A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

Unfortunately this doesn't work. If the President signs an international agreement giving any of our rights away, the agreement is unconstitutional. So the matter of Constitutionality must come first.To my mind this involves coming to good definitions regarding modern weapons (which have reached well beyond the imaginations of our founding fathers) so they do not fall under the same category of "arms", or admitting that the 2nd amendment allows for this IMO absurdity and either allowing it to continue or amending the constitution. Agreed, the question to my mind is whether they were INCLUDED. Just because we invent something and say it is a weapon, does not mean it fits the same definition of "arms" used by people years ago.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes,This isn't directed only to you, but I don't think it is appropriate to compare roller coaster regulations and vehicle driving and licensing regulations to proposed gun regulations.We do not have Constututional rights to ride roller coasters and to own and operate auttomobiles. Therefore regulating these other things are very much within the Constitutional parameters.Verzem

I'm sorry 1.6, I honestly did not understand the point you were making.First it appears you were saying nukes and guns were not the same, and then that they are. It also seems to be suggesting that I think guns should be restricted (that is not my position).To my mind people have been lazy and not paying attention to how fast the nature of weapons has been changing. At this point there are weapons that go far beyond any conception of "arms" that our founding fathers might have had.I don't think the discussion should be based solely on theory, but on the practical aspects of each weapon. We know what "arms" were like back then and so have a blueprint for what was considered acceptable.Strategic weapons such as nukes and bio-chem weapons, are impractical for selfdefense and their very existence is hazardous (including to the person holding them). Thus their utility is low, and their danger (to the person as well as society) is high. In this case that would not fit under the same umbrella of "arms" that the FFs were discussing.And I want to make sure you understand. I am not talking just about "danger" in that it could kill someone if it went off. I am talking about the constant danger it poses to living beings around it. NBC weapons require sophisticated manufacture and storage techniques the average person just won't have.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hi Holmes, I agree with you.

First of all, my use of rollercoaster regulations was about how we could legalize yet regulate drugs... not guns.However I do think there is an arguable comparison between cars and guns.There is an argument to be made that at a certain level of automation and ease of use, where items can easily move beyond the control of a user and impact the lives of those around them, that training be required before ownership allowed.I have already mentioned before that Arms of that period required training to use, even to load. This is not the case anymore. So why not make sure that training is had before ownership of modern weapons is available. That does not infringe on your rights, but makes sure you are capable of handling those rights so you are not a danger to yourself or someone else.The FF's were certainly not for the ownership of weapons by slaves and indians. So they were able to distinguish between classes who could and could not have that right.And I am not particularly swayed by arguments which say that gun licenses are a way to register people with guns so they can be picked on in some way. We don't? Who made you a FF? There is a 9th amendment you know. Who knows what they would have said. Certainly ones rights to such things aren't precluded.But their regulation does make practical sense doesn't it? Personally I find the FF's to be rather practical people, and that was their genius. Thus I think if training and licensing for owners of modern weapons would be a practical solution to the extra risks such weapons pose, I tend to think they'd be for it.But I ain't an FF, so it's just us talking.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-14-2004 02:10 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, and sorry for chaining the cars and rollercoaster analogys together regarding your posts. I am with you 100% on the drugs issue. And it would appear, we share some common thoughts on the Second Amendment issue too.While I would maintain that some pretty formidible arms are probably included in the spirit of the Second Amendment, I certainly don't think we should own them.I agree that the Ninth Amendment paints with a pretty broad brush, but there are obviously some limits, wouldn't you agree?Verzem

quote:

---

The phrase free and readily available to anyone who wants them is a bit broad so I cannot answer it directly. Rollercoasters are pretty much free and readily available to anyone, but they still have restrictions and regulations.

---

Well, at Cedar Point, "The Roller Coaster Capitol of the World"(tm), it costs $48 per person to get into the park to ride the coasters, so it certainly isn't even close to free.Yes, roller coasters actually have a LOT of restrictions and regulations regarding their manufacture and use, and while it isn't illegal, I don't think, for people under a certain height to ride them, they do refuse people who do not reach a certain height from riding for their own safety, regardless of how much that little kid wants to ride.

quote:

---

If you envision bins of drugs like dried fruit at whole foods that anyone can dip into, well I wouldn't be afraid of that, but I think that would be a bit irresponsible.

---

Well, I'm not the one doing the envisioning, jar is.I thought that "free and readily available" was pretty clear. He wants no restrictions on drugs at all, as far as I can tell. I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, so disregard that if he has amended his stance.

quote:

---

On the flipside, do you believe that if allowed, most people would begin using mind altering substances (especially the harder kinds)?

---

Unknown.

quote:

---

If not, why do we need to provide legislation against possession and manufacture of drugs?

---

I don't know, but that's not what I'm arguing against.I am arguing against the idea that all illegal drugs should be free and readily available to anyone who wants them.You know, like the free samples at the grocery store.

quote:

---

Why would regulation in the manner I have described not be just as effective?

---

Like I said, I'm not arguing against an end to the drug war and the regulation of drugs. I like the idea of regulation and ending the long prison terms for posession, especially.I am challenging the idea that all illegal drugs (including those that are legal but restricted) be free and readily available to anyone who wants them.

I have a hard time believing jar means this, and your position sounded a bit tougher than blocking just this possibility.But I'll let jar make the next move on defining his position, and take you at your word you are for legalization (with some measure of regulation) of drugs.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I have a hard time believing jar means this, and your position sounded a bit tougher than blocking just this possibility.

---

well, yeah, I had a tough time believing it too, which is why I kinda said "say what?" to him about it.

quote:

---

But I'll let jar make the next move on defining his position, and take you at your word you are for legalization (with some measure of regulation) of drugs.

---

I think that moving towards legalization with regulation is a good idea in general.

I'd leave prescription drugs available by prescription only. That is primarily an economic decision unless we change the whole medical supply field (which I would also favor by the way).All of the current illicit drugs I would like to see made free and legal. That would include maryjane, heroine, coke, crack, pcp and the like. I would like to see the distribution set up throuogh a health care network. Hopefully this could be used to fund a muchly improved system for the very people that need the help the most.But like I said earlier, this might be better as a seperate thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

To my mind this involves coming to good definitions regarding modern weapons (which have reached well beyond the imaginations of our founding fathers) so they do not fall under the same category of "arms", or admitting that the 2nd amendment allows for this IMO absurdity and either allowing it to continue or amending the constitution.

---

We may not even need new definitions or amendments. I think that when it comes to WMDs it is pretty clear then that even if they do fall under the category of "arms" it doesn't give the people a right to own them. I think it would be easy to argue that the country has a compelling interest in keeping these things tightly regulated, since any of these WMDs could really do long term damage to an area and kill thousands of people at a time.It is much like the freedom of speech, you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Even though the first amendment gives you the right to say what you want the state has an overriding interest in preventing stampedes.The bottom line for me is that with the current constitution WMDs are out, and I'm sure the SCOTUS would agree.

schrafinator,I finally found the time to investigate the site you provided the link for and I must say that it isn't as unbiased as you seemed to have thought. In particular, the number for homicide was not broken down so we can know how many of those were justifiable. I have no idea of what that might result in, but would it surpprise you if the 12k fugure was reduced to only 6k when the figures are reported accurately instead of mis-used as badly as the Sara Brady site?It also did not go unnoticed by me that they found room to give a negative opinion of our Second Amendment rights. How can you say the site is unbiased?For what I think is an unbiased site try this one:Page not found – FirearmsAndLiberty.comOnly the very last sentence might be even remotely considered editoralizing, but I think it is just factual reporting. Notice that the site has no fear in showing that "other weapons" are used very successfully for defensive purposes. It has no bent for trying to say that guns are some kind of "cure-all" for self-defense.But one thing we can all happily agree on is that whether it is from your sites or mine, we have proven that gun violence has been steadily decreasing since 1993. This means that what we have been doing has been working. Perhaps this extrapolates to the idea that we don't need any more new gun laws.But what have we been doing that has caused these results? One can only guess. I make note of the fact that since around that time, more and more states have been passing concealed carry laws. Hmmmm??? Do you suppose there could be a correlation?Personally, I think there is a direct correlation. I think it is very true that Joe Criminal is much more unlikely to commit crimes against persons if he starts thinking that there is a good chance that the potential victim might be packing. And look at the spillover benefit the unarmed public gets to enjoy from the responsible citizens who care enough to arm themselves and put themselves in a position to be able to defend themselves or come to the aid of a fellow citizen.Verzem

Now that I am living in a country where this is almost the case for some of the above drugs, I have to say its not that bad an option. However, I think it has to make some sense to combine it with bringing down their habits, and not have a public-funded "amusement park".I also would not put marijuana on that list. It needs about as much regulation as alcohol.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Of course, what you are talking about is having an interpretation which sets a standard (in this case by the SC).The problem is that if we don't take concrete measures now, this same problem can keep coming up in the future. In other words we are setting a bad example of not dealing with issues by avoiding the creation of forward thinking mechanisms.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

But one thing we can all happily agree on is that whether it is from your sites or mine, we have proven that gun violence has been steadily decreasing since 1993. This means that what we have been doing has been working. Perhaps this extrapolates to the idea that we don't need any more new gun laws.

​

But what have we been doing that has caused these results? One can only guess. I make note of the fact that since around that time, more and more states have been passing concealed carry laws. Hmmmm??? Do you suppose there could be a correlation?

---

Well, I found a really good overview of the research on the effects of concealed weapons laws. Basically, the results are inconclusive. Some studies show homicide rates decreasing, some show them increasing, and some show no change.http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf