Gun control supporters - Local gun control

[John Dibble]

See the question. I don't support gun control of course, but I'll be giving my opinion on this after a few people have given their answers and reasons.

[jokerman]

I'm vehemently opposed to most forms of gun control at the federal and state level but I think some forms of local gun control in urban areas can be effective.

[nini2287]

I believe all gun control should be local-not national.

[MODU]

The federal government sets the guidelines on gun control, but let's the states determine how strict they wish to be in local laws.

[KillerPollo]

I believe all gun control should be local-not national.

True.

[MissCatholic]

Gun contorl should lie with the individual first then the local authorities but no higher.

[afleitch]

I have to agree with those who say it is a local or state not a national issue. Some states may ban guns all together if they wish to, while others will have cities that allow them and cities that don't. Fairs fair.

[John Dibble]

Ok, as promised I'll give my opinion on this - I think localized gun control is almost totally ineffective, even more so than enacted at a federal or state level. If a city enacts a gun control measure, it only has the means of enforcing it within it's borders. In other words, someone can easily get around the measure by going into the next city/county that does not have the same measure applied. This really does just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to attain guns while not at all stopping the criminals.

[MaC]

Ok, as promised I'll give my opinion on this - I think localized gun control is almost totally ineffective, even more so than enacted at a federal or state level. If a city enacts a gun control measure, it only has the means of enforcing it within it's borders. In other words, someone can easily get around the measure by going into the next city/county that does not have the same measure applied. This really does just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to attain guns while not at all stopping the criminals.

Yes, but why state the obvious?

[John Dibble]

Ok, as promised I'll give my opinion on this - I think localized gun control is almost totally ineffective, even more so than enacted at a federal or state level. If a city enacts a gun control measure, it only has the means of enforcing it within it's borders. In other words, someone can easily get around the measure by going into the next city/county that does not have the same measure applied. This really does just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to attain guns while not at all stopping the criminals.

Yes, but why state the obvious?

I wanted to know what other's opinions were on the subject and see if they were anything like mine. It might seem obvious to you and me, but it might not be so obvious to others.

[Hatman 🍁]

Gun control on any level is good, which is why I voted yes. However, it would work best on an international scale if it were possible.

[The Constitarian]

    I am against all gun control.  The second ammendment not only was made to prevent the national government from passing gun control but the constitution also says that if a state passes a law that contradicts the constitution that law is void.

[MaC]

Gun control on any level is good, which is why I voted yes. However, it would work best on an international scale if it were possible.

were you born yesterday or something?

I'm walking down the streets in the middle of night, a man points a gun at me and tells me to give him all the money in my wallet.  Of course in my city I cannot have a gun.  How does he have a gun?  He's a f'ucking criminal that doesn't obey the law.  So because gun control is such a great idea I'm out all my money.

[Bono]

Gun control on any level is good, which is why I voted yes. However, it would work best on an international scale if it were possible.

That's really sick, but at least youre honest in your support of one world government.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm opposed on all levels. 

Lock and load.

[MODU]

    I am against all gun control.  The second ammendment not only was made to prevent the national government from passing gun control but the constitution also says that if a state passes a law that contradicts the constitution that law is void.

Sorry, but that's wrong.

The Second Amendment:  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.

I'm tired of people misreading the Second Amendment.  The Amendment refers to allowing people to own guns to protect the nation since the first citizens of the new nation were to form a militia in the case of war.  Back when the Constitution was drafted, the standing Army of the US was very small and built of very few professional soldiers.  In order to meet the manpower demand to protect the nation, yet at the same time not bankrupt the poor young country, the nation needed militias. 

Additionally, the Amendment does not say that the government has no right to put limits on the types of weapons a citizen can possess.  It says the government cannot deny you the right to own a weapon, since, referencing above, the government needed armed citizens to protect the new nation. 

So, if the government says "ok, you can't own fully automatic weapons," your Second Amendment right is not being infringed upon, since you can still own all other non-banned weapons.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gun control on any level is good, which is why I voted yes. However, it would work best on an international scale if it were possible.

were you born yesterday or something?

I'm walking down the streets in the middle of night, a man points a gun at me and tells me to give him all the money in my wallet.  Of course in my city I cannot have a gun.  How does he have a gun?  He's a f'ucking criminal that doesn't obey the law.  So because gun control is such a great idea I'm out all my money.

You've got to understand that in Earl's ideal state, (picture North Korea) we will all be so poor that that none of us will have any money to steal.

What Earl didn't count on is that in totalitarian socities like North Korea, a criminal might simply choose to use the firearm to make you his next meal.

[Bono]

    I am against all gun control.  The second ammendment not only was made to prevent the national government from passing gun control but the constitution also says that if a state passes a law that contradicts the constitution that law is void.

Sorry, but that's wrong.

The Second Amendment:  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.

I'm tired of people misreading the Second Amendment.  The Amendment refers to allowing people to own guns to protect the nation since the first citizens of the new nation were to form a militia in the case of war.  Back when the Constitution was drafted, the standing Army of the US was very small and built of very few professional soldiers.  In order to meet the manpower demand to protect the nation, yet at the same time not bankrupt the poor young country, the nation needed militias. 

Additionally, the Amendment does not say that the government has no right to put limits on the types of weapons a citizen can possess.  It says the government cannot deny you the right to own a weapon, since, referencing above, the government needed armed citizens to protect the new nation. 

So, if the government says "ok, you can't own fully automatic weapons," your Second Amendment right is not being infringed upon, since you can still own all other non-banned weapons.

If that "interpretation" was true, the only weapon the government couldn't make illegal would be auto weapons.

[MODU]

If that "interpretation" was true, the only weapon the government couldn't make illegal would be auto weapons.

I'd much rather have a sniper rifle.  Much more effective, less likely to be killed (since auto weapons require closer combat and are less accurate), and decreases your chance of being noticed.

But no, the fact that we have a large standing army plus state guard units, the need for the militia is gone.  That's why people need to do the research into why these things were included originally, and not to put a 21st Century bias upon them.  The Amendment clearly deals with national defense (at that time, in the form of militias).  It does not deal with sport hunters, home self defense, or drug dealers.

[John Dibble]

If that "interpretation" was true, the only weapon the government couldn't make illegal would be auto weapons.

I'd much rather have a sniper rifle.  Much more effective, less likely to be killed (since auto weapons require closer combat and are less accurate), and decreases your chance of being noticed.

But no, the fact that we have a large standing army plus state guard units, the need for the militia is gone.  That's why people need to do the research into why these things were included originally, and not to put a 21st Century bias upon them.  The Amendment clearly deals with national defense (at that time, in the form of militias).  It does not deal with sport hunters, home self defense, or drug dealers.

HOWEVER, the amendment was also meant as a protection against the government - that is, when a government becomes oppressive enough to warrant revolution, the founders wished the people to have the means of overthrowing that government.

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29

- Alexander Hamilton

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

As to not being for self/home defense, they did have that issue at the time:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776

Also, the people, or at least men of a certain age, are still considered the militia by law.

Title 10, United States Code, Section 311:
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males of at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 year of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b)
The classes of the militia are -
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Bono]

If that "interpretation" was true, the only weapon the government couldn't make illegal would be auto weapons.

I'd much rather have a sniper rifle.  Much more effective, less likely to be killed (since auto weapons require closer combat and are less accurate), and decreases your chance of being noticed.

But no, the fact that we have a large standing army plus state guard units, the need for the militia is gone.  That's why people need to do the research into why these things were included originally, and not to put a 21st Century bias upon them.  The Amendment clearly deals with national defense (at that time, in the form of militias).  It does not deal with sport hunters, home self defense, or drug dealers.

Sniper rifles are not effective on a large scale.

And as for the rest of your argument, if you read the US code, Title 10 section 311 paragraph (a), you'll find out that "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

[MODU]

Yes Dibble, that is correct, which is why people still have the right to possess weapons today.  Yet, that still doesn't show where it is unconstitutional for the government to limit the types of weapons people can own, which is the argument here. 

And Yes Bono, the organized militia was replaced by the National Guard.  The unorganized militia can currently be found in WVA hunting whatever walks around on 4 legs.

[Bono]

Yes Dibble, that is correct, which is why people still have the right to possess weapons today.  Yet, that still doesn't show where it is unconstitutional for the government to limit the types of weapons people can own, which is the argument here. 

And Yes Bono, the organized militia was replaced by the National Guard.  The unorganized militia can currently be found in WVA hunting whatever walks around on 4 legs.

The second ammendment doesn't specify the militia to which it refers.

[MODU]

Yes Dibble, that is correct, which is why people still have the right to possess weapons today.  Yet, that still doesn't show where it is unconstitutional for the government to limit the types of weapons people can own, which is the argument here. 

And Yes Bono, the organized militia was replaced by the National Guard.  The unorganized militia can currently be found in WVA hunting whatever walks around on 4 legs.

The second ammendment doesn't specify the militia to which it refers.

The Amendments rarely specify anything (which is the great thing about them).  However, the US Code you provided does:

(b) The classes of the militia are -
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

So, again, the Amendment does not say that the government cannot limit which kinds of weapons you own.

[Bono]

Yes Dibble, that is correct, which is why people still have the right to possess weapons today.  Yet, that still doesn't show where it is unconstitutional for the government to limit the types of weapons people can own, which is the argument here. 

And Yes Bono, the organized militia was replaced by the National Guard.  The unorganized militia can currently be found in WVA hunting whatever walks around on 4 legs.

The second ammendment doesn't specify the militia to which it refers.

The Amendments rarely specify anything (which is the great thing about them).  However, the US Code you provided does:

(b) The classes of the militia are -
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

So, again, the Amendment does not say that the government cannot limit which kinds of weapons you own.

if that interpretation was correct, which for the sake of argument I'm conceding it is, it would stil make illegal to ban guns used by the organized militia.