Summations Only

I think you have the wrong view of the way our government is set up by the constitution. The federal government has duties and powers but no rights. The fed powers are only those enumerated in the constitution.The body of the constitution is about enumerating government powers. If the constitution does not grant the government a power to regulate guns, then they don't have it.If guns are not mentioned, then you need to make a case that one of the constitutional powers does include the regulating guns.

The current court interpretation is "common usage". The right to bear arms refers to the arms that are commonly used at that point in time. That is what came out of DC v. Heller (2010).

quote:

---

The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

---

So what is the right that is not to be infringed upon? The right to have weapons that are sufficient to defend oneself. The right does not extend to unusual or uncommon weapons, and limitations on what can be bought or owned are constitutional as long as people are still able to buy commonly recognized arms.Both DC v. Heller (2010) and Heller v. DC (2011) seem to be the most recent rulings on the purpose and extent of the Second Amendment.

I see how you're looking at it CS, but the problem for me is that to my mind, it makes the term "right" a little trivial to look at it like that.For example, at the moment, I'm allowed to drive on the left hand side of the road in the UK. I'm also allowed to say that David Cameron is an arse.The government could change the laws of the UK, and say that we now have to switch sides of the road to drive on and that we can no longer criticise the government. I would call the latter an infringement of my right to free speech, but I would consider it silly to call the former an infringement of my right to drive on the left hand side of the road.So when ICANT says that the second amendment doesn't create a right to bear arms, then to my mind, he is either making a meaningless point (ie picking up a gun is an action which people are capable of in the absence of prevention), or I want to know why he considers bearing arms to be more than a trivial matter.For what it's worth, I would disagree with ICANT and say that in my view, (because rights are something which I think it is worthwhile distinguishing from the run of the mill actions in day to day life) a right to bear arms in the US is one which exists as a result of the second amendment. Whether that right is something to limit and debate is another question - and one on which I know we disagree

Hi ICANT,You're mixing up two different claims.The FBI data shows that thousands of people are killed each year by people known to them.The studies I cited earlier show that a gun in the house is much more likely to be used against a resident of the home than a criminal. We were discussing them in this thread not too long ago, don't you remember them? If not then here's something I posted while we were discussing this: --PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi vimesey, The right was reserved by the people or the constitution would never have been ratified.

quote:

---

the key States of Virginia and New York were locked in bitter debates. Their failure to ratify would reduce the new union by two large, populated, wealthy states, and would geographically splinter it. The Federalists prevailed, however, and Virginia and New York narrowly approved the Constitution. When a bill of rights was proposed in Congress in 1789

---

Had the bill of rights not been added there would have been no United states.There would have been a divided country with 2 big states in the middle.God Bless,

Do you even think about the words you say? Just a little bit?Laws against murder do not stop people from murdering.Laws against theft do not stop thieves.Laws against extortion do not stop extortionists.Laws against tax evasion do not stop tax evaders.Do you understand how short sighted your argument is?

And no Confederacy . . . oh, wait.

So you are saying that the right was reserved to the people as a result of the ratification of the constitution. How did they have the right before then ? Are you saying that it is some form of natural right ?

Hi saab, Delaware was the first to ratify the Constitution and they have the following in their State Constitution.

quote:

---

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use.

---

shotguns, rifles           handguns
Permit to Purchase               No                  No
Registration of Firearms         No                  No
Licensing of Owners              No                  No
Permit to Carry                  No                  Yes

There are no restrictions on rifles, and shotguns.
The only restrictions is you have to have a permit to carry a handgun.It seems that the man had been in a 3 year custody battle with his estranged wife who was one of the women killed. I can't find out anything about the other woman as of yet.I am sure that when he went into the courthouse and pulled out a gun and began fireing he did not expect to walk out alive. But in his deranged mind he was not going to let his ex win.God Bless,

CS tried to make that argument but bailed when questioned on it. Let see if ICANT can make the argument.

Hi vimesey, They had just fought and won a war with England to gain independence from the oppressive rule of the British government and they were not about to let a new government have an opportunity to take away their firearms and be able to oppress them again. So they reserved the right to keep and bear Arms. I use upper case because it is used in the second amendment, so the Arms would be unlimited.God Bless,

Hi Taq, It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. Glad to see that you agree that laws do not hinder criminals from doing whatever they want to do.Thanks for your insight into the situation, that laws will not stop a criminal, only honest people.God Bless,

Hi Percy, Yes, and I have asked you several times to take the data and explain to me which ones you think were a victim because they had a firearm in their house.I made an attempt to do so but you have not even tried.Why not give it a try?And yes I agree that thousands of people are killed by people who know the victim, some kinfolks, some friends and some just acquaintances.Out of the 12,996 murders in 2010 the total murders by firearm was 8,775.Of that 12,996 there was 1,615 by strangers and 5,724 by unknown for a total of 7,339 which leaves 5,657 family, or acquaintances.
If I was clairvoyant I might be able to come up with how many were a victim because they had a gun in the house or was a victim because they did not have a gun to defend themself with. Yes I know you presented this study and drew your conclusion, "In other words, having a gun in the home makes you less safe, not more safe."Did you read the entire article or just what suited your bias.Two paragraphs down I find:

quote:

---

Although an estimated 40 percent of adults in the United States report keeping a gun in the home for recreational or protective purposes (3), the risks and benefits of this practice are widely disputed in the literature (4, 5). Ecologic analyses have suggested a link between the prevalence of gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide (6—8) and between regulations restricting access to firearms and rates of homicide and suicide (9—12). Although these studies are useful in demonstrating an association between access to firearms and rates of homicide and suicide at the aggregate level, it is not possible with this methodology to adequately assess whether access to a gun increases the risk of a violent death at the individual level.

---

The authors Linda L. Dahlberg, Robin M. Ikeda and Marcie-jo Kresnow conclusions were:

quote:

---

it is not possible with this methodology to adequately assess whether access to a gun increases the risk of a violent death at the individual level.

---

Yet you find enough information to claim otherwise.Earlier I presented information from the following site

quote:

---

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

​

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

​

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

---

I suggested using the 108,000 number by the NCVS study.That comes to a little over 5 DGU"s per minute because a person was carrying on person a firearm or had a firearm in the home.According to Table 8 there was 8,775 murders with a firearm in 2010.
That comes to just a shade over 1 every hour.In that hour there was 300 uses of a gun to prevent a violent crime. How many of those 300 would have been a murder, robbery or rape victim had they not had a firearm available?So you keep making your assertion that "having a gun in the home makes you less safe, not more safe".You can make it until you turn blue in the face and you will not convince me that I am more at danger because I have a gun in the house that I have been trained to use, than I would be if I did not have a gun in my house.I am not going to commit suicide and I don't believe my wife is going to shoot me. If she was going to shoot me she would not have waited 55 years to do so.God Bless,

'Cos his mother wouldn't have owned one. I guess he might have joined the Mafia and risen through the ranks ... it would have certainly been a damn sight harder if his mother hadn't owned one.Consider these illegal fully-automatic weapons of which you speak. Can you think of a case where a school shooter has used one? Me neither. Presumably this is not because they think it would be unsporting, but because they can't get hold of fully automatic weapons. Whereas they can get hold of semi-automatic weapons. You seem to have missed my point. Faith was arguing that there was no point in an assault weapons ban on the grounds that one weapon was just as lethal as another. I was demonstrating the falsity of her claim by means of a reductio ad absurdum. Obviously a law such as I suggest would reduce your capacity for self-defense --- but if Faith was right it wouldn't, and no-one could object to it on those grounds.

For every case cited by one side the other side can cite two. For every emotionally compelling argument from this side there is another from that. Other than an exercise in emotional ranting, which has its attractions, no positions are being changed let alone the formation of consensus or compromise.In microcosm this quite accurately mirrors the rantfest taking place today across the nation. With the same result: none.There is a real rising shout for "something" to be done and we all know that the powers involved are as split as the society. But they are "political" and will find a way to feed the frenzied hoards quelling the passions.What I predict will result is some band-aid legislation that appears to have substance but will have few, if any, teeth. Each side will wail inconsolably that such did not go quite far enough or almost went too far.The passions will subside. The public's attention will drift. The status quo will return. Until, as there must be, the next mass tragedy unfolds.Meanwhile, in the streets out of the national spotlight, the innocent will bleed and the killing will continue.