Gun Nut Threatens To Stick Bayonet Up Reporter's Butt

[WildCat]

At that news conference, Chicago Reader reporter Mick Dumke asked Daley if the ban has been effective, given how many people are shot in the city every year. The mayor responded by picking up a rifle with a bayonet from among several seized guns that Chicago police had put on display.

"It's been very effective," Daley said as he held the rifle. "If I put this up your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know."

...Asked what prompted him to pick up the rifle in the first place, Daley said, "It was a gun with a bayonet. … just think, a gun with a bayonet. What is a bayonet used for?"

When a reporter pointed out bayonets are not traditionally used for sticking up someone's butt, Daley said, "you stick it everyplace."
http://www.wbbm780.com/Daley-Regrets--Up-Your-Butt--Comment-On-Guns/7154572

At the same news conference he expressed hope that a Supreme Court justice would get mugged at gunpoint to change his/her mind on the 2nd Amendment.

What an embarrassment...

[thaiboxerken]

Hmm.. so in this thread, you take an "if" statement and say that it's a threat. Interesting. And you call him a gun nut?! That's a term usually reserved for pro-gun advocates.

[Newtons Bit]

http://www.wbbm780.com/Daley-Regrets--Up-Your-Butt--Comment-On-Guns/7154572

At the same news conference he expressed hope that a Supreme Court justice would get mugged at gunpoint to change his/her mind on the 2nd Amendment.

What an embarrassment...

Dude has serious issues.

"Don't agree with how I try to stop violence? If I stick this gun up your ass you'll find out just how good I am at stopping violence!"

I knew Daley was a nutjob, but this is truther level comedy.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Hmm.. so in this thread, you take an "if" statement and say that it's a threat. Interesting. And you call him a gun nut?! That's a term usually reserved for pro-gun advocates.

I agree that "gun nut" is an odd term here, given its usual usage, but I don't think WC is off in considering the statement a threat, even if it wasn't a serious one. The context is pretty clear to me: the reporter asked about the effectiveness of a gun ban, and the mayor responds with a hypothetical situation of sticking a bayonet up the guy's rear end. I'm not sure how that would be taken as anything but a threat, given that there is no logical way that sticking a bayonet up someone's rear end would illustrate the effectiveness of a gun ban.

Either way, it's a disturbingly inappropriate response to a valid question, from the mayor of a major city.

[Cobalt]

I agree that "gun nut" is an odd term here, given its usual usage, but I don't think WC is off in considering the statement a threat, even if it wasn't a serious one. The context is pretty clear to me: the reporter asked about the effectiveness of a gun ban, and the mayor responds with a hypothetical situation of sticking a bayonet up the guy's rear end. I'm not sure how that would be taken as anything but a threat, given that there is no logical way that sticking a bayonet up someone's rear end would illustrate the effectiveness of a gun ban.

Either way, it's a disturbingly inappropriate response to a valid question, from the mayor of a major city.

Perhaps it was a sick and twisted homosexual advance!

[WildCat]

I agree that "gun nut" is an odd term here, given its usual usage
Clearly, guns make Daley nuts.

Except, of course, the ones his 24/7/365 bodyguards carry at all times. And the ones his political cronies get to carry with impunity, though it's illegal. But those laws are for us commoners, not him and his.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Perhaps it was a sick and twisted homosexual advance!

Weeeelll everyone's got their kinks, I suppose.

Disturbingly, "bayonet sodomy" probably isn't even the weirdest fetish I've heard of.

[rwguinn]

I agree that "gun nut" is an odd term here, given its usual usage, but I don't think WC is off in considering the statement a threat, even if it wasn't a serious one. The context is pretty clear to me: the reporter asked about the effectiveness of a gun ban, and the mayor responds with a hypothetical situation of sticking a bayonet up the guy's rear end. I'm not sure how that would be taken as anything but a threat, given that there is no logical way that sticking a bayonet up someone's rear end would illustrate the effectiveness of a gun ban.

Either way, it's a disturbingly inappropriate response to a valid question, from the mayor of a major city.

Perhaps "(Another) Nut with a gun..."?

[thaiboxerken]

Clearly, guns make Daley nuts.

Except, of course, the ones his 24/7/365 bodyguards carry at all times. And the ones his political cronies get to carry with impunity, though it's illegal. But those laws are for us commoners, not him and his.

Why do you believe you need a gun?

[WildCat]

Why do you believe you need a gun?
Did I say I needed one?

But I can see why many people do. Police response isn't all that quick around here: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/city-sued-over-slaying-of-sweet-shop-owner.html

The plaintif in the case before the Supreme Court now, Otis McDonald (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hear-chicago-gun-ban-case/story?id=8748973), has his own reasons:

Otis McDonald, who lives in the same neighborhood where Albert was killed, says his own life has been threatened by local thugs and he says his home has been broken into.

"When I'm at home, I can't even protect myself there. This house here has been broken into at least three times only a week ago," the retired maintenance engineer told ABC News. "It's the times that we live in, and long ago, when the guns were taken away from us in '82, '83, it wasn't so bad back then, but times have changed. ... Everybody is in danger now, in these days."

If you don't want a gun, don't buy one.

[Puppycow]

Hmm.. so in this thread, you take an "if" statement and say that it's a threat. Interesting. And you call him a gun nut?! That's a term usually reserved for pro-gun advocates.

You don't think what he said is appalling? Or nutty?

Do you think the question deserved a serious response?

Has the ban been effective in reducing violent crime?

[Puppycow]

I agree that "gun nut" is an odd term here, given its usual usage

That's exactly the point.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Probably not. I don't think it'd help in stopping crime either since there are more endemic causes, but it probably (At this point) can't really hurt..

[fuelair]

http://www.wbbm780.com/Daley-Regrets--Up-Your-Butt--Comment-On-Guns/7154572

At the same news conference he expressed hope that a Supreme Court justice would get mugged at gunpoint to change his/her mind on the 2nd Amendment.

What an embarrassment...I'll grant it was a stupid statement - but being mugged or otherwise assaulted does tend to sharpen one's concentration on laws that might make them safer instead of not so much.......:)

[fuelair]

I agree that "gun nut" is an odd term here, given its usual usage, but I don't think WC is off in considering the statement a threat, even if it wasn't a serious one. The context is pretty clear to me: the reporter asked about the effectiveness of a gun ban, and the mayor responds with a hypothetical situation of sticking a bayonet up the guy's rear end. I'm not sure how that would be taken as anything but a threat, given that there is no logical way that sticking a bayonet up someone's rear end would illustrate the effectiveness of a gun ban.

Either way, it's a disturbingly inappropriate response to a valid question, from the mayor of a major city.

Actually, it demonstrates why a gun ban is a very bad idea. Very well, in fact. - but, notice I add this. it was a dumb response.:)

[peptoabysmal]

Mayor Daley Threatens to Shoot the Messenger—Namely, Me (http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2010/05/20/mayor-daley-threatens-to-shoot-the-messengernamely-me)

[Drudgewire]

Why do you believe you need a gun?


To protect myself from politicians with a gun-rape fetish apparently. :eek:

[thaiboxerken]

First of all, I don't believe gun ban will work for a city, if the rest of the area around it can carry guns.

Second, I agree what this guy said was nutty. It doesn't even make a point.

Third.....why do people need guns?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Have you been exiled for mocking our Great Leader yet?

This exchange was hilarious, but god I hate that bastard. If only something like this could cause his public career to fizzle.

[dtugg]

Third.....why do people need guns?

In case they need to shoot somebody.

[thaiboxerken]

In case they need to shoot somebody.

Why would a person need to shoot another person?

[dtugg]

Why would a person need to shoot another person?

Self defense.

[fullflavormenthol]

Third.....why do people need guns?

Easy. Self defense from people and vicious animals, for hunting, and for sport or because I simply want one and I have a right to own one.

Why do people need freedom of speech? They can simply shut the hell up and do what they are told.

Why do people need 4th amendment rights? If'n they ain't got nothin' to hide.

Why do people need 5th amendment rights? If'n they ain't done nothin' wrong.

Hyperbole aside, why do you think a gun ban actually has an effect on criminal use of fire arms?

Why would a person need to shoot another person?
When hugs and kind words don't work.

[Bikewer]

The military rifle with bayonet mounted is a fierce-looking weapon, regardless of type. However, they don't figure much in crime. I certainly don't ever recall hearing of such an incident, though I suppose it's possible.
I seem to recall some years back an article on the situation in New York City, where despite a general ban on handguns (it was nearly impossible for a private citizent to own one) the NYPD each month seized hundreds, most of which were destroyed by smelting or dumping in the ocean.
Month after month after month....

[MikeMangum]

The amazing part was the veiled threat to Supreme Court justices.

[NWO Sentryman]

And i thought the gun nut would be against sodomy.

[Dorian Gray]

I'll grant it was a stupid statement - but being mugged or otherwise assaulted does tend to sharpen one's concentration on laws that might make them safer instead of not so much.......:)
There are already laws against mugging. You can get mugged with weapons other than guns. There is no guarantee that even if you have a gun you won't get shot, particularly since the mugger will have drawn first.

So, fail.

P.S. A bayonet is not a gun, it's a knife, and sticking it in someone's butt could be considered sodomy. What the hell do either of those things have to do with gun laws, and why did the mayor mention them?

[thaiboxerken]

Easy. Self defense from people and vicious animals, for hunting, and for sport or because I simply want one and I have a right to own one.


Then why don't the citizens of the UK need them?

[Skeptic]

Then why don't the citizens of the UK need them?

They do, as crime had risen by a factor of 10 or 20 and more in the last decades, so much so that it has become a national epidemic; but it's politically inexpedient to call for more gun ownership.

Living in Israel, there is no "show off" value to having a gun; many people use guns in the army. It implies no particular manhood or bravery or skill. So if you get yourself a gun, it is because you think you need one, not because it's a "substitute penis" or whatever the latest half-baked pseudo-Freudian "real reason" those "gun nuts" want guns is supposed to be.

And yet some people still think they need private handguns for safety, or to protect their families, or for similar reasons. Same with UK.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you have any evidence for your assertion, skeptic? Or is this one of those myths about the UK?

[Dorian Gray]

And on top of that, is this a rise in violent crime, or, say, embezzlement or vandalism?

[thaiboxerken]

Since the UK banned guns, internet crime has risen drastically.

[fuelair]

Why would a person need to shoot another person?

!) Keep him/her from harming him /her.

2) Keep him/her from harming someone else.

3) Keep him/her from harming/taking his/her property.

4) Keep him/her from harming/taking someone else's property.

5) Scare him/her into droping his/her weapon.

This should do for a start. It is not all inclusive though it covers the major things/considerations.

[thaiboxerken]

How about to kill another person for their property?
Kill for revenge?
Kill for fun?

I'm not all about banning guns. However, I don't really see it as a big deal.

[fuelair]

Do you have any evidence for your assertion, skeptic? Or is this one of those myths about the UK?

Any time a single unarmed person die from a violent attack, it proves the point. No one should be prohibited from being sufficiently armed to protect themselves from criminals.

[thaiboxerken]

Any time a single unarmed person die from a violent attack, it proves the point. No one should be prohibited from being sufficiently armed to protect themselves from criminals.

Does that work the other way around? Every time a person dies from being shot, that shows that guns should be banned.

[WildCat]

P.S. A bayonet is not a gun, it's a knife, and sticking it in someone's butt could be considered sodomy. What the hell do either of those things have to do with gun laws, and why did the mayor mention them?
He also says he'll "put a round up, you know".

Daley, btw, is famous for bullying reporters who dare ask him embarrassing questions.

[The Fool]

I like it when I have a gun in my pocket...I feel safer. I'm not safer....but feelings, thats whats important.

[Puppycow]

crime had risen by a factor of 10 or 20 and more in the last decades

You're high. Prove it if you can.

[fuelair]

Does that work the other way around? Every time a person dies from being shot, that shows that guns should be banned.

From criminals ,absolutely. No criminals with guns or any other weapons or assault skills, no need for them. But that isn't how life is. Is it?:mad::mad:

[fuelair]

I like it when I have a gun in my pocket...I feel safer. I'm not safer....but feelings, thats whats important.

The only way you are not safer is if you are in a completely secured/locked down environment OR you have no idea how to use the gun.

[fuelair]

And i thought the gun nut would be against sodomy.

I'm sure Daley doesn't mind if he's the top. And he does not even think... Well, I can stop right there just as easily.:D:D

[fullflavormenthol]

Then why don't the citizens of the UK need them?
Hey the UK can run itself how ever it feels like, but the subject is the United States; and if you recall there is an actual right dictated in the Constitution. Why don't you explain why Americans feel the need to have 1st Amendment rights when people in North Korea don't? Or 4th and 5th Amendment rights for that matter? You know since we are apparently justifying rights based upon other nations and all.

[Darth Rotor]

P.S. A bayonet is not a gun, it's a knife, and sticking it in someone's butt could be considered sodomy.
More likely assault with a deadly weapon ... I don't think the offer was sexual.

DR

[dudalb]

First of all, I don't believe gun ban will work for a city, if the rest of the area around it can carry guns.

Second, I agree what this guy said was nutty. It doesn't even make a point.

Third.....why do people need guns?

Why do you feel the need to tell people they should not have them?

[thaiboxerken]

From criminals ,absolutely. No criminals with guns or any other weapons or assault skills, no need for them. But that isn't how life is. Is it?:mad::mad:

What if a person is shot by a non-criminal, by accident? Does that show that guns should be banned from non-criminals?

[thaiboxerken]

Hey the UK can run itself how ever it feels like, but the subject is the United States; and if you recall there is an actual right dictated in the Constitution.

So a person's needs are determined by the government? I doubt it. I am thinking slaves needed to be free long before the government ammended the constitution. There is a difference between rights and needs.

[Darth Rotor]

What if a person is shot by a non-criminal, by accident? Does that show that guns should be banned from non-criminals?

No.

[thaiboxerken]

Why do you feel the need to tell people they should not have them?

I don't. I just really don't understand why people really, REALLY love their guns. My wife has a gun, and the only thing she does with it is shoot targets. For self-defense, it's useless because she doesn't carry it with her.

[thaiboxerken]

No.

I agree. But for the same logical reason I disagree with fuel-air's argument "Any time a single unarmed person die from a violent attack, it proves the point. No one should be prohibited from being sufficiently armed to protect themselves from criminals. "

[Skeptic]

You're high. Prove it if you can.

Official home office statistics good enough for you (http://forums.randi.org/www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf)?

See the graphs on p. 14-15.

Some tidbits from other sources:

Number of murders in the UK, 2007: about 1000
Number of murders in the UK, 1950s: about 300

And that is the crime which probably increased the LEAST, since murder is still a rare crime and not done as a way of life, unlike, say, burglaries.

Total recorded crimes in England and Wales, 1950: about 500,000
Total recoded crimes in England and Wales, 2000: about 4,000,000

That's almost a tenfold increase. But, given that nowadays police seems to dismiss many crimes as not important -- for example, shoplifting is de facto not counted in the crime statistics since it is usually dealt with on the spot with a fine (if caught) -- the real rate of crime, since the less serious offenses are the most numerous, is probably closer to 20, not 10, times as much as it was in the 1950s.

[Lurker]

Official home office statistics good enough for you (http://forums.randi.org/www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf)?

See the graphs on p. 14-15.

Some tidbits from other sources:

Number of murders in the UK, 2007: about 1000
Number of murders in the UK, 1950s: about 300

And that is the crime which probably increased the LEAST, since murder is still a rare crime and not done as a way of life, unlike, say, burglaries.

Total recorded crimes in England and Wales, 1950: about 500,000
Total recoded crimes in England and Wales, 2000: about 4,000,000

That's almost a tenfold increase. But, given that nowadays police seems to dismiss many crimes as not important -- for example, shoplifting is de facto not counted in the crime statistics since it is usually dealt with on the spot with a fine (if caught) -- the real rate of crime, since the less serious offenses are the most numerous, is probably closer to 20, not 10, times as much as it was in the 1950s.
Am I missing something here? From your source, the homicide rate is as follows:

1900 9.6
1910 8.1
1920 8.3
1930 7.5
1940 ..
1950 7.9
1955 6.3
1960 6.2
1965 6.8
1970 8.1
1975 10.3
1980 12.5
1985 12.5
1990 13.1
1995 14.5
1997 14.1

This is a less than 2x increase. I believe we see this comparison of 1950s to 1990s is mirrored in US statistics as well so this is not specific to the UK in any way. Suprisingly, in the US we saw the rate go down in the 90's and beyond (Read Freakanomics for an intresting take on that). We also see crime rates dropping in the UK

[Just thinking]

Am I missing something here? From your source, the homicide rate is as follows:

[skip]

This is a less than 2x increase. I believe we see this comparison of 1950s to 1990s is mirrored in US statistics as well so this is not specific to the UK in any way. Suprisingly, in the US we saw the rate go down in the 90's and beyond (Read Freakanomics for an intresting take on that). We also see crime rates dropping in the UK

Skeptic was speaking of crimes, not crime rates. If the population increases sufficiently to lower the rate, it still can show a significant increase in actual numbers, which is what he quoted.

So, yes ... you did miss something.

[Lurker]

Skeptic was speaking of crimes, not crime rates. If the population increases sufficiently to lower the rate, it still can show a significant increase in actual numbers, which is what he quoted.

So, yes ... you did miss something.


Well, I had considered that possibility but there is no value in comparing number of crimes without consider the rate per capita.

It is analagous to living in a country of 10 people where one is murdered a year and then living in a country of 100 where 2 are murdered a year and thinking you are worse off in the second scenario.

[DDWW]

I don't. I just really don't understand why people really, REALLY love their guns. My wife has a gun, and the only thing she does with it is shoot targets. For self-defense, it's useless because she doesn't carry it with her.

And her gun will probably go up in value over the years. They are reasonably good investments.

DDWW

[Just thinking]

Well, I had considered that possibility but there is no value in comparing number of crimes without consider the rate per capita.

It is analagous to living in a country of 10 people where one is murdered a year and then living in a country of 100 where 2 are murdered a year and thinking you are worse off in the second scenario.

Depends on how you look at it ... twice as many people died in the second example, regardless of how many people live there. Skeptic made no point about about relative safety, or chances of being a victim. Twice (or whatever) as many is still twice as many dead.

[GlennB]

They do, as crime had risen by a factor of 10 or 20 and more in the last decades,....

You're high. Prove it if you can.

technically Skeptic is right, as "the last decades" includes all decades except this one ;)

eta: those Parliamentary homicide figures stated:

Homicides per million population in England and Wales

so from 1900 to 2000 they were up by roughly 50%, but have doubled since the '60's .

[GlennB]

Well, I had considered that possibility but there is no value in comparing number of crimes without consider the rate per capita.



Quite. Otherwise - based on pure numbers - you'd feel safer in the slums of Kingston, Jamaica than in Singapore.

[GlennB]

That's almost a tenfold increase. But, given that nowadays police seems to dismiss many crimes as not important -- for example, shoplifting is de facto not counted in the crime statistics since it is usually dealt with on the spot with a fine (if caught) -- the real rate of crime, since the less serious offenses are the most numerous, is probably closer to 20, not 10, times as much as it was in the 1950s.

Home Office property crime statistics (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap4.pdf)

Domestic burglary up from 1980 to 1995, then back down to 1980's level by 2008/9 (page 3)

Vehicle related theft ditto.

Trends (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap2.pdf)

"All violence" ditto

[fuelair]

More likely assault with a deadly weapon ... I don't think the offer was sexual.

DR

Actually, more like assault with a dead weapon as Daley was clearly substituting the rifle/bayonet combo for his own equipment.:D

[fuelair]

What if a person is shot by a non-criminal, by accident? Does that show that guns should be banned from non-criminals?

No - people are hit by cars all the time. They are not banned. People die every day from accidentally ingested bad food or drink, but food and drink aren't banned. People die everyday from accidents in the bathroom, but, last I checked, the need for bathrooms outweighed anyone's desire to ban them/not allow people to have them.:)

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly. And unarmed people get shot as well. Why do you use a similar, fallacious argument?

[Lurker]

Depends on how you look at it ... twice as many people died in the second example, regardless of how many people live there. Skeptic made no point about about relative safety, or chances of being a victim. Twice (or whatever) as many is still twice as many dead.

hmm, when it was just Cain and Abel I guess it was safer being Abel than living in New York City today... :eyeroll

[Darth Rotor]

Quite. Otherwise - based on pure numbers - you'd feel safer in the slums of Kingston, Jamaica than in Singapore.
Not this week ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37320150/ns/world_news-americas/ :eye-poppi

[Rogue1stclass]

My question is, would the anal bayonetting somehow be better if the bayonette was hand held or attached to a stick?

[Darth Rotor]

My question is, would the anal bayonetting somehow be better if the bayonette was hand held or attached to a stick?

Better for whom? Sticker, or stickee? :eek:

[Undesired Walrus]

Why do you believe you need a gun?

King of England pushing you around.

[rwguinn]

Depends on how you look at it ... twice as many people died in the second example, regardless of how many people live there. Skeptic made no point about about relative safety, or chances of being a victim. Twice (or whatever) as many is still twice as many dead.
See reading comprehension problem, below

hmm, when it was just Cain and Abel I guess it was safer being Abel than living in New York City today... :eyeroll
Sigh.
Sometimes I despair...

[Lurker]

rwguinn:

Snideness noted. No reading comprehension problems at all. I think you are reading out of context. Let me review for you.

My engagement in the discussion started when statistics on crimes in Britain was presented. That more murders occurred in 2007 versus the 1950's.

I would say that citing the datum is totally meaningless unless one considers the population increase as well. I then used examples to demonstrate my point.

If you feel that there is some utility to the original datum then you are entitled to your opinion even if no statistician, actuary, or social scientist would agree with you. As an engineer myself, I am surprised that a fellow engineer would think otherwise.

What exactly is Skeptic's point? That more murders happened in 2007 than earlier? I would posit that there were more murders in the 1950s versus the 1900s. That there were more murders in the 1900s than in the 1800s. That there were more murders in the 1800s versus the 1600s. I don't even need to look up the stats since I am relying on population changes to prove me correct.

[Drudgewire]

I don't. I just really don't understand why people really, REALLY love their guns. My wife has a gun, and the only thing she does with it is shoot targets. For self-defense, it's useless because she doesn't carry it with her.


That's why I love really, REALLY carrying my gun everywhere I legally can. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

[WildCat]

I don't. I just really don't understand why people really, REALLY love their guns. My wife has a gun, and the only thing she does with it is shoot targets. For self-defense, it's useless because she doesn't carry it with her.
Maybe the little lady can bail you out while you're cowering in the closet?


An 80-year-old man shot and killed an armed man who broke into his East Garfield Park home this morning, police said.

The intruder, who police believe had a gun, broke into the family two-flat in the 600 block of North Sawyer Avenue about 5:20 a.m., said Chicago Police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli.

The resident was awakened by the break-in and confronted the burglar, Mirabelli said. The homeowner shot the intruder, who was dead on the scene, police said. The intruder was in his 30s, Mirabelli said.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/would-be-burglar-shot-to-death-by-west-side-resident.html

Will Daley have him prosecuted if the gun was an illegal handgun?

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe the little lady can bail you out while you're cowering in the closet?



Right, because guns are the only way to defend yourself.:rolleyes:

[Newtons Bit]

Will Daley have him prosecuted if the gun was an illegal handgun?

Yes. People rightfully defending themselves/others get prosecuted all the time by douchebags like Daley.

Though I think the DA does the prosecuting rather than the mayor. Daley would support it.

[MikeMangum]

Third.....why do people need guns?

Possibly because they are ruled by politicians who threaten violence against them for asking a perfectly legitimate question.

Read my signature.

[thaiboxerken]

If the guy shot another person with a gun he had illegal possession of, I don't see any problem with prosecution. He should be charged for having the gun and shooting the gun, but not murder.

[Newtons Bit]

If the guy shot another person with a gun he had illegal possession of, I don't see any problem with prosecution. He should be charged for having the gun and shooting the gun, but not murder.

Even though it's a clear violation of his Constitution right?:eek:

[thaiboxerken]

It's a constitutional right to illegally own a handgun?

[MikeMangum]

It's a constitutional right to illegally own a handgun?

Yes. Just like it is your constitutional right to believe what you want, even if a legislature passes a law outlawing that belief.

You do know how rights work, correct?

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know that it's a constitutional right to own a handgun. Your interpretation of the right to bear arms seems rather liberal. I've heard interpretations that say the constitution only gives militia the right to bear arms.

[rwguinn]

rwguinn:

Snideness noted. No reading comprehension problems at all. I think you are reading out of context. Let me review for you.

My engagement in the discussion started when statistics on crimes in Britain was presented. That more murders occurred in 2007 versus the 1950's.

I would say that citing the datum is totally meaningless unless one considers the population increase as well. I then used examples to demonstrate my point.

If you feel that there is some utility to the original datum then you are entitled to your opinion even if no statistician, actuary, or social scientist would agree with you. As an engineer myself, I am surprised that a fellow engineer would think otherwise.

What exactly is Skeptic's point? That more murders happened in 2007 than earlier? I would posit that there were more murders in the 1950s versus the 1900s. That there were more murders in the 1900s than in the 1800s. That there were more murders in the 1800s versus the 1600s. I don't even need to look up the stats since I am relying on population changes to prove me correct.
And that was his point.
Your argument, while correct from a technical standpoint, was out-of-scope for the argument presented, and when it was pointed out to you, you tried to interpret his statement to fit your change of scope.
Why else would you quote, then ignore the modifiers?

[Drudgewire]

I don't know that it's a constitutional right to own a handgun. Your interpretation of the right to bear arms seems rather liberal. I've heard interpretations that say the constitution only gives militia the right to bear arms.


The catch-22 of that is if they ever try to take our guns, millions of us will join militias to prevent it... at which point we'll be within that interpretation. :D

[Lurker]

And that was his point.
Your argument, while correct from a technical standpoint, was out-of-scope for the argument presented, and when it was pointed out to you, you tried to interpret his statement to fit your change of scope.
Why else would you quote, then ignore the modifiers?


No, I don't think that was his point. Let's go waaay back to Skeptics original post that started this. He said:

They do, as crime had risen by a factor of 10 or 20 and more in the last decades, so much so that it has become a national epidemic;

The way I interpret that is in a "crime rate" sense. If population had risen but the crime rate had not then it would not an "national epidemic".

Now perhaps there is some uncertainty about what Skeptic meant by this but I think my interpretation of his point is reasonable.

ETA: Keep in mind, this was in the context of a discussion on whether it was worth it to carry a gun. To make that decision logically one has to look at rates, not just numbers.

[WildCat]

Right, because guns are the only way to defend yourself.:rolleyes:
If you think your thai boxing skills will come in handy in a gunfight I'm afraid it would end badly for you.

your wife, however, has a chance.

[thaiboxerken]

If you think your thai boxing skills will come in handy in a gunfight I'm afraid it would end badly for you.

your wife, however, has a chance.

Right, because every robbery turns into a gunfight.:rolleyes:

[Lurker]

If you think your thai boxing skills will come in handy in a gunfight I'm afraid it would end badly for you.

Didn't Bruce Lee catch a bullet with his teeth? ;)

[WildCat]

It's a constitutional right to illegally own a handgun?
It's not possible to legally own one in Chicago, unless you had one when the ban went in effect nearly 30 years ago and you've never forgotten to renew the registration.

Oh, and your an alderman, they can conceal carry if they wish by law. Or if you're a political somebody (http://gunowners.org/op0840.htm), then the cops here look the other way even though there's no law that says they can..

[WildCat]

Right, because every robbery turns into a gunfight.:rolleyes:
The one I cited, which occurred here just this morning, the burglar had a gun.

Are you going to box it away from him Ken?

[WildCat]

I don't know that it's a constitutional right to own a handgun. Your interpretation of the right to bear arms seems rather liberal. I've heard interpretations that say the constitution only gives militia the right to bear arms.
Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees. All other interpretations are irrelevant.

[thaiboxerken]

Well if the Supreme Court disagrees, then why do they still have the law in Chicago?

And as far as a guy robbing my place, the guy did not have to shoot the person with his illegal handgun. He could've run away.

[WildCat]

Well if the Supreme Court disagrees, then why do they still have the law in Chicago?
The law has until the SCOTUS ruling comes down, which will be some time in the next month. I'm psychic.

And as far as a guy robbing my place, the guy did not have to shoot the person with his illegal handgun. He could've run away.
So you want the 80 year old man to run away from his own house, and his wife?

No wonder your wife wants a gun, you'll run off and leave her to herself.

[Drudgewire]

Right, because every robbery turns into a gunfight.:rolleyes:


"Excuse me Mr. robber, do you have a gun? Because I want to defend myself without one and just want to make sure you're planning to make it an even fight." vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv


And as far as a guy robbing my place, the guy did not have to shoot the person with his illegal handgun. He could've run away.


...or not lived in Chicago where "fish-in-a-barrel" is the rule of law.

[thaiboxerken]

The law has until the SCOTUS ruling comes down, which will be some time in the next month. I'm psychic.


So you want the 80 year old man to run away from his own house, and his wife?

No wonder your wife wants a gun, you'll run off and leave her to herself.

Right, because that's what I argued. Both me and my wife would run away, even though she has a gun. We both have enough sense to avoid a gun fight, if it can be helped. You can have your fantasies of shooting people and thinking your gun makes you invulnerable to bullets. I don't share such delusional thought.

[WildCat]

Right, because that's what I argued. Both me and my wife would run away, even though she has a gun. We both have enough sense to avoid a gun fight, if it can be helped. You can have your fantasies of shooting people and thinking your gun makes you invulnerable to bullets. I don't share such delusional thought.
You think "running away" was an option for a couple in their 80s?

[thaiboxerken]

You think "running away" was an option for a couple in their 80s?

Yes I do. It's not like the guy would really chase them down. He was there to get goods, not kill people. I'm not sure the situation, but it's possible they could've snuck out the back door.

[ZirconBlue]

Yes I do. It's not like the guy would really chase them down. He was there to get goods, not kill people.

How could you possibly know that?

[thaiboxerken]

How could you possibly know that?

I'm guessing. Odds are, he was there just to get goods.

[WildCat]

I'm guessing. Odds are, he was there just to get goods.
Rational people don't lay their lives on better-than-even odds.

[thaiboxerken]

Rational people don't lay their lives on better-than-even odds.

Right, they buy guns and fantasize about shooting bad guys.:rolleyes:

Rationally, it is smarter to run away from a gun fight than to participate in one.

[WildCat]

Right, they buy guns and fantasize about shooting bad guys.:rolleyes:

Rationally, it is smarter to run away from a gun fight than to participate in one.
O'Rly (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/would-be-burglar-shot-to-death-by-west-side-resident.html)?
The man's granddaughter said he was defending his family and only fired after the intruder had fired a shot through a back window.

"The robber shot through the back window," the man's granddaughter said. "My grandfather shot back, then called the police."

She said her 12-year-old son was asleep at his great-grandparents' house when the shooting took place. "He's a little bit in shock, but he's brave," she said.

So you want him and his 80 year old wife and 12 year old great-grandson to run outside, where the man shooting into the windows is.

[thaiboxerken]

O'Rly (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/would-be-burglar-shot-to-death-by-west-side-resident.html)?

So you want him and his 80 year old wife and 12 year old great-grandson to run outside, where the man shooting into the windows is.

Yes, that's really what I am arguing.:rolleyes:

[Newtons Bit]

Right, they buy guns and fantasize about shooting bad guys.:rolleyes:

Rationally, it is smarter to run away from a gun fight than to participate in one.

The neat thing about guns is that they shoot bullets faster than you can run.

I suppose no one ever told you that?

[thaiboxerken]

Neat thing about guns. They don't make you impervious to other guns.

[MikeMangum]

O'Rly (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/would-be-burglar-shot-to-death-by-west-side-resident.html)?

So you want him and his 80 year old wife and 12 year old great-grandson to run outside, where the man shooting into the windows is.

Your belief that logic and evidence will sway opinions on this subject is touching. ;)

[GlennB]

Not this week ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37320150/ns/world_news-americas/ :eye-poppi
yeah yeah. variance gets you at times :D

[Newtons Bit]

Neat thing about guns. They don't make you impervious to other guns.

Mine does.

It's this big:

<---------------------------------------------------------------->
(N.T.S)

There are times when you just can't run away from a fight. Either you'll get killed while running away or you'll be leaving something behind that's more important to you than your life. In times like that, it's good to have something that can at least equalize that fight if not give you a huge leg-up over the thug.

[thaiboxerken]

So this guy illegally owned a gun and defended his family with it. How does this sit with the "if you make guns illegal, then only the bad guys will have them" argument?

[WildCat]

So this guy illegally owned a gun and defended his family with it. How does this sit with the "if you make guns illegal, then only the bad guys will have them" argument?
I guess it means he'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[applecorped]

12 gauge?

6 shooter?

[thaiboxerken]

I guess it means he'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Or, maybe his thought was "I'm gonna kill the next guy that tries to break into my house."

However, I wanted to know how this sits with the "only the bad guys will have guns if you ban them" argument.

[fuelair]

Right, because guns are the only way to defend yourself.:rolleyes:

No, but they are faster if you aren't close enough to kick his testes into his stomach.

[thaiboxerken]

No, but they are faster if you aren't close enough to kick his testes into his stomach.

What about tasers?

[dtugg]

What about tasers?

Only 15 foot range and one shot. No thanks. Much rather have a gun.

[thaiboxerken]

Only 15 foot range and one shot. No thanks. Much rather have a gun.

In an apartment complex? Oh, and they do make tasers with more than one shot.

[dtugg]

In an apartment complex?

I don't live in one.

Oh, and they do make tasers with more than one shot.

That civilians can buy? Show me.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't live in one.

Accuracy of hand guns is very poor beyone 30 yards.


That civilians can buy? Show me.

Why do you need more than one shot for self defense? Modern tasers are hard to miss with.

[dtugg]

Accuracy of hand guns is very poor beyone 30 yards.

30 yards>15 feet

Why do you need more than one shot for self defense? Modern tasers are hard to miss with.

Hard, maybe, but surely not impossible. If I miss with a handgun, I can pull the trigger again. If I miss with a taser, I'm screwed. And what if there are more than one attacker?

[Bob Blaylock]

So this guy illegally owned a gun…


No, he did not. The Constitution—which is the highest law of this nation—explicitly affirms his right to own that gun. Any law that says otherwise was enacted in blatant violation of the Constitution, and is itself illegal.

[GlennB]

And that was his point.
Your argument, while correct from a technical standpoint, was out-of-scope for the argument presented, and when it was pointed out to you, you tried to interpret his statement to fit your change of scope.
Why else would you quote, then ignore the modifiers?

In fairness, when Skeptic was asked to provide figures to support his claim he posted a (broken) link to Home Office statistics. Which are crime rates per X of population. It seems reasonable to assume he was thinking along the same lines. But in any case, the UK population is barely changing anyway. His claim of 10-20fold increase in recent decades doesn't make a lot of sense to me. To put it mildly.

When I looked at the stats (link above somewhere) they show crime peaking in the mid 1990's then declining. This includes "all violence", burglary and the like which, I'd say, are the kinds of crime where gun ownership might be relevant.

[Drudgewire]

No, he did not. The Constitution—which is the highest law of this nation—explicitly affirms his right to own that gun. Any law that says otherwise was enacted in blatant violation of the Constitution, and is itself illegal.


And good luck finding a jury willing to convict him.

[WildCat]

Why do you need more than one shot for self defense? Modern tasers are hard to miss with.
Sure, just so long as your target stays clear of any sort of cover and sits still for you. And even then tasers are often not effective (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/man-barricades-himself-in-englewood-apartment.html):

When police arrived, the man threatened police with a large knife, then barricaded himself in his bedroom, according to the release. A Chicago SWAT team was called in, and after negotiations failed to bring the man out, police first used pepper spray and then a Taser on the man, who was still armed with the knife, police said.

The man then lunged at police with the knife and was shot, according to the release.
Guns for the win!

[thaiboxerken]

I just don't accept the premise that guns are the only, effective method of self-defense. I could care less about having a gun or not. Why you guys really want one just doesn't make sense to me. I guess I'm just not emotionally attached to the issue.

[WildCat]

I just don't accept the premise that guns are the only, effective method of self-defense.
Can you link to the post asserting that premise?

[Lurker]

I just don't accept the premise that guns are the only, effective method of self-defense. I could care less about having a gun or not. Why you guys really want one just doesn't make sense to me. I guess I'm just not emotionally attached to the issue.

Actually, I think you are emotionally attached to the issue when you say the best course of action for an 80 year old being fired upon in their house (with wife and grandchild in hte house as well) is not to defend themselves but to attempt to run away. Seems to me that a gun wielded by the 80 year old solved the problem.

I say this as someone not terribly in favor of handguns. I don't own one and probably never will.

[thaiboxerken]

It makes more sense to me to try to avoid a gun fight than participate in one. After reading more about that particular incident, maybe a gun fight was unavoidable. I don't know.

[WildCat]

It makes more sense to me to try to avoid a gun fight than participate in one. After reading more about that particular incident, maybe a gun fight was unavoidable. I don't know.
Was there someone claiming that you shouldn't avoid a gun fight if it's possible to do so?

[thaiboxerken]

Was there someone claiming that you shouldn't avoid a gun fight if it's possible to do so?

Seemed to me that many here were making excuses not to.

[Lurker]

It makes more sense to me to try to avoid a gun fight than participate in one.
I agree.
After reading more about that particular incident, maybe a gun fight was unavoidable. I don't know.
I agree.

[Drudgewire]

It makes more sense to me to try to avoid a gun fight than participate in one.


I carry a gun and keep one by my nightstand, and I couldn't agree more.

[fuelair]

30 yards>15 feet



Hard, maybe, but surely not impossible. If I miss with a handgun, I can pull the trigger again. If I miss with a taser, I'm screwed. And what if there are more than one attacker?

You misunderstand. There is never more than one attacker, even if the attacker has a weapon out he is only there to get stuff, no matter how much you practice, if you fire the attacker will fire back and kill your dog, child or DVD collection (whichever is most important), firing by you is certain to miss the attacker and go through the wall -killing your dog, child or DVD collection, if you hit the attacker he will turn out to be a choirboy who thought he was praising dog in his church and had been mislead by Satan to your house. There's more - have fun locating it.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[fuelair]

Seemed to me that many here were making excuses not to.

Might be me. I have a really bad attitude about bad people (bullies, muggers, rapists, etc.) and, while I do not currently go a-hunting of them I would not be averse to causing their deaths. If they enter my home I do not wish to leave them with an excuse to sue. Or the ability.

Weirdly though, a lot of people find me a nice friendly person - I think that's because I basically am - just this one little quirk about evil.:):)

[thaiboxerken]

I guess I'm weird in that I would like to go through life never killing a person.

[MikeMangum]

I guess I'm weird in that I would like to go through life never killing a person.

What utter tripe. And a passive aggressive insult. Don't just imply an insult. At least have the balls to say it.

I don't recall seeing any arguments along the lines of "I wants to keeyull me sum peepull" in support of the 2nd Amendment.

[thaiboxerken]

I think Fuelair just did in the post above mine, essentially disclosing that if someone breaks into his house, he wants to ensure they "can't sue."

[fuelair]

I think Fuelair just did in the post above mine, essentially disclosing that if someone breaks into his house, he wants to ensure they "can't sue."

Well, I certainly would not deny that. As a matter of fact, I have blatantly stated that and some equivalents on multiple threads in the forum over the course of my four or so years here. By the by, I really do not want anyone to break into my house, but if they do and they threaten in any way - in fact if their only response to "drop it or die" is not to drop it, I fire. I take no chances with those who choose to threaten me if they have any chance of backing it up. And I do not hide that. And, yes, I have also pointed out that if someone does enter and you have any doubts about juries in your state, it is good to move from the assaulter in a way that puts your back to a corner and then blow him away. I DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO WISH TO ASSAULT OTHER PEOPLE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, SADISTIC NEEDS OR WHATEVER. I DO NOT WISH TO HELP THEM CONTINUE DOING THAT ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IT TO PEOPLE I AM CONCERNED ABOUT. hOPEFULLY THIS IS EVEN CLEARER (AND i HATE ALL CAPS MYSELF). Also easy to find it now!!:):)

[leftysergeant]

I just don't accept the premise that guns are the only, effective method of self-defense. I could care less about having a gun or not. Why you guys really want one just doesn't make sense to me. I guess I'm just not emotionally attached to the issue.

Guns in the hands of private citizens are the first line of defense against Christofascist or white nationalist ( not sure there is a difference) uprising.

The scenario described in The Turner Diaries would only be possible in a world where there are no privately-owned firearms other than those in the hands of the insurrgents.

It is also a bit of a disincentive to robbery if any citizen you try to mug nmight legally be able to whip out a piece and blow your danglies off.

[thaiboxerken]

Guns in the hands of private citizens are the first line of defense against Christofascist or white nationalist ( not sure there is a difference) uprising.

Seems to me that it's these people that really, REALLY want their guns. It's too bad we can't keep them from having guns.

[leftysergeant]

Seems to me that it's these people that really, REALLY want their guns. It's too bad we can't keep them from having guns.

Yeah, well there is no assurance that a law that keeps me from packing will also disarm the whackadoodles playing commando out in the woods preparing for the RaHoWa.

[dtugg]

If somebody breaks into my house while I am home, there is a very good chance that I will kill him. I doubt I would even lose any sleep over it. It's not that I want to kill someone, it's that I care infinitely more about me and my loved ones than I do about some low life piece of crap.

[R.Mackey]

I just don't accept the premise that guns are the only, effective method of self-defense. I could care less about having a gun or not. Why you guys really want one just doesn't make sense to me. I guess I'm just not emotionally attached to the issue.

They aren't the only effective method of self defense.

However, provided one is mature enough and responsible enough to learn how to use it, they are the best method of self defense. ("Best defense: No be there!" but I'm presuming you've already found yourself in a potentially deadly situation.)

In the US we have the right to protect ourselves and the right to own firearms. Doesn't mean that everyone has to. It's your choice whether to exercise your right or not.

[fuelair]

If somebody breaks into my house while I am home, there is a very good chance that I will kill him. I doubt I would even lose any sleep over it. It's not that I want to kill someone, it's that I care infinitely more about me and my loved ones than I do about some low life piece of crap.

Well rephrased! I have no problem with thaiboxer ken's attitude - as long as he does not try (and he has not indicated anything approximating this) to prevent me from protecting myself and others I choose to if necessary by trying to restrict my choice of protection devices to sports equipment or carpentry tools (much of which can be used to good effect if properly applied - but are not a really good alternative to decent, well-maintained projectile devices.:)

[jakesteele]

http://www.wbbm780.com/Daley-Regrets--Up-Your-Butt--Comment-On-Guns/7154572

[QUOTE]At the same news conference he expressed hope that a Supreme Court justice would get mugged at gunpoint to change his/her mind on the 2nd Amendment.

The definition of a conservative is a liberal that's been mugged

[quixotecoyote]

http://www.wbbm780.com/Daley-Regrets--Up-Your-Butt--Comment-On-Guns/7154572



The definition of a conservative is a liberal that's been mugged

Do you get all your opinions from bumper stickers?

[GlennB]

Well, unravelling a well-established system where both householders and burglars expect their "opponents" to be armed is truly one hell of a job. Probably too difficult, in fact. Maybe in the fullness of time ... So carry on and make the best of it, with all good wishes (seriously).

But please, please don't ever even think about wishing such a situation on others.

[HawksFan]

See, the funny thing about legal private gun ownership, thaiboxerken, is that you are still free to not own one. No one here is forcing you to purchase and own a gun. You are perfectly free to hate guns, abhore their use, and denegrate those who do. No one here is forcing their beliefs on to you.

However, once you have banned private gun ownership, you have forced your opinion and beliefs on to others. You have taken away choice. Why would you want to do that?

I feel the same way about things like abortion and motorcycle helmet use. Don't like 'em? Don't have 'em. But don't tell me what is best for me.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not so sure that the gun debate is in any way similar to the abortion or seat-belt laws. Abortion is a moral decision about a woman's own medical condition. Seatbelt and helmet laws are protecting people from themselves. Gun laws are about trying to keep people from shooting other people.

[GlennB]

However, once you have banned private gun ownership, you have forced your opinion and beliefs on to others. You have taken away choice. Why would you want to do that?



Reduce that line of argument to absurdity, HawksFan, and society would also have no right to stop you from driving at 100mph down city streets in a car with no brakes. The right to drive like a raving lunatic will have been taken away from you.

Rejecting any "removal of choice" with such a hand-wave as yours is a tad silly. The detail must be addressed.

[R.Mackey]

I'm not so sure that the gun debate is in any way similar to the abortion or seat-belt laws. Abortion is a moral decision about a woman's own medical condition. Seatbelt and helmet laws are protecting people from themselves. Gun laws are about trying to keep people from shooting other people.


Reduce that line of argument to absurdity, HawksFan, and society would also have no right to stop you from driving at 100mph down city streets in a car with no brakes. The right to drive like a raving lunatic will have been taken away from you.

Rejecting any "removal of choice" with such a hand-wave as yours is a tad silly. The detail must be addressed.

Both of you are looking at this a bit hyperbolically. Banning guns to keep people from shooting other people is like banning cars to prevent car accidents. We have quite a few gun laws right now -- regulations, if you will -- analogous to seat belt laws and speed limits. I don't see anyone in this thread saying gun ownership should be totally unregulated.

Furthermore, we do not have a Constitutional right to own cars (or carriages, or bicycles, or horses for that matter), but we do have one to own guns. For several very good reasons.

[thaiboxerken]

Cars were not designed to have accidents. Guns were designed to kill people and animals.

[R.Mackey]

Appeal to motive logical fallacy. Try harder.

[thaiboxerken]

Appeal to motive logical fallacy. Try harder.

Appeal to motive is not always a logical fallacy. Can you demonstrate that it is a fallacy in this discussion?

[R.Mackey]

Yes, I can. The intent of a device's design does not always correlate with its actual employment.

Your other alternative is an appeal to emotion fallacy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were not relying on such trivialities.

[thaiboxerken]

The design of the device certainly plays a role in this discussion. Guns are designed to kill. They are not effective at much else without the threat of death. Nice try though.

FYI, appeal to motivation is actually more of an ad-hominem attack where you try to trivialize or dismiss an argument because of the motivation of the arguer.

[R.Mackey]

But if that's all you have, you have no point. The space program, for instance, was initially intended as a military endeavor, and our first space missions were carried out using repurposed ballistic missiles.

Guns were originally designed as weapons of war in the 11th century, and then were rapidly adapted as tools of survival -- hunting and self defense -- by the early 17th century. Both their military and civilian purposes are fully relevant to this day and will continue for decades if not centuries to come. They have occupied that latter niche for longer than any government still intact on this planet. Your "argument," if I can even call it that, is hyperbolic to the point of uselessness.

Are you opposed to the right of self-defense? Is that your position? You can hold that if you like, but you will have few friends.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not opposed to self-defense. I just don't understand why some people are so very, very emotionally attached to their guns. I could care less about a gun ban, either way. If guns were so important for self-defense, how do the British defend themselves?

A gun without the ability to kill is not very useful for self-defense, is it?

[doobiedoright]

Well if the Supreme Court disagrees, then why do they still have the law in Chicago?

And as far as a guy robbing my place, the guy did not have to shoot the person with his illegal handgun. He could've run away.

There you have it folks,the progressive liberal way of life!
Run away a coward!

[thaiboxerken]

There you have it folks,the progressive liberal way of life!
Run away a coward!

Thanks for illustrating the point. You've pretty much summed up what gun proponents really are about.;)

[R.Mackey]

From what I've heard, they don't.

I too am very attached to my guns. I have nine now -- one pistol, two shotguns, six rifles.

My guns are my means to self defense. I gravely doubt that I will ever need them for this purpose, but it could happen. My father needed his four times in his life -- and he is inherently nonviolent. He was a CO during the Vietnam War, for instance.

My guns are historically significant. One of my shotguns was passed to me by my grandfather. It was his 14th birthday present. He carried it for fifty years, feeding himself and his family. He carried it while guarding Italian prisoners in Louisiana in WWII, and they cooked the game he took with it together, helping forge a bond between two countries torn apart by war.

Three of my rifles are military surplus pieces, two from WWII, one from WWI. All of them are witnesses to important parts of our history.

One of my rifles would be marginally effective on human beings, but serves as an excellent piece for training and practice. I've shared it with about 30 others now, helping all of them understand the martial art of marksmanship. Given your user name, I trust you understand the beneficial effects of any martial art to its practitioner, and marskmanship is no different.

I use my firearms to teach classes on marksmanship and American heritage (http://www.appleseedinfo.org). Through this organization I've met literally hundreds of wonderful Americans, of all skill levels and interests, of all political leanings. Some as young as seven years old, some in their early 80's. Some fit as a fiddle and some with severe physical challenges.

Finally, my guns are a reminder of who we are as Americans and how our nation came to be. The final straw that triggered the Revolutionary War was English rejection of our right to self defense, and attempts to disarm the countryside. Our Constitution acknowledges that this excess of government was a mistake, and vows not to repeat that mistake.

I make no apologies for my feelings. You are free to feel differently. But don't hate MY freedoms, or my choices. Is that too much to ask?

[doobiedoright]

Accuracy of hand guns is very poor beyone 30 yards.



Why do you need more than one shot for self defense? Modern tasers are hard to miss with.



Actually it totally depends on the shooter!
Why are you trying so hard to take Americans rights away?

[thaiboxerken]

What kind of guns should people be allowed to own? Hand-guns? Rifles? Semi-automatic? Fully automatic? Sniper rifles? Cannons?
What kind of ammo? Depleted Uranium armor-piercing? Fletchette rounds?

What about grenades?

[thaiboxerken]

Actually it totally depends on the shooter!
Why are you trying so hard to take Americans rights away?

Could you actually read the thread and figure out my position before posting?

[R.Mackey]

What kind of guns should people be allowed to own?

Under the intent of the Constitutional framers, the rights of individuals to carry arms refers to shoulder arms and their like. Heavier, crew-served weapons were to be community assets (like cannons of the day) and are subject to further regulation.

Hand-guns? Rifles? Semi-automatic? Fully automatic? Sniper rifles?

Yes.

Cannons?

No.

What kind of ammo? Depleted Uranium armor-piercing? Fletchette rounds?

Yes. Although "flechette rounds" is kind of meaningless in this context. It's clear you know little about firearms. Small wonder you fear them so much.

What about grenades?

No. See above.

Opinions will vary, of course, but I'm comfortable with this compromise. Note that at present, fully automatic anything requires a special license, extra taxes, and is available to very few. It's also subject to state's rights -- I cannot get one in California no matter what.

But if you insist on taking, say, my M1 Garand away, you'd better have a damn good reason. Our rights to self defense are inviolate, and they should be.

[thaiboxerken]

What about tri-pod mounted machine guns?

I don't see any reason why a civilian should have armor piercing rounds or anti-infantry rounds.

I also don't equate gun ownership to self-defense.


Flechette rounds : http://www.antipersonnel.net/sdllc/005.html

[R.Mackey]

What about tri-pod mounted machine guns?

Crew-served weapon. See above.

I don't see any reason why a civilian should have armor piercing rounds or anti-infantry rounds.

That's because you know nothing of firearms. Any moderate-power hunting rifle will defeat infantry armor. No special construction is required.

I also don't equate gun ownership to self-defense.

That's not my problem. For many, many people, there is no other choice. For virtually all people, there is no better choice.

[thaiboxerken]

That's because you know nothing of firearms. Any moderate-power hunting rifle will defeat infantry armor. No special construction is required.


It's hard to conceal a rifle. But you think armor piercing rounds are ok for hand guns? The limit for you is more about what a person can carry and shoot without a tripod or mount?

[Newtons Bit]

What about tri-pod mounted machine guns?

Those are, typically, crew-served. One man carries the tripod, another carries the gun.

I don't see any reason why a civilian should have armor piercing rounds or anti-infantry rounds.

Why not?

I also don't equate gun ownership to self-defense.

Many people, rightfully, do.

[Newtons Bit]

It's hard to conceal a rifle. But you think armor piercing rounds are ok for hand guns? The limit for you is more about what a person can carry and shoot without a tripod or mount?

Are armor piercing bullets in handguns a huge problem?

[R.Mackey]

It's hard to conceal a rifle. But you think armor piercing rounds are ok for hand guns? The limit for you is more about what a person can carry and shoot without a tripod or mount?

The problem I have with bans on armor-piercing pistol rounds is that the definition is pretty arbitrary.

And yes, the limit is about what a person can carry. The rights to individuals to bear arms extends to what an individual can be expected to be able to use. That's where the line historically is drawn, and I find it's still a meaningful test today.

[thaiboxerken]

Why not?

It seems to me that those are made for military use.


Many people, rightfully, do.

Convince me that it's right.

I don't see a huge problem with armor piercing rounds in the media. However, are they not usually illegal to buy?

[thaiboxerken]

The problem I have with bans on armor-piercing pistol rounds is that the definition is pretty arbitrary.

And yes, the limit is about what a person can carry. The rights to individuals to bear arms extends to what an individual can be expected to be able to use. That's where the line historically is drawn, and I find it's still a meaningful test today.

What if they were very, very strong? Can they, then, carry a mini-gun?

[R.Mackey]

What if they were very, very strong? Can they, then, carry a mini-gun?

Read for comprehension, please.

The rights to individuals to bear arms extends to what an individual can be expected to be able to use.

There is no expectation of anyone to use a minigun singlehandedly, so the answer is no.

You're awfully squirmy. Can I assume then you have no valid reason to hate my freedoms? You've got nothing left but nitpicking?

[thaiboxerken]

What about sniper rifles? Is shooting a person from a mile away a valid argument for self-defense?

[R.Mackey]

What about sniper rifles? Is shooting a person from a mile away a valid argument for self-defense?

First you need to explain what a "sniper rifle" is. A vast number of totally ordinary sporting arms fit this category.

[thaiboxerken]

First you need to explain what a "sniper rifle" is. A vast number of totally ordinary sporting arms fit this category.

You seem pretty squishy. Is there a reason you support the "right" to shoot people from long distances?

[MikeMangum]

I'm not opposed to self-defense freedom of religion. I just don't understand why some people are so very, very emotionally attached to their guns not being forced to go to church on Sunday and pray on command.

FTFY

I could care less about a gun ban, either way. If guns were so important for self-defense, how do the British defend themselves?

Short answer: they can't (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf).
A homeowner who discovered two robbers in his home held them with a toy gun while he telephoned the police. When the police arrived they arrested the two men, and also the homeowner, who was charged with putting someone in fear with a toy gun. An elderly woman who scared off a gang of youths by firing a cap pistol was charged with the same offense. The government is now planning to make toy guns illegal.

We can't have people defending themselves! Not even if they use a toy gun to do so. You see, that "puts fear" into criminals. Why, if people can defend themselves, they aren't reliant on the state to do it for them.

The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout “Call the Police” rather than “Help.” Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals.

Guns, knives, tasers, even pepper spray are all illegal. That apparently leaves apples (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071006172748AA2Jsc9). And apparently harsh language (but only if it doesn't constitute hate speech).

A gun without the ability to kill is not very useful for self-defense, is it?

So which is it?

The design of the device certainly plays a role in this discussion. Guns are designed to kill. They are not effective at much else without the threat of death.

Is it ok to ban guns because they "are designed to kill", or is lethality an extremely useful element for self defense? Try being logically consistent here...unless your logic is that guns should be banned because they are designed to kill and thus allow people to defend themselves. That's logically consistent.

[R.Mackey]

(at thaiboxerken) So it seems you want to outlaw things you can't even define.

Since you know zip about firearms, let me explain. Another of my rifles is a pretty ordinary deer rifle. .270 Win caliber, semiautomatic, and bears a nine-power telescope.

I can and have consistently made hits on steel targets at 1000 meters with this rifle. A truly expert marksman could probably kill someone at 1500 meters with it.

How do you outlaw "sniper rifles" without eliminating deer rifles? What's the difference? And if you cannot elaborate, how is it YOU who are not still being squishy?

[MikeMangum]

What about sniper rifles? Is shooting a person from a mile away a valid argument for self-defense?

Being able to shoot from a mile away would have greatly aided these men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord) in defending themselves and their families.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know that banning guns is ok or not. I'm just not convinced either way. Maybe some classes of guns should be allowed for civilian use and some not.

I don't buy your silly argument that the British are defenseless against criminals.

[dtugg]

Hopefully, I will be able to afford a Barrett .50 cal sometime soon. Do I need it for self defense? No, probably not. But it would be a lot of fun to shoot. And it would have the added bonus of pissing off anti-gun people.

[thaiboxerken]

(at thaiboxerken) So it seems you want to outlaw things you can't even define.

Since you know zip about firearms, let me explain. Another of my rifles is a pretty ordinary deer rifle. .270 Win caliber, semiautomatic, and bears a nine-power telescope.

I can and have consistently made hits on steel targets at 1000 meters with this rifle. A truly expert marksman could probably kill someone at 1500 meters with it.

How do you outlaw "sniper rifles" without eliminating deer rifles? What's the difference? And if you cannot elaborate, how is it YOU who are not still being squishy?

So it's about hunting for food, which is really unnecessary in this modern day?

[thaiboxerken]

Being able to shoot from a mile away would have greatly aided these men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord) in defending themselves and their families.

Yea....because we're talking about war here and not civilian self-defense.

[thaiboxerken]

Hopefully, I will be able to afford a Barrett .50 cal sometime soon. Do I need it for self defense? No, probably not. But it would be a lot of fun to shoot. And it would have the added bonus of pissing off anti-gun people.

You might be better off buying a gun with a smaller round. They are much less expensive to target practice with.

[R.Mackey]

So it's about hunting for food, which is really unnecessary in this modern day?

I require an answer to my question. You're certainly not very forthcoming.

And it's about rights, not need. You don't need, for instance, the right to free speech. I'm King George now, and your speech irritates me. You don't need it. I've just decreed you shall not have it. Cheerio!

See the problem? I hope?

[R.Mackey]

You might be better off buying a gun with a smaller round. They are much less expensive to target practice with.

You would be wrong about that, too. Surplus .50 cal is much cheaper than any other legitimate 2000 m round, such as .338 Lapua.

It never fails to amaze me how the most anti-gun people are also the most gun-ignorant people.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know that people need a right to bear arms. The British seem to be faring well without this right.

[R.Mackey]

The Russians under communism seemed to fare quite well (whatever that means) without the right to free speech, free markets, free assembly, or freedom of religion.

Seriously, you're bordering on epic trollness here. You've been given plenty of thoughtful responses, and you've mustered nothing in reply.

[dtugg]

You might be better off buying a gun with a smaller round. They are much less expensive to target practice with.

True. I would only buy a Barrett if I don't really care about the money though.

[thaiboxerken]

You would be wrong about that, too. Surplus .50 cal is much cheaper than any other legitimate 2000 m round, such as .338 Lapua.

It never fails to amaze me how the most anti-gun people are also the most gun-ignorant people.

Why does that amaze you? Should anti-pedophile people know the ins and outs of how to bugger children?

In my experience, .50 cal bullets at the gun range cost about a buck a round. And, at gun ranges in Oregon, they require you buy the rounds at the range. Personally, I'm thinking of buying a 22 for target practice, because it's really cheap. My wife's 9mm tends to cost a bit much.

[thaiboxerken]

Seriously, you're bordering on epic trollness here. You've been given plenty of thoughtful responses, and you've mustered nothing in reply.

I can say the same to you. You've only shown that you have more knowledge about firearms. You haven't given a convincing argument for why people need hand guns or machine guns.

[dtugg]

I don't know that people need a right to bear arms. The British seem to be faring well without this right.

Good luck on getting the 2nd Amendment repealed.

[R.Mackey]

Why does that amaze you? Should anti-pedophile people know the ins and outs of how to bugger children?

On a skeptic's forum, that amazes me. People who don't know what they're talking about should have the courtesy of witholding their own opinions.

In my experience, .50 cal bullets at the gun range cost about a buck a round. And, at gun ranges in Oregon, they require you buy the rounds at the range. Personally, I'm thinking of buying a 22 for target practice, because it's really cheap. My wife's 9mm tends to cost a bit much.

Ammo prices have gone up since you've been out. Even hunting loads for .30'06 are about a buck each these days.

You should have a .22. Everyone should. Mine sees about 10,000 rounds per year. It's by far the best way to learn. I can make you some recommendations if you're interested.

[thaiboxerken]

Good luck on getting the 2nd Amendment repealed.

I'm not trying. It's just not an ammendment that I feel worth defending.

[R.Mackey]

I can say the same to you. You've only shown that you have more knowledge about firearms. You haven't given a convincing argument for why people need hand guns or machine guns.

You've moved the goalposts. Your complaint was about "guns." If you want to talk about handguns, I can talk about handguns. If you want to talk about automatic weapons, I can talk about those too. Machine guns == crew served weapons, and I don't support free ownership of those.

Moving the goalposts is generally looked upon around here as dishonesty.

[MikeMangum]

It seems to me that those are made for military use.

Not too conversant with Second Amendment legal rulings, I take it. One of the Supreme Court rulings duing the early 20th century allowed bans on certain types of weapons because they were not considered to have a military use.

There are 2 forms of self defense: 1) defense of life, home and family from
criminals, and 2) defense of life, home, family, and rights from government.

That is exactly why corrupt politicians like Daley are the ones who most vehemently oppose second amendment rights, preferring to limit gun ownership to those that are loyal to them.

[R.Mackey]

... a brief history lesson. Regarding these points:

Being able to shoot from a mile away would have greatly aided these men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord) in defending themselves and their families.

Yea....because we're talking about war here and not civilian self-defense.

Oh, my. Epic fail. The battles of Lexington and Concord were fought before the Revolutionary War began.

The Revolutionary War began at Merriam's Corner, along Battle Road, about four hours after the Battle of Concord. This is the first time that Colonial militamen engaged the Regular Army in a cause other than their immediate self-defense, doing so in this case in defense of their fellow Americans rather than their own skins.

At the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the colonists were still British subjects. They did not intend at all to open fire. Instead, they gathered their muskets and stood to exercise their rights as Englishmen, which included the right to observe what the Regular Army was doing. (The Regular Army was ransacking the countryside, confiscating powder and ball, denying them the right to self defense.)

As they did so, the Regular Army in both cases opened fire upon them illegally. That's right, the folks in question fired back -- when they could -- because their own army was attacking them without legal orders to do so.

Not during a war. During peacetime. They weren't an army, they were the sons and fathers of their own little towns. Civilians.

Had those civilians been unarmed, Concord would have been a slaughter, and the Union we live in today would never have happened at all.

---

Now, for a little bonus history: The quoted exchange above was in response to "long-range" weapons, "sniper rifles" if you will, having any civilian purpose. Well, believe it or not, at the time "sniper rifles" were purely for civilian use. Rifled muskets, effective to 400 meters or more compared to the 50-75m of an average musket, existed and were available if expensive. But they had no role at all in the Regular Army and no function in British military doctrine. The only users were civilians, i.e. hunters and furrers who could use the extra range. The disadvantages of rifled muskets, viz. slow reload times and difficulty of employment, made them useless in the eyes of the military.

In other words, these "sniper rifles" were in fact not designed solely to kill people. The military overlooked them entirely.

At least, they did until May 1775. Rifled muskets had little to no impact at Lexington and Concord. But afterward, as the enraged militias converged on Boston and besieged the Regular Army, they made a big difference.

A little known fact, discovered by General Washington as he assumed command of the combined militias -- the foundation of the Continental Army -- is that they had greatly overestimated their supplies of powder and ball, and underestimated expenditures on April 19th and losses from Regular powder raids. It was so bad that when Washington arrived, the 14,000-strong militias had only enough powder and ball for six shots per man. That's all. Had the Regulars known of this severe shortage, they could have broken out of Boston and reversed their losses at Concord in a single stroke.

General Washington needed to buy time for new supplies. What he did is to take advantage of the new companies bearing the new "sniper rifle," or the Pennsylvania rifles. He set up awards for marksmanship. Soon these special riflemen were holding demonstrations, where one would hold a board between his legs while another fired at it from 200 meters distance, all in view of the Regulars. Other prizes were given for any rifleman who could kill a Regular officer inside the fortifications at Boston. Riflemen also picked off cannoneers in Boston and on board HMS Somerset with frightening regularity. This show of deterrence pinned down General Gage and the Regulars until supplies arrived, and won the siege of Boston.

---

Early American history owes much to the martial art of firearms. It's a pity this history is ignored and forgotten by so many today. Our history is quite remarkable, beautiful in fact, and it deserves to be taught. And it answers quite definitively the question of why an aware, alert, involved, responsible, and armed people is the foundation of a strong society.

The Founding Fathers delineated our rights, and did so with great care and deliberation. You may choose not to exercise those rights. But you must not throw them away so carelessly. To do so puts us back on the road to tyranny.

[GlennB]

... The Founding Fathers delineated our rights, and did so with great care and deliberation ...

Yet apparently "The American Bar Association has observed that there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution." (from the Wiki intro to The Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Amendment))

The Second Amendment has generated enormous heat at the legal, philosophical and even linguistic level. The last time I delved that deep into the subject I encountered, several links down the line, an earnest discussion as to whether the phrasing should be interpreted as if it were Latin. And I don't mean the etymology of the individual words.

The wording of The Second Amendment could hardly be worse, imo. It's even a struggle to parse it.

eta: actually that grammar discussion is in the Wiki article under "Later commentary"

[Bob Blaylock]

Abortion is a moral decision about a woman's own medical condition.


No, it is not. It is about killing an innocent child.

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't know that banning guns is ok or not. I'm just not convinced either way. Maybe some classes of guns should be allowed for civilian use and some not.


Perhaps some religions should be allowed, and some not. Why should Americans be allowed to be Catholic, and subject to a leader that isn't even American; when there are plenty of perfectly-fine American-based religions such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Southern Baptists, and so on?

[WildCat]

What kind of guns should people be allowed to own? Hand-guns? Rifles? Semi-automatic? Fully automatic? Sniper rifles? Cannons?
What kind of ammo? Depleted Uranium armor-piercing? Fletchette rounds?

What about grenades?
Maybe you should read the Heller decision.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Comparing guns to religious denominations isn't a good idea...

[R.Mackey]

The Second Amendment has generated enormous heat at the legal, philosophical and even linguistic level. The last time I delved that deep into the subject I encountered, several links down the line, an earnest discussion as to whether the phrasing should be interpreted as if it were Latin. And I don't mean the etymology of the individual words.

The wording of The Second Amendment could hardly be worse, imo. It's even a struggle to parse it.

Not really. It only gets argued because so many try to poke holes in it, and until very, very recently the Supreme Court avoided making a ruling on the core confusion. This is not a modern phenomenon, by the way; localities have been restricting gun rights since the early 1800's.

The only debate is how much of those rights extend to individuals -- whether they are "the People" or whether that phrase refers to militias. The Constitution as originally written did not clarify. That was how it was written. They wrote it as tersely as possible. The idea was to limit government, and to do so meant limiting its definition.

The intent of the Framers, however, is that those two seemingly distinct entities were one and the same. Thus it was in their time -- everyone who could fight was considered part of the militia, and even those who weren't usually were on at least a Watch List. This wasn't included in the Constitution because it didn't need to be. That's how every single town operated back then. It was left to municipalities to decide what few people would be excluded from the militias.

This was clarified in the Militia Act of 1903, as the country redressed weaknesses in its traditional defense strategy following the Spanish-American War. This text identifies the "militia" in precise terms:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The official classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

In other words, all males 17-45 without some special restriction (e.g. felony conviction) fit into the unorganized militia, if they are not already in uniform to begin with.

This rather moots the issue of whether "only militias" have the right to bear arms. Even if this interpretation were correct, it would mean effectively all able-bodied men explicitly have the right to bear arms.

The more equalitarian interpretation, that the right also extends to citizens who happen through no fault of their own to be female or over 45 years of age, has been affirmed recently by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller. I invite you to read the decision.

There really remains no debate whatsoever about the actual extant right granted by the Constitution. This will only change if the Supreme Court decision above is overturned, or the Constitution amended. I predict neither will happen in our lifetimes.

[GlennB]

Not really.....

Thanks for the reply, but it's late here and we've had "a very nice dinner". Catch you later.

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps some religions should be allowed, and some not.

You worship your guns?

[GlennB]

You worship your guns?

Excuse me, thaiboxerken, but these wild swings of yours really don't illuminate the debate. In fact they're becoming just plain irritating. Give it a rest eh?

[thaiboxerken]

Comparing gun ownership to religion is absurd.

[Sledge]

I'd like to chime in at this point. thaiboxerken, could you make a point or shut up? All I can see from you are sarky little comments that do nothing but illustrate your dislike of guns. Ok, we get it: you don't like guns. Message received. Please move on.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't hate guns either. It just amazes me how people can be so emotionally attached to them.

[Sledge]

It amazes me how you're so emotionally attached to posting junk in this thread.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Until we, as a species, move past the point where we almost unanimously elect people based on their haircut and ability to talk smoothly, this article will not be unusual.

I've lost track of how many mayors, reps and congressmen have revealed not just a lack of brilliance, but actual rank stupidity.

I don't ask for much, but if a hungry cannibal could crack open your skull and not have enough to cover a small water biscuit, you should not be making important decisions*

*Anything beyond which channel to watch.

[GlennB]

Not really. It only gets argued because so many try to poke holes in it, and until very, very recently the Supreme Court avoided making a ruling on the core confusion. This is not a modern phenomenon, by the way; localities have been restricting gun rights since the early 1800's.

The only debate is how much of those rights extend to individuals -- whether they are "the People" or whether that phrase refers to militias. The Constitution as originally written did not clarify. That was how it was written. They wrote it as tersely as possible. The idea was to limit government, and to do so meant limiting its definition.

The intent of the Framers, however, is that those two seemingly distinct entities were one and the same. Thus it was in their time -- everyone who could fight was considered part of the militia, and even those who weren't usually were on at least a Watch List. This wasn't included in the Constitution because it didn't need to be. ......

And I wouldn't argue with a word of that, or the rest of your post

But phrases like some of those bolded above aren't in tune with "The Founding Fathers delineated our rights, and did so with great care and deliberation" which is where I came in.

Today's pre-armed Militia (the people) would need the very arms they are denied in modern USA (automatic rifles upwards?) because it would make life very dangerous if elements of the Militia were inclined to possess, and could afford, RPG's or tanks or jet fighter aircraft. That they might need such weapons to fulfil their role as a useful Militia in modern times tends to confirm my belief that The Second Amendment is an anachronism. And that the Founding Fathers were thinking of their times and not much about the more distant future where the USA might have a powerful standing army, reserves, the right to conscript and a huge arsenal.

Where we seem to agree is that it's irreversible in the foreseeable future.

[R.Mackey]

And I wouldn't argue with a word of that, or the rest of your post

But phrases like some of those bolded above aren't in tune with "The Founding Fathers delineated our rights, and did so with great care and deliberation" which is where I came in.

Well, you have to understand that political style was different when the Constitution was written.

If you think the Bill of Rights is obscurely written, you should try to chase down "The Rights of Englishmen," which is the closest analogue they had to follow. It was these rights which were violated by England in the colonies, and these violations that built up to cause the Revolutionary War. These rights, however, do not appear in any single document. The most concise ingredient is the 1689 Bill of Rights, but they were also spread across bits and pieces of obscure legislation all the way back to the Magna Carta.

The Framers were determined to get one thing right: Prevent another Revolution from ever being necessary. The Bill of Rights, along with primarily Article I of the Constitution, specifically address everything that went wrong under English rule, in the hopes of forestalling a need to overthrow the government ever again. King George labelled the Committees of Correspondence as sedition, therefore to prevent that, we have the First Amendment. General Thomas Gage tried to disarm the countryside, so we have the Second Amendment. The Quartering Act led to occupation of New York, and the city of Boston was occupied by the Regular Army after the Townshend Acts, thus we have the Third Amendment. Royal Privilege had gutted the Colonial courts as part of the Intolerable Acts, and this gives rise to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. And so on.

You also should be aware that many of the Framers resisted the Bill of Rights. They thought it simply wasn't necessary. At the original Constitutional Convention, the idea to include such a list was floated but defeated soundly -- the idea being that the Federal Government would take no rights away at all, and it would be up to the States to arbitrate.

Today's pre-armed Militia (the people) would need the very arms they are denied in modern USA (automatic rifles upwards?) because it would make life very dangerous if elements of the Militia were inclined to possess, and could afford, RPG's or tanks or jet fighter aircraft. That they might need such weapons to fulfil their role as a useful Militia in modern times tends to confirm my belief that The Second Amendment is an anachronism. And that the Founding Fathers were thinking of their times and not much about the more distant future where the USA might have a powerful standing army, reserves, the right to conscript and a huge arsenal.

Where we seem to agree is that it's irreversible in the foreseeable future.

There is no legal right for The People to own RPGs and tanks and jet fighters because of precedent. (One can apply for Destructive Device licenses, but it gets very expensive very fast, even if you live in Kentucky.)

The militia also does not need these arms to be a credible deterrent. In the American Revolution, with the exception of the Acton militia, the militias were severely undergunned compared to the Regulars -- no bayonets, for one thing, no warships for another -- and they lost the majority of engagements. But still they won the war. The Framers understood low-intensity warfare in a way that seems to escape even modern American politicians and generals.

But again, this is not the point. The Second Amendment was not intended for the People to fight the Government someday. They knew back then that if a second Revolution ever happened, we would all lose. The Revolutionary War was a just war, but it was a disaster of unimaginable scope. 200,000 Colonists died (75% from disease) at a time when the total population of the Colonies was about 3.2 million. It lasted longer than the Civil War and our part in WWII combined. It utterly wrecked the economy.

The Framers also knew that revolutions rarely end up with a just government on the other side. What happened in this country is nothing short of a miracle. The odds of a second revolution righting whatever they got wrong the first time are vanishingly small.

Again, the reason for the Second Amendment is simply to put a visible and definite limit on Federal power. This is the government's contract with us. It states that they will never remove our right to personal self-defense. It acknowledges that the British crossed this line, and bloody war resulted.

It also levies upon us the responsibility to protect ourselves, and organize ourselves accordingly. See, all rights have their downsides, and their responsibilities. The First Amendment, for instance, guarantees our right to free assembly, but it levies upon us the responsibility to do so peaceably.

Finally, another intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that, in time of emergency, citizens would have the basic skills needed in the Army. This need is not anachronistic at all -- there are reports coming out of Afghanistan at regular intervals decrying marksmanship of common soldiers. I also well recall Great Britain, early in WWII, begging for anything that would fire and the time to train the Home Guard. There are also still organizations that try to keep this alive, notably the Civilian Marksmanship Program (http://www.thecmp.org/), which promotes civilian shooting sports and sells surplus rifles to American citizens. And last but not least, the organization I work with (http://www.appleseedinfo.org) offers our training for free to active duty military, and we have done special classes for military units. The majority of our present soldiers do not shoot up to the standards of days past.

To summarize, I support the Second Amendment. And taking up arms against the Government is about the very last thing from my mind. That's not what it's really for.

[GlennB]

Not sure I've ever seen such a festival of strawmen, non sequiturs and tu quoques in my life. Hardly a sentence of what you're written addresses any of my points. They seem to address points that you wish to address or ones that you have in your head. Here's a few -


Well, you have to understand that political style was different when the Constitution was written.

If you think the Bill of Rights is obscurely written, you should try to chase down "The Rights of Englishmen," which is the closest analogue they had to follow.

eh? So what that other people wrote worse legislation?

There is no legal right for The People to own RPGs and tanks and jet fighters because of precedent. (One can apply for Destructive Device licenses, but it gets very expensive very fast, even if you live in Kentucky.)

I didn't say there was. The exact opposite in fact.

The militia also does not need these arms to be a credible deterrent.

Yes they do. Any modern-day militia will certainly face superior weaponry than hand guns and hunting rifles against any plausible threat. If the threat is not plausible, they don't need the advanced weaponry.

But again, this is not the point. The Second Amendment was not intended for the People to fight the Government someday.

I have never suggested they might. This seems to be an idea that springs from your mind, not mine. Nothing I have said even touched on this issue.

The odds of a second revolution righting whatever they got wrong the first time are vanishingly small.

Fine. But why are you saying this out of nowhere?

It states that they will never remove our right to personal self-defense. It acknowledges that the British crossed this line, and bloody war resulted.

It says nothing whatsoever about personal self-defence. It talks about national self-defence. The British are not mentioned.

Finally, another intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that, in time of emergency, citizens would have the basic skills needed in the Army.

There's nothing in the Second Amendment requiring citizens to demonstrate their proficiency. Merely possessing arms. Maybe you're getting the Founding Fathers mixed up with that English King who required men to actually practice their longbow on Sundays?

This need is not anachronistic at all -- there are reports coming out of Afghanistan at regular intervals decrying marksmanship of common soldiers.

So what? Where do I or the Second Amendment recommend or require proficiency in order to acquire Second Amendment rights?

To summarize, I support the Second Amendment. And taking up arms against the Government is about the very last thing from my mind. That's not what it's really for.


You seem to have insurgency on the brain. I haven't for one second suggested that armed insurgency against a malicious Government is any kind of issue here whatsoever, vis-a-vis The Second Amendment. It's just one in a lengthy series of strawmen you have set up.

[R.Mackey]

Not sure I've ever seen such a festival of strawmen, non sequiturs and tu quoques in my life. Hardly a sentence of what you're written addresses any of my points. They seem to address points that you wish to address or ones that you have in your head. Here's a few -

Easy there, Trigger. I'm also responding to others in this thread.

eh? So what that other people wrote worse legislation?

Only "worse" through the lens of modern standards. Hindsight and all that. At the time, there was no debate at all over the meaning of the Second Amendment. The confusion is a modern artifact, that was my point.

I didn't say there was. The exact opposite in fact.

Yes, I know. I was agreeing with you.

Yes they do. Any modern-day militia will certainly face superior weaponry than hand guns and hunting rifles against any plausible threat. If the threat is not plausible, they don't need the advanced weaponry.

Again, agreeing with you. Militias do not need advanced weaponry. See Battle of Concord, Siege of Boston, etc.

It says nothing whatsoever about personal self-defence. It talks about national self-defence. The British are not mentioned.

Absolutely wrong. The Second Amendment, once again, is about individual self-defense. Since you didn't read it, I'll quote from Heller:

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”
Source (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html)

There's nothing in the Second Amendment requiring citizens to demonstrate their proficiency. Merely possessing arms. Maybe you're getting the Founding Fathers mixed up with that English King who required men to actually practice their longbow on Sundays?

So what? Where do I or the Second Amendment recommend or require proficiency in order to acquire Second Amendment rights?

Here you have the causality backwards. The Second Amendment was not a privilege extended only to the proficient. It was (also) a means of guaranteeing that the citizens would not be helpless in their own defense. This is the whole reason the "well-regulated militia" language is in the Amendment -- without this individual right, a well-regulated militia cannot exist.

You seem to have insurgency on the brain. I haven't for one second suggested that armed insurgency against a malicious Government is any kind of issue here whatsoever, vis-a-vis The Second Amendment. It's just one in a lengthy series of strawmen you have set up.

Again, I understand you're not suggesting this. I'm only clarifying in advance because many, many others have.

[GlennB]

Easy there, Trigger. I'm also responding to others in this thread.

Then it might be wise to avoid only enclosing my quotes in your response? Or make your meaning otherwise explicit?
It certainly seemed clear enough you were responding to my comments, and I responded accordingly.

Although my psi powers are quite strong, they don't stretch to about 10 time zones.

p.s you're still doing it with "causality backwards" and "The Second Amendment was not a privilege extended only to the proficient".... This is precisely what I said.

[Noztradamus]

Why does that amaze you? Should anti-pedophile people know the ins and outs of how to bugger children?


They should at leasy be able to understand NonceSense (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A676424)without relying on bellyfeel

From the same era Pædiatrician (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm)

There is nothing stronger than Ignorance in a Righteous Cause. Because good intentions absolve all sins.

Wise men are instructed by reason; men of less understanding, by wxperience; the most ignorant, by necessity; the beasts, by nature. -Marcus Tullius Cicero

[thaiboxerken]

It's one thing to be knowledgable. It's another to be an expert. It appears to me that some people think only experts should have the right to object to gun ownership.

[R.Mackey]

There's no evidence of that in this thread.

[thaiboxerken]

There's no evidence of that in this thread.
It's funny that you'd be the one to say this, since you're the one that's guilty of it.

[R.Mackey]

No, I'm not.

[thaiboxerken]

No, I'm not.

Are too, infinity +1.

[R.Mackey]

I already worked out that you're a troll, you don't have to continue proving it.

At no time have I expressed a desire to deny the right to express an opinion of those, like yourself, who know little about the subject you're critcizing. You are welcome to express your feelings, no matter how well or poorly researched. I in turn feel perfectly free to point out their shortcomings.

You don't seem to have anything to add at this point except your own hurt feelings. If you want to contribute something useful, please do. The floor is yours.

[thaiboxerken]

In otherwords, I'm not an expert in firearms, therefore you think my opinions don't matter. Gotcha.

[R.Mackey]

Not what I said.

Consider yourself Ignored until your attitude improves. :)

[Cobalt]

Seems to me that it's these people that really, REALLY want their guns. It's too bad we can't keep them from having guns.
So I ask if this is your meaning: If they don't care about having the gun, they can have it if they...want...to?


What kind of guns should people be allowed to own? Hand-guns? Yes. Rifles? Yes. Semi-automatic? Yes. Fully automatic? Why not? Sniper rifles? As vague as the day is long. Cannons? What, like, civil war style? Provided you've got a huge plot of land and won't do any damage to anyone/anything, sure, why not?

What kind of ammo? Depleted Uranium armor-piercing? Fletchette rounds?
Ignorance at its finest.

What about grenades?

Naw.

[GlennB]

What kind of guns should people be allowed to own?
....
What about grenades?



Naw.

Back to the point I was trying to make with R.Mackey....

If a pre-armed militia is to be the USA's final defence against aggressors, then they will need whatever weapons are appropriate for the times. The kind likely to be deployed against them. Or better, ideally These days, this will include very advanced weaponry.

Yet modern interpretations of the Second Amendment limit this weaponry to hand guns and everyday rifles.

Which demonstrates that the Second Amendment applied well enough to then, but not now. An anachronism.

[dtugg]

Even if so, it is still the law. One that is not going to be changed anytime soon.

[GlennB]

Even if so, it is still the law. One that is not going to be changed anytime soon.

Yep, I agree totally.

[MikeMangum]

That gun ban isn't working so well for Chicago.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7469776

May 30, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- It has been a violent weekend in Chicago: in a 30 hour period, 25 people were shot, and one man died from his injuries.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you think repealing the hand gun ban would've stopped this from happening?

[MikeMangum]

Do you think repealing the hand gun ban would've stopped this from happening?

I'm not sure I understand that logic. People who support a basic freedom have to somehow demonstrate that removing restrictions on that basic freedom will ameliorate somethin harmfull?

How about we try that the other way around? How about you prove that restricting a basic freedom provides a superior outcome for the general population than not restricting that freedom?

Good luck with that.

[thaiboxerken]

What I'm asking is, do you think people having the right to own handguns would stop this gang warfare?

[MikeMangum]

What I'm asking is, do you think people having the right to own handguns would stop this gang warfare?

No, I don't think it would stop gang warfare. There is some evidence, certainly not dispositive, that increased prevalence of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does deter victimization of law abiding citizens. Most of the studies I have seen on the subject were inconclusive in that regards, i.e. no detectable correlation between violent crime rates and gun control laws.

But then again, much of the violence that normal people face in a city like Chicago isn't "gang warfare". Chicago ranks pretty darn high in robberies, for instance, even comparing against other major cities. Allowing people to carry handguns would allow them to defend themselves from standard, run-of-the-mill violent crime or even property crime.

Your turn. If constraining people's right to carry a handgun doesn't actually reduce violent crime (and it clearly doesn't), what is the justification for denying people the one means to effectively defend themselves that is not limited by physical strength and size? Keep in mind that even martial arts competitions use weight classes, because size and strength are such overwhelming advantages that they, as a general rule, cannot be overcome by training and skill.

It's a cheesy cliche, but it has a grain of truth to it: "God made man, Sam Colt made man equal."

[Bob Blaylock]

What I'm asking is, do you think people having the right to own handguns would stop this gang warfare?


The people have that right, whether you will admit it or not, and whether the local governments will allow that right to be exercised, as opposed to illegally and illegitimately suppressing it.

Having a right doesn't do a lot of good if you are unlawfully prevented from exercising it.

[MikeMangum]

Hey Thai:

Your turn. If constraining people's right to carry a handgun doesn't actually reduce violent crime (and it clearly doesn't), what is the justification for denying people the one means to effectively defend themselves that is not limited by physical strength and size?

[thaiboxerken]

Your turn. If constraining people's right to carry a handgun doesn't actually reduce violent crime (and it clearly doesn't), what is the justification for denying people the one means to effectively defend themselves that is not limited by physical strength and size?

That's a really big IF. I think if law enforcement effectively upheld the gun ban, than violence with guns would be effectively eliminated.

[fullflavormenthol]

I think if law enforcement effectively upheld the gun ban, than violence with guns would be effectively eliminated.

"...a perfect example of what faith-based "reasoning" leads to."

I think is law enforcement could effectively make us all love one another, than violence in general would effectively be eliminated. Lets institute mandatory hugs until that happens.

[carlitos]

I guess I'm weird in that I would like to go through life never killing a person.
What exactly is the purpose of "Thai Boxing?" Why don't we ban that?

[thaiboxerken]

"...a perfect example of what faith-based "reasoning" leads to."

I think is law enforcement could effectively make us all love one another, than violence in general would effectively be eliminated. Lets institute mandatory hugs until that happens.

We have actual evidence of effective gun bans leading to less gun violence. The UK, for example. You guys act like I'm thinking of hypotheticals, but the UK is a real example of a country where there is a gun ban in place.

[MikeMangum]

We have actual evidence of effective gun bans leading to less gun violence. The UK, for example. You guys act like I'm thinking of hypotheticals, but the UK is a real example of a country where there is a gun ban in place.

Really?



BBC, 2003:
Gun crime soars by 35% (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm)
Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.
There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

The Times, 2003:
Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article808026.ece)
Figures to be issued next week by the Home Office are expected to show fresh increases last year. Police fear a descent into American-style violence and the use of guns as a fashion accessory among teenagers in inner cities.

From the WSJ, Europe, 2004:
Banning Guns In the U.K. Has Backfired (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109416390461308573,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain %5Feurope%5Fasia)
The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

From the Times, 2007:
Ministers 'covered up' gun crime (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece)
THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.

Telegraph, 2008:
28 gun crimes committed in UK every day (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html)
The spiralling problem with gun culture was highlighted by figures that show 28 firearms crimes are committed in England and Wales every day.

Home Office figures showed gun crimes rose by four per cent last year, the largest increase for three years.

...

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "Violent crime - including, most alarmingly, gun crime - is still far higher than 10 years ago and has to be tackled much more vigorously."

The Times, 2008:
Crime down but gun offences rise (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3805816.ece)


London Evening Standard, 2009:
Gangsters and muggers fuel gun crime surge (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23739616-gangsters-and-muggers-fuel-gun-crime-surge.do)
Gangland shootings and armed muggers are fuelling a surge in gun crime in London, according to Scotland Yard.

Police say they are battling a twin rise in the number of offences involving armed gangs and gunpoint robberies.

Overall, the number of gun crime offences across the capital soared by 14 per cent in the last four months - an increase of 139 offences.

The biggest single rise involves street robberies where muggers claim to be armed.

Daily Mail, 2009:
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html)
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.

[MikeMangum]

If constraining people's right to carry a handgun doesn't actually reduce violent crime (and it clearly doesn't), what is the justification for denying people the one means to effectively defend themselves that is not limited by physical strength and size?

[thaiboxerken]

If constraining people's right to carry a handgun doesn't actually reduce violent crime (and it clearly doesn't), what is the justification for denying people the one means to effectively defend themselves that is not limited by physical strength and size?

That's a big IF, that is not actually proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

[MikeMangum]

That's a big IF, that is not actually proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime

Hrmm. Earlier you posted this:
We have actual evidence of effective gun bans leading to less gun violence. The UK, for example.

You've changed from asserting that there is evidence that the UK handgun ban has led to less gun crime* to now, when confronted with evidence that it did no such thing, to claiming that it isn't proven that gun crime increased in the UK after the handgun ban and then link to a wikipedia page that doesn't even support your argument...

In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries

*I note your avoidance of violent crime and limiting your assertion to gun crime, although I'm not sure why since I specifically asked my question in the context of violent crime, which did increase in the UK after the 97 handgun ban - substantially.

[dtugg]

My home state of Arizona has recently changed the law so that any person who can legally purchase a handgun (anybody 21 or over and not a felon basically), can carry one concealed; a permit will no longer be required. I believe the law will take effect in July.

The other two states which have similar laws, Vermont and Alaska are rural states with no large cities so it's hard to apply what happens in those two states to the rest of the USA. Arizona, on the other hand, while having a rural population is mostly urban. Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the USA. And over 80% of the state's population lives in either the Phoenix or Tucson metro areas.

So, anybody have any predictions for what is going to happen after this law goes into effect? Is it going to to turn into the Wild West? Are there going to be shootouts on the streets daily?

[R.Mackey]

So, anybody have any predictions for what is going to happen after this law goes into effect? Is it going to to turn into the Wild West? Are there going to be shootouts on the streets daily?


I'll step up to the challenge.

I don't think much will change at all. I doubt crime will go up or down in any statistically significant way.

If you want to look really hard for an effect, watch border counties just outside of Arizona before and after unlimited carry goes into effect. The question will be, did crime spill over to neighboring states? Did it stop at the borders? Did it get worse at the borders?

Personally, I think statistics should have only a tertiary bearing on civil rights. How much money or how many lives saved would it take for you to give up your right to free speech? Not really answerable, is it?

[carlitos]

I have to ask again, if Thai boxing kills people, why is it allowed?

[thaiboxerken]

You've changed from asserting that there is evidence that the UK handgun ban has led to less gun crime* to now, when confronted with evidence that it did no such thing, to claiming that it isn't proven that gun crime increased in the UK after the handgun ban and then link to a wikipedia page that doesn't even support your argument...

There is less gun crime in the UK than the USA and they have a gun ban. Why is that?

[fullflavormenthol]

There is less gun crime in the UK than the USA and they have a gun ban. Why is that?
Less crime in general for a smaller country. Wow, for a person who "doesn't care" you really seem devoted this, dare I write, religious belief of yours.

Just admit you are anti-gun, no problem with that. You simply want people to be murdered in their homes or run and let their families get murdered. Oh wait...people don't break into homes and murder people, thats right. They only want stuff, it isn't like someone would break in and slowly murder a whole family member by member while taunting and enjoying it. The family was at fault because they should have offered to hug the murderer.

Mandatory hugs will solve all the problems as will Holy England's No Defense Policy towards violent attackers. I just love a country that would send me to jail for using a stun device or even a toy gun in self defense.

Oh btw...there is less political striff in North Korea with restrictions on freedom of speech. I geuss the 1st Amendment needs to go, because it would really help things if we used that as an example.

[thaiboxerken]

The UK has less gun crime per capita than the USA. Why is that?

[dtugg]

So does Canada. Why is that?

[thaiboxerken]

So does Canada. Why is that?

Less guns?

[MikeMangum]

The UK has less gun crime per capita than the USA. Why is that?

But substantially more violent crime. Why is that?