Right to Bear Arms: US Laws Explained

[Tarheel]

Ok, point taken. Essentially the debate is "people kill - guns don't" versus "people without guns kill less".

I think that is a valid point.

In "Bowling for Columbine" Moore discovered that there are many more guns (per capita) in Canada than in The U.S.
Yet Gun violence in The U.S. is many many times worse than that of Canada...

 

[Orefa]

In "Bowling for Columbine" Moore discovered that there are many more guns (per capita) in Canada than in The U.S.

Tables on http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm" contradict this.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Sorry obviously this is all familliar territory to you so you ignored my point but why does the average american have to have the right to carry fully automatic machineguns? What's wrong with limiting people to rifles, handguns and other small arms?

Good idea draft or your 19 year olds in america into the military and then give them a gun when they leave, that'll teach them how to use guns.

Bring back national service

my favourite quote on
guns don't kill people is:

Guns don't kill people rappers do, I saw it in a documentary on bbc2.

Seriously though your gun laws are antiquated, I really have no comprehension of why you tolerate a law that is so not applicable to US society today. As I'm not a US citizen you'll have to explain carefully why carrying huge arsenals of guns is a good idea?

 

[Cyrus]

Sorry obviously this is all familliar territory to you so you ignored my point but why does the average american have to have the right to carry fully automatic machineguns? What's wrong with limiting people to rifles, handguns and other small arms?

The constitution of the United States of America gives us the right. It says we have the right to bear arms, key word arms. It says arms, which means ANY type of gun. The problem with limiting people to rifles, handguns and other small arms is that you are taking away their 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Now it would have to say, the right to bear whatever arms the government feels like letting you have. I'm sorry, this is now how it works in America.

Guns don't kill people rappers do

Thats a pretty ignorant comment by whoever said it.

Seriously though your gun laws are antiquated, I really have no comprehension of why you tolerate a law that is so not applicable to US society today.

Yes, it is very applicable to society since its onset. We tolerate it because its our right to. We don't have to explain or justify something that is our right. If you don't like it, you can (a) try to repeal the 2nd amendment (b) not own a gun, or (c) stay out of the United States.

Why are you so afraid of someone owning a machine gun? Do you think its bullets will kill you less than a hand gun or rifle?

The constitution is a contract between the people and the government. We are entitled to certain basic fundamental rights provided that we act according to the constitution. It is a legally binding contract. You can't change it just so it pleases you.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Guns don't kill...

That's meant to be a joke btw n/m sorry taking the piss out of aerican gun culture is likely to be funny only to those who aren't American. I would Imagine

Your amendment system is serriously flawed then IMO.

If you can't change a law then it is cast in stone and that is dangerous.

I don't think your amendment system was meant to be abused in this manner I don't think that was the original idea behind it. Saying someone has the right to bear arms forever. Or the right to do anything in perpetuity is a pretty ignorant argument in the light of changing societies. This not meant to be insulting it just bemuses me that people can use such a system and pretend it's a fair one?

 

[Cyrus]

Your amendment system is serriously flawed then IMO.

Thats your opinion, not my countries opinion. We in America; however, do not find it flawed.

If you can't change a law then it is cast in stone and that is dangerous.

Do you know what the constitution is? Its a set of natural rights in a social contract. You can change it by amending or repealing an amendment. Your statement is incorrect.

I don't think your amendment system was meant to be abused in this manner I don't think that was the original idea behind it. Saying someone has the right to bear arms forever. Or the right to do anything in perpetuity is a pretty ignorant argument in the light of changing societies.

As you are not American, I don't think you can say what our constitution does and does not mean to Americans. If you don't like guns, then just don't buy one. If you can't stand the fact that your fellow citizens own guns, then just don't live in the United States. Just because you don't happen to like guns, does not mean that trumps other peoples rights to own guns. It is a very fair system indeed. It is in constant flux, perhaps as an outsider you don't get to appreciate this.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We do have a thread on this already. They always seem to get so long and just go back and forth. Kinda moot dontya think?

My interpretation of the second amendment has always been that it's supposed to allow for the people to have a way fo defending themselves from their own government. Aside from the fact that it's pretty obvious your average citizen can not defend themselves from their government any longer there have also been a few instances such as Wako that illustrate this point rather well. This point is pretty much dead though in the face of this I still find it incredibly difficult to relinquish the idea of the right to defend myself from my government.

Another point is the feasability of getting rid of the guns and stopping gun trafficing. In the US it really doesn't seem very possible. As already mentioned it's likely a hell of a lot easier in smaller places like England and Ireland which are also completely surrounded by water to control your borders and what comes into your country. The US borders are very difficult to control and it would take quite a bit of money to do so. On top of that anyone wishing to place a strong control on the borders will also have to contend with the groups that decry border control as "racist". Just take a look at what happened to the Minute Men.

Last but not least there are still areas of this country that are quite spread out and where the police/sheriffs are not able to respond to problems in a timely fashion like they can in more urban areas. Someone once told me that where they live it takes an hour or more for a response where they live and they have to deal with bandits(yeah, I'm serious, bandits). People like this aren't too worried about shooting people in their house since they can see them coming and really most often just want to fire warning shots to scare them off.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well we can argue about whether your law system works or not 'til we're blue in the face I supose. I just find the term laws were made to be broken particualarly apt in this situation; if you live in a country where your rights or laws or whatever you want to call them can nver change then you are liable to run the risk of living under an antiquated system ad infinitum. In 3010 when guns arms as we know them no longer longer exist you will still have a law giving you the right to bear arms.

I'm really not meaning this to sound insulting but you have a crazy idea of what a law should be, if it is inflexible and unchanging over eaons then it's pointless. About as much point as saying I have the right to freedom from or of religion long after religions have been suplanted or ceased to exist

Well I'm lucky I live in a country where we can change our laws to suit the times we live in. I supose we will just have to shrug at you guys and look bemused.

Defending yourself from your government should not be done with guns, you should vote them out of power, in a straight fight between the american gov and any standing army you could care to raise you would lose and lose big.

As for the frighteningly bizarre notion that walking down the street with a machine gun is less dangerous than with a hand gun

Do you all try and justify these pre industrial laws in such a trite fashoin or is it just the NRA propaganda your talking about?

Honestly if that's the best you can come up with, I'd be surprised if your gun crime rate will ever come down.

No one argues with the rights of someone to defend themselves but A good semi automatic Assault rifle will do and that's about as far as I can see that reasoning being applied. allowing peole to carry fully automatic weaponry is a bit much don't you think?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, like whatever?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well I'm lucky I live in a country where we can change our laws to suit the times we live in. I supose we will just have to shrug at you guys and look bemused.

Ummm... did you miss the part about there being amendments to the US constitution? Did you miss the part where Cyrus stated that one who is against guns might try to repeal the second amendment? You're beating a dead strawman here I think.

Defending yourself from your government should not be done with guns, you should vote them out of power, in a straight fight between the american gov and any standing army you could care to raise you would lose and lose big.

I believe I pointed out myself that the idea of a US citizen protecting themself from the government would be pretty futile. I still wouldn't want to lose the protection though. I would think that considering the view that most people from other countries have of the US government and where it's going would have a bit more sympathy for people in the US that would liek to protect themselves from their government. Depending on how things fall out it's possible that people may not have the ability to challenge their government through voting.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yeah I did miss that, I seem to have skipped that bit? Even so I find it doubtful you can do anything about your murder rate or your gun laws. I think your stuck with them and I think your liable to be stuck with them for a very long time, especially if the sort of replies I see on this thread are any indication of your reasoning? It's a complicated issue made more complicated by the kind of irrational banter I've seen so far passed of as fair argument, guns don't kill people obviously ignorance does.

Personally I don't see any point to having a written constituation in most countries cases, it seems to be a rather pedantic way of running a country, far better to simply make it up as you go along works for the rest of the world.

You'll have to excuse my confrontational style, I have asthma at the moment and it tends to make me kranky. That aside feel free to get back on topic I think I've made my point if there was one.

I just had a thought too, when these laws were written your country had just thrown off the chains of a rutheless opressor, I.e My country. Surely you didn't need to write your right to overthrow yourr government in a law? I don't think many revolutions or coup detat's happen under legal circumstances, that's the point? Parliament acted against the Kings law to overthrow Charles II, I fail to see the need for us to then write into the constitution the rights of the citizenry to overthrow the government? If someone wants to get rid of there government badly enough then they will regardless of what any law says? Oddly obvious right really. It's kind of like giving you a right to vote in a democracy and to defend that right by force of arms.

 

[Tarheel]

allowing peole to carry fully automatic weaponry is a bit much don't you think?

You keep going back to that "fully automatic" argument.

Since you are'nt an American and are completely ignorant of the law I will enlighten you.

It is legal for American citizens in certain states to posses "fully automatic" weapons.
For example, you cannot have an automatic weapon in California or New York but it is permitted in Arizona, Oregon and several other states.

If you wish to possesses a fully automatic weapon it is required of you to acquire a "class 3 liscence" before you can purchase weapons that would otherwise be restricted to law enforcement.
Then you pay a fee PER WEAPON similar to a hunting stamp.
I would also like to add that I frequently go to the range an plink with my guns.
I also shoot IPSC matches and have spent a lot of time around other shooters from allover the western US.
I have seen (1) guy with an automatic weapon... ONE.
The vast majority of people at the range have bolt action hunting rifles.

The perception you have of Americans walking around with Machine guns is completed unfounded AND IGNORANT.

You also keep argueing that Americans should not have an "Arsenal"
Who does? Anyone that starts to gather large quantities of weapons gets the governments attention pretty quickly (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and then the FBI shows up and kills all the women and children... <----- and you say we don't need guns

When push comes to shove, I'd rather have an AK47 to shove with.

 

[Tarheel]

I find it doubtful you can do anything about your murder rate or your gun laws. I think your stuck with them and I think your liable to be stuck with them for a very long time, especially if the sort of replies I see on this thread are any indication of your reasoning? It's a complicated issue made more complicated by the kind of irrational banter I've seen so far passed of as fair argument, guns don't kill people obviously ignorance does.

I own 2 AK47 assault rifles, A Shotgun and 2 Pistols.
I also keep over 1,000 rounds of ammunition on hand for each weapon.
These weapons are sufficient to arm my family should we ever need to defend ourselves. (don't say "from what?" neither you nor I know what the future will bring)

Oddly, I have never killed anyone... GO FIGURE.

There are many gun owners on this message board.
I doubt any of them have ever killed anyone.

What percentage of gun owners do you believe just go out and kill people?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well I don't have any sort of ridiculous perception like that all I said was why should people need to own fully automatic weapons, not, every american are ak47 wielding nutcases, I have no idea where that came from. And it's kind of like a weird situation people look at their country and say gun violence is out of hand, but to actually do anything about it as far as I can see is unconstitutional, does this not strike you as a vicious circle?

 

[Tarheel]

people look at their country and say gun violence is out of hand, but to actually do anything about it as far as I can see is unconstitutional

I don't think gun violence is out of hand.
You think gun violence is out of hand in the US, but you don't live here.
Art thinks gun violence is out of hand in the US, but he doesn't live here either.

People that DO live in America and think gun violence is out of hand, can lobby the governement to make changes.
If enough people feel the same way, the law will be changed.
Only problem is, the over whelming majority of Americans have no desire to give up our right to bear arms.
Democracy.

 

[Entropy]

What percentage of gun owners do you believe just go out and kill people?

A good reason why you don't need a gun to defend yourself.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

well obviously you don't I didn't mean you personally but you do have an extremely high mortality rate atributable to gun crime. Now whether you yourself see this a problem is of course entirely up to you but I don't think you can ignore the fact that you havea lot of dead people who would be alive if you didn't have that right to bear arms, which is what the rest of the world finds bemusing. Why have so many guns of such deadly calibre when you don't need them? Can you honestly say you will ever need two ak47 2 shotguns and 2 handguns to defend your familly? Wouldn't a semi automatic be enough? Where do you live Beirut?

I think what americans fail to acknowledge is the rest of the western world will probably spend there entire lives without seeing a gun much less gun violence. We look at America and say why so violent? because we just don't see anything like what your country sees anywhere else in the democratic west. You can understand why we look awry at your culture and it's morbid interest in guns? It makes no sense to us? You might not agree with us but you have to ask yourself is it really that necessary and could you live without it? If the answer is no then feel free to carry on shooting each other? And I don't mean the average American, I mean the people who do shoot each other the small minority that actually are Automatic toting citizens.

 

[Entropy]

every american are ak47 wielding nucases, I have no idea where that came from.

Bowling for Columbine. A movie which is mostly bull****, but does have a few good points.

 

[Cyrus]

A good reason why you don't need a gun to defend yourself.

That is not an arugment. In fact, that is just pure nonsense. What did I tell you Entropy? If you don't like guns don't own one.

I think what americans fail to acknowledge is the rest of the western world will probably spend there entire lives without seeing a gun much less gun violence.

Thats just it, we don't have to acknowledge to anyone but ourselves why we have the right to own guns.

We look at America and say why so violent? because we just don't see anything like what your country sees anywhere else in the democratic west. You can understand why we look awry at your culture and it's morbid interest in guns? It makes no sense to us?

Who cares what makes sense to you, it's not your country.

You might not agree with us but you have to ask yourself is it really that necessary and could you live without it? If the answer is no then feel free to carry on shooting each other?

No, we don't agree with you nor can we live without it.

And I don't mean the average American, I mean the people who do shoot each other the small minority that actually are Automatic toting citizens.

Man, you need to stop making these wild comments. The average citizen that owns an automatic weapon does not go around shooting people. Man I'm getting sick of your comments. Do you know the most commonly used gun in crimes are the HAND GUN! . Despite what you may want, the United States is not part of the EU. You don't make up our laws or run our country. Respectfully, why don't you worry about your own crime problems.

 

[Cyrus]

Look, just stop it already.

Myth #1 "Guns are only used for killing"
Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives.

Myth #3 "There is an epidemic of gun violence"
Even their claim of an "epidemic of violence is false. That claim, like so many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data. Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control. [2]

The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for those with no hope of decent job opportunities. [4]

Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor additional gun laws.

Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police state tactics cannot effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.[25]

Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good people who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing further impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm those good people - especially disarming good, poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk.

If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.

What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally competent, law- abiding citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection - guns. [26,27]

US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all. [3] The myth that "guns are only used for killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us examine the other common myths.

Its nice that you care about voilence in our country, but your arguing out of ignorance.

 

[Entropy]

That is not an arugment. In fact, that is just pure nonsense.

It makes prefect sense. Since your life is not danger from people who own guns. Why own one yourself, other than out of paranoia?

What did I tell you Entropy? If you don't like guns don't own one.

Why don't you stop condescending to people for one second and actually listen to what their saying? I'm arguing that there is no rational reason to own a gun for protection in America.

 

[Cyrus]

Why don't you stop condescending to people for one second and actually listen to what their saying? I'm arguing that there is no rational reason to own a gun for protection in America.

Stop arguing out of ignorance. Go read about guns and crime prevention before arguing out of emotion. All I have heard from you so far is opinion.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

well that's the third time someone has completely misinterpreted my point, what I meant was certain criminal elements who use sub mahcine guns, not the average citizen which I made perfectly clear by distiguishing between the two.

Americans make me laugh you question anything they do and they get outraged as if you have no right even to ask the question. It's like slagging of George Bush, they do it all the time but anyone else criticises their gov there like wtf do you know stay out damn it, your not an American your point of view is invalid who cares damn it? It's hilarious

OK I'm just saying America is frighteningly inward looking at the best of times and will not accept criticism from the rest of the world, if your happy with one of the highest gun crime rates in the western world then by all means live with it. Just don' think you don't deserve criticism from more peaceful countries or that somehow no one is allowed to question your beliefs. Amercanism is not a religion, you can't quote bible and verse as to why your ideas are justified.

Criticism that is constructive is not a personal assault on your rights freedoms or beliefs, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything just trying to give you an idea of what some of the rest of the world believe.

 

[Anttech]

Man, you need to stop making these wild comments. The average citizen that owns an automatic weapon does not go around shooting people. Man I'm getting sick of your comments. Do you know the most commonly used gun in crimes are the HAND GUN! . Despite what you may want, the United States is not part of the EU. You don't make up our laws or run our country. Respectfully, why don't you worry about your own crime problems.

Because this thread is about YOUR crime problem, by all means start a new one about the EU's crime problem.

 

[Cyrus]

Criticism that is constructive is not a personal assault on your rights freedoms or beliefs,

Don't lie to my face. Your very own criticism wants to get rid of my constitutional rights. That I take as HIGHLY offensive. No one has missed your point, your just not making any point. Everyone has shown you the data that indicates that your claims on assult weapons is flat out wrong.

Because this thread is about YOUR crime problem, by all means start a new one about the EU's crime problem.

Then give a solution that does not violate our constitutional rights. Then well talk.

 

[Anttech]

He is making very vaild points... You just cant/wont listen to them.

If your constitutional rights to own guns is part of the problem, why can't we address that?

Try and calm down, I don't see anyone here, personally attacking you.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'm not lying about anything? What are you talking about, if I was saying change your damn antiquated claptrap now or face the consequences, I could see your point, as mentioned before I'm just suggesting ideas, not dictating policy changes. You can disagree with me but don't call me a liar? Or I'll have to kick over the table and fill you full of lead, man I watched two many cowboy films as a kid

 

[Entropy]

Then give a solution that does not violate our constitutional rights.

Putting aside whether or not gun ownership is right or not for a moment. Simply because something is in the constitution does not make it inheriently right. Yes, you have a right to bear arms WHILE it is the constitution, but the debate is whether or not it should be in the constitution. Do you understand that? Although the constitution is designed to be very concrete, it is not absolute, it is open to change so that it is possible to create a "more perfect union".

 

[daveb]

I think Entropy's point is that if you need arms in order to protect yourself, then there is a crime problem. Otherwise, with no crime problem, the argument that you need arms to protect yourself is just paranoia. Is that the crux of what you (Entropy) are saying? (Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with the various statements.)

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not lying about anything? What are you talking about, if I was saying change your damn antiquated claptrap now or face the consequences, I could see your point, as mentioned before I'm just suggesting ideas, not dictating policy changes. You can disagree with me but don't call me a liar? Or I'll have to kick over the table and fill you full of lead, man I watched two many cowboy films as a kid

Antiquated to who? You are the only one who seems to think so. The majority of Americans do not. What gun are you going to shoot me with? I can shoot you though, because you don't have a gun. Your crime is dangerously low anyways

Putting aside whether ofr not gun ownership is right or not for a moment. Simply because something is in the constitution does not make it inheriently right. Yes, you have a right to bear arms WHILE it is the constitution, but the debate is whether or not it should be in the constitution. Do you understand that? Although the constitution is designed to be very concrete, it is not absolute, it is open to change so that it is possible to create a "more perfect union".

And the majority of Americans do not feel that way. Why can't you get that in your head? I already told you, if you hate it so much go Amend the constitution and see how far you get.

No, daveb, that's not a valid point. Your right is paranoia, that's the whole point of the 2nd amendment. So that if the government got out of control or that we were attacked, the people could stand up for themselves.


There is not a major movement against guns in this country. Most people who own guns abide by the law. People have the right to shoot their guns at a shooting range or to go hunting no? Are you going to take away their right? You don't have any right to do that. Stop using guns as your scapegoat to think you will solve all the problems by eliminating them. Why don't you argue a valid point for a change. Like proper training so that it is much harder for criminals to steal guns from people who LEGALLY own them and pose no threat to society. Why don't you argue against the ILLEGAL trafficking of guns in urban areas. Why don't you argue against minors getting their hands on guns. Why don't you arguet against irresponsible dealers who sell guns to people that are not legally allowed to buy a gun. Why don't you argue that there are not enough checks to see if a person is suddenly buying too many guns at one time, implying that they might be illegally selling them on the streets. Why don't you stop wasting everyones time by thinking taking away guns is a magic solution and that limiting our fundamental rights in the process is ok.

He is making very vaild points... You just cant/wont listen to them.

If your constitutional rights to own guns is part of the problem, why can't we address that?

Try and calm down, I don't see anyone here, personally attacking you.

He proposes to limit citizens rights to gun ownership. I have already explained to you that the 2nd amendment does not say what kind of guns you can own. It simply says you can own ANY gun. Why should I listen to him when his argument is a strawman?

You don't live in America, so how can you possibly tell me about the problems of assult weapons? Don't you think if assult weapons were such a big problem there would be crimes on the news every night showing said weapons? I have yet to see my local news report about the growing problem due to assult weapons, and I live in a major urban area. So give me a break with your strawman argument.

 

[Anttech]

Why should I listen to him when his argument is a strawman?

h[PLAIN]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument[/URL]

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.

Nobody has misrepresented your views! Or created a strawman agument, Care to explain your aligation?