The Gun Debate

[merphie]

I have realized most people seem to be uninformed on gun politics. Unfortunately most politicians seem not to have all the information.

A news organization's job to inform people of the facts of the situation accurately. The media organizations seem to have failed at this task. [Source: http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/default.htm]

First if we look at current laws we can see that the gun industry is heavily regulated by law and the BATF. The term “Assault Weapons� does not accurately describe any gun.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 bans all automatic weapons. This was later repealed and replaced by The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

The GCA banned all fully automatic weapons without a special Federal License. Some of the restrictions include prohibiting “sawed-off Shotguns�, rifle/shotgun sales to persons under 18, and handgun sales to people under 21. This means the people who robbed the bank in California with Automatic rifles possessed illegal guns. The guns they used had nothing to do with the 1994 law that expires on Monday, September 13, 2004.

The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 protects the right of the citizens to keep in bear arms under the second amendment. It also reaffirmed the protection afforded under many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. There is no question about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The Undetectable Handgun law of 1988 made possession of a gun illegal that could not be detected by a x-ray machine. This law is completely worthless because from my knowledge there is no gun in existence that does not contain metal parts like the barrel.

The 1994 Public Safety and Recreation Firearms Use Protection Act (“The Crime Bill�) only banned 19 specific guns and certain characteristics of other guns. From statistics we can clearly see that the drop in crime was started before this law and has continued even with the increase of states issuing Concealed Carry Permits.

Today, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check. Anyone who wishes to obtain a Conceal Carry Weapon Permit (CCW) in Oklahoma must pass a county background check, state background check, and federal background check. The applicant must also have fingerprints taken; passport type photos, and attended a CLEET certified training on firearm use. There are many restrictions on where a concealed weapon maybe carried. For example, concealed weapons are not allowed in state buildings, schools, or in alcohol business. The rejection rates for NCIC check performed for gun purchases is only about 2% in 2001. [Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/bcft01.htm]

By definition “Criminals� perform actions that are illegal. The bank robbers in California broke four laws that I am aware of. They used a firearm in the commission of a felony, robbed a bank, possessed automatic firearms, and used body armor in the commission of a felony. None of these laws stopped them from performing the act. They were killed in commission of this crime so no charges were ever filed.

If we look at statistics from the Department of Justice we see that crime has been dropping since 1993. [Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm] We can also see that only 2% of criminals used an “Assault Weapon� in their crime. Most who committed a crime with a firearm also received an enhanced sentence. [Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm] Gangs committed most homicides where a gun was used. [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm#circumgun]

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) also reflects the drop in crime. [Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm] From the NCVS we see that 80% of criminals obtain their guns through illegal means. [Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm] They rarely obtain a gun from a gun show or a licensed retailer. If we look at analysis of the NCVS we can see that guns are used defensively about 2.2 to 2.5 times a year. [Source: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html] Unfortunately the police are not required to protect us from crime. This is clearly illustrated in cases such as “Warren vs. District of Columbia�.

I do not see a reason for a gun manufacturer to be liable for a criminal use of their product. Most of the cases that have been filed have been dismissed. This could be compared to suing Ford for someone using a Ford truck to run someone down. If a manufacturer can be shown to sell outside the law or a product that is not safe with proper use, I think they should be convicted or sued.

Some people tend to see the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a fanatical organization. I think if you actually look at the NRA position it makes sense and it has plenty of facts to support their position. No one seems to talk about the good things the NRA has done. This could include things such as “Project Exile� [Source: http://www.nrawinningteam.com/hestexil.html] (Which Enhances sentences for gun crimes) and the “Eddie the Eagle� [Source: http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/] (Which teaches kids gun safety).

Most people do not know just how regulated the gun industry is in the United States. The statistical data does not show the availability of guns to lawful citizens to be responsible for any drop or rise in crime. Guns help some victims, but no one can say that a victim having a gun would prevent all crimes. I do believe we should have the option of possessing a gun. There are plenty of lawful uses for gun aside from personal defense. This includes hunting and target shooting. Both of these activities require a lot of skill. They oppose any restrictions to the right of law-abiding citizens. This included gun registration. In history, gun registration usually leads to gun confiscation or the infringement of rights of specific groups of people. Since the civil war in the United States things like marriage licenses and gun registration were used to prevent African-Americans from certain activities. There are plenty of examples of this occurring as early as 1968. (Ref: “Deacons of Defense�)

The problem of crime in the United States is not the guns themselves, but the act of breaking the law itself. We should be focusing our attention on something that could help reduce crime further without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

[Ed]

Very good summary. The problem is that those that hate weapons per se. will take the position that "law abiding owners should not care" or "it can't do any harm" or "what do you need that for?" all of which beg the issue of the level of regulation and the basic nature of bad guys.

Incidentially, Connecticut seems the same as Oklahoma vis a vis carry permits. My recollection is that no permit is needed if you want to keep a handgun in your home, though to buy it you would need the check.

I might add to your list of references the CDC report to be found here (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

The "note" is the gnashing of liberal teeth BTW.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Ed
Very good summary. The problem is that those that hate weapons per se. will take the position that "law abiding owners should not care" or "it can't do any harm" or "what do you need that for?" all of which beg the issue of the level of regulation and the basic nature of bad guys.

Incidentially, Connecticut seems the same as Oklahoma vis a vis carry permits. My recollection is that no permit is needed if you want to keep a handgun in your home, though to buy it you would need the check.

I might add to your list of references the CDC report to be found here (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

The "note" is the gnashing of liberal teeth BTW.

Oklahoma law also states no permit is needed to keep guns in their house. It clearly states that any Oklahoman can defend themselves if life is threatend or serious bodily harm. It also says that if someone enters your house (Break in for example) you have the right to assume they are armed and mean you great harm. Therefor you have the right to defend yourself by killing them. This is sometimes called the "Make My Day Law"

I have seen on this board many times where people attack someone personally when they can not attack their position. This is true everywhere.

I compiled a list of information from debates on this board. I posted my opinion to see if I could defend it. After all as skeptics we must challenge our own views even if it could prove us wrong. I have had to change some aspects of my stance. (I was incorrect on some details on UK laws)

While watching the news one night I saw several stories that were politically anti-gun and was a clear case of unfair reporting. I wrote that summary and sent to them. It's sad I had to do the research for them. Today they seem to have changed their tone and had an over all news story that accurately described the situation. I removed the parts that thanked them for their accurate news story.

[merphie]

Here is a list of all my sources that I have compiled so far. I want to thank Ed for the addition of the CDC article. I am including it so everyone can verify the information I have given.

Guns in General

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/percentfirearm.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
http://www.fact-index.com/g/gu/gun_politics_1.html
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/homicide/homi98/tabs/hm98tb49.pdf

Effectiveness of law
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Eddie the Eagle
http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

Project Exile
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/hestexil.html

Media Bias
http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/default.htm

Kerry
http://www.nrapvf.org/Kerry/default.aspx

(Incomplete research on foriegn countries)

UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F06%2F14%2Fnmart14. xml
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00276-05.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3914289.stm
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1101.pdf

AU
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html

[TragicMonkey]

Politicians are rarely well-informed on the subjects they legislate--what can you expect, that they'd take time off from fundraising to do research?

I think there are two different tides in the gun opposition -- those who don't understand the current gun laws, and those who don't care about the current gun laws because they want to scrap them all anyway. Then you get the ones who are in favor of some guns and not others, and they have the tricky business of drawing a line and justifying it.

This causes problems when they all get together, because sometimes they seem to be calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, and sometimes they're calling for certain guns to be illegal, and sometimes they don't know what they want, but have a horrific story about dead children to shock the listener with.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Politicians are rarely well-informed on the subjects they legislate--what can you expect, that they'd take time off from fundraising to do research?

I think there are two different tides in the gun opposition -- those who don't understand the current gun laws, and those who don't care about the current gun laws because they want to scrap them all anyway. Then you get the ones who are in favor of some guns and not others, and they have the tricky business of drawing a line and justifying it.

This causes problems when they all get together, because sometimes they seem to be calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, and sometimes they're calling for certain guns to be illegal, and sometimes they don't know what they want, but have a horrific story about dead children to shock the listener with.

Agreed. For the most part I believe most people believe that guns should be owned by citizens and have some restrictions. Those who do not know gun laws typically seem to agree we have enough laws when they are made aware of what the gun laws show. IMHO

The tragic stories are just that and have no real bearing on political issues of guns. They make a strong impression on the viewer and are there by effective. Look at Michael Moore's work. (I refuse to call them documentries) They use a shock factor to show his point of view. There is little fact in them.

[Ed]

I would be interested if sceptics would respond to the stuff that is on TV today as the "assult weapon" ban fades away. I just heard Kerry referring to "military assult weapons". I can only assume that he is lieing.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ed
I would be interested if sceptics would respond to the stuff that is on TV today as the "assult weapon" ban fades away. I just heard Kerry referring to "military assult weapons". I can only assume that he is lieing.

Haven't been near a TV today, but the news articles seem to concentrate on the horrific number of rounds each weapon can fire. I suppose they think it's possible to shoot 800 people a minute if your gun can fire 800 rounds a minute. But then, I get the feeling a lot of the anti-gun people have never fired a gun. I'm fairly neutral on the whole question, but at least I've tried it. And I'm amazed anyone can hit anything at all. It's a lot easier on Playstation.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Haven't been near a TV today, but the news articles seem to concentrate on the horrific number of rounds each weapon can fire. I suppose they think it's possible to shoot 800 people a minute if your gun can fire 800 rounds a minute. But then, I get the feeling a lot of the anti-gun people have never fired a gun. I'm fairly neutral on the whole question, but at least I've tried it. And I'm amazed anyone can hit anything at all. It's a lot easier on Playstation.

I agree. The military assault weapons means nothing. The military doesn't use Semi-Automatic weapons.

Civilians only can have a semi-auto weapon which fires one round for every depression of the trigger.

It is not easy to hit a target. Kerry seems to ignore that.

[Dorian Gray]

The term “Assault Weapons� does not accurately describe any gun. That term does legally describe certain guns. This sentence contains a bit of the strawman, as no term ever necessarily accurately describes what it is supposed to. "Love" or "freedom", for example.

There is no question about the meaning of the Second Amendment. One of the jobs of K-12 is to teach people how to read and comprehend. For you, K-12 seems to have failed at this task. If the media has taught us anything about the Second Amendment, it is that its meaning is HIGHLY questioned. See the title of your thread for details, with emphasis on the last word.

The Undetectable Handgun law of 1988 made possession of a gun illegal that could not be detected by a x-ray machine. This law is completely worthless because from my knowledge there is no gun in existence that does not contain metal parts like the barrel. Such a gun is theoretically possible. Even if you think it's impossible to build a gun without metal parts, it's possible to shield the gun so that it cannot be detected by an x-ray machine. Therefore, the law is not worthless.

Today, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check. Not at gun and knife shows. Not on the black market. People who steal or are given guns are not covered. Speaking of worthless.

Now, about your statistics - is there an overall drop in crime, or specifically a drop in crime where a gun is used? For example, there could be a 85% reduction in burglaries and thefts, and a 80% drop in white collar crime, all while gun-related crime actually increases by 54% (source for figures: my ass). So the overall crime rate can be said to have dropped while gun-related crime is actually on the rise.

Have you or the figure-compilers factored in this stuff?

The statistical data does not show the availability of guns to lawful citizens to be responsible for any drop or rise in crime. This is the most ridiculous comment in your entire post. OF COURSE it doesn't show anything - lawful citizens don't commit crimes!

about which: We should be focusing our attention on something that could help reduce crime further without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. So are you also in favor of making all drugs legal?



I just heard Kerry referring to "military assult weapons". I can only assume that he is lieing. Nope. Until the ban lapsed, only the military and the police could buy those weapons.

[hgc]

I wish to Hell that Kerry would not campaign on gun control issues. Howard Dean called it when he said that Gore lost (ie., would have gotten even more than half million more votes than Bush he got) on the gun control issue.

Gun control opponents vote on that issue. Gun control advocates do not vote on that issue. By simple formulation, it's a stinker all the way for Kerry. I'm not entirely Machiavellian about this -- I don't happen to think that non-voting constituencies deserve to be ignored. It's just that the effects of this law were not all that salutary anyway.

Get a goddamn brain, Kerry! Run like you want to win!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by hgc
Get a goddamn brain, Kerry! Run like you want to win!

I worry that he's convinced he has to take the opposite of all of Bush's positions. Really, all he has to do is exist quietly as an alternative to Bush, but I guess he's not flattered by that and feels he has to say things. I wish he wouldn't.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Nope. Until the ban lapsed, only the military and the police could buy those weapons.

An "assault weapon" is a full auto military firearm. They have been and are illeagal. What Kerry is referring to is a semi-automatic weapon with certain decorator additions. They are not military and he knows better ergo a lie.

[Ed]

Originally posted by hgc
I wish to Hell that Kerry would not campaign on gun control issues. Howard Dean called it when he said that Gore lost (ie., would have gotten even more than half million more votes than Bush he got) on the gun control issue.

Gun control opponents vote on that issue. Gun control advocates do not vote on that issue. By simple formulation, it's a stinker all the way for Kerry. I'm not entirely Machiavellian about this -- I don't happen to think that non-voting constituencies deserve to be ignored. It's just that the effects of this law were not all that salutary anyway.

Get a goddamn brain, Kerry! Run like you want to win!

Kerry's judgement is emerging as a big issue for me. I would not generally vote against someone solely for an anti gun position but Kerry is rabble rousing. Bad form and yet another lapse in judgement.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
That term does legally describe certain guns. This sentence contains a bit of the strawman, as no term ever necessarily accurately describes what it is supposed to. "Love" or "freedom", for example.

Sure. Does it? Which law? The 1994? I would have to look at the text to see if it mentions the term "assault weapon". Even if it did mention the media and Kerry are talking about guns that were not included on the 1994 ban. So they can't even give the definition straight. What is an "Assault Weapon"? Even you have danced around the issue by not giving a definition. To my knowledge there is no manufacturer who calls their product an "Assault Weapon".

One of the jobs of K-12 is to teach people how to read and comprehend. For you, K-12 seems to have failed at this task. If the media has taught us anything about the Second Amendment, it is that its meaning is HIGHLY questioned. See the title of your thread for details, with emphasis on the last word.

You study law in k-12? It seems to me that the only people who contest the meaning are those who ignore the "The Firearm Owners' Protection Act" or those who wish to ban all private ownership. I have made no claim as to the ability of the education system. My summary was based solely on facts.

Maybe they should teach comprehension? If it says "The right of the people to bear arms" How can there be a debate on facts? Those who believe it is a collective right must also believe the rest of the Bill of Rights is collective and not to the individual. You can't read the first sentence of something and proclaim you know the meaning of something.

The media doesn't teach anything.

Such a gun is theoretically possible. Even if you think it's impossible to build a gun without metal parts, it's possible to shield the gun so that it cannot be detected by an x-ray machine. Therefore, the law is not worthless.

Is such a gun possible? What can they use in the construction of a gun that could withstand the pressure and not be detected? Glass? The problem is shield is the same as conceal in this context. Concealed weapons are regulated.

Not at gun and knife shows. Not on the black market. People who steal or are given guns are not covered. Speaking of worthless.

Is this so? Have you EVER been to a gun show? That is something that the "Anti-gun" politics have said. There is no fact in that. Did you read where 2% come from gun shows? Did you even read the full post? You do not speak from truth on gun shows. I attend them on a regular basis and have bought many guns at them. Granted I can only speak of gun show vendors I have attended here. Which there is about 4 vendors who come here all the time. Some do shows outside of Oklahoma.

Black markets and stolen guns are covered because they are illegal acts. Guns that are given are covered. It is illegal to buy a gun for an individual who otherwise can not do so themself. It is illegal to have a gun that is accessible to a felon. My grandfather gave me his guns because he is no longer able to use them. He has his SSN engraved on them. Should he not have the right to give those weapons to someone who he trained and knows doesn't have a criminal record?

I know this information because the OSBI told my Father-in-Law he would have to turn in his CCW permit and get rid of his guns if his son was paroled on felony charges. My father in law asked me if I would keep his guns for him because of this.

Speaking from the uninformed.

Now, about your statistics - is there an overall drop in crime, or specifically a drop in crime where a gun is used? For example, there could be a 85% reduction in burglaries and thefts, and a 80% drop in white collar crime, all while gun-related crime actually increases by 54% (source for figures: my ass). So the overall crime rate can be said to have dropped while gun-related crime is actually on the rise.

Have you or the figure-compilers factored in this stuff?

Did you even read any of it? Could be, could be not. There could be a flying pig out there that we have simply not seen. Your opinion is noted, but you do not have one fact to back anything up.

Look at the numbers. An overal drop but the numbers also show violent crimes have dropped as well. Is this not good enough for you? Guns do not cause crime. They do not make good people go bad.

This is the most ridiculous comment in your entire post. OF COURSE it doesn't show anything - lawful citizens don't commit crimes!

No what is ridiculous is the "Gun Control Laws". Why make laws that would take guns away from lawful citizens? That is all the 1994 did. All the "gun control" laws due is restrict law abiding citizens. That is fact. I made no statement in that post that I could not backup with facts.

about which: So are you also in favor of making all drugs legal?

A better question, "is what can we do to reduce drug use?" Should we imprision non-violent offenders for the rest of their life over drugs? I would be in favor of making them legal. The war on drugs is not effective and cost us billions. It is failing and new solution needs to be brought in. The drug programs did not have a sustained effect on drug use. I believe it is the parents responsibility to keep their kids off drugs. Not the government. I don't believe we can fix the drug problem by throwing users and dealers in jail. It doesn't work.

Nope. Until the ban lapsed, only the military and the police could buy those weapons.

The military uses Automatic weapons. The police may buy semiauto weapons, but they are not military. So the term is still meaningless. If you want to give opinion that is fine, but you need to state it as such.

[merphie]

Originally posted by hgc
I wish to Hell that Kerry would not campaign on gun control issues. Howard Dean called it when he said that Gore lost (ie., would have gotten even more than half million more votes than Bush he got) on the gun control issue.

Gun control opponents vote on that issue. Gun control advocates do not vote on that issue. By simple formulation, it's a stinker all the way for Kerry. I'm not entirely Machiavellian about this -- I don't happen to think that non-voting constituencies deserve to be ignored. It's just that the effects of this law were not all that salutary anyway.

Get a goddamn brain, Kerry! Run like you want to win!

So it would be better to support a position and not tell people you do? Wouldn't that be consider lying? Oh wait! He does EXACTLY that!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Such a gun is theoretically possible. Even if you think it's impossible to build a gun without metal parts, it's possible to shield the gun so that it cannot be detected by an x-ray machine. Therefore, the law is not worthless.



Can you post a link to construction of a non-metallic gun? I suppose you could build something pnumatic that could concieveably be lethal. Remember non-metallic means no cartridge (brass and lead). BTW this would not be defined as a firearm.

Can you tell us how you shield a pound of steel from a magnetometer? What, exactly, is the shielding material? How much would you need? What is the source of this assertion?

This sounds very much like anti-gun hysteria.

[Earthborn]

If it says "The right of the people to bear arms"'To bear arms' did not mean the same thing when it was written what you think it does now. It means 'joining a militia'. With that meaning the whole second amendment suddenly makes sense and there is no contradiction with the 'a well regulated militia' part anymore.

Here (http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html#bear) is a pro-gun site that acknowledges that 'to bear arms' most likely had a military meaning and so if you leave out the 'keep' you make it into an amendment that says nothing about personal gun ownership.Those who believe it is a collective right must also believe the rest of the Bill of Rights is collective and not to the individual.It is a personal right, and it is the right to own a gun (keeping arms) and join a militia (bearing arms).

[geni]

Originally posted by merphie

http://www.fact-index.com/g/gu/gun_politics_1.html


which was in turn taken from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

This is hardly the worlds lieast conterversial issue so wikipedia articles may not be an ideal source.

[Earthborn]

Such a gun is theoretically possible. Even if you think it's impossible to build a gun without metal parts, it's possible to shield the gun so that it cannot be detected by an x-ray machine.I'm skeptical about this magic gun. I think it might be possible to make a non-metalic gun. I remember an episode of X-Files (I think) where some terrorist had a wooden gun. That was cool!

But I don't see how you can make a gun that has metalic parts and encase it in some material that makes it impossible to detect with an X-ray machine. This is because metals are detected because they shield X-rays themselves. So the material you put it in would have to make the metal somehow transparent for X-Rays. That's a bit like making a brick invisible by putting in glass!

I never cease to be amazed by what science can offer us, but what you are describing must be some sort of cloaking device.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by merphie
The term “Assault Weapons� does not accurately describe any gun.

Of course it does.

But other than that, thank you for starting this thread. Believe it or not, we have never debated gun control before!!! :D

[merphie]

Originally posted by Earthborn
'To bear arms' did not mean the same thing when it was written what you think it does now. It means 'joining a militia'. With that meaning the whole second amendment suddenly makes sense and there is no contradiction with the 'a well regulated militia' part anymore.

Here (http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html#bear) is a pro-gun site that acknowledges that 'to bear arms' most likely had a military meaning and so if you leave out the 'keep' you make it into an amendment that says nothing about personal gun ownership.It is a personal right, and it is the right to own a gun (keeping arms) and join a militia (bearing arms).

That makes more sense. So because the first says freedom of press then the first can only mean for the media to be free. You are ignoring the context that the framers were writing in. They didn't mean an organized force. You are using definitions from the modern times.

"The two categorical Imperatives of the Scond Amendment - that a militia of the body of the people is necessary to guarantee a free state and all of the poeple of the time (Not just when called for organized militia duty) have a right to keep arms - derive from the classical philisophical text concerning the experiences of ancient Greece and Rome and seventeenth-century England. Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, and the English Whigs provided an armed populace with the philosophical vindication to counter oppression which found expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. In this sense the people's right to have their own arms was based on the philosophical and political writings of the greatest intellectuals of the past two thousand years."

-Stephen Halbrook

The debate on that is nothing more than academic anyway. "The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986" says differently. So according to law the second amendment means personal firearm ownership of citizens.

Did you not read the first post at all? I've had to repeat myself two times now.

[merphie]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Of course it does.

But other than that, thank you for starting this thread. Believe it or not, we have never debated gun control before!!! :D

I know it's been on here a lot. I have seen and started them. I am getting the same factless opinions as before. Some skeptics forum. If you don't like it, don't read it.

I posted for peer review. I sent that to the media and my congressmen.

If Assault Weapon describes a class of gun, then what is the definition of an "Assault weapon"? Can you give me a clear definition?

[merphie]

Originally posted by geni
which was in turn taken from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

This is hardly the worlds lieast conterversial issue so wikipedia articles may not be an ideal source.


No doubt. I didn't reference it directly either.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by merphie
If Assault Weapon describes a class of gun, then what is the definition of an "Assault weapon"? Can you give me a clear definition?

The definition of an "Assault Weapon" varies. It is defined by each individual using it.

[merphie]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
The definition of an "Assault Weapon" varies. It is defined by each individual using it.

Exactly my point. Therefor it has no definition. I could call a BB gun an assault rifle or a steak knife.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by merphie
Exactly my point. Therefor it has no definition. I could call a BB gun an assault rifle or a steak knife.

Yes you could. Thus, that is the definition.

I know where you are going with this, but I am 10 steps ahead of you.

[hgc]

Originally posted by merphie
So it would be better to support a position and not tell people you do? Wouldn't that be consider lying? Oh wait! He does EXACTLY that! If you cared about lying about things that really matter, such as why someone, who'll remain nameless, launched a disastrous war, then you'd think differently. Get some perspective.

By the way, my advice to Kerry was not to make an issue out of gun control, which you said would be lying. But he doesn't heed my advice. So why do you say he's lying? Can you follow the thread of your own thought? Hmmm. Are you George Bush, posting here serrepticiously?

[merphie]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Yes you could. Thus, that is the definition.

I know where you are going with this, but I am 10 steps ahead of you.

But I said accurately. If I meant a steak knife and used the term "assault weapon" then you could think I was talking about a gun. This is not accurate.

If I say handgun, rifle, or shotgun you would know exactly what I was talking about.

When I mention "Assault Weapons", I am talking about reference to the media as they define it. When the media or Kerry talk about "assault weapons" they are speaking of rifles in general which to them includes automatic weapons used in the military. If they say that because the 1994 ban has expired assault weapons like the military uses [sic] will flood the streets. They are not accurately describing anything. The guns they reference were not in their original definition. So it is not accurate.

I know where you are going with this too. It doesn't make much difference. You are still not making an sense. It seems you are arguing that we should make up definitions as we go along. If that were true we would never convey any idea.

For Example

Bed fly munch

What did I just say? I made up definitions for those words to express my idea. Chances are you would never guess what I was talking about.

[merphie]

Originally posted by hgc
If you cared about lying about things that really matter, such as why someone, who'll remain nameless, launched a disastrous war, then you'd think differently. Get some perspective.

By the way, my advice to Kerry was not to make an issue out of gun control, which you said would be lying. But he doesn't heed my advice. So why do you say he's lying? Can you follow the thread of your own thought? Hmmm. Are you George Bush, posting here serrepticiously?

The war was justified when we went in. So because the CIA made an intelligence error everyone is lying? That's harsh. If he thought we were justified and later had the wrong evidence then he did nothing deceptive.

Kerry is lying. He says he believes in the second amendment and poses for hunting. He doesn't mention his position. If we look at his senate record we can tell differently. He has voted yes on every anti gun law to come through. Including extending the assault weapons ban. He missed most of his votes because he was out campaigning but somehow was in town for a vote on an anti-gun? No anti-gun there. He believes in gun owners' rights. Just like a certain senator from California and Sarah Brady. He even has a 100% rating by the Brady Campaign formally known as "Handgun Control, Inc"

I am following the idea logically. If he votes yes on Antigun and says he supports gun owners then he is lying.

Hee-hee Duh, Are you Kerry posting here? Hee-hee.

[Dorian Gray]

You study law in k-12? Strawman alert. YOU said in the title of this thread that this is a debate. There is at least a debate on what the framers intended by that phrase - some say militia, some say all citizens should have access to any weapon that exists, e.g., particle beam weapons, photon torpedos, planetbusters, a big rock, bow-and-arrow, siege catapult, Howitzer, tank, ICBM, dirty bomb, smart bomb, flamethrower, ANYTHING. There is a lot of room in the middle, and that is why I say you are wrong and there IS a question about the meaning of the Second Amendment. There are potentially questions on ALL amendments at any given time.

Nice strawman about studying law, by the way.

lack markets and stolen guns are covered because they are illegal acts. What do you mean, "covered"? You said that "everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check." I gave several examples of how, in fact, everyone who purchases a firearm doesn't necessarily have to pass a check. Admit it, and move on.

Did you even read any of it? Could be, could be not. There could be a flying pig out there that we have simply not seen. Your opinion is noted, but you do not have one fact to back anything up. Until you clean up your misleading and spun facts, why should I provide anything? Answer the question.
Why make laws that would take guns away from lawful citizens? That is all the 1994 did. All the "gun control" laws due is restrict law abiding citizens. That is fact. I made no statement in that post that I could not backup with facts. Jesus H Christ. ALL laws are restrictive of law-abiding citizens! Why can't kids vote? Why can't kids drink or buy cigarettes? Why should you have to be 16 to drive? Why can you be drafted at 18, but you have to wait until you are 21 to drink? Why can't you shoot fireworks off at the police station? Why do you have to register cars? Why can't you drive as fast as you want to? Why can't people use any sort of drug anywhere they want to? Why can't you masturbate in public buildings? Why do you have to be 21 to go in to see 18-year old strippers? Why do you have to pay taxes? Why can't you bury legitimately and naturally dead relatives in your backyard? Why can't you marry more than one person, or a person of the same sex, or multiple people of both sexes? Why can't you have sex with a corpse? Why can't you scream "Bush Sucks" at one of his rallies?

Your argument is SEVERELY flawed. If you make something legal, then if people do it they are law abiding by definition! Make necrophilia legal - then necrophiliacs are law-abiding citizens. That, my friend, is circular reasoning at it's finest. All gun-control laws do is make some guns illegal. If the citizens are law-abiding, they will then get rid of those guns. Right? They can still have dozens and dozens of other types of guns.

Can you post a link to construction of a non-metallic gun? I suppose you could build something pnumatic that could concieveably be lethal. Remember non-metallic means no cartridge (brass and lead). BTW this would not be defined as a firearm.

Can you tell us how you shield a pound of steel from a magnetometer? What, exactly, is the shielding material? How much would you need? What is the source of this assertion?

This sounds very much like anti-gun hysteria. Strawman. Three times. First, he said "gun", not firearm. Second, he said "an x-ray machine", not a metal detector. Third, I said a non-metallic gun was theoretically possible - and it is. What's wrong with having a forward-looking law for once?

I mean, come on. Untwist your straw-filled "firearm through a magnetometer", and you will see that it's about a gun through an x-ray machine.

So because the first says freedom of press then the first can only mean for the media to be free. Strawmannery! It also says "freedom of speech", so you're wrong.

If Assault Weapon describes a class of gun, then what is the definition of an "Assault weapon"? Can you give me a clear definition? This definition only has to be as clear as that of "indecency", that of "obscenity" or that of "arms".

Bed fly munch Bedbug bite

[Ranb]

There is some bad info in this thread right now. I apologize if I have mistaken a quote from a source other than the board for a statement made by a board member.

Merphie said;

“The National Firearms Act of 1934 bans all automatic weapons. This was later repealed and replaced by The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).�

This is wrong, the NFA act did not ban automatic weapons, it strictly controlled them. The NFA is still in effect.

“Today, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check.�

This only applies to unlicensed individuals who buy guns from licensed dealers. http://www.atf.gov/


Dorian Gray said;

"Today, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check. "

Not at gun and knife shows. Not on the black market. People who steal or are given guns are not covered. Speaking of worthless.�

Licensed dealers are not exempt from following the law at gun shows. Unlicensed individuals are never required by Federal law to do a background check. There is no such thing as a gunshow loophole.

"I just heard Kerry referring to "military assult weapons". I can only assume that he is lieing."

Nope. Until the ban lapsed, only the military and the police could buy those weapons.�

I could by any assault weapon I wanted between 1994 and 2004. The ban pretty much just forbid manufacture and importation for civilian use.

Ed said;


“An "assault weapon" is a full auto military firearm. They have been and are illeagal.�

Not illegal, strictly controlled by the NFA 1934. Many civilians own machineguns legally in the USA

We need to be more careful we are not spreading bad info ourselves.

Ranb

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Strawman. Three times. First, he said "gun", not firearm. Second, he said "an x-ray machine", not a metal detector. Third, I said a non-metallic gun was theoretically possible - and it is. What's wrong with having a forward-looking law for once?

I use gun and firearm interchangeably to refer to objects that propel a projectile thru the use of the expanding gasses from a chemical reaction.

I am waiting for a reference on how one constructs a non-metallic gun. Even the theory is cool.


I mean, come on. Untwist your straw-filled "firearm through a magnetometer", and you will see that it's about a gun through an x-ray machine.

OK, this is even more ridiculous. X-ray machine. And tell me how you propose to do that. If your answer is something like "put it in a metal box" the resulting security sh!tstorm should be about the same as would occur if the thing was in plain sight. I assumed that you meant, and correct me if I am wrong, that you could shield a gun and thus smuggle it someplace. If you meant simply make it look like an innocuous blob of metal then I agree. But you couldn't have meant that because it is a silly and shallow contention that doesn't provide anything except a mention on Fox's "stupid criminal of the Day" piece. What on earth did you mean?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ranb
Ed said;


“An "assault weapon" is a full auto military firearm. They have been and are illeagal.�

Not illegal, strictly controlled by the NFA 1934. Many civilians own machineguns legally in the USA

We need to be more careful we are not spreading bad info ourselves.

Ranb [/B]

I tend to use shorthand, for which I apologise.

You are quite correct that machine guns are own-able. I do not know if the specific models that the military uses are available for civilion use.

Now, here is a beauty. In Connecticut, to protect the masses, a law was passed that forbade selective fire weapons but was silent on full auto weapons. A classic result of polititions reacting to something that sounds good without any understanding.

For people not familiar with firearms laws, you must understand that far from any uniform set of laws a resident (and I refer here to Connecticut but I would bet that it is true pretty much anywhere) of CT must observe 1) local laws 2) state laws 3) federal laws. Ultimately, the most restrictive aspects of all of the laws apply. There are plenty of laws, the enforcement is rather suckey.

[Tmy]

Gun control reminds me of abortion. The extreme ends are so into the the issue that its nearly impossoble to get them to some practicle middle ground.

Everyone is baggin on the assault ban as poorly written. WHOS FAULT IS THAT??? Both sides!!! Its not like the anti-gunners wrote up a crazy bill and POOF it was law. The thing got batted around back n forth. You them end up with a bastardized law that manages to get enough votes.

[Dorian Gray]

I am waiting for a reference on how one constructs a non-metallic gun. Even the theory is cool.

http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/alley/7931/ceramicguns.html

In theory, that is.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by merphie


I am following the idea logically. If he votes yes on Antigun and says he supports gun owners then he is lying.

.

Its a matter of degree.

Its not legistlation to ban ALL guns. One can be pro gun ownership and still be against certain type of firearms.

Its like being pro choice. That doesnt mean that you ahev to be OK with 3rd term abortions. If you sign soem anti-3rd term abortion bill does that make you anti-abortion??

[Hamish]

Originally posted by merphie
The Undetectable Handgun law of 1988 made possession of a gun illegal that could not be detected by a x-ray machine. This law is completely worthless because from my knowledge there is no gun in existence that does not contain metal parts like the barrel.


Not worthless as the law acts to discourage development of such weapons. Who's going to develop a non-metallic gun if no one is allowed to buy one? There are certainly ideas around for such a weapon but if there is no legal market for it, what company would spend the time and money actually undertaking such an extensive R&D project?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/alley/7931/ceramicguns.html

In theory, that is.

Ummm...this is a fantasy game site. Don't feel bad, though. It would not surprise me to hear it cited by one of those Wasington swine on the Senate floor.

[Richard G]

The "plastic gun" law was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to the introduction of Glock handguns, which have polymer parts. Not to make them easier to get through x-ray machines, but to make them lighter. A 2 lb hunk of metal gets heavy on your belt all day, and alot of cops (and my friends) carry them today because of that fact. Most gun banning politicians don't know jack about the things they attempt to legistlate anyway.


There is no handgun in existence without metal parts. Its an impossibility.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Richard G
There is no handgun in existence without metal parts. Its an impossibility.

They said that about flying machines, too.

Why would it be impossible to use substitute materials? I'm not really good with physical sciences, but I'd imagine that something could be done with a combination of plastic, rubber, industrial ceramics, and some kind of carbon composite substance. You might not wind up with a gun that functions or looks exactly like a metal one, but you could conceivably develop a handheld weapon that operates on the same principle.

[Ed]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
They said that about flying machines, too.

Why would it be impossible to use substitute materials? I'm not really good with physical sciences, but I'd imagine that something could be done with a combination of plastic, rubber, industrial ceramics, and some kind of carbon composite substance. You might not wind up with a gun that functions or looks exactly like a metal one, but you could conceivably develop a handheld weapon that operates on the same principle.

With current technology it would be difficult/impossible. The point is that a "firearm" is one thing, something that can cause damage at a distance can be another.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Richard G
There is no handgun in existence without metal parts. Its an impossibility.Depends on how you define 'gun'. According to the definition Merphie used in another thread, these count as guns:

http://sd.morda.ru/news_img2/wgun1.jpg

http://3gnewsroom.mobiles.co.uk/images/gadgets/rubberbandgun.jpg

And here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2173150.stm) is a news article about a plastic gun that was considered so dangerous that it had to be confiscated by customs before someone was allowed to board a plane.

:p

[Jon_in_london]

The only problem would be to get a sufficently dense non-metallic projectile.

[Jon_in_london]

I guess you could use diamonds though....

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
The only problem would be to get a sufficently dense non-metallic projectile.

Why dense? That guy on the TV show about Butch and Sundance was killed by the wadding from a blank.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ed
Why dense? That guy on the TV show about Butch and Sundance was killed by the wadding from a blank.

So was the guy on seventies TV show "Covergirl". (I only remember because my mother tells that story when she explains why she named my sister after Jennifer O'Neal.)

Those rubber bullets can do damage. If you make the end sharp, I'm sure at those speeds it could get inside the body. Hard plastic bullets? Globs of gelatinous acid?

This would make one heck of a science fair project, but it would alarm the teachers.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ed
Why dense? That guy on the TV show about Butch and Sundance was killed by the wadding from a blank.

I have noticed that happens a lot in movies...... except The A Team!

[merphie]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Strawman alert. YOU said in the title of this thread that this is a debate. There is at least a debate on what the framers intended by that phrase - some say militia, some say all citizens should have access to any weapon that exists, e.g., particle beam weapons, photon torpedos, planetbusters, a big rock, bow-and-arrow, siege catapult, Howitzer, tank, ICBM, dirty bomb, smart bomb, flamethrower, ANYTHING. There is a lot of room in the middle, and that is why I say you are wrong and there IS a question about the meaning of the Second Amendment. There are potentially questions on ALL amendments at any given time.

Nice strawman about studying law, by the way.

Sure there is always debate. I was only looking at the strawman you created. I said nothing about schools or such. The fact is the only people who seem intend on saying the second amendment is a collective right are those who seem to want to ban all private ownership. I think it is taken out of context we someone says that the second must mean all weapon including nuclear. That is the biggest strawman that exists. With those people the 2nd amendment either means militia duty or all weapons of any kind.

The problem is there is current law that defines what the second amendment means. In current context it doesn't mean anything you have said. Debate on it's meaning it pointless because the law defines it.

What do you mean, "covered"? You said that "everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check." I gave several examples of how, in fact, everyone who purchases a firearm doesn't necessarily have to pass a check. Admit it, and move on.

There is nothing to admit. They acts are covered by law. If they were not covered they would be legal. I was speaking of legal purchasing. If you do something that is illegal then no amount of laws would stop you. You are simply creating strawmen that is outside the scope of the first post. The only mention I made was how criminals have obtained their guns.

Until you clean up your misleading and spun facts, why should I provide anything? Answer the question.

I don't need to clean up anything. Just because you refuse to look at the sources is not my problem. The answer is provided in the referenced material. I will not cater to your laziness. I would only be repeating myself. I understand if you can not find any facts for your position.

Your argument is SEVERELY flawed. If you make something legal, then if people do it they are law abiding by definition! Make necrophilia legal - then necrophiliacs are law-abiding citizens. That, my friend, is circular reasoning at it's finest. All gun-control laws do is make some guns illegal. If the citizens are law-abiding, they will then get rid of those guns. Right? They can still have dozens and dozens of other types of guns.

It's only flawed because you are trying to make some strawman here. Of course laws are restrictive. All gun control does is take guns away from law abiding citizens. This maybe a tough concept for you to grasp. When I say "gun control" or "Anti-Gun" I am speaking of those who would ban all guns privately held. It is a specific political agenda.

The 1994 ban is a perfect example. It bans some very cosmetic features that have no impact on the guns operation. It has been show that criminals do not use these type of guns. If that is true then the only people effected by 1994 ban was law abiding people. These people would not buy a weapon against the law. There is no reason to ban the weapon except for a gun grab. There is no other reason for the law.

Strawman. Three times. First, he said "gun", not firearm. Second, he said "an x-ray machine", not a metal detector. Third, I said a non-metallic gun was theoretically possible - and it is. What's wrong with having a forward-looking law for once?

I mean, come on. Untwist your straw-filled "firearm through a magnetometer", and you will see that it's about a gun through an x-ray machine.

Forward looking? Does your tea leaves tell you this? Give me an example of a gun that would fall under this law. Phasers don't count. Besides the fact the law only covers the manufactur of such a gun. I could import them if they existed.

you are right an X-Ray is not a metal detector. Different materials absorb x-ray at different rates. So to not be detected you would need a material that doesn't absorb any x-rays. What material does this? Skin shows on an X-Ray.

You keep claiming strawman, but you are the one doing the act.

Strawmannery! It also says "freedom of speech", so you're wrong.

So the media is only allowed to speak. According to you, I can make up any definition I want. The fact is that some people don't want guns and dont' think people should have them. Since it doesn't effect them they can do without it. On the other hand, I make on comment that you don't have the right to free speech and you defend it! Which side of the fence are you sitting on?

This definition only has to be as clear as that of "indecency", that of "obscenity" or that of "arms".

Bedbug bite

Not even close. According to the 1994 assault weapons ban, an assault weapon has a collapsible stock, flash supressor, and a bayonet mount.

My example actually meant

You are wrong
Bed fly munch

I used words that had the same number of letters.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Ranb
There is some bad info in this thread right now. I apologize if I have mistaken a quote from a source other than the board for a statement made by a board member.

Merphie said;

“The National Firearms Act of 1934 bans all automatic weapons. This was later repealed and replaced by The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).�

This is wrong, the NFA act did not ban automatic weapons, it strictly controlled them. The NFA is still in effect.



You are right. I was trying to keep it simple so I wouldn't have to defend every little word. Which happened anyway.

It's actually a tax law. You have to have a Federal Firearms license with a GCA stamp on it. It will set you back about $800.00 to obtain it.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/alley/7931/ceramicguns.html

In theory, that is.

In theory nothing. There is no evidence to support it. I do not believe for an instance that the materials claimed would support the pressure.

They don't give any details on it's constructions or even a test fire. That's probably a scam to get people to pay money for something that doesn't exist.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its a matter of degree.

Its not legistlation to ban ALL guns. One can be pro gun ownership and still be against certain type of firearms.

Its like being pro choice. That doesnt mean that you ahev to be OK with 3rd term abortions. If you sign soem anti-3rd term abortion bill does that make you anti-abortion??

Agree. However they have already made it clear what their agenda is.

Kerry even held a gun he would have banned.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Depends on how you define 'gun'. According to the definition Merphie used in another thread, these count as guns:

And here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2173150.stm) is a news article about a plastic gun that was considered so dangerous that it had to be confiscated by customs before someone was allowed to board a plane.

:p

Now you are only being cynical. You could take them, but what good would they do for a criminal?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I guess you could use diamonds though....

I have bullets that use an aluminum alloy. Any of these materials would still show on an X-ray. They would be detectible.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by merphie
I have bullets that use an aluminum alloy. Any of these materials would still show on an X-ray. They would be detectible.

yes but diamonds arent metal!

[merphie]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
yes but diamonds arent metal!

perhaps but the cost would be too high and they would damage the gun.

[Dorian Gray]

Debate on it's meaning it pointless because the law defines it. What does that mean for the thread you started?

All gun control does is take guns away from law abiding citizens. It's not a strawman! put anything in there for "All _______ control does is take __________ away from law abiding citizens" and it's the same argument. Drugs, prostitutes, or any other vice or desire. Cuban cigars!

The point is, if they are law abiding citizens, then they will obey the law and give up the banned weapons, no?

It has been show that criminals do not use these type of guns Not by you. I am not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that anyone can introduce an argument with the phrase 'it has been shown' or the similar 'pretty much verified'.

If that is true then the only people effected by 1994 ban was law abiding people. These people would not buy a weapon against the law. There is no reason to ban the weapon except for a gun grab. There is no other reason for the law. If they grandfathered gun owners in, there would be a massive purchase of weapons before the date of enactment, essentially defeating the purpose of the law.

So the media is only allowed to speak. According to you, I can make up any definition I want. The fact is that some people don't want guns and dont' think people should have them. Since it doesn't effect them they can do without it. On the other hand, I make on comment that you don't have the right to free speech and you defend it! Which side of the fence are you sitting on? You are very confused on this. You said that a possible and logical interpretation of the First Amendment was that only the media was allowed free speech, because of the 'freedom of the press' phrase. I pointed out that there is a 'freedom of speech' phrase in the First Amendment as well, meaning that you were wrong and not only the media was allowed free speech.

Also, when have I ever said that you can make up any definition you want? Please quote that for me. I have, however, said that the definition of a word can be and is debated frequently. Look at three or four credible collegiate dictionaries by different companies and look up the same word in each. You won't find the same exact words being used to define most of them. That constitutes a different interpretation, no?

I mean, what the hell do you think the court system does all day long? It interprets the laws! Obviously laws can be unclear and subject to many interpretations - but not "any definition you want".

Furthermore, the word 'speech' has been thoroughly defined many times in many categories with different levels of protection. Why would the term 'arms' be any different? Does the Constitution specifically define what is meant by 'arms'? No? Well then, I guess it's subject to interpretation and definition, and reinterpretation and redefinition, etc. for the rest of US history just like the term 'speech' has been.

On non-metallic guns: Let's hope the security at airports don't think like you do. Otherwise, that odd-shaped metal thing on my keychain won't even be questioned, and later while on the plane, I can unpack my disassembled mostly non-metallic gun, assemble it with the part off my keychain, and presto, I'm armed.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

It's not a strawman! put anything in there for "All _______ control does is take __________ away from law abiding citizens" and it's the same argument. Drugs, prostitutes, or any other vice or desire. Cuban cigars!

Strawman. Though one might argue (as is being done) that strict laws do in fact impact lawful users. Pain control for pot and sex therapy for sex for hire.

The point is, if they are law abiding citizens, then they will obey the law and give up the banned weapons, no?

Yes, but I was under the impression that the law was to reduce crime, not to make law abiding people proove that they were law abiding.

Not by you. I am not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that anyone can introduce an argument with the phrase 'it has been shown' or the similar 'pretty much verified'.

You are quite right. The law was put into place based on fear and political advantage. Since the data does not exist regarding the efficacy of the law (or the need for the law in the first place) any discussion of "showing" anything is misdirection.

If they grandfathered gun owners in, there would be a massive purchase of weapons before the date of enactment, essentially defeating the purpose of the law.

So what? This happened with a class of machine guns already. It happens with zoning all of the time. So what?


On non-metallic guns: Let's hope the security at airports don't think like you do. Otherwise, that odd-shaped metal thing on my keychain won't even be questioned, and later while on the plane, I can unpack my disassembled mostly non-metallic gun, assemble it with the part off my keychain, and presto, I'm armed.

There is no way to protect absolutely. The only way to make air traffic safe is if the airlines adopted my "Fly Naked(tm)" program. They have not been very interested to date.[/QUOTE]

[merphie]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
What does that mean for the thread you started?


It means people are still arguing it over really stupid points that they can not show an ounce of fact for. So I decided to write a summary based on all the facts that I have collected over time.

It's not a strawman! put anything in there for "All _______ control does is take __________ away from law abiding citizens" and it's the same argument. Drugs, prostitutes, or any other vice or desire. Cuban cigars!

The point is, if they are law abiding citizens, then they will obey the law and give up the banned weapons, no?

Yes, strawman. You are right that the "law abiding" citizens give up the banned weapons. By saying "only effects law abiding citizens" I am saying the law had no effect on crime. This is going to take a really long time if you nickle and dime every little word.

Not by you. I am not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that anyone can introduce an argument with the phrase 'it has been shown' or the similar 'pretty much verified'.

Of course, that's why I provided links to the information my argument was based on. You may not say I am wrong, but you are contesting something were the facts were already given.

If they grandfathered gun owners in, there would be a massive purchase of weapons before the date of enactment, essentially defeating the purpose of the law.

Ok, are you saying the law was worthless?

You are very confused on this. You said that a possible and logical interpretation of the First Amendment was that only the media was allowed free speech, because of the 'freedom of the press' phrase. I pointed out that there is a 'freedom of speech' phrase in the First Amendment as well, meaning that you were wrong and not only the media was allowed free speech.

Also, when have I ever said that you can make up any definition you want? Please quote that for me. I have, however, said that the definition of a word can be and is debated frequently. Look at three or four credible collegiate dictionaries by different companies and look up the same word in each. You won't find the same exact words being used to define most of them. That constitutes a different interpretation, no?

I mean, what the hell do you think the court system does all day long? It interprets the laws! Obviously laws can be unclear and subject to many interpretations - but not "any definition you want".

Furthermore, the word 'speech' has been thoroughly defined many times in many categories with different levels of protection. Why would the term 'arms' be any different? Does the Constitution specifically define what is meant by 'arms'? No? Well then, I guess it's subject to interpretation and definition, and reinterpretation and redefinition, etc. for the rest of US history just like the term 'speech' has been.

No confusion. You are questioning a term that is not defined by anyone the same way twice. I was 100% correct when I said "Assault Weapons" doesn't describe any gun accurately. Because you could never be sure what kind of gun with what properties I am referring too.

I played with the "Freedom of Speech" part like you played with "Right to keep and bear arms" because it shows a simple idea I had stated many times. A person only seems to question what the second amendment means if it doesn't protect freedoms they enjoy and they want to get rid of it. To see this in practice you merely have to look at the previous post. The people arguing for more "gun control" are those who come from a country with more restrictive laws or those who wish the USA was like the countries with restrictive laws.

The debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment is pointless. There is plenty of laws (Some were referenced) that define what the amendment means in modern times. The 1994 ban was nothing but an attempt to ban private ownership of guns. (or steps leading to it) The 1994 gun ban was to gun owners what the Campaign Reform Act or the Patriot Act is to other citizens.

On non-metallic guns: Let's hope the security at airports don't think like you do. Otherwise, that odd-shaped metal thing on my keychain won't even be questioned, and later while on the plane, I can unpack my disassembled mostly non-metallic gun, assemble it with the part off my keychain, and presto, I'm armed.

You are still mixing concealed with undetected. You can conceal gun parts and reassemble on a plane. No doubt. It is not possible to make a gun that won't show up on X-Ray. You have not provided proof of you claim.

[Dorian Gray]

Since the data does not exist regarding the efficacy of the law (or the need for the law in the first place) any discussion of "showing" anything is misdirection. Ironic statement of the year. Ed, "It has been show(n) that criminals do not use these type of guns" was the argument used to justify letting the law LAPSE.

It means people are still arguing it over really stupid points that they can not show an ounce of fact for. On both sides, no?

Ok, are you saying the law was worthless? No, because I don't think it grandfathered current owners of the banned weapons in.

The 1994 ban was nothing but an attempt to ban private ownership of guns. (or steps leading to it) This is just a pro-gun scare tactic. Most of the "recreational" drugs are banned, and by your argument that is just a step to banning all drugs. Yet for almost 70 years, whole other drugs get banned left and right, alcohol is still plenty legal, and so is nicotine. By your argument, banning gay marriage is just a step to banning all marriage. Yet, well, you know the rest.

You are still mixing concealed with undetected. Not at all surprising, since they are synonymous.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Ironic statement of the year. Ed, "It has been show(n) that criminals do not use these type of guns" was the argument used to justify letting the law LAPSE.

The survey shows that the weapons were only used 2%. They are simply too big.

On both sides, no?

No, I have facts on my side.

No, because I don't think it grandfathered current owners of the banned weapons in.

The law only banned the making of new guns/parts. It didn't affect existing. So law-abiding owners were the reason the ban has failed?

This is just a pro-gun scare tactic. Most of the "recreational" drugs are banned, and by your argument that is just a step to banning all drugs. Yet for almost 70 years, whole other drugs get banned left and right, alcohol is still plenty legal, and so is nicotine. By your argument, banning gay marriage is just a step to banning all marriage. Yet, well, you know the rest.
Not at all surprising, since they are synonymous.

Wrong Again. Not scare tactic. I'm not talking drugs. Even though drugs have been increasing in availabilty over time and becoming cheaper.

It's history that shows that that shows this is just a gun grab which could lead to an all out ban. I only have to look at the authors of the bill and listen to what they say to understand what their agenda is.

[Dorian Gray]

The law only banned the making of new guns/parts. Well then you're right, that IS pretty goddamned worthless.

Wrong Again. Not scare tactic. I'm not talking drugs. Even though drugs have been increasing in availabilty over time and becoming cheaper. All I'm saying is that you seem to be using the 'slippery slope' argument.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
All I'm saying is that you seem to be using the 'slippery slope' argument.

I am not sure what you are referring too, but in this case I wouldn't have said it, if I didn't believe it. Think there is enough proof to show what their intensions are.

[heath]

Originally posted by merphie


--- snip ---

(Incomplete research on foriegn countries)

UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F06%2F14%2Fnmart14. xml
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00276-05.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3914289.stm
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1101.pdf

AU
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html

I'd like to head this off before it's continued. Australia and the UK have vastly different experiences with guns than the US.

Neither have an equivalent to the 2nd amendment and very view people in both countries think we should have one (conveying the "right" to have/own guns). In the US where there IS the 2nd amendment to your constitution (that forms the cornerstone of many American's belief that guns ownership is a fundamental "right") and a history of gun ownership your experiences and opinions reflect your unique situation. Please stick to debating your situation rather than trying to impose it on us please.

[merphie]

Originally posted by heath
I'd like to head this off before it's continued. Australia and the UK have vastly different experiences with guns than the US.

Neither have an equivalent to the 2nd amendment and very view people in both countries think we should have one (conveying the "right" to have/own guns). In the US where there IS the 2nd amendment to your constitution (that forms the cornerstone of many American's belief that guns ownership is a fundamental "right") and a history of gun ownership your experiences and opinions reflect your unique situation. Please stick to debating your situation rather than trying to impose it on us please.

Agreed. That's why I noted the "incomplete Research". I have become aware of making cross cultural comparisons.

While it appears the current political opinions are different it appears that England used to be closer to USA ideals at one time. I just haven't had the time to research that end of the subject.

[Ed]

Originally posted by heath
I'd like to head this off before it's continued. Australia and the UK have vastly different experiences with guns than the US.

Neither have an equivalent to the 2nd amendment and very view people in both countries think we should have one (conveying the "right" to have/own guns). In the US where there IS the 2nd amendment to your constitution (that forms the cornerstone of many American's belief that guns ownership is a fundamental "right") and a history of gun ownership your experiences and opinions reflect your unique situation. Please stick to debating your situation rather than trying to impose it on us please.

I agree completely with this sentiment. The fact is that Europeans and Americans both seem to think that their way of handling a given problem is best and that does not get anyone anywhere.

For better or worse we have a culture where firearms play a part. That is a fact and as much part of our culture as any cultural characteristic anywhere in the world. I posted something once upon a time that listed when the old west guys died. My Dad certainly could have shaken hands with some of the better known ones. It was not really that long ago that we had a real honest to god frontier. When was the last contemporary use of the word in England for example? Perhaps referring to the land north of Hadrians Wall? Our experience is simply different and we have a differennt form of government. In many aspects of gun ownership states are soverign. You guys don't really have that in Europe. We also have the reality of 250,000,000 firearms floating around.

[merphie]

I recieved the following Email from my State Representative in regards to the letter I sent to her contained in the first post of this thread.
----------------
Chris, thank you for the information. You did a great amount of study and wrote the essay in a very articulate manner. I appreciate your stand on the second amendment and applaud the Congress for letting this legislation expire.

Senator Wilcoxson

[merphie]

I recieved the following Letter from US congress Representative Tom Cole in regards to the letter I sent to him contained in the first post of this thread.
-----------------------

I am writing to update you on my efforts to protect the rights of all Americans under the Second Amendment.

As an NRA member, I will protect and preserve our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is a testament to the freedoms and liberties that Americans Enjoy. It, as much as any other part of Constitution, speaks to the Founding Father's belief in Self-reliant citizens and a limited role for the federal government. There is every reason to believe that unneccessary regulations on gun ownership violate the principles of which this nation was founded.

But there is another reason to support the Second Amendment.. Put simply, gun control does not work. As one example, Washington D.C has the strictest gun control laws in the nation, and also very high rates of violent crime. Washintgon D.C's law against gun ownership is both ineffective and against the spirit of the Constitution. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R 3193, legislation repealing the current ban on all guns in Washington D.C. In addition, I am a cosponsor of H.R 1036, the protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This legislation would prohibit gun manufacturers from being driver out of business by nuisance lawsuits. H.R 1036 passed the House on April 9, 2003 by a vote of 285 - 140.

As you might imagine, in our nation's capital, some people want all sorts of new regulations on gun ownership in violation of the Second Amendment. But I will continue to fight for the Second Amendment.

Sincerely,

signature

Tom Cole
Member of Congress