Family Research Center Shooting

[Pinky]

After 8 pages, nobody will answer the question of whether they'd rather face an attacker with a rock or one with a gun.

Perhaps that's because it's an absurd, obviously rhetorical question.  I'd prefer to face an attacker who is armed with free hundred dollar bills, or marshmallows. 

[Pinky]

After 8 pages, nobody will answer the question of whether they'd rather face an attacker with a rock or one with a gun.

You noticed that, huh?

Although to be fair, bridgetroll did answer. ( he prefers the rock). The jury is still out for Ock, who presumably is still weighing all possible logistics.....lol

Notnow will take them both simultaneously (although that was not the question......what a Man!)

And to be really, completely fair... Stephen has artfully dodged answering any questions posed by other posters.  Perhaps Chris could even let us know what he thinks the second amendment means... and specifically the meaning of "arms".

Just because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.
But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

I really am curious what you think the term "arms" means... sounds like you think it is sabres and swords and knives... all of which are arms of course... right along with firearms.

So please... numerous others have asked... and now so am I. 

Artful indeed.  It's much like a recent UFC bout between Clay Guida and Grey Maynard, in which Guida spent all three rounds slipping and moving, feinting, blocking and occasionally counter-punching.  It was a masterful display of safe non-engagement, but in the end he lost the respect of a lot of people because that's not in the spirit of the game.  Much like the spirit of this game is supposed to be discussion and debate, not deposition. 

Of course, if the game is really just about pumping up the post count on a slow day by trolling and baiting, it's definitely a masterful performance.  But it does get a bit tiresome for those of us who are here for a genuine exchange of ideas.

[Dog Walker]

For what it's worth; the phrase "well regulated militia"  means well trained militia, one that meets and drills on a regular basis.  It doesn't have anything to do with "regulations".

Talking about gun laws in America is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a waste of time and energy.  There are more guns in the US than people.  If the manufacture and sale of firearms was stopped right now I don't think that there would be any reduction in gun violence.  Even if the law required it, people would not turn in all their guns either; me included.

We can't put the genii back in the bottle.  We are just going to have to live with what we have now.  The occasional crazy is going to shoot people or go after them with a samurai sword or gasoline bomb or drive through a crowd.

[BridgeTroll]

For what it's worth; the phrase "well regulated militia"  means well trained militia, one that meets and drills on a regular basis.  It doesn't have anything to do with "regulations".

Talking about gun laws in America is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a waste of time and energy.  There are more guns in the US than people.  If the manufacture and sale of firearms was stopped right now I don't think that there would be any reduction in gun violence.  Even if the law required it, people would not turn in all their guns either; me included.

We can't put the genii back in the bottle.  We are just going to have to live with what we have now.  The occasional crazy is going to shoot people or go after them with a samurai sword or gasoline bomb or drive through a crowd.

I am in agreement with you DW.  This is why I asked about a more "holistic and comprehensive" approach to the issue of gun violence.  The discussion always seems to center on the second amendment of the Bill of Rights.  It is number two for a reason.  The "Australian solution" that someone posted earlier will simply not work in the USA.  My suggestion to look at other causes and perhaps even freedoms for ways to curtail mass gun violence is genuine.  Any ideas?

[BridgeTroll]

If you are here for a genuine exchange of ideas, perhaps it's easier to simply exchange them rather than kvetch about the process.

In coming to my own opinions, I know that I like to hear other points of view, listen to other possibilities.

Otherwise I'm not really having a conversation, I'm listening to preaching, and I can do that at church..

You guys seem to want a fight rather than a discussion.

That said, I totally disagree with dogwalker's fait accompli philosophy.

In what way do you disagree?  What are "arms"?  What is the second amendment about?

[BridgeTroll]

If you are here for a genuine exchange of ideas, perhaps it's easier to simply exchange them rather than kvetch about the process.

In coming to my own opinions, I know that I like to hear other points of view, listen to other possibilities.

Otherwise I'm not really having a conversation, I'm listening to preaching, and I can do that at church..

You guys seem to want a fight rather than a discussion.

That said, I totally disagree with dogwalker's fait accompli philosophy.

In what way do you disagree?  What are "arms"?  What is the second amendment about?

I think that the example provided by Australia pretty much disproves the idea that guns cannot be removed mostly from a modern society.

I've already answered the question on the second amendment, bridge.  The devil seems to be in the purpose of the provision, and the definition of arms and militia.

What would you say the 'militia' is or was?

I disagree about the "Australian solution".  Seems they are not constrained by a specific "Bill of Rights".

The Australian Constitution does not include a Bill of Rights. Some delegates to the 1898 Constitutional Convention favoured a section similar to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, but the majority felt that the traditional rights and freedoms of British subjects were sufficiently guaranteed by the Parliamentary system and independent judiciary which the Constitution would create. As a result, the Australian Constitution has often been criticised for its scant protection of rights and freedoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia#Protection_of_rights

[BridgeTroll]

Bridge Troll, what are you talking about?

Do you agree or disagree that Australia was a heavily armed country that transitioned to a country where only certain types of guns (hunting) were legal?

Australia isnt magic, they do not have superior ability to administer a program.

They were a gun culture, and now they arent.

I disagree with DogWalker that the United States could not do a similar thing.

It would take a few decades to ferret out the truly dangerous weapons of mass destruction, but it could be done.

Why I am talking about that pesky second amendment of the Bill of Rights.  You know... just after the first and before the third.  It is pretty important... or at least the founders thought so.  Australia did not have such an impediment to the legislation you seek.  The confiscation, buyback, "voluntary" surrender of firearms to the government is about as likely as the confiscation, buyback, and voluntary surrender of newspapers, magazines, and other weapons of mass dissemination to the government.

[BridgeTroll]

So ....Do you agree or disagree that Australia was a heavily armed country that transitioned to a country where only certain types of guns (hunting) were legal?

"Heavily" might not be the correct word but clearly they enacted the laws...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Current Australian firearm laws

State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.

[edit] Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibers are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits. Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).

Australia has very tight restrictions on items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as the UK. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to license. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are extremely restricted in Australia to a few government bodies.[3]

[BridgeTroll]

So, Yes.  You agree that Australia transitioned.

I have said that more than once.  The difference between the two countries is our constitutions.  Ours has a Bill of Rights... one of which is the right to keep and bear arms.  Australia had no such impediment.

[Dog Walker]

There is another difference.  Australia was never a heavily armed country and didn't have a gun culture like this country.  They also never had militias, but had the standing British army to protect them.  They never revolted against their own government.  They never had a civil war.

Different history makes different culture.  My Australian friends were always mystified by American's attitudes towards firearms.  Lovely country, lovely people, BTW.

[NotNow]

And besides admit it, you've already learned a few things that you midgut have known but not thought about.  For example, most people believe Notnow's ridiculous assumption that guns are specifically mentioned in the us constitution, but they aren't.

You want to know what else is not mentioned?

Police.

Now why would This have a bearing on the second amendment?

Your lack of familiarity with both the Constitution, its authors, and their meaning stands on its own. 

"Police" is just another StephenDare! diversion.

Just another circular argument ending in StephenDare! claiming "I haven't made up my mind" while rolling out little word games and platitudes for his liberal argument for pages on end.  I call him a "schill" because that is exactly what he is.  He simply puts out the party line without any real discussion.  "I used to be a Reagan Republican", "I'm a fiscal conservative", and " Up until this year, I believed in the private possession of guns" are all just another method to schill.  I have been arguing with Dare! for at least eight years and I have never, ever heard him support anything republican, fiscally conservative, or the private possession of guns.  In fact, just the opposite.  When he is "mistaken", he will ignore it and change the subject.  When he is proven factually wrong he will do the same.  There is no exchange of information, there is only the furthering of the talking points and the party line. 

If one really wants to discuss the meaning of "arms" as stated in the Bill of Rights that meaning is readily available from not only legal scholars and the US Supreme Court, but from the men who wrote the actual document.  Their opinion of "interpreting" the document is also easily found.  Just a few examples:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way that the Contitutiondesignates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be an instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  - George Washington

"The present Constitution is the standard by which we are to cling.  Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes- rejecting all changes but for the channel itself provides for amendments." - Alexander Hamilton

" The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered ... according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption - a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated it - On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it. conform to the probable one in which it was passed. ...Our particular security of a written Constitution.  Let us not make it blank paper by construction." - Thomas Jefferson

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.  In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.  And if that is not the guide on expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers." - James Madison

Plain, common sense writing by plain, common sense men.  How have we made it so complicated?  How have we screwed up such an honorable, sensible plan of governance?  By allowing our politicians to play the same kinds of games you see on this very thread. 

I'll say it again.  Read the Constitution.  Read the Bill of Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (an explanation of the meaning of the Constitution by its authors).   Then, when you hear the painful twists and wordplay of those that would alter the simple meaning of the Constitutions authors, you can easily challenge their ignorance or dishonorable intent.   The last resort of such persons is also the same as what you see here.  They will attack the founding fathers, "slave owning white guys" and other slurs.  Just as they will personally attack anyone who challenges their intent with factual information. 

"When a law can be construed to mean what government wants, then we no longer live under the rule of law". - NotNow

[NotNow]

George Mason's "Virginia Declaration of Rights" in 1776 heavily influenced the Bill of Rights:

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the Representatives of the good people of VIRGINIA, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of Government.
I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.

V. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

VII That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.

IX That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

X That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

XI That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

XIV That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason

[ChriswUfGator]

The founders were what you'd describe as libertarian, at least for themselves I guess, they certainly didn't apply the philosophy to the slaves they owned, or to women, etc., but the point is they were responding to concerns over British conscription and were trying to avoid having a large standing army. The militia was supposed to provide national defense, that could be called into a regular army in times of war. The the war of 1812 came, and you had a bunch of farmers with substandard weapons being sent against the worst rent-a-soldiers the British could hire and Canadians, and still managing to lose. Once the British were cleared of their other engagements and were able to start shipping over regulars, we quickly threw in the towel on that and got serious about a professional military.

But the original framework favors a small permanent standing army, what they were going for was an as-needed type thing. Article I ss. 8 grants the authority to raise and maintain an army, but congress is limited to funding it for 2 years at a time, presumably the intent was to raise an army in wartime and go back to basics when it was over. It just didn't work out very well in practice during 1812-1814, and since then we've always had a relatively sizeable professional military. But the concept survives to this day with the national guard.

But if what you're asking is the purpose, it was a defense force, the point of the militia wasn't to fight our own government. The original intent there was a minimalist military except in wartime, so you wanted everybody to have firearms when they were called up, and whatever number of them wound up being serviceable would be some number the government wouldn't have to furnish. The founders would probably have viewed disarming the populace as leaving the country susceptible to invasion. Obviously things have changed, today you can sit in a bunker and push buttons, or send in tanks, a bunch of farmers with muskets aren't in the picture any longer and haven't been since 1812, and the national guard furnishes government-supplied weapons.

I think whole debate has been falsely painted as black and white, and despite the ragging on him, not by Stephen. Everyone already acknowledges there are certain 'arms' I'm not allowed to have (for obvious reasons). I can't have a personal nuclear missile, a personal battleship, personal f/18's, unless they are disarmed. Those are obviously 'arms.' The federal law against possessing that type of weaponry was already quoted. Stephen's point is that technology has developed far beyond what the founders envisioned, and there's this debate going on where you have one faction arguing that 'arms' is a catch-all. It's not. Or else why can't I have a personal nuclear bomb? That's not arms? Stephen's just pointing out that this applies to assault weapons, 250 years ago nobody envisioned something that could mow down a theater full of people in seconds, why is that constitutionally protected if everyone has no problem seeing the logic in not letting me have personal warplanes or missiles? It's just a matter of where you draw the line really.

[BridgeTroll]

The federal law against possessing that type of weaponry was already quoted. Stephen's point is that technology has developed far beyond what the founders envisioned, and there's this debate going on where you have one faction arguing that 'arms' is a catch-all. It's not. Or else why can't I have a personal nuclear bomb? That's not arms? Stephen's just pointing out that this applies to assault weapons, 250 years ago nobody envisioned something that could mow down a theater full of people in seconds, why is that constitutionally protected if everyone has no problem seeing the logic in not letting me have personal warplanes or missiles? It's just a matter of where you draw the line really.

While I am not sure I agree with the first 3 paragraphs... I can certainly find common ground with your last paragraph.  Most of us understand that "arms" is not a catch all.  Most of us understand the limits on ownership nuclear weapons, artillery, hand grenades, etc.

The problem (at least to me) is that we all understand what a nuclear weapon, artillery, hand grenades are.  If the definition of an "assault weapon" is that it is an automatic weapon (1 trigger pull equals multiple bullets) that is one thing.  If an "assault weapons" definition has mysteriously expanded to be a fearsome looking semi-automatic weapon (1 trigger pull equals 1 bullet) that is an entirely different animal.

My shotgun is semi automatic.  Assault weapon?  Most sidearms are semi automatic.  Assault weapon?

You mention that the debate seems to be black and white.  I do not agree... nor do most.  Most agree with many of the restrictions already in place... and could possibly agree to more restrictions under certain circumstances.

When I look at the Australian solution I see an overly restrictive (in the extreme) solution that may work for Australia but is not practical in this country... mainly due to the second amendment... and our history.

For the debate to move beyond the emotional reflex of "we gotta do someting"... we need to define terms and goals.  Right now the debate seems to be about banning any type of weapon that can "kill lots of people".  Unhappily this broad definition applies to most personal weapons.

[acme54321]

BT, I think it's a classic case of form over function.  People see these "scary" semi-auto rifles and have a knee jerk reaction.  Most people do not understand how the weapon functions, and they probably don't care.  It looks like the gun Rambo was carrying so it must be bad.   You never hear any mention of the fact that the gun functions EXACTLY like any other semi-automatic weapon.  Just wait until there's another DC sniper, hunting rifles will be the next target.