Gun control/2nd Amendment

[Sava]

David Floyd and I went a little off-topic in another thread where he insinuated that I only approve of upholding certain amendments of the constitution instead of others (2nd Amendment).

Do you honestly think that the founding fathers would be against a licensing program for guns? In order to get a driver's license, you must prove you can drive with a degree of responsibility. With a pilot's license, you need to prove you are responsible enough to handle a plane because the lives of hundreds depend on you. Likewise, with owning a gun, a tool which you effectively control the lives and safety of many people; WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH HAVING TO PROVE YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO OWN ONE?!!

Forgive the caps, but we've debated this issue before and I just want to hear how you explain what is wrong with this? Do you understand the lethality of guns? Would you want dangerous people owning them? How can you be against a licensing program which restricts dangerous people from owning guns?

The other thing I want to clarify is your stance on the legality of different types of firearms. Of the following types of weapons, what should be legal and what shouldn't be?

Automatic sub-machine-guns (mp5, uzi, mac10, etc)
Automatic rifles (M16, Colt M4a1, ak47, etc)
Automatic machine guns (M60, M249 Para)
Hunting rifles/Shotguns
Handguns
Explosives (grenades, rockets, etc)
Man Portable Nuclear Weapons

I think everything except Hunting Rifles/Shotguns and Handguns should be illegal to the general public. Handguns should only be legal in rural areas. Carrying a concealed weapon should require a different type of permit which requires the completion of a weapons training/safety course... if at all.

I think all guns should have fingerprint technology so that only the registered owner(s) should be able to use them.

My logic for this approach is simple
1) The founding Fathers did not take into account the evolution of firearms in this Amendment

2) They did not say that there could not be any type of licensing program... they left the wording vague and open to interpretation because they realized that situations in the future would be different from their own time...

You have to hand it to the framers of the Constitution. They were smart enough to realize that the country would not always be a collection of states along the Eastern seaboard. They left a lot of room for interpretation so that future generations of government leaders could make responsible decisions on any issues, specifically ones they could not possibly imagine.

[Boris Godunov]

*May regret this*

Fundamental flaw to your argument:

The Founding Fathers took into account the potential evolution of many things and hence made the Constitution ammendable. Ergo such changes can be made by the country should the country find such changes necessary.

[Sava]

flaw? that's just another component... I don't see how that fact, however relevant, would be a flaw... In fact, that supports my position more because they put the power of amendment in so that we could change anything that was wrong with the constitution.

[Spiffor]

No doubt all guns except hunting guns / small handguns should be completely forbidden to the general public. The only purpose more powerful guns serve is to kill humans, which should only be done by the police / military (and rarely).
Also, a fingerprint technology would be an excellent idea, if only by avoiding children to get their parents' gun and use them in any way.

[David Floyd]

flaw? that's just another component... I don't see how that fact, however relevant, would be a flaw... In fact, that supports my position more because they put the power of amendment in so that we could change anything that was wrong with the constitution.

The point is, obviously, that the Founders felt that if we wanted to deviate from the Bill of Rights, we should pass an amendment. Hence, they would allow gun control, so long as we first passed a Constitutional amendment allowing gun control.

As for your list, all should be legal.

Spiffor,

The only purpose more powerful guns serve is to kill humans, which should only be done by the police / military (and rarely).

But the only reason police need guns is to fight armed criminals, presumably criminals armed with guns. If you accept that, you accept that some criminals will obtain guns regardless of the law. If you accept that, then you must also see the point that it is acceptable for me to shoot someone in self defense if they are breaking into my house or assaulting or trying to kill me, right?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
flaw? that's just another component... I don't see how that fact, however relevant, would be a flaw... In fact, that supports my position more because they put the power of amendment in so that we could change anything that was wrong with the constitution.

The flaw is that you assert that an open of the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is okay because, logically, those Founding Fathers couldn't have forseen the weapons to come and there for wouldn't object to restricting them, even if it would technically violate the letter of the Constitution.

This is not necessarily true, as the Founding Fathers, by including an instrument of ammending the Constitution, may have believed such restrictions could ONLY be enacted through such ammendments. They may have wanted it to be very difficult to enact the regulations you envision.

Changing the constitution via ammendment and broadening the interpretation of existing ammendments are very different things.

[Sava]

All should be LEGAL??
David, I don't mean to be offensive, but I have to ask, are you serious? Or are you just posting jokingly?

You think it's okay for people to own man-portable nuclear weapons? Man portable anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers? Fully automatic, belt fed machine guns?

Please tell me you're joking...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Spiffor,
But the only reason police need guns is to fight armed criminals, presumably criminals armed with guns. If you accept that, you accept that some criminals will obtain guns regardless of the law. If you accept that, then you must also see the point that it is acceptable for me to shoot someone in self defense if they are breaking into my house or assaulting or trying to kill me, right?

Astonishingly enough, if all these weapons are forbidden to the public, they'll get much less produced, and much less spread. Hence, it considerably lowers the chance of being attacked by a criminal with a big gun. Sure, it will not reduce the number of people who want to hurt others, but they'll have to resort to less powerful guns / knives in the immense majority of cases.
(plus, I don't see why you should kill burglars except if they threaten your or your family's lives)

EDIT : Yes, I assert that "some criminals will obtain guns regardless of the law". Much better than the current situation : "all future criminals got their gun without any problems"

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The flaw is that you assert that an open of the interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is okay because, logically, those Founding Fathers couldn't have forseen the weapons to come and there for wouldn't object to restricting them, even if it would technically violate the letter of the Constitution.

I think I get what you're saying. They didn't want an open interpretation?

This is not necessarily true, as the Founding Fathers, by including an instrument of ammending the Constitution, may have believed such restrictions could ONLY be enacted through such ammendments. They may have wanted it to be very difficult to enact the regulations you envision.

Difficult because they feared a small faction of government hawkishly passing unjust amendments.

Changing the constitution via ammendment and broadening the interpretation of existing ammendments are very different things.

I am speaking strictly in terms of passing laws and programs that fit within a broader interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. As written, the 2nd Amendment does not conflict with any of the regulations I have mentioned.

[David Floyd]

You think it's okay for people to own man-portable nuclear weapons? Man portable anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers? Fully automatic, belt fed machine guns?

Yes.

spiffor,

Astonishingly enough, if all these weapons are forbidden to the public, they'll get much less produced, and much less spread.

Probably, but not in the US. Too many guns are already here.

Hence, it considerably lowers the chance of being attacked by a criminal with a big gun. Sure, it will not reduce the number of people who want to hurt others, but they'll have to resort to less powerful guns / knives in the immense majority of cases.

Then, logically, police shouldn't carry guns, right?

(plus, I don't see why you should kill burglars except if they threaten your or your family's lives)

So if someone breaks in, at 2 am, and it's dark and you can't see very well, but are very frightened, you shouldn't be able to shoot the burglar? I find that preposterous. He shouldn't have broken in, and I don't feel a bit sorry for him if he gets his ass shot off.

[David Floyd]

I think I get what you're saying. They didn't want an open interpretation?

I certainly doubt they did.

Difficult because they feared a small faction of government hawkishly passing unjust amendments.

No, just government in general.

As written, the 2nd Amendment does not conflict with any of the regulations I have mentioned.

Certainly it does. "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms" seems clear to me.

[Sava]

(sigh)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
I think I get what you're saying. They didn't want an open interpretation?

Hotly debated.

Difficult because they feared a small faction of government hawkishly passing unjust amendments.

Yes, and because they felt changing the document that laid out the mechanics of government and our society should be pretty damned hard.

I am speaking strictly in terms of passing laws and programs that fit within a broader interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

And it's possible that a "broader interpretation" isn't something the Founding Fathers would find acceptable.

As written, the 2nd Amendment does not conflict with any of the regulations I have mentioned.

By a strict interpretation of it, yes they do. By a broader one, perhaps not.

For the record, I believe in allowing broad interpretations and that they will change over time as society changes. But it's not because I think the Founding Fathers wanted it that way, necessarily. I couldn't give a rat's ass, really, what they wanted. What I think matters is the general consensus of society today. If that conflicts with what the Founding Father's had in mind--well, guess what, they're dead, we're not. They lose.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd

So if someone breaks in, at 2 am, and it's dark and you can't see very well, but are very frightened, you shouldn't be able to shoot the burglar? I find that preposterous. He shouldn't have broken in, and I don't feel a bit sorry for him if he gets his ass shot off.

What if you miss and kill your child in the next room?

ACK!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Probably, but not in the US. Too many guns are already here.

Possible. That is a valid point, and forbidding these guns would need a major undertaking from the US to confiscate everything that deserves to be banned. There will still be too many banned guns, but will at least reduce the numbers.

Then, logically, police shouldn't carry guns, right?

Why not ? As I said, there will still be some people heavily armed. It is only normal that police has guns to fight them when need arises. I'm just arguing the need will arise more rarely.

So if someone breaks in, at 2 am, and it's dark and you can't see very well, but are very frightened, you shouldn't be able to shoot the burglar? I find that preposterous. He shouldn't have broken in, and I don't feel a bit sorry for him if he gets his ass shot off.

Talk about a culture shock here. In Europe, we just don't think the mere presence of someone unexpected in your house should be punished by death. Maybe that explains partly why we have so many less gunkills than you

[alva]

Quote:

Astonishingly enough, if all these weapons are forbidden to the public, they'll get much less produced, and much less spread.

Quote:

Probably, but not in the US. Too many guns are already here.

This doesn't mean that it is irreversible IMHO. maybe not in the next 2 or 3 years, but it can be done.

In theory, I'm all for having/carrying/owning guns or whatever you want to have/do(wether it be guns, drugs,whatever)

The trouble is, it doens't work quite well in practise...

Nice sig btw:

[Sava]

well, guess what, they're dead, we're not. They lose.

Boris, I think you're my favorite Apolytoner.

[Boris Godunov]

Stop with the flattery, I'm not gonna sleep with you.

[Sava]

Okay, I'm going to go look at some naked women to affirm my heterosexuality now...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Handguns should only be legal in rural areas.

Isn't that a bit... harsh.

I mean, who decides what is a rural area? And why shouldn't urbanites have the right to protect themselves if rural people do?

Shouldn't it be reversed? Hunting rifles only to people in rural areas and handguns for all. That would make much sense. Hunting rifles are more used in rural regions.

[Sava]

Isn't that a bit... harsh.

I mean, who decides what is a rural area? And why shouldn't urbanites have the right to protect themselves if rural people do?

Shouldn't it be reversed? Hunting rifles only to people in rural areas and handguns for all. That would make much sense. Hunting rifles are more used in rural regions.

I'm not set in stone on this issue. But let me explain my thinking on the whole rural/urban thing. The overwhelming vast majority of urban gun violence comes from handguns. Rifles still have the potential to be used in urban violence. But... if you've ever handled and fired a rifle (especially a bolt action) it's not easily concealed, and does not have a high of rate of fire. It's a lot easier to shoot 4 or 5 people, maybe even 10, with a handgun, than with a hunting rifle.

Semi-automatic rifles (like the one used in the sniper attacks) should have greater restrictions than bolt-action rifles, BTW.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I'd allow handguns and non-auto rifles whereever, with the necessary licensing restrictions, but I don't think you can restrict handguns to a region, because it is WAY easy to smuggle them, and I think that handgun ownership needs to be protected, because criminals will get them anyway. People deserve to own a protection device.

[Boris Godunov]

The question with handgun ownership for me are conceal and carry laws. Give me the heebeejeebies.

[Sava]

If I may, respectfully, I think your perception on the demographics of gun violence is a little off. Most acts of gun violence occur from legally purchased and owned weapons. The stereotype that only criminals with illegal weapons commit crimes is false one.

With the implementation of fingerprint ID safeties, and other technologies, the amount of illegal weapons would decrease and the cost of acquiring them would increase which would also help decrease the amount of illegal weapons. The amount of deterrence involved in owning a firearm is very little. And instances in which the possession of a firearm stops a crime are rare. Most illegal weapons come from the theft of legally purchased weapons.

Banning handguns (the purchase and possession of) is a trade-off. But despite the sacrifice, the end result is of far greater importance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Most acts of gun violence occur from legally purchased and owned weapons. The stereotype that only criminals with illegal weapons commit crimes is false one.

Much of the hubbub comes from criminals that own illegal weapons. Automatic weapons are illegal, yet the kids at Columbine had them.

Furthermore legal buyers of handguns usually don't use them in murders. They are stolen and then used by those people. You think by banning handguns you'd eliminate that? People would easily get handguns.

Banning handguns (the purchase and possession of) is a trade-off. But despite the sacrifice, the end result is of far greater importance.

Not to me. I think the liberty to be able to own handguns is more important. What is security without freedom?

[Sava]

Perhaps, some day, this issue can be debated properly, with more facts and studies easily available.

[David Floyd]

The freedom to own handguns is unquestionable. Read the 2nd Amendment. Same argument for automatic weapons. Ordnance falls under property rights, not the 2nd Amendment, and hence is not relevant to this topic.

If the Founders wanted gun control, they would have written a specific clause in the Constitution allowing it. They would not have passed the 2nd Amendment as a blanket protection of individual rights, and then just assumed we knew they supported governmental interference on that particular issue, given their general attitudes towards big government.

However, as has been pointed out, they did write in a mechanism for change. They might not agree with the changes, but they did create a mechanism for allowing change. That mechanism is the Constitutional amendment. Basically, if the vast majority of Americans want gun control, they can have it, simply by passing an amendment overturning or rewriting the 2nd.

Until that Amendment is passed - which I doubt it could be, at least not for a long time - then gun control certainly violates the spirit and letter of the 2nd Amendment.

Any major problems with that position?

[Boris Godunov]

DF: See my post wherein I point out the FFs are all dead as dodos, so their desires mean diddly/squat to modern society.

[Sava]

Yeah, huge problem with that position... unless you believe the founding fathers had a crystal ball and saw the future developments in firearms and weapons.

But I'm not going to discuss this topic with you any more David. You think it's okay for people to own nuclear weapons, missiles, and machine guns. And I've known you long enough to know better than to waste my time.

Anyways, in the end, I believe common sense will defeat the misguided, strict view of the 2nd Amendment that many people have.

[Boris Godunov]

So you didn't really want to discuss this, you just wanted to state your view and tell everyone else they are wrong?

Well, guess that's how it usually works here...