Summations Only

Who put a gun in your home? You.
Who put a gun in your wife's home? You.
Who put a gun in your children's home (before they grew up)? You.Therefore your wife and children are idiots....using YOUR 'reasoning'.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Well, I would need to see why these stats do not apply everywhere? Could the difference in rural gun deaths in Illinois be caused by the fact that Illinois, as a state, has implemented some form of regulation within the state? You guys have the FOID card to be able to purchase guns, which at least discourages a percentage of the population from attempting to aquire firearms.Whereas, Arizona, my state, is a free for all on who can purchase and own firearms. We are an almost completely deregulated state that has Castle Doctrine, Concealed Carry is relatively easy to get (simply must complete a course and pay a fee), It is legal in this state to utilize defensive posturing, and we are allowed pretty much any weapon that the Feds have not banned, including fully automatic, although you must also pay an extra fee on those weapons.I think you are right that it would be difficult for these states to be compared, but one comparison jumps out at me......In Illinois, where regulations are in place, the majority of gun crime and gun death takes place in the city where individuals who are already flaunting the law have their own rivalries and animosities. This means that law enforcement can focus on the actual troubled areas instead of being forced to worry in all jurisdictions what can occur....In Arizona, with almost zero regulation, there is really no place in the state that is immune to the effects of gun crime and gun death. The criminals have the guns, but so do the law abiding citizens. And you see the crime rate and death rate in this deregulated system climb, both in urban and rural areas.So, a comparison could be made that the regulation making it slightly more difficult to purchase weapons can have the effect of decreasing crime and death in outlying rural areas, and allowing law enforcement to centralize their efforts on urban areas where the regulations have less effect because of a larger percentage of criminals, who will own guns anyway, in one area.ABE - I think you are right that Percy is looking at it too black and white and that we need more data points. But it seems that regulations of a sort might have something to do with reducing the gun deaths in rural areas.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Hi zong, The second amendment is divided into two parts: its prefactory clause and its operative clause.The first four words are the prefactory clause.
The 3rd word regulated and the 2nd word are both a part of the prefatory clause .
Note there is a comma after the fourth word which is also a part of the prefatory clause.Now according to Justice Scalia in the majority opinion in the District of Columbia vs HellerThe prefactory clause anounces a purpose and does not limit or expand the operative clause. Now I ask again where in the second amendment is the government given any authority to limit the right to keep and bear Arms. According to the second amendment the citizens do have that right.That is why I would like to see the Constitution amended to place limits on what we can possess.But I do not want to see the Constitution trashed by executive orders or laws passed by Congress. Amend the Constitution the way it is supposed to be amended. If there is not 38 States that can get together and agree on a solution to the present problem we will have to live with what we have.God Bless,

Hi Taq, Why does the Second Amendment have to give permission to the people to keep and bear Arms?In fact the only thing the Second Amendment limits is the governments ability to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. But any rulings the courts have made does not change what the Constitution says.It would take a Constitutional amendment and that amendment being ratified by 38 States to change what the Constitution says.Read my reply to zongsmiths message 1786, above.God Bless

This line of argument has been absolutely innane since you began giving it many, many pages ago. You effectively defeat your own argument here. As long as the Government allows the people to keep and bear arms, there is no explicit statement of what types of arms these must be. Firearms is obviously inferred, but the government can place restrictions on the types of weapons without removing that right to arms. Yes, yes it does, it says so directly in the constitution that the job of interpreting the words in the document fall under the purview of the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, you are trying to use one line to defend against another line from the exact same document. If you are going to quote the Constitution in defense of your argument, then you must include the entire Constitution, which does allow for the SCOTUS to determine which weapons are reasonable for citizens to maintain an effective self-defense...and guess what, they already agreed that banning certain weapons is not unconstitutional!As for your comments on changing the constitution, you are correct....However, without needing an amendment, the constitution already gives the SCOTUS power to tell you what you can and cannot own as far as firearms.

Risk? What risk? What study are you basing this "risk" conclusion upon? Who says that guns are a risk? You? Prove it?Next you'll be asserting that guns in the home of people who might drink too much or get overly emotional or who are suicidal or who have any other momentary psychological lapse are also a "risk".....I want to know the evidence upon which this "risk" conclusion of yours is based?

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you've chosen the wrong analogy, and your point doesn't hold. The data we have says that gun deaths are proportional to guns, which makes perfect sense. I'm only saying the same thing all the studies say, that it doesn't matter where you are, a gun increases the risk of death for those nearby. Certainly there will be variations and certainly there will be other factors that also affect the gun death rate, but the prevalence of guns in a population is the clear overriding factor.You don't seem to realize that statements like these are contradictory: If guns uses were predominately against criminals then they would be in the statistics, but as you keep noting as if it were evidence in your favor, the statistics show no such thing. That's because when guns are used it is predominately against someone the perpetrator knows or loves. I'm referring to the studies I've cited. In your next message you address the one I most recently cited, so let me address that now: If you're going to distort the study's conclusions then you shouldn't quote them just above the distortion. Concerning the benefits of gun ownership the abstract says "there are fewer studies", not "we don't have any data." And about their deterrent and defensive abilities it adds, "there is no credible evidence", something you have repeatedly agreed with when you bemoan the lack of data supporting your views.Effective defensive uses of guns for personal defense would range from the barely apparent to a gun being discharged and all the way up to guns blazing on both sides with multiple deaths. Naturally there will be no record of those near the low end of the range, and we all understand that, but obviously those anywhere near the top end of the range will be recorded in the statistics. Doctors and hospitals are required to notify the police of all gun injuries.The problem for you is that the statistics record extremely few such incidents. Incidents such as that of Samuel Williams shooting robbers in an Internet cafe (Samuel Williams Shoots At Internet Cafe Robbery Suspects Duwayne Henderson, Davis Dawkins (VIDEO)) occur far more rarely than they would were effective defensive uses of guns as common as you keep claiming. For your position to have any possibility of holding true would require the vast majority of defensive uses of guns to end quietly with no one noticing, which by the requirements of any bell shaped curve makes no sense whatsoever. If guns were truly effective for personal defense then the infinite value of a child's life would demand that one keep a gun in the home. That you give the opposite counsel says that at some level you do understand that guns place everyone in the house at greater risk.By the way, you can't keep using personal defense in your arguments for your position on guns and have your protests that your position is not based on their value for personal defense remain credible.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

How does a ban on 30 round magazines and assault weapons prevent people from bearing arms given all of the other arms they can purchase? The Constitution also empowers the courts to decide if a law infringes on the Second Amendment, and those courts have found that bans on specific weapon types, registration of weapons, restrictions for felons and the mentally ill, and restrictions on magazine size do not infringe on that right.The claim that any restrictions on gun purchases or ownership infringe on the 2nd amendment is a baseless claim, and it runs contrary to 70 years of court decisions.

Just to be clear, SCOTUS does not have the power to make the laws. They only have the power to determine if the laws violate constitutional rights after the laws have been enacted by the federal, state, or local government.

Hi Tempe, Any restrictions would be an infringement. My mind and eyes are failing me. Could you give me the Section and the line that statement is on. Again could you give me Section and line that power is given.God Bless,

By that logic, your inability to legally own a rocket-propelled grenade, an armed Abrams tank, or an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead all count as "infringement."Just as the freedom of speech is limited such that you cannot purposefully incite violence or panic, so too is the Second Amendment limited.The question has never at any point been whether any limits at all should exist - that question has been answered long ago and is supported by much precedent.The question has always been where that line should be drawn, how much restriction can and should be applied. The Constitution grants power to Congress to regulate what can and cannot be sold, and to whom, when state lines are crossed. Many state Constitutions allow that particular state to regulate commerce in the same way within its own borders.It's the same power that allows the government to regulate who can purchase alcohol and tobacco, at what ages, and what the manufacturers can put in their products and what they need to put on the label.The Second Amendment does not specify what arms may be borne...it merely affirms the right to bear some type of arms. It doesn't say "The right to bear absolutely any type of weapon that has been or ever will be produced shall not be infringed."Neither does it guarantee the right to purchase any weapons at all.

Hi Taq, It is infringing on my right to be able to face the enemy with equal weapons. It is based on what the second amendment says.Courts over the years have been stacked with liberal judges and yes they have tried to change the Constitution. But the fact remains the Constitution still stands and they have not changed the original meaning.At the time the second amendment was written the Arms of the people were to be the same as the military so the local militia was equipted just as well as a standing army.God Bless,

Hi Rahvin, Yes. How and Why? Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?Try #29 and you will find the argument to get the Constitution ratified was that the people were to have equal weapons with a standing army and if inferior very little.So yes it was settled before they ratified the Constitution. The question in my lifetime has always been is the people allowed to have Arms. If it was left up to those pushing for banning assault look alike weapons had there way the government would confiscate all weapons and then only the military and police forces would have weapons. OH and I forgot about the criminals they will always have guns and the people who do not have guns will be at the mercy of the criminals and the government slave owners. Where in the commerce clause does it give Congress the power to nulify the second amendment?In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370 Justice Scalia in the majority report said that the Court did not have that power.The commerce clause gives the Congress power to regulate what can be imported and exported from the US.The commerce clause gives the Congress power to regulate the importation and exportationn between the States and the duties or taxes that can be levied by one State on said items.I don't see where it can regulate what can be built and sold in a State.I can buy an AR15 with 2 30 round magazines which is manafactured in my State so where does the commerce clause cover whether I can or can not buy that AR15? The only thing that the second amendment guarantees is that the government can not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.Have you ever read the Federalist papers in which the arguments were presented to get the States to ratify the Constitution. New York and Virginia were the hardest to convince concerning the second amendment, guarding the rights of the people. Go figure.Do I think there should be some regulations? Yes.I think in the present society that if a person wants to purchase a gun they should have proper safety and use of a gun classes before they take posession of the gun.If there are other people in the home I believe they should have the same course.They should be mentaly fit and not a convicted fellon.But as I have stated it should be done by a Constitutional amendment with 38 States hashing out and ratifying the amendment.The present regulations is unConstitutional.God Bless,

Quite frequently, the power to interpret the constitution and to fashion remedies is indistinguishable from the power to make law. For example, the constitution says that the people are to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, but it is the Supreme Court that has decided that the evidence from an illegal search is to be thrown out, thus creating the exclusionary rule.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

ICANT writes: What "enemy" do you envision that would limit itself to 30 round magazines and assault weapons? The US Military has way more than that to level at you, should this be your imagined "enemy".So presumably you must be referring to criminal invasion of your home?