American Gun Laws,i just don't get it (Aurora Cinema shootings)

[Revoltingest]

With that in mind, I e-mailed your profile to Bellevue. Good luck.

Pbbbbtbbtttbbttt! I'm already an inmate there.
Are you the aging Adonis in the rubber room next door?

 

[England my lionheart]

And after all of this....
In another thread I saw someone post.....it is legal to own a saw-off shotgun in England.
Is that right?
The most obvious choice of concealed mayhem.

I say, everyone should carry.....and return fire to be expected.

No its not legal to own a sawn off Shotgun in England.

You say "everyone should carry" but is it necessary to have over a thousand rounds of ammunition in your house for protection,what could you be expecting,a siege!,would it make more sense for each household to a limited amount of ammo thus reducing the capacity to inflict death on a large scale.

 

[Revoltingest]

No its not legal to own a sawn off Shotgun in England.

You say "everyone should carry" but is it necessary to have over a thousand rounds of ammunition in your house for protection,what could you be expecting,a siege!,would it make more sense for each household to a limited amount of ammo thus reducing the capacity to inflict death on a large scale.

Your proposed limitation would only apply to those who would honor it. Anyone planning to mass murder wouldn't care about it, & would accumulate anyway.
Enacting a law doesn't mean that the law will have the stated effect. Tis better to consider laws which would actually reduce the carnage.

A good example of a feckless law was the "Assault Weapons Ban". It didn't affect any actual assault weapons, which were just as available after the ban as
they were before (with the proper license). The "Ban" didn't even ban look-alikes. Rather it affected sale of hi-capacity magazines made after a certain date,
& required the addition of finger grooves on hand gun grips, & a few other cosmetic changes. How one Earth could this possibly reduce crime or assaults?

 

[England my lionheart]

Your proposed limitation would only apply to those who would honor it. Anyone planning to mass murder wouldn't care about it, & would accumulate anyway.
Enacting a law doesn't mean that the law will have the stated effect. Tis better to consider laws which would actually reduce the carnage.

A good example of a feckless law was the "Assault Weapons Ban". It didn't affect any actual assault weapons, which were just as available after the ban as
they were before (with the proper license). The "Ban" didn't even ban look-alikes. Rather it affected sale of hi-capacity magazines made after a certain date,
& required the addition of finger grooves on hand gun grips, & a few other cosmetic changes. How one Earth could this possibly reduce crime or assaults?

It seems to me that any law would be unworkable regarding Guns because of the State issue,its ok in one State but not in another and as you say limiting laws are ineffectual,i wonder if anything practical can be done as there has been a rise in Gun crime in the UK and we have many laws regarding Guns and other weapons such as Swords and Knifes,i still don't get the amount of ammunition allowed though.

 

[Copernicus]

I think we can take it as granted that people who disobey laws are criminals. What we don't take for granted is that gun control laws are ineffective merely because some people will disobey them. It is true that Holmes might have committed exactly the same crime with exactly the same equipment even if there had been a ban on the sale and ownership of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. However, what most of us who favor gun control actually argue is that such incidents would be less likely to occur and would tend to produce fewer casualties when they did occur. Moreover, there are no good arguments to support the idea that assault weapons and high capacity magazines have a redeeming social value.

Mitt Romney responded to the Aurora tragedy a few days ago by mouthing the same tired arguments against gun control. He pointed out that Norway had a mass murder incident recently despite its gun control restrictions. What he didn't say (and the interviewer didn't bring up) was that Norway has had remarkably fewer of such incidents than the US has. I don't see Romney as a stupid man. He once did strongly support gun control laws. He opposes them now, because he cannot afford to be seen as someone who thinks it makes sense to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Obama has staked out the "radical" position that maybe people shouldn't be allowed to own weapons with that kind of potential for mass murder. He's daring, isn't he? What audacity!

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that any law would be unworkable regarding Guns because of the State issue,its ok in one State but not in another and as you say limiting laws are ineffectual,i wonder if anything practical can be done as there has been a rise in Gun crime in the UK and we have many laws regarding Guns and other weapons such as Swords and Knifes,i still don't get the amount of ammunition allowed though.

Back to the practical aspect of the problem, the ones who seem to vex society the most (not necessarily the biggest problem,
but one getting the most media attention) are the loonies who go berserk in a big way. A system to spot them, & then curtail
their access to weapons would be most effective. Of course, this raises the specter of "future crime" punishment, but I ain't
got no better idea. Some liberty will be most likely trampled in any solution, so the big question is which method gets the
most benefit for the least cost? How do we reduce gun carnage while preserving gun rights?

 

[England my lionheart]

Back to the practical aspect of the problem, the ones who seem to vex society the most (not necessarily the biggest problem,
but one getting the most media attention) are the loonies who go berserk in a big way. A system to spot them, & then curtail
their access to weapons would be most effective. Of course, this raises the specter of "future crime" punishment, but I ain't
got no better idea. Some liberty will be most likely trampled in any solution, so the big question is which method gets the
most benefit for the least cost? How do we reduce gun carnage while preserving gun rights?

Although its really no business of mine what the American Gun laws are i would venture an opinion,IMO the problem lies with policing the numbers of Gun owners,as it stands an almost impossible task,lets say 55 million households legally own a Gun in the US (an example figure) thats a lot of people to check for their suitability for Gun ownership.

I think that the onus should be put on the suppliers of weapons and ammunition,these companies earn a lot of money in the market so when they **** up by supplying unsuitable people with a large amount of ammunition and SEMI automatic weapons without questioning or alerting the authorities they are very heavily fined and their licence revoked,this would then force suppliers to police themselves,just a Limey perspective though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Although its really no business of mine what the American Gun laws are....

Stop right there, bub! In the area of venturing opinions, it is entirely your business.

....i would venture an opinion,IMO the problem lies with policing the numbers of Gun owners,as it stands an almost impossible task,lets say 55 million households legally own a Gun in the US (an example figure) thats a lot of people to check for their suitability for Gun ownership.

I think that the onus should be put on the suppliers of weapons and ammunition,these companies earn a lot of money in the market so when they **** up by supplying unsuitable people with a large amount of ammunition and SEMI automatic weapons without questioning or alerting the authorities they are very heavily fined and their licence revoked,this would then force suppliers to police themselves,just a Limey perspective though.

Your suggestion certainly has more merit that restricting general ownership. But enforcement in tort could be very punitive for the amount of good it does.
This is an area where perhaps a regulatory system to vet buyers & to report high-risk-of-going-postal people would work better.
I'm not saying this is a great idea....just tossing it out there.

 

[England my lionheart]

Stop right there, bub! In the area of venturing opinions, it is entirely your business.

Your suggestion certainly has more merit that restricting general ownership. But enforcement in tort could be very punitive for the amount of good it does.
This is an area where perhaps a regulatory system to vet buyers & to report high-risk-of-going-postal people would work better.
I'm not saying this is a great idea....just tossing it out there.

Me too,just tossing it out there,cut or limit the supply by strict regulation with the allure of a limited amount of licences to supply weapons and ammunition would make for competition and encourage self policing,of course thats way too simplistic and doesn't account for the illegal side.

For what its worth,on the positive side,considering that America is possibly numero uno in Gun ownership its safer than the swat valley which is a war zone.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

the loonies who go berserk in a big way. A system to spot them, & then curtail
their access to weapons would be most effective.

We need Crazy Control, not more gun control

 

[Reverend Rick]

Gun control is hitting your target.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This thread reminds me of an Eddie Izzard joke when he mentioned that according to the NRA guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, yes, but the gun certainly helps.
Getting rid of guns won't solve all of the problems of violence, but it will certainly help to curve it. Plenty of studies have shown just the presence of a gun can increase violent behavior, there are far too many loop holes that allow guns to get in the hands of people who should not have them, there are far too many careless owners (in today's newspaper there is an article about a careless mom who left a gun cabinet unlocked and her three year old son shot himself in the wrist), there are too many people that do not know proper gun safety (I have personally lost a friend who accidentally killed himself because he was not properly educated), and while we love our right to bear arms the amount of crimes involving guns has been increasing where I live.
And how many people realize that when the right to bear arms was penned, muskets were rather inaccurate and you couldn't go on a killing spree with one because of the time needed to reload.

Would it help to know that an AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle?

Does it really matter if it is or not? Other than the death toll could have been higher and even more people could have been injured?

And before anyone mentions cars, I believe our society needs to make it very clear that driving is a privilege, NOT a right, and that philosophy needs to be very strongly enforced.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would anyone argue that the 1st Amendment protects only speech by government? Of course not.

But it does grant specific rights to specific entities or groups. The First Amendment doesn't give just any person the right to be a church or "the press"; why would the Second Amendment give an person the right to be a militia?

 

[Revoltingest]

But it does grant specific rights to specific entities or groups. The First Amendment doesn't give just any person the right to be a church or "the press"; why would the Second Amendment give an person the right to be a militia?

The Bill of Rights is all about rights for people, limiting the power of government over them.
Some have said that the 2nd Amendment is about state governments bearing arms, but from Wikipedia.....

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia

The wording of the amendment is consistent with this ruling.

 

[Wirey]

The second ammendment was meant for exactly this:

[youtube]xIpLd0WQKCY[/youtube]
The Simpsons - Gun Shop - YouTube

 

[Revoltingest]

No, no, no.....the 2nd was about the coming zombie apocolips.....appoco....apocalysp....disaster.
[youtube]Jspw0597t7Y[/youtube]
04x05 Treehouse of Horror III - YouTube

 

[Copernicus]

The Bill of Rights is all about rights for people, limiting the power of government over them.
Some have said that the 2nd Amendment is about state governments bearing arms, but from Wikipedia.....
The wording of the amendment is consistent with this ruling.

Yes, and another Supreme Court can reverse that interpretation. The fact is that the original idea was to assure state militias a supply of arms, since militias in those days were comprised of men who brought their own weapons to militia duty. If you believe in "original intent", that was pretty obviously the original intent. It was not to guarantee arms to anyone for any circumstance. Even Scalia has acknowledged that the right can be regulated by sensible means. Banning high-capacity magazines and assault weapons would not violate the Constitutional right in any way.

Moreover, if you want to get technical, the states no longer organize militias in which citizens are required to bring their own weapons. Therefore, the Second Amendment is about as relevant to modern times as the Third Amendment.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The fact is that the original idea was to assure state militias a supply of arms, since militias in those days were comprised of men who brought their own weapons to militia duty. If you believe in "original intent", that was pretty obviously the original intent.

This is demonstrably false. It may be that you are correct about original intent, but to say that your reading is "pretty obvious" in any meaningful way is a difficult sell indeed. It is neither in line with history nor with much of what we know behind the framework of the 2nd amendment and the so-called "founding fathers." In particular, your description of 18th century militias is far more a product of the modern era's (mis)understanding than it is an accurate depiction of actual history. Amar & Hirsch (the former from Yale law, and the latter a former editor of the Yale Law Journal) wrote that "ince the Second Amendment explicitly declares that its purpose is to preserve a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms was universal in scope." For them, the militia was "armed citizenry." Williams, in his Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment (Yale University Press; 2003) argues that the "original meaning" was a deliberate, calculated effort to ensure that an additional check (apart from representation) existed against tyranny by the federal government, which is in line with actual writings we possess by Hamilton, Samuel Adams, Jefferson, and others (who explicitly stated the individual's rights to carry weapons was of great importance). And from the early days of the debate to P. J. Charles' book on the 2nd amendment (2009), numerous commentators have pointed to the phrase "right of the people" which cannot easily be interpreted as anything other than a collective reference to individual citizens. The mention of militia can only be understood in its historic context, which is not "state militias" but a desire to ensure that the "people" had the capacity to prevent the federal government from becoming the monarchy so recently fought via the ability of armed citizens to organize without the sanction, authority, or direction of government.

However, as the judicial system is not simply about the "original intent" of any law, and as the context in which the bill of rights was drafted was considerably different, there is every reason to question its relevancy to the modern era. This must be done, though, only through an accurate assessment of criminal, sociological, and historical evidence.

Moreover, if you want to get technical, the states no longer organize militias in which citizens are required to bring their own weapons.

If you wish to be technical, then states were neither required nor in fact consistently responsible for militia during the period surrounding the drafting of the constitution.

Therefore, the Second Amendment is about as relevant to modern times as the Third Amendment.

No doubt true. The question is what the best policy is. Guns are hardly necessary for the type of violence seen in Colorado ("running amok", after all, is still quite possible without any firearms and is, according to Malaysian clinical reports, still a real phenomenon). In fact, the individual began with gas, appears to have relied a great deal on other weaponry, and imitated a movie character who used explosives, fire, and knives (supposedly the typical weapon used for this type of violence in Malaysia). Nor are issues of gun laws simple. In 2009, England and Wales alone had over twice the number of violent assaults (if we include just Scotland, which had almost as much as England, Wales, and the US combined, then the UK looks far worse). Yet when it comes to homicide, the US has consistently showed higher trends compared to most of Europe. On the other hand, as the greatest importer of illegal drugs (and therefore of organized criminal elements), the US has managed to introduce qualitatively different types of criminal activity than most of the world, which has very little to do with any weapon laws.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you want to have complete control of the masses and remove their freedoms, you must first take away their weapons.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and another Supreme Court can reverse that interpretation.

We're safe til then.
The rascals on the USSC have been mischievously & continually chipping away at liberty (eg,
Kelo v City Of New London, Petty Offense Doctrine), so perhaps some day, you'll get your way.

The fact is that the original idea was to assure state militias a supply of arms, since militias in those days were comprised of men who brought their own weapons to militia duty. If you believe in "original intent", that was pretty obviously the original intent. It was not to guarantee arms to anyone for any circumstance.

First, "comprised of" is such annoying idiomatic & passive use of "comprise", which doesn't need that wimpy little "of" to follow.
There...that's out of the way.
If there is no guarantee then there would not have been this language, "....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Even Scalia has acknowledged that the right can be regulated by sensible means.

I'm surprised that this was news. Everyone on both sides of the issue has allowed that regulation is legal. The question is to what extent.

Banning high-capacity magazines and assault weapons would not violate the Constitutional right in any way.

It would if one considers original intent. The purpose of the arms was military, if weapons were regulated to be less
than militarily capable, then that would be unconstitutional. As is often said, the 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting.

Moreover, if you want to get technical....

Please do.

...the states no longer organize militias in which citizens are required to bring their own weapons.

The 2nd Amendment does not require that states organize militias.

Therefore, the Second Amendment is about as relevant to modern times as the Third Amendment.

Until it's repealed, it is law, regardless of statist objections that it's antiquated.