San Francisco's Proposed Law: Banning Handguns for Residents?

[Raven]

San Francisco is proposing a law that will ban handguns for its residents excluding, of course, the police, military, security and other jobs that require one to own a handgun.

I can find no reason for anyone to have a handgun at home or even carry one around. I know this is a hot topic, but thought it would be interesting to see what others' opinions are on the subject.

For the general public:
Do you think people should own guns?
Do you think people need to own guns?
Do you think current gun control laws (Federal) are a true form of control? -- okay obviously I have a bias based on how the question is posed.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Banning hand guns just gives criminals more advantage than they already have. I own several guns. I can tell you that since I have owned a handgun I have realized how easy it is to carry one concealed. If criminals knew that most people would cease to carry because it is illegal then doesn't that give them advantages? The way it is now you NEVER KNOW who is carrying. Doesn't this give the general public an advantage because it is less likely a criminal will try to pull something knowing that he could get a shell in the back of his head because someone could have a gun? Do you really think gun laws will keep criminals from getting guns? There are a lot more uses for guns than shooting people. If shooting people is the only reason you can think of then YOU are the cold blooded one, not the honest people who choose to own guns and use them responsibly and in some cases actually wear them out. You act as if every gun ever sold has an owner who is just waiting to use it in a murder. I will also tell you that if guns are banned information will pop up everywhere on how to make your own gun. It's really not that hard to make one with some basic metalworking equipment. Guns are too much part of society in the U.S. to change the way people feel about them.

 

[Raven]

To be fair, I should have added a fifth poll choice -- Current Gun Laws need to be revised -- as it is the poll does not consider many aspects of the current gun laws that I find disturbing.

For instance, the law requires one to registered and be licensed to own a gun, yet there are no provisions requiring gun owners to update their license when they move or sell their gun. This is a huge loop hole within gun control in my opinion. Another problem is that the turn-around for background checks is only 24 hours -- is that really sufficient time? With such a powerful item, I think more time should be required.

Plus state to state laws differ greatly and I find all sorts of possible dangers that allow criminals to acquire guns too easily.

 

[Raven]

Banning hand guns just gives criminals more advantage than they already have. .

The idea, of course, is that banning hand guns would keep it away from criminals. I imagine this is a high expectation, but making guns very difficult to acquire makes me feel safer.

I own several guns. I can tell you that since I have owned a handgun I have realized how easy it is to carry one concealed. If criminals knew that most people would cease to carry because it is illegal then doesn't that give them advantages? The way it is now you NEVER KNOW who is carrying. Doesn't this give the general public an advantage because it is less likely a criminal will try to pull something knowing that he could get a shell in the back of his head because someone could have a gun? .

I don't agree with your philosophy. The legality of a concealed weapon (very few states allow it) does not deter a criminal from purchasing, owning, or using a gun. Criminals, however, will use guns differently from the general public. Criminals use this weapon for control, to make threats and to carry out those threats. For the most part, criminals do not act on logic. There is usually a desperate driving force behind their crimes. Guns help them achieve those goals. But guns are the most deadly tools available to them. Again, making such an item as difficult to acquire as possible weakens a criminals advantage.

Do you really think gun laws will keep criminals from getting guns? .

No. Certainly not in its current form.

But in Washington DC where handguns were made illegal in 1976, the murder rate dropped by 25% the next year. I believe stricter gun laws do make a difference. This can also be seen around the world. Japan which restricts guns all together has one of the lowest murder rates for a highly populated country.

There are a lot more uses for guns than shooting people. If shooting people is the only reason you can think of then YOU are the cold blooded one, not the honest people who choose to own guns and use them responsibly and in some cases actually wear them out. You act as if every gun ever sold has an owner who is just waiting to use it in a murder. I will also tell you that if guns are banned information will pop up everywhere on how to make your own gun.

I know there are a lot of uses for guns. But a hand gun, in my opinion, has little use. If you like hunting, use a rifle. If you want to protect your home, use a rifle or shotgun. A hand gun can be substituted. Like you said, it is way too easy to conceal a hand gun, which makes it an attractive choice for criminals.

I didn't say anything negative about the general public's use of guns. I think you are reading too much into my post. I will say, however, that guns by definition are a weapon created to damage and kill. The intent of a gun owner may be to protect oneself, which is fine by me. Nevertheless, the owner should be very aware of a gun's abilities. It is not your average self-defense weapon. When used the results can be absolute.

It's really not that hard to make one with some basic metalworking equipment.

The intent of gun control is to make it as close to impossible for a criminal to own a gun. We can't stop criminals from making a gun or a bomb for that matter. But most people would agree that bombs should be illegal. It's making the item as non-accessible to criminal as possible that is most important.

Guns are too much part of society in the U.S. to change the way people feel about them.

I do not believe guns are so ingrained into the US populations society that laws cannot be changed to be stricter.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Raven. I think you and I are just from such completely different lifestyles that we will not agree on this. I HAVE used both guns and bombs as a civilian for things other than illegal damage to property and killing. The bomb part might come a little hard to believe, but it is true. I myself was not the one to 'light the fuse'. I hired 2 men who had the proper credentials to obtain the materials. I watched, it was very interesting. I can tell you are probably someone who has never actually used a gun. Protection of property with a shotgun or rifle? Yeah, that might work when you see someone coming up the sidewalk to your house, but dropping them right there is considered murder. The advantage of a handgun is it is easily pointed. Take the time needed to swing a rifle around at your victim and you will be shot first because they will see it long before they would see a handgun. The element of surprise is taken away with larger guns.

I will add that I have also made my own bow and arrow. It's very easy. A cross bow is not much more difficult to make and just as deadly as a gun. The problem is NOT the weapons. It is the people who have a motive to use them.

 

[selfAdjoint]

My platform:

1. Close the loophole, have a national database of gun transactions that is kept up to date. Justification: "Well regulated militia".

2. Concealed carry. Justification; "Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

[EL]

It must really be hard to live in the states. Enemies in every corner of the streets...just waiting to kill you and your family.
Of course you need guns to protect yourselves.

Here people are just so naive, they never carry any guns at all. It makes me feel so unsafe! And our crime rates are so high compared to yours...:yuck:

 

[mattmns]

" A gun is not a weapon, Marge, it's a tool. Like a butcher knife or a harpoon, or... or an alligator." - Homer

"I felt an incredible surge of power, like God must feel when he's holding a gun." - Homer

"If a gun can protect something as important as a bar, then it's good enough to protect my family." - Homer

"I don't have to be careful, I've got a gun." - Homer

"Marge: Mmm! No! [pulls gun from Homer] No one’s using this gun! The TV said you’re 58 percent more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder!

Homer: TV said that . . . ? But I have to have a gun! It’s in the Constitution!

Lisa: Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!

Homer: You couldn’t be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn’t have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around. [pushing Lisa] Do you want that? [pushing her harder] Huh? Do you?

Lisa: [quietly indignant] No . . .

Homer: All right, then.

I personally think guns should have been banned a long time ago, especiall handguns. I would be fine if rifles and other hunting guns were still allowed, but I see no real good use for handguns.

Averagesupernova, what uses do guns have? (This is a serious question btw.)

 

[Averagesupernova]

It must really be hard to live in the states. Enemies in every corner of the streets...just waiting to kill you and your family.
Of course you need guns to protect yourselves.

Here people are just so naive, they never carry any guns at all. It makes me feel so unsafe! And our crime rates are so high compared to yours...

Obviously a skewed view of the U.S.

I personally think guns should have been banned a long time ago, especiall handguns. I would be fine if rifles and other hunting guns were still allowed, but I see no real good use for handguns.

Averagesupernova, what uses do guns have? (This is a serious question btw.)

You can't possibly be serious. If you are thinking this way then why not ask what use is anything? Target practice, hunting? Oh wait, I know. You are going to ask what is the use of target practice with a handgun when there are no uses for them. Well why the hell do we have races like the Indy 500? No one is actually going to get out on the road and drive that way right?

Example: Tall tree branch breaks off in a storm. I safely blasted it where it was still attached with a 12 gauge. 4 shots and it came down. I could have hired someone to come with a bucket truck, climbed it myself or whatever. Just remember guys, your freedom ends where someone elses begins. I believe it is unreasonable to require your neighbor to give up his weapons because you have an unreasonable fear of them.

 

[mattmns]

Well I meant reasons other than the obvious (target practice, hunting). And yes I know, what is the use of a football, well to play football. See but footballs are not used to kill people. Hunting I can understand, you like to hunt, its a sport. This should limit hunters to only buying rifles, or guns that are strictly for sport, I guess shotguns if you hunt ducks. The question is can an alternative ammo be used that will not injure humans, but will still hurt/incapacitate/kill your game? Also the same goes for target practice. Do you really need to use steel, or whatever bullets are made out of, for ammo? Could you use an ammo that would not kill humans, but would still work for target pracitce?

Your example is terrible, imo, shooting a tree. Personally I would have cut it down with a saw, or used a rope and pull it down. Yes I know, the tree could have landed on me or whatever, but I would find a workaround. Woops I missed the tree, hope the stray bullet/s do not kill anyone.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Your example is terrible, imo, shooting a tree. Personally I would have cut it down with a saw, or used a rope and pull it down. Yes I know, the tree could have landed on me or whatever, but I would find a workaround. Woops I missed the tree, hope the stray bullet/s do not kill anyone.

LOL Ah yes. Once again you have answers for something you know nothing about. It was unsafe to saw. I thought I made that clear. Use a rope? Not only unsafe in the circumstances to get the rope up there, but I couldn't pull it anywhere. Crowded conditions. You weren't there, you wouldn't know other than taking my word for it. Tell you what. The next time I have to shoot something that in my judgement could be done in a different but possibly unsafe method, I'll give you a call. By your comment about bullets killing someone you have proven how little you know about guns. 12 gauge (what I used) is a shotgun. They shoot a number of pellets out of a shell and not bullets. Also, any moron who shoots a gun should know that you never point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. This includes what is in the background. I am a firm believer in exposing kids to guns on a limited basis. Kids that grow up with guns have a much better understanding and respect for them than those who do not, such as yourself.

 

[mattmns]

LOL Ah yes. Once again you have answers for something you know nothing about. It was unsafe to saw. I thought I made that clear. Use a rope? Not only unsafe in the circumstances to get the rope up there, but I couldn't pull it anywhere. Crowded conditions. You weren't there, you wouldn't know other than taking my word for it. Tell you what. The next time I have to shoot something that in my judgement could be done in a different but possibly unsafe method, I'll give you a call.

Well sorry, I do not know you or the situation. You said you used a gun to take down a tree, that just sounded a bit crazy to me, and I would not be surprised if people actually did do that sometimes without considering other alternatives. However, if you considered every alternative and were forced into shooting it, then that is understandable, and acceptable.

It was unsafe to saw. I thought I made that clear.

But all you said was this...

Example: Tall tree branch breaks off in a storm. I safely blasted it where it was still attached with a 12 gauge. 4 shots and it came down. I could have hired someone to come with a bucket truck, climbed it myself or whatever. Just remember [...] .

You never said anything about the circumstances other than that you "blasted" it off, and that you could have "climbed it myself or whatever." This is why I lead to my original conclusion.



edit...

By your comment about bullets killing someone you have proven how little you know about guns. 12 gauge (what I used) is a shotgun. They shoot a number of pellets out of a shell and not bullets

Yes I know shotguns shoot a number of pellets. I was not referring to your specific example of using a shotgun, that is why I left that comment til the end of my post. That is also why I put a /s at the end of bullets. But I guess, an experienced gun user would not shoot a tree with a handgun, so you got me there.

You are right, however, I do not know a ton about guns, this is why I want you to enlighten me. I do know the basics though.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Well I meant reasons other than the obvious (target practice, hunting). And yes I know, what is the use of a football, well to play football. See but footballs are not used to kill people. Hunting I can understand, you like to hunt, its a sport. This should limit hunters to only buying rifles, or guns that are strictly for sport, I guess shotguns if you hunt ducks. The question is can an alternative ammo be used that will not injure humans, but will still hurt/incapacitate/kill your game? Also the same goes for target practice. Do you really need to use steel, or whatever bullets are made out of, for ammo? Could you use an ammo that would not kill humans, but would still work for target pracitce?

Footballs are not used to kill people. This is true. But knives are. Are you going to ban them too? What about air nailers? Doesn't take a lot to hook up an air nailer to a small CO2 cartridge with a regulator. And you can buy one without having to wait. Look at what is happening in Iraq. Look at the improvising that is done to obtain the weapons that insurgents are using and look at the success they are having with them.

 

[Averagesupernova]

You are right, however, I do not know a ton about guns, this is why I want you to enlighten me. I do know the basics though.

Yes it's obvious. One of the most basic rules of all is to know your target and what is behind it and that seems to have passed you by. Could I assume then that you think an individual who knows nothing about driving a car should be making laws regulating them and driving in general?

 

[mattmns]

Footballs are not used to kill people. This is true. But knives are. Are you going to ban them too? What about air nailers? Doesn't take a lot to hook up an air nailer to a small CO2 cartridge with a regulator. And you can buy one without having to wait. Look at what is happening in Iraq. Look at the improvising that is done to obtain the weapons that insurgents are using and look at the success they are having with them.

Anything can be used to kill people. Knives should not be banned because people use knives for practical reasons; such as, to open a box, cut up celery, etc. For air nailers, that takes knowledge, which most people probably do not have (I am probably wrong about this right?). That would be like saying: Are you going to ban metal, because metal can be used to make a gun which in turn can kill people? Guns are designed and made to kill/destroy things, that is the problem. I do not have any problem with Iraqis improvising weapons, I would probably do the same. You can not stop people from improvising, or creating weapons.

 

[mattmns]

Yes it's obvious. One of the most basic rules of all is to know your target and what is behind it and that seems to have passed you by. Could I assume then that you think an individual who knows nothing about driving a car should be making laws regulating them and driving in general?

The problem is this. How close were you to the tree? From the sound of it you shot from a few feet at least. If you shot it from a very close range, then why did you shoot it at all? Why not just cut it down? I always thought shotguns were used for close ranger, not sure how close though, please enlighten me on this. Also, how can you be so sure of what was behind your target? Did you project the trajectory of the pellets? Do pellets work in a special way? What would have happened if you had slipped or something like that while you were firing the gun?

edit... yes I know, what would happen if you slipped with a saw: What I meant was with the pellets and not if they hit you or not.

Also, do you live in a secluded area or something. Is this why you knew your trajectory would not hurt anyone?

 

[Averagesupernova]

The problem is this. How close were you to the tree? From the sound of it you shot from a few feet at least. If you shot it from a very close range, then why did you shoot it at all? Why not just cut it down? I always thought shotguns were used for close ranger, not sure how close though, please enlighten me on this. Also, how can you be so sure of what was behind your target? Did you project the trajectory of the pellets? Do pellets work in a special way? What would have happened if you had slipped or something like that while you were firing the gun?

edit... yes I know, what would happen if you slipped with a saw: What I meant was with the pellets and not if they hit you or not.

Also, do you live in a secluded area or something. Is this why you knew your trajectory would not hurt anyone?

:uhh:

At least a few feet? Remember, too high to safely reach.

What would happen if I slipped? More gun safety rules you obviously have not ever heard of.

Do you realize that there is probably more damage you can do driving down the highway at 60 Mph if you 'slip' compared to shooting a gun? When you consider the number of hours spent driving compared to shooting it is MUCH more likely.

How did I know what was behind the target? Well for one thing it was probably about a 65 degree angle to the ground so it was shooting in the air. I own the property for half a mile in the direction of shooting.

 

[Bystander]

Anything can be used to kill people. Knives should not be banned because people use knives for practical reasons; such as, to open a box, cut up celery, etc. For air nailers, that takes knowledge, which most people probably do not have (I am probably wrong about this right?). That would be like saying: Are you going to ban metal, because metal can be used to make a gun which in turn can kill people? Guns are designed and made to kill/destroy things, that is the problem. I do not have any problem with Iraqis improvising weapons, I would probably do the same. You can not stop people from improvising, or creating weapons.

We know why you shouldn't be allowed to own or be near anything that might function as a weapon --- now, tell the rest of us why we with less murderous natures should not be allowed ownership of firearms for whatever peaceful purposes we choose.

 

[EL]

Obviously a skewed view of the U.S.

Well your posts have definitely cleared things up for me. I hadn't realized the most important use of guns: chopping trees...
That's a really good argument for everyone to by a couple of guns... :yuck:

 

[PerennialII]

Well your posts have definitely cleared things up for me. I hadn't realized the most important use of guns: chopping trees...

It's just for us on the other side of the lake so very difficult to understand the integral part guns have in US society ... the problem as has been pointed out is how to get the situation under control in the US (well, no one else actually has the problem in close to similar magnitude), since by any measure it nowadays isn't, and as good of a case can be made to tighten gun control, it never ceases to surprise me how those efforts are blocked (and usually with arguments having 'freedom' in them ... :yuck: ).

 

[EL]

it never ceases to surprise me how those efforts are blocked (and usually with arguments having 'freedom' in them ... :yuck: ).

I think the main problem is: FEAR.
America is obviously built on fear (why else would there be screens above the high-ways saying "Report suspicious behavior to...", how else could they have chosen mr Bush...why else do they need hand guns...and how else could they "find" WMD in Iraq...well this can be made so much longer I better stop here...)

 

[PerennialII]

I think the main problem is: FEAR.

Yeah, I'd be willing to say fundamentally it's the greatest problem and, in my mind, weakness underlying in the constructs of the American society (actually applies to the west as a whole quite a bit, but the US is a clear leader in this respect).

 

[aeroegnr]

A person's first responsibility is himself.

Therefore, he needs to be able to defend himself.

Wait until someone breaks into your house, with a gun. If you don't own one, you'll feel pretty vulnerable. Sure, you can call the cops, but you have to rely on someone else to save your life at that point. By the time they get to where you are you could be dead.

Criminals fear most the target that can fight back, especially the one with a concealed gun. There have been a large number of instances of deterred rapes, thefts, robberies, etc. that go unreported because the victim sucessfully scared the person away.

Whoever used Washington DC as an example obviously hasn't seen that it is the most murderous "state" in the nation, with law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves equally to what they are up against.

Without guns, the U.S. wouldn't even be around because defending yourself from someone else in modern times can be very difficult without one.

Also, I know of plenty of examples where guns were taken away from a populace only to have that populace suddenly represeed and or killed by the government. Sound familiar to anyone?

 

[russ_watters]

Footballs are not used to kill people. This is true. But knives are. Are you going to ban them too?

This argument is a straw-man. It misses the point. Guns are a tool: they are a tool designed for killing things and they are highly effective at it. Had the kids at Columbine only had access to knives, how many people would they have succeeded in killing? Could Oswald have hit Kennedy with a knife from 300 yards? If gun control laws had been just a tiny bit weaker and the Columbine kids had succeeded in acquiring the .50 cal machine gun they had their eye on, how many people would they have succeeded in killing?

My view on guns is this:

-Home defense is important. For this, the ideal weapon is a pump-action shotgun: short range, high power, easy to aim, and you can use it as a club if you need to.
-Hunting is a reasonable use: hunting rifles are ok (even semi-auto).
-Handguns are not ok for civilians - expecially not concealed. The usual case study of "what if you were mugged and you had a gun..." doesn't have the outcome most people think: if you are mugged by someone with a gun and try to pull yours, odds are pretty good, you'll be dead.
-Guns, being what they are, require heavy safety regulation. Currently, they are about the least regulated of any consumer product. Many are designed in such a way as to make them easy to modify for nefarious purposes. We require licensing before people are allowed to operate a common tool that if used properly is perfectly safe: there is no reason not to require it for a tool that even if used correctly, results in a death.

Re, the 2nd Amendment: Its horribly, horribly written, perhaps on purpose. My interpretation is "a well regulated militia" is the National Guard, the modern incarnation of the militias that really were just farmers with personal guns. "The right to bear arms," is far from absolute, and needs to be heavily restricted.

 

[aeroegnr]

I can do more damage with my car than I could do with any small arm (rifle, pistol, shotgun, even fully automatic).

I can buy as much potentially explosive equipment as I want, without any safety regulations (gasoline, fertilizer, chlorine, name it). I can think of all sorts of interesting ways to kill people, but I don't do it because it's wrong.

The biggest violent tragedy to strike the US today happened with box cutting knives. We need constant reminders that YOUR LIFE is YOUR LIFE. If someone tries to take it from you, DEFEND YOURSELF before relying on others, because if you forego the former, you could already be dead.

Handguns are necessary and useful. If just a couple of teachers in columbine had handguns, what happened could not have unfolded the way it did.

Why is a shotgun an ideal weapon when typical shotguns have a spread pattern? Wouldn't a safer weapon have a tight group so that you can accurately hit exactly what you are aiming at?

Right now, North Koreans citizens sure could use some form of weaponry more sophisticated than their military. 50 years ago, the oppressed in Russia could have used more sophisticated weapons than their military, especially the samizdat publishers and gulag prisoners. 6 million jews could have used some form of concealed weaponry to spring on their own government.

If handguns and concealed carry are banned, watch out in dark alleys. Every single criminal out there will know you are unarmed. Ever seen reports of the extreme violence in England because citizens aren't allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves?

 

[Burnsys]

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson Papers

 

[EL]

Handguns are necessary and useful. If just a couple of teachers in columbine had handguns, what happened could not have unfolded the way it did.

Are you serious you want to send your kids to a school where the teachers are wearing guns?

 

[russ_watters]

I can do more damage with my car than I could do with any small arm (rifle, pistol, shotgun, even fully automatic).

Certainly, but only if you use it incorrectly.

I can buy as much potentially explosive equipment as I want, without any safety regulations (gasoline, fertilizer, chlorine, name it). I can think of all sorts of interesting ways to kill people,

Certainly, but again, only if you use these things in ways that were not intended.

Why is a shotgun an ideal weapon when typical shotguns have a spread pattern? Wouldn't a safer weapon have a tight group so that you can accurately hit exactly what you are aiming at?

The spread pattern makes it easier to hit what you are aiming at. The same goes for the fact that its large and has a stock - I don't know if you're a shooter, but for an unskilled shooter, a handgun is extremely difficult to aim. Shotguns also have "stopping power."

Right now, North Koreans citizens sure could use some form of weaponry more sophisticated than their military.

Whoa now - "more sophisticated than their military"? You're suggesting civilians should be allowed to own machine guns, tanks, and rocket launchers?

If handguns and concealed carry are banned, watch out in dark alleys. Every single criminal out there will know you are unarmed. Ever seen reports of the extreme violence in England because citizens aren't allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves?

If you check England's murder rate, you'll find it does not support your assertion.

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Said in 1795 or thereabouts, when the most powerful/sophisticated weapons that existed were a muzzle-loaded bal-shot musket and a cannon. Clearly, this provision of the 2nd amendment (and the general principle being discussed here of defense against your government) is long obsolete.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Well your posts have definitely cleared things up for me. I hadn't realized the most important use of guns: chopping trees...
That's a really good argument for everyone to by a couple of guns... :yuck:

I gave it as an example which is what the poster asked. I'm not the one who picked it apart. Your smart a$$ attitude is not helping your cause.

 

[aeroegnr]

I don't want to "send" my kids to school anyway, but that's irrelevant.

Yeah, I would prefer to have my kids in a school where somebody could do something if the school was being taken over. In some places STUDENTS can bring GUNS to school (rifle clubs).

Certainly, but only if you use it incorrectly. Certainly, but again, only if you use these things in ways that were not intended. The spread pattern makes it easier to hit what you are aiming at. The same goes for the fact that its large and has a stock - I don't know if you're a shooter, but for an unskilled shooter, a handgun is extremely difficult to aim. Shotguns also have "stopping power."

I'm not suggesting everyone will be able to go buy a handgun and shoot burglars in the head with 100% accuracy, but that's what shooting ranges are for. If you can't aim a pistol, stay away from them. I've shot them before and didn't find them particularly difficult.

Whoa now - "more sophisticated than their military"? You're suggesting civilians should be allowed to own machine guns, tanks, and rocket launchers? If you check England's murder rate, you'll find it does not support your assertion. Said in 1795 or thereabouts, when the most powerful/sophisticated weapons that existed were a muzzle-loaded bal-shot musket and a cannon. Clearly, this provision of the 2nd amendment (and the general principle being discussed here of defense against your government) is long obsolete.

Sure. A few tanks and assualt weapons in the right civilian hands in North Korea could change the country into something better almost immediately. Or do you want the defenseless starving civilians to keep dying?

Nevertheless, apart from its Soviet-supplied nuclear and missile technologies, North Korea is one of the weakest nations in the world. It is economically moribund, devastated by the collectivist scourge. Experts estimate that from one to two million people have died of starvation since 1990, out of a population of twenty-two million. Flocks of orphaned children search amid the refuse for scraps of food. In one decade, life expectancy declined by six years. And this while the country was receiving generous aid: by May of 2001, Washington had delivered 100,000 metric tons of food and the E.U. had spent 200 million euros on relief. But again we see what little likelihood there is of aid actualy getting to populations in need. There is every reason to think that these donations have served instead to boost the regime's military arsenal: in 1994, at the height of the famine, North Korea purchased forty submarines from Russia.

The military is so ridiculously powerful compared to the ordinary citizen that nothing is going to happen until weapons of war are captured for a revolt, or a country declares war on North Korea.

 

[EL]

I gave it as an example which is what the poster asked. I'm not the one who picked it apart. Your smart a$$ attitude is not helping your cause.

So give me a better example then...or even harder...try to give me a good example not based on "fear".

 

[EL]

I don't want to "send" my kids to school anyway, but that's irrelevant.

Yes. Think you got what I ment anyway.

Yeah, I would prefer to have my kids in a school where somebody could do something if the school was being taken over. In some places STUDENTS can bring GUNS to school (rifle clubs).

Ok, I would be a lot more frightened by the thought of that guns ending up in some kids hands...

 

[Zlex]

The utility of gun ownership benefits society even when the gun is not being held or even fired. In fact, the utility of gun ownership benefits society even when a particular household does not in fact contain a gun owner, but merely might. When one imagines a society that loses its mind and posts huge signs in every neighborhood ("THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS GUARANTEED NOT BE ARMED OR YOUR MONEY BACK"), the 'utility' of mere possible/not actual gun ownership is apparent.

Nobody here is mistaking a government ban on firearms with an actual firearm free society, just as nobody here would mistake a goivernment ban on drugs with a drug free society. So, the conclusion as to who would be armed/registered, and who would not be armed/registered, in all of these goofy 'we need more gun control in the Nerf World' debates, is apparent.

The firearms that may or may not be in my possession have been successfully 'used' 24/7/365.

My car, on the other hand, gets used much less often, and serves no utility at all to society when parked in my garage. In fact, it's utility to society is mere convenience, unless you count those among us who use their cars to deliver much needed human organs across town for transplants. In fact, 100% of us when actually 'using' our cars are more aptly described as increasing the odds that organ doners will be created. The actual deployment of a few million ft-lbfs of destructive energy in the name of getting home from the gym in time to watch Felicity will do that.


Ask yourself this question(again): Before a perfect stragner is permitted to actually deploy a million ft-lbfs of destructive energy, and aim it at a target mere feet from me and my loved ones, shouldn't society even have to ask what the reason is for actually deploying the event?

Running a human heart across town to the transplant operation?

On a jaunt across town for the really, really good Italian Ice?

Heading out to the quarry to blast some rocks with your merely few hundred ft-lbf capable little popgun?

Conveniently living 20 miles from my non-defense rated job at The Gap as a matter of choice, because I didn't want to work on the farm?

Driving to the gym--for my workout?

Forget mere 'bazookas'; 17 year old girls and boys regularly head on out to the highway actually deploying(not, owning)the destructive energy equivalent of 5000 .45 caliber 230g 'cop killer' bullets, fired continuously, and aimed at targets mere feet and sometimes inches from each other.

All of that, for as long and as far as their pre-ban 20 gallon gas tanks will let them.

500+ such kids killed every month due to the 'usage' of DUI; teen drug dealers killing other teen drug dealers over drug turf wars, and counted as 'children' don't even come close to that kind of carnage.

 

[Zlex]

Re, the 2nd Amendment: Its horribly, horribly written, perhaps on purpose. My interpretation is "a well regulated militia" is the National Guard, the modern incarnation of the militias that really were just farmers with personal guns. "The right to bear arms," is far from absolute, and needs to be heavily restricted.

In the context of the times the amendment was written, the 'Regulars' were trained, professional soldiers.

Why the use of that word 'regular' to refer to trained, professional soldiers, who were distinguished from plain militia by the fact that they were 'regulars?' Why the use of that same word to refer to militia in the 2nd Amendment?

The reason was not just applicable to colonial times; the reason was cited as a factor in America's ability to mobilize for WWII. The ability to quickly train just plain folks and turn them into Regulars when the security of a free nation requires it is enhanced when just plain folks show up already familiar with arms, ie, well regulated militia, as opposed to regulars, which well regulated militia might become upon professional military training in service to the nation.

Therefore, 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.

Since the Articles already grant power to the federal government to federalize the militia when needed, and notwithstanding Massachusetts and Connecticuts once polite refusal(War of 1812)to federalize their militia, to believe that the 2nd Amendment applied to collective arming of militia only would be tantamount to claiming that 10% of the Bill of Rights was dedicated to forbidding the government from infringing the right to arm itself.

ie, an absurdity in the context of a 'constitution.'

The leading dependent clause is simply an enumeration of a benefit to the security of a free state which follows from not infringing a pre-existing right of the people. It is, in a sense, a justification to the gun grabbers of the day for why it is not a good thing to wax totalitarian.

Lets acknowledge that neither the 1st Amendment nor 2nd AMendment is absolute; just as we do not have the right to run into a theatre and scream 'FIRE,' nor do we have the right to run into a theatre and 'FIRE.' Well, no ****. But, does pointing out that not even the NRA advocates that we should have a right to run into a theatre and 'FIRE' support a claim that citizens should have half of their vocal cords removed, because anyone of us might run into a theatre and yell 'FIRE?'

After all, we can understand each other perfectly well when we whisper to each other, and there is always the state licensed bullhorns that only the police and fire department trained operators should have, in case of a societal emergency.

 

[mattmns]

The utility of gun ownership benefits society even when the gun is not being held or even fired. In fact, the utility of gun ownership benefits society even when a particular household does not in fact contain a gun owner, but merely might. When one imagines a society that loses its mind and posts huge signs in every neighborhood ("THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS GUARANTEED NOT BE ARMED OR YOUR MONEY BACK"), the 'utility' of mere possible/not actual gun ownership is apparent.

Now that is not to bad of a point, and I actually believe it. You pro gun people keep talking about these people who will kill you in dark alleys and stuff, personally I find all that bogus. I live in the worst part of my town (about 1mill pop.) and I have never had a gun pointed at me, well in a serious matter at least. This made me realize that you guys either live in crime-ridden towns, or are making these examples up to scare us, probably the latter (not to say that such a thing does not exist, or has never happened). Now Zlex has made a considerably good argument, in my case at least. Right now I think that the US is quite safe, or at least it is in my eyes. If we were to change the gun control laws it could affect, negatively, the balance. So, I would, if I could, change my vote to Current gun laws are fine.

Back to the shotgun tree example. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought shotguns usually dispersed the pellets in a cone, or circle, pattern. This is why I thought you were close to the tree.

I do not have any problem with Iraqis improvising weapons, I would probably do the same. You can not stop people from improvising, or creating weapons.

We know why you shouldn't be allowed to own or be near anything that might function as a weapon --- now, tell the rest of us why we with less murderous natures should not be allowed ownership of firearms for whatever peaceful purposes we choose.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. What I mean is that if I were an Iraqi and I had Americans shooting at me, then I too, would probably improvise and either make a weapon or find one. And I would like to think you would do the same.

Murderous nature? Where did you get this from? I do not own a gun, or any official weapons(yes I have knives, but they are used to butter my pancakes, or cut steak), and I have no desire to kill people. Not sure where you are getting this from, but I guess if you need to flame people to make your point, then good job!