TheFeniX

Who cares what the NRA says?

Neither of these links offer any citation and I know a common house-hold upgrade that kills many more times the amount of children than firearms do: swimming pools. Safe-proofing a pool is a big prospect and pretty much impossible.

I'd rather teach my kid to swim rather than just "stay away from the pool" any day of the week

I guess we've gone to automatically inserting children into the equation, so I'll go ahead and argue it even though it has nothing to do with your original argument that we're all either gun nuts or criminals for daring to have a firearm for home defense.

Anyways, there are numerous house-hold items people leave exposed on a daily basis that can kill or maim your child. Sure, you may keep your gun locked away and unloaded, but does your neighbor? Does your kids friends parents down the street? What happens when your child and his friends know nothing about firearms and they happen upon one?

Just like I'd prefer to teach my children to swim, I'd like to teach them about the inherent dangers of life. Knowledge replaces fear.

Who are you to judge the risk of "the vast majority?" A firearm isn't dangerous to the wielder unless that person doesn't understand how to use it properly. This is in line with most objects in life.

You can child-proof your electrical sockets, but at some point in time your kid is going to have to learn not to do it without having his hand held.

If you're too stupid or inept to have a loaded firearm in your possession (kids not in the equation) then you have absolutely no business even owning one.

Tell that to the woman who was murdered in my parents gated neighborhood. I'm also wondering if that "done by someone you know" statistic is the same one they got by using data based around drug deals gone bad where "people they knew" were the potential drug buyers who were invited inside for the deal. In some instances, they also counted people living in your general area as "people you know." As if I know everyone who lives in my neighborhood.

The chance of many bad things happening to me are extremely low, but I still do what I can to lessen the impact. Hell, I haven't been in one major wreck in my truck and I still have full-coverage. The chance of my TV blowing up is low, but I bought the extended warranty.

The main difference between that and my loaded handgun? Having the handgun actually doesn't cost me anything. It takes no extra effort to keep a loaded firearm besides the ammo, which I own anyways. It's not a danger to me or anyone else who isn't insistent on harming me.

You base this off what? I've never heard any statistic claiming this kind of effect. Your average criminal wants an easy score. Risking death by taking on armed homeowners isn't an easy score. Given the option, most sane criminals will move on to "greener pastures." The ones stupid or crazy enough to go up against armed citizens are just as likely to have shoot-outs with a SWAT team. Those people are dangerous whether you have a firearm or not. And, I'd rather have a gun in that situation.

Life is about options (or freedom if you buy into it). You have to weight cost vs gain when deciding on your options. You do this subconsciously all the time.

Do I need double-dead bolts? They cost a bit more, can be a hassle sometimes, but they're more secure. In the event of a fire, they can get you killed. They're dangerous right? Does this mean everyone is insane for having them?

No, you weight the pros and cons and make a choice. People who decide to use a firearm for self-defense have made a choice. And whether or not you believe it, for many people, it's a choice made through rationality, not fear.

You may not agree with me, but I'm not the one insinuating you're a criminal or paranoid psychotic.

__________________

CingularDuality

This is certainly an exciting case. And it certainly seems, right now, that the majority opinion will be to my liking. I know that with SCOTUS, history is always being made, but this seems particularly momentous to me.

For anyone looking for something like this, I would also like to point out www.gunvault.com Same concept, but with some refinements to make access quicker and easier in the dark.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

War.mongeR1

I LIKE that safe! Super quick accessibility and very reasonably priced! If people are concerned with the safety of their children AND/OR their guns, than THIS should take care of that problem. In the meanwhile, I hope the good citizens of D.C. gain the right to protect themselves if they so desire.

__________________
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

El_Gringo_Grande

I understand what local governments are trying to accomplish and I don't see it as nefarious. It is even noble I think. Protecting citizens is noble. So is the desire to have people be responsible for their actions and property. One problem is that those laws could be used in bad ways.

The following is from Wiki

The bolded part above is, I think, the "ablative absolute"

A reference in the wiki article.

Something I don't understand is those that claim to be "strict constitutionalists" but at the same time have trouble with this amendment.

It seems to me that a single sentence is not that hard to interpret. Everything is tied together.

Another thing. No place in that sentence does it say anything about personal protection or hunting or recreational skeet shooting. How does skeet shooting have anything to do with a militias task of protecting the security of a free state? Strictly speaking.

I am not a strict constitutionalists so I don't have a problem extending the rights to the individual. Then again I don't have a problem giving the rights to the states if it will actually improve the well being of the state. I don't know of any gun laws that actually do this, however.




@ Fenix
If you want to quote isolated anecdotal horror stories to back up your position let me do the same. I have known personally 6 people who have been wounded or killed by firearms.

One was a possible suicide and the rest accidents made by people that where trained and familiar with firearms.

One was a cop. Shot his finger. He refuses to talk about the incident but he doesn't have the tip of his index finger any longer. He now unloads his firearm before going home.

Another was a teenage boy who was getting ready to go hunting. He loaded the shotgun before leaving the house. It somehow went off and killed his sister. Everybody has said the kid was very responsible and mature and always treated firearms correctly.

Another guy was putting his loaded gun in the truck before going home after a day of hunting and shot his own foot. It was one of my coaches.

Another was a couple of friends walking to their hunting spot and going over a fence. As one was handing the gun to the other it went off and shot his friend in the butt.

Another was a guy getting ready to clean his handgun and it "went off". He was lucky and it only grazed his leg.

Another cop I knew reached into his closet to get something and "somehow his firearm discharged". The bullet entered the apartment below where, luckily, nobody lived.

They guy that killed himself may not have meant to do it. Nobody saw him actually perform the act. He had a fight with his wife and went to his truck. As he was leaving he said something to the effect of "I should just kill myself". They heard a shot and he was dead. The guy had never shown suicidal tendencies and he did not leave a note. He was my friend when we where kids and he had a bad habit of handling loaded firearms while in the house or his car. I was always worried when he got out his guns. He may have killed himself, he was always a bit off. But I could see him picking up the gun, which was always loaded, and it simply going off. There was hunting rifle of some sort and he also had a loaded handgun in the truck. He used the hunting rifle. Sounds weird to me.

My father put two holes in his house. Thankfully nobody hurt.

A couple of guys from high school had holes in the floorboard of their truck because they insisted on riding around with loaded rifles.

All but one of those incidents could have, in all likelihood, been avoided if they had simply not loaded the gun until they needed it and unloaded it as soon as they where through using it. And the suicide might have been avoided.

I never said having a firearm for protection was indication of being a "paranoid psychotic". You read that into it. I said how some people treat firearms is sometimes crazy. Crazy was the wrong word. Especially considering how personal some are with their firearms. Irrational behavior is probably better but sure to still anger some.

There are rare situations where having your firearm loaded and at the ready at all times is called for. Law enforcement and military come to mind. But in those situation those firearms are secured by the person responsible for them. At least I would hope they are.

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Elwenil

I think that the "the right of the people to bear arms" is in addition to the statement about militia. Since you can take out the militia part and the sentence still makes sense, and you can take out the people part and it still makes sense. It's just all put together since one is a means to an end for the other.

In any case, the day they ban all firearms in the US, the statement that "only criminals will have guns" will be very true. One reason is that criminals will always be able to obtain weapons through illegal means that a law abiding citizen will not, and those of us who will not willingly give up our right to bear arms will be made criminals by an unconstitutional law. In any case, I would fully support a revolution and attack the Government in the case that they would try to outlaw my right to bear arms and veto the Government who goes too far.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

El_Gringo_Grande

I don't understand.

Are you saying that as long as the amendment still makes sense you can take out whatever part you want?

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Elwenil

No, that based on the sentence structure, it is two complete thoughts. I do not feel that the "right to bear arms" applies only to militia. In any case, the majority of militia today would not be able to stand against a modern military attack and the National Guard is controlled by the Government and serve no purpose to the people in the situation where a revolt is necessary. A insurgent uprising of the general populace would be the only option.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

El_Gringo_Grande

I am not talking about "feelings". I am talking about those gun supporters that are also strict constitutionalists.

Since it seems like you view the constitution as a "living" document that can be interpreted with regard to the times we live in then, yea, political views can change what you read.

That being said the writers of the constitution where not hillbillies. They where pretty well educated and took the written word very seriously. And, the written word being the most powerful medium of the time bar none, put huge amounts of thought into the writing of the documents. So I don't think they would make the mistake of a sixth grader and put two thoughts in one sentence. I believe it is one cohesive thought.

It just depends on where you put the emphasis. Is it a state right or an individual right? That is the debate.

But they also wanted, I believe the whole document to be cohesive. And the fact that this amendment is in the bill of rights, generally understood to be rights afforded the individual, is the strongest argument that it should lean towards being an individual right.

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Elwenil

In some sense, I think it is a living document, but not by the wording, but by the fact that we are able to add amendments to it so it can change with the times.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

USN_Squid

"The right of the people" is not ambiguous in the amendment whereas "a well regulated militia" is. The Bill of Rights is entirely about the people's rights as individual rights, not the powers granted to the government --the constitution does that. It is this context among the other amendments which makes the "militia" definition less important than the "right of the people". Yes, that's only one view, others disagree. I think the SCOTUS will see it as an individual right to self defense.

The National Guard as we know it today did not exist at the time. The Militia was more commonly referred to the general populace as a pool of potential defenders of the state and country. The only quotes I've read regarding the militia have always used the term to mean individuals who may potentially organize themselves, not controlled by a central government body. And "well regulated" I've seen interpreted as well disciplined, functioning well or well trained in historical context.

edit:
I think the arguments over semantics and historical sentence structure detracts from the principle of the issue. The Framers believed that freedom was inseparable from self governing indivduals. The right to speak freely, wright freely (even badly as I prove here), and worship freely. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to defend my person and property. No, the amendment doesnt' say that, but even a cursory look at the federalist papers and other writings and state proceedings prior to the ratification of the consitution prove this.

__________________

El_Gringo_Grande

The part "the right of the people" is only important with regards to the first part if you read it strictly.

I don't find "a well regulated militia" ambiguous at all. Why do you find it so? Especially if you take into the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part. Why would self defense be important to the security of the state?

So where do you see anything about self defense in the statement? That is the one that always gets me. It isn't in there. In fact I would say the the right to self defense was not even considered outside defending ones self against the state. Think about it. Most people lived in areas where there was no law or police force. It was an agricultural world back then. They had to defend themselves and could not rely on help from others.

In fact, I think it was you that pointed out the James Madison did not invent the right to have firearms. That was a pre-existing right generally understood and laws existed to guarantee it.

What didn't exist was the right of states to organize those individuals into a "regulated militia" so that it may fight as a group against enemies that threatened the states security. It was given so that the individuals of the state could organize to defend the state rights they had determined to be important to the individual. And the amendment protected against the Federal government from interfearing in state issues buy passing law limiting the ability of individuals from bearing arms.

I do get your point. And as I said the fact it is in the Bill of Rights is a very good argument of why it should be considered a individual right. But for me that argument simply isn't enough to be of a 100% conviction.

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

TheFeniX

I tend to forget about the entire "2nd ammendment" argument and instead focus on human rights as a whole.

I don't ask "Why should I be allowed to do/own X?"
I ask "Why should I allow the government to restrict access/ownership of X?"

We regulate motor vehicles so much because the general populace has a serious issue with not killing each other on the highways. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of legal vehicle owners who commit "crimes" (cause wrecks due to negligence or alcohol, etc) was upwards of 20%.

When you look at the whole picture with firearms, you realize that legitimate owners of firearms count for an almost infinitesimal (less than 1%) amount of criminal offenses in relation to them. If guns really were a huge problem, then why do 99% of people who own them legally never use them in the commission of a crime?

Most areas with high gun crime also have high incidents of other violent and non-violent crime. It's not an issue of the accessibility of firearms. The issue is with the community (usually poor urban areas or slums). The removal of firearms from an area is a scape-goat and gives the average citizen the illusion that the government has done something worthwhile. When in reality, it does nothing to reduce crime. All you have to do is compare the varying level of gun control in areas to the crime rate. At best you'll see a decline in crime in areas with less gun control. At worst, you'll see no difference.

This goes back to my original thought: if legal gun ownership doesn't play a factor in the overall safety in an area or actually shows a benefit, what right does the government have to remove them?

__________________

War.mongeR1

Many use the militia argument, saying firearms should only be for that purpose. BUT, if the firearms were taken from the people, it would be impossible to organize an effective militia, right? That right for that purpose is partially what keeps our government and foreign governments in check. Take a look at how much dictatorial countries keep firearms out of the hands of regular citizens, while they trample all over them. Mexico for example, does not allow handguns, while the drug lords run amok all over the border. Because, WE can form a militia AND citizens are armed, that could never be a realistic possibility on this side of the border. Anyone else from South Texas? Take a look at Nuevo Laredo versus Laredo. Basically the same city, but spanning both sides of the river. One side is scary as hell, and extremely dangerous. Our side is not so bad at all and much much safer. I believe it's because American citizens (at least most citizens) are afforded that constitutional right to bear arms. If that border crap was that bad on this side and our government didn't help at all, you can bet your butt that us Texans would start our own militia and take care of business.

__________________
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

Strag

Good discussion; thanks for starting this thread, Squid. I'm very interested to see the final decision of the Court.



It's interesting to consider that, aside from the agricultural part, not much has changed since back then. Very few citizens today have police actually guarding their property, and, even if they did, police have no federal legal obligation to protect the individual. Also, law itself doesn't do anything to actually protect a person -- it merely defines crimes and specifies their punishments. Most of us are still on our own when it comes to our personal defense.

El_Gringo_Grande

That is exactly what I am saying. But the constitution and all it's amendments applies to the FEDERAL government. Except for individual rights, which the 14th amendment made universal. Meaning that states cannot violate them either.

It is agreed by all sides that the Federal Government cannot pass any law preventing individuals from bearing arms.

The question is if the 2nd Amendment was to protect the states ability to form militias and the individual right is protected from federal interference to support the state rights. Or if it is primarily to protect the individual right to bear arms and the states right to form a militia is used as an reason for it.

The individual right thing just doesn't do it for me, even though I want believe we do have that individual right. If the framers wanted to make it an individual right why didn't they just do that? Have 11 amendments in the bill of rights and 2nd would be "People have the right to bear arms" and the 3rd amendment be "States have a right to form militias".

The third option is that the framers saw the two as inextricably linked. That the states right to form a militia is so important that nobody, not even the state, can take away the individuals right to bear arms. Maybe they wanted to enact a 14th Amendment type universal catchall without actually enacting an Amendment to do that.

I think that is the way SCOTUS is viewing it. But does the state banning a particular type of firearm violate the individual/state right? I think we all agree that "what makes us feel good" and "what our rights are" are two different things even though it angers us to realize this.

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I知 not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette