The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3246 of them)

You seem to be taking it as gospel though, Manalishi, instead of a philosophy like any other -- and just as likely to be flawed.

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:04 (seventeen years ago) link

It sounds extreme, but I can't say we've progressed beyond the need.

What need. Talk in specific terms about the need. Talk about what you would do to those people.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:05 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't disagree with that stance but I don't think that was what was in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written,

I agree 100%. The rest of the Constitution was written for propertied white males - I sincerely doubt that they intended to throw a bone to the underclass with this one.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:05 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost But it isn't flawed. The language seems pretty definite to me. It IS gospel. From my cold dead hands etc etc...

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:06 (seventeen years ago) link

My wife works in the US, which is about a mile from our home. After her first day of work 16 years ago, she came home in tears. I asked her what was up and she said she got into a political discussion at work, but it quickly spiralled into something else. My brother-in-law, who was over at the time, said "Rule #1: Never get into a political discussion with an American that you don't know", suggesting that often many Americans are working with a different set of assumptions than, say, the average Canadian.

She now says that this is most evident with regards to the issue of gun ownership. She says that, though most of her co-workers do not own any guns, many of them feverishly argue for the "right" to own them without question, as if this was a right they would fight and die for.

It just seems more than a bit odd to us. But then again, so do guns in general.

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:06 (seventeen years ago) link

xposts!

I really dont see how the upside of owning guns privately outweighs all of the death and stuff that happens that involves guns. sure, i know that some of the violence would happen no matter what. some people will kill with knifes or axes or whatever anyway, but such mass killings would never happen.

what are the pros of having guns? I know that the constitution says that its ok that we have them, but what are the real reasons we need them? I know that some people say that they feel more secure and protected. Now, i cant speak for everyone, especially since i have lived in a nice area all of my life, but how often has any ILXor ever had to use a gun or other weapon in self-defense in their homes? i know that some ILXors have been mugged or attacked in public... but then again, most places wont even allow most people to carry concealed weapons.

Mr. Fidelity said that he enjoyed the feel and liked shooting guns. while i truly hope you have more important reasons for gun ownership, do these pros outweigh the cons of thousands of gun deaths every year? am i just being idealistic or does it make sense that one would give up simple pleasures for the betterment of all?

I just feel that all the robberies that may happen because of no guns outweigh the massive loss of life we see in the United States as a result of guns. I would gladly get a couple hundred of my dvds stolen if it meant there were no guns on the street. i am sure hundreds of thousands of other people must feel the same way. basically, life is not replacable.

milo's point is well-taken and definitely brings up a great point and shows a very tough gray area for me. but couldnt other weapons such as knifes or maybe larger blunt objects make a similar statement of "dont come close to us or we will hurt you"?

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:08 (seventeen years ago) link

The tradition of securing a military force through a duty of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males follows from the Elizabethan era militia in England.[1][2]

The English Declaration of Rights (1689) affirmed freedom for Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."[6] When Colonists protested British efforts to disarm their militias in the early phases of the Revolution, colonists cited the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws, and Common Law rights to self-defense. While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the militia, there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense. Indeed, in his arguments on behalf of British troops in the Boston Massacre, John Adams invoked the common law of self-defense.[3]

Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[4]

Others perceive a distinction between the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense; Robert Spitzer has stated: "..the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law."[5] Heyman has similarly argued that the common law right of self defense was legally distinct from the right to bear arms.[6]

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the new constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. This distinction was not subject to serious judicial notice until the first gun control laws were passed in the Jacksonian era. Judges in the nineteenth century split over how to interpret this connection; some saw the Common Law right and the protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment as identical; others viewed these as being legally distinct. Texts from the era of the Second Amendment are largely silent on this important question.

[...]

In the early months of 1789, the United States was engaged in an ideological conflict between Federalists who favored a stronger central government and Antifederalists skeptical of a strong central government. This conflict was accentuated by the recent news of a brewing, potentially violent, revolution in France with similar Antifederal tensions. Also, the conflict in beliefs continued between northern states, that generally favored Federalist values, and southern states that tended to share Antifederalist values.

Intense concerns gripped the country of the potential for success or failure of these newly-formed United States. The first presidential inauguration of George Washington had occurred just a few short weeks earlier. A spirited public concern and debate from this time is captured in numerous heated newspaper articles, personal diaries and letters from this pivotal time in United States history.

Antifederalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly-defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached and James Madison drafted what ultimately would become the United States Bill of Rights and that was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

The original text[12] of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It should be noted the Bill of Rights that Madison introduced on June 8 were not numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights instead were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article 1, section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action.[13] (Additionally, these provisions can all be interpreted as limits on congressional power, a view that has been advanced by supporters of the individual rights view of the Amendment.[14]) Debate in the House on the remainder of the 8th focused again on whether or not a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. On July 21, however, Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[15] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. No official records were kept of the proceedings of the committee, but on July 28 the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment.[16] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:[17]

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

The Second Amendment itself was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.[18] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24 the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

On September 4, the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence", next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated.[19] The Senate then slightly modified the language, and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21 to accept the changes made by the Senate, however the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

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.[20]

This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:09 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost That's why no one ever calls on a Canadian when they're raising up a posse, I guess.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (seventeen years ago) link

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
(yes, I know; I'm kind of surprised that there's no statement of Madison asserting man's right to hen fap)

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (seventeen years ago) link

eg I'm in the UK, and we've got no such right, and precious few gun deaths. In the past century we also had a union movement strong enough that the govt sent in tanks to deal with it and suffragettes getting the vote. We didn't have anything to compare to the black lynching things though, and I can see how guns would have been a huge help there.

<i>But it isn't flawed. The language seems pretty definite to me. It IS gospel. From my cold dead hands etc etc...</i>
The whole point of this debate is to question it -- and there are people who obviously think the idea of everyone having a gun is deeply flawed!

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (seventeen years ago) link

fuk nu ilx

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost

Even our rappers can't get a posse!

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:10 (seventeen years ago) link

hahaha stet

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:11 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost

milo's point is well-taken and definitely brings up a great point and shows a very tough gray area for me. but couldnt other weapons such as knifes or maybe larger blunt objects make a similar statement of "dont come close to us or we will hurt you"?

Nothing says "fuck off" like a gun though, does it?

...Not that I'm pro-gun. I never even want to handle a gun. They don't give me the horn at all.

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:13 (seventeen years ago) link

Todd, if the worst 'crime' that ever befalls you is losing all your DVDs, I'd say you lived a life full of luck, my friend.

My example was an aside - I CAN make a case for owning a gun - and I have several times on this thread. I was just saying that, beyond all that, I don't HAVE to justify it. I own guns. I always will. And I've never shot anyone. Never had an AD. Never been arrested on a felony for anything. And I never had to buy a burglar alarm.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:13 (seventeen years ago) link

You start a thread about gun control, you kinda DO have to justify it

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Droone - here's hoping you never find yourself in a situation where you HAVE to handle a gun and, because of willfull ignorance, don't know how.

My wife hated guns and to a large degre still objects to the sheer amount that we have in our home. BUT she is no longr uncomfortable around guns and knows that, in a pinch, she can use one if she has to. The very notion of that brings me great comfort. But then, I love my wife.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:16 (seventeen years ago) link

Hardly "willfull".

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:17 (seventeen years ago) link

stet - i HAVE been justifying it all along. I'm just saying, I don't feel I HAVE to. If i lived in a gated community with security guards on towers, and were as far removed from violent crime as possible, I'd still own guns because I LIKE guns. That's all I was trying to say.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:17 (seventeen years ago) link

is this guy a familiar troll who I'm just not recognizing or what

either way 2nd amendment cheerleaders sure are tiresome eh

― Hans Rott, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:18 (seventeen years ago) link

dan perry is otm and i am going to bed.

― kenan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:18 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't have a great deal of knowledge on British labour, stet - how prevalent were deaths and strike-breakers physically

I know that in the coal strikes of the '80s there was violence and retaliation on both sides (Thatcher's fault, right?), but I don't know if (further back) there was violence largely from the owners/state against unionizers. (One key difference between the two - intimidation was effective here, one reason we don't have a union movement as strong as the UK.)

Granted, the examples there are from the first third of the 20th century, and the Civil Rights era is the middle third and maybe we think we're more civilized than that now. But I believe the possibility for the need still exists - and if not in the US, then certainly in parts of Latin America still recovering from our best efforts.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:18 (seventeen years ago) link

I hate my wife. That's why I never let her near a gun.

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Ha!

I'm gonna go eat some cereal - I'll be back in a little while.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:20 (seventeen years ago) link

when come back bring arsenal

― Hans Rott, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:20 (seventeen years ago) link

Okay, as much as I'm disagreeing with Roger's stance, I believe that in addition to his hardon for guns he is stating that he is glad that his wife is comfortable with the guns around their house and knows how to use them because that makes her less likely to hurt herself with one.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Droooone: I know you were making at least a little humor in the argument, but if there were no guns, the next deadliest weapon would surely do just fine, dont you think?

Manalishi: Worse things have surely happened to me... but not on any basis that a gun would have ever helped me. I mean, I have had cancer twice, i have gotten fucked over by people emotionally. both of those really hurt me much worse than the loss of any personal possession could. Maybe, maybe if i my house was broken into when i was home alone, got roughed up and could have been helped by a gun, maybe i would think differently, but i really would hope that i wouldnt. anyway, most burglars make an effort to steal at a time when no one is home so they wont be caught.

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:22 (seventeen years ago) link

but if there were no guns, the next deadliest weapon would surely do just fine, dont you think?

If there were a reasonable assumption that the elimination of guns would be equitable and complete - yes. Then you'd just be facing off Fonz style with chains and bats and stuff.

That's a very problematic assumption, though.

― milo z, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:24 (seventeen years ago) link

I think Milo and I are closer to each other in spirit than our posts or our final stances would lead the casual reader to think; I think we are using the same attitude to come down on different sides of this issue and I think his points make sense and are valid, I just don't come to the same conclusion as him.

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:28 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't have a great deal of knowledge on British labour, stet - how prevalent were deaths and strike-breakers physically

I know that in the coal strikes of the '80s there was violence and retaliation on both sides (Thatcher's fault, right?), but I don't know if (further back) there was violence largely from the owners/state against unionizers.
The pitched battles of the 80s are probably a good example, ye: the Police were used as a state army to break the strike, but neither side was armed. I can't imagine how it would have turned out if the miners had guns -- I fear it would have meant armed police, which would have meant massacres.

In 1919 there was a riot over working hours in George Square in the centre of Glasgow, and tanks were sent in, but it was largely bloodless as well. Most of the labour history is like that -- lots of fisticuffs and thumpings and some huge marches, but very few deaths.

You talked about intimidation breaking US union movements (which I don't know much about) --- surely the guns would have helped with that?

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Milo: I definitely agree that it is a problematic assumption, but I still just cant see the justification of agreeing with our current gun situation over a situation with much, much stricter gun regulation and fewer gun deaths.

yes, i know that anyone pro-gun will say that very strict gun regulation will never cut down on deaths, but it never hurts to try, right?

Now, i know this isnt the best comparison, but look at prohibition. alcohol was viewed as something dangerous to society. it led to more crime (mainly because of gangsters and their guns) and we decided that prohibition really wasnt the answer to the problems. So a novel thing happened... they repealed it.

I think a lot of gun owners are afraid that they are wrong, so they will fight to the death so they will never have the opportunity to be proven wrong.

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:31 (seventeen years ago) link

And of course, the canon example here is Ghandi, who successfully used no guns to stop us stamping all over India with lots of them xpost

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:33 (seventeen years ago) link

You guys are familiar with this, right?:

The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.)

The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million. The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000187.

Statistically, doctors are 9,144 times more dangerous than gun owners.

NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

― Manalishi, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:34 (seventeen years ago) link

Dude, why are you crazy?

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Very strict gun regulations probably would prevents some deaths, just not ALL of them, so what's the point.

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:36 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean seriously, why are you posting bullshit statistics games like they are meaningful or like that will make someone find you credible?

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:37 (seventeen years ago) link

but doctors are NECESSARY, u dumby

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:38 (seventeen years ago) link

accidental gun deaths
vs.
intended gun deaths

accidental doctor deaths
vs.
intended doctor deaths

Hey, this is fun!

― peepee, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:42 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah guys. gun leg is gonna be hard. so let's not try.

besides, there's powerful lobbying behind that shit.

I really dont see how the upside of owning guns privately outweighs all of the death and stuff that happens that involves guns. t0dd on the mark to this point.

now, excepting for legitimate reasons (say viable and verified threats against family, self – but not raw property, fuck property – and for the procurement of food, hunting, etc.,) why [/i]can't[/i] we have a significant lockdown on guns? seriously, let's quit hiding behind the second amendment as gospel; use it for the philosophy intended. the philosophy is intended toward the protection of the people from universal threat. so let's read it in the spirit of mitigating a universal threat: gun violence. logos, not inflexible literality.

anyway, we're reading an evolutionary article; or at least i try to consider it that way when i'm reminded of the 3/5ths representation it entitles me.

― remy bean, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:42 (seventeen years ago) link

also bullshit on the 80 million guns claim

― remy bean, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:42 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost galore

Manalishi: That is really the worst stat i have ever seen... and possibly the most transparent. I am pretty sure you realize this.

While accidental gun deaths do matter to me and are definitely a problem, they are not the real problem. The problem is non-accidental gun deaths... where people are meaning to harm others. are drive-by shooting accidental? are school shootings? are cases of passion?

sure, doctors are people and they make mistakes. the human body is fragile and when doctors accidentally prescribe a wrong drug or make a mistake in surgery, it is not with intent to harm. how many doctors are out there who harm intentionally?

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:43 (seventeen years ago) link

lol guns

http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/shoot.gif http://forums.seriouszone.com/images/smilies/sconf.gif http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/uzi.gif http://forums.seriouszone.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:43 (seventeen years ago) link

i think that 80 million might be right - the best estimates are something like 30% of households, but that # doesn't differentiate between an old hunting rifle in the garage and a loaded 357 in the dresser.

― moonship journey to baja, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:44 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.renegadechickens.com/chickens/Toons/foghorn.jpg

pictured l-r: ilx, roger

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Nonviolent protest only works against opponents who have qualms about slaughtering you, yeah?

― Kerm, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:47 (seventeen years ago) link

No, it works against people who have qualms about being seen to slaughter you. It's all PR

― stet, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:49 (seventeen years ago) link

Kerm: in a democratic society such as ours, mowing opponents down rarely results in positive gains for your side. remember what happened in Harlan County after an anti-union bully killed a miner? the company gave in and let the miners unionize because there was national attention and scrutiny.

― t0dd swiss, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:51 (seventeen years ago) link

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/con7/gungirl1.jpg

^^ properly educated amirite????

― am0n, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:53 (seventeen years ago) link

I've been following this debate with interest, during my lunch break of vegetable pasty and orange juice, but sadly Manalishi has just lost all credible debating points with his fucking rubbish statistics.

― Huey in Melbourne, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:54 (seventeen years ago) link

This article is about the Australian gun buyback. It might be of some interest to the gunny people on this thread.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

― Drooone, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 03:56 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 3146 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.