A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

I'd favor technological solutions, but none seem forthcoming.For instance how about a national ballistics database? Or guns that won't fire except in their registered owners (or other registered shooters) hands?I'd support a 100% surcharge on guns to fund technological measures to reduce gun violence. I know that technology won't be perfect, but it usually works better than laws.The power to take a human life - and that is what guns represent - is an awesome responsibility. I don't think it's one you should be able to gain for less than $200. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people who want a gun to contribute substantially to a fund for technological gun safety measures.AbE: Just to clarify the kind of guns I'm talking about - I think any gun that can hold more than one round is not a hunting weapon. If you can't take your quarry down with the first shot, no subsequent shot is going to get it.Anything that'll hold more than one round is a weapon meant to kill/defend yourself from things that can attack you.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-01-2004 07:29 PM

Ok, well, let's take a look at the exact wording of the Second Amendment:

quote:

---

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.

---

So, while you're right that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, there's also a place for regulation. The amendment is very clear that weapons are to be regulated. Well, that's certainly contrary to how that's been interpreted for the last 200 years. For instance, in regards to the First Amendment, there's all sorts of restrictions that don't fall under "infringement", not the least of which is the classic example of yelling "Fire!" the the crowded movie theatre - or, more prosaically, the laws against slander and libel.Moreover, guns are an awesome responsibility. A poorly "aimed" word can hurt feelings or injure reputation. A poorly aimed gun takes a life. I don't think it's unreasonable, as I said, for folks who want to take on that responsibility to pay a certain price.

Are the majority of gun crimes premeditated or planned?How many legitimately-owned guns are involved in nonpremeditated shootings? Wouldn't the ballstic-fingerprint database help with those? I don't think anyone's offered it as a panacea, but as far as I can tell, it's a cheap aid to the investigation of certain crimes.

Well, if you want to play word games, that's fine, I guess. Gosh, I dunno. Maybe because those words have the same root? Huh, I wonder why my mind "locks" onto the concept of "swimming" when someone says the word "swam." Clearly, that's not correct. A well-regulated militia is one that is restrained by the law and by jurisprudence, to prevent a militia from becoming a rebel army. Mm-hm. You believe that the Framers felt that the way to ensure "the security of a free state" was to have unchecked paramilitary groups acting without regulation or oversight by any governing body?Your interpretation of the Second Amendment is lunacy, Verzem. I've never heard a more outrageous mistatement of constitutional law.

The meaning is clearly my interpretation - "a well-regulated militia" refers to a martial organization operating under civil law and control.If the Framers had meant it your way the Second Amendment would read "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to march in formation and participate in drills, shall not be infringed." It is. I can't carry it in public. Moreover, the Second Amendment says "arms", not "guns", so presumably it applies to all personal weapons.Moreover, it takes training to wield a sword correctly. Contrary to your view it's fairly hard to make a deep cut in a human without specific training in sword use.But anyone can pick up a gun and fire it at someone. They're almost foolproof. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, Custard. Weapons today have a killing potential not forseen by the Framers. In their day, a gun fired once every minute and a half. They were practically useless at short range unless equipped with a bayonet, but you couldn't put a bayonet on a musket.The idea that you could hose down a kindergarten classroom with a firearm simply wasn't a reality in their time. Guns represent a killing power that they simply couldn't forsee. It's not unreasonable to expect the Constitution to change with the times; indeed, that's the greatest innovation the Framers left us. But to say that the Constitution should apply even when circumstances change beyond the forseeable is stupid.If you disagree, maybe you should look at the first part of the Eighth Amendment.

It can't be that hard, or else gun deaths wouldn't be the fourth largest cause of accidental death in children ages 5 to 14.I've never heard of a child killing themselves with a sword. Well, we license drivers. Says you, but clearly society says different.

Look, I don't want to take away anybody's right to have a gun. Even whatever kind of gun they want. Assault rifles, high-powered sniper rifles, machine handguns.But if you're gonna buy a gun in my dream country, expect to pay a 200% gun surcharge to fund the program that goes through your background with a fine-toothed comb. Expect to lose the right to own a gun if you're convicted of a violent crime.Expect bullets to have individual serial numbers, and only be able to fire from the gun you register them for.You guys are telling me that it somehow diminishes all of us to try to save a few lives by keeping guns out of hands that shouldn't hold them by any reasonable standard?

Right, but they also have mandatory military service for adults.

Well, we can agree that the Framers weren't idiots, right?Since we can, I have a hard time believing that I know something they didn't - that the rebel army you're so certain would protect us from a tyrannical government can, in a free state, be a powerful force for tyranny.I mean, take a look at the milita groups we see today. While a large majority of them are just (as far as I can tell) folks who like to drill and wear camo, there's a pretty vocal minority that's not interested in personal freedom, they're interested in Christian theocracy. They want to prevent abortion and gay marriage, for instance, and they're not shy about using firearms to that end.At any rate, no civil uprising could protect us from today's mechanized army. If we were to fight the American Revolution again today it'd look more like the invasion of Iraq.The Second Amendment empowers us to do what is necessary for the security of a free state. Rebel groups don't serve that purpose, and the amendment clearly grants the ability to regulate militias and firearms. No one's saying "ban all guns" - you don't have to look farther than Japan's Tokugowa period to see how that works - but to try to style unlimited ownership of firearms for literally every person as the only way to preserve freedom is just ludicrous.

Sure. Why don't we interpret it in the way that's best for America, then?I don't think that an unchecked proliferation of firearms among people with no training or discipline in their use is good for America. You're free to disagree, I guess.

Sure. As well as extensive courses for adults who want firearms, too.

Well, I don't think that one class taken by folks in their childhood is enough to cover it. By the time most adults would get a gun, they've forgotten the class. I dunno. Do the Amish have to go to driver's ed?

In her defense, it's not her mind that's taking her there, it's the statistics - those guns are used primarily for the commission of crimes.

Well, let me ask you - will a light, unreliable, inaccurate, small-caliber handgun serve the purpose of protection? That seemed to be another one of Schraf's points - these cheap handguns are used mostly for crimes because they're not worth a damn for anything else.If it's the protection of person that you're concerned about, and these guns represent a net loss of life because they're used mostly for crimes, doesn't it save more lives to discourage their use or manufacture?

Not to mention that I can fend off a knife with nothing more than a jacket wrapped around my arm.