Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun

[Ifreann]

What about it?

400 years of peace, cuckooclocks everywere, and pretty good chocolate.

Which you definitively show to be because of their militia and not, say, their policy of neutrality and possession of vast quantities of other people's money?

[The Serbian Empire]

It's quite possible that they have unwittingly done so assuming that they could get away with it another clause for the general safety and well-being. Of course, there isn't much of a need of a militia at this time given the global hegemony powers that are the US military.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

I believe "the right to bear arms" was designed to be part of our checks and balances system, or at least a prevision if our checks and balances fail. The militia was suppose to be part of US culture. As a result of our failure to maintain this, we now pay taxes for the world's largest military in the hand of an increasingly corrupt, ineffective, and failing government.

Or maybe because in the 18th century, they couldn't imagine electricity, semiautomatics, and people flying. Its almost like things aren't the same forever.

How would a militia be useful for day to day life in the modern world? We've gone from a time when everyone used to have a variety of skills just to survive to a point where specialization is required to advance. Unless you're advocating everyone know how to grow their own crops, make their own clothes, dig wells, etc, and somehow have time to get skills in things like medical research...

Perhaps elected representatives would actually give a shit about the concerns of the public if they were well armed, instead of only looking out for the interests of the rich, big business, and the special interest groups that line their pockets.

[The New Lowlands]

No; times have changed, and reasonable limits must be placed on gun use and ownership.

The Constitution, which pro-gun activists seem to hold to be the word of God, was written in an era before you could murder entire schools with relative ease.

If you want to keep the freedom to use weapons, by all means campaign to do so, but don't refer to a 200-year-old document written in an era where law enforcement could not be reasonably expected to protect everyone and their property, and where there weren't armoured vehicles that are, incidentally, often bulletproof.

That being said, in accordance with the law, the United States' government does not have the right to completely ban gun use or ownership without amending the Constitution.

@Surfistan; Insofar as I'm aware, Switzerland does not maintain a civil militia. It has a standing army with conscription. Would you like such a system to be implemented in the USA?

[Imperializt Russia]

It's been long possible to "massacre entire schools with ease" long before self-loading rifles were seriously a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Law Enforcement already cannot guarantee the safety of the populace. That's why concealed carry is such a thing, as are weapons for home defence. If a shooting situation is typically over in a few seconds and the police have an average eight minute response time, I don't think they're going to be much help in the prevention of a crime.

[Surfistan]

400 years of peace, cuckooclocks everywere, and pretty good chocolate.

Which you definitively show to be because of their militia and not, say, their policy of neutrality and possession of vast quantities of other people's money?

It sure as hell has something to do with their neutrality policy, not so much with the rich folks money, I think that's something that started in 20 century.

Ooh wait, it has an army, just a very small one, well relatively small.

[The New Lowlands]

It's been long possible to "massacre entire schools with ease" long before self-loading rifles were seriously a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Note the use of 'relative.' Also; your point?

[Imperializt Russia]

It's been long possible to "massacre entire schools with ease" long before self-loading rifles were seriously a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Note the use of 'relative.' Also; your point?

I don't see the point of how you're using "relative", here.

[The New Lowlands]

Note the use of 'relative.' Also; your point?

I don't see the point of how you're using "relative", here.

In the US, I'd say it's easier today than at any other point in history.

[Enadail]

Or maybe because in the 18th century, they couldn't imagine electricity, semiautomatics, and people flying. Its almost like things aren't the same forever.

How would a militia be useful for day to day life in the modern world? We've gone from a time when everyone used to have a variety of skills just to survive to a point where specialization is required to advance. Unless you're advocating everyone know how to grow their own crops, make their own clothes, dig wells, etc, and somehow have time to get skills in things like medical research...

Perhaps elected representatives would actually give a shit about the concerns of the public if they were well armed, instead of only looking out for the interests of the rich, big business, and the special interest groups that line their pockets.

Right, because rebellion every time something you don't like comes along is the way to do it.

Maybe instead of looking at options that have no chance of working, people could get off their lazy asses and do something about it themselves. American voters tend to be the least involved and least knowledgeable of any I've met. We're too concerned with how well people speak or how they look; its important that leaders have charisma first, skill later. People so rarely know details about the topics at hand and just wait for some talking head, from either side of the line, to give them the information, not caring about how accurate it is.

Civilians with guns don't matter. Unless we switch from democracy to anarchy and drop the Constitution, bringing up arms against national leaders is a crime, and rightfully so, and no armed civilian will stand up against the Army. And as much as our representatives suck, its OUR fault. So if we had guns to use against Reps, they'd have military platoons waiting on call. And we'd just be in a worse place then before.

[Farnhamia]

No it doesn't.

Well, a school shooting may not, but shootings certainly do, and I'd wager there's at least 5 shootings a day in the US that involve innocents.

More, I think: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/nocera/ ... om=opinion

[The Genoese Cromanatum]

How have they over stepped their boundaries?

As to the right to bare arms? Well the INJUN problem, the British Empire, and the French are gone. Not sure if we need the militias anymore.

Perhaps it's nice to keep them around in case your government becomes the problem though, hm?

[Agritum]

"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred." ~Niccolo Machiavelli

Helps that Machiavelli lived in an era where Italian city states usually warred together, and most of the military was composed by the few nobles, mercenaries, militia and levymen.

[The New Lowlands]

It's been long possible to "massacre entire schools with ease" long before self-loading rifles were seriously a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Law Enforcement already cannot guarantee the safety of the populace. That's why concealed carry is such a thing, as are weapons for home defence. If a shooting situation is typically over in a few seconds and the police have an average eight minute response time, I don't think they're going to be much help in the prevention of a crime.

The thing about prevention is that you don't really see it happening.

[Greed and Death]

Were there a bunch of federal gun laws passed while I was studying for the bar exam ?

[Hebalobia]

If you want to get all technical and literal interpretation about it, the only guns the 2nd Amendment allows you to have are flint lock pistols and smooth bore muskets as those were the "arms" when it was written.

As far as I'm concerned, anything else is fair game.

[Ifreann]

Or maybe because in the 18th century, they couldn't imagine electricity, semiautomatics, and people flying. Its almost like things aren't the same forever.

How would a militia be useful for day to day life in the modern world? We've gone from a time when everyone used to have a variety of skills just to survive to a point where specialization is required to advance. Unless you're advocating everyone know how to grow their own crops, make their own clothes, dig wells, etc, and somehow have time to get skills in things like medical research...

Perhaps elected representatives would actually give a shit about the concerns of the public if they were well armed, instead of only looking out for the interests of the rich, big business, and the special interest groups that line their pockets.

If you feel the need to maintain a constant threat of death over your elected officials then perhaps the problem is you and who you elect.

---

It's been long possible to "massacre entire schools with ease" long before self-loading rifles were seriously a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Law Enforcement already cannot guarantee the safety of the populace. That's why concealed carry is such a thing, as are weapons for home defence.

Don't two thirds of the US not own guns?

If a shooting situation is typically over in a few seconds and the police have an average eight minute response time, I don't think they're going to be much help in the prevention of a crime.

Because you have an overly narroww idea of what prevention is.

[Mirkana]

No, it has not. Please note the "well-regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment. It stands to reason that the government should be able to control exactly who has guns, and what kind, so that if we need to set up a civilian militia, we get a relatively organized force and not a mob with guns.

I think that in all honesty, the 2nd Amendment needs a rewrite. The leading reason is that the days when ordinary citizens with guns could pose a threat to an organized military are over. So I suggest that we split the 2nd Amendment into two amendments:

2a.
The states shall provide for the establishment of a well-regulated militia to support the armed forces and law enforcement in the execution of their duties.

This could, in all honesty, be covered by the National Guard. But there is some merit to the old concept of minutemen. Take, for instance, the recent child abduction case in California. While it was resolved fairly well, it might have been resolved sooner had the police been able to call up the local militia to provide additional warm bodies. Perhaps we should require members of the National Guard to keep their personal gear in their homes, presumably presenting it for inspection on a regular basis to ensure it had been properly. Some - the minutemen - would be required to keep their gear nearby at all times, in the event of a dire emergency.

2b.
To help ensure the security of life and property, the right of citizens to employ reasonable means of self-defense shall not be infringed.

"Reasonable means of self-defense" is of course a subject for debate. I would suggest that it would certainly cover owning semiautomatic weapons in the house, or carrying a sidearm with a single magazine in public spaces. And on a related note, I think that current knife laws need an overhaul. If we're allowing people to carry guns, I think we can trust people with daggers or switchblades.

[The New Lowlands]

How have they over stepped their boundaries?

As to the right to bare arms? Well the INJUN problem, the British Empire, and the French are gone. Not sure if we need the militias anymore.

Perhaps it's nice to keep them around in case your government becomes the problem though, hm?

If your government is threatening to become the problem, you should watch who you elect better.

[Galloism]

Well, a school shooting may not, but shootings certainly do, and I'd wager there's at least 5 shootings a day in the US that involve innocents.

More, I think: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/nocera/ ... om=opinion

I mean, technically most shootings probably involve innocents.

Either they're the victim or the shooter.

[Gunstan]

1. I understood it, but in the end the gurillas still sucsedded.

2. Likewise with the rest of society, some individuals did mass shootins AND SOME individuals did some mass shootins., this includes a( entire unit in the My Lai massacre)

So, you just made a hypocryte of yourself.

1) you don't seem to understand the point so I'll drop it.

2) No. That's not how it works. On the one hand you have people who are paid to use said Assault Rifles in the defense of our country and it's interests. On the other hand you have a group of people with zero need for said Assault Rifles.

Says you, how do you decide I or anyone else does not need a assault rifle? And you know, its not even a Assault Rifle untill Assault has been commited with it.

You know, face it the only reason you want to take Semi or fully automatic rifles away is because of recent shootings, you know in many states, AR-15s and other "Military" style weapons are banned from hunting simply because they Are not powerful enough

They dont have the power to take down a animal, but in a target or combat situation, they kick ass.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see the point of how you're using "relative", here.

In the US, I'd say it's easier today than at any other point in history.

Apparently not, since the deadliest school attack was and still is an eighty-six years-since bombing.

It's been long possible to "massacre entire schools with ease" long before self-loading rifles were seriously a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Law Enforcement already cannot guarantee the safety of the populace. That's why concealed carry is such a thing, as are weapons for home defence.

Don't two thirds of the US not own guns?

One third of the US is under 15 or over 65. A quarter is 18 or under and thus ineligible to own firearms.
Critically, half of all households have a gun. I'd say that was more important as a statistic than the numbers of adults who "own" firearms.

Strictly speaking, if 117mn households have firearms, then each firearm has on average three firearms. However, that figure is from 2010, when ownership was lower and murders were higher.

[Galloism]

Strictly speaking, if 117mn households have firearms, then each firearm has on average three firearms. However, that figure is from 2010, when ownership was lower and murders were higher.

Well now you done broke the universe and earth is an infinitely massive black hole.

I hope you're happy.

[Ifreann]

1) you don't seem to understand the point so I'll drop it.

2) No. That's not how it works. On the one hand you have people who are paid to use said Assault Rifles in the defense of our country and it's interests. On the other hand you have a group of people with zero need for said Assault Rifles.

Says you, how do you decide I or anyone else does not need a assault rifle?

We compare the properties of the weapon with your circumstances and your intended use of the gun.

And you know, its not even a Assault Rifle untill Assault has been commited with it.

Hahaha, bullshit.

---

In the US, I'd say it's easier today than at any other point in history.

Apparently not, since the deadliest school attack was and still is an eighty-six years-since bombing.

Don't two thirds of the US not own guns?

One third of the US is under 15 or over 65. A quarter is 18 or under and thus ineligible to own firearms.
Critically, half of all households have a gun. I'd say that was more important as a statistic than the numbers of adults who "own" firearms.

*shrug* You're the one claiming concealed carry and weapons for home defence are "such a thing".

[Greater Ilanar]

You retain the right to bear arms. What you to not retain is the right to bear arms without restriction.

The words "shall not be infringed upon" however, would imply that the right is unrestricted.