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

[Imperializt Russia]

Perhaps so. I do still think that militias & the right to keep & bear arms are inextricably entwined. Of course, the Roberts Court disagrees with me (you'd think they'd just ask), so that's how things are now. Guns & gun violence are going to be problems for this country for years to come.

I'm of the opinion that firearms ownership and violence are only related tangentially at best. I've read literally hundreds of studies, and meta studies of those studies, and the answer is we flat out dont fucking know if they're related. The data is very conflicting.

I personally feel our effort could be much better focused on something we know will work: reducing poverty, desperation, and make a real social safety net.

All of the this.

[Enadail]

Perhaps so. I do still think that militias & the right to keep & bear arms are inextricably entwined. Of course, the Roberts Court disagrees with me (you'd think they'd just ask), so that's how things are now. Guns & gun violence are going to be problems for this country for years to come.

I'm of the opinion that firearms ownership and violence are only related tangentially at best. I've read literally hundreds of studies, and meta studies of those studies, and the answer is we flat out dont fucking know if they're related. The data is very conflicting.

I personally feel our effort could be much better focused on something we know will work: reducing poverty, desperation, and make a real social safety net.

I do agree, fixing WHY people have to resort to violence is a much better solution then fixing HOW people commit violence.

That being said, I don't think things like background checks and registries are that out of line, as a secondary safeguard.

[Farnhamia]

Perhaps so. I do still think that militias & the right to keep & bear arms are inextricably entwined. Of course, the Roberts Court disagrees with me (you'd think they'd just ask), so that's how things are now. Guns & gun violence are going to be problems for this country for years to come.

I'm of the opinion that firearms ownership and violence are only related tangentially at best. I've read literally hundreds of studies, and meta studies of those studies, and the answer is we flat out dont fucking know if they're related. The data is very conflicting.

I personally feel our effort could be much better focused on something we know will work: reducing poverty, desperation, and make a real social safety net.

I said "gun violence," not violence in general. I agree those are things we should do but the fact remains that thousands of people are killed & injured by other people wielding guns every year. Making guns harder to get can't hurt (and I swear, if someone brings up cars as an equivalent there will be black helicopter & flying monkeys).

[Rabopari]

I'm of the opinion that firearms ownership and violence are only related tangentially at best. I've read literally hundreds of studies, and meta studies of those studies, and the answer is we flat out dont fucking know if they're related. The data is very conflicting.

I personally feel our effort could be much better focused on something we know will work: reducing poverty, desperation, and make a real social safety net.

I said "gun violence," not violence in general. I agree those are things we should do but the fact remains that thousands of people are killed & injured by other people wielding guns every year. Making guns harder to get can't hurt (and I swear, if someone brings up cars as an equivalent there will be black helicopter & flying monkeys).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw

Just to make you mad

[Qahadim]

No, I can't. Unless I have hundreds of dollars to pay a tax stamp. Thousands of dollars for the firearm itself. Have the patience to fill out paperwork and wait for confirmation via a background check I can't just wall in pick up an M4 and walk out with it the day I bought it.

No, there is no clear link with militia membership and ownership of firearms. The SCOTUS has ruled that the arms that can be purchased and used by the citizenry must prove to be beneficial to the effectiveness of the civilian militia. Never have they ruled that only the militia may have firearms.

Likewise, they haven't ruled that the right to bear arms is unlimited, which is what Australian Antarctica was saying. The response needs to be in context to that.

True, but we have to be cautious on what constitutes a reasonable regulation and what is an overreach. If Congress regulated that all firearms, but small arms, were not available to the general public, that would be an overreach, in my opinion. (no I'm not saying that's what you, or anyone else is suggesting). My reasoning for that is the fact that having such a regulation severely inhibits the effectiveness of the civilian militia. Long arms are kind of necessary for any fighting force to be remotely effective against any military push.

On the other hand I'm of the belief that scope of the second amendment should be expanded. Battle tanks, Apache gunships, RPGs, etc are all pivotal aspects of modern militaries. Denying the general populace inhibits their effectiveness to unite as a militia to fend off foreign invasions and domestic insurrection. One should need to pass a background check and go through a training programbefore being allowed to acquire any of the aforementioned examples. Will this ever happen? No, but it's my opinion none the less.

[Galloism]

I'm of the opinion that firearms ownership and violence are only related tangentially at best. I've read literally hundreds of studies, and meta studies of those studies, and the answer is we flat out dont fucking know if they're related. The data is very conflicting.

I personally feel our effort could be much better focused on something we know will work: reducing poverty, desperation, and make a real social safety net.

I said "gun violence," not violence in general. I agree those are things we should do but the fact remains that thousands of people are killed & injured by other people wielding guns every year. Making guns harder to get can't hurt (and I swear, if someone brings up cars as an equivalent there will be black helicopter & flying monkeys).

See, I'm very skeptical of the position that if person A wants to kill person B with weapon X, that removing weapon X will make them hold hands and sing Kumbayah. Even if I felt prohibition on weapon X would be effective (which, yet again, seems to only work in certain places, in others the bans are totally ineffective), I'm not sure why weapon Y doesn't just replace weapon X.

In short: I'm unsure why "gun violence" is categorically worse than "knife violence", "club violence", "crossbow violence", or "thresher maw violence".

Edit: Speaking of flying monkeys, the spammer in this thread is starting to annoy me. Care to send some his way?

[Farnhamia]

I said "gun violence," not violence in general. I agree those are things we should do but the fact remains that thousands of people are killed & injured by other people wielding guns every year. Making guns harder to get can't hurt (and I swear, if someone brings up cars as an equivalent there will be black helicopter & flying monkeys).

See, I'm very skeptical of the position that if person A wants to kill person B with weapon X, that removing weapon X will make them hold hands and sing Kumbayah. Even if I felt prohibition on weapon X would be effective (which, yet again, seems to only work in certain places, in others the bans are totally ineffective), I'm not sure why weapon Y doesn't just replace weapon X.

In short: I'm unsure why "gun violence" is categorically worse than "knife violence", "club violence", "crossbow violence", or "thresher maw violence".

Edit: Speaking of flying monkeys, the spammer in this thread is starting to annoy me. Care to send some his way?

Report the spammer and I'll be happy to do so.

As for the rest, stop being disingenuous, it's not an attractive stance. You know perfectly well I never implied the Kumbaya thing, and you know perfectly well how guns make so much easier to term people than knives, clubs , threshers. If you want to discuss the problem of guns in this country please don't resort to knee-jerk NRA rhetoric.

[Dyakovo]

I think the US government needs to look at britain and our gun control laws

We don't have the luxury of a ocean surrounding us 360

getting rid of or severely restricting gun will nothing as long as the Mexican border is open willy nilly.

So, you think that if gun control laws are tightened, Mexico will invade?
That's some hi-grade paranoia right there...

[Qahadim]

We don't have the luxury of a ocean surrounding us 360

getting rid of or severely restricting gun will nothing as long as the Mexican border is open willy nilly.

So, you think that if gun control laws are tightened, Mexico will invade?
That's some hi-grade paranoia right there...

Naw, Canada. Up there, all quiet, laughing at us in their cups. They're planning something. I feel it in me bones. I tell ya! Me bones.

[Bottle]

Even if I felt prohibition on weapon X would be effective (which, yet again, seems to only work in certain places, in others the bans are totally ineffective), I'm not sure why weapon Y doesn't just replace weapon X.

Same reason why taking away any tool might make someone less able (or less willing) to carry out any other task, I would imagine.

I don't have any stats on hand, but my impression is that most murders/killings are not premeditated. A lot are accidents, or are spur-of-the-moment sorts of things. It seems uncontroversial to me that removing particular killing-tools would impact how likely these types of killings are to occur.

It's like how if I leave scissors within my niece's reach, she's a lot more likely to decide to cut her hair. She could saw through individual strands with a butter knife, or even pluck individual hairs out with her bare hands, yet...she doesn't. The presence of the scissors encourages the impulsive behavior.

[Ceannairceach]

We don't have the luxury of a ocean surrounding us 360

getting rid of or severely restricting gun will nothing as long as the Mexican border is open willy nilly.

So, you think that if gun control laws are tightened, Mexico will invade?
That's some hi-grade paranoia right there...

Aren't more guns smuggled south than north across the border?

[Enadail]

So, you think that if gun control laws are tightened, Mexico will invade?
That's some hi-grade paranoia right there...

Aren't more guns smuggled south than north across the border?

To my knowledge, yah. Besides, what would Mexico invade with? Tasty tacos? I await that invasion...

[Rabopari]

We don't have the luxury of a ocean surrounding us 360

getting rid of or severely restricting gun will nothing as long as the Mexican border is open willy nilly.

So, you think that if gun control laws are tightened, Mexico will invade?
That's some hi-grade paranoia right there...

must have been listening to the Alex jones Show

[The Vaktovian Empire]

I disagree with anyone who says anything about that there are "restrictions". During the 1700's, late 1700's to be more specific, that was written when the only type of guns around were military grade. Nothing was not a military grade weapon. Muskets, Flintlocks, rifles, were all military grade hardware, used by the military, Continental Army, and by the people themselves and to be more precise the Militias. Now in our modern day society there is such a thing as a military grade and non military grade firearm. But this means we should be able to own both because when they wrote that they meant citizens have the right to bear all arms even military grade weaponry. We should have the right to hold and use military grade arms. The constitution is right in saying to protect a Free State. But this does not mean from just foreign invaders, this means from the government itself. We have the right to hold all arms regardless of if they're military grade or not because what if the government needs to be overthrown> Which it clearly already does need to be overthrown even at this exact moment in some cases but regardless. We have the right to hold arms accountable to that of a high military grade weapon to defend ourselves incase our rights are revoked or our personal freedoms are taken away. Which we all know is going to happen even in this country eventually because we're getting worse and worse by the minute. Spying on our own allies and our own people, passing laws to drone strike people on american soil even if they're just "suspected" of being a terrorist? And now its all with congress and the executive branch and even more power, and where has the power to the people gone? Down the toilet. It used to be the people were actually represented by the Senate and the House, now... we're represented by nothing more than a bunch of scumbag political animals that are being paid the big bucks to turn us even worse down a darker path and worse than even the country we rebelled against in the 1700's, worse than the USSR even. This is why they HAVE overstepped the boundary and there is no exception.

[Norstal]

I said "gun violence," not violence in general. I agree those are things we should do but the fact remains that thousands of people are killed & injured by other people wielding guns every year. Making guns harder to get can't hurt (and I swear, if someone brings up cars as an equivalent there will be black helicopter & flying monkeys).

See, I'm very skeptical of the position that if person A wants to kill person B with weapon X, that removing weapon X will make them hold hands and sing Kumbayah. Even if I felt prohibition on weapon X would be effective (which, yet again, seems to only work in certain places, in others the bans are totally ineffective), I'm not sure why weapon Y doesn't just replace weapon X.

In short: I'm unsure why "gun violence" is categorically worse than "knife violence", "club violence", "crossbow violence", or "thresher maw violence".

Edit: Speaking of flying monkeys, the spammer in this thread is starting to annoy me. Care to send some his way?

I don't know what kind of crazy person would think knives are more dangerous than guns.

Would you rather be shot or be stabbed? Do you seriously think that being stabbed is more fatal than being shot?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10 ... ves-00000/

I'm all for guns. Truly, I believe like what you said; with education and reduction of poverty, general mental healthcare treatments, crime would go down. What I don't GET, is why anyone would think guns are not dangerous.

[Farnhamia]

I disagree with anyone who says anything about that there are "restrictions". During the 1700's, late 1700's to be more specific, that was written when the only type of guns around were military grade. Nothing was not a military grade weapon. Muskets, Flintlocks, rifles, were all military grade hardware, used by the military, Continental Army, and by the people themselves and to be more precise the Militias. Now in our modern day society there is such a thing as a military grade and non military grade firearm. But this means we should be able to own both because when they wrote that they meant citizens have the right to bear all arms even military grade weaponry. We should have the right to hold and use military grade arms. The constitution is right in saying to protect a Free State. But this does not mean from just foreign invaders, this means from the government itself. We have the right to hold all arms regardless of if they're military grade or not because what if the government needs to be overthrown> Which it clearly already does need to be overthrown even at this exact moment in some cases but regardless. We have the right to hold arms accountable to that of a high military grade weapon to defend ourselves incase our rights are revoked or our personal freedoms are taken away. Which we all know is going to happen even in this country eventually because we're getting worse and worse by the minute. Spying on our own allies and our own people, passing laws to drone strike people on american soil even if they're just "suspected" of being a terrorist? And now its all with congress and the executive branch and even more power, and where has the power to the people gone? Down the toilet. It used to be the people were actually represented by the Senate and the House, now... we're represented by nothing more than a bunch of scumbag political animals that are being paid the big bucks to turn us even worse down a darker path and worse than even the country we rebelled against in the 1700's, worse than the USSR even. This is why they HAVE overstepped the boundary and there is no exception.

The Supreme Court, it its most recent ruling on the 2nd Amendment, said this:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_v_Heller

[Galloism]

See, I'm very skeptical of the position that if person A wants to kill person B with weapon X, that removing weapon X will make them hold hands and sing Kumbayah. Even if I felt prohibition on weapon X would be effective (which, yet again, seems to only work in certain places, in others the bans are totally ineffective), I'm not sure why weapon Y doesn't just replace weapon X.

In short: I'm unsure why "gun violence" is categorically worse than "knife violence", "club violence", "crossbow violence", or "thresher maw violence".

Edit: Speaking of flying monkeys, the spammer in this thread is starting to annoy me. Care to send some his way?

Report the spammer and I'll be happy to do so.

As for the rest, stop being disingenuous, it's not an attractive stance. You know perfectly well I never implied the Kumbaya thing, and you know perfectly well how guns make so much easier to term people than knives, clubs , threshers. If you want to discuss the problem of guns in this country please don't resort to knee-jerk NRA rhetoric.

Actually I was being sardonic, not disingenuous.

I'm seriously wondering why we should spend billions on a new prohibition, which we're not even certain it will change anything, and, in fact, the data is so uncertain, we're not even sure which direction it would change if we did (reading the studies, I would predict a large initial spike followed by a slow tick down over time, but its intellectually based supposition, not fact).

Meanwhile, those billions could be spent reducing the conditions that actually cause crime, where the statistics are clear and unambiguous.

I am truly baffled why the former is logical over the latter.

[Len Hyet]

We don't have the luxury of a ocean surrounding us 360

getting rid of or severely restricting gun will nothing as long as the Mexican border is open willy nilly.

So, you think that if gun control laws are tightened, Mexico will invade?
That's some hi-grade paranoia right there...

In fairness Ranchers close to the border are under constant threat from Mexican Drug Runners.

[The Republic of Greenland]

No, the U.S. Government is not overstepping its obligations. Anyone who is against background checks are either not very concerned about the shootings or are hiding something. As for the automated weapons, isn´t a pistol or a rifle enough to guard your family? Im not American, so i probably have no say in this but I think that the reforms are great.

The biggest threat American families should be afraid of is internal crime and terrorism, all external forces are kept at bay because you have the most powerful military in the world I would say.

[Rabopari]

we should put a ban on the weapon that causes the most gun crime Handguns then we can ban fully automatic rifles

[Farnhamia]

So, you think that if gun control laws are tightened, Mexico will invade?
That's some hi-grade paranoia right there...

In fairness Ranchers close to the border are under constant threat from Mexican Drug Runners.

In fairness, show me some numbers.

[4years]

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.

Terrorists, North Korea, Iran, Almost all of the middle east and part of Africa.

None of which would be stopped by mutters with automatic guns. Even assuming that the nations mentioned had any desire for war with the US, which they don't.

[Galloism]

See, I'm very skeptical of the position that if person A wants to kill person B with weapon X, that removing weapon X will make them hold hands and sing Kumbayah. Even if I felt prohibition on weapon X would be effective (which, yet again, seems to only work in certain places, in others the bans are totally ineffective), I'm not sure why weapon Y doesn't just replace weapon X.

In short: I'm unsure why "gun violence" is categorically worse than "knife violence", "club violence", "crossbow violence", or "thresher maw violence".

Edit: Speaking of flying monkeys, the spammer in this thread is starting to annoy me. Care to send some his way?

I don't know what kind of crazy person would think knives are more dangerous than guns.

Would you rather be shot or be stabbed? Do you seriously think that being stabbed is more fatal than being shot?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10 ... ves-00000/

I'm all for guns. Truly, I believe like what you said; with education and reduction of poverty, general mental healthcare treatments, crime would go down. What I don't GET, is why anyone would think guns are not dangerous.

They are dangerous. It's their total point for existence is to be dangerous to the person, animal, or object at the other end.

And given ive been shot once but not stabbed, I guess I really don't know.

There are different categories and levels of both.

Edit: looking at your data, I am puzzled that rifles have a lower mortality/wound rate than pistols. With higher exit velocity and penetrating power of rifle rounds, logic would dictate that if you were hit by one, it would do more damage.

I wonder if we're suffering an accidental vs deliberate impact here.

[Phocidaea]

Very few politicians in the US have any plans to go beyond what I personally consider the boundaries of gun control. So no.

[Len Hyet]

In fairness Ranchers close to the border are under constant threat from Mexican Drug Runners.

In fairness, show me some numbers.

It's not exactly an unknown issue.
NBC, Tucson Citizen, they've got reports on it. Fox also had a section on it but, well, it's Fox.