Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Or how about this:NRA Basic Firearm Training
Its a tad more specific!

What I belive is that its easy to try to have a scape goat, whether it be the NRA, Sarah Brady, or whomever. Ultimately the resposibility lies in the hands of the person holding that firearm. It does not matter in the least if that firearm is a single shot pellet rifle or a full automatic weapon, it only relys on the person holding it to make it good or evil all the hoopalh in the world on tv, in the newsmedia or anywhere else is completely moot point. A person in responsible for his own actions, I have personally fired well over 100 machine guns and thousands of other guns and NEVER hurt a single person with a weapon. I also belive it is not up to the schools, government, The NRA or anyone else to teach a child about handling a gun safely, it is up to the parent of that child.
Just my .02$
Photoguy67

Originally Posted by Photoguy67

What I belive is that its easy to try to have a scape goat, whether it be the NRA, Sarah Brady, or whomever. Ultimately the resposibility lies in the hands of the person holding that firearm. It does not matter in the least if that firearm is a single shot pellet rifle or a full automatic weapon, it only relys on the person holding it to make it good or evil all the hoopalh in the world on tv, in the newsmedia or anywhere else is completely moot point. A person in responsible for his own actions, I have personally fired well over 100 machine guns and thousands of other guns and NEVER hurt a single person with a weapon. I also belive it is not up to the schools, government, The NRA or anyone else to teach a child about handling a gun safely, it is up to the parent of that child.
Just my .02$
Photoguy67

Your two cents is worth every penny, and then some!!

Hi again folks,
Amyn, one man's "right wing rhetoric" is another's gospel. Do you dislike it because of who printed it or because of what it says? Most of the opposition statements, which, incidentally seem to me to make even more far reaching claims, could just as easily be proclaimed "left wing rhetoric", or even communist propaganda. Doesn't make the numbers false. I do not believe that the founders or anyone else felt that the government should be deciding we can only have this weapon, or that weapon, and restricted from the other, because, well, only the government gets to have THOSE. I feel if the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, etc. it should make no difference what the citizens want to own wrt arms.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Where I live, the police mostly stop people who have burned-out tail lights. They mainly leave the bikers alone. Other than that, I'm not sure.

j

So, you would leave the option of lethal force only in their hands?
How fast do you think they would respond to your house if the "bikers" were coming for you?

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Pretty hard-core libertarian, and therefore suspect.

No information seems to be available on their funding.

j

Jim, it would appear that no source contrary to what you wish to believe, e.g. guns=bad and therefore Americans owning guns=bad, meets your standards. Fact of the matter is there is NO completely unbiased study, as gun control advocates want the studies to show firearms are inherently evil and citizens are not trustworthy and should subject themselves to the protection of the government, meanwhile firearms rights advocates, such as myself, are drawn to the studies showing net crime reduction in locales which reduce the death hold on gun rights.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

You need to bear in mind the statistical "confounding variable." That's the often outlying factor that may not have been considered that renders the hypothesis suspect.

In this case, he cites data from 1977 to 1994. The confounding variable in that time period is that the Baby Boom generation passed through the primary violent crime-committing years. All violent crime decreased in those years for that reason.

Doesn't disprove his theory, but renders his assertions unproven.

j

Just thought I would point out, that just because the "Baby Boom" generation has gotten older doesn't mean there aren't people born every day. I admit perhaps a little laziness here, but just wanted to point out that there are ALWAYS citizens in those "primary violent crime-committing years". Per capita it really doesn't matter how old "Baby Boomers" "Gen-X"ers or any other group is.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

...
No research I've seen suggests that the number of crimes stopped by an armed citizen comes anywhere near the number of crimes and accidents enabled by wide-spread gun ownership.

This statement does not follow. First, it is apparent you rule out any research which disagrees with your personal beliefs, but secondly this makes the blanket statement that widespread crimes and accidents are enabled by widespread gun ownership, which, is obviously, an opinion of yours. Pre-US days, in many locations firearms ownership was mandatory yet strangely, it didn't lead to an increase in crime rates. Likewise in modern times, areas with less restrictive gun laws also typically have lower crime rates per capita, not higher. Most restrictive gun laws: LA, NYC, DC...highest murder rates: LA, NYC, DC... just as an example. One could also point at the Swiss, who have all the same modern conveniences we do (and likely more) as well as an automatic weapon in every household. EXTREMELY low crime rate.
Most of the more guns=more crime doesn't wash, in spite of how appealing it may seem.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

We also need to go upside Hollywood's head about their mania for brainwashing our children into thinking that violence is a solution. Every time Hollywood tries to show kids that they can solve problems with guns, we should be all over them.

Here, I agree completely. +1. It is ridiculous that as Americans we decry foreign television shows which perhaps show more nudity, sexuality, or some such-something anyone married experiences, hopefully-but we would gladly show our children gang-related, brutal, violent, gory MURDER, without blinking, then we let them play it out graphically as if THEY were the star, shooting police officers, selling drugs, etc. on their playstations. Where are our priorities!

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Just an opinion. It's what the NRA should be doing -- promoting a responsible image of gun ownership, not cowboys and Indians.

j

Jim, this displays a huge ignorance of what the NRA is and does. Every man has his own favorite flavor of propaganda, but perhaps do some research on what the NRA actually is and does, not what your own particular flavor of propagandists says it does. The irresponsible image of gun ownership? Comes from your friendly activists (who don't know) and Hollywood in general, not the NRA.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Actually, I normally do give backup. I believe I acknowledged being a bit lazy this time around.

Don't get me started on the NRA. Really. They don't represent gun owners. They represent gun manufacturers. The NRA Loooooves gun violence on TV. They love convincing people that guns=manhood. They love creating gun-nuts -- those folks who convince the rest of the country that gun owners aren't to be trusted. Not only do they do absolutely nothing to counter the negative image of gun owners, they actually go out of their way to promote it. Within days of the Columbine shootings, the NRA was in Columbine holding rallies and taunting the grieving families. It was unbelievable.

Jim, perhaps you may have guessed several on here (self included) are members of the NRA. Not saying what you are claiming is false, but I've never heard of any such rallies to taunt grieving families. I just don't believe you in this regard. Often what does happen is that when someone commits a crime, all of the anti-gun organizations use the blood of the victims as a cheap, dirty spring board to push their political agendas, and every time one hears on the news there was a mass shooting, Hollywood types scramble to claim their gun-toting, trenchcoat wearing underdog-hero (Matrix, just as an example) had nothing to do with students who felt oppressed thinking they could do the same. So, there is ALWAYS after such incidents a scramble to take rights away from Americans. This is unacceptable use of the loss of others, and the NRA has to defend against these attacks on our liberties, as do other citizens' organizations. If you don't want to own a firearm, that's your prerogative. Blaming it for murder is misguided justice. One doesn't see bills in Congress *the next day* after someone is killed in a car crash, to ban cars, nor, after a serial killer killed multitudes with a claw hammer, was there a movement to "register" claw hammers and their owners, like dogs in a kennel. We are citizens, Jim, and have broken no law. It is time for the hatred of law abiding gun owners to stop, and the education to start, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Why else do they oppose safety equipment? Why do they oppose banning plastic guns that might get through security? Why do they insist that hunters have a sporting need for magazines that hold more than 30 rounds? Why won't they even try to educate the public about the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. It's all so the manufacturers can sell more stuff. They care about the short-term profit, not the fact that if their negligence creates enough of a backlash, we're all losers. They don't look that far forward. It's really scandalous.

I could go on. Stop me now.

j

Ok, Jim. Stop.
A whole lot of statements here that aren't backed up, nor for the most part, are they true. Oppose safety equipment? Not at all. Equipment which would prevent a gun owner from effectively using said firearm to defend one's family? That is a different case altogether.
Magazines over 30 rounds? Why does this matter to you. In my job for the government, I sometimes fire a gun that holds four THOUSAND rounds, and I can stream them through your window from a moving helicopter almost half mile away, at between two and four thousand rounds per MINUTE. Now. If a law abiding citizen wants to have a military style weapon, (exactly what I believe the 2nd Amendment protects, incidentally) then, since he is a free citizen of the United States of America, and not some lowly subject of some other nation, I say he shall keep it, and may it provide him and his family much enjoyment, and never have to be fired in anger.


John P.

Hey John,

you raise a good point about bias.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Fact of the matter is there is NO completely unbiased study, as gun control advocates want the studies to show firearms are inherently evil and citizens are not trustworthy and should subject themselves to the protection of the government, meanwhile firearms rights advocates, such as myself, are drawn to the studies showing net crime reduction in locales which reduce the death hold on gun rights.

I completely agree with your point if you mean that bias shows up in how we interpret the data. There is usually an amount of built in bias when surveying any kind of social data. However that doesn't mean that meaningful data hasn't been collected. The real question of bias comes in the interpretation and weighing the importance of the numbers. For example, with regards to the W Post editorial you chose to focus on the data as it pertained to suicides, whereas I chose to focus on seeming effectiveness during home invasions - both of us exhibiting obvious bias. The key will be having decision makers who are able to approach the issue from as objective a view point as possible. I believe that some SC justices on both sides of the decision tried to do that.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I do not believe that the founders or anyone else felt that the government should be deciding we can only have this weapon, or that weapon, and restricted from the other, because, well, only the government gets to have THOSE. I feel if the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, etc. it should make no difference what the citizens want to own wrt arms.

Keep in mind that the founding fathers lived in a time when population density was basically non-existent and their weapons could fire a single round. Surely there has to be a line where it becomes unreasonable to allow anyone access to any weapon. The armed forces maintains arms to protect the nation and it's interests. You would know better than I, but I assume that weapons are less frequently stolen from the armed forces armouries than from peoples' bedrooms. Also I suspect there are few six year olds rooting around the armouries and magazines. The point being that the "government's weapon" are usually handled with a very high degree of responsibility and care. If it could be guaranteed that every gun owner would do the same I suspect the 2nd amendment would be a non-issue.

Is there no amount of destructive power which is unreasonable to be allowed to be kept in someone's suburban rec room? An M203 launcher, an M249, a SRAW? (yes, I played a lot of BF2 when I had an internet connection that could handle it ). If people are keeping these things in their underwear drawer, waiting for the day when the nation is ruled by a despotic tyrant, so that he may be overthrown - well, I'm sad that there is such little trust in our system on their part.

Because the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, doesn't mean they are equivalent in terms of authority and responsibility. If that's true, I'm going to start collecting taxes . I have a keen interest in physics, chemistry and biology. The bill of rights doesn't explicity discuss my rights with regards to home chemistry and yet I have no right to mix up a batch of ricin in my kitchen no matter how responsible and careful I am.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Just thought I would point out, that just because the "Baby Boom" generation has gotten older doesn't mean there aren't people born every day. I admit perhaps a little laziness here, but just wanted to point out that there are ALWAYS citizens in those "primary violent crime-committing years". Per capita it really doesn't matter how old "Baby Boomers" "Gen-X"ers or any other group is.

I believe the point being made was that, while the total population is gradually increasing, the age distribution fluctuates considerably. The number of people in the "crime committing ages" is anything but static.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Likewise in modern times, areas with less restrictive gun laws also typically have lower crime rates per capita, not higher. Most restrictive gun laws: LA, NYC, DC...highest murder rates: LA, NYC, DC... just as an example. One could also point at the Swiss, who have all the same modern conveniences we do (and likely more) as well as an automatic weapon in every household. EXTREMELY low crime rate.

This is a chicken-egg problem. Cities implement stricter gun laws usually to address a pre-existing problem with gun crimes. One could ask the question - how much worse would the problem be without strict gun laws?

Switzerland has mandatory military service, and annual mandatory refresher courses. Perhaps that every male is taught to handle weapons with respect and responsibility (I'm making an assumption that this a common feature of most modern armed forces) has an impact of attitude and wisdom regarding handling of weapons.

If you want to compare to other nations, the impact of culture is usually overlooked and in my opinion far from insignificant. Some cultures are simply more law abiding than others. And acceptable conflict resolution varies hugely from culture to culture. My interpretation of this is that wide spread gun ownership will cause more issues in some cultures than others.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Here, I agree completely. +1. It is ridiculous that as Americans we decry foreign television shows which perhaps show more nudity, sexuality, or some such-something anyone married experiences, hopefully-but we would gladly show our children gang-related, brutal, violent, gory MURDER, without blinking, then we let them play it out graphically as if THEY were the star, shooting police officers, selling drugs, etc. on their playstations. Where are our priorities!

+10

Originally Posted by JohnP

Jim, perhaps you may have guessed several on here (self included) are members of the NRA. Not saying what you are claiming is false, but I've never heard of any such rallies to taunt grieving families.

I believe the reference was to the NRA convention that was held in Denver very shortly after the Columbine tragedy. The NRA scaled back, but refused to reschedule the event or change venue when asked to do so.

Originally Posted by JohnP

One doesn't see bills in Congress *the next day* after someone is killed in a car crash, to ban cars, nor, after a serial killer killed multitudes with a claw hammer, was there a movement to "register" claw hammers and their owners, like dogs in a kennel. We are citizens, Jim, and have broken no law. It is time for the hatred of law abiding gun owners to stop, and the education to start, IMHO.

You are comparing apples to oranges to some extent. Hammers and cars are designed to transport people and put nails into lumber. Firearms are designed to kill and injure, or threaten to do so. Yes, they are ubiquitously used for target practise and recreation, but to argue that it was for this purpose that firearms have been developed into such efficient tools is disingenuous.

It is a complex issue and I think statements like "guns = bad" and "the founding fathers guaranteed that we can own any weapon we want" do nothing to solve or even lessen the very real problem of gun crime.

The problem with the 2nd amendement is that it is now used in debates, in a way which was never foreseen by the founders.
A gun in that day was a front loading musket. They would never have imagined that things like M60's or Gatling guns would exist one day.

Why would a private citizen own one of these? for NOT shooting other people?
The only times such a weapon would be used is in the hypothetical situation of an open revolt against the government (which will never happen) or if the owner snaps and goes on a killing spree.

And if you want M60, why not rocket launchers? Apache helicopters? Anti aircraft guns? Nuclear weapons? Where would you draw the line?

Such weapons have 0 practical purpose for defense scenarios, so there is no reason for owning them. Their only purpose is military, so it makes sense that only the military has them.

Originally Posted by Bruno

The problem with the 2nd amendement is that it is now used in debates, in a way which was never foreseen by the founders.
A gun in that day was a front loading musket. They would never have imagined that things like M60's or Gatling guns would exist one day.

Why would a private citizen own one of these? for NOT shooting other people?
The only times such a weapon would be used is in the hypothetical situation of an open revolt against the government (which will never happen) or if the owner snaps and goes on a killing spree.

And if you want M60, why not rocket launchers? Apache helicopters? Anti aircraft guns? Nuclear weapons? Where would you draw the line?

Such weapons have 0 practical purpose for defense scenarios, so there is no reason for owning them. Their only purpose is military, so it makes sense that only the military has them.

I would like to point out that there are a number of m-60 and anti air craft guns in private hand and legally registered and have never been used in the commission of a crime so why should you fear them? Let people have what they want until they prove they can't handle it. I don't agree with people having nuclear weapons but pretty much everything else yes. People prove themselves all them time that they are capable of owning them and making the correct decisions on the recreational firing of those weapons everytime.

Originally Posted by Bruno

The problem with the 2nd amendement is that it is now used in debates, in a way which was never foreseen by the founders.
A gun in that day was a front loading musket. They would never have imagined that things like M60's or Gatling guns would exist one day.

Why would a private citizen own one of these? for NOT shooting other people?
The only times such a weapon would be used is in the hypothetical situation of an open revolt against the government (which will never happen) or if the owner snaps and goes on a killing spree.

And if you want M60, why not rocket launchers? Apache helicopters? Anti aircraft guns? Nuclear weapons? Where would you draw the line?

Such weapons have 0 practical purpose for defense scenarios, so there is no reason for owning them. Their only purpose is military, so it makes sense that only the military has them.

The only problem with this line of reasoning is that WE the people are also supposed to be the military. Our founding fathers had as much to fear from the notion of a standing army as they did from the lose of their weapons.

This is one very visible way that we are extremely far from the original intent of the framers. Someone implied in another thread that we are even a fascist state now. If that is the case our own government may well soon turn on its citizens and become (more?) oppressive in which case it is our duty to oppose the government, with any and every means we can.

Every line drawn limits the power of the people to provide a necessary check on the government.

To give another pertinent example I think that, if things were still being done as they were designed to, we would be in Afghanistan right now but I doubt we would be in Iraq. The urgency at the start of the war just wasn't there. No matter how strongly most of congress supported it I don't think they would have had the support of the people in raising the militia for that conflict.

Originally Posted by Bruno

The problem with the 2nd amendement is that it is now used in debates, in a way which was never foreseen by the founders.
A gun in that day was a front loading musket. They would never have imagined that things like M60's or Gatling guns would exist one day.
.

they never would have imagined tv, radio and the internet, but guess what? the first amendment doesn't ONLY apply to wooden printing presses because that's what they had at the time.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Jim, it would appear that no source contrary to what you wish to believe, e.g. guns=bad and therefore Americans owning guns=bad, meets your standards. .

This might be a good point if you had bothered to read back for my position on firearm ownership. I've been an owner of firearms since birth and strongly support responsible ownership. What upsets me is incompetent (and worse) people pissing away my rights. I worry less about gun control advocates than I do about people who are supposedly on my side.

Jim, perhaps you may have guessed several on here (self included) are members of the NRA.

I used to be a member. Dropped my membership in disgust.

One doesn't see bills in Congress *the next day* after someone is killed in a car crash, to ban cars, nor, after a serial killer killed multitudes with a claw hammer, was there a movement to "register" claw hammers and their owners, like dogs in a kennel. We are citizens, Jim, and have broken no law. It is time for the hatred of law abiding gun owners to stop, and the education to start, IMHO.

Good point. Claw hammers probably aren't used often enough to draw much attention, but cars are a problem. And we don't need "bills in Congress the next day..." because the laws exist. Cars are dangerous and can't even be taken on the road unless they're registered, which they need to be on an average of every two years. To be registered, they must be insured up the whoop, and inspected for mechanical function and safety equipment, which must be present.

Then, in order to drive the car, you must pass a written test, a practical test, a vision test, and a background check. You must be recertified every few years. And your driving privileges can be revoked for a variety of reasons.

In fact, the car analogy is as good an argument for gun registration as I've ever heard. Please stop using it.

In my job for the government, I sometimes fire a gun that holds four THOUSAND rounds, and I can stream them through your window from a moving helicopter almost half mile away, at between two and four thousand rounds per MINUTE. Now. If a law abiding citizen wants to have a military style weapon, (exactly what I believe the 2nd Amendment protects, incidentally) then, since he is a free citizen of the United States of America, and not some lowly subject of some other nation, I say he shall keep it, and may it provide him and his family much enjoyment, and never have to be fired in anger.

I don't know if I should worry about you. Presumably your government employment ensures that you're reasonably sane. On the other hand, the glee with which you describe pumping 4000 round through my window gives me pause. Should I worry?

But when some imbecile walks into McDonalds to take out his frustrations with his mother, I'd just as soon he had to reload once in a while.

j