Guns.. for the one millionth time

[CMike]

You did, but rereading it, you may have simply left out "not" after "does" in "does penetrate less". I don't know either way though, I don't care to hunt or use shotguns, so I don't know much about them.

I am stating that bird shot may penetrate too little for a good home defense round.

 

[CMike]

Well then I stand corrected. Thank you.

Even given your definition, any gun has enough stopping power for the purposes of everyday defense. This may not be true for a swat team, or police pursuing criminals, or marines in combat, but for any likely situation that the public might encounter- any gun beyond pellet guns will do the trick.

Not really.

If the person isn't "stopped" (not able to continue attacking you) he is still a threat.

Many assailants have to be shot multiple times to be stopped.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am stating that bird shot may penetrate too little for a good home defense round.

I speculate that a large birdshot cartridge (12G magnum) would have excellent
knockdown power, but low risk of penetrating walls & injuring innocents.
This is controversial in the gun community however.

 

[m.ramdeen]

What are your thoughts on the private ownership of guns by responsible citizens

And that! Right there... is where you have the problem. Responsible citizens. Who is a responsible citizen and who is not? :bonk:

How does the gunshop owner know that the person they are selling a firearm to is a responsible individual that can objectively assess a situation and determine a correct self-defense response. Answer is, they can't :no:

The government can try to step in and lay down some procedures / policies / guidelines for minimum requirements allowable for someone to possess a firearm and the type of firearm. Possibly in an effort to ensure that firearms reach a certain caliber of individual. It does not solve the problem, but I pick that over allowing any Tom, Dick and Harry to just walk up the firearms store and pick up a gun like its microwave oven. :rainbow1:

I'm not from America, and I can't begin to imagine what your crime situation is like. I'm from Jamaica and we have our own crime problems.

Do I trust my police force 110% to address crimes when they arise? NO

But I wouldn't want the government to just make gun ownership "loose" so to speak. Its a lengthy, tedious, expensive and frustrating process to be a licensed and registered Firearm user in our country. But for the people that I know that do own guns, I can safely say that they are confident and responsible individuals with clear minds and practice using their firearms correctly at gun ranges etc.

Summary:
My point is... put enough procedures, policies and regulations in place so that the people who actually go through with the process of owning a firearm are responsible individuals (at least on paper) The train of thought here is that the impulsive firearm buyer won't want to go through the motions to own a firearm

 

[CMike]

The difference is that in this country we have a constitutional right to own a gun.

 

[DallasApple]

I'm pro gun..with reasonable restrictions.

 

[freethinker44]

The difference is that in this country we have a constitutional right to own a gun.

Which the supreme court could change at any time.

In a debate about what the laws should be, it's kind of a bad argument to just state what the laws are as a defense.

 

[m.ramdeen]

The difference is that in this country we have a constitutional right to own a gun.

That's the part which makes this a much harder pill to swallow. You guys have a constitutional right to own a firearm. I couldn't have been left at "the right to self defense" or "the right to self preservation"

Everybody has the right to own a firearm for whatever purpose they subscribe i.e. self defense, recreation or survival. So from the lowliest of gun-users to professionals all are allowed to own guns. Never-mind if you didn't exactly need a gun for your particular application, but you know, since you have the right to own guns..... might as well

Then you wonder why people on the forums keep bringing up these mass shootouts from a single protagonist. Of course its a one off, its not a debatable statistic, the media exaggerates the story and politicians use the opportunity for power plays.

But get this. That mass shooter had the right to own their firearm whatever purpose they saw fit. Don't matter if they were mentally unsound from the get-go or if they just snapped; their gun, their right to own it, their right to use it in their best interest.

So my point: Guns, I don't like 'em, but for America its a necessary evil. Just make sure government has the infrastructure in place to regulate its use before we start waving around constitution clauses. :beach:

Same could be said about marijuana :run:

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

The difference is that in this country we have a constitutional right to own a gun.

This is a mistake that a lot of people make. Techically speaking, you only have a right to own a gun if you are a part of a "well regulated militia". The term "regulated" here means "trained". In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies...the imposition of proper discipline and training." Also the miltia in this case applies to a body of citizens enrolled for military service, during a time of war.

Also the phrase the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Since there are no longer any state-organized militias, this refers to people on active duty in the United States Military.

The second amendment doesn't give you the "right" to a handgun any more than it gives you the right to build a home-made nuclear bomb in your back yard. And even supposing that it did, the second amendment is merely an amendment and can be abolished or repealed to fit modern times.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a mistake that a lot of people make. Techically speaking, you only have a right to own a gun if you are a part of a "well regulated militia". The term "regulated" here means "trained". In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies...the imposition of proper discipline and training." Also the miltia in this case applies to a body of citizens enrolled for military service, during a time of war.

Naw....
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.... the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2] On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

 

[CMike]

This is a mistake that a lot of people make. Techically speaking, you only have a right to own a gun if you are a part of a "well regulated militia". The term "regulated" here means "trained". In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies...the imposition of proper discipline and training." Also the miltia in this case applies to a body of citizens enrolled for military service, during a time of war.

Also the phrase the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Since there are no longer any state-organized militias, this refers to people on active duty in the United States Military.

The second amendment doesn't give you the "right" to a handgun any more than it gives you the right to build a home-made nuclear bomb in your back yard. And even supposing that it did, the second amendment is merely an amendment and can be abolished or repealed to fit modern times.

Where exactly does it say that it applies only to a militia.

"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"

 

[CMike]

That's the part which makes this a much harder pill to swallow. You guys have a constitutional right to own a firearm. I couldn't have been left at "the right to self defense" or "the right to self preservation"

Everybody has the right to own a firearm for whatever purpose they subscribe i.e. self defense, recreation or survival. So from the lowliest of gun-users to professionals all are allowed to own guns. Never-mind if you didn't exactly need a gun for your particular application, but you know, since you have the right to own guns..... might as well

Then you wonder why people on the forums keep bringing up these mass shootouts from a single protagonist. Of course its a one off, its not a debatable statistic, the media exaggerates the story and politicians use the opportunity for power plays.

But get this. That mass shooter had the right to own their firearm whatever purpose they saw fit. Don't matter if they were mentally unsound from the get-go or if they just snapped; their gun, their right to own it, their right to use it in their best interest.

So my point: Guns, I don't like 'em, but for America its a necessary evil. Just make sure government has the infrastructure in place to regulate its use before we start waving around constitution clauses. :beach:

Same could be said about marijuana :run:

What you "need" is irrelevant in a democratic country. What you need is relevant in a communist country.

You don't need to jusify using your constituional rights.

There are numerous reasons to buy guns.

1) Protect yourself from the government if it became tyrannical

2) Self defense

3) Recreational

If the jews in Poland had access to more arms they probably could protect themselves a lot better from the nazis.

 

[freethinker44]

Where exactly does it say that it applies only to a militia.

"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"

Yes, the people in a well regulated milita have the right to bear arms. That's all the second amendment says, the rest is interpreted by the supreme court and they can over turn their rulings any time. Heck, sometimes sitting judges will even over turn rulings that they themselves ruled on.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes, the people in a well regulated milita have the right to bear arms. That's all the second amendment says, the rest is interpreted by the supreme court and they can over turn their rulings any time. Heck, sometimes sitting judges will even over turn rulings that they themselves ruled on.

I guess it's dependent on how you read the sentence.

Can the first part stand on it's own as a complete sentence without the second part? The use of a comma seems to indicate No to me. However it can also mean that people aren't part of a militia, but if the situation was to be called for a milita (well regulated to be formed), then the people should have the right to bear their own weapons. Which I think at the time it would be far cheaper for people to have their own weapons then have the government pay to have them issued?

 

[freethinker44]

1) Protect yourself from the government if it became tyrannical

Will never happen in the US. For one, because you can't protect yourself against the police or US military, and two, the government was designed specifically to prevent a tyranny from arising

2) Self defense

This is a pipe dream. You are more likely to be accidentally hurt or killed or accidentally hurt or kill someone else than you are to use your weapon in self defense.

3) Recreational

This is the only good reason to own a gun.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where exactly does it say that it applies only to a militia.

"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"

Actually, with the (admittedly clunky) use of commas in the version that was ratified by the 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"), it's the well regulated militia that shall not be infringed, not the people's right to bear arms.

 

[freethinker44]

The use of a comma seems to indicate No to me.

Well, since we are talking grammar, the usage of the comma in this particular sentence indicates that the part after the comma is a condition of the part before the comma. Some examles:

1) "Knowing his commute would take a while, he left early."

2) "Having eaten delicious bacon all day, she spoiled her appetite."

As you can see, when the comma is used in this way, it is used to bring two statements together. It is not separating two separate statements as in "There is a pile of trash over there, there is one over here, and another over there". These are three separate statements in one sentence.

The statements in the quoted example are used in conjunction with each other. The last part could be used in a sentence all on its own, but the first part only makes sense if paired with the last, i.e. she spoiled her appetite because she ate bacon all day, or he left early because his commute was long. And this is how the sentence of the second amendment is structured. "The people have a right to bear arms for a well regulated militia." They are not separate statements. It has been interpreted to mean otherwise, so for all intents and purposes it does currently mean people have the right to bear arms outside of a well regulated militia, but the literal meaning is people have the right to bear arm in a well regulated militia. As long as they don't infringe on the literal meaning, your right bear arms isn't absolute.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well, since we are talking grammar, the usage of the comma in this particular sentence indicates that the part after the comma is a condition of the part before the comma. Some examles:



As you can see, when the comma is used in this way, it is used to bring two statements together. It is not separating two separate statements as in "There is a pile of trash over there, there is one over here, and another over there". These are three separate statements in one sentence.

The statements in the quoted example are used in conjunction with each other. The last part could be used in a sentence all on its own, but the first part only makes sense if paired with the last, i.e. she spoiled her appetite because she ate bacon all day, or he left early because his commute was long. And this is how the sentence of the second amendment is structured. "The people have a right to bear arms for a well regulated militia." They are not separate statements.

In regards to the comma part, I was agreeing. The placement of a comma means that what it is joining cannot stand as separate sentences.

The argument that I am making is that it is not two separate sentences, they do stand together, however the reference of the right to bear arms, means that it shouldnt' be infringed on in case the need for a well regulated milita was to arise.

 

[Apex]

It is amazing the means people will go to in order to try and make their arguments.


opcorn:
Let the semantics wars continue!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In regards to the comma part, I was agreeing. The placement of a comma means that what it is joining cannot stand as separate sentences.

The argument that I am making is that it is not two separate sentences, they do stand together, however the reference of the right to bear arms, means that it shouldnt' be infringed on in case the need for a well regulated milita was to arise.

BTW: as I noted in my post just now, there are two different versions of the 2nd amendment and they have commas in different places. The version you guys are discussing is the one passed by Congress; the version passed by the states has more commas.

I'd say that if the different punctuation changes the meaning, then the Second Amendment was never fully ratified.