Fuzzy's Fuzzy on US Gun Law

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:00 am

fuzzywuzzy;1414297 wrote: And No, that 2nd ammendment is not clear .
What is unclear to you?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:18 am

I figured it would be helpful to post the text, in both forms.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:19 am

Genius!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:42 am

Accountable;1414318 wrote: What is unclear to you?

The association of a well regulated militia with the rights of the individual and the definition of the word arms in this context are the main areas that lack clarity to those of us outside the US.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:12 am

Bryn Mawr;1414333 wrote: The association of a well regulated militia with the rights of the individual
The authors presumed that the States would have their own militias, and did not anticipate a standing federal military - thus "militia". Militias are/were made up of the citizens, and members would provide their own arms, thus the authors wanted to make sure that the federal gov't wouldn't be able to disarm the states, or The People (meaning all The People, which means every individual). It's insurance against tyranny.

Bryn Mawr;1414333 wrote: and the definition of the word arms in this context are the main areas that lack clarity to those of us outside the US.
Well, I'm pretty sure they don't mean appendages, but we can explore that if you insist. :yh_wink

Otherwise, arms means weaponry. And no, there's no restriction listed, so it means all weaponry. The right of individuals to keep and bear any type of weaponry shall not be infringed.

BUT THAT'S RIDICULOUS!! says you? Maybe. Remember the times and the circumstances.

But here's where all the self-righteous bellowing falls apart:

Article 5 of the US Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Constitution has a built-in procedure for changing with the time. Any complaints about the law are irrelevant. It's the law. The law can be changed. Once it's changed, we can complain about the new one, but this one is in place. Does it need to be changed? I'd say yes. But to take the lazy way out and ignore or circumvent the law is to open a Pandora's Box. What other laws are just not worth following or changing?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:52 am

Accountable;1414351 wrote: The authors presumed that the States would have their own militias, and did not anticipate a standing federal military - thus "militia". Militias are/were made up of the citizens, and members would provide their own arms, thus the authors wanted to make sure that the federal gov't wouldn't be able to disarm the states, or The People (meaning all The People, which means every individual). It's insurance against tyranny.

Well, I'm pretty sure they don't mean appendages, but we can explore that if you insist. :yh_wink

Otherwise, arms means weaponry. And no, there's no restriction listed, so it means all weaponry. The right of individuals to keep and bear any type of weaponry shall not be infringed.

BUT THAT'S RIDICULOUS!! says you? Maybe. Remember the times and the circumstances.

But here's where all the self-righteous bellowing falls apart:

Article 5 of the US Constitution:

The Constitution has a built-in procedure for changing with the time. Any complaints about the law are irrelevant. It's the law. The law can be changed. Once it's changed, we can complain about the new one, but this one is in place. Does it need to be changed? I'd say yes. But to take the lazy way out and ignore or circumvent the law is to open a Pandora's Box. What other laws are just not worth following or changing?

I totally agree with the last part - the law is the law until and unless it is changed. I had been wondering whether the right to bear arms had connotations of weapons capable of being borne by an individual rather than any armament they might choose to own.

Remembering the times and the circumstances under which that law was made I do say that it is ridiculous that such a law should stand in this day and age when the power of the arms available to the citizens is beyond the imagination of those who passed it. I guess what confuses me is what appears to be a total refusal by such a large proportion of the people of the US to contemplate any restrictions being put in place by amending the amendment.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 4:59 pm

Bryn Mawr;1414358 wrote: I totally agree with the last part - the law is the law until and unless it is changed. I had been wondering whether the right to bear arms had connotations of weapons capable of being borne by an individual rather than any armament they might choose to own.

Remembering the times and the circumstances under which that law was made I do say that it is ridiculous that such a law should stand in this day and age when the power of the arms available to the citizens is beyond the imagination of those who passed it. I guess what confuses me is what appears to be a total refusal by such a large proportion of the people of the US to contemplate any restrictions being put in place by amending the amendment.

I'm sure that for many, it's because so many others want to do away with firearms altogether, that they don't want to risk budging at all. Our history is rife with Gov't taking over liberties in the name of safety, or *shudder* General Welfare.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:04 pm

The number of drunken driving related deaths on New Year's Eve will be truly horrific.

Again, human action...........not the inanimate object.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:14 pm

When the gummint can guarantee me that all the crazies are unarmed, THEN I will think about giving up mine.

I think special license should be granted to those who wish to own high ammo count, high fire-rate arms, which should include training, and laws governing responsibility of ownership.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:08 pm

halfway;1414387 wrote: The number of drunken driving related deaths on New Year's Eve will be truly horrific.

Again, human action...........not the inanimate object.

But the government will happily legislate against drink driving and enforce the laws in an attempt to cut the death toll. Why not do the same with the equally horrific death rates due to the abuse of guns?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:12 pm

Bryn Mawr;1414458 wrote: But the government will happily legislate against drink driving and enforce the laws in an attempt to cut the death toll. Why not do the same with the equally horrific death rates due to the abuse of guns?

They legislate by putting speed and signage to encourage saving life from antisocial car users.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:20 pm

halfway;1414387 wrote: The number of drunken driving related deaths on New Year's Eve will be truly horrific.

Again, human action...........not the inanimate object.Strawman argument and completely inappropriate to the discussion. Automobiles are for commuting while guns are for killing. Not even close.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:36 pm

One is a right not to be infringed upon. Countries without it in their constitutions...carry on and enjoy.

It is a fight many in America are worth having.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:38 pm

Bruv;1414459 wrote: They legislate by putting speed and signage to encourage saving life from antisocial car users.

Even more directly through the DUI laws.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:40 pm

halfway;1414467 wrote: One is a right not to be infringed upon. Countries without it in their constitutions...carry on and enjoy.

It is a fight many in America are worth having.

A right not to be infringed upon simply by passing a law that infringes upon it. That is not to say that it cannot be infringed upon be amending the second Amendment.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:43 pm

Bryn Mawr;1414470 wrote: Even more directly through the DUI laws.

My point being that sober or not a licence is required with strict road usage rules...............just to drive a potentially dangerous vehicle, and a ban if the rules are broken.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:16 pm

Bruv;1414472 wrote: My point being that sober or not a licence is required with strict road usage rules...............just to drive a potentially dangerous vehicle, and a ban if the rules are broken.

A commonly accepted figure is there are like 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. They very widely from state to state, even city to city. If you are traveling with any firearms best you check the local laws and there are some very unforgiving laws that can land you in prison for the most absurd reason. If auto laws were similar there would be a lot of people walking.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:12 pm

tude dog;1414565 wrote: A commonly accepted figure is there are like 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. They very widely from state to state, even city to city. If you are traveling with any firearms best you check the local laws and there are some very unforgiving laws that can land you in prison for the most absurd reason. If auto laws were similar there would be a lot of people walking.

A car is a machine for transporting goods and people around. Misused it can kill. A gun is a machine designed to kill - that is it's sole purpose. It must depress many of your countrymen that you cannot understand the difference. Out of curiosity what are the laws in carrying a sword in the US? Bet you're not allowed to.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:30 pm

Some would consider it protection.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:06 pm

halfway;1414575 wrote: Some would consider it protection.Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE gets that. The problem is that people advocating guns for protection need it for protection from other people with guns. Take the guns out of circulation and the problem is largely solved. Giving up the guns and dealing with the fear and paranoia would be the altruistic thing to do.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:14 pm

gmc;1414571 wrote: A car is a machine for transporting goods and people around. Misused it can kill. A gun is a machine designed to kill - that is it's sole purpose. It must depress many of your countrymen that you cannot understand the difference. Out of curiosity what are the laws in carrying a sword in the US? Bet you're not allowed to.

Not many people own machine guns. Many, if not most states don't allow ownership. Even if I could, I wouldn't own one. Very expensive shooting hundreds of rounds a minute. Lot more fun at taxpayers expense.

Get caught with a magazine Washington D.C., that is a felony. Well for us regular people, maybe not for the elite, as the press rallies around David Gregory.

MILLER: David Gregoryâ€™s legal jeopardy

President Obama wants more gun-control laws, but perhaps he should care more about enforcing the ones already on the books.

He granted an exclusive interview to NBCâ€™s David Gregory on Saturday, even though the â€œMeet the Pressâ€ anchor is under investigation by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for possession of an unregistered â€œhigh capacityâ€ magazine in the District. It is also unclear how Mr. Gregory passed the Secret Service background check to enter the White House while under criminal investigation.

Last Sunday, Mr. Gregory held up the illegal magazine on the set of his show in the networkâ€™s bureau on Nebraska Ave. as a publicity stuntwhile interviewing the National Rifle Associationâ€™s Wayne LaPierre. Mr. Gregory held up one rifle magazine he said held â€œ30 bulletsâ€ andone that he said carries â€œfive bullets or ten bullets.â€

David WASHINGTON TIMES

We'll see if he gets to skate on this. I say he should be made an example of. Nothing against him personally, but just to show how stupid some gun laws are. Just in case nobody knows, short of using it for a club, I would not consider a magazine dangerous.

VIDEO

So the car and guns have one thing in common, misuse and they can kill. Used properly, they won't kill unless needed to do so.

As far as swords, just like any knife, that would fall under state and local jurisdiction.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:17 pm

Ahso!;1414581 wrote: Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE gets that. The problem is that people advocating guns for protection need it for protection from other people with guns. Take the guns out of circulation and the problem is largely solved. Giving up the guns and dealing with the fear and paranoia would be the altruistic thing to do.

People with clubs, knives, fists, you name it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:24 pm

tude dog;1414583 wrote: People with clubs, knives, fists, you name it.Sounds very scary. I'd move if I lived in such a place.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:44 pm

Ahso!;1414585 wrote: Sounds very scary. I'd move if I lived in such a place.

Have a nice trip. Be sure to write.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:59 pm

tude dog;1414588 wrote: Have a nice trip. Be sure to write.Let's put some numbers to the test. What's the population of the county, city and state you live in (if you don't know I can look it up)?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:10 pm

Ahso!;1414591 wrote: Let's put some numbers to the test. What's the population of the county, city and state you live in (if you don't know I can look it up)?I've got NC = 9,656,401 as of july 2011

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:20 pm

Ahso!;1414593 wrote: I've got NC = 9,656,401 as of july 2011

You live in North Carolina?

I live in Kansas, pop about 2.8 million.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:47 pm

tude dog;1414594 wrote: You live in North Carolina?

I live in Kansas, pop about 2.8 million. County about 4000, city 100Misread your info.

Nationwide the violent crime rate for 2010 (year for the latest stats) was .004 or .4% (that's point 4 percent - less than 1 percent) or 403.6 per 100,000 people. I'm figuring the national average may be higher than in Kansas, but we'll use it anyway.

That means your state has 11,200 violent crimes per year

Your county will have 16 violent crimes per year

And your city will have about .4 (less than 1) violent crimes per year.

^^This is the number of incidences you are arming yourself for protection from. It's no wonder you've never needed your gun.

Out of those violent crimes 68% employ the use of guns, while 13% use knives and 19% is all others (meaning everything from automobiles to silly putty).

The homicide rate per 100,000 is 4.8 which is minuscule in comparison to the "violent crime" rate.

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ETA: If guns were removed from the equation violent crime may not decrease, however, I'd bet the homicide rate would dramatically.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:30 pm

Ahso!;1414598 wrote: Misread your info.

Nationwide the violent crime rate for 2010 (year for the latest stats) was .004 or .4% (that's point 4 percent - less than 1 percent) or 403.6 per 100,000 people. I'm figuring the national average may be higher than in Kansas, but we'll use it anyway.

That means your state has 11,200 violent crimes per year

Your county will have 16 violent crimes per year

And your city will have about .4 (less than 1) violent crimes per year.

^^This is the number of incidences you are arming yourself for protection from. It's no wonder you've never needed your gun.

Out of those violent crimes 68% employ the use of guns, while 13% use knives and 19% is all others (meaning everything from automobiles to silly putty).

The homicide rate per 100,000 is 4.8 which is minuscule in comparison to the "violent crime" rate.

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ETA: If guns were removed from the equation violent crime may not decrease, however, I'd bet the homicide rate would dramatically.

You didn't have to go through all that trouble.

Actually, I believe you overstated our crime for this part of the country.

I would dare say this is one of the safest places in the country to live.

A few years ago there was one murder. Seems a couple of guys were doing a string of burglaries across Nebraska down to here of farm houses. This one farmer came home in the middle of the day to find these two in his house, they murdered him. I can't say if he had a gun that would have made a difference, but all the more reason to stay armed.

Bad guys just don't limit their activities in their own city. They have cars and travel spreading their misery.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:06 pm

tude dog;1414602 wrote: You didn't have to go through all that trouble.Actually I did and I'll tell you why. This thread is not for you or me. I'm not going to change your mind nor will you change mine. This is for people who may be now reading this or will in the future read it that are unsure of their position on the issue. They'll make a determination as to which of us appears more rational. I'm happy to continue to offer up statistics and other evidence that show that the majority of gun enthusiasts exaggerate the reality of violent crime to justify resorting to the act or threat of violence themselves.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:36 pm

Ahso!;1414603 wrote: Actually I did and I'll tell you why. This thread is not for you or me. I'm not going to change your mind nor will you change mine. This is for people who may be now reading this or will in the future read it that are unsure of their position on the issue. They'll make a determination as to which of us appears more rational. I'm happy to continue to offer up statistics and other evidence that show that the majority of gun enthusiasts exaggerate the reality of violent crime to justify resorting to the act or threat of violence themselves.

That is all fine and good as I had the opportunity to point out that in a most safe part of the country a neighbor was murdered. I am sure his family would feel a lot to better to learn of your statistical analysis of how safe he was.

I am happy for you that your family, friends and neighbors are immune from danger due to people who have no conscience as to having any respect to your property or life. I wish I could say the same for my family, friends and neighbors.

Yours is a first in human history, "thou art surly blessed".

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:23 pm

tude dog;1414690 wrote: That is all fine and good as I had the opportunity to point out that in a most safe part of the country a neighbor was murdered. I am sure his family would feel a lot to better to learn of your statistical analysis of how safe he was.

I am happy for you that your family, friends and neighbors are immune from danger due to people who have no conscience as to having any respect to your property or life. I wish I could say the same for my family, friends and neighbors.

Yours is a first in human history, "thou art surly blessed".I wanted to be sure to immortalize this before you actually realized what you wrote and changed it.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:28 pm

ahso!;1414694 wrote: i wanted to be sure immortalize this before you actually realized what you wrote and changed it.

lol