Gun Control and The Second Amendment.

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

The wonderful and remarkable thing about America, something that made the United States stand out among the countries of the world, while revolutions raged in Europe, dictators rose and monarchs fell, is that we have a system that PEACEFULLY passes power from one faction to another, as decided by the people. I can understand the argument that people need guns to defend themselves, like in Xiong's case. But saying that we need guns in the hands of private citizens because we need to be able to rise up against the government seems absurd to me. The only time people have actively used their guns to rise up against the government in any sort of substantial uprising was when people in the south rose up to defend their right to own people...

Equally absurd is the notion that the Newtown shootings could have been just as easily perpetrated with a car. Think about it for a second, could he really have driven down 26 people inside a school?

I don't believe that taking guns away from people will help reduce gun violence, because gun violence has been steadily decreasing anyway over the last few decades. But I hate that guns are everywhere in America because for me a gun transforms every single stranger into a potential enemy/somebody you might have to shoot, instead of a potential friend.

That's why I want to live in England, because I'd rather take my chances with a stabbing or being beaten to death with a blunt object.

[Morton]

I think Penn and Teller explain it quite well

Actually the early US didn't like or trust a standing army, which is why the Well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The US believed that militias made up of citizens would be less tyrannical then a standing army.

Now the "2 year war" against a "tyrannical militia" they talk about just shows they're lacking a history. They refer to Shay's Rebellion, which wasn't really a war, more like a couple of protests and a skirmish all confined in the state of Massachusetts with no Federal involvement at all. Also the rebels where not tyrannical at all, and it could be argued that the Privately Funded Militia the Governor of MA created was more tyrannical. In fact Shay's rebellion actually helped the supporters of strong government.

Honestly I wouldn't trust these guys. They are lacking basic knowledge of the framing of the Constitution, and Early US history in general.

EDIT: Wait a minute, aren't these guys a comedy duo? Were you trolling us Yama?

[Logsdon]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. People will always find a way even without a gun. Don't really see the point in limiting the second amendment personally, but it was expected considering the tragedies that have recently occurred. Everybody wants to point the finger, but lets be honest a gun cannot kill a person without some certain person operating it. You will not find a gun that will just simple get up, walk up to a person and automatically fire. At this rate I will move to Canada, not necessarily because of the gun control, but the United States government is really pushing it to not do the will of the people. (from what I have seen at least) Just my few cents here and personal opinion, could be wrong on some of these but this is just what I have seen.

I already have plans to move to Ontario

[Morton]

So just to add something here. Members of the Militias where required to provide their own weapons and ammo. So it makes sense that the Fathers would, as part of maintaining a militia, would add an amendment to ensure that the members of the said militia, aka private citizens, would be allowed to have firearms. So using historical context, to me at least, it is pretty clear that you are allowed to carry a firearm if you are part of a militia. However there has been a paradigm shift in our nation. We no longer look down upon the military like we use to, instead of being suspicious of it, we treat them as heroes. Also Militias no longer play a vital role in national defense and, with the passing of the Dick Act of 1903, have become a relic of the past.

With this said, I'm not against the private ownership of guns. It is part of our culture, and one of our Natural Rights to own them, weather it is for Hunting, entertainment, or home defense. However I am against people using fully automatic weapons with drum magazines. There is no legitimate use of these weapons, other that to harm your fellow man. Also I'm against people who "interpret" the Second Amendment to mean they need these weapons to protect themselves from the government. No where is it written that we have the right to bear arms to overthrow the government. Now the Declaration of Independence does mention this, however it is not a legal document like the Constitution.

I will admit that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"

However there was a dissenting opinion. Justice Stevens argued that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only. Which is further backed up by The Oxford English Dictionary, which defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about 1330.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

However there was a dissenting opinion. Justice Stevens argued that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only. Which is further backed up by The Oxford English Dictionary, which defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about 1330.

So let's disregard the Court's ruling because there was a dissenting opinion?

[Morton]

Obviously the ruling is legal and we are going to follow it. However this is a debate, and I was debating my views.

[Barney]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

- George Washington

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

- George Washington

Bogus attribution.

[Barney]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

- George Washington

Bogus attribution.

Thanks for the fact check, bro!

[Dawson 1st MRB]

I like the idea of treating the dangers of gun control as an externality.

[Magoo]

I like the idea of treating the dangers of gun control as an externality.

Do you think that the hood rats are going to have insurance on their guns when they don't have insurance or legal registrations on their cars?

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

I rarely post on these topics, but I cant sit back and read this topic any longer unless I post. I view myself as in between both sides for and against the gun regulation. I like many others own quite a few guns and would hate to have someone take them away from me. Do I think there should be some regulation on firearms? Yes. Do I think they should be so strict that it hurts the large percentage of people who follow the rules? No. I view this subject the same as I view drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. No matter how many laws are passed evil people will find a way to cause chaos in this world. I do not want to waste anymore of the tax payers money on things that are way our control as a society. But that does not mean I want things to become so lax that anyone can obtain these things. Im all for stepping up on the background checks for firearms at stores and at conventions, but thats about it for now. Will that stop the vast majority of people committing crimes with guns? Probably not. Will it help? I like to think so. I guess my main point is, that no matter how this issue gets resolved the majority of the people in the right will get fucked. Thats the price we pay as a society when stupid people do unspeakable things.

[Magoo]

[Captain Giraffe BAR]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

- George Washington

Bogus attribution.

Thanks for the fact check, bro!

No problem

[Dawson 1st MRB]

I like the idea of treating the dangers of gun control as an externality.

Do you think that the hood rats are going to have insurance on their guns when they don't have insurance or legal registrations on their cars?

This is such a silly argument. So your reasoning is that we shouldn't have laws because people break them?

The nice thing about this law is that it would be easy to enforce, just as car insurance is. If there's an accident in a car and a person doesn't have car insurance, then they get slapped with a huge fine. It's not something you can really fight in court, you either have it or you don't.

[Alvarez]

Having grown up in Central Los Angeles, I know first hand what it's like to be defenseless while criminals are in an arms race. Where I grew up, MS-13 had JUST established itself. Today, Mara Salvatrucha is one of the biggest gangs in North America, covering 48 states, including provinces of Mexico and Canada. How did they do it? Arms race. I watched my neighbor bleed out when I was 8 years old thanks to those thugs. If it were up to me, RESPONSIBLE citizens would be armed just as heavily. Anyone who knows anything about the LAPD should understand why citizens can't rely on them. It's up to US.

Now, on the flipside... I live in Montana. Everyone and their grandmother has at LEAST a hunting rifle. There are no gangs worth mentioning, and the police are ON POINT.

So where does that leave gun laws? I say leave it up to the states. This country should be a Union of 50 Sovereign States. We should answer to OURSELVES, not Washington.

[Magoo]

I like the idea of treating the dangers of gun control as an externality.

Do you think that the hood rats are going to have insurance on their guns when they don't have insurance or legal registrations on their cars?

This is such a silly argument. So your reasoning is that we shouldn't have laws because people break them?

The nice thing about this law is that it would be easy to enforce, just as car insurance is. If there's an accident in a car and a person doesn't have car insurance, then they get slapped with a huge fine. It's not something you can really fight in court, you either have it or you don't.

You offered up insurance as some sort of solution. A solution to what? In case I shoot someone in the face I can afford to be sued by their family. What does that solve? Just another way to make guns more expensive to own for law abiding citizens. And I stand by the fact that criminals will not be buying into this insurance.

I find your argument just as silly as you find mine.

[Janke 1st MRB]

I take special contention with the people trying to claim Canada's gun control methods have done anything positive here, they haven't, and as a matter of fact they've been used to harass law-abiding citizens and marginalize certain aspects of shooting sports.

There was a study done by McMaster University's Dr. Caillin Langmann about the effects of gun control in Canada from the '70s until 2008, and it was peer-reviewed and is being published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and it found that gun control here has done absolutely nothing to effect murder rates.

However, as I said earlier, it has been used to harass the law-abiding who attempt to protect themselves, like Mr. Ian Thompson who was charged with unsafe storage of a firearm after defending his house from firebombers. His guns were stored legally, locked unloaded in a safe, they eventually were trying to argue about ammo in his nightstand.

A key fallacy people don't realize is that the media is stupid, they don't know what they're talking about and try to hype the hell out of just about anything, especially shootings. Military assault rifles have been banned in the US since 1986, they are incredibly hard to get, the cheapest pre-86 automatic weapon in the US is about $10,000. An AR-15 is NOT a military weapon, it is a civilian sporting rifle, and it is certainly neither powerful nor large. People and the media take contention with a completely made-up term, "assault weapons." In truth, there is no such thing. An Assault RIFLE is a select-fire rifle, these are already banned, an assault WEAPON is a fabricated term to mean a gun that LOOKS like the military MIGHT use it. This website goes into it fairly well: http://www.assaultweapon.info/ The AR-15 is one of America's most popular sporting rifles, it is used every day for hunting, recreational shooting, and self-defence. It is not a military gun, anyone who thinks otherwise is quite ignorant, actually. Just because the gun is black and looks "scary" doesn't mean it's any more dangerous than any other semi-auto sporting rifle, or that it is used by the military.

As for the 2nd Amendment, it states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What does this mean? This has been the centre of hot debate for years. Some people keep trying to say that the 2nd was made at a time when there were only muskets, and that the founding fathers couldn't have ever possibly envisioned the guns of today, so it shouldn't apply to them. The argument of the amendment being outdated crumbles as soon as you apply it to the First amendment, obviously if the 2nd doesn't apply to modern guns, the First amendment doesn't apply to modern forms of communication, because they never could have envisioned the radio, television, and internet back in the day, so they must not be covered under the 1st, right? No, of course not, just like the 2nd doesn't only apply to muskets, both amendments are designed, as they are written, to last through the ages. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, especially when you look up some quotes from the founding fathers about it, is quite clear; it is to give the people the means to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. This means the citizenry is given the right to be equally, or comparably, armed to any given national military, so that they may have a feasible means of defending their nation from tyranny, be it foreign or domestic. As for the section of a militia, people think this means only a militia should be given the right to own guns, and they're wright, but they're wrong on what that militia comprises of. The militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not any one explicit militia, no, it's an implicit one, consisting of every able-bodied US citizen. Every citizen of the US is a member of the militia laid out in the 2nd amendment, and this militia of the American People is necessary to the security of the free state of the United States of America. This is why the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it's because the people are all part of the largest militia in the world, the militia of the American citizen.

Blaming the gun in these shootings would be like blaming the car for causing a drunk driving accident, it doesn't address the core issue. People don't shoot up a school because they own an AR-15, they do so because they have a very serious mental problem, and they need medical attention. Mental illness is incredibly stigmatized in North America, the vast majority of those who are mentally ill go undiagnosed because they don't want to be outcast from society as a "loony" or as "mental" or something like that. Banning guns would not stop these shootings from happening, Britain has some of the world's strictest gun control measures, and like almost all gun control it was enacted emotionally with absolutely no factual base or scientific research to back it up immediately following a series of massacres, and yet still in 2010 a man took his legally owned shotgun and killed 13 people including himself, in what became known as the Cumbria Shootings. Britain has a total ban on semi-automatics and handguns, and yet that didn't stop a mass shooting, and no more gun control in Britain could possibly be enacted, save a complete ban on guns. Addressing the tool has not helped Britain, and as a matter of fact gun crime in Britain jumped significantly following the handgun ban, because it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the person, they need help because they have a mental illness. If the government wants to do something to actually help stop mass shootings specifically, they can allocate the funding they'd waste on ridiculous and ineffective gun control into helping make America's medical system better so it can better help those with mental illness.

Moreover, mass shootings account for less than 1% of the ~8000 US gun deaths any given year, and 97% of those shootings are committed with handguns, yet we don't see a politician going after them. And why not? Because they're used primarily for self-defence as well and politicians know many more people own a handgun than a so-called "assault weapon" and they'd therefore have a harder time getting support for any legislation surrounding handguns. But who commits these shootings with handguns? It's mostly violent gang members in inner-city ghettos. It's people who resort to crime because they see no other choice for themselves, because they've become lost and their guiding hand has become a violent gang. These kinds of murders are the real issue America has, mass shootings pale in comparison to the number of people killed in gang shootings in America's top 5 most violent cities alone. The real way the US will help reduce its murder rate is not through wasteful and proven ineffective gun control (and the 1994 AWB was proven ineffective), it is though addressing the core causes of violent crime; social inequality, poverty, and gang culture. America needs to have a better welfare system to assist its poor, a better healthcare system to assist its week it needs to work harder to abolish institutional discrimination for the poor and institutional racism, and it needs to make sure gang culture is not romanticized for young, impressionable inner-city children.

There are plenty of examples of places with stricter gun control than the US and less gun crime, there are plenty of examples of the opposite as well. The key difference between America and many of the European nations people attempt to use as examples, and even Canada, is that they have better healthcare and welfare systems in place, as well as providing more equal-opportunities for their citizens. America is, of course, anywhere from 3-20 times the size in terms of population of any country one could find as an example, and that presents issues in of itself. America is unlike any other nation in the world, and it is entirely unfair to compare it to any other nation in the world when trying to address the issues America has.

As for the idea that gun control has, internationally, been proven to lower crime rates, I present a Harvard Study of Europe that proves otherwise. It's not the gun that kills someone, it's the person, and addressing anything other than the person committing the crime will not help stop further crimes. Rather than asking "how did he kill all those people?" it's more important to ask "Why did he kill all those people?" The former addresses a method, but not cause, and without addressing cause you cannot stop further acts of murder. The latter, however, addresses cause, and by finding out the cause for the commission of murder and addressing why the murder happened and not how it was done, you gain knowledge you can put into practice to stop further murders.

[Giovannoli 1st MRB]

I rarely post on these topics, but I cant sit back and read this topic any longer unless I post. I view myself as in between both sides for and against the gun regulation. I like many others own quite a few guns and would hate to have someone take them away from me. Do I think there should be some regulation on firearms? Yes. Do I think they should be so strict that it hurts the large percentage of people who follow the rules? No. I view this subject the same as I view drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. No matter how many laws are passed evil people will find a way to cause chaos in this world. I do not want to waste anymore of the tax payers money on things that are way our control as a society. But that does not mean I want things to become so lax that anyone can obtain these things. Im all for stepping up on the background checks for firearms at stores and at conventions, but thats about it for now. Will that stop the vast majority of people committing crimes with guns? Probably not. Will it help? I like to think so. I guess my main point is, that no matter how this issue gets resolved the majority of the people in the right will get fucked. Thats the price we pay as a society when stupid people do unspeakable things.

This is exactly how I feel. No matter how this country feels they resolve the issue there will always be someone out there to fuck it up. I just feel the only thing thats not totally bogus or harmful to mine and my grandfather's gun collection is that A. Dont keep bullets in your house (or in the same place as the fire arm) B. Someone needs to invent some kind of trigger lock that fucks the trigger to be unusable if the lock is broken... That way if someone breaks into your safe or house or what ever they cant actually use the gun.. I just dont think a drastic law is going to stop someone who has premeditated murder. I just dont see the logic in putting laws up for people who dont care about laws.

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

My dad has been in the fireworks business for the past 30yrs and before that spent 7 with the ATF. Since I help him out during the summer (busiest time of year) I am required to have a explosive and hazmat licenses. His business has had to bump up just about every requirement/training since 1993 and only in the past few years has it gotten to the point where it is almost impossible to start your own fireworks business. This is a prime example of how a small group of idiots can change the entire face of an industry. I am not saying I think anyone can obtain dangerous things as they please, but there comes a point and time where youve done all you can.

[S. Richards]

I will never allow a government that's sent my military brethren to be sacrificed in a pointless war to profit those elected officials whom are supposed to serve us instead of us serving them, which seems to be the trend lately, to relieve me of my only defense against itself. And thats that. My cold dead fucking hands I say.

Take em back Johnson.

[Gooderham 1st MRB]

I enjoy a lively discussion of a very important political topic. This is a reminder to be civil and respectful of each other and their opinions.

[Takel 1st MRB]

Just a quick question as i don't live in the US and cba googling (also i want to hear your opinions). But does the US have any kind of gun licence akin to a driving licence (basically so you can only own/use a firearm if you can prove you know how to use it responsibly)? I'd just like to know, because i'm seeing the insurance argument but nothing about anykind of licencing.

[Dawson 1st MRB]

I enjoy a lively discussion of a very important political topic. This is a reminder to be civil and respectful of each other and their opinions.

I think we all agree here that gooderham has no penis.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Just a quick question as i don't live in the US and cba googling (also i want to hear your opinions). But does the US have any kind of gun licence akin to a driving licence (basically so you can only own/use a firearm if you can prove you know how to use it responsibly)? I'd just like to know, because i'm seeing the insurance argument but nothing about anykind of licencing.

That varies state-to-state. For example, in the State of Iowa, to purchase a handgun, you must either have a license to acquire or a concealed weapons permit. The license to acquire costs $15 and will be yours if you pass a minor background check from the Sheriff's office. The concealed permit requires you to pass an NRA course that teaches you weapon responsibility. The course can be as short as a one-day course for 6-9 hours with an average cost of $60. Once you have a certificate of completion, you go to the Sheriff's office for a background check, and after paying about $50, you will receive your permit in the mail usually within three days. If you wish to purchase a gun, you'll go to the gun store and have a waiting period of no less than two days. A common loophole to the waiting period is purchasing a handgun from a public "gun fair" where there is no waiting period in place.

Note that this is only for handguns. To purchase a rifle or shotgun in Iowa, you only need to be of age and have a valid driver's license. Same with all legal ammunition.