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

[McBell]

Thing is, in most places openly carrying a deadly weapon in the US is illegal or at least asking for trouble. unless you got a concealed weapons permit...but then it's hidden.

I suppose that depends upon how one defines "deadly weapon".
I suspect you are using the over hyped media definition?

 

[jasonwill2]

I suppose that depends upon how one defines "deadly weapon".
I suspect you are using the over hyped media definition?

I was referring to how it is stated in my State's laws.

In my state, a blade over 6 inches, or a gun, is considered a deadly weapon and you can only get a concealed weapons permit for either a pistol or a revolver. Also anything that can cause really serious bodily harm if used as a weapon, and IS used as a weapon or in a threatening way, can potentially be considered a deadly weapon.

A gun is a deadly weapon though, seeing as how "deadly" means "it can kill", and generally speaking, a gun is intended to kill when used as a weapon.

 

[McBell]

I was referring to how it is stated in my State's laws.

In my state, a blade over 6 inches, or a gun, is considered a deadly weapon and you can only get a concealed weapons permit for either a pistol or a revolver. Also anything that can cause really serious bodily harm if used as a weapon, and IS used as a weapon or in a threatening way, can potentially be considered a deadly weapon.

A gun is a deadly weapon though, seeing as how "deadly" means "it can kill", and generally speaking, a gun is intended to kill when used as a weapon.

this is my point.
A claw hammer is considered a deadly weapon after you use it to kill someone.
It is NOT considered a deadly weapon before it is used to kill.

Same with a paperclip.

 

[Magic Man]

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Benjamin Franklin

I've always hated this quote, only because it's always used in the wrong situations. The sentiment and intent of the quote is right on, but it's irrelevant in a situation like this. Unless you think citizens should be able to legally own rocket launchers and fully automatic assault rifles, then you agree we have to sacrifice liberty to a certain point for the sake of security. The question is just where to draw the line.

 

[jasonwill2]

I've always hated this quote, only because it's always used in the wrong situations. The sentiment and intent of the quote is right on, but it's irrelevant in a situation like this. Unless you think citizens should be able to legally own rocket launchers and fully automatic assault rifles, then you agree we have to sacrifice liberty to a certain point for the sake of security. The question is just where to draw the line.

In the United States, we can legally own fully automatic weapons given we have the permits, not just assault rifles but sub-machine guns and full-auto shotguns. Though in some states you can't, there are always places you can.

Did you know that it is legal for a citizen to own a Gatling gun? Given though. the specific model I am talking about, there are only like 12 in existence and were made at like the turn of the 20th century.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I understand that the point of the American right to bare arms was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from the government through the use of force if necessary (a laughable concept given modern day military grade equipment, where only exceptionally wealthy citizens and organisations might potentially be able to afford access to equipment that would enable such a defence)...

However as far as I am concerned such an idea is with regards to being able to stop the forces of a regime with access to military grade equipment, for this reason I believe that central to the issue of enabling such a defence is enabling the citizen to have access to equipment that can overcome or bypass the defences of the regime. In terms of access to weapons this typically means access to weapons with high penetration capability (weapons with high power characteristics such as anti-armor) as opposed to being able to rapidly (weapons with a high rate of fire) attack targets with lower levels of protection (e.g. regular civilians)

As far as I am concerned - the US 2nd amendment is intended to provide civilians the right to buy a weapon that can pierce the side of a tank rather than to buy a weapon that can shoot 20,000 rounds a minute. Why? Because the first can be used to protect yourself from a government using the latest military equipment... the later cannot - instead its primary ability is to kill regular people quickly.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand that the point of the American right to bare arms.....

You mean like this?

.....was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from the government through the use of force if necessary (a laughable concept given modern day military grade equipment, where only exceptionally wealthy citizens and organisations might potentially be able to afford access to equipment that would enable such a defence)...

It isn't so laughable, considering that conflicts with super powers around the globe still involve small arms.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Conflicts meaning wars and 'humanitarian interventions'? Yes, they involve small arms against jets equipped with smart bombs and tanks equipped with armor that no small arms can get through. Such conflicts are ALWAYS one sided, showing just how ineffective those small arms are.

-Occupations- on the other hand, prolonged periods where the infantry must move among the populace? Small arms become more useful then true- however they still account for a small proportion of the deaths of the more technologically superior forces (in recent times that is - i.e. in the latest round of middle eastern love-ins) compared to IEDs. Again - the capacity to overwhelm the defences is the issue; where small arms are vastly inferior to a blast in being able to bypass the protection offered by the individual soldier's armor.

 

[Revoltingest]

Conflicts meaning wars and 'humanitarian interventions'? Yes, they involve small arms against jets equipped with smart bombs and tanks equipped with armor that no small arms can get through. Such conflicts are ALWAYS one sided, showing just how ineffective those small arms are.

We lost in Viet Nam. We're losing in both Iraq & Afghanistan.
Were we to rise against a tyrannical gov't at home, 'big' weapons would be even less effective IMO.
A range of possible scenarios exist. To be armed will be less effective against some, & more effective
against others. I'd rather preserve my options. Ain't no guarantees in life, but chance favors those
who prepare.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

We lost in Viet Nam. We're losing in both Iraq & Afghanistan.
Were we to rise against a tyrannical gov't at home, 'big' weapons would be even less effective IMO.
A range of possible scenarios exist. To be armed will be less effective against some, & more effective
against others. I'd rather preserve my options. Ain't no guarantees in life, but chance favors those
who prepare.

True. However it is rather difficult to justify the consideration of that remote possibility within a vacuum, especially given such events (as Aurora).

Personally, when I see the damage dealt by weapons designed to kill large numbers of unprotected people quickly (rather than to destroy fewer, well protected enemies), I cannot help but consider the limited use such weaponry would provide for the purpose for which it was supposedly allowed...

None of the small arms used in Aurora would do much good against a tank, the explosives in his apartment on the other hand - that might have been an effect weapon against such a scenario, however the guns he used... not in the slightest.

 

[Revoltingest]

True. However it is rather difficult to justify the consideration of that remote possibility within a vacuum, especially given such events (as Aurora).

What vacuum?
I take into account all that transpires in this country, & more scenarios than we've addressed so far.

Personally, when I see the damage dealt by weapons designed to kill large numbers of unprotected people quickly (rather than to destroy fewer, well protected enemies), I cannot help but consider the limited use such weaponry would provide for the purpose for which it was supposedly allowed...

That is to look at only part of the picture though, avoiding the great number
of times that carnage is prevented by using firearms in self defense.

None of the small arms used in Aurora would do much good against a tank, the explosives in his apartment on the other hand - that might have been an effect weapon against such a scenario, however the guns he used... not in the slightest.

I don't see that as a relevant issue.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I don't see that as a relevant issue.

It is the most important issue - that is the reason why the 2nd amendment is there... not to help civilians protect themselves from some thugs trying to knock over a liquor store but rather to allow civilians to protect themselves from the government. To allow weaponry unsuited to the latter task simply shows that it does not abide by the purpose for which it is permitted in the first place.

 

[s2a]

That is to look at only part of the picture though, avoiding the great number
of times that carnage is prevented by using firearms in self defense.

Agreed.

What source shall we look to as confirmation of the advocated notion of carnage prevention by use of firearms in self defense?

And from what source shall we seek counterpoint/counterclaim?

Just who is the authoritative keeper of carnage prevention statistics?

Just wondering... got a link to that source?

Honestly, I'm utterly ignorant as to the comparative numbers of employed firearm use as prevention vs unarmed results statistically in fair comparison...

Thank you in advance for sourcing those credible resources for further objective review...

 

[Magic Man]

We lost in Viet Nam. We're losing in both Iraq & Afghanistan.
Were we to rise against a tyrannical gov't at home, 'big' weapons would be even less effective IMO.
A range of possible scenarios exist. To be armed will be less effective against some, & more effective
against others. I'd rather preserve my options. Ain't no guarantees in life, but chance favors those
who prepare.

I don't think our situation would be comparable to Vietnam or Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed.
What source shall we look to as confirmation of the advocated notion of carnage prevention by use of firearms in self defense?
And from what source shall we seek counterpoint/counterclaim?
Just who is the authoritative keeper of carnage prevention statistics?
Just wondering... got a link to that source?
Honestly, I'm utterly ignorant as to the comparative numbers of employed firearm use as prevention vs unarmed results statistically in fair comparison...
Thank you in advance for sourcing those credible resources for further objective review...

A start....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

 

[Copernicus]

It is the most important issue - that is the reason why the 2nd amendment is there... not to help civilians protect themselves from some thugs trying to knock over a liquor store but rather to allow civilians to protect themselves from the government. To allow weaponry unsuited to the latter task simply shows that it does not abide by the purpose for which it is permitted in the first place.

I think that you are very wrong about the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was not put in the Constitution to allow civilians to protect themselves from government. It is there to ensure that members of a state militia are "well-disciplined" (which could have meant "well-trained" in 18th century usage). Members of a militia are not civilians. They are soldiers.

State militias were originally organized under the leadership of the governor of a state and distinct from the federal army at the time the Constitution was passed. Militias were comprised of a defined class of eligible citizens who supplied their own weapons for militia duties. Anti-federalism was a movement that opposed the adoption of the Constitution, preferring the status quo of the Articles of Confederation. As part of a compromise to gain more support for the Constitution, Madison and other federalists agreed to include a Bill of Rights that would guarantee some rights that Anti-federalists feared would be lost. One fear they had was that the federal government would try to weaken state militias by banning private weapons, thus leaving states at the mercy of a potential federal tyranny empowered by the standing federal army. The 2nd amendment was there to assure the states that this would not happen.

In reality, one of the purposes of the militia was to put down rebellions, not enable them. During the Whiskey Rebellion, state militias were mobilized to put down a spreading rebellion against a new tax on whiskey, a tax which was part of Alexander Hamilton's plan to pay off the federal debt. When citizens rebelled, President Washington, under the authority of the Militia Act of 1792 called on governors to supply him with troops, to put down the rebellion. Civilians were conscripted into the militias and required to bring their own weapons. So there was an early precedent for the federal government using militias (comprised of citizens with privately-owned weapons) to suppress insurrection.

The idea that the 2nd amendment is there to enable citizens to rebel against the government is absolutely false. It was there as part of a compromise between the power of the states and the power of the federal government. After the Civil War, the state militias were essentially nationalized. The old controversy between Federalists and Anti-federalists no longer exists. Members of the National Guard do not supply their own weapons. The 2nd amendment has been rendered as irrelevant as the 3rd, but gun rights enthusiasts are stretching it to serve the interests of gun manufacturers and dealers, who do not want to give up their lucrative profits.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that you are very wrong about the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was not put in the Constitution to allow civilians to protect themselves from government. It is there to ensure that members of a state militia are "well-disciplined" (which could have meant "well-trained" in 18th century usage). Members of a militia are not civilians. They are soldiers.

Oh, yeah.....
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
It is significant that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill Of Rights, which secures rights for citizens, rather than government.
Would anyone argue that the 1st Amendment protects only speech by government? Of course not.

 

[Copernicus]

Oh, yeah.....
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

Despite what George Mason, who was an Anti-federalist, said, the Constitution itself treats insurrection and rebellion as treason. The Second Amendment did not change that, although Mason had a role in the debate that framed the wording. He himself ultimately signed off on the wording, which declared the purpose of the amendment in its preamble "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

It is significant that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill Of Rights, which secures rights for citizens, rather than government.

I'm not denying its significance. I am denying that this contradicts anything I said. Congress itself defined what militias were in the Militia Acts of 1792. It doesn't matter what Mason's opinion was. He did not define the intent of the Second. He was just one citizen with an opinion of what he thought it ought to say.

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

Agreed. That is not at issue here. Nor is the debate over whether individuals have a right to own a weapon, although I would elsewhere argue that they do not. Here, my point was that the Second was not intended to convey the impression that citizens should be armed for the purpose of rebelling against their government. The Militia Act of 1792 made it quite clear that they were to be used to defend the United States, not rebel against it. The Second says nothing about rebellion, just about the existence of a "well-regulated militia". Why do you suppose they felt it necessary to include those extra words? The "individual right" would have been clearer without the preamble. Indeed, the NRA notoriously put up a sign with the Second Amendment in the lobby of their headquarters that did not include the preamble. Why do you suppose the NRA would do that? Just to save space? :sarcastic

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Oh, yeah.....
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
It is significant that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill Of Rights, which secures rights for citizens, rather than government.
Would anyone argue that the 1st Amendment protects only speech by government? Of course not.

This.

Although I do seem to disagree with him on how the effective armament of such a militia might be facilitated, I do indeed agree that the 2nd greatly emphasises the need for the general populace to be armed in such a way as to enable them to fight against the federal government (which was then being created) should it get out of hand - the civilian drawn militia might then have been envisaged to be run by the state (through their own local guards / military organisations etc) but it was clearly written with the intent to arm civilians against the federal government (not the other levels of government, but the feds), these provisions were required -by the states- in order for them to be willing to legitimise the newly forming body or to grant it any powers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Despite what George Mason, who was an Anti-federalist, said, the Constitution itself treats insurrection and rebellion as treason. The Second Amendment did not change that.....

Of course, the term "treason" only applies to the losing side. This is tacitly addressed by the founders in their writing.

I'm not denying its significance. I am denying that this contradicts anything I said. Congress itself defined what militias were in the Militia Acts of 1792. It doesn't matter what Mason's opinion was. He did not define the intent of the Second. He was just one citizen with an opinion of what he thought it ought to say.

Oh, really? From Wikipedia we have.....

George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) was an American Patriot, statesman and a delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention. Along with James Madison, he is called the "Father of the United States Bill of Rights."[1][2][3][4] For these reasons he is considered one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States.[5][6]

From this, I'd say that his personal opinion holds great significance in divining the intent of the founders.

Here, my point was that the Second was not intended to convey the impression that citizens should be armed for the purpose of rebelling against their government.

I don't argue that. The wording of the 2nd Amendment doesn't address rebellion.

The Militia Act of 1792 made it quite clear that they were to be used to defend the United States, not rebel against it. The Second says nothing about rebellion, just about the existence of a "well-regulated militia". Why do you suppose they felt it necessary to include those extra words? The "individual right" would have been clearer without the preamble. Indeed, the NRA notoriously put up a sign with the Second Amendment in the lobby of their headquarters that did not include the preamble. Why do you suppose the NRA would do that? Just to save space? :sarcastic

To keep the language pithy. Their (our) view is that the important thing is that we have this right.
Note the underlined portion...."notoriously"? Geeze, I can almost hear you seething with disdain for us (ie, the NRA).