The 2nd Amendment and Gun Control

[RZ1029]

So the real question is where to draw the line.

 

Licenses?

-Permanent? Renewed?

--How often, if renewed?

---Also, general firearm license, or for each individual type? (Handgun, Assault Weapon, etc.)

----Proficiency test, competency test, safety tests?

 

Background checks?

-With license? No license, just checked before you buy gun? Just a one-time check, and then you get a little card saying you're legit? (Not registered with any legal departments.)

 

Restrictions?

-Felons?

--Misdemeanors?

---How many strikes of the above? One shot, you're out of luck? Three strikes your out? Other?

 

Bans? Anything that just won't fly, period?

Shotguns/Long Rifles (Semi-automatic and bolt-action)

-Handguns

--Assault Weapons (Full-Automatic)

---Anti-Material Rifles (.50 BMG and such)

----Explosives

 

EDIT: Routine inspections? Yes/No? How often? What should they include, if you agree?

 

Also, anything else you think should be included, I'm sure I missed something.

Edited December 20, 2010 by RZ1029

[ginnyfizz]

Well a driven shoot is how we do it with pheasant and grouse, and believe me the little devils are not easy to hit even then...but they ARE tasty...

 

Licensing and regulation, yes, prohibition, no. I think annually like we have in the UK isn't all that onerous but they should permit handguns here as well, if you can make a legitimate case. As it stands a slaughterman or huntsman (who is usually a licensed slaughterman) can have a pistol or a captive bolt gun in his or her pocket or satchel, but other country yokels in professions where they might be just as likely to need to put down fallen stock - or an inept deerstalking "not quite a kill" - cannot. (Not to mention the pistol shooting team). So a careful allowing of handguns, yes.

 

I say let's bring sanity into the issue of gun control, not hysteria. Certainly in Britain we need to counter the screeching headlines in the tabloid press who think we are all a bunch of maniacs.

 

Huntsman in this case means not hunters in general but in the British sense of the leading servant of a fox, stag or harrier pack. So gamekeepers and ghillies who might have to finish off a stag are not included in the current exceptions here, nor are farmers who might find a crippled cow/sheep out on the moor (ever tried getting a wagon and winch into a boggy area?).

[DarkZerker]

I say...screw the Second Amendment. Sorry for the harsh words but simply one of the most common arguments is "to protect our homes." Well there would be barely anybody to protect if you simply weren't able to buy guns. Other weapons like swords and knives are perfectly fine though...why? I want to keep my money and my family safe. But in any case...yeah, make guns illegal for purchase.

 

But of course, there's the matter of hunting which I completely support. Hunting is pretty dang fun and I'd hate it if they repealed all guns just because of some idiots who decided to go ballistic with them. So some renting system where you show the gun license, sign your name, and go to the grounds, have fun, then return the gun? Or maybe some sort of system where you buy the gun and leave it at a secure location? That's what Korea does and there's nearly no crime related to firearms there.

 

So yeah...just renting/buying guns and leaving them at a designated location like some sort of gun vault in hunting locations sounds like the best bet. The idea of militas? Well you can just set up a loan system in the police station or something where anybody with a gun license can get one, with the same system as the hunting thing.

Edited December 21, 2010 by DarkZerker

[WrathOfDeadguy]

There was a similar thread not too long ago... I think I made my views pretty clear in that one, so I'll just link to it rather than re-post the same walls of text here.

 

I believe that it is not the government's place to enact any regulations or restrictions on any citizen doing or owning anything unless that person demonstrates that they represent a direct and immediate danger to other people. I believe that people have a sovereign right to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones, and that there is no government or municipal agency on Earth that can guarantee that protection. I believe that whether or not a person "needs" a gun should not be a standard used to judge whether or not they may own a gun, or anything else for that matter.

 

As has been demonstrated repeatedly and conclusively by Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and gun bans like those in the UK and Australia, simply making a thing illegal does not do away with crimes associated with it. "Gun crime" is a nebulous concept at best, and as the UK amply demonstrates guns are simply tools- and when the scum of society can't get their hands on one weapon, they're more than happy to use another. Gun bans do not eliminate "gun crime"- they simply transform it into "knife crime" or "bludgeon crime" or whatever hot-button term you want to use this week. What gun bans do is remove from the hands of average people the most effective means of ensuring their personal security against those criminal elements. I would not ever consent to live in a place where it was illegal to own guns, nor would I live in a place where it was illegal to make use of those guns to protect my home and loved ones.

 

I have a carry permit that is valid in over 30 of the 50 United States, and I do carry a concealed handgun wherever it is legal for me to do so. I try to avoid going to places where it isn't legal for me to carry, but since I live in one (New Jersey), that isn't always possible. I fully intend to move to a carry-friendly state as soon as I am able to do so.

 

Gun control is knee-jerk reaction to what appears to be an unstoppable tide of violence... it is feel-good legislation that slaps a band-aid over a wound that needs sutures. Repealing the various prohibitions on drugs and non-violent behavior would do more to reduce violent crime than any gun laws ever could- cut off the demand for crime, and the criminals that provide the supply will soon vanish as well.

 

Lastly, there's a reason why the bad news seems to outweigh the good news where guns in the media are concerned. Have you noticed, by any chance, that bad news always gets more media coverage than good news? A murdered shopkeeper makes much better headlines than the robber who saw that his victim was armed and ran away, just like a car wreck makes better headlines than the new traffic light that was installed to prevent another accident in the same spot. People don't pay any attention when things go right... only when they go wrong.

[marharth]

I think a lot of people misunderstand the second amendment...

 

It is NOT for self protection. It is so you can fight against your government if they go out of control. It has absolutely nothing to do with self protection.

 

When it was written in no one thought that you would be using guns to protect yourself, when it was written guns were used to attack and nothing else.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

That's a mistaken assumption that comes up all too often when the Second Amendment is discussed.

 

Guns weren't generally reliable enough to be used for that purpose in the 18th century. They were single-shot, slow to load (three shots a minute was considered exceptionally quick), and could be disabled by so much as a single drop of water in the wrong place. People who could afford to carry pistols generally carried more than one because, if they needed them, not only could the first not be counted on to work 100% of the time, but if they needed a follow-up shot they would likely not have time to reload. However, that is not the same as saying that nobody carried weapons for self-defense. Knives were as common then as they are today. Frontier colonists in America often carried hatchets or tomahawks, and men of high status, especially politicians, nobles, and military officers, were pretty much expected to wear swords and have at least rudimentary training with them.

 

Bear in mind that cities as we understand them today did not exist. The largest and most populous of cities in America at the time of the revolution had a few tens of thousands of residents- a far cry from the hundreds of thousands or millions we'd expect of an urban sprawl today. It is a well known and documented fact that as population density increases, so does crime- there was simply less crime to contend with in those days. There was no such thing as a gang that would commit murder on the grounds that someone was wearing the wrong color shirt in their part of town. Crimes were generally committed against travelers, who were more vulnerable since they could not easily summon help. If a crime was committed in a town, especially a violent crime, there was an expectation that every able-bodied man in the community would pitch in to bring the offender to justice- and odds were that everyone involved knew both the offender and the victim.

 

The Founding Fathers did foresee technological advancement, and they did take more into account than just the formation and regulation of militias. They had just fought a very new kind of war (as they would have seen it), utilizing then-new technologies like rifles, modern tactics like guerrilla warfare and sniping... they understood very well that the weapons they used were not going to be the dominant technology forever. These were well-educated statesmen, students of history, inventors and craftsmen, as well as brilliant military minds. No, they couldn't have accounted for the advances which made modern firearms possible- the technologies used in making them hadn't been invented yet. However, they did intend for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be documents which would allow a new nation to endure long after they were dead and buried. They knew that the language they used in its construction would have to take progress, both technological and political, into account. They were very, very careful not to phrase anything in a way which would render any part of its intended purpose obsolete.

 

The Second Amendment refers to "arms"- not "guns." Weapons which may be practically carried and used by a single person. Yes, it was intended to keep the People on equal terms with the government. But what use is protection against the government when you need that same government to protect you against a common street thug? The two needs are connected by necessity, the higher need (defense against tyranny) supported and reinforced by the lower (protection of self, home, and fellow man). Further evidence of this may be found in the various State constitutions- remember that, when the Constitution of the United States was ratified, the States were regarded as largely autonomous. Many of their constitutions also guarantee a right to keep and bear arms, and some of them are quite specific about those arms being used for self-defense. Not guns, but arms. The weapons of the day in common use- guns, blades, canes, and so on and so forth. In our terms, that would mean the inclusion of tasers, pepper spray, blackjacks... you name it. While military arms were the primary focus of the text, those arms would have been owned and kept by the men who bore them- and it would have been unthinkable to tell him he could not use them except to make war.

 

If a town even had law enforcement, there weren't more than a handful of constables for the entire local area. There is no specific provision for self-defense in the Second Amendment not because it wasn't considered a right, but because it was considered to be so obvious that it didn't bear mentioning. People had no option besides self-defense; even if there were policemen about they were not just a phone call away, they did not have rapid response capability, and they would be armed and trained only as well as everyone else because the municipality would not have shelled out for (at the time) very expensive pistols for each and every lawman.

 

The very thought of a man being forbidden by law from using a weapon in self-defense- or to protect another person, or his home, or his land, or even his reputation- would have been abhorrent. Remember that men were legally able to challenge one another to duels right up until the latter half of the 19th century... that several of the Founding Fathers themselves fought duels (Alexander Hamilton was killed in one by Aaron Burr). If that practice, now something we find to be rather barbaric, was legal- men carrying weapons to defend their honor- what do you imagine the chances are that anybody would have even considered the possibility of writing a law forbidding the use of weapons for self-defense against a violent attack?

 

Context is important when determining intent.

[RZ1029]

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.

 

Let's define a few things: WARNING-- Long descriptions in spoilers. Definitions courtesy of Wikipedia and Dictionary.com

Militia -

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:

 

* Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.

* The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

o A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.

o A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

* A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.

* An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.

* The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).

* In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.

* A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized

 

 

Arms (Armaments, See: Weapons)

A weapon is an instrument used with the aim of causing harm or death to human beings or other living creatures — and for inflicting damage upon civil or military infrastructure or life-sustaining resources. In essence, it is a tool made with the purpose of increasing the efficacy and efficiency of hunting, fighting, committing criminal acts, preserving law and order, or waging war in an offensive or defensive manner.

 

Weapons are employed individually or collectively and can be improvised or purpose-built, sometimes with great skill and ingenuity. They range from simple implements such as clubs through to complicated modern machines such as intercontinental ballistic missiles.

 

In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary on land, sea, air, or even outer space.

 

OR

Arm2 (noun)

1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.

Arms (pl n)

1. See also small arms weapons collectively.

 

 

Small Arms-

Usually, small arms. a firearm designed to be held in one or both hands while being fired: in the U.S. the term is applied to weapons of a caliber of up to one in. (2.5 cm)

 

Edited December 21, 2010 by RZ1029

[neoxyooj]

i got five words for you: from my cold dead hands! Edited December 24, 2010 by neoxyooj

[marharth]

I understand that people care about safety, but you guys need to realize that assault rifles should be fairly easy to get as long as they are kept in your house.

 

You should have to get a gun license for different types of guns, and the license should be easy. You should only have to go through a background check to see if you have ever committed a violent crime with a gun (armed robbery for example).

[RZ1029]

i got five words for you: from my cold dead hands!

 

Haha. What guns are those? Looks like a a M4 and a 47 or a 74 and a SKS? Then there's a pistol and some sort of carbine.

 

@marharth

I don't think assault rifles should be easy to get. Long rifles (hunting rifles, bolt action or semi-automatic, and shotguns) don't bother me at all. Maybe a background check should be done to check for any prior violent offenses, not just gun crimes. Handguns I think you should have to take a concealed carry class (which includes a background check) just to teach them how to carry safely so they don't shoot their important bits off by accident. There was a guy around here recently who did that and was then arrested for concealed carry without a permit.

 

Assault rifles I think should require a little more control, simply for the fact that about 60% of police offices in the US are not equipped to handle that. I live in backwoods nowhere on the East coast of the US. The only police department with enough firepower to even compete with that is the local Sheriff office that has ONE team of SIX people (their SWAT team) that is actually trained to use automatic weapons. There are about a half-dozen other officers who assist the SWAT team and have their own, privately owned, assault weapons. I don't want the local gangs to have more firepower than the cops, who're supposed to protect me.

 

That being said, to get one shouldn't be so annoyingly impossible like it is now. First off, get rid of the stupid tax on them. That's just some Democrats hating on gun owners. I think a safety class, a thorough background check (looking for anything more than a misdemeanor, I'd say), and registration with your local police department should be sufficient.

 

OR, option two, just an across-the-board safety class and background check that's pretty thorough and allows you to legally purchase and own any sort of firearm that isn't banned for civilian ownership. This would include the hunting safety class, the concealed carry class, and a background check thorough enough for assault rifle ownership. Probably would cost about $200 to get, but eliminate the $650 I pay the government every year just because I own guns. ($90 for concealed carry class, hunter safety is usually free and background checks are usually about $75, plus a little extra for the ATF, they gotta make their money somehow.)

Edited December 24, 2010 by RZ1029