Wait I thought Strict Gun Control Was Supposed to Reduce Crime?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Strimen**

Yep just stating some fun facts.

**Waaagh_Gonads**

Frazzled wrote:

Eliminate semi-automoatic firearms and you just eliminated most pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Again, the're that whole Second Amendment thingy to have to get past.

I'd be ok with this-its a state right. Leave me alone in my state and the Yankees can do what they want in theirs. But, in three months, that will not happen.

Which is why I said that some firearms should be kept.

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.

I can't see anywhere in that that semiautomatic, automatic firearms being removed from availablility will infringe that right.
You can still freely go and buy a pistol or bolt action rifle.

At the very least getting rid of the automatic and semiautomatic firearms will allow student time to flee shools as one of their classmates goes on a rampage...

**Kilkrazy**

Revolvers, pump action shotguns and manually operated breech loading rifles all are not semi-automatic. These are all good weapons for hunting and self-defence.

Of course it would be bad news for anyone who has recently bought a Glock or an AK47.

**dogma**

Truthfully, by writ of word, the second amendment doesn't even apply to guns. That concession is made only as a result of historical contextualization. As such, it bears consideration the degree to which the founding fathers were prepared for the shift of the balance of power towards the individual which is endemic of the contemporary climate.

**Kilkrazy**

Historically the word arms was used to mean body armour and weapons. Firearms in civilian hands would quite possibly have been outnumbered by weapons such as small swords in the mid to late 18th century.

**dogma**

Yea, that's what I was trying to get at. I suppose a better phrase would be: "By writ of word, the second amendment does not guarantee the right to the possession of firearms."

**DarthDiggler**

It really doesn't have to be Obama's stated desire to ban hand guns for it to become the law of the land. It just has to be Nancy Pelosi's and/or Harry Reid's for it to be included into a bill that Obama will sign. You want funding for the war? Hand guns are banned at home. Look into the records of either of those two for a better idea of what is to come. Veto proof majorities will do that to the party in power.

We have many municipalities, including Chicago, which have a defunct ban on the possession of any hand guns. Supreme Court ruling or not, Mayor Daley rails against hand guns every other week as if the banning of such guns will bring every murdered child back to life and prevent the gang initiaton killings that happen frequently on the streets of Chicago. If a murder charge doesn't deter criminals, how will a weapons charge stop them?

**dogma**

It won't. The drive to ban guns isn't about stopping gang violence, but keeping it from inflicting collateral damage. Keep in mind most (arguably) of the people killed in gang-related altercations are not directly involved in them.

**Clthomps**

Nope, you just get robbed with no way to defend yourself.

Hussein has voted every single time to make you a criminal if you defend yourself and your family by using a firearm in your own home.

while I don't care for the current election debates I would like to point out that the right to bear arms is not granted to protect you from murderers and rapists it is in fact placed there so that ordinary citizen have the means to raise up against the government in the event that the government becomes to corrupt. So with that thought in mind I want a Scud missile battery.

**Ahtman**

dogma wrote:Truthfully, by writ of word, the second amendment doesn't even apply to guns. That concession is made only as a result of historical contextualization. As such, it bears consideration the degree to which the founding fathers were prepared for the shift of the balance of power towards the individual which is endemic of the contemporary climate.

Gosh, why hasn't that worked before? Someone just go in and tell them that it doesn't actually mean guns. It's all so simple.

dogma wrote:Yea, that's what I was trying to get at. I suppose a better phrase would be: "By writ of word, the second amendment does not guarantee the right to the possession of firearms."

I'm not sure paraphrasing is considered a good legal tactic.

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:
dogma wrote:Truthfully, by writ of word, the second amendment doesn't even apply to guns. That concession is made only as a result of historical contextualization. As such, it bears consideration the degree to which the founding fathers were prepared for the shift of the balance of power towards the individual which is endemic of the contemporary climate.

Gosh, why hasn't that worked before? Someone just go in and tell them that it doesn't actually mean guns. It's all so simple.

dogma wrote:Yea, that's what I was trying to get at. I suppose a better phrase would be: "By writ of word, the second amendment does not guarantee the right to the possession of firearms."

I'm not sure paraphrasing is considered a good legal tactic.

I am not arguing a legal case. I am simply insinuating that there is no clear legal reading of the 2nd amendment unless one considers the context in which it was written. My initial language was admittedly unclear, Killkrazy helped to convey my original intent, and I confirmed his understanding of what I meant to say. Obviously the issue is a complicated one.

Just of out of curiosity, what are you trying to say? Because to me your post reads like the work of someone who enjoys working to disprove the assertions of others so that he is never forced to apply the same kind of scrutiny to his own opinions.

**AgeOfEgos**

Ahtman wrote:
dogma wrote:Truthfully, by writ of word, the second amendment doesn't even apply to guns. That concession is made only as a result of historical contextualization. As such, it bears consideration the degree to which the founding fathers were prepared for the shift of the balance of power towards the individual which is endemic of the contemporary climate.

Gosh, why hasn't that worked before? Someone just go in and tell them that it doesn't actually mean guns. It's all so simple.

Yeah! I still haven't got my farking set yet!

**Ahtman**

dogma wrote:I am not arguing a legal case.

I'm not sure how you can change a law without doing so.

dogma wrote:I am simply insinuating that there is no clear legal reading of the 2nd amendment

It gets worse if you refer to the language in some of the rough drafts.

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:
I'm not sure how you can change a law without doing so.

Obviously, but I've also said in this thread that I have no interest in gun control legislation. I am, however, fairly well versed in arguments on either side of the equation, and I feel they each have equal validity given the vagueness of the amendment itself. In general, I feel that the real matter comes down to a dispute on the intent of the founding fathers. Which, to my mind, moves the argument from strictly legal territory into the more nebulous realm of the social sciences. This is something which I think few people truly appreciate. It is far too easy for many people to equate the Constitution to the everyday legal code without appreciating that it is not underwritten by legal precedent. Hence we get people like Ron Paul, and his supporters.

Ahtman wrote:
It gets worse if you refer to the language in some of the rough drafts.

I can only imagine.

**Ahtman**

dogma wrote:Obviously, but I've also said in this thread that I have no interest in gun control legislation. I am, however, fairly well versed in arguments on either side of the equation, and I feel they each have equal validity given the vagueness of the amendment itself. In general, I feel that the real matter comes down to a dispute on the intent of the founding fathers. Which, to my mind, moves the argument from strictly legal territory into the more nebulous realm of the social sciences. This is something which I think few people truly appreciate. It is far too easy for many people to equate the Constitution to the everyday legal code without appreciating that it is not underwritten by legal precedent. Hence we get people like Ron Paul, and his supporters.

Ah, I understand.

**Mannahnin**

dogma wrote:Truthfully, by writ of word, the second amendment doesn't even apply to guns. That concession is made only as a result of historical contextualization. As such, it bears consideration the degree to which the founding fathers were prepared for the shift of the balance of power towards the individual which is endemic of the contemporary climate.

I would tend to disagree. At the time it was written firearms were in the hands of a large number of ordinary citizens, used for hunting (where appropriate) and for the possibility of home defense/fighting Indians/fighting a foreign invader. The founders also believed in the option of armed uprising against the government, which would only be possible using firearms. I think guns were intended.

DarthDiggler wrote:It really doesn't have to be Obama's stated desire to ban hand guns for it to become the law of the land. It just has to be Nancy Pelosi's and/or Harry Reid's for it to be included into a bill that Obama will sign.

I doubt that. It’s not just his statements, it’s his legislative record so far. He hasn’t tried to introduce any bans. He voted in favour of letting retired cops carry concealed. His vote on SB 2165. after the DeMar case, was a vote against the state being able to override the local municipality’s authority. Home rule and local control is a classically-conservative priority, and he was defending it.

DarthDiggler wrote: We have many municipalities, including Chicago, which have a defunct ban on the possession of any hand guns. Supreme Court ruling or not, Mayor Daley rails against hand guns every other week as if the banning of such guns will bring every murdered child back to life and prevent the gang initiaton killings that happen frequently on the streets of Chicago. If a murder charge doesn't deter criminals, how will a weapons charge stop them?

And as noted, the SCOTUS has ruled that bans (and de-facto bans) are unconstitutional. Now that that historic ruling had been made, even the most strident gun control advocates are going to be much more limited in what they can do.

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:
Eliminate semi-automoatic firearms and you just eliminated most pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Again, the're that whole Second Amendment thingy to have to get past.

I'd be ok with this-its a state right. Leave me alone in my state and the Yankees can do what they want in theirs. But, in three months, that will not happen.

8 years old

perhaps even just some safety guidelines?

**Frazzled**

I saw that.

1) that could have happened with any firearm-its not uzi specific.

2) At every gun show/convention I've been too, weapons were checked with a tie or something in the breach to prevent this sort of thing (and weapons near ammo ist verboten). I don't understand the story-demonstration shooting at a show is unusual.

3) As a parent I feel for the family.

**reds8n**

Heartbreaking isn't it.. I heard they might charge with the father with... something or other.. and I'm kind of torn over it. I have no doubt this was little more than a tragic accident-- no foul play or similar-- i do think there's a strong line of reasoning towards ..you know... not letting 8 year olds handle guns like this.

Now whilst I acknowledge this is kind of a freak occurrence-- I assume 8 year olds don't get shot all the time at these things-- surely some form of control or better security in this sort of situation is not unreasonable?

**Frazzled**

There's a glitch here. At every range I've been to permitting children, they generally have to be within reach of an adult at all times. Note the phrase within reach. I've heard of accidents before but never at a range/event with chldren. Its usually out hunting or such.

**dogma**

Mannahnin wrote:
I would tend to disagree. At the time it was written firearms were in the hands of a large number of ordinary citizens, used for hunting (where appropriate) and for the possibility of home defense/fighting Indians/fighting a foreign invader. The founders also believed in the option of armed uprising against the government, which would only be possible using firearms. I think guns were intended.

Guns may have been intended, but that is historical commentary, not legal precedent. In my opinion you are very clearly correct. There is no way that the founding fathers spoke of every man's right to a Gladius and Scutum. However, if you go down the road toward the kind of weaponry necessary for resisting the state in the contemporary world you are really talking about explosives and other similar ordnance. Do people have the right to those? The founding fathers clearly did not understand the way individual firepower would scale in the modern world. I think it is important to understand that, in the time of the Constitution, armed uprising would only have been possible if it could gain massive popular support. A similar initiative now would require a far smaller, proportionally, number of people. And that number would only be likely to grow as force was applied and sympathizers attracted.

**Kilkrazy**

Is there something in the second amendment that implies that the purpose of arming the citizenry was to enable them to revolt against the government?

**Frazzled**

Commentaries and letters proposing it by the authors actually.

**Kilkrazy**

Why not simply state it? I believe the constitution of Massachusetts provides for the citizens to overthrow the government by violence.

**dogma**

"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."

or the alternate text

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

It is the stipulations of 'Militia' and 'free State' which underwrite the argument that the intent was for the people to hold the capacity to overthrow the government. But, as I said, the modern distribution of forces makes that a foolish provision. This is not the age of musket firing lines and bayonet charges.

**Frazzled**

Of course one can argue the same for the First Amendment. With the advances in totolitarian technology (TM), the use of free speech, association, and privacy, is a foolish proposition. This is not the age of pamphlets and Anonymous.

**Kilkrazy**

All our new laws against glorifying terrorism, incitement to religious hatred and so on, can be seen as attacks on free speech. I mean UK laws and I think you have similar laws in the USA.

**Frazzled**

Not nearly as much killkrazy. You can say what you want - but expect a blowback from other people using their free speech also.

**Frazzled**

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/30/obama-and-guns/

COX: Obama and guns
Words matter and the record doesn't match
Chris W. Cox

OP-ED:

In speech after speech, Barack Obama has claimed he would "uphold the Second Amendment." Mr. Obama, of course, is a polished speaker who says "words matter." But records matter more. And while Mr. Obama is short on experience on most issues, he's long on anti-gun votes and even longer on rhetoric. Now's a good time to review both.

One of Mr. Obama's first statements on the issue really said it all. During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Mr. Obama blamed others, saying his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Mr. Obama's own handwriting.)

Questionnaires aside, Mr. Obama has supported handgun bans even when they trap people who defend themselves. In a 2003 case, a resident of Wilmette, Ill., used a handgun to defend himself from a burglar with a drug habit and a long criminal record, breaking into his home for the second day in a row. Though authorities found the shooting justified, the armed citizen was charged with possessing a handgun in violation of Wilmette's handgun ban.

Illinois lawmakers proposed legislation that would make self-defense an "affirmative defense" against prosecution for handgun possession in towns like Wilmette. Mr. Obama voted four times against the measure, which passed over his opposition, and over a veto by Illinois' anti-gun governor, Rod Blagojevich, a long-time Obama ally.

Self-defense at home or outside the home - it's all just as bad to Mr. Obama.

In 2004, he said he was "consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," and that he'd back "federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement." Mr. Obama had already put that anti-self-defense belief into action in 2001, voting against a state Senate bill that would have allowed people who receive protective orders - such as domestic violence victims - to carry firearms. Why? Because, in Mr. Obama's world, "authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation … It was a bad idea and I'm glad it failed," he said.

Mr. Obama also claims he's no threat to hunters.

But in 2005, he voted for a ban on all but the smallest rifle ammunition used for hunting (or for anything else). If the measure had passed, it would have classified most rifle ammunition beyond the low-powered .22 caliber as "armor piercing ammunition," prohibited for civilian manufacture by federal law. The ammunition ban was hardly Mr. Obama's first act against hunters, either. In 1999, Mr. Obama proposed increasing firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries an excise tax of $55. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen, which funds many of our wildlife conservation programs, into a tool to punish gun buyers.

Also, while Mr. Obama promises hunters, "I will not take your shotgun away," his votes tell a different story.

In 2003, while serving on the Illinois state Senate's Judiciary Committee, Mr. Obama voted for a bill that would have banned (as so-called "semi-automatic assault weapons") most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. If the bill had passed, any Illinois resident who possessed one of these guns 90 days after legislation went into effect, would have faced felony charges. What was that about not taking shotguns away?

As if voting for anti-gun plans wasn't bad enough, Mr. Obama also helped pay for them. He was a board member from 1994 to 2001 of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups in the country. On Mr. Obama's watch, Joyce donated $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center, the nation's most aggressive gun-prohibitionist group. Many of the Joyce Foundation's projects were aimed at editing the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.

But an Obama Supreme Court could do that more directly. Mr. Obama has said he would not have nominated Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. It was Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller, which declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, and that D.C.'s handgun ban is unconstitutional. Justice Thomas joined in that opinion. As a member of the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama also voted against confirming Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom joined Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. That means four of the five pro-freedom votes on the Supreme Court would not have been there under an Obama presidency.

This is the real Barack Obama. This record matches the attitude Mr. Obama revealed when he said rural Pennsylvanians are "bitter" and "cling to guns." This record matches what you would expect to emerge from a Chicago political machine where an unrepentant terrorist is "respectable" and "mainstream."

Finally, with no way to run from his record, Mr. Obama resorts to the ultimate political dodge. Does he support gun registration? "I don't think that we can get that done." Banning guns? "I couldn't get it done. I don't have the votes in Congress."

These efforts to ease gun owners' fears should make any gun owner ask, "Wait … why is he counting all these votes already?" Instead of this not-so-reassuring rhetoric, gun owners deserve the truth. And the truth is clear: Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in history - bar none.

**CorporateLogo**

Thanks for the laugh.

Chris W. Cox = chief lobbyist for the NRA, so you know he doesn't have an axe to grind!