Right to Bear Arms: US Laws Explained

[Anttech]

True. It doesn't matter how much you tear down a firearm, I could look at an X-ray of your luggage, identify the parts, and probably tell what model of gun is in there. The hysteria over "plastic guns" was way overblown, and the Glocks are now the standard-issue sidearm for lots of police departments here in the US.

As an aside: one of the few uses of composites in barrel manufacture was the Winchester Win-lite barrel, which was a very thin-walled steel barrel reinforced with fiberglass wrapping. The resulting shotguns were lighter than normal, but the bore of the barrel was still steel, as was the receiver, bolt, slide and the entire trigger assembly.

I concede.. seems I was duped

 

[Anttech]

A purely civilian insurgency (which the South was not, btw) wouldn't have such things and wouldn't stand a change against a determined military.

I aggree

This is why I feel that the right carry arms in todays America cannot be justified by saying "We need to have the populas armed to overthrow our goverment, if indeed it came to that" If this is the reason, the ammendment need to be updated to "We as a populas need the right to have surface to air missels, Tanks, Fighter Jets, etc etc, to overthrow our goverment"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Besides as I said before the right to revolution is not really a right, revolutions by definition are illegal. Overthrowing any government by force of arms is illegal so to have it as a lawful right makes little sense. It's like giving people the right to vote in a democracy and allowing them to enforce this right with arms.

If a country wants to overthrow it's governement, then eventually it will, whether by force or by vote, either way a right to do it is an irellevance, after all when the law was written what had they just done? Did they need a right to do it? Not really.

I hearby give you the right to breathe to think and to disagree with your government, should these "rights" be denied by a tyranical dictator I give you the right to rise up for yourself and to overthrow said government with arms. Oh well that's alright then, cause before that I was figuring I'd be spending time in jail otherwise

 

[RVBuckeye]

This is why I feel that the right carry arms in todays America cannot be justified by saying "We need to have the populas armed to overthrow our goverment, if indeed it came to that" If this is the reason, the ammendment need to be updated to "We as a populas need the right to have surface to air missels, Tanks, Fighter Jets, etc etc, to overthrow our goverment"

I hope you don't mind if I jump in here. I don't own a gun or think our government needs to be overthrown but... I think history has shown us many examples of governmental overthrow without fighting the entire military. Some are done by assasinations, some are just started by small arms and another country helps out with the big stuff. (although this is usually the role of the US)

 

[turbo]

I think that last part kinda contradicts the first part. It is sometimes said that the Civil War was won by the North because of the Gatling Gun. That was the most sophisticated weapon at the time.

The Gatling gun was not used by the US military until 1865, and saw its first major use in the slaughter of native Americans. Custer screwed up and left his back at Ft. Lincoln, or the Little Big Horn might have turned out a bit differently.

Dr Gatling developed his gun early in the 1860's, but the originals had lots of problems that had to be resolved before the design would be accepted by the military. The gun saw very limited us in the CW. The South lost due to lack of resources and due to some errors in judgement at critical junctions in the war. For instance, had Stuart's cavalry been properly at Lee's disposal just prior to Gettysburg, the Union might have suffered a disastrous loss there, allowing the Confederate army the opportunity to proceed east toward Washington and Baltimore.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Besides as I said before the right to revolution is not really a right, revolutions by definition are illegal. Overthrowing any government by force of arms is illegal so to have it as a lawful right makes little sense. It's like giving people the right to vote in a democracy and allowing them to enforce this right with arms.

If a country wants to overthrow it's governement, then eventually it will, whether by force or by vote, either way a right to do it is an irellevance, after all when the law was written what had they just done? Did they need a right to do it? Not really.

I hearby give you the right to breathe to think and to disagree with your government, should these "rights" be denied by a tyranical dictator I give you the right to rise up for yourself and to overthrow said government with arms. Oh well that's alright then, cause before that I was figuring I'd be spending time in jail otherwise

Overthrow isn't necessarily the point but rather protection from the government if necessary. The law does not state that US citizens have the right to overthrow their government obviously. I doesn't even say that you have the right to resist the government. Nothing in there makes it legal to do either of these things. It DOES however insure that the citizens are capable of owning the arms necessary to defend themselves from any group or government that would move them to organize against it. If the people did not have the arms to defend themselves then any such group that itself is well armed would find little resistence.

 

[Moonbear]

I think that last part kinda contradicts the first part. It is sometimes said that the Civil War was won by the North because of the Gatling Gun. That was the most sophisticated weapon at the time. Today, we have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. A purely civilian insurgency (which the South was not, btw) wouldn't have such things and wouldn't stand a change against a determined military.

But see my caveat below about the military being composed of ordinary citizens...

I don't see the contradiction, nor how your point differs...or maybe you don't mean it to differ.

I offered my interpretation of the second amendment as it is written. I didn't actually state my full opinion with regard to it (I believe I've stated that more elaborately in past threads on gun control, and it's very similar to your preferences for stricter training, testing, and licensing requirements, without banning).

The only way a civilian insurgency could stand up against the military at this point would be if they quietly infiltrated it and gained access to the equipment from among the ranks...basically, they'd have to get a lot of people to enlist and then turn traitor. Having a collection of shotguns, or even machine guns, in the basement isn't going to help much against a tank, so I agree, that such a purpose is rather outdated.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The only way a civilian insurgency could stand up against the military at this point would be if they quietly infiltrated it and gained access to the equipment from among the ranks...basically, they'd have to get a lot of people to enlist and then turn traitor. Having a collection of shotguns, or even machine guns, in the basement isn't going to help much against a tank, so I agree, that such a purpose is rather outdated.

I think the general idea is more one of resistence than insurgency. I'm sure that if we were to see the institution of Martial Law in the US we would also see quite a few militias organize to protect themselves. We already know that if the government decided to quash domestic resistence with force it would only become that much more of a bad guy and lose that much more support to the resistence. The US military would be forced to use kid gloves when dealing with such situations. Even though the military would likely "win" in the end they would still lose a lot of ground in other ways.

 

[deckart]

It is interesting to listen to the opinions of folks from other countries.

One thing to consider about us Americans is the fact that a lot of blood was spilled in order for us to retain the rights we currently have. This is a reason some will get very offended if you speak against that which many paid the ultimate price for. It's a freedom we will always exercise and appreciate.

We could do away with them (guns) and say they served their purpose at a particular time and are no longer needed, but why? Gun crime is not an epidemic in this country. And if it were, then all the more reason a responsible citizen should retain the right to own one. A responsible citizen is not the threat to society, the criminal is.

FYI A convicted felon loses his or her right to bear arms for the rest of their life in this country.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It is interesting to listen to the opinions of folks from other countries.

One thing to consider about us Americans is the fact that a lot of blood was spilled in order for us to retain the rights we currently have. This is a reason some will get very offended if you speak against that which many paid the ultimate price for. It's a freedom we will always exercise and appreciate.

We could do away with them (guns) and say they served their purpose at a particular time and are no longer needed, but why? Gun crime is not an epidemic in this country. And if it were, then all the more reason a responsible citizen should retain the right to own one. A responsible citizen is not the threat to society, the criminal is.

FYI A convicted felon loses his or her right to bear arms for the rest of their life in this country.

Yeah and this stops criminals from acquiring guns obviously

Fact is your just all in love with your gun culture? I doubt there is any political or common sense reason to own guns any more, other than the fact that your entire country all has the right to bear arms, it's kind of a self defeating circular argument. By all means if your happy with the highest gun crime rates in the western world, and this to you means that gun crime is at acceptable levels then fine. Just don't ask us to make any sense of your right to bear arms, to us it looks like nonsense. Entirely your look out though, I'm glad I'll most likely never get to see a GSW even though I work in a hospital and have regualr contact with the emergency department. But whatever.

You guys carry on shooting each other, maybe its a Darwinian way of reducing the criminal element in your country? Who knows

I just looked at some satistics by 100,000 population America has a 5% hangun murder rate England has .05? I am so glad I don't live in America? That's just scarey.

For every person who dies from hand gun related crime in England 100 do in America? Not out of control, no not even close, I understand

 

[Anttech]

One thing to consider about us Americans is the fact that a lot of blood was spilled in order for us to retain the rights we currently have.

Its the same in Europe, France, Germany, UK.. Yet we don't have a gun culture

 

[RVBuckeye]

You guys carry on shooting each other, maybe its a Darwinian way of reducing the criminal element in your country? Who knows

Could be a part of it in the meantime. Some might be paranoia.

As far as defending ourselves against a tyrannical government...One day you might come to appreciate it. If we go down, more than likely, you will too.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Its the same in Europe, France, Germany, UK.. Yet we don't have a gun culture

Nor did Europeans have much in the way of popular irregular military service in their formative nation-state years. Deckart has a point, the United States is unique in the principles governing its institution and its conduct of war.

 

[russ_watters]

Besides as I said before the right to revolution is not really a right, revolutions by definition are illegal. Overthrowing any government by force of arms is illegal so to have it as a lawful right makes little sense.

Good point - it is a logical contradiction.

The Gatling gun was not used by the US military until 1865, and saw its first major use in the slaughter of native Americans. Custer screwed up and left his back at Ft. Lincoln, or the Little Big Horn might have turned out a bit differently.

Dr Gatling developed his gun early in the 1860's, but the originals had lots of problems that had to be resolved before the design would be accepted by the military. The gun saw very limited us in the CW.

Oops - thanks for the correction. Must be a popular myth I fell for.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see the contradiction, nor how your point differs...or maybe you don't mean it to differ.

Ehh, I probably just misread.

Gun crime is not an epidemic in this country.

Given the fact that our murder rate is among the highest in the world - and orders of magnitude higher than in most developed countries, I don't see how you can think it isn't a problem.

A responsible citizen is not the threat to society, the criminal is.

That is true by definition, of course, but what does it really mean or matter? IMO, if we could drop the overall gun-crime rate by 90% (plus the kid-shooting-himself-in-the-head rate) at the cost of taking guns from responsible gun owners, that is a reasonable thing to do. A fair trade.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Ehh, I probably just misread. Given the fact that our murder rate is among the highest in the world - and orders of magnitude higher than in most developed countries, I don't see how you can think it isn't a problem.

Maybe because the US loses more lives annually to heart disease and car accidents. I have to agree, we cannot call this an epidemic based on the violent crime rate alone--not without declaring deaths due to heart disease and auto accidents epidemic as well.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe because the US loses more lives annually to heart disease and car accidents. I have to agree, we cannot call this an epidemic based on the violent crime rate alone--not without declaring deaths due to heart disease and auto accidents epidemic as well.

Fine. Car accident deaths are an epidemic. But more specifically, they are a problem that we need to work hard to correct (and we do). So then would you agree that the gun crime rate (even regardless of the fact that it is far higher than typical) is also a problem that we should work to correct?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Given the fact that our murder rate is among the highest in the world - and orders of magnitude higher than in most developed countries, I don't see how you can think it isn't a problem.

Aside from the distinction between an epidemic and a problem (rather loose usage for you, Russ), the murder rate in nearly all US cities has dropped sharply since the 1980s. The murder rate outside the cities has always been much lower. What is the gun death rate in the bottom 90% of counties by population?

 

[crazycalhoun]

Fine. Car accident deaths are an epidemic. But more specifically, they are a problem that we need to work hard to correct (and we do). So then would you agree that the gun crime rate (even regardless of the fact that it is far higher than typical) is also a problem that we should work to correct?

Speaking broadly to the violent crime rate, yes. With all the urgency we attach to the auto accident epidemic but a bit more than heart disease, since homicide is the second leading killer of the 15-24 age group (fortunately, still far below the auto accident fatality rate).

 

[Orefa]

Car accidents are a red herring. War and terrorism are not a problem, look at cars! Smoking deaths are not a problem, look at cars! Gun crimes are not a problem, look at cars! In spite of their various problems, cars are useful and desirable compared to war, terrorism, smoking and guns.

 

[deckart]

Well, if and when wrongful deaths caused by guns in the hands of licensed citizens becomes a leading cause of fatalities in this country, then we will deal with it. We have a process for dealing with those types of issues. But unitl then, this is a lot of talk about a non-issue IMO. And a lot of that it brought about by people who have no familiarity with firearms at all. Just fear and ignorance.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Car accidents are a red herring.

If you read the exchange, you'll note that I was objecting Russ's description of gun violence's contribution to the violent crime rate as epidemic based entirely on the rate. I'd further argue that there is little if any further economic cost beyond the loss of life that would justify considering gun related violence anymore epidemic than heart disease. War and terrorism, on the other hand, have marked social psychological effects that do translate into real economic and social problems.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, if and when wrongful deaths caused by guns in the hands of licensed citizens becomes a leading cause of fatalities in this country, then we will deal with it.

Since when is the total number of fatalities what determines the response? 9/11 "only" killed 3,000 people, but we went to war over it.

Besides, depending on your demographic (as pointed out above), gun violence can be one of the leading causes of death in the US.

 

[deckart]

I don't have a statistic but I'm curious as to how many wrongful deaths can be attributed to licensed firearm owners.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Since when is the total number of fatalities what determines the response? 9/11 "only" killed 3,000 people, but we went to war over it.

Besides, depending on your demographic (as pointed out above), gun violence can be one of the leading causes of death in the US.

Well it is one of the leading causes of death across all age demographics, and the leading cause of death for youths between 13 and 20 in urban areas (notably California). On the other hand, that demographic is closely tied to the gang violence issue, which apparently hasn't achieved a political degree of interest far beyond other crime issues.

 

[deckart]

Well this is an interesting stat:

FACT: Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 56% of total 2002 gun deaths nationwide. In 2002, the U.S. firearm suicide total was 17,108, a 1% increase from 2001 numbers. Total gun suicides in Illinois for 2002 were 466, a decrease of 8% from the 2001 numbers. Most suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms.

-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.

Basically, most of those people who die from gunshots were going to off themselves anyway.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well this is an interesting stat:

FACT: Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 56% of total 2002 gun deaths nationwide. In 2002, the U.S. firearm suicide total was 17,108, a 1% increase from 2001 numbers. Total gun suicides in Illinois for 2002 were 466, a decrease of 8% from the 2001 numbers. Most suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms.

-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.

Basically, most of those people who die from gunshots were going to off themselves anyway.

Does it say whether or not they include accidental self shootings? Legally if you kill yourself, whether on purpose or not, it's called a suicide.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Does it say whether or not they include accidental self shootings? Legally if you kill yourself, whether on purpose or not, it's called a suicide.

Um, no its not.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Um, no its not.

I knew someone who killed himself on accident. It was labeled a suicide by the police.

 

[deckart]

I imagine it depends on the circumstance. Legally there are 3 categories for the causes of death: Accidental, Homicide, and Suicide. A person could accidently kill himself by putting a loaded gun to his own head but it would probably be ruled a suicide.

Anyhow, with suicide being the number one cause of death with a firearm, I believe those numbers should be thrown out of the gun violence argument. That cuts the statistics at least in half.

 

[crazycalhoun]

I knew someone who killed himself on accident. It was labeled a suicide by the police.

Yeah, and I knew someone who knew the law. Unless the authorities rule the death a willful act of self-homicide, it's not suicide.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

OK what's this one then, This is a famous story from the Fortean Times Bizarre suicides section and details the events of a particulalrly thorny "suicide" true story too:

A son who fed up with his parents constant arguing and seeing that his father often held his unloaded shutgun at his wife and feigned shooting here decided it had gone to far and loaded the shot gun; shortly afterwards overcome with depression he threw himself off the building.

At this moment the couple who where arguing ferociously below set the now loaded shot gun off hitting the guy as he fell and killing him, a few seconds later he was caught by the suicide nets on the building. Police eventually put the case down as death by misadventure? What would you call it

Interesting story that if a little off topic.

 

[RVBuckeye]

OK what's this one then, This is a famous story from the Fortean Times Bizarre suicides section and details the events of a particulalrly thorny "suicide" true story too:

A son who fed up with his parents constant arguing and seeing that his father often held his unloaded shutgun at his wife and feigned shooting here decided it had gone to far and loaded the shot gun; shortly afterwards overcome with depression he threw himself off the building.

At this moment the couple who where arguing ferociously below set the now loaded shot gun off hitting the guy as he fell and killing him, a few seconds later he was caught by the suicide nets on the building. Police eventually put the case down as death by misadventure? What would you call it

Interesting story that if a little off topic.

I'd say it was that poor guys time to die. If he made it alive to the net, the police probably would have dropped him, causing his death. Misadventure just about sums it up. Thanks.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'd say it was that poor guys time to die. If he made it alive to the net, the police probably would have dropped him, causing his death. Misadventure just about sums it up. Thanks.

Na dead when the shotgun hit, big gaping hole type wound, tends to kill people; dead before he hit the net a few seconds later.

Imagine being the coroner on that one though

 

[RVBuckeye]

Na dead when the shotgun hit, big gaping hole type wound, tends to kill people;

I get that. Maybe I should have said, "If you take the gun out of the equation, the net would have broken and he would have died anyway." But I didn't want you to mistake my intent of humor, for a pro-gun/anti-gun comment.
It would have been a mess though.