Gun = Violence??

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by TIKI

Fist off, I want to point out this is not a pub thread because-
1. I am just asking for help with a speech, I would like you all to discuss your views and reasons on gun control so I can get an idead on what to talk about with guns and volience

2. It is more of a social argument.

So pelase discuss and argue for my help haha, thanks

I've seen in a number of gun debates, so I can give you the abstract.

The gun nut will usually reduce this subject to a few NRA-approved slogans and repeat them like a zombi. If that doesn't work he just implies that anyone who disagrees with the brilliantly effective American way is a coward, socialist and nazi and shows off his superior knowledge of and excessive love for firearms.

Anti-gun fanatics will probably ask why noone thinks of the children and claim that guns are responsible for all the evil in society, but such people are not very common on internet forums for video games.

The moderate crowd on both sides will concede some points and conclude that there should be some form of legislation and training to restrict ownership to those responsible enough to handle a weapon.

[Crazy Wolf]

Originally Posted by dinosaurJR

Well, according to Eddie Izzard, Guns dont kill people, Monkeys kill people (if your stupid enough to give one a gun...and then withhold bananas...)

Seriously, if Mr Heston is wiling to experiment, I would love to shut him in a room with a Chimp wielding a Colt, Glock, Browning... any type of gun... then youd see...

Does Mr. Zombie Heston also have a firearm?

To be serious for a minute, though - gun control is a sticky subject in the good old US...because you have so bloody many of them!

I'm pretty sure it's sticky even when there aren't many guns.

Also, the constitution does not mention anywhere that it is an Americans god given right to wield fire arms... it says "arms" could be a Beretta 92F, could be a Barrett 50cal, couls be a Cavalry Sabre, could be a pointy rock tied to a stick...could be a effing Nuclear bomb... all counts as arms...

It doesn't expressly say "have a heavy artillery piece", it only says "...the right to of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There have been rulings to decide what kind of weapons people are allowed to have, you can't drive a tank on public roads(tank treads really fuck up road surfaces something terrible), you can't own anything automatic (without a difficult licensing process, and IIRC they stopped making automatic guns for the civilian market in 1986, so there's a limited supply).

I know it doesn't say expressly that it's an American god-given right to wield firearms. However, if you read "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.", then you'll see it sounds pretty, well, off, to argue that banning firearms is OK by the Second amendment, as they are a type of armament, and "the right...to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It ain't god-given, it's government-given

Its not the control of guns thats the problem... Its the wording of the constitution, the various (and there are lots of them) state laws refering to weapons permits, who can own one etc... and the sad fact that human life is valued so little by some..

Ok, I think you took a left at Albuquerque there.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

I know it doesn't say expressly that it's an American god-given right to wield firearms. However, if you read "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.", then you'll see it sounds pretty, well, off, to argue that banning firearms is OK by the Second amendment, as they are a type of armament, and "the right...to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It ain't god-given, it's government-given

But why doesn't anyone care about the first part of that sentence? It seems to me that the need for a militia is the reason why there is a need for a right to keep arms. And militias aren't really needed anymore.

[Crazy Wolf]

Mr. Fancypants, people do care about that first part. Some have argued that it means only members of the military, National Guard, or State Defense Forces can carry weapons, but these arguments have never stood up to the Supreme Court or any serious examination. The common-law definition of "militia" at the time consisted basically of "any adult male fit for military service" (or "the body of the people capable of bearing arms"), with ages from 18-45(See: Uniform Militia Act of 1792). Since we don't want discrimination against disabled folks, we let them have guns, and since we aren't big on having a federal discrimination against women, we let them have guns. Since you want to avoid discrimination against the elderly, you let them have the guns too.



How exactly are militias not needed? We don't need a militia to defend the state at this point, but a draft is basically a "calling of the militia". Another argument for allowing private citizens to have firearms is that it makes sure that the government plays nice. It's harder to execute someone for being of a certain political background/ethnicity/etc. if they can shoot back.

Mr. Fancypants, reading other writings (non-Constitution, non-Declaration of Independence) of the Founding Fathers suggests that they were very wary of the government, and wanted the common people to be able to violently protest the government's actions if they deemed it the only way to have their voices heard. The fact that even after Shay's Rebellion, where the local populace took up arms against what they deemed to be an unresponsive government, the Founding Fathers thought it was important enough to be in the Bill of Rights (right behind Freedom of Speech). The Constitution doesn't have an appendix with American history from 1776-1792.

[Warforger]

Really, Gun Control is fine, but banning guns is not, they are used for sport and hunting, while the people who use guns to kill people, don't really need to listen to the law if they are already intending to do bad, so there going to try and get a way to get them (i.e. black market) either way.

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

But why doesn't anyone care about the first part of that sentence? It seems to me that the need for a militia is the reason why there is a need for a right to keep arms. And militias aren't really needed anymore.

Now maybe not, but we don't know where we'll be in the next 100 years, I mean what if we turn into the next Africa? At one point in history Africa was very rich and influential with the Egyptians then the West African Empires who exported nearly all the Western Worlds Gold, now there filled with civil wars, famine, corruption and the poorest countries in the world.

[Al the Octopus]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

But why doesn't anyone care about the first part of that sentence? It seems to me that the need for a militia is the reason why there is a need for a right to keep arms. And militias aren't really needed anymore.

With the Second Amendment, It's really important to understand why it was put there in the first place and exactly what it was amending. Before the Bill of Rights was even put in place, the constitutional founders had already defined what the militia was - that is, every able-bodied man capable to be called into service for the protection of the country. The original articles also provided for the militia to be "well-regulated", or in other words, well regulated by the government (with the President being Commander in Chief). The States, however, saw the need for a restrictive clause that would "well-regulate" the federal militia - thus, they created the Second Amendment, which added "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", because the States knew that the people, with arms, would well regulate the federal militia. The States saw a very important need for a balance of Federal power.

With that in mind, it's really impossible to say that a Militia is or isn't needed. Is it necessary now, at this exact time? No, probably not. BUT, that's not to say that it will or could never be. The great point lies in the principle - as long as the federal government retains the right to raise a militia, the people shall have the right to bear arms to keep it - and the government - "well-regulated".

If you haven't guessed yet, yes, I am a firearm owner, and I can say with absolute certainty I will continue to be. I have always believed in my right to "keep and bear", and I retain I have a right to defend myself and my family in the event it may be necessary. I am not, however, an "NRA nut" or some crazy weirdo - I understand that in many cases restrictions are necessary. That said, I do believe (at least, in my personal experience) that for every irresponsible gun owner, there are many, many responsible ones.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

Mr. Fancypants, people do care about that first part. Some have argued that it means only members of the military, National Guard, or State Defense Forces can carry weapons, but these arguments have never stood up to the Supreme Court or any serious examination. The common-law definition of "militia" at the time consisted basically of "any adult male fit for military service" (or "the body of the people capable of bearing arms"), with ages from 18-45(See: Uniform Militia Act of 1792). Since we don't want discrimination against disabled folks, we let them have guns, and since we aren't big on having a federal discrimination against women, we let them have guns. Since you want to avoid discrimination against the elderly, you let them have the guns too.

I don't think the terms "well regulated militia" and "the people" are interchangeable or that they ever were interchangeable.

How exactly are militias not needed? We don't need a militia to defend the state at this point, but a draft is basically a "calling of the militia". Another argument for allowing private citizens to have firearms is that it makes sure that the government plays nice. It's harder to execute someone for being of a certain political background/ethnicity/etc. if they can shoot back.

Because you have a rather lage professional army by now.
The idea of a draft seems to be rather unpopular in the US, it seems that the American people decided that they don't want a militia in the form of a draft (I think Nixon made that topic part of his election campaign). Besides, conscription usually refers to recruitment of citizens into a professional army, not into a militia. Conscripts are usually trained and equipped by the state unlike the kind of militia that is referred to in your constitution.


I don't agree with the protection from government idea either, but that's not something mentioned in this sentence and it would be a bit of a stretch to argue that it applies to a militia that is well regulated by a government.

Originally Posted by Warforger

Now maybe not, but we don't know where we'll be in the next 100 years, I mean what if we turn into the next Africa? At one point in history Africa was very rich and influential with the Egyptians then the West African Empires who exported nearly all the Western Worlds Gold, now there filled with civil wars, famine, corruption and the poorest countries in the world.

In that case small arms can do as much harm as good, Africa is a good example for that.

Originally Posted by Al the Octopus

With the Second Amendment, It's really important to understand why it was put there in the first place and exactly what it was amending. Before the Bill of Rights was even put in place, the constitutional founders had already defined what the militia was - that is, every able-bodied man capable to be called into service for the protection of the country. The original articles also provided for the militia to be "well-regulated", or in other words, well regulated by the government (with the President being Commander in Chief). The States, however, saw the need for a restrictive clause that would "well-regulate" the federal militia - thus, they created the Second Amendment, which added "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", because the States knew that the people, with arms, would well regulate the federal militia. The States saw a very important need for a balance of Federal power.

That's an interesting interpretation, but I find it unlikely that the people are supposed to regulate the militia that they themselves form. If the militia is supposed to regulate itself then it isn't really well regulated at all.

[Al the Octopus]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

That's an interesting interpretation, but I find it unlikely that the people are supposed to regulate the militia that they themselves form. If the militia is supposed to regulate itself then it isn't really well regulated at all.

It's important to separate the fact that while the people make it up, the militia itself is under the command and control of the federal goverment. The original Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 and Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1) empowers the government (respectively) to:

"provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions."

and that

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States".

The second amendment did not alter that definition, but rather added to it, so that while the federal government would retain power of command over the militia, the people, bearing arms, would keep it "well-regulated", or in other words, keep the federal power of command in balance.

[Nemmerle]

How many civilians are actually engaged in shootings and how much of it is just fucktards popping off at each other? The figures don't say, it's all just firearms offences, and frankly if the latter group manages to cull some of their numbers all the better for everyone else.

[Crazy Wolf]

Nemmerle, I'm short on time at the moment but if you can look up "shooting drug related" or "shooting gang related" numbers, you might get a better idea.