Some Good Old-Fashioned Gun Ownership...

[n_huffhines]

....that hopefully LG can even appreciate. Guns FTW!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiiQQP4-Ijw&feature=share[/youtube]

I've heard a claim made that a woman carrying a firearm has never been raped. I don't know that anybody has refuted this claim.

 

[lawgator1]

Okay, that's one for your side (although it wasn't a handgun, which is more what I'm talking about)..

Now, let's weigh that against the ones where a person is not home at all and they steal the gun and sell it for crack and it ends up killing someone else. And also against the ones where the gun is sold to a private party who is bypassing any background check and shoots a loved one during an argument or themselves by accident. Plus of course the many who are shot when coming home to find a burglar in their place and who has already taken the gun.

Pink stock of the gun was cute, by the way.

 

[hog88]

^^Let's ban car ownership then. They can be stolen and run over some bystander, they can traded between private parties then used to kill in a fit of rage with never being registered.

What's the difference, both are inanimate objects that can be used to hurt people?

 

[utvolpj]

come on huff you knew this would receive a blame the victim response

 

[volinbham]

maybe I listened to the story wrong but it sounded like they were gone by the time she got the gun and went looking for them.

 

[lawgator1]

^^Let's ban car ownership then. They can be stolen and run over some bystander, they can traded between private parties then used to kill in a fit of rage with never being registered.

What's the difference, both are inanimate objects that can be used to hurt people?

I have seen this horrible analogy here before. It miserably fails for the simple fact that the very purpose of a handgun is to shoot a person whereas a car is extremely rarely used as a weapon.

Even mere practice with a handgun is in anticipation of it being used to cause serious injury or death.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Awesome story.

 

[lawgator1]

maybe I listened to the story wrong but it sounded like they were gone by the time she got the gun and went looking for them.

I didn't listen all the way through, but I don't deny that on occasion people have used guns to defend themselves. Its just a much smaller number of times than the bad uses/thefts of guns with high potential for misuse.

 

[hog88]

I have seen this horrible analogy here before. It miserably fails for the simple fact that the very purpose of a handgun is to shoot a person whereas a car is extremely rarely used as a weapon.

Even mere practice with a handgun is in anticipation of it being used to cause serious injury or death.

Point is almost anything can be used to kill or hurt. It takes intent or carelesness to kill someone with a gun just as with a car. There are almost no preventable accidents.

Have you ever heard of competition shooting? Look it up, it is a sport so your last blurb is completly false.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Even mere practice with a handgun is in anticipation of it being used to cause serious injury or death.

No. :no:

 

[Volst53]

**** happens, wear a helmet

 

[lawgator1]

Have you ever heard of competition shooting? Look it up, it is a sport so your last blurb is completly false.

You mean like shooting targets shaped like people?

What percentage of the firearms in this country do you think are used in competition? .0001 %? Meh, you're right, probably not even close to that many.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You mean like shooting targets shaped like people?

What percentage of the firearms in this country do you think are used in competition? .0001 %? Meh, you're right, probably not even close to that many.

Just curious, what exactly is your position on the second amendment?

 

[hog88]

You mean like shooting targets shaped like people?

What percentage of the firearms in this country do you think are used in competition? .0001 %? Meh, you're right, probably not even close to that many.

No matter the % it proves your original statement wrong, but in typical lawyer fashion you change your aurgument. So by your reasoning anything that can be misused or remotley dangerous should be banned?

And no they are usually round disks used in cometition.

 

[lawgator1]

Just curious, what exactly is your position on the second amendment?

I don't know a soul who belongs to any sort of official state militia. Do you?

At the time, the colonies had fought largely organized as state militias because, by definition, they had not had any sort of state sanctioned military or independent police force. Much of their focus was on preserving their arms and ammunition because that was such a target of the British in the Revolutionary War.

Naturally, they feared giving to the new federal government the same power that had been attempted to be exercised against them by King George and British Parliament.

Viewed through the lens of modern America, I simply cannot equate those concerns with anything today. Only complete a-hole nutjobs think they need to keep a gun to fend off the federal government. They might trot that out there to wrap themselves in the flag, but they are mostly liars and vigilante types.

Having said that, this means only that I do not attach to the Second Amendment some type of carte blanche authorization for people to have any gun they damn well please. Rather, I think it means that a state can maintain a store of arms for purposes of fending off any sort of federal government military incursion into the homes of their citizens, a rare and obsolete worry, to be sure.

As to private citizens, therefore, I see no Constitutional restriction on a state's ability to restrict individual gun ownership. Therefore, I would say that a state government should be permitted to bar private ownership of firearms or, much more likely, restrict ownership severely.

I think that, in the case of handguns, there is a legitimate debate to be had in any given state as to whether private ownership of them should be permitted basically at all.

I tend to think all states would allow it, as it would be incredibly politically unpopular at the current time to ban them. But, I could see a lot of states over time adopting measures that might make it much more difficult to own one. And in my view that would not violate the Second Amendment.

 

[n_huffhines]

I have seen this horrible analogy here before. It miserably fails for the simple fact that the very purpose of a handgun is to shoot a person whereas a car is extremely rarely used as a weapon.

Even mere practice with a handgun is in anticipation of it being used to cause serious injury or death.

It all makes sense now. You don't care about results. You care about intent.

 

[volinbham]

Amazing how you get all state's rights and strict interpretation of the Constitution when it suits your ideology.

 

[hog88]

I don't know a soul who belongs to any sort of official state militia. Do you?

At the time, the colonies had fought largely organized as state militias because, by definition, they had not had any sort of state sanctioned military or independent police force. Much of their focus was on preserving their arms and ammunition because that was such a target of the British in the Revolutionary War.

Naturally, they feared giving to the new federal government the same power that had been attempted to be exercised against them by King George and British Parliament.

Viewed through the lens of modern America, I simply cannot equate those concerns with anything today. Only complete a-hole nutjobs think they need to keep a gun to fend off the federal government. They might trot that out there to wrap themselves in the flag, but they are mostly liars and vigilante types.

Having said that, this means only that I do not attach to the Second Amendment some type of carte blanche authorization for people to have any gun they damn well please. Rather, I think it means that a state can maintain a store of arms for purposes of fending off any sort of federal government military incursion into the homes of their citizens, a rare and obsolete worry, to be sure.

As to private citizens, therefore, I see no Constitutional restriction on a state's ability to restrict individual gun ownership. Therefore, I would say that a state government should be permitted to bar private ownership of firearms or, much more likely, restrict ownership severely.

I think that, in the case of handguns, there is a legitimate debate to be had in any given state as to whether private ownership of them should be permitted basically at all.

I tend to think all states would allow it, as it would be incredibly politically unpopular at the current time to ban them. But, I could see a lot of states over time adopting measures that might make it much more difficult to own one. And in my view that would not violate the Second Amendment.

One key point you miss, is that at the time of the Revolution the members of the state militias for the most part had to supply their own weapons. So in using your logic the second adm as written gives individual citizens the right to keep arms. Almost requires it... But it is a free country.

Thank god your view is restricted to message boards and not in the courts.

 

[n_huffhines]

maybe I listened to the story wrong but it sounded like they were gone by the time she got the gun and went looking for them.

Yeah, it was kind of vague. The reporter says something like, "police say she spooked the burglars." without offering any detail.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I don't know a soul who belongs to any sort of official state militia. Do you?

At the time, the colonies had fought largely organized as state militias because, by definition, they had not had any sort of state sanctioned military or independent police force. Much of their focus was on preserving their arms and ammunition because that was such a target of the British in the Revolutionary War.

Naturally, they feared giving to the new federal government the same power that had been attempted to be exercised against them by King George and British Parliament.

Viewed through the lens of modern America, I simply cannot equate those concerns with anything today. Only complete a-hole nutjobs think they need to keep a gun to fend off the federal government. They might trot that out there to wrap themselves in the flag, but they are mostly liars and vigilante types.

Having said that, this means only that I do not attach to the Second Amendment some type of carte blanche authorization for people to have any gun they damn well please. Rather, I think it means that a state can maintain a store of arms for purposes of fending off any sort of federal government military incursion into the homes of their citizens, a rare and obsolete worry, to be sure.

As to private citizens, therefore, I see no Constitutional restriction on a state's ability to restrict individual gun ownership. Therefore, I would say that a state government should be permitted to bar private ownership of firearms or, much more likely, restrict ownership severely.

I think that, in the case of handguns, there is a legitimate debate to be had in any given state as to whether private ownership of them should be permitted basically at all.

I tend to think all states would allow it, as it would be incredibly politically unpopular at the current time to ban them. But, I could see a lot of states over time adopting measures that might make it much more difficult to own one. And in my view that would not violate the Second Amendment.

Interesting. I somewhat agree and disagree.

I would say the Second Amendment was more of a covenant between the State (government in general) and it's subjects (citizens) derived from the Social Contract theory of Locke, Hobbs, and Rousseau rather than a covenant between between the State (federal government) and the individual states.

Second, you said that you believe the states should "store arms" to fend off the federal government if need be. Do you believe each individual state should have an independent autonomous military force capable of defending the state from both the federal government and other states? Or are we past that in today's world?

 

[lawgator1]

One key point you miss, is that at the time of the Revolution the members of the state militias for the most part had to supply their own weapons.

That's true, but in the context of 200+ years later, individuals generally don't keep handguns in case they are needed for milita use. Even if there was a militia, I don't think its armory would be filled with Saturday Night Specials.

Interesting. I somewhat agree and disagree.

I would say the Second Amendment was more of a covenant between the State (government in general) and it's subjects (citizens) derived from the Social Contract theory of Locke, Hobbs, and Rousseau rather than a covenant between between the State (federal government) and the individual states.

Second, you said that you believe the states should "store arms" to fend off the federal government if need be. Do you believe each individual state should have an independent autonomous military force capable of defending the state from both the federal government and other states? Or are we past that in today's world?

With regard to your first point, I think the general decision to declare independence had some roots in what was then modern day philosophical thinking about the role of government in the lives of individuals. No doubt about that.

But I think the Second Amendment was grounded in practical fear, not some sort of appeal to natural law. The practical reasons for a reading of the Second Amendment so as to empower a militia no longer exist. And indeed, the enormous harm caused now by private gun ownership, particularly again handguns, is sufficient in my view so as to distinguish between guns held for purposes of an actual militia versus for so-called self-protection against other citizens.

With regard to your second point, I think the Second Amendment would bar the federal government from preventing a state from doing so. But I think most states would rightly view such a project as a clear waste of time, space, and money. A few might do it to politically appease their own gun nuts. But over time I think more rational people would come to see that there just is no point to it.

Again, remember, I am just saying that the Second Amendment I don;t think bars a state from regulating the crap out of private gun ownership. I personally think they should. But they might not. Its just that if they do regulate it I don't think the Second Amendment is an issue.

 

[hog88]

LG since your views are in opposition to the constitution there is a simple fix that is constitutional. Run for office, file an admendment and change the consitution, it's that easy.

The constitution is not a living document and people need to realize that, what was written then still applies today. There is no room for interpretation, I believe the founding fathers knew things would change so they provided a mechanism for change, it's just people of your cut don't want to do the work needed to change it.

 

[hndog609]

I have seen this horrible analogy here before. It miserably fails for the simple fact that the very purpose of a handgun is to shoot a person whereas a car is extremely rarely used as a weapon.

Rat feces. What % of the millions of firearms in the US have or will ever be used to harm a person? Are you even intellectually capable of admitting how small a number that would acutally be?

Even mere practice with a handgun is in anticipation of it being used to cause serious injury or death.

If the need to shoot someone in SD arises being proficient with the firearm would be nice, no?

What percentage of the firearms in this country do you think are used in competition? .0001 %? Meh, you're right, probably not even close to that many.

Again, considering the millions of firearms what % to you think are actually going to see illicit use?

But I think the Second Amendment was grounded in practical fear, not some sort of appeal to natural law. The practical reasons for a reading of the Second Amendment so as to empower a militia no longer exist. And indeed, the enormous harm caused now by private gun ownership, particularly again handguns, is sufficient in my view so as to distinguish between guns held for purposes of an actual militia versus for so-called self-protection against other citizens.

With regard to your second point, I think the Second Amendment would bar the federal government from preventing a state from doing so. But I think most states would rightly view such a project as a clear waste of time, space, and money. A few might do it to politically appease their own gun nuts. But over time I think more rational people would come to see that there just is no point to it.

Again, remember, I am just saying that the Second Amendment I don;t think bars a state from regulating the crap out of private gun ownership. I personally think they should. But they might not. Its just that if they do regulate it I don't think the Second Amendment is an issue.

The following from Heller:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

:yes:

 

[lawgator1]

hn, you frame the issue incorrectly, and I almost think it is intentional. It is not what percentage of guns in the country are misused. Rather, it is a comparison between the number used in legitimate self defense versus the number abused so as to kill or harm innocent victims or even the owners themselves.

The numbers are so skewed in the direction of abuse that we at this point can conclude, rather easily, that the claim of the NRA and the gun businesses that we need guns to remain so easily accessible "for safety's sake" is a bald-faced lie.

Overall, handguns make us all much, much more unsafe.

And its not even close.

 

[MG1968]

hypothetical scenario for LG

bad guy breaks into the house of a gun owner while gun owner is asleep, bad buy uses gun owner's legally purchased handgun to kill gun owner while he sleeps. Bad guy doesn't know it, but he tripped a silent alarm, and when he leaves the house, he is immediately arrested and taken into custody.

using your tortured logic, the gun owner (now deceased) would have to be charged posthumously in his own murder. Does this mean the bad guy goes free? Does your bias against legal gun ownership extend so far that you'll excuse real criminal behavior?