In A purely Legal Sense, I don't think There is a Right under the US constitution for individuals to own a gun.
claims of a Second Amendment _right_ to _own_ guns have typically met with universal rejection by courts that have considered them.

Courts have often held that the 2nd Amendment's purpose was to guarantee the integrity of militias organized by the states, not to confer an individual right to firearms. Any rights created by the 2nd Amendment have not been applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, the source of the enforceability of portions of the Bill of Rights against the States.

"The militia was or is a group of citizens volunteering or legally compelled to turn out for active military service upon order of the several States. For purposes of federal law, it is defined as all males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are or intend to become citizens." [10 U.S.C. 31]

the Federal Government has authority to prescribe rules and regulations for any militia. If you were to claim that everyone is in the milita, and therefore can own a gun, these arguments are unavailable to women, or to senior citizens.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>I don't think you are right on this. Look at this link!!!

http://www.nra-ila.org/articles.asp?...de=Detail&ID=7

Seems pretty clear to me. </font>

The second amendment does give individuals the general right to bear arms. It is clear from the framers' writings, including the "make guns illegal and only the criminals will have them" statements (yes, they're that old), that it was not *only* for the militias.

That right can be reasonably limited by the states, as is often done, as there is a still-open question as to whether the second amendment applies directly to the states. I say it does, via the and 5th and 14th amendments, which collectively make all of the first ten amendments (the bill of rights) applicable to states - it's called "reverse incorporation" for your lexis-search fun.

Regardless of whether or not an amendment applies to the states, you can limit the constitutionally-protected right so long as you do so in reasonable ways which are reasonably related to legitimate state interests (except in the "heightened constitutional review" situations, which don't apply here). I posted a link on a prior page of this thread that gave a very good in-depth review of this.

Oh, and as opposed to law review articles (which are *somewhat* stilted to an agenda), writings by the NRA on 2nd Amendments issues are notable persuasive-pieces. Rather than seek to interpret the law from an ostensibly objective viewpoint, the NRA is rather obvious about trying to take any piece of law, be it statute or judicial opinion, and argue it supports the right to arm bears. I have no objection to the NRA, I'm just saying that when you read its legal writings it is more akin to reading one side of a legal argument than it is akin to reading the objective opinion rendered from hearing both sides.

[edit] Upon further review, I will say that the NRA article you cited is more objective than most. Note that even the NRA can't argue against the fact that many judicial opinions distinguish between the 2nd Amendment's existence as a right vis-a-vis the federal government instead of the state government.

[ 10-22-2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Not at all. The two topics are linked that is all. The gun problem highlights what I was saying about the constitution, and guns won't be reduced until the constitutional issue is addressed.

<font color="plum"><font color="dodgerblue">Nachtrafe</font> already answered the feasibility of the tranquilizer dart, so I'll skip that part. AFA having a "range weapon" for defense, I agree with you somewhat. A handgun or shotgun is MUCH more effective for home defense. Of these two, the handgun is the more ideal. Why? Because it CAN be used to injure but not kill an intruder. You could shoot them in the leg, for instance. A shotgun is going to be much messier and will probably maim, even if it doesn't kill. That is why I prefer a handgun. Also, handguns are easier to "keep out of the reach" of my boys.</font>

<font color="plum">An excellent question, <font color="yellow">Moiraine</font>, and one well worth considering. I will preface my answer with an experience I had while I still lived with my parents.

<font color="skyblue">When I was in college, we lived in a house that was literally at the end of a small dirt road. Since you couldn't see the house until you came around a curve that literally put you in our yard, it was not "uncommon" to get vehicles pulling into our yard, only to quickly turn around and leave (these were usually teenagers looking for a place to go "parking").

One night, I had just gotten in bed when a pickup came into our yard at a pretty good clip, which was unusual in itself....most of the other cars were driving very slowly. The truck then slid to a stop in our yard. The headlights were pointed right towards my bedroom window, so I got up to see what was going on. As I sat on my bed and looked out the window, the driver of the pickup climbed out the passenger side of the truck - looked around - then reached behind the seat and pulled out a rifle! The ONLY reason I wasn't completely scared out of my wits is because I KNEW my dad was in the living room with his pistol watching this guy...and that if he took one step towards the house, he wouldn't have a chance to take a second. Fortunately, the guy turned and bolted into the woods. We called the police, only to learn that they had been chasing this guy and had lost him when he turned down our driveway. We lived 1 full mile of the nearest highway and 5 miles outside of town, but within 6 minutes of making the call, our yard was FULL of policemen. They didn't find the guy until the next morning, and he was taken to jail. The police also found a sawed-off shotgun still inside the truck when they searched it.</font>

Now then, to answer your question and to "tie-in" to my first answer. Since that night, I have always kept a gun in my room. And if somebody breaks into my house, I will consider them a threat to my family and I will "shoot to kill". I am not going to muck around with a leg shot, I will be aiming for their chest.

How do I "reconcile" that with my Christian faith? Quite simply, I DON'T!!! Taking a life IS wrong and it is a sin I would have to answer for when I stand before the Throne of Judgement, but I also know with absolute certainty that is exactly what will happen if somebody breaks into my house.

<font color="red">On to other issues:</font>

Earlier in this thread, <font color="yellow">Yorick</font> mentioned America's "love affair" with guns. Despite <font color="lime">Magik's</font> protestation, I do believe their is a fair amount of truth in that statement. The bottom line is - I LIKE MY GUNS! And (as has also been mentioned), I would NEVER give (nor sell) them back to the government. I thoroughly enjoy target shooting. It's one of my favorite pasttimes. Yet, I do NOT like hunting. Never have and never will. I see no "thrill" in killing an animal, just like I don't "fantasize" about shooting an intruder. But I would readily shoot either one in self-defense.

One point where <font color="yellow">Yorick</font> and I disagree is his assertion that "most people favor more gun control". He referred to a poll in that assertion, but I would be willing to bet that poll was conducted primarily in urban areas. If the majority of people really DID want more gun control, then we would have more gun control.

The tobacco lobby used to be every bit as powerful as the gun lobby. Actually, I would be willing to wager it was far more powerful during it's heyday. Yet, as "anti-smoking" sentiment began to grow in America, the tobacco companies started losing their leverage in Congress. It became MORE popular to OPPOSE tobacco companies than to SUPPORT them. That has NOT happened with guns because the MAJORITY of Americans still don't want to give thier guns up. Most of them do NOT ask for tougher gun laws, they just ask the gov't to enforce the laws they already have. (another subject that was mentioned earlier).

So, there you have one "Christian perspective" on gun control. Of course,keep in mind that it is a Southern Baptist view only, and other denominations may not agree. ;) </font>

Actually such substances exist. Most neural toxins for instance, the most known would of course be curare (not that useful in the dart usage though). [img]smile.gif[/img] Instant relaxation of muscles and "one dose fits all" lol. The only problems are, 1) They are illegal for personnal use (except medication of course) which IMO is a good thing 2) Using them on children (up to about 15 years old) is lethal (for the recipient of course). The problem would of course be that you could fire two darts which would then relax the diaphragm (not so much the heart) and you would suffocate. So you can´t really control that as well.

Now I´m not going to get into the real debate since I don´t know anything about either guns or the American constitution (never been that interested of that subjext I must shamefully admit [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ). But how about stun guns? Of course they could prove lethal for a person with heart problems...

[ 10-22-2002, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

Yorick. I would like for you to inform me as to what actions you wish to be addressed in regards to gun control. Are you wanting a constitutional amendment to make private ownership of guns illegal? Are you wanting greater control of firearms that could be addressed through legislation other than a constitutional amendment? Would you be satisfied with a Federal law modeled on German gun control laws? Do you feel that there is ever responsible gun ownership? I for one think our laws are to lax and that there is to much variety from one state to another. You are correct in that there are too many deaths caused by guns in the hands of unthinking people. One is too many. Yet with proper screening, education and training responsible people (Whom I believe actually do outnumber the stupid.) could make gun safety a reality. When it is all said and done we must remember than firearms are just a tool. It is only when people use them that bad things may happen.
(edit)Willow IX Since I flatlined due to an allergic reaction to tubocurarine while having knee surgery and have since discovered that I am allergic to most anestheias used in hospitals you can be sure that I don't want to be hit with a dart.

[ 10-22-2002, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: antryg ]

Angel I think that Yorick's point is that the first line of defence for the pro-gun lobby is always that they have the right to bear arms as granted by the second aMendment. As if the constitution written over 200 years ago is sacrosanct.

You make Yorick's point for him. Two hundred years on do you still fear your own Government? Times have changed, America has changed.

Yes cars kill more people than guns - but not deliberately!

What I would like to see is this:

The second amendment removed from the constitution so that an individual state, like New York or California, with significantly different problems regarding gangs, drugs and guns to say Alabama or Montana, could then make tough laws if they so wished.

As it is, New York State and California are held prisoner to arcane restrictions by rural states who have a totally different experience.

I'd agree that the polls for greater gun control would come from Urban rather than rural areas. I'll have to see if we can find info on polls.

In any case do you see my point?

New York, even though it has pretty tough gun laws compared to the rest of the country, is still not free to determine it's own solutions to a worsening problem because a constitution made before it developed the character it has, are, as Donut put it...."sacrosanct."

Where's the freedom in that?

[ 10-22-2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yorik

The whole point to the Constitution was to protect the People's Freedoms FROM government. The framers viewed government as a nessicary evil because the alternative to law is anarchy, and that just is not conducive to a society that can succeed. Basically they set up a system that says in many words "Your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa".

The Constitution is designed to protect peoples Freedom of Choice. It does not however garuantee Freedom from Fear. If that is what you are looking for, I hate to inform you, but NO government will ever provide that to you. If you fear being shot in NY, then you should considder living somewhere else. But, where ever you live, there is no garuantee that some accident will not happen to you - as this whakko in VA is proving, or any weather disaster prooves. If you want garuantees, I'll give you one, and only one - it's the best I can do. You are dying. You are a corpse waiting to happen. Some time between the time I post this and eternity you will cease to be. I know that is a morbid sentiment, but accept it and set yourself free. Instead of living in fear, try just living. And let others do the same. That after all, is what the Constitution is all about - live and let live. The rest of the legal code is just an over complication of this.

Oh, and on that thought about protecting Freedom by restricting it. There is a serious flaw to that - namely, you can't. You either protect and enable freedom or you restrict it - you can't protect by restricting.

[ 10-22-2002, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Night Stalcker,

I don't fear being shot. What on earth makes you think I am?
Because I'm anti-gun?

I'm not a kid in a gang, or trading drugs. I'm not suicidal with a gun in my closet. I'm not practicing road rage and abusing other motorists. Why would I fear getting shot?

One more thing about the "get out if you don't like it you rude guest" schtick.

It's the ultimate declaration of a persons ideological failure in an argument, to, rather than defeat a person through facts, logic and persuasion, to attempt to BAN the person from expressing an opinion.

I don't care who or where you're from MagiK, but I have as much right to express my opinion on the international world wide web, as much as the next person.

And - to use your sentiments - if you don't like it you can always leave the internet.

As has been said numerous times here, you can rob Peter to pay Paul. In allowing one freedom, you restrict something else.

It comes down to prioritisation as Barry so eloquently stated.

Actualy NY went berzerk enforcing its gun laws after 9/11. More specificaly the city went realy overboard.My wife and I had to re register all of my fire arms and re apply for all of our permits to still keep on the right side of the law. I have also heard that if you are caught with a fire arm of any type and dont have the right documentation , I.E. registration/carry permit/concealed carry permit,it is a MANDATORY 2 year jail sentance.

I'll apologize in advance if I repeat anyone's arguments; I read the first page of this topic, but I don't have time to read through the rest (especially as certain arguments keep being repeated).

I also do not think a majority of Americans are gun-toting or gun-supporting. None of my family and none of my friends own guns. I see no reason to own a gun. I've heard stories here and elsewhere about people who keep a gun in the house against robbers; I think the likelihood is extremely low of being able to access that gun, especially if it is "safely locked away", before a housebreaker is upon their victim. Hunting? Just another name for people who enjoy killing other creatures for "sport". I live in an area highly populated by hunters, most of which use tree stands. A lot of "sport" in laying food out on the ground, climbing up to your stand or blind, and shooting the deer (bear, wild turkey, and so forth) that comes over to have a munch.

I've lived in New York City. I've walked 42nd Street at midnight, alone, on my way to the subway. I've lived in suburbs and urban areas. I've lived in South Dakota. I have never needed a gun. Yes, I've been in threatening situations. However, a gun would not have helped.

I've been in the military and can fire handarms and rifle. I trust the average citizen with a gun about as much as I trust a monkey with a jet plane. A lot of us feel that way.

Is it going to change in this binge-drinking, machismo-flaunting society? Unlikely. Too many of that sort are in Congress, or are supported by their big-money buddies who feel the same way.

I think I mentioned before in a similar topic that Marion Zimmer Bradley's series set on a planet called Darkover had suggested a Compact, that was developed after a telepathic series of wars based on chemical warfare: No weapons were allowed that did not put the user within arm's reach of the other person. I really like this concept; guns too easily distance you from your victim, emotionally as well as physically (and allowing snipers to exist without qualms).

AliCat

P.S. I am unlikely to look back at this page, so feel free to email me if you want to respond personally.

Not really ;) As I said the Seperation of Church and State as we know it has come down through court decesions, but the courts aren't perfect see Dread Scott ;) Now here's the real kicker as a "Super strick constructionalist" the Courts CAN make those decesions about religion and we the people MUST live with it (if we wish to be a nation of laws). Amend 1 says Congress can't do it, but says nothing about the courts, states, President, or any other branch of Government. Which now leaves me in the dreaded postion of allowing the courts to make law (hack, cough, spit, barf). Some times I wish the founding fathers had said "Freedom of religion shall not be infringed" without the Government qualifer. But then we would be opening up a "Whole 'nother can of worms" as you showed in the examples you gave.

If I am correct then it seems to me like the Constitution is not that much more than a set of very large guidelines...at least that seems to be its role here. It also seems like (no nationalist attacks here) that the Americans are really wound up with their constitution remaining the way it is. Sure it seems like ours is rather new (1982!), but there are changes going on frequently.

Of course it's also not set in stone. Take for example, the 18th amendment (prohibition), or of course, the original constitution saying that a black man's life was worth 1/2 that of a white man. It does change, and things like gun control are addressed.

BTW, I should mention that there were more children and adults killed last year in accidental discharges than there were intruders or used in self-defence. (not that I really want to get into that) ;)

Tbut according to this statistic 62% of murders in that year WERE NOT caused by guns!! .</font>[/QUOTE]That's not what it says at all. Check it out again. The 38% is the number of gun deaths that were homicides. It's not a percentage of murders. The rest were mostly suicides. Suicide is more effective with a gun.

What is that saying about society? Two problems linked together. Suicide and a gun.</font>[/QUOTE]You are right about what is says about society, but wrong about what it says about guns. The people that are commiting suicide 68% found a way to do it with out guns, you can't seriously believe that the 52% would not of found a way to kill themsleves without guns. Anybody that comes to the point (for whatever reason) that they are willing to seriously commit suicide is not going to be stopped by not having a gun, 58% of the suicides testify against that logic.

Edit for bad math :D

[ 10-22-2002, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Tbut according to this statistic 62% of murders in that year WERE NOT caused by guns!! .</font>[/QUOTE]That's not what it says at all. Check it out again. The 38% is the number of gun deaths that were homicides. It's not a percentage of murders. The rest were mostly suicides. Suicide is more effective with a gun.

What is that saying about society? Two problems linked together. Suicide and a gun.</font>[/QUOTE]You are right about what is says about society, but wrong about what it says about guns. The people that are commiting suicide 68% found a way to do it with out guns, you can't seriously believe that the 52% would not of found a way to kill themsleves without guns. Anybody that comes to the point (for whatever reason) that they are willing to seriously commit suicide is not going to be stopped by not having a gun, 58% of the suicides testify against that logic.

Edit for bad math :D </font>[/QUOTE]John. That figure is not a percentage of suicides, nor homicides as Hunter read, but a percentage of gun deaths.

Gun deaths = Homocides (38%) Suicides (58%) Other? (4%)

These are the figures for gun percentages of suicide in 1999:

Firearm suicides USA
16,599
56.8%

All Other Methods USA
12,600
43.2%

------------------------------
Firearm suicides Young
2,315
59.3%

All Other Young
1,586
40.7%

Firearm suicides Old
3,921
71.4%

All Other Old
1,568
28.6%

Firearm suicides Male
14,479
61.7%

All Other Male
8,979
38.3%

Firearm suicides Female
2,120
36.9%

All Other Female
3,621
63.1%

A country boy with a .22 squirel riffle can get himself one of those niffty 20mm autocannons :D

Actualy NY went berzerk enforcing its gun laws after 9/11. More specificaly the city went realy overboard.My wife and I had to re register all of my fire arms and re apply for all of our permits to still keep on the right side of the law. I have also heard that if you are caught with a fire arm of any type and dont have the right documentation , I.E. registration/carry permit/concealed carry permit,it is a MANDATORY 2 year jail sentance.</font>[/QUOTE]Sure but you still had to have a permit, not get rid of them altogether.

It's understandable given the threat of terrorism too don't you think?

Angel I think that Yorick's point is that the first line of defence for the pro-gun lobby is always that they have the right to bear arms as granted by the second aMendment. As if the constitution written over 200 years ago is sacrosanct.</font>[/QUOTE]To us it IS, the U.S. Constitution is the foundation that every thing is based on. If you take away the foundation the house falls. Without a foundation everything can be tossed about by the prevailing winds.

It seems as though Americans view their constitution as an embodiment of freedom itself. I've read great posts from both sides of the fence, and although I do not pretend to be versed in American history, I wish to put "my two cents" in as at were, from the viewpoint of a citizen of the world.

I live in Canada, probably one of the best countries to live in the world, or at least it was, but more importantly I live in the world. What happens in America affects me as does what happens in the Middle East, or Japan, or Europe. The economics of the world are so intertwined, it is inevitable.

The fact that a sniper is running loose in the US, killing at will is a testament to gun control. Oh yes, the same could be said if he were weilding a knife, but killing from a distance affords one a greater chance of escape. I'm sure Jack the Ripper would've been caught had he attempted to kill more. That however is not my point.

Gun control will never work period. It's a great idea on paper, just like communism is a great idea on paper, but is impossible to achieve given human nature. The problem, as I see it, in the argument of the US constitution, is that Americans, by your own admission, will never relinquish their firearms.

But I have to ask, why? Is it that you view it as a freedom being taken from you? But is it a freedom? Why is it a freedom, because it's written on a document that by owning a gun, you are free?

It was once accepted practice for well to do citizens to own African Americans as slaves, to be bought and traded, not unlike perhaps guns today. It was viewed as right then, but us completely unacceptable today. Why is it unacceptable today? Because one life is no more important than another. Because we are "more civilized now." Ask a slaver during the civil way if they were willing to give up their slave and you'd be given the same answer as if you asked a gun owner to hand over their weapon. No way.

So ask yourself, why is gun control such a bad thing? Does it really remove any of your freedoms? Perhaps you are responsible enough to own a gun, but what about your neighbor? Apparently the Washington Sniper isn't responsible enough to own a gun, but someone thought he was.

That same constitution that allows you own a gun, is also allowing the sniper to shoot whoever he sees fit. "Oh it could never happen to me," you say. I'm sure each of his victoms thought the same. Maybe his next victom will be your spouse, child or other loved one.

Gun control will never work, because people don't want it to work. I myself really have nothing against owning a gun. I do have a problem with people owning ammunition for said gun. If you like to collect guns, fine, no problem, but you sure don't need any bullets for a "collection."

Anyway, I feel I'm a little off topic here, and it's not intended to offend anyone, but once again, ask yourself: Do I REALLY need to own a gun? Is it going to improve my freedom to own one?

[ 10-23-2002, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Animal ]

The Constitution original said that for the PURPOSE (very important word) of counting the population to decide how many representatives each state shall have in the House of representatives. a negro shall count as 3/5 a person. Even the our founding fathers saw that slavery was bad and they tried to limit the power of the Southern States, by cuting the population count of slaves. The RESULT was less Reps in the House of Reps, for the Southern Slave states Therefore the southern Slave States HAD less power then they would have if the negros would have been counted as a whole person. Pretty tricky of those Evil White men, our Founding Fathers :D :D :D :D

Angel I think that Yorick's point is that the first line of defence for the pro-gun lobby is always that they have the right to bear arms as granted by the second aMendment. As if the constitution written over 200 years ago is sacrosanct.</font>[/QUOTE]To us it IS, the U.S. Constitution is the foundation that every thing is based on. If you take away the foundation the house falls. Without a foundation everything can be tossed about by the prevailing winds.</font>[/QUOTE]If your walls are cracking you have to repair your foundations or the house will fall down. ;) You even may need a new house, foundation and all.

What is so scarey about that? The unknown? Do you trust the founding fathers more than Americans alive today?

This is the issue at hand. Why? Why are the founding fathers anymore trustworthy than people today?

Well said Animal. Thanks o' citizen of the world. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Ok, Yorick (I didn't quote cause it would have taken up the whole page :D )
The FACT still remains that there are suicides by means other then guns. And therefore people will kill themselves with or with out guns. Guns have never killed anybody just setting on the self, guns require human action, or stupidity to work. My guns have never shot it or killed another Human,if anyone doubts this fact they're welcome to come by so they can sit and stare at my guns until the guns get up and shoot on their own. Hell I'll even provide them a chair to sit in while they stare. They'll have to provide their own food I'm not going to feed somebody thats just going to sit on their rear end :D
As I wrote earlier the problem is the hearts of men, not guns. Worthless low life sacks of horse manure excuses for humans that wish to kill another human are going to find away to do it with or without guns.

John. A few years ago I had the terrible experience of being in a house when someone close to me attempted suicide. Three times in one night. They hanged themself Hutchence style on the back of the door.

Three times I waited until they had passed out, and I broke down the door, removed the belt from their neck, and revived them.

Three times.

Each time I took the belt, but each time a new one was found.

After the last time, I scoured the house for belts and ropes, took all the knives I could find, and left.

They are still alive today.

Had they possessed a gun, they would be dead. For all intents and purposes, they succeeded in their attempt. Had I not been around, and forced my way in, they would be dead. Because it was not a gun, I was able to change the situation.

As I said, they are still alive thank God.

The gun is instant death. The guns sole reason for existence is to end life.

But I appreciate your view my friend. [img]smile.gif[/img] Peace.

So to stop that "worthless low life sack of horse manure" from getting a gun and shooting someone, sacrifices must be made by everyone. Would you be willing to give up one of your guns if you knew it would save a life?

You are absolutely correct, the problem is with men not guns, but some men are not smart enough to police themselves, and since no one knows who those people are, everyone must be policed.

Once again, I ask you, would you give up one of your guns to save a life?

It seems as though Americans view their constitution as an embodiment of freedom itself. I've read great posts from both sides of the fence, and although I do not pretend to be versed in American history, I wish to put "my two cents" in as at were, from the viewpoint of a citizen of the world.

I live in Canada, probably one of the best countries to live in the world, or at least it was, but more importantly I live in the world. What happens in America affects me as does what happens in the Middle East, or Japan, or Europe. The economics of the world are so intertwined, it is inevitable.

The fact that a sniper is running loose in the US, killing at will is a testament to gun control. Oh yes, the same could be said if he were weilding a knife, but killing from a distance affords one a greater chance of escape. I'm sure Jack the Ripper would've been caught had he attempted to kill more. That however is not my point.

Gun control will never work period. It's a great idea on paper, just like communism is a great idea on paper, but is impossible to achieve given human nature. The problem, as I see it, in the argument of the US constitution, is that Americans, by your own admission, will never relinquish their firearms.

But I have to ask, why? Is it that you view it as a freedom being taken from you? But is it a freedom? Why is it a freedom, because it's written on a document that by owning a gun, you are free?

It was once accepted practice for well to do citizens to own African Americans as slaves, to be bought and traded, not unlike perhaps guns today. It was viewed as right then, but us completely unacceptable today. Why is it unacceptable today? Because one life is no more important than another. Because we are "more civilized now." Ask a slaver during the civil way if they were willing to give up their slave and you'd be given the same answer as if you asked a gun owner to hand over their weapon. No way.

So ask yourself, why is gun control such a bad thing? Does it really remove any of your freedoms? Perhaps you are responsible enough to own a gun, but what about your neighbor? Apparently the Washington Sniper isn't responsible enough to own a gun, but someone thought he was.

That same constitution that allows you own a gun, is also allowing the sniper to shoot whoever he sees fit. "Oh it could never happen to me," you say. I'm sure each of his victoms thought the same. Maybe his next victom will be your spouse, child or other loved one.

Gun control will never work, because people don't want it to work. I myself really have nothing against owning a gun. I do have a problem with people owning ammunition for said gun. If you like to collect guns, fine, no problem, but you sure don't need any bullets for a "collection."

Anyway, I feel I'm a little off topic here, and it's not intended to offend anyone, but once again, ask yourself: Do I REALLY need to own a gun? Is it going to improve my freedom to own one?</font>[/QUOTE]The owning of slaves IS not and WAS not a RIGHT in the U.S. Constitution, it was allowed by the indivual States in their Laws or Constitutions, so it was a pratice nothing like the Right under the 2nd amendement to keep and bare arms. Due to a bad U.S. Supreme court decision (Dread Scott) Slavery was interpreted as being Constitutional, sort of.

Yes owning a gun improves my and my families freedom. By exerciseing the freedom and protecting the freedom, I am insuring the freedom is not taken away.

The owning of slaves IS not and WAS not a RIGHT in the U.S. Constitution, it was allowed by the indivual States in their Laws or Constitutions, so it was a pratice nothing like the Right under the 2nd amendement to keep and bare arms. Due to a bad U.S. Supreme court decision (Dread Scott) Slavery was interpreted as being Constitutional, sort of.

Yes owning a gun improves my and my families freedom. By exerciseing the freedom and protecting the freedom, I am insuring the freedom is not taken away.[/QUOTE]

Explain to me again, WHY it's a freedom. Because someone told you it was?

So to stop that "worthless low life sack of horse manure" from getting a gun and shooting someone, sacrifices must be made by everyone. Would you be willing to give up one of your guns if you knew it would save a life?

You are absolutely correct, the problem is with men not guns, but some men are not smart enough to police themselves, and since no one knows who those people are, everyone must be policed.

Once again, I ask you, would you give up one of your guns to save a life?</font>[/QUOTE]That's a hypothetical question, the answer is depends :D In a world where all is peace and love and everybody gets along sure, I'd give up all my guns. Do you know where that world exists Now? But in this world we live in there are worthless low life sacks of horse manure, I'm not going to trade in one of my guns or the right to own the guns.

I am and others are smart enough and responsible enough to own guns. My ancestors and other's ancestors died, gave their lives, property, and pledged their honor so that we the citizens of the U.S.A. would not be policed by the whims of men subject to be tossed and turned by any gust of wind. Thats why the Constitution is writen down, and is the foundation of all U.S. soceity. My honor will not allow me to defile them, I OWE them a debt I can't repay, and I owe my children and grandchildern a country with the same freedoms as I have enjoyed. The U.S. Constitution can be changed, but not easily so as not to be governed by the whims of men or one man. That's the theory at least ;)

The owning of slaves IS not and WAS not a RIGHT in the U.S. Constitution, it was allowed by the indivual States in their Laws or Constitutions, so it was a pratice nothing like the Right under the 2nd amendement to keep and bare arms. Due to a bad U.S. Supreme court decision (Dread Scott) Slavery was interpreted as being Constitutional, sort of.

Yes owning a gun improves my and my families freedom. By exerciseing the freedom and protecting the freedom, I am insuring the freedom is not taken away.</font>[/QUOTE]Explain to me again, WHY it's a freedom. Because someone told you it was?[/QUOTE]
YES! the men that set up this country wrote it down so all would know.

John. A few years ago I had the terrible experience of being in a house when someone close to me attempted suicide. Three times in one night. They hanged themself Hutchence style on the back of the door.

Three times I waited until they had passed out, and I broke down the door, removed the belt from their neck, and revived them.

Three times.

Each time I took the belt, but each time a new one was found.

After the last time, I scoured the house for belts and ropes, took all the knives I could find, and left.

They are still alive today.

Had they possessed a gun, they would be dead. For all intents and purposes, they succeeded in their attempt. Had I not been around, and forced my way in, they would be dead. Because it was not a gun, I was able to change the situation.

As I said, they are still alive thank God.

The gun is instant death. The guns sole reason for existence is to end life.

But I appreciate your view my friend. [img]smile.gif[/img] Peace.</font>[/QUOTE]Yorick, I'm sorry that you had to live through that experiance, but thank God you were there to save your friend's life.

You speak the truth about the gun's reason for existance. That's why with great freedom comes great responsibilty. Those that abuse the responsibilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But here's what I don't understand.

You trust American citizens enough to give them all a killing machine, yet don't trust American citizens, assuming they will try and set up a dictatorship or oppress the people. Isn't the government filled with the same types of people you're trusting with guns?

American citizens?

I don't understand.

I also don't understand what difference a person with a gun is going to make against a dictatorship if ever that unlikely scenario came to pass.

Again if so, look at the peaceful revolution in the Philippines and Yeltsins Russian tank episode, at what can be achieved without resorting to violence. Look at Ghandi's nonviolent achievements against the same British Empire America fought a war against!

LOOK AT WHAT IS CENTRAL TO AMERICAN CULTURE! The right to possess power to kill each other! Violence! It comes out through the arts and music! Glorified!

Is it any wonder a civil war errupted! Is it any wonder race riots have occurred. He that lives by the sword, dies by the sword!

This is what I'm talking about. The problems within American society are foundational. There is no trust.

In God we trust, but not in our government, even though our government set up the very rights we're clinging to.

Not enough to let go an arcane and outdated right that is KILLING CHILDREN!

[ 10-23-2002, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

It grieves me greeatly to post this actually. I love America, and my view distresses me. I learn as I type.

I must ponder this. :(

Tbut according to this statistic 62% of murders in that year WERE NOT caused by guns!! .</font>[/QUOTE]That's not what it says at all. Check it out again. The 38% is the number of gun deaths that were homicides. It's not a percentage of murders. The rest were mostly suicides. Suicide is more effective with a gun.

What is that saying about society? Two problems linked together. Suicide and a gun.</font>[/QUOTE]Guns are one of the preferred methods of suicide for males while used much less frequently by females. Statistics have shown that males prefer more violent methods of committing suicide than females. Taking away guns would remove one way of doing it, but doesn't address the problem of suicide at all.

The two aren't related at all. People would just use another method.

I haven't been able to get into Escape for the last day or two, but I did want to make a point about some of the statistics listed on the first page or two about suicide rates and accidental deaths with guns.

I really don't believe these can be brought into the argument to ban guns, because if you follow that line, then prescription medicines would need to be banned as well.

Accidental deaths and suicides from illegal drugs fall into the same catagory. If you use them, or believe they should be legalized, then you can't reasonably argue that guns should be banned because they cause accidental deaths or are used in suicides.

Are guns as important to society as prescription medicines? Of course not, but as with prescription medicines, their misuse shouldn't be held against everyone.

The current sniper situation is absolutely not a testement to gun control. Even our anti gun friends here will admit that in countries with strict gun controls guns are still used to murder people.

Someone may or may not have thought the sniper was responsible enough to own a gun. It may or may not be a legal weapon.

It was once legal to own slaves, but I don't think it was ever really acceptable. Even before the Constitution, people were debating the moral issue of slavery. Owning slaves was never a right given by the constitution, but it was univerally outlawed by an ammendment to the constitution.

I don't think you can compare owning a gun with owning a person. It's not the same principle.

Yorick, we possess the power to kill one another in many ways. The violence that comes through in art and music isn't strictly about or from guns, and their banning wouldn't change that. We do need change, but the change we need is much deeper than whether or not we can own guns. If we have the desire to kill one another, that is what should be addressed.

Most of the nations of the world have been through civil wars and none of them that I'm aware of are directly related to the "right to bear arms". Civil wars are fought to achieve control for a specific side/ideal. It's not an inherantly America idea, or problem. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

I don't think the issue of gun control has anything to do with trust. That argument is often given or alluded too, but isn't really true. We usually don't trust our government, but it isn't the reason we want guns.

As far as killing children, I believe most of the child related fatalities are accidental and are easily preventable without having to ban guns. Kids die tragically everyday from flamable pajamas, choking on toys, being left in cars by parents and caretakers, etc.

Sadly, more kids die from abuse and neglect at the hands of their parents, than from the accidental discharge of firearms. This is the kind of "change" we need to address in America. A change in how much we care about one another. Firearms won't effect that "much" needed change either way.

Yorick, don't feel bad about liking America but questioning her actions. Good Americans do it everyday. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

<font color="#6699cc">Just a note to say that I have said all I wanted to say on this topic, but need to address an accusation of racism.

I wanted to state, that all I know about the person that I accused of ingratitude and rudeness is that he is apparently not a US citizen, and is apparently an Australian citizen. I have no knowledge of his race whatsoever. I believe he is some kind of christian, but again that has nothing to do with race. Thats the sum total of what I know of the person known as Yorick (Err I also know that he is famous on a couple of boards)</font>