The right to bear arms
Replies
-
For what it's worth, the Virginia ratifying convention (at which Patrick Henry voted no and Madison voted yes), recommended amendments to the Constitution, including the following:
"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. "
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june27.html0 -
Do you seriously think that your guns are going to stop the American govt should they decide to initiate a dictatorship? SERIOUSLY?
So I should just sell them all, and quietly lay down and die in the event a dictatorship is initiated?
I think I'll keep my stuff, thanks.0 -
Do you seriously think that your guns are going to stop the American govt should they decide to initiate a dictatorship? SERIOUSLY?
So I should just sell them all, and quietly lay down and die in the event a dictatorship is initiated?
I think I'll keep my stuff, thanks.
I heard an interesting argument once, it was regarding the nations in the world that could never be unwillingly conquered without completely wiping them out. China and India, because there aren't enough bullets in the world (I'm kidding obviously, but massive population was the reason). North Korea, cause those folks are crazy (not really kidding anymore). Russia, because at this point people should freaking know better. I'm being sarcastic about the reasoning for those four as it was actually an intelligent debate (it was just so long ago that I don't recall the specifics) but I recall word for word the argument behind why the US made the list.
"Because of all those freaking rednecks with their tornado shelters and ammo stockpiles."
There is merit to resisting even seemingly insurmountable odds, and I don't think that should be infringed upon. That includes maintaining the possibility of forming a militia and protecting yourself and your family in scenarios where the government cannot.
At the start of the revolutionary war Mass was the first colony to secede. There was a period where it was MA vs UK. Do you SERIOUSLY think they could have won that fight? And look at the result, now I get to go to work at my company (whose HQ is in London) and point and laugh at people for the entire month of July.0 -
There will not be a firearm BAN in the U.S. so guns are something we have to live with. How do we prevent a shooter from making our schools the next headline? As a parent with children in elementary and middle schools I would feel like my schools were safer if there were updates to security and if they had armed security on site during school hours. Nothing they are discussing in Washington would have the same effect as having an armed security guard on site.
Except Columbine had an armed guard. He did his job and got kids out safely.
Same as Fort Bragg. That specific room did not have armed guards but schools wouldn't either.
It's why harm minimization is the best option. Better mental Health care. Less access to guns.
It won't fix the problem but it goes a long way towards stopping it.0 -
Do you seriously think that your guns are going to stop the American govt should they decide to initiate a dictatorship? SERIOUSLY?
So I should just sell them all, and quietly lay down and die in the event a dictatorship is initiated?
I think I'll keep my stuff, thanks.
exactly.
and fwiw, citizens have been out-manned and out-gunned and fought back throughout history. the fact that the government has bigger guns isn't valid.0 -
Except Columbine had an armed guard. He did his job and got kids out safely.
then he saved lives. I'd say his presence was a good thing.
Same as Fort Bragg. That specific room did not have armed guards but schools wouldn't either.
military bases are like their own little city. and no one on base is allowed to carry a sidearm unless they are an MP. so that one really doesn't make the cut.0 -
then he saved lives. I'd say his presence was a good thing.
I agree with that. But what difference did having an armed guard on campus make? Any adult could have done the same job. It didn't deter the two boys from shooting up the school. The armed guard wasn't able to stop them. (And no I'm not criticizing him at all. He did the right thing)military bases are like their own little city. and no one on base is allowed to carry a sidearm unless they are an MP. so that one really doesn't make the cut.
Where were the MPs then? Why didn't their presence stop the shooter? Why couldn't they stop the shooter?
The whole argument of having armed guards is two points. One the mere presence will stop the shooter from going into the school or that the armed guard will stop the shooter once it starts.
The two cases I bring up show that this isn't true. They bob had armed personnel on site and the shootings still happened. Thy disk stop the shooters until many lives were lost.
Why not make it much harder for people to have these type of machines? Why not get the mentally ill the help they need? Prevention is always better than cure.0 -
then he saved lives. I'd say his presence was a good thing.
I agree with that. But what difference did having an armed guard on campus make? Any adult could have done the same job. It didn't deter the two boys from shooting up the school. The armed guard wasn't able to stop them. (And no I'm not criticizing him at all. He did the right thing)
is it better to have an armed guard that might be able to put an end to a shooting there, or is it better no one is there? if that man isn't there, do more kids die?military bases are like their own little city. and no one on base is allowed to carry a sidearm unless they are an MP. so that one really doesn't make the cut.
Where were the MPs then? Why didn't their presence stop the shooter? Why couldn't they stop the shooter?
the MPs are cops. so the answer is that the shooter isn't deterred for the same reason any shooter isn't deterred by cops in civilian life.
were the MPs 'on-site?' well, yeah. the same way that police are on-site in their city.0 -
is it better to have an armed guard that might be able to put an end to a shooting there, or is it better no one is there? if that man isn't there, do more kids die?
No, because there is no evidence that they stop kids dying. As pointed out they haven't stopped it before why in the future?
And a better way of insuring less kids did is making it harder to get weapons and making it harder to shoot lots of bullets quickly.0 -
No, because there is no evidence that they stop kids dying. As pointed out they haven't stopped it before why in the future?
And a better way of insuring less kids did is making it harder to get weapons and making it harder to shoot lots of bullets quickly.
And you've provided no evidence that outlawing firearms will stop them either. You gave an example of a country where crime statistics went down after firearms regulation. I can give a counter-example where things got much, MUCH worse: Brazil.
I like the idea of armed security in schools, however I think of current locations with such things in place. It usually goes to retired law enforcement, older folks looking for something a bit easier to use as a steady paycheck until or after retirement. I think it will help, particularly in preventing lesser crimes on or around schools, but I don't think the expectation should be for that person to save the day (we certainly can't afford to pay enough for the quality security one would need to realistically have such expectations). I think that in the same way schools have fire, bomb, earthquake, tornado, etc drills, that they should have and practice plans for events like this. In the cold war, measures were put in place in the event of a nuclear strike. They wouldn't do much good, of course, but it was a practiced plan of action. We need such things in our schools.
Current gun regulations should be made uniform across the US, and enforced more effectively. That will like mean a slight decrease in regulation in some of the more strict states, and a slight increase in some of the more lax ones. Getting the current laws working effectively is far more important than saying 'that gun looks big and scary, lets outlaw it!' I think extensive background checks should be performed prior to the sale of a firearm. I think that all firearm sales, even ones at gun shows or private transactions, should be strictly monitored. I think mental health screenings should be performed across the board in schools and that the results should be kept on file. I think that such screenings should be a part of the basic health checkup protocol and covered by insurance. I think that treatment for mental health conditions should likewise be covered by insurance, and that research into treatment should be properly subsidized by the government. I think measures should be considered to improve the safety of stored personal firearms, such as subsidies of gun locks and safes and a requirement that persons owning more than a certain number of weapons be required to show proof of purchase of such safety devices.
I would be in support of all such measures being put into place, but simply saying 'lets outlaw this whole class of weapons' or 'lets make bullets exorbitantly expensive' (which by the way would just mean that legal owners wouldn't have an opportunity to actually practice firing any of their weapons, leaving many more gun owners in the country poorly trained to use their weapon) is a cop out. It's like the folks who went after violent video games in the wake of the tragedies of that time period.0 -
Current gun regulations should be made uniform across the US, and enforced more effectively. That will like mean a slight decrease in regulation in some of the more strict states, and a slight increase in some of the more lax ones. Getting the current laws working effectively is far more important than saying 'that gun looks big and scary, lets outlaw it!' I think extensive background checks should be performed prior to the sale of a firearm. I think that all firearm sales, even ones at gun shows or private transactions, should be strictly monitored. I think mental health screenings should be performed across the board in schools and that the results should be kept on file. I think that such screenings should be a part of the basic health checkup protocol and covered by insurance. I think that treatment for mental health conditions should likewise be covered by insurance, and that research into treatment should be properly subsidized by the government. I think measures should be considered to improve the safety of stored personal firearms, such as subsidies of gun locks and safes and a requirement that persons owning more than a certain number of weapons be required to show proof of purchase of such safety devices.
I would be in support of all such measures being put into place, but simply saying 'lets outlaw this whole class of weapons' or 'lets make bullets exorbitantly expensive' (which by the way would just mean that legal owners wouldn't have an opportunity to actually practice firing any of their weapons, leaving many more gun owners in the country poorly trained to use their weapon) is a cop out. It's like the folks who went after violent video games in the wake of the tragedies of that time period.
........ That's exactly what Obama has just proposed.
The limits on guns are going through Congress.0 -
........ That's exactly what Obama has just proposed.
The limits on guns are going through Congress.
No it's not.
I agree with some of the measures in Obama's proposal, not all of them.0 -
What’s in Obama’s Gun Control Proposal
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html
The initiative to reduce gun violence announced by President Obama on Wednesday includes both legislative proposals that would need to be acted on by Congress and executive actions he can do on his own. Many of the executive actions involve the president directing agencies to do a better job of sharing information.
Proposed Congressional Actions
* Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
* Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
* Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
* Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
* Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
* Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
* Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
* Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
* Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
* Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
* Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
* Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.
Executive actions
* Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
* Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
* Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
* Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
* Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
* Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
* Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
* Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
* Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
* Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
* Nominating an A.T.F. director.
* Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.
* Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
* Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
* Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
* Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
* Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
* Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
* Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
* Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
* Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
* Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
* Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.0 -
What’s in Obama’s Gun Control Proposal
Proposed Congressional Actions
1. Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
2. Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
3. Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
4. Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
5. Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
My thoughts on these five.
1. Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
This one is immensely popular and would probably have some impact on gun violence. It will not pass Congress because too many members need to have a 100% NRA rating and retaining the so-called gun-show-loophole is a prime goal of the NRA. I'm for this.
2. Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
Not gonna happen. Wouldn't have much effect on gun violence. I don't care one way or the other.
3. Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
I don't know the statistics well enough to say whether this would have any measurable impact. May have some positive effect on high publicity cases like Virgina Tech or Sandy Hook, but probably not on the vast vast majority of gun crimes. Seems reasonable to me and I support it, but I don't think it has a snowballs chance of passing Congress.
4. Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
I'm for it. I don't know what the NRA's position on this is. If they don't put it on their score card, it may pass Congress.
5. Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
Not sure how anyone could argue against this. Again, passage depends on whether the NRA puts it on their scorecard.0 -
.0
-
is it better to have an armed guard that might be able to put an end to a shooting there, or is it better no one is there? if that man isn't there, do more kids die?
No, because there is no evidence that they stop kids dying. As pointed out they haven't stopped it before why in the future?
And a better way of insuring less kids did is making it harder to get weapons and making it harder to shoot lots of bullets quickly.
is there evidence that their presence kills more kids? if not, then why not run with it? if they don't hurt, and can possibly help, what is the objection?0 -
is there evidence that their presence kills more kids? if not, then why not run with it? if they don't hurt, and can possibly help, what is the objection?
Because who's paying for this? If there was an actual benefit to it, I would support it. But there is none. (Ill also point out Virginia Tech has its own police force) It's a collosal waste of money for no gain.0 -
of course tech had a police force. every college campus more than likely does. but, again, the campus is huge. not as big as a military base, of course, but still large. so response time must be considered. schools are a single building.
how do you know there is no benefit? how many shootings simply haven't happened because the potential shooter knows an armed guard is in the building? we don't know. but it may have happened. and I'm willing to pay $10 more a year on taxes to help keep kids safer. maybe I'm just crazy that way.
but, you're right. even if it might help, it would cost money. we should probably forget about it then.0 -
Great game you got going. Any solution that involves restrictions on guns, you're against because there is no evidence it will help. But you're more than willing to spend tax money on non-gun-control measures, none of which have any evidence supporting them either.0
-
Minimum wage armed guards in the schools. What could go wrong?A gun was left in the bathroom of a Michigan public school by an armed guard paid to protect it, according to the school’s director. The Chatfield School, a charter school that teaches K-8 students, hired a retired police weapons instructor to provide armed protection after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary. The result wasn’t exactly what they intended:
The security officer “made a breach in security protocol” and left an unloaded weapon in a restroom “for a few moments,” said Chatfield School Director Matt Young.
Young said the school has been in contact with local authorities about the matter and wouldn’t discuss any possible repercussion for the officer, calling it “a personnel matter.” Young also declined to name the security officer.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/18/1469231/armed-school-guard-leaves-gun-in-student-bathroom0 -
Great game you got going. Any solution that involves restrictions on guns, you're against because there is no evidence it will help. But you're more than willing to spend tax money on non-gun-control measures, none of which have any evidence supporting them either.
I'm not against reasonable restrictions. but I'm also aware that when it comes to gun violence, they aren't going to do very much, if anything. so I'm much more interested in finding things that will.0 -
Minimum wage armed guards in the schools. What could go wrong?A gun was left in the bathroom of a Michigan public school by an armed guard paid to protect it, according to the school’s director. The Chatfield School, a charter school that teaches K-8 students, hired a retired police weapons instructor to provide armed protection after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary. The result wasn’t exactly what they intended:
The security officer “made a breach in security protocol” and left an unloaded weapon in a restroom “for a few moments,” said Chatfield School Director Matt Young.
Young said the school has been in contact with local authorities about the matter and wouldn’t discuss any possible repercussion for the officer, calling it “a personnel matter.” Young also declined to name the security officer.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/18/1469231/armed-school-guard-leaves-gun-in-student-bathroom
wait ... you mean to tell me that there are stupid people walking around?
(and at least it was unloaded. so he's only partially stupid.)0 -
The problem with this national debate is neither side wants to compromise at all. The gun lobby and pro gun people don't want to add any regulation and the anti gun people refuse to admit legal gun ownership can be part of the solution.No, because there is no evidence that they stop kids dying. As pointed out they haven't stopped it before why in the future?
Here is my original statement.As a parent with children in elementary and middle schools I would feel like my schools were safer if there were updates to security and if they had armed security on site during school hours.
You cannot just throw an armed guard in a school and expect the problem solved. Security processes need to be updated and followed. If you still think an armed guard with proper security processes would not make a huge difference then lets just remove all the security from courthouses, airports, etc. Clearly there is no reason to spend taxpayer dollars on that.
This article from the Washington Post is interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/21/security-guards-in-school-scared-students-unclear-effect-on-crime/It’s still unclear what effect armed guards would have on school shootings or other types of violence. It seems intuitive that having better security at school would stop shootings, but there isn’t a lot of good research on this. One 2009 study found that schools with “resource officers” — security officials, though not necessarily armed — did report less criminal activity. But the authors lamented that there’s little evidence on the effectiveness of security measures like surveillance cameras, metal detectors, or armed guards.
Coming to a conclusion without research seems backwards to me. There is little evidence of effectiveness but there hasn't been much research... what?And what about mass shootings? It’s worth noting that Columbine High School had an armed “community resource officer” on duty the day that two students shot 12 of their peers and one teacher. So armed security guards can’t stop every death. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that the same can be said about some of the gun-control legislation being discussed right now — the federal assault weapons ban was also in effect during Columbine, after all.
So we are ok adding more regulation when there is no proof it will stop the problem but we are not willing to add armed security? Why not both?
Now I am going to add another angle... Conceal Carry laws... I generally do not like to link articles written by the right so I will also link the original study and you can come to your own conclusions.
http://news.yahoo.com/know-stop-school-shootings-003203357.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.0 -
The problem with this national debate is neither side wants to compromise at all. The gun lobby and pro gun people don't want to add any regulation and the anti gun people refuse to admit legal gun ownership can be part of the solution.
My perception is completely different. I don't see anyone attacking all private gun ownership.0 -
.Coming to a conclusion without research seems backwards to me. There is little evidence of effectiveness but there hasn't been much research... what?
One reason there is so little evidence is that one side of the debate has been afraid of what research would show . . . so they prohibited research.Gun control 101: Why is Obama pushing for new gun research?
A key part of President Obama's plan to rein in gun violence is his push to kick-start fresh gun-control-related research by federal agencies. Republicans have blocked such research in the past.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0119/Gun-control-101-Why-is-Obama-pushing-for-new-gun-research0 -
That's the reason I don't really care about the so-called assault weapon ban. I'd guess the numbers for suicides are even more skewed to handguns.
My guess is that the assault weapon ban will die, in exchange for universal background checks.0 -
I live in Maryland. Some of these people are armed to the teeth. Their assault rifles are for leisure. Using them against a deer will damage the meat according to them. Whether you ban assault rifles or not, people will still find a way to get their hands on them and use them. I have to agree with treetop and say back ground checks and wait lists would be a better preventer IMO.0
-
back ground checks and wait lists would be a better preventer IMO.
Isn't that already in place for most people, though? I only say that because for some reason...my boyfriend has only had to wait to receive a weapon 1 time, and that was from a pawn shop. Otherwise, he gets it within a short amount of time it takes them to pull up his record and do the check, which costs $5.0 -
Numbers are hard to come by (in part because people afraid of the truth have outlawed research), but an estimated 40% of guns are bought in "private sales" that require no background check and no waiting period.
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/the-gun-show-loophole-puts-guns-in-wrong-hands_2013-01-09.html0 -
Numbers are hard to come by (in part because people afraid of the truth have outlawed research), but an estimated 40% of guns are bought in "private sales" that require no background check and no waiting period.
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/the-gun-show-loophole-puts-guns-in-wrong-hands_2013-01-09.html
Where did you get that figure from? The article quotes no sources.0
