200 years out of date!!!

[GAHD]

Maby it should be manditory for everyone to carry a semi-auto with an 8-round mag; then the playing feild is atleast somewhat level.

[Turtle]

Like C1ay, I have used & owned guns since I was a child; as a boy I earned a 5th degree Sharpshooter certification from an NRA sponsored shooting program. While I do see the appeal of shooting, as well as the value in owning & using hunting firearms, we have in the US too wide an arena in regards to types of firearms.

There is little if any legitimate use of handguns in hunting, and in fact the only handgun I know of that meets the regs for hunting off the shelf is the .44 auto-mag. (the standard is so many foot/pounds of energy at a given distance). Handguns have been, and remain, primarily for use against people. In the recent murders at Virginia Tech, the murderer had purchased magazines for the 9mm handgun that hold 30 rounds, twice that of many standard magazines. In my opinion there is no legitimate argument for allowing the availability of such a setup.

Likewise, no hunter needs an assault rifle, nor do ordinary citizens. The target shooting, collecting, and hobby arguments hold no sway with me. While I don't see any serious move to outlaw such firearms, I would not be opposed to it, nor some restrictions on buying & selling ammunition. There is no legitimate use of a hollow point pistol round other than killing people, for example.

As I say, thinking we can outlaw and then collect & eliminate the firearms in the US is a pie-in-the-sky idealistic dream under the current conditions. If we don't start baking it now however, no one is getting dessert.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by simay77

What Is Everyones Opinion On Gun Laws???

I’m for them, and for laws in general, good laws in particular, and laws that apply to the creation of laws expecially.

In the US, gun laws are specifically subject to a specific section of its supreme legal code, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

Compared to other sections of the Constitution, the Second Amendment is remarkable in that it is one of the few that not only restricts the ability of the federal and the various state legislatures from enacting a class of laws, but explains the reason for its inclusion (albeit an ambiguous and syntactically strained one).

So, in the various states of the US, banning gun ownership is clearly prohibited by the nation’s highest law. Various courts have set a precedent that the Second Amendment does not prohibit the states from passing laws managing gun ownership – for example, requiring background checks, prohibiting gun ownership by felons, and banning types of weapons and accessories for which it’s deemed the threat outweighs the legitimate benefit, such as sawed-off shotguns, fully automatic rifles and large magazines.

This does not mean that guns cannot be absolutely banned in the US, only that before the various states do so, an amendment repealing the Second Amendment must be passed by a two thirds majority by both houses of Congress, and ratified by the legislatures of two thirds of the states. After and only after this is done will the various state (or possibly local) legislatures be free, but not required, to pass gun ban laws. It’s to be expected that if the Second Amendment were repealed, some but not all states would outright ban gun ownership, making for the possibility of people strongly in favor or opposed to guns to “vote with their feet” by choosing to live in states where the laws match their opinions.

IMHO it’s critical for the government of the US (and other nations) to follow their own laws. Guns and other legally protected sources of danger may threaten and lead to the untimely death of a small proportion of society, but the abandonment of the rule of law by government threatens the whole society, risking the untimely death of a vastly larger portion of it.

[simay77]

''False. I've been a gun owner and user since I was a teenager, 30+ years ago, and I've never murdered anybody with one. I've enjoyed hundreds and hundreds of hours of target practice and skeet shooting for sport. I've enjoyed hundreds of hours of hunting and many great meals from my guns. There are millions more like me. Why should we be punished because of the occasional psycho that abuses the tool?''

I'm sorry mate, but there is no way you can classify a gun - any kind of gun - (unless you're talking about a nail gun) as a 'tool'. Unless you mean to finish that with 'tool of death'. A gun is NOT a tool. It is a weapon. An instrument of death. Plain and simple. They fire projectiles designed for maximising injury to human bodies. Seriously, they are not hammers or spanners or wrenches. WEAPONS.
And your argument that just because YOU haven't killed anyone wtih YOUR guns doesn't automatically imply that they should be free for people to purchase. I am usually against banning anything (alcohol/marijuana), but when you're talking about a 'tool'/weapon that is made to kill people (this is still the case weather you have used it for this purpose or not) I strongly disagree.
I don't want to punish you or your kind, but surely the greater good is more important than your hours and hours of fun on a shooting range?

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Why should we be punished because of the occasional psycho that abuses the tool?

Over here, guns are highly regulated, yet many people legally enjoy shooting for sport, including hunting. Also it doesn't seem to make us so tremendously prone to getting shot by criminals; personally I don't think the balance is in favour of letting people freely keep guns.

Originally Posted by CraigD

Compared to other sections of the Constitution, the Second Amendment is remarkable in that it is one of the few that not only restricts the ability of the federal and the various state legislatures from enacting a class of laws, but explains the reason for its inclusion (albeit an ambiguous and syntactically strained one).

I don't find it syntactically strained, only a non-sequitur. During my military service I shot with semi and fully automatic guns and threw a few grenades, but I sure can't legally buy them and carry them around.

[freeztar]

I hold the Second Ammendment dear!
I don't own a gun and never have (probably never will), but I don't think overstepping the constitution is a good idea. I agree that things such as 30 round clips should not be in circulation and that background checks (perhaps more stringent ones) are necessary.
Banning does not stop use and in some cases can actually increase it. Pot smoking is alive and well here in the US even though it has been banned for 70 years or so.
I don't know the statistics (I'll try to find something) but I would be willing to bet that most fatal crimes involving guns were firearms off the black market.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by simay77

Which Have Been Manufactured For One Reason And One Reason Only - To Kill.

Originally Posted by C1ay

False. I've been a gun owner and user since I was a teenager, 30+ years ago, and I've never murdered anybody with one. I've enjoyed hundreds and hundreds of hours of target practice and skeet shooting for sport. I've enjoyed hundreds of hours of hunting and many great meals from my guns. There are millions more like me. Why should we be punished because of the occasional psycho that abuses the tool?

Originally Posted by simay77

I'm sorry mate, but there is no way you can classify a gun - any kind of gun - (unless you're talking about a nail gun) as a 'tool'. Unless you mean to finish that with 'tool of death'. A gun is NOT a tool. It is a weapon. An instrument of death. Plain and simple. They fire projectiles designed for maximising injury to human bodies. Seriously, they are not hammers or spanners or wrenches. WEAPONS.

I think both sides of this debate raise some correct, and some incorrect, points:

• Guns and ammunition are designed only to kill – true. Although some specialized exceptions exist (ie: a shotgun loaded with rock salt or a beanbag; a tranquilizer dart gun; an artillery piece used to scatter leaflets over a target; etc.) most guns are designed to kill something. Although practically every gun is capable of killing a human being, most are better suited to killing smaller animals. That many people have fired thousands of rounds only at targets, using weapons poorly suited to anything but shooting at targets, and will never kill an animal or human being with a gun, does not change the fact that by far the majority of guns manufactured are designed to kill some sort of living thing.
  
• Guns are not tools – false. In the general sense in which its most commonly used by present-day internet users, a tool is anything that increases the amount of a particular kind of task that a person (or, more generally, any person-like thing) can do. A hammer is a tool. A computer is a tool. A gun increases the amount of killing that a person can do, so is also a tool.
  
  If you consider dictionaries valid prescriptions of word meaning, note that one of the definitions listed by the wordseek (Hypography’s affiliated dictionary service) entry for “tool” is “a weapon”.

Originally Posted by Turtle

There is little if any legitimate use of handguns in hunting, and in fact the only handgun I know of that meets the regs for hunting off the shelf is the .44 auto-mag. (the standard is so many foot/pounds of energy at a given distance). Handguns have been, and remain, primarily for use against people. In the recent murders at Virginia Tech, the murderer had purchased magazines for the 9mm handgun that hold 30 rounds, twice that of many standard magazines. In my opinion there is no legitimate argument for allowing the availability of such a setup.

Turtle raises the compelling point, I think, that handguns (pistols) and handgun ammunition, with only a few exceptions, are designed exclusively for killing human beings. Compared to long guns (using the term in its more broad meaning that includes rifles and shotguns of ordinary length), handguns perform poorly at this task, but make up for it by being easily carried, so that they are available immediately when needed. This ease of concealment and access is also detrimental, as it enhances the effectiveness of crimes such as robbery, or the recent Virginia Tech massacre

US law, however, preserves the right of civilians to legally kill people under certain circumstances, such as when attacked in their homes or places of business. Although some argue that longguns could serve this legitimate use equally well (which I believe to be the case in a home), others argue that only handguns can provide people with the necessary quick access to best defend themselves as allowed by law. While I don’t believe the latter argument is supported by sound scientific data, it does, at present, have the support of our laws.

Given the legal precedent determined by various courts, banning all handguns would not, I believe, violate the Second Ammendment. Some states, such as Massachusetts, have already have done so, practically if not in technical legal fact.

PS to simay77: To quote previous posts, click on the quote button, or surround the quoted text with [quote] tags. You may edit the text within the quote tags to reduce its length. The resulting post is easier to read, and if correctly specified, include a pretty link to the quoted post.

[Zythryn]

I'm all for strict gun 'control'.
However, we need to enforce the laws now on the books. Then we need to close the loopholes in the existing laws.
As for the 2nd amendment, it is woefully out of date and needs to be clarified. Does a 'well regulated malitia' mean that individual citizens can purchase any weapon? The NRA, as I recall, argued against the banning of semi-automatic weapons on this platform. How about grenades? Nukes?
Now, most everyone, I would hope, would say it would be silly to suggest citizens be able to purchase and own nukes. So, where is the line drawn?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

I'm all for strict gun 'control'.
However, we need to enforce the laws now on the books. Then we need to close the loopholes in the existing laws.
As for the 2nd amendment, it is woefully out of date and needs to be clarified. Does a 'well regulated malitia' mean that individual citizens can purchase any weapon? The NRA, as I recall, argued against the banning of semi-automatic weapons on this platform. How about grenades? Nukes?
Now, most everyone, I would hope, would say it would be silly to suggest citizens be able to purchase and own nukes. So, where is the line drawn?

I get the feeling the NRA is largely concerned about getting onto just the slippery-slope you outline. However, the general current line is drawn to prohibit grenades and fully-automatic weapons from ownership by the general public. Even that has exceptions, as the government does license people to own & use them in certain circumstances.

I have watched a shooting expert discharge 6 rounds from a revolver faster than he could with a semi-auto .45, so in the case of pistols it is more a matter of how many shots one can discharge before reloading as opposed to how fast they discharge them.

I think the nuke argument is disengenuous ; afterall, no one is proposing to hunt Dear with them. As technology advances in the area of 'arms', then we must redraw the line at regular intervals. The price of Freedom is constant vigilence. - Tom Jefferson

Post Script: Black-powder arms, including revolvers and long-guns are not classified as 'firearms' under US Federal law and so are not subject to 'firearms' laws. Even convicted felons are not prohibited from buying or owning them. People also make, buy, and target-fire black-powder canon with little legal restriction.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

As for the 2nd amendment, it is woefully out of date and needs to be clarified. Does a 'well regulated malitia' mean that individual citizens can purchase any weapon? The NRA, as I recall, argued against the banning of semi-automatic weapons on this platform. How about grenades? Nukes?
Now, most everyone, I would hope, would say it would be silly to suggest citizens be able to purchase and own nukes. So, where is the line drawn?

For students of the Constitution and People in general, this is a very interesting question, which has been argued to many disparate conclusions by many well-educated experts.

To answer it, one must somehow determine how it was presumed or intended that the keeping and bearing of arms (recall that, in 18th century terms, this was understood to include swords, spears, shield, bows and body armor, not just guns) would assure the security of a free State.

One interpretation, the one that perhaps survives best to the present, is that if Americans routinely used firearms to hunt, they would be “pre-trained” in time of war.

Another is that the militia may assure the security of the State without ever being enlisted in any organized military. Recall that, in the 18th century, Native Americans and colonists of nations other than England were considered a substantial thread to domestic security, and a state of low-intensity war between American settlers and these people largely sanctioned by the state and federal governments. Obviously, an armed militia is better equipped than an unarmed one for this. A lawful, well armed militia may also reduce the number of police that governments need employ, as it can arrest and bring criminals before courts unassisted.

The keeping of arms by the militia can be viewed as a cost-saving measure. For early American armies, procuring enough weapons for enlistees was a significant challenge, so ones who brought their own arms were a boon. Allowing the militia to keep their arms could also reduced the post-war friction resulting from attempts to get weapons back from soldiers when they were discharged, and provide an incentive to enlistment in the form of an advertised “rifle you can keep”.

There is a “stealth message” in the Second Amendment, also, in the wording “a well regulated militia”. Having ratified a Bill of Rights containing those words, implies that the passing of laws to regulate militias and arms is a power of the states. Many present day gun ownership advocates strongly object to laws intended for this purpose, such as registries of guns and their owners.

Arguably the most controversial interpretation of the Second Amendment is that its justification is not mentioned in its wording, but is that a well-armed body civil is a safeguard against government corruption, because it can quickly rise in rebellion against such governments. As other parts of the constitution enumerate rebellion as an activity for which individuals may be deprived of numerous guaranteed rights and immunities, interpreting the Second Amendment as an occult reference to a right to rebel lends the Constitution a rather schismed character.

IMHO, none of these arguments are relevant to the current US civil or military situation. Whether the Second Amendment will be repealed for this or any other reason is difficult to predict. Precedent suggests not: the only Amendment every repealed is the Eighteenth prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. No Constitution freedom has ever been repealed by an Amendment.