Gun Control

[Josh/Devilman88]

Gun control.. well I believe that a person as a right to have a gun... But if you have a record then no....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I was told that in Britain, France, and Germany, it is possible for private citizens to legally acquire guns. From what I'm told, it's pretty hard to do, but it does happen.

Most shotguns are legal over here

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Just to take one of you assertions, where do you get the silly idea that the action of a firearm controls its velocity?  Pump actions have no higher "velocity" than break actions, or semi-autos.

Semi-Automatic weapons are banned as well.

I'm sorry, but your post was non-responsive.  I repeat, where did you get the silly idea that the action of a firearm controls its velocity as you previously asserted?

I have not asserted that... it's the law over here.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It is my own private business what sort of weapons I may own.

Why should you have more right to own a weapon than to own a car, for instance?

I also disagree with licensing of cars..

How would you make sure that everyone is insured?

I wouldn't.  I don't care if they're insured, and its none of my business.

It's their business if they hit you, isn't it?  

[migrendel]

I'd support Second Amendment repeal, rather than trying to devise a complex piece of legislation to regulate gun use.

[John Dibble]

I'd support Second Amendment repeal, rather than trying to devise a complex piece of legislation to regulate gun use.

And what exactly do you think would be required after the repeal? If you're going to go so far as to repeal it, obviously you'd require legislation for it, or would you prefer just to let everyone have guns? If that's the case why bother repealing it. Just repealing the second amendment wouldn't make guns illegal, you'd have to have legislation to illegalize them. But fortunately, it's not gonna happen.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'd support Second Amendment repeal, rather than trying to devise a complex piece of legislation to regulate gun use.

The Second Amendment means what it says. I'd never support its repeal.

When it says "well-regulated" that does permit some restrictions. The Second Amendment doesn't give people the right to go out and shoot each other's heads off for no reason.

[John Dibble]

I'd support Second Amendment repeal, rather than trying to devise a complex piece of legislation to regulate gun use.

The Second Amendment means what it says. I'd never support its repeal.

When it says "well-regulated" that does permit some restrictions. The Second Amendment doesn't give people the right to go out and shoot each other's heads off for no reason.

Actually, the militia clause does not refer to the people. The second amendment gaurantees two rights(it does not grant them, like all the bill of rights it preserves a pre-existing right).

1. The right of the people to bear arms. 'the people' refers to individuals, not the militia.

2. The right of the states to form militias for the defense and security of the country.

A word on the militia - I believe it was declared in a Supreme Court Case in the 19th century(I think it was Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 [1886]) that all able bodied citizens willing to fight constituted the militia -

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as 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."

I don't think this decision has been overturned by the Supreme Court as of yet, so since the Supreme Court's interpretation is the supreme one above all other court decisions, this decision stands as the viable interpretation of law.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'd support Second Amendment repeal, rather than trying to devise a complex piece of legislation to regulate gun use.

And what exactly do you think would be required after the repeal? If you're going to go so far as to repeal it, obviously you'd require legislation for it, or would you prefer just to let everyone have guns? If that's the case why bother repealing it. Just repealing the second amendment wouldn't make guns illegal, you'd have to have legislation to illegalize them. But fortunately, it's not gonna happen.

Repealing the second amendment would not make guns illegal...and just because someone wants to repeal the 2nd amendment doesn't mean they want to make guns illegal.  

Repealing the amendment would allow Congress and the states to pass gun laws that would regulate ownership and manufacture (e.g. in the same way they do so for cars) without fear of constitutional challenge.  

Just because we don't have an amendment protecting car ownership doesn't make cars illegal...it just allows the government to regulate their use to the level that best benefits society.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Brazilian Anti-Gun Law comes into force

[John Dibble]

I'd support Second Amendment repeal, rather than trying to devise a complex piece of legislation to regulate gun use.

And what exactly do you think would be required after the repeal? If you're going to go so far as to repeal it, obviously you'd require legislation for it, or would you prefer just to let everyone have guns? If that's the case why bother repealing it. Just repealing the second amendment wouldn't make guns illegal, you'd have to have legislation to illegalize them. But fortunately, it's not gonna happen.

Repealing the second amendment would not make guns illegal...and just because someone wants to repeal the 2nd amendment doesn't mean they want to make guns illegal.  

Repealing the amendment would allow Congress and the states to pass gun laws that would regulate ownership and manufacture (e.g. in the same way they do so for cars) without fear of constitutional challenge.  

Just because we don't have an amendment protecting car ownership doesn't make cars illegal...it just allows the government to regulate their use to the level that best benefits society.

That's besides the point - he said that repealing the second amendment would avoid complicated legislation. Pretty much all federal legislation is complicated whether it involves the constitution or not.

And in the event of a repeal, it would become possible to illegalize guns. The possibility of the government doing scares the hell out of me. Our government is just like any other - corruptable. Whether it is corrupt now or not is questionable(thought definitely not to the point of tyranny), but I would rather have a well armed citizenry to overthrow an oppressive government.

In my opinion there should only be two forms of gun control -

1. Strict punishment for criminal gun use.
2. Strict punishment for negligent gun use.

[Nym90]

Are laws against private ownership of nuclear weapons, hand grenades, tanks, etc. unconstutitional?

[??????????]

Repealing the second would move us a step closer to facism. No Bill of Rights Amendment should ever be repealed. State militias have sadly gone extinct due to the fact that the government feels "threatened" by them. Which is exactly the whole point of it. Because the people do have the right to overthrow the government if they feel it is overstepping its' bounds.

[John Dibble]

Are laws against private ownership of nuclear weapons, hand grenades, tanks, etc. unconstutitional?

Considering none of those were around during the time the Second Amendment was made(guns were), those I'll accept as questionable. And the question is just plain silly, how in the hell could an individual use a nuke for personal defense?

[??????????]

Are laws against private ownership of nuclear weapons, hand grenades, tanks, etc. unconstutitional?

Considering none of those were around during the time the Second Amendment was made(guns were), those I'll accept as questionable. And the question is just plain silly, how in the hell could an individual use a nuke for personal defense?

Hand grenades were around. If the states were allowed to have militias this would not be a problem. No normal person could afford a tank, nuke, etc. so its' really unrealistic speculation.

[Nym90]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't specifically guarantee the right to own guns though, it says to bear arms, which would seem to include all weapons, of which these are.

Very rich people could afford them.

If you believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms, than these laws would have to be unconstitutional. Most people would agree that these are reasonable restrictions, just like the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee an absolute right to free speech either (you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because lying isn't protected by the 1st Amendment).

Well, if the government were going to use nukes on us, we'd need them for self-defense. If defending yourself against the government is a priority, I'd think you'd want to have the same things they have. Plus, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about protecting people's rights for self-defense purposes.

My point is that while I do believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment and it should definitely remain, it clearly only guarantees a well-regulated right to own a firearm.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Are laws against private ownership of nuclear weapons, hand grenades, tanks, etc. unconstutitional?

No, because of the idea of "well-regulated".

[John Dibble]

A government would have to be pretty crazy to use nukes against a rebellion. First off, a tyrannical government wants to rule, so they'd have to be a bit more selective in who they kill, rather than just launching a nuke. Second, nobody nukes their own soil - making your own soil an uninhabitable wasteland seems a bit dumb if you ask me. Nukes are clearly meant to be nation against nation weapons. Use of such weapons may also fuel more rebellion and dissent.

The Second Amendment is meant for guns, and possibly lower weapons like knives and swords. If indeed we were allowed to have tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, and other such military weapons, I would be fine with requiring people to keep them at home, since such weapons would be impractical in almost any situation except a military one, such as a rebellion. I do however, believe people should be allowed to carry handguns concealed on their person, as a handgun is a practical means to defend oneself against your everyday common street thug.

[John Dibble]

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." -- Adolf Hitler, 1935

One wonders why some people don't trust gun control.

[migrendel]

I need to clarify. I'd support second amendment repeal so that the legislature can enact a gun control law strict enough to actually be effective.

[??????????]

I need to clarify. I'd support second amendment repeal so that the legislature can enact a gun control law strict enough to actually be effective.

The problem is that current laws aren't being enforced. Instead of enforcing them they just keep creating new laws. Thank God we are allowed to carry concealed weapons here.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

A government would have to be pretty crazy to use nukes against a rebellion. First off, a tyrannical government wants to rule, so they'd have to be a bit more selective in who they kill, rather than just launching a nuke. Second, nobody nukes their own soil - making your own soil an uninhabitable wasteland seems a bit dumb if you ask me. Nukes are clearly meant to be nation against nation weapons. Use of such weapons may also fuel more rebellion and dissent.

The Second Amendment is meant for guns, and possibly lower weapons like knives and swords. If indeed we were allowed to have tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, and other such military weapons, I would be fine with requiring people to keep them at home, since such weapons would be impractical in almost any situation except a military one, such as a rebellion. I do however, believe people should be allowed to carry handguns concealed on their person, as a handgun is a practical means to defend oneself against your everyday common street thug.

But neither handguns, automatic weapons, or any kind of easily concealable guns were around when the amendment was signed.  By your logic the 2nd amendment shouldn't protect those either.

Also, does would the prospect of living in England "scare the hell out of you"?  They don't have any constitutional rights at all, and yet they are in many ways more free!  For instance, they don't have a 1st amendment, but they have a lot less censorship.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Shotguns, hunting rifles etc are *not* banned (except for certain high velocity weapons, eg: pump action shotguns).

Just to take one of you assertions, where do you get the silly idea that the action of a firearm controls its velocity?  Pump actions have no higher "velocity" than break actions, or semi-autos.

Semi-Automatic weapons are banned as well.

I'm sorry, but your post was non-responsive.  I repeat, where did you get the silly idea that the action of a firearm controls its velocity as you previously asserted?

I have not asserted that... it's the law over here.

Could you please tell me just what your understanding of "e.g." is?

The way I read it was that you were asserting that 'pump shotguns" were high velocity fireams.

Are you now saying that is not what you meant?

[ATFFL]

A government would have to be pretty crazy to use nukes against a rebellion. First off, a tyrannical government wants to rule, so they'd have to be a bit more selective in who they kill, rather than just launching a nuke. Second, nobody nukes their own soil - making your own soil an uninhabitable wasteland seems a bit dumb if you ask me. Nukes are clearly meant to be nation against nation weapons. Use of such weapons may also fuel more rebellion and dissent.

The Second Amendment is meant for guns, and possibly lower weapons like knives and swords. If indeed we were allowed to have tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, and other such military weapons, I would be fine with requiring people to keep them at home, since such weapons would be impractical in almost any situation except a military one, such as a rebellion. I do however, believe people should be allowed to carry handguns concealed on their person, as a handgun is a practical means to defend oneself against your everyday common street thug.

But neither handguns, automatic weapons, or any kind of easily concealable guns were around when the amendment was signed.  By your logic the 2nd amendment shouldn't protect those either.

Also, does would the prospect of living in England "scare the hell out of you"?  They don't have any constitutional rights at all, and yet they are in many ways more free!  For instance, they don't have a 1st amendment, but they have a lot less censorship.

Yes, the Official Secrets Act is a sure sign of a bastion of freedom.

[John Dibble]

A government would have to be pretty crazy to use nukes against a rebellion. First off, a tyrannical government wants to rule, so they'd have to be a bit more selective in who they kill, rather than just launching a nuke. Second, nobody nukes their own soil - making your own soil an uninhabitable wasteland seems a bit dumb if you ask me. Nukes are clearly meant to be nation against nation weapons. Use of such weapons may also fuel more rebellion and dissent.

The Second Amendment is meant for guns, and possibly lower weapons like knives and swords. If indeed we were allowed to have tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, and other such military weapons, I would be fine with requiring people to keep them at home, since such weapons would be impractical in almost any situation except a military one, such as a rebellion. I do however, believe people should be allowed to carry handguns concealed on their person, as a handgun is a practical means to defend oneself against your everyday common street thug.

But neither handguns, automatic weapons, or any kind of easily concealable guns were around when the amendment was signed.  By your logic the 2nd amendment shouldn't protect those either.

Also, does would the prospect of living in England "scare the hell out of you"?  They don't have any constitutional rights at all, and yet they are in many ways more free!  For instance, they don't have a 1st amendment, but they have a lot less censorship.

Your knowledge of weapons at the time is severely lacking:
http://www.therifleshoppe.com/english_pistols.htm

Quite concealable.

And yes, the prospect of living in a country where the government has that much power scares the hell out of me. The government there is much more susceptible to the momentary passions of the people - I'm wondering exactly how long it took to pass that gun ban? My guess would be not long. Here, I know that such a ban can't take place so easily - the momentary passion will die before the bill gets anywhere. It takes something far more extreme than a school shooting, something like 9/11, to get things moving really fast(the passing of Patriot Act for instance).