Senseless Gun Deaths thread.

[RINO Tom]

a semantics argument AND a strawman about race, you win the thread brother!

Whoosh!

Put me in the Whoosh™ Category, lol ... such a random comment for this thread.  It reads like it should be in the "Should felons be allowed to vote while in prision?" discussion, where it would at least be a relevant if misguided and simplified take.

It was a direct response to those in here saying that gun laws are pointless because CrImInAlS will always break laws because it is their nature. This makes no sense, especially because "criminals" is defined only after the fact.

I mean, it's not quite the same as not making murder or burglary illegal because you doubt you can stop "CrImInAlS," because there is no law-abiding way to do those things, and you do not have a right to do those things.  Excessive gun control (emphasis on excessive) DOES infringe on someone's right to, say, hunt or keep a gun at home in case of a home intruder.  You can scoff at either of those things, but they are simply people's rights to exercise if they choose to.  So, I see it as slightly different to oppose excessive gun control and emphasize your doubt that it will really stop criminals, because it is without doubt that it will impact people's abilities to exercise their Second Amendment right.  Expressing doubt at how effective making murder illegal would be at stopping murders is, indeed, stupid due to the fact that no one has a right to murder anyone in the first place.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Black guns matter!

[Sestak]

Leftists: Too many people on the planet; get abortions and don't breed.

Also Leftists: Too many people are dying by guns BAN THEM.

There is a nothing inconsistent between wanting to decrease the earth's surplus population and wanting to allow the people already on it to live pain-free existences. Those are the same goal since less competition for finite resources and less damage to the earth will cause living standards to decline less precipitously.

Next you'll tell me that it is ideologically inconsistent to support healthcare because we want the population to fall. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to get to live after their working years.

Pain-free like those aborted fetuses and incels right? LOL

So “incels are the real victims” is now a standard talking point of the Atlas right. Wonderful.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Leftists: Too many people on the planet; get abortions and don't breed.

Also Leftists: Too many people are dying by guns BAN THEM.

There is a nothing inconsistent between wanting to decrease the earth's surplus population and wanting to allow the people already on it to live pain-free existences. Those are the same goal since less competition for finite resources and less damage to the earth will cause living standards to decline less precipitously.

Next you'll tell me that it is ideologically inconsistent to support healthcare because we want the population to fall. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to get to live after their working years.

Pain-free like those aborted fetuses and incels right? LOL

So “incels are the real victims” is now a standard talking point of the Atlas right. Wonderful.

Well the left is all protecting people's poor wittle feewings. So if the incels are damaged emotionally, so get them a safe space with some therapeutic thots

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Sensible gun laws would save lives in the United States. Unfortunately, until reform is enacted, innocent Americans will continue to die. The loss of these people is heartbreaking, but often doesn't get much coverage. I'll be posting the stories I hear about in this thread because their lives matter.

Seven-year-old girl dies after being shot in the head

Non-fatal injuries:
Man allegedly shot 2-year-old son in face with shotgun during argument with child's mom
2 children shot in road rage incident involving father

Okay, I'm listening ... go on ... state a case...

If nothing else, mandatory trigger locks for all non-police/military firearms would probably help reduce the number of deaths caused by kids playing with a parent’s poorly-stored fire arm.

[dead0man]

Sensible gun laws would save lives in the United States. Unfortunately, until reform is enacted, innocent Americans will continue to die. The loss of these people is heartbreaking, but often doesn't get much coverage. I'll be posting the stories I hear about in this thread because their lives matter.

Seven-year-old girl dies after being shot in the head

Non-fatal injuries:
Man allegedly shot 2-year-old son in face with shotgun during argument with child's mom
2 children shot in road rage incident involving father

Okay, I'm listening ... go on ... state a case...

If nothing else, mandatory trigger locks for all non-police/military firearms would probably help reduce the number of deaths caused by kids playing with a parent’s poorly-stored fire arm.

indeed, it could save dozens a year.  If we reduced the speed limit to 30mph tens of thousands of lives will be saved a year (including several thousand children).  If we banned private swimming pools we could save several hundred a year.  If the state locked up every non-custodial parent that had a great than 25% chance of doing something bad to the kid(s) (ya know, the way most kids that get hurt by adults are hurt by adults) we could save a few more dozen kids.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Sensible gun laws would save lives in the United States. Unfortunately, until reform is enacted, innocent Americans will continue to die. The loss of these people is heartbreaking, but often doesn't get much coverage. I'll be posting the stories I hear about in this thread because their lives matter.

Seven-year-old girl dies after being shot in the head

Non-fatal injuries:
Man allegedly shot 2-year-old son in face with shotgun during argument with child's mom
2 children shot in road rage incident involving father

Okay, I'm listening ... go on ... state a case...

If nothing else, mandatory trigger locks for all non-police/military firearms would probably help reduce the number of deaths caused by kids playing with a parent’s poorly-stored fire arm.

indeed, it could save dozens a year.  If we reduced the speed limit to 30mph tens of thousands of lives will be saved a year (including several thousand children).  If we banned private swimming pools we could save several hundred a year.  If the state locked up every non-custodial parent that had a great than 25% chance of doing something bad to the kid(s) (ya know, the way most kids that get hurt by adults are hurt by adults) we could save a few more dozen kids.

[Koharu]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate. 

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

[T'Chenka]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

[SteveRogers]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The Constitution states that you have right to bear arms. It does not say that the government has the right to determine what kind of arms you can bear. It simply says "right to bear arms". This means bear any arms of any kind and any amount.

So what type of arms does your interpretation of that right stop at? Full automatic weapons? Grenade launchers? Shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles? Why or why not?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

Yes, well, I am an American citizen and that's only part of the text of the Second Amendment says.  Also the idea that the second amendment creates some sort of sacrosanct individual Constitutional right to own firearms for a private purpose free of government regulation was essentially the relatively recent invention of five rogue activist judges.  Even the NRA's lawyers refused to participate in the case that absurd precedent comes from because the NRA thought it was such a ridiculous position that they'd be laughed out of court.  Ironically, if you believe in originalism (certainly the original meaning school of thought) for the purposes of judicial interpretation then it's pretty open-and-shut that the second does not create any sort of individual right to own guns for a private purpose.  

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

Yes, well, I am an American citizen and that's only part of the text of the Second Amendment says.  Also the idea that the second amendment creates some sort of sacrosanct individual Constitutional right to own firearms for a private purpose free of government regulation was essentially the relatively recent invention of five rogue activist judges.  Even the NRA's lawyers refused to participate in the case that absurd precedent comes from because the NRA thought it was such a ridiculous position that they'd be laughed out of court.  Ironically, if you believe in originalism (certainly the original meaning school of thought) for the purposes of judicial interpretation then it's pretty open-and-shut that the second does not create any sort of individual right to own guns for a private purpose.  

Well, I am an originalist, in that I certainly believe that the intent of the Framers ought to be given great weight, and this "Living Constitution" concept is just nonsense to justify Judicial Activism.

"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."  Any "No, you can't!" on this issue is an infringement.  Please tell me how it is not. 

I only own one firearm.  A handgun.  I have not been a lifelong gun owner.  I do, however value my Constitutional Rights.  All of them.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

Yes, well, I am an American citizen and that's only part of the text of the Second Amendment says.  Also the idea that the second amendment creates some sort of sacrosanct individual Constitutional right to own firearms for a private purpose free of government regulation was essentially the relatively recent invention of five rogue activist judges.  Even the NRA's lawyers refused to participate in the case that absurd precedent comes from because the NRA thought it was such a ridiculous position that they'd be laughed out of court.  Ironically, if you believe in originalism (certainly the original meaning school of thought) for the purposes of judicial interpretation then it's pretty open-and-shut that the second does not create any sort of individual right to own guns for a private purpose.  

Well, I am an originalist, in that I certainly believe that the intent of the Framers ought to be given great weight, and this "Living Constitution" concept is just nonsense to justify Judicial Activism.

"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."  Any "No, you can't!" on this issue is an infringement.  Please tell me how it is not.  

I only own one firearm.  A handgun.  I have not been a lifelong gun owner.  I do, however value my Constitutional Rights.  All of them.

If you're interested, I'd strongly recommend reading Justice Stevens' dissent in D.C. v. Heller.  He makes the argument far more articulately and effectively than I could https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

[pbrower2a]

It's pretty disgusting that several posters in here seem to think a criminal is something irreducible that a person is, rather than crime being something that people do. It has the rhetorical benefit of meaning nobody who hasn't committed a crime can be a criminal, because otherwise they would have committed a crime; and afterwards, when they've committed a crime, we couldn't have stopped it because they're a criminal, as proven by the fact that they committed a crime!

Unless, of course, it's a white kid who raped a girl. We wouldn't want to ruin his future over this.

Criminals are generally bad people, including the white ones. All rapists should receive a death sentence regardless of their skin color if their crimes have been proven.

A couple decades ago, a prominent women's advocacy group endorsed the abolition of the death penalty for rape.

Penalties are still severe, which is justifiable for the same reason that armed robberies get the same sentence as people get for attempted murder in Michigan: 25-to-life. Every armed robbery is a potential murder. I could make the same case for rape,   

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's pretty disgusting that several posters in here seem to think a criminal is something irreducible that a person is, rather than crime being something that people do. It has the rhetorical benefit of meaning nobody who hasn't committed a crime can be a criminal, because otherwise they would have committed a crime; and afterwards, when they've committed a crime, we couldn't have stopped it because they're a criminal, as proven by the fact that they committed a crime!

Unless, of course, it's a white kid who raped a girl. We wouldn't want to ruin his future over this.

Criminals are generally bad people, including the white ones. All rapists should receive a death sentence regardless of their skin color if their crimes have been proven.

Even if we convict the wrong person sometimes?

[T'Chenka]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

That posture offends many because you're saying the government cannot prevent you from weilding a nuclear missle or an Infinity Gauntlet. I assure you Fuzzy, the FBI will not tolerate your originalist attitude when they come for your nukes.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

That posture offends many because you're saying the government cannot prevent you from weilding a nuclear missle or an Infinity Gauntlet. I assure you Fuzzy, the FBI will not tolerate your originalist attitude when they come for your nukes.

This is America.  People are arrested for their actions, not their attitudes.

I believe that the Framers of the Bill of Rights wrote the Second Amendment because they desired an Armed Citizenry.  They wished this for armed defense against hostile tribes.  They also wished this because they did not take their republican form of government for granted.  They did not doubt the possibility that a power-mad executive might set himself up as King George of America.  And this wasn't far-fetched;  62 years after Washington took office, French President Louis Napoleon (nephew of the real Napoleon) set himself up as Emperor Napoleon III of France.  They understood this central truth; they only possessed the rights that they could effectively defend.

So, no, I'm not going to be OK with Courts chipping away at our Bill of Rights.  Not at all.  I'm not a nut bomb, and while I own a handgun, I'm hardly armed to the teeth.  But I'm not going to concede one iota of my Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, and keeping and bearing arms does not place limits on this.

And, yes, I am rightfully skeptical of politicians who wish to disarm me.  Just exactly why is this so important to them?  Just exactly why is taking my gun so important to some here?

[pbrower2a]

This is America.  People are arrested for their actions, not their attitudes.

People can get themselves in trouble with the law for expressing their attitudes under some circumstances -- especially when expression of those attitudes  incriminates one.
 

I believe that the Framers of the Bill of Rights wrote the Second Amendment because they desired an Armed Citizenry.  They wished this for armed defense against hostile tribes.  They also wished this because they did not take their republican form of government for granted.  They did not doubt the possibility that a power-mad executive might set himself up as King George of America.  And this wasn't far-fetched;  62 years after Washington took office, French President Louis Napoleon (nephew of the real Napoleon) set himself up as Emperor Napoleon III of France.  They understood this central truth; they only possessed the rights that they could effectively defend.

Privately-held weapons were a necessity in those days because on the wild frontier neither the Army nor what passed as a police force could get to a trouble spot soon enough. Predatory animals, Indian attacks, and slave revolts were obvious fears. Besides, hunting was very much a part of life on the frontier.

Practically all law enforcement was local, and the line between citizen and reserve soldier was very thin. The weapons suitable for dispatching a deer were also appropriate for fending off pirates (a menace on all coasts) or invaders. As late as the Civil War, the states raised the armies for state and national defense. (That is over! The US Army was not divided into state units after the Civil War). The structure of the Armed Forces isn't what it used to be, and military arms rarely have any value as sporting weapons. You would never hunt with an AR-15 or an AK-47.     

So, no, I'm not going to be OK with Courts chipping away at our Bill of Rights.  Not at all.  I'm not a nut bomb, and while I own a handgun, I'm hardly armed to the teeth.  But I'm not going to concede one iota of my Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, and keeping and bearing arms does not place limits on this.

You do not have a right to artillery weapons; naval vessels and military aircraft have never been privately owned once made available to the Armed Forces (unless released for such uses as display in a museum). 

And, yes, I am rightfully skeptical of politicians who wish to disarm me.  Just exactly why is this so important to them?  Just exactly why is taking my gun so important to some here?

Handguns are favored weapons of criminals.

[Joe Republic]

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

Well, I am an originalist, in that I certainly believe that the intent of the Framers ought to be given great weight, and this "Living Constitution" concept is just nonsense to justify Judicial Activism.

"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."  Any "No, you can't!" on this issue is an infringement.  Please tell me how it is not.  

I only own one firearm.  A handgun.  I have not been a lifelong gun owner.  I do, however value my Constitutional Rights.  All of them.

It is truly fascinating how misinformed gun rights advocates are, especially when they start talking about originalism!  The NRA has truly done a number on us all.

Little do most people on either side of the debate realize that the current status quo view (that individuals have a right to bear arms instead of a "well-regulated militia") is very much the revisionist position.  And only adopted across the last forty years, in fact.  DC v. Heller was the judicial activism!

"A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

...

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

...

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”

At first, only a few articles echoed that view. Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds—much of them from the NRA—flowed freely. An essay contest, grants to write book reviews, the creation of “Academics for the Second Amendment,” all followed. In 2003, the NRA Foundation provided $1 million to endow the Patrick Henry professorship in constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University Law School.

This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view—shared by courts and historians—was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.

And I haven't even included the excerpts discussing how the NRA began with a focus on marksmanship training and safety, lobbying in favor of sensible gun control... all the way up until the crazies took over the organization in 1977.

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses." - Karl Frederick, NRA President, 1934

In any case, I strongly recommend reading the full article.

[dead0man]

You do not have a right to artillery weapons; naval vessels and military aircraft have never been privately owned once made available to the Armed Forces (unless released for such uses as display in a museum). 

lots of private citizens own former military aircraft, there are even tanks and artillery. (who the hell is going to pay $2500 to shoot a howitzer once?...weird right?)

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

It's the idea that folks here that would fight to the death to preserve people's right to murder unborn childfen in the name of "choice" are so preoccupied with taking away my right to choose to own firearms.

These same folks (especially gasbags like Joe Republic that speak of how uninformed I am) resort to "slippery slope" arguments when it comes to abortion.  A parental consent law is a slippery slope that leads to back alley hatchet jobs in their eyes.  Saying you can't have an abortion at 6 months is opening the door to saying you can't at all, etc.

So I'm a slippery slope guy when it comes to the Second Amendment.  Every attempt to cut it back justifies the next attempt to cut it back further.

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

[T'Chenka]

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

Law enforcement doesn't care what your view of the world is though. They will NOT prevent a woman from getting a first trimester abortion, but they WILL prevent you from owning an anti-air missle turret. If you follow your worldview far enough Fuzzy, you will be seeing your view of the world from behind bars, whilst women getting abortions will see no legal penalties. That's the reality of America. If you don't like it, too bad.

[dead0man]

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

Law enforcement doesn't care what your view of the world is though. They will NOT prevent a woman from getting a first trimester abortion, but they WILL prevent you from owning an anti-air missle turret. If you follow your worldview far enough Fuzzy, you will be seeing your view of the world from behind bars, whilst women getting abortions will see no legal penalties. That's the reality of America. If you don't like it, too bad.

Americans can own anti-aircraft guns