Right to bear arms.

[Jake]

Hey guys,

So far, the comments are not too heated up, for or against.  I'm curious however, if any other countries have mandated their citizens the right to bear arms?  My understanding of the 2nd amendment was written for the sole purpose of civilian militias taking up arms against foreign invaders (plenty during that time) OR to stage a revolt against the government, which has its growing pains within other colonials at the time.  

Of course now, the right to bear arms takes up a whole new meaning, which includes the skilled hunters, gun enthusiasts, gun collectors, anarchists, left wing, right wing, preppers and doomsday zombie killers.  I support the 2nd amendment but I just don't understand why you need an assault weapon (including the Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle) to be considered part of your personal protection.  These were originally designed to go to war, killing people.  Attach or modify a kit to go full auto, then you're a really a good Rambo marksman (insert sarcasm -- how many rounds do you need to kill a deer?).  My current home defense is a can of pepper spray, wooden baseball bat, a long heavy duty flashlight and in the future, a small Glock.  

I believe we should strongly enforce all the existing gun control laws, not make up new ones.  By the way, what is the latest about potential buyers and/or licensed-unlicensed dealers at a gun show?  Cash and carry, no questions asked?  Is it still a big business of truck loads of firearms ending south of the border? 

Respectfully Jake , my thoughts and prayers to all the grieving families as their life has changed forever. 

[scott h]

4 hours ago, stevewool said:

no one has convinced me

Steve, I honestly don't think we will ever "convince" you. Hell, we cant even convince ourselves one way or the other, that is what the grand debate has been for the past 30 years . But let me see if I can explain why a large minority are so opposed to the slippery slope of gun control (as they see it) 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The above is the section of our constitution which causes most the problems. It is the definition of well regulated militia usually. In todays age of armies, national guard, police forces, the FBI and such. Those in favor of strict gun control say there is no need for a militia. Those opposed point back to our founding where our militias were made up of individual citizens who just picked up their hunting rifles and went to fight what they thought of as their "oppressors".  If we think back to our founding, Americans have an inane distrust of central authority which they fear "may" turn abusive. A large segment of our population (usually urban areas away from big cities, which makes up most of the country) still has that mind set.  That same mind set is most likely the reason that we are the only industrialized nation with out a national health care system. That same large minority just plain believe that each person is responsible for himself, "I am not my brothers keeper" sort of thinking. 

Not meaning to lecture here, but putting it down in writing also helps form the thoughts in my mind. I don't think, nor is it meant to convince you, but I hope it helps you understand the virility of the debate as it will go on for a long time. 

 

[Mike J]

A little background.  I have spent a good number of my years owning firearms.  Rifles, pistols, and shotguns, calibers from .22 up to 300 Winchester magnum.  I have owned a heavy barrel rifle that could shoot 5/8 inch at 100 yards, zeroed at 250, and accurate out to 500+ depending on conditions.  I used the weapons for hunting game, varmint control, and occasional target shooting or skeet.  I served 12 years in the military and fired expert in both rifle and handgun.  I never had to use any of my personal weapons in protection of my life or property but it was a comfort to know they were available if needed.

My question and my frustration is "what ever happened to common sense with the American people?"  There is absolutely no need for a private citizen to own an assault rifle.  Assault rifles are not worth a damn for hunting, target shooting, and are a very poor choice for home protection or as a "carry" weapon for protection.  Assault rifles are built and designed for one purpose only and that is to kill as many people as possible as rapidly as possible.  They should be restricted to military and law enforcement personnel.  Just my  opinion, end of rant.  

[earthdome]

On 10/3/2017 at 4:22 AM, Tukaram (Tim) said:

Being from Texas... I still don't understand it.  But in all honesty after the Sandy Hook shooting, when a bunch of Elementary school kids were killed, we still did nothing.  Once you admit that as a country, killing school kids is ok... there is little left to debate.  It is obvious that "hopes & prayers" are not helping. It is past time to hold Congress accountable and do their job.

It is time for the people in Europe to do something about those large trucks which get hijacked and run over dozens of people, even killing many.

 

The point being that the deranged person who shot all those people in Las Vegas could have just as easily used a large truck to kill and injure just as many in that outdoor concert venue. Plus he wouldn't have had to had a stroke of genius to come up with that plan since that tactic has already been used successfully in several recent incidents in Europe. The problem is the sick people who have no value for their own or others lives, not the means they find to carry out their sick desire to hurt others before they take themselves out.

[earthdome]

20 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

I think there are some deep societal issues behind the rise in mental illness and the related rise in shootings, but I am not going to go there now.

 

I don't recall where I read this... or the source... that the shooter in many of these mass shootings had been on some sort of SSRI anti depressant... which can result in that individual becoming psychotic.

[earthdome]

19 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

20 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

You can steal a truck or a gun.  You can rent trucks.  Even easier.

I imagine there are shooting ranges where you can rent guns.  I don't get your point.

Only sane responsible people will follow the law. Criminals and insane mass murderer's don't care about your laws.

[Snowy79]

I think we've proven there's a whole different mind set between your average European and American as far as gun control is concerned. A bit like the way Europeans and American look at some of the cultural norms in the Philippines and shake our heads.

It's taken a couple of centuries to imprint some things in people's minds and no over night solution will change it. It'll be a long drawn out process and as we all know you get rid of one problem and another one will soon replace it. For now it's a case of respect each other's cultures until one or the other sees sense. 

[earthdome]

11 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

It would be interesting if there was statistics to show how many people were saved by their own gun. 

This is more common than you know. There have been a few times when mass shootings have been prevented by a responsible gun owner. The media rarely reports this. Plus you will not hear about the times a responsible owner used his firearm without out having to discharge it to protect himself from a criminal. There are many laws regarding use of a firearm and district attorney's willing to go after responsible gun owners. Thus use to prevent crime where the firearm is not discharged rarely get reported.

[Castaway]

Over the years, the right to bear arms (in the US) has morphed into becoming an entitlement with devastating results.

The Right to Bear Arms: A Uniquely American Entitlement

In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms, notably to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-protection. The historic shift announced by Heller was the recognition of a personal right, rather than a collective right tied to state militias. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court – in a familiar 5-4 ideological split – held that the 2nd Amendment applies not only to the federal government, but also to state and local gun control laws. In his dissent, Justice Stevens predicted that “the consequences could prove far more destructive to our nation’s communities and constitutional structure.”

Justice Alito, writing for the Court in McDonald, found that the 2nd Amendment is “fundamental to our system of ordered liberty,” justifying its extension to the states. Why is the right to bear arms “fundamental,” when it appears that firearms – designed to cause injury or death – are antithetical to social order and public safety? Firearms cannot be intrinsic to liberty because they have a unique potential to cause serious injury and death, posing a distinctive threat to social order. Unlike other liberties, carrying firearms directly puts the gun owner, family, and community at risk. “Your interest in bearing a firearm may diminish my interest in being and feeling safe from armed violence,” wrote Stevens. Possessing a functioning handgun at home, moreover, does not enhance the right to self-defense. A homeowner’s gun is substantially more likely to kill the gun owner or a family member (through accidental firing or suicide) than it is to harm an intruder.

Going forward, state and local legislatures must remain determined in the face of litigation threats as they craft laws that comply with McDonald while also safeguarding the populace against gun violence. If not, firearm injury and death statistics will show the cost we have paid for McDonald.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/469/

 

[Reboot]

It is not nor has it ever been an entitlement. It is a right. I know the man who funded the Heller 2nd amendment case that went to the Supreme Court, by the way. He doesn't even own a gun. He uses his fortune to uphold our Constitutional rights.