Ot: Pew Pew Pew

[ryan roopnarine]

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


i can't get the supreme court camera blog dealie to work, or i'd put a link up to it, but i didn't think that the would rule this way.

[whiskychaser]

I understood some states banned you from carrying a handgun full stop. I assume your constitution takes precedence. So does this mean they will now have to change the 'local' laws so everybody can carry one? Plse excuse my ignorance as an outsider and my question if it is not appropriate to this forum

[ryan roopnarine]

"Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales."


this doesn't affect anyone's ability to carry around guns, on its face. in this instance, the city of washington, D.C. has had a defacto gun ban for about 25 years--IE you could have one in your home only if you had it in the city before the ban went into effect, and it had to be disassembled. the city manager has had prepared gun registration provisions for a few months in the event that this had happened. likely, they will require registration of firearms, not require disassebly, and prescribe some limit to the number of guns in a household (likely 1).

what i figure will happen now, since this a rather significant affirmation of the 2nd amendment, that people in other localities will begin to attempt to chip away at restrictions against actually carrying firearms, bans in other cities (nyc, cook county, ill, honolulu) using litigation.

[yaofeng]

The 2nd amendment needs no affirmation. It is there. But carrying and possession are two different issues. I for one do not want to see restrictions against carrying firearms lifted and I don't think it will be. I can't imagine walking around the street as if living in a western movie and I will not accept it.

[ryan roopnarine]

f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes....

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary
military equipment" could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful
purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second

[yaofeng]

Are you a lawyer? Sorry my literacy is not sufficient to comprehend court documents.

[Tiger]

Damn Ryan, what kind of gun is that? Hey, you live in FL... as long as the gun is not in plain view, you got nothing to worry about as long you have the concealed gun permit. Did you know that the concealed gun permit also allows you to cary them in other states (even though those states does not have such permit)?

Of course, that doesn't allow you to carry one into court, bank and other restricted sites.

[ryan roopnarine]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

right from the horse's mouth. i'm thinking that the site is being hammered, as i can't open it. it is 130 pages plus, I stopped reading it around 20-30 or so. the miller bit comes from being interested the ramifications on miller, (so i searched for those) after i gave up reading it. i had prior knowledge about this because in may i was asked to "defend" something i was in opposition to (in this case, gun control) and became very familiar with heller and washington dc's gun laws. washington dc's gun ban was held in place by the gun control act of 1968 and the miller v. us findings from ~1934. even though it is wikiepedia, this is a good overview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


what is "miller"? miller is a supreme court finding from the 1930s. "miller" in this case was charged using laws related to short barreled shotguns and rifles. though miller died before the outcome, the supreme court found that since a short barreled shotgun was not an item that was traditionally yielded by militia (2nd amendment ) because it was disallowed by the hague conventions of 1896 or 8. therefore, miller, not having a militia implement, could be prosecuted by laws that didn't apply to regular firearms. furthermore, it establishes extraordinary rules could be applied to certain types of firearms without infringing upon one's 2d amendment rights. i hope i've explained that ok. the hk trigger group i posted after i heard antonin scalia's bit about miller--just brought about by a recollection. a friend's father (who served in vietnam in the mid/late 60s) told me about how some detroit residents would have their families send them semi-automatic ar15/m16 fire groups in the mail and they would send back the full auto units out of their military issue rifles. detroit was going through a great deal of turmoil and rioting at the time. federal laws are so nasty now that you wouldn't even dream of doing something like that if you could pull it off.

tiger, that part is the fire control group from an hk firearm family. it fits into any hk rifle or submachine gun that resembles a mp-5 (g3, mp5, hk93). i was going to build a g3 clone rifle out of parts because i would like to get accurate up to 500 or 600m, but found that those weapons, while well built, don't make it out as far as the fal. the smle and the sks i have won't do those distances. i could put that onto a rifle, but i would have to weld a little metal shelf into the receiver of the rifle that would prevent it from going full auto. so while it says it has the fun switch....all show and no go. the only two autoloading rifles i've found that supposedly do that distance are the fal and the m14/m1a rifles. i sure as hell can't afford the m14, and fal parts are plentiful enough that i can collect all of the parts piecemeal until i'm ready to weld, without fear that sources for them might dry up. i don't really carry anywhere, but am already familiar with florida's liberal carry laws.

[whiskychaser]

Are you a lawyer? Sorry my literacy is not sufficient to comprehend court documents.

Mine is. I can see the argument for somebody missing a comma in your 2nd amendment for a start :D Your laws seem to run something like this:
You can have a firearm. But:
You can/cant carry it around with you.
It does/doesnt have to be in plain view.
It does/doesnt have to be registered.
It may/may not need to be disassembled.
It may/may not be a machine gun (year of build 1939 only)
It may/may not be taken into states where they ban guns even if your doesnt
Perhaps it all depends if there is an 'r' in the month.
Thats clear enough for anybody. Isnt it?;)

[ryan roopnarine]

Mine is. I can see the argument for somebody missing a comma in your 2nd amendment for a start :D Your laws seem to run something like this:

Perhaps it all depends if there is an 'r' in the month.
Thats clear enough for anybody. Isnt it?;)

the comma-less version of that amendment appears all over the place on 1770s period correspondence and drafts. it isn't an intellectually honest place to start for gun control people. a better place would have been the psuedo-registration of militia implements (ie, private firearms that people said they would use if called up).

You can have a firearm. But:
You can/cant carry it around with you.
It does/doesnt have to be in plain view.
It does/doesnt have to be registered.
It may not need to be disassembled. (this ruling pretty much pre-empts this)
It may/may not be a machine gun (year of build 05/1986 or earlier, unless one is law enforcement or military buying the item for official business)
It may not be taken into states where they require registration for residents even if your doesnt. (IIRC, nyc will let you drive through if you stop for absolutely nothing whilst in the city)
Same prohibitions about things like hollow point bullets, metal cored rifle ammo, incin. ammo, "assault rifles", .50 cal rifles, (just because your state allows it doesn't mean others have to). i only found out about the hollow point bullet thing in NJ because they covered it in an episode of the sopranos. hopefully that clears things up a little.

[Tiger]

Ahh... so you like to make your own weapon... Interesting. I only know about some rifles as shown in Futureweapons... pretty cool stuff they show... Barnett 50 caliber with accuracy to 2500 feet... Solders said bigger bullet means farther and bigger punch.

[nirvana19]

The law has come to quite a shock for a lot of people I know who live or work in the District. The city feels relatively safe in Northwest which is where I spent most of my time, but crime has always been a problem in the city. There are armed robberies all the time even in Northwest, so its frightening to think that in principle everyone can now have a gun. To be fair, in reality this (hopefully) will mainly just put guns in the hands of homeowners so they can protect themselves and their families, but the thought of even more guns is just a bit scary.

[whiskychaser]

[QUOTE=ryan roopnarine;304564]the comma-less version of that amendment appears all over the place on 1770s period correspondence and drafts. it isn't an intellectually honest place to start for gun control people. a better place would have been the psuedo-registration of militia implements (ie, private firearms that people said they would use if called up).

I would like to think your definition 'private firearms that people said they would use if called up' sums up the spirit of the law when it was written. As an outsider it seems to me that this has been hijacked. I cant say that our laws always make sense but they are national. I dont know how your joe public copes.

[healtoeit]

D.C. has had a defacto gun ban for about 25 years--IE you could have one in your home only if you had it in the city before the ban went into effect, and it had to be disassembled.

How ironic that D.C. has the one of the highest handgun related deaths of any city in the world... It was rated no. 93 (D-) out of 100 in the mens health "where men are targets" article. The article was full of **** information, however it raised an ironic point.

Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns.

[healtoeit]

Damn Ryan, what kind of gun is that?


that is a lower of an AR-15 family...

[healtoeit]

As an outsider it seems to me that this has been hijacked.

I have to disagree (I am sorry if I miss read your statement).

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
-Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Silveira v. Lockyer from www.fff.org

[healtoeit]

But carrying and possession are two different issues.

Good, you got that right!


I can't imagine walking around the street as if living in a western movie and I will not accept it.
You need to do some searching. Concealed carry is what you need a permit for.However, in most states you need no permit or anything to open carry... how does that make you feel? unsafe? Believe it or not the worst killing machine is not a gun, its more akin to your e34... IT'S THE CAR.

Think about this too, the people who you do not want to have guns, usually the people wanting to acquire a concealed carry permit, must go through a course and show their know how with a firearm. Some of these courses are not good enough. However most teach very well and shutting down the good courses is just as messed up as allowing the shitty ones to remain open because they fly under the radar.

[Jehu]

The 2nd amendment needs no affirmation. It is there. But carrying and possession are two different issues. I for one do not want to see restrictions against carrying firearms lifted and I don't think it will be. I can't imagine walking around the street as if living in a western movie and I will not accept it.


You've swallowed the lie.

Its like that here where I live in NH. Everyone knows most people are probably carrying or able to put their hands on a loaded gun in a pinch and we have very low crime of any type here... and its this way whereever the honest citizen's God given right to posess the means to defend himself is protected.

[attack eagle]

They upheld that DCs ban on handguns was unconstitutional, and their requirement for other weapons to either be disassembled or have a trigger lock in them was also unconstitutional.
IN short, DC's law made no sense, since it was contrary to it;s stated goal of public safety. Preventing someone from self proctection from criminals by forcing them to lreassemble a weapon, or get a key and remove a trigger lock, and then reload it or simply forcing them to use a long gun instead of the more useful single handed shortbarreled pistol was detrimental to public safety.


I think that Scalia even said that nothing was more in the public safety than the ability to hold a handgun since it left the other hand free to call 911.

Personally I don't think that other than courthouses, jails, and federal buildings where there are (or should be) numerous armed law enforcement officers immediately at hand, that people should be banned from carrying weapons.
Especially Schools. People are sitting ducks in schools. One nutjob (or two in columbine) can take out defenseless people who are confined in rooms with a single exit like fish in a barrel. Unless they are going to station an armed policeman on every floor of every building at a school, the armed guards and mini police forces are are relatively useless for protection... but the ability to carry weapons would ensure that any nut job knew that somewhere in that crowd of students, statistically there is someone that can fire back.


In Thursday's ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." He added, however, that nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."


Interesting fact. Black powder weapons are not considered 'firearms' or weapons under texas law... so it IS legal to cary a loaded cap n ball 45 on campus... :) Just have to make sure you fire it off with in a couple of days of loading.

[whiskychaser]

I have to disagree (I am sorry if I miss read your statement).

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. ... [/U]"
-Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Silveira v. Lockyer from www.fff.org

I read Silveira v. Lockyer on the link provided but couldnt find this statement. But having read it, I can see the second amendment was written to ensure individual states retained the right to arm their own militia. If they left it to central government it probably wouldnt happen. So you would be left with a standing army controlled by central government. Well you just had a revolution to get rid of one standing army-the english-you didnt want another one in its place. I dont see how this case could be used to support an argument for an individual having guns as it says the reverse. But it did provide a fascinating insight. Many thanks

[yaofeng]

You've swallowed the lie.

Its like that here where I live in NH. Everyone knows most people are probably carrying or able to put their hands on a loaded gun in a pinch and we have very low crime of any type here... and its this way whereever the honest citizen's God given right to posess the means to defend himself is protected.

I am glad I live in New Jersey and not New Hampshire. And you cannot convince me being able to carry weapon openly or concealed helps to lower the crime rate. Having the right to possess firearms, perhaps.

[yaofeng]

Good, you got that right!

You need to do some searching. Concealed carry is what you need a permit for.However, in most states you need no permit or anything to open carry... how does that make you feel? unsafe? Believe it or not the worst killing machine is not a gun, its more akin to your e34... IT'S THE CAR.

Think about this too, the people who you do not want to have guns, usually the people wanting to acquire a concealed carry permit, must go through a course and show their know how with a firearm. Some of these courses are not good enough. However most teach very well and shutting down the good courses is just as messed up as allowing the shitty ones to remain open because they fly under the radar.

Perhaps I am blind? Tell me where in America do you see people walking around with a hand gun in a holster strapped on the waist? Rifles openly displayed in pickups do not count. If you can name the cities, I will make sure I do not go visit.

[ryan roopnarine]

Perhaps I am blind? Tell me where in America do you see people walking around with a hand gun in a holster strapped on the waist? Rifles openly displayed in pickups do not count. If you can name the cities, I will make sure I do not go visit.


open carry is permitted in the entire state of arizona, virginia, vermont, (IIRC) new hampshire, alaska, off of the top of my head. most of the 50 states have concealed weapons permits, it is just a matter of political connectivity that permits some rather than others to get permits in certain states. I could not get a ccw applicable to nyc, nor could most jewellers, but robert deniro has one.

[ryan roopnarine]

I read Silveira v. Lockyer on the link provided but couldnt find this statement. But having read it, I can see the second amendment was written to ensure individual states retained the right to arm their own militia. If they left it to central government it probably wouldnt happen. So you would be left with a standing army controlled by central government. Well you just had a revolution to get rid of one standing army-the english-you didnt want another one in its place. I dont see how this case could be used to support an argument for an individual having guns as it says the reverse. But it did provide a fascinating insight. Many thanks

i'm not trying to be rude, but i think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that the second amendment to the bill of rights was created to reserve a right to the states. the people that founded the united states were wary of having a standing army, feeling that if one did have a standing army that had time on its hands, well, someone would find a use for it. it was not for about 40-50 years after the revolution that the united states had an actual proper navy, much of that work was assigned to privateers. much like much of the actual military work was assigned to individuals who ultimately fielded privately owned weapons.

furthermore, silviera is a united states court of appeal decision. the magic of the supreme court, as of yesterday, stands in direct opposition of that finding (ie, anything said there is probably irrelevant today). one can hem and haw all they want, but the truth of the matter for most adults is that this supreme court decision will remain in place for most of the remainder of their lives, if it isn't expanded upon in the future. conservatives have had 30+ years to overturn roe v. wade, but that hasn't happened yet, and its not going to happen anytime soon.

[yaofeng]

open carry is permitted in the entire state of arizona, virginia, vermont, (IIRC) new hampshire, alaska, off of the top of my head. most of the 50 states have concealed weapons permits, it is just a matter of political connectivity that permits some rather than others to get permits in certain states. I could not get a ccw applicable to nyc, nor could most jewellers, but robert deniro has one.


I do not doubt there are many States which allow open carry. But my question was not answered. Where in America do you see people walking on the street like in a western movie? What is the point of strapping a hand gun on your waist milling about on the street? Are we in a state of siege?

[ryan roopnarine]

i don't work for afp/reuters/&c. so i can't provide you with a picture on demand. if you were to visit any state where it is cheaper and less of a hassle to open carry instead of carrying concealed you'd eventually see someone in plain clothes with a gun on their hip. most people that carry don't want to scare or disturb people like yourself, so they pay the extra money and do the song and dance to obtain the concealed permit. however, some people, where they are permitted by law to do otherwise, don't feel obligated to conceal, and don't feel obligated to spend the money.

[yaofeng]

I am sorry. I still do not get it. I am not debating the right to carry firearms, open or concealed. Our constitution provides the stipulations and the laws provide the fine points. That is fine. I just fail to see the point of everyday people leaving his house in the morning carrying a hand gun, whether it is open or concealed. For what purpose? Self-defense? Against whom? And I don't know anyone who does that. At least no one I have association with do that. I can also tell you I will not live in such a community with such siege mentality.

I do have a smart phone strapped on my waist when I leave the house. I think it is far more useful than a hand gun.

[Guapo]

I do have a smart phone strapped on my waist when I leave the house. I think it is far more useful than a hand gun.

LOL, yes I would image you could beat your assailant over the head with your smart phone.

[ryan roopnarine]

if they are carrying concealed, you wouldn't know unless they wanted you to. estimate that 25-40% of the people that deliver your food there in new jersey have handguns on them, even though it may be illegal. i find that number, on average, is about the same everywhere, even here in florida with liberalised carry laws, even with employers that expressly forbid such, as most business owners won't care enough to pony up the money for a facial reconstruction after someone has been shot in the face.

why would you possibly mention that you carry your phone on your belt as an analogue to a gun? carrying things on belts is generally the oeuvre of law enforcement, no?


I am sorry. I still do not get it. I am not debating the right to carry firearms, open or concealed. Our constitution provides the stipulations and the laws provide the fine points. That is fine. I just fail to see the point of everyday people leaving his house in the morning carrying a hand gun, whether it is open or concealed. For what purpose? Self-defense? Against whom? And I don't know anyone who does that. At least no one I have association with do that. I can also tell you I will not live in such a community with such siege mentality.

I do have a smart phone strapped on my waist when I leave the house. I think it is far more useful than a hand gun.

[yaofeng]

if they are carrying concealed, you wouldn't know unless they wanted you to. estimate that 25-40% of the people that deliver your food there in new jersey have handguns on them, even though it may be illegal. i find that number, on average, is about the same everywhere, even here in florida with liberalised carry laws, even with employers that expressly forbid such, as most business owners won't care enough to pony up the money for a facial reconstruction after someone has been shot in the face.

why would you possibly mention that you carry your phone on your belt as an analogue to a gun? carrying things on belts is generally the oeuvre of law enforcement, no?


I will not buy 25% to 40% of the pizza delivey guys in my neighborhood have concealed weapons. You cannot prove it to me nor can I do otherwise. I mention the cell phone to illurstrate the uselessness of carrying a hand gun day in and day out without ever having to use it. That's all. Don't you get tired of it if it were you? Or are you going to say you scored another kill in a face off sometimes this week?

[ryan roopnarine]

i can't prove it to you, that's true.

i live in florida.
food establishment #1 i worked in: 4/16 drivers (that admitted it), plus 2/12 inside people. 25% of drivers. likely one disposable of questionable origin in there, but i won't count that.

food establishment #2: 4/10 drivers, 0 insiders that i know of. 40%.

in nj, concealed carry is basically limited to retired law enforcement. so 100% of concealed carry otherwise is illegal. I can't prove to you that your delivery guy has a gun, but the very fact that any carry he engages in is going to be illegal, even if they are perfectly law abiding otherwise, is going to make him less than likely to openly admit to doing it. you needn't actually shoot someone with a gun to make them disengage, and that is what the pizza person with the illegal carry piece is hoping for (and is usually the case). as to whether or not someone would intentionally put up with that crap for more than a week? some people don't know better, they don't know that they can work in an upscale neighborhood and make better tips, and be at less danger. the shiattiest pizza companies depend on people that they hire not knowing the market value of a run in other areas, and having them stick around for a month or two because they don't know better. no one would be willing to clean septic tanks or work in a prison if there were a finite, demonstrable amount of shiat that one could take before they gave up.

[whiskychaser]

i'm not trying to be rude, but i think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that the second amendment to the bill of rights was created to reserve a right to the states. .

furthermore, silviera is a united states court of appeal decision. the magic of the supreme court, as of yesterday, stands in direct opposition of that finding .

I dont think you were being rude at all. I read all of the silviera case out of interest and I dont think I misrepresented its conclusions. Having read it, I am suprised your supreme court ruled the complete opposite. But they did rule that way and I would be equally interested to read why. Perhaps when the dust has settled you could point me in the right direction?

[ryan roopnarine]

i didn't believe this, so i just googled around to make sure.

http://www.mountlaurelpd.org/mlpdhist.htm

do a document "find" for the phrase "escort".

in new jersey, most of the security guards are unarmed because of the strict licensing requirements for firearms possession/ownership/implementation. the armored cars are also unarmed. in new jersey, if you an assurance that your deposit will get to the bank ok, you need to pay the local police department $25 per escort (manpower allowing, of course) to go with the car to the bank. the state actually has a monetary interest in having people be: 1) unarmed and 2) in danger.

[ryan roopnarine]

I dont think you were being rude at all. I read all of the silviera case out of interest and I dont think I misrepresented its conclusions. Having read it, I am suprised your supreme court ruled the complete opposite. But they did rule that way and I would be equally interested to read why. Perhaps when the dust has settled you could point me in the right direction?


i'll try to be as "nice" about my comments as possible, esp. towards the people that live in the 9th circuit. the 9th circuit (the appeals court from which silviera is originated) is considered by many to be a particularly "liberal" court, because of its proximity to california. I don't believe this to be necessarily the case. I think that the court being "liberal" is the result of the 9th being one of the busiest circuits in the country (california has a lot of people), the likelihood that, because the way california goes is often the way that the rest of the country goes, that they are willing to "indulge" in legislation that is new or novel because that is ultimately what they deal with or are presented with most of the time. california has a rather stringent set of gun laws that are separate from federal regulations with respect to "assault rifles", as well as other weapons, and they have a vested interest in maintaining those rules. though this is only anecdotal, Barrett firearms, a company that makes the most popular autoloading .50 caliber rifle in america (and one of the most popular on earth) has stopped selling any .50 caliber parts, doing any repairs, or selling any .50 caliber accoutrements to anyone in california, including law enforcement. the rationale is that law enforcement is ultimately composed of civillians, and that one class of civillians should not be more equal than others. yes, there are other brands of .50 cal rifle, but it hurts them terribly not to be able to train on the barrett platform, because of its ubiquity. barrett has started to develop calibers like .4x and such to get around the loophole, and to provide civillians with barrett firearms. i personally believe that law enforcement shouldn't even be flirting with the idea of .50 cal anything, but that's the way things have gone in the US since the damned North Hollywood Bank of America shootout in 1997.


i think that the events of yesterday boil down to: was there really a good reason to utterly ban handguns in dc? no.

did gun control groups recognise the totality of what may have happened when this matter got to the supreme court? yes, and the strongly suggested that DC pre-emptively rewrite their gun laws as to prevent a constitutional issue if the ban failed. DC did not.

is the idea that the 2nd was written to preserve the rights of states to form militias a significant argument? yes. the 9th found that it was compelling enough to rule the way it did.

did the supreme court feel the same way? no. they threw it out within the first 30 minutes of discussion back in may or so. they ceded that the idea that people were armed to form militias, and not formed into militias to be armed relatively quickly. as much as one may like to dislike an individual justice, the individuals appointed to the supreme court have all been to ivy league law schools, are not unintelligent, and likely seen an astronomical amount more historical data, precedent, et cetera, than would ever be presented in an appeals court, especially for such a contentious issue. furthermore, the USC stipulates that any male between 18-46 is considered part of the militia, and you'd have to find a way to either change that assertion, or work around it in some way.

[Jehu]

I am glad I live in New Jersey and not New Hampshire. And you cannot convince me being able to carry weapon openly or concealed helps to lower the crime rate. Having the right to possess firearms, perhaps.


We are more well mannered up here for sure so I can see your fear in that the thug to honest citizen ratio is very high in NJ but its always been like this up here so that thug mentality has simply never been able to take hold. I do believe there is a statistical corelation between the Liberty to Carry a Concealed Firearm and Low Violent Crime. its not merely NRA propaganda.

[yaofeng]

We are more well mannered up here for sure so I can see your fear in that the thug to honest citizen ratio is very high in NJ but its always been like this up here so that thug mentality has simply never been able to take hold. I do believe there is a statistical corelation between the Liberty to Carry a Concealed Firearm and Low Violent Crime. its not merely NRA propaganda.

You believe what you want as I do mine. You cannot prove to me the New Hampshire folks are more well mannered than the people down here. Nor can you back up the thug to honest citizen ratio you asserted outside of your home State. Where you perceive fear in people who live elsewhere we are completely at ease within our environ and ourselves. Perhaps the fear is the other way around?

[attack eagle]

I am glad I live in New Jersey and not New Hampshire. And you cannot convince me being able to carry weapon openly or concealed helps to lower the crime rate. Having the right to possess firearms, perhaps.
what good is POSSESSING a firearm, if you can't use it?

you mentioned a cell phone on your belt.

one: you need a signal and a charged battery to make a call to 911.
2: You also need time and MY permission (if I'm holding a gun) to do so.

If I have a gun on you, you really think you can pullout your phone and call 911 without penalty? Or that I won't immediately take your cell phone in a robbery?

You apparently think, according to TV, that even a call and hangup to 911 will help? It won't. Last time that happened I didn't get a call back for 5 minutes.

When my son dialed 911 and hung up, the cops didn't show up for over an HOUR. And that was at home... if you aren't at home they are not going to find you for a lot longer than that.


just looked at where you live... NJ. makes sense.
Always shifting responsibility for your own safety to someone else... can;t pump your own gas because it is too dangerous for individuals, can;t protect yourselves becasue it is too dangerous, so you have to call the cops and wait around for them to save you...


Here. how about to prevent brain cancer, we ban you from carrying your cell phone outside your home. You can still have it at home, and transport it disassembled to a calling area where you cna use it and disassemble it. Oh and you have to transport it in a locked box, with the battery in a separate box.

You have the right to possess it but not carry it because it is unsafe.

Now what will you do in an emergency??? Say you roll over and are trapped in a rollover car somewhere off the beaten track... Can you get to the trunk and get the cell phone, reassemble it, and then unlock the box containing the battery so you can use it (while violating the law and knowing you will go to prison for having the cell phone?)
It is the same way with carrying firearms and for the same reason.

[yaofeng]

what good is POSSESSING a firearm, if you can't use it?

you mentioned a cell phone on your belt.

one: you need a signal and a charged battery to make a call to 911.
2: You also need time and MY permission (if I'm holding a gun) to do so.

If I have a gun on you, you really think you can pullout your phone and call 911 without penalty? Or that I won't immediately take your cell phone in a robbery?

You apparently think, according to TV, that even a call and hangup to 911 will help? It won't. Last time that happened I didn't get a call back for 5 minutes.

When my son dialed 911 and hung up, the cops didn't show up for over an HOUR. And that was at home... if you aren't at home they are not going to find you for a lot longer than that.


just looked at where you live... NJ. makes sense.
Always shifting responsibility for your own safety to someone else... can;t pump your own gas because it is too dangerous for individuals, can;t protect yourselves becasue it is too dangerous, so you have to call the cops and wait around for them to save you...


Here. how about to prevent brain cancer, we ban you from carrying your cell phone outside your home. You can still have it at home, and transport it disassembled to a calling area where you cna use it and disassemble it. Oh and you have to transport it in a locked box, with the battery in a separate box.

You have the right to possess it but not carry it because it is unsafe.

Now what will you do in an emergency??? Say you roll over and are trapped in a rollover car somewhere off the beaten track... Can you get to the trunk and get the cell phone, reassemble it, and then unlock the box containing the battery so you can use it (while violating the law and knowing you will go to prison for having the cell phone?)
It is the same way with carrying firearms and for the same reason.

Exactly! What good is carrying a hand gun if you never have to use it?

You miss my point on the cell phone. I don't need it to call 911. I have a million other better things to do than calling 911.

I am completely comfortable on having the right to possess firarms but making it a BIG hurdle to carry. But whether there is a big hurdle or no hurdle is not the point. Why do you want to carry something with you day in and day out when you do not use it at all?

If we were to start on a clean slate. I am completely comfortable with a total ban on hand guns and assault weapons with stipulations of making the hurdle of possession any type of firearms very high. But I am practical enough to know we will never go back to that state. Plus our founding fathers have provided an outlet for citizens against a potential tyranical government. That's good. Personally I do not own firearms of any type. And I do not intend to. But I also recognize one of the many factors contributing to the safety of my neighborhod is the fact the so called bad guys do not know if I own firearms in my household so it acts as a deterrent.

My arguement is on the practical side. 1) Why do you have something with you when you never have to use it? 2) If and when my community becomes a scene like a western movie, it is time for me to move out. I refuse to live in a place where there is a state of siege. Openly carrying weapons may not be indicative of a state of siege to you. It is to me.

[yaofeng]

LOL, yes I would image you could beat your assailant over the head with your smart phone.

I hadn't thought about that. But thank you for reminding me.

[attack eagle]

And I am completely comfortable with absolutely no restrictions on firearms at all, except felons convicted of a violent offense, and mentally retarded/unstable individuals.

1) Why do you have something with you when you never have to use it?

Lemme ask you something... do you carry your driver's license with you everyday? you don't really need it to drive (the car still starts steers and stops). You don't even need it when you are NOT driving a car motor vehicle, even if stopped by police, but I bet you carry it anyway.

Or do you carry it JUST IN CASE you get pulled over or go thru a checkpoint one day?

I've gone thru an entire license period without once needing to show it. but i didn't stop carrying it.

Do you have a spare tire in your car? why? how about a jack or lug wrench?
why carry something around that you never need to use?

I'll say this, i know in my case that more friends were robbed and mugged in a place that did not allow private citizens to carry firearms, than in those that did.

I've been the victim of more attempted muggings (5) than I have had flat tires while driving (0)... but I still carry a spare with me.
I am not a CCL owner... I just carry a knife most of the time. I don't even own a cartridge style pistol, just black powder thus no need for one.


the whole concept behind ccl is to not alarm folks like you who equate guns with shootings and killings and bloodshed. even the wild west was never the wild west.

And a gun was just a tool, no different or threatening than a cell phone or a pair of keys or a multitool.

[yaofeng]

And I am completely comfortable with absolutely no restrictions on firearms at all, except felons convicted of a violent offense, and mentally retarded/unstable individuals.

1) Why do you have something with you when you never have to use it?

Lemme ask you something... do you carry your driver's license with you everyday? you don't really need it to drive (the car still starts steers and stops). You don't even need it when you are NOT driving a car motor vehicle, even if stopped by police, but I bet you carry it anyway.



I carry my drivers' license because it is mandated by law when I drive.

[Guapo]

Exactly! What good is carrying a hand gun if you never have to use it? ... I am completely comfortable on having the right to possess firarms but making it a BIG hurdle to carry. But whether there is a big hurdle or no hurdle is not the point. Why do you want to carry something with you day in and day out when you do not use it at all?

Do you have insurance?



If we were to start on a clean slate. I am completely comfortable with a total ban on hand guns and assault weapons with stipulations of making the hurdle of possession any type of firearms very high.

Why? Because you're afraid of them? Because you think that will keep them out of the hands of criminals? Criminals are the ones breaking the laws, so what makes you think they'd obey gun control laws?


Personally I do not own firearms of any type. And I do not intend to. But I also recognize one of the many factors contributing to the safety of my neighborhod is the fact the so called bad guys do not know if I own firearms in my household so it acts as a deterrent.

Yet you want to make it next to impossible to leagally own firearms. Guess what? If the criminals know the law abiding citizens don't have guns, there is no deterrent. See how that works?


My arguement is on the practical side. 1) Why do you have something with you when you never have to use it?

Again, do you have insurance?


2) If and when my community becomes a scene like a western movie, it is time for me to move out. I refuse to live in a place where there is a state of siege. Openly carrying weapons may not be indicative of a state of siege to you. It is to me.

You are overblowing things by referring to a "western movie". I am willing to bet that in places where concealed carry is legal, more people are armed than you would ever believe. There is a reason it is called "concealed". It isn't about bravado. A place where concealed carry is legal is somewhere I see as extremely safe for me and my family, as the people to be afraid of (criminals) would think hard about plying their trade there, since they don't know if the guy (or gal) they hit will shoot them in the face. Better to go somewhere the local government has conveniently taken away the defenses for them.

Do I own firearms? Yes. Why? Because if someone breaks into my home, I want to be able to defend my family with more than saying "pretty please" to the criminal. Do I think that it will ever happen? No, and I pray it doesn't. One's right to posess a firearm isn't about convenience. It's about the RIGHT to defend one's self if one feels the need to do so. Why do so many women carry mace or pepper spray? Same reason, different tools. Denying that right of self preservation goes against what the first amendment is all about, and I am thankful that the SCOTUS overturned the DC ban.

[yaofeng]

Do you have insurance?



Why? Because you're afraid of them? Because you think that will keep them out of the hands of criminals? Criminals are the ones breaking the laws, so what makes you think they'd obey gun control laws?



Yet you want to make it next to impossible to leagally own firearms. Guess what? If the criminals know the law abiding citizens don't have guns, there is no deterrent. See how that works?



Again, do you have insurance?



You are overblowing things by referring to a "western movie". I am willing to bet that in places where concealed carry is legal, more people are armed than you would ever believe. There is a reason it is called "concealed". It isn't about bravado. A place where concealed carry is legal is somewhere I see as extremely safe for me and my family, as the people to be afraid of (criminals) would think hard about plying their trade there, since they don't know if the guy (or gal) they hit will shoot them in the face. Better to go somewhere the local government has conveniently taken away the defenses for them.

Do I own firearms? Yes. Why? Because if someone breaks into my home, I want to be able to defend my family with more than saying "pretty please" to the criminal. Do I think that it will ever happen? No, and I pray it doesn't. One's right to posess a firearm isn't about convenience. It's about the RIGHT to defend one's self if one feels the need to do so. Why do so many women carry mace or pepper spray? Same reason, different tools. Denying that right of self preservation goes against what the first amendment is all about, and I am thankful that the SCOTUS overturned the DC ban.

I have no beef against your right or anyone else's right to possess firearms. It is in the constitution. You can choose to carry a weapon too, open or concealed doesn't matter. I have no qualms with that, whether you are breaking the law or not is beside the point. Now be honest with me and everyone else. How many time out of 365 days in a year do you need to use the weapon you carry. Do you not get tired of it carrying something you never use? Do you not prefer to have a cell phone which is of much more use to you than a handgun?

If your answer is you need a weapon to protect yourself against the crooks. I am sorry. You live in the wrong neighborhood. You should move to one where you do not need a weapon to protect yourself. That is all I am saying.

I say again. I have no problem with anyone having firearms in his own house. It is his right. But there is something wrong if people need to carry a weapon in his pocket all the time (even though it may still be his right) to maintain civility or order. It is not a community I want to live and raise my children. Where I live I do not need handguns to maintain civility among people.

[Guapo]

If your answer is you need a weapon to protect yourself against the crooks. I am sorry. You live in the wrong neighborhood. You should move to one where you do not need a weapon to protect yourself. That is all I am saying.

But there is something wrong if people need to carry a weapon in his pocket all the time (even though it may still be his right) to maintain civility or order. It is not a community I want to live and raise my children.

Crime and assault can happen anywhere. You are naive if you think otherwise. If wishes were fishes, there would be no bad men. Do you think it is wrong for a woman to carry pepper spray on her key chain? In your little utopia, how would you feel if your wife got abducted from the grocery store parking lot and she had no way to defend herself because you didn't think it necessary to carry a weapon? If you don't think it can happen anywhere, think again.

This occurred in one of the most affluent parts of Dallas:
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/16315998/detail.html



Where I live I do not need handguns to maintain civility among people.

It isn't about civility among people. It is about defending yourself against the small percentage of a low-life who may wish to do you or your loved ones harm. All it takes is once.

BTW, I do carry a cel phone. I use it to talk on occasion, but I think is silly to carry around a phone all day that can do my taxes.

[attack eagle]

I have no beef against your right or anyone else's right to possess firearms. It is in the constitution. You can choose to carry a weapon too, open or concealed doesn't matter. I have no qualms with that, whether you are breaking the law or not is beside the point. Now be honest with me and everyone else. How many time out of 365 days in a year do you need to use the weapon you carry. Do you not get tired of it carrying something you never use? Do you not prefer to have a cell phone which is of much more use to you than a handgun?

If your answer is you need a weapon to protect yourself against the crooks. I am sorry. You live in the wrong neighborhood. You should move to one where you do not need a weapon to protect yourself. That is all I am saying.

I say again. I have no problem with anyone having firearms in his own house. It is his right. But there is something wrong if people need to carry a weapon in his pocket all the time (even though it may still be his right) to maintain civility or order. It is not a community I want to live and raise my children. Where I live I do not need handguns to maintain civility among people.

You equate civility to safety. Civility results from UNSAFETY. you really should read some heinlein.
A cell phone is USELESS if you are the victim of a crime. You, as you yourself have stated, are only safe because OTHERS might be carrying. Yet you would deny them that right. The day they ban handguns is the day I carry a shotgun...


How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your spare tire?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your AAA?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your auto insurance?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your health insurance?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your home insurance?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your flood insurance?

How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your LIFE insurance?


So why have any of them??? You could sae a lot of money after all.
Answer my question honestly and I think you will answer your own...


My father has only needed to use his weapon ONCE... and he didn't even need to fire it or show it. All the guy needed to hear was the action cycling and he went back out of the house... fast. Now this guy was half way down the hall way, headed straight for the master bedroom... not looting the living room or dining room or bathroom or trying to get the guns from the den... And he knew we were all at home...

So you tell me... what good did a phone do when the police took 20+ minutes to arrive?

What good is a phone except to report a crime HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED? Phones do not STOP criminals. It is not the job of the police to prevent or stop crime, nor to protect you personally. That is (under our governmental system) your duty.

[yaofeng]

But you father was not carrying his weapon 24/7 365 days out of the year. Or did he? What about you? Do you sleep with your Saturday night special or your gluck?

And you are still missing my point of the cell phone.

[Guapo]

Just for you yaofeng. Display it proudly in front of your house -

http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/images/gunfree.gif

;)

[Jehu]

Just for you yaofeng. Display it proudly in front of your house -

http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/images/gunfree.gif

;)

Chilling http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

http://home.comcast.net/~cpkver8/images/gunfree.gif

[attack eagle]

But you father was not carrying his weapon 24/7 365 days out of the year. Or did he? What about you? Do you sleep with your Saturday night special or your gluck?

And you are still missing my point of the cell phone.

then what is the point of your cell phone for personal protection?

I might or might not keep a loaded weapon readily at hand. I would not suggest breaking in to find out.
Texas castle law: any intruder may be shot and killed on sight, with out requiring a verbal warning or backing away or other disengagement by the homeowner.

you have not answered my questions

How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your spare tire?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your AAA?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your auto insurance?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your health insurance?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your home insurance?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your flood insurance?

How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your LIFE insurance?

[yaofeng]

then what is the point of your cell phone for personal protection?

I might or might not keep a loaded weapon readily at hand. I would not suggest breaking in to find out.
Texas castle law: any intruder may be shot and killed on sight, with out requiring a verbal warning or backing away or other disengagement by the homeowner.

you have not answered my questions

How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your spare tire?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your AAA?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your auto insurance?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your health insurance?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your home insurance?
How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your flood insurance?

How many times out of 365 days a year do you use your LIFE insurance?

It is like arguing with a five year old. Is that how old you are? How many times do I have to tell you the cell phone example I cited is not for self protection? If you have not read from my post that I am not against gun control you have a reading comprehension problem. Okay. Let me say this, "I am not against gun control". Do you now understand my position?

Your father has a gun in the house. That's fine. Actually, it is people like him who contributed to safety in the neighborhood.

What I am opposed is people carrying weapons on them going about their daily lives. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

[Guapo]

What I am opposed is people carrying weapons on them going about their daily lives. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

So you wouldn't allow your wife to carry pepper spray or mace then, eh? I honestly hope that you and your family never fall prey to anyone who wishes to do you harm. You are woefully unprepared to defend them. :-/

[attack eagle]

nope. you can not be 'not against gun control' and against people carrying a gun while 'going about their daily lives'.


You asked a question, why carry something you never use, and I explained that it was like a spare tire or insurance (or a survival kit in your car in bad weather). it is a tool, NO different than a screwdriver, a knife, a lug wrench, a baseball bat, a pick, or anything else that can be used to defend yourself, or serve a peaceful purpose.

A gun is to interpersonal conflict relations as Nukes and a strong military are to international relations. M.A.D. when on equal footing = peace. A strong military meets a strong military = peace.
A weak country or a weak person meets a strong one, and they rely on grace... or they choose to become equal... or the get swallowed up. They don't petition the strong to disarm so everyone is equally weak... and any ONE person/country could then take over everyone. that is foolishness, and against human nature.

Second, if as you say 'no one ever uses it' then why are you opposed to people carrying them 24/7?


Third, unless you are a crook or a dictator, why would you fear citizens being able to carry weapons?
Most of them are better marksmen than those who are on your police force, better trained, and are the people who will defend your cowardly ass if it were ever to need it away from your home.

Sounds to me like you are just a coward, and you want to disarm everyone because you are fearful of their non-cowardice. Kind of like Switzerland.


Besides... unless you get smacked across the temple or in the throat with it... guns don't kill people...

That is like saying speed kills...

[yaofeng]

Suffice to say you carry a weapon 24/7 and I do not and I never will. I will instead choose the community to live where I do not have to carry a weapon 24/7. You and I both do not oppose people owning a gun. We agree to disagree.

[attack eagle]

I do not live in a community where i have to carry a gun either... this isn't Juarez, New York, or DC (good exemplars on a disarmed populace relying on police for 'protection').
Nor did i say whether I do or do not. You assume I do, and if the bad guys do too then I have achieved my goal of deterrence. That is what the ability to carry firearms is about... deterrence.

I just hope you have other forms of insurance, since you don't believe in your responsibility and duty as a citizen to protect yourself and your fellow man. :D

[Dave M]

I do not live in a community where i have to carry a gun either... this isn't Juarez, New York, or DC (good exemplars on a disarmed populace relying on police for 'protection').
Nor did i say whether I do or do not. You assume I do, and if the bad guys do too then I have achieved my goal of deterrence. That is what the ability to carry firearms is about... deterrence.

I just hope you have other forms of insurance, since you don't believe in your responsibility and duty as a citizen to protect yourself and your fellow man. :D


I've read a few threads of a similar narure on this forum and have noticed that US and Canadian members generally find themselves at odds on the matter of firearms.

To myself, its simple (and I have US family andhave spent much time living in the US). There IS a definite difference. I have never, ever been exposed to firemarms in an aggresive nature, except for the time spent in US cities (SC and TX). It blew my mind (pardon the pun) that folks could use a gun to express themselves.

I own a hunting rifle (in Canada) and have never considered it as way to protect myself. It is a way to fill my freezer (which it does) and isn't assembled untill October. Its a beautiful thing.

Its gotta be stressfull, to some........and I'm extremely glad to live where where I do,

Dave

[yaofeng]

Everything you and I as well as everyone else go through our daily lives involve risk assessment. You mentioned insurance. Do you buy flood insurance for your house? If when you purchased your house it has been determined the property is not in a flood zone do you still buy flood insurance? I would not. But according to your logic you would. Why? Just in case as you said. Do you buy earthquake insurance? The same logic applies. Do you take polio immunization? What about immunization against yellow fever? If not. Why not? Are you not afraid you may get the desease? You do not need immunization against yellow fever or polio in the US because the government has determined the risk of citizens who live in the US to get the deseases is so low we do not need it. Are there documented case of yellow fever in the US? Who is to say there is not? But there is nothing to stop you to get the immunization and all kinds of other shots for insurance. Do you trust our government on this particular matter? Based on your logic you probably do not I suspect.

The reason I am not carrying a weapon with me 24/7 also involves risk assessment. I do not do it by choosing to live in a community where no one need to carry the weapon for self defense rather than to live in one where I may need it. I have evaluated the risks the same manner you made your decision buying different types of insurance or deciding which type of immunization to get. Does it mean I am completely safe from a criminal who may kill me on the street? Of course not. But I am satisfied the risk of me being shot by random gun fires is not any higher than you getting the yellow fever without immunization.

So you do not carry a weapen 24/7 after all. I advise you to not come to New Jersey then. If you still want to come you need to conceal the weapon and face the risk of being caught by law enforcement. Because the deterrence is not there.

[attack eagle]

I have immunizations for malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and several other tropical diseases. (that cholera immunization made me hallucinate and I was sick as a dog within 2 hours!!!

I am also immune to TB due to exposure, same as having a vaccine. It freaks doctors out when you test positive to TB here in the US just because you have antibodies. :) Hooray for school drinking water!


Around here, or back home in MS (or AL FL LA TX Nm or AZ) or in Costa Rica or Argentina, I don't need it, even in the ghetto... but up in the northeast? you bet I'd be packing 24/7.

That is why I do not go to Mexico, they do not permit you to have a firearm. Therefore I do not cross the border anymore since I felt completely unsafe there between the crooked cops, drug dealers, and bandidos and unarmed populace...

Same way I feel when I am in yankee-land / DC after dark.


Oh and I do have wind insurance and flood insurance... :) costs almost nothing & pays off when you have storm damage.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_9721348
this happens everywhere... :)

[BobHarris]

nope. you can not be 'not against gun control' and against people carrying a gun while 'going about their daily lives'.


You asked a question, why carry something you never use, and I explained that it was like a spare tire or insurance (or a survival kit in your car in bad weather). it is a tool, NO different than a screwdriver, a knife, a lug wrench, a baseball bat, a pick, or anything else that can be used to defend yourself, or serve a peaceful purpose.

A gun is to interpersonal conflict relations as Nukes and a strong military are to international relations. M.A.D. when on equal footing = peace. A strong military meets a strong military = peace.
A weak country or a weak person meets a strong one, and they rely on grace... or they choose to become equal... or the get swallowed up. They don't petition the strong to disarm so everyone is equally weak... and any ONE person/country could then take over everyone. that is foolishness, and against human nature.

Second, if as you say 'no one ever uses it' then why are you opposed to people carrying them 24/7?


Third, unless you are a crook or a dictator, why would you fear citizens being able to carry weapons?
Most of them are better marksmen than those who are on your police force, better trained, and are the people who will defend your cowardly ass if it were ever to need it away from your home.

Sounds to me like you are just a coward, and you want to disarm everyone because you are fearful of their non-cowardice. Kind of like Switzerland.


Besides... unless you get smacked across the temple or in the throat with it... guns don't kill people...

That is like saying speed kills...

I'm with you all the way on gun control.

Using Switzerland is a bad example though. Every man between the ages of 18 and 65 is issued with a gun and trained how to use it, as they are all in the territorial army.

Target shooting is practically the national sport.

[whiskychaser]

Using Switzerland is a bad example though. Every man between the ages of 18 and 65 is issued with a gun and trained how to use it, as they are all in the territorial army.

Target shooting is practically the national sport.

Wasnt going to pick up on this but now you do, I've lived and worked there. Swiss soldiers are the only ones in the world (as far as I know) that take their guns home. They have to have to prove a standard of accuracy every year and are given a number of rounds to do so. If they dont, they pay for their own until they do. Their guns laws are 'relaxed' but gun crime is so rare they dont even keep records. This makes interesting reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
I just read that the US has 80 gun fatalities per day. The UK's worst year was 7. But if you take account of the population difference (x5) you are only twice as likely to be shot in the US as the UK. I find that unsettling

[fin]

Having listened to part of the Arguments before the Supreme Court (CSPAN) one of the items mentioned by one of the Justices was the near universal adoption of "Castle" laws by states. "Castle" laws simply means that a home owner is assumed to be threatened by an intruder and does not have to exhaust a checklist of 'Did you's (Did you block their escape, Did you warn them......) before defending yourself from a percieved threat. Our UK members may be able to chime in on the effects of having/not having "Castle" laws. In the US it is rare for one to be home during a robbery. I've heard that is not definitely not so in the UK.

Switzerland? The one time I was there happened to be on a Friday. It was a trip watching guys in suits and ties carrying a briefcase in one hand and slinging large caliber machine guns on their other shoulder. They were on their way to weekend military duty. And yes, I did feel rather safe with a few belt fed weapons about carried by well trained businessmen and NOT by policemen.

Another aspect that hasn't been discussed but is also in mind pertaining to guns/rifles is the ability to gather food, i.e. hunt. When the constitution was written ownership for hunting was assumed to be the standard, not the exception. I have never heard of anyone every being forbidden from hunting/fishing after arrest for poaching/overlimit fishing or possesion. It is because the government doesn't want to be accused of forbidding access to nourishment.

For those that have been life long city dwellers, you have the luxury of prompt police response in emergency situations. The rest of us are more familiar with the portrayal of law enforcement shown in the movie "Fargo". The murdered Highway Patrolman was probably frozen stiff by the time others showed up. Growing up, I didn't know a farmer that didn't have a rifle/shotgun readily available. Minimum of 15 minutes for police/sheriff/HWP to show up unless they happen to be serving notice nearby. Occasionally there will be less than a handful of HWP on duty in rural states. Not counties, states.

I saw a news clip of a woman whose parents were killed by a mentally ill person (she referred to him as 'sick' in the sense of ill and needing care, not as despicable) testifying before Congress on the subject of Gun Control. After descibing how she watched the shooting of her parents, so went on the state that the reason that she was opposed to gun control was to be able to protect herself, "especially from those of you sitting across from me." It was not assuring to see the looks of disgust on the faces of the Congressmen after she had commented about needing to be protected from them. A thought very much in the minds of the Founding Fathers.

The person that had the most honest statement about gun ownership was Mao Tse Tung: "Power flows from the end of a gun".

Fin

[whiskychaser]

Having listened to part of the Arguments before the Supreme Court (CSPAN) one of the items mentioned by one of the Justices was the near universal adoption of "Castle" laws by states. "Castle" laws simply means that a home owner is assumed to be threatened by an intruder and does not have to exhaust a checklist of 'Did you's (Did you block their escape, Did you warn them......) before defending yourself from a percieved threat. Our UK members may be able to chime in on the effects of having/not having "Castle" laws. In the US it is rare for one to be home during a robbery. I've heard that is not definitely not so in the UK.
Fin
It is far from rare for burglars to stike when you are at home in the UK. I was upstairs on the PC when the bastards came in and robbed us downstairs! There is a well known case of a farmer who turned his shotgun on two burglars after his house was broken into for the umpteenth time. He shot one who later died and he was put in prison for it. Having done a bit of checking, I think the US 2nd amendment has its roots in our old common law. This specifically stated you could have arms at home. But it was brought in because of a fear the skill of the english archer may be lost! The law was repealed - our government doesnt have to go through the same process to change laws as we dont have a constitution:D

[ryan roopnarine]

oh, the 2nd amendment was definitely derived from english common law. the supreme court ruling, however, has severed the pretense of it being only for a militia or for collective defense, which yours ( i believe) mentioned.

[whiskychaser]

oh, the 2nd amendment was definitely derived from english common law. the supreme court ruling, however, has severed the pretense of it being only for a militia or for collective defense, which yours ( i believe) mentioned.

Actually, our common law specifically allowed the individual to keep arms at home. I dont wish to be pedantic but an individual cant 'bear arms' anyway. Only soldiers could do that. At the end of the day (as they say in football) the issue is perhaps not what is legal, but how do you stop the bad guys getting/using weapons.

[healtoeit]

Perhaps I am blind? Tell me where in America do you see people walking around with a hand gun in a holster strapped on the waist? Rifles openly displayed in pickups do not count. If you can name the cities, I will make sure I do not go visit.

Just last year, members of the NRA openly carried holstered pistols into a restaurant, the police were called and the members were removed from the restaurant, with no excuse given.
I do not see people openly carrying firearms around... people would freak out , because they are misinformed. When I see a firearm in the back of a pickup I do not get frightened, mainly because I was raised around fireamrs and understand how they work. If someone spends the money to put a gun rack in his/her truck I believe that that person has the proper knowledge to safely handle a firearm.

My point is most people who bitch about firearms have no idea what the hell they are talking about when it comes to PROPERLY handling a firearm.

I want to make another point (this is a heated debate in my area... can you tell?)
Can you remeber back to the first thing you were taught about firearms? You were told to go find an adult in the event you find a firearm. Well.... what happens when that parent has no idea how to properly clear and check a firearm?

[healtoeit]

And you cannot convince me being able to carry weapon openly or concealed helps to lower the crime rate.
D.C. has the most handgun deaths of any city... IT IS ILLEGAL TO CARRY A HANDGUN. In VA and MD, literally a step away, the number difference is DRAMATICLY lower, and don't be naive and tell me that the ability of a person to defend themselves with a firearm does not effect this number.

[yaofeng]

D.C. has the most handgun deaths of any city... IT IS ILLEGAL TO CARRY A HANDGUN. In VA and MD, literally a step away, the number difference is DRAMATICLY lower, and don't be naive and tell me that the ability of a person to defend themselves with a firearm does not effect this number.

The statistics go far beyond the hand gun carry provision. It is more social economical. Perhaps you can cite another refernce somewhere in an African nation strife in civil war to see how the ability to own and open carry weapons affect gun violence.

This is like a joke I know about irrelevance. A sicientist was conducting an experiment on a frog known to comprehend human voice. He cuts one of its limb off and says jump. The frog jumped. He then successively removed the limbs of the frog one at a time with the same result. Until the frog has no limbs left whence it lies motionless on his command to jump.

The scientist concluded, when the limbs of the frog are removed, it also loses its hearing.

[healtoeit]

Perhaps you can cite another refernce somewhere in an African nation strife in civil war to see how the ability to own and open carry weapons affect gun violence.

This has nothing to do with our debate... however, you do realize the first step of the controlling militia is to disarm the citizens? Why would you think they do this?

[repenttokyo]

look. if you live somewhere where you feel you need a gun on you in order to be safe, then yaofeng is right. it's time to move. Why would you want that hanging over your head?

there is absolutely nowhere in Canada where I have ever felt the need to have a gun. I've been across the entire country.

Gun violence is very rare, statistically, in my country. A country without guns CAN work.

The U.S. is perfectly within its rights to make its own laws and live by them. I live in the US now myself. But please remember that it is not the only way, and that there are gun-free alternatives that do work very well.

Arguments based on the fact that you have the right to bear arms constitutionally make sense - that is your law. Arguments based on the fact that if you don't have a gun, then criminals who DO have guns will rule the country and make society hell, do not. Because in my home country, we do NOT have guns, are NOT allowed to carry them, and our rate of violent crime is FAR lower, per capita, than the U.S. It can't just be something they put in the water!

[repenttokyo]

i didn't believe this, so i just googled around to make sure.

http://www.mountlaurelpd.org/mlpdhist.htm

do a document "find" for the phrase "escort".

in new jersey, most of the security guards are unarmed because of the strict licensing requirements for firearms possession/ownership/implementation. the armored cars are also unarmed. in new jersey, if you an assurance that your deposit will get to the bank ok, you need to pay the local police department $25 per escort (manpower allowing, of course) to go with the car to the bank. the state actually has a monetary interest in having people be: 1) unarmed and 2) in danger.


in Canada, our border guards don't even carry weapons, and only a small percentage started doing so last year. This was somewhat bizarre, given that armoured car drivers and guards COULD carry weapons.

[yaofeng]

This has nothing to do with our debate... however, you do realize the first step of the controlling militia is to disarm the citizens? Why would you think they do this?

I do and I understand our founding fathers' intentions. I am not against gun control if you read my prior post on this thread, just the carrying part. Open carry (or conceal does not matter) may work. But human interaction based on deterrence makes me very nervous. It should be based on trust and good will (or trust but verify as Reagon once said). If and when the day comes people need to carry a weapon going about their daily lives, it is time for me to get out. I will not accept it.

[ryan roopnarine]

Gun violence is very rare, statistically, in my country. A country without guns CAN work.
!

if by "country without guns" you mean canada, you wouldn't be accurate. canada has a pretty high gun ownership rate. homicide rates by firearm increase to american alaskan levels in the yukon and nwt. i would assume that alaska and nyt or yukon are comparable entities.


"Arguments based on the fact that if you don't have a gun, then criminals who DO have guns will rule the country and make society hell, do not"

No, but the argument being made in dc was that "if criminals who do have guns are making society hell, then law abiding entities shouldn't have them"

i'll go ahead and let my personal feelings bleed through for a second. I've heard a number of dc residents bleat in the week or so since this ruling has been delivered about how the aforementioned is going to become wild-westian in character as a result? my feelings? tough titty. DC has had about 40 years now to fix the cesspit that composes itself. its residents have chosen not to, and as a result, no one with any financial resources lives there. i've heard a woman talk about how she could have moved to maryland after her kids were killed in a mistaken id driveby, but she didn't, and that she wouldn't stand for the city lifting the gun ban. sorry, but most people aren't meant to cure cancer, they aren't goddamned snowflakes. if you feel unsafe testifying against criminals, aren't willing to take extrajudicial measures to stop the criminal element from finding value in setting up shop in your neighborhood, then your situation fails to be my problem. want to institute a gun ban because you "think" it will fix the problem? sorry, that's just (you) taking the least potentially physically harmful route to get out of fixing the problem. what you say, a 32 year gun ban has done jack shiat to curb the violence problem in the city? well then, time's up. you aren't measuring peregrine falcon concentrations, you are running a social engineering experiment that has, for all intents and purposes, failed. the results are invalid, and coupled with the wording related to firearms in the constitution, suggests that it is appropriate for the the rest of the country respond in the most liberal manner prescribed by the constitution. if not because others will likely hold YOUR ban up as precedent to implement such elsewhere, then on principle alone. the united states is usually 8-10 years behind the UK at any given time, and I don't see their gun ban making their lives infinitely better.

why are those terms in the constitution? here's a canadian example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Sniper_Weapon_(LRSW) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Sniper_Weapon_%28LRSW%29)
look for the section that say "longest distance kill"

1. I can bet that cpl furlong had fired firearms long before he enlisted in the service, and his level of skill had a great deal to do with that. related to the "militia" phrase, no?

2. macmillan brothers (the company that supplies canada's choice in 50 cal rifle) is a private us company. like barett, they were making, and innovating "deadly, anti-helicopter !1!1!" 50 cal rifles for the civillian market long before the armed forces of the united states saw value in such. the lilja barrel that mr. furlong used during that incident came from a similar source. i sincerely doubt that any canadian "civillian" is allowed to register a .50 caliber bmg rifle for their own personal use.

3. switzerland has invested a great deal in making their populace firearms proficient. i wonder to what end that is meant....

like it or not, there is value in having a populace that can shoot accurately and develop new firearms technology, and such is why the 2nd amendment exists.

it is most telling that the gun control groups, for the most part, didn't have anything to do with backing the stance that dc took . fools from the governing bodies of NYC, chicago/cook county, SF, et cetera did much of that (ie, amicus briefs, &c. &c). conversely, the NRA let heller twist in the wind about this. Both the NRA and HCI, Brady, et cetera knew that if the court found against their side, there would be wide-reaching ramifications, and didn't want to be responsible for such if such happened. now that heller won, i hope that the nra goes through and dismantles all of the remaining examples of this failed, utterly defective social experiment that dc started.

[repenttokyo]

if by "country without guns" you mean canada, you wouldn't be accurate. canada has a pretty high gun ownership rate. homicide rates by firearm increase to american alaskan levels in the yukon and nwt. i would assume that alaska and nyt or yukon are comparable entities.


I think you need to be careful when examining Canadian violent crime statistics and gun ownership rates. the percentage of the population who live in the nyt or yukon is extremely, extremely small. It is also much younger, with more low income families, single parent families, and almost no policing. Alcohol abuse is also a significant problem there. Is that the same as Alaska? I don't know. But I do know that the primary reason people own guns in the north is to eat, as the native population is extremely high and many people there still live off of the land to a large degree.


I wouldn't say Canada has a high gun ownerships rate. It hovers around 20 percent. However, it's 90 percent long rifles used for hunting. Handguns are very rare, and they have been banned since Confederation. Owning a handgun is legal, but in most places they can only be transported to and from a gun club, in the trunk of a car. In 2004 there were 548 murders in all of Canada. About a third of those involved a firearm. In 2004, California, which has a population almost the same size as all of Canada, had 2,394 homicides. So you see, we don't really have a gun violence problem. I know documentaries from Michael Moore make it seem like gun ownership is common in Canada, but in the cities, it is extremely rare, and the only place you run into guns is in rural areas wheere people hunt. The majority of people I know have never even seen a firearm, let alone held one in their hands.



"Arguments based on the fact that if you don't have a gun, then criminals who DO have guns will rule the country and make society hell, do not"

No, but the argument being made in dc was that "if criminals who do have guns are making society hell, then law abiding entities shouldn't have them"

i'll go ahead and let my personal feelings bleed through for a second. I've heard a number of dc residents bleat in the week or so since this ruling has been delivered about how the aforementioned is going to become wild-westian in character as a result? my feelings? tough titty. DC has had about 40 years now to fix the cesspit that composes itself. its residents have chosen not to, and as a result, no one with any financial resources lives there. i've heard a woman talk about how she could have moved to maryland after her kids were killed in a mistaken id driveby, but she didn't, and that she wouldn't stand for the city lifting the gun ban. sorry, but most people aren't meant to cure cancer, they aren't goddamned snowflakes. if you feel unsafe testifying against criminals, aren't willing to take extrajudicial measures to stop the criminal element from finding value in setting up shop in your neighborhood, then your situation fails to be my problem. want to institute a gun ban because you "think" it will fix the problem? sorry, that's just (you) taking the least potentially physically harmful route to get out of fixing the problem. what you say, a 32 year gun ban has done jack shiat to curb the violence problem in the city? well then, time's up. you aren't measuring peregrine falcon concentrations, you are running a social engineering experiment that has, for all intents and purposes, failed. the results are invalid, and coupled with the wording related to firearms in the constitution, suggests that it is appropriate for the the rest of the country respond in the most liberal manner prescribed by the constitution. if not because others will likely hold YOUR ban up as precedent to implement such elsewhere, then on principle alone. the united states is usually 8-10 years behind the UK at any given time, and I don't see their gun ban making their lives infinitely better.

yes, i was addressing some of the other, more general comments, not the DC situation in particular. I agree with you in what you are saying, the status quo in DC did not seem to make any kind of difference. what would? what change do you think is necessary? what makes my country so different?




why are those terms in the constitution? here's a canadian example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Sniper_Weapon_(LRSW) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Sniper_Weapon_%28LRSW%29)
look for the section that say "longest distance kill"

1. I can bet that cpl furlong had fired firearms long before he enlisted in the service, and his level of skill had a great deal to do with that. related to the "militia" phrase, no?

2. macmillan brothers (the company that supplies canada's choice in 50 cal rifle) is a private us company. like barett, they were making, and innovating "deadly, anti-helicopter !1!1!" 50 cal rifles for the civillian market long before the armed forces of the united states saw value in such. the lilja barrel that mr. furlong used during that incident came from a similar source. i sincerely doubt that any canadian "civillian" is allowed to register a .50 caliber bmg rifle for their own personal use.

3. switzerland has invested a great deal in making their populace firearms proficient. i wonder to what end that is meant....

like it or not, there is value in having a populace that can shoot accurately and develop new firearms technology, and such is why the 2nd amendment exists.


hmmm - I am not sure what you mean by this...Canadians aren't trained to shoot from a young age, or at all. Like I said above, if you know how toshoot, it's because you grew up in a family that hunts, and most likely in a rural area. It's not similar to Switzerland, in that we don't have compulsory military service or anything like that. One of the reasons that our army and our air force do very well in terms of international competitions and in field operations is because they are SO small that everyone gets a TON of training and actual service time, giving them valuable experience. I was in the Canadian Army Cadets for three years, where I learned basic shooting and survival, but nothing advanced, really.



it is most telling that the gun control groups, for the most part, didn't have anything to do with backing the stance that dc took . fools from the governing bodies of NYC, chicago/cook county, SF, et cetera did much of that (ie, amicus briefs, &c. &c). conversely, the NRA let heller twist in the wind about this. Both the NRA and HCI, Brady, et cetera knew that if the court found against their side, there would be wide-reaching ramifications, and didn't want to be responsible for such if such happened. now that heller won, i hope that the nra goes through and dismantles all of the remaining examples of this failed, utterly defective social experiment that dc started.

what would work? in your opinion. how do you bring gun violence levels in the united states down to canadian levels?

[ryan roopnarine]

I think you need to be careful when examining Canadian violent crime statistics and gun ownership rates. the percentage of the population who live in the nyt or yukon is extremely, extremely small. It is also much younger, with more low income families, single parent families, and almost no policing. Alcohol abuse is also a significant problem there. Is that the same as Alaska? I don't know. But I do know that the primary reason people own guns in the north is to eat, as the native population is extremely high and many people there still live off of the land to a large degree.


I wouldn't say Canada has a high gun ownerships rate. It hovers around 20 percent. However, it's 90 percent long rifles used for hunting. Handguns are very rare, and they have been banned since Confederation. Owning a handgun is legal, but in most places they can only be transported to and from a gun club, in the trunk of a car. In 2004 there were 548 murders in all of Canada. About a third of those involved a firearm. In 2004, California, which has a population almost the same size as all of Canada, had 2,394 homicides. So you see, we don't really have a gun violence problem. I know documentaries from Michael Moore make it seem like gun ownership is common in Canada, but in the cities, it is extremely rare, and the only place you run into guns is in rural areas wheere people hunt. The majority of people I know have never even seen a firearm, let alone held one in their hands.


yes, i was addressing some of the other, more general comments, not the DC situation in particular. I agree with you in what you are saying, the status quo in DC did not seem to make any kind of difference. what would? what change do you think is necessary? what makes my country so different?




hmmm - I am not sure what you mean by this...Canadians aren't trained to shoot from a young age, or at all. Like I said above, if you know how toshoot, it's because you grew up in a family that hunts, and most likely in a rural area. It's not similar to Switzerland, in that we don't have compulsory military service or anything like that. One of the reasons that our army and our air force do very well in terms of international competitions and in field operations is because they are SO small that everyone gets a TON of training and actual service time, giving them valuable experience. I was in the Canadian Army Cadets for three years, where I learned basic shooting and survival, but nothing advanced, really.



what would work? in your opinion. how do you bring gun violence levels in the united states down to canadian levels?

while, admittedly, the yukon has a small population, and the natives have "hairspray" abuse problems &c. &c., given two low density examples (ak and yuk or nwt) you are seeing similar patterns of behavior and violence--regardless of nationality.

a 20% gun ownership rate is not small. a 2004 telephone survey of americans put admitted gun ownership at about 35%, down from 45% in 1989. the reason for the drop, i have no idea about. perhaps with the advent of better tracking technology, people were less willing to admit to ownership, i don't really know the reason for the drop. i lived for about 13 years in saskatchewan and manitoba (was born in winnipeg). it seemed like every two parent household there had at least one long gun in it. i could see how ontario or bc could be different. i do recall being able to go down to the canadian tire in regina in the early 90s and being able to buy rimfire cartridges (no one in my party was over 13 at the time). we rode up on bikes, they had no reason to think we were 16.

i was also in the the air cadets for about a year. no advanced training, no, but exposure to firearms was more than could ever be dreamed of in american jrotc. the people i were with were reprehensible individuals, though. when asked to march the flag out at saskatchewan roughriders games, they much resembled boris yeltsin's personal guard. marching with correct feet at correct time was optional.


as someone in his mid 20s who is trying to get accurate up to 500m on a rifle with iron sights, i can assure you that the cpl did a little more than "hunt" in his youth. if you can hit 3 targets at >2300m that quickly (he got a miss, a backpack hit, and then a hit on the person he was firing at), you've been training for marksmanship, not to take out animals. much like with foreign languages, that skill is best established when one's mind is still soft and pliable. ensuring that the general populace has access to at least long guns means that some people, at least, will have such a skill set. air cadets/sea cadets/jrotc/CMP here were developed, at least in part for that purpose.


as for the reasons for such violence, I can't explain such. europe, while having rather significant continuous gun bans across contiguous contry entities (three countries, side by side, with bans in each, in case i wasn't clear) has significantly differing gun homicide rates. the Uk might have low rates, but luxenbourg or holland have significantly higher rates. the united states, for all effective purposes, is safer than it was 30 years ago. what the abortion prohibitions, racial riots of the late 60s/early 70s had to do with this, i can't say. in excess of 80% of the fugitive felon warrants that originate from LA are for illegals, and we don't have 3 sides of our border surrounded by water.

[repenttokyo]

while, admittedly, the yukon has a small population, and the natives have "hairspray" abuse problems &c. &c., given two low density examples (ak and yuk or nwt) you are seeing similar patterns of behavior and violence--regardless of nationality.

a 20% gun ownership rate is not small. a 2004 telephone survey of americans put admitted gun ownership at about 35%, down from 45% in 1989. the reason for the drop, i have no idea about. perhaps with the advent of better tracking technology, people were less willing to admit to ownership, i don't really know the reason for the drop. i lived for about 13 years in saskatchewan and manitoba (was born in winnipeg). it seemed like every two parent household there had at least one long gun in it. i could see how ontario or bc could be different. i do recall being able to go down to the canadian tire in regina in the early 90s and being able to buy rimfire cartridges (no one in my party was over 13 at the time). we rode up on bikes, they had no reason to think we were 16.

i was also in the the air cadets for about a year. no advanced training, no, but exposure to firearms was more than could ever be dreamed of in american jrotc. the people i were with were reprehensible individuals, though. when asked to march the flag out at saskatchewan roughriders games, they much resembled boris yeltsin's personal guard. marching with correct feet at correct time was optional.


as someone in his mid 20s who is trying to get accurate up to 500m on a rifle with iron sights, i can assure you that the cpl did a little more than "hunt" in his youth. if you can hit 3 targets at >2300m that quickly (he got a miss, a backpack hit, and then a hit on the person he was firing at), you've been training for marksmanship, not to take out animals. much like with foreign languages, that skill is best established when one's mind is still soft and pliable. ensuring that the general populace has access to at least long guns means that some people, at least, will have such a skill set. air cadets/sea cadets/jrotc/CMP here were developed, at least in part for that purpose.


as for the reasons for such violence, I can't explain such. europe, while having rather significant continuous gun bans across contiguous contry entities (three countries, side by side, with bans in each, in case i wasn't clear) has significantly differing gun homicide rates. the Uk might have low rates, but luxenbourg or holland have significantly higher rates. the united states, for all effective purposes, is safer than it was 30 years ago. what the abortion prohibitions, racial riots of the late 60s/early 70s had to do with this, i can't say. in excess of 80% of the fugitive felon warrants that originate from LA are for illegals, and we don't have 3 sides of our border surrounded by water.

my corps was also filled with reprehensible individuals. thanks for the informative posting, it is appreciated.

although consider natural talent when it comes to marksmanship - some people were born to run 5000 meters, some were born to ski jump, and some were born to hit the back of a pack of matches from 5 kilometers away with a crosswind.