20/20 Friday (WARNING: Gun Control thread!)

Just our founders giving us advice and warnings from beyond the veil of time:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." —James Madison

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." —George Washington

EDIT: Ignore the above Washington quote. As Mahatma Kane Jeeves showed below, it is apparently bogus.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." —Thomas Jefferson

Yes, it's perfectly clear what they meant when they passed the Second Amendment.
 
shanek, if you were In Charge, would you prevent me from owning a nuclear weapon?

I'm not trying to set a trap. I honestly just want to know.

edited to add:

It doesn't jostle your sensibilities to imagine everyone owning whatever firearm they want? I'm sure the idea that every criminal would be a little more nervous if everybody had arms is pleasing to you. It is to me, too.

But, we aren't exactly the same society we were two hundred years ago. And the firepower that is available is certainly more catastrophic in its potential. Criminals would not be the only ones who were more nervous if everybody could own an AK-47, or a tank, or a nuclear weapon.
 
shanek said:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." —Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

He coulda saved time if he just said, "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns." :D
 
shanek said:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." —George Washington
Click to expand...

False Quotations and Other Misinformation
This quotation is usually cited as George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress. However, this statement does not appear in that address, nor has it ever been documented that Pres. Washington ever made this statement. It should therefore be considered a hoax and not relied upon
Click to expand...
 
shanek said:


Thank you for the correction.
Click to expand...

No problem.

I don't mean to pile on, but the Jefferson quote is a little misleading also. He was quoting someone else in his "Commonplace Book" (a notebook to jot down thoughts, quotes from readings etc.) (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764)

You can browse two of Jefferson's Commonplace books at the Library of Congress (but not the one containing the quote).
 
Mahatma Kane Jeeves said:


No problem.

I don't mean to pile on, but the Jefferson quote is a little misleading also. He was quoting someone else in his "Commonplace Book" (a notebook to jot down thoughts, quotes from readings etc.) (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764)

You can browse two of Jefferson's Commonplace books at the Library of Congress (but not the one containing the quote).
Click to expand...
Boy thanks for the wake-up call on what a great resource our Library of Congress can be. Looks like I'll be spending a lot of time there.
(Self-deprecating "duh")
 
subgenius said:

Boy thanks for the wake-up call on what a great resource our Library of Congress can be. Looks like I'll be spending a lot of time there.
(Self-deprecating "duh")
Click to expand...

I love the American Memory Collection. But notice I said "browse" the Commonplace Books. If you can read Jefferson's chicken-scratches, I salute you. I haven't found a text equivalent online.
 
I'm a Canadian, and a pistol shooter. All my pistols have been registered, and I have moved within the country. In Canada, when moving you must contact the registrar in your new province, and register your change of address before moving the 'firearm' - a legal term meaning a pistol, revolver or other form of restricted gun. That said, I have usually thrown the thing in the van and sorted it out once I got there. I can understand why he might have been charged with illegal -something - of a firearm, but this seems to be 'criminal' possession. Is there a difference in the US or just a distinction?

Second, does the law in the US say anything about 'reasonable force'? Here, given the report , the homeowner would probably have been charged with some kind of homicide. He would have to demonstrate that he had a reasonable fear for his or someone's life. Homicide is not justifiable to protect property. (That's the law, not my personal philosophy.) The intruder turning toward him might have been enough of a threat to persuade him that his life was in danger, and an unarmed man could easily be a threat to the life of an infant or child so there is a good chance of him being acquitted. But rest assured he would have been charged. Further, since he shot a man that may (the report makes no mention) not have been visibly armed, he would need to demonstrate that this was the minimum level of force that a 'reasonable man' would use in this situation.
You can see from the complexities involved here in a 'shoot-don't shoot', situation, and the chance of me, in my normal waking stupor, shooting one of my own, convince me to leave my weapons clean, oiled, and stored apart under lock and key.
 
the law

Segnosaur said:
Ok, I do believe that people should have the right to own firearms, and to defend their property and family.

But, my question...

Did he possess the firearm legally? (What it purchased and stored, in accordance with the laws of the state he was in?)
Click to expand...

I know it's "the law", just like seatbelts are the "law" in NY, but, you have to ask yourself whether the state has any business whatsoever (is that one word) deciding whether a law abiding citizen owns a gun legally or illegally. Why is the state in a position decide some law abiding citizens own their guns "legally" or "Illegal". The state has no business passing laws on the legality of gun ownership. People have to be held accountable for what they actually DO to other people, not for what they own, say or believe. I have no idea how anyone ever conceived the concept of a "victimless crime". I'm sorry, without a victim, there can not be a crime. Mere ownership of a gun .....or even a cannon, or even a tank, in no way harms another person. Furthermore, punishing people for what they concievably could do (say, with a gun, or a tank, or a cannon.) tends to diminish personal responsibility for the bad things that people actually do do. Owning a gun is in no way comparable committing an assault with a gun.
 
under lock and key?

tedly said:
I'm a Canadian, and a pistol shooter. All my pistols have been registered, and I have moved within the country. In Canada, when moving you must contact the registrar in your new province, and register your change of address before moving the 'firearm' - a legal term meaning a pistol, revolver or other form of restricted gun. That said, I have usually thrown the thing in the van and sorted it out once I got there. I can understand why he might have been charged with illegal -something - of a firearm, but this seems to be 'criminal' possession. Is there a difference in the US or just a distinction?

Second, does the law in the US say anything about 'reasonable force'? Here, given the report , the homeowner would probably have been charged with some kind of homicide. He would have to demonstrate that he had a reasonable fear for his or someone's life. Homicide is not justifiable to protect property. (That's the law, not my personal philosophy.) The intruder turning toward him might have been enough of a threat to persuade him that his life was in danger, and an unarmed man could easily be a threat to the life of an infant or child so there is a good chance of him being acquitted. But rest assured he would have been charged. Further, since he shot a man that may (the report makes no mention) not have been visibly armed, he would need to demonstrate that this was the minimum level of force that a 'reasonable man' would use in this situation.
You can see from the complexities involved here in a 'shoot-don't shoot', situation, and the chance of me, in my normal waking stupor, shooting one of my own, convince me to leave my weapons clean, oiled, and stored apart under lock and key.
Click to expand...

Puleeeeze..... Reasonable force? You must be joking. To hold the home owner in any way whatsoever for what happened is simply grotesque. Should he have said to the burglar "Are you planning on smashing my young, sleeping son's head in, or just checking out what he has to steal?"? And, of course, the criminal, being an honest criminal, would never lie about a think like that. Maybe he would have said "Well yes sir, I am planning on killing your son and then raping your wife, so you might want to get that firearm ready." Of course, even in that case, the homeowner would have had the other option of calling 911, in which case the police would have had a headstart in investigating the triple homicide.

I just, simply, hate this apologist attitude for criminals, for people break into other peoples houses, steal what they have worked for, violate their existance and if you are unlucky, physically harm you. People have an absolute right to defend their lives and property. Lets get this straight, the friggin criminal who broke into the home IS THE BAD GUY.

Now, I hope and pray it doesn't happen to you. You will be hard pressed to defend yourself with you gun all broken down and oiled and locked away.
 
I watched Stossel last night on 20/20. One point he made was that in the registration process he went to a guy to expedite the process through, and, if I heard right, paid him $500. The guy went out of business soon after, before completing his registration.

$500 to get a handgun registered? How did we come to this? I have several handguns, and I have yet to pay that much for one. But New York has the unmitigated nerve to make the system so complex and expensive that people will willingly pay expediters $500 to register a gun? This is criminal!
 
billydkid.

I'm not arguing for the rights of criminals. I am saying that here in Canada we don't have an "absolute" right to defend property. If you are not in a reasonable fear of your life you cannot use lethal force, without being hauled up in court. Do you in the US have that right? If you're going to play the game you need to make damn sure of the rules.
I don't think that you are saying that you can shoot anyone you find on your property, but let's take it elsewhere.
You are mugged on the street, hit over the head, and you disable your opponent by striking him about the head and ears using your years of martial arts training. This is a response with reasonable force. Can you now take out the pistol you are carrying and shoot him, justifiably, since you are the victim of a criminal attack? He is after all the bad guy.
Here in Canada, the answer is no. You are not in fear of your life, he has been disabled.
If I lived in a society where I legitimately feared armed break-ins I assure you I would not be using a pistol for home defense, and not my rather specialised small caliber target pistols.
 
Obviously, the point of the right to bear arms was so that we could have a well regulated militia. How we define "well regulated" and "militia" certainly has a bearing on who can have exactly what kind of arms.
Click to expand...

Very good. Lets not speculate what the militia is. Lets see how Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 of the U.S. Federal Code defines militia:

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

There you are. The militia is everyone who is able bodied, who is not in the armed forces, or National Guard. And "regulated" means trained in old English, not controlled.

The issue here is Mr. Dixon has the right to keep, and bear a firearm, a right protected under the Bill of Rights. He doesn't need to register with the state to excercise his rights. N.Y. would outright ban firearms if they could get away with it. Their registration scheme is an attempt to do just that by inconviniencing people.

Next.
 
How about if there is only one armed robber? or two?
Click to expand...

Okay, odds still against you superman. I mean come on, is he Wyatt Erp or something?


how about the fact that the said suburbanite actually knows the layout of his house, and thus would be far more effective?
Click to expand...

Yes knowing the "terrain" of his house would be sooo advantageous. He could for example duck behind a couch... and leap over chairs. Not like the crook has to just point and shoot someone who is trying to pull off fancy moves and its not like the layout of a house is hard to learn, with like, a glance.


No, in normal (i.e. not stupidly contrived to make a ridiculous pioint) circumstances, our Bob would actually have good odds of defending his home successfully.
Click to expand...

Sure he would. Armed fat men beat down gansters all the time.

As important, if not more important, is the point that wide-spread possession of firearms would be a great deterrent.
Click to expand...

Not really. The criminals will simply come more prepared and armed themselves. Or they may see your firearms as an oppurtunity to get more of their own.


A would-be professional burglar can't afford to risk his or her life at even 50% odds with each robbery; and if they were stupid enough to do so, we would have a lot fewer robbers very, very fast.
Click to expand...

Yeah and well, a lot fewer civilians in general too. The fact is some burglars are willing to do this and if they know most houses are armed, they will merely come armed themselves. Turning each robbery into a hostage situation very fast. Is it really worth risking yours and your families life in order to save a few possesions? Is that your solution to crime....vigilantiaism?


First of all, think urban warfare. You know, the nooks'n'crannies and stuff.
Click to expand...

Where enemy soldiers can hide too...

Also think of the tank the guy stole in San Diego....and how effective the police with their firearms were against it. Now imagine that tank in the subrurbs and instead of the police its hicks on trucks toting shotguns. Tell you what, if the situation comes...you go first. ;)

More importantly, think as a soldier in such situation. if the rebels are unarmed, you simply go in, beat them up with the rifle butt, and go away. if they are armed, you have to shoot and kill your own people while getting shot at in return.
Click to expand...

Or basically just shoot the hell out of them, then beat them up and then go away. You're presuming the civilians will present much of a challenge, I don't think they would. If the soldiers are really that concerned about casualties they will simply call in heavier units or artillery. Then you can leave your children orphans and your wife a widow in order to serve as cannon fodder. And this assumes they do not retaliate against the community.

This isn't Rambo my friend. In realy life all a rebelion would do is cause needless deaths and suffering.

No, i am not saying that the rebellion will happen, or that it should happen, What I am saying is that widespread possession of firearms is not useless if your concern is state oppression.[/quote[

OK, absoultely not useless. But damn near, and they cause more harm then good.

There was a paintball game organized in my area some time ago, a bunch of soldiers against a bunch of local hunters. The redneck paunched suburbanite armed civilian types slaughtered the soldier boys.
Click to expand...

I really doubt this. Seriously, everytime I hear of this I hear the opposite. Your reasoning stinks of "one southerner can whip twenty yankees" type thinking. I imagine for every time this happens there are dozens of times when civilians get butchered. Besides a paintball game does not reflect real warfare.

Well then, good thing that vast majority of the army is your plain generic infantry, and not the elite units that you mentioned, eh?

idiot...
Click to expand...

Ah yes mr.genius, most are regular units but you don't think if push came to shove or to make an example they'd hold back from sending in elite units? I can see it in the case of a rather large riot.....and what then hot shot?

Only if they are untrained; and only if their attitude is like yours.
Click to expand...

Most people don't have time to just train all day long and I doubt an opressive government would just stand by and let you....and I also doubt the training would be anywhere near army level.And training isn't the only factor:

-there is the matter of supplies.
-communications
-morale
-spy networks
-organization
-superior equipment

To name but a few.


The only sure way to lose, is to not try to win.
Click to expand...

Well the Taliban had a pretty positive attitude i.e. fanaticism and they lost pretty damn badly. Sorry but while postive attitudes and faith may move mountains, dynamite works better.

Your point neglects the fact that one can lose more by trying to win. I may try to win at a flying contest....but is it really worth it? I mean flying would probably be pretty damn fun but the fall may hurt a lot...



it's also an army drawn from the same population from which our hypothetical rebels would be drawn.
Click to expand...

Yeah which is wy I listed military rebelion as a potential factor....notice this would have nothing to do with personal firearms.


There is a big difference between acting as police (against unarmed citizens) and having to shoot your own people. being forced into actual combat against the civilian population would surely cause a lot of soldiers to desert or disobey or join the rebels
Click to expand...

That is pure speculation and in any case, if the army is already at the point where it would block out any other means of reform via violent means(protests and such) i.e. shoot unarmed civilians, what makes you think they would back down in the face of armed civilians?

Tiananmen square should serve as an example of how unwilling an opressive army is to shoot civilians when ordered to do so.

But hey maybe it will be like "Red Dawn" with teenagers who are able to take on well armed,well trained and well funded militaries. Yeah maybe, but then again maybe aliens will come down and shoot the opressive army as well....I wouldn't put much faith in either.
Click to expand...
 
Also I don't people realize the constitution isn't absolute. I mean the founding fathers when they amde it, did so during a certain very different time period then we have today.

A lot has changed since the 18th century and one cannot reasonably expect to effectively govern a 21st century state by strict,unbending adherence to 18th century laws.
 
Two criminals with a rifle almost shut an entire city down, with every law enforcement agency, both local and Federal unable to stop them. Only one of these men had any firearm training, but he didn't do the shooting, the untrained one did. (Washington D.C. Sniper).

Multiply that times roughly 90 million gun owners in the country, fighting a guerila war, and I think you can get an idea of what an armed militia (the people) could do. No modern army could withstand it. Take into consideration the entire U.S. military numbers only 1 million, with most of that being reservists, they are outnumbers 90-1.

The militia is just as relevant, and potent today as it ever was.
 
And they did so much to destroy government infrustructure too by killing random civilians.

The fact is their operation was covert as well.

Another fact is it was handled by internal police forces, not the army.

It's kinda hard to conduct a covert op with 90 million people.....

The militia is impotent. Look at what happened to rebels that opposed Saddam after Desert Storm without US aid. You are living in a fantasy.

The fact is 90 million people wouldn't be able to organize themselves enough to fight. Not like any would have to worry about feeding their families, or would turn traitor. And I'm sure they'd all have enough time to turn their car into a sniper mobile, and practice snping....I'm also very sure many people wouldn't be supporting the government. Believe me if that many people were against it, in such a strong organized manner, you wouldn't need guns because the economy would shut down. However what you are talking about is very unlikely. You couldn't organize an nation wide strike let alone a nation wide armed rebelion.

I'm sorry but if overthrowing an unpopular government was that easy there would be no Iraq, China or many south american dictatorships.

Your "snipers did lots of damage" is extremely pointless and amounts to mere terrorist action, which rarely ever works to overthrow a government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom