Guns and Gun Control

[finest_alum]

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

[finest_alum]

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

[finest_alum]

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

[Miami1839]

Mikki,

I see where your coming from and why firearms are needed by responsible citizens. However everyone should remember to use them responsibly. I just think that at some point that right might be comprised because of the problems we are facing with them. Something has to be done about it. I think for those criminals that "dont follow the law" should be put in jail for life or even public execution. Hey, look at all the network stations and what makes the 5 oclock news. I'm sure that executing troublemakers on live t.v. that have used firearms in violent crimes would definitely gain ratings and put out a message. Enough is Enough. We need to set example for those criminals in our country that use firearms for illegal purposes. Granted "law abiding citizens" shouldnt have to comprimise their right to bear arms, but what are we going to do about these kids that shoot up multiple people?



[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 05, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 05, 2001).]

[mgdzkm433]

What are we going to do about the kids who are going to watch live exicutions on tv?

You're only replacing violence with violence.

What are we going to do about those kids shooting multiple people?

Why don't we start with education on guns? Why don't we work on family values, why don't we work on placing more emphasis on spotting troubled teens? Why don't we crack down in our schools on kids teasing each other?

Taking firearms away isn't solving the problem. The problem is deeper than that. Why don't we work on getting rid of the ANGER the kids have? The gun didn't cause the kid to shoot anyone, their anger did that--you take away the gun--and you'll still have an angry kid--and they will STILL lash out, whether it's with a knife, a bomb, a 'illegal gun', starting a fire . . . The fact is, we'll still be turning out a kid into the world/society that has issues.

Schools have rule after rule about where kids can park, what time to be in class, if they can talk in class, what to wear . . . but we don't have or enforce rules that require the students to respect each other. Why don't we start with that? Most of these kids going in and shooting people are outcasts--kids who feel left out, ridiculed--THERE is the problem!

[Billy Optimist]

Kevin, I don't think public executions of troublemakers is a step in the right direction. I just think that yeah, you do, and SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to own a gun. Just like you SHOULD ALWAYS have the right to drive a car, and the right to vote. If you mess up, you lose those rights. You need a licence to drive, you should need to take a test before owning a gun.

[Jeff OTMG]

Billy O, I guess I do get a little long winded. Sometimes I need to so that I may fully explain my position and I am responding to each point from each person. After all, I don't want anyone to feel left out. I assume you guys have had your share of trouble here from some trolls, that explains the lack of profile info. I don't need to know why, just sorry it happened. I agree with your comment on sociopaths. Loonies with guns bother me as well. The problem is that many people consider medical records, particularly mental health records, private. The information is a doctor/patient privledge. As a result most people object to the federal govt. (FBI) establishing a database of mental health records. Even the ACLU opposes this. Do you think that it is acceptable to limit privacy in some areas that could effect hundreds of thousands of people to help insure the safety of the rest of the population? The law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is a federal law and it has been upheld as a reasonable restriction, as the prohibition on felons voting or the restriction on free speech disallowing one to yell 'Fire.' in a theater. I do have a problem with a background check being too intrusive, but believe that they do serve a purpose. The weapons, land mines, are considered Class III weapons, specifically a mine or other exploding ordnance or launcher (anything over .50 caliber) is considered a 'destructive device' (DD) under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA '34) and is restricted in the same way as machine guns. Legal to own according to the federal govt, but about 15 or 20 states do have some state law restricting possession of some items. Generally the people who own the DD weapons are very high end military armament collectors. Remember that few things we buy require us 'need' them. We buy things because we 'want' them. I don't 'need' to drive a BMW, but I 'want' a BMW. You ask about what the militia is. I can only offer you the legal definition contained within U.S. Code and the Supreme Court ruling of U.S. v. Miller (1939):

U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

This can be found at: <A HREF="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=militia+&COLOU R=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match" TARGET=_blank>http://www4.law.corn ell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=militia+&COLOU R=Red&STYLE=s&
URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match</A>

As far as the Supreme Court, here is a portion of their ruling:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Found at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174

You are correct, as I would guess that you are not active duty military, you are a member of the militia. The key thing to remember when people claim the militia mentioned in the Constitution is the National Guard is that the Constitution was ratified in around 1789 and the National Guard did not exist until the early 1900's, over 100 years later.

[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 05, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

mgdzkm433, here is a link to most state statute. It is geared toward people wanting to carry concealed or transporting firearms across state lines. Most if not all of the states pages actually have links to the state home pages with firearms laws.
http://www.packing.org/

I must say it is refreshing to see a 23 year old female so vigorously defend a freedom. Many people today would surrender some freedom for a feeling of more security. We have seen this in England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the last 5-10 years. The U.S. has a history of being rebellious though.

[matthewg]

Originally posted by mgdzkm433:
If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms?

Yes. They would. We've had guns in this country since the beginning. Taking them away, IMHO, would be a great injustice to every american who owns one--and taking away the freedom they have to use it for whatever purpose they see fit.

The freedom to provide for your family. As I pointed out before, in many rural and poor states people do still rely on hunting as a source for food. The freedom of hunting as a 'sport'. The freedom to protect their home as they see fit. The freedom of collecting them. Taking guns away would take away every freedom they are used for.

Wait a minute - wouldn't you agree that personal freedom ends where it limits the freedom of others?

I think uncontrolled guns truely limit the freedom of all those who prefer living in a slightly (caution! - understatement) safer environment.

And the argument of hunting is invalid in so far as it would certainly no problem to pass a bill and hand out hunting licenses to people that prove responsible use and knowledge of the respective weapons.
And if you are caught drunk driving or committing a fellony, you show a lack of responsibility and your hunting license/license to own a weapon is revoked. Just that simple.

I would rather have that limitation than having to be scared about children being shot at school because of an over abundance of weapons .....

[Billy Optimist]

Well said, Matthew.

[Jeff OTMG]

Miami1839, I am glad that we agree that there may be other things that we could look at to solve the problem and I agree that guns are often the means to the outcome, though the criminal will use whatever they can to get the upper hand as the Wright-Rossi report found in interviews with over 1500 incarcerated felons. I am from Texas so that should tell you how I feel about capital punsihment. It was once suggested that since 85% of all crime is committed by repeat offenders, if all repeat offenders were executed crime would drop 85%. I believe that is not necessarily a bad idea and would be worth exploring. I totally agree with you on crimes committed with firearms and criminals obtaining or possessing firearms illegally. The NRA Crimestrike program, dubbed Exile by cities that have adopted it, has been more effective in reducing crime than any gun control law has by targeting criminal misuse of firearms. I do agree that there should be some restrictions, but maybe not to the extent that you would like to see. The thing that I disagree with you on is when you say, 'if you eliminate all firearms then you take care of the responsible citizens and the troublemakers.' That is not exactly true. If guns are banned and people must turn them in, the only ones turning them in will be the law abiding citizen. The criminal, by definition, does not follow the laws, hence the term 'criminal'.

OOPS! I didn't see the reply from finest_alum before writing mine, sorry about that. Let me just say, 'Yes, what she said!'

[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 05, 2001).]

[Lil_G]

Originally posted by finest_alum:

Criminals are criminals because they DON'T FOLLOW the law. Taking the right to bear arms out of the hands of citizens will not stop these people from obtaining guns.

25, female, from a large metro. Not an advocate of hunting, don't own a gun, but the Constitution gives ME the right to make that choice.

Yes you're right, I don't think the mafia would say 'well guns are illegal now, time to stop using them'. But is that a feasible aim of gun control legislation? Aren't we trying to prevent the accidental use of guns that kill eachother? I can't remember the exact statistic but doesn't it say guns are more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder?

Mikki you mention that guns are needed as a method for survival in some parts. Okay, that means that those who need guns would be more willing to do the extra effort to get the guns because they need them. Here in Canada, they've added stricter laws to acquire and maintain guns. You need to show a license just to buy ammo. The average user who would otherwise have a gun would then not what to go through this to have his gun that he or she may rarely if ever use.
Thus, a lot of the accidental injuries caused by firearms such as road rage or some school shootings would be reduced. Guns would be much tougher to get a hold of, maybe by that time the instant aggression of getting cut-off in traffic or losing a fight would prevent someone getting killed.

[Jeff OTMG]

Lil_G, sure glad you like the response. You responded to my post, it is only fair that futher explain myself so you have no questions. I appreciate you taking the time to address my questions as well. Agian, I don't excuse Columbia, Brazil, or any other country. Each has people of a different culture and that culture is solely responsible for the way people behave, good or bad. Your reference to Germany is an excellent point. Two things that you must realize about gun control in Germany though. They most stringent gun control was passed in 1936 when Hitler was in power. He could not have armed people opposing his ideas. This information is deatiled on the website of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), I believe that the link is www.jpfo.org So before the U.S. entry into WWII Germany already had strict gun control in place and enforced by Nazi's. After WWII the Allied powers oversaw that Germany would not have access to many weapons for fear of a repeat of the post WWI build up of arms. As an additional point Sen Thomas Dodd (D-Ct) and father of current Sen Christopher Dodd (D-Ct) asked the National Archives for an English translation of the German gun laws back in 1967. This translation of the Nazi law was the basis for our Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68). To directly address your question, 'If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms?' I must say that, beyond the loss of the right to be free to own guns, I don't know. It would depend on many things and the only way to find out would be to try it and if it didn't go well it would be too late to go back. To your last point about the British. I happen to have some friends who are British, some came to the U.S. and are looking forward to citizenship since the UK passed the sweeping gun control laws a few years ago. Since that time, Sept '97 I believe, handguns have been completely illegal yet they are recording a record number of firearm deaths and injuries. These are primarily due to the increased activity of Jamaican Posse drug gangs. If you can get drugs into a country you can get guns in and Great Britain is easier to police being an island nation like Japan. It is so bad that the bobbies may start carrying guns. They didn't have to in the past, but that was then and this is now: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/001023/79/amxti.html

[finest_alum]

You really think road rage is "accidental use of a gun?" I have to disagree.

Violent people will be violent with or without guns.

I fully agree that something needs to be done about truly accidental shootings (such as with a young child) but the answer to that is for parents; educate your child, lock your gun up where the child CANNOT get to it, or get rid of it while your children are small enough not to understand how dangerous it is.

Irresponsible use of a gun by a few, however, should not eliminate the right of the responsible. That is like saying "well, people die from drunk driving so no one should be allowed to drive anymore, because cars are the problem" The car isn't the problem, it's the driver.

[Jeff OTMG]

Miami1839, the hard line against criminals is a hard sell. I am not saying I disagree with you at all, it would work, but it would never happen so, unfortunately, it is not a solution. Something does need to be done, even with accidental deaths due to firearm at an all time low. I attended a forum at Butler University in Indianapolis, In last Sept. The panel was 14 people running for state and local elected offices. One of the students asked outright what would they do about people killing people with guns if they were elected. Nothing can be done. It is already against the law to kill someone. You don't need a law beyond that. The point is that no legislation is going to solve the problem. What does work is if individuals get involved. I teach a gun safety program in an inner city public school. There are 500 students from K-5 that are learning to not touch a gun if they see one without proper training. If you want something done you have to do it yourself. I have seen great things from young people involved in mentoring programs. The problem with violence is that it is a cultural issue, for the person to develop a sense of right and wrong someone must give them direction and tell them the difference. Mentoring programs have been successful in doing this and I highly recommend people get involved if they are really interested in making changes in peoples lives.