Guns

[Nym90]

Ted Nugent won't beat Jennifer Granholm in 2006...no way. He's way too far to the right.

[Nym90]

The 2nd amendment clearly does not protect the right to bear ALL arms, it clearly allows certain weapons to be banned, as no one has challenged bans on nuclear bombs, tanks, etc. So yes, it protects a general right to bear arms, but also clearly allows for regulation of guns. It's a vague amendment, as is much of the Constitution, which was deliberate since the founding fathers wanted to allow some leeway to interpret it as the courts see fit. But it's just wrong to say that the 2nd amendment allows an absolute right to bear arms. That would be like arguing that the first amendment protects my right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. All rights are subject to some reasonable restrictions when the exercise of those rights jeopardize the lives or liberty of others.

And no one as I recall even attempted to strike down the Brady Bill or the assault weapons ban on constitutional terms, either. So if you want to debate the merits of certain guns being legal or illegal, that's fine, but you can't just use the 2nd amendment as a blanket defense.

[bejkuy]

<<The 2nd amendment clearly does not protect the right to bear ALL arms>>

Yes, but the first amendment obviously protects pornography and all forms of freedom of expression?

[Gustaf]

<<The 2nd amendment clearly does not protect the right to bear ALL arms>>

Yes, but the first amendment obviously protects pornography and all forms of freedom of expression?

Yes, or at least freedom of speech protects pornography as well.

[© tweed]

<<The 2nd amendment clearly does not protect the right to bear ALL arms>>

Yes, but the first amendment obviously protects pornography and all forms of freedom of expression?

Yes, or at least freedom of speech protects pornography as well.

The first amendment also protects legal homosexual relations.

[NHPolitico]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

I'll let Condi Rice answer for me...

It was also clear to another Stanford colleague, Russia expert Michael McFaul, who remembers Rice telling him she opposed gun control and even gun registration because Bull Connor could have used it to disarm her father and others who patrolled Titusville in 1963. "For me as a liberal, pro-gun control person, it really hit me over the head," McFaul says. "I remember thinking, 'Who are we as white liberals to respond?' "

[jravnsbo]

we agree to disagree.  I can provide you countless sources, in history that argue that it is an indivdual right.

The 2nd amendment clearly does not protect the right to bear ALL arms, it clearly allows certain weapons to be banned, as no one has challenged bans on nuclear bombs, tanks, etc. So yes, it protects a general right to bear arms, but also clearly allows for regulation of guns. It's a vague amendment, as is much of the Constitution, which was deliberate since the founding fathers wanted to allow some leeway to interpret it as the courts see fit. But it's just wrong to say that the 2nd amendment allows an absolute right to bear arms. That would be like arguing that the first amendment protects my right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. All rights are subject to some reasonable restrictions when the exercise of those rights jeopardize the lives or liberty of others.

And no one as I recall even attempted to strike down the Brady Bill or the assault weapons ban on constitutional terms, either. So if you want to debate the merits of certain guns being legal or illegal, that's fine, but you can't just use the 2nd amendment as a blanket defense.

[jravnsbo]

nym- yes i do agree the SCT did limit the right to own weapons used exclusively by the miliatry.  A few cases are out there fromt he 30's and 40's.

[jravnsbo]

bejkuy-we need your support buddy.  We need you to go to the "Atlas fantasy Elections" and then the "Important thread- Registration" and simply post  "I register"  That will allow you to vote in the Atlas elections we are having.  Its kind of fun, you should check it out and our great candidate Supersoulty!  Thanks for your time.

<<The 2nd amendment clearly does not protect the right to bear ALL arms>>

Yes, but the first amendment obviously protects pornography and all forms of freedom of expression?

[Gustaf]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

I'll let Condi Rice answer for me...

It was also clear to another Stanford colleague, Russia expert Michael McFaul, who remembers Rice telling him she opposed gun control and even gun registration because Bull Connor could have used it to disarm her father and others who patrolled Titusville in 1963. "For me as a liberal, pro-gun control person, it really hit me over the head," McFaul says. "I remember thinking, 'Who are we as white liberals to respond?' "

Thatäs an interesting point...

[bejkuy]

Power to the People!

[jravnsbo]

sorry- but everytime i hear that I think of Chris Farley in Blacksheep!

Power to the People!

[NHPolitico]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

I'll let Condi Rice answer for me...

It was also clear to another Stanford colleague, Russia expert Michael McFaul, who remembers Rice telling him she opposed gun control and even gun registration because Bull Connor could have used it to disarm her father and others who patrolled Titusville in 1963. "For me as a liberal, pro-gun control person, it really hit me over the head," McFaul says. "I remember thinking, 'Who are we as white liberals to respond?' "

Thatäs an interesting point...

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with deer hunting.

[Gustaf]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

I'll let Condi Rice answer for me...

It was also clear to another Stanford colleague, Russia expert Michael McFaul, who remembers Rice telling him she opposed gun control and even gun registration because Bull Connor could have used it to disarm her father and others who patrolled Titusville in 1963. "For me as a liberal, pro-gun control person, it really hit me over the head," McFaul says. "I remember thinking, 'Who are we as white liberals to respond?' "

Thatäs an interesting point...

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with deer hunting.

What do you mean?

[bejkuy]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

I'll let Condi Rice answer for me...

It was also clear to another Stanford colleague, Russia expert Michael McFaul, who remembers Rice telling him she opposed gun control and even gun registration because Bull Connor could have used it to disarm her father and others who patrolled Titusville in 1963. "For me as a liberal, pro-gun control person, it really hit me over the head," McFaul says. "I remember thinking, 'Who are we as white liberals to respond?' "

Thatäs an interesting point...

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with deer hunting.

What do you mean?

The intent of the second amendment was not to give Americans hunting rights.  

The intentention was to give people the RIGHT to defend themselves against opression, even government oppression

[Gustaf]

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

I'll let Condi Rice answer for me...

It was also clear to another Stanford colleague, Russia expert Michael McFaul, who remembers Rice telling him she opposed gun control and even gun registration because Bull Connor could have used it to disarm her father and others who patrolled Titusville in 1963. "For me as a liberal, pro-gun control person, it really hit me over the head," McFaul says. "I remember thinking, 'Who are we as white liberals to respond?' "

Thatäs an interesting point...

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with deer hunting.

What do you mean?

The intent of the second amendment was not to give Americans hunting rights.  

The intentention was to give people the RIGHT to defend themselves against opression, even government oppression

I would agree with that, but I don't see the direct connection with the posts he quoted, or most of the discussion on this thread.

[bejkuy]

When the citizenry is armed, it is much more difficult for a tyrant to come to and power.

Hitler, Mao, and Stallin refused to allow their people to keep arms.

I think of the 2nd amendment as a safety valve, put in place by the founding fathers, to keep the government from crossing the line.

[jravnsbo]

yes it is, just like all of the other Bill of rights.

I think of the 2nd amendment as a safety valve, put in place by the founding fathers, to keep the government from crossing the line.

[bejkuy]

Question to anti-gunners?

Why would the government need to give itself a right?

You you don't hear about governments being oppressed too often.

[Gustaf]

When the citizenry is armed, it is much more difficult for a tyrant to come to and power.

Hitler, Mao, and Stallin refused to allow their people to keep arms.

I think of the 2nd amendment as a safety valve, put in place by the founding fathers, to keep the government from crossing the line.

Yep, I know, I'm not arguing against that at all.

[Gustaf]

Question to anti-gunners?

Why would the government need to give itself a right?

You you don't hear about governments being oppressed too often.

I don't know if I'm a "anti-gunner", I'm more of a moderate there, but I do think that the whole "we can overthrow our government in an armed revolution"-idea is a little out-dated. I feel very sympathetic to the idea of keeping the government in check with armed citizens, but I'm not convinced of it's practicality. They would need tanks and nukes as well in modern days. Also it has to be remembered that a minority can perform armed revolutions, like in Russia, and that is also a problem. I also believe that the state's monopoly on violence is fundamental to ensure law and order and in a country, and that is to an extent infringed by the right to bear arms.

[Nym90]

Jravnsbo--

That was my point. The 2nd amendment does provide for the right to bear arms, but not an absolute right, and no one has proposed any gun control measures which would be deemed unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment explicitly states that a WELL REGULATED militia is necesary for the security of a free state. So when talking about gun control, there is really no point in bringing up the 2nd amendment since no one is seriously proposing violating it. Obviously the NRA must agree since they have not pursued any constitutional challenges to the Brady bill or the assault weapons ban.

Likewise, the 1st amendment, as I said, does not provide an absolute right to freedom of speech, as it does not protect lying or speech which is intended to incite violence.

[FLGOP]

When the Supreme Court heard a case challenging copyright law (I believe it involved the Bono law) last year, it stated that a preamble does not confine what follows.  

The second amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Nowhere does it state that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  

Furthermore, the founders of this Republic were fairly consistant in their writings.  There is no reason to believe that "the people" of the second amendment are any different than those of the ninth, or the first, or the preamble to the Constitution, etc.

As for the case with criminals, these people were going to commit a crime regardless.  During the DC sniper shootings I wrote an article about gun control (groups.msn.com/UniversityofMiamiCollegeRepublicans) about this fact.  The younger shooter was 17 at the time.  The law states that one has to be 18.  The younger shooter was also supposed to have been deported.  The elder shooter was not supposed to have a gun because he had violated a restraining order, which is a felony.  They were supposed to inform the police that they were going to be transporting guns across the limits of Maryland.  To sum, those that use guns to kill people are not law abidding to begin with.

I would also like to ask all of you out there a question.  Would you rather take your chances stealing from a home that you know has a gun owner in it, or one without a gun owner?  Chances are most will chose the latter, as that presents the least likelihood of getting injured or killed.

Furthermore, this is a security issue as the DC Circuit Court has already ruled that the police are not responsible to protect every member of society as individuals.  Rather, there duty is to protect us as part of a whole, if they fail to protect us, but then get our killer, they have done thier job by protecting society as a whole.  I would also like to point out that a large part of police work is investigative, and that they can't investigate a crime before it happens.

[Dave from Michigan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

true if crimminals know you can't own a gun they can rob you and you can't protect yourself very well

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

true if crimminals know you can't own a gun they can rob you and you can't protect yourself very well

OR, the criminals get guns and shoot you, but that's just a thought...