News Right to Bear Arms: US Laws Explained

[Orefa]

I have searched for the result of neutral opinion pools on retaining or repealing the second amendment. I have not yet found a good, credible source on the net. I have only seen informal ones, and possibly biased polls that are published by groups with a known agenda, and they contradict each other. Does anyone have a link to reputable figures that show what the level of support or opposition actually is (or has been over the years)?

 

[turbo]

I think it's a good thing that some of us keep firearms on hand. The uncertainty (criminal types not knowing who has one) probably keeps us all a bit safer from the home-invasion-type crimes. That said, I would ask people to please NOT buy a gun if they are not going to learn how to use it safely, and practice periodically to keep proficient in its use.

 

[Anttech]

For the record. I would Ban the lot of them, apart from Guns for Sport (and I mean Hunting).

I remember before 9/11 I was in LA, I went into a Gun shop, and I found a gun without any metal parts, it broke down into a nice bag, and when broken down didnt look anything like a gun.

I suppose it is your right to own a Gun like that, it is also the right of a want to be terrorist to own a gun like that...

The agument I aggree with is that if you ban guns, less people have them, crinimals feel less inclined to carry a gun for "petty" crimes, and less people get killed in the long run...

The agument that in America the 2nd amendment is ok because it allows you as people to rise up against the goverment. Well you wouldn't have a chance if the Military is on the side of the Goverment. So IMHO its a fallacy of an argument

Judging by some of the responces in this thread, guns won't go away in America, that's your choice, and I respect it. But doesn't mean I aggree with it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The agument that in America the 2nd amendment is ok because it allows you as people to rise up against the goverment. Well you wouldn't have a chance if the Military is on the side of the Goverment. So IMHO its a fallacy of an argument

See how well the army is dealing with the Iraq insurgency. Who's got the fallacy?

 

[Anttech]

Good point, well presented :)

--NT--

 

[daveb]

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.

Whoa, hold on there...I never said that was my point...I queried whether that was Entropy's point.

See how well the army is dealing with the Iraq insurgency. Who's got the fallacy?

And how reluctant might a soldier be to fire upon one of his own countrymen? Of course the opposite could be true if the soldier feels the countryman is wrong.

 

[turbo]

I remember before 9/11 I was in LA, I went into a Gun shop, and I found a gun without any metal parts, it broke down into a nice bag, and when broken down didnt look anything like a gun.

You were badly misinformed. There was quite a bit of hysteria when Glock started producing pistols with composite frames, because they would be "invisible" in security checks. That was simply not true. Glock pistols have over a pound of metal in them. There is a law banning the manufacture of pistols that don't have a prescribed amount of metal in them, and nobody has managed to develop a chamber or barrel using something other than metal. A Parkerized Glock might look ""all plastic" to the uninitiated, but they are certainly not.

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/plastic_gun.HTM

 

[Anttech]

You were badly misinformed.

LOL.. I SAW it with my own eyes. I also picked it up (It was very light), and the man offered to sell it to me! It was not a Glock, and it was not a pistol but a rifle of sorts...

 

[russ_watters]

See how well the army is dealing with the Iraq insurgency. Who's got the fallacy?

That really doesn't have anything to do with the quote you were replying to - the US is a foreign force in Iraq.

That said, the quote isn't all that realistic no matter how you slice it: It is very much likely that if there was a situation so bad that a high fraction of the population wanted to overthrow the government, a high fraction of the military would agree. The military are ordinary citizens - not mindless automotons.

And the other side of the coin is that there are few scenarios where a real uprising would be possible in the US.

 

[turbo]

I used to work as an auctioneer of firearms and handled many thousands of them over the years. There is no pistol or rifle available anywhere that is made entirely of composite materials, least of all the bolt, chamber and barrel, which have to withstand tremendous pressures, and although there are some expensive subtitute metals that could be used, these parts are almost always made of hardened steel. Do a Google search on plastic guns and see what you get.

 

[russ_watters]

LOL.. I SAW it with my own eyes. I also picked it up (It was very light), and the man offered to sell it to me! It was not a Glock, and it was not a pistol but a rifle of sorts...

I find it hard to believe that a rifle barrel can be made to look like anything but a rifle barrel. All guns have common elements that must be present in order for them to be functional weapons. It doesn't take a lot of training to spot those pieces.

 

[turbo]

I find it hard to believe that a rifle barrel can be made to look like anything but a rifle barrel. All guns have common elements that must be present in order for them to be functional weapons. It doesn't take a lot of training to spot those pieces.

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.

 

[Moonbear]

And how reluctant might a soldier be to fire upon one of his own countrymen? Of course the opposite could be true if the soldier feels the countryman is wrong.

Recall the U.S. Civil War? Sure, one would hope it would give someone pause before taking up arms against their own countrymen (and women), but if the cause were serious enough, history tells us it can happen.

Besides, nobody said the government wouldn't fight back, or that the citizens would necessarily win, just that they have the right to try. Indeed, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War provide two contrasting examples, one in which the citizens were able to successfully separate from the ruling government to form their own nation, and one in which they attempted to secede and failed in their attempt.

Also, battles and wars aren't necessarily won by the side that is right, but by the side that has the most military strength, in terms of personnel, equipment, strategy, natural resources, fortifications, defendable borders, persistance, and sometimes dumb luck.

 

[cronxeh]

Also, battles and wars aren't necessarily won by the side that is right, but by the side that has the most military strength, in terms of personnel, equipment, strategy, natural resources, fortifications, defendable borders, persistance, and sometimes dumb luck.

Heh.. sort of like Vietnam? Yeah, US lost there. There is another side to fighting a war within your own country and that is logistics. You can't win a war when your fuel supplies are intercepted, and cut off. With a fuel distance of 285 miles, an M1A1 tank needs a whole lot of fuel to cruise around the country, fighting the resistance. So its very likely that if you have enough disgruntled citizens (say in the ballpark of 50 million), you can effectively take over the entire fuel supply, communications, roads, bridges, and water supplies. Without the tanks and air support there is no quick victory, and in the case of Civil War today, there won't even be one.

 

[selfAdjoint]

See how well the army is dealing with the Iraq insurgency. Who's got the fallacy?

That really doesn't have anything to do with the quote you were replying to - the US is a foreign force in Iraq.

The US army is an unpopular force fighting a dissident population. Yes that population has the extra incentive that the USA is a foreign force, but we can imagine equal grievances among a US population, and aside from that I don't see why the example is improper.

Also, comparisons to the US Civil War are not useful, as that was a war between some of the states and the rest (the Southern name for it is still the "War Between the States" and the original Nothern name was "The War for the Union"). This is not at all the same as the case of a dissident population rising against their government, or a tyrannical government trying to oppress the population.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And how reluctant might a soldier be to fire upon one of his own countrymen?

Remember Kent State? And they were unarmed college students.

All that is required is an us and them mentality.

 

[Tarheel]

the Southern name for it is still the "War Between the States"

As a proud Southerner I can tell you that in the South we still refer to the Civil war as "The War of Northern Aggression"

 

[selfAdjoint]

Ah yes, I forgot that one. But Tarheel, your name suggests you are from North Carolina, and IIRC, many proud southerners in that state were Union supporters. (My own ancestors of that generation included enlisted men in both armies).

This is of course OT. Back on theme, I do not own a gun but I repeat my stance: national gun database automatically updated whenever a gun changes hands legally, and concealed carry. This meets my personal definition of "A well-regulated (unorganized) militia. We can't do European type low gun-ownership because we don't have their history (translation, most of us have backgrounds of free citizens going back generations, not as peasants/proles/ etc. who didn't have guns while the aristocracy did).

 

[russ_watters]

Recall the U.S. Civil War? Sure, one would hope it would give someone pause before taking up arms against their own countrymen (and women), but if the cause were serious enough, history tells us it can happen.

Also, battles and wars aren't necessarily won by the side that is right, but by the side that has the most military strength, in terms of personnel, equipment, strategy, natural resources, fortifications, defendable borders, persistance, and sometimes dumb luck.

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...

 

[russ_watters]

I haven't weighed-in on the topic itself and I apologize if I cover old ground because of my absence, but...

I don't support the second amendment in its current form/interpretation. I think that it is an anachronism that no longer applies to the way our country works. There are two basic arguments for it: revolting and protection:

While the revolutionary war was a popular insurgency, the Civil War was not - it was fought between two trained armies. The idea of a popular insurgency actually defeating a committed modern military today is just silly. Remember, we're not talking about an Iraqi insurgency or USSR vs Afghanistan situation - can you imagine a popular insurgency advancing on and trying to take Washington DC? It just isn't possible.

As for basing the right to bear arms on protection, protection and safety go hand in hand and need to be weighed against each other. It is one thing to keep a shotgun in your closet to protect your home and quite another to keep a Glock in your purse. With the shotgun you have a decent chance of protecting your home - with that Glock in your purse, odds are good that you'll die or you'll kill trying to use it against someone also armed with a gun.

And that's to say nothing of gun accidents and gun crime itself. Many gun statistics and analogies thrown around by gun advocates are straw-men. Some of the more common (some seen in this thread):

-Cars kill more people than guns. Car manufacturers put considerable effort into making cars safer. Gun manufacturers put considerable effort into making guns deadlier (more on that later...). At the same time, cars require testing, licensing, safety inspections, etc. Those things should be bare minimum requirements for gun ownership: even if something is a right, that doesn't mean it isn't regulated. The gun lobby has succeeded in preventing even the most basic of product safety legislation on guns:

Most consumers are shocked to learn that their refrigerators, cars, and children's teddy bears are more regulated than guns. The objective of MCC’s Firearms Safety Project is to redefine gun policy to include the view that gun safety can be regulated. The history of consumer product regulation teaches that a significant number of deaths, injuries and illnesses can be prevented as a result of health and safety standards. The consumer product approach has worked to reduce product-related death and injury for thousands of other products, we believe it will work with guns.

Guns kill or injure more than 90,000 Americans each year. Yet, guns are virtually the only consumer product not regulated for health and safety. Congress has given regulatory authority to federal agencies to assure that almost all consumer products in America are safe. For example, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulates the safety of nearly 15,000 consumer products used in or around the home. But no federal agency has the power to ensure that guns manufactured and sold are safe.

http://www.massconsumers.org/gunsregulation.html

-Guns are for protection, not killing (often with stats, as provided by Cyrus). Absurd deflection. Just because a nuclear weapon doesn't get launched doesn't mean its purpose isn't death. Guns (most guns) are designed for killing. Most guns that aren't designed for killing are designed for practice for killing. That's their purpose - their reason for existence.

-Gun violence isn't that bad. Cyrus's "Myth #3". Just read the quotes:

Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug trafficking.

A declining problem, sure, but just because it is declining doesn't make it not a problem.

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.

Come again? If we subtract most of our gun crimes from our gun crime stats, our gun crime stats are not as bad as Britains? How is that a fair way to compare them?

The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership.

And that matters, why? That doesn't mean the crimes don't still happen and matter.

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.

All of those are great ideas. But would the NRA support such ideas? The NRA's lobbying power - the NRA writes many of our gun laws itself, specifically to make them useless - is simply too great for meaningful change. In fact, many of those things you list, the NRA (and a great many gun owners), would argue are unConstitutional.

I want to make myself clear: I'm not against using guns for protection in limited circumstances. I'm not against hunting. I'm not against target shooting. But there are serious flaws to the logic behind the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment in its present form/interpretation.

 

[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