zimmerman shoots martin

[jazz oud]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

The vast majority of shootings, by far, are by people carrying on criminal activities, and I dare say they are not carrying guns legally.

I would like to see some evidence for this claim. From what I've seen reported, while criminals may not be "carrying" their guns legally, in the sense that they are not abiding by the local laws regarding carrying a weapon, there are a very large number of them carrying guns that were obtained legally.
A big part of this is lax laws regarding gun shows and private resale, as well as lax laws in certain states (resulting in those states being a breeding ground for gun traffickers).

It is easier in the US for a convicted felon to regain the right to carry a firearm than it is for them to regain the right to vote. Without a doubt, a very large number of criminal acts are being committed with legally purchased weapons.

I've never seen anyone present a shred of evidence for the "criminals get their guns illegally anyway" canard. It may be that if guns were harder to get, they would still get guns through illegal channels, but as it stands, they don't even have to resort to illegal channels since it is so easy to get weapons through legal channels.

Not to mention the fact that there aren't two discrete populations of "criminals" and "non-criminals", an obvious oversimplification. Lots of crimes are committed by people who are not a priori "criminal" types.
Phil Spector, OJ Simpson, Phil Hartman's wife, are some high-profile examples.

[page]

Just a comment that was on our news this week. Did you know there are 250 million guns into circulation in the U.S.A.? Living in a country myself with just about 16 million people over here, that amount is hard to comprehend.

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by jkelman ........to some, to be a constitutional right (my own take: sure, right to bear arms worked 200 years ago, for a reason, but a very different one, and I doubt the founding fathers had where it has since gone in mind when they wrote it) has contributed to where too many American cities are now. I could also be blowing smoke...and I'm not trying to paint a black and white picture here (no pun intended, given the thread this is in), only that I think the rather sorry state of the union now, when it comes to gun violence, has been built, over decades, on this very freedom.

For sure times have changed.

Another "archaic"/misinterpretation/manipulation of the Constitution is our illegal immigration clusterfuck. That, combined with our greed and laziness makes for a travesty. Anyhow....

Originally Posted by jazz oud

I would like to see some evidence for this claim. From what I've seen reported, while criminals may not be "carrying" their guns legally, in the sense that they are not abiding by the local laws regarding carrying a weapon, there are a very large number of them carrying guns that were obtained legally.
A big part of this is lax laws regarding gun shows and private resale, as well as lax laws in certain states (resulting in those states being a breeding ground for gun traffickers).

It is easier in the US for a convicted felon to regain the right to carry a firearm than it is for them to regain the right to vote. Without a doubt, a very large number of criminal acts are being committed with legally purchased weapons.

I've never seen anyone present a shred of evidence for the "criminals get their guns illegally anyway" canard. It may be that if guns were harder to get, they would still get guns through illegal channels, but as it stands, they don't even have to resort to illegal channels since it is so easy to get weapons through legal channels.

Not to mention the fact that there aren't two discrete populations of "criminals" and "non-criminals", an obvious oversimplification. Lots of crimes are committed by people who are not a priori "criminal" types.
Phil Spector, OJ Simpson, Phil Hartman's wife, are some high-profile examples.

Doggone, Man, read a newspaper.

[Vaughan]

When talk of gun control comes down to simply trading statistics, the highest cost gets forgotten, imo. That is, the culture of gun ownership. The way it makes people think and feel. The escalation that occurs simply because people can, and do, own guns legally. The acceptance of incidents of family members killing other family members, making it a cost of the right to bear arms. The whole we must own guns because they own guns mentality.

In this thread we've bemoaned the media because of its coverage of events, and the bias involved. But no-one wants to acknowledge gun lobbies who are in it for the money, yet hide behind the constitution - bringing it into disrepute. No-one wants to talk about the greater good, unless it sells more guns and makes a gun-maker richer. I don't believe for one minute it's an argument of peoples rights - it's about weapon makers wanting to make a buck. And a paranoid society makes a great customer.

Really, it's farcical.

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by Vaughan

.....
In this thread we've bemoaned the media because of its coverage of events, and the bias involved. But no-one wants to acknowledge gun lobbies who are in it for the money, yet hide behind the constitution - bringing it into disrepute. No-one wants to talk about the greater good, unless it sells more guns and makes a gun-maker richer. I don't believe for one minute it's an argument of peoples rights - it's about weapon makers wanting to make a buck. And a paranoid society makes a great customer.

Really, it's farcical.

What can you do? The camel's in the tent. You can't uninvent guns.

I agree, nothing sells more guns, faster than talk of additional laws and restraints. The gun industry, particularly retail, picks up on this and combines it with "freedom to bear arms" to make sales to the paranoid and "patriotic" public.
Anyhow, you can pass laws up the wazoo and all they'll effect are the law-abiding citizen. The laws won't effect(affect?) the criminal, by definition. So, I can understand adversity to more gun laws coming from the law abiding sector because they are the only ones that will be effected, that will follow the law.

[jazz oud]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

Doggone, Man, read a newspaper.

Nice. You have no evidence for your claims, so you resort to innuendo.

I expect I read quite a lot more newspapers than you do, since you seem woefully uninformed, and your opinions naive and simplistic.

Yes, I must be the ignorant one.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

C'mon, Jerry. That's pretty generalized. [See above reply.]

I was specific when I said "rabid." You don't sound rabid to me. I don't care if two criminals or out-of-control vigilantes shoot it out.

It's when an angry person or a criminal with a gun shoots an unarmed person that I find myself a bit perturbed.

I am disturbed by what I perceive to be the misinterpretation of the specific intention of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has separated the two clauses as if the second owes nothing to the first.

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.

I cannot imagine reading anything like this in a book and misconstruing it. And add to the formal English syntax the knowledge of conditions in Colonial America, and there can be no doubt that those who voted for this Amendment were voting for the sovereignty of trained state militias and the readiness of able-bodied men to serve them when called.

I see nothing here that either grants or denies the right of people to own arms for their personal use. In 18th century America it was considered normal to own guns for hunting, with no law needed to uphold that right. But the Amendment in my opinion does not prohibit a state, in the absence of a state militia, from forbidding their ownership.

Even the SCOTUS has upheld the right of the states to regulate the ownership of guns, and many states will allow handgun ownership and/or concealed carry only for what they consider good cause.

I'm not usually in favor of government prohibitting ownership or use of anything, most notably drugs. And I'm not in principle in favor of forbidding gun ownership. But the only purpose guns have, other than for hunting and plinking at targets, is shooting people. And if confrontations that should never have turned lethal can be prevented, I am in favor of far more regulation and restriction than we have now.

[Jeff Smith]

I look at my right to bear arms as a provision meant to prevent the gov't or the military (or police) from ever thinking they could go above the law and find a reason to control it's citizens against their will by force. I see it as one of those checks and balances wisely put in the constitution to prevent any branch of the gov't from becoming powerful enough to deprive us of democracy. I'm not a gun owner or super patriot. It's one of those burdens we bear to preserve freedom. Too bad the price we pay is people using guns against each other.

[Jay Norem]

Originally Posted by Vaughan

When talk of gun control comes down to simply trading statistics, the highest cost gets forgotten, imo. That is, the culture of gun ownership. The way it makes people think and feel. The escalation that occurs simply because people can, and do, own guns legally. The acceptance of incidents of family members killing other family members, making it a cost of the right to bear arms. The whole we must own guns because they own guns mentality.

In this thread we've bemoaned the media because of its coverage of events, and the bias involved. But no-one wants to acknowledge gun lobbies who are in it for the money, yet hide behind the constitution - bringing it into disrepute. No-one wants to talk about the greater good, unless it sells more guns and makes a gun-maker richer. I don't believe for one minute it's an argument of peoples rights - it's about weapon makers wanting to make a buck. And a paranoid society makes a great customer.

Really, it's farcical.

I agree with this. It's quite disingenuous, really, for people for be upset about this or any other killing like it in this country. We should be used to it, if we are to be honest with ourselves.

This country has guns, it always has. Guns run in America's blood, they'll always be available to anyone here in the USA and there isn't anything anyone can do about, and that includes presidents of the United States.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Jeff Smith

I look at my right to bear arms as a provision meant to prevent the gov't or the military (or police) from ever thinking they could go above the law and find a reason to control it's citizens against their will by force. I see it as one of those checks and balances wisely put in the constitution to prevent any branch of the gov't from becoming powerful enough to deprive us of democracy. I'm not a gun owner or super patriot. It's one of those burdens we bear to preserve freedom. Too bad the price we pay is people using guns against each other.

Sure, Jeff. Lots of luck defending your freedom from a U.S. military dictatorship with handguns and hunting rifles.

The militias were not independent; they were regulated by the states. I don't believe that the Second Amendment intended that the states might have to defend themselves with arms against the federal government.

The militias existed in an era when the English, French, and Spanish still had territory on the U.S. borders and the Native Americans had not been wholely "tamed" from resisting the European invasion. With the American Revoluton just concluded, I think the Amendment was aimed at the possibility of invasion by foreign enemies.

The Bill of Rights upholds the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I don't think this includes armed insurrection.

[jav]

Agree completely with the post by Vaughan regarding the culture of gun ownership. Also have long argued what Engelbach states regarding the Second Amendment, and also that private ownership of guns being some kind of safeguard against police or government intrusion makes no rational sense in an era where the military and police are armed to the teeth. And finally Jay's comments about the inevitability of gun ownership and thus gun violence sadly I find point on. There must be some sort of disconnect for a society to think exanding gun ownership is not going to result in higher rates of violent resolutions to disputes and to think that the answer to violence is to make more guns available to more people.

[funk freaka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQmfzGf9904&ob=av2e

[Jeff Smith]

Originally Posted by engelbach

Sure, Jeff. Lots of luck defending your freedom from a U.S. military dictatorship with handguns and hunting rifles.

I don't believe that the Second Amendment intended that the states might have to defend themselves with arms against the federal government.

A little research will show that is exactly the debate that was taking place when looking to ratify the amendment. It was a check against potential tyranny by a federal gov't military, and these dudes were worried about it interfering with state gov't. I do believe it is a deterrent. I hate guns.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Just a little info on the Constitution since it seems so many people are confused by it.

The United States Constitition is not a document coming from the government telling the people what their rights are. It is a document created by the people via their representatives telling the federal government what it is permitted to do and what it cannot do.

The rights of the people are not fully outlined in the Constitution. It only lists those that the founders thought important enough at the time. We also have that pesky 10th Amendment which seems to be ignored very much these days, as if it was a typo on the part of the founders.

I now return you to our regularly scheduled program already in progress...

[jkelman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Smith

I look at my right to bear arms as a provision meant to prevent the gov't or the military (or police) from ever thinking they could go above the law and find a reason to control it's citizens against their will by force. I see it as one of those checks and balances wisely put in the constitution to prevent any branch of the gov't from becoming powerful enough to deprive us of democracy. I'm not a gun owner or super patriot. It's one of those burdens we bear to preserve freedom.

Funny, there are so many other democratic countries, like Canada, UK, Norway and others, who don't feel it necessary for its citizens to have a constitutional right to bear arms in the 21st century, to protect us from the big bad government.

No disrespect, Jeff, but this kind of justification made sense 200 years ago. Do you really believe it's necessary now (or, for that matter, that if you had to rise up against your government, with its military armed to the teeth as it is with sophisticated weaponry, that your weapons would have a chance in hell anyway? )?

I mean, seriously. I find this to be a justification that makes so little sense in the 20th, let alone the 21st century...

Best,
John