Would you ever consider getting a gun?

[Trader]

Not to change topics, but has anybody read the 2nd and understand what means? It is only one sentence:

 

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.

 

Again... There is a comma there (red) not a period. From what I read, the right to bear arms is only within the context of being part of a well regulated militia. Where does anybody get the idea that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms?

 

??

 

You are beating a dead horse the supreme court ruled on this. It is a right of the People. The constitutional interpretation is that is a collective right of all of the people not of the state. A militia is not similar to the National guard.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Not trying to start a big constitutional argument here,but I have a question. How does the 2nd amendment guarantee our right to keep modern guns when the guns that we all own,shotguns,semi-autos,revolvers,didn't even exist when the Bill of Rights was written?

 

 

Right, and you are only free to speak words that were around when they signed the Constitution. Brilliant! I'm sure the founding fathers could not have forseen technological advancements when they sat down to hammer out the amendments.

[Dibs]

IIRC, Australia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the free world. Is that true and how does it affect crime and punishment there?

I'm having to disagree with swede316 on a lot of what he thinks on this topic.....

It is generally 'not easy' getting a gun in Australia....particularly metropolitan areas. There are rigorous background, psych & knowledge testing. Also, 'reason' for purchasing a gun is an important factor here....hence easier getting a rifle or shotgun in rural areas. There are 30 day waiting times to reduce the 'impulse' purchases of guns. The type of gun is also heavily restricted.....why would anyone need a semi-auto apart from simply wanting one?

 

There is however a bit of a 'gun culture' in Australia(though nowhere near as much as the US) due to our historically settlement/bush background. The UK for instance has a much lesser 'gun culture' and as I understand it they have far fewer guns per capita than Australia.

 

Generally though, there are very few gun related incidents. Most gun incidents are caused by nutjobs or by organized crime(usually against other organized crime). Sure, when there is a spate of incidents(as there has been recently with the bikey gangs), people react on their fears.....but having easier gun access is never going to stop the organized criminals nor protect one from the crossfire.

 

Interestingly, several years back there was a spate of knife/machete incidents in suburbia by certain elements of the youth/gangs. This lead to a hardening of 'blade' laws which......funnily enough.....led to the reduction in blade attacks.

 

Unfortunately in the US(as I see it), guns have become so ingrained in society & so easily accessed(both legally & illegally) that restrictions on guns would not have a substantial effect(at least for the short-medium term)......though that is no reason to not introduce them. Over here a home invasion is virtually never committed by someone with a gun. The burglar simply breaks in & robs the place....and if confronted usually scarpers or at worst bashes someone a bit. In the US, that same burglar could easily be carrying a gun. In a panic that gun is easy to use & to kill.

 

Basically.....in answer to your question.....I don't know the stats but.....gun deaths/injuries are extremely low here & the overall murder rate here would be a lot lower than in the US. Obviously the accidental deaths/injury would be lesser as well. In terms of punishment.....as in every country, there seems to be little logic as to the severity of some crimes over others etc, etc. In regards to guns, there is I believe fairly strong penalties for having illegal guns(or weapons in general). I'm pretty sure however that the punishment for using a gun is the same as for any other 'deadly weapon'. Studies have shown that strong punishments do not work as a deterrent. Criminals either don't believe they will be caught.....or don't care if they are caught. Very few people who think "I'll go kill that bastard" or "I'll rob that store 'cause I need my drugs" are going to pause and say "Wait a minute.....the penalty for doing that is really high....I'd better not do it."

[el Tigre]

This all was recently decided by the Supreme court there are forums diedicated to it. Arms means the arms of the day. "The people" is a collective right. "The Militia" is not the National Guard.

Thanks. Like I said,I wasn't looking to start an argument. I'm a gun owner myself. I've always wondered how the 2nd amendment was interpeted to include modern guns. Now I know.

[Trader]

I'm having to disagree with swede316 on a lot of what he thinks on this topic.....

It is generally 'not easy' getting a gun in Australia....particularly metropolitan areas. There are rigorous background, psych & knowledge testing. Also, 'reason' for purchasing a gun is an important factor here....hence easier getting a rifle or shotgun in rural areas. There are 30 day waiting times to reduce the 'impulse' purchases of guns. The type of gun is also heavily restricted.....why would anyone need a semi-auto apart from simply wanting one?

 

There is however a bit of a 'gun culture' in Australia(though nowhere near as much as the US) due to our historically settlement/bush background. The UK for instance has a much lesser 'gun culture' and as I understand it they have far fewer guns per capita than Australia.

 

Generally though, there are very few gun related incidents. Most gun incidents are caused by nutjobs or by organized crime(usually against other organized crime). Sure, when there is a spate of incidents(as there has been recently with the bikey gangs), people react on their fears.....but having easier gun access is never going to stop the organized criminals nor protect one from the crossfire.

 

Interestingly, several years back there was a spate of knife/machete incidents in suburbia by certain elements of the youth/gangs. This lead to a hardening of 'blade' laws which......funnily enough.....led to the reduction in blade attacks.

 

Unfortunately in the US(as I see it), guns have become so ingrained in society & so easily accessed(both legally & illegally) that restrictions on guns would not have a substantial effect(at least for the short-medium term)......though that is no reason to not introduce them. Over here a home invasion is virtually never committed by someone with a gun. The burglar simply breaks in & robs the place....and if confronted usually scarpers or at worst bashes someone a bit. In the US, that same burglar could easily be carrying a gun. In a panic that gun is easy to use & to kill.

 

Basically.....in answer to your question.....I don't know the stats but.....gun deaths/injuries are extremely low here & the overall murder rate here would be a lot lower than in the US. Obviously the accidental deaths/injury would be lesser as well. In terms of punishment.....as in every country, there seems to be little logic as to the severity of some crimes over others etc, etc. In regards to guns, there is I believe fairly strong penalties for having illegal guns(or weapons in general). I'm pretty sure however that the punishment for using a gun is the same as for any other 'deadly weapon'. Studies have shown that strong punishments do not work as a deterrent. Criminals either don't believe they will be caught.....or don't care if they are caught. Very few people who think "I'll go kill that bastard" or "I'll rob that store 'cause I need my drugs" are going to pause and say "Wait a minute.....the penalty for doing that is really high....I'd better not do it."

 

There are some similarities bettween the U.S and Austrialian histories but there are many more diffences. The U.S. has a much different economic and political system. The U.S. has a much more capiltalistic and free flow of capital. The legacy and lingering effects of slavery and the gap between haves and have nots is more extreme int he U.S. Australia is a relatively unpopulated continent. It is isolated by it's geography. It's borders are relatively easy to control

 

Hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of US. citizens here own and use semi automatic weapons. we shoot in leagues we participate in the government sponsored civilian marksmanship program (yes the U.S. government does encourage it's citizens to be able to shoot straight). Do a million people have to surrender there arms because of less that a 100 deviants a year? Who says they would not just find another way to comit mass murder?

 

We don't deport millions of Italian Americans becaue of 1000 members of the Mafia.

We don't put millions of African Americans in Concentration camps because of a few thousand gang members.

We don't send 3 million muslims to Gitmo because of the Lackawanna 6.

 

 

The U.S. is a place where the freedoms are greater and the risks are higher - most of us like it that way.

[Dibs]

There are some similarities bettween the U.S and Austrialian histories but there are many more diffences. The U.S. has a much different economic and political system. The U.S. has a much more capiltalistic and free flow of capital. The legacy and lingering effects of slavery and the gap between haves and have nots is more extreme int he U.S. Australia is a relatively unpopulated continent. It is isolated by it's geography. It's borders are relatively easy to control

 

Hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of US. citizens here own and use semi automatic weapons. we shoot in leagues we participate in the government sponsored civilian marksmanship program (yes the U.S. government does encourage it's citizens to be able to shoot straight). Do a million people have to surrender there arms because of less that a 100 deviants a year? Who says they would not just find another way to comit mass murder?

 

We don't deport millions of Italian Americans becaue of 1000 members of the Mafia.

We don't put millions of African Americans in Concentration camps because of a few thousand gang members.

We don't send 3 million muslims to Gitmo because of the Lackawanna 6.

 

 

The U.S. is a place where the freedoms are greater and the risks are higher - most of us like it that way.

I totally agree about the historical differences between the two countries. I mentioned earlier that I believe that firm gun control would not have any significant effect due to the existing proliferation of guns in society.

 

To me the discussion doesn't really have anything to do with 'freedoms'. Living in any society hinders the individuals rights to 'do as they please'.....or put another way.....hinders their freedoms.

Our freedoms are restricted in many, many ways and for many varied reasons.

We cannot walk around in a public place naked.

Over here we cannot have a pool without a child proof safety fence around it.

We cannot tinker with biological or explosive material.

We cannot travel on planes carrying whatever we want.

We cannot determine the maturity level of our own children.

We cannot take any drug we chose.

We cannot drive how we like nor be under the influence of drugs.

etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

IMO the freedoms are not greater in the US than over here.....though not exactly lesser either. Just different. Over here we are not subjected to as many minority influences controlling the laws of the land(state). Censorship is less, political correctness is not as influential, police powers are not as strong......basically all of the important freedoms

To boil 'freedoms' down to basically "I should be allowed to own a gun....and any one I chose" is not a good measure of freedom.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Right, and you are only free to speak words that were around when they signed the Constitution. Brilliant! I'm sure the founding fathers could not have forseen technological advancements when they sat down to hammer out the amendments.

 

Are the new words more deadly than the old words?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Are the new words more deadly than the old words?

I hope you're not in law school. That was a head scratcher of a remark if I ever heard one.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What about the word "people" do not grasp? It is a citizens right not a states right .Thats why it IS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

 

 

Yes, a citizen's right you are correct WITHIN a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. It is still ONE sentence and that is a VERY BIG comma. Some say reading comprehension has been on the decline lately, but it (reading comprehension) has been on the decline since the start of our country.

 

Now, don't get me wrong... I like the creative interpretation our country has been using since it's inception of the USC with regards to the 2nd and I DO NOT WANT IT CHANGED. But, it is all there in black and right.

 

You do have a right to bear arms... As long as it is "militia" arms which is "well regulated." Kinda like I said... Like a police officer taking their cruiser home for the night... The official vehicle is still regulated by the PD... Yet, the citizen (police officer) can use it at their disposal for official and well regulated business. Just in this case (2nd) they don't mind you buy your own arms. Back (200 years ago) then there was a lot more mixing of official with personal then there is today. Now don't get me wrong, I would take that even most solidiers in the REGULAR army back then would carry their own private arms out of choice? Why would the militia/gov't spring for the bill for your arms that you would certainly use for private use? Also, remember standardization with regards to arms was almost 80 years off... With regards to the north and the Civil War. Basically, if you weren't your own gunsmith... One had their own gunsmith. That (non-standardization and firearms) is something that is not addressed when talking about "well regulated" and the 2nd... It was a fact...

 

Again... Militia is a "loose term"... By no means does it mean private... It is collective in nature... I don't know how we ever got away from this execpt that arms back then was a very personal item and still remains a very personal item (even with the advent of standardization).

[ExiledInIllinois]

This all was recently decided by the Supreme court there are forums dedicated to it. Arms means the arms of the day. "The people" is a collective right. "The Militia" is not the National Guard.

 

 

I know. I don't agree. I think it is the other way around... There is no way the Supreme court would not uphold the status quo. The people have a collective right to form a militia... Yet, it has to be well regulated.

[ExiledInIllinois]

You are beating a dead horse the supreme court ruled on this. It is a right of the People. The constitutional interpretation is that is a collective right of all of the people not of the state. A militia is not similar to the National guard.

 

I know... Just saying. What the SC ruled is what is upheld and I honor that.

[The Dean]

Yes, a citizen's right you are correct WITHIN a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. It is still ONE sentence and that is a VERY BIG comma. Some say reading comprehension has been on the decline lately, but it (reading comprehension) has been on the decline since the start of our country.

 

 

I think that is an excellent argument/discussion point.

 

But, I always get a chuckle when people purport to know what the "founding fathers" would think about this, or any number of issues that couldn't have been foreseen when the constitution/BOR was written and ratified. (For the record, I'm not saying you are doing that.) My guess is, they would have the same kind of arguments among themselves, as we have now.

[ExiledInIllinois]

There is however a bit of a 'gun culture' in Australia(though nowhere near as much as the US) due to our historically settlement/bush background.

 

What, no where near as the US??... It (Australia) was settled by criminals at first. IMO, arms was just kept in check since the start... Do you want to give arms to criminals? I think not!

 

Ya, I wonder why??? Australia was a prison colony after the Brits lost the Rev and the right to Georgia... So basically it was a far away place for the Crown to dump criminals and prostitutes.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

I think that is an excellent argument/discussion point.

 

But, I always get a chuckle when people purport to know what the "founding fathers" would think about this, or any number of issues that couldn't have been foreseen when the constitution/BOR was written and ratified. (For the record, I'm not saying you are doing that.) My guess is, they would have the same kind of arguments among themselves, as we have now.

 

 

I know what the Supreme court ruled and I abide... I think they ruled out of fear or to maintain the status quo. A firearm was like my boot is to me today... And people still cling to that. No way does the SC take that away... It is like taking a social service away if they correct the intrepretation to what is worded... Even worse because the people who get spurned are packing heat!