Gun Laws

[CR McDivot]

Gentlemen, please!

Almost to a person you are discussing laws restricting a person (an individual of the class "people") from owning (keeping) and carrying (bearing) arms.

I can accept the fact that almost all but American freemen have no protection from those elitists who believe that only the elite or the government have the right to arms (or in fact any rights at all).

However, the founding document of the United States of America (the Constitution) was doomed to rejection until the Federalists agreed to include a Bill of Rights which protected the God given and inalienable rights of the individual (people) and their common delegated authority (the states).

The second of these enunciated rights is as follows:

"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."

Please notice that it is the PEOPLE who own this RIGHT.

Note also that it is not given to either the Federal government, nor the State(s) to infringe or restrict in ANY manner the inherent RIGHT of the PEOPLE.

At the time of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and even before) it was common for localities, businesses (shipping companies) and even individuals with sufficient means to own state of the art weaponry. As a matter of fact the first Redcoat military escapades against the Patriots of the American Colonies was an attempt to seize powder, ball, and cannon from common stores.

One of these common stores was the church at Lexington, where the local militia was based.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

The tyrant won the skirmish at Lexington, but throughout all the surrounding area men of duty and honor rose to the call. By the time the Redcoats made Concord there was a civilian force sufficient to repel them and chase them back to Boston inflicting devastating losses on what was at that time the premier military force in the western world.

Gentlemen this is the RIGHT and the heritage of the American Freeman. It is NOT a privilege subject to the whims of elitists, Utopian philosophers, or tyrants.

Bring it on!

But be prepared for a fight!

[Mr. Desmond]

So if you are ready to say to that father or mother of a slain child that "The price of my 2nd Amendment freedom is the death of your daughter," are you ready to take the place of that child?

And when faced with your own death by that same gun, are you ready to die, or do you have a change of heart, and think "maybe we ought to look at these gun restriction laws more seriously?"

Edited October 7, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[iacas]

So if you are ready to say to that father or mother of a slain child that "The price of my 2nd Amendment freedom is the death of your daughter," are you ready to take the place of that child?

Seriously? Gerry, c'mon.

And when faced with your own death by that same gun, are you ready to die, or do you have a change of heart, and think "maybe we ought to look at these gun restriction laws more seriously?"

Again, seriously? How about "when faced with the possibility of shooting the guy who is about to kill me and/or my loved ones"? How about the thousands or millions of guns that are never and will never be used to shoot a person (lawfully or unlawfully)?

[CR McDivot]

So if you are ready to say to that father or mother of a slain child that "The price of my 2nd Amendment freedom is the death of your daughter," are you ready to take the place of that child?

And when faced with your own death by that same gun, are you ready to die, or do you have a change of heart, and think "maybe we ought to look at these gun restriction laws more seriously?"

Evil men do evil!

Cowards attack the elderly, women, and children at the rear of the column where they know they are safe from the warrior in the lead.

ISIS prefers beheading with a dull knife, or burning in a cage.

Cain murdered Abel with a rock.

You prefer no defense against the evil doer? 

[saevel25]

"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."

At the time of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and even before) it was common for localities, businesses (shipping companies) and even individuals with sufficient means to own state of the art weaponry. As a matter of fact the first Redcoat military escapades against the Patriots of the American Colonies was an attempt to seize powder, ball, and cannon from common stores.

People have the right to bear arms. It does not say that arms can not be defined by law.  Also, you can not assume that the founding fathers meant for people to have military grade weapons of today. The founding fathers probably couldn't fathom the type of weapons we have created. To say that just because the common person was able to have the same rifle provided a military person of the time doesn't translate today that a person has the right to have the same military weaponry. That is just a coincidence that the implementation of the 2nd amendment happen to coincide with a time in history where it was common place for the military to share the same weaponry as a citizen. They were very simple weapons to make. 

 

[iacas]

People have the right to bear arms. It does not say that arms can not be defined by law.  Also, you can not assume that the founding fathers meant for people to have military grade weapons of today. The founding fathers probably couldn't fathom the type of weapons we have created. To say that just because the common person was able to have the same rifle provided a military person of the time doesn't translate today that a person has the right to have the same military weaponry. That is just a coincidence that the implementation of the 2nd amendment happen to coincide with a time in history where it was common place for the military to share the same weaponry as a citizen. They were very simple weapons to make. 

You cannot buy or legally own many of the weapons that are commonly found in the military, Matt. But nice tactics. "Military grade" has no real meaning. Is my 9mm "military grade"? Is my .22?

Last time I checked nobody's packing a MK-15 Phalanx in a safe by their nightstand.

---

Just once I'd like to see a discussion where those opposed to guns don't rely on cheap tricks like "think of the children" or "military grade" or whatever.

 

[Jeremie Boop]

People have the right to bear arms. It does not say that arms can not be defined by law.  Also, you can not assume that the founding fathers meant for people to have military grade weapons of today. The founding fathers probably couldn't fathom the type of weapons we have created. To say that just because the common person was able to have the same rifle provided a military person of the time doesn't translate today that a person has the right to have the same military weaponry. That is just a coincidence that the implementation of the 2nd amendment happen to coincide with a time in history where it was common place for the military to share the same weaponry as a citizen. They were very simple weapons to make. 

 

Technically speaking, the common person does not and can not purchase military grade weapons *by legal means of course*. It takes special permits in order to have those weapons as a private citizen. Now, people can purchase conversion kits or modify civilian versions, however being caught with a fully automatic or military grade weapon without the proper permits does get you into a good bit of trouble from what I understand. 

[old man1953]

I disagree with some of the above, although points made are valid -- But problems are not resolved by throwing up your hands, and say the solution is more security, which leads to more guns (imho).

Common sense restrictions will help over time - we're not talking about people with previous criminal behavior much of the time in these mass shootings- we're talking about demented, mentally ill people.

Apparently, more guns do not make people safer.

______

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/

The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world, researchers found.

A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

Drs. Sripal Bangalore, who works at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Dr. Franz Messerli of St. Luke's Medical Center studied the statistics of guns per capita and gun deaths. They used firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey to put together a list of 27 developed countries.

They said they carried out their study because of what they said are seemingly baseless claims on either side of the gun control debate.

"I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion and not merely people pulling things out of their hats," Bangalore said. "We hear time and time again about these shootings, especially in the last year or so. A lot of claims are made…so we wanted to look at the data and see if any of this holds water."

They concluded that more guns do not make people safer.

 

From politifact:

Summary: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution. That’s 120,130 more gun deaths than war deaths -- about 9 percent more, or nearly four typical years worth of gun deaths. And that’s using the most generous scholarly estimate of Civil War deaths, the biggest component of American war deaths.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

Gunfire deaths

As we did in our previous fact-check, we used a conservative estimate of data from a 1994 paper published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to count gun-related deaths from 1968 to 1980. For 1981 through 2013, we used annual data sets from CDC. Finally, for 2014 and the first eight months of 2015, we estimated that the number of gun-related deaths were equal to the rate during the previous three full years for which we have data — 2011 to 2013.

Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms:

 

Years	Firearm-related deaths
1968 to 1980	377,000
1981 to 1998	620,525
1999 to 2013	464,033
2014 (estimated based on rate from 2011-2013)	33,183
2015 (estimated based on rate from 2011-2013)	22,122
TOTAL, 1968-2015	1,516,863

So the statistic still holds up: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution. That’s 120,130 more gun deaths than war deaths -- about 9 percent more, or nearly four typical years worth of gun deaths. And that’s using the most generous scholarly estimate of Civil War deaths, the biggest component of American war deaths.

We’ll offer some added thoughts for context.

These figures refer to all gunfire-related deaths, not just homicides. In fact, homicides represent a minority of gun deaths, with suicides comprising the biggest share. In 2013, according to CDC data, 63 percent of gun-related deaths were from suicides, 33 percent were from homicides, and roughly 1 percent each were from accidents, legal interventions and undetermined causes.

There’s a risk in using a statistic like this to decry mass homicides carried out with guns. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone.

However, in our view, Kristof framed this comparison with care. He mentioned suicides not once but three times in his column, and he referred broadly to the "unrelenting toll of gun violence," not specifically to the toll of gun homicides. Indeed, at one point, Kristof specifically referenced the impact that stricter gun laws can have on gun suicides, writing that in 1996, after a mass shooting in Australia, lawmakers tightened gun laws. "The firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved," according to data published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, Kristof wrote.

but the suicide rate only dropped from 22 per 100,000 to 15 per 100,000. Yes it dropped but what other reasons were contributing factors.http://www.mindframe-media.info/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/11868/Suicide-Figures-ABS-2015.pdf

and  the over all rate did not drop 50 percent. I am a life time member to the NRA.  I am an instructor. Yes there needs to be changes. But if you look at over all gun deaths in the US how much is due to gang violence. I live near Detroit where the police chief is urging citizens to arm themselves. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not stop violence. Education will help. Having ever gun owner take a safety course would help. Identifying mental illness at an early age and getting treatment for it would be a big step but then you would be labeling people for life as " crazies" you really think that would go over well in this political correct societiey we have. There is not a correct answer nor is there a right way to fix it. Enforcing laws we already have would help. Not being able to buy out of state would help. But buying on line is a big business and is safe in most cases. So what is the answer? I don't know. But being a life time member of the NRA we discuss this all the time. At our classes we acess all our students to make sure they are component to own and operate a gun. But we are not doctors . So are we doing the right thing? Not sure but we do what we feel is safe. More regulations are not the answer the law can not enforce the laws we have now. America is and always has been a nation that has the right to bear arms. But responsibility in owning and carrying a gun is a right that to me should be earned and not to be taken lightly. How much does drug use and gang wars contribute to the total homicide total. Do we need laws to stop gang shooting. That alone would most likely drop the rate in half. But you hear anyone tout that   Why not? But how in the world would you enforce it ?  look at this list and almost ever country that has more homocides than the US has some of the most strict gun laws in the world (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ) . With most owning a gun is against the law period. Yet people are getting killed at a higher rate than the US. There is not an easy answer nor a quick fix. Violent gangs and criminals are a big part of all homocial statistics.  But you never see those broken out of the total. There is a lot of people that should never have or own a gun. But there a lot more that have ever right to own them. So us just talking about is a big step. Bringing awareness of it to the public is a step. Teaching anyone that cares to ask how to safely handle a gun is a big step. My grandsons can unload and load and shoot a gun safely. But that doesn't mean I am going to buy them one for Christmas. I don't have an answer. We as NRA members know there is issues. But taking my guns is not the answer nor do I believe more laws by themselves will help the problem. But the more we talk about it and bring awareness to the issue the better.

[saevel25]

You cannot buy or legally own many of the weapons that are commonly found in the military, Matt. But nice tactics. "Military grade" has no real meaning. Is my 9mm "military grade"? Is my .22?

Last time I checked nobody's packing a MK-15 Phalanx in a safe by their nightstand.

I wasn't the one linking the 2nd amendment to state of the art weaponry. My comments were not for against someone owning a gun, but the fact the comment was referencing he thought we had the right to own the same stuff the military does. I honestly don't want to live next to someone who owns a Sherman Tank. By his comments, linking "State of the art weaponry" to the 2nd amendment he is making that claim that we as citizens of the United States do have the right. To me right to own a weapon has to have it's limits. 

Just once I'd like to see a discussion where those opposed to guns don't rely on cheap tricks like "think of the children" or "military grade" or whatever.

I'm not against owning a gun. I've thought about getting my conceal carry over the past few years. I think there has to be someway to weed out some of these messed up people from getting their hands on a gun. 

In the end maybe America is just that F'd up. We put more people in prison per 100,000 people than any other nation in the world. USA Does have a 4x higher murder rate than Canada and most all other countries in the EU. Maybe USA is just a much more violent place and we just got to suck it up and move on. 

 

[rkim291968]

I didn't read all the posts so pardon me if I am repeating ... a random thought on gun/militia:

During LA riots after Rodney King verdict, it was scary in that "government" had no control over the mobs for days. A good part of LA went up in smoke, and the place resembled a war zone.  The mobs were rooting, beating, and killing people at will.   I note here that there was no MILITIA that came to aid.  A few store owners and their friends used guns to protect their stores and neighbors.  But I think most were scared of the mobs wielding weapons and were afraid to step out of their homes.    It's not the government that I worry about.   It's the mob with guns that I worry about more.   Mobs with guns outgunning those who are supposed to protect us ...

[CR McDivot]

People have the right to bear arms. It does not say that arms can not be defined by law...

Arms was purposely generic, and included all personal and crew served weapons from the cutlass to cannon. All were commonly in use both by government and civilian.

"Defining" arms "by law" after the fact is indeed infringement and unconstitutional on it's face. Thus, the "National Firearms Act of 1934" dared not outright ban machine guns, short barreled rifles or shotguns, and destructive devices but rather skirt the issue by licensing and taxing.

How do you think corporate military contractors (mercenaries) obtain "military grade" weaponry to use in Iraq and elsewhere? Or the gunshop down the road from me can rent out full auto weapons to anyone to fire on their supervised range? Or that I used to see mail order ads for surplus 20mm anti tank cannons as a youngster (1950's)? Or that dynamite was available at the local hardware (no ID even required).

Even though "licensing and taxing" was an infringement on it's face, the Fed got away with it and has been pushing the envelope ever since.

That's kinda the way liberty is stolen... creeping, "sensible", "common sense" limitations imposed by unlimited government.

'Cause if they move too abruptly they may wake those who still love freedom... be recognized as traitors and hang as a result!

 

...  The mobs were rooting, beating, and killing people at will.   I note here that there was no MILITIA that came to aid.  A few store owners and their friends used guns to protect their stores and neighbors....

Those store owners and their friends WERE/ARE the militia!

 

[rkim291968]

 

Those store owners and their friends WERE/ARE the militia!

 

They were absolutely not.  They were out their to protect their personal interest.

mi·li·tia

məˈliSHə/

noun

noun: militia; plural noun: militias

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
   • all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

 

 

[Silent]

I wasn't the one linking the 2nd amendment to state of the art weaponry. My comments were not for against someone owning a gun, but the fact the comment was referencing he thought we had the right to own the same stuff the military does. I honestly don't want to live next to someone who owns a Sherman Tank. By his comments, linking "State of the art weaponry" to the 2nd amendment he is making that claim that we as citizens of the United States do have the right. To me right to own a weapon has to have it's limits. 

I'm not against owning a gun. I've thought about getting my conceal carry over the past few years. I think there has to be someway to weed out some of these messed up people from getting their hands on a gun. 

In the end maybe America is just that F'd up. We put more people in prison per 100,000 people than any other nation in the world. USA Does have a 4x higher murder rate than Canada and most all other countries in the EU. Maybe USA is just a much more violent place and we just got to suck it up and move on. 

 

And, FWI, the only western country in the world with the death penalty.

For me it keeps being mind blowing that people actually believe that a waepons run is the answer to a saver society. Another school shooting and I hear 'yea, let's give teachers guns. Or if some students had them maybe less people were killed'. I can not begin to explain how silly that sounds for us Europeans. I don't mean that disrespectful, but I really don't understand that kind of reasoning at all. Not even a little bit. 'pff yes, we have like a million school shootings while other western countries pretty much don't have them at all. What is the difference, what is the solution. More guns!' It's just mind blowing for me.

Also I read a lot about the need (right) to protect yourself. Looking at it from the victim's point of view. But you can also look at it from the criminal's point of view. If I am a criminal, and I know there's a big chance my potential victim has a gun, I would make sure I bring a gun to the party. In my opinion with more guns in society, the chances of escalation increase big time. Fact is that the murder rate by guns in USA are enormously big and not even close compared to EU. I hear the problem is economical, but in EU there's poverty also. I hear a lot of the deaths are gang related (and therefor don't count?), but here we have criminals shooting each other also making a big percentage of the gun deaths. We are not that different. Yet gun laws are, school shootings pretty much don't happen here, stats death by guns are not even close.... but it's not a gun problem? Maybe not completely, I guess it's also about mentality.

Edited October 7, 2015 by iacas
Removed extra spaces

[boogielicious]

This thread illustrates part of the problem we are having. It is difficult to have a constructive discussion about how to solve the problem because people get emotional and lose site of the common goal. Regardless of whether you are a strong proponent or opponent of gun legislation, all responsible people want to stop the violence. That is the problem. The question is how. 

Some of the European members are sighting gun violence as exclusive to The United States. It may be more prevalent here, but violence itself is not. There are plenty of other ways that mentally ill or violent people harm others (re: car bombs, poison gas, arson, mob killings). It is happening everywhere, everyday. Why? How do we stop it? These are the fundamental questions that we are not addressing.

Every other argument is addressing the symptom and not the disease. 

[Mr. Desmond]

Seriously? Gerry, c'mon.

Again, seriously? How about "when faced with the possibility of shooting the guy who is about to kill me and/or my loved ones"? How about the thousands or millions of guns that are never and will never be used to shoot a person (lawfully or unlawfully)?

I was attempting empathy; and thinking regarding what are the extent of 2nd Amendment Rights and what are reasonable restrictions. The 2nd Amendment, as interpreted, does not state the government can't reasonably restrict the right to bear arms, and it does not say it can -- the law takes the Second Amendment and balances several public interests to interpret it.

Not many want to take away Second Amendment Rights, but are we open to reasonable restrictions to decrease the violence people cause when using a gun as a weapon during a crime?

I do not expect an answer, as it takes time - months, even years - to brainstorm and plan how reasonable restrictions would work in the real world.

Why does it take so long? Look at ACA and how they pushed that bulbous bill full of holes through Congress - it needed more time. For example, I've worked on a contract for a client for over 2 years, and it keeps evolving. The client blew me off when I advised him that I needed to know his business to draft a package of effective documents. We came up with something that I did not like. So I went to work with his biggest customer selling the same services and product. He allowed me into the business and the real world of customer problems and issues. I called the customers, their lawyers, talked with the sales staff and production After a year, we've come up with an industry standard for a contract.

Same thing with a plan to reasonably reduce violence with guns. We need to balance interests and come up with a plan that works in the real world without harming responsible gun owners.

How? You get a group of lawyers to spend a couple of years going to the NRA, Anti-Gun Groups, Doctors, Gun Ranges, Police Departments, Hospitals, Gun Manufacturers, and start asking questions. Get their views, ask for their solutions, attempt to get them to answer honestly, and develop a plan, go through simulations to see how a plan might work, get feedback from various organizations, etc. See if something reasonable is workable.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[Mike Boatright]

I think the solution is very simple first off increase security in a variety of places with part time national guard it would be great for campuses and high risk areas. Second make guns and ammo very difficult to acquire legally yet completely accessible abiding to homeowners and the second amendment. It's easier to get guns then it is to get a bank loan which requires a lot of pre requisites and qualification. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Mike Boatright

[Jeremie Boop]

I think the solution is very simple first off increase security in a variety of places with part time national guard it would be great for campuses and high risk areas. Second make guns and ammo very difficult to acquire legally yet completely accessible abiding to homeowners and the second amendment. It's easier to get guns then it is to get a bank loan which requires a lot of pre requisites and qualification. 

I don't totally agree that it's easier to get a gun than a bank loan. The only thing that slows or inhibits people from being able get a loan is credit score and income. If you have a good credit score and sufficient verifiable income you can walk into and out of a bank in less than an hour with a loan. About the same time it takes to purchase a gun. Both require, at it's base, a background check.

[Mr. Desmond]

I don't totally agree that it's easier to get a gun than a bank loan. The only thing that slows or inhibits people from being able get a loan is credit score and income. If you have a good credit score and sufficient verifiable income you can walk into and out of a bank in less than an hour with a loan. About the same time it takes to purchase a gun. Both require, at it's base, a background check.

Well, not all gun purchases require a background check ...

"Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood. 

Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring background checks at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. Five states, most recently Colorado and Connecticut, mandate universal background checks, an even more stringent standard that imposes background checks on almost all gun purchases, including over the Internet."

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html