Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (166) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 439707  
Subject: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 1:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The anti-gun chorus has been loud and mostly on-target since Sandy Hook. I've even joined in where I thought it appropriate.

But there is another side to the question, and I think it at least should be acknowledged (even if it is deemed inadequate by some).

1poormom lives by herself. She has a nine-shot rim-fire .22 pistol, and she's good with it. Without that pistol, if someone broke in and attacked her, she would be defenseless. She could not repel someone my size (and I'm not big...I've met fmNh, and many of you know his stature...he and I are roughly the same size...she couldn't repel him either). With that pistol she has a chance.

Which is why I am against an out-right ban (not to mention the 2nd Amendment, though I do wish they'd clarify that "militia" bit instead of just ignoring it).

That's not an argument for every 80-yr old lady to be able to get a Bushmaster with a high-capacity magazine. Nor is it an argument that we don't really need to deal with our lack of a mental health system in this country. But it could be an argument that without a firearm the weak could be at the mercy of the strong. 1poormom would be.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: discurro Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415307 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 1:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 41
1poormom lives by herself. She has a nine-shot rim-fire .22 pistol, and she's good with it. Without that pistol, if someone broke in and attacked her, she would be defenseless.

Has she ever had to use it? Sometimes I think we let the paranoia get to us.

I am a little concerned that an 80 year old lady with a pistol is going to be reluctant to give that up when dementia starts to creep in. She may be "good with it", but what happens when she mistakes the paper boy or a door to door salesman for a burglar... or she gets a little irate at the kids in the neighborhood.

I realize this is paranoia on my part as much as the "burglar" is on yours, but I am afraid this "security" we buy ourselves too often only lends to a different form of tragedy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415309 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 2:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Has she ever had to use it? Sometimes I think we let the paranoia get to us.

Not that I'm aware of (she's actually had it longer than I've been alive, but I would think she would have told me if she had). Of course, I could say the same thing about the airbag in my car (i.e. never had to use it).

I realize this is paranoia on my part as much as the "burglar" is on yours, but I am afraid this "security" we buy ourselves too often only lends to a different form of tragedy.

I think we both have good points. Hopefully dementia will never be a problem. Her mom made it well into her 90s and never had it. Time will tell, I guess. If it comes to that I would probably have to remove the weapon myself, and probably also arrange for some sort of supervised care too.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415311 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 2:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think it at least should be acknowledged (even if it is deemed inadequate by some).

I acknowledge it. I don't know how the math works out on the adequacy - how many lives and injuries saved vs. how many lives and injuries added.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415313 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 2:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't know how the math works out on the adequacy - how many lives and injuries saved vs. how many lives and injuries added.

Me neither. And, in her case, it's a little different. It's a revolver. No high-capacity mags. No little kids around. Different for a 30-something family with a couple of rug rats (that must be kept AWAY from the weapon). Etc.

I suspect if you just add-up all DGUs, and all non-DGU injuries and deaths, the latter will 'win'. I think the suggestion of liability insurance (plus regulating who can buy the damned things, plus getting rid of the gun-show loophole, etc) would make a difference (though I have no idea if it would shift the numbers far enough).

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlueGrits Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415319 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 4:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If she is licensed and trained in the use of her firearm - and stores in appropriately - she'll get no argument from me.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415321 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 4:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1poormom lives by herself. She has a nine-shot rim-fire .22 pistol, and she's good with it. Without that pistol, if someone broke in and attacked her, she would be defenseless.

Has she ever had to use it? Sometimes I think we let the paranoia get to us.

I am a little concerned that an 80 year old lady with a pistol is going to be reluctant to give that up when dementia starts to creep in. She may be "good with it", but what happens when she mistakes the paper boy or a door to door salesman for a burglar... or she gets a little irate at the kids in the neighborhood.


The 90 yo father of my best friend in high school had a shotgun, which he kept as he aged. One night he heard "aliens" out in the yard and got the shotgun to protect himself. Luckily my friend was there and took the gun away (never to return) and nothing happened.

Count Upp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415322 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 4:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Me neither. And, in her case, it's a little different. It's a revolver. No high-capacity mags. No little kids around. Different for a 30-something family with a couple of rug rats (that must be kept AWAY from the weapon). Etc.

Also it's .22 caliber. A pea shooter. More likely to annoy a burglar than to stop him, unless she gets a clean head shot.

Count Upp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415325 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 6:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
1poormom (presumably 80 years old) lives by herself. She has a nine-shot rim-fire .22 pistol, and she's good with it. Without that pistol, if someone broke in and attacked her, she would be defenseless.

I'm curious. Does she keep it "handy" - under her pillow or in her nightstand - for quick access? Or is it locked up or otherwise difficult to get to? Is she pretty spry or is she fragile? Is she in an urban area with good emergency response times, or in a rural area?



But it could be an argument that without a firearm the weak could be at the mercy of the strong.

It could be ... or it could be that a Life Alert ... or an alarm system ... or even a call to 911 might be a better option. Just a thought.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415326 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 6:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But it could be an argument that without a firearm the weak could be at the mercy of the strong.

As I recall that was an argument 19th century liberals made in support of the 14th Amendment, that freed slaves needed the right to own guns to protect themselves from heavily armed former confederates soldiers.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415327 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 7:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm curious. Does she keep it "handy" - under her pillow or in her nightstand - for quick access? Or is it locked up or otherwise difficult to get to? Is she pretty spry or is she fragile? Is she in an urban area with good emergency response times, or in a rural area?

Yes, she'll be 80 in about 6 weeks.

She does keep it handy. With no rug rats (I'm well beyond that stage!), she keeps it in her nightstand. I think for an 80-yr old she is reasonably spry. She works out at a gym regularly, and has a personal trainer there. She's in decent shape.

The area is urban, and emergency response is probably average for a suburb.

She did talk about getting Life Alert (since she's alone). I thought it was a good idea. And she does have an alarm already. I should see if she followed-through on that.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415328 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 7:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
1poormom lives by herself. She has a nine-shot rim-fire .22 pistol, and she's good with it.


Welcome to the new normal, courtesy of the NRA and the firearms industry. Old ladies, priests, bus drivers, salvation army bell ringers, day care center employees, waitresses, pool lifeguards, and little league coaches. Soon we'll all be packing a side arm. Guns will be as common as cell phones.

Is this the country you want to live in? I think I'll buy stock in Amazon and UPS, because pretty soon it will not be safe to go outside.

One of the most sensible things I saw last week was a company that makes a bulletproof blanket-floor mat for use in kindergarten and nursery schools. During normal times the kids can sit on the mats while the teacher reads to them. Then when the gun fire starts they can hide under them. I am sure there will be drills just like for tornadoes.

A very sad place we have arrived at.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415329 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 7:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Soon we'll all be packing a side arm.

That's not been uncommon since the founding. It seems relatively recent in US history when people mostly didn't carry.

1poormom has had that particular firearm since before I was born. It's certainly not new to her.

Is this the country you want to live in?

What does that have to do with anything? Reality doesn't care about what I want. Guns have been here for centuries. They are protected by our founding documents. Even if you could get the 2nd Amendment repealed (good luck), trying to gather up all the weapons would be daunting. Probably impossible.

So we have to deal with what he have. I've spoken in favor of some reasonable (IMO) reforms and restrictions, and won't repeat it all again. A complete ban just isn't feasible, and won't fly, even if it might be the best idea.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415332 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/26/2012 9:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
It seems relatively recent in US history when people mostly didn't carry.

That's not true. It was rare - sometimes illegal - for people to carry firearms in many cities in Colonial America, or even to own them if you weren't of the "right" persuasion. Generally it was only white adult male property owners who had firearms, an then only those on farms (a much higher proportion of the population than today, obviously).

Now the NRA has perpetuated the myth that guns were pervasive in early America, but the evidence says it isn't true. What evidence? Wills, probate, and state registration. (Yes, the government kept records, all the better to know who was "in the militia" and who wasn't.)

Probate records from the era show guns showing up in about 10% (as high as 13% in some areas) of households. Remember that a gun would have been a particularly valuable piece of equipment in those days, and would certainly have been mentioned in a will and passed along to the correct heir (especially when there was no tax or other penalty for including it).

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O9YzXe1...

Only White male property owners. Usually only Protestant. Not Catholic. Not slaves. Not indentured servants. Not women. Not Indians. Now were there some who had them who weren't "supposed to"? Certainly. Did some city gentlemen have dueling pistols. Sure. A lot? One would think we would see evidence of it, and we don't. Why would that be?

What is that inconvenient for the gun lobby to acknowledge? Times up. Answer?
 


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415337 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 12:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Reminds me of "duck and cover" under your desk in the event of nuclear attack.

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415339 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 7:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I've spoken in favor of some reasonable (IMO) reforms and restrictions, and won't repeat it all again. A complete ban just isn't feasible, and won't fly, even if it might be the best idea.

I am not proposing a complete ban on guns (although a guy can dream). I certainly have no problems with long guns for hunting. Our gun problem is rather like an obese person who is suffering the health consequences of their excess weight. The first goal should be to stop adding new calories. Then the goal should be losing some pounds until normalcy is restored.

Aside from all the senseless bloodshed, I am incensed at the continued call to arm yet more people. It's an arms race. Laser sights, high capacity magazines, more powerful guns in smaller packages, more powerful ammunition, on and on it will go. Look for body armor to be a growth industry. I am sure more wondrous murderous improvements will be invented.

Ever wonder why car jacking has gone from nearly unheard of to a common place crime? Because technology has rendered modern cars nearly impossible to steal short of towing them away. In the old days it was a simple matter to thwart a car's locking system. Now about the only way to steal a car is to stick a gun in the owner's face.

Criminals will adapt similarly to an armed society. They will focus on those most unlikely to be armed (women, children). They will shoot first and ask questions later. When stores, schools, cinemas, and other public places become fortresses, criminals will start focusing on private homes and other soft targets. Cops are already trigger happy, and I can't say that I blame them. For every action there is a reaction.

Like I said, it has become an arms race. There are too many guns in this country. Adding more guns is only stoking the flames. There will be consequences.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415341 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 10:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Ever wonder why car jacking has gone from nearly unheard of to a common place crime? Because technology has rendered modern cars nearly impossible to steal short of towing them away. In the old days it was a simple matter to thwart a car's locking system. Now about the only way to steal a car is to stick a gun in the owner's face.



Errrr..... am I reading this wrong? Or did your follow-up sentences contradict your first? I'm confused.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MacNugget Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415342 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 10:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ever wonder why car jacking has gone from nearly unheard of to a common place crime?

That sure is a compelling narrative, but is it accurate? The best information I could find is a bit old, but showed carjacking to be on a significant decline. I sure don't hear much about carjackings in the media any more, but I recognize that's not really a meaningful metric.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=476

"Carjacking rates were higher on average during the first 5 years of the 1993-2002 period (2.1 per 10,000 persons each year) than during the last 5 years (1.3 per 10,000)."

Also, just as an aside, "Firearms were used in 45% of carjackings." That's less than I would have guessed.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GardenStateFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415344 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 12:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Errrr..... am I reading this wrong? Or did your follow-up sentences contradict your first? I'm confused.

Ever wonder why car jacking has gone from nearly unheard of to a common place crime? Because technology has rendered modern cars nearly impossible to steal short of towing them away. In the old days it was a simple matter to thwart a car's locking system. Now about the only way to steal a car is to stick a gun in the owner's face.

The way I'm reading this, the way to steal cars USED TO BE to simply break into them, hotwire them, and drive them away.

Now, both locking systems and the way to start the car have become far more complex and tend to be above the skill set of many criminals.

Therefore, the way to steal cars has become carjacking, since, during a carjacking, the car is already turned on and has the keys in it. All you need to do is remove the occupant and take the car.

GSF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JamesBrown Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415346 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 12:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Therefore, the way to steal cars has become carjacking,

To be clear, 'carjacking' does not mean simply stealing a car. It means approaching a car with the driver in it, compelling the driver to get out (often by pointing a gun at him) and driving away.


Years ago, I read in a hobbyist electronics magazine a do-it-yourself method to defeating carjackers. It was shortly after carjacking seemed to have become ubiquitous, even being featured on Good Morning America, the way these sensational stories tend to explode and then quietly die away.

Anyway, you rig up your car so that if the driver's side door is opened while the engine is running, then the engine kicks off after 60 seconds and won't restart. The idea is, you're at a red light when a carjacker walks up and points a gun at you. You open the driver door to get out and he gets in and drives away, and in less than a minute he's the new owner of a car with a dead engine that won't start. He leaves, probably in a hurry, and you arrive a few minutes later on foot to reclaim your vehicle. You reset your engine by pressing a hidden button in the glove compartment or under your seat, which you can use if you ever kill your engine by opening your door while idling. Provided the carjacker didn't shoot you, you get your car back with little fanfare.

I thought it was a clever idea. Of course, perhaps one in a million drivers have the knowledge to rig this up themselves. But car makers could do it for about five dollars in parts.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415348 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 1:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Errrr..... am I reading this wrong? Or did your follow-up sentences contradict your first? I'm confused.


My point is that car thieves adapted to technology by adopting car jacking as the method, whereas in the old days you could break the lock or hot wire the car.

The larger point being that criminals will adapt to an armed public, and we likely will not like those adaptations. The first and most obvious adaptation will be to attack vigorously and first so as to prevent a retaliatory attack. The second being to carefully select those least likely to be armed, old ladies for example.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SpeedBump13 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415355 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 6:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Unless she is wearing the gun on her hip, she has a much better chance of defending herself against attack by calling 911 and locking herself in a room with a reinforced door. She could even have a type of panic button that summons help and would be much lighter than a gun that could also be turned against her.

For people in rural areas, guns make much more sense. I still would argue that fortifying a room would be a better solution for most people.

JMHO,

-Wes

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415357 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 8:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

For people in rural areas, guns make much more sense. I still would argue that fortifying a room would be a better solution for most people.

JMHO,

-Wes




My god.
What kind of country have we become?

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415358 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/27/2012 8:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Also it's .22 caliber. A pea shooter. More likely to annoy a burglar than to stop him, unless she gets a clean head shot.


"Brenda Spencer killed two people and injured nine others at Cleveland Elementary School, which was located across the street from her home. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime, and her full explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays; this livens up the day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer

Her gun was the same little ruger .22 many of use for gophers and such.

The shock of a .22 hitting vitals is intense.

Never underestimate the potential of a .22

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eudaimon6 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415362 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/28/2012 8:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Stuff does happen. If spending $500 on a solid-steel exterior-type door for your bedroom or a bathroom helps you sleep at night, is it such a big deal?

I don't think a basement bunker or panic room is necessary. Just something that would delay an intruder for, say, fifteen or twenty minutes.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415375 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/28/2012 4:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Stuff does happen. If spending $500 on a solid-steel exterior-type door for your bedroom or a bathroom helps you sleep at night, is it such a big deal?

I don't think a basement bunker or panic room is necessary. Just something that would delay an intruder for, say, fifteen or twenty minutes.


In much of the country, it could double as the storm cellar/tornado shelter. Making it much more likely not to be a waste of money...

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415427 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/30/2012 10:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
What kind of country have we become?

I've been thinking about this a bit. Last I knew the FBI crime statistics indicated that crime in the US has been declining for a long time. I suspect what we are seeing is better reporting (and the some overreaction to same).

"The good old days" generally weren't.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: discurro Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415431 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 1:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Just a follow up to the whole, elderly folks having the handgun to keep themselves safe discussion...

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/12/11/man-shoots-granddau...


A grandfather said he had a recent nearby burglary on his mind when he accidentally shot his 16-year-old granddaughter, thinking she was an intruder.

Police say the man and his wife were asleep when they heard a noise outside their home around 11 p.m. Monday. He said he saw a figure at the back door and fired at least two shots.

The figure turned out to be his granddaughter, who had been living with the couple. ....


Print the post Back To Top
Author: NailThatJello Big gold star, 5000 posts Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415432 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 2:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Welcome to the new normal, courtesy of the NRA and the firearms industry. Old ladies, priests, bus drivers, salvation army bell ringers, day care center employees, waitresses, pool lifeguards, and little league coaches. Soon we'll all be packing a side arm.

Kids. You forgot kids.

From a leaked NRA internal memo discussing post-Newtown gun campaign strategies:
... the campaign is tentatively called Arm Our Kids — A.O.K. — and its objective is a comprehensive K-12 carry program.

We all know (as the media scolds keep pointing out) there was an armed sheriff’s deputy on duty at Columbine High School the day Harris and Klebold committed their mayhem; but he was eating lunch. So let’s up the ante to full coverage, from toddler to teen, from assembly to dismissal. Even the most deranged killer will think twice about entering a classroom knowing any of those adorable youngsters could be a licensed, trained, locked and loaded, Glock-packing Good Guy.

This is the logical evolution of our safety argument, and it appeals to a core American value, individual responsibility. I anticipate that with our usual combination of messaging and political muscle, we can enroll a significant number of school districts.

Research has promised data by next week on how many jobs would be created by a comprehensive program, including not only ramped-up firearms and accessories production but also new demand for trainers, shooting-range operators, and engineers to develop new lines of weapons for little fingers.

Marketing is confident that we will have no problem migrating the boy market from toy guns and video arcades to live fire. But much remains to be done on the girl front. I’m attaching the early test-market results from the “My Little Colt” product (comes in a rainbow of colors, but pink is still the clear winner). We’ve been in touch with half a dozen makers of bulletproof backpacks...

Meanwhile, I’ve had a strange call from someplace in Africa — is there a country called Sergio Leone? — where they claim to have had a whole ARMY of kids who really did the job. We need to check that out.

Endorsements. A board member suggested we align ourselves with Mike Huckabee, who, as you know, linked the Newtown killings to the abolition of prayer in schools. The idea would be to add a little First Amendment kick to our Second Amendment campaign — first they get rid of God, then they get rid of guns, or something like that. Worth exploring. Although, between us, personally I find these religious zealots a little creepy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/keller-babes-in-ar...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415438 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 10:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
discurro: Just a follow up to the whole, elderly folks having the handgun to keep themselves safe discussion...

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/12/11/man-shoots-granddau......


A grandfather said he had a recent nearby burglary on his mind when he accidentally shot his 16-year-old granddaughter, thinking she was an intruder.


Just to follow up on the follow up, this kind of event is far more common than the 'homeowner shoots burglar' scenario that is typically used to justify gun ownership.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SpeedBump13 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415443 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 11:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Violent crime started a sharp decline twenty years after Roe V Wade, says the book Freakonomics.

I read recently that mass killings peaked during the 1920s. There still is no reason assault rifles should be legal to satisfy the fantasies of the guns and gods crowd. There should be a sharp line between a society of sane people and military weaponry.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415458 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 3:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
A grandfather said he had a recent nearby burglary on his mind when he accidentally shot his 16-year-old granddaughter, thinking she was an intruder.

========
Just to follow up on the follow up, this kind of event is far more common than the 'homeowner shoots burglar' scenario that is typically used to justify gun ownership.



yikes..... and then if you add in accidentally shooting grandson..

nephew or niece
neighbor
poor soul lost and asking directions
daughter (while aiming at her BF) .......

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415463 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 4:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
There still is no reason assault rifles should be legal...

Allowing that no one has ever put forth a good definition of "assault weapon", I have said basically the same thing (several times). Never meant to imply otherwise.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415464 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 5:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Allowing that no one has ever put forth a good definition of "assault weapon"

Well, that ain't exactly true.

The definition may be full of logical problems according to NRA fanatics, but it touches on some important distinctions; Hi capacity magazines, "platforms," suppressors, .... it's actually a fairly comprehensive list such that civilian grade weapons SHOULDN"T have military/police capabilities, but will still afford decent hunting and protection capabilities.

None of the restrictions prevent a person from having multiple quick change magazines, and therein lies a really sticky wicket. You cannot reasonably prohibit a person from owning multiple magazines for semi's, or speed loaders for revolvers.

And it doesn't address the issue of guns so carelessly stored at home that they scream 'steal me' to thieves.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415465 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 5:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
...it's actually a fairly comprehensive list such that civilian grade weapons SHOULDN"T have military/police capabilities,...

Where is this list? The previous ban from the 90s was a mess. If you changed the stock of a rifle in a particular way it became an assault weapon even though the function of the weapon had not changed at all. As a "for example".

None of the restrictions prevent a person from having multiple quick change magazines, and therein lies a really sticky wicket.

Well, yes. There is that. The Virginia Institute shooter used only a pistol and a bag of magazines to commit the largest school shooting in US history. I don't think most would consider his pistol an "assault weapon".

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DufusGoneSplat Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415467 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 5:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Allowing that no one has ever put forth a good definition of "assault weapon" ...

You could use the definition supplied by the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Cri...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415468 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 5:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Just a follow up to the whole, elderly folks having the handgun to keep themselves safe discussion...

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/12/11/man-shoots-granddau......


By the way, the grandfather is a pastor at a local church...

some of that Christian love...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415469 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 5:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Where is this list? The previous ban from the 90s was a mess. If you changed the stock of a rifle in a particular way it became an assault weapon even though the function of the weapon had not changed at all. As a "for example".

Yes. You could still by an AK. Just had a thunmb hole stock.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: discurro Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415471 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 5:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
By the way, the grandfather is a pastor at a local church...

some of that Christian love...


I am not a fan of guns or many christians, but I don't see what christianity or the lack of it had to do with this tragedy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415472 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 6:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I am not a fan of guns or many christians, but I don't see what christianity or the lack of it had to do with this tragedy.



that someone who follows "love thy Neighbor"* ought not be shooting at everything that moves?






* not that that has much to do with Christianity

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415473 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 6:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Virginia Institute shooter used only a pistol and a bag of magazines to commit the largest school shooting in US history. I don't think most would consider his pistol an "assault weapon".

He missed a lot too, according to the very graphic reports compiled from survivor interviews.

That's something worth considering... the pistol shooters missed a lot and wounded a lot ... small consolation, but rifle shooters tend to have higher kill stats for the number of rounds expended.

I'm thinking the Lanza kid had a very much higher kill/wounded ratio using his Bushmaster. Wihtout it, I'd bet his score would have been in the low teens like the shooters at VA and Hood.

So, maybe it's better if there's less 'assault' rifles around. Note that the AR15 was the weapon of choice in the great San Fernando BofA robbery/police shoot out.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MacNugget Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415475 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 6:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Note that the AR15 was the weapon of choice in the great San Fernando BofA robbery/police shoot out.

It was also the weapon of choice for shopkeepers defending their property during the L.A. riots. Just saying...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415480 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 12/31/2012 8:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
It was also the weapon of choice for shopkeepers defending their property during the L.A. riots. Just saying...

A perfect example of firearms ignorance.

Rioters just want stuff. They don't want a fight.

If your intent is to kill people, the AR15 is superb.

However, if you are shooting toward a crowd, the chance of shoot-through is very real. So, it's a a poor choice if you have a conscience and like to sleep.

An 8 round pump shotgun would be the superior weapon. If you need to intimidate or turn around a crowd, bird shot will do the job nicely with much less risk of the nightmare of homicide paperwork.

Think about it. Nobody charges a 12 gauge pump that just made the ka-chunk noise.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415521 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/2/2013 10:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If 1poormom has had the gun for about 50 years (a guess based on my assumption of 1poorguys age) and hasn't needed to use it, I would think that it's unlikely anyone would break in now. If that is a worry, securing the house by getting a decent door and secure windows would probably put the mind at ease.

If someone did break in, it's likely that the person would be in a small room or corridor (most 80 year olds who live on their own live in small places). It's likely that mace or a cattle prod would be more effective and would incapacitate said intruder until the police arrive, without such high probability of death.

The "right to bear arms" is simply a right to bear arms, not a right to bear any arms one wishes. You can have mace, tazers and maybe even knives. Is there a need for (in increasing incredulity) pistols, rifles and assault weapons?! Why stop there? Give me a nuke!

Nor is it an argument that we don't really need to deal with our lack of a mental health system in this country.
Perhaps sorting this out would leave no-one free to roam the streets and cause havoc!

I think that the US has now reached a point where guns are such a part of people's culture that it's almost impossible to get rid of them. I can understand (to a degree and in a short-term sense) when people argue that innocents need guns to protect themselves from baddies with guns, but some people still seem to argue that more guns equals fewer deaths. These people are firmly in the group of people that would be affected by a proper mental health system!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415532 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/2/2013 4:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If 1poormom has had the gun for about 50 years (a guess based on my assumption of 1poorguys age) and hasn't needed to use it, I would think that it's unlikely anyone would break in now.

By that bit of logic, you should get rid of homowner's insurance and car insurance too if you haven't used it. Since, of course, it's unlikely that the house will burn down or youwill have a car accident.

The "right to bear arms" is simply a right to bear arms, not a right to bear any arms one wishes. You can have mace, tazers and maybe even knives. Is there a need for (in increasing incredulity) pistols, rifles and assault weapons?! Why stop there? Give me a nuke!

The SC agrees with you. The 2nd Amendment is not a right to bear any arms, in any manner, at any time. You are right in that you do have to draw a line somewhere. The line as it stands does not allow for a number of what I would call military grade weapons (grenades, automatics, CBN weapons of mass destruction...etc.). The problem with going further is that the line is tougher to draw without violating the legitimate right to self-defense with arms that are in common use. From the SC opinion:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Are you saying because you don't like where the line is drawn currently, why even draw a line? Let me ask, what are you going to be able to use a nuke for? Obviously a nuke is a dangerous and unusual weapon. Economically, it's not even feasible for it to ever come into common use weapon. Now you are probably going to say that an AR-15 is a dangerous and unusual weapon. It's not unusual or any more dangerous than a lot of hunting rifles.

Speaking of arguments, the constant refrain of why do you need X doesn't make sense. Nobody needs a Ferrari or a 10,000 square foot mansion. Nobody needs this, that or the other thing. Look at the ban in NY on soda size. How about letting people make the choice as to what they want?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415533 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/2/2013 4:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

I'd argue that common use does not include supersized magazines... except for law enforcement and military personnel.

Many indoor ranges prohibit excessively rapid fire with semi's too.

If were limited to <20, and buy back programs were instituted for the big clips, eventually less big stuff would get stolen and sold illegallly. It'd be a gradual scaling down, but it'd happen.

Stuff is no fun if you can't legally use it. Super sized magazines rusting away unused... I wouldn't buy anything I couldn't use at most ranges.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415537 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/2/2013 9:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'd argue that common use does not include supersized magazines... except for law enforcement and military personnel.

I wonder what the sales metrics are for 20+ round magazines. It could be a legitimate argument on those grounds. It also sounds like it should do something but I don't know. Didn't this occur in the 1994 legislation? In other words, it was tried before and didn't seem to be very effective. What would change things now? Here is one opinion. I think he probably makes it out to be a lot easier than it is to actually make a magazine but it's also not rocket science.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-g...


The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I’m no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could’ve been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415539 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/2/2013 11:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Stuff is no fun if you can't legally use it. Super sized magazines rusting away unused... I wouldn't buy anything I couldn't use at most ranges.

When I first came to the USA I was working in Nevada with guys who were gun nuts. They claimed to each have thousands of rounds of .223 and 7.62 buried.
I asked "Why?".
Answer "In case".
"In case of what?".
"The government".

These were just ordinary working guys. Pick up trucks and such. We'd go for a beer on the way home on Fridays.

I was puzzled by this.
I still am.
I guess you just have to grow up here to understand.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415541 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 12:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I guess you just have to grow up here to understand.

No, it doesn't help. It makes ZERO sense to maintain you can resist the government with a few cases of .223. They have M1 tanks, F22 Raptors, etc. Their (and their friends') pitiful stashes are just that...pitiful.

Heck, the loons in Waco several years ago couldn't even stand up to the ATF. How could they stand up to the Army?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415542 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 2:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No, it doesn't help. It makes ZERO sense to maintain you can resist the government with a few cases of .223. They have M1 tanks, F22 Raptors, etc. Their (and their friends') pitiful stashes are just that...pitiful.

Can you say drone?

My Dad told us kids that when the Americans went into many towns where an enemy might still be hiding, they'd methodically clear any building they suspected might be holding say, a sniper.

The Russians, otoh, he said, would simply bring in a tank and blow up the building.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415544 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 4:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If 1poormom has had the gun for about 50 years (a guess based on my assumption of 1poorguys age) and hasn't needed to use it, I would think that it's unlikely anyone would break in now.

By that bit of logic, you should get rid of homowner's insurance and car insurance too if you haven't used it. Since, of course, it's unlikely that the house will burn down or youwill have a car accident.


I wouldn't ever suggest that one should neglect to have car insurance because there are inherent risks to all drivers, as well as the fact that insurance covers third parties for your mistakes.

I wouldn't suggest not to have homeowner's insurance because accidents and natural events can happen to any home and the cost associated with remedy is often prohibitive. If affordable, self-insurance is naturally a cheaper option, though.

The difference with arming oneself for protection (particularly with a gun) is that there are simple and safer alternatives, as I suggested.

What I was suggesting was that it appears 1poormom lives in a relatively safe neighbourhood and that securing the home is likely to the preferable option for the unlikely event of an attempted break-in.


Are you saying because you don't like where the line is drawn currently, why even draw a line?

No, it was irony. Clearly I don't advocate the ownership of nukes.


Now you are probably going to say that an AR-15 is a dangerous and unusual weapon. It's not unusual or any more dangerous than a lot of hunting rifles.

An AR-15 is a dangerous and unusual weapon. It's not any more dangerous than a lot of hunting rifles but it is more unusual and the clue is in the title: hunting rifles are for hunting, whereas assault rifles are for assault! It's a similar argument used when people suggest that if guns are banned than so should knives be banned. Knives (and hunting rifles) have a primary purpose other than killing people.


Nobody needs a Ferrari or a 10,000 square foot mansion.

Correct. But also, nobody needs a computer, hi-fi, shoes, coffee, bread... We need very little to survive but many things improve the quality of life. If such things are achievable without worsening the quality of life for others then have at it! No-one is directly harmed by someone owning a Ferrari or a large home (barring irresponsible driving etc). They pose no additional danger to alternatives and they have the same primary purpose. The same cannot be said for assault rifles.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415553 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 12:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What I was suggesting was that it appears 1poormom lives in a relatively safe neighbourhood and that securing the home is likely to the preferable option for the unlikely event of an attempted break-in.

Ok, I definitely agree that it makes sense to secure the home as a first line of defense and that it is simpler and safer (unless you go all Dr. Evil and install laser sharks ;) ). It would be foolish not to.

Driving is a relatively safe endeavor otherwise we wouldn't take the risk. But we do every time we step in the vehicle. We carry insurance because statistically speaking there is low risk but a highly negative outcome when it goes really wrong. By the same token, you can view a gun as an insurance policy if something does happen. I hear what you are saying but multiple lines of defense are usually better than one: be prepared, have a backup plan, etc. She already has the gun, so that's more reason to make sure the 1st line of defense is there, to increase the chances that she doesn't have to use it. Just like there are different levels of insurance protection you can choose. Some may choose the minimum and some choose more.

It's not any more dangerous than a lot of hunting rifles but it is more unusual and the clue is in the title: hunting rifles are for hunting, whereas assault rifles are for assault!

Isn't that just semantics and cosmetic factors since as you acknowledge the AR-15 is not any more dangerous than a lot of hunting rifles?

Can I ask how do you come to the conclusion that they are more unusual? The original design was made in 1957 and it appears there are 34 different companies that now manufacture the AR-15 or a variant. It's readily available at retail (to those who pass the proper checks). That doesn't seem to fit my definition of unusual.

I'm will fully acknowledge that I am not a gun person and I am trying to get up to speed on the issue but it appears that they were built with versatility rather than power in mind. My understanding is that it is slightly more powerful than a standard .22. Plenty of hunting rifles and handguns have more power than those. Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M-16, although nearly identical in external appearance so one can understand why they look scary. They look just like the military gear. Here is a list of the notable features that I found that indicate the versatility:

Some notable features of the AR-15 include:

Aluminum receiver is lightweight, highly corrosion-resistant, and easy to machine
Modular design allows the use of numerous accessories and makes repair easier
Straight-line stock design eliminates the fulcrum created by traditional bent stocks, reducing muzzle climb.
Small caliber, accurate, light weight, high velocity round (.223/5.56x45mm)
Easily adapted to fire numerous other rounds
Front sight adjustable for elevation
Rear sight adjustable for windage (most models) and elevation (some models)
Wide array of optical aiming devices available in addition to or as replacements of iron sights
Synthetic pistol grip and butt stock that do not swell or splinter in adverse conditions (regulated in some states)
Ergonomic design that makes the charging handle, selector switch (safety), magazine release, and bolt catch assembly easy to access.


They pose no additional danger to alternatives and they have the same primary purpose. The same cannot be said for assault rifles.

I'm not sure I agree. No one is directly harmed by owning a gun. The way I see it is the primary purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile at high velocity. The primary purpose of a car is to get you from point A to point B. Both are tools and it is the application of that tool that determines the danger to yourself and others. If you practice the proper application of safety for each item, there is no danger. I don't think that the application is relevant in the context of the 2nd Amendment (i.e. hunting/self-defense/competition).

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415554 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 12:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
No one is directly harmed by the responsible ownership of owning a gun. The way I see it is the primary purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile at high velocity. The primary purpose of a car is to get you from point A to point B. Both are tools and it is the application of that tool that determines the danger to yourself and others. If you practice the proper application of safety for each item, there is no danger. I don't think that the application is relevant in the context of the 2nd Amendment (i.e. hunting/self-defense/competition).

No one is directly harmed by the responsible ownership of owning a gun.

Problem is, too many people are irresponsible owners. They don't store them securley, they don't train on a regular basis. Couple that with the vast number of guns in the USA being sold to 'bad buyers', stolen, and here we are.

If Mrs. Lanza had secured her weapons such that her crazy son could not access them (off the premises of a high IQ mentally challenged kid), he may have knifed her in her sleep, but the guns would have not been available to him.

If we, as a nation, do not want to attempt to control the tools of mass shooting, then we're genuinely hoisted by our own petard.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415555 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 12:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It makes ZERO sense to maintain you can resist the government with a few cases of .223. They have M1 tanks, F22 Raptors, etc.

It's a numbers thing. If we are talking about a couple thousand obviously not. If a vast majority of the people feel the same way, it's not impossible (look at Afghans vs. Russians for example). I don't know what a future gov't will look like. I'm pretty certain nothing like what the current nut jobs think can happen will occur in our lifetime. I don't see any reason to stockpile for an apocalypse (have you seen that reality show about doomsday prepareers? lol) If anything it's going to be a slow erosion over many, many years. But once the guns are gone from civilian hands, you won't get the cat back into the bag and even a small military force can control a large majority.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415565 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 4:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Problem is, too many people are irresponsible owners. They don't store them securley, they don't train on a regular basis. Couple that with the vast number of guns in the USA being sold to 'bad buyers', stolen, and here we are.

Despite all of this and the increasing number of guns, the trend in gun violence still seems to be going down. Somebody charted the avg. gun deaths/day since Newtown as 18 which on an annualized basis is lower than last year. Let's not make it out like this is an epidemic. Sure there is lots of media attention on the tragedies that sell but there are more deaths caused by numerous other sources that would be easier to affect. And I'll wager if we stopped the ineffective drug wars, that number would plummet. We should find some way of not advertising the name of the shooter since it seems to feed the cycle of the next shooter who want to gain notoriety.

If Mrs. Lanza had secured her weapons such that her crazy son could not access them (off the premises of a high IQ mentally challenged kid), he may have knifed her in her sleep, but the guns would have not been available to him.

Yes, that she didn't take things more seriously led to a tragedy and her own demise.

If we, as a nation, do not want to attempt to control the tools of mass shooting, then we're genuinely hoisted by our own petard.

I agree with the sentiment but I'd argue we have taken steps to control the tools and that's why you can't purchase an automatic/grenade/bazooka etc. Maybe some things could stand tweaking but we also need to be cognizant that we shouldn't violate our 2nd Amendment rights in the process. We need to figure out why these people go off and get them help before they do because they will find a means to the end of innocent lives no matter what.

Those in favor of further gun control like the "assault weapons ban" will never compromise. These types of tragedies won't stop and it will lead to banning something else. If say the next person takes up fire as a method of mass murder are we going to ban fire? Think of the number of people who leave incendiary fuel lying around their garages. There no controls on who can buy this highly combustible materials and the means to initiate the conflagration are practically given away in many instances.

IF we need to ban something, it should have been the bible. How many deaths has that tool been responsible for? lol, just to kinda keep it "on topic" for the board. :P

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415566 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 5:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"It's a numbers thing. If we are talking about a couple thousand obviously not. If a vast majority of the people feel the same way, it's not impossible (look at Afghans vs. Russians for example). I don't know what a future gov't will look like. I'm pretty certain nothing like what the current nut jobs think can happen will occur in our lifetime. I don't see any reason to stockpile for an apocalypse (have you seen that reality show about doomsday prepareers? lol) If anything it's going to be a slow erosion over many, many years. But once the guns are gone from civilian hands, you won't get the cat back into the bag and even a small military force can control a large majority."

All of this is a moot point because the government will never try and control the populace with military force. That would cause too much of a backlash.

Instead it is going to be done through more subtle means. Control of communication and information.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415567 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Umm; <i<>"All of this is a moot point because the government will never try and control the populace with military force. That would cause too much of a backlash.

Instead it is going to be done through more subtle means. Control of communication and information."

A Department (and Secretary) of Truthiness, perhaps? I mean, it is not like someone has written anything about a Ministry of Truth, or its importance.

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415568 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
All of this is a moot point because the government will never try and control the populace with military force. That would cause too much of a backlash.

Instead it is going to be done through more subtle means. Control of communication and information.


i agree with the latter...

but not because of 'backlash' .. because it's cheaper and easier.
(and already 37% done?)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415570 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 7:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"A Department (and Secretary) of Truthiness, perhaps? I mean, it is not like someone has written anything about a Ministry of Truth, or its importance."

We have already quietly surrendered.

I hope no one here is naive enough to think their emails or other internet communications is actually private from the government. Heck, even the phone companies have given in and pretty much give the government whatever they ask for with little resistence.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415574 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 10:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Some notable features of the AR-15 include:

< stuff >

But these features mean:

(1) It is effective against targets wearing body armor. IIRC, this was one of the reasons it was very popular with the IRA.

(2) It is not a good rifle for hunting -- the small caliber, high velocity round will typically go right through its target (esp. at close range) and likely through four or five target equivalents, and may require multiple shots to kill, especially at a distance.

(3) It is a very inappropriate weapon for home defense, being neither small and effective in tight confines, nor large caliber, nor buckshot, nor short range.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415577 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 10:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Umm: Instead it is going to be done through more subtle means. Control of communication and information.

Going to be?

The armed forces of this country have about 30,000 press liaisons. That's just the official ones, and many other organizations specialize in such things (e.g., CIA, NSA, ...). The gov't already tracks essentially every phone call made in this country, 4th amendment be damned.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415578 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/3/2013 10:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Umm: I hope no one here is naive enough to think their emails or other internet communications is actually private from the government. Heck, even the phone companies have given in and pretty much give the government whatever they ask for with little resistence.

One of the few things I respected about USWest was that they refused to give the gov't the taps it wanted. The gov't promptly reneged on a big contract with them and then prosecuted the CEO for making "materially misleading statements" that counted on the contract.

There hasn't been any resistance since then that I'm aware of, other than the EFF and ACLU.

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415583 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/4/2013 2:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Instead it is going to be done through more subtle means. Control of communication and information.

That's how Murdoch is wreaking his havoc on us.

Guys sitting on cases of ammo muttering about the "gub-mint" aren't going to have the slightest effect on this, and will more likely become the pawns of it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415586 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/4/2013 10:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It is effective against targets wearing body armor.

Depends on the body armor from what I've read. But most of those features did not mean it was effective against body armor. Just about any rifle will do that though.

It is not a good rifle for hunting -- the small caliber, high velocity round will typically go right through its target (esp. at close range) and likely through four or five target equivalents, and may require multiple shots to kill, especially at a distance.

I think that depends on what you are hunting. No I don't mean people, small game.

It is a very inappropriate weapon for home defense, being neither small and effective in tight confines, nor large caliber, nor buckshot, nor short range.

I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert but I will ask, aren't they are used by military and law enforcement in tight confines when sweeping a building? If it were ineffective, wouldn't they use something else?

Another opinion (if you see some flaw please point it out):

Basically, what you are thinking of as assault weapons aren’t special.

Now, the reason that semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifles are the single most popular type of gun in America is because they are excellent for many uses, but I’m not talking about fun, or hunting, or sports, today I’m talking business. And in this case they are excellent for shooting bad people who are trying to hurt you, in order to make them stop trying to hurt you. These types of guns are superb for defending your home. Now some of you may think that’s extreme. That’s because everything you’ve learned about gun fights comes from TV. Just read the link where I expound on why.


Here's his whole harangue on what is good for self-defense in your home:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/carbine-vs-shot...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: nigelwhalmsley Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415587 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/4/2013 10:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"I hope no one here is naive enough to think their emails or other internet communications is actually private from the government. Heck, even the phone companies have given in and pretty much give the government whatever they ask for with little resistence."

I know a fair amount about network monitoring, and frankly, I am much more concerned about the information that Facebook, Google, and the telecom companies have (and what they are doing with it) than anything the government might do.

You are absolutely right in that your activities are being tracked, no question. If you do anything on a networked computer, it can be seen if someone wants to see it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415612 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/4/2013 8:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Some notable features of the AR-15 include:


But it is a highly profitable weapon which men and women can be easily convinced will make men more anly (your "Man Card") and women safe (? your "Women Card"?).

md

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415613 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/4/2013 8:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
By the same token, you can view a gun as an insurance policy if something does happen.

Car insurance compensates for financial losses. Guns brutally prevent potential losses. They're not really comparable.


Can I ask how do you come to the conclusion that they are more unusual?
By "usual" I wasn't referring to common; I was referring to the appropriateness of ownership.


They pose no additional danger to alternatives and they have the same primary purpose. The same cannot be said for assault rifles.
I'm not sure I agree.


Hunting rifles are designed for accuracy of shots over long distances (e.g. to kill deer at long range). Assault rifles are designed to spray many bullets quickly. Therefore, hunting rifles have a primary purpose of hunting. Assault rifles have a primary purpose of killing people.

Comparing hunting rifles with assualt rifles is like comparing cars with tanks. Tanks get you from A to B but their primary purpose is killing people or destroying property.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415627 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 1:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm will fully acknowledge that I am not a gun person and I am trying to get up to speed on the issue but it appears that they were built with versatility rather than power in mind. My understanding is that it is slightly more powerful than a standard .22.

I am a gun person. One topic that has been hotly debated since Vietnam is the issue of caliber. I don't want to go down that road too much because it is like arguing Mac vs. PC. However, at combat ranges larger, heavier rounds tend to pass right through a person causing minimal damage. Small, lighter, rounds tend to deflect, spin, and fragment causing lots of damage. That's why the main battle rifle of the US military is has been a .22 for the last 50 years. The Soviets concluded the same thing and switched to virtually the same round as we did. A side advantage is that with the smaller .223 round you can carry more of them.


I'm not sure I agree. No one is directly harmed by owning a gun. The way I see it is the primary purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile at high velocity. The primary purpose of a car is to get you from point A to point B. Both are tools and it is the application of that tool that determines the danger to yourself and others. If you practice the proper application of safety for each item, there is no danger.

The problem is that in the case of both cars and guns some people don't apply proper safety. Then what do you do?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415629 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Car insurance compensates for financial losses. Guns brutally prevent potential losses. They're not really comparable.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it still holds. Insurance protects you against catastrophic financial losses. A gun can protect you against catastrophic loss of your life. Doesn't necessarily need to be brutal unless you are forced to use it.

By "usual" I wasn't referring to common; I was referring to the appropriateness of ownership.

Gotcha. Then you should have said that instead of trying to imply that they weren't in common use.

Assault rifles are designed to spray many bullets quickly. Therefore, hunting rifles have a primary purpose of hunting. Assault rifles have a primary purpose of killing people.

You're talking about automatics. Those are the ones that spray. I agree with you there. When you can empty a thirty round magazine in 2.4 seconds there is no way to control the recoil and the bullets just spray all over the place. Those are definitely not really good for much. But I don't think the thread has been referring to those types of rifles since they are already tightly regulated under the existing National Firearms Act.

It's a common mistake to confuse the two since the semiautomatics in discussion are cosmetically similar to those automatics that the military uses like the M-16. The important thing to remember is for all semiautomatics 1 trigger pull is equal to 1 bullet, no more. Regardless of if it is a rifle or a pistol.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415630 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 1:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The important thing to remember is for all semiautomatics 1 trigger pull is equal to 1 bullet, no more.

Another important thing to remember is that when the Constitution was written such a thing did not exist. There was no integrated cartridge. That wasn't invented until around 1810 (in France).

When the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment they only knew about muzzle-loading single-shot weapons that required significant time to load.

And then there's that admittedly ambiguous reference to a "well-regulated militia". Whatever they meant by that, it's clear what we have today is NOT well-regulated.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415631 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 2:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The problem is that in the case of both cars and guns some people don't apply proper safety. Then what do you do?

Cars: In many places car must pass safety inspections. In most places drivers must regularly prove fitness and knowledge of regs.

Fines, revocation of drivers license, jail. Restricting ones driving priviledges is a major blow to ones liberty.

We COULD legislate that guns must be treated equally seriously.... require that weapons storage systems be inspected so that those who should not have access to guns actually do not have access to guns.

Require a doctors statement that the gun owner doesn't have a loose screw.

ALLL gun sellers must buy and sell through a licensed agency.

Stuff like that.

...publishing gun owners names and addresses; that needs to stop. It should be just as confidential as ones medical records or atty/client

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415632 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 4:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
...publishing gun owners names and addresses; that needs to stop. It should be just as confidential as ones medical records or atty/client

Then why aren't car and home sales similar? The two times I've bought a new car I start receiving all sorts of solicitations in the mail for car-related merchandise and services. Ditto the two times I've bought a home: inundated with home services, termite protection, baby/child-related stuff, etc.

Why should firearms be any different? (Personally, I favor locking-down the former so the entire universe doesn't know when I have a new <anything>.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415634 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 5:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why should firearms be any different?

Some information is confidential and protected; medical records, atty/client records. Gun ownership, I believe, should be afforded the same consideration since dissemination of that information can have immediate and irreversible tragic consequences.

It's hard to use a house against you. Dorothy got a bum rap when her aunt's house fell on the wicked witch of the west.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415635 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 5:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
It's hard to use a house against you.

"These folks can afford a new house. All their stuff is conveniently boxed-up for us. They may not have an active alarm yet." Etc.

Or worse... "that slvt left me for that guy, and now they're in a house together?!"

Nobody has any business knowing whether or not I bought a house unless I choose to tell them, and certainly no business knowing where. IMO.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415636 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 5:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"These folks can afford a new house. All their stuff is conveniently boxed-up for us. They may not have an active alarm yet." Etc.

If that was confirmed to be a significant problem then it should be addressed.

Or worse... "that slvt left me for that guy, and now they're in a house together?!"

Again, if it can be demonstrated that public records are an avenue for persistant criminal behaviour, then that class of records should be given protection.

Our drivers licenses are protected againt unwarranted access.. right?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415638 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 8:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Our drivers licenses are protected againt unwarranted access.. right?

I think after some women were killed by their stalkers, yes. Before that, no. Used to be you filed a form and paid a small fee, and you could get the license record information.

I don't know how significant a problem it is, but if the floor mat people can find me when I get a car, so could a stalker.

(And, as an aside, those floor mats really are awesome...but still...)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415640 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 8:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Our drivers licenses are protected againt unwarranted access.. right?

I think after some women were killed by their stalkers, yes. Before that, no.


I have a feeling USA privacy laws are going to need some revamping, especially in light of the power of the internet.

Justin Bieber appears to be gaining some momentum in restricitng paparazzi, for example.

We got the "do not call registry." Fat lot of good it's doing. I'd like to get "Heather from Card services" in the ring for a few rounds.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415643 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 9:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Another important thing to remember is that when the Constitution was written such a thing did not exist. There was no integrated cartridge. That wasn't invented until around 1810 (in France).

True dat, they didn't have a gat, but they were aware that technology progresses (funny how language seems to devolve though). Check the Heller opinion (and dang do they dis that argument as weak sauce):

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


And then there's that admittedly ambiguous reference to a "well-regulated militia". Whatever they meant by that, it's clear what we have today is NOT well-regulated.

This is discussed in the Heller opinion, you can read the whole thing here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415644 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/5/2013 9:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Then why aren't car and home sales similar? The two times I've bought a new car I start receiving all sorts of solicitations in the mail for car-related merchandise and services. Ditto the two times I've bought a home: inundated with home services, termite protection, baby/child-related stuff, etc.

I believe the difference is in marketing. The real estate company and the car dealership sell your info to businesses who are targeting their marketing to those who have just purchased a car/home. There is a payment there. FOIL is a bit different. The info is "free" but any payment is generally for the cost of the photocopying.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415656 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/6/2013 9:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
By that reasoning a citizen should be able to have a nuke if they want it.

Do you really think the Founders (or any reasonable person) would assert that should be possible?

I find their parallel to searches to be a huge stretch. To say they were "reaching" for that one is an understatement.

Their militia argument is equally silly. Today's modern army consists of a "subset" of the people. So members of the army should be able to bear arms. Fine.

Citizen militias today are not "well-regulated", they often are either crazy or vigilantes (or both).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415670 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/7/2013 10:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
By "usual" I wasn't referring to common; I was referring to the appropriateness of ownership.

Gotcha. Then you should have said that instead of trying to imply that they weren't in common use.


I wasn't trying to imply that; I was trying to stick to the vernacular of the previous post.


Assault rifles are designed to spray many bullets quickly. Therefore, hunting rifles have a primary purpose of hunting. Assault rifles have a primary purpose of killing people.

You're talking about automatics.


No, automatics spray even more quickly but semi-automatics still fire more quickly than hunting rifles. My original argument still holds:
Hunting rifles have a primary purpose of hunting. Assault rifles have a primary purpose of killing people.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415691 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/7/2013 12:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
By that reasoning a citizen should be able to have a nuke if they want it.

You really need to consider the opinion in its entirety. The nuke is not an arm that can be used for lawful purposes. Nobody is saying the 2nd Amendment protection should extend to any arm whatsoever except when using it as a ridiculous argument against all guns.

I find their parallel to searches to be a huge stretch. To say they were "reaching" for that one is an understatement.

Perhaps but they didn't have to reach very far for a parallel with the 1st Amendment. Perhaps they should have stopped there.

Their militia argument is equally silly. Today's modern army consists of a "subset" of the people. So members of the army should be able to bear arms. Fine.

Citizen militias today are not "well-regulated", they often are either crazy or vigilantes (or both).


What is silly is to try and limit the right to being a collective right and not an individual right. The SC has declared over multiple decisions that it is an individual right.

Today's modern army is part of the government and therefore cannot be a subset of "the people". The Bill of Rights doesn't pertain to the government, rather it is supposed to limit the government and what it can do to "the people".

Are you discussing active citizen militias? I'm not sure that an active/organized citizen militia is required. If it is, who is going to pay for the weapons and the storage? Even if you do somehow enact that restriction, that will probably be bypassed without problem. I can imagine scads of "militias" popping up and good luck trying to regulate that.

How do you interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as being limited to militia members without thereby outlawing hunting or being able to defend oneself?

The arguments in part are obviously not cut and dry, but in sum make more sense for it to be an individual right than a collective right.

The 1st, 2nd and 4th codify a pre-existing individual right, not one that is granted by the Constitution.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415694 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/7/2013 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The SC has declared over multiple decisions that it is an individual right.

True. But the question then becomes what limits can be placed upon it? Free speech is limited. The classic, and oft-cited, "fire" in a crowded theater being one example. I believe at least part of the reasoning there involved the person's speech versus public safety/good. I see no reason why such a consideration cannot be applied to firearms.

Today's modern army is part of the government and therefore cannot be a subset of "the people".

I completely disagree with this statement. Where do you think our soldiers come from? From "the people". And, at least in principle, our government is one "of the people, by the people, for the people". So of course soldiers are a subset of the people.

Are you discussing active citizen militias?

Sort of. The "militia" phrase in the Constitution is poorly worded, ambiguous, and I believe the SC has ruled (in effect) that it can be ignored. But the Founders put it there for a reason, even if it is not clear why. A "well-regulated" milita is, well, "regulated". Those we have today are not. Some of them run around the woods pretending to be soldiers, others "patrol" our southern border as self-assigned guardians, etc. They're mostly loony (and dangerous), not regulated.

How do you interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as being limited to militia members without thereby outlawing hunting or being able to defend oneself?

I don't need a firearm for either of those functions. There are other ways to do both. Firearms are just "easier". And more militias popping up, as you suggest, still wouldn't satisfy the "well-regulated" bit. So that doesn't fly.

The 1st, 2nd and 4th codify a pre-existing individual right, not one that is granted by the Constitution.

Pre-existing from where? If you can't give the source of such rights, then I don't accept the assertion.

IMO, the Constitution IS the source of those rights, and the guarantor of them also. Without the Constitution you only have the "rights" your might (and/or wealth) can acquire for you. So it has been throughout history. IMO, that's what makes the Constitution special.

1poorguy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415696 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/7/2013 1:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I believe at least part of the reasoning there involved the person's speech versus public safety/good. I see no reason why such a consideration cannot be applied to firearms.

Not exactly. The reasoning in Schenck (where Holmes used the "falsely shouting fire" metaphor) turned on whether speech could be prohibited where it posed a "clear and present danger" that they will bring about a substantive evil. That was later modified in Brandenburg v. Ohio to the "imminent lawless action" test. It's clearly not just a balancing of public safety/good - there's lots and lots of speech that Congress could adjudge both harmful and worthless, but if it would not likely lead to imminent lawless action it couldn't be prohibited.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415697 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/7/2013 1:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the case of the theater the "lawless action" would be the resulting stampede? (Just trying to be sure I have the meaning of "lawless" in this usage.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415714 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/7/2013 3:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
if it would not likely lead to imminent lawless action it couldn't be prohibited.

The careless sale and storage of firearms such that children,mental deficients, criminals can access them is not consistent with a well regulated militia.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415754 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/7/2013 11:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I completely disagree with this statement. Where do you think our soldiers come from? From "the people". And, at least in principle, our government is one "of the people, by the people, for the people". So of course soldiers are a subset of the people.

You're right, they do come from "the people" but so does the government. My point is they were differentiating from a federally controlled entity such as the armed forces. The founders realized that a gov't can turn to tyranny and enforce unjust laws by force when the people are unarmed. Consider they came from England where the common man was ruled by a dictator and not allowed the use of firearms. They sought to prevent this from happening again by preventing the gov't from restricting the people's right to keep and bear arms.

I don't need a firearm for either of those functions. There are other ways to do both. Firearms are just "easier". And more militias popping up, as you suggest, still wouldn't satisfy the "well-regulated" bit. So that doesn't fly.

While you may not need a firearm for self-defense and I'm not sure what "other way" you are referring to, surely you would agree that there are some people who would not be able to protect themselves without one due to physical limitations.

With regard to "well-regulated", how are you defining it? Regulated just means "trained" (according to the SC). I would say even those "looneys" would qualify under this definition. Whether they believe it's a race war or some other nonsense doesn't disqualify the training.

Pre-existing from where? If you can't give the source of such rights, then I don't accept the assertion.

Are you saying that you don't take the Lord as your Savior? ;) Relax, just kidding. The source is your membership in the human species. In the Founder's view, it was from The Creator. You can think of it as the GSM if you like. The point they were trying to make was that being a human being granted you certain inalienable rights that should not be usurped by other men. What man gives, he can also take away. They wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen.

IMO, the Constitution IS the source of those rights, and the guarantor of them also. Without the Constitution you only have the "rights" your might (and/or wealth) can acquire for you. So it has been throughout history. IMO, that's what makes the Constitution special.

I hear what you are saying but that would mean any of these rights could be taken away, no?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415755 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/7/2013 11:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
In the Founder's view, it was from The Creator.


Oh boy, now you've done it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rmhj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415758 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 12:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the Founder's view, it was from The Creator.

Apparently there was only one "Founder". Somebody's history is waaayyyyyyy too limited. [Maybe he's suggesting that that the country foundered (rather than being discovered?)]

rj

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415760 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 8:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
I hear what you are saying but that would mean any of these rights could be taken away, no?


People need to get over the idea that the constitution is an infallible perfect document, it is not. It was written over two hundred years ago and included flawed principles such as slavery. Many of the authors also believed that there were witches running around, that the moon caused mental illness, and that many diseases were the result of foul vapors.

Using a 200 year old document as the ultimate authority for running a 21rst century modern government is the pinnacle of stupidity. It is rather like basing one's views of science and morality on a book of fables written by bronze age goat herders.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415762 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 9:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
People need to get over the idea that the constitution is an infallible perfect document, it is not.

Absolutely right, hence the Amendments!

If the Constitution has been amended before, why not do it again?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415763 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 9:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"People need to get over the idea that the constitution is an infallible perfect document, it is not. It was written over two hundred years ago and included flawed principles such as slavery. Many of the authors also believed that there were witches running around, that the moon caused mental illness, and that many diseases were the result of foul vapors.

Using a 200 year old document as the ultimate authority for running a 21rst century modern government is the pinnacle of stupidity. It is rather like basing one's views of science and morality on a book of fables written by bronze age goat herders."

May I copy and paste the above... allllll over the internet... is there a condensed version that'll fit on a bumper sticker?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415771 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 10:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the case of the theater the "lawless action" would be the resulting stampede? (Just trying to be sure I have the meaning of "lawless" in this usage.)

Yes, if you were applying Brandenburg to the theater example.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415781 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 10:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The careless sale and storage of firearms such that children,mental deficients, criminals can access them is not consistent with a well regulated militia.

That may be true, but it's not relevant to the type of analysis discussed above. The Brandenburg test - and indeed the Schenck "falsely shoud fire in a crowded theater" metaphor - is applied only to speech that would otherwise be protected by the First. In other words, that analysis looks at the circumstances in which protected speech can still be regulated.

If the claim is that sale and storage of firearms in a particular circumstance is outside the protection of the Second Amendment (for example, like the libel/slander exemptions to the First), then there's no need to conduct a balancing test - the government can simply regulate as it would any other product.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415785 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 11:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
the government can simply regulate as it would any other product

Why doesn't it?!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415786 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 11:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
...surely you would agree that there are some people who would not be able to protect themselves without one due to physical limitations.

No. You're probably thinking martial arts, which is one valid means. But there are others. Crossbows work really well, and require little physicality to make them function. And the bolt won't go through your wall, through your neighbor's wall, and kill their toddler in his bed. They're good for hunting, too.

The point they were trying to make was that being a human being granted you certain inalienable rights that should not be usurped by other men. What man gives, he can also take away. They wanted to make sure that wouldn't happen.

I agree.

However, just pop over to Somalia, or Mali, or China, and see how that works out for you. You have those rights in the United States because the Constitution says you do. Move outside the jurisdiction of the USofA and you're on your own. The Founders (many of whom were deists) invoked "the Creator", but really that was meaningless.

And, yes, those rights can be taken away. Even here. Repeal the 1st Amendment, for example, and free speech is gone. Repeal the 2nd Amendment (potentially a good idea...or at least clarify the bloody thing), and the right to an AR15 is gone. Etc. Those rights exist only so long as the Constitution says they do. There's nothing mystical/magical about them.

IMO, the SCOTUS doesn't seem to know what to do with the term "militia" in the 2nd. I forget now which decision I read a summary of, but the gist was "militia doesn't matter, go buy whatever guns you want". The SCOTUS seems to ignore the term entirely, from what I can see. (I'm sure albaby will slap me around if I am in error.)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415787 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 11:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Using a 200 year old document as the ultimate authority for running a 21rst century modern government is the pinnacle of stupidity. It is rather like basing one's views of science and morality on a book of fables written by bronze age goat herders.

Actually, the elegant thing about it is that the document allows for it's own revising as needed. It implicitly acknowledges that things can (and do) change.

But I take exception with the implication that we need not adhere to the Constitution (because it is old and not perfect). It's easy to say that, and point to the 2nd Amendment (relevant to this thread) and Newtown and Aurora, and people nod their heads. What if someone (like Cheney, maybe?) points to the 1st Amendment instead? "Oh no, that's different!!". No, it isn't.

We MUST respect everything in the document, and work to change (NOT IGNORE) those things we believe to be anachronistic or archaic, or harmful.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hawkwin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415794 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 11:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Welcome to the new normal,

What makes you think this is new?

All indications point to a populace that used to be a lot more armed than it is today; and the OP indicated that his mom has had the pistol for as long as he has been alive. I doubt she bought it decades ago because of some NRA advertisement.

A very sad place we have arrived at.

I disagree. Despite the recent shootings, your chance of being murdered by a gun is lower now than any time since such numbers have been tracked.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415799 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But I take exception with the implication that we need not adhere to the Constitution (because it is old and not perfect). It's easy to say that, and point to the 2nd Amendment (relevant to this thread) and Newtown and Aurora, and people nod their heads.

The problem is that the requirements to amend the Constitution are for all practical purposes impossible to meet in today's polarized political landscape. If our national leaders are unable to govern through compromise and statesmanship, I fear that revolution will be the outcome sooner or later.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415812 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 1:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
All indications point to a populace that used to be a lot more armed than it is today;

??

Not very specific.....when exactly are you thinking and what data is there to support your hypothesis?

Guns were expensive and rare up to the Civil War when interchageable parts, integrated bullets, and technological changes in gun powder made it easier to both use and produce.

Even then guns were still expensive and rare.

What time period and how armed?

md

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415813 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 1:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If the claim is that sale and storage of firearms in a particular circumstance is outside the protection of the Second Amendment (for example, like the libel/slander exemptions to the First), then there's no need to conduct a balancing test - the government can simply regulate as it would any other product.

I had a feeling it wasn't relevant to the analysis, but still wanted to aqueeze the topic in front of someone who owns that wallfull of purple books.

SO, the fed could legislate a regulation that all firearm sales and transfers of ownership be processed by a licensed agent, as is done in CA , and, legislate that any unattended firearms be secured in an approved manner, like many attractive/dangerous things (swimming pools, dynamite, flammables, toxic materials)... without running afoul of the 2nd amendment ?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415824 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Crossbows work really well, and require little physicality to make them function. And the bolt won't go through your wall, through your neighbor's wall, and kill their toddler in his bed.

Many (most?) 'home invasions' are conducted by gangs of 2 or 3 people

With all due respect, submission is safer than a crossbow. If you silently wound some thug with a crossbow bolt, you gotta know know your a$$ is grass.

12 gauge shot does not endanger mny neighbors.

I want allll the neighbors to hear my 12 gauge and call cops.

Many home invasions result in the resident(s) getting beaten, and worse whether they are cooperative/submissive or not.

I do not want to get beaten and I will not tolerate seeing my family terrorized.

Multiple outcomes in todays news - and this happens every friggin' day all across the USA. By the way, I choose Door One. leaving the outcome to some meth freak is not going to happen if I can possible help it.
-------------------------
----------------------------------------
Door One:
Jan 8 - THE GAZETTE
One robbery attempt late Monday night in Colorado Springs didn't go as planned.
Colorado Springs police say one man is in critical condition and another is recovering from injuries after a homeowner opened fire during a home invasion in the 2400 block of East St. Vrain Street.
Police say three men broke into a home shortly before 10 p.m. Monday and the homeowner resisted. The homeowner got a gun and shot two of the men.
Police say there is no indication the homeowner knew any of the men and he was not injured.

------------------------------------------
Door 2:
Today: Providence police say a woman was tied up and had a bag put over her head by three men who barged into her Pembroke Avenue apartment.
---------------------------------------------
Door 3:
Jan 08, 2013 7:15 AM PST
By WMBF News Staff -
- Georgetown Police are searching for the two men they believe forced their way into a home with a handgun and a box cutter.
The home invasion and armed robbery was reported at a home on the 1200 block of Church Street around 11 a.m. Monday.

After knocking on the door of the home, police believe the two black male suspects forced their way into the home, demanding money from the 56-year-old man and 31-year-old woman inside.

Not giving in to those demands, the suspects reportedly forced the female victim into a back bedroom, cutting her with the box cutter until she revealed where the money was.

--------------------------
Door 4:
A 17-year-old Skyway boy accused of forcing his way into a Top Hat-area home in November and raping a young mother while her baby slept nearby was charged Monday in adult felony court.

According to sheriff's investigators, the two intruders were armed with handguns equipped with laser-pointers when they ordered the woman's boyfriend to let them into the home the night of Nov. 12. They then forced the couple to take off their clothes and go into the laundry room while they ransacked the home.

The male victim also was pistol-whipped, according to charges.

Deputies said the two gunmen threatened to take the couple's infant child...

--------------------------------------------

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-sente...
-----------------------------------
Search for Suspects Continues After Home Invasion
Police are looking for three men this morning after a home invasion.
Police say the men broke into a home near Northeast 26th and Post Road, then assaulted an elderly couple.
The suspects are accused of dragging a man into the driveway, then beating him with a handgun.
Then assaulted his wife.
Police say they stole some jewelry before they left.
So far police are not releasing any suspect information.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415826 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why doesn't it [regulate firearms like any other product]?!

Mostly because there is considerable political resistance to doing so, and partially because there is disagreement over whether sano's premise (that a certain class or manner of dealing with firearms is outside of the protections of the Second) is in fact true.

Albaby


Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415828 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
SO, the fed could legislate a regulation that all firearm sales and transfers of ownership be processed by a licensed agent, as is done in CA , and, legislate that any unattended firearms be secured in an approved manner, like many attractive/dangerous things (swimming pools, dynamite, flammables, toxic materials)... without running afoul of the 2nd amendment ?

I don't know. The only real Second Amendment jurisprudence that has been developed recently has been construing total or near-total bans on handguns and firearms. The real obstacle to adopting other types of regulations has been political will, not legal obstacles.

So you don't really know how the limits would shake out. For example, if the feds legislated that all book sales and transfers of ownership be processed in the manner you describe above, it would probably be found an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment as an impermissible regulation of speech. At some point, government regulations that make exercising a constitutional right difficult but not impossible become a matter of judgment of 'how far is too far.'

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415832 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
IMO, the SCOTUS doesn't seem to know what to do with the term "militia" in the 2nd. I forget now which decision I read a summary of, but the gist was "militia doesn't matter, go buy whatever guns you want". The SCOTUS seems to ignore the term entirely, from what I can see. (I'm sure albaby will slap me around if I am in error.)

No slap, but I don't think it's fair to say that they "ignore" the term. Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (which struck down the DC handgun law) contains an extensive discussion of what he terms the "prefatory clause" of the Second Amendment and its relation to the rest of the Amendment:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

...and the word is mentioned more than 100 times in his opinion. However, he does believe that it is consistent with that prefatory clause to interpret the Second as protecting a private right of firearm ownership even where such arms are not being kept or borne in connection with a militia.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415833 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
As I recall, the US actually is prohibited from negotiating with Big Pharma (Medicare prescription plan, I think). That's just dumb. We need to end that too, though not really relevant to my question to spooky).

Very disturbing stories, and reading these gives me an impulse to ramp up my home weapons cache. But you need to be aware of the flip-side of this personal weapons arms race; namely that criminals will adapt. Likely they will adapt by picking on those least likely to have weapons like elderly women. Also likely the trend will be to fire first instead of retreating. My suspicion is that the small-arms race will only make crime more brutal.

I don't know what the answer is, I can certainly identify with the impulse to arm one'self. I just don't like all the guns we have in circulation, it will not have a happy ending.

I am in favor of severe penalties for violent criminals, up to and including capital punishment. A home invader who violently brutalizes an innocent person should be locked away for a minimum of twenty years, and I do not care if the perp was only 16 years old, there are just some lines that we cannot allow to be crossed. Home invasion with violence is deadly serious and should be prosecuted with the same vigor as murder. BTW to incarcerate a prisoner for twenty years will cost upwards of one million dollars, so law enforcement and corrections are not cheap.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415834 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For example, if the feds legislated that all book sales and transfers of ownership be processed in the manner you describe above, it would probably be found an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment as an impermissible regulation of speech. At some point, government regulations that make exercising a constitutional right difficult but not impossible become a matter of judgment of 'how far is too far.'

Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be kiddie porn material? My first amendment rights do not protect my right to make or distribute kiddie porn.

Some do say this is a violation of 1st amendment. I say it's an acknowledgement of a great problem and a regulation that addresses that problem, while not impacting all porn.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415835 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Ooops, I accidentally pasted a comment form another thread in my previous post, I was replaying to Sano's home invasion stories. Please excuse.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415836 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I do not want to get beaten and I will not tolerate seeing my family terrorized.

Very disturbing stories, and reading these gives me an impulse to ramp up my home weapons cache. But you need to be aware of the flip-side of this personal weapons arms race; namely that criminals will adapt. Likely they will adapt by picking on those least likely to have weapons like elderly women. Also likely the trend will be to fire first instead of retreating. My suspicion is that the small-arms race will only make crime more brutal.

I don't know what the answer is, I can certainly identify with the impulse to arm one'self. I just don't like all the guns we have in circulation, it will not have a happy ending.

I am in favor of severe penalties for violent criminals, up to and including capital punishment. A home invader who violently brutalizes an innocent person should be locked away for a minimum of twenty years, and I do not care if the perp was only 16 years old, there are just some lines that we cannot allow to be crossed. Home invasion with violence is deadly serious and should be prosecuted with the same vigor as murder. BTW to incarcerate a prisoner for twenty years will cost upwards of one million dollars, so law enforcement and corrections are not cheap.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415842 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be kiddie porn material? My first amendment rights do not protect my right to make or distribute kiddie porn.

No. Child pornography is considered not to be speech protected under the First Amendment - it's outside of the protections of the Amendment altogether. Thus, Congress can (and has) banned it entirely from the country. Under Heller, however, individual ownership of a firearm is protected under the Second Amendment. So while Congress probably has some room in which to regulate the mode, manner, and nature of firearms ownership, there have to be some bounds to that regulation - unlike child pornography, where no limits to their ability to regulate exist (and thus the outright ban).

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415844 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't know what the answer is

Nor do I.

But it is what it is.

Hey, I hope it never happens to any of us. I don't want a concealed carry permit, and I don't want want guns all over town. But in this rapidly over-crowding world, criminals is always close by.

Even in highly sheriffed Orange County and San Diego, it happens too damned much.

I only have one life to live. If my choice means spending time at the beach surfing, versus spending time in an ER from a beat down, and then a lengthy/painful recuperation period, I choose the beach, thankyouvurymuch.

Drywall repair/window replacement is cheap. I wonder if my homeowners insurance would cover shotgun blast damage as a result of home defense?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415846 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 3:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No. You're probably thinking martial arts, which is one valid means. But there are others. Crossbows work really well, and require little physicality to make them function. And the bolt won't go through your wall, through your neighbor's wall, and kill their toddler in his bed. They're good for hunting, too.

The problem is it need to be a valid means for everyone. Martial arts is not valid for everyone so nix that. I haven't used a crossbow but I have used a bow/compound bow and it takes a fair amount of strength to use. I recall seeing one used in the show The Walking Dead and it worked well as long as you were up against a single zombie. So I think that scratches the crossbow as an effective means of self-defense for all. You have to be strong enough to c.o.c.k it, make a serious enough hit and hope you're up against a single assailant...next?

And, yes, those rights can be taken away. Even here. Repeal the 1st Amendment, for example, and free speech is gone. Repeal the 2nd Amendment (potentially a good idea...or at least clarify the bloody thing), and the right to an AR15 is gone. Etc. Those rights exist only so long as the Constitution says they do. There's nothing mystical/magical about them.

Agreed. Fortunately they didn't make it an easy feat, but not an impossible feat.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment and the "militia", I think it boils down to the majority position is that it is used as a non-exclusive example which is the only way to view it through an individual right lens.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415847 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 4:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
No slap, but I don't think it's fair to say that they "ignore" the term. Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (which struck down the DC handgun law) contains an extensive discussion of what he terms the "prefatory clause" of the Second Amendment and its relation to the rest of the Amendment:

Yeah, actually they do. By calling it a "prefatory" clause, Scalia renders it irrelevant. The fact that he mentions it a lot is of no consequence, since he basically says "It doesn't matter." It's "prefatory" and only serves to "help" the operative clause which comes later.

I find this an astonishing interpretation, given that the Constitution is remarkably concise with verbiage. There are no explanatory gestures, such as "a well informed populace being necessary to a democracy...freedom of the press..." or "because we got tired of housing the King's soldiers in our houses..." Or anything else. Indeed. In the ENTIRE document I find but one "prefatory" clause.

To me this makes it MORE important, not less, and the fact that the Continental Congress saw fit to provide a specific, absolute example of why gun ownership "shall not be abridged" does not automatically mean "for any and all reasons, not just the one we listed."

"Prefatory" my arse. It's a specific limitation on the amendment, which Scalia - that oh-so-righteous arbiter of "originalism" has decided that what the Constutional writers wrote isn't really what they meant.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hawkwin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415848 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 4:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Not very specific.....when exactly are you thinking and what data is there to support your hypothesis?

How about Gallup?

http://tinyurl.com/avk7umr


Gun ownership is down significantly since at least 1960. My theory is that the trend would continue for at least another two decades if we could look back to the 1940s.

Another Gallup source:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demog...

% ownership in 2011 - 36%
% ownership in 1973 - 47%

--------

The point remains. We are less armed than nearly any point over the last half century and firearm deaths are the lowest they have been since we recorded such.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415850 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 4:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
shut up, A.M.

was going to write "criminals are" or "crime is" ...... didn't preview, ended up with 'criminals is.'

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415852 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 4:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
To me this makes it MORE important, not less, and the fact that the Continental Congress saw fit to provide a specific, absolute example of why gun ownership "shall not be abridged" does not automatically mean "for any and all reasons, not just the one we listed."

That may be true, but Scalia doesn't ignore the Clause - he just reaches a different conclusion than you do. As you point out, the document contains few "prefatory" clauses. Scalia reads that to mean the Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they drafted the Second Amendment using a sentence structure containing an initial dependent clause separated out from an independent clause using a comma, instead of writing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms used in service of a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed" or some similar formulation.

You might think that he's wrong about that, but he certainly doesn't ignore it.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415856 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 4:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I agree (i.e. I'd prefer a shotgun also). Just making the point that there are other options besides a semi-auto pistol or AR or whatever.

Realistically, if you have a home invasion the odds are that you won't be able to get to your weapon of choice before they get to you. So in that scenario it doesn't really matter much. (Plus, if you have it secured as you should, it will take you even longer to get it.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415858 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 5:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The point remains. We are less armed than nearly any point over the last half century and firearm deaths are the lowest they have been since we recorded such.

First a weak correlation is not a causation.....my earlier post on lead reductions leading to less violent crime seems to have more data and more validity than more guns means a safer society (an unproven hypothesis).

The reduction on arms %ownership from 1973 is why I asked timeframe and numbers....and the ownership of arms is not the same as #arms/citizen.

Yes, we have fewer gun owners yet ever more arms per person; an average of 1 per person...so the concentration of # of guns per owner could be very high. This concentration of guns may or may not have made our society safer.....would be an interesting hypothesis to test though.

The reduction of gun owners may also be connected to the urbanization of our nation....when I lived in a rural area I owned hunting rifles, shotguns, and even a pistol...when moving to the city I saw no need for them and left them with my brother who hunts once in a while still.

The NRA and many gun proponents falsely make the claim that more guns will make us a "safer" society; more loosely controlled easily accessed guns is just more opportunities for accidents, more chances for mentally ill people to get guns, etc.

History is a great guide in this with information from the migration of people along the Oregon trail who were informed/mis-educated/propagandized to think they all needed guns to beat off the Savage Red Men.....an average of one person per mile died on the trail with leading causes being disease, run over by wagon (kids), and accidental gun wounds....of course the gun manufacturers made a lot of money off the untrained rubes.

Our love affair with guns has risen and fallen over the centuries yet seems now to be driven by a small group of venal merchants of death and today's "Rubes" who are paranoid "PATRIOTS" pertecting us from the evil Gubmint (or Al Qaeda, or librals, or something)....while ignoring the cynical big corporations who sell them overpriced bang sticks.

It is interesting to note that in 1950, post the War Veterans return (gun guys?), we had 381 guns per 1,000 people compared to 200 where we had almost reached parity at 925.8 per 1,000.

Yet, the 1950's are often touted as the "Good Ole Days" by many gun promoters....odd how history doesn't match reality.

Gun ownership is down and crime is down....correlation but not causation...#guns is up and crime is down...correlation but not causation...each seems to contradict the other.

md (Grre up with both sane and insane gun lovers)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415859 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 5:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Realistically, if you have a home invasion the odds are that you won't be able to get to your weapon of choice before they get to you. So in that scenario it doesn't really matter much. (Plus, if you have it secured as you should, it will take you even longer to get it.)

Many years ago I lived inside the Detroit city limits. My wife was working nights. One evening as I was expecting her to arrive home, I went to open the door because I saw the headlights of her car approach. Imagine my surprise as I opened the door just in time to see a man tackle her to the ground. His car sat idling in the street with the door open, clearly he had followed her home.

As fate would have it, I was dressed in a bath robe with bare feet. As fate would also have it, I had a small revolver which was out of reach in the bedroom night stand. I thought about running for the gun, but I initially feared that he was trying to abduct her and drag her to his car and that there wouldn't be time. So I did the only thing that made sense.

There was a cheap $7 K-mart folding lawn chair leaning against the house. I grabbed the chair and proceeded to wail on this guy, who was now on the ground on top of my wife, all the while screaming bloody murder, hoping for a neighbor to notice. No help came.

In an instant I realized that he wanted her purse. He also began shouting that he had a gun and was going to shoot me (on hindsight this was unlikely because he probably would have had it out). I shouted for my wife to let go of the purse, he grabbed it and took off in a flash, that was the end of it. The whole thing happened in maybe 30 seconds.

After the adrenalin stopped pumping I realized that the man was a teen-ager or early 20's kid at best. I also realized that if I had my gun, I would have emptied it into him, reloaded it, and emptied it again, likely killing him and probably shooting my wife in the process. Looking back I am glad that this did not happen. It was a freaky situation but the actual harm done was minor compared to what might have occurred if either I or the perp had a gun handy.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415861 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 5:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the ENTIRE document I find but one "prefatory" clause.

You said much better than I would have. Like you, it seems to me that including that clause was significant. Not a bit of fluff, as implied by how it is treated in Heller. I'm glad I read ahead this far because you hit the nail on the head, IMO. So Heller becomes a labored attempt to trivialize a part of the Amendment that is likely NOT trivial.

Let us hope this issue comes before SCOTUS again when it has a few fewer right-wing ideologues on it.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415862 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 5:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Scalia reads that to mean the Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they drafted the Second Amendment using a sentence structure containing an initial dependent clause separated out from an independent clause using a comma, instead of writing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms used in service of a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed" or some similar formulation.

OK, "ignores" is perhaps the wrong word. However, by the logic your argument (and his), they could have left out the phrase containing "militia" completely and not changed the meaning as interpreted by Scalia. That makes no sense since, as pointed out, the Founders did not put superfluous rubbish into the document. Every word of every sentence has meaning. It is very succinct.

So not only is he wrong, but I think deliberately so in service to an ideology (or perhaps a wealthy master?). Because he's not stupid, so I can't buy that it was an honest error.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415865 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 6:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
However, by the logic your argument (and his), they could have left out the phrase containing "militia" completely and not changed the meaning as interpreted by Scalia. That makes no sense since, as pointed out, the Founders did not put superfluous rubbish into the document. Every word of every sentence has meaning. It is very succinct.

Every word has meaning, but that does not mean that every word is operative. After all, the Constitution includes a lengthy Preamble, which elaborats the document's fundamental purposes and guiding principles - but which does not itself create any formal limits or expansions of the rights, powers, or obligations contained elsewhere in the document.

So Scalia addresses this argument by claiming:

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.

I don't assess the strength of that argument, but (again) merely point out that Scalia is not simply pretending that the Militia Clause doesn't exist.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415867 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 6:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
albaby1:

<<<IMO, the SCOTUS doesn't seem to know what to do with the term "militia" in the 2nd. I forget now which decision I read a summary of, but the gist was "militia doesn't matter, go buy whatever guns you want". The SCOTUS seems to ignore the term entirely, from what I can see. (I'm sure albaby will slap me around if I am in error.)>>>

"No slap, but I don't think it's fair to say that they "ignore" the term. Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (which struck down the DC handgun law) contains an extensive discussion of what he terms the "prefatory clause" of the Second Amendment and its relation to the rest of the Amendment:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

...and the word is mentioned more than 100 times in his opinion. However, he does believe that it is consistent with that prefatory clause to interpret the Second as protecting a private right of firearm ownership even where such arms are not being kept or borne in connection with a militia."


Sorry, albaby, I am with the OP. If the Second Amendment protects a private right of firearm ownership, as the recent case held, what does the prefatory clause mean or add? IOW, would the interpretation of the Second Amendment from the current SC differ in any way if the entire prefatory was not present.

Scalia wrote and the court held, "But apart from that clarifying function {to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause], a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause."

And despite many words, the Court never suggested that the prefatory clause had any clarifyig function.

IOW, Heller gets decided exactly the same even if the prefatory clause were entirely absent.

Regards, JAFO

Regards, JAFO

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415868 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 6:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Scalia wrote and the court held, "But apart from that clarifying function {to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause], a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause."

And despite many words, the Court never suggested that the prefatory clause had any clarifying function.


Nor is it necessary for them to do so for Scalia's argument to be correct.

The issue presented in Heller was whether the Second Amendment created an individual right to gun ownership and use. The fact that the prefatory clause isn't relevant to that specific issue doesn't mean that it is irrelevant -just like the Preamble might not be germane to construing the Eighteenth Amendment but could be germane in interpreting the Fifth Amendment.

For example, one can easily foresee that the prefatory clause would be useful in determining what class of objects might be considered "arms" - those bearing similar characteristics to those capable of being used as weapons by individuals in the service of a militia. Thus, "arms" would not include battleships or artillery pieces, but firearms capable of being carried by an individual when called into service of the militia.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415876 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 8:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'd have killed him. Arm around the neck, squeeze until he stops squirming, and then hold a little longer (otherwise he'll just wake up and start fighting when the blood flows back to the brain again - a proper choke hold doesn't really choke, it cuts off the blood to the brain and they pass out in seconds).

But the lawn chair was good too. :-)

1poorguy (fortunately never had to do that)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415877 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 8:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
As you aren't making the argument, as you said, I won't argue further. But I will say that the Preamble is clearly such, and after the words "Article 1" everything appears (to me) to be "operative". No fluff. Clear and concise. Today we might call the Preamble a "mission statement", but it's not an actual specification.

It makes no sense to me that they would add a preamble of sorts to one (and only one) Amendment in the Bill of Rights when (as interpreted in Heller) it adds nothing to the meaning. From what I can see (in my non-lawyerly view) the verbose ruling was just an equivocation to justify trivializing the term "militia".

Though, as you pointed out to someone else, if the other side argued a slightly different point then the term "militia" might have been completely irrelevant to that argument. I realize these cases are often argued very narrowly. In a larger view it seems clear to me that "militia" is there for a reason, and it's not a non-binding preamble to the Amendment.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415880 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 9:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Realistically, if you have a home invasion the odds are that you won't be able to get to your weapon of choice before they get to you.

I'm confident that is not the case.... but that's just us.

It was also not the case in the "door 1' scenario, and many other 'door 1' scenarios.

Half the game is having a game plan. It's sad one has to have a game plan, but I'd rather have a game plan than go through one of the other doors.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415882 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 9:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
but firearms capable of being carried by an individual when called into service of the militia.

Grenades and automatic guns? Flamethrowers, too, are much maligned... how else does one dispatch AND cook ones game with just one portable device? Huh?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415883 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 9:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I'd have killed him. Arm around the neck, squeeze until he stops squirming, and then hold a little longer

That's what everybody says but you had to be there....It was a flash of adrenalin, and I am standing there in my bath robe and bare feet trying to figure out what the hell is going on. like I said I think the whole thing lasted maybe 30 seconds.

It's like the theater shooting in Aurora, imagine being engrossed in an action packed movie with a huge screen and surround sound in a dark theater, and all of a sudden some guy in a costume pops up. It would take even seasoned law enforcement officers a few minutes to piece that situation together and figure out what to do. By the time you assessed what was happening you might very well be dead.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415885 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 11:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It makes no sense to me that they would add a preamble of sorts to one (and only one) Amendment in the Bill of Rights when (as interpreted in Heller) it adds nothing to the meaning. From what I can see (in my non-lawyerly view) the verbose ruling was just an equivocation to justify trivializing the term "militia".

Though, as you pointed out to someone else, if the other side argued a slightly different point then the term "militia" might have been completely irrelevant to that argument. I realize these cases are often argued very narrowly. In a larger view it seems clear to me that "militia" is there for a reason, and it's not a non-binding preamble to the Amendment.


I don't think your interpretation of the Heller interpretation of militia is correct. They do acknowledge that it serves a purpose, to prevent elimination of the militia. What makes no sense to me is that they would be seeking to limit gun ownership to those in a militia and preventing their use for self-defense and hunting. Further, several State Constitutions from the 1770's also codify language similar to the 2nd Amendment without reference to serving in a militia (PA and VT for example) and there are other examples of this as more states were added to the union at later dates. How would you explain this discrepancy?

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.


....Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues. Four of them—Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri—referred to the right of the people to “bear arms in defence of themselves and the State.”


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 415886 of 439707
Subject: Re: the flip-side of guns Date: 1/8/2013 11:56 PM