News Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

[Cyrus]

Bla bla bla, waa waa waa. Tax paying citizens have their right to own a gun, like anyone else in any other state.

 

[Cyrus]

Guns are pretty easy to get already in most states, so it will be interesting to see how this does not solve any problems.

The right to own a gun isn't to "solve any problems", you miss the point ENTIRELY.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes.

I live in a state of hunters. Most of these guys couldn't take over a local city council meeting, let alone destroy the US government. Knowing their accuracy, they'd probably shoot themselves before they shot anybody else.

This is just the thing though, gun nuts claim guns will check tyranny, but the gun nuts themselves are usually the ones that support the most tyranny, both at home and abroad.

You know, you sure do have a lot of opinions that have nada, zip, zilch, to do with the topic of this thread. What does the opinion of guns nuts supporting tyranny at home and abroad --whatever the hell that means, have to do with this discussion.

Instead of having any rational talk, you are just throwing nonsense after nonsense about things that have no relation.

Lets make this stupidly simple:

q: do the people of DC pay taxes like anyone else?
A: YES.

q: Do people in any other state have the RIGHTS of the constitution?
a: YES.

q: Do the TAX PAYING citizens of DC have these same rights as anyone else?
a: YES.

q: Does everyone else get to have guns
a: YES.

So, explain to me why the people of DC, normal TAX PAYING CITIZENS can't have guns? Do they get only partial rights under the US constitution?


You don't like guns, we all get that. Then you have to change the constitution for EVERYONE, not just states and the district here and there.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.

How can you say this? Did you even read the decision? Out of ~157 pages, approximately 156 was devoted to the relationship between the first half of the sentence and the second.

Personally, I found the Breyer dissent most troubling - he argues that enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, and that the government is justified in regulating them into irrelevance if it serves a compelling state interest. I think that's a very slippery slope Mr. Justice Breyer is standing on.

 

[OrbitalPower]

You know, you sure do have a lot of opinions that have nada, zip, zilch, to do with the topic of this thread.

It does have to do with the thread. I was replying to people who made the statement that runs were a prerequisite to freedom.

It was in completely in context with the line of discussion in the thread.

What does the opinion of guns nuts supporting tyranny at home and abroad --whatever the hell that means, have to do with this discussion.

It clearly had to do with what I was replying to.

Instead of having any rational talk, you are just throwing nonsense after nonsense about things that have no relation.

It isn't "nonsense" -- I'm very wary of people who advocate guns as a prerequisite for freedom and then advocate absolute tyranny -- and it had everything to do with the comment I was replying to.

q: do the people of DC pay taxes like anyone else?
A: YES.

q: Do people in any other state have the RIGHTS of the constitution?
a: YES.

q: Do the TAX PAYING citizens of DC have these same rights as anyone else?
a: YES.

q: Does everyone else get to have guns
a: YES.

So, explain to me why the people of DC, normal TAX PAYING CITIZENS can't have guns? Do they get only partial rights under the US constitution?

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns. The founders themselves prohibited people from owning guns, and declared they had the "right" to take people's guns away from them in given scenarios (such as being "disaffected with the revolution"). So, you wouldn't have the change the constitution at all to have strict regulation.

I can give you the names of plenty of historians and legal scholars who've written on the context of the issue, noting the second amendment is not an individual right, and they know a lot more about the issue than Penn & Teller.

 

[drankin]

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns.

Hmmm. Apparently that belief wasn't backed by enough evidence to convince the highest court in the country. I think it's fair to say with credibility that you are technically wrong. And that is going to be the standing fact for many generations to come. But, if one doesn't like that fact there is always Canada right next door...

 

[OrbitalPower]

Actually, the court has ruled numerous times on this issue all under the clear interpretation that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to own guns, such as US v. Miller.

In recent years the court has underwent conservative "judicial packing" with people like "justice" Roberts and so on, so I regard what they say as irrelevant. The kind of people that would have upheld restrictions on anti-war speech during the two great wars.

Quite obviously, I don't base my beliefs on what Justice Roberts and sexual offenders like Clarence Thomas believe.

I'd take a real scholar any day of the weak.

 

[Cyrus]

It does have to do with the thread. I was replying to people who made the statement that guns were a prerequisite to freedom.

It was in completely in context with the line of discussion in the thread.



It clearly had to do with what I was replying to.

Really, local hunters from your state who can't take over city council does not really have anything to do with this topic. Its just anecdotal evidence on your part.

It isn't "nonsense" -- I'm very wary of people who advocate guns as a prerequisite for freedom and then advocate absolute tyranny -- and it had everything to do with the comment I was replying to.

Note, I was using the word nonsense not to get a warning for using a stronger word, which I wanted to use. The statement in bold has nothing to do with what were talking about.

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns. The founders themselves prohibited people from owning guns, and declared they had the "right" to take people's guns away from them in given scenarios (such as being "disaffected with the revolution"). So, you wouldn't have the change the constitution at all to have strict regulation.

What you believe is not what is true. Sorry, but people have had guns since the revolutionary war. Your trying to suddenly change the way things have been for hundres of years doesn't jive.

I can give you the names of plenty of historians and legal scholars who've written on the context of the issue, noting the second amendment is not an individual right, and they know a lot more about the issue than Penn & Teller.

I'd honestly like to see these opinions, because the US courts have said otherwise the entire time.

 

[D H]

It does have to do with the thread. I was replying to people who made the statement that runs were a prerequisite to freedom.

Nobody has said that. I, for one, gave up running several years ago. I blew out me knees one time too many.

Oh, you meant guns? It was the original framers of the Constitution who said that.

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns.

Believe what you want. You are, however, wrong. If you want to make that so, change the flippin' Constitution. The Constitution says how that can be done. And it isn't by having the courts decide that parts of the Constitution are outmoded. That is our job, not the courts'.

The founders themselves prohibited people from owning guns

The founders did not prohibit people from owning guns. They prohibited slaves, who were not people in the eyes of the founders, from having any rights. Guess what? We changed the Constitution to declare that all people are people.

So, you wouldn't have the change the constitution at all to have strict regulation.

Scalia said that some regulation is OK. It is the outright ban that is not.

I can give you the names of plenty of historians and legal scholars who've written on the context of the issue, noting the second amendment is not an individual right, and they know a lot more about the issue than Penn & Teller.

I can name five right off the top of my head who say it is an individual right, and those five trump any of the legal scholars you can come up with.

 

[drankin]

Actually, the court has ruled numerous times on this issue all under the clear interpretation that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to own guns, such as US v. Miller.

In recent years the court has underwent conservative "judicial packing" with people like "justice" Roberts and so on, so I regard what they say as irrelevant. The kind of people that would have upheld restrictions on anti-war speech during the two great wars.

So, if you don't like what the court decides it's irrelevant? It's very relevant, and will be relevant for a very long time. Can you site another case other than US v. Miller, regarding a sawed off shotgun being transported across state lines. A judgement that was imputed to a man and counsel that didn't even show up in court to contest their case? Talk about irrelevant.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I'd honestly like to see these opinions, because the US courts have said otherwise the entire time.

First of all, the courts have ruled up until now, in nearly every single decision, that the Second Amendment is NOT an individual right. Even here they say it is not an absolute right as I see it.

You don't know what you're talking about, although I guess they didn't cover that in the "Penn and Teller" program.

The absolutist view of the second amendment, that it protects an individual's right, has not been sustained a SINGLE TIME in US history, until now (and even here it is somewhat vague).

The court also decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless there is "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."


Second, if the constitution did give people the right to own guns without restrictions, that is, if it says what you claim it says, the NRA could legally challenge every single gun law in the country, and people could own any gun they wanted to. They don't, because the precedent has generally been that it is not an absolute right and that is a right entirely tied up within the context of a militia.

Third, there are tons of scholars who note the context of the Second Amendment.

Some of them are Robert Spitzer, Joseph Story, Like Wills, Don Higginbotham, etc. etc.

Here is an expert from one of Spirzer's arguments:

Based on court rulings, historical interpretation, and the sense of those who drafted and debated the amendment, the meaning of the Second Amendment is clear. It provided for a citizen-based right to keep and bear arms when men were called into service in a government-regulated militia, keeping in mind that militias composed of self-armed men were the primary means of national defense in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
The national government formed under the Constitution of 1787 was granted sweeping new powers, including not only the power to create and maintain a standing army (a power denied to the national government under the old Articles of Confederation), but also the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militias. Antifederalists already suspicious of new federal powers were deeply concerned that states would no longer retain militia authority, and so they sought this reassurance in the Bill of Rights.

The militia-based understanding of the Second Amendment has been uniformly endorsed in Supreme Court cases stretching back to the nineteenth century (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876; Presser v. Illinois, 1886; Miller v. Texas, 1894; U.S. v. Miller, 1939;Lewis v. U.S., 1980). The age of some of these cases has prompted some critics to dismiss them, but court cases do not come with expiration dates. In addition, more than forty lower federal court cases, and law review articles published as early as 1874, all embrace this meaning.

In recent decades, efforts have been mounted to impose an individual meaning on the Second Amendment—that is, to assert that the amendment protects an individual right to own guns, aside and apart from militia service. The effort dates to a law journal article published in 1960. Since then, the individualist movement has won adherents, and in 2001 a federal court (Fifth Circuit) for the first time accepted this view in U.S. v. Emerson. This view has now been endorsed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, representing a reversal of decades of Justice Department interpretation. But even supporters of the individualist view generally concede that it permits reasonable gun regulations."

"All of the debate during the First Congress “applied only to men acting in a militia capacity,” including debate over whether the amendment should include wording to codify the right of conscientious objectors to opt out of militia service for religious reasons; the relationship between militias, standing armies, and liberty; the need to subordinate the military to civilian authority; and the unreliability of the militia as compared with a professional army. There was no debate about the amendment serving as a basis for individual gun ownership detached from military service..."

 

[OrbitalPower]

The founders did not prohibit people from owning guns. They prohibited slaves, who were not people in the eyes of the founders, from having any rights. Guess what? We changed the Constitution to declare that all people are people.

The militia was generally defined as any able-bodied male over a certain age.

Second of all, this is clearly incorrect. The founders even wrote bills like "the tory act" which declared all tories be disarmed. So, quite clearly they obviously believed some people should be disarmed. They also wrote that anybody "disaffected with the revolution," i.e., remained neutral during a time of revolution, could be disarmed.

So why, if they believed it was an absolute right, why would they disarm political dissidents? And by the many Indians as well as blacks would have been forbidden from owning guns.

The names of the scholars have been provided.

Show me the names of these "five scholars" that "automatically outweigh" anything else ever written by any other scholar.

 

[drankin]

The court also decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless there is "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Uh, no, you are wrong. It was regarding a SAWED OFF SHOTGUN not being a useable, normal weapon for a militia. That was the case that didn't really have a fair decision because there was no DEFENSE to give an argument. A handgun WOULD be a useable weapon for a militia. The Miller case is a poor argument as Scalia pionted out.

 

[D H]

The founders even wrote bills like "the tory act" which declared all tories be disarmed.

Non sequiter. The Tory Act was passed by the Continental Congress in January 1776. The Bill of Rights was written in 1791.

Show me the names of these "five scholars" that "automatically outweigh" anything else ever written by any other scholar.

Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.

 

[OrbitalPower]

LOL. That's an even worse argument than I thought. I thought at least i'd get a gun cite article. The Supreme Court is the last place I'd go for an accurate interpretation on of the constitution, especially one that has been "judicially packed" by the likes of Reagan/Bush (a couple more know nothings on the constitution). These are the same peope who've upheld anti-free speech laws time and time again.

http://www.guninformation.org/secondamendment.html

But I'll explain the true origins of the second amendment tomorrow, as most people clearly don't know, and statements from one Hammilton that prove he knew it was NOT an individual right.

 

[drankin]

But I'll explain the true origins of the second amendment tomorrow, as most people clearly don't know, and statements from one Hammilton that prove he knew it was NOT an individual right.

okay, good luck

 

[D H]

LOL. The Supreme Court is the last place I'd go for an accurate interpretation on of the constitution

Talking about LOL!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But I'll explain the true origins of the second amendment tomorrow, as most people clearly don't know, and statements from one Hammilton that prove he knew it was NOT an individual right.

I hope you don't mind but I did not feel like quoting all of the various posts I am intending to respond to.

So far as I have seen no one in this thread has stated that the right to own guns is absolute and no one in the thread has claimed that the right to own guns is a 'prerequisite to freedom' (correct me if I'm wrong). This pretty much turns a large chunk of your arguements in this thread so far into strawmen. I think we could have a much better discussion and it may move forward if we could drop these misrepresentations.


Concerning the idea that the right to gun ownership was solely for the purpose of a 'well regulated militia' and not an individual right do you really believe that the men of those times had no thought for the ability of it's citizens to hunt to put food on their tables? Or that perhaps the limitations of law enforcement may require a citizen to protect themselves? You can certainly argue whether or not these necessities apply today but can you honestly say that the right to individual ownership for these purposes was of no consideration in determining whether or not citizens had a right to own guns?

Now of course the actual wording is 'bear arms' so perhaps the drafters of the amendment were specifically referring to military grade weapons and took it for granted that citizens would own more basic guns for hunting and protection if need be. In this case the amendment really has nothing to do with gun ownership in general but only ownership of military grade weapons and the formation of armed militias, which could theoretically be a threat to the establishment and so a worrisome point that needed to be debated and clarified. But can it not be reinterpreted?

I don't think that the establishment clause was in the minds of the men who lived during a time when 'God' was invoked in government documents, in legally binding oathes, and the bible was common material in schools. Times change and so do our interpretations of the constitution.

So when weapons design improved, more deadly guns were more widely available, and fronteersmen were pushing the borders wasn't it necessary for citizens to have better guns to defend themselves with? Something not made for hunting? Eventually the US had a standing army and there was little to no need for the militias. No militias would mean no right to bear arms, no constitutional protection of the citizens' ability to bear arms. Unless we reinterpret the second amendment. Unless we interpret it to mean that the citizens themselves have the right to the ability to protect themselves with measures that would include the bearing of arms.

Do you not think that is a ligitimate way of interpreting it? Again we can debate whether or not this is an actual necessity today in which case, if it isn't, the constitution should be amended. But I'm focusing here on the legitimacy of this sort of interpretation as handed down by the current supreme court.

 

[D H]

The framers of the Constitution successfully ended arm uprising against an overly strong and overly centralized government 6 years before writing the Constitution. An interim overly weak and overly decentralized government had failed miserably. The framers very reluctantly gave the new stronger and centralized government the ability to raise a standing army. The framers fully realized that the might well have just created the very beast they had overcome 6 years earlier. It would have been hypocritical on the part of the framers to say that, while they had just held an armed uprising against a strong centralized government, we don't want anyone holding an armed uprising against this new strong centralized government. The framers were not hypocrites. They wanted to give the people the ability to hold an armed uprising against their newly created beast, and hence the Second Amendment.

The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind was not the Maryland National Guard. A militia tightly regulated by the government can hardly hold an armed uprising against the government, afterall. The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind is a group of citizens who have armed themselves, trained themselves, regulated themselves, and plotted against the wicked government all by themselves. In short, all of those gun nuts in Michigan and Idaho and elsewhere.

 

[drankin]

I hope you don't mind but I did not feel like quoting all of the various posts I am intending to respond to.

So far as I have seen no one in this thread has stated that the right to own guns is absolute and no one in the thread has claimed that the right to own guns is a 'prerequisite to freedom' (correct me if I'm wrong). This pretty much turns a large chunk of your arguements in this thread so far into strawmen. I think we could have a much better discussion and it may move forward if we could drop these misrepresentations.


Concerning the idea that the right to gun ownership was solely for the purpose of a 'well regulated militia' and not an individual right do you really believe that the men of those times had no thought for the ability of it's citizens to hunt to put food on their tables? Or that perhaps the limitations of law enforcement may require a citizen to protect themselves? You can certainly argue whether or not these necessities apply today but can you honestly say that the right to individual ownership for these purposes was of no consideration in determining whether or not citizens had a right to own guns?

Now of course the actual wording is 'bear arms' so perhaps the drafters of the amendment were specifically referring to military grade weapons and took it for granted that citizens would own more basic guns for hunting and protection if need be. In this case the amendment really has nothing to do with gun ownership in general but only ownership of military grade weapons and the formation of armed militias, which could theoretically be a threat to the establishment and so a worrisome point that needed to be debated and clarified. But can it not be reinterpreted?

I don't think that the establishment clause was in the minds of the men who lived during a time when 'God' was invoked in government documents, in legally binding oathes, and the bible was common material in schools. Times change and so do our interpretations of the constitution.

So when weapons design improved, more deadly guns were more widely available, and fronteersmen were pushing the borders wasn't it necessary for citizens to have better guns to defend themselves with? Something not made for hunting? Eventually the US had a standing army and there was little to no need for the militias. No militias would mean no right to bear arms, no constitutional protection of the citizens' ability to bear arms. Unless we reinterpret the second amendment. Unless we interpret it to mean that the citizens themselves have the right to the ability to protect themselves with measures that would include the bearing of arms.

Do you not think that is a ligitimate way of interpreting it? Again we can debate whether or not this is an actual necessity today in which case, if it isn't, the constitution should be amended. But I'm focusing here on the legitimacy of this sort of interpretation as handed down by the current supreme court.

Basically, the court clarified that we had the right before the amendments and still have the right today. And, we also shall have the capacity to form a militia if so required to overthrow a tyrannical government.

And the argument that we couldn't hold up against tanks & jets (posted by WarPh) from our own government is actually bogus IMO. There aren't enough military resources to hold down the current gun owning populous, especially if emergency militias were formed. Not to mention all the state guard military resources that would most likely defect from an illegal federal tyranny. It can't happen. And the fact that we the general public are armed helps to insure that. I grew up with the military and know the folks and families that make up our forces. If our government were to attempt an obvious tyranny, the military would not necessarily go along. Every enlisted person has to speak this oath: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm" and a good percentage of those take it very seriously. The first sentence being to defend the Constitution.

It has always been an individual right and will continue to be well into our future. And that is a good thing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The framers of the Constitution successfully ended arm uprising against an overly strong and overly centralized government 6 years before writing the Constitution. An interim overly weak and overly decentralized government had failed miserably. The framers very reluctantly gave the new stronger and centralized government the ability to raise a standing army. The framers fully realized that the might well have just created the very beast they had overcome 6 years earlier. It would have been hypocritical on the part of the framers to say that, while they had just held an armed uprising against a strong centralized government, we don't want anyone holding an armed uprising against this new strong centralized government. The framers were not hypocrites. They wanted to give the people the ability to hold an armed uprising against their newly created beast, and hence the Second Amendment.

The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind was not the Maryland National Guard. A militia tightly regulated by the government can hardly hold an armed uprising against the government, afterall. The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind is a group of citizens who have armed themselves, trained themselves, regulated themselves, and plotted against the wicked government all by themselves. In short, all of those gun nuts in Michigan and Idaho and elsewhere.

Yes and no, I think.
Since the militias were more or less the US military the amendment essentially decentralizes the country's military power by (theoretically) guaranteeing all citizens the right to bear arms and form militias. This way there is not a certain group of people with a monopoly on that power (again theoretically) and that power can not be leveraged against the people. So it is supposed to prevent the "beast" from being born in the first place. With a standing army in place this safeguard is effectively removed. So now one can make the argument that it gives the people the ability to protect themselves from their government but, by my interpretation, it might be more accurate to consider a standing army to be a violation of this constitutional safeguard.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And the argument that we couldn't hold up against tanks & jets (posted by WarPh) from our own government is actually bogus IMO. There aren't enough military resources to hold down the current gun owning populous, especially if emergency militias were formed. Not to mention all the state guard military resources that would most likely defect from an illegal federal tyranny. It can't happen. And the fact that we the general public are armed helps to insure that. I grew up with the military and know the folks and families that make up our forces. If our government were to attempt an obvious tyranny, the military would not necessarily go along. Every enlisted person has to speak this oath: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm" and a good percentage of those take it very seriously. The first sentence being to defend the Constitution.

I agree. Though to me it's not so much about beating the military as it is at least having some sort of means to defend ourselves.

 

[D H]

by my interpretation, it might be more accurate to consider a standing army to be a violation of this constitutional safeguard.

The standing army is a part of the original Constitution. It even predates the Second Amendment. Something that is explicitly and clearly specified in the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional -- unless overturned by an amendment, that is. Slavery was explicitly and clearly sanctioned in the original Constitution, so it took a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The standing army is a part of the original Constitution. It even predates the Second Amendment. Something that is explicitly and clearly specified in the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional -- unless overturned by an amendment, that is. Slavery was explicitly and clearly sanctioned in the original Constitution, so it took a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery.

Sorry I had thought that originally a standing army was supposed to be prohibited during time of peace. Apparently that was a condition that was suggested but didn't make it in.
The constitution makes congress responsible for maintaining a navy and raising of armies. With regard to the army it seems to state that in the event one is raised it is not to last for more than two years. Specifically...

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Am I misinterpreting that? Or is there something else I am missing?

 

[cristo]

Show me the names of these "five scholars" that "automatically outweigh" anything else ever written by any other scholar.

Ouch.. you stepped into that one!

 

[D H]

The constitution makes congress responsible for maintaining a navy and raising of armies. With regard to the army it seems to state that in the event one is raised it is not to last for more than two years. Am I misinterpreting that? Or is there something else I am missing?

The framers were well-read, and one of the best sellers among the intellectual crowd at that time was "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Smith recognized that a standing army was a sign of a technologically advanced nation. The framers had just fought a war against a technologically advanced nation and did not want to be at such a severe disadvantage the next time around. While the framers didn't quite like the idea of a professional standing army, they did see the value of one. What they truly despised was the idea of a professional standing army that was accountable only to the king (or President). The two year limitation in the Constitution does not limit a standing army to a two year term (that is not a standing army). It forces Congress to get directly involved in the army by holding the army's purse strings.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The framers were well-read, and one of the best sellers among the intellectual crowd at that time was "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Smith recognized that a standing army was a sign of a technologically advanced nation. The framers had just fought a war against a technologically advanced nation and did not want to be at such a severe disadvantage the next time around. While the framers didn't quite like the idea of a professional standing army, they did see the value of one. What they truly despised was the idea of a professional standing army that was accountable only to the king (or President). The two year limitation in the Constitution does not limit a standing army to a two year term (that is not a standing army). It forces Congress to get directly involved in the army by holding the army's purse strings.

I'm assuming that the 2 year term is technically for the 'budget' which means it must be decided on, at least once every two years what to do with the army. From what I have been reading it looks like the framers were skeptical about keeping a standing army and this was a compromise. After the revolutionary war they almost disbanded the army but finally came up with a plan exceptable to everyone. Then they started to see the potential benefits when the militias were failing in their battles against the native americans.

 

[WheelsRCool]

The founders passed gun control regulations all the time. What the heck are you talking about? If you look at how the added amendments came about, you can see that the second amendment was a comprimise.

The Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights. It wouldn't have made sense to put a collective right smack in the middle of it. The Bill of Rights was added to be a check on the government and the Jeffersonian Democrats (Thomas Jefferson and so forth) would not even sign the Constitution without the Bill of rights being added.

This is just more of that kooky, conservative reaction to man's problems: that they have to be handled with violence.

That statement shows an incredibly high level of ignorance. "Conservatives" do not believe that everything must be solved with "violence;" one of the prime reasons "conservatives" and libertarians believe in the right of humans to own firearms is so people can protect themselves.

Gun control doesn't work. Period. All of the cities in America that have stringent gun control laws have the highest crime and murder rates. D.C. was one of the murder capitals of the nation. You need to remember economics. If you outlaw something, like liquor, drugs, guns, whatever, BLACK MARKETS form. As is the case with guns. Thus you end up disarming the citizens, whereas the criminals remain armed.

Perhaps you should take a look at Australia, who has just seen a surge in the number of crimes there now that the government has forced the citizens to turn in their firearms. Or Hurricane Katrina, when anarchy broke out and there were roving gangs going around, armed, and robbing people. It wasn't the police that brought this area back under control; it was law-abiding, gun-owning civilians. Or the Rodney King riots, in which case some of the only businesses that weren't burned were by ones owned by gun owners.

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

The majority of gun crimes occur in the big cities and come from illegally obtained handguns.

There was a guy who started shooting in a mall in Chicago recently, I believe. And of course the people there were innocent victims. When the same thing happened in Utah, someone pulled out their gun and shot the person.

Guns do not cause violence. People do. The right to own guns is to PREVENT violence from occurring. Sicne you cannot protect criminals from obtaining guns on the black market, people need to be able to protect themselves. And during times when society breaks down, like hurricanes, earthquakes, riots, whatever, the people need to be able to protect themselves.[/quote]

Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.

Guns solve plenty of problems. They help supplement the police force in hard times.

And BTW, police protection is not a right. Look up the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

 

[cristo]

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

But the Swiss are a completely different people to the Americans. That is like saying domestic cats are harmless and thus so are lions!

I see a lot of "as fact" statements in your post. I'm afraid that, until you give some statistical evidence, all your points will remain as opinion.

 

[drankin]

But the Swiss are a completely different people to the Americans. That is like saying domestic cats are harmless and thus so are lions!

I see a lot of "as fact" statements in your post. I'm afraid that, until you give some statistical evidence, all your points will remain as opinion.

Until you can contest his opinion with facts, I find his opinion more convincing than yours.