• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Guns.

Lothian said:
So how does contoling who gets firearms not cause more problems around the prohibited substance such as black market,Black market crime,Gangs,Unregulated material that is more dangerous,Slavery..ect..ect
Click to expand...


I don't know if it would. Most firearms that are used in crimes in America are firearms that aren't legally owned. Meaning completly outlawing the firearms would not prevent crime in any way.

Dealing with things like Drugs for instance if completly outlawed you'll see things in 3rd world countries like slavery where people are forced to work on plantations to produce the drugs. Also they will be unregulated and they will also fund gangs.

With firearms most firearms bought are bought legally in America, meaning by reputable people who use them legally. But among those who do use them illegally they get them from illegal sources.

Completly outlawing them is not an option since it would only prevent the law abiding citizens from not having them and the law breakers would get them since they get them illegally already and then the already existent blackmarket would blow up in size because alot of gun lovers will resort to buying them illegally.

Making it so anyone or everyone can get them would not be smart either since then it would be easier for criminals or people who should not have guns in the first place having them.


The best option is to carefully "regulate" who does and does not get the firearms. You can't prevent a blackmarket from them but you can reduce it's size drastically by making it legal for an entire group of people(Non criminals,Non mentally ill people) to possess and buy them.
 
Dustin said:
I don't know if it would. Most firearms that are used in crimes in America are firearms that aren't legally owned. Meaning completly outlawing the firearms would not prevent crime in any way.
Click to expand...
Do you know how many of them were once legally owned ?
Dealing with things like Drugs for instance if completly outlawed you'll see things in 3rd world countries like slavery where people are forced to work on plantations to produce the drugs. Also they will be unregulated and they will also fund gangs.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between growing a crop and making a gun but I see no difference to the current situation. Illegal firearms are obtained and funded through illegal activities, as indeed you go on to say...
With firearms most firearms bought are bought legally in America, meaning by reputable people who use them legally. But among those who do use them illegally they get them from illegal sources.
Click to expand...
Completly outlawing them is not an option since it would only prevent the law abiding citizens from not having them and the law breakers would get them since they get them illegally already and then the already existent blackmarket would blow up in size because alot of gun lovers will resort to buying them illegally.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that legislation should be based on what people would prefer, It should be based on what is right. A lot of people break speeding laws should the speed limits be increased ?
Making it so anyone or everyone can get them would not be smart either since then it would be easier for criminals or people who should not have guns in the first place having them.
Click to expand...
Agreed
The best option is to carefully "regulate" who does and does not get the firearms. You can't prevent a blackmarket from them but you can reduce it's size drastically by making it legal for an entire group of people(Non criminals,Non mentally ill people) to possess and buy them.
Click to expand...
I agree with careful regulation I guess I would just draw the line in a different part of the sand. It is opinion which is better (using totally hypothetical figures.)

Little regulation - 1,000,000 legal guns 50,000 illegal guns
Tight regulation - 100,000 legal guns 200,000 illegal guns

Unless under tighter regulation no one gives guns up then there will be less guns available.

I don't see tighter regulation turning non mentally ill, non criminals into criminals but it does mean less guns are available for those with a criminal mind
 
Last edited:
Seems to me the cats out of the bag already. America will never "outlaw" guns Pae.

First the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights, so the government would have to alter the Bill of Rights, and that would take years. Then the government would somehow have to begin collecting 250 million firearms, or at least the ones that become outlawed....good luck with that. Then after all that is said and done, 88% of violent gun crimes were committed away from the "shooters" home ( Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms - May 1997 - National Institute of Justice ).

So I don't think one could stuff the cat back into the bag and outlaw guns. Restrict them to death, maybe...but never outlaw.
 
zenith-nadir said:
The Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Click to expand...
What rights is the Constitution "speaking" of? Be specific, please.
 
zenith-nadir said:
The Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me - I am not asking about the constitution of the USA but where the rights (that are being mentioned in "retained by the people" in the above) are listed that everyone apparently has.
 
Cylinder said:
The militia argument really holds no truck with me, since militia is a term that translates (IMHO) to male citizens of the age of military service. You can even catch a glimpse of that meaning inside the Constitution itself, since Armies are "raised" ("To raise and support armies..." meaning created) and militias are "called forth" ("To provide for calling forth the militia..." as if the militia is something that already exists).
Click to expand...
This is something I'd never noticed, and which had never been brought to my attention. It suddenly clarifies something that had bothered me a little through every gun control debate: Why the mention of the militia?

If the founders had intended to restrict gun ownership to militia members only, they were perfectly capable of writing clear language to that effect. But they didn't.

If they had wanted to simply state that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," they could certainly have said that. But they didn't.

I wasn't aware that the founders considered everyone who was capable of carrying a firearm to be part of a militia. But it certainly makes sense, in light of the language about "calling forth" the militia, as if it's something that is in constant existence.

Out of curiosity, do you have any citations supporting this view? As I said, it seems to make everything snap into sharp focus.
 
Just looked up militia in the OED - and it has many meanings but this one may be of interest in regards to this discussion:

4. spec. The name of various military units and forces, raised locally (and usually for the purpose of local defence) from the civilian population of an area, and distinguished from professional standing armies as the latter developed. With sing. or pl. concord. In the U.S.: the body of able-bodied citizens eligible by law for military service. Now hist.
Click to expand...

That would seem to be in accordance to how I've seen many Members use it here however the entry goes on to say:

The term was originally used in England, esp. of the trained bands of London, and was adopted in the British colonies in North America from the 17th cent., and elsewhere, e.g. in Australia and New Zealand, by the 19th cent. The reconstitution of the U.S. militias as the National Guard was substantially complete by the beginning of the 20th cent., and elsewhere the term had lapsed, being often replaced by a variant of ‘territorial forces’ by 1945. It is still used unofficially in Canada, where it may have been reinforced by French milice.
Click to expand...

Now I am not quoting the OED as an authority regarding any history but the history of the English language however it is a very credible source so I can't dismiss it entirely and what it seems to be saying is that the militia that was mentioned in the constitution is in fact today the National Guard and I don't think any one argues that the National Guard shouldn't be armed. Perhaps that phrase in the constitution only refers (today) to the National Guard?
 
Cain said:
My oh my. What I said must've sailed right over your head. If the NRA's understanding of the Constitution is correct -- which is to say that if their conception of the law had some standing -- then they would challenge the legitimacy of gun control legislation in the courts.
Click to expand...
They don't have to, if they can preserve their rights through the electoral process. They've done pretty well there, you have to admit.
My eyes probably swept right over it; I can't say you're exactly capitvating my attention. Are you arguing for a potential privacy rationale for gun ownership?
Click to expand...
Why not? Not every gun ends up killing someone. Every abortion does.

Yeah, obviously I'm stretching this to the breaking point (and I'm happily contemplating the idea of your pulling your head off your shoulders with your bare hands in your fury at me...). But the fact remains that there are those who would put the Constitution under a microscope and miraculously discover in it almost any right they choose to espouse, while at the same time denying certain other rights they disapprove of, even though those rights are explicitly stated, on the grounds of some perceived ambiguity in the enumeration of those rights.
 
CFLarsen said:
What rights is the Constitution "speaking" of? Be specific, please.
Click to expand...
Well I am not expert on the US constitution, but it is my understanding that the right to self-defense is a natural right, and that it cannot be taken away by any governing body.

BPSCG said:
I wasn't aware that the founders considered everyone who was capable of carrying a firearm to be part of a militia.
Click to expand...
They don't.

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.
Click to expand...

Those are two different things, A) "a well regulated Militia", B) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"..."A" was not intended to be a prerequisite for "B".
 
BPSCG said:
...snip..


Why not? Not every gun ends up killing someone. Every abortion does.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Not necessarily - an abortion may abort something that would have never developed into a someone (by any definition of the word "someone" that has any meaning).
 
zenith-nadir said:
Well I am not expert on the US constitution, but it is my understanding that the right to self-defense is a natural right, and that it cannot be taken away by any governing body.
Click to expand...

"Natural right" - what do you mena by this? (This is a topic of great interest to me.)
 
zenith-nadir said:
Well I am not expert on the US constitution, but it is my understanding that the right to self-defense is a natural right, and that it cannot be taken away by any governing body.
Click to expand...

What do you base this understanding on?
 
Darat said:
Not necessarily - an abortion may abort something that would have never developed into a someone (by any definition of the word "someone" that has any meaning).
Click to expand...
Correction noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom