Too Many Guns

[EV_Ares]

We've heard a lot about gun control and the second amendment in this election season. A McCain-Palin poster, featuring Alaska's 44-year-old governor with a big gun and the viewer in her rifle sights, is just one of the more graphic indications that gun control is a lightning-rod issue that distracts, distorts, and dismays.

More than 200 years after our founding fathers enshrined the right to "bear arms" in our Constitution, we have more arms than we can bear. Wars are fought, fortunes are made, and nations rise and fall on these weapons. At the human-to-human level crimes are committed, vengeance is taken, rage is given full range, and terror is wreaked from the barrel of these weapons.

The United States is the world's largest arms-supplying nation. In 2007, the United States entered into over $19.1 billion in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreements with other nations and for 2008, sales of military goods and services mushroomed to $34 billion — triple the volume of the Bush administration's first year.

U.S. exports range from combat aircraft to Pakistan, Greece, and Chile to small arms and light weapons to the Philippines, Egypt, and Georgia. Since the beginning of the war on terror, the United States has transferred more than $88 billion in weapons and military material through the Foreign Military Sales channel. In 2006 and 2007, U.S. weapons and military training went to over 168 states and territories. But it's not just big weapons systems transferred legally.

Illegal Weapons Sales

U.S. small arms are briskly — and illegally — sold all over the world. And we need not look further than our southern border to see the intersection of small arms trade and big military policy. The newspapers are full of stories of horrific violence between drug cartels and the Mexican military and police. The New York Times reported recently that 3,700 people have been killed in violent incidents related to the drug trade and organized crime so far this year. In the article "Killings Haunt Mexican School Children," Times reporter Marc Lacey documents the impact drug violence is having on Mexican school children. The headmaster at a school near where 11 mutilated bodies were dumped relates that his students are asking questions like: "Why did they die?"

read the rest of the article @ link: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5619

[MadHound]

1. It isn't the number of guns, it is the mentality of the many gun owners

The majority of gun owners are responsible people who use their guns as they should be used, and store them as they should be stored. It is a minority of gun owners who act out in ways that they shouldn't when guns are present. They don't know how to safely use or store a gun, and thus many accidents that could be avoided aren't.

There's also the matter of lax enforcement of the laws on the books. We have, at least in theory, a good system for controlling who gets guns, and what guns get out there. However these laws are not enforced, and thus we wind up with nutcases getting a hold of entirely too many weapons.

Furthermore, a large part of the problem is the American culture of fear and and violence. Canada actually has more guns per capita than the US does, but it doesn't have an all pervasive culture of fear and violence like we do. Insane gun use is really nothing more than a symptom of a sick society.

Until we change these underlying problems in our society, we're not going to solve the gun problem.

[Pavulon]

2. Ever seen a national flag with an M16 on it?

no. The AK is the cheap small arm of choice for "militants" the world over. They cant afford us weapons.

[benEzra]

3. The sky is NOT, in fact, falling.

Gun crime trends over the last few decades are down, not up. But unfortunately, fear sells, and those who sell fear usually have ulterior motives for doing so.

U.S. gun crime stats, from the Department of Justice:




Police-officer gun deaths are at their lowest level in nearly a half-century:

http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/2008_MidYear_Report.pdf




And most of the high-profile shootings in Mexico have involved weapons that are tightly controlled (de facto police/military only) in the USA, but are widely available in Central America, e.g., RPG's, automatic weapons, etc. I have no doubt that some U.S. handguns and civilian rifles find their way south, but if anyone tells you that machineguns and rocket launchers in the hands of Mexican drug cartels are coming from the U.S. civilian market, they are trying to snow you.


FWIW, just some food for thought:

[aikoaiko]

4. Its not surprising you didn't know that this was already posted because

it dropped out of sight quickly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4305162 I too reject her call for an international treat against guns.

The auther offers a completely superficial analysis of the problem. The mexican gang wars are a product of the idiotic war of drugs.

Comparing civilian ownership of firearms to left over landmines and clusterbombs is ridiculous. This kind of new world propoganda is scary.

[EV_Ares]

5. Well, the guns may not be the sole problem but is part of the problem. First how are the

guns going across the border? This shows a problem there. Secondly, this in not just a US problem but Mexico's as well and as you mention the "war on drugs" has always been a fiasco and not done in the proper manner it should to fight the drug situation as well. That said, you can see the problem of not having a at least 30 day waiting period. Also, assault weapons being sold in this manner as well as being sold period is a little ridiculous and that is an ongoing battle in this country.

No, I didn't know this had been posted prior to this as occurs in many cases.

[aikoaiko]

6. I have no problem with residents legally owning so-called assault weapons.

And I see no need for a 30 day waiting period. I certainly don't see how a waiting period would impact the mexican drug wars.

I own an AR15 -- one of the firearms called an assault weapon. Its a semi-automatic rifle that shoots an intermediate round (5.56). I mostly use it for target shooting, but also keep it on hand for home defense. Its better suited for home defense than a pistol or shotgun.

I'm all for discussing means of reducing gun violence, but not at the expense of being able to defend myself or my family.

Frida says, "This is our right to bear arms in practice. And it's not saving lives or guarding liberties", but she's wrong.

[EV_Ares]

8. Maybe you don't but there are those that do, eom.

[jeepnstein]

11. There are those who have a problem...

with your freedom of speech, too. Should we impose limits on your speech rights because someone objects? Or should we only limit your speech rights if you use it to injure someone else? Hmmm, I can think of several things I don't like that some people insist is protected as a Constitutional Right. Can you see where your line of thinking takes us?

A lawful citizen should not be subject to limits on Constitutional Rights when they are exercising them responsibly. That's not what the gun control crowd wants, though, they want to impose their values on our rights. Should we just roll over and let our rights be taken away because they don't feel our rights are important?

Pass all the laws you want against criminal behavior and leave lawful citizens free in their daily lives.

[Tejas]

13. Go JUNK your Corvette

It's too fast and isn't crashworthy, which impacts my financial well-being when I have to pay your excess hospital bills that your insurance doesn't cover.

I also have a problem with your gas-guzzling SUV. Can't you survive with a fuel-efficient compact station wagon?





see how your argument sounds?

[aikoaiko]

23. Yes, this is why I'm grateful for the 2nd Amendment and reject international treaties like the one

...advocated by Frida.

[SteveM]

41. Over which border: U.S. or Guatemala? or the Gulf? or Pacific Ocean?...

Mexico borders Guatemala, which is "in line" with El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. All these countries have a history of coups, counter-insurrections, guerrilla movements and sponsored death squads. The U.S. has been heavily involved with these actions and supplied many thousands of FULL AUTO weapons to organizations the U.S. favors (Reagan was implicated in the "hostages-for-weapons" scandal in the latter 80s). With these countries awash in FULL AUTO weapons, where do you think Mexican drug gangs are getting this type of gun? From the U.S., which has very few practical sources for FULL AUTO weapons, or from the much more porous border with Guatemala? Don't you rather suspect that the 2 long under-patrolled coast lines off Mexico offer excellent opportunities to smuggle FULL AUTO weapons? Don't you possibly suspect that the sophisticated and powerful drug smuggling operations can be used to bring in weapons?

The war on drugs and the war on guns have one thing in common: both rely on failed border interdiction efforts. The failure of these efforts is doubly compounded with regards guns because gun-control groups are already providing miss-information about the problem: just what is supposed to be banned (FULL-AUTO weapons, semi-auto "assault weapons," or handguns), and where are the weapons in question coming from?

Prohibition breeds miss-information breeds prohibition.

I do not know what a "30 day waiting period" has to do with smuggling.

[sendero]

7. Gun control..

... is not only a losing issue that most Dems have abandoned, it is useless as a legislative solution anyway.

Give it a rest.

[EV_Ares]

9. No it is not and no need to give it a rest. It is not about taking away guns but

having better background checks, waiting periods and the types of guns sold. It will not go away especially with campus shootings, more armed robberys, etc.

[jeepnstein]

12. So if someone...

says to you, "You may have free speech, but we are going to tell you what kinds of speech are acceptable." You'd be OK with that? Maybe they'll be generous with what they'll let you have. Maybe they suddenly will feel less generous.

That's how you expect us to compromise on our 2nd Amendment Rights. After all, it's for the good of the state, so we should be willing to bow to it's wishes, shouldn't we?

[iverglas]

24. gosh, and yet

So if someone...
says to you, "You may have free speech, but we are going to tell you what kinds of speech are acceptable." You'd be OK with that?

... you are.

Perjury.
False advertising.
The old shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
Child pornography.
Uttering death threats.
Conspiracy to commit a crime (usually punishable once the crime is committed).
Broadcasting without a licence.


All against the law.

The exercise of ALL rights is subject to limitation. Not by "compromise", but for legitimate reasons, based on various tests of justification.

Any other questions?

[pipoman]

32. Which may be a valid argument if

the 2nd wasn't already limited by existing law, or if the poster was arguing that existing limitations on the 2nd were unconstitutional. How about we expand the limits on free speech to include 'inflammatory language'? Inflammatory language often leads to violence, therefore there would undoubtedly be less violence if it were legislated against. What about speech which leads or may sound like it could be inflammatory if taken out of context? Maybe that should be illegal too. This is essentially what an assault weapons ban is, a ban on guns which operate exactly like other non assault weapons but which look scary. There has to be some sort of proof that the positive societal effect of a specific limitation of a right does in fact outweigh the imposition of restrictions on that right. We have had 10 years to show that an assault weapons ban would have a positive effect on society and crime reduction yet none occurred, we have had decades in some areas to prove that waiting periods have a positive effect on crime reduction yet no studies showing such an effect.

[iverglas]

33. I really just can't figure this out

Every single time it's said. Do you imagine it makes sense? That someone will fall for it?

Which may be a valid argument if the 2nd wasn't already limited by existing law, or if the poster was arguing that existing limitations on the 2nd were unconstitutional.

It also makes perfect sense if someone is arguing for further limitations. Why the hell would it not???

Did all existing limitations on the exercise of rights -- laws against false advertising, the NICS check system -- exist when life first emerged on earth?

Did all existing limitations on rights fall from the sky on stone tablets?

Why are you suggesting that any limitation that exists now is just dandy simply because it exists now and a limitation that does not now exist is impermissible simply because it does not exist now?

What earthly sense does this make?

Have we reached the end of history? Even Fukuyama himself has disowned that one.


This is essentially what an assault weapons ban is, a ban on guns which operate exactly like other non assault weapons but which look scary.

You know that isn't what it is, I know that isn't what it is, but hey, keep saying it and I'm sure there are people who will nod and clap.


There has to be some sort of proof that the positive societal effect of a specific limitation of a right does in fact outweigh the imposition of restrictions on that right.

No, there doesn't. No one who has the first clue about constitutional law would say such a ridiculous thing. No one can "prove" the future, surely you've noticed.

But you have the lines down pat, don't you?

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

It's the same the whole world over.


We have had 10 years to show that an assault weapons ban would have a positive effect on society and crime reduction yet none occurred

Why do you ascribe a purpose to that measure that could not reasonably be ascribed to it?

Why not present some facts and figures to show that it did not do what it was actually intended to do?

Of course, you'll be wanting a crystal ball for that, since we'll need to know how things would have gone in the absence of the measure in question ...

[raimius]

62. plenty of reasons

Most of us are in FAVOR of laws which would reduce crime without restricting our rights. For example, the NRA supports the NICS system. I would like to see it made available for private sales, but the federal government won't do that. I'm not opposed to any of those kinds of laws, regardless of when they were/are/will be proposed.


"You know that isn't what it is, I know that isn't what it is, but hey, keep saying it and I'm sure there are people who will nod and clap."
The '94 AWB states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
A folding or telescoping stock--cosmetic difference only really useful to very short people and those wearing body armor
A pistol grip--cosmetic feature, makes firing from the shoulder more ergonomic, and firing from the hip (who does that?) harder
A bayonet mount--cosmetic feature (do you know of any bayonetings? neither do I)
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one--cosmetic features
A grenade launcher--functional device, but all grenades have been heavily restricted since 1934...

"Why not present some facts and figures to show that it did not do what it was actually intended to do?
Gary Kleck, in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997), summarizes the findings of forty-seven such studies, indicating that less than 2% of crime guns were assault weapons (the median was about 1.8%). According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, (Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, May 1996) offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent crimes. That would mean less than .20% (one-fifth of one percent or 1 in 500) of violent crime offenders used an assault weapon (1.8% X 10% = .18%). (more at http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html for your reading)


"Why do you ascribe a purpose to that measure that could not reasonably be ascribed to it?"
Excellent point, the experts knew it would not change crime patterns before it was enacted.
"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security...It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer
Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet Washington Post, p. A19
1996-04-05


See why so many oppose this type of legislation? It does not reduce crime, but is INTENDED to restrict peaceable citizens.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. What do waiting periods accomplish?

[pipoman]

17. You won't find anyone here

or likely at an NRA convention who would argue against insuring through regulation that the NICS background system be made more accurate. You would also find much support for vigorous prosecution for violations of existing gun laws.

Waiting periods are nothing new. In fact they have been enacted in several states for many years. Can you find even one study conducted by an unbiased source to support the effectiveness of these waiting periods? How about an example of a campus shooting which would have been averted by waiting periods? How about a statistic to support your statement that there are "more armed robberys "?

You do realize that even though gun sales have not subsided and guns are in fact in larger numbers in the US than ever before in history, gun related crime is at 20 year lows, no? How could this be? Unlike your opinion piece sited, here is a link to an actual government statistic.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

[raimius]

19. You don't advocate gun confiscation...but...

You say you want the government to control which ones I can buy and when.
I'm sorry, but that is infringing!
I'm assuming you support "assault weapon" bans, as those are the most common restrictions on type sales being currently proposed.

"Assault Weapons Bans" aka scary looking gun bans don't reduce crime and make it harder for me to continue to obey the law. The competitions I go to use more than 10 rounds at a time. Having ergonomic grips, detachable magazines, customizable stocks, flash suppressors, etc make it easier to score better (because the rifle is easier to handle and aim quickly). Considering that most thugs don't use customized $1500 rifles, I don't really see the need to ban them. By banning them, you would prevent me from enjoying one of my preferred sports, as I could not easily upgrade my equipment. All the competition rifles of this style would be way out of my budget or illegal if a new AWB was enacted.
You would destroy my ability to compete in a sport, and crime would not be affected. No, thank you.

[jmodden]

35. gun confiscation

I don't think "gun confiscation" is attainable in the near future, but, in the new congress, a significant excise tax on ammunition is and would raise money and achieve a similar function.

[appal_jack]

43. wow, what a great tactic to ensure that Democrats LOSE

An excise tax on ammunition?!? You must be joking. Such a tax would:

1) Be 100% regressive. Poorer shooters would be priced out of their hobby, while rich schmucks would grumble, but basically be OK. Rights should not belong only to the rich.
2) Feed into the Dem's as elitists argument, that I would really like to shake off entirely.
3) Feed into the Dem's as gun-grabbers argument. Because a gun without ammunition isn't functional, and hence, might as well have been 'grabbed.'
4) Piss off a lot of gun owners who are willing to put aside their concerns about the Democrats stand on the 2nd Amendment for the moment in order to elect an otherwise totally righteous ticket (Obama-Biden '08!) If an ammo tax passes under Obama-Biden, we shooting enthusiasts who stuck our necks out for the Democratic Party will look like rubes, fools, dupes, etc.

All that and the fact that you sound like you are wishing that "gun confiscation" was 'attainable' and I surmise that you are no friend to the 2nd Amendment. I believe that a Democratic Party that hopes to prosper will stand for all inalienable and Constitutional rights for the citizenry.

-app

[jmodden]

45. Moynihan Asks Big Tax Increase On Ammunition

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE3DC1F3CF937A35752C1A965958260

Moynihan Asks Big Tax Increase On Ammunition

By ADAM CLYMER,
Published: November 4, 1993


Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said today that he would insist that President Clinton's health-care plan include a huge increase in Federal taxes on handgun ammunition that would make some especially destructive bullets unaffordable.

The New York Democrat has often contended that the best way to attack gun violence would be to restrict the sale of ammunition, not guns. Today, for instance, he noted that the nation has a 200-year supply of guns but only a 4-year supply of ammunition.

"Guns don't kill people; bullets do," he told the Senate as he introduced his legislation today. "It is time the Federal Government began taxing handgun ammunition used in crime out of existence."

----MORE-----


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The goal is desirable. We will have the opportunity come January. There is no 2nd Amendment problem.

[jody]

46. If a Dem congress and president passed a bill increasing the tax on ammunition it would be

no different than passing a poll tax law.

I must assume you support both taxes and perhaps even forcing citizens to pay for a very expensive voter ID.

To do otherwise would be hypocritical but that's not a barrier for some in the gun-control group.

[jmodden]

47. I fail to see any connection

I fail to see any connection between a poll tax and a reasonable surcharge on ammunition to offset the carnage of civilian firearms.

[jody]

48. Simple either tax would deny citizens the right to exercise a right protected by our Constitution.

[jmodden]

49. no, that's wrong

You would still have the right to bear as many arms as you wish.

A couple more sane justices on the Supreme Court and we can overturn Heller. I doubt if the ammo tax salient would be a problem.

[jody]

50. You need to read Heller very carefully. Breyer and Stevens writing for the four dissenting justices

said individual RKBA was not protected by the Second Amendment but they did not say individual RKBA was not protected by the Ninth Amendment as an unenumerated right.

Breyer and Stevens cited PA (1776) and VT (1777) constitutions which clearly said the right of self-defense is a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right and then specifically recognized the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self.

Based on the arguments presented by Breyer and Stevens the dissenting justices recognize that self-defense is a natural right.

Most philosophers beginning with debate about natural rights around the 14 century place the right of self-defense as the most basic natural right or among the most basic natural rights.

Please remember that SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody, see most recent case CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES.

[bossy22]

53. and with a few more right wing justices

we can overturn roe V Wade....YAY lets start overturning decisions we dont like.....screw constitutional integrity


how would you feel if there was a large tax on political blogs- such as a $1 per word written...hey we should still have freedom of speech, just pay the tax

let me start off with this well known saying- "what goes around comes back around"
By advocating overturning a decision just because of a different ideology destroys the integrity of the supreme court. If you advocate that, than you must also be ready to accept the overturning of roe v wade if the court swings the opposite way you wanted. The constitution is ONE WHOLE document. Picking and choosing which constitutional amendments to enforce invites someone to do the same to amendments you may hold dear./

The court will most likely never over rule heller- it would destroy the courts integrity and set the unintended precidence that court precedence can change with the direction of the wind

[jmodden]

56. I disagree and

Homer Plessy would probably disagree with you.

[bossy22]

57. ahhh

the cases of segregation and the equal protection clause is not the same as the handgun ban and the second amendment

segregation was considered constitutional based on the fact that there was strong support for segregation among the general public (i forgot the latin word for this type of legal arguement). It has been accepted that all court decisions are swayed by public oppinion on certain manners. the courts usually try to distance themselves from seeming too "radical" by the public. As time went on segregation was frowned upon and support for it dropped to where only a minority of the country wanted to continue the process

Now lets look at the second amendment. According to recent polls 2 out of 3 americans believe the second amendment is an individual right

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/16/guns.poll/index.html
so the decision is right down the middle when it comes to public oppinion-

but public oppinion isnt enough to base a decision (especially a historic decision such as this one) on. There has to be some historic fact....and there is alot of historic facts in the majority decision.


But why wont the court overturn it- because the court doesnt have a reason to overturn it. The court wont just go overturning decisions because of ideologic differences- though ideologies play a role in a decision- it is not the driving force of the court. If it was the driving force....the term "precedent" in its constitutional reference would be meaningless- since any court could just overturn any decision because they disagree with they do not hold the same values.

So in order to overturn the Heller case there would have to be a large amount of new evidence that was not available to the justices duing the heller case, presented in the new case. That evidence would have to be against the individual rights ruling. Or you would need to show that the decision is so out of whack with the times- so radical- that it is dangerous and is against the supermajority of american public oppinion. Heller is neither. and times have not changed enough to show that having a handgun in your home because you are afraid of a home invasion to be silly and irrational.


you can believe that the amendment causes great harm to this country- but that belief alone is not enough to destroy its meaning- if it was- bush could do away with almost the entire constitution.

[jmodden]

58. more originalist crap

and 'stare decisis ...' be damned - if a decision is wrong, it's wrong

[bossy22]

60. bad way of looking at it

then other rights come under fire.....you could have many courts that find decisions such as Roe V Wade to be invalid because they think its the wrong decision


and you have yet to put any evidence foward that it was the wrong decision

In fact the majority of americans disagree with you and finds the decision was correct....so you seem to have little basis for having it overturned- except that in your mind it was wrong

[jmodden]

63. bad way of looking at it

I'll look at it any way I like and thru 21st Century eyeballs.

[raimius]

64. Your opinion

Sure, you can look at it that way, but what are the potential consequences?
If the judges you like can overturn Heller based only on their opinions, what happens when judges you don't like take power?

[bossy22]

70. as usual

can't back up what they say except by saying "i dont like it"

its perfectly fine to say you dont like the decision but when you say it is a wrong decision you should be able to give some facts to back up your statement

if you actually read the case you would realize that originalism was not the whole basis for the decision- even under a "living" constitution the right to bear arms could be held to include self-defense....but no....you probably didnt read the decision and believe it somehow legalizes machine guns and howitzers

also remember, if you can do it, someone else can do it to.....

not once in this debate have you put foward any evidence to support your claim- if its a personal position then thats fine, but saying it as if it is settled fact needs more than jut your "well i dont like it"

[jmodden]

73. OK, how do you like this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_re_us/boy_shoots_himself

Boy, 8, fatally shoots self with Uzi at gun show
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer – Tue Oct 28, 4:33 am ET

WESTFIELD, Mass. – With an instructor watching, an 8-year-old boy at a gun fair aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin and pulled the trigger as his dad reached for a camera.
It was his first time shooting a fully automatic machine gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head.

[bossy22]

75. A tragic accident

but this has nothing to do with Heller- the Heller decision was not about machine guns, but about a refusal to issue a license to possess a pistol in the home for self defense when a person was qualified to recieve one. All Heller said was that Dick Heller was entitled to be issued a permit to possess a pistol for self defense, and that the city must issue him a permit to carry it on his premesis.

Machine guns had nothing to do with this ruling so your anecdotal evidence is basically worthless

try again

[jmodden]

76. We will try again

in January

[dairydog91]

79. Unlikely...

...such obvious behavior will cause the Blue Dogs to flee for the hills, and possibly lead to a redo of '94.

[bossy22]

61. lastly

its very dangerous to rely on the "the ends justify the means" logic- it leads down a long very scary road

[bossy22]

55. Remember....heller was wrong

the second amendment was clearly defined in the previous case US V Miller

just take a look here
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm


as you can see the court clearly states that the second amendendment is a collective rights of militia in paragraph....ummmm......hmmmm......ill get back to you on that one

[bossy22]

54. what about a tax on abortion

like lets say....$5,000 dollars

or a tax on political blogs- $1 per word

if you can do it to one right why cant you do it to another? is it because the second amendment is "dangerous"

if so i can see danger in other amendments too

what about the 4th....if we could just get around the 4th we could save so many lives- think of it...no more waiting for judge approval...there are many mafios and gangs out there that are widely known to be involved in violent criminal activity but that we dont have true hard evidence- we could now take them down quickly and decisively....think of all the children we could save

but wait the 4th amendment is sacred....so is the first....but F*ck the second

[dairydog91]

72. "Guns don't kill people; bullets do,"

"Republicans don't win elections; Democrats lose them."

[appal_jack]

74. OK, so Moynihan disregards the 2nd Amendment too,

OK, Moynihan disregards the 2nd Amendment too, so what's your point?

I am a proud Democrat, but the root of that pride is in the fact that Democrats have more often stood in defense of Constitutional liberties during my lifetime (plus they have been better at economics and caring for people for most of the 20th-21st centuries). But Democrats are not perfect as a party, and the 2nd Amendment is one of their weaker areas.

Hiding behind the skirts of a prominent gun-grabbing urban politician, Democrat or no, does not do you much good. It doesn't seem to garner many extra votes for Democrats either.

-app

[aikoaiko]

22. Campus shootings? You mean places where carrying a concealed weapon was prohibited so shooters

could go on rampages without fear of someone shooting back? Did you even notice that little side-effect of so called gun control?

I'm all for dialogue on gun control, but not gun bans. Once you take the step of saying you can't own certain gun, you've gone beyond anything reasonable. And yes, any gun ban is in fact taking away my guns -- guns that I and other may like to own in the future.

[jody]

10. More gun-grabber BS based on distortions and lies. The author is clearly out of step with Obama who

repeatedly promises he will not take rifles, shotguns and handguns from citizens because he knows the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense as SCOTUS said in D.C. v. Heller.

DUers need to either do as Obama asked and get in the face of voters telling them Obama will not take their guns OR continue to preach the gun-grabber message from the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and help perpetuate the lie that the Democratic Party will take people's guns.

[EV_Ares]

15. Nothing about taking away guns. eom.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. I believe he was referring to you in that regard.

[EV_Ares]

20. Still, nothing about taking away guns. eom.

[pipoman]

21. Actually noting about anything except the rant of a liar, huh n/t

[iverglas]

25. could you explain this?

Something here is "about the rant of a liar"?

Eh?

[pipoman]

28. I am referring to my post #16. n/t

[jody]

34. OP says "we have more arms than we can bear" That can only mean "taking away guns." Have a nice day.

[iverglas]

38. to a blind sheep in a snowstorm, maybe

"we have more arms than we can bear" actually means exactly what it says, I'd think.

It's a statement of opinion based on fact: the fact of how many firearms there are in the US, and the opinion, apparently, that it is too many.

This suggests a problem for which a solution is needed.

To assert that the poster offered a particular solution and only that solution really doesn't seem quite, oh, I don't know, honest.

[jmodden]

36. gun-grabber BS?

I am not ashamed to be called a "gun-grabber'. We can achieve the same goal by a significant excise tax on ammunition. Go ahead keep and caress your guns - try and smuggle ammunition in from Canada.

[iverglas]

37. and good luck with that ;)

try and smuggle ammunition in from Canada

The reason it would be completely impractical is that a licence is needed -- the same licence as is needed to acquire and possess a firearm -- to purchase ammunition.

This loophole in the law was plugged after a gang of teenagers stole a firearm and drove down the main business street of Canada's capital city one noon hour and shot and killed a visiting British engineer walking along the sidewalk -- with ammunition they had purchased at the local Canadian Tire, no questions asked.

That's the reasonable approach to the problem in the US as well, where the problem is ammunition being acquired by people in illegal possession of firearms: a NICS check (the very rough counterpart of licensing, in the US) for anyone purchasing ammunition, not taxing.

[jmodden]

40. Joe SixPack of Bud

What to stop Joe SixPack of Bud from having his buddy, Cameron SixPack of Labatt's (who has a license), buy for him?

[iverglas]

42. oh, how 'bout that "law-abiding"ness?

I did refer to the NICS check as a *rough* counterpart of Canada's system.

A firearms possession and acquisition licence (PAL) is issued to an individual who qualifies, and must be presented for purchase of firearms or ammunition.

A person who engages in a straw purchase risks his/her licence, and also prosecution.

For firearms, the firearms registry is designed to catch straw purchases by flagging unusual transactions. An example is the incident reported here some time ago when a bunch of Garands were being purchased by many different people in different locations in Canada. Apparently there was a plan to smuggle them into the US where they are collector's items or some such. The plot was foiled.

The registry is a permanent record of the ownership of firearms; when a firearm is transferred, no matter how, the transfer must be recorded, and of course firearms may only be transferred legally to someone with a PAL.

Any firearm legally purchased in Canada (unless it was purchased before the registry and has, illegally, not been registered) can be traced to its last lawful owner. That's a pretty good incentive not to transfer firearms illegally. Most lawful owners really don't want to get caught having transferred illegally to ineligible persons.

Back to ammunition: here's a sample notice:

http://www.marstar.ca/ammo-etc/index.shtm

Canadian Sales:
ammunition may only be sold to Canadians with a valid firearms license.
Please include a copy or scan of your PAL (or business ammo license) with your order.

Someone who purchased ammunition for unlawful transfer to an ineligible person would be committing a crime, and risking his/her own ability to acquire and possess firearms lawfully.

Since we're talking about people who are licensed to acquire and possess firearms, we're talking, for the overwhelming majority, about "law-abiding" people.

I doubt that too many of them who would really know very many people who are seeking ammunition to use for criminal purposes. And I can't imagine that very many of them would be interested in transferring ammunition to such people.

But of course, there is actually nothing "to stop Joe SixPack of Bud from having his buddy, Cameron SixPack of Labatt's (who has a license), buy for him".

Just as there is nothing to stop Joe from knocking over a bank. Laws do not generally stop people from doing anything, being, after all, just words on paper.

[krispos42]

65. It's not about "taking away" our guns

It's about preventing future sales of them.

Like California with their registration of their particular flavor of "assault weapon". Sure, if you registered it by a certain date you can legally keep it, but when the registry closes, nobody in California can buy one anymore. Not from a dealer, not from another AW holder. Can't be passed on in a will, either.

Registered AWs can only be sold out of state, or brought to a police station to be destroyed.

Thus, the pool of "legal" AWs will decline year after year until in half a century or so there will be none left.

[pipoman]

16. I guess

some people will read this diatribe and believe it is news, most here will read it and know it is the opinion of someone who is uninformed or more likely just a liar trying to hoodwink as many people as possible. Notice the complete lack of actual statistics and facts based on unbiased sources? Citing arms sales figures which include battleships, aircraft, and other high end military hardware to foriegn governments. Are we now lumping all of this stuff in with small arms? I wonder where that leaves truly small/non military arms?

This from your opinion piece:

The violence is fueled in part by the high-tech, high-quality weapons bought at gun shows and shops in the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, more than 90% of guns seized after shootings or police raids in Mexico or at the border can be traced back to the United States. Last year alone, 2,455 weapons traces concluded that the guns had been purchased in the United States.

Is linked to this fictisious article (not an actual government source) as it's proof:

http://wenatcheeworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080814/NEWS02/518211548/-1/NEWS

The first paragraph in the article is this bit of absolute fiction:

SIERRA VISTA, Ariz. — High-powered automatic weapons and ammunition are flowing virtually unchecked from border states into Mexico, fueling a war among drug traffickers, the army and police that has left thousands dead, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.

Automatic weapons are heavily regulated in the US and have been since the 1930's with an update in 1981 which doesn't even allow for importation/manufacture of new automatic weapons for the civilian/non-law enforcement market. The automatic weapon of choice in Mexico (and the world over) is the incredibly cheap AK47. It has never been made in the US. They have however been imported in huge quantities into Central and South America (and probably Mexico) from former Soviet bloc and Southeast Asian countries..hmmm...I wonder which is more probable...Automatic weapons which aren't available in the US gun market, which are heavily regulated here and are almost never involved in US violent crime (like 1 incident in 10 years) or importation from other areas which are awash with these weapons. An unregistered automatic weapon in the US is punishable by 10 years in Federal Prison for each one. The regulations for licensure of gun dealers in the US allows for unannounced inspection of the premises of the gun dealer. Where are these illusive gun stores which are selling these illegal automatic weapons without being caught by ATF? Where are the reports of stocks of automatic weapons being smuggled out of the US being interdicted at the border? If these types of weapons are so readily available to smugglers why aren't there crimes committed with these automatic weapons in the US? Answer to all these questions: they aren't coming from the US, simple. So regardless of the claims of the notoriously honest *sarcasm* un-named "Mexican Government sources", there is no probability that the weapons of choice of Mexican drug cartels (automatic AK-47) are coming from the US. Of coarse this bit of logic surpasses the knowledge of most anti-2nd amendment types in the US and probably most citizens in the US. If the first line of a sourced article is so demonstrably fiction would you believe anything in the article?

Your article is also linked to this ATF link:

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/p3317_6rev.pdf

This, if you bother to look, is a bulletin to licensed gun dealers helping them to recognize gun traffickers and where to report them. There is not one single solitary bit of any type of information which could even remotely support a word of the contentions of the blogger you site as some sort of expert..on the contrary.

Need I go through the entire source you sited in your OP and point out that virtually every contention made is demonstrably false, or can you now see why sources such as this are no more effective in your position of support for further gun control than if I link to the NRA to support my positions would effect your beliefs.

[iverglas]

29. diversionary grooming

You say:

http://wenatcheeworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080814/NEWS02/518211548/-1/NEWS

The first paragraph in the article is this bit of absolute fiction:

SIERRA VISTA, Ariz. — High-powered automatic weapons and ammunition are flowing virtually unchecked from border states into Mexico, fueling a war among drug traffickers, the army and police that has left thousands dead, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.

Oh dear oh dear. Another journalist who doesn't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. Your entire response is predicated on this sloppy language being determinative of something.

That means we should just disregard everything else in the article, right? Like (emphases mine):

More than 90 percent of guns seized at the border or after raids and shootings in Mexico have been traced to the United States, according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Last year, 2,455 weapons traces requested by Mexico showed that guns had been purchased in the United States, according to ATF. Texas, Arizona and California accounted for 1,803 of the traces submitted by Mexican authorities.

No one is sure how many U.S.-purchased guns have made their way to Mexico, but U.S. authorities estimate the number in the thousands.

... Tom Mangan, a senior ATF special agent in Arizona, compared the flow to reverse osmosis. "Just like the drugs that head north, (firearms move south)," he said. "The cartels are outfitting an army."

More than 6,700 licensed gun dealers have set up shop within a short drive of the 2,000-mile border, from the gulf coast of Texas to San Diego — which amounts to more than three dealers for every mile of border territory. Law enforcement has come to call the region an "iron river of guns."

The journalist just made up those ATF figures and that ATF agent, did he?

The journalist in question:

http://articles.latimes.com/writers/richard-a-serrano

I'm sure he could answer any questions you have.

[pipoman]

52. No

Oh dear oh dear. Another journalist who doesn't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. Your entire response is predicated on this sloppy language being determinative of something.

I am predicating my response on my sincere belief that this and other similar articles are written by people who know better, are liars, and are trying to fool people who are ignorant enough to believe it. If this was a simple mistake where is the correction or retraction? There were plenty of responses to this article when it was published pointing out this obvious lie, yet no correction or retraction...hmmm

More than 90 percent of guns seized at the border or after raids and shootings in Mexico have been traced to the United States, according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Last year, 2,455 weapons traces requested by Mexico showed that guns had been purchased in the United States, according to ATF. Texas, Arizona and California accounted for 1,803 of the traces submitted by Mexican authorities.

What was the percentage of automatic weapons in this sampling? How many gun seizures were made in Mexico which were never requested because they were obviously not imported from the US (AK47 rifles, other automatic weapons, RPGs which are what this entire article is predicated on)?

The journalist just made up those ATF figures and that ATF agent, did he?

Who knows where he got his information, maybe the same place he got his info used in the first sentence? And yes I do believe he is making shit up in this article. Now the opinion piece in the OP is siting this work of fiction to make fiction of her own.

I don't doubt that some civilian legal weapons in the US are smuggled into Mexico...no doubt. It is the constant claims that nearly every gun (in this case 90%) come from the US, yet most of the drug gang violence we hear about includes the use of automatic weapons. If this were in fact true there would be an iron clad paper trail to the seller and purchaser yet mysteriously no reports of prosecutions of automatic weapons permit holders or dealers licensed to transfer these weapons.

[Tejas]

67. correct as usual

The plagiarism among the MSM is rampant. Both AP and Rueters copy each other on a story disguised as journalism and next thing you know the antis and gun-grabbers jump on the bandwagon, no matter how old the story is or the outright falsehoods conained therein. Isn't it funny how they cry foul when pro-gun folks cite an old article, but seem to have no problem doing it themselves.

Just goes to show how desperate they are.



:rofl:






eta: removed then added rofl......because they ARE that funny to watch.

[iverglas]

26. look to your northern border as well

The cannabis grown in Canada is traded across the border for cocaine and GUNS.

The guns are used by the organized crime groups / gangs to conduct their drug trade here, and to kill bystanders on the streets of our cities.

They have to get their guns from the US because they can't get them here. Isn't that curious? One might almost think that Canadian firearms legislation makes it difficult for criminals to get guns.

We'd be happy if the US would either (a) decriminalize cannabis possession or (b) take action to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns.

[pipoman]

27. Or mybe Canada should

crack down on those who are exporting cannabis illegally to the US? Wouldn't that help too?

[iverglas]

30. why?

We want to decriminalize cannabis possession in Canada.

Don't you want to decriminalize cannabis possession in the US?

Why should we expend public resources on a problem we don't see as a problem?

The only problem for us is that because cannabis possession is illegal in the US, growing and exporting cannabis is a lucrative source of funds for organized crime in Canada -- funds used to purchase cocaine and firearms for importation into Canada.

Maybe the US should decriminalize cannabis possession, so that organized crime in Canada doesn't have a source of income to purchase cocaine and firearms in the US.

Oh, and also so that US prisons aren't clogged with non-criminals sentenced in connection with cannabis possession, and organized crime in the US also doesn't have a significant source of income from cannabis trafficking, etc. etc.

[Indy Lurker]

44. I agree completely

iverglas:
Why should we expend public resources on a problem we don't see as a problem?

The same thing is true for civilian ownerships of semi-auto rifles and handguns.

It's not a problem where I live, "Why should we expend public resources on a problem we don't see as a problem?"

[iverglas]

51. the cuteness level reaches fever pitch

The same thing is true for civilian ownerships of semi-auto rifles and handguns.
It's not a problem where I live, "Why should we expend public resources on a problem we don't see as a problem?"

Frankly, your post is so completely meaningless that one is at a loss for what to say.

Is cannabis use a problem where you live?

No? Then why would you think it relevant to say that in response to what I said:

Why should we expend public resources on a problem we don't see as a problem?

Why should Canada be put in the position of having to expend massive public resources to combat cannabis growing, when the only reason it is being grown here is for export to the US, where it is illegal to grow it, WHEN IT SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL TO GROW IT in the US?

Surely you do not think it should be illegal to grow cannabis in the US. So what is your point?

Unlike cannabis possession and growing in the US, which reasonable people in the US think should should not be prohibited, reasonable people in Canada do think that possession of certain firearms should be prohibited in Canada.

No one here is suggesting that possession of those firearms should be prohibited in the US.

NO ONE.

And reasonable people in Canada do not believe that possessing and growing cannabis should be prohibited in Canada. A Senate committee recommended that possession be decriminalized several years ago. No one is prosecuted here for possession and growing for personal use. I do both, and have absolutely no fear of a knock on the door.

We are stuck having to outlaw growing, and enforce that law at great expense, because of the demand for cannabis in the US. Which is enormous, btw.

The demand for restricted firearms in Canada is very small, but significant in that it comes from individuals and organizations who want/need the firearms for criminal purposes, and who use them to commit crimes and homicides. The demand for cannabis in the US is enormous, and comes from individuals who want to get high.

Seeing any differences here?

The totally inadequate control over access in the US -- in terms of both the laws and enforcement of those laws -- to firearms that are restricted in Canada leads to DEATHS in Canada.

Canada's inability to enforce its perfectly adequate laws against cannabis cultivation perfectly leads to people getting high in the US.

Look the same to you?


I don't give a flying fuck whether "civilian ownerships of semi-auto rifles and handguns" is not a problem where you live.

I also regard that statement as the most utter and complete bullshit, given the rate of handgun homicide in your country.

But then, if you don't regard the killing of human beings as a problem, your statement makes perfect sense.

[Tejas]

59. people in glass houses

"given the rate of handgun homicide in your country."


:rofl:

[Indy Lurker]

69. Why does Canada prohibit cannabis growing?

If it's not a problem for you why would you go through the effort to control it?


Civilian ownerships of semi-auto rifles and handguns are not a problem where I live. In fact, homicide is not a problem. The county I live in has not had a homicide, let alone a firearms homicide for several years. (We did convict someone for murder in 2004, but the crime was committed in 1980)

I know you don't like the Heller decision, but it is the law of the land for the US. It has set a very clear president for the right of civilians to keep functional handguns in the home. Even a liberal court of the future would have a hard time turning it around.


The decision was very clear:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm (including handguns) unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

[pipoman]

68. Yes, I do believe it is time for decriminalization

in the US, I guess we shall see if a Democratic President, Congress, and Senate are brave enough to act on this issue...I am betting they won't. That said, the fact it isn't decriminalized in the US is a crime problem here. Not from the end user of coarse but from those who capitalize on its distribution. Probably the same organized criminal element who are trading guns for pot in Canada. To infer that legalization of pot in the US or making guns illegal/heavily restricted in the US is the answer or even helpful in Canadas fight against organized crime is over simplification. Why doesn't the US and Canada have problems with organized criminals using automatic weapons? How long would it take for these organized criminals to set up distribution networks to import cheap AK47 rifles from the same sources that Mexican drug gangs are getting them from? I view the problem as a criminals with guns should be given long stretches. Organized criminals will always find a way to fund themselves based on illegal activity, if not from drug revenues maybe from human trade? Maybe ammunition trade if some people's wishes to heavily regulate ammunition are enacted? Who knows, but belief that decriminalization of pot in the US will make Canada's organized criminals seek lawful employment and quit killing each other isn't realistic IMHO.

growing and exporting cannabis is a lucrative source of funds for organized crime in Canada -- funds used to purchase cocaine and firearms for importation into Canada.

Maybe the US should decriminalize cannabis possession, so that organized crime in Canada doesn't have a source of income to purchase cocaine and firearms in the US.

No, funds to purchase cocaine in Canada comes from people who use cocaine, surely not everyone who uses cocaine in Canada are trading pot for coke. Will decriminalization of pot in the US reduce demand for coke in Canada? Is Canada considering cocaine decriminalization? If not, why? Wouldn't that result in reduction in gang violence too?

Oh, and also so that US prisons aren't clogged with non-criminals sentenced in connection with cannabis possession, and organized crime in the US also doesn't have a significant source of income from cannabis trafficking, etc. etc.

No they are clogged with criminals who are distributing cannabis, very few possessors are imprisoned unless they are in possession of large quanities...prosecuted? yes Imprisoned? usually not

[iverglas]

31. but just to add

I don't know what we'd do without cleverclogs like you down there.

Perhaps you thought that Canadian governments weren't already spending godawful amounts of public funds to enforce the laws against cannabis growers and exporters here.

[krispos42]

66. But we're taking action to make it difficult for criminals to get cannabis!

Surely that is limiting the demand for cannibis from Canada and thus the income of the gangs!

[iverglas]

39. About FPIF

http://www.fpif.org/fpifinfo/4432

FPIF aims to amplify the voice of progressives and to build links with social movements in the U.S. and around the world. Through these connections, we advance and influence debate and discussion among academics, activists, policymakers, and decisionmakers.

http://www.fpif.org/fpifinfo/4477

The timing is critical. We are entering a "multipolar moment." The most aggressively unilateralist phase in U.S. policy is receding, and new centers of power are emerging. International polling suggests that citizens throughout the world expect and demand greater global cooperation to resolve these conflicts as well as pressing issues of poverty, climate change, and energy security. Americans, too, are eager for a new foreign policy, both to prevent a return of unilateralism and to implement an effective alternative.

http://www.fpif.org/fpifindex/drugs/
http://www.fpif.org/fpifindex/humanrights/

... etc.


Just some more damned libruls wanting to institute authoritarian government (no doubt of the world variety).

Nothing to see there, folks.

[dairydog91]

71. Interesting

Wars are fought, fortunes are made, and nations rise and fall on these weapons. At the human-to-human level crimes are committed, vengeance is taken, rage is given full range, and terror is wreaked from the barrel of these weapons.

Interesting how humans seem to play no direct part in this. We've been killing each other for thousands of years, ever since Og and his clansmen grabbed some logs and used them to whack Wog and his clansmen over their heads. Yet somehow, it's the weapons' fault, never the fault of the people who decide to kill other people.

Overall, what does a state's national gun control policies have to with arms-supplying? The US has relatively loose gun control and exports a lot; Russia/USSR controlled firearms with much more vigor at home, while giving away bushels of complementary AKs.

"Why did they die?"

Because the US has decided to wage a Prohibition campaign against evil foliage? Oddly enough, we don't seem to hear much on the evening news about bloody gun battles between bootleggers.

[old mark]

77. Some time ago, I put a loaded handgun in a drawer. To this day,

it has not killed anyone or caused any trouble, or gone off by itself.

I just checked it, it is still there, and shows no sign of having snuck out to do mayhem to some innocent person.

Could it be the tools are not the problem, but the users are?


mark

[dairydog91]

78. Not according to some...

I've been reading GunGuys (Barf alert), and this incident has seriously brought out an extra helping of dumb.

But typical of gun supporters is to blame the parents when there is an unintentional shooting -- instead of blaming the organizers, manufacturers, or the gun industry who profit from guns.

Yup, and if I let my 6 year old cousin try to drive my car, it's Honda's fault if he crashes! Damn Japanese and their cars of death.

If you refuse to punish adults for gross negligence, there is NO WAY that you can possibly take away every potentially lethal object that an irresponsible adult might hand to a child. If they're actually logically consistent on this, then soon we'll have to ban chainsaws, power tools, car keys, toxic chemicals (Booze and household cleansers), etc... After all, an adult might hand any one of these to a child, so we should make sure that none of these are available (And if you disagree, then YOU HATE CHILDREN).

[jody]

80. Why rile gun-grabbers by citing GunGuys who everyone knows speaks the truth & nothing but the truth

-- NOT. :shrug: