Debunking Some Gun Myths

[Kigen]

Licensing undermines the concept. If the government can control which, or even if you can own, firearms then it could easily disarm people. The point is the government cannot control it.

 

The government will never be the end all to crime. The government is simply an organization of people who go out any try to say what others can or cannot do. This does not mean that they can prevent a psychopath from going on a rampage. But the people there could stop.

 

The world does not operate like computers or video games.

[Weeman]

Then I should be allowed to have ballistic missles.

You really, really, need to stop using the slippery slope fallacy because it's extremely irritating in an actual debate. using the argument of "lol ballistic missles amirite" is like saying you should own an entire district of fire departments, police department, and medical services. The scale does not hold up in the discussion so either stop or think of a better argument that isn't filled with holes.

 

Technically cannons were protected by this amendment back then too, which in turn should turn into missiles just as muskets turned into assault rifles

No they are not. Cannons are not classified as firearms.

 

 

because he surrounded himself with smart politicians like Ben Franklin and John Adams. And its also not like he decided four year was enough. He just knew that surviving for life was a bad idea and just like England.

So yea I don't see anything bad about what you stated? A president is still ONE person, and he kept good company of people that understood different aspects of running a NEW country.

[Cookie]

No they are not. Cannons are not classified as firearms.

Actually cannons are legal and protected by the second amendment, you can go out and buy one right now they don't even require licenses or permits to buy them. So if cannons are an expansion of a ballistic missile how come it is not treated the same as an ar-15 which is an expansion on a musket?

[Nipple]

i'm pretty sure cannons are classified as siege weaponry.. made for taking out fortifications. the point is to allow citizens to have themselves armed with guns so that even if the government mobilized an army against its own citizens it would be too costly to try to stop citizen armies all across the nation. also if the country were to be invaded citizens would be able to arm themselves quickly to be able to help fight off the invasion. just because these two scenarii are "not feasible" currently.. if you take away the people's guns then these things become much more likely to happen.

[Weeman]

Actually cannons are legal and protected by the second amendment, you can go out and buy one right now they don't even require licenses or permits to buy them. So if cannons are an expansion of a ballistic missile how come it is not treated the same as an ar-15 which is an expansion on a musket?

because neither of those things you just listed is correct. Do you even know the specifics? black powder non-fixed ammunition cannons are legal. it's not even a fire arm lol. It's the shit you see at reenactments. That's why EVEN POTATO CANNONS ARE ILLEGAL.

[Papa John]

Licensing undermines the concept. If the government can control which, or even if you can own, firearms then it could easily disarm people. The point is the government cannot control it.

 

The government will never be the end all to crime. The government is simply an organization of people who go out any try to say what others can or cannot do. This does not mean that they can prevent a psychopath from going on a rampage. But the people there could stop.

 

The world does not operate like computers or video games.

 

You treat the government like it is an entity unto its own, however, every member is still an American citizen. Furthermore, they are elected citizens who represent their constituency so the notion that a single man's ideal is disarming the people is flawed to start with. They were elected because their constituency, the majority of the country, believes in what they believe. So while the world doesn't operate like computers or video games, the USA doesn't operate like North Korea or a dictatorship so comparing it to one isn't going to help your argument.

 

The mandate of militia was in fact carried out from its early inception to the present time, however they go by the name National Guard now. The earliest militias still required training, and most didn't own the guns they used.

 

Saying we shouldn't enforce the law because it won't work 100% of the time, as has been stated multiple times in this thread, simply doesn't make sense. Everyone speeds from time to time, there are rules against it but they still speed. Everyone doesn't speed 100% of the time because we enforce the speed limit with fines and police officers, and if you happen to injure / kill anyone in the process be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Again it doesn't keep people from speeding 100% of the time, but it helps to prevent it occurring all the time. The point of gun regulation isn't to stop people from getting murdered with guns every time, it is is to decrease the number of people who have access to guns and limit the ability for impulse purchases of guns to prevent some gun deaths. We don't function in a perfect world, there is no one answer to any problem, just because we can't fix the problem completely doesn't mean we don't do anything.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Papa John

[Cookie]

First, cannons are ballistic just like firearms and missles; the technology used to create them created modern missiles and rifles plain and simple. And there are more types of cannons than just black powder that are legal (even some missiles and rockets are legal). You also need to realize that the second amendment says nothing of 'firearm' it says arms this can pertain to cannons, guns, blades, rocks, ect. and potato cannons are only illegal per city ordinance.

[Weeman]

First, cannons are ballistic just like firearms and missles; the technology used to create them created modern missiles and rifles plain and simple. And there are more types of cannons than just black powder that are legal (even some missiles and rockets are legal). You also need to realize that the second amendment says nothing of 'firearm' it says arms this can pertain to cannons, guns, blades, rocks, ect. and potato cannons are only illegal per city ordinance.

 

The definition of a "destructive device" is found in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). The definition reads as follows:

 

(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, ( grenade, © rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device.

 

(2) Any weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter (.50 inches or 12.7mm), except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and

 

(3) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

 

The term destructive device shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned or given by the Secretary of the Army, pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of Title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

 

 

Before addressing the verbs “keep†and “bear,†we interpret their object: “Arms.†The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms†in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.†At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear†meant to “carry.†In numerous instances, “bear arms†was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state†again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms†was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms†also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight†or “to wage war.†But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,â€. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms†from the founding period either includes the preposition “against†or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms†that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms†connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms†would be incoherent. The word “Arms†would have two different meanings at once: “weapons†(as the object of “keepâ€) and (as the object of “bearâ€) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket†to mean “He filled the bucket and died.â€

 

Everything you are posting is wrong. Like seriously, last warning to get your high school level understanding of what's being discussed in this thread out of this part of the forums.

[Kigen]

You treat the government like it is an entity unto its own, however, every member is still an American citizen. Furthermore, they are elected citizens who represent their constituency so the notion that a single man's ideal is disarming the people is flawed to start with. They were elected because their constituency, the majority of the country, believes in what they believe. So while the world doesn't operate like computers or video games, the USA doesn't operate like North Korea or a dictatorship so comparing it to one isn't going to help your argument.

 

The mandate of militia was in fact carried out from its early inception to the present time, however they go by the name National Guard now. The earliest militias still required training, and most didn't own the guns they used.

 

Saying we shouldn't enforce the law because it won't work 100% of the time, as has been stated multiple times in this thread, simply doesn't make sense. Everyone speeds from time to time, there are rules against it but they still speed. Everyone doesn't speed 100% of the time because we enforce the speed limit with fines and police officers, and if you happen to injure / kill anyone in the process be charged with vehicular manslaughter. Again it doesn't keep people from speeding 100% of the time, but it helps to prevent it occurring all the time. The point of gun regulation isn't to stop people from getting murdered with guns every time, it is is to decrease the number of people who have access to guns and limit the ability for impulse purchases of guns to prevent some gun deaths. We don't function in a perfect world, there is no one answer to any problem, just because we can't fix the problem completely doesn't mean we don't do anything.

 

Please point out where I have ever said that this is a dictatorship. I'd love to see that. Just because we elect them doesn't mean they won't put laws we don't want on the books. Plus the two party system ensures that we only have two choices.

 

The 2nd Amendment covers militas and individuals. I've already cited the relevant Supreme Court rulings.

 

We don't live in a perfect world. Which is why I want to have defense against that.

[Papa John]

Please point out where I have ever said that this is a dictatorship. I'd love to see that. Just because we elect them doesn't mean they won't put laws we don't want on the books. Plus the two party system ensures that we only have two choices.

 

The 2nd Amendment covers militas and individuals. I've already cited the relevant Supreme Court rulings.

 

We don't live in a perfect world. Which is why I want to have defense against that.

 

Except you don't need a defense against the world because you live in a country and pay its taxes so that it will defend you. As far as the dictatorship, I believe you made your point clear about disarming the populous.

 

But I submit to you 2010.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Papa John

[Weeman]

But I submit to you 2010.

It's almost like all those people were killed with registered weapons. Thank god we have those numbers.

[^TheRumor^]

It's almost like all those people were killed with registered weapons. Thank god we have those numbers.

 

I have to register my weapons?

[Kigen]

Except you don't need a defense against the world because you live in a country and pay its taxes so that it will defend you. As far as the dictatorship, I believe you made your point clear about disarming the populous.

 

But I submit to you 2010.

 

Don't see how you feel that is a dictatorship.

 

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

 

The implement is not a cause of murder.

 

Also, I raise you violent crime rate from a country that BANS all guns. Even Canada has a higher violent crime rate than the United States.

 

http://www.dailymail...Africa-U-S.html

[Weeman]

I have to register my weapons?

not if you're in a city with strict gun laws like Chicago! Look at how well it works!

[Papa John]

@Weeman, a majority of the weapons brought into Chicago to commit those crimes has be brought in from out of the city. They can have all the laws they want, but if the neighboring cities don't enforce the laws, then it doesn't help the situation.

 

@Kigen Dictatorships are not genocides, and I was equating them to each other. I meant to suggest the USA is an authoritarian regime like you make it out to be by suggesting disarming the populous is for the government's benefit only.

 

Also I raise, raise, you the actual gun rates:

 

Also, unsure why, something to do with facebook is acting up on this thread only :/

Edited February 8, 2013 by Papa John

[Weeman]

@Weeman, a majority of the weapons brought into Chicago to commit those crimes has be brought in from out of the city. They can have all the laws they want, but if the neighboring cities don't enforce the laws, then it doesn't help the situation.

 

@Kigen Dictatorships are not genocides, and I was equating them to each other. I meant to suggest the USA is an authoritarian regime like you make it out to be by suggesting disarming the populous is for the government's benefit only.

 

Also I raise, raise, you the actual gun rates:

 

Also, unsure why, something to do with facebook is acting up on this thread only :/

 

okay good I thought I was going crazy with this facebook shit, also if these guns are coming from out of city and they are LEGAL they should be traceable. You're grouping gang violence with unregistered guns in the same category as homicide by law-abiding citizens with permits and registered guns. You show me THOSE numbers and we'll see just how many digits they have.

[Papa John]

okay good I thought I was going crazy with this facebook shit, also if these guns are coming from out of city and they are LEGAL they should be traceable. You're grouping gang violence with unregistered guns in the same category as homicide by law-abiding citizens with permits and registered guns. You show me THOSE numbers and we'll see just how many digits they have.

 

If you look into the type category, you can see they also classify the weapons which were used to kill without a official owner being known I believe. Gang violence is a very good point, and another reason why we should be doing as much as we can to prevent guns from getting into their hands.

[Weeman]

If you look into the type category, you can see they also classify the weapons which were used to kill without a official owner being known I believe. Gang violence is a very good point, and another reason why we should be doing as much as we can to prevent guns from getting into their hands.

I agree with you on that, we need to work on preventing them from getting into the wrong hands, but not everyone's hands. There was an excellent bit that John Stewart did where they literally found the reason why it's extremely hard to keep track of fire-arms. Some Congressman inserted a clause into an unrelavent bill that prevented the ATF from holding anyone accountable for their inventory or screening. coincidentally this guy had very, very strong connections with the NRA.

[Papa John]

I agree with you on that, we need to work on preventing them from getting into the wrong hands, but not everyone's hands. There was an excellent bit that John Stewart did where they literally found the reason why it's extremely hard to keep track of fire-arms. Some Congressman inserted a clause into an unrelavent bill that prevented the ATF from holding anyone accountable for their inventory or screening. coincidentally this guy had very, very strong connections with the NRA.

 

I used that somewhere in the mess of pages earlier, I personally believe we should go forward with banning specific types of weapons. But at nothing we need to make the process of obtaining, selling, and distributing guns more stricter. People shouldn't be able to impulse buy weapons is my major concern.

[Weeman]

I used that somewhere in the mess of pages earlier, I personally believe we should go forward with banning specific types of weapons. But at nothing we need to make the process of obtaining, selling, and distributing guns more stricter. People shouldn't be able to impulse buy weapons is my major concern.

 

My biggest argument against banning something is it won't do anything in this country, you can't just take away something from 340 million people. Didn't work with alcohol, isn't working with marijuana, and it's not going to work with rifles. You could however make it a requirement for people to complete an extensive and difficult training course on proper usage and screening. That solves both issues.

[^TheRumor^]

not if you're in a city with strict gun laws like Chicago! Look at how well it works!

I know, i was being facetious This is why i love living in the south.

[Iron Chef]

 

Great President. I'm also not a Democrat.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Iron Chef

[jajolt]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state' date=' the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote']

 

This is the 2nd amendment, I'm going to take it apart for you.

 

A well regulated militia

 

This means this is addressing militias and applies to militias and militaries ONLY

 

Being necessary to the security of a free state

You by owning a gun are not protecting the US. You are protecting yourself, but how does this imply that?

 

the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed

This is still in the same sentence. Subjects have not changed. "People" is addressing militants in militias that help serve the country.

 

Where does it say that YOU, someone not involved in an active militia (as far as I know) have a right to bear arms?

[Kigen]

If you want to break down the wording then Wikipedia will answer it for you.

 

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

 

The Supreme Court has already upheld that it is an individual right. The grey area is regulation.

 

p.s., When the Amendment was written milita basically meant all able-bodied men anyway, but look at the wording. Specifically "the right of the People."

[Iron Chef]

if you want people to understand your point, you should quote a specific things from the wikipedia page. Not just link us to whole thing...