Hand gun ownership in the U.S.

[Viola]

****************

Actually, there comes a time for many addicts when their habit cannot be supported by a normal income and theft or prostitution enters the picture.

The drug use may interfere with the performance of their job and they lose it.

(There was a term in NYC a while back for a junkie prostitue, a battery girl. It references the fact that like a battery she runs on chemicals.)

I have seen first hand some people get their lives really screwed up on drugs and to say they were the only people that suffered is incorrect. There is also that lack of quality time it tends to create for parents, spouses and children of the drug addicted. Relationships were often ruined.

Being a jerk to your family is not usually an offense that requires clogging up the prison system?

Most drug-users have jobs. Most people who drink have jobs. I don't think we should make liquor illegal because some drunks don't work. Prohibition is a little too Golden Age for me. [huh]

-Viola

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Does it now turn political if I dissent? I think the gun has to be the single most dehumanizing invention ever. Just ahead of bubble gum.

. . . And after personal stereos.


Lee

 

[Viola]

Don't be silly. The most dehumanizing invention is clearly hip-hugging pink velour sweatpants with the word "JUICY" written across your butt.

-Viola

 

[K.D. Lightner]

I like western revolvers, used to have one but it got stolen. It was a .22 and I was a good shot with that gun.

Now, I have a Rossi .38, which I keep loaded and right by my beside.

Yes, a handgun is a great equalizer. I am not only a woman, I am an older woman and not as strong as I was 20 years ago. Or as agile.

I believe women should take firearms instructions, learn to handle, operate and maintain a handgun, take target practice, and keep one in their homes well away from children.

Handguns and children don't mix.

karol

 

[JazzBaby]

Don't be silly. The most dehumanizing invention is clearly hip-hugging pink velour sweatpants with the word "JUICY" written across your butt.

-Viola

I agree wholeheartedly. :eusa_clap

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Rogaine doesn't make you crazy. Hemorrhoids do.

I can't speak for Rogaine, but I can certainly speak for hemorroids! :rage:


Lee
_________________________

I know I've often wanted to go on a multi-state killing spree when they've flared up! lol

 

[Tango Yankee]

**************
Tom mentioned the idea of how sad it is that we have such crimes and seemed to lay it as a societal problem. Well percentages and numbers may be up currently, but there are always a percentage of people in this world that do not or cannot empathize with their fellow human beings and have little or no reluctance at killing others. It is unlikely they will go away or be reduced as a percentage of the populace any time soon. It is however important to recognize when the signs and their actions point to these types of problems so they may be kept in check as under care, therapy and supervision.

True enough, but I don't think that every violent criminal out there fits that category--I think (and no, I don't have any studies to back me up on this) that the majority are that way due to various environmental influences. There are those who grow up in environments that provided them with their needs and wants that still have violent tendencies--not arguing that point at all. Call it a mix of both societal problems and a need for further evolution.

Things have changed significantly since this country was founded. It's been a very long time since we had to worry about a full-scale invasion, though I suppose that it's possible in the future we might have to worry about China. However, as written, the Second Amendment is only addressing the issue of the security of a free state, not personal or self-defense and not target shooting. Two words that are glossed over in the Second Amendment are the words "well regulated:"

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

A bunch of civilians with guns that has not trained together is not a well regulated Militia, it's an armed rabble. In general, the argument that civilians should be allowed to own guns so they can defend against invasion doesn't hold water in this day and age.

Since things have changed and the likelyhood of the US being in any danger of needing armed civilians to rise up and defend her from invaders, the Second Amendment as written is moot. I think it should be rewritten to address the issues of today and the reasons people have today for wanting firearms: self-defense, hunting, target shooting.

Now, there are all kinds of statistics that can be trotted out citing how many gun owners are killed with their own guns, how many children are killed by guns being in the house, how many people are killed because of a drunken argument and a gun was handy, how many are killed simply by accident, how many guns are stolen and then subsequently used to commit violent crimes, etc. More than likely all of these far outnumber the number of times a gun owner actually successfully used a gun to defend themselves.

So: the argument for needing a weapon for civil defense no longer applies.

The argument for needing one for self-defense does, but what are the actual odds of it being used for it? Seems to me that the advantage of this one is more psychological than anything (as proposed earlier in the comments about Florida.) Criminals might think twice about robbing someone because they won't know whether or not they are armed, and civilians who are armed feel safer (whether they actually are depends on a whole lot of variables.)

The argument for sport (target shooting, hunting) is probably the one that is the most applicable for the majority of people (just a guess, but I think that a lot more people target shoot than carry their weapon around for protection.)

Is it worth the cost? I don't think so, but then I'm not interested in guns. Obviously those who do want/own/collect guns think it is. I do think that a law banning handguns and other weapons would be ineffectual due to the sheer numbers of weapons out there already. We're in a very vicious circle with more and more criminals arming themselves and with more powerful weapons, while civilians respond by arming themselves in self-defense.

I've no magic bullet (if you'll pardon the pun) to stop the cycle. I think it possible that if it keeps on going as it is we will indeed see a return to the days when the majority of people walked around armed. That, I think, will be a step backward.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[carebear]

Tom,

In your reading of the 2nd and how it applies today to personal ownership, self-defense and the "militia" I believe you are in opposition to a growing majority of current independent Constitutional scholarship.

I recommend you read the DC Court of Appeal's opinion on Parker v. DC for the current scholarly view of the 2nd and its past and current context. It goes on point starting pg. 12, section III.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

It's an excellent opinion and lays out the historical context quite thoroughly.

Matthew

 

[Lincsong]

The step backwards is the present situation where criminals, drug addicts et. al are permitted to roam the streets freely to cause mayhem, where the law abiding citizen who defends himself is portrayed to be the perpetrator instead of the victim of crimes. We have gotton to far off topic fftopic: from a simple question; "Do you own a handgun?"

 

[Quigley Brown]

I don't own a firearm and I don't know any self-defense techniques, but should I make a decision I'd rather become an expert in martial arts than carry a gun.

 

[carebear]

I don't own a firearm and I don't know any self-defense techniques, but should I make a decision I'd rather become an expert in martial arts than carry a gun.

Sure, learn your karate, we all know who's houses you'll be running to when the zombies rise.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I'm a blackbelt...but If I can't get to the bad guy's gun...I'm just toast!
HD

 

[Tango Yankee]

Tom,

In your reading of the 2nd and how it applies today to personal ownership, self-defense and the "militia" I believe you are in opposition to a growing majority of current independent Constitutional scholarship.

I recommend you read the DC Court of Appeal's opinion on Parker v. DC for the current scholarly view of the 2nd and its past and current context. It goes on point starting pg. 12, section III.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

It's an excellent opinion and lays out the historical context quite thoroughly.

Matthew

Matthew,

While that is an interesting opinion, it actually bolsters my argument that the Second Amendment needs rewriting. One court found one way, the next court found the other, through some careful parsing of words. My meaning may not have been clear--I did not mean that the right to bear arms was moot, but that the reason given was. That is why I said it needs rewriting, not struck down completely. I will say that I do not understand why a reason or civic purpose was given at all when they could have simply written "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" if that was simply what they meant.

Of course, there are those who say that the very ambiguity of this (not that I find it all that ambiguous but then, I'm not a lawyer) and other parts of the Constitution and it's amendments enable the courts to interprete the writing to fit the current times and/or political atmosphere. Notice that you yourself use the phrase "current scholarly view."

Although I believe that the drafters of the Constitution and the Amendments were very intelligent, I don't believe that they parsed the wording as carefully as is being done now. They gave a specific purpose and the means to carry it out. Times have changed... back then they may not have felt the need to specify personal defense as it was inherently understood.

Of course, the real problem is that it would be all but impossible to rewrite the Amendment or to introduce another one. Well, not to rewrite--that would be simple enough--but to get it passed. Therefor we the people have to work with what we've got.

As it is, the right to bear arms is infringed upon in many ways despite the Amendment. The fact that you can't walk down the street with a gun on your belt without a special permit is just one instance of that.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Parallel Guy]

Don't have a gun; don't want a gun. Would like to see all guns deep sixed but realize this country isn't mine alone. What I would really like to see is the moderates from both side come to an agreement on how to get guns away from the bad guys.

 

[Tango Yankee]

The step backwards is the present situation where criminals, drug addicts et. al are permitted to roam the streets freely to cause mayhem, where the law abiding citizen who defends himself is portrayed to be the perpetrator instead of the victim of crimes. We have gotton to far off topic fftopic: from a simple question; "Do you own a handgun?"

True, we are way off topic from the simple question but that's the nature of the topic!

I'm not sure if you're thinking that I said somewhere that someone who defends themselves is a perpetrator, but I didn't. I never even said anything against anyone who wanted a gun for that purpose. In fact, I said that self-defense was a valid reason for owning a gun, unlike the Militia defense. What I did say is that we are in a vicious circle, and that in the end I won't be surprised if everyone is walking around armed.

Banning guns will not break that circle. There are too many of them out there for that to work, and there's always smuggling. Addressing the current situation that you describe (which is a societal problem) would require a multi-pronged approach that would on the one hand require figuring out ways to provide alternatives to those livestyles and to crack down on those who currently are living them. Of course, even if you ignored the first and tried to concentrate on the second you're looking at a heck of a lot of money to spend on additional police, equipment, expanded legal system, more prisons, etc. (i.e., taxes) and in the end it wouldn't work because you ignored the core issues.

No, it would take a multi-pronged approach and a change of attitudes both towards and from those marginalized people for anything to really work. Such improvement won't happen in any of our lifetimes but we may see a lot more people armed since that seems to be the trend.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Tango Yankee]

By the way, I'm rather enjoying this!

It's not often this topic can be discussed without someone resorting to namecalling within the first couple of posts! :eusa_clap

Cheers,
Tom

 

[carebear]

As it is, the right to bear arms is infringed upon in many ways despite the Amendment. The fact that you can't walk down the street with a gun on your belt without a special permit is just one instance of that.

Concealed or unconcealed you can in Vermont, always have been. You now can in Alaska as well, a few other states are moving that direction. Many other states allow permitless open carry, if not concealed.

With the "shall-issue" permitting system current in 38 states (last I checked), up from a handful in the mid-'80s, getting a permit to carry is less onerous in many places than getting a building permit.

I don't disagree that the right is infringednow. Even when it is (hopefully) incorporated to the States like all the rest it will still be as subject to infringement as any of the other BOR (speech, press, assembly). The difference will be that the Court will weigh those infringements based on the "strict scrutiny" standard, which will make many current laws invalid as they don't rise to that legal standard.

The point of that Circuit Court ruling is that it supports Tribe and the uniform understanding of the 2nd as supporting an individual right since it was written. The "collective right" nonsense came about (and stood) for only a few decades in the mid-20th Century and was argued against then.

There is not and never has been some kind of "long-standing balanced argument". The collective right view of the 2nd is purely a modern reinterpretation designed to facilitate a particular political worldview, not a defendable scholarly position. As can be seen (and was shown in the ruling) when the history and contextual documents are even briefly examined. The Founder's were quite clear, it's the inability of many folks to read what was written in the manner in which it was written at the time that introduces any question at all.

 

[Harp]

I'm a blackbelt.
HD

What style?

 

[Harp]

The Founder's were quite clear, it's the inability of many folks to read what was written in the manner in which it was written at the time that
introduces any question at all.

Strict construction of this constitutional issue, devoid of inane penumbra,
will show that the Founders' understanding of gun control to be
windage and elevation; not the denial of individual right so clearly expressed.

 

[Tango Yankee]

The point of that Circuit Court ruling is that it supports Tribe and the uniform understanding of the 2nd as supporting an individual right since it was written. The "collective right" nonsense came about (and stood) for only a few decades in the mid-20th Century and was argued against then.

Yes, I get that... I never thought it as being other than an individual right, but the Second gives a specific purpose for it. I think it's likely that the other purposes of self-defense and hunting were simply so obvious due to the time it was written that it wasn't felt it needed to be added. The problem is that we're kinda stuck with the wording as it is and therefore each word gets argued over (what did they mean by "the State," "Militia," etc.) by both sides to support their position. I think that if the writers were worried about protecting the right to keep and bear arms in regards to those two purposes they would have kept it simple or would have included those purposes in the Amendment.

Not owning a gun I've not looked into all the gun laws, but I wasn't aware that there were states where you could strap a gun to your waist and walk around openly. Either I've never been in one of those states or I've never seen anyone who opted to do so.

Cheers,
Tom