[sek929]

Who needs actual bullets?

I have a .20 cal pellet rifle that, when pumped a few times, would tear right thorough your body and keep going.

In fact, they were still using air rifles during the Revolutionary war, as they worked more reliably than black powder guns.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

#1 is sort of a slippery slope of a reason, and is often rather circular. I understand the idea that your "enemies" will have deadly hand guns and so therefore you should too, but is there a limit as to what sorts of arms you can or should possess in fear of your enemy? I mean, if you have an enemy that can take you out with a rocket launcher or deadly automatic weapon, you're kind of screwed. Does this mean that everybody should be allowed to own automatic weapons? If so, should they just be able to stroll down to their nearest Walmart to buy one?

When it was written, the 2nd Amendment meant that, yes, the citizenry should be allowed to own the same types of weapons as the army. In fact, it can be strongly argued that the guns held by citizens were far superior, on their own, than those used by the army. The volley fire model used by troops during and after the Revolution turned out to be great if you were opposing someone who played "by the rules" but didn't work so well if guys with rifles in the trees shot your officers first and then ran off to fight another day.

So, should law-abiding citizens be allowed to own the latest M4 carbine in full-auto? That's a tough call. But the intent was clear when the founders put it together -- what part of "shall not be infringed" is ambiguous?

Don't underestimate the incentive (deterrent) effects of the chance of an opponent having superior firepower. Texas is a great example of how a (mostly) armed citizenry keeps homebreaking incidents down to nearly nothing, along with carjackings, muggings, etc. Why? Because one never knows who's armed here and who isn't. That's the point. It works with bigger guns too.

[ort888]

M4 Carbine? Screw that. I want some Patriot missiles.

[olePigeon]

How about some sort of harness that lets you hold a 30mm gatling gun from a Warthog. Incendiary rounds, of course.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

How about some sort of harness that lets you hold a 30mm gatling gun from a Warthog. Incendiary rounds, of course.

The M4 is on my mind right now b/c a friend bought one in 07 (it's a Law Enforcement Only semiauto) and he still hasn't fired. It's worth about 3 times what he paid for it these days, for obvious reasons.

Maybe Obama/Holder can sell more guns & ammo than Clinton/Reno. It would be tough, but it could happen.

As any Fallout 3 junkie can tell you, the gatlings look fun but the don't work for player characters (too inaccurate). Bad guys seem to have no problem hitting what they're aiming at. War never changes.

[olePigeon]

I was joking. The gatling gun from the A-10 is bigger than most SUVs.

[ort888]

Yes. I got the privilege of seeing them in action. Quite amazing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by finboy 

War never changes.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I was joking. The gatling gun from the A-10 is bigger than most SUVs.

The obvious solution is to get a bigger SUV.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by larrinski 

I hope someone takes away all your guns & ammunition! America is gun crazy...

Did you know that Canadians own more guns than Americans per capita? We're just much better at shooting each other with them than you guys. Are y'all bad shots, just lazy, or what?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Did you know that Canadians own more guns than Americans per capita? We're just much better at shooting each other with them than you guys. Are y'all bad shots, just lazy, or what?

It's too cold and/or they're stoned.

[Chongo]

Incredible home invasion caught on camera.
http://www.kvoa.com/global/video/fla...o&rnd=44133554

[olePigeon]

I'm for responsible gun ownership. Making them illegal doesn't keep them out of peoples' hands. Just look at the UK.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm for responsible gun ownership. Making them illegal doesn't keep them out of peoples' hands. Just look at the UK.

Facts & figures

• The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 2% in 2007-08 compared to the previous year
• Firearms were involved in 455 serious or fatal injuries, compared to 468 the previous year - a drop of 3%
• Offences involving handguns effectively held steady, those involving shotguns were down 3%
• The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns effectively held steady.

Now let's look at California...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Now let's look at California...

What about offenses involving knives? The UK had to develop completely new armor. Officers quickly found out that kevlar doesn't stop knives. They now have multi-threat armor that protects them from bullets and knives.

So what's the next step? Make knives illegal?

(I'm a little confused on whether you're for or against gun ownership.)

[pooka]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

(I'm a little confused on whether you're for or against gun ownership.)

Aussies find killing people with guns too easy for their liking.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What about offenses involving knives? The UK had to develop completely new armor. Officers quickly found out that kevlar doesn't stop knives. They now have multi-threat armor that protects them from bullets and knives.

So what's the next step? Make knives illegal?

(I'm a little confused on whether you're for or against gun ownership.)

Look what an old crippled dude like OJ did with a knife.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm for responsible gun ownership. Making them illegal doesn't keep them out of peoples' hands. Just look at the UK.

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide / Suicide/ Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 / 5.92 / 0.36
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 /0.2 / 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 / 0.2 / 0.02


Huh?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide / Suicide/ Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 / 5.92 / 0.36
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 /0.2 / 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 / 0.2 / 0.02


Huh?

Link?

[OreoCookie]

See for example here or here for statistics from the nineties. The latest official statistics are from 2006 (keep in mind that in the first two links, they have homicides/suicides/etc. per million while on the home page of the DOJ it's per 100,000. It dropped over the last few years, but it's still about 20 times higher than, say, in Germany.

The rates in the US are consistently a lot higher than in other developed countries, even those with a high gun ownership rate (e. g. Finland, Switzerland or Canada).

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Look what an old crippled dude like OJ did with a knife.

Wow, let's hear it for exaggeration. OJ, an old cripple dude? I feel confident a 45 year-old former hall of fame NFL player is going to be in better condition than most Americans.

[mattyb]

For those that don't know, please be aware that the NuLabour Government changes (and has changed) the way that crime figures are recorded in England and Wales every year since they came to power.

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S. Joyce Lee Malcolm | November 2002

Firearms offenses England & Wales

13 August, 2002, 22:40 GMT 23:40 UK Trident: Battling gun crime : According to the Metropolitan Police's own predictions, 2002 is set to see another massive rise in shootings, murders and attempted murders as a small number of gangs wield an enormous and terrifying sway in pockets of the capital.

Face Ache, you forgot to post something further down the page

Tackling the rise in gun culture

We established the Connected (new window) programme to support local community groups in their fight against gun crime.

Gun crime in England Category: UK Posted on: August 7, 2004

Sunday, 12 January, 2003, 11:02 GMT Gun crime soars by 35%

Capital gun crime rises by 50 per cent Weapons are now fashion accessories, warns Yard By Sophie Goodchild, Chief Reporter

Can't remember where I saw it, but there was a quote once that said if we started amputating hands for theft, that there would be a lot less gun crime. The theory being that most criminal uses of firearms were performed by people who had already committed (and this is important) and had already been caught for minor shop-lifting type offenses. Food for thought - I'd just remove a thumb.

Oops, if the thing that is important is to save lives, then banning cars, saturated fat, tobacco and salt would have a far greater impact than banning all weapons. But then its not about saving lives is it?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Oops, if the thing that is important is to save lives, then banning cars, saturated fat, tobacco and salt would have a far greater impact than banning all weapons. But then its not about saving lives is it?

Of course not. If it were, we'd be banning private swimming pools. That would save more children than any gun control measure ever has up to this point.

Either the folks pushing the "more than any other developed country" are ignorant, or they think we are -- there are a number of factors, including population density (or lack thereof) that make a huge difference in gun numbers, and gun necessity. Also, they always use statistics to show how the US is so dangerous but they forget about the "incidents per guns in the hands of the populace" statistics, which are far higher in other countries.

[(s)macintosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm for responsible gun ownership.

Me too. We were discussing this topic at work a few weeks ago (I work for the DoD) and of course there's a very pro-gun atmosphere in the office.

My suggestion?

Note: Background checks still apply.
If you are currently serving in the military, you can own a gun.
If you have a DD-214 (separated from the military) with an honorable discharge, you can own a gun.
If you are a current or former law enforcement, you can own a gun.

If none of the above apply to you, you must perform 100 hours of community service _per_ weapon purchase.

[Shaddim]

Does that include shotguns and rifles? Would that include a CC permit?

Heh, that means I'd have to perform 300 days of community service.

[(s)macintosh]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Does that include shotguns and rifles? Would that include a CC permit?

Heh, that means I'd have to perform 300 days of community service.

I only own a 1911, but I think it should be applicable to any firearm. CC permits aren't weapons, plus in most (all?) states you have to go to a class for firearm safety anyway.

I think it'd be pretty beneficial (it'd help non-profits who are always desperate for volunteers, supports your local community, and who knows you might actually make some new friends along the way).

[Shaddim]

Then, no, I can't support such action in any way, shape, or form. Personal defense shouldn't rely on how social you are. However, I would support a plan to require firearm safety classes for all qualified gun owners. After which, those people would be certified to carry a concealed handgun in most public places.

[(s)macintosh]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

However, I would support a plan to require firearm safety classes for all qualified gun owners.

That should be mandatory from the start. Kind of like a learner's permit to own a weapon.

They should make it like getting a driver's license in Germany though. Owning a firearm isn't a right, it's a privilege.

[Shaddim]

But it is a right, as outlined in the Bill of Rights. The only exception is if the person is a convicted felon (in most states). Can't say I've ever cared for that limitation though. It should read, "unless the person has a history of violence or has committed a felony with a firearm". Most felonies have nothing to do with violence and shouldn't limit a person from a Constitutional right.

If people learned more about firearm safety, and handled them on a regular basis, the fear you see when people talk about handguns would disappear. It would be replaced with knowledge and a healthy respect. Plus, the USA would be a much safer place in general.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by (s)macintosh 

Me too. We were discussing this topic at work a few weeks ago (I work for the DoD) and of course there's a very pro-gun atmosphere in the office.

My suggestion?

Note: Background checks still apply.
If you are currently serving in the military, you can own a gun.
If you have a DD-214 (separated from the military) with an honorable discharge, you can own a gun.
If you are a current or former law enforcement, you can own a gun.

If none of the above apply to you, you must perform 100 hours of community service _per_ weapon purchase.

Sounds like that would make for a great experiment! I wonder why our founding fathers went in the opposite direction and specifically enumerated that NO restrictions could be put in place? If it weren't for that pesky Constitution, and the wishes of the guys who started this country, I think we could get some real work done in solving these terrible problems with gun ownership that plague this country.

[(s)macintosh]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The only exception is if the person is a convicted felon (in most states).

Which is why I listed gun ownership as a privilege, rather than a right. You f*ck up, you pay. To me, a "Constitutional Right" is something un-rejectable, regardless of circumstances.

Most felonies have nothing to do with violence and shouldn't limit a person from a Constitutional right.

I tend to agree, a friend of mine had a felony conviction for marijuana. It's an "illegal" drug that's less harmful than alcohol, yet he's barred from owning firearms, voting, etc. I guess he f*cked up.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I wonder why our founding fathers went in the opposite direction and specifically enumerated that NO restrictions could be put in place? If it weren't for that pesky Constitution, and the wishes of the guys who started this country, I think we could get some real work done in solving these terrible problems with gun ownership that plague this country.

When our founding fathers created this country, how many weapons were in the hands of "ordinary citizens"?

A good read is Arming America: When Did We Become A Gun Culture? - Playboy Jan 2001, from A Way Through the Wilderness: The Natchez Trace and the Civilization of the Southern Frontier.

Quote:

PLAYBOY: Who was allowed to own guns?

BELLESILES: Only white male Protestant property owners. Not indentured servants. Not slaves. Not Indians. Not Catholics. All the legislatures of the colonies passed laws controlling access to firearms, as well as the use of firearms. They reserved the right to seize weapons in times of emergencies, to hand them out to those better able to use them. Colonies forbade the use of firearms in connection with drinking or "entertainments." The frivolous shooting of a musket during a time of emergency was punishable by death. There were laws about how large the weapons could be, the size of the shot, the quality of powder. All of this was regulated, and continued to be after the Second Amendment was passed. I assumed that all gun laws would vanish, but they accelerated.

[macintologist]

Didn't Chris Rock say we don't need gun control, we need bullet control. Every bullet should cost $5000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

"I would blow your ****ing head off.. if I could afford it"

If every bullet was $5000 then somebody would be dead for a good reason.

"That guy got shot dead. He must have done SOMETHING. He has $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass!"

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by (s)macintosh 

Which is why I listed gun ownership as a privilege, rather than a right. You f*ck up, you pay. To me, a "Constitutional Right" is something un-rejectable, regardless of circumstances.

Lots of rights get taken away if you royally screw up. Hell, they can even put you away in a tiny cell for years on end. Life? They can take that away. Liberty? Not much of that in there either. Pursuit of happiness? Well, I suppose, as long as you don't mind adjusting your lifestyle and sexual preference.

I tend to agree, a friend of mine had a felony conviction for marijuana. It's an "illegal" drug that's less harmful than alcohol, yet he's barred from owning firearms, voting, etc. I guess he f*cked up.
[/I]

Makes little sense to me too. Committing a non-violent crime shouldn't mean you automatically lose the right to own a firearm.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Didn't Chris Rock say we don't need gun control, we need bullet control. Every bullet should cost $5000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

"I would blow your ****ing head off.. if I could afford it"

If every bullet was $5000 then somebody would be dead for a good reason.

"That guy got shot dead. He must have done SOMETHING. He has $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass!"

Sure, mark them up, I'll keep making my own. I already own everything to make all the reloads I'll ever need. Most people who are serious about owning firearms have done this or are looking into it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Didn't Chris Rock say we don't need gun control, we need bullet control. Every bullet should cost $5000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

"I would blow your ****ing head off.. if I could afford it"

If every bullet was $5000 then somebody would be dead for a good reason.

"That guy got shot dead. He must have done SOMETHING. He has $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass!"

Make way folks, you've not only got wealth and income disparity, now we'll have weaponry disparity. Rich folks will now be forcing poor people to take loans at gunpoint.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by (s)macintosh 

BELLESILES: Only white male Protestant property owners. Not indentured servants. Not slaves. Not Indians. Not Catholics. All the legislatures of the colonies passed laws controlling access to firearms, as well as the use of firearms. They reserved the right to seize weapons in times of emergencies, to hand them out to those better able to use them.

The founding fathers suffered from bigotry. Gotcha. Noted.

Also, in times of war or other major emergency they reserved the right to ration out weapons in a way that best served the interests of security. Noted again. I"m pretty sure this is the case with just about all personal property, not just guns.

Still not seeing that the founding fathers wanted any real restrictions from ownership.

Colonies forbade the use of firearms in connection with drinking or "entertainments." The frivolous shooting of a musket during a time of emergency was punishable by death.

Essentially the "yelling fire in a crowded building" restriction, which is also a reasonable restriction allowed in regards to the first amendment. Pretty consistent. Noted.

There were laws about how large the weapons could be, the size of the shot, the quality of powder.

Could you quote some of these laws? Context is everything.

All of this was regulated, and continued to be after the Second Amendment was passed. I assumed that all gun laws would vanish, but they accelerated.

Not really seeing any restrictions not based on laws already in effect for ALL types of property. No real regulations on what regular citizens could or couldn't have a gun,

[(s)macintosh]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The founding fathers suffered from bigotry. Gotcha. Noted.

So, since the Second 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 should have read:

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

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Also, in times of war or other major emergency they reserved the right to ration out weapons in a way that best served the interests of security. Noted again. I"m pretty sure this is the case with just about all personal property, not just guns.

The country is at war right now. So you would have ZERO problem if the government came out tomorrow and said that all firearm sales were prohibited?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Could you quote some of these laws? Context is everything.

You can buy the book from Amazon. I didn't write the article, or book.

http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=...al+weapon+laws

First link (PDF) is an interesting read.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not really seeing any restrictions not based on laws already in effect for ALL types of property. No real regulations on what regular citizens could or couldn't have a gun,

Then you are most likely a white, male Protestant property owner?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by (s)macintosh 

So, since the Second 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 should have read:

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

Actually, yes. A whole host of people where not protected by the Constitution when it was signed. You really should have added "white, male, Proestant" to all the Amendments if you want to be technical. Most just assumed it to be the case. That why the Constitution was later amended again to ensure that those types of limitations based on race, creed or country of origin were not allowed. WELCOME TO THE 21st Century!!!

The country is at war right now. So you would have ZERO problem if the government came out tomorrow and said that all firearm sales were prohibited?

If they said that they needed all the firearms because there was a shortage and they were dispensing them to citizens who where going to use them to defend our soil against a common enemy, and that was true, no I wouldn't have a problem with it.

In times of war, the government often does ration things due to shortages caused by the war. in order to ensure our success in the war. That's nothing that would be limited to just weapons.

[(s)macintosh]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, yes. A whole host of people where not protected by the Constitution when it was signed. You really should have added "white, male, Proestant" to all the Amendments if you want to be technical. Most just assumed it to be the case. That why the Constitution was later amended again to ensure that those types of limitations based on race, creed or country of origin were not allowed. WELCOME TO THE 21st Century!!!

So you're basically stating: 1) The Bill of Rights was antiquated. 2) To address these issues, laws were passed to amend the Bill of Rights to reflex current inadequacies. 3) The Bill of Rights is living document, constantly evolving.

I assume you support many of the changes to the Bill of Rights, ie women voting, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (snicker) et al.

But look at the mockery of the Bill:
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech

- Well, free speech unless you shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. Or threaten a public official with bodily harm.

Not so "free".

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- Warrent-less phone taps? No knock warrant?

Not so "free".

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

- I'd like to focus a bit on "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" & "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" if you will. I'm reminded of the eminent domain case of Kelo vs New London. Here's a case of PRIVATE land development, yet the use of eminent domain was upheld.

Not so "free".

Enough for now. To wrap this up, how long until the "antiquated" Second Amendment (it is a living document after all) gets updated to reflect "THE 21st Century!!!" As it stands, the Bill of Rights is corrupted, useless piece of paper.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by (s)macintosh 

So you're basically stating: 1) The Bill of Rights was antiquated. 2) To address these issues, laws were passed to amend the Bill of Rights to reflex current inadequacies. 3) The Bill of Rights is living document, constantly evolving.

One and two. Three DUE to one and two.

I assume you support many of the changes to the Bill of Rights, ie women voting, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (snicker) et al.

Yes. Most of the changes to the Bill of Rights have come about in order to INCREASE freedom for everyone. I'm all for letting more people do all the things that the founding fathers intended for only the white guys.

But look at the mockery of the Bill:
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech

- Well, free speech unless you shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. Or threaten a public official with bodily harm.

Not so "free".

That's an exception, because using your "free speech" in that manner violates the rights of others. Just as using your "right to bear arms" against someone you wish to kill so you can take their money allows for exceptions to allowing you to have arms. Neither require "prior restraint".

That's the case with pretty much all your examples.

Enough for now. To wrap this up, how long until the "antiquated" Second Amendment (it is a living document after all) gets updated to reflect "THE 21st Century!!!" As it stands, the Bill of Rights is corrupted, useless piece of paper.

GOOD LUCK! This is the Democrat "third rail" that Obama successfully avoided this past election. Al Gore wasn't so lucky.

[(s)macintosh]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's an exception, because using your "free speech" in that manner violates the rights of others. Just as using your "right to bear arms" against someone you wish to kill so you can take their money allows for exceptions to allowing you to have arms. Neither require "prior restraint".

That's the case with pretty much all your examples.

Except for:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

- I'd like to focus a bit on "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" & "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" if you will. I'm reminded of the eminent domain case of Kelo vs New London. Here's a case of PRIVATE land development, yet the use of eminent domain was upheld.

Wonder why you never touched upon that. It was a huge miscarriage of justice. How did the private land owners violate the rights of a commercial developer? Oh right, they owned land he wanted to use for a strip mall.

GOOD LUCK! This is the Democrat "third rail" that Obama successfully avoided this past election. Al Gore wasn't so lucky.

I haven't a clue what you're implying here? I assume you're calling me a liberal? I'm actually a registered Libertarian.

[Chongo]

I thought this wasn't supposed to happen once "sensible" gun laws were enacted.
School shooting in Germany - Murderer dead - 15 killed - Gunman shot by police after massacre - Bild.de
Didn't stop this one either.
CNN.com - Mourning for victims of German school rampage - April 26, 2002
Lets see
Registration of all privately owned firearms √
License to buy, own, carry or use firearms √
Authorization to purchase ammunition √
"Proof of Training/Skill" requirement √
Testing requirement √
Proof of need for gun √
Use of term "sporting purposes" to describe need √
Require teachers and school administrators to be unarmed √
Extensive background checks before purchase √
Licensing for airguns √
Strict gun storage mandates √
Yep, that'll stop 'em.
As Hillary says, "Never waste a good crisis". With this and the nut job in Alabama, look for BO and others to urge greater erosion of the 2nd amendment.
Clinton: Never waste a good crisis | Video | Reuters.com