|
|
|
|
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 12:43:26 PM | "We should look for some kind of solution."---cocotte
unfortunately, there have been bad people for as long as there have been people......i highly doubt anybody is going to find a solution for them anytime soon. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 12:44:52 PM | cocote would you please explain how limiting guns by law will keep the criminals from obtaining one.?
If you think that keeping them out of law abiding hands will also keep them out of criminals hands you are sadly mistaken. To a criminal that would only be another law to break. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 12:54:12 PM | | drg1301 the answer to that question is in looking at how most criminals attain their guns. What is the primary source of illegal firearms? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 12:55:41 PM | Most of them are obtained through illegal means. As a result of burglaries and smuggling.
There is a strong worldwide black market in weapons of all types. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 1:02:27 PM | **sigh**
Read for yourself...I've already done my homework on this.
http://www.jpfo.org/bootpin.jpg | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 1:24:38 PM | actually, most americans misread the delcaration, it does not mean that every american should own a gun, it only referred to soldiers, read up on your own history
Yes, you should read up on OUR history before you make a statement like that:
Federal Court Cases Regarding The Second Amendment
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution...[n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus that a state cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms. To understand why, it is necessary to understand the statutory scheme the Court had before it.
The statute under which Presser was convicted did not forbid individuals to keep and bear arms but rather forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law..." Thus, the Court concluded that the statute did not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
The Court, however, went on to discuss the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that" t is only the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States that the clause relied on was intended to protect." As the Court had already held that the substantive right to keep and bear arms was not infringed by the Illinois statute since that statue did not prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms but rather prohibited military-like exercises by armed men, the Court concluded that it did not need to address the question of whether the state law violated the Second Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.,
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). In this case, the Court confirmed that it had never addressed the issue of the Second Amendment applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This case remains the last word on this subject by the Court.
Miller challenged a Texas statute on the bearing of pistols as violative of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. But he asserted these arguments for the first time after his conviction had been affirmed by a state appellate court. Reiterating Cruikshank and Presser, the Supreme Court first found that the Second and Fourth Amendments, of themselves, did not limit state action. The Court then turned to the claim that the Texas statute violated the rights to bear arms and against warrantless searches as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. But because the Court would not hear objections not made in a timely fashion, the Court refused to consider Miller`s contentions.
Thus, rather than reject incorporation of the Second and Fourth Amendments in the Fourteenth, the Supreme Court merely refused to decide the defendant`s claim because its powers of adjudication were limited to the review of errors timely assigned in the trial court. The Court left open the possibility that the right to keep and beararms and freedom from warrantless searches would apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute`s constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded the case because it had concluded that:
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.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.1
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."2 In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized--in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia`" (emphasis added)--thatMiller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C.922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship--including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries--it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Courts of Appeals Cases 3
U.S. v. Emerson, No. 99-10331 (Fifth Circuit, 1999) Emerson had been indicted for possessing a firearm while under a certain kind of restraining order, a violation of federal law [18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8)]. The trial court quashed the indictment on Second and Fifth Amendment grounds, finding that Emerson`s right to arms had been restricted by a mere "boilerplate state court divorce order" and "an obscure, highly technical statute with no mens rea (criminal intent) requirement."
The appeals court disagreed with those particular findings and stated that prohibitions such as affected Emerson are permissable when they are "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country."
The court agreed with the trial court that the right to arms is an individually-held right, however. "All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans," the court stated. "We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms....We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment.
Moreover, the Eighth Circuit`s one paragraph opinion cited Miller, Oakes, infra, and Warin, infra, without any explanation, in holding that the Second Amendment has been analyzed "purely in terms of protecting state militias, rather than individual rights." While this statement is true, it certainly does not mean that Miller rejected the conclusion that an individual right was protected. Thus, the Eighth Circuit did not err in concluding that it was important that "Nelson has made no arguments that the Act would impair any state militia . . . . "
U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972). This case involved the making of a false statement by a convicted felon in connection with the purchase of a firearm. After citing Miller for the propositions that "the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms" and that the "Second Amendment`s guarantee extends only to use or possession which `has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,`" the court held that there was "no evidence that the prohibition of 922(a)(6) obstructs the maintenance of a well-regulated militia." Thus, the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment would be a bar to some congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms and recognized that Miller required the introduction of evidence which showed a militia use for the firearm involved.
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971). Like Synnes, infra, the court here held that the defendant could "present . . . evidence indicating a conflict" between the statute at issue and the Second Amendment. Since he failed to do so, the court declined to hold that the record-keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 violated the Second Amendment. As withSynnes, the court once again implicitly recognized that the right guaranteed belonged to individuals.
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972). This is another case involving possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In holding that 18 U.S.C. App. Section 1202(a) (reenacted in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) did not infringe the Second Amendment, the court held (based upon its partially erroneous view of Miller) that there needed to be evidence that the statute impaired the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. As there was "no showing that prohibiting possession of firearms by felons obstructs the maintenance of a `well regulated militia,`" the court saw "no conflict" between 1202(a) and the Second Amendment. While Miller focused on the need to introduce evidence that the firearm had a militia use, Synnes at least recognized the relevance of a militia nexus. There was a clear recognition, moreover, that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
Gilbert Equipment Co., Inc. v. Higgins, 709 F. Supp. 1071(S.D. Ala. 1989), aff`d, 894 F.2d 412 (11th Cir. 1990) (mem). The court held that the Second Amendment "guarantees to all Americans` the right to keep and bear arms`. . ."
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (1Oth Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978). Although the court recognized the requirement of Miller that the defendant show that the firearm in question have a "connection to the militia," the court concluded, without any explanation of how it reached the conclusion, that the mere fact that the defendant was a member of the Kansas militia would not establish that connection. In light of the fact that Miller (which defines the militia as including "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense") saw no relevance in the status of a defendant with respect to the militia, but instead focused upon the firearm itself, this conclusion is not without basis.
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975). In the context of interpreting the meaning of the phrase "engaging in the business of dealing in firearms" in 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1), the court noted, in dicta, merely that "there is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." Emphasis added. Clearly, therefore, the court recognized that the right is an individual one, albeit not an absolute one.
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974). This is one of the three court of appeals cases which uses the term "collective right." The entire opinion, however, is one sentence, which states that the Second Amendment "only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a `reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia`."4As authority for this statement, the court cites Miller and Cody v. U.S., supra. Yet, as the Supreme Court in Lewis, supra, made clear, Miller held that it is the firearm itself, not the act of keeping and bearing the firearm, which must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." The court did, however, recognize that Miller required evidence of the militia nexus. Moreover, the particular provision at issue in Johnson concerned the interstate transportation of a firearm by convicted felons, a class of persons which historically has suffered the loss of numerous rights (including exclusion from the militia) accorded other citizens.
U.S. v Bowdach, 414 F. Supp. 1346 (D.S. Fla 1976), aff`d, 561 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1977). The court held that "possession of the shotgun by a non-felon has no legal consequences. U.S. Const. Amend. II."
U.S. v. Johnson. Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971). Once again, this decision merely quotes from Miller the statement concerning the requirement of an evidentiary showing of a militia nexus and a consequent rejection, without even the briefest of analysis, of the defendant`s challenging to the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Apparently, the defendant failed to put on evidence, as required by Miller, that the firearm at issue had a militia use. Thus, Miller bound the appeals court to reject the defendant`s challenge.
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983). In rejecting a Second and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a village handgun ban, the court held that the Second Amendment, either of itself or by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment, "does not apply to the states. . ." The court, in dicta, went on, however, to "comment" on the "scope of the second amendment," incorrectly summarizing Miller as holding that the right extends "only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia." Thus, finding (without evidence on the record) that "individually owned handguns [are not] military weapons," the court concluded that "the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971). This is another case involving the NFA in which the court merely followed Miller in holding that the NFA did not infringe the Second Amendment.
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973). Citing Miller, the court merely concluded, in reviewing a challenge to the statute barring dishonorably discharged persons from possessing firearms, that "there is no absolute right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Emphasis added.) Since there are certain narrowly defined classes of untrustworthy persons, such as convicted felons and, as here, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, who may be barred the possession of firearms, it is a truism to say that there is not an absolute right to possess firearms. In so saying, the court implicitly recognized the individual right of peaceful and honest citizens to possess firearm.
U S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir 1976), cert. denied,426 U.S. 948 (1976). Following, and relying upon, its earlier decision in Stevens, supra, the court simply concluded, without any reference to the history of the Second Amendment, that it "is clear the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." The court also indicated that, in reaching its decision, it was relying upon the First Circuit`s decision in Cases. infra. Yet in concluding that not all arms were protected by the Second Amendment, Cases did not hold, as did Warin, that the Second Amendment afforded individuals no protections whatever. Warin also erred in concluding that Warin`s relationship to the militia was relevant to determining whether his possession of a machine gun was protected by the Second Amendment since the Supreme Court in Miller focused on the firearm itself, not the individual involved. In fact, Miller quite expansively defined the constitutional militia as encompassing "all males physically capable of action in concert for the common defense."
U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev`d on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943). This is another case involving possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Despite holding that the failure of the defendant to prove, as required by Miller, a militia use for the firearm was an adequate basis for ruling against the defendant, the court, in dicta, concluded that the Second Amendment "was not adopted with individual rights in mind . . ." This result was based on reliance on an extremely brief--and erroneous--analysis of common law and colonial history.5In addition, apparently recognizing that it decided the case on unnecessarily broad grounds, the court noted that, at common law, while there was a right to bear arms, that right was not absolute and could be restricted for certain classes of persons "who have previously. . . been shown to be aggressors against society."
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977). Since the defendant in this case did not raise the Second Amendment as a challenge to the "statutory program which restricts the right to bear arms of convicted felons and other persons of dangerous propensities,"6 the only discussion of the Second Amendment is found in a bartnote wherein the court states "[a]rguably, any regulation of firearms may be violative of this constitutional provision."
Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert.denied sub nom., Velazquez v. U. S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943). In this case, the court held that the Supreme Court in Miller had not intended "to formulate a general rule" regarding which arms were protected by the Second Amendment and concluded, therefore, that many types of arms were not protected. Nonetheless, the court in Cases expressly acknowledged that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right when it noted that the law in question "undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right of individuals to keep and bear arms . . ." Id. at 921. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, the court in Cases concluded, as properly it should have, that Miller should not be read as holding that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to possess or use large weapons that could not be carried by an individual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Cases
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330 (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff`d on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971). In rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of the requirement that those who engage in the business of dealing in firearms must be licensed, the court, following its view of Miller, held that the defendant had not shown that "the licensing of dealers in firearms in any way destroys, or impairs the efficiency of, a well regulated militia."
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972). In ruling on a motion to dismiss an indictment, the court rejected a facial constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5) -- which prohibited sales of firearms to residents of other states. Recognizing that an individual right was protected, it held that "second amendment protection might arise if proof were offered at the trial demonstrating that his possession of the weapon in question had a reasonable relationship to the maintenance of a `well-regulated Militia.`"
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F. Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982). An applicant for relief from disabilities (a prohibited person) brought an action against the federal agents involved in denying his application. The court dismissed the case, holding that, because there was no "absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm," there was "no liberty or property interest sufficient to give rise to a procedural due process claim."
Vietnamese Fishermen`s Assoc. v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D.Tex. 1982). Like the statute faced by the Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1876), the Texas statute and the injunction at issue here prohibited private military activity. Mis-characterizing Miller, the court held that the Second Amendment "prohibits only such infringement on the bearing of weapons as would interfere with `the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,` organized by the State." Later, however, the court, following Miller, explained that the "Second Amendment`s guarantee is limited to the right to keep and bear such arms as have `a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.`" The courts`s understanding of the Second Amendment is thus inconsistent and, given the facts of the case, largely dicta.
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 842 (1984). In the context of a challenge to the law prohibiting the possession of firearms by convicted felons; the court, while holding correctly (see discussion of Nelson, supra) that the Second Amendment "is not a grant of a right but a limitation upon the power of Congress and the national government, "concluded that the right "is a collective right . . . rather that an individual right," citing only Warin, supra. As a district court in the First Circuit, however, the court was bound by Cases, supra, which expressly recognized that the right belonged to individuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
1 According to Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 of the Constitution, the functions of the militia are: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. . . ." Thus, the militia has a law enforcement function, a quasi law enforcement/quasi military function, and a military function. As a result, those firearms which are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment are those which could be used to fulfill any of these functions.
2 Thus, when combined with the militia test--see bartnote 1--it is clear that cannons, trench mortars, rockets, missiles, anti-tank weapons (such as bazookas), and bombs would not be "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
3 Of the 13 federal courts of appeals, 8 have spoken on the Second Amendment, half holding that the right guaranteed is not an individual right, half holding that it is an individual right; one circuit has gone both ways. The remaining four have been silent. All of these cases, however, preceded the Supreme Court`s decision in U.S. v. Verdugo Urquidez.
4 As with all rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment does not "confer" any rights; it merely protects rights from government interference.
5 For example, the court referred to the colonists as "a defenseless citizenry. . ." In fact, it was precisely because the citizens did have arms and were not defenseless that they desired the Second Amendment; they did not want to become defenseless.
6 Implicit in this language is the fact that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, albeit a right that may not be enjoyed by some narrowly defined class of untrustworthy persons. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 1:48:30 PM | Freedom of speach? too many words in the USA, maybe they should limit what you can say. Does that sound good to you too? Everyone is always wanting to change what this country was based on, get a life would you! | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 2:13:52 PM | "that is not the most important part. That part lists the why, but not the what. Try going to court and arguing that the reasoning behind a law is more important than what the law actually says.....that would be very humorous"
What?
"actually, you do have to 'aim at least a little good'. they don't spread that much...especially at ranges found in your home. and statistically, you ARE more likely to be killed by an army than by a criminal."
again.... What?
"you obviously are not even slightly familiar with the Libertarian party"
On this one you are correct, I was generalizing, which is never a good idea. I could not even understand the logic in the other two which is a prerequisite for responding. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 2:45:23 PM | koss78blablabla.... "All Americans are naive and uneducated"?
Well, come try and break into my apartment tonight and I just might get to knock the dust off "my little friend" and give YOU some education.  *and I assure ya, doll, I know how to use it...both my education and my fathers Beretta.
Oh, and for the ever so silly man that suggests "simply using fists", well now, that wont help ME if a man who is twice my size breaks into my home to rape and kill me now would it? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:17:23 PM | I found this thread fascinating and quite alarming.Do people in the US really feel that unsafe that they feel the need to own a gun?As someone stated earlier,why not invest in home security that doesn't involve the possibility of taking a human life?
What gives anyone the right to take a life?It seems a shame that,to protect one persons freedom involves the taking away of someone elses.
Here in the UK we watched the events unfold at Virginia Tech,and we were horrified at the actions of this seriously disturbed young maniac.The sad truth is that whether guns were banned or not,this guy was derranged enough,that he'd have got one whatever.
Having said that,surely,some sort of restriction, ban,amnesty or curb on gun sales can only help.As it's gone unchecked for so long it would be impossible to eliminate guns altogether,but to reduce their numbers,can only be good.
Ok,we have our problems here,and there have been instances of multiple killings using guns,but these are few and far between.It's knife crime here as gun's aren't that easily accessible by the common criminal.Even the Police here don't have guns.Only specialist marksmen(Armed Response Units)have access to them and they are only used in terrorist or armed standoff situations.If any one of these kills a criminal they have to go through lengthly investigations to decide whether the killing was lawful.
Picture this though.In the UK,if you wake up to someone in your house,you are allowed to use reasonable force to remove them,however if,in court,it's deemed that the force was excessive,you will be prosecuted and most likely sued by the intruder.If you kill that intruder you will go to jail for a long time.
Sorry to go on.Just my 2 pence worth. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:33:30 PM | I can't understand how people think gun control is the answer. Someone explain the reasoning behind it. Don't give me statistics, statistics can be used to prove any point someone wants to make. Give me a common sense argument on how gun control is going to save lives when there are so many other ways to kill people if that is someones goal. If not with a gun then something else will be used. A homemade bomb, a car bomb, a deliberately set fire, a knife, a club, a broken bottle, a knife, even a pair of fists, any of these things will work as good as a gun.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun, a bomb, a knife, a broken beer bottle, or fists, what's the difference how violence is committed ? Those who want to do violence, create mayhem will always find a way. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:41:09 PM |
I can't understand how people think gun control is the answer. Someone explain the reasoning behind it. Don't give me statistics, statistics can be used to prove any point someone wants to make. Give me a common sense argument on how gun control is going to save lives when there are so many other ways to kill people if that is someones goal. If not with a gun then something else will be used. A homemade bomb, a car bomb, a deliberately set fire, a knife, a club, a broken bottle, a knife, even a pair of fists, any of these things will work as good as a gun.
So what you're openly saying here is you don't want facts, you want something that sounds good. Unfortunately public policy is usually best when it involves facts rather than emotional pandering.
And no most of those things don't work as well as a gun. Thats why criminals use guns.
Most of them are obtained through illegal means. As a result of burglaries and smuggling.
There is a strong worldwide black market in weapons of all types.
Mostly through Breaking and entering. On places with legal firearms.
The reasons so many of your criminals have guns vs other countries is that so many of your legal citizens have guns. The reason you feel threatened and need to own weapons, is because you own the weapons.
Not to mention most murders are a result of domestic violence, or close compansions, not exactly a situation where having a firearm in the home helps. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:41:17 PM | normalbloke: In my state, Texas-YEHAW, I WILL NOT go to jail if an intruder breaks into my home and I shoot him. Can I get an amen? And even if I was dragged, kicking and screaming from Texas and had to live in another state that isnt t as crazy about their rights and dont have that law, Id rather go to jail then be raped or killed in my home.
Oh, and not to be rude but ummm....the topic at hand is gun control in the~U.S.A~....in the words of my 4 yr old niece: butt-out. Dont you guys have any issues of your own? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:56:47 PM |
Do people in the US really feel that unsafe that they feel the need to own a gun?
The US has a fairly high crime rate. However, studies have shown that violent crime increases when gun control laws are put in place. It has also been shown that Americans use firearms in self-defense over a million times each year. The vast majority of gun owners do not use them in the commission of a crime. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 3:57:42 PM | People are really missing the point. The "right to keep and bear arms" was written into our Constitution by our founding fathers. They had a very good reason to put it in there.. They had just won their freedom in a long, bloody war with England, and they wanted to make sure that the American people would be armed if it needed to happen again.
Whether people don't want to think about it, or don't want to admit it, under the laws of the United States, every able bodied man between 18 and 60 years of age (if not currently in the military, or a county sherrif), is in the unregulated militia. Period. That is why we have the "Civilian Marksmanship Program". The American men are supposed to stay trained in the use of a military rifle, and the CMP tests them on that, and then gives them the opportunity to own a military rifle to keep at home.
Further, in the United States, every military person, peace officer, judge, elected official, etc., must take an oath. In each and every case, that oath starts with the words: "I do solemnly swear, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic..."! Number !... It's the very first thing!
That's the real reason we're supposd to all keep guns in this country. To defend the Constitution! Remember, tyrany come from within as well as from without! The founding fathers realized that! And quite frankly, if anyone is unwilling to pick up a gun and defend their way of life, their fellow men, and their country, then there are pleanty of other countries out there that think like you, and are willing to take you! Please go! | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 4:02:07 PM | I owned a Rott trained to take someone down just like that Tasmanian Devil cartoon character if I spoke a certain word. Why? Simple, kids in the house. Personally I would never own a gun with small kids in the house, even with a gun safe, trigger locks etc. Just my personal preference.
We as a country will never overturn the second amendment. What they need to do is have a better system of checks and balances in place. Say, for example if someone for any reason goes into a mental hospital, is seeing a therapist, takes certain medications like antidepressants, then they cannot legally obtain one because they have "issues". They already do this if someone has restraining orders against them.
So if it is true that all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness, what are we to do?
The answer is simple and it is already partially in place. ALL men are BORN with certain unalienable rights, however through the course of their actions, some will be forced to give up that right. Felons aren't supposed to own guns...yet doesn't this violate the second amendment? The answer is no. So add, to the list of people NOT allowed to own guns, those who now have or have had mental health issues.
The guy was obviously a freakin' nut job! However...ask yourself this question...Do you really think this would ever happen in Texas? I highly doubt it.
Cheers (and GOD BLESS TEXAS for being 30 years ahead of the curve!) | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 4:02:10 PM | I wasn't trying to be nasty,so why the hostility?Can't anyone from another country have a point of view?
Sorry,but,I'll just keep out of here in future. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 4:21:01 PM | In the news today:
U.S. Congress may act to keep guns from mentally ill 22 April '07
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prompted by the Virginia Tech massacre, a U.S. Congress reluctant to tackle gun control may pass limited legislation to help keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, lawmakers and aides said on Sunday. "Given the horror that happened at Virginia Tech, I think there's a real chance of passing this," said Sen. Charles Schumer. A Republican leadership aide agreed, telling Reuters, "If there is a consensus, and it is in lieu of knee-jerk draconian measures, (the chances are) probably really good."
Congress was initially hesitant to respond to the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech on Monday with any vow to toughen gun-control, a politically divisive issue. In fact, Democrats, who had earlier championed such measures, including a since expired 1994 ban on assault weapons, effectively abandoned the issue when they won control of Congress last year.
Yet after it was determined that the Virginia Tech killer had been admitted earlier to a psychiatric hospital and deemed "a danger to himself and others," lawmakers dusted off previously rejected legislation. Seung-Hui Cho, a Virginia Tech student, took his own life after fatally shooting 32 others. He had bought two handguns in Virginia but his mental health had not made it to a federal registry.
The proposed bill would provide money to the states to help update the national instant-check background system with mental-health adjudications, which ban firearm purchases.
In the House of Representatives, Rep. Charles Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and gun-rights proponent, has teamed up on such legislation with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (news, bio, voting record), a leading gun control advocate.
Appearing with Schumer (on a certain news program), Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, voiced support.
So did Sarah and Jim Brady, two leading gun-control advocates. They have helped lead the charge since Jim Brady was wounded in the 1981 attempted assassination of President
Ronald Reagan. He was Reagan's press secretary. "We're not working to take handguns away from people. But what we do believe is that we need to curb the availability of these weapons to prohibited classes: felons, fugitives, and of course in this case, those who have been adjudicated mentally ill," said Sarah Brady who appeared with her husband on CBS's "Face the Nation."
A bill passed by Congress a decade ago and named for Jim Brady, required an instant background check for gun buyers. "What we had here, unfortunately, as come out in the last day or so, is that the system did break down," Sarah Brady said. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 4:37:00 PM | You know, that’s one thing I don’t understand about the UK laws, if someone breaks into my house, I should have the right to knock the living shit out of them. Remember, its my house, say I had a wife and kids. The second they step foot in my house they are threatening the lives of my family. Im sorry to say, that shit just doesn’t fly, I don’t care what country I’m in. A man “or women” should have the freedom to defend their own family and not have to worry about the consequences from the S.O.B that broke into the house.
Oh, and one other thing, when it comes to stricter gun laws, the only people they are hurting, are the people that fallow the rules and are smart when it comes to guns. I don’t want to have to pay for the “bad guys” mess up’s. If I want to have a gun, its my god given right, its one of the rights the American people stand for, a right “plus many others” the men and women of the armed forces fight for every day.
“Not too bad for my first post I’d say”
 | |
|
| |
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 4:52:46 PM | So what you're openly saying here is you don't want facts, you want something that sounds good. Unfortunately public policy is usually best when it involves facts rather than emotional pandering.
No charlesedm,
What I'm saying is that it gets to the point were on person posts stats to back up his point and then someone else posts stats to back up their point and you have post after posts of statistics instead of debate.
My point is what is the difference if you kill someone with a knife or a gun or by any other means. Many point to the VT incident and say if only there were gun control. My point is if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a gun he could have used a home made bomb or set a fire or poisioned the water, air or food.
Would it have been any less tragic if he would have killed 35 people by bombing the building or setting it on fire or by some other means ?
That is the point I was trying to make, and would like to hear why that's not a valid point. The fact that people can use other things to commit mass murder besides guns. Years ago someone blew up a school using dynamite killed more people than VT. The airplane that flew into the WTC killed thousands.
I'm saying we cann't protect ourselves from somone that is intent to cause harm. That person will find away. That is the point I was trying to make, and was looking for someone to explain to me how that isn't the case. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 5:11:53 PM | OP:
Personally, I can't afford to let my government protect me.
The Department of Home land Security is not sure who is in charge in the U.S. And my local government condones my need for a weapon, for protection, due to the rash of home invasions.
Thus,the current "Stand Your Ground Law" has been invoked in the state I live in.
I know better how to protect myself , my family, and my property better than
a person who has no stake in my life.
This arguement continually arises after some nut case uses weapons to kill
and injure folks. The Republicans and Democrats in our country skirt the issue,
because they take money from the gun lobbyist, and hide in the shadows,
until the talking heads (media) start pursuing other new and exciting stories
to distract you with.
Gun control only works on the people who abide by the law , not the lawless.
That's why I have my own form of "Gun Control". If you choose to endanger
my life...I will choose to endanger your life. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 5:22:10 PM | The state legislatures of New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, and other states have made it difficult for law abiding citizens to carry firearms, and all have seen their violent crime rates increase. When criminals realize that their prospective victims are unarmed, they have been much more likely to victimize people. The stereotype of Americans having easy access to firearms compared to the rest of the world is only true in a few "shall issue" states, which consequently attract a strong gun culture, a deter criminals.
Florida and Texas both reversed strict gun control laws--i.e., laws disarming citizens with no criminal offenses--and saw violent crime rate decline. New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, and other states that are so called "shall issue" states tend to have more heavily armed populations.
Cities like Washington, D.C., Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, New York City, San Francisco, and other cities have disarmed their people, and crime rates have skyrocketed. Australia, Jamaica, Britain, and, to a lesser extent, Canada have enacted strict gun control laws, and all have seen their crime rates increases. The gun buyback fad ended in the States after it became apparent that gun buyback cities also saw crime increases. They became havens for criminals.
If you are undecided about gun control, I strongly recommend that you pick up a copy of More Guns Less Crime, by John R. Lott. The book is thoroughly researched and well written. It is an objective and widely respected book that has opened a lot of eyes on the issue.
Today, a majority of rank and file police officers, police chiefs, and criminal justice policy experts no longer support gun control, having seen its negative effects. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 5:34:06 PM | | Gun Control means using both hands. In that respect I am for gun control. We have the right to bear arms under the Bill of Rights. To get my handgun I had to go through a background check and a seven day waiting period. To get my permit to carry a concealed weapon I had to wait 45 days as well as another background check. If I really wanted a gun, I could have gone and purchased one illegally that day. What does that tell you? Gun control laws hinder the law abiding citizens but not the criminals. A while back they instituted a ban on several assault weapons. One of the criteria of whether a weapon was banned or not was if it had a bayonet. Tell me, how many people have you ever heard of being killed in an inner-city gang war by bayonet charge? Again, that law only hurt the law-abiding gun collectors. I do believe that people should be educated on firearms before owning them. I could agree with a law that required people to take a class before purchasing one. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/22/2007 6:09:35 PM | | It is only the person behind the gun that commits the crime, not the gun. If you think for one minute the criminals will not have guns you better think again. Every time anything needs fixing there are new laws made, and guess what the criminals do not obey the laws, only the law abiding citizens. If the criminal knew there was no gun in your house, how easy it will be for them to come in and take whatever they want, because you have no way to defend yourself. Think about it. Gun control will not stop the crime, that is comitted with guns. Have you not heard of BLACK MARKET. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 86
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
