The Case for Gun Control

[redeye]

I wish I had written this, but I didn't - this comes from http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

---

"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."

OK, what does this mean? Does it mean that all people should have the ability to possess whatever arms they wish?

...

First, it important to note that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. For example, even though the 1st Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech, the right is limited. I cannot publish a newspaper in which I claim that a certain public figure, for example the president of a major company, is a cocaine user, if that fact is known to me to be completely untrue. It would be called libel, and it is a valid abridgment of my rights. The classic example of an abridgment of freedom of speech is the imminent danger rule: I cannot stand up in a crowded theatre and scream that there is a fire (if there is not), because the ensuing panic may cause injury.

...

Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.)

more...

---

[DoNotRefill]

1. He needs to update it....

a lot has happened since he wrote that, including Emerson. Another big problem is that he also glosses over a fair bit of Miller (like what the holding actually said)...which states that the only weapons protected by the Second Amendment are guns that have been shown to have some kind of militia or military application. That's in the holding, not dicta. Under this ruling, M-16s and AK-47s should be protected, but over/under double-barreled skeet shotguns are not unless there's some kind of military use for it.

If that's the best you can do, you're in trouble... ;-)

[redeye]

2. Any reply to the non-legal arguments?

You know, things like the number of gun casualties?

And don't blame me for stumbling upon an article written in the mid-90s rather than one written in 2003.

[DoNotRefill]

69. Does he make such an argument?

He misquotes Kellermann at length, using the "43 times more likely" statistic. He neglects to put the proper caveats on it, like the fact that most of the "43 times" involves suicide. He also fails to point out that in the case of justifiable homicide, if it's a clear-cut case, charges are not brought. Of the cases he looks at, 9 were ruled to be justified. He doesn't mention how many times the prosecution "declines to prosecute" because they know it was justified. This is far more common than sucessful necessity defenses.

He doesn't do a whole lot with the number of accidental firearms deaths. Of course, that's probably because more children die by accidental drownings in bathtubs and toilets than are accidentally shot and killed. In 2001, according to the USDOJ, there were fewer than a thousand accidental gun deaths nation-wide. For something like 280 million people with 280 million guns in circulation, that's not a whole lot.

I'm not blaming you, merely pointing out that it's out of date.

[MrPrax]

3. Gawd..it's like Pro-Life

things to add to the list...
don't argue with americans on the following
1) they didn't invent democracy
2) abortions
3) gun control
4) Iraq
5) capital punishment
6) their Constition is not venerated as 'Biblical fact'
7) no health care
8) they elect nutbars regularly

[Terwilliger]

4. nutbars?

peanut or granola?

[Terwilliger]

5. I've got a case for 2nd amendment control

Where's my nuke?? Gimme my nuke! :nuke:

[slackmaster]

6. Nukes are regulated but private ownership is not illegal

Good luck getting all the permits you'd need to be able to transport and store one legally.

[Terwilliger]

7. GASP! You mean...restrictions on the use of such arms?

What a staggeringly ANTI second amendment thing for our government to do. I demand that such restrictions be eliminated immediately. I want nukes to have similar restrictions with guns. In the hands of the incompetent, either will kill humans unnecessarily. I think this is outrageous. Would you accept these kinds of restrictions on guns?

[tkmorris]

8. Me laugh at funny Ter....nt

[Terwilliger]

10. Me think U stoopid

or is that all you have?

[slackmaster]

9. I favor sensible gun laws and sensible nuke laws

I know you favor sensible gun laws.

Survey after survey has shown that a majority of Americans favor sensible gun laws.

Now, if we can only agree on what constitutes sensible gun laws we might be able to some day raise ourselves out of this silly level of debate and get something meaninful done. Over in the J/PS forum I have a debate going with two of my favorite contributors regarding their wish to disarm the disabled. I disagree with disarming the disabled. It would be a disservice and a disgrace.

[Terwilliger]

11. I think guns should be eliminated..so I won't participate in your "debate"

Every gun should be registered. Every bullet should be registered. Every gun manufacture, sale, or trade should be noted. Every time a gun goes off there should be a record somewhere.

Sounds sensible.

[slackmaster]

13. Sounds insane to me, and thanks for pulling yourself out of the debate

No room for extreme views here. :D

[Fescue4u]

15. sensible???

I suspect that you are being sarcastic (but then again gun control zealots are not known for restraint)

Take you for reinforcing what most everyone already knows...

When someone says "sensible gun control", what they really mean is authoritarian control.

[Terwilliger]

22. I want my nuke and give it to me under the auspices of the 2nd amendment

if you can't...then you should shut up

[slackmaster]

27. Nothing in the 2A entitles you to be GIVEN anything, Ter

If you REALLY want a nuclear weapon, cough up the cash!

[Terwilliger]

29. never said it did, slack

but if they're regulating nukes trying to keep me away from them, that infringes on my RIGHTS :grr:

You wanna bet money on whether or not personal ownership of nuclear materials (much less weapons) is allowed?

[slackmaster]

36. Nobody is trying to keep nuclear weapons away from you

The purpose of the regulations on storage and transport of nuclear materials is to protect the public from the danger that mishandling them would pose.

You wanna bet money on whether or not personal ownership of nuclear materials (much less weapons) is allowed?

Sure, I'll take you up on the bet.

Under our legal system, all that is not specifically prohibited is allowed. The payoff on this bet is therefore contingent on your ability or lack thereof to prove that individuals owning nukes is NOT allowed. Let's extend another common element of gun control arguments into this: Licensing and permits do not constitute prohibitions.

I'll bet you a pint of beer (or beverage of your choice) that you cannot find anywhere in the body of US federal law or regulations any proscription against individuals owning nuclear materials or even weapons.

:beer:

I'm pretty confident you won't be able to find anything. As recently as the 1960s there was serious (obviously misguided) consideration of using nuclear bombs for mining or major earth-moving operations. That would have involved nuclear explosive devices being owned and operated by civilian corporations, which have the same status as people under the court system.

[Terwilliger]

38. ok then...I want the restrictions on ownership removed

like guns

[slackmaster]

40. Write your Congressional representatives

I'd like to see how they respond.

The Nuclear Weapon strawman is one of the oldest and weakest anti-gun arguments in the book. The funny thing is, though Terwilliger is being facetious I am being perfectly serious in my responses.

I support reasonable regulation of nuclear weapons. I believe the regulations we presently have in place for them are adequate.

[Terwilliger]

42. but why? why is not ok for me to have my nuke regulated similar to guns?

you write my congressman....you're the one convinced they're going to take your manhood away

[slackmaster]

44. Now now, don't start making this personal

you're the one convinced they're going to take your manhood away

Ask your girlfriend if I need to be concerned about my manhood.

:D

[Terwilliger]

46. you cant even let my posts go

what makes you think that your defense of guns is anything else?

[slackmaster]

47. I'm not defending guns per se

I'm defending individual rights, freedom of choice, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Fescue4u]

61. Regarding the Ninny Nuke argument.

Strictly speaking, YES. banning nukes violates the 2nd ammendment.

There. Happy?

I would however, would wholeheartedly support a constitutional ammendment banning the private ownership of nuclear devices. So would the NRA, and proably any other sane person you would care to mention.

I would not support, not would the majority of America, support a constitutional ammendment banning firearms.

While laws on the books banning nuclear weapon private ownership ARE unconstitutional, they have never been challenged, and proably never will be challenged in a court of law.

Now, some gun control ninnies, would like to take a quite reasonable belief that nukes should be banned, and expolate that down to squirt guns* (and I am *NOT* exagerrating). This is assine.

However, for those of you who subscribe to such assine beliefs, there is a process for this. If you believe that a weapon, a class of weapons, or all weapons should be banned......write your congressmen and ask him to amend the constitution accordingly. Or get elected and do it yourself.


*(HCI, the predecessor to the Brady Bunch Center, at one time included in its platform the goal of banning all guns, including toy guns and replicas)

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Exactly the reason why we can't accept gun control

Too many people who think as you do.

[Fescue4u]

19. Agreed.

This thread illustrates clearly how if you give the zealots and inch, they will take a mile.

As an example, look at the seriousness to which the zealots seize upon on Nuclear weapon control, and expolate that down to registering every bullet, and every firing of a weapon.

Absolutely astonishing!

[Terwilliger]

23. more astonishing is the fact that you defend my not having nukes

while the 2nd amendment CLEARLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY states that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed!

Gimme my nuke! :nuke:

[slackmaster]

25. Your right to build, keep, and bear nukes has NOT been infringed

It's been regulated to the point where you may not in fact be able to get one without a whole lot of money.

I support reasonable regulation of nuclear weapons. If you really want one, knock yourself out and build or buy one.

(If you DON'T really want one please explain why you brought up this silly strawman in the first place.)

[Terwilliger]

30. silly? its an arm, isn't it? why should they regulate it?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED isnt that what you gunnies keep pointing to?

[slackmaster]

37. Likewise the anti-gunners are always saying licensing is NOT

an infringement on the RKBA.

It works both ways. Goose, gander. Pot, kettle. And all those sayings.

[Terwilliger]

39. where's my nuke?

send me one in the mail

[slackmaster]

41. I don't have one for sale

They're pretty expensive. Got cash?

Don't forget to pay the $200 transfer tax for the BATFE.

[Terwilliger]

43. oh ok...so, when I buy one...I should expect no interference from the govt

ok

[slackmaster]

45. If you do all the paperwork and pay all the fees

No problem. And I fully support your right to do so. Seriously. I mean it.

[DoNotRefill]

66. You seem awfully eager to get a nuke....

I wonder if Ashcroft will understand... :eyes:

[Terwilliger]

91. ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I would LOVE for Ashcroft to come after me...LOVE IT! :-)

[DoNotRefill]

94. Yup....

right up to the point that they set your house on fire and burned you to death while firing at all the exits... :crazy:

[Terwilliger]

96. do you live in fear of your government?

seriously

[DoNotRefill]

103. Not normally.

But then again, you don't see me saying I want to buy a WMD on the internet, either.

Given the times in which we live, maintaining a low profile seems the best way to keep the government off my ass.

Our government has a unique way of dealing with people they don't like. Normally it involves provoking a situation, and then responding with overwhelming force and killing them. This has it's good and bad points from the Government's perspective. It means there's no need for a nasty trial requiring outdated things like a jury and coherent charges, since the people are dead. That's a big plus for them. It also means that they may be held liable in civil court by the estates of the Krispy Kritters. That's a minor negative for them. Personally, I'd rather not end up being burned to death.

[MrBenchley]

31. No it doesn't...

It says clearly and unequivocally that your state can have a well regulated miliita..

[Terwilliger]

34. oh good...then no guns

lets collect all the guns today...they can get them back after they're all registered

OnEdit: you -> they

[DoNotRefill]

107. try that....

and see what happens. there'd be massive non-compliance, with a good possibility for widespread civil upheaval. THAT'LL help our country...

[DoNotRefill]

77. Yup...

but only if you interpret the word "people" to mean "state".

[Terwilliger]

21. hahahah...the usual suspects

:hi:

[DoNotRefill]

65. So let's register subversive literature....

put a waiting period on the purchase of such books, along with a maximum page limit, and other crap. Treat books just like we treat guns. Sound good? Of course not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Sensible gun laws

In theory, Americans support them. In practice, as is obvious in this thread, too many of the gun control people are actually gun banning people.

That means that the slippery slope debate applies. That means that no one who supports gun ownership can give in to those who support gun control because sooner or later they will end up with gun rights the likes of those in D.C. and New York City. In other words, none.

[Terwilliger]

24. you mean, sensible gun laws

you know? its sensible to think that if you make guns easily available to those who would use them improperly, they'll use them...and improperly. Should we restrict that? Or just let them go on their merry way shooting up the neighborhood?

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. THEY already get them

The problem is your "sensible" gun laws stop normal law-abiding folks, not crooks.

Funny thing about criminals, they break laws, sensible or not.

[Terwilliger]

32. funny thing about "pro-gun" leftists...

they want to blame the problem on the same people they claim to want to "help"

they're wise to pick up a gun, when you come to them as friends and then screw them over for a paean to the right-wing

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. I have no interest in helping criminals

I have an interest in helping law-abiding citizens. I've seen enough crooks to last a lifetime. I don't support them in any way, shape or form.

[MrBenchley]

33. What rubbish

"gun laws stop normal law-abiding folks, not crooks."
So do bank robbery laws....but I doubt the American Bank Association is going to call for their repeal...

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Huh?

Laws are made to deter people from crime and set up punishments if they do illegal acts. The problem is criminals are undeterred by the laws against owning guns because they are poorly enforced. Enforce the existing laws against using guns in a crime and forget about punishing the law-abiding public.

[MrBenchley]

52. Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Crime

If you use a gun in the commission of a crime, you should get serious extra time. I don't care if it was a water pistor or a BB gun, the victim doesn't know that.

[MrBenchley]

67. But Koresh forbid

any common sense obstacle to criminals getting guns in the first place interfere with gun industry profits.

[Spoonman]

71. This is the same garbage

you peddle down in the dungeon, and it smells just as bad down there.

You totally fail to make your point with this statement.

So do bank robbery laws....but I doubt the American Bank Association is going to call for their repeal.

NO ONE is advocating repealing existing gun control laws.

The POINT you do make directly contradicts what your trying to advocate.

Bank robbery laws do not stop people from robbing banks.

So why add more laws that would restrict peoples use of banks, and would still not prevent the robberies.

[MrBenchley]

78. Peddle it to Tom DeLay

"NO ONE is advocating repealing existing gun control laws."
Tell us about the AWB, spoon.

"The House of Representatives will not extend a 1994 assault weapons ban set to expire next year despite President Bush's call for its renewal, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said."

http://www.causesthatmatter.com/NewsRoundup/NewsRoundup.cfm?ID=461&c=24

[moondust]

28. That's it!

The Second Amendment clearly applies to militias for this very reason! If the framers of the Constitution had intended it for individuals then THEY WOULD HAVE PLACED SOME RESTRICTIONS ON IT, being of sound mind and knowing full well that the local looney tunes and drunken sailors should under no circumstances be authorized by law to possess their own private artillery pieces. You think they were crazy?

[Spoonman]

73. Take some more history classes

before you engage in a debate in which your knowledge is limited.

The Militia act of 1792 clearly spells out the framers intent of the 2nd amendment.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The right of a person to "bear arms" was so important in fact, that the same people who wrote the 2nd amendment made sure individuals kept that weapon isolated from debt and taxes as demonstrated in the underlined text!!!

[moondust]

76. Go finish 3rd grade.

You conveniently overlooked or couldn't read this part: "... arming the militia as is herein required, ...". Have one of your NRA mentors read it to you. This is clearly not about stashing away artillery pieces or any other guns and ammo for personal use. Nobody in their right mind would open that door. And if you subject the militia's armaments to taxes and debt collection you end up with no militia. No brainer.

[Spoonman]

79. MS Environmental Engineering

But don't let that get in the way of you learning something.

Read it again grasshopper, and then go find yourself a mentor yourself if you fail to grasp it.

That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound

In other words permanent officers of the militia would have to provide a more standardized rifle capable of firing specific weight bullet.

Your highlighted portion states clearly that this document is outlining a requirement for the individuals to provide personal firearms.

Conveniece?, overlooked?, It's not I practicing those techniques.

This is clearly not about stashing away artillery pieces, but it damn sure makes it clear that the framers meant the PEOPLE to remain capable of "bearing arms".

[moondust]

83. You've missed the forest for the trees.

If they had any intention of clarifying and/or further delineating the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms for personal use you would undoubtedly encounter some or all of these words and phrases in the text: personal use; home; self defense; hunting; target shooting; game; turkey; moose; right; rights; himself; family; neighbor; etc.; etc. You get the picture.

This is all about PROVISIONING A MILITIA--not a lunatic squatting in the bushes.

Maybe you bumped your head as a child?

It's obvious that you and/or your NRA chums have mangled the meaning of this act that is totally unrelated to the proliferation of guns and ammo for private use to support your case for uncontrolled gun insanity. Only a small child would not see through it.

[DoNotRefill]

84. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Basic, simple english here, folks. It's not a privilege, its a RIGHT. That right doesn't belong to the State, or even a militia, it belongs to the PEOPLE. And that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Have you EVER considered how the entire Bill of Rights would read if YOUR interpretation of the language of the Second Amendment is allowed to stand, and then is applied to ALL of them?

[MrBenchley]

85. What part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?

"Have you EVER considered how the entire Bill of Rights would read if YOUR interpretation of the language of the Second Amendment is allowed to stand, and then is applied to ALL of them? "
One of the funnier aspects of this "debate" is that the National Rifle Association, source of the "All the amendments are individual rights" horseshit, is currently suing to overturn the campaign finance reform law, on the First Amendment grounds that its COLLECTIVE freedom of speech is being impaired if it is not allowed to hand out its blood money to the GOP.

Meanwhile, if the NRA's revisionist lie about the Second Amendment were true, it could sue to overturn EVERY gun control law in the country on second amendment grounds.

But in fact the nutcases have never sued to overturn ANY gun control law in the country on second amendment grounds. That's never as in nowhere, no how, no way.

What does it say when someone doesn't put their money where their mouth is?

[Spoonman]

87. What part of the

1792 Militia Act do you not understand.
It clearly defines militia, the framers minset, how the militia was to be armed , and dispoves your argument totally.

Why should anyone believe your opinion as opposed to the opinions of hundreds of Constitutional scholars who state that the Bill Of Rights are rights granted to individuals, not states or governments!

Your wrong, you can't admit it, but your going to have to live with it.

[MrBenchley]

108. Spoon, go peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it

"Why should anyone believe your opinion"
Because it's what the courts have universally upheld, not a lie being pushed by a handful of right wing loons.

[DoNotRefill]

95. Well, my "friend"...

you may well get your wish. They're busily trashing the rest of the Bill of Rights as we speak. Aren't you glad they set such a wonderful precedent in 1939?

[MrBenchley]

109. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre......

Go peddle that rubbish to someone dumb enough to buy it...maybe NRA life member John AshKKKroft.

[Spoonman]

86. A small child

could see through you tunnel vision interpretation as well.

In the time frame in which all this was written all firearms were personal!!!!!

What is so difficult to understand about the Militia act? It never say's "bring your government issued rifle"!!

It's only hard to understand the intend and mindset of the framers if your insistant on refusing to understand the time in which it was written.

They were never provided by the government for a militia, it was the individuals duty to bring their PERSONAL firearm to the call of the militia.

I'm sorry if you fail to understand this.
You try to imply modern day thought to something that took place 200+ years ago.

Firearms were for self defense, hunting and war.
EVERYONE living in that era new these things, and there are hundreds of other documents and statements to prove it.
The framers probably never thought about gun o phobic, neo nazi interpretations of individual rights, or they would have spelled it out clear enough to dispell unfounded fear and ignorance of the era.

Small child indeed is what I'm dealing with.

[slackmaster]

12. The author of that piece has been debating gun control for many years

I am very familiar with Jason's writings on the subject. His views and attitude have mellowed somewhat over time. Here's the short version of my response to his specific proposals:

1. A national system for registering guns and ammunition.

That would be nice but it's not a realistic goal. Any Presidential candidate who supported national gun registration would not stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected. As a "next best thing" alternative I propose making instant criminal background checks (on prospective buyers) available for private individuals who wish to sell used guns. The current system is available only to federally licensed gun dealers.

Registering guns is definitely a non-starter. Trying to register the billions of rounds of ammunition used in the US every year would be absurd and pointless.

2. Instant background checks on people attempting to buy guns or ammunition.

Guns yes, ammunition no. There are way more sales of ammo than of guns. Ammunition is useless without a gun, and can be easily made from components. (Lots of shooters including me reload their own to save money and make more accurate ammo.) As mentioned above I would make the present National Instant Check System (NICS) available for use by private citizens, with some safeguards to prevent it from being abused. The database needs some improvements, but it's a good start.

3. Stiffer sentences for gun crimes.

(Jason says:) This has been the position of the NRA for quite some time, and it is certainly one with which I agree.

The fact that the NRA supports it will make this an automatic no-go for some of the knee-jerk gun control advocates here. I don't have a problem with it.

4. Gun education.

I support making gun safety education available in public schools. We try to teach them how to avoid dangerous drugs and sexual practices and how to drive safely. There's no reason not to teach every kid how to safely UNload and inspect all of the major types of firearms, using only dummy guns and ammo of course. As with sex education I'd allow for kids to be opted out at the request of their parents.

5. General education.

Knowledge is good and educated people are indeed less likely to become involved in violent crime. I've always been a strong supporter of public eduction. More is better.

6. Hand grip ID tagging.

As Jason says this is a future technology. If and when it is developed it may be of some use in some situations, but I would never approve of it being mandated for personal firearms as has been done in the backward state of New Jersey.

[CoffeePlease1947]

14. Nukes don't kill people, people nuke people!

Nukes save lives. I need a nuke. You know much easier hunting would be if I had a nuke?

Mike

[Fescue4u]

16. Republicans LOVE Gun Control Zealotry

Because it proably wins more elections than anything else.

Presidency, House, Senate.

Thats what gun control zealots have cost us!

[MrBenchley]

35. Yeah, surrrrrrre....

The GOP loves bigotry too...shall we also start spouting code words and supporting discrimination?

[Mairead]

20. Something that should be remembered is that Gandhi-ji himself

deplored the lack of privately-owned firearms in India. His program of passive resistance came about not out of deeply pacifistic principle, but because the British had disarmed the Indian people and passive resistance was the only tool he had to work with! And, as Orwell remarked at the time, it was lucky for Gandhi-ji that the Brits were the colonialists, because passive resistance would have been self-destructively futile against, e.g., the Nazis, who also disarmed the citizenry and whose favorite method for dealing with opposition was to 'disapppear' people: Nacht und Nebel.

(This was brought out by Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals)

[luckydevi]

48. Ghandi

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
--Mahatma Ghandi

[redeye]

49. So?

Gandhi isn't omniscient. You haven't refuted any of Jason's points, actually.

[Mairead]

64. Well, let me just do the first one then, actually

He uses libel as an example of limitation on the First Amendment. I'll ignore the fact that he apparently doesn't know the difference between libel and slander, but I'll use the proper word.

Slander is a tort, not a crime -- you cannot be criminally fined or thrown in prison for slander. Nor does it limit speech. The person slandered can take you to court for damages, but only after the speech, and any money awarded is for the social injury the speech causes, not the act of speaking itself. If I slander you and you never hear about it, I'm safe. Or if I lie about you in an injurious way and you're the only one who hears it, I'm safe. No social injury, no slander.

So his attempt at claiming that 'libel' laws limit First Amendment rights and are thus equivalent to a-priori restrictions on firearm ownership falls on its face.

His other arguments are similarly specious.

[uptohere]

53. so whats the case ?

all I know is that where gun control is slight, crime goes down, where gun control is tight, crime is high. and that goes for Great Britan and Australia as well as the US of A.

Its already a crime to use a gun to commit a crime. Enforce that and make it unattractive to use a weapon wrongly.

[MrBenchley]

54. Then all you know is wrong

But that doesn't keep the RKBA crowd from pretending there's a bloodbath in Australia and Great Britain...

Australia and Texas both have about 20 million citizens....Australia has gun control, Texas has next to none...

Australia....300 gun deaths a year
Texas.....2,600 gun deaths a year

Australia..…23,000 robberies a year
Texas.........30,000 robberies a year

[uptohere]

55. look at statistics before and after their gun control measures

they are up. The fact that they still seem to respect human life some does not change the facts. Gun control does not work.

[redeye]

56. Sicne you're arguing that...

...I believe that you or other gun nuts should supply the statistics supporting your case, not us gun grabbers.

[MrBenchley]

58. Down on J/PS

somebody is trying to make this same dishonest case with the London borough of Ealing, which is about the size of Arlington, Texas, and has had 61 gun CRIMES in six months. (Not gun deaths, but total gun crimes)

I'd be willing to bet Arlington has 61 gun crimes a month, if not a week....

[uptohere]

60. fair enough, thought it was pretty well reported but maybe not where you l

here is the Australia data...

http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org

and around here...

http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org

[MrBenchley]

68. And here's Australia's reaction to that hooey

"LISON CALDWELL: Attorney-General Darryl Williams says what the NRA is doing is offensive. And if they used the correct statistics they'd find Australia's gun laws have been effective.
DARRYL WILLIAMS: One gets somewhat outraged when an organisation based in the United States, where there are something like 11,000 firearms homicides in one year, is telling us our gun laws fail. When our statistics show that in 1998 there were only 54 firearms homicides which was a significant reduction from the previous year."

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s112652.htm

[Spoonman]

74. OK...Gun control in Texas

Texas passed the concealed carry law in late 1994.
1995 was the first full in effect year.
Take a look at the murder rate after it became legal to carry a concealed handgun.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

WOW it’s dropping!!!!!

Less control less crime, WTF, now tell us your side again.

[MrBenchley]

80. Still peddling this lie, spoon?

Murders dropped EVERYWHERE after the Brady Law, not just in Texas. And as you will note, they were dropping in Texas BEFORE 1995.

"Professor John Donohue of Stanford has recently completed an exhaustive new study that examined crime data across the country - updating the research that John Lott claimed showed concealed handgun laws reduce crime. Professor Donohue's study, published by the Brookings Institute, directly refutes Lott's findings and demonstrates that the concealed handgun laws (CCW) pushed by Lott and the NRA most likely caused more crime rather than the reduction in crime claimed by Lott. While John Lott's study covered only a short period of time, during which urban crime was already rising, Professor Donohue studied the longer impact of CCW laws. Professor Donohue joins a long list of respected scholars who have debunked Lott's study as flawed and misleading."
www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/press/books/chapter_1/evaluatinggunpolicy.pdf

[Spoonman]

81. Still peddling your lies B

Here's some interesting reading written by a couple of pro-gun control researchers.

In the U.S. the Brady Law, a measure implemented in February 1994, enforced a nationwide series of background checks of potential gun buyers. In July 2000 the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) issued a report that claimed the Brady Law had significantly reduced the number of homicides nationwide. About a week later, however, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study (once again by Cook and Ludwig) that found that the introduction of background checks had not reduced homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=oped&ID=9

[MrBenchley]

82. Keep on spinning, spoon.....

I'm sure you'll get near a fact someday..

[Spoonman]

88. Coming from

the King O' Spin. Hand us another laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MrBenchley]

110. Gee, spoon

You're the one trying to pretend the 2,600 gun deaths in Texas is less than the 300 gun deaths in Australia...

[MrBenchley]

57. Surrrrrre....

"look at statistics before and after their gun control measures"
In the 1980's, Australia was averaging 600-700 gun deaths a year...now they average 300.

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=14

[redeye]

59. But that's tyranny!

The right to bear arms is more important than any rights! Read the Founders' documents! YOU NAZI TYRANT!!!

<gun nut mode=OFF>

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. You can change the laws

Just change the Constitution first. Oh, and remember to take care of it AFTER the civil war that would take place.

[MrBenchley]

70. Koresh forbid gun deaths here be cut in half

by something like common sense and the voters' wishes.

[DrGonzoLives]

72. Sure, let's just ignore

the culture of violence in this country. Nothing to see here...

Ask yourself why countries like Canada, and Switzerland, and Finland, all have high rates of gun ownership yet don't have all those casulaties? Because of culture. I know this is an idea that you gun control advocates simply refuse to acknowledge, but there it is.

I will grant that some of it has to do with things like encouraging locks and other safety measures, if not outright requiring them (and I have no problem with that) but to simply say "Ban guns!" is to ignore a larger problem in this country.

But, hey, if you'd rather go that route, by all means, take the easy way out.

[Spoonman]

75. We should look at more than the Bill of Rights

to determine what the framers intended by the 2nd Amendment.

Oh looky the perfect document for the whole "what did they mean by bear arms and militia argument".

The Militia act of 1792 clearly spells out the framers intent of the 2nd amendment.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The right of a person to "bear arms" was so important in fact, that the same people who wrote the 2nd amendment made sure individuals kept that weapon isolated from debt and taxes in this act, so as to always have it, as demonstrated in the underlined text!!!

[redeye]

89. Who cares about that?

I don't give a flying fuck what's in the constitution. The article concentrates mostly on whether there should be gun control, not whether it's constitutional.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

90. Without the Constitution

There is no United States of America.

[Terwilliger]

92. are you just getting around to noticing that?

we don't have the constitution unless you have a team of lawyers to prove it

[Man_in_the_Moon]

93. True, but that is caused by people with the attitude

"I don't care what is in the constitution. I just want to do what I want to do, if it takes hiring a team of lawyers/politicians/judges/whatever, I dont care if they have to fold/spindle/mutilate it."

[DoNotRefill]

97. Sweet!!!!

By that, I guess you're "Heil Bush!" sig is really more of a positive statement supporting him than a statement condemning his trampling of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If you really "don't give a flying fuck what's in the constitution", then you've got no real room to bitch about Bush's tyranny.

[AZTOY]

98. With out guns

How do we fight Bush's tyranny?

[redeye]

100. Good question

Now let me ask one of my own: With guns, how do we fight Bush's tyranny? I mean, frontal combat is useless when your opponent has tanks and planes and missiles and nuclear weapons, and you can conduct guerilla warfare with home-made bombs.

[DoNotRefill]

104. So, when the Revolution inevitably comes, as it invariably must...

you would rather fight it with at least one hand tied behind our backs? Why not pass laws banning everything usable as a weapon except knives with a blade length of less than 3 inches? That'll make us safer!!! ;-)

Of course, when the Gestapo and the SS kicks in your front door, you'll pretty much be SOL unless you have a gun...even then you're SOL, but maybe you could take some of the bastards with you.

BTW, I'd just like to state that I hope the Revolution doesn't come for a long, long time, so please, Mr. Monitoring Government Agent, don't burn my house down around me as a subversive...

[redeye]

99. Why not?

I think that privacy, regardless of whether it's in the constitution or not, should not be violated. I also think that stricter gun regulations, regardless of whether they're unconstitutional or not, should be in place.

But then again, constitutional fundamentalists don't have a problem with the fact that slavery was abolished even though it was implicit in the constitution ("if a person bound to service," "free persons... other person"), so there's a precedent for significant constitutional change.

By the way, Heil Bush has nothing to do with the USA's bill of rights and everything to do with the fact that Bush cares about civil liberties to the same extent Hitler did. Notice, by the way, that civil liberties are defined independently of constitutions and laws; constitutions are supposed to protect civil liberties, but they don't always do.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

101. erm it is called the 13th Amendment

But then again, constitutional fundamentalists don't have a problem with the fact that slavery was abolished even though it was implicit in the constitution ("if a person bound to service," "free persons... other person"), so there's a precedent for significant constitutional change.

That 'significant Constitutional change' was done by an Amendment, not by any fiat or any law passed by Congress. The abolishment of Slavery in effect and in actuality became PART of the Constitution when the Amendment was ratified.

[redeye]

102. Okay...

...so I support a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd and to let Congress and the states regulate the use of firearms and explosives. If the wingnuts can pass a federal anti-gay marriage amendment, then we gun grabbers can pass a federal gun control amendment, too.

[DoNotRefill]

105. Dream on...

Rural states would NEVER allow such an amendment to pass. That's why the gun grabbers are trying to sidestep the legislative process.

[DoNotRefill]

106. If the Constitution and BoR doesn't protect our civil liberties...

what the fuck is going to? Without the BoR, we're well and truly fucked. It's in our best interest to keep the BoR STRONG. That means ALL of it. Whittling away the parts we don't like is EXACTLY what got us into this clusterfuck. BAAAAAAD JuJu, man....

[MrBenchley]

111. You'll also notice the RKBA crowd and the corrupt gun industry

SUPPORT this unelected drunk and his band of thugs....