Does Gun Control Prevent Gun Crime?

[vern_humphrey]

Drafdog said,

“Yes, these are extreme examples. The point is that we have gun control; it is a good idea to have gun control; we will continue to have gun control. Bear in mind the wording of the constitution does not guarantee the right to own firearms. It says “to keep and bear;” it does not say “own.” And it says “arms,” not “firearms.” The government can define what constitutes an arm protected under the second amendment.”

From where in the wide world of sports did you pull that interpretation? I don’t think that even the goofiest liberal would argue that the Consitution said anything of the sort. You are stretching the point to it’s absolute limits if you see that.

We have Freedom of the Press and of Speech. I suppose according to his reasoning the government can censor radio and television all they want?

 

[mary_bobo]

Drafdog said,

“Yes, these are extreme examples. The point is that we have gun control; it is a good idea to have gun control; we will continue to have gun control. Bear in mind the wording of the constitution does not guarantee the right to own firearms. It says “to keep and bear;” it does not say “own.” And it says “arms,” not “firearms.” The government can define what constitutes an arm protected under the second amendment.”

From where in the wide world of sports did you pull that interpretation? I don’t think that even the goofiest liberal would argue that the Consitution said anything of the sort. You are stretching the point to it’s absolute limits if you see that.

The wide world of the Federalist Papers.

 

[Silence_DoGood]

I just wonder how one is supposed to fulfill one’s duty without a gun? If guns are only supposed to be with the militia, how is one supposed to throw off the Government?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Gun control prevents law abiding citizens with defending themselves against criminals who do not follow laws in the first place. It also would make it impossible for US citizens to fulfill their right and their duty.

Man’s inherent right of revolution is a natural right; the Constitution guarantees civil rights.

The fundamental duty of the free citizen is to consent to be governed.

…To conclude, The Power that every individual gave to Society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the Individuals again, as long as the Society lasts, but will always remain in the Community; because without this, there can be no community, no Common-wealth, . . . (John Locke) The Second Treatise

…"…It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws…

…The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws… "(John Adams)

 

[drafdog]

Hosemonkey seems to think that I’m stretching it to say that the government can define what constitutes an arm for the purposes of the second amendment. If the government does not so define, what are permits for concealed weapons? What are bans on ownership of explosive devises (hand grenades, etc.)? These are examples of weapons which are not protected under the amendment. I’m also forbidden to have nuclear weapons, missiles, field artillery, mobile artillery (tanks), etc.

I can’t carry a rapier on the street without special permission, although the government may not pass laws to abridge my right to keep and bear arms. Is there not a contradiction there? Clearly we have already accepted the state’s right to define what is covered under the constitution. I haven’t stretched anything.

The only question yet remaining is to what extent they will limit what is guaranteed under that amendment. Interpretations change with the times. Remember that the whole constitution must be considered including something that says “to ensure domestic tranquility.” When the legislature or the courts decide that private ownership of arms no longer promotes domestic tranquility, the constitution will be changed. It is not a question of if but of when.

Matthew

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hosemonkey seems to think that I’m stretching it to say that the government can define what constitutes an arm for the purposes of the second amendment. If the government does not so define, what are permits for concealed weapons? What are bans on ownership of explosive devises (hand grenades, etc.)? These are examples of weapons which are not protected under the amendment. I’m also forbidden to have nuclear weapons, missiles, field artillery, mobile artillery (tanks), etc.

I can’t carry a rapier on the street without special permission, although the government may not pass laws to abridge my right to keep and bear arms. Is there not a contradiction there? Clearly we have already accepted the state’s right to define what is covered under the constitution. I haven’t stretched anything.

The only question yet remaining is to what extent they will limit what is guaranteed under that amendment. Interpretations change with the times. Remember that the whole constitution must be considered including something that says “to ensure domestic tranquility.” When the legislature or the courts decide that private ownership of arms no longer promotes domestic tranquility, the constitution will be changed. It is not a question of if but of when.

Matthew

The fact that the government does it doesn’t make it either constitutional or right.

After all, the government allows the most helpless and innocent amongst us to be killed with impunity.

 

[drafdog]

After all, the government allows the most helpless and innocent amongst us to be killed with impunity.

Yes, Vern, that’s true. We call it voluntary military service. It’s very patriotic. Perhaps we should address gun crime as exemplified in the unbridled use of political power.

Matthew

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, Vern, that’s true. We call it voluntary military service. It’s very patriotic. Perhaps we should address gun crime as exemplified in the unbridled use of political power.

Matthew

I find it ironic that people who never did a thing to earn their liberties use those same liberties to attack the people who actually did earn them.

 

[MariaG]

I find it ironic that people who never did a thing to earn their liberties use those same liberties to attack the people who actually did earn them.

I saw a great episode of Gene Simmons, “Family Jewels”. His daughter had to write a paper on how it felt to be part of the military. Being him with lots of money, he arranged for his daughter to experience a day of boot camp in San Diego.

He also went with his daughter to visit all the Vets, young and old to talk to them and thank them for their sacrifice.

The best part of it was when he was talking to a young guy, asking him why he did what he did, the young soldier said, " I signed up to protect our freedoms so my family and friends didn’t have to."

It is a shame that some people don’t understand this. Someone has to fight for our freedoms. And I thank God that there are people willing to do so, so I have the right to speak my mind, and yes, to Bear arms.

I know as a mother I would be incredibly scared if any of my 3 boys ever decided to be in the armed services, (or firemen like dad or policemen like at least one talks about), but I would also know that I have done a good job of raising my children to realize that we have to protect people and our freedoms.

Thank God there are brave men and women who are willing to fight for the freedoms me and my family enjoy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I saw a great episode of Gene Simmons, “Family Jewels”. His daughter had to write a paper on how it felt to be part of the military. Being him with lots of money, he arranged for his daughter to experience a day of boot camp in San Diego.

He also went with his daughter to visit all the Vets, young and old to talk to them and thank them for their sacrifice.

The best part of it was when he was talking to a young guy, asking him why he did what he did, the young soldier said, " I signed up to protect our freedoms so my family and friends didn’t have to."

It is a shame that some people don’t understand this. Someone has to fight for our freedoms. And I thank God that there are people willing to do so, so I have the right to speak my mind, and yes, to Bear arms.

I know as a mother I would be incredibly scared if any of my 3 boys ever decided to be in the armed services, (or firemen like dad or policemen like at least one talks about), but I would also know that I have done a good job of raising my children to realize that we have to protect people and our freedoms.

Thank God there are brave men and women who are willing to fight for the freedoms me and my family enjoy.

If all of us are to remain free, some of us must stand in the bearna boghail.

 

[MariaG]

If all of us are to remain free, some of us must stand in the bearna boghail.

What is this a reference to?

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is this a reference to?

It’s Irish (someone may correct my spelling) and may be translated as “the gap of danger” or to preserve the alliteration, “the grim gap of death.”

 

[MariaG]

It’s Irish (someone may correct my spelling) and may be translated as “the gap of danger” or to preserve the alliteration, “the grim gap of death.”

Oh. Thanks. And how very appropriate I figured it was but really had absolutely no idea what it meant:shrug:

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh. Thanks. And how very appropriate I figured it was but really had absolutely no idea what it meant:shrug:

“The Irish move to the sound of the guns
As the salmon move to the sea.”

Rudyard Kipling.

 

[melensdad]

With regards to the topic (at least sort of) there seems to be some connection between the 9/11 attacks and gun owners and terrorists. Or so says PBS. Here is a link to page where teachers can get a classroom “lesson plan” to teach students about “gun control.”

pbs.org/now/classroom/gun.html

Here is an except, stated as FACTUAL, that I have not seen before, specifically the portion in** red **type:

Gun control has become a primary political issue in the United States, largely as a result of growing violence in the nation. While new laws exist to control the purchase of illegal firearms, there remains an ongoing debate regarding the extent and constitutionality of these laws. This debate has become more heated in the aftermath of 9/11 as terrorist factions have seemingly found loopholes in gun control laws, enabling them to purchase and stockpile weapons.
​

I’ve not heard or seen ANY news reports about terrorists on US soil that have been stockpiling weapons. What did I miss?

 

[vern_humphrey]

With regards to the topic (at least sort of) there seems to be some connection between the 9/11 attacks and gun owners and terrorists. Or so says PBS. Here is a link to page where teachers can get a classroom “lesson plan” to teach students about “gun control.”

pbs.org/now/classroom/gun.html

Here is an except, stated as FACTUAL, that I have not seen before, specifically the portion in** red **type:

Gun control has become a primary political issue in the United States, largely as a result of growing violence in the nation. While new laws exist to control the purchase of illegal firearms, there remains an ongoing debate regarding the extent and constitutionality of these laws. This debate has become more heated in the aftermath of 9/11 as terrorist factions have seemingly found loopholes in gun control laws, enabling them to purchase and stockpile weapons.
​

I’ve not heard or seen ANY news reports about terrorists on US soil that have been stockpiling weapons. What did I miss?

You missed being misled by the media.

But if the terrorists are arming, it behooves the rest of us to be armed, too.

 

[hosemonkey]

With regards to the topic (at least sort of) there seems to be some connection between the 9/11 attacks and gun owners and terrorists. Or so says PBS. Here is a link to page where teachers can get a classroom “lesson plan” to teach students about “gun control.”

pbs.org/now/classroom/gun.html

Here is an except, stated as FACTUAL, that I have not seen before, specifically the portion in** red **type:

Gun control has become a primary political issue in the United States, largely as a result of growing violence in the nation. While new laws exist to control the purchase of illegal firearms, there remains an ongoing debate regarding the extent and constitutionality of these laws. This debate has become more heated in the aftermath of 9/11 as terrorist factions have seemingly found loopholes in gun control laws, enabling them to purchase and stockpile weapons.
​

I’ve not heard or seen ANY news reports about terrorists on US soil that have been stockpiling weapons. What did I miss?

What you missed was the blatant anti-gun, lefty slant that PBS puts on almost everything that they do. Public radio is just as bad.

 

[rtconstant]

Back around the end of the 19th Century, the Moro Juramentados tried that. While the M1892 .38 Colt wasn’t up to the job, the .45 Single Action Army certainly trumped a bolo kiife.

I believe you’re speaking of the 1911 which even to this day is one of the finest hand guns ever designed.

As to the article about Terrorists arming themselves with loopholes in the gun laws. I think some people are missing the point that a man who is willing to murder dozens/hundreds/thousands of people isn’t going to care about whether his guns are legal or no. Remember murder is a rather clearly marked crime that can carry the death penalty and yet people do it all the time. A criminal doesn’t care about laws. It is infact what defines them.

I mean Europe has pretty strict gun laws yet they have worse terrorist problems than the States.

 

[marybee]

The first thing Hitler did was take away people’s defense!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I believe you’re speaking of the 1911 which even to this day is one of the finest hand guns ever designed.

No – the old Colt Single Action Army was re-issued. The experince led the Army to investigate pistol effectiveness – the Thompson-LaGarde board performed some rather grisly experiments which confired the effectiveness of larger calibers.

The Army finally ran out of SAAs in 1909, and adopted the .45 caliber Colt New Service revolver as the Model of 1909 – while continuing work to find an automatic pistol (the .45 ACP cartridge had been adopted in 1904 as the standard to be used in the new automatics – when one should be adopted.)

The M1911 – whoich I agree is the finest fighting pistol ever designed) was adopted in 1911, first issued in 1912, and got its baptism of fire at the Battle of Bag Sak Mountain in the Phillippines in 1913.

As to the article about Terrorists arming themselves with loopholes in the gun laws. I think some people are missing the point that a man who is willing to murder dozens/hundreds/thousands of people isn’t going to care about whether his guns are legal or no. Remember murder is a rather clearly marked crime that can carry the death penalty and yet people do it all the time. A criminal doesn’t care about laws. It is infact what defines them.

And no firearms were used either on 9/11 or in the original World Trade Center bombing almost a decade earlier.

I mean Europe has pretty strict gun laws yet they have worse terrorist problems than the States.

Yep – if there are wolves amongst us, it behooves us not to be sheep.

 

[hosemonkey]

Amen! The day that government, State or Federal, comes to disarm us is the day that I become an outlaw and a rebel.