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.

Frazzled wrote:

No its not nebulous

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's pretty nebulous there, Frazzled. Does this mean that we all have the right to bear arms, or do we have the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a well regulated militia(a position now occupied by the National Guard)? Looking at the entire Amendment, it seems that the whole point is for a civilian militia, not everyone and their brother to go around carrying an Uzi or similar.

That said, I'm pro-gun and do actually believe in the right for people to own weapons, it's just that the Amendment as written is ambiguous wording.

Your argument is irrelevant Shuma. Its an absolute right.

Platuan at the time of the amendment all free men were considered part of the militia.

Okay, seriously, that "right to bear arms but like the animal lol!" joke is NOT FUNNY ANYMORE.

STOP IT.

(And now back to your regularly scheduled thread...)

Frazzled wrote:Platuan at the time of the amendment all free men were considered part of the militia.

Right, but times change. What applied 200+ years ago is not the same now.

All I'm saying is that the wording can be taken either way, despite that I in fact believe in your side of the issue.

Frazzled wrote:Your argument is irrelevant Shuma. Its an absolute right.

Platuan at the time of the amendment all free men were considered part of the militia.

It's not an "absolute right" until we figure out what it means fraz. Its not irrelevant. I believe that militias should have access, even though I don't think they are needed any more. The implication is the guarantee to form militias, not every man is in a militia now. This is not the revolution. Time are different, and the intention of the wording is important to consider. It doesn't just become the right of every man to own weapons capable of killing every other man at once just for the sake of it being fun just because you don't feel like joining the new england state guard.

Okay, seriously, that "right to bear arms but like the animal lol!" joke is NOT FUNNY ANYMORE.

Its not meant to be funny. Thats what the "right to bear arms" means grammatically. Its why you can't take that saying as the entirety of the right. BECAUSE THERES ANOTHER SENTENCE.

my Point is If one grade of a gun is the legal limit then the next grade will be argued for. Only a few criminals can get thier hand on the more expensive guns out there. more often than not it's death by cheap hand gun over something completely not worth it. Now we all know Spending enough money as is will net you more fire power then a thug looking to score a quick wallet or plasma tv will be carrying. Statistics show that the average person will miss more than not at 20 feet or more, so with a good aim you will have a robber out ranged and under powered, at that point a crook is more likly to flee than have an old west shoot out. I think arms and military grade weapons.

I'd be ok with a 10 round clip, I'd rather it be 6 but it's better than nothing.

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Platuan at the time of the amendment all free men were considered part of the militia.

Right, but times change. What applied 200+ years ago is not the same now.

All I'm saying is that the wording can be taken either way, despite that I in fact believe in your side of the issue.

Respectfully, SCOTUS has already ruled on that, and found that it can't be taken either way, but as an individual right.

ShumaGorath wrote:Its not meant to be funny. Thats what the "right to bear arms" means grammatically. Its why you can't take that saying as the entirety of the right. BECAUSE THERES ANOTHER SENTENCE.

Oh, sorry then.

I thought you talking about the second amendment making you carry bear arms around was a joke, when it was meant to be a serious, and not at all stupid, comment.

EDIT: (All right, I may be overreacting a little, but it's seriously an annoyingly old joke. You can't even get into the smallest conversation about gun control without "arms from bears!" popping up everywhere.)

Frazzled wrote:Your argument is irrelevant Shuma. Its an absolute right.

Perhaps you'd be better maybe even keeping things like this for adults ? Authorities said the youth model 20-gauge shotgun was thought to have been found in the boy's bedroom. It is designed for children and such weapons do not have to be registered.

..errmmm.... whose idea was that then ? You're arming children now ? SRSLY ?

Wouldn't want to be a teacher in America.

Minors cannot generally purchase firearms in the first place.

Again you're equating a bad situation (crazy nutjob little kid) with bad law. How about instead of making it illegal for everyone else, prosecute the father for letting the kid have the gun in his room. If the nutjob kid ran her over with a car would it be prudent to ban cars?

I think guns for kids is a bad idea though- surely 16, or even 18, is a better age to allow a child to own a deadly weapon?

Oh don't get me wrong, I just think its amazing that anyone would even consider it to be a good idea to let a child keep an actual working gun in their room or where he could get at it without supervision. Sure you'll never be 100% able to guarantee that a determined child won't get their grubby mitts on it-- kids are like that.

It was more an argument in favour of restricting who can/should be able to get a gun. I've stated my opinion that it should be licensed and tested ala driving-- something else you don't let 11 year olds do-- every time "we" have this discussion.

That said I can't see anyway to, realistically ,make that change happen, not least as the issue seems- like much in American politics-- so divisive and entrenched.

...but.... you've got to admit it seems flying rodent gak crazy to allow children to own guns and-- from what the article said-- not require them to be registered ? I'm assuming (hoping ?) that's just a loophole.

And at ....what ? $300 ish a pop I'd be horrified if kids could afford one anyway !

Da Boss wrote:I think guns for kids is a bad idea though- surely 16, or even 18, is a better age to allow a child to own a deadly weapon?

I'll restate. It is already illegal to own a firearm if you are under 18 (at least in Texas, Louisiana is a foreign country )

Dad (hereafter referred to as that idiot who should no longer be allowed to breed) allowed him to have the shotgun in his room, evidently with shells. Thats prima facae crimes of a whole lot of things.

We're mixing youth shotgun with access. A youth shotgun is a lighter gun designed for youths (early teens) and women. Its designed to be used under adult supervision. Clearly instead of an adult we had at beast, a slow*

I'm not defending said slow. My children do not have access to firearms. slow + young serial killer is bad mojo.

*slow is not meant to impugn mentally handicapped, but a duh duh duh moron of the type that tries out for the Darwin Awards.

It was more an argument in favour of restricting who can/should be able to get a gun. I've stated my opinion that it should be licensed and tested ala driving-- something else you don't let 11 year olds do-- every time "we" have this discussion.

And as long as that test is not punitive I'm actually in strong agreement.

I should not I'm ok with reasonable restrictions, but most of those entail what are mostly currently in place.
*No automatics (machine guns)
*No Zip guns
*Reasonable limits on clip sizes
*Thorough background checks-no kids, nutjobs, criminals, or politicians (but I repeat myself). Check at the national level.
*Waiting period of one week
*Mandatory safety class/training.
*No sawed off weaponry

Okay, thanks for that Frazzled. Are there laws about gunsafes and stuff?

Do you think they'd be able to change that law in Lousiana then ?


... Or would loads of gun owners post angry threads about OMYGAWDGUNKONTROLLL 1111 on, for example, wargaming forums ?

in case.

Frazzled wrote:Minors cannot generally purchase firearms in the first place.

Again you're equating a bad situation (crazy nutjob little kid) with bad law. How about instead of making it illegal for everyone else, prosecute the father for letting the kid have the gun in his room. If the nutjob kid ran her over with a car would it be prudent to ban cars?

If cars were designed with the singular purpose of killing people (an illegal act) then yes! Welcome to logical thinking.

And as long as that test is not punitive I'm actually in strong agreement.

I should not I'm ok with reasonable restrictions, but most of those entail what are mostly currently in place.
*No automatics (machine guns)
*No Zip guns
*Reasonable limits on clip sizes
*Thorough background checks-no kids, nutjobs, criminals, or politicians (but I repeat myself). Check at the national level.
*Waiting period of one week
*Mandatory safety class/training.
*No sawed off weaponry

Dumb non gun owner questions first :

What is the big deal about sawn off weapons anyway ? Oh... "zip" gun ?

Mandatory training/classes is the one I still find astonishing you don't have, especially given the somewhat litigious nature of your society.

The clip size/automatics ... well, I couldn't really say, but I'm sure there's room for maneuver there-- maybe "advanced" licenses or something with better training/background checks.

And with the criminal thing, I'd say you'd even have a good argument to limiting the types of offences : *sweeping and poorly researched legal statement approaching* ban murderers or robbers fine, but 3 strike jay walkers or .... drunk and annoying in public maybe not.

Politicians should have to wear bulls eyes-- cut down on the likelihood of any misses

I'd say I'd be happy if it were illegal to own firearms here.

People keep saying if you do that only criminals will have guns. That's true, until they are all dead. If guns are illegal, then that person will be arrested and a majority of criminals already have rap sheets as long as my arm. Then they'll be arrested and their firearms confiscated. Then they can melt the guns down. Build jungle gyms or something. If only you could erase all the fear present in people, then we might not need so many guns.

It'd be a good way to stimulate the economy, melting weapons down.

Edit: How many times have we gone through the motions of this debate guys?

The second amendment was written for three reasons:
1) All free men were part of the milita, which served as national defense, law enforcement, etc. Even at their heights, most militias were less regulated than your average Boy Scout troop.
2) Arms were essential to personal survival, for both hunting and defense, especially in the frontier.
3) Keep arms in the hands of the people was seen as a way to protect against tyranny. It sounds a little silly at first, but even if defeated in open combat, the US would be almost impossible to peaceably govern and hold with all our weapons.

I'm a believer in legal consistency. The first Amendment has been expanded, arguably far beyond it's original intention, and also beyond it's literal wording, in the interest of keeping the meaning of the prohibition and to ensure that no protected speech could be trampled. To turn around and nitpick the second amendment for being ambiguous or nebulous might be somewhat true, but not nearly enough to ignore what the text says.

Can guns be regulated? Of course, so can speech. The militia clause seems to imply that there can be perhaps stricter regulation on arms than on speech. Restricting who can own a gun (based on who can be in the milita, perhaps) would probably be acceptable, and banning certain highly dangerous arms (machine guns, mortars, etc.) seems well within range. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, even high capacity weapons, are arms with legitimate uses and purposes.

I'm also not impressed with the idea that banning weapons will save lives or reduce crime. I call shenanigans on that. It's like saying banning porno will cut down on sexual crimes. Sure, there might be a small benefit, but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to simply hassle gun owners, and I'm not a fan of that.

Let's also keep in mind politcal reality: banning things that a lot of American's like has never, ever worked out to solve a social ill. Prohibitiion, the war on drugs, child pornography, even cuban cigars are all examples of bans that were placed on items in US history. Have any of them worked out well?

The main point about reducing the number of weapons in society would be that accidents would be reduced.

Arguably, the same results could be got by requiring people who want a gun to pass a licensing exam and keep the gun unloaded at home.

Polonius wrote:
I'm also not impressed with the idea that banning weapons will save lives or reduce crime. I call shenanigans on that. It's like saying banning porno will cut down on sexual crimes. Sure, there might be a small benefit, but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to simply hassle gun owners, and I'm not a fan of that.

Then why does the U.S. have the highest, by far, rate of gun related deaths?

We are seriously dieing in droves due to our own, anybody gets one, policy.

Canada is the same way though, and they don't have nearly as many gun related deaths per year. Wonder what we're doing wrong? Serious question too, why is it so different in America?

You know, I was thinking they should make drugs illegal too.

Then all the drug dealers would be arrested, and we wouldn't have to worry about people selling and using drugs anymore.

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, I was thinking they should make drugs illegal too.

Then all the drug dealers would be arrested, and we wouldn't have to worry about people selling and using drugs anymore.

You can't point a vial of crack at someone and have them instantly die. You could get them instantly high maybe...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Minors cannot generally purchase firearms in the first place.

Again you're equating a bad situation (crazy nutjob little kid) with bad law. How about instead of making it illegal for everyone else, prosecute the father for letting the kid have the gun in his room. If the nutjob kid ran her over with a car would it be prudent to ban cars?

If cars were designed with the singular purpose of killing people (an illegal act) then yes! Welcome to logical thinking.

As soon as you have some Mr. right to bear arms (gee does that mean we can arm bears?) please tell me.

Frazzled wrote:

I should not I'm ok with reasonable restrictions, but most of those entail what are mostly currently in place.
*No automatics (machine guns)
*No Zip guns
*Reasonable limits on clip sizes
*Thorough background checks-no kids, nutjobs, criminals, or politicians (but I repeat myself). Check at the national level.
*Waiting period of one week
*Mandatory safety class/training.
*No sawed off weaponry

I agree with all of the above. How do you feel about limiting the number of guns which can be purchased a month to discourage straw purchases?

now that's something I hadn't thought of, but it's sensible.

Frazzled wrote:(gee does that mean we can arm bears?)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO BEAR PUNS!!!

Typeline wrote:
Then why does the U.S. have the highest, by far, rate of gun related deaths?

Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
We're pretty high on the list though.

Typeline wrote:

Polonius wrote:
I'm also not impressed with the idea that banning weapons will save lives or reduce crime. I call shenanigans on that. It's like saying banning porno will cut down on sexual crimes. Sure, there might be a small benefit, but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to simply hassle gun owners, and I'm not a fan of that.

Then why does the U.S. have the highest, by far, rate of gun related deaths?

We are seriously dieing in droves due to our own, anybody gets one, policy.

Canada is the same way though, and they don't have nearly as many gun related deaths per year. Wonder what we're doing wrong? Serious question too, why is it so different in America?

Because we have the most guns. I'm sure there will be a dip, but as everybody points out, criminals will keep getting guns, so maybe knife violence creeps up. There will always be allowances for hunting, so there simply will be some firearms in circulation. I just don't see how any given restriction really slows it down. I"m all in favor of increases licensing and training and waiting periods and permits and whatnot.

We also don't have the highest rate of gun deaths, just the highest rate in the Industrialized world.

reds8n wrote:

Dumb non gun owner questions first :

What is the big deal about sawn off weapons anyway ? Oh... "zip" gun ?

Mandatory training/classes is the one I still find astonishing you don't have, especially given the somewhat litigious nature of your society.

The clip size/automatics ... well, I couldn't really say, but I'm sure there's room for maneuver there-- maybe "advanced" licenses or something with better training/background checks.

And with the criminal thing, I'd say you'd even have a good argument to limiting the types of offences : *sweeping and poorly researched legal statement approaching* ban murderers or robbers fine, but 3 strike jay walkers or .... drunk and annoying in public maybe not.

Politicians should have to wear bulls eyes-- cut down on the likelihood of any misses

First, no you can't predict Louisiana in, well anything...

To The point on gunsafes. It depends on thse state. Some states require child locks or other protective devices, some don't.

To the above.
*zip gun-home made gun-great for sneaky stuff. Dad showed me how to make one once...go Dad...
*sawed-usually in context of shotguns, but rifles as well. Again, its the idea of being sneaky/criminal
*well some things related to guns require a license, some don't. But I'm down with mandatory safety and basic firearms training.
*clips. again "assault rifles" are really anything except bolt action rifles at this point. The clips wuld be considered the danger.
*agreed on the criminal.