took out three - because two others were needed to save the injured one's life. Consequently, Nazi Germany created the lower-powered
cartridge in order to incur more woundings and fewer deaths. In other words, and despite the media's incessant description of these "high-power" weapons, true assault rifles were the first firearms ever in history designed not to kill (although they are not nonlethal by any means). (3)Assault rifles are compact carbines, easy to carry, say, while parachuting. Needless to say, this 3-point definition is far from the media's use of the term. The term "assault weapon" was invented by Handgun Control Inc. intentionally to cloud this issue.



And these people won't be hurt one single bit by proper gun concealment. Problem is, as said before, that not everyone is like that. The morons in society need to lose their guns, one way or the other.

Not adressing the issue.It was on the design and purpose of guns.

We have a concealed weapons license already so whats the beef.

"But, we just want to treat guns like cars - licensing, registration, etc."

Car buyers do not face waiting periods, one-a-month purchase limits, and cars have no regulations about how many cylinders they may have, how big the gas tank, or how high their top speed. The duty of obeying traffic laws is up to the driver, and it not imposed on all car owners by crippling all cars to only go the speed limit. And at races, these speed limits are not enforced - even though speed kills and even expert drivers sometimes die
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/motorsports/2001/daytona500/news/2001/02/18/earnhardt_ap/index.html

Licensing and registration is not required for vehicles kept on private property (e.g. tractors), or drivers driving on private property (e.g. the farmer's 10-year old son, driving the tractor on the farm) unlike the proposal for guns which would register everything. Even federal laws like speed limits do not apply on private property. Contrast that with the Davidians who were suspected of violating federal firearms laws on their private property. You can't own a machine gun in public, or in the privacy of your own home, without the feds caring whether you have paid their $200 fine tax. (And, the way they show you that they care is by shooting their way into your house. This is called "serving a warrant" - even when the warrant itself is sitting on a desk back at the office. You can ask the Branch Davidians for clarification of this point.)

Licensing drivers and registering cars doesn't stop speeding, drunk driving, or even the use of cars in bank robberies or drive-by shootings. (However, the types guns often used by drive-by shooters are presently sought to be banned for this very reason. But why aren't there also calls to ban the types of cars favored by drive-by shooters? Both are equally essential in drive-by shootings.)

MADD doesn't support measures which do not apply to convicted drunk drivers - which would be the parallel to the Mom's support of licensing and registration, which have already been held by the Supreme Court to not apply to convicted criminals as described here).

Furthermore, when someone kills or injures another with a car, they do not face seizure of the car (and especially not every car in their garage) and they don't lose their driver's license forever. Some drivers with even multiple drunk driving fatalities on their record continue to have a driver's license and continue to be able to own cars. But someone who injures someone in a firearms accident typically faces temporary loss of all their firearms, and those who accidentally kill often forfeit their Second Amendment rights permanently: For some reason, gun violence is worse than other kinds of violence, a further clue that there is an
agenda at work here. Intentional mass murders with cars don't get the same media coverage as those with guns. Teenager David E. Attias Charged With Murder In Car Deaths
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/27/MN116469.DTL (By the way, this car was registered and the driver was licensed, FWIW.)

Suppose that those suggesting treating guns like cars were actually being honest. What would it
mean?
http://www.reason.com/9911/fe.dk.taking.html
http://www.guncontrolvictories.com/gc_cars.html
http://www.goa-texas.org/potratz-1.htm
Since this is clearly not what they mean, they are lying.

And a drivers license is Not necessaryhere unless you intend to use public roads.Some do not.I drove a truck when I was in grade school on a family farm without one.Training was provided by the parents just as it should be.

The "safety" folks also object the loudest when suggestions to put marksmanship training, hunter safety education, the Eddie Eagle program, and similar firearms classes in schools.
http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/metaksa/2001/metaksa02-15-01.htm But education and training are how to build up safety: in response to traffic accidents, teens are given driver's ed, and children are drilled "look both ways before you cross" rather than banning sports cars from everybody, the parallel to calls to ban semiautomatic firearms. But real gun-ed and "don't touch it" messages are all but prohibited from schools ... in the name of "safety." Or, an insurance company threatens to drop the policy of a school with a firing range (which teaches gun safety to kids) because such is inappropriate in this age of "gun violence!"
http://www.newsobserver.com/ncwire/news/Story/310652p-308630c.html When someone asks about gun "safety," as them if know how to see if a semiautomatic handgun is loaded, and how to unload it, or how to sheck and unload a revolver. Ask them if their children know. Ask them if they know the four essential rules of real gun safety?* Or if their children know.
After all, kids sometimes find guns and then shoot others with them not knowing that the chamber may still be loaded even if the magazine is removed, never mind pointing a gun at another and pulling the trigger! If they clamor for "gun safety" but do not know these things, or if their children do not know these things, remind them to walk the walk before they push their agenda on others.

*Always treat every gun as if it were loaded. (Accidental shootings are usually done with "unloaded" guns.)
Never point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy. (Never, ever, point a gun at someone "as a joke.")
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.

Here's a good example of the value of teaching kids about real gun safety: Teen school shooting victim Josh Ryker was familiar with firearms and recognized when the shooter Kip Kinkel ran empty, and rushed and tackled him at that time to disarm him. Gun-phobic types typically do not advocate teaching children how to recognize when someone's gun runs empty, making the shooter vulnerable.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/shootinghero980524.html
Nazi Germany had, and Red China has, "gun safety." Would you feel safer there? If not, why not? Is there something wrong when only the government has guns?



And this has to be stopped one way or the other. And if you wait for these people to act before you act, it's way too late.


As I said before: we have this neat little system of drivers' licences for cars. Why not have the same system for guns?

see above.

[DEAD ZONE]

May I draw from that sentence the conclusion that you find the opposite (an unarmed society, such as the rest of the world, some places excluded) a very bad thing?


In some cases,yes.In others no.

You asked me earlyer something to the effect of banning or restricting a car or something before any crime was commited.Cant find that question but, i remember my response was ,already given before in the innocent till proven guilty answer.You cannot punish some one for a POTENTIAL futer possible hypotheticl crime.If so,we will all be guilty and put in jail.Its nuts.

You may change the minds of some people as to whether or not they as individuals choose to keep a gun. Folks like me and many others here are trying to change the minds of others as to the topic. To my mind, all of the "statistics" are nonsense, as are the comparisons with the U.S. to some other countries. We are not them. We have an armed society, and personally I find that to be a VERY good thing.

In response to cross nation comparisons withot proper regressive analysisi ect.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


The article is false.The ar15 bushmaster is not an assualt rifle.The assualt rifle ban is based on looks,not what a weapon does which is stupid and martland and New York aleready have balistic fingerprinting and it has NEVER solved a crime.I challange you to show where they have.Its just more prapaganda.

The ar15 bush master is NOT an assualt weapon.


They are capable of firing semi or full auto.The ar15 bush master cannot do this eand cannot be defined as an assualt weapon.

IT does not meet the specs of an assualt rifle[wether it fires semi auto at 12-15 rounds or not} as defined by the military .And they should know.

The shooter was X army and firmiluar with the 223 caliber since its the standard u.s. army round and what the bushmaster ar25 shoots.Which is exactly why it was "the weapon of choice" for this lunatic. He was familiar with the weapon. NOT because the XM-15 (or an M-16, for that matter) has any unique qualities that lend it an advantage over any other type of rifle for this sort of application (which your article implies seemed to imply).


The Bushmaster is a civilian version of the assault rifle - that is, the M-16 A2/A3. The M-16 is the assault rifle, not the AR-15. It is clear that the article authoe{and possibly you } do not understand what you're talking about, and I will tell you why...

You're right, the AR-15 looks like an assault rifle and can fire the same round as many assault rifles. The reason I say "can" is because that statement has no pertinence to the situation. There also exists the AR-10, which is exactly like the AR-15, but fires a .308 round. Additionally, to say that the AR-15 fires "the slug of the M-16" has no meaning. There are hundreds of pistols that fire a 9-mm round, but just because the military service pistol, the Beretta 92, fires such a round does not mean that the Walther P99 9-mm is particularly ominous because it "fires the slug of a Beretta 92."

Secondly, it doesn't mean anything to say how many rounds a semi-automatic weapon can get off per minute max/sustained. Basically, a semi-automatic (one pull, one shot) can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, barring physical limitations of the weapon (barrel over-heating, etc.). The limiting factor in sustained rate of fire for semi-automatics (particularly, the AR-15) is actually the operator's experience and comfort with the weapon - it has very little to do with the features of the weapon. The reason they say 12-15 rounds per minute sustained is accuracy: when the weapon fires, it recoils - and with many rifles like the AR-15, rapid sequential firing causes the barrel to "ride up" on the user. That is, as the user continues to fire, his/her adjustment of the rifle back to the aiming point continues to rise, because each time a shot is fired, the rifle kicks up and back. So, the average user must take the time to realign his/her aiming point before firing again. Actually, this whole point is moot if you assume that the user is using the magazine that comes with the AR-15, which only holds TEN ROUNDS. In order to achieve anything higher, one must purchase a pre-ban magazine that can hold up to 40 rounds.


Finally, the AR-15 does not meet the specs of an assault rifle. If it did, then, by definition, it could not be a civilian version!!! The statement, "but has been altered just enough to sell to civilians," is completely ignorant. Just enough? How about this:
1) It has been altered to be capable of firing only in semi-automatic operation. The automatic firing pin assembly has been completely removed. It's not like you can re-program it or re-wire it like pirated software or something. It is illegal to modify the firing pin assembly and/or convert a civilian AR-15 to fully automatic.
2) It is been fitted with a fixed stock, rather than the telescoping stock sold on government models. It is illegal for a person to attach a telescoping stock to a post-ban AR-15.
3) It is not sold with a muzzle brake or flash suppressor, which is standard on all government models. It is illegal to attach either of these to a post-ban AR-15.
4) It is sold with a 10-round magazine, contrary to the 40-round magazines equipped with government models. It is illegal to use these magazines anywhere but on the target range.

Is that "altered enough" for you, or would you like them to fill the bores with lead, too? Notice all the "illegals" above - maybe we need more laws?


The association of the term "assault rifle" with semi-automatic weapons is a product of liberal propoganda. It is incorrect

Two comments:
1) Filing the inside of a barrel destroys the rifling, and thus degrades the accuracy of the weapon. No one with intentions like this lunatic would file their barrel - they'd replace it if they were really worried about getting caught.
2) Filing the inside of a barrel would be a rare option to beat the ballistic system. As is common knowledge, the actual defeat of the system will come from three areas:
- normal wear and tear (or damage) to a weapon.
- weapons like Glocks, which are produced with such high standards that one cannot distinguish the fingerprint(s) of two different guns of the same model.
- stolen weapons, which will usually not provide any clues to who committed the crime except where they got their gun initially. So what if I travel from Massachusetts all the way to Washington, break in to someone's house, steal a gun, and travel all the way back here and start shooting...is knowing that some guy in Washington owns the gun going to tell you anything about me? Absolutely not.

Yeah, every day, someone gets caught and then they can confirm that he/she is the criminal, because then they have the gun. Do you know how they linked the sniper shootings before they caught him???? The only way they linked them was recognizing that each round was a .223, each had similar riflings, and each had marks that matched the others. Their evidence gave them no information about the gun or the user, other than what size bore the rifle was. Gee, that narrows it down to about ten million! If you don't plan to get caught, what's there to worry about? That's why criminals don't bother!


Ballistics fingerprinting and other gun-control laws might apply to law-abiding citizens, but for criminals, they're right down the toilet.


I presented the idea that the ar15 was an assualt rifle to an army weapons expert and my denial that it was.Hear is his response{I never met the man before the question was asked either so he is not a close friend}:

was a weapons instructor at the Naval Academy and a member of the Combat Pistol Team (still participate in combat shooting events). You're right - we in the military laugh at the branding of AR-15's (or any other semi-automatic) as assault weapons. You wanna see an assault weapon, Mr. Brady??? Meet my M-249 SAW. 12-15 rpm sustained sound ominous??? Try 750, baby.

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/miami/sfl-dchanges06mar06.story?coll=sfla%2Dnews%2DmiamiMiam i police tighten rules on when to shoot

By Diana Marrero

"Since Nicholas Singleton's death last April, the department has toughened guidelines on when officers are allowed to use deadly force. His case also highlighted serious problems with the Glock pistol preferred by the department."

The problems with the Glock came to light when investigators could not determine which officer's bullet actually struck Singleton in the back of the head.
There was no way to know who killed him because the bullets fired by Glocks tend to not leave much of a signature, or markings created when a bullet squeezes through a gun barrel.

The Singleton shooting was not the first time the Police Department learned of problems with the Glocks. A series of similar shootings in the '90s had led Miami police officials to ask Glock to modify the pistol barrel by adding grooves that would make each gun unique and traceable, said Assistant Chief Noel Rojas.
Though the changes were made, the grooves eventually wore away.Ten new barrels are currently being tested for durability at a police
firing range.


During a judicial inquest examining the Singleton shooting last week, his sister said she was shocked to learn the bullet that struck her brother could not be traced.

"A gun that fires a bullet that can rarely, if ever, be matched to the gun is more suited for a terrorist or an assassin than for police officers," Tiffany Singleton said."

Wellll.Isnt that interesting.

May I sugest we all go out and buy a glock.Since I have one already,i can say that because it will not cost me anything.


:p

There was a training video of a
BATF supervisor telling agents to testifly that BATF records were nearly 100% accurate, when in actually the records were barely above 50% accurate. Now that may not be perjury in federal courts but in Texas courts that is perjury and at a minimum a third degree felony.

Are you suggesting that we give them a larger database to mismanage and corrupt?



http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/10/26/120203

"Proposals for a Ballistics Imaging and Comparison national database has drawn fire from the Fraternal of Police (FOP) which warns that the technology has multiple drawbacks that make it unwise to implement both it and the national firearms database the plan would require....
Although it is "an important law enforcement tool, like most tools, its use is limited by circumstance and the peculiarities of a specific investigation."
"We must keep in mind that there are limits to the utility of this information with respect to investigating firearms crime and prosecuting criminals who use guns."

The FOP cites these limits:

* In all cases, it is necessary that investigators recover a bullet or shell casing from the crime scene which is intact enough to allow forensic analysis to be able to identify the ballistic markings. The firearm must then be recovered in order for the gun and the bullet or shell casing to be conclusively linked. Thus, this tool is often just as useful for excluding potential suspects as identifying those already in custody.

In order to make a case, investigators must discover a chain of evidence: an intact bullet or shell case needs to be recovered from the crime scene, then linked to a gun and then the gun linked to a shooter. Ballistics imaging and comparison technology is very limited in accomplishing the latter.

* In the wake of the serial shootings in the Washington, D.C.,-area, there has been a renewed call for a ballistics "fingerprint" database. The FOP believes that several questions must be answered. First, since ballistic imprints, unlike fingerprints and DNA, can be altered, either deliberately or simply through normal use, how will we ensure the validity of the findings?

* Second, how would such a database be compiled and what would be the cost to create and maintain it? The FOP does not support any federal requirement to register privately owned firearms with the federal government. Without federally-mandated registration of the more than 200 million firearms in the U.S. today, such a database would be no more effective than the current NIBIN maintained by ATF.

* Even if such a database is limited to firearms manufactured in the future, the cost to create and maintain such a system, with such limited potential of solving a firearm crime, suggests to the FOP that these are law enforcement dollars best spent elsewhere.

* There are limits to technology, especially in a free society. Like other technological breakthroughs achieved in the last 25 years, this technology could be invaluable to state and local law enforcement officers in solving crimes, but it is a tool only, and not a substitute for good, solid boots-on-the-ground police work."

It says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) maintains a National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN),Wich is restricted to association with crime guns,is effective in that limited way.

Read the rest yourself.

Balsitic fingerprinting is a joke.A pipe dream and back door registration.Nothing else

[sinecure]

Yes, ballistic fingerprinting is nothing more than a back-door method of gun registration.

The marks that are compared [with an aptly-named "comparison microscope"] are by definition "microscopic." They are not incredibly obvious to an untrained person even when looking at an exemplar and a "suspect" bullet or casing under such a microscope.

Give me a cleaning rod and a tight-fitting piece of emery paper and I'll change the microscopic barrel engravings with a half-dozen passes of the rod. Thirty seconds with a small file, and the marks left on the casing by the firing pin, breechface, and extractor/ejector can be changed forever.

There are undoubtedly many firearms-ignorant folks who have been led to think "gun fingerprinting" is a really good and workable idea. It's another feel-good plan to do SOMETHING to those evil guns and their psychotic owners.:rolleyes:

I don't think that Phreak has successfully made the disconnect between a small and inanimate machine and the act done with the machine. The Beltway Shooter and the police sniper who takes out a hostage-threatening crazy BOTH take a life, and they BOTH use the same implement. Unless you can see the moral difference, you will never understand why I insist on asking you-- "Why are you afraid of MY guns?"

I see it as a matter of trust-- We necessarily place our lives in the hands of others every day. Driving at 50+ mph with only a painted line to suggest to the oncoming driver that he stay on HIS side of the highway... we simply trust each other to stay on our own side, don't we? No barriers... nothing but the most passive of restraints--a painted line-- preventing a collision at a combined fatal closing speed of 100+ mph. You put your life in the hands of doctors, airline pilots, policemen, firemen, the guy who installed your gas heater, the electrician who wired your house, pedestrian traffic controls of all kinds... hell, even carnival rides! Yet, you don't feel "safe" with me and my unregistered gun?

Which brings tomind another question-- How does registering a gun make it any safer?... any less lethal?

Gun registration laws are not designed to punish the criminals that break them, they are designed to restrict the freedoms of the law abiding citizens who never will.

Would somebody please explain to me why it is that Canada has had gun registration for 80 years, and yet NOT ONE CRIME has been solved because of it. Only more confiscation.

While you are at it, please name ONE COUNTRY, or even ONE INSTANCE IN THE USA, where, once their "common-sense" registration took effect, that at least some of those registered guns weren't confiscated within 2 years. I live in California, and had to turn-in an "evil" and suddenly illegal Norinco AK-clone! Essentially, it was OK to buy, own, and shoot one day, and a felony to merely possess it the next. :confused:

And I'd like a show of hands of the folks who really believe that criminals will not get and use guns in committing their crimes because it would be illegal to own them.:rolleyes:

Obviously guns in civilian hands scare you, Phreak...and here we have it, then.

If you find freedom [mine, yours, anybody's] "scary," should you then have the power to deprive others of their freedoms, in order to make yourself feel more snug and comfy in your Utopian warm-and-fuzzy welfare/police state with no chewing gum and no legal civillian guns?

You see, complete Federal firearms freedom was the state of affairs that prevailed in America from 1607 to 1933 -- is not the slightest bit scary to anyone who understands, believes in, and seeks to protect and defend the Bill of Rights.

This whole discussion eventually comes down to a simple question: "Would you support the use of deadly force to remove guns from the hands of peaceful, non-violent people?" If you say "yes", then the discussion has left the realm of logic and civility of thought, and can proceed only through combat or political action.

I am reminded of an old Russian joke: "Will World War 3 happen? No, it won't... but the fight for peace will be so intense that nothing will be left standing..."

A lot of antis seem to be willing to force a civil war to "reduce number of gun deaths" or, more to the point, control "those people".

How about you, Phreak? :)

[Phreakmeister]

No they are not.see previous.Next time you se an olympic shooting event,notice the guns.They were never designed to do more than hit a target.Just like any competative weapon.

Those guns are modifications. The gun was, let's face it, designed, invented and developed to shoot and mame or to kill.

Not adressing the issue.It was on the design and purpose of guns.

Addressing the issue. It was about responsible and irresponsible gun carriers. The people you mentioned are the responsible ones, and there is no problem in having them carry guns. As said before (and you'll probably agree with me on that): not everyone with a gun in their hands is responsible and decent. And a moron is dangerous, but a moron with a gun is even worse.

Car buyers do not face waiting periods,

Over here we do, but nevermind that.

one-a-month purchase limits, and cars have no regulations about how many cylinders they may have, how big the gas tank, or how high their top speed. The duty of obeying traffic laws is up to the driver, and it not imposed on all car owners by crippling all cars to only go the speed limit.

Would you give a blind man a drivers' licence? An alcoholic?

I've found one thing, while surfing the Internet, which I found really repugnant. Just look at the rhetoric used...

We gun owners speak mightily about our freedoms, but tend to slow our speech and shuffle our feet when it comes to improving the civil rights of people abroad. (...) We must channel our love for freedom and see to it that the people of all civilized nations learn of the purposes and benefits of a free and armed citizenry. We must export the 2nd Amendment as thoroughly as we export wheat. (...) Our best targets are Australia and the U.K. Though their politicians are rabidly anti-freedom, their populations are noble and are suffering the ravages of unchained criminals. The message of the 2nd Amendment will be welcome as their impotent leaders allow thugs to roam free.

Furthermore, when someone kills or injures another with a car, they do not face seizure of the car (...) and they don't lose their driver's license forever. Some drivers with even multiple drunk driving fatalities on their record continue to have a driver's license and continue to be able to own cars.

Well, that's one difference between 'there' and 'here'.

Nazi Germany had, and Red China has, "gun safety." Would you feel safer there? If not, why not? Is there something wrong when only the government has guns?

Because there is no link, as I've tried over and over to tell you, between gun policies and fire-arms policies, which you keep on denying.

I don't think that Phreak has successfully made the disconnect between a small and inanimate machine and the act done with the machine.

I've tried, apparently in vain, to show you, that besides having people who shoot in spite of any gun legislation, who'll get their hands on guns anyway, there are also people who shoot BECAUSE of an omnipresence of guns. And you can't deny, that an omnipresence of guns in American society is a completely great thing. There are some downsides to it, to say the least.

How does registering a gun make it any safer?... any less lethal?

The combination of registration and law enforcement is a (admittedly, not a perfect) way to make sure that guns stay out of the wrong hands. Those who have a gun possession ban, those with a criminal past, those with mental diseases, etc.

Would somebody please explain to me why it is that Canada has had gun registration for 80 years, and yet NOT ONE CRIME has been solved because of it.

Proof please.

Something else I found on the Internet, which I completely agree with:

People should be required to be as responsible for their ownership and use of a deadly weapon as they are for their cars. (...) All consumer products, from toasters to teddy bears, are subject to safety regulations -- all except guns.

While you are at it, please name ONE COUNTRY, or even ONE INSTANCE IN THE USA, where, once their "common-sense" registration took effect, that at least some of those registered guns weren't confiscated within 2 years.

The Netherlands, for instance. We have registration, but hardly any confiscation. If confiscation happens, it is because gangs have laid there hands on machine guns. That's where law enforcement comes into play

Obviously guns in civilian hands scare you, Phreak...

No they don't. If you had read my posts properly, you wouldn't have stated that. I'm not against guns in civilian hands, I'm against guns in the WRONG hands. And there's no way you can deny that that is the case right now.

If you find freedom [mine, yours, anybody's] "scary,"

You're telling that to someone from the country of legal abortion, legal euthanasia, legal pot, legal prostitution and gay marriage??

with no chewing gum

That was Tony Blair. Tony Blair is the British Prime Minister. You may or may not have noticed, but I live in The Netherlands. There's a North Sea between Britain and The Netherlands.

and no legal civillian guns?

There are legal guns here. They're just concealed. And besides that, it's not something Dutch to grab hold of a gun. Guns are not part of Dutch popular history, can't help it. In the US, guns are heritage, over here they're not. As DZ said: they're 2 different countries. "We are not them."

How about you, Phreak?

I refuse to answer such an insinuating remark.

[Phreakmeister]

LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS MAKES IT HARDER FOR CRIMINALS AND JUVENILES TO GET GUNS, NEW STUDY SHOWS

States that require mandatory licensing and registration of handguns make it harder for criminals and juveniles to obtain guns from within the state, according to a study conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Center for Gun Policy and Research.

The study appears in the September issue of the peer-reviewed journal Injury Prevention and is the first published study to focus on the licensing and registration of firearms. The findings may be particularly relevant for California and other states considering new legislation to require handgun licensing.

Researchers analyzed data on guns recovered from crimes committed in 25 U.S. cities. The study focused on differences in the proportion of the cities' crime guns that were originally sold by in-state gun dealers. The percentage of crime guns sold by in-state gun dealers varied by the state's gun control regime: 84 percent in cities with no licensing or registration requirements; 72 percent in cities in states with either licensing or registration but not both; and only 33 percent where the state required both licensing and registration for handgun purchases. The large difference associated with these gun laws remained after the researchers accounted for other factors related to the state of origin of crime guns.

"A very low proportion of crime guns sold in-state indicates that criminals and juveniles are finding it difficult to obtain guns from local sources. The costs and risks to both buyers and sellers of illegal guns increase when the guns have to cross state borders," explains the study's lead author Daniel Webster, assistant professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and co-director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research. Supporting this conclusion, the researchers found that cities with a high percentage of crime guns that had been sold by out-of-state gun dealers had relatively low levels of another indicator of gun availability to criminals - the percentage of a state's homicides that involve guns.

Close proximity to people living in states with few restrictions on gun sales increased the proportion of crime guns first sold outside the state. However, study co-author Jon Vernick says, "Although states with weaker gun laws should realize that this can cause gun trafficking to their neighbors, this does not negate the benefits for states that require licensing and registration." Mr. Vernick is assistant professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and co-director of the Center for Gun Policy Research.

In most states with permit-to-purchase licensing systems, prospective handgun purchasers have direct contact with law enforcement agencies that scrutinize the application and some laws require the applicant to be fingerprinted. Registration makes it easier to trace guns used in crime to their most recent owner, and to investigate illegal gun sales. There was significant variation even among the cities in states with licensing and registration laws. The cities where criminals had the greatest reliance on out-of-state guns -- New York, Jersey City, and Boston -- were in states with additional restrictions on guns sales such as allowing law enforcement agencies more discretion to deny applications to purchase handgun, mandatory fingerprinting of applicants, and long waiting periods.

Currently, only seven states have both permit-to-purchase licensing and registration of handgun purchases -- New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Missouri, and Hawaii. According to Webster, "our findings suggest that many states that have either registration or licensing but not both (for example, California and Maryland) may benefit by adopting more comprehensive handgun sales laws."



The article, "Relationship Between Licensing, Registration, and Other Gun Sales Laws and the Source State of Crime Guns," was authored by Daniel W. Webster, Jon S. Vernick, and Lisa M. Hepburn.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, established in 1995, is dedicated to preventing gun-related deaths and injuries. Located in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Center applies a science-based, public health approach to gun violence. It provides accurate information on firearm injuries and gun policy; develops, analyzes, and evaluates strategies to prevent firearm injuries; and conducts public health and legal research to identify gun policy needs.

[w1che]

This thread seems to be about two guys trying to see who can make the longest post & who can run their post count up first.

Well I'm here to tell you...I'm impressed...Naw...:rolleyes:

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


I doubt that. Look at all the illegal immigrants here. In Spain, in Germany, in The Netherlands, everywhere. The US gets its immigrants from Latin America, Europe from all over the world. Look at all the boat refugees. Or do you think Dover was an exception?

Not true.We get a lot from asia visa vie the islands on the west coast, from sout america and the carabean.

Actually: no.
In 1965, there were 14,728,000 immigrants in Europe, compared to 12,695,000 in North America.
In 1975, there were 19,504,000 immigrants in Europe, compared to 15,042,000 in North America.
In 1985, there were 22,959,000 immigrants in Europe, compared to 20,460,000 in North America.
In 1990, there were 25,068,000 immigrants in Europe, compared to 23,895,000 in North America.

There you go, cooking the numbers. In Europe, if I move from the former Yugoslavia to, say, France, much like moving from Wyoming to New York here, wouldn´t I be considered a Yugoslavian immigrant, living in France? Where are all of your immigrants coming from? Are they setting sail from Mexico? Or Russia? Of course , it must be those people who you conveniently exclude from your peace loving Europe, even though the majority of them are slavic, just like the residents of the rest of Eastern Europe. Excluding The European part of Russia is like excluding Mexico from North America, "they´re just...different , is all."

[DEAD ZONE]

Those guns are modifications. The gun was, let's face it, designed, invented and developed to shoot and mame or to kill.

Wrong.They are not modified.They are made from the ground up includding the drawing board.And besides,the original gun{hand cannon} was designed to scare the crap out of charging calvelry.If by chance{and thats all it was} the projectiole hit something then all the better.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by w1che
This thread seems to be about two guys trying to see who can make the longest post & who can run their post count up first.

Well I'm here to tell you...I'm impressed...Naw...:rolleyes:

Yeah, well... although in reading this thread, I get the feeling that I've somehow managed to hack into somebody's personal email here,:wink I probably ought to use it to add to MY post count.

...at least it's a subject I know a little something about. :lol

[DEAD ZONE]

Addressing the issue. It was about responsible and irresponsible gun carriers. The people you mentioned are the responsible ones, and there is no problem in having them carry guns. As said before (and you'll probably agree with me on that): not everyone with a gun in their hands is responsible and decent. And a moron is dangerous, but a moron with a gun is even worse.

No it was not.You tried one of the oldest tricks in the book.Deflecting the true meaning of the post by redefinning it.
It was about design and purpose of guns.Its clear enough to anyone.



Over here we do, but nevermind that.
So much for the equaly free socialist europe.



Would you give a blind man a drivers' licence? An alcoholic?

A blind man is obvious just as a man with a stripped suit and hand cuffs would get no gun.

Alhoholics have them already here and there.Theymust first get caught before punishment.Many boozers know better than casual drinkers not to drive.

You cannot predetermine who is respopnsible and who is not without some prior offence.Being an alcoholic for 10 years but not having drank for 8 should not disqualify me period.I do not touch the stuff myself.To dangerouse IMHO.

I've found one thing, while surfing the Internet, which I found really repugnant. Just look at the rhetoric used...

Then you have not been surffing long or looking hard.I get stuff sent to me by mail every day I find that way.





Well, that's one difference between 'there' and 'here'.

Being as ours is a larger nation and requires transport of a personal nature to get places,you would condem hundreds to permanent survatude to the welfare state.Many a person still driives when their license is suspended or they never had one.My sister was hit by illegal mexican workers driving a truck.None had a license.If some one is going to do something,only jailling them for ever will stop them.Most of the pop. would have to be locked up.



Because there is no link, as I've tried over and over to tell you, between gun policies and fire-arms policies, which you keep on denying.

Only the denial you have established in your mind.Yo selectively pick those that fit and ignore the others.I never claimed the EVERY dictater or anti-gun government always confiscated EVERY gun.If you were in the party,you got to keep yours.

You miss Hitler in that area. Hitler won the elections fair and square, you can´t deny that. Guns wouldn´t have changed anything about that.

That is still the inherent problem with gun control. The former government of Germany made registration lists, and the duly elected Adolf Hitler used them to confiscate weapons. If the "Jews, Gypsys, and other undesirables" had been armed, do you think they would have let Nazis drag thier family and friends off to the gas chamber? If Cubans were armed today, do you think they would put up with the new, corrupted Castro? If we elect the next Hitler in the next election, you don´t think he will use the gun registration lists to confiscate weapons? The German Hitler did, why wouldn´t an American would be Hitler?

"One way governmetal mass murder relates to the gun control debate is that the underlying anti-gun view is a combination of quasi religious faith in government with profound contempt for-and distrust of-people,ordinary people.Ordinary people are deemed ununtrustworthy with weapons whose distrabution should instead be intrusted to government.Anti-guners adheree to this blind faith even though they are at least generally aware that,not includding wars,20th century governments sluaghtered more han 170 million unarmed citizens{the total so exterminated was estimated at 169,198,000 as of 1990 by university of hawaii political scientist R.J. Rummel.

If one was able to just unarm the bad element {who make up the large part of the gun crime stats not the ordinary citizen} this still proves nothing about the ordinary person owning firearms.Moreover,if the number of murders commited anually did justify distrusting in ordinary people,what light does the phenomenon of governmental mass murder shed on the blind anti-gun faith in government?
At the current number of 11,000 anually,it would take well over 15,000 years for gun murders to pile up as many victoms as governments murdered in only the first 90 years of the 20th century.

[DEAD ZONE]

I've tried, apparently in vain, to show you, that besides having people who shoot in spite of any gun legislation, who'll get their hands on guns anyway, there are also people who shoot BECAUSE of an omnipresence of guns. And you can't deny, that an omnipresence of guns in American society is a completely great thing. There are some downsides to it, to say the least.

The number of and presence of guns has been proven irrelavant.
I gave a link,you apparently missed it:

Is Gun Ownership Correlated with Violent Deaths?

In 1993 a Swiss professor, Martin Killias, published a study of 18 countries concerning gun ownership, homicide and suicide. He in part concluded there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership. For a partial criticism of his study see Dunblane Misled where using the countries studied by Killias, these researchers found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership. More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found. When two countries were excluded, the U.S. (high gun ownership, high murder rate) and Northern Ireland (low gun ownership, high murder rate) the correlation was marginally significant. Gary Kleck writes, "Contrary to his claim that 'the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable', reanalysis of the data reveals that if one excludes only the United States from the sample there is no significant association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate." (Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 253. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York, 1997.) Kleck concludes that "the homicide-guns study was not international at all, but merely reflected the unique status of the United States as a high-gun ownership/high-violence nation...Since the positive association Killias observed was entirely dependent on the U.S. case, where self-defense is a common reason for gun ownership, this supports the conclusion that the association was attributable to the impact of the homicide rates on gun levels."

Using homicide and suicide data from a larger sample of countries, 35, (International Journal of Epidemiology 1998:27:216), Kleck found "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate in the largest sample of nations available to study this topic. (Associations with the total suicide rate were even weaker.)" (Targeting Guns, p 254.)

This article by Rutgers University professor Dr. Goertzel offers sound advice regarding statistical analysis: "When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis."


Contrary to myth and misrepresentation, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly "blow away" their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four.

Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The "crime of passion" homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule.

In 1998, firearms were used in 65% of homicides, and 52% of homicides were committed with a handgun. (For a breakdown of weapon types used, see page 18 of the 1998 FBI Uniform Crime Report [1995-1998 FBI UCR's]). Although still unacceptably high, the U.S. homicide rate reached a 30 year low of 6.3 per 100,000 in 1998. Homicide rates are expected to drop again in 1999.


Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994):

"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."

"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."

Sources cited by the above excerpt:

An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary. In one study, the Bureau of Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally. In another FBI data run of murder arrestees over a one year period, 77.9% had prior criminal records. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 38 (1971).
The annual Chicago Police Department bulletin Murder Analysis shows the following figures for the percentage of murderers who had prior crime records:


1991: 77.15%
1990: 74.63%
1989: 74.22%
1988: 73.59%
1987: 73.81%

Five year average for 1987-1991: 74.68%
[Normally, most police departments and the FBI do not compile prior criminal record statistics of homicide offenders.]

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 43 (1975).

John Dilulio, The Question of Black Crime, 117 Pub. Interest 3, 16 (1994).

Kathleen M. Heide, Weapons Used by Juveniles and Adults to Kill Parents, 11 Behav. Sci. & Law 397, 398 (1993).


A Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983 Beck, A., Shipley B, April 1989) shows within "3 years after their release from prison in 1983, an estimated 62.5% of the released prisoners had been rearrested; 46.7% had been reconvicted; and 41.4% had been reincarcerated."
"An estimated 67,898 of the 108,580 prisoners who were released in 1983 were rearrested and charged with 326,746 new offenses by year end 1986. More than 50,000 of the new charges were violent offenses, including 2,282 homicides..."

"Those released after serving time for murder or non negligent manslaughter were nearly 5 times more likely than other prisoners to be rearrested for homicide."

"Crimes of Passion" Homicides

Keep in mind that the law enforcement statistics cited here are only a fraction of all violent crimes committed. Much violence goes undetected by law enforcement officers. Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck states this is particularly true with domestic violence (Strauss, M., et al. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family,. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.) However, even referring only to police records, one can see that domestic homicide is often preceded by a history of violence.

Again quoting from Kates et al.:

In 90% of domestic homicide cases [in a Kansas City study], the police had been called to the same address at least once within the preceding two years; the median number of prior police calls to the same address was five during that period. (Murray A. Straus, Domestic Violence and Homicide Antecedents, 62 Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. 446, 457 (1986). A leading analyst of domestic homicide has noted that "[t]he day-to-day reality is that most family murders are preceded by a long history of assaults." (Id. at 454.)
Violence by Intimates
Intimate homicides declined by 36% between 1976 and 1996. The black intimate homicide rate declined dramatically from a rate of 14.01 per 100,000 to 3.74. For whites, it declined from 1.31 to 0.85.


Among state prisoners serving time for intimate violence, about 2 out of 3 had a prior conviction history.


Nearly 40% of convicted violent offenders in local jails who committed their crime against an intimate had a criminal justice status at the time of the offense: on probation or parole or under a restraining order.


About half of all convicted inmates in local jails serving time for violence against an intimate had a history of having been placed under a restraining or protection order.


More than half of prison and jail inmates with an intimate victim had been drinking or using drugs when they committed the violent crime. Among those drinking, half had been drinking for more than 6 hours before the violence and had consumed about 10 drinks.
Source: Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends. Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook (Rev 5/98.)
Conclusion

This provides strong evidence that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are not going to result in more murder, robbery, and domestic violence. We already have laws prohibiting felons and juveniles from possessing firearms. What has been missing is swift, certain and severe punishment for violating these laws. (For example there is a 10 year penalty for a felon found in possession of a firearm, yet how often is this law enforced?) In other words, criminal control, not gun control would seem to be the sensible solution. There are areas where inforceing existing laws are dropping the problem.But if the anti-rights crowed practised what they preached and did enforce,they would loose thier only edge which is CRIME.

[DEAD ZONE]

I've tried, apparently in vain, to show you, that besides having people who shoot in spite of any gun legislation, who'll get their hands on guns anyway, there are also people who shoot BECAUSE of an omnipresence of guns. And you can't deny, that an omnipresence of guns in American society is a completely great thing. There are some downsides to it, to say the least.

Gun control advocates--those who favor additional legal restrictions on the availability of guns or who want to outlaw certain types of guns--argue that the more guns there are, the more crime there will be. As a Detroit narcotics officer put it, "
Drugs are X; the number of guns in our society is Y; the number of kids in possession of drugs is Z. X plus Y plus Z equals an increase in murders." But there is no simple statistical correlation between gun ownership and homicide or other violent crimes. In the first 30 years of this century, U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable, but the homicide rate rose tenfold. Subsequently, between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250 percent, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7 percent.

Switzerland, through its militia system, distributes both pistols and fully automatic assault rifles to all adult males and requires them to store their weapons at home. Further, civilian long-gun purchases are essentially unregulated, and handguns are available to any adult without a criminal record or mental defect. Nevertheless, Switzerland suffers far less crime per capita than the United States and almost no gun crime.

Allowing for important differences between Switzerland and the United States, it seems clear that there is no direct link between the level of citizen gun ownership and the level of gun misuse. Instead of simplistically assuming that the fewer guns there are, the safer society will be, one should analyze the particular costs and benefits of gun ownership and gun control and consider which groups gain and lose from particular policies.
yes,you have failed.You have no link to stand on.

The combination of registration and law enforcement is a (admittedly, not a perfect) way to make sure that guns stay out of the wrong hands. Those who have a gun possession ban, those with a criminal past, those with mental diseases, etc.

No it is not.Criminals are not required to register .It has already been delared unconstitutional.Only law abbidding people must .Unless you proclaim all humanity evil,this statement of yours is nuts.Criminals do not buy them lega.Thats where the crime comes from as I showed already.

Mental?? LOL.

When will this start to happen?

"It's illegal for any one who is mentally disturbed to own a gun. Anyone who wants to own a gun is mentally disturbed. Therefore, it's illegal for anyone to own a gun."

Put it another way: What mechanisms are presently in place to ensure that the above scenario can
never happen?
Answer: None. In fact, elements of this strategy may already be in place:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1652

Here's an analogy:

Law abiding citizens don't like being treated as criminals by the government, or anyone else.

Of course I'm going to pass a criminal background check. It's offensive that my government is going to assume, with no reason given, that I'm a criminal for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

Pretend there was a department store in town, and every time you wanted to leave the premises, you had to first be patted down by a security guard. It's a bit of an inconvenience, but it stops shoplifters and as long as you're not stealing anything, you have nothing to worry about.

Would you resent being treated like this?

Would you continue to shop there?
Not me.

There are ways to conduct background checks which do not amount to registration, and cannot be used for registration. For example, why do FFLs have to write down the make, model, and serial number of the gun a successful checkee has just purchased (for later surrender of this information to the government)? Or, FFLs could download the entire database of prohibited possessors, and conduct the check at the store, without informing the government of the identity of people who pass.
It would even be possible to use encryption to protect privacy, or to inform the government when a
prohibited person (but not a lawful person) attempts a purchase, allowing law-enforcement interception of the prohibited purchaser (if that should ever happen to become a priority). Or, all people and not just gun buyers could be subjected to the offensive, privacy invading process of a
background check when they, say, apply for a driver's license. Those who are "approved" could then merely show their approved-license at a gun store and buy guns without any additional check - and without informing the government of what they are buying. But no green stamp on the license, no admission to gun stores or gun shows.

The fact that these alternative, non-registering proposals are never acceptable to the government is powerful evidence that firearms registration is actually a goal of the "background check" despite assurances that it is merely to
keep guns out of the hands of criminals which they can't do anyway given criminal sources of firearms from theft, the black market, and homemade 'zip' guns.

[DEAD ZONE]

Proof please.

Something else I found on the Internet, which I completely agree with:

Its a quetion.You advacated it and you ask me to prove it for you???????????????????????????????????
I am asking you.
It has not worked and has run so over budget its crazy.
More than 20,000 Canadian gun-owners have publicly refused to register their firearms. Many others are silently ignoring the law. The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have dumped both the administration and the enforcement of all federal gun-control laws right back into Ottawa's lap, throwing the Canadian government into civil war, one fought on paper for the time being. And all at a cost over three to ten times the original projected cost. [Garry Breitkreuz, Member of Parliament, Saskatchewan and the
Calgary Herald, September 1, 2000]
Rank and file police officers in Calgary and Edmonton have withdrawn their backing of Ottawa's gun control registry and Alberta is ready to follow suit.
"The gun registry as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation," according to Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police
Association.






The Netherlands, for instance. We have registration, but hardly any confiscation. If confiscation happens, it is because gangs have laid there hands on machine guns. That's where law enforcement comes into play

Note the question and then your answer.You affirmed my stand by saying but hardly any confiscation.

Any confiscation is just that.confiscation.
Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies:

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)

In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)

Here's a challenge to anyone who makes these kinds of argument: If confiscations "will never happen,"
ask what they are willing to pledge as insurance in case it does. Meteorites hardly ever fall from the sky killing people, which means insurance companies should be willing to provide "meteorite coverage" for a very small premium, even if the payout is huge, because from an actuarial standpoint they will essentially never have to pay any claim. If confiscations "will never happen" as they promise they should be willing to pledge a million dollars, say, per gun, accessory, or round of ammunition at risk to being confisacted, or even pledge their own lives (since you will be losing your means of self-defense) or even their children's lives (since your own children will also be being denied inheiriting their means of self-defense). If they are unwilling to commit to anything, it exposes their
assurances about confiscations never happening as empty - they don't believe it themselves: Why
won't they put their money where their mouth is? If confiscations will never happen, then they have nothing to worry about! (Sound familiar?)

By the way.
Then look closely to all the refugees that are floating in on Italian and Spanish coasts. All the refugees. All the immigrants. All the Eastern Europeans who are now heading our way. Look closely, and then think again.

Hmmm, Italian and Spanish coasts, must be from Africa or the Middle East, because as I stated earlier, you can´t immigrate from Europe to Europe, that´s just silly. Do you think they make boats that could make it to America? Wonder if you gave them a plane ticket to Ellis Island, would they say "Screw Italy, I´m going to America!"?

Just felt like reminding folks.

:clap

[DEAD ZONE]

No they don't. If you had read my posts properly, you wouldn't have stated that. I'm not against guns in civilian hands, I'm against guns in the WRONG hands. And there's no way you can deny that that is the case right now.

Yes they do.Everything you have advocated will not effect the criminal and his ability to get a gun.Only the peacefull citizen.

I never denied guns in the wrong hands.You are in a fantasy world of mind reading and future telling that you cant deny is impossible to tell.Its the only way your idead can or even will work.It belongs in the sci fi section.

If gun laws had been stricter or better enforced, these individuals wouldn´t have gotten hold of firearms and therefore wouldn´t have shot.

Your lack of touch with reality would be amusing if it weren´t so obvious that you are a studied person. Do you purposely invent such profoundly disproven belief systems to support your pre-conceived, but wholly illogical notions -- or do you actually believe your above fantasy is real?

The following links are for your Reality Check. Be aware of one thing before you start in on the research at which you obviously excel: these stories, below, are all from October, pal. And they are all stories about GUN CRIME IN GREAT BRITAIN, where firearms are, as you put it, "stricter or better enforced."

I also have a quick note for you below this lengthy (but hardly complete) October report of climbing gun-related crimes in the gun ban capital of Europe...

´Five-year penalty´ for carrying gun
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2382375.stm

Crack house raid nets biggest drugs haul, loaded handgun
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0225croydon/page.cfm?objectid=12330594&method=full&siteid=53340

"Masked gang armed with handguns and a sub-machine gun"
http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?objectid=12323996&method=full&siteid=50003

Witnesses appeal in brutal bus robbery
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=347311

Teenage girl raped at gunpoint - where guns are banned
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=57711&command=displayContent&sourceNode=57238&contentPK=2919893

"Two raiders with handguns escaped with a substantial quantity of cash"
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2924580

"Armed with sawn off shotgun, pick axe handles and baseball bats"
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/news/NewsStory.asp?Brand=EADOnline&Category=News&ItemId=IPED22+Oct+2002+21%3A00%3A29%3A350

More murder of disarmed innocents in Britain
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/nmhp-home_news-99198-6

People "are lining up" to leave area due to "gun crime"
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2845776

Six (6) shootings in 14 days - machineguns seized
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2846785

People "are sick of this" gun crime
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2847785

"Enough is Enough"
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2846783

Robbery gang is sought
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=343781

Two In Gun Raid Ordeal
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2819733

Gun Attack in which woman is "punched and hit"
http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=59380&command=displayContent&sourceNode=58907&contentPK=2812584

Gunman struck twice in half an hour, gunned down security guard
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2801221

Op for latest gun crime victim
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?objectid=12273502&method=full&siteid=50002

Gunmen open fire in police drug bust
http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/display.var.635861.index.0.html

Top officer voices concern as gun crime levels rocket
http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news/display.var.635681.index.0.html

Parents fear gun crime epidemic
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?objectid=12272915&method=full&siteid=50002

Judge says "gangs taking over the streets"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2313443.stm

Contract killing weapons seized
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/display.var.635462.Top+Stories.0.html

More police appeals "for information" for shooters
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/stories/Detail_LinkStory=21504.html

Anger Over Drug Dealers And Shootings
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2771039

Gunowner, imprisoned for mere possession of firearm, released from prison
http://www.itv.com/news/Entertainment1111767.html

Family escape injury in gun attack
http://www.4ni.co.uk/industrynews.asp?id=5881

Police emulate NYC police, offer £1,000 bounty on gunowners´ heads
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/10/08/nguns08.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/10/08/ixhome.html

Paramedic shot in face while out on call
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/archived/2002/wk40/romford/romnews/paramedic.asp

Man and woman escape injury in gun attack
http://www.4ni.co.uk/industrynews.asp?id=5855

Rape and gunplay at party in "gun free Britain"
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=12250736&method=full&siteid=89488

"Face To Face With Gun Terror"
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2698243

Police Interview Gun Blast Victim
http://www.thisisbristol.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=86419&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86416&contentPK=2697986

________________________________

But you´ve got dozens of stories -- a mere sampling of OCTOBER FEST IN BRITISH GUN-RELATED CRIME NEWS -- to read, to disprove your absurd belief that "If gun laws had been stricter or better enforced, these individuals wouldn´t have gotten hold of firearms and therefore wouldn´t have shot."

You´re not only wrong -- as the above OCTOBER NEWS soundly proves -- you´re so wrong it´s pathetic and disterbing that someone of your education has the fortatude to issue such ignorance. (That´s putting it kindly as I can.)

Go to the following link, type in "UK:" without the quotation marks, select "Title," "Title Only," and "All," and hit submit. Then get real -- you are severely deluded.
http://keepandbeararms.com/news/kabanews/newsSearch.asp

And Phreak... Thank you for reminding me to embrace my gratitude that had any of those crimes been attempted in my presence, I´d have been able to respond with force to quell their acts of violence -- while the British peasantry falls to its knees and pleads with vicious thugs for mercy, as they hand over their money, possessions, dignity and liberty -- to armed criminals.

Your women can lay back and enjoy it if that´s the kind of "life" they desire -- and you can feel "manly" about fighting to make sure they have to. Our women will take rapists out of circulation -- so they don´t prey on other innocent people.

Now get back to protecting animals from bubble gum.

[kontulib]

I´m very glad for that at here is so tight gun laws. Finns are stabbing and using broken bottles for weapon so much at giving no-limited freedom to carry guns means LOT of disorder.

BTW, here is most guns per capita on EU area. (This is not 100% fact. I have heard this somewhere)

[DEAD ZONE]

That was Tony Blair. Tony Blair is the British Prime Minister. You may or may not have noticed, but I live in The Netherlands. There's a North Sea between Britain and The Netherlands.

But you semsed to have little to no problem with it.Ideas are not stopped by seas.



There are legal guns here. They're just concealed. As DZ said: they're 2 different countries. "We are not them."



[i]I refuse to answer such an insinuating remark.

Its a fact.Many in canada have already shown it and many here {california} are just as ready to follow.
If its insinuating,then that is hardly my fault.You forced the issue .

As for Johns Hopkins.They fall in the same catagory as the CDC, and JAMA on propagating statistical maniplulations. juviniles are already banned from getting them and criminals are banned from having to register any.

"What's wrong with mandatory gun registration?"

In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment
protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." The Court concluded:

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.

Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or
state law, could not be punished for failing to register it.

Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished. In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet, the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person), can be punished.

This is especially absurd for the statute under which Haynes was tried -- the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law was originally passed during the Depression, when heavily armed desperadoes roamed the nation, robbing banks and engaging in kidnap for ransom. The original intent of the National Firearms Act was to provide a method for locking up ex-cons that the government was unable to convict for breaking any other law. As Attorney General Homer Cummings described the purpose of the law, when testifying before Congress:

Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it, but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to comply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want them to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.

During the same questioning, Cummings expressed his belief that, "I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen getting into trouble." Rep. Fred Vinson of Kentucky, while agreeing with Cummings' desire to have an additional tool for locking up gangsters, pointed out that many laws that sounded like good ideas when passed, were sometimes found "in the coolness and calmness of retrospect" to be somewhat different in their consequences.

Unfortunately, Rep. Vinson's concern about law-abiding people running afoul of registration laws, while criminals run free, turned out to be prophetic. The same year as the Haynes decision, the New York City Gun Control Law was challenged in the courts. The statute sought to bring shotguns and rifles under the same sort of licensing restrictions as handguns. Edward Grimm and a number of others filed suit against the City of New York, seeking to overturn the city ordinance. Grimm, et. al., raised a number of objections to the law during the trial, most of which were based on the Second Amendment. The trial court held that the legislative intent of the law was:

that there existed an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals and persons not qualified to use these weapons and that the ease with which the weapons could be obtained was of concern...

Yet on the subject of the Haynes decision:

In this court's reading of the Haynes decision, it is inapposite to the statute under consideration here. The registration requirement in Haynes was "...directed principally at those persons who have obtained possession of a firearm without complying with the Act's other requirements, and who therefore are immediately threatened by criminal prosecutions...They are unmistakably persons 'inherently suspect of criminal activities.'"... The City of New York's Gun Control Law is not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities. It is regulatory in nature. Accordingly, Haynes does not stand as authority for plaintiffs' position.

In three pages, the court went from claiming that the registration law was intended to stop "an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals" to admitting that it was "not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities."A number of other judicial decisions have upheld gun registration laws, specifically because they did not apply to criminals, but only to law-abiding citizens. During the turbulent late 1960s, Toledo, Ohio, passed an ordinance that required handgun owners to obtain an identification card. The plaintiffs attacked the law on a number of points, including the issue of self-incrimination. Regarding the Fifth Amendment, the Court of Common Pleas asserted that
application for a handgun owner's identification card (effectively, registration of gun owners) did not make a person "inherently suspect of criminal activities." (This quotation suggests the judge writing this opinion was aware of the Haynes decision, although not cited.) The court pointed out that unless the plaintiffs had been prohibited persons within the Toledo ordinance, the Fifth Amendment would have provided them no protection. Only criminals were protected from a mandatory registration law --not law-abiding people.

Later that same year, in the Ohio case State v. Schutzler (1969), Gale Leroy Schutzler attempted to quash an indictment for failure to register a submachine gun in accordance with O.R.C. sec.2923.04, which required registration of automatic weapons. At the original trial, Schutzler argued that the registration requirement violated his Fifth Amendment rights, based on Haynes. On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas did not agree with any of Schutzler's arguments, including his citation of the Fifth Amendment. Where the Haynes decision was based on the fact that Haynes was an ex-felon, and therefore his possession
of a sawed-off shotgun was illegal, Schutzler was not breaking the law by possession; his only violation of the law was his failure to register the submachine gun and post a $5000 bond. Had he been an ex-felon, the Haynes decision would have protected him. Because he was not a convicted criminal, he did not receive the benefit of the Fifth Amendment's protection.

In State v. Hamlin (1986), a case involving an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to apply the Haynes precedent, because the Louisiana statute specifically prohibited the government from using registration information to prosecute convicted felons in possession of a firearm. The Louisiana registration law had been "sanitized" in a manner similar to the 1968 revision to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. sec.5801, which required that no information obtained from gun registration could be used against a person who could not legally possess a gun -- convicted felons could register their machine guns or short-barreled shotguns with complete confidence that they would not be prosecuted for illegal
possession.

If mandatory gun registration can't be used to punish ex-felons in possession of a firearm, what purpose does such a law serve?If mandatory gun registration can only be used to punish people that can legally possess a gun, why bother?

We must either skip registration, so that we can severely punish gun possession by those who aren't allowed to own guns; or use the "sanitized" form of registration law -- where the criminal is guaranteed that gun registration can't hurt him, while the rest of us can be punished for failure to comply.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


I've tried, apparently in vain, to show you, that besides having people who shoot in spite of any gun legislation, who'll get their hands on guns anyway, there are also people who shoot BECAUSE of an omnipresence of guns. And you can't deny, that an omnipresence of guns in American society is a completely great thing. There are some downsides to it, to say the least.

There generally can be found a "downside" to all things, Phreak. Bathtubs and showers are nice for hygenic and social reasons, but they kill a lot of people every day.

While I have neither the time nor inclination to join you guys' cut/paste festival, I'm here to tell you that there were a LOT more guns-per-capita in the US some 50 years ago than there is now. I had a Savage combination .410 shotgun/.22 rifle that I would carry to school on the school bus, place it in my locker, and, at the end of the school day, have the bus driver let me off a couple of stops before mine so I could hunt the fields for pheasants on the way home. This was done during the regular hunting season, not every day. The bus driver took little notice, sometimes asking me if I "got anything" the day before, or telling me where she'd seen some birds. Yes, that's ancient history to you, but the point remains-- I TOOK A GUN TO SCHOOL as a habitual thing...and didn't shoot anybody. Sure I had disagreements with kids in school, fistfights even... but I never --never!-- even thought of pointing a gun at somebody, let alone shooting them. No, it's not the "proliferation of guns" that I see as the problem. Nearly every home in my neighborhood had a minimum of a .22 rifle, a "deer gun" and a shotgun. Guns were like shovels, pitchforks, axes and machinery-- dangerous tools to be respected.



The combination of registration and law enforcement is a (admittedly, not a perfect) way to make sure that guns stay out of the wrong hands. Those who have a gun possession ban, those with a criminal past, those with mental diseases, etc.

We have those laws in place now... and while undoubtedly they have deterred some "misfits" from obtaining weapons, I'm equally certain that the more determined "misfits" have found a way to get what they wanted. The Beltway Shooter was operating in a state that is decidedly UNfriendly to guns. Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws. None of which had much of an effect on a couple of determined criminals.

Regarding my statement: "Would somebody please explain to me why it is that Canada has had gun registration for 80 years, and yet NOT ONE CRIME has been solved because of it."
Proof please.

You should know of the impossibility of proving a negative in this instance. YOU show me the ONE VIOLENT CRIME that was solved because of gun registration. [ I give you that there have most likely been some non-violent theft/receiving stolen property cases in which registration provided a rightful owner.]

All consumer products, from toasters to teddy bears, are subject to safety regulations -- all except guns.

An ignorant statement that I hope you cut/pasted from somewhere else. There is no other common American consumer product that has MORE "regulations" [safety and otherwise] attached to its manufacture, sales and possession and use. You really should check these things you get from the anti-gun boards before you internalize them and make them "your" thoughts, Phreak.


I asked for "... ONE COUNTRY, or even ONE INSTANCE IN THE USA, where, once their "common-sense" registration took effect, that at least some of those registered guns weren't confiscated within 2 years."

Phreak replied:
The Netherlands, for instance. We have registration, but hardly any confiscation. [emphasis mine]

HARDLY ANY confiscation???:D :lol Is that along the same thinking as being a "little bit" dead?!! Thank you. You made my point for me.


If you had read my posts properly, you wouldn't have stated that. I'm not against guns in civilian hands, I'm against guns in the WRONG hands. And there's no way you can deny that that is the case right now.

Sure I can... Yes I see what you write, and I also see the motivation behind those words that seem to come from your mind.

My next few commentaries were regarding what I beleived would be YOUR Utopia. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Yes, I know a little about the Dutch-- weren't they the Army that issued hairnets to the male troops who needed them? :)


There are legal guns here. They're just concealed. And besides that, it's not something Dutch to grab hold of a gun. Guns are not part of Dutch popular history, can't help it. In the US, guns are heritage, over here they're not. As DZ said: they're 2 different countries. "We are not them."

We may be running afoul of strict English vs. American vernacular here. A "concealed gun" these days is not one that is out of sight in a closet--here popular usage means a "concealed" gun is one carried on the person concealed. We even have a common acronym for it: "CCW" [Carrying a Concealed Weapon]. So, when you mention that Dutch guns are "concealed", are you saying that there are citizens carrying guns, or that their guns are simply stored out of sight? The rest of your paragraph is a statement I can agree wholeheartedly with, and ties into my earlier contention a few paragraphs back, that it's not the number of guns-per-capita America has [the figure was higher in the past] but the use some people are putting them to.

I refuse to answer such an insinuating remark.

No "insinuating" intended, Phreak... You advocate gun registration. How do you purpose to enforce these laws? With armed enforcement, right? I can't for the life of me imagine a policeman who would be willing to come to my door unarmed to demand that I give him my unregistered guns!!:eek:

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by w1che
This thread seems to be about two guys trying to see who can make the longest post & who can run their post count up first.

Well I'm here to tell you...I'm impressed...Naw...:rolleyes:

Thats the problem with folk.They expect the ills of the day to be expressed or fixed with snipets and sound bite.

One in 1914, one in 1939/1940. You do know that those WW´s are 90 and 60 years ago? You do know that most people who lived then are dead now?




And you do know that those who ignore history do so at thier own peril, and are doomed to repeat it? Wow, not even 100 years ago and you want to make us forget about this embarassing blemish in Europe, but you are willing to dredge up the Civil War here in America, that happened 140 years ago to make your point.It was not a civil war anyway.That has one side trying to take controle of a nation from another side.The south simply wanted to leave and be left alone. War between the states is more acurate.

At least we didn´t cry to Europe to come and save us during our war, like Yugoslavia did with thiers.Unless you count the south wanting Britain to break the blockade so they could get supplies.

you´re catching up very fast. Hiroshima, Nagasaki.


Help me remember why we nuked ´em, again? Oh, yeah, because of some war that Europe started. I think that counts towards thier total, not ours thank you very PHREAKING much. :)

And how were you planning to kill someone with a can of coca cola? Throw it against someone´s head?



Have you ever seen someone who has been hit in the head with a full beer can? Sorry, that must be my redneck showing.
They used them as booby traps in Nam and one can always poison some one.

Rule 1 was never assume something so harmless was.It may be your last mistake.

May I remind you, that, as I said before, in every single European country, "inanimate objects" such as knives or baseball bats are illegal for improper use.+


Are not guns regulated that way here? If I kill someone with a gun I will be tried for murder. If I am negligent with my gun, and it kills someone, we have laws that cover manslaughter. I should not be a criminal for just owning a gun, which is quickly becoming the case here. A New Yorker or Californian who owns an SKS is a criminal, and can go to jail for that. An American who merely owns a baseball bat will not go to jail. Yes, by all means, if I commit a REAL crime with my gun, throw the book at me, but until then, leave me alone. Oh, and in Merry Ol´ England, if I stab a robber with a pair of fingernail clippers I would be hauled off to jail for illegal use of a defensive weapon, how very civilized that place is.

And, just as with rights, who decides what is proper or improper use? Do you really expect the government to use common sense?

Playing baseball (which is a very tiny sport here, but nvm) is not illegal



First of all, you could not possibly be a natural born American and say something like that about baseball, it´s, just, well, un-American.Being belgium i guess that fits. But, on to the real point, according to this logic, it should not be illegal for me to take an SKS and go target shooting in California, which is a legitimate non-violent use of said firearm, just like a baseball game is a legitimate non-violent use of a baseball bat, but I can´t, because it is illegal there.

Thirdly, there are shooters "because of". These are the individuals that shoot because of the availibility of guns. If gun laws had been stricter or better enforced, these individuals wouldn´t have gotten hold of firearms and therefore wouldn´t have shot.



More of these funny words that make no sense that you put in quotation marks to make them sound important.Kinda like the posative negative right thing that you said is an individuals choice to beleive and then turn around and say they all have to beleive it in order for your argument to make any since{which it still does not}.
Noone shoots another human being because they have a gun and decide "Hey I just happen to have a gun here, I may as well go shoot someone". People kill other people indiscriminately because there is something wrong with them. No amount of legislation in the world will make crazy people sane, it´s just not going to happen.

Well, that [education] may help in some cases, but not in the case of gun accidents and of "shooters because of".


Education won´t stop accidents? What are defensive driving courses for then? If I take my girlfriend´s son out and teach him gun safety, he is going to be more likely to shoot himself in the foot? That makes absolutely no sense.

Who´s talking about you here? Noone. This is not about people like you


Not about people like me?!?! Then why is it me who is held up at the gun store for a background check, me who has to wait three days for a handgun in some states (I have a couple more already at home, if I wanted to kill someone, don´t you think I would just use one of them?), me who is considered to be a criminal until that form 4473 checks out and I am cleared of any wrong doing, me who under the majority of registration schemes would be inconvenienced by having to pay to excercise my rights and submit myself for review periodically, me who is hassled by the police for simply owning a firearm and carrying it with me, and me...etc.

I have a CCW now so screw the background checks.

Criminals don´t go through all this hassle, they just buy a gun from "Valentine" the green eyed Mexican (I swear I knew a guy just like that, who could get you anything you wanted, and most of the time just happened to have it in his trunk) over on the Westside and go kill people.

Maybe you need to come out here into the real world, bud, where green eyed Mexicans sell guns out of the trunks of thier cars and people get killed by being hit in the head with beer cans. It really happens.

I do think Castro isn´t all that bad, but he´s certainly not good either. In theory, I support his ideals. Too bad he doesn´t live up to the ideals he had in 1958.


Are you a Communist? Or did I misread that? It would sure explain alot, like why you don´t like baseball.

to present an absence of guns as the cause for dictators to grab power, is a gross distortion of history



I actually agree with this point,and have never advocated it would always happen but you have to admit that the absence of firearms was an aggravating circumstance. If they had had guns, would it have turned out the same way?

I hereby retract my "black underclass" post due to lack of proof, and I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone.

The five states with the highest numbers of firearms homicides (which is what gun control proponents tell us gun control will stop) are as follows: California-1337, Texas-803 Illinois-670, New York-505, Michigan-471, the five states with the lowest numbers: South Dakota-7, Vermont-7, Wyoming-3, North Dakota-4, New Hampshire-4
(These are 1999 numbers from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they don´t have the ´99 numbers for D.C.)

It should be obvious to anyone reading this, phreak especially, that gun control has worked wonders in the states that have it, such as California, New York and Illinois, and that states such as Vermont are way behind the curve in preventing firearm homicides with thier lax gun laws. How do you explain this inconvenient discrepancy, phreak?

What chewing gum has to do with anti-social behaviour is beyond me, but other than that, the plan isn´t all that bad. First of all, chewing gum is dangerous to animal welfare. Chewing gum pollutes the cities. "And if I wanna see chewing camels, I´ll visit a zoo, thank you very much."



Holy crap, you really are a communist! Or a contemporary liberal, same thing.

What do you personally see as the boundaries of government action?


The Constitution, silly.As originally intended.The founders were strait forward and plane.

You mean democracy is dysfunctional and immoral?


Yes, we do not live in a democracy, America is a Republic, pretty big difference there, bud.

Don´t get the feeling that I hate you or anything, we have a difference of opinion, and in America, that´s okay, I personally am enjoying this debate, it makes me get up off my a$$ and go look stuff up, it´s been good for me, I hope I have not created any hard feelings, and by all means keep it coming !




































:p

p








:p

:cuss

:p

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by sinecure


There generally can be found a "downside" to all things, Phreak. Bathtubs and showers are nice for hygenic and social reasons, but they kill a lot of people every day.

While I have neither the time nor inclination to join you guys' cut/paste festival, I'm here to tell you that there were a LOT more guns-per-capita in the US some 50 years ago than there is now. I had a Savage combination .410 shotgun/.22 rifle that I would carry to school on the school bus, place it in my locker, and, at the end of the school day, have the bus driver let me off a couple of stops before mine so I could hunt the fields for pheasants on the way home. This was done during the regular hunting season, not every day. The bus driver took little notice, sometimes asking me if I "got anything" the day before, or telling me where she'd seen some birds. Yes, that's ancient history to you, but the point remains-- I TOOK A GUN TO SCHOOL as a habitual thing...and didn't shoot anybody. Sure I had disagreements with kids in school, fistfights even... but I never --never!-- even thought of pointing a gun at somebody, let alone shooting them. No, it's not the "proliferation of guns" that I see as the problem. Nearly every home in my neighborhood had a minimum of a .22 rifle, a "deer gun" and a shotgun. Guns were like shovels, pitchforks, axes and machinery-- dangerous tools to be respected.





We have those laws in place now... and while undoubtedly they have deterred some "misfits" from obtaining weapons, I'm equally certain that the more determined "misfits" have found a way to get what they wanted. The Beltway Shooter was operating in a state that is decidedly UNfriendly to guns. Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws. None of which had much of an effect on a couple of determined criminals.

Regarding my statement: "Would somebody please explain to me why it is that Canada has had gun registration for 80 years, and yet NOT ONE CRIME has been solved because of it."


You should know of the impossibility of proving a negative in this instance. YOU show me the ONE VIOLENT CRIME that was solved because of gun registration. [ I give you that there have most likely been some non-violent theft/receiving stolen property cases in which registration provided a rightful owner.]



An ignorant statement that I hope you cut/pasted from somewhere else. There is no other common American consumer product that has MORE "regulations" [safety and otherwise] attached to its manufacture, sales and possession and use. You really should check these things you get from the anti-gun boards before you internalize them and make them "your" thoughts, Phreak.


I asked for "... ONE COUNTRY, or even ONE INSTANCE IN THE USA, where, once their "common-sense" registration took effect, that at least some of those registered guns weren't confiscated within 2 years."

Phreak replied:


HARDLY ANY confiscation???:D :lol Is that along the same thinking as being a "little bit" dead?!! Thank you. You made my point for me.




Sure I can... Yes I see what you write, and I also see the motivation behind those words that seem to come from your mind.

My next few commentaries were regarding what I beleived would be YOUR Utopia. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Yes, I know a little about the Dutch-- weren't they the Army that issued hairnets to the male troops who needed them? :)




We may be running afoul of strict English vs. American vernacular here. A "concealed gun" these days is not one that is out of sight in a closet--here popular usage means a "concealed" gun is one carried on the person concealed. We even have a common acronym for it: "CCW" [Carrying a Concealed Weapon]. So, when you mention that Dutch guns are "concealed", are you saying that there are citizens carrying guns, or that their guns are simply stored out of sight? The rest of your paragraph is a statement I can agree wholeheartedly with, and ties into my earlier contention a few paragraphs back, that it's not the number of guns-per-capita America has [the figure was higher in the past] but the use some people are putting them to.



No "insinuating" intended, Phreak... You advocate gun registration. How do you purpose to enforce these laws? With armed enforcement, right? I can't for the life of me imagine a policeman who would be willing to come to my door unarmed to demand that I give him my unregistered guns!!:eek:

Man I must be tired.I did not even pay attention.I assumed every post was mine Phreak answered because no one else was in here so I just answered them all.

:o :o

I thought some of that did not look firmiluar..

Sorry Phreak and sine cure. and anyone else I may have done that to.

:cool

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by kontulib
I´m very glad for that at here is so tight gun laws. Finns are stabbing and using broken bottles for weapon so much at giving no-limited freedom to carry guns means LOT of disorder.[/i]

Stabing with knifes and botles is not disorder???????

[i]BTW, here is most guns per capita on EU area. (This is not 100% fact. I have heard this somewhere)

I think you maybe right.Seems like I heard something similar.

[DEAD ZONE]

Yes, I know a little about the Dutch-- weren't they the Army that issued hairnets to the male troops who needed them?


Actually,I think thats the place where their soldiers are not allowed to march in parades with real guns.They get wood ones insterad.

Just cant trus thenm I guess.May have bad intent or just influenced badly by having a gun aroune.They may just up and start shooting folks.

[DEAD ZONE]

What would you do in the following case:
1. Let someone drive a car, no questions asked, and if (s)he causes an accident, take away the car
2. Let someone get a drivers´ licence, only after having proven to be able to handle a car, and then let him/her drive a car.

The more i think about it :

I would have to go with the first one there, bud. Except I probably wouldn´t take the car away, I would just make that person pay for the damage he/she caused. As is pretty obvious, licensing and registering cars does not prevent accidents, nor does it prevent people who have no respect for the law or for other people, from driving. It should be the responsibility of that person´s parents to make sure they know how to drive before they just let them go, not the responsibility of a "mommy government" using my tax dollars to make sure.

That´s the whole argument, taking personal responsibility for your actions.

I don´t need a "mommy government" to tell me I should wear my seat belt, or to tell me that shooting people is bad, or that stealing is something you just don´t do. My parents taught me that.

If I don´t wear a seatbelt, well I´m just dead, if I kill someone, kill me! And if I steal, I should be punished to the fullest extent of the law against stealing (I should really be shot by whoever I happen to be stealing from). And if I get killed by someone who wasn´t raised like me, well, at least I lived my life as a truly free man , and I know that person will be punished as severely as is humanly possible by those I left behind.

Trying to safeguard our society against every possible calamity is just bad form, it´s like putting styrofoam on the corners of the coffee table so your toddler doesn´t bash his head. Don´t do that, let him bash his head, he´ll be more careful around coffee tables for the rest of his life, it´s a good lesson. My mom let me tuch a hot stove when I was younger, burned the crap outta my hands, but she never had to worry about me around that stove, or any others like it, ever again.

I guess what I´m saying is that it is not the job of the government to protect me. To protect my inalienable rights, as listed in the Bill of Rights, sure, but you know what? If they would leave me to my own devices, I would probably protect them myself without thier help at all. That´s the job of government, to stay out of my way unless I absolutely cannot do something myself. I shouldn´t even have to know what the laws are, because as long as I don´t infringe on someone else´s rights, as listed in the Bill of Rights, I shouldn´t be breaking any laws.

But there are so many laws on the books right now that have nothing to do with anyone´s rights that I probably violate twenty traffic laws on my way to work every morning and don´t even know it . There are no victims, or I would be leaving a trail of dead bodies 30 miles long every morning, and I know that doesn´t happen, so why do these laws exist?

there are also people who shoot BECAUSE of an omnipresence of guns.


As I said before, people don´t shoot other people because a gun is available. They do it because they are sick, depraved individuals. There are lots of guns available to me right this second, and there are plenty of people that I would like to see removed from the gene pool, but I´m not going to go shoot them, hopefully they´ll get hit by a bus or something. Anyone who can take another human being´s life with no provocation is a sick person, how can anyone think otherwise?

Ans again,as to the register license of guns:

What the problem with that is, It makes it harder for me to get a gun, too. Making it harder for me to get a gun infringes on my second amendment rights, does it not? And what´s wrong with a juvenile having a gun, I had a gun when I was but a wee juvenile. What do you have against kids? It´s because they play baseball, huh?

[jstnomega]

Gun laws don't make me safer.

Guns don't make me safer.

Guns make it safer to kill someone fr a distance.

[sinecure]

D'Zone writes:
But there are so many laws on the books right now that have nothing to do with anyone´s rights that I probably violate twenty traffic laws on my way to work every morning and don´t even know it . There are no victims, or I would be leaving a trail of dead bodies 30 miles long every morning, and I know that doesn´t happen, so why do these laws exist?

Ayn Rand addressed this: [not a direct quote]

Do you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breakings laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's in that for anyone?

But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted --and you create a nation of law breakers-- and then you cash in on guilt.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by sinecure
D'Zone writes:


Ayn Rand addressed this: [not a direct quote]



I have that quote. I like it.Good show.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by jstnomega
Gun laws don't make me safer.

Guns don't make me safer.

Guns make it safer to kill someone fr a distance. Actually,explosives are better.

" I was miles away officer.It was not I.

[DEAD ZONE]

All consumer products, from toasters to teddy bears, are subject to safety regulations -- all except guns.



That´s absolutely incorrect. If my gun explodes in my hand while I´m shooting it according to mfg. specs, the gun manufacturer is responsible for that, and I can sue them.

Now, say I drop a plugged in toaster into the bathtub with someone I don´t like very much, does that toaster manufacturer now have to take responsibility? They made the toaster, right? If they hadn´t made that specific toaster, ol´ whatshisname would still be alive, right? Let´s ban toasters.

You already said, that cars can be seen as deadly weapons as well.



I also said cans of coca cola can be deadly weapons, let´s ban them, too. And cars.

I´m against guns in the WRONG hands



And who decides who has the wrong hands , once again?

What if the government decides tomorrow that skinny little halfbreeds with anti-overbearing-government sentiments like myself should not be allowed to have guns. I now have the wrong hands. All my guns are registered because I listened to you (remember we are pretending here) so the government comes and takes away my guns. Then they decide that skinny little halfbreeds with anti-overbearing-government sentiments like myself just don´t need to be participating in society anymore so they will be gassed. What do I do now? I don´t want to be gassed! Are you going to stick up for me and risk being gassed yourself? Probably not. Don´t ever trust those people on Capitol Hill to use common sense.

So who decides? Do we have a vote, with the majority deciding? I´ll bet skinny little halfbreeds with anti-overbearing-government sentiments are not the majority, so, once again I have the wrong hands. I say we leave it the way it is (or is supposed to be), those founding father guys were pretty smart for listing the rights that could never be encroached upon. It´s just too bad noone listened to them.

[BreakNorth]

Dead Zone: how can you explain it, that when Phreak comes with a scientific study comparing the USA to other countries, it's "no use comparing us to other countries", because "we are not them", and "statistics are useless", when the study corroborates Phreak's opinion, but when you come with a scientific study, filled with statistics, comparing the USA to other countries, and the study corroborates your opinion, that study is valid proof and belongs in this discussion? How can you explain that? Either you think comparisons are useless, and you leave them out completely, so also when they corroborate what you have to say, or you think they belong here, even when they don't corroborate your opinion.

Oh, and btw, waiting lists for cars in Europe have nothing to do with socialism or freedom. Procedures for registration of cars, licence plates and ownership take time, and because demand exceeds supply, there is a waiting period for cars. This has nothing to do with socialism or freedom, this is about procedures and the rules of economy.

And you said there are safety regulations on guns. You're partially true. Those safety regulations weren't implemented wholeheartedly and voluntarily by the gun industry, and they still run short of general safety requirements.

In a major victory for public safety in Massachusetts, State Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly announced today that the first ever state-wide consumer safety product regulations on gun design will go into effect immediately. The announcement comes after the gun industry's three year legal battle against the regulations came to an end. The regulations, issued in 1997 by then-Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, will require that all handguns sold in the state meet specific quality and safety standards including child-proofing features, tamper-proof serial numbers and consumer safety warnings. The gun industry abandoned its efforts to implement the regulations after challenging the attorney general's authority to issue firearms safety regulations.

Oh, and about Cuba: Cuba still is an armed society. I know several people who have been there, and I am planning on going there myself somewhere soon. If an armed society does not revolt against a 76-year old heart patient, who once fainted during a speech on live television, it may also mean something else: that they do not want to revolt...

I hope you will agree with me, that something has to be done, because something in American society is going/has gone horribly wrong.

Tony Blair's plan wasn't about banning chewing gum. His plan was about spitting chewing on the ground, which is, as Phreak said, polluting and dangerous to animals. His plan against 'anti-social behaviour' involves not just banning the dropping of chewing gum (what's the trouble in walking a few meters to the nearest waste bin?), but also the banning of for instance fly posting, graffiti, littering, fly-tipping, begging, vandalism, rough sleeping, peddling, busking, dog fouling, letting burglar alarms ring for excessive periods (we used to live next to a grocery store, and the owner used to let the burglar alarms of his store ring for hours, so as to draw people (customers) to his store), etcetera.

I doubt whether refugees/immigrants would come to Ellis Island, even if offered a plane ticket to Ellis Island. I don't think the US is very liked in the Arab world and outside of the Arab world, to put it friendly.

I wanna ask you a hypothetical question. The question does not relate to this issue much, and it's unreal, but I want you to think about it. I'm not asking you to answer the question, I'm just asking you to think about it.
If your handing in one gun, one single gun (your own choice which one of your collection), would mean a safe society, without school shootings, gun-related crime, etc. (I told you it would be unreal), it all that would be the result of your handing over of one single gun, would you hand over your gun?

[BreakNorth]

"The NRA's goal is to protect law-abiding gun owners and hunters."

In fact, the leaders of the NRA are only interested in protecting the gun industry. If you look at the people on the board of directors and the executives of the NRA, you will find that many of them have something to gain financially from the gun industry whether they are gun manufacturers, gun dealers, or have some other stake in the gun industry. The fact remains: the only people who benefit from the actions of the NRA is the multi-million dollar gun industry. For an in depth look at the relationship between the NRA and the gun industry, read the book "NRA:Money, Firepower & Fear".

"All gun control efforts will lead to a total ban on guns."

Wrong! The vast majority of gun control legislation being proposed in this country has nothing to do with banning guns of any kind. Gun control opponents contrived this lie to manufacture a "They're coming to take our guns away!" hysteria. Did licensing of drivers and registration of cars lead to a ban on automobiles? Did licensing of dogs lead to a ban on pet ownership? Like myself, the vast majority of people who support gun control oppose an outright ban on all guns.

"Gun control only effects law-abiding citizens. Criminals won't be affected by gun control laws."

Wrong again. The Brady law, for example, does just the opposite. It does not prohibit law abiding citizens from buying guns, but with a background check, makes it harder for a criminal to buy a gun. So far, waiting periods and background checks have already lead to the arrest of tens of thousands of known felons who have tried to buy handguns over the counter.

"Gun control is a socialist plot to disarm America and 'take our guns away'."

This tired old lie has recently been dusted off by the NRA. They seem to ignore the fact that many gun control measures are supported by 91% of the American people. A poll in US News and World Report showed that 42% of gun OWNERS support a gun licensing system. There are many notable conservatives who support gun control measures. Conservative commentator George Will has voiced support for banning semi-automatic assault weapons. Another conservative columnist, James Kilpatrick supports limiting the availability of concealable handguns. Former surgeon general C. Everett Koop, advanced his own proposal for licensing gun owners. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas publicly supports some gun control measures. In March of 1991 a well known speaker issued the following statement: "You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language. I support the Brady Bill, and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay". The speaker of those words was that famous "liberal" Ronald Reagan. On another occasion, Reagan endorsed the assault weapons ban. These are only a few of the "socialists" who support gun control.

"The supporters of gun control are motivated by 'fear' of guns."

The support for gun control is motivated by the facts and statistics regarding violent crime and the availability of guns. I support licensing of drivers and registration of automobiles but I do not 'fear' cars. Again I will remind you that 42% of gun OWNERS support a gun licensing system. The NRA, on the other hand, constantly uses fear and hysteria to drum up opposition to gun control.

"The second amendment to the Constitution was intended to arm the people against a possible tyrannical government. We would need modern weaponry, like semi automatic assault rifles, to fight the government."

If that is true, then why stop at handguns and semi automatic assault rifles? This argument would lead to the conclusion that to adequately combat the government, private citizens would need to have machine guns, bazookas, shoulder launched missiles, tanks, blackhawk helicopters, and yes even nuclear weapons. Again, this exemplifies the idiocy of the NRA's arguments.

"When criminals can no longer have easy access to guns, they will turn to other deadly weapons such as knives and baseball bats to commit their crimes."

Almost everyone would agree that it is far easier to commit a crime or kill someone with a gun than with a knife or baseball bat. Most crimes that are committed with a gun would never be attempted with any other sort of weapon. I think it is highly unlikely that the drive-by shootings that are becoming so common in this country will be replaced by drive-by stabbings.

"The primary reason for the high level of crime in this country is that judges are too soft on criminals and the legal system allows too many criminals to go free."

There is some truth to the claim that criminals too often go free because of a mere technicality or because they plea bargain the charges to a lesser crime. But this alone cannot possibly account for the radically high rate of crime in this country compared to other countries. The U.S. already imprisons a larger percentage of it's population than just about any other country in the world. In fact, one of the reasons criminals are often set free is because the prisons are just too overcrowded. We build more prisons and they fill up too. The laws in this country are no more lax than the laws in most other major democracies. Perhaps the NRA believes that Americans are just naturally more violent and crime prone than citizens of other countries but I don't agree. The one and only consistent difference between the U.S. and all the other major democracies that have a mere fraction of our crime is that each and every one of those countries has much stricter gun control laws on the books.

"A machine gun is no more deadly of a weapon than a baseball bat."

Honest! I actually heard an NRA spokesman say this on national television. This quote is so ridiculous that it perfectly exemplifies the outrageous claims being made by the NRA. I think there are very few people who would disagree with the statement that it would be far easier to kill a room full of people with a machine gun than with a baseball bat.


In an article in the American Rifleman, Wayne LaPierre claimed that Janet Reno admitted in a speech in December of 1993 that she had the stated goal of "taking your guns away" and that they were going to ban just about every type of firearm and ammunition. And he went on to say that "they want these laws for all guns - and that includes your rifles and shotguns".

So naturally I read the rest of the article with great interest. I assumed that, to support his claim, he would reprint the direct quote by Janet Reno where she said all this. But it was nowhere to be found. I couldn't understand this! All the NRA cronies I've ever spoken to insist that the NRA always backs up what it says with facts. Could it be that no such quote exists?

"Owning a gun will protect you from crime."

An FBI report,"Crime in the United States, 1973" states that a gun kept in the home for self-defense is six times more likely to be used in a deliberate or accidental homicide involving a relative or friend than a burglar or unlawful intruder. More recently, criminologist Arthur Kellerman declared that for every case of gun use for self defense, there are 43 instances where guns are used in suicides, homicides and accidental deaths. But that number may be a bit conservative. According to Federal statistics, for every time a handgun is used by a citizen to kill a criminal, 118 innocent people are killed in handgun murders, suicides and accidents. Studies have shown that people who keep guns at home nearly TRIPLE their chances of being murdered. Whats more, a gun kept at home is 37 times more likely to be used to commit suicide than to be used for self defense. Still believe that possession of a gun makes you safer? Consider this :

According to criminologist Arthur Kellermann almost 20 percent of the police officers who are fatally wounded with firearms are shot with their own gun.

[BreakNorth]

"There are 20 thousand gun laws in this country. Why do we need any more?"

Think about it. Most of those laws are city ordinances. If one community has tough gun control laws and a city nearby has little or no gun control laws, the gun laws won't have a lot of effect. The guns will flow from the city with no restrictions to the city with strict laws. New York City is a good example of this. Most guns used in crimes in New York were purchased legally somewhere else and transported to NYC. But the experiences of many other nations have shown that when a few reasonable, modest gun control laws are passed on a nation-wide basis, they DO have a significant effect on reducing crime.

"Israel and Switzerland have very high rates of gun ownership and they don't have our crime problems. This proves that guns are not the problem and gun control is not the answer."

In fact, both Switzerland and Israel have much stricter gun control laws than the United States. All men in Switzerland are members of the militia and issued rifles by the government and these rifles are all registered and all ammunition must be accounted for. When it comes to handguns, the Swiss require a background check, a permit to purchase a handgun, and handgun registration. Apparently, Swiss gun owners don't consider this an infringement on their right to own a gun. Israel requires a license to carry, possess or buy a handgun and they conduct thorough background checks, including personal interviews.

"The NRA supports the law-enforcement community."

Well maybe they did once upon a time, but not anymore. Each of the following law enforcement organizations gave strong support to the Brady bill: The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the Police Executive Research forum. The NRA stood in opposition to all these groups. One tactic that the NRA has been using in recent years is to attack and smear any police chief throughout the country who publicly opposes them on gun control issues. A case in point is San Jose, California police chief Joseph D. McNamara who criticized the NRA and supported the Brady bill. The NRA ran full page ads in national magazines claiming that McNamara wanted to "legalize drugs, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, crack." But McNamara never advocated legalizing any such thing. It was a fabrication by the NRA. Another example was Nashville police chief Joe Casey who was also president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. When Casey supported a waiting period for the purchase of handguns the NRA went ballistic and tried to get him fired. Most recently the NRA has been attacking the BATF and the FBI, calling Federal agents "Jack-booted thugs". Dewey Stokes, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police said on May 19, 1995 that "Every law enforcement officer in the country that does wear a badge ought to be outraged at what the NRA is doing." He went on to say that "We don't need the NRA making law enforcement officers, whether at the Federal or at the local level, targets of these hate groups." There are many more examples of the NRA's opposition to law enforcement agencies in the book "Under Fire: The NRA And The Battle For Gun Control".

The NRA has been saying that the assault weapons ban only affects guns with certain "cosmetic" differences that make them look more dangerous. The guns affected by the assault weapons ban are no more dangerous than any hunting rifle.

That's like saying there are only "cosmetic" differences between a Ford Taurus and an M-1 tank. The features that the assault weapons ban applies to are not just cosmetic. They are features that make those weapons more suitable for killing people in battle than for hunting, target shooting, or self defense.

The Brady law isn't having much effect catching criminals. There were only 15 convictions of Brady law violators in 1994, 21 in 1995 and 30 in 1996.

The success of the Brady law should be measured by the thousands of criminals who were denied guns and by the thousands of convicted felons and parolees who were thrown back in prison for parole violations and for felony arrest warrants that were revealed by the Brady law's background check. Most of these people were never charged with violating the Brady law itself but they are in prison just the same because of the Brady law.

Guns are used legally in self-defense about 2.5 million times a year in the U.S..

This is a classic case of disinformation by the NRA.
First of all, the NRA's claim of 2.5 million cases of self defense a year is a misrepresentation of Kleck's own results. Kleck had extrapolated from his survey that guns were used in self-defense between 800,000 and 2.45 million times a year. That's quite a huge margin of error there. So naturally the NRA takes the high end of that range and rounds up from that.

Secondly, it is important to note that other criminologists have found serious flaws with this survey. The biggest problem is that Kleck let the respondents of his telephone survey determine whether their use of a gun was a legitimate act of self-defense. In other words if someone took out a gun and threatened a neighbor during an otherwise non-violent argument, and that person thinks this is a justified use of a gun, then Kleck would count that as a legitimate case of self-defense.

Think about it. Any time anyone uses or threatens someone else with a gun, that person brandishing the weapon will ALWAYS consider their use of a gun to be justified. Even a criminal who shoots someone while committing a crime thinks that they are justified. According to the Census Bureau's annual National Crime Victimization Survey there are about 80,000 times a year that firearms are used in self-defense - a mere fraction of the number that Kleck's survey claims. Unlike Kleck's survey, the Census Bureau's survey is not just a single phone call. It involves trained interviewers who follow up with seven interviews with the same household over a 3 year period in order to verify the accuracy of the data. A good source of information about Gary Kleck and his survey is the Aug. 15, 1994 issue of U.S. News and World Report. The article lists other flaws that have been found in Kleck's survey results.

"In no instance throughout all of history, in any nation, has gun-control stopped until all guns have been removed from the populace."

I have seen several die-hard NRA supporters use this statement when trying to warn against the "evils" of gun control. I guess it would be pretty effective if it weren't completely untrue. Israel and Switzerland, to name just 2 examples, are countries that have had very strict gun control laws for several years and yet also have high rates of gun ownership. Refer to Myth # 13 above for more details.

"The statistics about gun deaths are misleading because most of the people killed by guns are criminals shot in the act of breaking the law."

Again this is not true. Looking over the 1995 Uniform Crime Report that I downloaded from the FBI's web site, I see that there were 13,629 firearm murders (not including accidents, suicides or involuntary manslaughter) and only 610 justifiable homicides. That's 1 justifiable homicide for every 22 murders. If you factor in suicides, accidents, etc. that would work out to about 1 justifiable homicide in every 40 or more gun deaths.

"Florida's crime rate dropped after they passed a law to allow concealed weapons to be carried in public. Therefore concealed carry laws must reduce crime."

According to Handgun Control, Florida's crime rate actually increased for the first few years after that concealed carry law was passed before the crime rate started back down again. But if you don't want to believe Handgun Control, I have an Associated Press newspaper article from March 14, 1995 that reported a study that was conducted by the University of Maryland where they tracked the homicide rate in several cities before and after concealed gun laws were relaxed. Three of the cities they studied were in Florida. The results were quite different than the NRA would have you believe. The homicide rate INCREASED 3 percent in Miami, 22 percent in Tampa and 74 percent in Jacksonville.

[BreakNorth]

Do We Need Tougher Gun Control Laws? What does the sound of amendment mean? In its entirety it 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.

Does this confer an unqualified right to bear arms? Or is it a right conditioned by the clause preceding the statement of right? Does the militia refer to the people generally, or does it specifically relate to the organized (well regulated) military bodies of state and national guards and the armed forces? Gun control is one of many major topics of debate on Capitol Hill these days, but does it get the due attention that it needs?
Gun related crimes are a major problem in the United States today. Many believe that gun control laws need to become stricter, others believe that gun control does not work and may actually increase the incidence of robbery and other gun related crimes. Carl T. Bogus and Daniel D. Polsby believe in the opposite views on gun control.
Carl T. Bogus argues that even in small amounts, gun control will reduce the number of gun related crimes. Mr. Bogus presents facts suggesting that, along with other demographic factors held nearly the same, there is much less gun related crime in areas that have gun control. Mr. Bogus uses evidence of a 1980-1986 study of Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia to support his opinions and reasons for suggestions that gun control works even on a national level. With Seattle and Vancouver only 140 miles apart these two cities are remarkably alike despite being located on opposite sides of an international border. These two cities being similar in size, median household income, unemployment rate, and racial difference one would expect that the crime rate would also fall close together. Well, not exactly during the seven years of the study, there were two hundred and four homicides in Vancouver and three hundred and eighty-eight in Seattle-an enormous difference for two cities with comparable populations. The murder rate with knives and all other weapons excluding firearms- were virtually identical, but the rate of murders involving guns was five times greater in Seattle. What Mr. Bogus tries to show with this study is that it is not the population or any other physical factor that plays into the enormous use of handguns to case crime, but the single law that Vancouver had that Seattle didn't. A gun control law. Vancouver requires a permit for handgun purchases and issues them only to applicants who have a lawful reason to own a handgun and who, after an intensive investigation into ones background are found to have no criminal record and to be sane. The reason of self-defense is not a valid reason either. Those people wanting handguns for recreational uses are strictly regulated. Mr. Bogus does great work on showing how a little gun control could help stop the rising problem of gun-related crimes in the U.S. Imagine what could be done with an even larger gun-control law.
While Mr. Bogus pushes for more and stricter gun control Daniel D. Polsby, Professor of Law at Northwestern University, contends that gun control does not work and adds that it may even entice more criminals to commit more crimes. Mr. Polsby leans more towards gun control being a false promise to the public. Mr. Polsby states that the class of people we wish to deprive of guns, then is the very class with the most inelastic demand for them -criminals- whereas the people most likely to comply with gun control laws don't value guns in the first place. What Mr. Polsby states is true but contradicts his entire editorial. What this statement says is exactly why we need gun control laws passed. The high demand people are the ones that are causing the increasing rate of murders in the United States today. The people that do not care particularly about guns could care less about a gun law.
Mr. Polsby brings up the question "Do guns drive up crime rates?" Well, first thing you have to ask yourself is which promise is true - do guns increase crime or does the fear of crime cause people to obtain guns? Mr. Polsby does a great job of answering these questions in his side of the argument. He uses an article published by Arthur Kellermann and several associates to present his beliefs. In Mr. Killermann's article he studied fifteen behavioral and fifteen environmental variables that applied to three-hundred and eighty eight member set of homicide victims, then found a matching control group of three-hundred and eighty eight non-homicide victims, and then ascertained how the two groups differed in gun ownership. The results were different, but the evidence, in my view, could not persuade someone to say that there is no need for a gun control policy. Gun violence is a plague of such major proportions that only wars and epidemics rival its destructive power. While reading opinions and facts from both sides of a major topic, it brought great thought of myself into this topic. Gun control is something America needs greatly. There are, by far, more positive points in having gun control than negative ones. Mr. Polsby's thoughts and opinions on why there should not be gun control are almost completely ridiculous. America as a majority wants gun control but not enough to make it a priority in the voting booth. America needs more proof that gun control will work. Once America learns that real gun control works is when America will learn of the murder rate falling.

This has nothing to do with socialism or freedom, this is about procedures and the rules of economy.


Uh-Huh.......Yeah.....

Those are procedures and the rules of a socialistic economy......

Socialism, as defined by my Webster's dictionary as this:

Socialism: "A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based on the belief that all, while contributing to the good fo the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide. The theory assumes different forms according to the relative stress of the economy, government and social issues. Thus Marxian socialism is concerned very largely with the economic issues and control of means of production and distribution. as well as exchange. Christian socialism stresses the social aspect, making the theory the way of life, and forcing it onto the citizens of the community. Democratic socialism stresses the political aspect, accepting a compromise in the economic field between state and private citizen. All forms of the theory are opposed to that of capitalism and in seeking an uncontrolled equallity for all members of the community. "

It defines socialist as this:
Socialist: "A person who advocates the spread and or use of socialism. Socialist: A member of a sociaist community.

And it defines socialist republic as this:
Socialist Republic: "A title adopted by the community of a socialist government, by certain people's republics (e.g. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Rumania) denoting a more advanced stage in the transition from capitalism to communism (e.g. Sweden)."

Now.....

"The NRA's goal is to protect law-abiding gun owners and hunters."

In fact, the leaders of the NRA are only interested in protecting the gun industry. If you look at the people on the board of directors and the executives of the NRA, you will find that many of them have something to gain financially from the gun industry whether they are gun manufacturers, gun dealers, or have some other stake in the gun industry. The fact remains: the only people who benefit from the actions of the NRA is the multi-million dollar gun industry. For an in depth look at the relationship between the NRA and the gun industry, read the book "NRA:Money, Firepower & Fear".

"All gun control efforts will lead to a total ban on guns."

Wrong! The vast majority of gun control legislation being proposed in this country has nothing to do with banning guns of any kind. Gun control opponents contrived this lie to manufacture a "They're coming to take our guns away!" hysteria. Did licensing of drivers and registration of cars lead to a ban on automobiles? Did licensing of dogs lead to a ban on pet ownership? Like myself, the vast majority of people who support gun control oppose an outright ban on all guns.

"Gun control only effects law-abiding citizens. Criminals won't be affected by gun control laws."

Wrong again. The Brady law, for example, does just the opposite. It does not prohibit law abiding citizens from buying guns, but with a background check, makes it harder for a criminal to buy a gun. So far, waiting periods and background checks have already lead to the arrest of tens of thousands of known felons who have tried to buy handguns over the counter.

"Gun control is a socialist plot to disarm America and 'take our guns away'."

This tired old lie has recently been dusted off by the NRA. They seem to ignore the fact that many gun control measures are supported by 91% of the American people. A poll in US News and World Report showed that 42% of gun OWNERS support a gun licensing system. There are many notable conservatives who support gun control measures. Conservative commentator George Will has voiced support for banning semi-automatic assault weapons. Another conservative columnist, James Kilpatrick supports limiting the availability of concealable handguns. Former surgeon general C. Everett Koop, advanced his own proposal for licensing gun owners. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas publicly supports some gun control measures. In March of 1991 a well known speaker issued the following statement: "You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language. I support the Brady Bill, and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay". The speaker of those words was that famous "liberal" Ronald Reagan. On another occasion, Reagan endorsed the assault weapons ban. These are only a few of the "socialists" who support gun control.

"The supporters of gun control are motivated by 'fear' of guns."

The support for gun control is motivated by the facts and statistics regarding violent crime and the availability of guns. I support licensing of drivers and registration of automobiles but I do not 'fear' cars. Again I will remind you that 42% of gun OWNERS support a gun licensing system. The NRA, on the other hand, constantly uses fear and hysteria to drum up opposition to gun control.

"The second amendment to the Constitution was intended to arm the people against a possible tyrannical government. We would need modern weaponry, like semi automatic assault rifles, to fight the government."

If that is true, then why stop at handguns and semi automatic assault rifles? This argument would lead to the conclusion that to adequately combat the government, private citizens would need to have machine guns, bazookas, shoulder launched missiles, tanks, blackhawk helicopters, and yes even nuclear weapons. Again, this exemplifies the idiocy of the NRA's arguments.



Ignorance....plain and simple ignorance.....

BreakNorth.......from this statement I can either guess three things....

A: Your were hit hard by left-wing propangda at a young age, and it is stuck with you.

B: Your just a blind liberal.

C: Your crazy, and know nothing of the NRA.

Which is it?


"This tired old lie has recently been dusted off by the NRA. They seem to ignore the fact that many gun control measures are supported by 91% of the American people. A poll in US News and World Report showed that 42% of gun OWNERS support a gun licensing system. "

You also seem to forget that more than half of the USA is crazy.....

This is not a lie....it has happened before and it will happen again...if the US gun laws continue, GUNS WILL BE BANNED....

Don't you understand that?

BTW, where are you from...?

And also, that 91% figure is way off...I looked it up for you, and it is stated to be only a mere 48% of the country..... Get some non biast stats..then you can place them forth, okay?

Why should I have to feel like a common criminal if I want to buy a firearm? Why should I have to be background checked and bothered and treated like I'm a crazed murderer?

Please don't take this as a flame....but I really think you are stupid when you say this line:
"Did licensing of drivers and registration of cars lead to a ban on automobiles? Did licensing of dogs lead to a ban on pet ownership?"

There has been very few criminals caught under the Brady Bill....

The "tens of thousands" number is in fact, the number of mistakes made by the people filling out the forms...If you misspell your name or do not dot an 'i', the machine can't accept it and spits it out....

WHAT IN HELL DOES REGISTRATION OF CARS HAVE TO DO WITH GUN LAWS?

And about the registration and background checks....Canada has had the similar system in place since the 1920's, and they have never caught a criminal with that system. EVER! In 80 years!

Your 7 times more likely to be saved by a firearm, than you are to be killed by one!

You are also more likely to be killed by your doctor messing up in surgury than you are to be by a firearm.

"From my cold dead hands!"
Maderic......

[DEAD ZONE]

Carl T. Bogus argues that even in small amounts, gun control will reduce the number of gun related crimes. Mr. Bogus presents facts suggesting that, along with other demographic factors held nearly the same, there is much less gun related crime in areas that have gun control. Mr. Bogus uses evidence of a 1980-1986 study of Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia to support his opinions and reasons for suggestions that gun control works even on a national level. With Seattle and Vancouver only 140 miles apart these two cities are remark
ably alike despite being located on opposite sides of an international border. These two cities being similar in size, median household income, unemployment rate, and racial difference one would expect that the crime rate would also fall close together.

Proven a fraud:
A
naive comparisons,

Comparisons of homicide in Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., ignore the fact that non-Hispanic whites have a lower homicide rate in Seattle than in Vancouver, and that Vancouver's homicide rate, and handgun use in homicide, did not go down following Canada's adoption of a "tough" gun law.

attempted a simplistic single-cause interpretation of differences observed in demographically dissimilar cities and cultures.

purported to evaluate the efficacy of Canadian gun control without evaluating the situation before the law.

the Vancouver homicide rate increased 25% after the institution of the Canadian law.Selecting a set of years that fit what you want is bad science.


failed to acknowledge that, except for Blacks and Hispanics, homicide rates were lower in the US than in Canada.

glossed over the disparate ethnic compositions of Seattle (12.1% Black and Hispanic; 7.4% Asian) and Vancouver (0.8% Black and Hispanic; 22.1% Asian). The importance? Despite typically higher prevalence of legal gun ownership amongst non-Hispanic-Caucasians in the US, the homicide rate was lower for non-Hispanic-Caucasian Seattle residents (6.2 per 100,000) than for those in adjacent Vancouver, Canada (6.4). Only because the Seattle Black (36.6) and Hispanic (26.9) homicide rates were astronomic could the authors make their claim.
Mr. Bogus will rely on leading public
health writers like Sloan and Kellermann. Since their work mostly
compares Vancouver to Seattle, I read you an evaluation by a Canadian
criminologist, Prof. Mauser of Simon Fraser U.:
It is not too strong to say that many [gun control] studies are
an abuse of scholarship inventing, selecting, ormisinterpreting data in order to validate a priori conclusions.

A particularly egregious example is...."
and then he cites a Sloan-Kellermann article which is the mainstay of
the public health case against guns and what Bogus relies on as his "proof". This simplistic comparison of a year's data from just two cities is contradicted by four multi-year
Canadian studies which show strict gun control doesn't reduce either
crime or suicide. Kellermann et al. never even address criminological studies except when forced to in answering letters to the editor. The "answer" is just to label Kleck, Rossi, Wright etc. gun lobby stoodges. This is as false as it is irrelevant. All began with anti-gun views. Rossi, Wright and especially Kleck are ardent liberal
Democrats, members not of the NRA but of the ACLU and Amnesty
International. Kleck's book received the American Society of Criminology's highest award as "the most important contribution to criminology in the past three years."

[DEAD ZONE]

Dead Zone: how can you explain it, that when Phreak comes with a scientific study comparing the USA to other countries, it's "no use comparing us to other countries", because "we are not them", and "statistics are useless", when the study corroborates Phreak's opinion, but when you come with a scientific study, filled with statistics, comparing the USA to other countries, and the study corroborates your opinion, that study is valid proof and belongs in this discussion? How can you explain that? Either you think comparisons are useless, and you leave them out completely, so also when they corroborate what you have to say, or you think they belong here, even when they don't corroborate your opinion.

Simple.I have always hela{and if you would have been in on earlyer discussions you would know} that it was usless to make such comparisons and why.
So when Phreak insists on doing it anyway,I simply use that logic against him.
Why is it invalid for me touuse his own illogic against him ?unless he admit i was right to start.

Oh, and btw, waiting lists for cars in Europe have nothing to do with socialism or freedom. Procedures for registration of cars, licence plates and ownership take time, and because demand exceeds supply, there is a waiting period for cars. This has nothing to do with socialism or freedom, this is about procedures and the rules of economy.

Your opinion.Its socialism pure and simple.

And you said there are safety regulations on guns. You're partially true. Those safety regulations weren't implemented wholeheartedly and voluntarily by the gun industry, and they still run short of general safety requirements.

neither are they by car makers or any other industry.they are just as standard as any other.



Oh, and about Cuba: Cuba still is an armed society. I know several people who have been there, and I am planning on going there myself somewhere soon. If an armed society does not revolt against a 76-year old heart patient, who once fainted during a speech on live television, it may also mean something else: that they do not want to revolt...
Se previous post.If you are a member of the correct party,you get to have a gun.

I hope you will agree with me, that something has to be done, because something in American society is going/has gone horribly wrong.
In part.We have always had a higher murder rate than other places.Its just fact.Feel good policy will not solve a thing.

Tony Blair's plan wasn't about banning chewing gum. His plan was about spitting chewing on the ground, which is, as Phreak said, polluting and dangerous to animals. His plan against 'anti-social behaviour' involves not just banning the dropping of chewing gum (what's the trouble in walking a few meters to the nearest waste bin?), but also the banning of for instance fly posting, graffiti, littering, fly-tipping, begging, vandalism, rough sleeping, peddling, busking, dog fouling, letting burglar alarms ring for excessive periods (we used to live next to a grocery store, and the owner used to let the burglar alarms of his store ring for hours, so as to draw people (customers) to his store), etcetera.

What ever you say break.What ever you say.By the way,wats that camera looking at?

I doubt whether refugees/immigrants would come to Ellis Island, even if offered a plane ticket to Ellis Island. I don't think the US is very liked in the Arab world and outside of the Arab world, to put it friendly.

Opinion granted.Not factuall but you may have it.We have arabs comingall the tim,illega and otherwise.

I wanna ask you a hypothetical question. The question does not relate to this issue much, and it's unreal, but I want you to think about it. I'm not asking you to answer the question, I'm just asking you to think about it.
If your handing in one gun, one single gun (your own choice which one of your collection), would mean a safe society, without school shootings, gun-related crime, etc. (I told you it would be unreal), it all that would be the result of your handing over of one single gun, would you hand over your gun?

A bad hypothetical because its not realistic and hypotyeticals can be used to prove any point.Facts are much better.

Most of your posts have been delt with already.

When comparring countries gun laws,the only valad thing to do is compare the country before and after its laws,not against each other.Keep that in mind the next time someone uses that stupid logic of country comparisons.

[DEAD ZONE]

"The NRA's goal is to protect law-abiding gun owners and hunters."

In fact, the leaders of the NRA are only interested in protecting the gun industry. If you look at the people on the board of directors and the executives of the NRA, you will find that many of them have something to gain financially from the gun industry whether they are gun manufacturers, gun dealers, or have some other stake in the gun industry. The fact remains: the only people who benefit from the actions of the NRA is the multi-million dollar gun industry. For an in depth look at the relationship between the NRA and the gun industry, read the book "NRA:Money, Firepower & Fear".

that is garbage.You clearly know nothing of the NRA.It is made up of individuals .The common man pays his membership and supports the organization.Its not a corporation.Its actually more like a union.It also only makes since that directors have gun ties.Who betetr to represent the gun owners?i binafit and I am not a multi million dollar gun industry.Conspiracy theories are easy to spin and hard to refute. But absent serious evidence, they are simply the idle conjectures of overheated minds. Showing a coincidence is not the same as proving a cause. What may look incriminating to the uninformed may in fact be perfectly irrelevant.

The NRAs protection should be based on factual grounds rather than on careless and irresponsible charges about the motives .What you have done is like blaming the betty ford foundation for really carring about the car industry ,simplybecause of its name sake.

The problem here is that YOU and others appaer to need a "nanny government" to take care of you from cradle to grave. Where the rest of the membership are libertarian in philosophy. We believe we are capable citizens, capable of providing our own self defense, only government we need or want is what is permitted by the Constitution. Our present government has exceeded it authority for many years. It has perverted the public educations, creating a generation of sheep. While friend Cercyon claims not to be a product of the public educations system, he spouts the same lame message of register gun register gun owners and we will be safe. I believe that Maryland has much of the laws Cercyon wants passed. I seem to recall Chief Moose stating that the police could not protect the people of Maryland from the DC sniper but would deprive me of the best way to protect myself. This whole argument is not about gun control, the whole agenda is not about gun control, it is about control. Control of my life from cradle to grave and I resent the hell out of it. This is not the way our country was founded.

[DEAD ZONE]

Wrong! The vast majority of gun control legislation being proposed in this country has nothing to do with banning guns of any kind. Gun control opponents contrived this lie to manufacture a "They're coming to take our guns away!" hysteria. Did licensing of drivers and registration of cars lead to a ban on automobiles? Did licensing of dogs lead to a ban on pet ownership? Like myself, the vast majority of people who support gun control oppose an outright ban on all guns.

this has already been adressed.Ample examples {even some from righthere in the u.s.} have been given.Go back and look again.

[DEAD ZONE]

The statistics about gun deaths are misleading because most of the people killed by guns are criminals shot in the act of breaking the law."

Again this is not true. Looking over the 1995 Uniform Crime Report that I downloaded from the FBI's web site, I see that there were 13,629 firearm murders (not including accidents, suicides or involuntary manslaughter) and only 610 justifiable homicides. That's 1 justifiable homicide for every 22 murders. If you factor in suicides, accidents, etc. that would work out to about 1 justifiable homicide in every 40 or more gun deaths.

I have never seen such an argument.What is stated is that most murders are by previously historic criminals and usually one criminal on another,not that they are criminal being shot in an act of crime by an ordinary citizen.This to was asressed previously with the data and studies.

Plus your answer does not adress the statement anyway.Most gun defence does not require a shot but only a brandishing.

[BreakNorth]

There you go, cooking the numbers. In Europe, if I
move from the former Yugoslavia to, say, France, much like
moving from Wyoming to New York here, wouldn´t I be
considered a Yugoslavian immigrant, living in
France?

Moving from Yugoslavia to France in not like moving from Wyoming to New York. It's like moving from Jamaica to Alaska.

Or Russia? Of course , it must be those people who
you conveniently exclude from your peace loving Europe, even
though the majority of them are slavic, just like the
residents of the rest of Eastern Europe. Excluding The
European part of Russia is like excluding Mexico from North
America, "they´re just...different , is all."

Dead Zone, don't blame Phreak. He can't help it that Russia is an Asian country. If you don't like it, complain to our Creator, not to Phreak.

And besides,the original gun{hand cannon} was
designed to scare the crap out of charging calvelry.If by
chance{and thats all it was} the projectiole hit something
then all the better.

Are you serious?
- "Hey, this'll scare their livers out. Hey, who knows,
maybe we'll hit one."
- "Yeah, that'd make my day"
Cannons were designed to hit objects, guns were designed to
hit living creatures, whether man or animal.
You don't think bows, arrows, spears, boomerangs, and the
entire shebang were designed to be in Tate Gallery, do you?

The former government of Germany made registration
lists, and the duly elected Adolf Hitler used them to
confiscate weapons.

So that's why Hitler broadened gun possession in 1938...
Because he wanted to confiscate weapons...
And besides that: does the abuse of one person of a certain system make the entire system wrong? Is the fact that
passports are being frauded on a daily basis reason to stop
handing out passports. I still need to see the first completely "waterproof" system, but does that mean that all
systems are wrong?

Criminals are not required to register .It has
already been delared unconstitutional.

That's no argument. Hell, even abolition of slavery was once
declared unconstitutional (infringement upon sovereignty of
the states), but I don't think you oppose abolition, do you? School funding was declared unconstitutional. The Office of Child Support Enforcement was declared unconstitutional. The Pledge of Allegiance was declared unconstitutional. Posting the Declaration of Independence in public schools was declared unconstitutional. I could go on for a very long time, but you probably catch my drift. Don't use a Supreme Court decision to prove a moral right.

"It's illegal for any one who is mentally disturbed
to own a gun. Anyone who wants to own a gun is mentally
disturbed. Therefore, it's illegal for anyone to own a
gun."

This is another very favourite tactic, in the case of
absence of content-arguments: distort the words of the
opponent, in order to mock him/her.

If you have someone, who for instance is suffering from MPS
(or PMS :wink), would you give that person a firearm? Would
you give a schizophrenic a firearm? Would you give a
delirium-patient a firearm?

For example, why do FFLs have to write down the make,
model, and serial number of the gun a successful checkee has
just purchased (for later surrender of this information to
the government)?

To help criminal investigation. For instance in the case of
the sniper. The gun used is very rare. Registration would
have narrowed down the list of suspects and possible lead
witnesses an awful lot. This would have stimulated police
investigation. This would very very probably have saved
lives. (Only the Clockmaker above us knows whether it really
would have saved lives or not).

because as I stated earlier, you can´t immigrate from
Europe to Europe, that´s just silly.

Why not? If you can migrate from Nova Scotia to Maine, why
can't you migrate from Romania to France? Those who fled for
the oppression of the Hungarian Uprising in 1968, were they
not refugees? Those who fled the Soviet-Union (e.g.
Solzhenytzin), were they not refugees? Those who fled Nazi
Germany (e.g. Anne Frank), were they not refugees?

Everything you have advocated will not effect the
criminal and his ability to get a gun.

Well, it WILL affect the criminal, because he won't have the
gun supermarkets to go to anymore. Because you know what
makes it extra easy for criminals to get their hands on
guns? The marketplace-like gun flea markets.
"Hey, what's that? Oh, and that? That one looks nice. Hey,
and my sister has that one. What does that cost?"
"That'll be $14,23, sir"
"Here's $15, keep the change."
"Thank you. Have a nice day, sir"
"You too."
And I wish I was making this up. Availibility of guns, ok,
but this is almost bizarre. This is an invitation to the bad
willing.
What you're basically saying is, "if they wanna get guns, they'll get 'em anyway, so let's just give it to 'em."

You are in a fantasy world of mind reading and future
telling that you cant deny is impossible to tell.Its the
only way your idead can or even will work.It belongs in the
sci fi section. Your lack of touch with reality would be amusing if
it weren´t so obvious that you are a studied person. Do you purposely invent such profoundly disproven belief systems to support your pre-conceived, but wholly illogical notions -- or do you actually believe your above fantasy is real?You´re not only wrong -- as the above OCTOBER NEWS
soundly proves -- you´re so wrong it´s pathetic and
disterbing that someone of your education has the fortatude
to issue such ignorance. (That´s putting it kindly as I
can.)

If anyone lives in a fantasy world, it's you, who
apparently thinks there's no problem whatsoever and that
everything's running smoothly as it goes. I so wish reality
was like that.

An ignorant statement that I hope you cut/pasted from
somewhere else. There is no other common American consumer
product that has MORE "regulations" [safety and otherwise]
attached to its manufacture, sales and possession and use.
You really should check these things you get from the
anti-gun boards before you internalize them and make them
"your" thoughts, Phreak.


No federal agency currently regulates guns for product safety, even though most other consumer products, including toy guns, are regulated. As a result, federal law does not require gun manufacturers to include safety features that could prevent gun accidents and make guns more difficult for children to fire. Only four states have enacted laws or regulations requiring product safety features on guns. (Teret and Culross, 2002)

Although gun manufacturers occasionally offer guns designed to prevent child access, fewer than 5% of new guns include readily available child-resistant technologies, such as a feature that indicates when a round is ready to be fired ("loaded chamber indicator") and devices that disable the weapon when the magazine is removed ("magazine disconnect device"). (Vernick, Meisel, et al., 1999)

Another product safety feature, still in the prototype stage, could prevent unauthorized access to guns by youth and others. "Personalized" guns would use a personal identification number, fingerprint recognition, or other technology to ensure that only an authorized user could fire the gun. Two states, New Jersey and Maryland, are conducting studies into the feasibility of requiring guns sold in those states to be personalized. (Teret and Culross, 2002)


It was not a civil war anyway.That has one side
trying to take controle of a nation from another side.The
south simply wanted to leave and be left alone. War between
the states is more acurate.

For your information: a war between the states IS a civil
war. A civil war is a war between factions or regions of the
same country. I can't help but see the American Civil War as
a war between factions or regions of the US.

Oh, yeah, because of some war that Europe
started.

Actually, it was one moron in Germany, to be more precise.

I think that counts towards thier total, not ours


Well, who dropped the bomb?

one can always poison some one

In that case the poison is the weapon.

[DEAD ZONE]

Moving from Yugoslavia to France in not like moving from Wyoming to New York. It's like moving from Jamaica to Alaska.

It most certainly is not like jamaica to wyoming.Its just like from one state to another.They dont call it the EU for nothing.Further,learn your geography.Russia is huge.It spans from asia to europe in the east.The easter half is european .I am not talking about siberia.

[DEAD ZONE]

Are you serious?
- "Hey, this'll scare their livers out. Hey, who knows,
maybe we'll hit one."
- "Yeah, that'd make my day"
Cannons were designed to hit objects, guns were designed to
hit living creatures, whether man or animal.
You don't think bows, arrows, spears, boomerangs, and the
entire shebang were designed to be in Tate Gallery, do you?

This shows your ignorance on the subject.I said hand cannon,not cannons.The original hand held arm was called a hand cannon and it was use exactly as I said.A basic look at firearms history would show that.You mischaracterised totally what I said.I said their and you know it.
Bows and arrows were far harder because it took a lot of practice to master.its easy to light a chjarge.You compare apples to oranges here.Probably because of your lack of real argument

[DEAD ZONE]

So that's why Hitler broadened gun possession in 1938...
Because he wanted to confiscate weapons...
And besides that: does the abuse of one person of a certain system make the entire system wrong? Is the fact that
passports are being frauded on a daily basis reason to stop
handing out passports. I still need to see the first completely "waterproof" system, but does that mean that all
systems are wrong?

quote:

Criminals are not required to register .It has
already been delared unconstitutional.

Hitler did not broaden gun possession except for the military and or the party.




th]at's no argument. Hell, even abolition of slavery was once
declared unconstitutional (infringement upon sovereignty of
the states), but I don't think you oppose abolition, do you? School funding was declared unconstitutional. The Office of Child Support
Enforcement was declared unconstitutional. The Pledge of Allegiance was declared unconstitutional. Posting the Declaration of
Independence in public schools was declared unconstitutional. I could go on for a very long time, but you probably catch my drift.
Don't use a Supreme Court decision to prove a moral right. So now the law of the land under the present descussion is irrelavant.

Its the law and its what you want done now that is the issue,not some abstract from the past that has nothing to do with the issue.Moral right ?I am using the situation of the present to show right.Moral is your problem.ITS THE LAW.

You admit then that registration is for lawfull people,not criminals.WHY?

The weapon used by the sniper was not rare.It is a widely used weapon .its not the best for sniping but is used by many.regitration would have been usless.A pedagree of gun ownership proves nothing.They were not even looking for a muslim black guy but a white guy.

[DEAD ZONE]

This is another very favourite tactic, in the case of
absence of content-arguments: distort the words of the
opponent, in order to mock him/her.

If you have someone, who for instance is suffering from MPS
(or PMS ), would you give that person a firearm? Would
you give a schizophrenic a firearm? Would you give a
delirium-patient a firearm? More rhetoric over substance.The fact is,they have already started redefining such terms.They just voted wether or not to allow idiots to vote in one state because the term was out dated.They consider spanking abuse ect. ect.

The later half is plane nuts.Many a women on pms has a gun.I have been around them.Thats rather insulting to them by the way.You "arguments " are getting rediculas.

[Serendipity]

Moving from Yugoslavia to France in not like moving from Wyoming to New York. It's like moving from Jamaica to Alaska.

It most certainly is not like jamaica to wyoming.Its just like from one state to another.They dont call it the EU for nothing.Further,learn your geography.Russia is huge.It spans from asia to europe in the east.The easter half is european .I am not talking about siberia.

DeadZone, I have lived and worked in both France and the former Yugoslavia. One state to another, indeed! Nope, it's not quite like that. :lol AFAIK ex-Yugoslavia is not yet an EU member. As for the rest, quite how you qualify to advise anyone to learn their geography beats me. :confused: :D :lol

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Serendipity


DeadZone, I have lived and worked in both France and the former Yugoslavia. One state to another, indeed! Nope, it's not quite like that. :lol AFAIK ex-Yugoslavia is not yet an EU member. As for the rest, quite how you qualify to advise anyone to learn their geography beats me. :confused: :D :lol

It is and I never said yugo was inthe eu.You missed the point.The eu has some members.The others want in.They have the same mentality .It is like going from one state to another and easter europe is similarly matched with wester russia.

But this is all off subject anyway.

[DEAD ZONE]

For your information: a war between the states IS a civil
war. A civil war is a war between factions or regions of the
same country. I can't help but see the American Civil War as
a war between factions or regions of the US.

Wrong again.Look up the term and situation.It is just as I defined it.The war between the states was not a civil war.It does not meat the idea of one faction resting control of the country from the other.

[Dizbuster]

no matter how many times I beat that horse,
it just won't stay Dead!

:lol :rolleyes: :clap :wave :clap :rolleyes: :lol

[DEAD ZONE]

Well, it WILL affect the criminal, because he won't have the
gun supermarkets to go to anymore. Because you know what
makes it extra easy for criminals to get their hands on
guns? The marketplace-like gun flea markets.
"Hey, what's that? Oh, and that? That one looks nice. Hey,
and my sister has that one. What does that cost?"
"That'll be $14,23, sir"
"Here's $15, keep the change."
"Thank you. Have a nice day, sir"
"You too."
And I wish I was making this up. Availibility of guns, ok,
but this is almost bizarre. This is an invitation to the bad
willing.
What you're basically saying is, "if they wanna get guns, they'll get 'em anyway, so let's just give it to 'em."

Na as i said,i am not against backgroundchecks if done correctly.

Second,as the surveys and studies show,criminals do not get their weapons as a rule from licensed gun dealers.The bl;ack market is very much alive and well and easy to find.

The only 15 dollar gun is a black market one chief.

The brady law has not effected crimnals much at all.Ill try and post on that later.It has prevented innocent people however by falsly saying they were denied.


All your rantting and snide remarkes are not convincing absent of anything but opinion.

[DEAD ZONE]

This is a classic case of disinformation by the NRA.
First of all, the NRA's claim of 2.5 million cases of self defense a year is a misrepresentation of Kleck's own results. Kleck had extrapolated from his survey that guns were used in self-defense between 800,000 and 2.45 million times a year. That's quite a huge margin of error there. So naturally the NRA takes the high end of that range and rounds up from that.

That still does not help you.800,000 is far more than all the death by guns {includding suicide,acident ect.}.So you have not helped yourself any.See below for more.

Also you show a flawed sense of examination.While you point out the "possible" flaw against it {which turns out to be a lie anyway},you ignore possible flaws for it ,such as:
There are substantial reasons for people not to report defensive gun uses to the police or, for that matter, even to interviewers working for researchers like klecks -- the reason simply being that a lot of the times people either don't know whether their defensive act was legal or even if they think that was legal, they're not sure that possessing a gun at that particular place and time was legal. They may have a gun that's supposed to be registered and it's not or maybe
it's totally legally owned but they're not supposed to be walking around on the streets with it.

Secondly, it is important to note that other criminologists have found serious flaws with this survey.

Name them.The ones I read were jokes.Hand gun control and VPC regularly imploye them on a biased bases which has been shown. Klecks backdground is as follows:

Kleck is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause,Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause
, among other politically liberal organizations. He is also a lifelong registered Democratas well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to the NRA, Handgun Control Inc., or any other advocacy group on either side of the gun-control issue, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.

Also,Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. Each and every study has its possible flaws,but a consistant charachter of them all is the high number of defencive uses.Kleck set out to fix these flaws where posible in his study.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.

Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank) .The very items sited here.One of the most prominent criminologists in the world, Marvin Wolfgang, comments on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use ;
"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.
...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies.

...

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.

...

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)






The biggest problem is that Keck let the respondents of his telephone survey determine whether their use of a gun was a legitimate act of self-defense. In other words if someone took out a gun and threatened a neighbor during an otherwise non-violent argument, and that person thinks this is a justified use of a gun, then Kleck would count that as a legitimate case of self-defense.
Tis is a bold face lie.Kleck states himself how it was determined and all one need do to porove the statement a lie is look at klecks study:
"We asked people was the gun used defensively in the past five years and if so how many times did that happen and we asked details about what exactly happened. We nailed down that each use being reported was a bona fide defensive use against a human being in connection with a crime where there was an actual confrontation between victim and offender. Previous surveys were a little hazy on the details of exactly what was being reported as a defensive gun use."

Why the diff between 800,000 and 2.5 million?

SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's see if we can pin down some of these figures. I understand you asked questions having to do with just the previous one year. Is that

correct?



KLECK: That's correct. We asked both for recollections about the preceding five years and for just what happened in the previous one year, the idea being that

people would be able to remember more completely what had happened just in the past year.



SCHULMAN: And your figures reflect this?



KLECK: Yes. The estimates are considerably higher if they're based on people's presumably more-complete recollection of just what happened in the previous

year.



SCHULMAN: Okay. So you've given us the definition of what a "defense" is. It has to be an actual confrontation against a human being attempting a crime? Is that

correct?



KLECK: Correct.



SCHULMAN: And it excludes all police, security guards, and military personnel?



KLECK: That's correct.

[Orange County (CA) Register on Sunday, September 19, 1993, ]

The reason for the gap is because people are presumably not remembering as completely, but the raw numbers of people who remember some kind of defensive use over the previous five years.
So actually,the more reliable data is the clearest which would be what was remembered ,l.e. the last year giving us the 2.4mill. mark.

[i

[DEAD ZONE]

Think about it. Any time anyone uses or threatens someone else with a gun, that person brandishing the weapon will ALWAYS consider their use of a gun to be justified. Even a criminal who shoots someone while committing a crime thinks that they are justified.

If you need to brandisha gun to prevent a confrontation{see previous definition} then it is a DGU.Only you seem to think firing it makes it a DGU.Thats obserd.

According to the Census Bureau's annual National Crime Victimization Survey there are about 80,000 times a year that firearms are ued in self-defense - a mere fraction of the number that Kleck's survey claims. Unlike Kleck's survey, the Census Bureau's survey is not just a single phone call. It involves trained interviewers who follow up with seven interviews with the same household over a 3 year period in order to verify the accuracy of the data. A good source of information about Gary Kleck and his survey is the Aug. 15, 1994 issue of U.S. News and World Report. The article lists other flaws that have been found in Kleck's survey results.


Kleck took them from 5 yrs.

the problem with your census survey[same one used by the NCVS] should be obvious and is one of the flaws Kleck fixed.

The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
HELLO!!
I would have told them where to go and what to do to themselves just before the door slamed in thier face.Its non of the feds business!

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

I know several folk that carry illegal.they would rather be tried by 12 than caried by 6 and they are not dumb enough to admit they carry to a bunch of feds.
:rolleyes:

The NCVS so relied upon by the FBI and the feds was "not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

[DEAD ZONE]

I have seen several die-hard NRA supporters use this statement when trying to warn against the "evils" of gun control. I guess it would be pretty effective if it weren't completely untrue. Israel and Switzerland, to name just 2 examples, are countries that have had very strict gun control laws for several years and yet also have high rates of gun ownership. Refer to Myth # 13 above for more details.

It is o possibility and I document cases right hear where it happened

Switzerland has laws regulating ammo.However,anyhonest swiss{I have s
poken to them} will tell you its inforced about like our highway speed limit.
In other words,it is not.
"Good intentions can never suffice for sound judgment in the defense of liberty."--Ron Paul

"Gun control only effects law-abiding citizens. Criminals won't be affected by gun control laws."

Wrong again. The Brady law, for example, does just the opposite. It does not prohibit law abiding citizens from buying guns, but with a background check, makes it harder for a criminal to buy a gun. So far, waiting periods and background checks have already lead to the arrest of tens of thousands of known felons who have tried to buy handguns over the counter.


Sarah Brady, Chairwoman of Handgun Control Inc., claimed:
"The new FBI report demonstrates that the significant drop in the homicide rate last year is clearly linked to new efforts at gun tracing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the Brady Law, and state anti-gun trafficking initiatives such as Virginia's one-gun-a-month law." (Oct. 18, 1999 U.S. Newswire).


The first part of Sarah Brady's statement is true.I will admit it can help if the specific and right situation arises. "Gun tracing," which is directed at criminal activity, has proved to be very effective . However it is extremely doubtful that the "Brady Law" was "clearly linked" to a "significant drop in the homicide rate last year [1998]."

Between 1991 and 1998, without implementing significant gun control legislation (see endnote), California's homicide rate dropped 48.9% versus 31.9% for the rest of the U.S. Likewise, violent crime fell 34.8% in California compared to 23.2% for the rest of the nation. Even choosing a different year to start the comparison, such as 1993 (when the Brady Act was signed) or 1994 (when Brady became effective, February 28, 1994), homicide and violent crime declined faster in California than nationally (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1991-1998). Evidence indicates the Brady Act is not a significant factor in violent crime reduction, or as the case of California suggests, neither were any of the gun control measures that were enacted during the 90's.
[Since 1991, legal private party firearms transactions require a DROS form, and the transactions must go through a licensed firearms dealer. The transaction records for handguns are retained, however non-prohibited rifle and shotgun transactions, which require a different DROS form, are not permanently retained.

The above could hardly have prevented or discouraged a significant number of illegal firearms transactions since it was already against federal law to transfer a firearm to a "prohibited" person (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)). Also, it was and still is a felony to purchase a firearm from a dealer and transfer it to another person unless it is a gift (see page 15 of this ATF compilation).]

One of the nation's leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."[Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, "Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act," Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 284, no. 5 (August 2, 2000). ]

I WOULD LOVE THE SOURCE FOR THIS 10,OOO ARESTED STUFF.
And it matters little if arrested if they are not PROSECUTED.That sounds like more smoke and mirrors.

And I agree with some "gun control".I already stated so.What those conservatives have to do with it is beyond me.So what if they or i like it.What does that prove.

A suplimental to the swiss thing earlier.
Their government have a long of history of showing they can be trusted to abide by their founding beliefs. Our governments (ahem, CA New yourk to name a few) have shown that gun registration WILL lead to disarmament, which then leads to LESS safety. Their citizens trust them with registration, because their governments have been shown that they have reason to be trusted. We Americans are sneaky little selfish pigs that will do anything to get our way and get our piece of the pie. There is no national pride. We are a me first society and damn the freedoms of everybody else.

[DEAD ZONE]

"Gun control is a socialist plot to disarm America and 'take our guns away'."

This tired old lie has recently been dusted off by the NRA. They seem to ignore the fact that many gun control measures are supported by 91% of the American people. A poll in US News and World Report showed that 42% of gun OWNERS support a gun licensing system. There are many notable conservatives who support gun control measures. Conservative commentator George Will has voiced support for banning semi-automatic assault weapons. Another conservative columnist, James Kilpatrick supports limiting the availability of concealable handguns. Former surgeon general C. Everett Koop, advanced his own proposal for licensing gun owners. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas publicly supports some gun control measures. In March of 1991 a well known speaker issued the following statement: "You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language. I support the Brady Bill, and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay". The speaker of those words was that famous "liberal" Ronald Reagan. On another occasion, Reagan endorsed the assault weapons ban. These are only a few of the "socialists" who support gun control.

See previous.
I dont think its necesarily a socialist plot but,those that follow this have good reason.Here is why:

go to your local library, no matter where you live in the United States. Tell the librarian to show you where the United States Code books are shelved. There are 25 books in the set. They are reddish-brown in color. They are printed by the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC. These hard-covered books are printed every 8-10 years. They are updated with annual soft-back supplements each year until a new hard-cover issue comes out. At the present time the 1988 hardbacks are on library shelves. OPEN VOLUME 9. The page numbers are in the center near the middle binding. The section numbers are along the edges. TURN TO PAGE 651. Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms. (This is Title 22 USC section 2551) TURN TO PAGE 652. Here you will find the definition of what the government means by "disarmament." The disarmament calls for the elimination of our armed forces. It also calls for the elimination of weapons of all kinds. (This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a)). TURN TO PAGE 654. Here you will find it stated as item (a) "control, reduction and elimination of armed forces..." and as Item (d) "...Elimination of armed forces...". What you need to know is that your armed forces are being eliminated from national control which, in turn, wipes out our sovereignty as a nation. In two stages, we will have no more army, no more navy, no more air force. In the third stage, we shall have a "zero" military. Before Stage I closes, all citizen owned guns will be banned. (This is Title 22 USC Section 2571 (a). Public Law 87-297 is further explained in the State Department Document, called Publication 7277. Your librarian can also furnish you a copy. Ask the librarian to get you a copy of "The Blue Print for the Peace Race." It is a 35 page booklet printed by the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as Publication No. 4 - General Series 3 - Released May, 1962. Publication No. 4 is the unabridged version of State Department Document 7277. Both of these booklets explain how our military is to be reduced to 2.1 million men. China and the Soviets are to be reduced to that level also. At this point, we are at Stage I at which time we are to transfer (on a permanent basis) one-half of our armed forces to be merged with the Russian and Chinese armies. In Stage II the remaining one-half of our armed forces is then turned over to this same Security Council of the United Nations. The person in charge of the merged armies must, by agreement, always be a Russian. The world's smaller nations turn 100% of their armies over to the same under-secretary of the Security, Council in Stage II. President George Bush and Admiral Wm. J. Crowe [have refered] to this process as being "in transition." TURN TO PAGE 655. On this page in Volume 9 of the United States Code, read "Policy Formation." The directives there (written in 1963 to pacify objectors) are supposedly to restrain anyone fromdisarmament, reducing or limiting our armaments, or taking guns away from the people unless it is pursuant to the treaty-making power of the president, or if it is authorized by further legislation by the Congress. (This is title 22, Section 2573.) Every couple of years the House of Representatives votes to appropriate funds for this on-going program. Since P.L. 87-297 was first passed into law in 1961, there have been 18 updates to it - all bad - with no deletions of these issues I lay before you now. The Congress knows that the plan includes the policing of the United States by foreign troops. (The world army they are forming.) The Congress is allowing our military bases to beclosed down, except for those which will be used by the world army. You will find that plan in Publication 7277 and in "The Blueprint for the Peace Race." If the president and Congress can promote a "Constitutional Convention" you will find yourself with two new constitutions(communist in structure) which in one states in Article VIII, Section 12: "No person shall bear arms or possess lethal weapons except the police and members of the armed forces...." TheCongress has praised these documents and is on record in Senatehearings seeking ways to install these constitutions. Ask yourlibrarian for "Revision of the United Nations Charter - Hearings Before a Subcommittee (Foreign Relations) Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S.Government Printing Office." Nothing has changed since. Theyare still viable. End of Second Amendment Committee written material

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ultimate goal to be reached in Stage III of the disarmament process is to "proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force..." Anyone who doubts the truthfulness of what has been presented here is free to go to the library and go through the steps which have been outlined above. While you are at it, look up PublicLaw 101-216. State Department Publication 7277 is available in electronic form as file PUB_7277.ZIP on at least the following bulletin boards: Paul Revere - San Jose (408) 947-7800 or (408) 279-0872 The Rising Storm (408) 739-8693 If in future years your children or grandchildren ask why you allowed their freedom to slip through your fingers, no one who has read this material will be able to say; "if only I had known." Now that you have read this, you know. The questionis; what are you going to do about it?

[DEAD ZONE]

New York City is a good example of this. Most guns used in crimes in New York were purchased legally somewhere else and transported to NYC.
Because they know better than to try it where the innocent are armed and can shoot back.

True, and true a national law would then effect everybody in the states, not just NY. But what about guns coming in from outside the country? If a boatload of Hatians can cruise up to the coast of FL, and unload their occupants unchallenged at an inland waterway, then why can´t a boat full of drugs and guns do the same? Airplanes? What about the borders between Mexico and Canada? What about machine shops with the tools to build guns? So then only the truly criminally intent will then have guns. Hey that´s the safety I´m looking for..

Washington, D.C. has, perhaps, the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.

Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas. The murder rates are:

City 1999 Murder rate
Washington, DC 46.4 per 100,00035
Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,00036
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
Total VA metropolitan area 6.1 per 100,00037

Guns are not the problem. On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment.You cant stop them from coming in to europe from the east and they cant stop them here either:

By Julie Cheever Bay City News Service

Fourteen people, including a Saratoga man, were indicted by a federal grand jury in San Francisco last week on charges of smuggling 2,000 automatic machine guns and 20,000 rifle stands from China and then laundering the profits. The 30-count indictment follows the arrests of seven of the defendants last month and the seizure last March of 2,000 SK-47 machine guns smuggled from China to Oakland. The defendants include the seven men and women arrested in Northern California, a Los Altos man who is a fugitive and six other fugitives who are Chinese citizens. Three of the Chinese are officials of Norinco, a weapons company in the People's Republic of China that allegedly manufactured the machine guns seized in March.

Richard Ma, 49, of Los Altos remains a fugitive. Ma was an officer of a Chinese munitions firm called Poly Technologies, which did business in the United States under the name of Dynasty Holding Co. of Atlanta, according to the indictment. The indictment accuses Ku and eight others, including three executives from Norinco, of laundering more than $600,000 received in payment for the machine guns. The indictment seeks forfeiture of those funds as well as $70,000 seized in a search of Ku's Saratoga home and the assets of Dynasty Holding Co.
This article appeared in the Saratoga News, June 12, 1996.
An interview with the creater of the AK47 was on the hisory channel a few months ago.He let China have it on steeling his design and flooding the market with it.Gun controll will not work.China will sale to anyone.They will be more than happy to supply the criminal with his weapon.

[DEAD ZONE]

The supporters of gun control are motivated by 'fear' of guns."

The support for gun control is motivated by the facts and statistics regarding violent crime and the availability of guns. I support licensing of drivers and registration of automobiles but I do not 'fear' cars.
no.Most do so out of ignorance.
The car example has been delt with.You will be suprised to find yourself on my side on that one.We al ready have similar laws and if you go back and read,you will probably want to never use that example again.
:lol

[DEAD ZONE]

"The second amendment to the Constitution was intended to arm the people against a possible tyrannical government. We would need modern weaponry, like semi automatic assault rifles, to fight the government."

If that is true, then why stop at handguns and semi automatic assault rifles? This argument would lead to the conclusion that to adequately combat the government, private citizens would need to have machine guns, bazookas, shoulder launched missiles, tanks, blackhawk helicopters, and yes even nuclear weapons. Again, this exemplifies the idiocy of the NRA's arguments.

That part about the second is only one reason,not the only one.
The rest is complete lunacy.You know little on the subject ,especially guerilla warefare.Of course, ordinary citizens are not going to grab their Saturday night specials and charge into oncoming columns of tanks. Resistance to tyranny or invasion would be a guerrilla war. In the early years of such a war, before guerrillas would be strong enough to attack the occupying army head on, heavy weapons would be a detriment, impeding the guerrillas' mobility. As a war progresses, Mao Zedong explained, the guerrillas would use ordinary firearms to capture better small arms and eventually heavy equipment.

The Afghan mujahedeen have been greatly helped by the new Stinger antiaircraft missiles, but they had already fought the Soviets to a draw using a locally made version of the outdated Lee-Enfield rifle. One clear lesson of this century is that a determined guerrilla army can wear down an occupying force until the occupiers lose spirit and depart--just what happened in Ireland in 1920 and Palestine in 1948. As one author put it: "Anyone who claims that popular struggles are inevitably doomed to defeat by the military technologies of our century must find it literally incredible that France and the United States suffered defeat in Vietnam . . . that Portugal was expelled from Angola; and France from Algeria."

If guns are truly useless in a revolution, it is hard to explain why dictators as diverse as Ferdinand Marcos, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, and the Bulgarian communists have ordered firearms confiscations upon taking power.[For the Philippines, see Sherrill, p. 272. For Uganda, "Uganda Curbs Firearms," New York Times, December 22, 1969, p. 36. For Cuba, see Kessler, p. 382; Crum, "Gun Control Paved Castro's Way, Conservative Digest, April 1976, p. 33 (use of Batista's registration lists to facilitate confiscation); Williams, "The Rise of Castro: 'If only we hadn't given up our guns!"', Medina Countv Gazette, October 15, 1978, p. 5. For Bulgaria, see "Gun Control Laws in Foreign Countries," rev. ed. (Washington: Library of Congress, 1976), p. 33. (Upon coming to power Bulgarian communists immediately confiscated all firearms.)]

Certainly the militia could not defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles, but it could keep order at home after a limited attack. In case of conventional war, the militia could guard against foreign invasion after the army and the National Guard were sent into overseas combat. Especially given the absence of widespread military service, individual Americans familiar with using their private weapons provide an important defense resource. Canada already has an Eskimo militia to protect its northern territories.Nuking ones home is so stupid it ned not be adressed.

The most advanced technology in the world could not keep track of guerrilla bands in the Rockies, the Appalachians, the great swamps of the South, or Alaska. The difficulty of fighting a protracted war against a determined popular guerrilla force is enough to make even the most determined potential dictator think twice.[From Aaron Burr to Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy, Douglas MacArthur, and Richard Nixon, American history has seen its share of potential dictators. So far, our other safeguards have succeeded. But in a Constitution and political structure designed to last several hundred years, one cannot always count on the press or Congress to save things at the last minute.]



The Second Amendment debate goes to the very heart of the role of citizens and their government. By retaining arms, citizens retain the power claimed in the Declaration of Independence to "alter or abolish" a despotic government. And citizens retain the power to protect themselves from private assault. Ramsey Clark asked the question, "What kind of society depends on private action to defend life and property?" The answer is a society that trusts its citizenry more than the police and the army and knows that ultimate authority must remain in the hands of the people.

You also need to learn the difference between ordinance, and arms.

[DEAD ZONE]

"When criminals can no longer have easy access to guns, they will turn to other deadly weapons such as knives and baseball bats to commit their crimes."

Since ths can never be achieved in the first place{i can not only gey one easily on th ecorner black market,but can easily make one with basic tools from Sears} its a mute point.

A little more on the Brady law:

Not every person who is denied a firearm is truly a criminal, as many persons have been denied erroneously. But even assuming each denial was legitimate, the Brady law is still not taking criminals off the streets (and thus keeping them from getting firearms).

The Washington Times reported in 1999 that, "Although federal officials say about 400,000 persons have been prevented from buying guns by the instant check system, only one has been prosecuted by the Department of Justice in the last three years.[Scully, "Supremacist's shooting spree could spur gun control moves," The Washington Times (July 8, 1999). ]

The Brady law has NOT stopped thugs like Benjamin Smith from going on killing sprees. In 1999, Benjamin Smith was rejected by a background check when he tried to buy a firearm from an Illinois gun dealer. But after this initial rejection, "he hit the streets and in just three days had two handguns" from an illegal source, reported the Associated Press. Three days after getting the guns, Smith went on a rampage that killed two people and wounded nine others.

The simple truth is that any person who's denied a firearm can simply walk out the door and buy a gun down the street. Ohio's Attorney General, Betty Montgomery, testified to this very irony in the law in 1997:

In 1996, 60,037 people went to licensed gun dealers to purchase handguns. Of that figure, 327 -- less than one half of one percent -- were denied because of a disqualifying factor.... [W]hile we were able to keep 327 people from getting a handgun at point A -- each of them was able to purchase a rifle or handgun the very same day at point B. To our knowledge, under the Brady Act, not a single one of the 327 people... have been prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department.[Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery, "The U.S. Supreme Court's Action in Striking Portions of the Brady Act," News Statement (June 30, 1997).
]

A Justice Department survey of felons showed that 93% of handgun predators had obtained their most recent guns "off-the-record."[Department of Justice, "Survey of Incarcerated Felons," p. 36. ]

And press reports show that the few criminals who get their guns from retail outlets can easily get fake IDs or use surrogate buyers, known as "straw purchasers," to buy their guns.[Pierre Thomas, "In the Line of Fire: The 'Straw Purchase' Scam," The Washington Post (August 18, 1991); and Thomas, "Va. Driver's License is Loophole for Guns: Fake Addresses Used in No-Wait Sales," The Washington Post (January 20, 1992).]

The Indianapolis Star and News reported in 1998 that the U.S. Department of Justice had over-stated the number of people who were denied firearms in Indiana alone by more than 1,300%. Indiana was not an aberration, as the newspaper found that "paperwork errors and duplications inflated the [DOJ's] numbers" in many states.[Meghan Hoyer, "Brady Act results overstated in Indiana," Indianapolis Star and News (June 23, 1998). ]

According to a January, 1996 report by the General Accounting Office, "Proponents [of gun control] acknowledge that criminal records checks alone will not prevent felons from obtaining firearms."[Of persons denied the right to purchase a firearm under the Brady Law, 7.6 percent of the denials involved routine traffic stops. Another 38.9 percent were the result of administrative snafus. Only 44.7 percent of denials were as a result of felony convictions, and many of these resulted from white collar crimes and ancient peccadilloes which would not suggest that the person would pose a danger. Id., at 39-40, 64-65.
Id., at 4.]

These should answer some other points of yours.

[DEAD ZONE]

here is some truth to the claim that criminals too often go free because of a mere technicality or because they plea bargain the charges to a lesser crime. But this alone cannot possibly account for the radically high rate of crime in this country compared to other countries. The U.S. already imprisons a larger percentage of it's population than just about any other country in the world. In fact, one of the reasons criminals are often set free is because the prisons are just too overcrowded. We build more prisons and they fill up too. The laws in this country are no more lax than the laws in most other major democracies. Perhaps the NRA believes that Americans are just naturally more violent and crime prone than citizens of other countries but I don't agree. The one and only consistent difference between the U.S. and all the other major democracies that have a mere fraction of our crime is that each and every one of those countries has much stricter gun control laws on the books.

The stupid and usless war on drugs accounts for a huge number of crim,e and incasarations.Here,I agree with europ.We should legalize some {not all} of them.

the last half of your statement is hog was and simplisict bias.

For it to be true,you mustpick and choose countries that fit your view.More of the Phreak method.

A machine gun is no more deadly of a weapon than a baseball bat."

Used as a weapon,yes it is.Sitting around,no.

Wayne LaPierre

What has he to do with anything in this discussion.If ya want to bashim,be my guessed.He desrves some of it.

[DEAD ZONE]

"Owning a gun will protect you from crime."

An FBI report,"Crime in the United States, 1973" states that a gun kept in the home for self-defense is six times more likely to be used in a deliberate or accidental homicide involving a relative or friend than a burglar or unlawful intruder. More recently, criminologist Arthur Kellerman declared that for every case of gun use for self defense, there are 43 instances where guns are used in suicides, homicides and accidental deaths. But that number may be a bit conservative. According to Federal statistics, for every time a handgun is used by a citizen to kill a criminal, 118 innocent people are killed in handgun murders, suicides and accidents. Studies have shown that people who keep guns at home nearly TRIPLE their chances of being murdered. Whats more, a gun kept at home is 37 times more likely to be used to commit suicide than to be used for self defense. Still believe that possession of a gun makes you safer? Consider this :

According to criminologist Arthur Kellermann almost 20 percent of the police officers who are fatally wounded with firearms are shot with their own gun.

So now we judge a dgu soley by its body count.How laughable.Do you hold the same quota for the police?If they fail to make that body count,are we going to take away their guns?
It is often alleged that guns cause huge numbers of fatal accidents, far outweighing the minimal gain from whatever anticrime effects they may have.See your post and consider ,people who own swimming pools are more likely to die in drowning accidents.


See previous post as to the FBI problem.

Guns do not turn ordinary citizens into murderers. Significantly, fewer than one gun owner in 3,000 commits homicide; and that one killer is far from a typical gun owner. Studies have found two-thirds to four-fifths of homicide offenders have prior arrest records, frequently for violent felonies.[Kates, Why Handgun Bans Can't Work, pp. 25-26. See also Kleck, "Policy Lessons," pp. 40-41, stating that 70-75 percent of domestic homicide offenders have a previous arrest, and about half have a previous conviction.]

A study by the pro-control Police Foundation of domestic homicides in Kansas City in 1977 revealed that in 85 percent of homicides among family members, the police had been called in before to break up violence.[M. Wilt, G. Marie, J. Bannon, R. K. Breedlove, J. W. Kennish, D. M. Snadker, and R. K. Satwell, Domestic Violence and the Police: Studies in Detroit and Kansas City (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1977), quoted in Wright, Rossi, and Daly, p. 193, n. 3.]

In half the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. Thus, the average person who kills a family member is not a non-violent solid citizen who reaches for a weapon in a moment of temporary insanity. Instead, he has a past record of illegal violence and trouble with the law. Such people on the fringes of society are unlikely to be affected by gun control laws. Indeed, since many killers already had felony convictions, it was already illegal for them to own a gun, but they found one anyway.

Of all gun homicide victims, 81 percent are relatives or acquaintances of the killer.[Robert Sherrill, The Saturday Niqht Special (New York: Charterhouse, 1975), p. 29, citing "Gun Murder Profile," written by Senate Judiciary Committee's Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee (Washington: Government Printing Office, n.d.). ] As one might expect of the wives, companions, and business associates (e.g. drug dealers and loansharks) of violent felons, the victims are no paragons of society. In a study of the victims of near-fatal domestic shootings and stabbings, 78 percent of the victims volunteered a history of hard-drug use, and 16 percent admitted using heroin the day of the incident.[Kirkpatrick and Walt, "The High Cost of Gunshot and Stab Wounds," Journal of Surqical Research 14 (1973): 261-62.]

Many of the handgun homicide victims might well have been handgun killers, had the conflict turned out a little differently.

Finally, many of the domestic killings with guns involve self-defense. In Detroit, for example, 75 percent of wives who shot and killed their husbands were not prosecuted, because the wives were legally defending themselves or their children against murderous assault.[M. Daly and M. Wilson, Homicide (New York: Aldine, 1988), pp. 15, 200 (table p.1).]

When a gun is fired (or brandished) for legal self-defense in a home, the criminal attacker is much more likely to be a relative or acquaintance committing aggravated assault, rather than a total stranger committing a burglary.

The "domestic homicide" prong of the gun control argument demands that we take guns away from law-abiding citizens to reduce the incidence of felons committing crimes against each other. Not only is such a policy impossible to implement, it is morally flawed. To protect a woman who chooses to share a bed and a rap sheet with a criminal, it is unfair to disarm lawabiding women and men and make them easier targets for the criminal's rapes and robberies.

I cant beleive you actually used Kellerman and his long since debunked study.

In a nut shell;

Prejudicially Truncated Data
Non-sequitur Logic

Correct Methodology Described, But Not Used, By The Authors

Repeated The Harshly Criticized Methodology Of Rushforth From A Decade Earlier

Deceptively Understated The Protective Benefits Of Guns

The oft quoted Kellermann paper claims a homeowner's gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck appropriately terms this the "nonsense ratio." Kellermann states, "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms."

Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.

Not only is Kellermann's methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1. Let's see why this 43 to 1 ratio is a meaningless indicator of gun ownership risk.

What If we apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington that Kellerman used.

If we do use it ,Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.Making it 99% more likely to die if you dont have a gun in the home.

Besides.

there is so
much on this guy,i just give the sites.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html

One key flaw is,as Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make such claims are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns. That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms.
Kellerman even admits to such flaws.

[DEAD ZONE]

"Florida's crime rate dropped after they passed a law to allow concealed weapons to be carried in public. Therefore concealed carry laws must reduce crime."

According to Handgun Control, Florida's crime rate actually increased for the first few years after that concealed carry law was passed before the crime rate started back down again. But if you don't want to believe Handgun Control, I have an Associated Press newspaper article from March 14, 1995 that reported a study that was conducted by the University of Maryland where they tracked the homicide rate in several cities before and after concealed gun laws were relaxed. Three of the cities they studied were in Florida. The results were quite different than the NRA would have you believe. The homicide rate INCREASED 3 percent in Miami, 22 percent in Tampa and 74 percent in Jacksonville.

Another doctored number message.Any criminologist or statistcian would flunk you out of class.@ trs. after a law is past is no judge of anything.It takes time to see its effects.Not enough CCW are out there yet to make much difference.Criminals know this.


Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.note 1[One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).]

A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;[See supra note 1].
] and If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.[Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." ]Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for seven years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the safest states in the union -- having twice received the "Safest State Award."

In the ten years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, there were 478,248 people who received permits to carry firearms.[ Memo by Sandra B. Mortham, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (10/1/87-12/31/97).]
FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 39% during that 10-year period.[Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (1998):15, 77. ]

Selecting one year for 3 cities as your source did is flagarant bias.
For a statistic to be reliable, it must be based upon a large number of observations ("data points"). If the statistic is about cause and effect, the observations must have variation in both the suspected causal factors and the suspected effect. Any other possible causes must be accounted for in the analysis.
This can be accomplished by taking observations in a given place over a long period of time, by taking observations in many representative places for a given time, or by taking observations in the many representative places over the long period of time. If the times or places of observations are selected other than randomly from the entire range of possibilities, the statistics that result can only be applied to the times and places represented by the observations.

Lies are often told with statistics by searching through all the available data and selecting out little pieces of it to report. For example, years of data showing that rates of youth accidental deaths involving guns dropped almost every year for almost every locale and almost every age group and race group can be searched until a pair of years is found for which some age group and/or race group in some small village showed an increase. This typically involves only very small numbers of cases.

When statistics are stated about small subsets of an overall population, it is a safe bet that someone has searched through the available data to find something that appears to support what they want to say (rather than showing the whole picture that doesn't). If someone does this you can be sure they are telling you a lie.

Lies are also told by misrepresenting whatever the data of a study or survey actually shows. For example, a study finds that, in homes of one county where the instrument of a death over a period of a few years (ending 13 years ago) was a gun, the ratio of the sum of suicide deaths plus accidental deaths plus murders to the sum of the self defense killings was 42.7. This gets misrepresented as, "a gun kept (or kept for self defense) in the home is (now and everywhere) 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone you know (or a loved one) than to be used (or used to kill) in self defense (or against an intruder)."


They say things like "death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide" because the gun suicide rate increased in one year by a larger proportion (percentage) than other types of suicide even though the rates for both years might have been insignificant in comparison to the rates for other methods. For example, the Pacific Center for Violence Prevention, in referring to an "obviously unbiased" "study" by the fanatical gun control Violence Policy Center, indicated on their web site in late 1996 that the study's findings include that

"the rate at which Florida's concealed weapons law is arming criminals is increasing; of those who committed a crime after having received their concealed weapons license, one in five committed their crime with a gun; the number of revocations over the past year due to gun-related crimes committed after licensure jumped 35 percent over the previous seven-year tally."
Besides the question of how a permit to carry can have anything to do with getting a firearm, the initial statement could simply be a reflection of there being one single criminal act having been committed by a person with a permit where there had been none in the preceding year, the number being insignificant in both years.

The second statement misrepresents the facts differently by referring to gun crimes that were actually just instances of people with permits forgetting that they were carrying a gun or that they happened to be entering a place in which they were not allowed to carry the gun.

The final statement does the same, but also misrepresents the truth by using actual numbers rather than per capita rates. If the number of people with permits to carry concealed weapons rises dramatically as a result of law permitting it, the number of mistakes people with permits make will naturally go up by a large percentage. But, this does not mean that the percentage of permit holders that make mistakes per year after the law takes effect is any greater than the percentage of permit holders that made mistakes per year before it takes effect.

When someone claims something like "rising," "fastest growing" or "most," the reader should ask if the claim is about actual numbers, per capita rates, or percent change and should ask if the raw numbers involved are or can be large enough to be the result of something other than chance. If the claim is not specific about these things, it's a sure bet that those making the claim are purposely trying to mislead. Doubling, or 100 percent increase, of nothing is still nothing. In most cases, only per capita rates are legitimate bases for comparisons.


Have a nice day





:)

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
It most certainly is not like jamaica to wyoming.Its just like from one state to another.They dont call it the EU for nothing.Further,learn your geography.Russia is huge.It spans from asia to europe in the east.The easter half is european .I am not talking about siberia. [/B]

Are you serious on this post???????????? I sure hope you're not, because I would be really disappointed in you if it were.

First of all: Yugoslavia and France are culturally speaking two completely different countries. Yugoslavia is a Slavic country, France is mostly a Latin country. Moving from Yugoslavia to France is like moving from a Caribbean area such as Jamaica (or Barbados, would do just as well) to an arctic area such as Alaska.

Second: Yugoslavia is NOT an EU-country. I had sure hoped you would have done your homework a bit better. There are 15 EU-member states, 25 in the near future, and Yugoslavia is part of neither one. France and Yugoslavia don't form a union, just like Alaska and Jamaica (or Barbados) don't form a union.

And are you serious that the EASTERN half of Russia is European?????????????????? If so, it's you who should learn his geography. You do know that the eastern part of Russia borders to North Korea and Alaska, do you? And you do know that the European countries are on the other side of Russia, do you?
Besides that, Russia is an entirely Asian country. Why? Even if it would be European, it would be Asian. What gave me that preposterous idea? Europe is a subcontinent of Asia, just like for instance Arabia or India. Russia is Asian, just like North Korea, Mongolia, Singapore, etc. As "BN-BN" said: if you don't like it, talk to our Creator about it.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Hitler did not broaden gun possession except for the military and or the party.

Read this, if you please. If you want, I can give you the text of German 1938 gun legislation.

It is also a lie that Hitler took away the guns from the German people. The promoters of this falsehood usually make the insinuation by means of a verbal shell-game, in which they distort the actual disarming of (...) Jewish deportees during the war into a fictitious disarming of the German people -- an event which never took place under National Socialism.

The National Socialists actually relaxed the gun laws in Germany. In fact, private ownership of guns persisted in Germany until the (...) forces of the Allies rolled in and confiscated guns

Besides that: disarming the people is completely contradictory to the Nazi idea of manliness.

So now the law of the land under the present descussion is irrelavant.

You wanted to "prove" that gun control is wrong or whatever, by saying that it is unconstitutional. But looking at the history of "unconstitutionality declarations", that argument is totally irrelevant. You wanna say, that gun control is wrong (which you think, don't you?), and to prove your point, you use a Supreme Court decision. Well, let's put it kindly: the US Supreme Court doesn't really have a consistent history. (I'm not talking about the 2000 presidential elections now).

You admit then that registration is for lawfull people,not criminals.WHY?

Registration is for EVERYONE.

The weapon used by the sniper was not rare. It is a widely used weapon .its not the best for sniping but is used by many.

The weapon used was a Bushmaster XM15 A3 M4, which is hardly used outside of the army.

They were not even looking for a muslim black guy but a white guy.

That is a profiling error.

Wrong again.Look up the term and situation.It is just as I defined it.The war between the states was not a civil war.It does not meat the idea of one faction resting control of the country from the other.

What was the American Civil War? A war between the secessionist Confederate States of America and the United States of America. A war between "mainland" country and a secessionist region of that country is a civil war. Regardless of whether the secession is out of political, ethnic, religious or ideological reasons. The American Civil War is a war between two parts of one country, one being secessionist. Regardless of whether the secession fails or succeeds, a war between "dominator" and "secessionist" is, was and remains a civil war. But you're probably too stubborn too admit you're wrong.

The later half is plane nuts.Many a women on pms has a gun.I have been around them.Thats rather insulting to them by the way.You "arguments " are getting rediculas.

Come on, DZ. Relax. Didn't you see the wink next to PMS?

Second,as the surveys and studies show,criminals do not get their weapons as a rule from licensed gun dealers.The bl;ack market is very much alive and well and easy to find.

Question:
Do you believe in those "gun flea markets" BN described, or do you believe in regulation of gun sales like we regulate marijuana sales?
(and before you start about: "you don't have registration for marijuana": you're right. But I do need my passport if I wanna buy marijuana. Why? Because anyone has to be able to show he or she is 16 or over)

Kleck is a member of the ACLU,

What's wrong with fighting for civil liberties?

Amnesty International USA,

Gosh. When Amnesty International writes bad about Saddam, they are more than welcome, but the guts they have to dare do the same in the US.... Shouldn't be allowed...

Democrats 2000

Your point being? You don't quite show yourself a good democrat (with a small d). That's where freedom of speech ends? Not agreeing with you?

He is also a lifelong registered Democratas well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates.

Yeah, that sometimes happens in a country that claims to love freedom and democracy so dear. Sometimes people don't support who you support, but support your opponent. Get over it.


Dead Zone, please, for the sake of the discussion, first write your comment in Word, then run spell check over it, and then copy-paste it to here.

[Phreakmeister]

America is carrying on a deadly love affair with firearms that kills some 35,000 people every year.

Comparing firearm deaths among 36 of the world's wealthiest nations, America easily outguns the competition when it comes to murders, suicides and accidents.
“The United States is unique in several respects,” a recent U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study says. “It has the highest overall firearm mortality rate, a high proportion of homicides that are the result of a firearm injury, and the highest proportion of suicides that result from firearm injury.”
The United States, one of the richest nations on earth, suffers from gun violence that rivals the very worst in poorer nations, the study found. The epidemic transcends economics:

Americans murder each other with guns at a rate 19 times higher than any of the 25 richest nations surveyed. Why do Americans shoot each other so much more than almost everyone else on Earth?
Some argue that blood-soaked statistics are inevitable in any country that contains as many guns as the United States. Others say Americans are simply ultra-violent. Many blame it on some of the world's weakest gun control laws, or even on a national callousness. Others blame it on the guns themselves, on the culture, the media—even just bad parenting.
“In the U.S., we have a peculiar intersection among developed countries of a very violent culture and easy access to firearms,” says David Kennedy, a senior researcher at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. “In many ways, we are the worst of both worlds.”

Contrasting Reactions
In 1997, one year after Thomas Hamilton used a pistol to massacre 16 school children in Dunblane, Scotland, Great Britain banned the possession of all handguns larger than .22 caliber.
In 1996, only a fortnight after 28-year-old Martin Bryant, armed with an assault weapon, mowed down 35 men, women and children in Port Arthur, Australia, the nation's federal, state and territorial governments banded together to ban semi-automatic and pump-action firearms.
But it took until 1993, a dozen years after President Reagan narrowly survived an assassination attempt, for Congress to pass the Brady Bill, which requires a five-day waiting period and background checks of prospective pistol purchasers.
Yet the Brady Bill—which has prevented some 250,000 people from buying handguns—raises hackles at the National Rifle Association (NRA). The group says the law has improperly denied more than a few law-abiding citizens the right to own a handgun.
“The lesson learned from every other country is, don't go down the road of the United States,” says David Hemenway, professor of health policy at Harvard University. “To live in a world where 15 year-olds have easy access to guns would be unfathomable to them.”

Cultural Divide
Tragedies like those in Dunblane and Port Arthur make headlines in the United States with grim regularity—but without a comparable response.
A predictable amount of hand-wringing and soul-searching followed the mowing down of schoolchildren in Jonesboro, Arkansas by two adolescent sharpshooters and the latest student shooting in Springfield, Oregon. But gun laws at both the state and federal level remain unchallenged and unchanged.
“What's striking to people in other countries is what a tolerance there is in the U.S. for these scores of gun deaths,” says Rebecca Peters, an Australian expert on gun violence and a visiting Soros Senior Justice Fellow at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. “Other countries don't want to wait until they lose tens of thousands.”

‘Not a Lot of Drive-by Punchings’
America is awash in guns, an estimated 200 to 250 million of them. That’s enough to arm every single American adult with a rifle, pistol or shotgun. In 1995, these guns helped end nearly 36,000 American lives, more than half through suicide.
And the lethal capability of firearms make them far more effective and convenient than a knife, a club or poison. “There are not a lot of drive-by punchings,” Hemenway observes. Firearms can—and often do—turn routine quarrels into fatal disagreements. In 1995, almost half of most Americans murdered with guns were shot by a friend, relative or lover.
“The thing to remember about guns and murder is that most murders occur because somebody got angry,” says George Akerloff, a scholar with the Brookings Institution, a liberal Washington think-tank. “And if guns weren't available at the time, those murders would not have taken place.”
But Paul Blackman, research director for the NRA, says most guns bought for self-defense are never used at all, but serve a useful purpose—namely, a sense of security for the owner. And people who gun down friends or relatives, he added, tend to have criminal records.
“There is a potent psychological benefit in having a gun,” Blackman says. “Like iron bars or an alarm system.”

An Institution and a Constitution
Gun ownership is far less widespread in other developed nations, most of which treat gun control laws as a public health question—allowing them to pass laws that would probably spark armed uprisings in parts of the United States.
“There is general agreement in other nations that the government has the right to engage in regulation that is good public policy protecting the safety and health of the populace,” said Robert Spitzer, professor of Political Science at SUNY Cortland and author of The Politics of Gun Control.
A recent Harris poll found 69% of all Americans—and 57% of the nation’s gun owners—want stricter gun-control laws. But any such attempt faces fierce opposition from the NRA, a powerful single-issue lobby Spitzer describes as the “single biggest stumbling block” to meaningful gun control.
The Second Amendment's “right to bear arms” serves as the NRA's rallying cry in its war against gun control. But even Chief Justice Warren Burger has accused the NRA of searing this phrase—and its misinterpretation—onto the collective American consciousness. Those who support gun control say the amendment was written into the U.S. Constitution at a time when the country needed to defend itself from armed invasion from its shores, and is therefore an anachronism. Those who don’t support gun control say the amendment is what it is—part of America’s heritage and not open to interpretation.
“The NRA repeats it over and over again,” Hemenway says. “And the media repeats it and people buy it.”

Connection or Coincidence?
Would stricter gun laws help reduce America’s extraordinary firearm death rate?
“There is a connection between gun laws and crime, but not a perfect connection,” says Spitzer. “But there is ample evidence to show that tougher gun laws make a difference.”
But Daniel Polsby, a law professor at Northwestern University, notes that Europe's ultra-low murder rates predate their gun laws. In contrast, America had stricter gun control laws than most of Europe around the turn of the century, but still suffered from far higher murder rates.
“I think there is weak linkage between gun control and the murder rate,” says Polsby, who argues that cultural differences are the biggest factor.
While even draconian gun control probably wouldn't reduce U.S. gun deaths to European rates, many experts agree the amount of deadly violence would approach more civilized levels.
“I think it would be wrong to say if we had the same gun laws our violent crime rate would be the same,” said Hemenway. “But our lethal violence rate would be a lot lower.”


More Americans are killed in gun homicides in one day than in an entire year in Japan.

More people are shot and killed in America in one week than in all of Western Europe in one year.

Texans own 68 million guns. There are 17 million Texans. That's four guns for every man, woman and child.

There are more than 10 times as many licensed gun dealers in America than McDonald's restaurants: 142,000 to 12,000.

Whites are more likely than blacks to carry guns.

Hospital emergency rooms treat almost 100,000 Americans each year for gun-related injuries.

Almost 1 million Americans died from gun-related murders, suicides or accidents from 1933 to 1982. More than half occurred after 1960.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
go to your local library, no matter where you live in the United States. Tell the librarian to show you where the United States Code books are shelved. There are 25 books in the set. They are reddish-brown in color. They are printed by the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC. These hard-covered books are printed every 8-10 years. They are updated with annual soft-back supplements each year until a new hard-cover issue comes out. At the present time the 1988 hardbacks are on library shelves. OPEN VOLUME 9. The page numbers are in the center near the middle binding. The section numbers are along the edges. TURN TO PAGE 651. Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms. (This is Title 22 USC section 2551) TURN TO PAGE 652. Here you will find the definition of what the government means by "disarmament." The disarmament calls for the elimination of our armed forces. It also calls for the elimination of weapons of all kinds. (This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a)). TURN TO PAGE 654. Here you will find it stated as item (a) "control, reduction and elimination of armed forces..." and as Item (d) "...Elimination of armed forces...". What you need to know is that your armed forces are being eliminated from national control which, in turn, wipes out our sovereignty as a nation. In two stages, we will have no more army, no more navy, no more air force. In the third stage, we shall have a "zero" military. Before Stage I closes, all citizen owned guns will be banned. (This is Title 22 USC Section 2571 (a). Public Law 87-297 is further explained in the State Department Document, called Publication 7277. Your librarian can also furnish you a copy. Ask the librarian to get you a copy of "The Blue Print for the Peace Race." It is a 35 page booklet printed by the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as Publication No. 4 - General Series 3 - Released May, 1962. Publication No. 4 is the unabridged version of State Department Document 7277. Both of these booklets explain how our military is to be reduced to 2.1 million men. China and the Soviets are to be reduced to that level also. At this point, we are at Stage I at which time we are to transfer (on a permanent basis) one-half of our armed forces to be merged with the Russian and Chinese armies. In Stage II the remaining one-half of our armed forces is then turned over to this same Security Council of the United Nations. The person in charge of the merged armies must, by agreement, always be a Russian. The world's smaller nations turn 100% of their armies over to the same under-secretary of the Security, Council in Stage II. President George Bush and Admiral Wm. J. Crowe [have refered] to this process as being "in transition." TURN TO PAGE 655. On this page in Volume 9 of the United States Code, read "Policy Formation." The directives there (written in 1963 to pacify objectors) are supposedly to restrain anyone fromdisarmament, reducing or limiting our armaments, or taking guns away from the people unless it is pursuant to the treaty-making power of the president, or if it is authorized by further legislation by the Congress. (This is title 22, Section 2573.) Every couple of years the House of Representatives votes to appropriate funds for this on-going program. Since P.L. 87-297 was first passed into law in 1961, there have been 18 updates to it - all bad - with no deletions of these issues I lay before you now. The Congress knows that the plan includes the policing of the United States by foreign troops. (The world army they are forming.) The Congress is allowing our military bases to beclosed down, except for those which will be used by the world army. You will find that plan in Publication 7277 and in "The Blueprint for the Peace Race." If the president and Congress can promote a "Constitutional Convention" you will find yourself with two new constitutions(communist in structure) which in one states in Article VIII, Section 12: "No person shall bear arms or possess lethal weapons except the police and members of the armed forces...." TheCongress has praised these documents and is on record in Senatehearings seeking ways to install these constitutions. Ask yourlibrarian for "Revision of the United Nations Charter - Hearings Before a Subcommittee (Foreign Relations) Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S.Government Printing Office." Nothing has changed since. Theyare still viable. End of Second Amendment Committee written material

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ultimate goal to be reached in Stage III of the disarmament process is to "proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force..." Anyone who doubts the truthfulness of what has been presented here is free to go to the library and go through the steps which have been outlined above. While you are at it, look up PublicLaw 101-216. State Department Publication 7277 is available in electronic form as file PUB_7277.ZIP on at least the following bulletin boards: Paul Revere - San Jose (408) 947-7800 or (408) 279-0872 The Rising Storm (408) 739-8693 If in future years your children or grandchildren ask why you allowed their freedom to slip through your fingers, no one who has read this material will be able to say; "if only I had known." Now that you have read this, you know. The questionis; what are you going to do about it? [/B]

Now let me get this straight: because one day there were plans to come to one global army (which imho is (admittedly, not necessarily) better than a lot of armies fighting each other) under the United Nations (Peace forces? Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Cambodia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia, Georgia, East Timor, India/Pakistan, DR Congo, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, Golan, Lebanon, Haiti, Rwanda), the idea of tighter gun laws is wrong? Don't get me wrong, but have you been eating something wrong?

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Because they know better than to try it where the innocent are armed and can shoot back.

Did you understand what was said? What was said, was the of the guns that were used in crimes in New York City, the vast majority was purchased in states with less stringent gun legislation.
It doesn't say anywhere that those people tried to commit crimes in New York, because they were too afraid to commit crimes elsewhere. It says, that people who use guns in NYC have bought them elsewhere.

But what about guns coming in from outside the country? If a boatload of Hatians can cruise up to the coast of FL, and unload their occupants unchallenged at an inland waterway, then why can´t a boat full of drugs and guns do the same? Airplanes? What about the borders between Mexico and Canada?

What do you have Coast Guard for? Surely those people are not paid to drink coffee. What do you have border control for? Surely not to observe the mating rituals of the Canadian elk.

Washington, D.C. has, perhaps, the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.

Exactly. If you wanna buy beer (suppose) and it's not allowed in Travis County and Williamsom County, but there's no problem in buying it in Blanco County or Burnet County, and there's noone patrolling cross-county transport, then there's nothing that can stop you from getting what you want in other counties. Same thing happens here. If you want something, and you can't get it in DC, and there's no problem in getting it in Virginia, and there's noone patrolling cross-state transport, then there's nothing that's gonna stop them from transporting guns from Virginia to DC.

Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas. The murder rates are:

City 1999 Murder rate
Washington, DC 46.4 per 100,00035
Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,00036
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
Total VA metropolitan area 6.1 per 100,00037

Why? Because the criminals don't live in Suburbia but in Ghettoland. Have you ever met a Roanoke gangster?

On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment.

If that were true, if "disarming the law-abiding" would create such unstoppable crime, then the rest of the world would have to be wiped off the map.

Gun controll will not work.China will sale to anyone.They will be more than happy to supply the criminal with his weapon.

Firstly, I can say in all modesty that we (in the western world outside of the US) are doing quite a good job at gun control. And if you wanna stop Chinese illegal gun trade, then that's where law enforcement comes into play.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
The rest is complete lunacy.

No, it's the reality. If you wanna need guns to defend yourself from tyranny, why stop at guns? Why not create an entire army to defend yourself? Do you wanna defend yourself or not?

You know little on the subject ,especially guerilla warefare.

Sure, I know nothing of warfare. That's why I got drafted. Because I don't know anything about guerrilla warfare.

Resistance to tyranny or invasion would be a guerrilla war.

Guerrilla between the cows of New Hampshire. Just the thought... :lol

The Second Amendment debate goes to the very heart of the role of citizens and their government. By retaining arms, citizens retain the power claimed in the Declaration of Independence to "alter or abolish" a despotic government.

Then you deny the origin of the 2nd Amendment, as I said in one of my previous posts. The 2nd Amendment was written to arm the population not to defend itself from the government, but from alien invasions (especially from the British). But do you see an alien landing in Chesapeake Bay? Not me.

And citizens retain the power to protect themselves from private assault.

And criminals are granted the opportunity to do what they wanted to do, "and we'll act after the crime." Crime prevention my @$$.

Ramsey Clark asked the question, "What kind of society depends on private action to defend life and property?" The answer is a society that trusts its citizenry more than the police and the army and knows that ultimate authority must remain in the hands of the people.

Ok, now quit the rhetoric and propaganda, and let's get back to the issue.

You also need to learn the difference between ordinance, and arms.

Have I missed anything?

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
the last half of your statement is hog was and simplisict bias.

No it is not. Look it up, if you wish. Compare the crime rates of the US to the crime rates of the other western democracies. Compare the gun laws of the United States to the gun legislation in the rest of the world. And what do you see? The US has the highest crime rates in the civilized world and the least stringent gun laws in the civilized world. 100% correlation between the two? No. Coincidence? No.

This site (http://christianparty.net/divrape.htm) compares the crime rates per 100,000 people in 15 industrialized nations, from Luxembourg to Japan.

For it to be true,you mustpick and choose countries that fit your view.

If you don't believe it, be my guest. I'm not saying there's a direct link between the toughness of gun legislation and the amount of crime, but the facts speak for themselves.

Something else. Although there are differences, also culturally, between The Netherlands and the United States, broadly speaking the two countries share a lot of similarities, enough to culturally be related to each other.
The Netherlands has a homicide rate of 1.2 on 100,000, 0.3 per 100,000 of which are firearms related. In the US, there are 7.6 homicides per 100,000 people, of which 4.5 per 100,000 are firearms related. The gun ownership rate in The Netherlands is approximately 1.9%. The gun ownership rate in the USA is 48%. I don't say that the difference in homicide rate is completely due to the differing gun ownership rate, but I refuse to believe that Americans are that much more violent.

[Phreakmeister]

There you go, cooking the numbers. In Europe, if I move from the former Yugoslavia to, say, France, much like moving from Wyoming to New York here, wouldn´t I be considered a Yugoslavian immigrant, living in France?

If you want that too, then I suggest you split up in 50 (or
100 or 200, for all I care) independent states.
Migrating from British Columbia to Montana is e-/immigration. Why shouldn't moving from Yugoslavia to France then be called e-/immigration?

Where are all of your immigrants coming from? Are
they setting sail from Mexico?

Not all that much from Mexico, but there are an awful lot from Chile, Surinam, Brazil even (no, not just the soccer players), etc. etc. etc. They're from all over the world. Believe it or not, they're even from the United States (http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/general/ken-nichols.html).
I'm still looking for the European figures, but I did manage to find the Dutch figures (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/start.asp?STB=G1,G2,G3,G4,G5&LA=nl&DM=SLNL&PA=03742&D1=a&D2=0-237&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=4-l&HDR=T&TT=2) and Dutch figures about the nationalities (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/start.asp?STB=G1,G2,G3,G4,G5&LA=nl&DM=SLNL&PA=03742&D1=a&D2=0-237&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=4-l&HDR=T&TT=2) of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of The Netherlands. (My apologies, the sites are in Dutch. If you need my help, you know where to find me). Believe it or not, but right now, there are 15,217 Americans here and 43,604 Britons (all non-tourists) living in The Netherlands.

Wrong.They are not modified.They are made from the ground up includding the drawing board.

They are modifications/specifications of the original guns.

No it was not.You tried one of the oldest tricks in the book.Deflecting the true meaning of the post by redefinning it. It was about design and purpose of guns.Its clear enough to anyone.

Actually, if you had paid just a little attention to my posts, you would have seen that I had left that part of the subject...

You cannot predetermine who is respopnsible and who is not without some prior offence.

Well, a history of e.g. mental institutions, even voluntary admission to them, gives one quite a hunch, doesn't it?

Being an alcoholic for 10 years but not having drank for 8 should not disqualify me period.

But being drunk in public every single night, to give an example, should.

Then you have not been surffing long or looking hard.I get stuff sent to me by mail every day I find that way.

Is this an English class or a debate/discussion? As you can see from this thread and other threads, I've found so much more. Don't become such a 'comma-screwer', please.

Being as ours is a larger nation and requires transport of a personal nature to get places,you would condem hundreds to permanent survatude to the welfare state.

When people show, time and again, that they are a danger on the road, they need to be taken off the road. But that belongs in another thread.

Many a person still driives when their license is suspended or they never had one.

And that's where law enforcement comes into play. If they drive without a drivers licence or with a suspended drivers licence, they will either have to be fined or sent to prison. But like I said: that belongs in another thread.

My sister was hit by illegal mexican workers driving a truck.None had a license.If some one is going to do something,only jailling them for ever will stop them.Most of the pop. would have to be locked up.

What has proven to work here, is to confront people who cause an accident while driving under influence with the consequenses of the accident. Uncut, uncensored, unedited, raw, gorey. They need to be shown what they have inflicted. But that too doesn't belong to this thread.

The number of and presence of guns has been proven irrelavant.

I've given you a study, by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Pretend there was a department store in town, and every time you wanted to leave the premises, you had to first be patted down by a security guard. It's a bit of an inconvenience, but it stops shoplifters and as long as you're not stealing anything, you have nothing to worry about.

Would you resent being treated like this?

I've heard this one before. I think it was on Indymedia (www.indymedia.nl), but I'm not sure. Anyway, no, I wouldn't resent it. If that department store was robbed empty every week, I would find it more than normal, reasonable even, good even, that everyone is patted down. And even if not. Actually, I have experience of this in real life. I am a Lowlander (www.lowlands.nl) (regular visitor of rock festival A Camping Flight to Lowlands Paradise). Every time you wanna enter the festival ground there, you are being patted down. There are 60,000 visitors there. Why are people being patted down? To prevent knives, glass bottles, etc., from reaching the festival ground. It takes some time, and it creates queues, but hey, it beats the alternative (being stabbed down). As we call it: "Small effort, lots of pleasure."

And actually, there are machines that do that. No need for patting down. Just put machines at the entrances, or near the cashiers, and make sure, that the machines are placed such that every customer has to pass through the machine.

[Phreakmeister]

Its a quetion.You advacated it and you ask me to prove it for you??????????????????????????????????? I am asking you.

The request proof was about sinecure's statement about Canada, which, according to the rest of your reaction, you saw. That "which I completely agree with", has nothing to do with Canada. I agree with safety regulations and tests/checks on all "consumer products". That is what I agree with. And I agree with the statement that not every gun owner is a responsible gun owner. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Canada.
To say that gun registration in Canada has not solved any crimes is quite a bold statement to make, sinecure, so at least some amount of proof should be required. And looking at the rest of your response to this specific issue, you don't prove it in any way, shape or form. You say/quote that gun registration has been ignored by Canadian gun owners. You say that it has been (too) expensive. You quote several police officers in saying that the law harms the law-abiding citizens. But nowhere is it even said, that gun registration
has not solved 1 single crime. Which is what you stated before. Which, I can only say, is a point you haven't proven so far.

You affirmed my stand by saying but hardly any confiscation.

Must I bring sinecure's question into memory?

While you are at it, please name ONE COUNTRY, or even ONE INSTANCE IN THE USA, where, once their "common-sense" registration took effect, that at least some of those registered guns weren't confiscated within 2 years.

(S)He asked for a case, in which gun registration didn't lead to confiscation in at least some cases. And in The Netherlands gun registration hasn't lead to confiscation in a major majority of the cases. So I didn't affirm your stand, I answered sinecure's question.

Any confiscation is just that.confiscation.

(S)He asked for some level of absence of confiscation. And there was, I can't help it, quite a high level of absence of confiscation. (S)He asked for a case in which gun registration didn't lead to total gun confiscation. Which it didn't. It led to minor confiscations, and only over illegal gun possession (machine guns etc.).

the British peasantry falls to its knees and pleads with vicious thugs for mercy

Oh please, stop the rhetoric.

Your women can lay back and enjoy it if that´s the kind of "life" they desire

You mean "legal prostitution"?

and you can feel "manly" about fighting to make sure they have to.

Are you now calling me a pimp?

But you semsed to have little to no problem with it.Ideas are not stopped by seas.

Come on, I'm a 'chewer' myself. Do you seriously, in all honesty, think I support outlawing chewing gum? I don't. Neither did Tony Blair. What Tony Blair is planning to do, is a project against anti-social behaviour. There's no outlawing chewing gum, what is illegal is spitting it onto the ground. Which I agree with. It pollutes the streets and, yes, the environment, and it is a danger to animals. If you wanna throw it away, throw it in the waste bin.

You should know of the impossibility of proving a negative in this instance. YOU show me the ONE VIOLENT CRIME that was solved because of gun registration.

I'm sorry, it was you who said it, so it's you who's gonna have to prove it. If you can't prove it, then don't say it. It's as simple as that. And if you know that there's no way you can prove it, then it's very easy: don't say it.

weren't they the Army that issued hairnets to the male troops who needed them?

Hairnets? The Dutch army? I'm sorry, my dad is an ex-soldier, my cousin is in the army, I've been drafted 2 years ago, but apparently I missed something...

We may be running afoul of strict English vs. American vernacular here. A "concealed gun" these days is not one that is out of sight in a closet--here popular usage means a "concealed" gun is one carried on the person concealed. We even have a common acronym for it: "CCW" [Carrying a Concealed Weapon]. So, when you mention that Dutch guns are "concealed", are you saying that there are citizens carrying guns, or that their guns are simply stored out of sight?

What I meant, is that we have the permit system. I could link to or copy the specifics about Dutch firearms legislation for comparison with US legislation, but that'll have to wait.

I can't for the life of me imagine a policeman who would be willing to come to my door unarmed to demand that I give him my unregistered guns!!

Who says you have to give him your guns? Just a question:
How would you feel, if a policeman or an ATF official came up to your house and registered details, serial numbers of the guns you have in your possession? What would you feel, besides an intrusion on your privacy?

At least we didn´t cry to Europe to come and save us during our war,

So that's why all the Irish fought there?

Yugoslavia did with thiers

And this relates to gun legislation in what way?

Oh, yeah, because of some war that Europe started.

Actually, it was one moron in Germany, to be more precise.

I think that counts towards thier total, not ours

Who dropped the bomb?

I should not be a criminal for just owning a gun,

Who says it's criminal to own a gun? Some paranoid veganists perhaps, but noone else.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Except I probably wouldn´t take the car away, I would just make that person pay for the damage he/she caused.

How many dollars is a human life worth?

As is pretty obvious, licensing and registering cars does not prevent accidents, nor does it prevent people who have no respect for the law or for other people, from driving.

But it does make law enforcement a lot easier, it helps track down stolen cars, it helps enforcement of speed regulations, etc. etc.

It should be the responsibility of that person´s parents to make sure they know how to drive before they just let them go, not the responsibility of a "mommy government" using my tax dollars to make sure.

It's strange. When it comes to government, you're ever so paranoid, but when it comes to mankind, you are so naive. Sure, it should be the responsibility of the parents, but the risk of leaving it up to parents is too big, so it's the duty of the government (some kind of social contract) to make sure it is regulated.

I don´t need a "mommy government" to tell me I should wear my seat belt, or to tell me that shooting people is bad, or that stealing is something you just don´t do. My parents taught me that.

Problem is: not every parent does that. And that is something any government with a little bit of sense of duty has to do if the parents don't do it. And too many parents don't do it.

And if I get killed by someone who wasn´t raised like me, well, at least I lived my life as a truly free man , and I know that person will be punished as severely as is humanly possible by those I left behind.

So what you're basically saying is that we have to live in a dog-eat-dog-like society?

As I said before, people don´t shoot other people because a gun is available. They do it because they are sick, depraved individuals.

No. They get the idea of doing it out of sickness, but the omnipresence of guns gives them every single opportunity. They are not stopped one single bit.

There are lots of guns available to me right this second, and there are plenty of people that I would like to see removed from the gene pool, but I´m not going to go shoot them, hopefully they´ll get hit by a bus or something. Anyone who can take another human being´s life with no provocation is a sick person, how can anyone think otherwise?

And you don't think it's the duty of anyone with the power to do so (be it law enforcement, be it civilian militias, be it anything else) to protect society from sicko's?

It makes it harder for me to get a gun, too.

If you're not even a bit willing to take a little bit of effort to get something, then you really have to ask yourself: do I really want it that bad?

Making it harder for me to get a gun infringes on my second amendment rights, does it not?

The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. And it does not infringe your 2nd Amendment rights. You should reread the 2nd Amendment is you think so. I've posted it before. The 2nd Amendment reserves the right to bear arms for "a well regulated militia", which is "necessary to the security of a free state". Do you know what that "well regulated militia is" which is "necessary to the security of a free state"? It's the Army. It's the Navy. It's the Air Force. It's the police. It's border control. It's the Coast Guard. Are you a soldier? Are you a police officer?

[DEAD ZONE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Read this, if you please. If you want, I can give you the text of German 1938 gun legislation.

11 November 1938

With a basis in § 31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt I , p. 265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and § 9 of the Fuhrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten- German districts of 1 October 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1331 ) are the following ordered:


§ 1
Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from acquiring. Possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.


§ 2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§ 3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.


§ 4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.


§ 5
For the implementation if this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.


§ 6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.


Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior

Frick

Similar ideas were passed for non party members.The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.


The hilites:
Jews were bared.Handguns were single out for special controls
Nazi party groups were exempt
[b]Anyone , "who it is feared may endanger public security,"could be barred owning any weapon.{§ 25}

Anyone who has read those laws knows your assertion is rediculouse.I have ,





Besides that: disarming the people is completely contradictory to the Nazi idea of manliness.
Only if the people were theirs.Hitler mad it clear that no party members were not given the same right to arms.



You wanted to "prove" that gun control is wrong or whatever, by saying that it is unconstitutional.

No,i prove one aspect of it by the law of the land today when and where it matters.


But looking at the history of "unconstitutionality declarations", that argument is totally irrelevant. You wanna say, that gun control is wrong (which you think, don't you?), and to prove your point, you use a Supreme Court decision. Well, let's put it kindly: the US Supreme Court doesn't really have a consistent history. (I'm not talking about the 2000 presidential elections now).

I use the law which is what gun control is.If it says it is useless then it is no matter how qute you try to be.



Are you so unknowing about the simple idea called rule of LAW.Gun control is a lW.tHE s.c. DECIDES WHAT IS AND IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.tH e law says fellons do not register,anly law abidding citizens.You calim this will help prevent crime .How?A lawabidding citizen is not a criminal.I already showed where criminals with a history of crime are the perpatraters of crime,not the average joe.Your registartion is usless in crime fighting or solving.A guns petagree is usless in a court of law.It proves nothing.No intent,no proof it was used by who to do what when and where.

Its a simple concept.Id the S.C. says they dont register then they dont untill otherwise stated.Gun control is debated in the here and now ,not some fantasey if and but or perhaps wordl.
If if`s and buts were candy and nuts,there would be a lot of fat ass people around here now apparently.





Registration is for EVERYONE.No,it is not.I gave you the law which can only be changed by amendment.Untill then,saying over and over again does not make your dream so.



The weapon used was a Bushmaster XM15 A3 M4, which is hardly used outside of the army.
BULL.I have one.Many of my friends have one and they are used by many others.They are not even used by the military.Bush master does not have the military contract nor does armilite anymore!



That is a profiling error.

No,profilling said a white rightwing male was it.It was wrong and so were they when people seemed to indicate that was not the case.

[DEAD ZONE]

What was the American Civil War? A war between the secessionist Confederate States of America and the United States of America. A war between "mainland" country and a secessionist region of that country is a civil war.
No it is not.The south never wished to take control of the nation from anyone.They sought to be left alone and leave under their rights as the founders set it up.

Regardless of whether the secession is out of political, ethnic, religious or ideological reasons. The American Civil War is a war between two parts of one country, one being secessionist. Regardless of whether the secession fails or succeeds, a war between "dominator" and "secessionist" is, was and remains a civil war. But you're probably too stubborn too admit you're wrong.

You are to ignorant of U.S. constatutional law and tradition to know what you are talking about in the case of the war between the states{or northen agression if you like}.The u.s. was a nation as long as each side said so.When any wanted to leave because of injustice,they were free to do so and thus become a seperate nation.{in a nut shell}.
The south withdrew by democratic process,the same process they used to join the union.The north wared to prevent this.The nuts and bolts of it are that a war of conquest by the north to destroy the confederacy and establish a new political leadership over the conquerd teritories

Question:
Do you believe in those "gun flea markets" BN described, or do you believe in regulation of gun sales like we regulate marijuana sales?
(and before you start about: "you don't have registration for marijuana": you're right. But I do need my passport if I wanna buy marijuana. Why? Because anyone has to be able to show he or she is 16 or over)

i dont realy understand the question.There are no Flea markets as he described that any control would effect.Illegal sales are just that.laws do not effect them.
What hwe described does not exist.



What's wrong with fighting for civil liberties?
HUH? Nothing.You missed the point apparently that he is a left winger in this nation.Those are all considdered to the left {pro control} side of the spectrum.



Gosh. When Amnesty International writes bad about Saddam, they are more than welcome, but the guts they have to dare do the same in the US.... Shouldn't be allowed...
See above.You avoid the issue by being quite again and deflecting the real meaning of that post by trying to shift its meaning.Want work.



Your point being? You don't quite show yourself a good democrat (with a small d). That's where freedom of speech ends? Not agreeing with you?
See above.I am neither dummy crap or repulsivecan



Yeah, that sometimes happens in a country that claims to love freedom and democracy so dear. Sometimes people don't support who you support, but support your opponent. Get over it.

see above mr. avaoid the issue and point.


Dead Zone, please, for the sake of the discussion, first write your comment in Word, then run spell check over it, and then copy-paste it to here.
Spell check malfunctions and erases the post on my system.Sorry.To much to fast.Have yet to get it to work.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Your next post has been delt with already.Selective choosing is a propagandist tactic.You apparently dont considderr nations like taiwan or russia industrialized.Just to name a few.
America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western," "industrialized," or "advanced" nation. Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?. . .Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


Now let me get this straight: because one day there were plans to come to one global army (which imho is (admittedly, not necessarily) better than a lot of armies fighting each other) under the United Nations (Peace forces? Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Cambodia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia, Georgia, East Timor, India/Pakistan, DR Congo, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, Golan, Lebanon, Haiti, Rwanda), the idea of tighter gun laws is wrong? Don't get me wrong, but have you been eating something wrong?

Doe s the idea CART BEFORE THE HORSE ring a
bell.You have been smoking tht bad belgium weed again.

The U.N. Waht a joke.Your list of failures is interesting.Very few sucesses.As are the left out ones.

[DEAD ZONE]

Did you understand what was said? What was said, was the of the guns that were used in crimes in New York City, the vast majority was purchased in states with less stringent gun legislation.


It doesn't say anywhere that those people tried to commit crimes in New York, because they were too afraid to commit crimes elsewhere. It says, that people who use guns in NYC have bought them elsewhere.
Care to prove it.

Did you read mine.If I wanted to commit a crime,I would not pick a state where they would shoot back.I would get a gun illegally or otherwise {which you ignored} and go to the killing fields of control land.

Most gun-related crime is
caused by gang activity.2 These
organized bands of criminals
commit many crimes, and guns
are tools they use. Control gangs
and you will control gun violence
(consider that more than 28% of
kids in high school report street
gang presence at their schools).

Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and "criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.?

Per capita firearm ownership rates have remained relatively unchanged since 1959 while crime rates have gone up and down depending on economics, drug trafficking innovations, and ?get tough? legislation.
Gun law has nothing to do with it.

Criminals are not motivated by guns. They are motivated by opportunity. Attempts
to reduce public access to firearms provide criminals more points of opportunity. It is little
wonder that high-crime cities also tend to be those with the most restrictive gun control laws ?
which criminals tend to ignore.

Most guns used in
crimes are stolen. In fact,
more than 27,000 lost or
stolen firearms were reported
by federal firearm licensees
between 1998 and 1999.

Retailers Handgun Firearm
A mere 16% of guns
used in crimes were obtained
from normal retail outlets by
the criminal.And these are by straw purchases or falsified identities.So no law stop the.Again,see previous posts showing the falacy you use.




What do you have Coast Guard for? Surely those people are not paid to drink coffee. What do you have border control for? Surely not to observe the mating rituals of the Canadian elk.

You again ignore the point.They fail far more than they suceede.See the Drug war for more proof.



Exactly. If you wanna buy beer (suppose) and it's not allowed in Travis County and Williamsom County, but there's no problem in buying it in Blanco County or Burnet County, and there's noone patrolling cross-county transport, then there's nothing that can stop you from getting what you want in other counties. Same thing happens here. If you want something, and you can't get it in DC, and there's no problem in getting it in Virginia, and there's noone patrolling cross-state transport, then there's nothing that's gonna stop them from transporting guns from Virginia to DC.
So its not gun laws or lack of them but the desire of the perp.Exactly my point and I gave an example of smuggling in weapons already despite gun laws.See previous post yet again.Ease of supply is shown irrelavant.
See here from a cite already cited by your side.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html





Why? Because the criminals don't live in Suburbia but in Ghettoland. Have you ever met a Roanoke gangster?
So you admit its criminals,those with previous records As I proved earlyer that are at fault.And its already illegal for them and it still did not stop them .So much for gun laws.Besides,I gave 2 cities and their local theat disproves your point and you act as if that fact does not exist.



If that were true, if "disarming the law-abiding" would create such unstoppable crime, then the rest of the world would have to be wiped off the map.

We are talking about the U.S.You again ignore the factors involved and choose rhetoric and hyp.See previous post yet again where that was delt with.

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

(Source: " The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).

This study also showed how criminals dont just get guns at point a and go to point b,but actually stop comitting violent crimes and substitute more pety thefts.In otherwords,deaths drop reguardless of wehere a gun ws gotten,how and why and where it is used.



Here are some FBI Statistics:

- Over 2600 times a day someone uses a gun to protect themselves or someone else, that's over 60 times more than the crimes that are actually completed. What do you think it would be like if we didn't have guns now?
- Police are rarely there when the shooting starts, they always arrive afterward for some reason. Go figure...
- You are 13 times more likely to die in a car than with a gun.
- You are 16 times more likely to die in your home than with a gun. Watch out for that microwave.
- There are over 190,000,000 guns in the US, if it were true that guns kill, we would ALL be dead already.



Firstly, I can say in all modesty that we (in the western world outside of the US) are doing quite a good job at gun control. And if you wanna stop Chinese illegal gun trade, then that's where law enforcement comes into play.

No you are not.The trade is well in england and elswhere from the east.It all depends on your definition I guess and besides,I dont care what you do over there.I am interest in here.Thats been MY point but you insist on reverting back to other nations.

[Phreakmeister]

The more and more I read about you, the more and more I see how desperate and materialistic you are. "It's mine, it's mine."

No,i prove one aspect of it by the law of the land today when and where it matters.

And I prove to you, that the Supreme Court, through its own actions, has not really given itself a whole lot of relevance.

I use the law which is what gun control is.If it says it is useless then it is no matter how qute you try to be.

Where does the law say gun control is useless?

Are you so unknowing about the simple idea called rule of LAW.

Are you so unknowing about the world outside of your house? Damn, I always heard a lot of prejudices about Texans, but I never paid much attention to them. But damn, you confirm every single one of them

No,it is not.I gave you the law which can only be changed by amendment.Untill then,saying over and over again does not make your dream so.

And saying over and over again that nothing has to be done to make America safe will make America safe?

BULL.I have one.Many of my friends have one and they are used by many others.They are not even used by the military.Bush master does not have the military contract nor does armilite anymore!

Now that is a load of bull. So because you and several of your friends have that gun, it is not rare? Has it ever occurred to you that YOU might be rare???

No,profilling said a white rightwing male was it. It was wrong and so were they when people seemed to indicate that was not the case.

Exactly. And that's a profiling error.

No it is not.The south never wished to take control of the nation from anyone.

That is not needed for a war to be a civil war. A war is between 2 (or more) nations, a civil war is within 1 nation. And the American Civil war was between the north and the secessionist south. Just like the war that made Croatia independent from Yugoslavia was a civil war.

They sought to be left alone and leave under their rights as the founders set it up.

Are you now justifying slavery?

Your next post has been delt with already.Selective choosing is a propagandist tactic.

What selective choosing? I'm just comparing the US to comparable countries, and the comparison doesn't look good for the US.

You apparently dont considderr nations like taiwan or russia industrialized.

Who says I do?

America is often said to have the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western," "industrialized," or "advanced" nation.

Not the highest, but one of the highest.

Do those who make such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized,

Who says so?

Brazil is not in the Western Hemisphere,

Western does not refer to geographic location. Is Japan in the Western Hemisphere? New Zealand? Australia? Scandinavia? Europe?

Ukraine is retarded?

Economically and politically, Ukraine is, well, I wouldn't call it retarded, but definitely not advanced.

Doe s the idea CART BEFORE THE HORSE ring a
bell.

Cart before the horse? In what way is this cart before the horse, and in what way does your orwellian rant relate to gun legislation?

You have been smoking tht bad belgium weed again.

Belgium??? I think you did this earlier. I'm Dutch. Belgium and The Netherlands have been two different countries for over 170 years now.

The U.N. Waht a joke.

What is so joke about the UN?

As are the left out ones.

If I had mentioned each and every UN mission, that post would have been a very long one.

Let us look at the second amendment of the United Stats of America (read: history lesson). Shortly after the American War of Independence, the government was concerned about the British Re-invasion plan (especially through Canada, which eventually lead to the War of 1812, among other things). So the government put through the second 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."

An astute Canadian comedian was talking about the second amendment. He said: 'Now, maybe we forgot to tell the Americans, but the British re-invasion plan was cancelled.'

And as a note on the 2nd's rights that 'shall not be infringed', all I have to say on the subject is that unless you and your friends constitute a 'well-regulated militia' you don't have the right to bear arms.

Gun control is the regulation and licensing of firearms. Let me tell you what I do not support: I do not support taking guns away from people, I do not support the idea that there should be no guns at all. Let me tell you what I do support: I support Gun Control. I support deciding who can and who cannot get a firearm. I support classes to teach people how to make sure they keep their guns in working order and safe.

Gun Control does NOT take guns away from people (unless you count fully automatic weapons--and I don't).

Gun Control allows minimum safety regulations--and in my opinion, they are too lax.

Do I want people to have firearms if such is their desire? I say: no, don't give firearms to ex-convicts. Some control is necessary. This does not mean that YOU cannot have a gun in your house.

In my opinion, Gun Control does NOT stop you from owning a firearm. Nor does it stop you from accidentally shooting your buddies. Gun Control DOES NOT infringe upon your own stupidity. It merely makes sure that we know who has what guns, that way when a crime IS committed, we have a starting place.

[Phreakmeister]

Do I think everyone should have a gun?

Absolutely not. In fact, I wish NO ONE had a gun, including me. The problem is there are too many of them around, and in the wrong hands. They are too accessible. I have to arm myself because, no doubt, the person who breaks into my house will most likely be armed.

Who should have Guns?

In a perfect world: law enforcement officers. (period)
In the real world as it stands now: responsible people. Defining that is a difficult task.

Do I think we should have Gun Control Laws?

YES! I think it should be difficult to get a gun. I don't care if there are already laws, those laws are not working, whether through lack of enforcement or lack of clarity. We don't have gun control now in this country... we have gun out of control.

Make new strict, simple laws and enforce them consistently.

Why do we need Gun Control Laws?

Come on out to the country and see who has guns. In rural areas, like mine, you can go right out into your field and fire away at will. Do I worry about the path of bullets through the woods or fields? You bet I do. Is the average Joe thinking about the trajectory when he blasts away? I wonder about that every time I take a walk and hear a shot.

How about the guy behind the gun counter at Wal-Mart who loves to tell about his gun collection... and why I should use these special exploding on impact bullets, the effect of which he gleefully describes in gory anatomical detail?

Think about the good ole boy down the road who constantly yells at his wife and storms out of the house in drunken rages... with his gun.

The man who accidentally shot and killed his own 13 year old son while deer hunting. "I thought it was a buck" he is quoted as saying in the paper. He thought?

The family across town who leaves their revolver lying around... loaded. How about the kids in that area? Do I want my kids in a house that has a loaded gun lying around? How would I know about it?

And people like me, your average hard working professional, the kind you don't even think has one.

How can you be sure that we are responsible and exercise diligent caution with our firearms?

What is the purpose of guns?

The purpose of guns, is simply, to kill things.

Let that sink in.

That's what makes the whole topic so uncomfortable and polarizing. Because to say you have a gun for self defense, is to say that you are willing to kill someone. Am I? Yes. Make no mistake, if someone comes over here with the intention of violating my home, my family, or me, I will shoot, and I will only have to shoot once.

Am I paranoid?

No. But I am afraid. Just look around, and watch the news. People killing people for no good reason. Just a couple of months ago there was a convicted rapist on the loose, and he was spotted less than 1/4 mile from my house. A man just ran his wife off the road into an oncoming freight train killing 2 women and 2 young children. Two teenagers arm themselves and shoot their way through their school. It goes on and on. I think about it, don't you?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

Well, it's true that guns don't jump up and fire a few rounds by themselves... but if guns were not so readily available I guarantee you that there would be less killing. It's just too damn easy to kill someone with a gun. You just stand there and pull the trigger. Bammo. If your aim is good, they drop dead; if it's not, maybe they're irrevocably injured.

- No time for second thoughts.
- No need to get your hands dirty.
- No need to be in physical contact with your "target"
- No chance to let your emotions subside.
- No turning back.

But, guns are for sport

If you want to shoot targets, you can accomplish the same mission less dangerously with a BB gun. If you're sneaking around the woods looking to take out Bambi, it's not anywhere near enough of a competition to even be called a "sport" in my opinion.

Granted, there is some value to the powerful macho feeling one gets when out in the field blasting a few clips. The flame coming out of the barrel, the smell of the gunpowder, the way the cans on the fence dance under fire. No two ways about it, it's fun. It's a real life arcade game. I'll admit I like it. But I wish I didn't have to do it. I can't honestly say the value of guns as a "sport" is worth the danger to the population.

What about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

I'll tell you straight up. I don't study the Constitution and I'm not an attorney. My very limited view is that the Constitution was written in a time of war and revolution. It was a different world. I don't believe the Constitution should be a stagnant document. I believe it should be revised to keep abreast of changes in our evolving world.

Yes, we should have a right to bear arms in a time of war. I guess some would say we are at war, but I believe that war is of our own making because of our lax attitudes about gun possession.

I can see some value in having a population that is prepared and able to come to the aid of their countrymen... but is the price worth it?

Fire a gun, and then decide

Fire away, blast a few rounds. Feel the omnipotence. See the flames shoot from the barrel. Witness the destruction of your target. Feel the ease with which you can wield this awesome power. Fire some more. Load another clip. Have a good time. See how easy it becomes to pull the trigger. Feel how emotionless it can be. Imagine being upset or enraged. Think about losing control for one split second.

Wonder about what kind of control that other guy has on his emotions... and wonder if your neighbors' guns are secure from theft, and safely out of reach of your children.

[DEAD ZONE]

No, it's the reality. If you wanna need guns to defend yourself from tyranny, why stop at guns? Why not create an entire army to defend yourself? Do you wanna defend yourself or not?
Already adressed.Go back and read it thsi time please.



Sure, I know nothing of warfare. That's why I got drafted. Because I don't know anything about guerrilla warfare.
Thankyou for suporting my point.



Guerrilla between the cows of New Hampshire. Just the thought... :lol

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/madcow.gif


Then you deny the origin of the 2nd Amendment, as I said in one of my previous posts. The 2nd Amendment was written to arm the population not to defend itself from the government, but from alien invasions (especially from the British). But do you see an alien landing in Chesapeake Bay? Not me.

you deny history for revisionism.You are wrong in your view.See here for proof of that as well as the debates on the constitution.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Szczepanski1.html

Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

then we have:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Note:Your idea that the national guard and regular army are the 2nds reason,falls under the select militia ad standing army the founders despised.

The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
Henry sneered,
O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
More quotes from the Virginia convention:
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason
Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable.

So ,you have no leg to stand on in history ,fact or reality .The second means the people,just like the first ,not a select military or just for fighting indians.



[i]And criminals are granted the opportunity to do what they wanted to do, "and we'll act after the crime." Crime prevention my @$$

They are by your method of disarmament.You also inrich the criminal gun trafiker just as the drud war does the cartels.Your method prevents nothing but incourages bolder criminals.



Ok, now quit the rhetoric and propaganda, and let's get back to the issue.
No real answer.Ok.

How about some more:
There was a training video of a
BATF supervisor telling agents to testifly that BATF records were nearly 100% accurate, when in actually the records were barely above 50% accurate. Now that may not be perjury in federal courts but in Texas courts that is perjury and at a minimum a third degree felony.

And you want us to give them a larger database to mismanage and corrupt?Crime controle my rosey red @$$



As a heard my friend say once:
Even children get it:
"I had to go to work unexpectedly one night due to an emergency. My 8-year-old daughter was a little worried that I would be leaving her and my wife alone. We live in a very nice and safe neighborhood but nonetheless she was concerned. I jokingly told her that no bad men would come in our house because I put out a sign that read, 'No Bad Men Allowed.' She frowned and immediately responded, 'Daddy, bad men don't do what the signs say. That's why they're bad.'"

Some things are so complicated only a child can figure them out.




Have I missed anything?

Most of it,yes.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Already adressed.Go back and read it thsi time please.

You didn't address it. So I'll ask it again. If you wanna defend freedom. why stop at handguns?

Thankyou for suporting my point.

I was being cynical there


you deny history for revisionism.You are wrong in your view.See here for proof of that as well as the debates on the constitution.

The Second Amendment Foundation????????????? Come on. If there's one biased organization, besides the NRA...
The Founding Fathers lived in wartime. They had just fought a war for independence and they feared of plans to thwart US independence. That's why they came up with the 2nd Amendment. No revisionism, historical fact. Times have changed. I hope you noticed that. The Second Amendment is not from 2002, but from 1791.

So ,you have no leg to stand on in history ,fact or reality.

Actually darling, it's you who has no leg to stand on.

The second means the people,just like the first ,not a select military or just for fighting indians.

Read this:

The Meaning of the Phrase "Bear Arms"

Consider first the Amendment's text:
"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."
The phrase "bear arms" in 1789 was at its core a military phrase: it referred to those who bore arms in the context of military service rather than those who carried guns merely for hunting or sport.

Indeed, the Emerson court found only one clear nonmilitary use of the phrase before 1789. Against this linguistic outlier are scores of military allusions to arms-bearing in eighteenth-century laws and legal sources.

The Second Amendment's overall context further strengthens the military reading of the phrase "bear arms." The Amendment speaks of a "militia"— another military term — and flanks the Third Amendment, which addresses the military issue of troop quartering. Most eighteenth-century state constitutions likewise linked arms-bearing to other military matters.

Evidence for a Collective, Not an Individual, Right

Moreover, in considering whether the Second Amendment creates an individual or a collective right, we should note that the Amendment speaks of a collective "people," not individual "persons."

Elsewhere, the Constitution most often uses "the people" as a collective noun embodying voters and jurors, rather than all citizens. The Preamble, for example, states that "We, the people"–that is, voters–ordained and established the Constitution. Similarly, Article I directs that the House of Representatives shall be elected biannually by "the people"–once again, voters.

And of course, at the Founding the class of voters was very different from the class of citizens. Women, children, and aliens fell outside this core definition of voting "people." They were likewise excluded from the Second Amendment's "militia."

The Second Amendment's syntax, too, suggests that the "militia" and the "people" are, roughly speaking, synonymous; the use of "people" in the Amendment's second clause in effect refers back to the use of "militia" in its introductory clause. (Indeed, an early draft spoke explicitly of the militia "composed of the body of the people." The final draft makes this point with fewer words.)

According to the Amendment's basic vision, all voters ideally should serve in the military, and the military in turn should be composed of ordinary voters. This conception is quite far afield from today's professional military. However, it can be more easily understood by thinking of the early military as somewhat similar to a jury, another local collectivist institution closely akin to the militia. At the founding, one would have not only a jury of one's peers, but ideally a militia of one's peers as well.

The Historical, and the Contemporary, Second Amendment

This reading of the original Second Amendment — suggesting that it confers a collective military right rather than an individual nonmilitary one — is confirmed by history. The Founders were thinking of local militiamen like those who fought at Lexington and Concord — not of hunters or sportsmen. The Framers envisioned Minutemen bearing guns, not Daniel Boone gunning bears.

None of this means that Emerson is wrong in result or that the Constitution cannot now be read to protect a qualified individual right to possess guns outside the military. Other constitutional clauses are read nonliterally and the Second Amendment may likewise be read expansively.

Law and language have evolved; today it is common to speak of nonmilitary arms-bearing. Many modern state constitutions embrace a limited right of individual gun ownership, and millions of Americans deem guns a fundamental right, though not an absolute one. The fact that there are almost as many firearms as citizens in this country similarly suggests that, like it or not, guns are part of the American ethos.

How Later Amendments May Have Altered the Second Amendment's Meaning

Most importantly, we must remember that our Constitution differs dramatically from the Framers'. Over the centuries, We the People have made amends for some of the Founding fathers' failures. And some of these amendments speak to the question of who in America should be trusted with arms.

The great generation that won the Civil War had a more individualistic view of liberty than did the Founders, and this later generation's Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, reflected that individualistic worldview. Concretely, the Amendment pledged to protect various fundamental "privileges and immunities" of individuals.

One such "privilege" explicitly embraced by the Reconstruction Congress in legislation accompanying the Fourteenth Amendment was a limited right to have a gun in one's home for self-protection, because police in the 1860s could not always be trusted to protect blacks from white night-riders and other thugs. This right to a gun was seen as a right of all citizens–women as well as men, blacks as well as whites–even if the gun owner was not a voter or militiaman.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which Emerson virtually ignored, both anchors an individual right in constitutional text and explains why this right is properly limited by other rights, like the right to be free from irresponsible gun use and thuggery.

Instead of detailing the Fourteenth Amendment's new birth of freedom — and the way it might alter our understanding of the Second Amendment — Emerson blandly cited parts of the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 Dred Scott case, without even noting that much of that case was repudiated by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Dred Scott held that blacks, even if free, could never be citizens, and were entitled to little respect from whites. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly overruled this holding by promising citizenship to all born in America–rich and poor, black and white, male and female--and by further promising to protect all citizens in their fundamental "privileges and immunities.")

Nor did America's constitutional saga end with the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment enfranchised black men because they had helped win the Civil War on the battlefield–preserving the Founding linkage between military arms-bearing and voting, but extending the definition of "the people" to include former slaves and other free blacks.

A century later, the Twenty-sixth Amendment likewise enfranchised young adults who were being told to fight in Vietnam. And after the Nineteenth Amendment made women part of the voting " people" in a way they were not at the Founding, we might ask whether women should have a Constitutional right to bear arms on equal terms in today's military, just as they have a Constitutional right now to serve equally on juries.

[quote]They are by your method of disarmament.

Taking guns away from criminals will arm them? Sure.
Regulating gun sales? Sure.

You also inrich the criminal gun trafiker just as the drud war does the cartels.Your method prevents nothing but incourages bolder criminals.

Do you actually know what I support? Looks like you don't.
I support a combination of legislation from other areas. I support regulation like our softdrug regulation and I support registration like registration of cars, drivers, cows, dogs, you name it. I don't wanna ban guns, I wanna regulate gun possession.

And you want us to give them a larger database to mismanage and corrupt?Crime controle my rosey red @$$

You used that before, and I answered that before.


Most of it,yes.

Ha-ha-ha. Very funny *not*
How did the difference between ordinance and arms get into this discussion?

[Phreakmeister]

Did you read mine.If I wanted to commit a crime,I would not pick a state where they would shoot back.I would get a gun illegally or otherwise {which you ignored} and go to the killing fields of control land.

You completely missed the point of what I said. I shot in the Arizona air and you were grabbing in the Atlantic.
Gun rights activists say, that gun control in Washington hasn't dropped because of gun control. They ignore the fact, that the Washington DC gun control was annihilated by the lax laws in the surrounding states. They see that it fails, but they don't look at why it fails: no nationwide gun control.

So you admit its criminals,those with previous records As I proved earlyer that are at fault.And its already illegal for them and it still did not stop them.

And why didn't it stop them? Because there's a huge black market. Gun sales are not being regulated, guns are just as easily obtainable as milk. It may be so illegal for them, there is absolutely no way whatsoever in the current system to stop them. And if there's no way in the system to stop them, the system has to change.

i dont realy understand the question.There are no Flea markets as he described that any control would effect.Illegal sales are just that.laws do not effect them.

Actually: yes. Outlawing them. Regulating gun stores. Law enforcement to make sure people only buy at gun stores.
Again, I take our marijuana policy as an example. Sure, there is illegal marijuana trade, I know it better than anyone else here, but it's insignificant.

No you are not.

Well, then prove it to me, why you are doing such a marvellous job and we are doing such a horrible job.

I dont care what you do over there.I am interest in here.

So am I. And if you wanna know what is best for the US, the best way to see it is to compare the US to other comparable countries. And it just happens to be a fact that the US is most comparable to Europe. So the best way to see how things should be done in the US is to compare the US to Europe.

Thats been MY point but you insist on reverting back to other nations.

No, I've made the comparison between gun legislation in the US and gun legislation in other countries, and the effects of it on society. If I truly wanted to compare apples and oranges, why didn't I come with Sierra Leone, Morocco, Oman, Rwanda, Bhutan? Because those countries are completely uncomparable to the US.

[Phreakmeister]

GUNS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Telling The Right Second Amendment Story
- By AKHIL AND VIKRAM AMAR

Friday, Nov. 02, 2001

A federal appellate panel ruled last week that the Constitution guarantees a limited right of individual Americans to keep guns for nonmilitary purposes. By so ruling in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re-energized popular debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment and also created a split among federal appellate courts, thus increasing the odds that the Supreme Court will soon weigh in with its own reading of the Amendment.

Citizens who enter the fray–be they Justices or other judges, lawyers or layfolk–should be wary of the Fifth Circuit's opinion. Though the Circuit may have reached the right conclusion, both in recognizing an individual right and in deeming it nonabsolute, the court told the wrong constitutional story.

And make no mistake, the story Americans tell themselves about liberty matters, and the story judges tell us especially matters, for these are the stories that shape our self-image and ultimately determine who has rights, to what, and why.

The Emerson Opinion and the Constitution

As our fellow Writ columnist Michael Dorf has explained more fully, Emerson involved a man who brandished a firearm against his estranged wife in violation of a federal statute. Parting company with other federal courts, which have limited the application of the Second Amendment to organized militias like the National Guard, the Fifth Circuit insisted that the amendment affirms a broader individual right to own guns. The court also ruled that this right must yield to reasonable regulations, including the gun statute at issue.

Professor Dorf and other commentators have thoughtfully discussed whether the Emerson ruling is consistent with current Supreme Court precedent. But as United States Chief Justice John Marshall observed over 150 years ago, "it is a Constitution" — and not the U.S. Reports, which compile judicial opinions — that "we are expounding." And when we turn to the Constitution itself, we see that the Fifth Circuit's account of the document is lacking.

The Fifth Circuit claimed that the Second Amendment's text and history compel an individual rights reading. But they do not.

The Meaning of the Phrase "Bear Arms"

Consider first the Amendment's text: "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." The phrase "bear arms" in 1789 was at its core a military phrase: it referred to those who bore arms in the context of military service rather than those who carried guns merely for hunting or sport.

Indeed, the Emerson court found only one clear nonmilitary use of the phrase before 1789. Against this linguistic outlier are scores of military allusions to arms-bearing in eighteenth-century laws and legal sources.

The Second Amendment's overall context further strengthens the military reading of the phrase "bear arms." The Amendment speaks of a "militia"— another military term — and flanks the Third Amendment, which addresses the military issue of troop quartering. Most eighteenth-century state constitutions likewise linked arms-bearing to other military matters.

Evidence for a Collective, Not an Individual, Right

Moreover, in considering whether the Second Amendment creates an individual or a collective right, we should note that the Amendment speaks of a collective "people," not individual "persons."

Elsewhere, the Constitution most often uses "the people" as a collective noun embodying voters and jurors, rather than all citizens. The Preamble, for example, states that "We, the people"–that is, voters–ordained and established the Constitution. Similarly, Article I directs that the House of Representatives shall be elected biannually by "the people"–once again, voters.

And of course, at the Founding the class of voters was very different from the class of citizens. Women, children, and aliens fell outside this core definition of voting "people." They were likewise excluded from the Second Amendment's "militia."

The Second Amendment's syntax, too, suggests that the "militia" and the "people" are, roughly speaking, synonymous; the use of "people" in the Amendment's second clause in effect refers back to the use of "militia" in its introductory clause. (Indeed, an early draft spoke explicitly of the militia "composed of the body of the people." The final draft makes this point with fewer words.)

According to the Amendment's basic vision, all voters ideally should serve in the military, and the military in turn should be composed of ordinary voters. This conception is quite far afield from today's professional military. However, it can be more easily understood by thinking of the early military as somewhat similar to a jury, another local collectivist institution closely akin to the militia. At the founding, one would have not only a jury of one's peers, but ideally a militia of one's peers as well.

[Phreakmeister]

The Historical, and the Contemporary, Second Amendment

This reading of the original Second Amendment — suggesting that it confers a collective military right rather than an individual nonmilitary one — is confirmed by history. The Founders were thinking of local militiamen like those who fought at Lexington and Concord — not of hunters or sportsmen. The Framers envisioned Minutemen bearing guns, not Daniel Boone gunning bears.

None of this means that Emerson is wrong in result or that the Constitution cannot now be read to protect a qualified individual right to possess guns outside the military. Other constitutional clauses are read nonliterally and the Second Amendment may likewise be read expansively.

Law and language have evolved; today it is common to speak of nonmilitary arms-bearing. Many modern state constitutions embrace a limited right of individual gun ownership, and millions of Americans deem guns a fundamental right, though not an absolute one. The fact that there are almost as many firearms as citizens in this country similarly suggests that, like it or not, guns are part of the American ethos.

How Later Amendments May Have Altered the Second Amendment's Meaning

Most importantly, we must remember that our Constitution differs dramatically from the Framers'. Over the centuries, We the People have made amends for some of the Founding fathers' failures. And some of these amendments speak to the question of who in America should be trusted with arms.

The great generation that won the Civil War had a more individualistic view of liberty than did the Founders, and this later generation's Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, reflected that individualistic worldview. Concretely, the Amendment pledged to protect various fundamental "privileges and immunities" of individuals.

One such "privilege" explicitly embraced by the Reconstruction Congress in legislation accompanying the Fourteenth Amendment was a limited right to have a gun in one's home for self-protection, because police in the 1860s could not always be trusted to protect blacks from white night-riders and other thugs. This right to a gun was seen as a right of all citizens–women as well as men, blacks as well as whites–even if the gun owner was not a voter or militiaman.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which Emerson virtually ignored, both anchors an individual right in constitutional text and explains why this right is properly limited by other rights, like the right to be free from irresponsible gun use and thuggery.

Instead of detailing the Fourteenth Amendment's new birth of freedom — and the way it might alter our understanding of the Second Amendment — Emerson blandly cited parts of the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 Dred Scott case, without even noting that much of that case was repudiated by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Dred Scott held that blacks, even if free, could never be citizens, and were entitled to little respect from whites. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly overruled this holding by promising citizenship to all born in America–rich and poor, black and white, male and female--and by further promising to protect all citizens in their fundamental "privileges and immunities.")

Nor did America's constitutional saga end with the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment enfranchised black men because they had helped win the Civil War on the battlefield–preserving the Founding linkage between military arms-bearing and voting, but extending the definition of "the people" to include former slaves and other free blacks.

A century later, the Twenty-sixth Amendment likewise enfranchised young adults who were being told to fight in Vietnam. And after the Nineteenth Amendment made women part of the voting " people" in a way they were not at the Founding, we might ask whether women should have a Constitutional right to bear arms on equal terms in today's military, just as they have a Constitutional right now to serve equally on juries.

Rallying Around the Amended Constitution — Not Just the 1789 Text

Emerson erred by failing to weave any of these amendments into its arms-bearing story. By inflating the Founding, Emerson exaggerated a 1789 text adopted with little input from women and blacks. It also slighted later amendments expanding democracy, amendments that affirmed rights of previously excluded persons and included these persons in the constitutional conversation itself.

In general Emerson's methodological skew — that is, its exclusive focus on the founding — tends to tilt constitutional adjudication sharply rightward. Consider, for example, civil rights more generally. Unlike Emerson, the Warren Court understood the importance of Reconstruction and upheld every federal civil rights law it reviewed. In contrast, the Rehnquist Court, a la Emerson, has trivialized Reconstruction. In the name of Founding-era states' rights, the Justices have invalidated key Reconstruction-style civil rights laws protecting women, the elderly, the religious, and the disabled. The judiciary has also endorsed sex discrimination in the military and age discrimination in jury selection–types of discrimination much easier to justify if we look only to the Founders while ignoring the equality vision underlying the Fourteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments.

With Americans under attack, our Constitution can be a rallying point uniting citizens of diverse ethnicities, faiths, and ideologies. But the document contains much more than the Founding vision. It also reflects the spirit of antislavery idealists, progressive era reformers, and 1960's activists.

When other courts and commentators revisit the gun issue, they should tell the full story, rather than merely the opening chapter, of American liberty.


Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar are brothers who write about law. Akhil graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, clerked for then-judge Stephen Breyer, and teaches at Yale Law School. Vikram graduated from U.C. Berkeley and Yale Law School, clerked for Judge William Norris and Justice Harry Blackmun, and teaches at U.C. Hastings College of Law. Their "brothers in law" column appears regularly in Writ, and they are also occasional contributors to publications such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. Jointly and separately, they have published over one hundred law review review articles and four books.

[DEAD ZONE]

They are modifications/specifications of the original guns.
Bull.Look it up.Simply repeating a lie does not mak i so.



Actually, if you had paid just a little attention to my posts, you would have seen that I had left that part of the subject...
thank you for admitting you switch its purpose.
I already adressed the issue.



Well, a history of e.g. mental institutions, even voluntary admission to them, gives one quite a hunch, doesn't it?
And criminaly intent folk dont.As I said,I am not against checking if done in a correct maner.You advocate something far different and you know it.



But being drunk in public every single night, to give an example, should.

Not necesarrily.By that method,being drunk should permanently imprison you because you may hurt someone.
Drunks dont have the time or inkling to get a gun.They want boozWhen was the last time you saw a drunk robbing a bank.



Is this an English class or a debate/discussion? As you can see from this thread and other threads, I've found so much more. Don't become such a 'comma-screwer', please.

Bull.Your opinion.I choose not to bother in may cases since you have shown a propencity to just ignore it.



When people show, time and again, that they are a danger on the road, they need to be taken off the road. But that belongs in another thread.

And if some one indangers with a weapon,I think once or twice{dependding} is plenty.Lock them up.Besides, you advocate no propencity is grounds.Thats been one of my points.



And that's where law enforcement comes into play. If they drive without a drivers licence or with a suspended drivers licence, they will either have to be fined or sent to prison. But like I said: that belongs in another thread.
they must be caught first.No probable cause chief.



I've given you a study, by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

that delt with registartion and licensing,not what I said.
And i showed the flaws and why already many times.Yopu clearly did not bother to check the aspects of the study or you would have known that.thast why your "I posted more " stuff is irrelavant.

The study is by the same bunch using the same flawed methodology already explaind.Doctors at the Johns Hopkins medical school Center for Gun Policy and Research, rather than doing research, seem more to be involved in providing propaganda to all the gun control organizations, and guidance on how to pursue their agenda.



I've heard this one before. I think it was on Indymedia (www.indymedia.nl), but I'm not sure. Anyway, no, I wouldn't resent it. If that department store was robbed empty every week, I would find it more than normal, reasonable even, good even, that everyone is patted down. And even if not. Actually, I have experience of this in real life.
You changed the criteria then answered.Slick move but you avoided the question.Dont qualify it by saying If that department store was robbed empty every week.

I am a Lowlander (www.lowlands.nl) (regular visitor of rock festival A Camping Flight to Lowlands Paradise). Every time you wanna enter the festival ground there, you are being patted down. There are 60,000 visitors there. Why are people being patted down? To prevent knives, glass bottles, etc., from reaching the festival ground. It takes some time, and it creates queues, but hey, it beats the alternative (being stabbed down). As we call it: "Small effort, lots of pleasure."

And actually, there are machines that do that. No need for patting down. Just put machines at the entrances, or near the cashiers, and make sure, that the machines are placed such that every customer has to pass through the machine. you are used to being treated like a criminal.I am notInnocent till guilty.In a CCW state,no one dare try anything in a crowded area like that.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Bull.Look it up.Simply repeating a lie does not mak i so.

Go ahead and look it up. A B-version (not referring to lesser quality) of an engine is a specification, a B-version of a gun is just as much a specification.

thank you for admitting you switch its purpose.
I already adressed the issue.

I wasn't switching its purpose. I wasn't even talking about it anymore. I was on to the next. If you had had the wits to understand that, you would have seen that there was no relation between the two statements.

You advocate something far different and you know it.

What is so different between what you advocate and what I advocate when it comes to background checks? (and don't give me that rhetoric crap)

Drunks dont have the time or inkling to get a gun.They want boozWhen was the last time you saw a drunk robbing a bank.

Are you serious? Do you actually mean this??????????
I do wished you had searched (http://www.google.nl/search?q=%2Bdrunk+%2Bgun+-driving&hl=nl&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N) better. So many drunk people get their hands on guns, and not accidentally. And the combination of "drunk" and "gun" is a very lethal one.

And if some one indangers with a weapon,I think once or twice{dependding} is plenty.Lock them up.

For life? And does imprisonment change their habits?

thast why your "I posted more " stuff is irrelavant.

As if all your posts by biased, bigoted pro-gun lobby groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation are relevant. Come on. We call that "the pot calling the cattle black".

The study is by the same bunch using the same flawed methodology already explaind.Doctors at the Johns Hopkins medical school Center for Gun Policy and Research, rather than doing research, seem more to be involved in providing propaganda to all the gun control organizations, and guidance on how to pursue their agenda.

See previous.

You changed the criteria then answered.Slick move but you avoided the question.Dont qualify it by saying If that department store was robbed empty every week.

I didn't change the criteria. I gave an example of an imho valid reason for such patting. If you had properly read the post, you would have seen, that I agree with even without that condition. The effort it costs me to be patted is nothing compared to what theft costs the owner. I answered the question AND I gave a possible reason.

you are used to being treated like a criminal.

I am not. I don't say I like it, but it is a small effort for me to stand there and be patted down, and it beats the alternative: being stabbed down. It's called common sense. Least of two evils and stuff.

[DEAD ZONE]

No it is not. Look it up, if you wish. Compare the crime rates of the US to the crime rates of the other western democracies. Compare the gun laws of the United States to the gun legislation in the rest of the world. And what do you see? The US has the highest crime rates in the civilized world and the least stringent gun laws in the civilized world. 100% correlation between the two? No. Coincidence? No.

Another lie.Simply go here
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/highs.html

As well.
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

Then go back to the basics of science and the cross nation comparring you so love to ignore.

This site (http://christianparty.net/divrape.htm) compares the crime rates per 100,000 people in 15 industrialized nations, from Luxembourg to Japan.

See above and already stated posts.Methiods of reporting in japan make suicieds out of many a murder by the way.



If you don't believe it, be my guest. I'm not saying there's a direct link between the toughness of gun legislation and the amount of crime, but the facts speak for themselves.

The facts that illude you state otherwise.Proved by the scientific studies I already provided.

Something else. Although there are differences, also culturally, between The Netherlands and the United States, broadly speaking the two countries share a lot of similarities, enough to culturally be related to each other.

Untrue.See previous post chief.


The Netherlands has a homicide rate of 1.2 on 100,000, 0.3 per 100,000 of which are firearms related. In the US, there are 7.6 homicides per 100,000 people, of which 4.5 per 100,000 are firearms related. The gun ownership rate in The Netherlands is approximately 1.9%. The gun ownership rate in the USA is 48%. I don't say that the difference in homicide rate is completely due to the differing gun ownership rate, but I refuse to believe that Americans are that much more violent.

Same old disprooven method youused earlier.Just go ask any criminologiest .

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
[B]Another lie.Simply go here
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/highs.html

As well.
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

Then go here:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/International.html (Table 1)
http://christianparty.net/divrape.htm (Don't look at the divorce rate)
http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/lawyers.html ("The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 is nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined.")

Then go back to the basics of science and the cross nation comparring you so love to ignore.

What basics? The comparing of rocksolid facts I do?

Methiods of reporting in japan make suicieds out of many a murder by the way.

And what does that mean? That the murder rate is lower than presented, because the number presented is a combination of homicide and suicide.

The facts that illude you state otherwise.

No they don't. You're just too stubborn to see it.

Proved by the scientific studies I already provided.

Sure. All the scientific studies (by Harvard even) are completely obliterated by your bigoted pro-rights groups...

Same old disprooven method youused earlier.Just go ask any criminologiest.

What disproven method? Comparing apples to apples? Comparing crime rates in the US to crime rates in The Netherlands? Comparing gun ownership rates in the US to gun ownership rates in The Netherlands?

[Phreakmeister]

The horror of these tragic events this past summer are not isolated events, but part of a systematic problem in our nation where 35,000 Americans are killed each year by guns, and where children and youth ages 12-17 are nearly 3 times as likely as adults to be victims of violent crimes, and 12 children are fatally shot every day.

We need gun control legislation. Our legislators need to remove themselves from the influence of the money and power of the pro-gun lobby, open their eyes and acknowledge that our national obsession with firearms is costing too much. . How many more acts of violence, how many more children will have to die at the hands of children until our leaders find the courage to state - and legislate the obvious? Just the other day, we read of yet another killing here in New Mexico - an 8 year old boy shot and killed a 10 year old playmate because of a playground argument. According to news reports, this boy got angry, went home, took out a shotgun, came back to the playground and killed his friend. If he did not have access to the gun, his friend might have gotten a black eye - but this tragedy would not have happened. In our highly-armed society, playground fistfights rapidly become tragedies - all because of the number of guns readily available to all who want them.

I know that some of you do not share my feelings on this matter. I understand the importance that many of you place on the right to bear arms. Nonetheless, I am positive that in ensuring this right, the framers of our Constitution did not envision a world in which petty arguments, adolescent angst, racist ravings, and random violence are given an incredible power and voice while being exacerbated and promoted by easy access to semi-automatic weaponry.

WE need to stem the tide of violence that is plaguing our nation. The first step must be to control the guns in our midst. Strip away the rhetoric, the lobbying, the vested interests and you cannot help but see the logic in controlling the guns in our society.

[DEAD ZONE]

Go ahead and look it up. A B-version (not referring to lesser quality) of an engine is a specification, a B-version of a gun is just as much a specification.
i have.Didi a reasearch paper on it actually.You have no clue.



I wasn't switching its purpose. I wasn't even talking about it anymore. I was on to the next. If you had had the wits to understand that, you would have seen that there was no relation between the two statements.


Yes you were and here you admit it again.I said it in refference to one thing and you pulled it out and used it for something totally foreign to ite intent.You admit it,then deny it then admit it again."If you had had the wits to understand that, you would have seen that there was no relation between the two statements." So why did you use it then?



What is so different between what you advocate and what I advocate when it comes to background checks? (and don't give me that rhetoric crap)

Dont give you any good answer ?Sorry I dont deal in half truth lie you have been.

You trust a government with power and a track record of death and destruction but not the people.You allow yourself to be nannied and have no privacy ect. ect. Theres a lot.
There are other ways to do background check that do not amount to registration. For some reason, they are never acceptable.Why does the form 4473 include the make, model and serial number of the gun sold?The FFL could have a database of the prohibited persons and could perform a check without informing the government of successful checks. By use of simple encryption protocols, the privacy of the prohibited persons could be retained (so the dealer can't snoop to see who's been bad without generating a check) and so that the feds know somebody has just passed a check, without knowing who - but could be informed when a prohibited person tries to do so.
A digital Good Person certificate could be applied for by Good People at the local federal office, felons need not apply. Then, presenting a Good Person certificate to any gun dealer or other seller entitles you to buy a gun. The seller copies the certificate, and the two of you sign a transfer certificate, which releases the seller from liability should the gun be later used in a crime (upon showing the certificate). A given gun recovered from a crime could be traced by going through the people who have owned it, transfer to transfer, but the location of any particular gun, or the possession(s) of any particular owner, would not be known by anyone except by individual search, and by the seller.

Are you serious? Do you actually mean this??????????
I do wished you had searched (http://www.google.nl/search?q=%2Bdrunk+%2Bgun+-driving&hl=nl&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N) better. So many drunk people get their hands on guns, and not accidentally. And the combination of "drunk" and "gun" is a very lethal one
PLEASE.LOL

And how many hurt someone.A drunk is not someone who gets snookered every once in a while.A drunk is like a bumb wino.Every day .Be more bloody clear as to what you mean next time.And yes to the first.




For life? And does imprisonment change their habits?

Depends on the first,and who cares on the second.Just keep them away from the rest of us.



As if all your posts by biased, bigoted pro-gun lobby groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation are relevant. Come on. We call that "the pot calling the cattle black".

Excuse me but they were not all by the second amendment foundation.Nice try though.I even used a cite Your side posted. and ump teen references that had nothing to do with the second amendment foundation.





See previous.

And you.Methods ect.



I didn't change the criteria. I gave an example of an imho valid reason for such patting. If you had properly read the post, you would have seen, that I agree with even without that condition. The effort it costs me to be patted is nothing compared to what theft costs the owner. I answered the question AND I gave a possible reason.

you answered your own question now what about mine?





I am not. I don't say I like it, but it is a small effort for me to stand there and be patted down, and it beats the alternative: being stabbed down. It's called common sense. Least of two evils and stuff.
Sure you are.

stabbed. LOL.Only a fool takes a knife to a gun fight .

[DEAD ZONE]

Then go here:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/International.html (Table 1)
http://christianparty.net/divrape.htm (Don't look at the divorce rate)
http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/lawyers.html (" The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 is nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined.")

And for the last time.Selectively picking countries is a tactic used by stats abusers.Besides,you said the U.S. high the highest CRIME rates period.You made no qualifycation.now you backtrack and quailify.And still its incorect methodology.The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.Get it{probably not}.
Once again,I posted to your anti NRA friend the answer to this.Go back and look again.{this is getting old}.

[DEAD ZONE]

And what does that mean? That the murder rate is lower than presented, because the number presented is a combination of homicide and suicide.
It means what it said.Suicides by dishonored family heads acompany thier murdering the offenders of the family.Its all counted as suicide.

And athe Brits once recorded multiple crimes at one spot as one crime only.

Another example of why cross country comparring is no good.

[DEAD ZONE]

No they don't. You're just too stubborn to see it.
No they dont.You mean i am just to smart to buy your line ,bad methodology and basic stat manipulation.{prpaganda}.

[DEAD ZONE]

Sure. All the scientific studies (by Harvard even) are completely obliterated by your bigoted pro-rights groups...

Wrong.I used many a nutral and non pro gun group.I even stated such but you on the otherhand have consistantly stayed with flawed methods and bias anti-right gun haters.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
i have.Didi a reasearch paper on it actually.You have no clue.

Then you really should have looked better. The guns we now have are specifications have the original guns.



I wasn't switching its purpose. I wasn't even talking about it anymore. I was on to the next. If you had had the wits to understand that, you would have seen that there was no relation between the two statements.


Yes you were and here you admit it again.

Shut up. If anyone knows what I was trying to say, it's me. And there is no relationship whatsoever between "Prove it" and "Something I agree with". "Prove it" was about sinecure's statement about Canada. "Something I agree with" was about the safety regulations and stuff. It sure looks like you don't have the wits to see that. Doesn't plead in your favour.

I said it in refference to one thing and you pulled it out and used it for something totally foreign to ite intent.You admit it,then deny it then admit it again.

Have you been smoking anything?????????????

"If you had had the wits to understand that, you would have seen that there was no relation between the two statements." So why did you use it then?

Go back and reread. If you reread, you will see, as I said before in this post, that there is no relationship between "prove it" and "something I completely agree with". I'm sorry to have to disappoint you on that one.


Dont give you any good answer ?Sorry I dont deal in half truth lie you have been.

Well, judging from your posts, you don't have the faintest what I advocate. And well, if I did deal in half truth lies, it would still be better than your no truth lies.

You trust a government with power and a track record of death and destruction but not the people.

You don't trust a government to regulate something, but you do trust a people with a track record of death and destruction.

You allow yourself to be nannied

Nannied? In what way?

and have no privacy ect. ect. Theres a lot.

I have more privacy than anyone else. You see, we don't have that neat little TIPS plan. We can safely call people, send letters, etc.

There are other ways to do background check that do not amount to registration.

Such as? Passport? Come on.

Why does the form 4473 include the make, model and serial number of the gun sold?

When you buy a car, registration includes brand, type and chassis number. Exactly the same.

The FFL could have a database of the prohibited persons and could perform a check without informing the government of successful checks.

What check? Walking up to the door:
"Hello sir. I'm from the FFL. You are prohibited from possessing guns. I wanted to ask you: do you have any guns?"
"No."
"Ok thank you. Have a good afternoon."

Who was living in a fantasy world?

A digital Good Person certificate could be applied for by Good People at the local federal office, felons need not apply.

I rest my case. It looks like you've completely lost it...

Then, presenting a Good Person certificate to any gun dealer or other seller entitles you to buy a gun. The seller copies the certificate, and the two of you sign a transfer certificate, which releases the seller from liability should the gun be later used in a crime (upon showing the certificate).

And this is a watertight background check? I guess not.

A given gun recovered from a crime could be traced by going through the people who have owned it, transfer to transfer, but the location of any particular gun, or the possession(s) of any particular owner, would not be known by anyone except by individual search, and by the seller.

And how do you know that? By serial numbers. And how can you trace the owner of the gun with that specific serial number? Registration. And didn't you so vehemently oppose that?

PLEASE.LOL

Please what? Don't like to see that drunk people actually do get their hands on guns, and even on purpose?

And how many hurt someone.

An awful lot.

quote]Excuse me but they were not all by the second amendment foundation.[/quote]

Exactly. That's what those two little words "such as" were doing in that sentence.

you answered your own question now what about mine?

What question?

Sure you are.

What gives you the arrogance to think that you know better than me what I feel?

Only a fool takes a knife to a gun fight.

And only a moron takes a gun to a rock festival and only a deranged lunatic with severe brain damage let's people take guns to a rock festival ground. Do you remember Woodstock 3 years ago? Or do you remember Altamont? Wasn't really a nice sight. Thank God we are being patted down. Because only one fistfight in 3 days with 60,000+ people sure is better than rape, murder, etc.

[DEAD ZONE]

What disproven method? Comparing apples to apples? Comparing crime rates in the US to crime rates in The Netherlands? Comparing gun ownership rates in the US to gun ownership rates in The Netherlands?


oranges to goats is more like it.You know what methodology.I posted it clear{others responded and understood it} and you know it.
the point has come where your dishonesty here is getting out of hand.I am tired of repeating myself.I will post a few more on the second and its meaninf and not just quote some moder philosypher that chooses to make it say what they like.I already quoted the founders.Here is some more.

And remember,its not the number of phd`s you quote,its the amount of evidence you present.But since you so love that method,I`ll include some of it as well.The first one is the best.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hal-lin.html#fnb68

Foot notes to the founders are good here.

he Second 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.

One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge, wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. Tucker's remarks are solid evidence that the militia clause was not the sole reason for preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Tucker specifically mentions self-defense. This indicates two things: The scope of the right to keep and bear arms was not restricted to military purposes or the common defense (just such a provision was rejected by the Senate), and that "the people" means individuals, not a collective entity, and not a state.

(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)

In the Federalist Papers, No. 29, Alexander Hamilton clearly states membership in a well regulated militia is not required for the right to keep arms:
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
---The Federalist Papers, No. 29. After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. "Coxe's defense of the amendments was widely reprinted. A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear "their private arms." The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

William Rawle's "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829), was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" means individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens.

(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed as a United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years. He was also George Washington's candidate for the nation's first attorney general, but Rawle declined the appointment.)

A lengthier quote from Rawle, and more quotes from St. George Tucker are presented in the quotes from commentators section.
The militia clause was never meant to limit the right to keep and bear arms. Rather it was the "chief political reason for guaranteeing the right against governmental infringement. Keeping and bearing arms would be protected for all lawful purposes, but self-defense, hunting, shooting at the mark (i.e., target shooting), and other nonpolitical purposes had no place in a federal Constitution which delegated no power to regulate these activities. Since Congress could raise and support armies, the superiority of the militia in securing a "free" country must be declared." See Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

[DEAD ZONE]

The following is excerpted from To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, Joyce Lee Malcom, Harvard University Press, 1994:
The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals, each perceived as crucial to the maintenance of liberty: First, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. Such an individual right was a legacy of the English Bill of Rights. This is also plain from American colonial practice, the debates over the Constitution, and state proposals for what was to become the Second Amendment. In keeping with colonial precedent, the American article broadened the English protection. English restrictions had limited the right to have arms to Protestants and made the type and quantity of such weapons dependent upon what was deemed "suitable" to a person's "condition." The English also included the proviso that the right to have arms was to be "as allowed by law". Americans swept aside these limitations and forbade any "infringement" upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

These privately owned arms were meant to serve a larger purpose as well, albeit the American framers of the Second Amendment, like their English predecessors, rejected language linking their right to "the common defense". When, as Blackstone phrased it, "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression," those private weapons would afford the people the means to vindicate their liberties.

The second and related objective concerned the militia, and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public, and Madison's original version of the amendment, as well as those suggested by the states, described the militia as either "composed of" or "including" the body of the people. A select militia was regarded as little better than a standing army. The argument that today's National Guard, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation. Indeed, it would seem redundant to specify that members of a militia had the right to be armed. A militia could scarcely function otherwise. But the argument that this constitutional right to have weapons was exclusively for members of a militia falters on another ground. The House committee eliminated the stipulation that the militia be "well-armed," and the Senate, in what became the final version of the amendment, eliminated the description of the militia as composed of the "body of the people." These changes left open the possibility of a poorly armed and narrowly based militia that many Americans feared might be the result of federal control. Yet the amendment guaranteed that the right of " the people" to have arms not be infringed. Whatever the future composition of the militia, therefore, however well or ill armed, was not crucial because the people's right to have weapons was to be sacrosanct. As was the case in the English tradition, the arms in the hands of the people, not the militia, are relied upon "to restrain the violence of oppression"

The Constitution gave to the federal government broad authority over state militia. Was the Second Amendment meant to placate states fearful about this loss of control? In fact not one of the ninety-seven distinct amendments proposed by state ratifying conventions asked for a return of any control that had been allocated to the federal government over the militia. Sherman's [Roger Sherman a representative of Connecticut] proposal that some power be returned to the states was rejected by the drafting committee. In any event, the Second Amendment does nothing to alter the situation. Indeed, that was precisely the complaint of the anti-Federalist Centinel in a discussion of the House version of the arms article. The Centinel found that "the absolute command vested by other sections in Congress over the militia, are [sic] not in the least abridged by this amendment." Had the intent been to reapportion this power some diminution of federal control would have been mandated. None was.

... George Mason had attempted to add... a proviso during the convention when he moved to preface the clause granting Congress authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia with the words "And that the liberties of the people may be better secured against the danger of standing armies in time of peace." A strong statement of preference for a militia must have seemed more tactful than an expression of distrust of the army. The Second Amendment, therefore, stated that it was the militia, not the army, that was necessary to the security of a free state. The reference to a "well regulated" militia was meant to encourage the federal government to keep the militia in good order.
All from GunCite. A cite posted first by the opposition here so if its bad or biased,you should not have used it.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

The above site defines the militia.Its not just the regulars.It is every able bodied male.

http://www.lawandliberty.org/intent.htm

These guys site the founders themselves.Unlike your quoting of modern revisionists.

An Analogue

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed." Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.
"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
--- Noah Webster of Pennsylvania, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Bordenet.html

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
[quote]Selectively picking countries is a tactic used by stats abusers.

Don't tell me you do that. "Hey look, Japan and Taiwan have more murders, so we're doing a wonderful job here. And who cares that Japan counts suicides as murders."

Besides,you said the U.S. high the highest CRIME rates period.You made no qualifycation.now you backtrack and quailify.

I never said the US has the highest crime rates. Of comparable nations: YES. Go check the stats. In the world? No. War zones have higher murder rates.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates.

And you are seriously thinking that Europeans are that much more peaceful than Americans?

On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.Get it{probably not}.

Taiwan and Mexico have mafia wars raging. The Philippines are in a civil war.

Once again,I posted to your anti NRA friend the answer to this.Go back and look again.{this is getting old}.

I've read that, and he's right about the NRA. The NRA is a hypocritic factbending organization which is not interested in the interests of gun owners, but only in the interest of the gun industry.

Wrong.I used many a nutral and non pro gun group.

Name one.

flawed methods

If anyone uses flawed methods, it's you, with you're whining first about Hitler, then about Switzerland, etcetera. You use arguments based on lies.

and bias anti-right gun haters.

So that's why I've even posted statements of gun owners?

You mean i am just to smart to buy your line ,bad methodology and basic stat manipulation.

If you were smart, you would look at my arguments and agree with you. The fact that you use your selfish attitude to justify your stubborn mentality shows that you are too "blinded by rainbows" to see what I say. You're not "too smart to buy your line", you're too stubborn to admit a single thing. Every time you notice that you're pinned down, you start with those little word games to drive attention away from the problem. Word games about the definition of civil war, of specification, you name it. That's not a sign of smartness. That's a sign of stubbornness. You're as stubborn as a pig's rear end.

And athe Brits once recorded multiple crimes at one spot as one crime only.

When was that? 1602?

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html+++

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
How can anyone possibly construe the above passage to mean the people as individuals weren't allowed to keep their own arms? Of course the militia was subject to state and national control. An orderly militia could not function in any other way! To do so otherwise is a recipe for constant chaos and anarchy. The people as Madison states, not the government, were to be trusted with arms. Remember Madison writes, "...the governments [of Europe] are afraid to trust the people with arms". There is only one way to read that phrase; it is clearly the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Madison also sanctions the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government with their own arms under the control of government "chosen by themselves". Alexander Hamilton discusses this right in more detail as we'll see later.

John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense." A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, at 475. (1787-88)
John Adams:
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)
Samuel Adams:
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, (1788), Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Samuel Adams:
"It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The militia is composed of free citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own rights, or suffering others to invade them.." Writings, III (1906)
Fisher Ames:
"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." in a letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789, in 1 Works of Fisher Ames at 53-54, (1854)
Edmund Burke:
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Speech at County Meeting of Bucks, 1784
Edmund Burke:
"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, April 3, 1777
Albert Gallatin:
"The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Letter by Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct. 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc. _A.G. Papers, 2.
Benjamin Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Benjamin Franklin:
"The very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for 'tis a wise and true saying, that `One sword often keeps another in the scabbard.' The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. They that are on their guard, and appear ready to receive their adversaries, are in much less danger of being attacked than the supine, secure and negligent." 1747 (Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 2:352.)
Alexander Hamilton:
"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidible to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." Federalist Papers, Article 29 January 10, 1788
Alexander Hamilton:
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers, Article 29 January 10, 1788
Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions at 45, 2d ed., (Philadelphia, PA, 1836)
Patrick Henry:
"The great object is, that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun." During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 386, Jonathan Elliot, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888)

[DEAD ZONE]

Patrick Henry:
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 168, Jonathan Elliot, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888)
Patrick Henry:
"They tell us we are weak - unable to cope with so formidable an advesary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed? Shall we aquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies have bound us hand and foot? We are not weak if we make a proper use of the means which the Gods of nature has placed in our power. Millions of people armed in the holy cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Many cry 'Peace, peace' - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me Liberty, or give me death!" March 23, 1775, Addressing the Virginia House of Burgesses
Thomas Jefferson:
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, unalterable through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." [American Survival Guide/August 1993 pg. 47]
Thomas Jefferson:
"It [appears] that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience [has] shown that, even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." in the Diffusion of Knowledge Bill (1779), in Jefferson Papers at 2:526, J. Boyd, ed., (New York, N.Y.:Putnam, 1896)
Thomas Jefferson:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776), Jefferson Papers at 344, J. Boyd, ed., (New York, N.Y.:Putnam, 1896)
Thomas Jefferson:
"The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people;that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, .....or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled of property, and freedom of the press." "The Living Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson", pp.46 - 47, Presented by John Dewey
Thomas Jefferson:
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the quality alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764) [Kates,"Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Michigan Law Revue 203,234 (1983)]
Thomas Jefferson:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William S. Smith, January 30, 1787, in Jefferson, On Democracy , pg. 20 (S. Padover ed., 1939)

[DEAD ZONE]

Thomas Jefferson:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the companion of your walks." Letter to his nephew, [Kates,"Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Michigan Law Revue 221-2,228-9 (1983)]. Also in Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, at 318, Foley, Ed. reissued 1967
Thomas Jefferson:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That `all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Thomas Jefferson: Opinion, February 15, 1791
Thomas Jefferson:
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322
Zachariah Johnson:
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." in 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions at 45, 2d ed., Philadelphia, 1836
Richard Henry Lee:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary...the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer at 169 (1788) Walter Bennett, ed., at 21,22,124 ( Univ. of Alabama Press, 1975)
Richard Henry Lee:
"...;whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;..." Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer at 170 (1788) Walter Bennett, ed., at 21,22,124 ( Univ. of Alabama Press, 1975)
James Madison:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate [State] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit to. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Federalist Papers, Article 46 January 29, 1788
James Madison:
"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [State] governments possessing their affections and confidence." Federalist Papers, Article 46 January 29, 1788
James Madison:
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."[Guns & Ammo, Feb. 1993, pg. 105]
James Madison:
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
James Madison:
"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows that the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"
George Mason:
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888)
George Mason:
"A well regulated militia, composed of Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from a standing army." Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed (Albuquerque, NM:University of New Mexoco Press, 1984) at 61
Josiah Quincy:
"a well-regulated militia composed of the freeholder, citizen and husbandman, who take up their arms to preserve their property as individuals, and their rights as freemen." [Gun World, March 1993, pg. 19]
Thomas Paine:
"[T]he supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while, on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them; ...the weak will become a prey to the strong." Thoughts On Defensive War, (1775) in 1 Writings of Thomas Paine, at 56, M. Conway ed.

[DEAD ZONE]

The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no
longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is
required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of
citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the
militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union,
suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

The national guard is a part of the militia.It is not all of it. Militia as defined by
U.S. law;

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17
years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of
age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of
the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of
the National Guard.

b) The classes of the militia are -
1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval
Militia; and {2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The militia clause is only one rationalfor the right to bear arms,It is not the only
one.The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army.
Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second
Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is no
evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal
commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that
the
Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that
the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep
their militias.

" The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word
"regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English
Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order."

Context,context and intent.My little revisionist friends.Or ,in jeffersons own
words.""On every question of construction,carry ourselves back to the time when
the Constitution was adopted,recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,{b]and
instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text,or invented
against it,conform to the probable one in which it was passed."[/b]This was a
statement on the meaning of the constitution.You see,it was even necessary
then.

"The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the
Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of
regulation. For reference here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing
such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,
reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the
authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress;

Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to
explain
well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A
regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not
arms. This definition is clearly inappropriate.

That leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's
let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist
Paper No.29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would
be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable
expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It
is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens
to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection
which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a
real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a
well disciplined, trained and functioning militia.

Here is a quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 which
also
conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general
officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates
to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

Finally, note the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defining regulated
in
1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great
Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated
Troops on that side."

Posted from my private files.I did my home work,not just a cut and past.

[DEAD ZONE]

1792 Uniform Militia Act;some excerpts

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within 6 months thereafter,
provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two
spare flints, a and a knapsack [etc] ... and shall appear so armed, accoutred and
provided, when called out to exercise, or into service..and that from and after five
years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein
required shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And
every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and
accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all
suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

There were two basic reasons for deciding that militiamen maintain their own
arms, rather than the government providing all the arms. One was the fear that the
government could give arms to some and deny them to others. The other was
simply the cost of arming so many militiamen.

However, as time went on, fear of the former decreased, and willingness to bear at
least a part of the burden of arming increased. A number of people in Congress
during the period 1789-1807 argued that the federal government should bear the
cost of weapons, rather than individuals. The main
reason for this was socioeconomic--poor people were generally the ones who had
to serve in the militia to begin with, and it seemed harsh to also make them buy
weapons.

The 1792 law requiring that militiamen arm themselves really upset a lot of poor
people, who had to buy expensive military weapons, which were easy for the rich
to afford. What many of them wanted was something like a property tax, which
would then be used to buy guns for distribution. That way,
the rich would be making a contribution proportionate to the contribution of the
poor, towards the defense of the country.


Back to our right;

"After James Madison's Bill of Rights were submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe
(see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823)
published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the
people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on
government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,may attempt
to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to
defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens,
the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their
private arms."

"Coxe's defense of the amendments was widely reprinted. A search of the
literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's
analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the
people to keep and bear "their private arms." The only dispute was over whether a
bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights."

"Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were
considering
ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn
our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm
the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever
remain, in the hands of the people."

"This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" means individuals
since
Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate
authority to disarm its citizens. "


The customary American militia necessitated an armed public, and Madison's
original version of the amendment, as well as those suggested by the states,
described the militia as either "composed of" or "including" the body of the
people. A select militia was regarded as little better than a standing army.
The argument that today's National Guard, members of a select militia,
would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no
historical foundation. Indeed, it would seem redundant to specify that members
of a militia had the right to be armed. A militia could scarcely function otherwise.
But the argument that this constitutional right to have weapons was exclusively
for members of a militia falters on another ground. The House committee
eliminated the stipulation that the militia be "well-armed," and the Senate, in what
became the final version of the amendment, eliminated the description of the
militia as composed of the "body of the people." These changes left open the
possibility of a poorly armed and narrowly based militia that many Americans
feared might be the result of federal control. Yet the amendment guaranteed that
the right of " the people" to have arms not be infringed. Whatever the future
composition of the militia, therefore, however well or ill armed, was not crucial
because the people's right to have weapons was to be sacrosanct. As was the
case in the English tradition, the arms in the hands of the people, not the militia,
are relied upon "to restrain the violence of oppression"

[DEAD ZONE]

What the second means from a law perspective.

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/embar.html

From an expert on English usage:

J. Neil Schulman intervied him.

"If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:


"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."


My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:


"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."


After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.


About the Author

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman.

J. Neil Schulman may be reached through:

The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud).
Mail address:


J. Neil Schulman
PO Box 94, Long
Beach, CA 90801-0094.
GEnie address: SOFTSERV


softserv@genie.geis.com

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
oranges to goats is more like it.You know what methodology.I posted it clear{others responded and understood it} and you know it.

It's comparing A in country a to A in country b. It's comparing B in country a to B in country b. If you can't stand the fact that that comparison doesn't flatter the US, then it's not my fault. It's just something you have to get over with, whether you like it or not.

the point has come where your dishonesty here is getting out of hand.

Dishonesty? Show me one sign of me being dishonest. Now. Prove it. But you can't prove it. Because I've never been dishonest. So shut up and act mature.

I am tired of repeating myself.I will post a few more on the second and its meaninf and not just quote some moder philosypher that chooses to make it say what they like.I already quoted the founders.

You do know that the founders lived over 200 years ago, do you? You do know that the world was different then, do you? You do know that the constitution and the contemporary amendments were written by contemporaries of the founders for contemporaries of the founders, do you? Or are you also someone who wants to bring the entire Oldtestamentical world back?

And remember,its not the number of phd`s you quote,its the amount of evidence you present.

About time you make a start then. It would be time.

But since you so love that method,I`ll include some of it as well.The first one is the best.

Now let's break down the 2nd amendment to bitesize chunks (I won't make it too hard for you):

A well regulated Militia,

What is a militia?
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

being necessary to the security of a free State

Ha, the purpose of the afforementioned militia

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Most interpret this is everyone. But regardless of the fact that the founders were highly autocratic and aristocratic, which would make this quite unlikely, if this truly meant to cover every single person, what is that "militia-part" doing there? If the interpretation was the way you would like to see it, the amendmend would have been:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed."
I'm afraid to have to say it, but your interpretation of the second amendment is thwarted by "a well regulated Militia". If those 4 words had been omitted, you would have been right. But they haven't been omitted, so you're wrong.

One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right.

Constitutionally speaking, you're dead wrong.

Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Constitutionally speaking, those who do not belong to the militiae do NOT have the right to bear arms. And are you part of the army or a national guard?

There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.

Well, the 2nd amendment is quite a clue...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

So because 1 man, says that the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is different from the way the 2nd amendment was written, you are right? If he were right, why the "militia"-part?

Read the history of the 2nd Amendment (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lec11.htm)

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/Kates.self.protection.html

Dealling with the second and its root in self defence.

Fox News By Jon Du Pre 07/06/2000.
"We know that criminals are still getting guns on the street through the black market," said Luis Tolley of Handgun Control Inc. .Well ,well,well.Seems we gun nuts have been calling it right the entire time.
Actually though, I am all for the sissy left wingers calling for further bans on guns, it makes more and more people go out and buy them, buy ammunition and call up folks like me and us "not normal " folks to ask for lessons on how to shoot them. What is most amazing is that the louder the liberals shriek for gun control, the more military style weapons get purchased. You guys keep it up and I'll bet there will be more assault weapons in the hands of civilians than in the hands of the military. Way to go liberals!!!! You have found your purpose in life - too bad it isn't the one you wanted

"If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory." - Mickey Kaus, Washington Post, Jan 8 1980, in op-ed by Michael Kinsley (a liberal Democrat quoting a liberal Democrat)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"The main purpose of this paper has been to examine the viability of firearms registration and the control of the licensing of people to use and possess firearms. I have read many articles on the matters and interviewed several people from both sides of the fence. Without meaning to pre-empt some of the areas under examination I find conclusively that firearms registration is an exercise in futility." - Senior Sergeant S. W. Waterman, Victoria Police Inspectors' Course No. 51 - 1986
New Zealand:


"It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal." - Marvin E. Wolfgang, Patterns in Criminal Homicide,
(University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958) p. 82
Dr. Wolfgang is one of the founders of modern criminology. He was on record as stating that even police should be disarmed. If you think things have changed since his book...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply
because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and thus that much homicide
would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that
supports this view." - James Wright and Peter Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous,
(Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1986)

Dr. Wright is a former president of the American Sociology Association. When he began the
federally funded research that culminated in this book, he was in favor of strict gun controls.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And what does gun control have to do with violence?

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before." - Inspector Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control, (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972) p. 243

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"...Consequently, when medical journal authors report that there is little evidence on a given topic, it may often really mean only that they made no serious effort to find any or chose not to report what they found. For example, in an article published in 1996 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Douglas Weil (research director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, affiliated with Handgun Control) and a colleague claimed that "there is little published research on the effectiveness of gun laws" (Weil and Knox 1996:60). In fact, there were, at the time this article was published, at least forty-five empirical studies of the impact of gun laws on violent crime, suicide, and gun accidents (Tables 8.4 and 11.1). Weil then proceeded to inaccurately claim that "with little dissent, these studies are generally supportive of the thesis that well-tailored gun laws can have a beneficial impact" (ibid.:60), when in fact the studies have generally indicated that gun laws, whether "well-tailored" or not, have no measurable impact on violence rates (Chapter 11; PB;Chapter 10)...." Page 42, Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns emphasis added.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"At first glance it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private
ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime, yet that is precisely what the
evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated
to the availability of a particular type of weapon. The numbers of firearms required to satisfy the
'crime' market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls
have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history
of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have
restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime." - Inspector Colin
Greenwood, "Shooting Back," Police Review, 10 November 1978 page 1668

Inspector Greenwood (England) took a sabbatical from his police duties to study gun control at
Cambridge. He started off supporting gun control.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"In none of the cases examined in this study was the existence of these [gun registration] records
of any assistance in detecting a crime and no one questioned during the course of this study could
offer any evidence to establish the value of the system of registering weapons." - Inspector Colin
Greenwood, Firearms Control, (Routledge and Keegan, London, 1972,) p. 246
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Australian ban has had no effect on the overall homicide rate, though it will take several more
years to have enough data to strongly confirm that:

"In other words, those who commit homicide in Australia are individuals who have circumvented
legislation and will be least likely to be affected if further restrictions on firearms ownership are
introduced." - Jenny Mouzos, "The Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms Used in Homicide,"
Australian Institute of Criminology, No. 151, p 5
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
New Zealand:

"The Police remain opposed to registering all firearms, the previous system (of firearm registration)
was inefficient, ineffective and expensive." - Chief Inspector G Jones, Coordinator: Firearms &
Tactical Groups, March 18 1992 in a letter to the Auckland, New Zealand, Fish and Game Council

The error of gun control is the assumption that gun availability contributes to the severity of
violence. It doesn't.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Registration has only been useful for confiscation. If it had been useful as a crime fighting tool,
wouldn't HCI and other similar organizations fill their webpages with details of such stories? You
won't find any. Not even one. There are reasons for this:

"For registration to lead to the solution of crime, all of the following five elements would have to
prevail:

(1) A gun was used in the crime,

(2) the gun was left behind at the scene of the crime, or was lost by the offender somewhere else,
(3) the police recovered the gun,

(4) the criminal was not arrested at the scene of the crime or on the basis of information unrelated to the gun, (if he had been so arrested, the gun would be redundant in identifying the suspect), and,
{5) the criminal had either registered the gun, using his true name or other uniquely identifying attributes, or the registered owner of the gun could somehow lead police to the criminal."

Gary Kleck, Point Blank, (NY. Aldine de Gruyter, 1991)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[DEAD ZONE]

"Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy
drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. . . . Consequently, it is doubtful whether, for the average gun owner, the risk of a gun accident could counterbalance the benefits of keeping a gun in the home for protection--the risk of an accident is quite low overall, and is virtually nonexistent for most gun owners." - Gary Kleck,
Point Blank p 304-305

Dr. Kleck (who began his research intending to prove gun control "worked") is kind enough to
mention benefits in that last sentence. You appear to have ignored the possibility that widespread firearm possession is beneficial.

"[W]hen used for protection, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a
psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show
little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any
meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places,
or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression." - Toch, H. and Lizotte, A.,
"Research and policy: The case of gun control." In Suedfeld, P. and Tetlock, P. (eds.)
Psychology and Social Policy. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1991

Dr. Toch is another former gun control supporter.


The Declaration of Independence and the Second Amendment share something in common; they both have preambles. The Second Amendment is the only amendment enumerated in the Bill of Rights that contains a stated purpose, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is a preamble, an introduction, a preface, a whereas,--not a therefore.


"What is special about the Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause--a preamble, if you will...No other clause is a part of any other Amendment." L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law.


"Many gun control advocates argue that the unique 13-word preamble stipulates that amendment?s purpose in a way that severely narrows constitutional protection of gun ownership." George F. Will, America?s Crisis of Gunfire. Washington Post, 3/21/91.

"No other amendment has its own preface." William & Mary Rev, Guns, Words, and Constitutional Interpretation.


"The amendment is unique among the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, because its purpose is clearly expressed in the text." Erwin Griswold, Phantom Second Amendment ?Rights.? Washington Post 11/4/94.


"The states rights reading of the Second Amendment puts great weight on the word "militia," but this word appears only in the Amendment?s subordinate clause." Yale Law School Prof., Akil Reed Amar, Bill of Rights as a Constitution, Yale Law Journal 1131, 1166 (1991).


"It should be noted that the Amendment has two parts: (1) an observation, or perhaps a cautionary note ("A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and (2) a command or legal requirement ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"). The language of the first clause appears to impose no legal requirement or restriction on the federal government, Only the second clause indicates a right that the government cannot infringe."

Book review of: ?To keep and Bear Arms: The Origin of an Anglo-American Right.? By Robert J. Cottrol, Prof. of law, Reuters School of Law. Raymond T. Diamond, Prof. of law Tulane University School of Law.

However, numerous court decisions declaring that the individual right to own firearms is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment are based on the preamble, not the Right itself, which reads, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We don?t have statistics in front of us, but it?s a safe bet that virtually all decisions handed down by the courts restraining individual firearms ownership are based on the preamble, i.e., the introduction--and introductions are not law--introductions are not rights.

Cases in point: "...the claimant of Second Amendment protection must prove that his or her possession of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia." [Preamble]. Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons. [Preamble] The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of certain weapons has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," [Preamble] the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon," [based on the preamble]. United States v. Hale. (8th. Cir. 1992).

"Thus, the clauses of the amendment are bound together. The right of an individual is dependent upon a role in rendering the militia effective." [Preamble] State v. Skinner (1973). Here the court maintains that the preamble and Right are inseparable and of equal value, which is total nonsense, and, as we?ll prove, runs contrary to the rules of interpretation. Have you ever heard of someone being indicted, convicted, and sent to prison for violating the preamble of a statute but not the statute itself? That?s precisely what the courts are doing with gun owners in regards to the Second Amendment.

"Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" applies to the right of the state to maintain a militia, [preamble] and not to the individual?s right to bear arms, [court places the preamble above the right] there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." [Based on the preamble] Stevens v. United States, (U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit).

And in the well-known United States v. Miller, the court said, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia [preamble], we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment [preamble] or that its use could contribute to the common defense." [Preamble].

[Phreakmeister]

The Truth About the Second 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."

The Second Amendment is perhaps the most misunderstood of all provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of reasonable gun laws repeatedly argue that gun safety regulations run afoul of Second Amendment rights. In truth, however, no gun law in this country has been overturned on the basis of the Second Amendment. Rather, the U.S. Supreme Court and an overwhelming majority of federal appellate courts in this country have held that the Second Amendment protects only a right to keep and bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia.

The public's common misunderstanding of the Second Amendment has been engendered, in large part, by a campaign of misinformation supported by those opposed to common sense gun laws. As former Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."


A Sampling of Court Decisions that Support the Militia Interpretation of the Second Amendment


U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS
U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 (1997)
U.S. v. Baer, 235 F.2d 561 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978)
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918 (1976)
U.S. v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1641 (2001)
U.S. v. Finitz, 234 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 833 (2001)
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996)
U.S. v. Lewis,, 236 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2001)
U.S . Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995)
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993)
U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988)
Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972)
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972)
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000)
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983)
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973)
Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973)
U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943)
U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Cases, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub nom.
Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943)

U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
Golt v. City of Signal Hill, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
Olympic Arms v. Magaw, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Willbern, 2000 WL 554134 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2000)
U.S. v. Bournes, 105 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 1999), aff'd, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999)
U.S. v. Visnich, 65 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999)
U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996)
Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F.Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
U.S. v. Kruckel, 1993 WL 765648 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 1993)
Krisko v. Oswald, 655 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1987)
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 842 (1984)
Vietmanese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982)
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982)
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330. (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971)

STATE COURTS
Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)
State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989)
U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987)
Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)
Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.App. 1983)
City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio App. 1983)
State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982)
In Re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980)
State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976)
Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812 (1969)
Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967)

Quite a bit of jurisprudence contradicting your opinion...

[DEAD ZONE]

Chief Justice Warren Burger, when asked for his opinion on the Second Amendment, said it was "...one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ?fraud,? on the American public by special interest groups that I?ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies--the militias--[preamble] would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment [referring to the preamble] refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

Mr. Burger is wrong. The greatest fraud, I repeat the word ?fraud,? on the American public is being perpetrated by our judiciary in their use of the preamble, which is not a right, not a law, not a code, not a statute, when deciding a Second Amendment issue.

There is only one legitimate reason for the courts to refer to a preamble when interpreting a law or right, and that?s when the law or right in question is vague and the preamble is needed for clarification. However, a preamble is always secondary and can never supplant the right or law in question. A preamble is, "A preface, an introduction or explanation of what is to follow: That clause at the head of acts of congress or other legislatures which explains the reasons why the act is made. Preambles are also frequently put in contracts, to explain the motives of the contracting parties. A preamble is said to be the key of a statute, to open the minds of the makers as to the mischief's which they are to be remedied, and the objects which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statutes. It cannot amount, by implication, to enlarge [or "infringe"] what is expressly given." The Lectric Law Library?s Lexicon.

Cases in point: "The body of the act may even be restrained by the preamble, when no inconsistency or contradiction results, ...where the intention of the Legislature is clearly expressed in the [body], the preamble shall not restrain it, although it be of much narrower import." A Treatise on the Rules Which Govern the Interpretation and of Statutory and Constitutional Law, Theodore Sedgwick. 1857, pg. 55.

Our judicial system has handed down "inconsistent or contradictory results" on a regular basis concerning the Second Amendment because of their inclusion of the preamble in their decisions. Many times, if not always, allowing it to take preeminence over the right itself. Gun grabbers totally rely on the preamble to "restrain" the Second Amendment at every turn. If the preamble read; "In order to ensure a fresh supply of venison, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the courts would argue that supermarkets always have a fresh supply of meat on hand and restrict firearms ownership on that basis. It?s the courts illegal use of the preamble that?s causing all the grief for gun owners because it?s difficult, if not impossible, to misinterpret "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That?s why the judiciary avoid it and constantly addresses the preamble.

"As showing the inducement to the acts, [the preamble] may have a decisive weight in a doubtful case. But where the body of the statute is distinct, it will prevail over a more restrictive preamble." Commentaries on the Written Laws and Their Interpretation. Joel P. Bishop, pg. 48, (1882), .

"In the laws of England, in doubtful cases recourse may be had to the preamble; but where the terms of the enacting clause are clear and positive, the preamble cannot be resorted to." Fortunatus Dwarris, A General Treatise of Statutes, pg. 504, ( 2d ed, 1848).

What?s vague about "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?" This statement is unequivocal and needs no further clarification. Therefore, there?s absolutely no legal justification for the courts to refer to the preamble when deciding a case! And it?s blatantly illegal for the courts to place an introduction to a right over the right itself. It?s a mystery as to how the courts have perpetrated this fraud for so many years. Laws covering the militia can be found in the Militia Act of May 8, 1792 and in 10 U.S.C. 311, and in state constitutions. But as it appears in the Second Amendment, it?s just an introduction and carries no legal authority except for clarification purposes only.

Justice Joseph Story wrote in Rules of Interpretation, "Where the words are plain and clear, and the sense distinct and perfect arising on them, there is generally no necessity to have recourse to other means of interpretation. It is only when there is some ambiguity or doubt arising from other sources that interpretation has its proper office." Story also said that a preamble "...is properly resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacted part, [but] "...never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the source of any implied power..." Try telling that to our courts.

The "collective right" argument is another favorite of the gun-grabbers. It first got its start in a Kansas Supreme Court decision back in 1905 (Salina v. Blakesly). Corrupt judges, prosecutors and legislators have been tripping over themselves to jump on that band wagon ever since. Again, the Kansas decision was based on the preamble.

Any lawyer who is defending a Second Amendment issue should make it explicitly clear to the court that any reference to the preamble of the Second Amendment is unnecessary based on the clear language cited in the right itself. Explain the rules of interpretation quoted earlier (find as many quotes as you can) and force the courts to prove that there?s something ambiguous in the wording of the Second Amendment that requires reference to the preamble for clarification.

He should show that a preamble is just that--a preamble, an introduction, and a firearms issue cannot be determined by a preamble because it?s not the law! This will limit the courts (if successful) and if any judge or prosecutor claims that he doesn?t understand the meaning of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," will prove himself an idiot. Explain to the court that judicial giants of the past, men of renown, revered for their judicial excellence of mind would never resort to a preamble--that?s for judicial Homer Simpsons? --someone who has a poor command of the Queen?s English. Set the stage to make the judge or prosecutor look like a complete ass if they utter so much as a word in reference to the preamble. If they do--they are.

In closing it should be mentioned that if the courts used preambles in other areas of law when deciding a case in the same manner as they have against the Second Amendment the judge would be kicked off the bench--it simply wouldn?t be tolerated. And gun owners in America shouldn?t tolerate it either.

This is my final post .The above can certainly not be called biased second amendment site authors.

We are clearly going in circles and not getting anywhere.Some one said a few post back,something about beating a dead horse.

In any event, I see no further reason to debate with you as I see either a lack of honesty or a lack of honor and rabid socialist -- none of which deserve further consideration from me. Too busy to play with those types.

You get the last shots phreak.Make them count.


:wave

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
In any event, I see no further reason to debate with you as I see either a lack of honesty

Prove my "lack of honesty" or shut up.

or a lack of honor

If anyone has a lack of honor, it's you, who is a childish, selfish, materialistic redneck, who is more than willing to twist facts, history and words to satisfy his own interest.

and rabid socialist

Socialism has nothing to do with this. This is about responsibility of a state towards its people (me) versus everyone for himself and the Lord for all of us (you).

At the beginning of all this, I respected your way of thinking. I didn't agree with you, but you seemed a reasonable debater. How I've changed my mind. You have shown your childishness, your selfishness, your idiocy, etc. You have shown your true nature. "I don't care what happens to other people, as long as they stay out of my backyard." This bizarre sense of isolationism shows your irresponsibility towards every other human being. You claim to know Europe ("it's so bad over there, people get raped all along"), but you have no idea of what it's like over here. Not the faintest. I could go on for a very long time to mention all your pathetic little tactics, but I won't. It wouldn't improve the atmosphere.

I can respect people with other opinions, I know a lot of people with very different opinions, and I can get along with every single one of them. But I'll never respect stubborn fundamentalists like you.

[Phreakmeister]

Militias Misinterpret The Constitution

By Dennis Henigan, Director, Legal Action Project
(Originally published in the National Law Journal, June 12, 1995)

The Oklahoma City bombing has focused public attention on an alarming development: the formation of well-armed private "militias" claiming a right to engage in violent resistance to federal authority. The organizing ideology of these paramilitary groups is a perverse, and potentially dangerous, interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

These groups assert that the reason for the presence of the "right to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is to provide the people with the means to resist the government when it becomes a "tyranny." The federal ban on military-style assault weapons, enacted last year as part of the crime bill, is anathema to these self-described patriots. In their view, assault weapons are needed to match the firepower of the Federal government.

The argument that the Second Amendment is about resistance to government tyranny is not confined to the newly formed militias. Indeed, the rhetoric of the militias echoes the message heard for many years from officials of the National Rifle Association.

In a 1971 article in the Howard Law Journal titled "The Second Amendment Ain't About Hunting," Vol. 34, No. 4, an NRA lawyer wrote, "The Second Amendment was directed at maintaining an armed citizenry for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against the tyranny of our own government."

Or, as an NRA field representative told the New York Times on Dec. 24, 1990, "The Second Amendment... is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government."

The NRA's constitutional theory has chilling implications. After all, if the purpose of the Second Amendment is to keep the government in line through the threat of armed resistance, why should there be any limitation on the kinds of arms people may keep and bear?

Following this line of thought, the NRA has argued in court that private possession of military arms, such as assault weapons and machine guns, is constitutionally protected. The NRA theory also implies that citizens should have the right to join together to prepare for resistance to government authority. If the prospect of a solitary armed citizen can give second thoughts to potential tyrants in federal agencies, imagine the effect of an entire private army.

Not surprisingly, the NRA has stated that it has not discouraged "nor would contemplate discouraging" the formation of "citizen militia units." And, under the NRA's theory, if the possession of arms is constitutionally protected to provide the means for resistance to oppression, why is not the use of arms against government agencies (say, by the Oklahoma City bomber) also protected, if such use arises from a sincerely held belief that the government has become a tyranny?

[i]Warped Interpretation

The NRA grossly distorts the history and meaning of the Second Amendment. The amendment 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."

The gun lobby fails to understand that the "well regulated Militia" of the late 18th century was not a private army formed to resist the government; the militia was an instrument of the government.

As former Chief Justice Warren Burger has explained, the militia was a "state army." While it is true that much of the adult male population was enrolled in the militia, these militiamen were subject to rules enforced by the state requiring, for example, periodic "mustering" for military training.

The New York Naval Militia

The genesis of the Second Amendment was the belief that the Constitution had given the federal government excessive power over the state militias. The Anti-Federalists who argued for the amendment distrusted the federal "standing army" of professional soldiers. They saw effective state militias as a way to prevent federal monopoly of military power.

Thus, the Second Amendment affirmed that the keeping and bearing of arms in a "well regulated Militia" of the states is a "right of the people," not dependent on the whim of the central government.

Court Interpretation

As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the "obvious purpose" of the amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [the state militia and that] it must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Universal military service in state militias long ago disappeared, replaced in the early 1900s by the National Guard system. In Maryland v. U.S., 381 U.S. 41 (1965), the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that "the National Guard is the modern militia." The courts consistently uphold gun control laws because they typically exempt the National Guard, and thus do not interfere with the modern militia. Never in our history has a gun control law been struck down by the federal courts on Second Amendment grounds.

As stated in U.S. v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988), the courts "have analyzed the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias, rather than individual rights." Noting the NRA's purposeful distortion of the case law, former Chief Justice Burger has accused the gun lobby of a "fraud on the American public."

Violent Dissent

Perhaps the unspeakable tragedy of Oklahoma City will cause us to reflect on the limits of dissent in our society. Our system vigilantly protects the right to dissent by peaceful means from our government's policies and actions. But no democracy can tolerate violent dissent; the anarchy of violence is the enemy of freedom.

As Dean Roscoe Pound prophetically wrote more than 35 years ago in "The Development of Constitutional Guarantees of Liberty":

In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear efficient arms so as to be enabled to resist oppression by the government would mean that gangs could exercise an extra-legal rule which would defeat the whole Bill of Rights.

For transforming the Framers' Second Amendment protection of state militias into a charter for violent resistance to government, the NRA should be ashamed.

[Phreakmeister]

The Second Amendment - Myth and Reality

"The Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud’, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
- Warren Burger, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice

The Second Amendment is one of the most misunderstood components of our Founding documents. While the gun lobby has spent millions of dollars to make the American public wrongly believe the Second Amendment applies to an individual’s right to own a firearm, this interpretation is a falsehood. In reality, the Second Amendment applies only to firearm ownership in the context of a “well-regulated militia”, and not individuals.

When the Constitution was adopted, it created a single central army under the control of the federal government, and did not contain provisions for the separate control of state militias. The problem with this arrangement was that organized state militias were seen as a necessary component of resisting invasion from other countries and countering rebellions and riots within the states.

As a result of the unclear Constitutional provisions on state militias, it was necessary to explicitly state in the Bill of Rights that “well-regulated militias” could not be deprived of their “right to bear arms” by the federal government. The Second Amendment was therefore incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a guarantee that the states could each maintain organized militias free from the interference of the federal government.

Today, the National Guard has formally assumed the role of the state militia, and the states see to it that they are well-enough armed. The National Guard is therefore exempt from federal gun laws under the protection of the Second Amendment.

When the NRA makes claims that they are the protectors of the Second Amendment, this is simply not true. By distorting the true meaning of the Second Amendment in such an extreme way, they are, in fact, working against it.

[Phreakmeister]

The Second Amendment - Legal Interpretations

"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."
- The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is one of the most misunderstood components of the Bill of Rights. While the NRA would like people to believe that the phrase "to keep and bear arms" applies to the individual's right to own as many of whatever type of firearms they would like, this is simply not true. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Second Amendment applies only to the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia."

The U.S. Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court has made several rulings on the ability of the government to restrict the manufacture and sale of firearms, as well as who can possess them. Among the most important of these rulings include:

Presser v Illinois - 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

In 1886, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that stated that the Second Amendment only applied to preventing the federal government from imposing restrictions upon the right of the states to maintain a state militia. It did not apply to the right of the state governments to regulate handguns and other guns, including who could own them.

United States v Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

In the Miller case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only to the right of the states to maintain militias. It could not be applied to the right of the federal government to regulate and restrict private interstate commerce in firearms. This case involved a challenge to a recently enacted federal law that made it a crime to ship a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce, and the law was upheld.

In this ruling, the court found that:

"In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said that the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

Lewis v United States - 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

This 1980 case may be the most important decision made by the Supreme Court to date related to the Second Amendment. In this case, the Court ruled that the provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prevented felons from possessing a firearm did not violate the Constitution.

Farmer v Higgins - 907 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1990)

After the federal government completely banned the production of new machine guns in 1986, it was quickly challenged by a gun manufacturer who was refused a license for production by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case and ruled that the refusal to grant a license - and the production ban itself - were not unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and the 1986 ban remains active today.

[Phreakmeister]

The Amazing Vanishing Second Amendment
- Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School

(73 NYU L. Rev. 831 (1998))

I'm deeply flattered that David Williams chose to reply to my Article. His response is thoughtful, gracious, and, most important, direct: It frankly sets forth its conclusion, which is that the Second Amendment is "outdated" and "meaningless." A part of the Bill of Rights has mysteriously vanished.

This is a remarkable proposition. After all, supposedly "[t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." As the Court said when defending another unpopular right:

If it be thought that [a right] is outmoded in the conditions of this modern age, then the thing to do is to take it out of the Constitution, not to whittle it down by the subtle encroachments of judicial opinion. Nothing new can be put into the Constitution except through the amendatory process. Nothing old can be taken out without the same process.

And yet by an interpretive feat, a right specifically guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is gone. How is this vanishing act accomplished, and which rights can it turn to next?

I. "The Body of the People" and the Operative Clause
Professor Williams begins by claiming that, even setting aside the justification clause, the Second Amendment's operative clause -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" -- doesn't recognize a right of individual persons. Rather, he argues, it protects only "the right of the Body of the People," "the people considered as a unified, homogeneous, organic, collective body devoted to the common good." And "because we no longer have a Body of the People, (...) the amendment simply cannot mean what once it meant."

That's a creative theory, but is it supported by the evidence? The clause itself speaks of a "right of the people," the same language that's used immediately before in the Petition Clause and shortly after in the Fourth Amendment. This seems like a strong suggestion that the right to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to each individual person.

Of course this suggestion might be rebutted by contrary evidence from other sources, such as the operative clause's historical antecedents. None of them, though, mention any "Body of the People." The English Bill of Rights provision on which the clause is based speaks of the right of "subjects." The 1776 North Carolina, 1776 Pennsylvania, 1777 Vermont, and 1780 Massachusetts Constitutions speak simply of "the right of the people," with no hint of a "Body of the People"; the 1790 Pennsylvania and 1792 Kentucky Constitutions even more unambiguously speak of "the right of the citizens"; the 1796 Tennessee Constitution speaks of "the right of the freemen"; the 1817 Mississippi, 1818 Connecticut, 1819 Maine, and 1819 Alabama Constitutions refer to the right of "every citizen."

All the material I've seen suggests that these provisions were considered at the time to be basically similar. I know of no evidence that some were seen as creating an individual right and some as creating a right of a "Body of the People." This suggests that "the right of the people" means the same thing as the right of "subjects" or "the citizens" or "every citizen" -- not of some "Body of the People."

What about the commentators? Sir William Blackstone described the English right as the "right of the subject." St. George Tucker treated Blackstone's "right of the subject" as equivalent to the Second Amendment's "right of the people." William Rawle likewise treated the Second Amendment as an expansion of the English right of "subjects," and seems to have assumed the right could be exercised even "by a single individual." Justice Joseph Story called the American right a "right of the citizens." Nowhere is there any hint that the right belongs not to each person, subject, or citizen, but to some "Body of the People."

Finally, would it have made sense, in the legal environment of the time, for the Framers to recognize a constitutional right possessed by a "Body of the People"? Professor Williams admits, as he must, that the right does not belong to the states. 14 He claims it does not belong to individuals. But if that's so, how can some intermediate entity -- an entity with no independent legal existence and no official spokespeople who could assert the right -- have a constitutionally guaranteed right that individual citizens do not have? I've seen no evidence that the Framers envisioned constitutional rights operating this way.

II. "The Body of the People" and the Justification Clause
So where does this "Body of the People" come from? Well, it does appear in one related state constitutional provision of the time, the Virginia Militia Clause: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." The Virginia Constitution lacked a right to keep and bear arms until 1971, but the Virginia Militia Clause indeed seems to have been a forebear of the Second Amendment's justification clause. The Virginia ratifying convention included it in its proposals for a federal Bill of Rights, and the North Carolina, New York, and Rhode Island proposals -- which were generally based on the Virginia proposal -- copied this provision.

I'm not persuaded that the "Body of the People" here means "the people considered as a unified, homogeneous, organic, collective body, devoted to the common good." It seems to me to stand only for the bulk or great majority of the people. But in any event, these provisions merely show that the militia consists of the body of the people. And the operative clause speaks of a "right of the people," not a right of the militia.

So to get to his conclusion, Professor Williams must take two extra steps. First, he must conclude that the operative clause, which recognizes a right of "the people" (equivalent, as I argue above, to a right of each citizen or subject), should be read in light of the justification clause as creating a right of "the body of the people." Second, he must conclude that, though the body of the people still literally exists, it no longer serves the purpose that was supposedly envisioned by the framers of the justification clause: Arming the body of the people is no longer necessary, or even helpful, to the security of a free state.

Thus, the argument must go, because the assumptions underlying the justification clause are no longer true, the right created by the operative clause has disappeared. This is basically the argument I attribute to Professor Williams in my Article.Professor Williams does indeed argue, under his "unitary" method of interpretation, that the right exists only so long as the justification remains valid.

Here is where I would have liked to see Professor Williams confront my core observation -- the existence of the other state constitutional provisions that contain justificatory clauses. Would his "unitary framework" apply to the state Speech and Debate Articles or the New Hampshire Venue Article? Should they also be "meaningless" to judges who conclude that the Articles' justifications are no longer valid? Do the state Liberty of the Press Articles vanish because we no longer have a virtuous, republican press?

Madison's original draft of the Seventh Amendment's Civil Jury Trial Clause read, "In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate." Has this right also become "meaningless" or "outdated" as enlightened opinion has retreated from the premise that the civil jury trial is indeed "one of the best securities to the rights of the people"? After all, if the people have lost the virtue needed to possess arms, maybe they've also lost the virtue needed to serve on juries.

As I argue in my Article, the state constitutional provisions show that many operative clauses will be overinclusive and underinclusive with respect to their justificatory clauses: Checks on government authority often take the form of bright line rules that don't perfectly fit their justifications. If I'm right in this, then a "unitary" framework that insists on trying to "make the two clauses as consistent as possible" -- thus ignoring the possibility of intentional over- and underinclusiveness -- is the wrong way to deal with justification clauses.

But even if I'm wrong, it might have been profitable for Professor Williams to test his interpretive approach by applying it to a wide array of texts of different political valences. It's easy enough to craft an interpretive trick that reaches the result one wants in the case for which it was crafted. But when one tests it against other provisions, one sees more clearly whether it's a sound interpretive method.

[Phreakmeister]

III. The Unchanged Changed Circumstances
Professor Williams conjures with more than just the text and original meaning; he also makes a changed circumstances argument. The Second Amendment, he concedes, once recognized a right that was a potent check on the government, but today things are different. The Second Amendment "by its own terms (...) makes sense 'only so long as pretty much everyone has arms, and so long as the arms-bearers are "virtuous," because otherwise the arms "will necessarily be [used] in the interests of a slice of the population, rather than for the common good." And today, "the American citizenry is so fractured (...) that [a true] Revolution [made by the Body of the People for the commonwealth] is impossible."

Rather than "pretty much everyone [having] arms," "gun ownership today is markedly demographically skewed." "Today, because of social changes, we can see [as the Framers did not] the possible contradiction between [the people as individuals and the Body of the People], as American citizens are more individual than ever, but they have given up aspirations to peoplehood in the strong republican sense...." Today, there "no longer exists" the "organic collectivity" on which the Second Amendment is based. "[T]he Framers did intend to guarantee a right for all Americans to own guns, but (...) they presupposed that Americans would have a collective identity that they now lack." Americans once had this right, but things are different today, so the right is gone.

But Professor Williams provides no evidence that the circumstances on which he relies have actually changed. Sure, American society today is to some extent fractured. So was American society in the late 1700s, when Americans divided in their loyalties in the Revolutionary War, in their private economic and religious interests, along geographical lines, and in other ways. Now as then, many look out for the common good, and aspire to "peoplehood in the strong republican sense." Then as now, many people instead focused on individual or factional interests. The notion of a virtuous "organic" republican past, as contrasted to a fragmented collective-identity-less present, is myth.

Likewise, gun ownership today is indeed not universal -- about 35% to 50% of all households now have guns -- but Professor Williams gives no evidence that things were ever different.

Today 25% to 30% of adult Americans, and about 40% to 50% of adult males, own guns. Even without these estimates, it seems quite plausible that the fraction of late 1700s households who possessed what was at the time quite an expensive piece of technology would not have been much greater than 35% to 50%.

Similarly, gun ownership today is indeed demographically skewed; for instance, 44% of white households and only 29% of black households own guns. But we have no reason to believe that ownership wasn't skewed in the late 1700s, whether by race, ethnicity, or geography.

The Framers well understood human selfishness and the tendency of society to "fracture." The drafter of the Second Amendment, after all, also wrote about the inevitability of "faction" -- "citizens (...) united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." I suspect the Framers knew that their neighbors were not "a unified, homogeneous, organic, collective body, devoted to the Common Good," and saw that they did not all own guns. How then can it be said that the Second Amendment "by its own terms (...) makes sense 'only so long as pretty much everyone has arms, and so long as the arms-bearers are "virtuous" -- a supposed condition precedent that was false even when the Amendment's "own terms" were written?

Professor Williams's argument reinforces my skepticism about reading justification clauses as excuses to nullify rights. If we authorize judges to conclude that, because of some supposed historical change, a constitutionally guaranteed right is "outdated," we jeopardize all constitutional liberties -- including those secured by the Speech and Debate Articles, the Liberty of the Press Articles, the Civil Jury Trial Clause, and any other constitutional provision that indicates, explicitly or even implicitly, 49 its justification. Is this how a Bill of Rights should be read?

IV. Avoiding Amazing Vanishing Acts
My interpretive approach is built on the notion that Bills of Rights are aimed at constraining the government. This is why operative clauses are often overinclusive and underinclusive with regard to their justifications, and why we shouldn't adopt interpretive methods that let courts read justification clauses as implicit authorizations for making rights vanish. I try to support my approach by giving examples from other constitutional provisions, ones I like and ones I dislike, ones that appeal to the Left and ones that appeal to the Right. There's a certain discipline that comes from recognizing that the interpretive method we sow today for one provision might be reaped by us tomorrow for another.

My approach, as my Article concedes, has its difficulties. But at least it doesn't lead to a right mysteriously vanishing on the grounds that some find it "meaningless" and "outdated." That, it seems to me, is a point in favor of my method -- especially when there are other rights that many would happily read out of our Constitution.

[Phreakmeister]

As part of a comprehensive policy position adopted in 1994, the ABA committed itself to work to better inform the public and lawmakers through a sustained educational campaign regarding the true import of the Second Amendment. Opponents of firearms control legislation have relied upon the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right to bear arms." The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:

"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."

The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. There is no confusion in the law itself. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including local bans on handguns. The Supreme Court enunciated in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) what, over fifty years later, remains clearly the law of this country -- that the scope of the people's right to bear arms is limited by the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia" for the "security of a free State." In Miller, the Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of..." the state militias and cautioned that the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed its view of the Second Amendment as expressed in Miller. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1968), the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal, for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Most recently, in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court held that legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not - for purposes of equal protection analysis - "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

The lower federal courts have uniformly followed the interpretation of the Supreme Court. No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has been struck down in our nation's history on Second Amendment grounds.

Yet the perception that the Second Amendment is somehow an obstacle to Congress and state and local legislative bodies fashioning laws to regulate firearms remains a pervasive myth. The gun lobby has conducted extensive and expensive campaigns to foster this misperception and the result has been that the myth of the "absolute bar of the Second Amendment" has real effects on regulatory efforts.

As lawyers, as representatives of the legal profession, and as recognized experts on the meaning of the Constitution and our system of justice, we share a responsibility to the public and lawmakers to "say what the law is." The ABA is committed to bringing about a more reasoned and lawyerly discussion of the meaning and import of the Second Amendment.

[Phreakmeister]

On February 16, 2000, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence hosted a distinguished group of historians at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to challenge the gun lobby's on-going campaign of misinformation about the Second Amendment; a campaign so severe that Chief Justice Warren Burger called it "one of the greatest frauds on the American people." This "fraud," perpetrated by the National Rifle Association and its sympathizers, has taught the American public to ignore the first half of the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," and focus only on the latter half – "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This campaign has been successful in generating an extraordinary degree of public misunderstanding.

Recent polls show that almost 80% of the American public feels there should be greater regulation of guns in this country, such as required safety training for gun owners and photo licensing prior to purchasing a gun, but 48 percent of that group believes the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own guns. The public's misconception of the "the right to keep and bear arms" directly contradicts the courts' interpretation of the Second Amendment. The federal courts of this country have long been in agreement – the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but only in relation to the furtherance of a well-regulated militia. Erwin Griswold, President Nixon's Solicitor General and former dean of Harvard Law School, called this legal finding "the most well-settled proposition in American Constitutional Law." Unfortunately, it is apparent that the "fraud" has overtaken the "well-settled proposition." Last April, Judge Sam Cummings, a federal court judge in Texas, became the first federal judge in 60 years to find that an individual has a right to bear arms – regardless of militia purpose. It was Judge Cummings' decision that prompted the historians to step forward to correct the record – for history's sake. In U.S. v. Emerson, Judge Cummings found that an individual, even one who threatens his wife and child with a gun, has a right "to keep and bear arms." Judge Cummings' decision was remarkable, not only for its aberrant finding, but because it ignored the legal precedents and instead relied upon law review articles and history books. Judge Cummings claimed, "[a] historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." The panel of historians at the National Press Club explained that a full historical examination of the right to bear arms does not support Judge Cummings' contention.

Instead, the four historians, specialists in English history and Early American history, demonstrated that the history behind the Second Amendment has nothing to do with an unqualified individual right to bear arms. Prof. Lois Schwoerer, Kayser Professor of History emeritus at the George Washington University and the leading expert on the English Bill of Rights, explained that the English forerunner of our own Bill of Rights did not allow anyone an unbridled right to firearms ownership. To the contrary, Article VII of the English Bill of Rights – the counterpart to our Second Amendment – was a gun control measure designed to arm only the Protestants and then only in accordance to their "condition and according to the laws." Their "condition" was their social standing (the House of Lords wanted only the Protestant upper classes to own firearms) and even then gun ownership was "subject to the laws," which were used to further hamper the ownership of arms. Don Higginbotham, Dowd Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a renowned military historian, explained that when the Founding Fathers discussed the "right to keep and bear arms," it was always within the context of a militia. The Constitutional drafters were concerned that federal control of the militia would leave the states defenseless against a tyrannical federal government. To prevent that possibility – the Second Amendment prohibited the federal government from interfering with the arming of the state's militia.

In fact, history teaches us that the Founding Fathers would surely roll over in their graves if they knew the Second Amendment has become a popular argument against reasonable gun control measures. Prof. Saul Cornell of the Ohio State University and editor of the upcoming Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect?, pointed out that our forefathers lived during a time of extensive firearm restrictions. At the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, all of the states had restrictions on gun ownership, Boston banned the possession of loaded firearms within its city limits and Pennsylvania permitted only those deemed to have the necessary "virtue" to own firearms. The former colonies actually conducted a periodic census of firearm ownership and in 1790, there were only enough guns to arm 4.5 percent of the general population. It is ironic that the Founding Fathers lived at a time when it was routine for the government to know who owned guns and how many they owned, yet today those same Founding Fathers are cited in opposition to gun licensing and registration laws. It is time for the gun lobby to cease its incessant distortion of the historical record and its time for all of us to get the record straight.

[Phreakmeister]

HOME OFFICE FIGURES SHOW VIOLENT CRIME TO BE FALLING OVERALL – BUT FIREARMS STILL HAUNT THE UK CRIME SCENE

The gun lobby has made much of the recent crime statistics for England and Wales claiming that violent crime, especially firearm related crime, is on the increase. They argue that this ‘proves’ that the handgun ban introduced in 1997 is not working and should be repealed. In the month before Christmas 2001, four TV documentaries concerned with firearms and crime were broadcast in Britain. GCN members and supporters took part in these when invited and the debates these programmes generated prove beyond any doubt that the case for retaining our existing gun controls needs to be strongly reasserted against the gun lobby’s claim that the legislation was unfair and unworkable.

Any debate about the crime statistics and what they reveal is fraught with problems but the following facts attempt to clarify the picture. In fact, overall violent crime appears to be falling and firearms were used in only a tiny minority of offences. Contrary to the impression given in some media reports and eagerly seized upon by the gun lobby, the streets of Britain are not ‘awash’ with illegal guns, notwithstanding the serious criminal problems in some cities.

1. Guns were used in only 0.3% of notifiable offences in 1999/00. Even in relation to violent crime, only 4.7% of robberies and 8.5% of homicides involved guns, so the violence problem in Britain is, to a very large extent, not gun-related.

2. Handgun homicide figures are very low and since 1980 have fluctuated from a low of 7 in 1988, through to 35 in 1993 and a previous high of 39 in 1997. So the 42 handgun murders in 1999 do not represent a statistically significant increase.

3. The figures for overall handgun crime have also fluctuated peaking at 4273 in 1993, followed by a sharp drop to 2648 after Dunblane and then a rise last year to 3685. There is clear evidence that this recent growth is being driven by the trade in illegal drugs, gang activity and ‘organised’ crime in a few large cities. Recent TV documentaries have focussed upon this criminal activity (and police operations against it) but the real point is that it represents a quite exceptional phase in a very particular type of crime in Britain.

4. There is evidence of growth in the use of imitation guns in crime but no accurate figures can be put on this. Estimates, however, based upon recent research, suggest that around 40% of handgun crime is attributable to imitations and that this proportion may be growing given the easy availability of these, often very realistic, weapons.

5. Recorded crime figures are always affected by police activity and, in a number of areas, police forces are proactively addressing firearm related crime (Operation Trident in London and Manchester for example). One outcome of this activity will undoubtedly be an increase in recorded gun crime as more of it is brought to light by police operations.

6. Any claim about rising violence based only on crimes recorded by the police is very unreliable because only around 40% of violent crimes are ever reported to the police. The authoritative British Crime Survey, published by the Home Office, and based on directly asking the public their experience of violence, shows a continuing decline in the level of violence. Thus the recent 2001 Survey showed an overall decrease of 19% in violent crimes between 1999 and 2000. This included a 34% decline in wounding, a 14% decline in common assault and a 22% decline in robbery


In summary

Much recent research has highlighted the fact that the UK does not have a particularly low rate of violent crime compared to other modern western societies but it does have a low rate of gun crime and homicide. In our view this is because of our tight gun laws and the relative inaccessibility of guns in our society.

The gun lobby point to a relatively small and quite exceptional increase in firearm related crime in order to support their case for repealing our gun control legislation. However, it is clear to the vast majority of the British public that any relaxation of gun controls or the routine arming of the police would lead to an increase in the use of guns in crime. For these reasons GCN members have resisted such developments.

[Phreakmeister]

How the gun lobby has stolen the Second Amendment

In a recent Sun article on guns entitled “Foes of gun ownership perpetuate many myths” (7/29/01) Gregory Kane assails, yet again, the “lefty anti-gun nuts” who disagree with what Kane assures his audience is the Second Amendment’s (SA) guarantee that individuals can own firearms. What’s Kane’s argument? The Revolutionary slave-owner Patrick Henry believed it to be the case. And, what do people who disagree with Kane argue? He doesn’t bother to say.

Kane’s style is similar to Rush Limbaugh’s. With the Sun’s tacit approval, he routinely claims to be refuting the arguments that others are making—but their views seldom get mentioned. At the same time, while the Sun is generally in favor of gun control, they rarely mention the Constitutional arguments favoring it in their editorials or Op-Eds. As a result, the fact that the judicial history on guns for the last sixty years has overwhelmingly served the interests favoring sensible gun control often comes as a surprise to most of their readers.

The Two Arguments

The Gun Lobby’s view is that the SA guarantees an unlimited right for individuals to own firearms. (Many who hold this view also claim the right to own any conceivable weapon mankind can manufacture.) Meanwhile, the SA has consistently been judged to be a collective right. The “collective right” interpretation holds that the Founding Fathers feared that an overly strong government would menace the people. To guard against that happening, the SA is designed to require that a well-regulated Militia with precise scope and limitations be handy to check the Feds.

Both sides are concerned with the landmark 1939 Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision on US v. Miller. Modern jurisprudence on guns stems from this case. It is also the only case where the SA has been specifically examined by SCOTUS. US v. Miller heard the case of Jack Miller and friends, who were convicted of violating a 1934 law forbidding the transport of sawed-off shotguns across state lines. In Miller, Justice McReynolds, writing for the majority, rejected the argument that a sawed-off shotgun bore any resemblance to the weaponry of a Militia.

In their majority opinion, the Miller Court examined how a Militia is referenced by the US Constitution before the SA appears. It also considered the first half of the SA; i.e., “A well-regulated Militia being necessary for a Free State...”

This is significant because the Gun Lobby simply dismisses these Constitutional references to a Militia. They focus on the latter half of the SA exclusively; i.e., “...the right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed.”

Generally speaking, where appellate courts have examined the entire Constitution they have judged the SA to be a collective right. Where they have disregarded these points to focus exclusively on the sentence fragment that is the second half of the SA (as in US v. Emerson, mentioned later), the SA has naturally been affirmed to be an individual right.


The Meaning of US v. Miller

As Chief Justice McReynolds wrote in Miller:
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power—‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” (emphasis)

Thus the Miller Court rejected Miller’s claim. Note how the last pair of sentences fit with the rest of the paragraph. The paragraph begins with the Constitution’s definition of a Militia. The concluding statements say that the Second Amendment must be interpreted with the Constitution’s sharply limited scope of a Militia in mind. (In other words, by defining what it is, what it can do and how it is authorized, they are not asserting that individuals by themselves qualify as a Militia.) Numerous legal scholars have said this paragraph clearly signifies the Miller Court is judging the SA to be a collective right.

Needless to say, the Gun Lobby dismisses these arguments with extreme agitation. First, they argue that Miller only concerns sawed-off shotguns. (Still, there’s that paragraph.) Also, because Miller and the rest failed to make an appearance before SCOTUS, they claim the decision has no credibility. (Although nothing in the decision suggests that.) They also reject the argument that the Constitution is limiting a Militia’s scope by pointing out that later on the Constitution mentions that any “able-bodied men” are entitled to join a Militia. (Yes, but the Militia has already been defined.) They also underplay the importance of the paragraph above.

Meanwhile, eight Federal Courts have followed US v. Miller and have emphatically stated that US v. Millerdoesn’t merely apply to sawed-off shotguns. They also affirm that US v. Miller intends for the SA to be judged as a collective right. Some notable quotes:

Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove (1982, Seventh Circuit):
“...[I]t seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. Under the controlling authority of [US v. Miller], we conclude the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”
Hickman v. City of Los Angeles (1996, Ninth Circuit):
“We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.”

Scholarly Arguments

The Quilici vs. Village of Morton Grove court also ruled that scholarly arguments based on what the Founding Fathers have written have “no legal basis” when determining what rights are conferred by the SA. It isn’t hard to see why. First, why would one Founding Father be more relevant than another? There are no criteria for that judgment. Second, there are always questions about whether the person quoted was speaking about individuals who are members of the Constitutionally-defined Militia or not. Finally, if Patrick Henry or some other yahoo from that era believed something, it doesn’t necessarily bind us to that thinking.

What’s Coming

Looming on the horizon is the expectation that the SCOTUS will take up US v. Emerson, which was decided in Federal Court (1999). The Gun Lobby is eagerly anticipating that the SCOTUS will take up the case in order to overturn US v. Miller.

Emerson is essentially a slam-dunk for the Gun Lobby. In it, Timothy Joe Emerson was cited for possession of a firearm after receiving a restraining order for allegedly threatening on the phont to kill his wife’s lover. He claimed that his rights were violated by the restraining order. It reached a Federal Court, which toed the Gun Lobby’s line by dismissing Constitutional references to a Militia while focusing on the second half of the SA.

Many people are waiting for the SCOTUS to review Emerson. Recall that the current SCOTUS also penned the decision in Bush v. Gore, which installed George Bush president. From a judicial standpoint, Bush v. Gore, remains the most reviled case since Dred Scott. A Supreme Court capable of judicial activism of that recent magnitude is capable of anything.

While the Emerson showdown looms, Attorney General John Ashcroft is working aggressively on behalf of the Gun Lobby. He has announced that the Justice Department believes the Second Amendment to be an individual right, reversing decades of policy. He has also brazenly gutted the Brady Bill by having law enforcement agencies destroy gun-purchasing records after only one day.

Conclusion

The mainstream media continue to under-report the fact that nine appellate courts have, since 1939, judged the SA to be a collective right. At the same time, the Gun Lobby is mounting a serious and aggressive propaganda campaign to persuade people that the SA guarantees individuals the right to own whatever weaponry they choose. With guns being used in the commission of 3,000 serious crimes a day in the US, the arguments favoring a collective right interpretation of the SA deserves more attention by the corporate media than they are receiving.

Scott Loughrey

[Phreakmeister]

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS NOT AS CLEAR AS LEGAL SCHOLARS CLAIM

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Don't look for the one "true" interpretation of the Second Amendment - the controversial amendment concerning the right to bear arms - because it doesn't exist, according to an Ohio State University scholar.

Saul Cornell, professor of history at Ohio State University, is editor of the new book Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect? (Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000). In the introduction to the book, Cornell notes that many legal scholars have mistakenly concluded that there is one correct interpretation of the Second Amendment: that it protected the rights of individuals to own guns.

However, historians in general are not so sure. While scholars of law are looking for the one true answer that will guide today's public policy, historians have looked at a broader perspective.

"Legal scholars, by and large, have homogenized the past. They have tried to find a single, monolithic notion of what the Second Amendment said," according to Cornell.

"But when you look at the documents of the time from a historical perspective, you find that there was a considerable range of opinions at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. The question of who gets to bear arms is more complicated than most legal scholars believe."

The basic argument is whether the right to bear arms is an individual right - like the National Rifle Association and many legal scholars assert - or a collective right, one that belongs to state militias.

While there were differing opinions about gun rights in the 18th Century, Cornell said he believes most people of the time held the collective right position. This is the view that Cornell supports today.

"Even those people who believed in the rights of individuals to own guns tended to cede tremendous authority to the state to regulate guns. The notion of individual rights at that time was very different from the modern idea," he said.

In fact, the citizens of the 18th Century would have been bewildered by the current obsession with individual rights, Cornell said. The big debate at the time was not about individual rights; it was about the struggle between state and federal authority, the right of the people to enact laws to govern themselves.

Many of the original supporters of the Second Amendment were very suspicious of federal power, and were most concerned that their state militias have the right to protect themselves from the federal army.

"The same people who didn't want the federal government regulating their right to own guns showed little reluctance in allowing their own state governments to take aggressive measures to restrict access to guns," Cornell said.

For example, while Pennsylvania supposedly gave its citizens the right to own guns, the legislature in 1777 enacted a sweeping law, the Test Act, that disarmed as much as 40 percent of the state's white male population who were deemed to be "disaffected to the liberty and independence of the state."

Like Pennsylvania, many other states had laws that restricted who could own or possess guns - there was no overriding individual right.

One of the current favorite theories among supporters of the individual rights interpretation is that the Second Amendment incorporated a right of revolution for American citizens. This argument says the founding fathers believed citizens should be armed in order to overthrow a government that was no longer representative of the people.

Cornell said the evidence contradicts this claim. "There is widespread agreement among historians that the state militias were far more likely to be employed to crush rebellion than to function as agents of revolution," he said. The most dramatic evidence was the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 which occurred after the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Angered by federal taxes on distilled spirits, farmers in western Pennsylvania took up arms, claiming to be carrying forward the principles of the American Revolution.

The unpublished sources on the Whiskey Rebellion showed that all of the people involved in drafting the Bill of Rights - both Federalists and Antifederalists - denounced the Whiskey Rebels' actions. "No one thought the Second Amendment gave these rebels the right to revolt against the government," Cornell said.

Cornell said he is troubled by the fact that most legal scholars who push the individual rights argument either ignore the rebellion or relegate it to a minor footnote in their accounts.

The problem is that legal scholars want to influence judges and lawmakers. That means they have to come down squarely on one side, and can ill afford to show the nuances of the debate or show evidence that doesn't support their theories, he said.

But Cornell said Americans need to have a more complete understanding of the various sides of this debate, which is one of the aims of the book. Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect? contains six essays by leading historians examining the issue from several perspectives.

"The more the public can be made aware of the complexity of this topic, the more likely it is that the contemporary policy debates will move beyond slogans to a substantive discussion of the issues," he said.

[Dizbuster]

THUMP THUMP THUMP

What's that sound?

THUMP THUMP THUMP

Oh nothing, they are just beating that dead horse again!:lol :clap :lol :eek:

"GUN CONTROL" Gateway to Tyranny By Jay Simpkin and Aaron Zelman
THE NAZI WEAPONS LAW, 18 MARCH 1938 Original German Text and Translation, with an analysis that shows U.S. "Gun Control" Laws have Nazi roots.

This book contains evidence that America's type of "Gun Control" came from NAZI GERMANY! It clearly shows the U.S. Gun Control act of 1968, as amended, uses major concepts from the Nazi Weapons Act (18 Mar. 1938). "Handgun Control" is a concept invented in Nazi Germany and imported to America.

This book shows the evolution of German " Gun Control". How the freely elected government of the pre-Nazi Weimar republic set the stage for the Nazi takeover by passing Gun Control laws in 1928, 1931 and 1932. While the Nazi's never gained a majority of the German vote they gained power through legal means by a coalition with others. The Nazi's used the existing gun control laws to disarm all but their supporters and seized permanent control. These pre Nazi gun control laws served them so well that they made no changes to them for 5 years. The Nazi Weapons Act (18 Mar 1938) invented the concept of "Handgun Control".

Read "GUN CONTROL" Gateway to Tyranny. Learn where our "Gun Control" laws came from. Learn where they will lead us.

Also included in the Book are reprints of the following:

GUNS and AMMO May 1993 Article: Gun Control's Nazi Connection! Showing the connection between the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd, the translation of the Nazi Weapons act in to English and its implantation into the Gun Control Act of 1968.

American Survival Guide November 1990 Article : Holocaust survivor denounces the anti-gun movement. An eye opening interview of holocaust survivor, Theodore Haas, showing where gun control can lead.

American Survival Guide November 1991 Article : Who remembers the Armenians. An interview with a survivor of the Ottoman Turks genocide againt the Armenian people. Another revealing insight into where gun control leads. "Sept. 16, 1916 - To the Government of Aleppo. It was at first communicated to you that the Government, by order of Jemiet had decided to destroy completely all the Armenians living in Turkey.... An end must be put to their existence, however criminal the measures taken may be, and no regard must be paid to either age or sex nor to conscientious scruples" ---- Talaat, Turkish Interior Minister "August 22, 1939 - I have given order to my Death Units to exterminate without mercy or pity men, women and children belonging to the Polish speaking race. It is only in this manner that we can aquire the vital territory which we need. After all who remembers today the extermination of the Armenians?" --- Adolf Hitler



"GUN CONTROL Gateway to Tryanny is a publication of: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. 2872 S. Wentworth Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53207 (414) 769-0760 * Fax (414) 483-8435

Phreakmeister....give it up on this thread.......your fighting a loosing battle.....Deadzone has out talked you and obviously knows WAY more about this then you could wish to.....

Maderic.......

[BreakNorth]

The loser left. Couldn't stand losing and lying. Phreak was right, DEAD couldn't cope with it. Science and real life prove Phreak right. Guns are deadly weapons, and we need stricter gun laws to fight evil, to fight crime. All DEAD ZONE could defend himself with, was denying the fact that America has a gun problem, unlike other countries.

[BreakNorth]

Hey Eric, use a bit more reliable sources in the future than the book "Gun Control Gateway to Tryanny" by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. If there's one biased organization, it's JPFO. Jews raping the Holocaust. Sickening.

[DEAD ZONE]

Break.
Ye of little character.

Cheap shots when the target is away.I am still around.Just not willing to waist anymore time when you and yours clearly were not interested.Everything you and phreak posted was answered by me and the sites given.The fact thatt you ignored them made any more posting futile.

But your cheap insult will not go without response.

To err is human;to blame that err on the other party is low character.That character is what God knows you to be.Your reputation is what you think you are.

P.S.
Dont think you will sucker me back in by another cheap shot.

[Phreakmeister]

DEAD, small question: are you christian?

[Serendipity]

Q: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

A: You get a long and boring thread like this one. The discussion seems to be stuck to me, there's just two camps showing how entrenched they can be. While you're all big boys who can take and sling the insults, can I suggest that you just drop it? Longwinded copy 'n' paste posts are boring to read, besides being ineffective. This is a discussion forum, not a political soapbox.

[Dizbuster]

Originally posted by Serendipity
Q: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

A: You get a long and boring thread like this one. The discussion seems to be stuck to me, there's just two camps showing how entrenched they can be. While you're all big boys who can take and sling the insults, can I suggest that you just drop it? Longwinded copy 'n' paste posts are boring to read, besides being ineffective. This is a discussion forum, not a political soapbox.

*Dizbuster picks up her soapbox and slinks away:p :rolleyes: :o :p

That dead horse was begining to smell anyway!

I agree this thread is long dead and should be buried under the old oak in the backyard.....

But, Breaknorth.................that was low......really, really, low........


Get biased facts? How about you first? Present some non-liberal propaganda, and we'll see if your even a person of any character......


*When Break was born, the doctor told his parents, "Congratulations, it's a human"

Break......boy you should go into politics......a viable Democrat for president......Go!

Maderic........

[Sjax]

Originally posted by Maderic
Present some non-liberal propaganda.


Am I the only one seeing the hilarious in this sentence?

Maderic: I shall assume you mean: Present something that is not liberal propaganda, and not non-liberal propaganda.

And please. Stop insulting people!

[BreakNorth]

DEAD ZONE's logic

Solve a problem by not solving it

Don't trust governments to take action, but trust people not to take action.

You can shoot a rapist, dead if necessary, but you can't take away the car or the drivers licence of someone if that person causes an accident while driving under influence.

If a person comes with a plan, that person immediately assumes that that plan will reduce all crime to zero.

When a dictator comes to power in a country with strict gun laws, that is the proof that gun legislation creates tyranny, but when a dictator comes to power in a gun-loaded country, that has nothing to do with the presence of guns.

America has less murder rates than countries in the middle of civil war, so the American gun policy works.

If a country has strict gun legislation, that country is a tyranny, regardless of the fact that America has a worse human rights record than all those "tyrannies" combined.

Uh......Sjax....It is fine and was meant to be that way....I'm meaning, "please present some non-biast information"....


Maderic.....

[sinecure]

Originally posted by BreakNorth
The loser left. Couldn't stand losing and lying. Phreak was right, DEAD couldn't cope with it. Science and real life prove Phreak right. Guns are deadly weapons, and we need stricter gun laws to fight evil, to fight crime. All DEAD ZONE could defend himself with, was denying the fact that America has a gun problem, unlike other countries.

Funny commentary, for sure. Especially in declaring a "winner" and a "loser" in this festival of plagiarizing.

These guys are cut/past Phreaks.... damn little original thought, just mindlessly posting non-sequitur crap from the websites of their respective "sides." A complete waste of time and bandwidth, IMO. The worst part is that there are only a few attributions or links. Like we really believe that all this stuff came from their sharp and fertile mind??? Not bloody-well likely!:lol :lol :rolleyes:

I'll leave it to y'all to find out on your own that debate is for the exchange of ideas, and particularly for those who actually care what the other side has to say.

~~~~~~~

"'Cause I'm a lonely stranger here,
Well beyond my day.
And I don't know what's goin' on,
So I'll be on my way."

Eric Clapton, Lonely Stranger


Oh yeah, and ..."looc sdaer erus ti tub gnihton snaem siht"

[Sjax]

Originally posted by Maderic
Uh......Sjax....It is fine and was meant to be that way....I'm meaning, "please present some non-biast information"....


Maderic.....
I know what you meant. I just thought it was funny that you asked Breaknorth to present some propaganda:)

[kontulib]

Gun laws make me safer so long when only military and police forces haves right to carry weapons, nobody else.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by kontulib
Gun laws make me safer so long when only military and police forces haves right to carry weapons, nobody else.

In MY world, you have just described a police state. :rolleyes:

...and if that allows you to feel "safer", well... I'd say you'd better stay where you are and do everything that your government tells you to do.

As we all know, Governments always know best. :rolleyes: :p



"There are two kinds of men: those with guns, and those at their mercy."

[AWPrime]

So Japan is a police state?


The main thing about gun violence is culture.
Every culture has is way of dealing with conflict.
In the US it is force before talk, this combined with
the huge amount of guns, feeds the deathtolls in de US.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by sinecure


Funny commentary, for sure. Especially in declaring a "winner" and a "loser" in this festival of plagiarizing.

These guys are cut/past Phreaks.... damn little original thought, just mindlessly posting non-sequitur crap from the websites of their respective "sides." A complete waste of time and bandwidth, IMO. The worst part is that there are only a few attributions or links. Like we really believe that all this stuff came from their sharp and fertile mind??? Not bloody-well likely!:lol :lol :rolleyes:

I'll leave it to y'all to find out on your own that debate is for the exchange of ideas, and particularly for those who actually care what the other side has to say.



Actually,the cut and paste came from my files i keept after searching this out for a year.
Plagerizing,yes in places.The point is not to see who is best at rewritting the same info another way but to get to the point .I could spend months rewriting all of it and coming to the same conclusions{my own as you put it} but why waist the time when its already been said and done.

besides,its clear{as others have said} that no amount of evidence will convince the other side.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime
So Japan is a police state?


The main thing about gun violence is culture.
Every culture has is way of dealing with conflict.
In the US it is force before talk, this combined with
the huge amount of guns, feeds the deathtolls in de US.

I suggest you read The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies


Next will be a small bit of that info. Just for sine and sjax. ;)