Evidence Of An Insane System

[HDPM]

This story is nuts. web page (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_110503_elderlygun.html)

I can't believe they will charge an 80 year old for lawfully defending himself. I don't know about commie new york, but in my state the old dude would have every legal right to kill this assailant. You don't charge 80 y/o robbery victims with crimes when they defend themselves. I don't care what the stupid NY gun laws are. But as long as NY is crazy maybe they should max this guy and toss him in Rikers. Maybe if he's abused and killed there they will think about changing their rancid gun laws. Oh wait, nevermind. Rosie's bodyguard has a license in NY so all is OK.

[Zeno]

This story, unfortunately, does not surprise me in the least. Did the police at least try to find the mugger, or will officials say it was justified for the mugger to take the money since the old man was obviously a criminal. The mugger should be able to sue the victim. If he has any brains, he will turn himself in, return the money, plea his assault case to a fine and small jail time – then turn around and sue the 80 year old man for all he is worth. Time to crank up the insanity to the highest level possible.

Le Misanthrope

[Boris]

totally friggin insane. this is why we need groups like the NRA. sure they get a little bit out of hand sometimes but imagine what would happen without them.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
this is why we need groups like the NRA. sure they get a little bit out of hand sometimes but imagine what would happen without them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...less people would die from gun violence? I thank god I live in a country that controls firearms.

Tuco.

[Phat Mack]

A few random thoughts:

you're right, it is insane;
if you pull a gun to defend yourself, let them hear it before they see it;
who's Rosie and who's her bodyguard?

[MMMMMM]

Russia and Brazil have stricter gun control laws than the USA, yet have higher violent crime rates.

Switzerland and Israel have more guns per capita than the USA, yet have lower violent crime rates.

The rate of muggings in London has surpassed that of New York City.

Sometimes things are counterintuitive (as I'm sure you know).

[MMMMMM]

Too bad the senior citizen missed.

[John Cole]

Imagine a different scenario: Guy doesn't take his gun with him. Mugger makes off with the money. Guy's pants won't need replacing, he suffers no physical abuse, and he retains his family heirloom. And, he avoids a court date.

So much for "packing heat."

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a different scenario: Guy doesn't take his gun with him. Mugger makes off with the money. Guy's pants won't need replacing, he suffers no physical abuse, and he retains his family heirloom. And, he avoids a court date.

So much for "packing heat."

[/ QUOTE ]

John is this the same time of imagination required to believe "Alice in Wonderland"?

[HDPM]

Imagine this one. Old guy doesn't resist and hands over the money like good anti-gunners preach. The robber is a sadistic prick and decides to smack around the defenselass old man. So he does, blinds him in one eye, puts the boots to him, breaks a hip and his jaw. Old man lives in fear and pain the rest of his miserable days. This scenario happens too. The choice of which scenario should be left to the individual, except the part about the court date. No person should be prosecuted for exercising a basic human right. The New York law is immoral, unjust, irrational, and unconstitutional IMO. The cops should have the sense not to charge the old man and let muggers know that even in the far left state of NY criminals buy their ticket and take their chances.

[MMMMMM]

As HDPM says, the scenario could also end in the old man getting beaten or killed.

Why should the victim be forced to be dependent upon the mercy of the perpetrator???

Lots of muggers show no mercy; they beat, stab or kill their victims in a drug-induced rage, or out of sadism, or because they wish to try to prevent the victim from being able to later identify them.

Laws that require people to be kept unable to defend themselves are immoral, IMO.

[John Cole]

Are you really advocating for cops ignoring the law? If he is charged for illegal possession of a handgun, then fine. He has broken a law. Let someone (a jury? a judge?) decide what the penalty for breaking that law will be.

I can't believe you really would like a society in which everyone carries guns for his or her protection without the necessary registration and permits.

[John Cole]

M,

Doesn't he have the right to apply for a permit to carry a handgun legally? If so, his right to defend himself seems intact.

[andyfox]

If the gun had been registered, he would have been lawfully defending himself. As it was, he was not lawfully defending himself.

It sure would have been smarter though to give the guy a warning and make him prove that he would register his guns within a certain timed period.

[HDPM]

I live in a place where no registration is required. And I do not think any permit should be necessary to carry a weapon. Like in Vermont. Nobody seems to think Vermont is such a bad society.

The law is immoral and unconstitutional. So yes, I think it should be ignored. Charges are declined by cops or prosecutors all the time where a charge would be unjust even though the person is technically and provably guilty. This is one of those times.

[HDPM]

He would not have been given a carry permit in NY. NY laws are ridiculous. You need a permit to have a gun in your house and to take it unloaded to a range. A carry permit in NYC? Fughettaboutit as they say, unless you are a rich celebrity or hypocritical anti-gun democrat politician. Those are the people who get them in NYC. The regular New York State law doesn't apply in NYC even.

[HDPM]

See my post above. The answer is basically no in NYC. If he were a politician who supported gun control he MIGHT get a permit in NYC. A regular citizen basically can't get one in NYC and it is ridiculously difficult in the rest of NY state from what I understand. NY is not a shall issue state by any stretch.

[MMMMMM]

If those permits are generally granted (in some areas they are pretty much routinely denied, that's why I qualify it), then I would agree with you.

Also, the scenario of the mugger walking off peacefully with the money seems pretty optimistic. Too many times I have read of muggings or robberies which were not resisted ending in injury or death of the victims (e.g. liquor store robberies where the robbers simply shoot the person behind the counter, sometimes even as they are leaving with the money).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The law is immoral and unconstitutional

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you're one of them, but I always find it humorous that conservatives often rail against the incorporation doctrine (the doctrine that makes certain aspects of the constitution applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment) yet have no problem calling state gun control laws unconstitutional...go figure.

[HDPM]

No, I support constitutional rights protecting the individual and believe they should apply to all citizens and that states are not free to take away an individual's rights.

[HDPM]

What if Rosa Parks could have gotten a permit to ride at the front of the bus? And all she had to do to get the permit was apply to the government, undergo a routine background investigation, answer questions regarding her mental health, give fingerprints, take a simple test regarding safety on a bus, and pay a reasonable fee of only say $200? Would that be acceptable? What if to vote you had to pass a background check to make sure you would not abuse your voting rights. After all, politicians often kill thousands of people, so the irresponsible exercise of the vote is dangerous. Some simple tests and the payment of a small processing fee of $97 is OK right? It's for public safety. And to protect children. And religion causes a lot of problems. I think making people get a permit to go to church is good. A background check to make sure they won't hurt anybody like Jim Jones or the Pope. Just a small fee. And shouldn't churches have to register? Koresh had an unregistered church and look what happened. Oh, nad those pesky newspapers. Irresponsible journalism can hurt the country and ruin individual lives. Why don't the writers have a simple registration and background check to make sure they're OK? You should never have to ask permission to exercise your inalienable rights.

[MMMMMM]

Good points.

I should think we would want to keep firearms out of the hands of violent felons and mental patients, though. But maybe the price of doing so is not worth the costs or the infringement. I'll have to mull this over.

[adios]

"I should think we would want to keep firearms out of the hands of violent felons and mental patients,"

Many claim that it's virtually impossible to that. From my perspective I would agree that it is virually impossible. Also many claim that it's a slippery slope i.e. confiscation of guns from some may seem highly rational but it inevitably will lead to pressure to confiscate more guns.

[HDPM]

1789-1967 you could buy a gun through the mail. No questions asked. Or at a hardware store. 1968 you couldn't. Are things so much better now in terms of gun violence? And were they so bad for the preceding 200 years that we needed the gun control act? Yours is a tough question, but why I pose my question is that it was only recently that any effort was made to prevent sales to felons and lunatics. (Although I am sure individual gun salesmen refused sales to the village idiot.) The new instant background check is superficially appealing, and I sometimes wonder why I should oppose it, at least assuming the government won't illegally keep the records which we know is not true. Anyway, the reason is that the government has no business regulating firearm sales to the point where the check is workable. So no, I don't want felons and nuts to have guns, but I also know they can get them now and that society did not collapse in the day where guns were appropriately easy to acquire.

[andyfox]

The guy was a former security guard, maybe he could have gotten the permit easier than an average person, I don't know. Nor do I know about the N.Y. laws. But he did not lawfully defend himself if the gun was possessed illegally.

I understand violent crime is down substantially in New York City. Maybe the tough gun control laws are working.
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

We probably read about them because they're the exception rather than the rule, and thus newsworthy. It makes better copy if we hear that a mugger took $250 from somebody and then beat him up or shot him despite the fact that there was no resistance offered than if we hear about a mugger that took $250 from somebody and then ran away.

And I don't think your example about liquor stores robbers shooting the person behind the counter is too good an argument for guns /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyway, I'm an idealist on this issue. We should ban guns altogether. Punish those who use them to commit a crime by sending them to Idaho. The state has very straight borders, it would be easy to build a high fence to keep them in.

Eventually, we'd be a gunless society. Hey, at one time we had an economy that functioned on a slave system and we were told that if we dismantled slavery the system would collapse. Well we dismantled slavery and the economic system survived. Take all those drug offenders out of jail and put the gun offenders in. Along with the drunk drivers.

[andyfox]

What about if I wanted a machine gun? Or 10,000 of 'em.

Isn't there any point where exercising my inalienable rights is a reasonable threat to your inalienable rights?

[HDPM]

Drugs are banned. That is why they are so hard to get in big cities, right? Banning guns won't change anything. We will never have a gun-free society because someone with a brain and profit motive can always make and sell a gun. It is fine to jail people who commit gun crimes. Send them to Idaho even. They would be woefully outgunned. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[andyfox]

I guess I feel about guns the same way I do about drugs. Whatever we've been doing isn't good, we should try something else.

I might have already posted this already, but I think twice as many Los Angelinos have been killed by guns as have soldiers in Iraq since we've been there. I think two people a day get gunned down in South Central. And I know people kill people, not guns. But surely we can do better.

[HDPM]

Yes, of course you can have a machine gun. If you didn't live in CA you could buy one now, although there are excessive restrictions. You have to fill out paperwork, buy one made before 1986 and pay the government $200 for a tax stamp. They can get expensive, but they are legal. I do think it should be legal to buy post-1986 machine guns and carry them about just like any other firearm. And in my state you can do just that with a pre'86 if you comply with the federal paperwork crap. And we have a safer community than LA. The 2d Amendment clearly protects the right to own machine guns. I don't know the exact line I would draw as to what weapons an individual can own unde rthe 2d Amendment, but machine guns are clearly OK. Nukes can be regulated. The line is somewhere in between I think.

[Ray Zee]

heck they have been doing this stuff against people in the east for as long as i can remember. most times it gets thrown out after the poor old man has spent all his life savings on lawyers.
he would have been charged as well, if he had a hunting knife in n.y. it used to be called the sullivan law.
thats why people walk around in fear all their lives and want no one to have weapons. if no one had weapons you would get robbed by being hit in the head with a club. or as they do now wait in the restroom and slam your head into the wall when you are standing and peeing. then rob you.
the only way for violent crime to stop is to have the criminals fear the victims. or have the repeat violent criminals removed from society for good.

[Ray Zee]

john you are so far off on this one if you think about it.

[John Cole]

Ray,

I'd have to reread the article again, but I don't believe the mugger was armed, at least according to the report. Perhaps the victim's having a gun helped him, but I think surrendering his money would have worked better for him in this case. And, it does infuriate me that muggers prey on eighty year old men--or anyone for that matter.

[MMMMMM]

"Anyway, I'm an idealist on this issue. We should ban guns altogether."

You're an idealist to the point of foolishness on this issue. As HDPM pointed out, banning drugs doesn't work. Banning alcohol didn't work. What the heck would make you think that banning guns would work? We literally would end up with a society where only 2 types of peple would have guns: cops and criminals. Yes, the criminals would still get them, just as they get drugs, just as they got alcohol. The honest citizens would be left defenseless to the criminals--and to the cops, if we should ever have a police state.

What an AWFUL idea, andy. Bannings never work, but hey, let's try banning guns anyway /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Besides drugs and alcohol, banning private property didn't work in the USSR either you know. But what you might be forgetting is that there are potentially huge costs associated with "trying out a banning"--and some of those costs might be terrible indeed--maybe even more than you bargained for. Don't forget that there are REAL costs associated with "trying out" any idealistic hare-brained scheme. For instance, "trying out" Communism, which banned private property, cost a mere 80-100 million lives.

[brad]

'I might have already posted this already, but I think twice as many Los Angelinos have been killed by guns '

think gangs will comply with gun laws?

how many illegal aliens in gangs?

[brad]

'The 2d Amendment clearly protects the right to own machine guns. I don't know the exact line I would draw as to what weapons an individual can own unde rthe 2d '


line is somwhere around (maybe exactly at) crew served weapons, platoon level (eg m60 belt fed machne gun)

[brad]

' I don't believe the mugger was armed, at least according to the report. Perhaps the victim's having a gun helped him, but I think surrendering his money would have worked better for him in this case. '

in case im ever in the area, whats your address?

[AmericanAirlines]

Brad,
Just forget it. AndyFox just doesn't want to believe numbers. Remember?

"Idealistic to the point of foolishness"... seems the correct assessment.

The First Amendment was the what's important. The Second was cheap insurance.

Sincerely,
AA

[andyfox]

Yes, I'm well aware that grand schemes can often run amuck. I've posted before about this, recommending the book Seeing Like a State which discusses, among other things, the disaster of Leninism in the Soviet Union.

I don't think the comparison to drugs and alcohol is entirely apt. Those things represent chemical addictions. Guns do not. People can give up guns more easily than the other two.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
People can give up guns more easily than the other two. [drugs and alcohol]

[/ QUOTE ]

Only some people would. In my opinion a large percentage would not. The gun is too tied to the American psyche, for good or ill (this subject let’s set aside for the moment). Banning is usually an ineffectual means of achieving a goal, in this instance; let's say a goal of a safer society in general. So hear is a suggestion.

Young people learn (or are suppose to learn) civic duty and responsibility in their formative years at school. Most high school, middle school etc students have required classes in for example, drivers ed, sex education, health classes, etc for information and as practical guides to responsible behavior in adulthood on general or specific subjects. The premises for such classes are that accurate information and guidance allows for more responsible decision making for young minds and that ignorance breeds fear and superstition and usually leads to uninformed decisions and judgment. I suggest that a required gun class be added to all High School curriculums. In the class, gun history, gun safety, gun laws etc. are taught along with instructions on how to properly handle and shoot both handguns and rifles. Part of the class would be the actual use of various guns and all students would be required to shoot a gun at some proficient level. The use of guns would be taught as a serious matter that requires civic responsibility and sound discipline.

Remember how some people howled to the moon when sex education was introduced into the schools? Would the same howling be heard from the above suggestion? I think so. And I’m curious as to the arguments (for or against) it would generate. But I am serious. Think of the many students that view guns as mere toys or noisemakers or have knowledge about guns only from street gangs, movies or other types of media (remember the videos of the idiot kids from Columbine and how they acted with firearms?). For the most part, accurate information and instruction will foster wise choices and decisions while ignorance and misinformation leads to poor choices and decisions. Showing all young people the serious nature of firearms will lead to more responsible behavior that through time will have a beneficial effect on all and make for a safer society. Knowledge breeds virtue.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

"I don't think the comparison to drugs and alcohol is entirely apt. Those things represent chemical addictions. Guns do not. People can give up guns more easily than the other two."

OK, I agree the comparison is not entirely apt. But can you think of anything (major, significant, popular) that has ever been successfully banned? I can't, at least off the top of my head.

[nicky g]

That's hard to say, but surely there are examples of major, significant, popular things being successfully regulated.

[MMMMMM]

andy's position is for banning not regulating; that's what I am debating with him in this sub-thread.

[nicky g]

fair enough.

[elwoodblues]

I'll play Justice Scalia...let's look at the original intent. The right to keep and bear arms couldn't possibly mean Machine Guns because the framers did not have Machine Guns in mind when the wrote the Constitution.

[HDPM]

Or how about the original intent was to have the citizens own the same types of weapons common to the militaries they had to fight?

[elwoodblues]

Nuclear weapons then would be no problem whatsoever.

[HDPM]

Well, that issue has not been addressed. I don't think the likely definition of "arms" in the 2d Amd is broad enough to encompass nuclear weapons. Also, however, do you think the law has any connection to whether individual people have nuclear weapons? I am not saying here that I think individuals ought to be able to own nuclear weapons, but anybody inclined to procure one won't be stopped by laws prohibiting the possession of one.


I think the history of the 2d amd and a fair reading of it leads to the conclusion that an individual has a right to own and bear small arms common to military usage at the time. I don't know exactly where I would draw the line. Individually operated machine guns are clearly OK and are still legal in many states. Crew served weapons I don't know. Big bombs, cruise missiles, doubt it. I know this interpretation scares a lot of people which is why sell out pro-gunners like the NRA try to hide behind deer rifles a lot. But the 2d Amendment is a pretty radical concept and has good reasons behind it. It is not about duck hunting.

The USA is a tremendous and radical experiment in individual liberty. We take many of the rights for granted, but they are not so simple. It was a pretty new idea to dispense with a state religion, allow people to worship as they chose, allow open criticism and dissent of the government, and secure all the other various individual rights that we have. All of these things have something in common. They pose a true and real threat to authority. That is what they were designed to do. Ashcroft wants to dismantle the 4th 5th 6th and 8th amds because they don't let the government do enough. Religious nuts can't live with the 1st Amd. And neither can the Bush Administration accept some of the stuff that we have a right to read, write, and speak. There are real threats to our liberties all the time. And it is foolish and shortsighted to think the 2d Amendment is an anachronism or was put there so yahoos could shoot small animals. It was put there by radicals who deeply distrusted government because they were smart enough to see how governments really operated and what they want to do if given the chance.

[andyfox]

Slavery, the poll tax, separate bathrooms and water fountains for whites and "coloreds," the use of asbsetos in buildings, being president for more than two terms, commercial flights to Cuba, telemarketing to someone on the do-not-call list, sale of natural gas without a taggant smell, and limiting the number of vists to a buffet salad bar. (OK, I made up the last one, but there oughta be a law . . .)

[andyfox]

Very thoughtful post. (Not that I expected anything less.)

As I started reading, my first thought was exactly what you thought it would be: too much exposure to guns will lead to rampant abuse, despite the intentions of the schools. But your analogy to sex education has merit.

[andyfox]

"And we have a safer community than LA."

Duh. As I pointed out before, Baghdad's a safer community than L.A. I guess our disagreement on this issue is whether we'd be a safer community if nobody had guns or if everybody had guns. Basically, everybody has guns now, so that's why I lean towards the other solution.

[HDPM]

No, in Los Angeles law abiding citizens don't mostly have guns. It is too hard to get them and next to impossible to get a carry permit. "Victims" shooting back is a real deterrent. Here, most people probably don't carry, but enough do. You don't have many home invasions or carjackings. A lot of cars have a gun in them here, and probably all the homes do. So even though most people don't wear a pistol constantly, criminals usually go for property targets instead of human ones. Not always of course, but mostly.

[andyfox]

I really don't think the lack of home invasions or carjacking has much to do with guns though. There are just a lot more people in L.A. (or any big city), who home invade and carjack. Still I imagine most crime involves property targets rather than human ones. But there are more than enough human ones. Most of the people I know (FWIW) do indeed have guns in their homes; not very many carry guns with them.

We could deter any crime if we made the punishment severe enough and guaranteed. I mean, if we felt jaywalking was horrific, we could make the penalty death by torture and that'd probably virtually eliminate jaywalking. A ridiculous example, but my point is that I wonder if a society where everyone is armed would be worse than the problem we're trying to solve.

[HDPM]

Well, given the experience I had with 2 of LA's finest on a jaywalking ticket once upon a time, I'd say LA is heading in your direction. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[andyfox]

Hey, my son is one of L.A.'s finest now, watch it.

[John Cole]

Certainly many still do deeply distrust the government, and I'm not talking about leftists. Given, though, what we do have now--a police state, a military, and a National Guard--do you forsee any occasion by which an armed citizenry could rise up against the government? Furthermore, given what we (or at least most of us) also enjoy as citizens of the United States, can you believe that most people would have any occasion to rise up against the government?

Or, let me put it this way. Who would you least like to see with a gun, a duck hunter, a target shooter, someone who wants to protect his home and person, or someone whose deep-seated distrust of the government provokes his purchase?

[Ray Zee]

all can and should own and know how to use a gun. by everyone being capable other countries as well as our own will have second thoughts about using power in bad ways. that is the reason behind our framers, and still holds today.
have you all forgotten about hitler removing guns from the people so they would be protected and safe. oh that cant happen here. can it.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly many still do deeply distrust the government, and I'm not talking about leftists. Given, though, what we do have now--a police state, a military, and a National Guard--do you forsee any occasion by which an armed citizenry could rise up against the government? Furthermore, given what we (or at least most of us) also enjoy as citizens of the United States, can you believe that most people would have any occasion to rise up against the government?

Or, let me put it this way. Who would you least like to see with a gun, a duck hunter, a target shooter, someone who wants to protect his home and person, or someone whose deep-seated distrust of the government provokes his purchase?



[/ QUOTE ]


Think about current events. The PATRIOT Act. John Ashcroft. What might happen someday if things turn to crap completely. We don't know. Now the question of COULD the citizens fight off the cops, national guard an army if the worst case scenario came? First consider how many cops and soldiers would desert. Next consider what is happening in Iraq right now. How successful do you think our army is going to be in the long term against the now lightly armed Iraqis? How easy was it against the lightly armed Viet Cong? So let's say Iraq is about the size of what California? And Vietnam about as big as washington or Oregon maybe, I don't know? So don't ask yourself what the citizens could do, ask yourself how much ground in the lower 48 our army could hold if the worst case scenario came. The answer is not much, once the deserters left to fight with the citizens. With weapons they steal from the army.

PS For Ashcroft and the boys- I AM NOT advocating any armed rebellion against the country. I am sure things will never come to that. It couldn't happen here, yada, yada yada.

[John Cole]

I would never say "it can't happen here," but we don't need merely to depend upon the police, military, or guard when ideology governs better than government can.

I see that you didn't answer the question, so I'm assuming that you would, like me, pick number four.

[HDPM]

Duck hunter. I'll let others elaborate.



Although I see the problem with #4 and actually don't feel very comfortable around some of these types. They really pose little threat of harm for the most part though. But I guess I'll admit they trouble me and I will rank them up there w/ the insideous duck hunters.

Is that enough of an answer or did I still cop out too much?

[John Cole]

Okay, good answer. Letting others elaborate--especially if that other turns out to be Ray Zee /images/graemlins/grin.gif--might be a bit of a cop out, though.

For the record, I can live with the 2nd amendment since I don't want to throw out the rest either. But I'm not convinced that the argument for retaining the 2nd based on the founders' distrust of government is a valid one. Nor do I think that all citizens should be packing heat.

A couple months ago in Boston, someone attempted to kill another in a drive-by shooting. He misfired, and the bullet hit and killed a five year old girl sitting on a third floor porch. When I see this reported on the news, I wish no one had a gun.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Who would you least like to see with a gun,

[/ QUOTE ]

A duck hunter from Arkansas.

Distrust of government is, in general, a healthy attitude. It helps keep the more insidious abuses of authority in check. The more wacko varieties of people will always be with us and will abuse freedoms, but that is the thorn in the side that must be borne by all, so that the liberties of all are not stripped away.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
when ideology governs better than government can.


[/ QUOTE ]


So, You should be all for my suggestion of a required gun class in all High Schools. Glad to see your coming to your senses. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

Hold on, I dont want to own a gun. I dont particularly want my neighbour owning a gun (I've been sleeping with his wife for years). I definitely dont want MMMM or BZ or Wake UP or Gamblor owning a gun. I definitely dont want the Green River Killer owning a gun. I definitely dont want the guy sitting across the table from me at Foxwoods owning a gun.

Just as the Iraqis dont care what Dean has to say about the war, I dont thing our "enemies" would be detered from flying planes into buildings, if they knew that everyone had a gun and was armed.

[Boris]

with the exception of the Green river killer (who never used a gun), why don't you want the above mentioned not to have a gun? They never struck me as homicidal.

[ACPlayer]

You dont know my neighbour. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


Seriously, I dont think guns should be banned (for reasons already discussed which I agree with). I just dont want one around me.

I also think that it is tragic that the gun manufacturers money and their willingness to pander to fears of the gun owners is a real problem. Examples of the idiocy include:

1. Fighting any restrictions on waiting periods. If a legislature wants to pass a law putting a 30 day waiting period for whatever reason, that should be their right for the citizens of their state.
2. Fighting laws that for example want to have child safety locks.
3. Note that the second amendment includes the word regulated. Having some regs on gun ownership is obviously a good thing, yet the gun manufacturers spend millions on fighting this.

For the most part, a gun is a substitute for a penis in some guys lives. I used to consult for IBM in upstate NY in the early 90s. Travelling to Poughkeepsie on the train once I had the privilege of listening to two guys talking about how much fun it was shoot at the squirrels from their porch while drinking beers. That is one of the things we protect when we talk about gun ownership.

[brad]

'I had the privilege of listening to two guys talking about how much fun it was shoot at the squirrels from their porch while drinking beers. That is one of the things we protect when we talk about gun ownership. '

straw man.

[brad]

it really pisses me off that those damn jews had some guns in warsaw. they really disturbed the order that the nazis were tryhijng to preserve.

[Ray Zee]

no, ac you are right that they wouldnt be deterred if everyone had a gun. but we are not talking about the terrorists here. if criminals knew you had a gun on you or in your house they wouldnt enter or mess with you. in states that have armed citizens not many home burglaries happen when someone is home or car hijackings or the like. as an individual you are safer. but no matter what the law says killers will always have guns, so why not make it tougher for them to operate. if even one of those people the green river killer encountered had a gun and knew how to use it the rest of them would still be street walking today.

[Glenn]

"A couple months ago in Boston, someone attempted to kill another in a drive-by shooting. He misfired, and the bullet hit and killed a five year old girl sitting on a third floor porch. When I see this reported on the news, I wish no one had a gun. "

Ok, I'm going to throw my simplistic arguement in here... It is way more illegal to shoot at someone in a drive-by shooting than it ever will be to own a gun. People aren't going to think...hey, I really want to kill this guy, but I don't want to get busted on a firearms charge!

[Ray Zee]

glenn,

i think it really boils down to that people want to ban or get rid of anything that they are scared of or dont unerstand. guns are fearsome and many think by making them go away the world will be safer. the thing to do is have everyone learn how to handle a gun like in switzeland and own one if they chose. then the fear goes away and personal choice enters.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gifray, i thought all able-bodied men in switzerland were required by law to be a member of national guard, have regular training; which included regular use of rifles and all kinds of weapons.

oddly enuf, the people complaining about this were business women, who felt they were left out of informal power group...gl /images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Ray Zee]

yea pop, i think also every home has to have a rifle in it as well. but then again you dont get many kilings there as killing isnt related to guns as its related to people.

[ACPlayer]

There lies the heart of the trade off.

On the one hand a person being burglarized can defend himself vs

a. making it easy for a Columbine situation
b. having a child use a gun to shoot another child because of a dispute
c. making it easy for me to go out and buy a RPG
d. I get angry about something and shoot a spouse

Gun shot wounds are common in big city hospitals, putting a drain on our collective resources (many of those are uninsured persons).

While there are rewards to certain responsible individuals, who use them to kill moose (or whatever they have in your part of the country) or vermin or other critters for food there are significant costs to our society.

[MMMMMM]

I guess I should have specified "anything for personal use (major, significant, popular) which was successfully banned." I think those things you listed rather fall into somewhat different sorts of categories.

[MMMMMM]

"I really don't think the lack of home invasions or carjacking has much to do with guns though."

Home invasions in the UK skyrocketed as guns became more and more illegal. No link now and it's late but I believe I posted a link on this months ago. Also it's common sense that there would be an inverse correlation between home invasions and the prevalence of guns in homes. Most home-invaders would really prefer not to get shot, you know.

[MMMMMM]

If they ate those squirrels it is actually more humane than raising livestock as flesh food. Raising animals in bad farm conditions is more cruel and dirty than a quick end to an animal's natural life. Of course that doesn't make those hicks you overheard on that train to Poughkeepsie any better people as this probably never crossed their minds and they probably didn't eat the squirrels.

[MMMMMM]

"I definitely dont want MMMM or BZ or Wake UP or Gamblor owning a gun. I definitely dont want the Green River Killer owning a gun. I definitely dont want the guy sitting across the table from me at Foxwoods owning a gun."

ACPlayer, first of all let me clarify: I am strictly for use of force only in personal defense, not for personal offense.

Also, why wouldn't you want the guy sitting across the table from you at Foxwoods even owning a gun? Are you really that insecure?

I once played in a VFW game where a guy kept getting beat and finally he laid a gun on the table and made comment about shooting the dealer. The dealer he was referring to happened to be me. So what do you think I did??? I kept right on dealing and playing because I didn't believe him and I wanted to win more of his money--which I did. And YOU, ACPlayer, are too scared to have a player in the same game with you even OWNING a gun. L-O-freakin'-L.

I guess poker can be learnt, but some people will never stop being scared of their own shadows or grow a pair of balls.

[ACPlayer]

Good for you.

[ACPlayer]

... hang around lots of people with guns.

I prefer to continue to avoid them.

[MMMMMM]

In this country, people with knives are generally more dangerous than people with guns.

[brad]

well in a nutshell people who own guns (like farmers, retired soldiers ,etc.) have responsibility bred in their bones.

people who want to ban them (eg, typical wall street 'jew' to use a sterotype, although most of them are actually irish-catholic , heh, ok just kidding) typically will do anything at all and have no morality whatsoever and wouldnt stop at murder if they thought they could get away with it and also have little self control and blow up and thus cant trust themselves to make rational choices with a gun and they project that onto others.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
it used to be called the sullivan law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still is - Still sucks!

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]

line is somwhere around (maybe exactly at) crew served weapons, platoon level (eg m60 belt fed machne gun)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so! I have a M2 50 cal machine gun and a n aquantance has a 40mm bofors.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]

a. making it easy for a Columbine situation

[/ QUOTE ]

1. It was already illegal for the Columbine shooters to own guns. 2. Murder is illegal in Colarado 3. How many of the helpless victims of the Columbine shooters last though was "Gee I wish my cell phone / walkman was a gun"


[ QUOTE ]
b. having a child use a gun to shoot another child because of a dispute

[/ QUOTE ]

See above - It's already illegal for children to own guns

[ QUOTE ]
c. making it easy for me to go out and buy a RPG

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? buy one - hang it on your wall - own and use it responsably


[ QUOTE ]
d. I get angry about something and shoot a spouse

[/ QUOTE ]

News flash - shooting other people without just cause is already illegal. (BTY most spousalcides are stabbings) Ban kitchen knives?

[ QUOTE ]
Gun shot wounds are common in big city hospitals, putting a drain on our collective resources (many of those are uninsured persons).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not nearly as large of a drain that theft and robbery place on society as a whole. I don't remember the part of the Constution that says health insurance is a right.

[Ray Zee]

micheal you need to check in more often to help control the anti gun crowd around here.

[slamdunkpro]

lol, I'll try to. Isn't it amazing how people who have never bought, sold, traded, or used a firearm in their lives are such experts when it comes to firearms law.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe you really would like a society in which everyone carries guns for his or her protection without the necessary registration and permits.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd move right in!

Think about it - then decide.

1967 - Firearms can be carried on commercial aircraft as carry -on. Sky-jackings to date - 0 Shootings on airlines to date - 0

1968 - Congress through the GCA of 1968 bans firearms in the passenger cabin of commercial airlines. Guess the year of the first commercial airline skyjacking in the US? 1968

[Ray Zee]

micheal dont stop now you are on a roll.

[MMMMMM]

Some things are just counter-intuitive;-)

--the best strategies in certain hold'em hands

--gun laws and gun violence

--tax cuts resulting in increased tax revenues

--and probably a whole lot more I can't think of right now befoe going to sleep

Even if there are other explanations for the 1967/1968 oddity you mention, the counter-intuitiveness of a lot of things should really make us stop and think.

[ACPlayer]

Heck, I agree that this is all illegal -- however the freely owned, sold and distributed guns contribute to those costs in our society.

I am not even for banning the stupid things. However, I am in favour of regulating it so that they are easy to track, owned by responsible people (who have for example gone through a course in gun safety, have clean records, etc). Some of this has happened in some states. There is really no reason, that I can see, to support the NRA's view that Guns should be freely available with no restrictions.

It is debatable and is regularly debated by lawyers whether the constitution gives a blanket right to own guns -- and if it does then that part should be amended. It should be a privilege, duly regulated.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
however the freely owned, sold and distributed guns contribute to those costs in our society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, It's the illegal actions of a few that contribute to those costs - be it the misuse of firearms, motor vehicles, or prescription drugs. Using your logic you could say that computers raise the cost of medical care because of internet porn distribution.

Substitute the word "cars" for the word "guns" in your second paragraph.

[ACPlayer]

Substitute cars for guns, good example-- I just suggest the same level of regulation (a owners license, registration).

Besides Guns have zero socially redeeming value, they are entertainment for some.

Not recognizing or even acknowledging the costs of this "freedom" is dumb.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Substitute cars for guns, good example-- I just suggest the same level of regulation (a owners license, registration).

[/ QUOTE ]

First - there is no such thing as an owner's license for a car - It's a license to drive on public streets. Anyone can own a car. So... in your perfect world.......

All across the country you can't buy a compact car without a 5 day wait. In some states you can't buy a compact car at all. In NYC and Washington DC, driving around in a compact car will land you in jail.

In order to buy a new car, you have to go to some "official" and explain just why you want a new car. Then they will decide if you should have one or not.

You can no longer sell your car to your friend. You have to sell it to a dealer. You can't buy more than one car a month.

The DMV is now a federal agency with more than 18,000 regulations regarding car ownership. Violation of any one of these is now a felony.

Lovely!

[ QUOTE ]
Besides Guns have zero socially redeeming value, they are entertainment for some.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion. Who are you to decide what's socially redeeming for me or anyone else?

[ACPlayer]

Of course it is my opinion. Who's did you think it was anyway? I am not deciding anything -- boy the paranoia of the gun owners is overwhelming.

The rest of your post reflects a closed minded viewpoint that refuses to recognize even a single downside to easy gunownership in our society. I should probably change my mind and say that the things should be banned rather than regulated, given that gun owners are so adamant in closing their minds to the costs.

[HDPM]

There are social costs to many rights. The First Amendment has many hidden social costs. When you look at the money, time, and lost lives caused by religion..... But you can't really look at it that way.

I have thought about the cost BTW. But the price we pay now is much cheaper than the price we would pay with a gun ban. At least the way I calculate it. The only social cost I care about is innocent people who are murdered with a gun who would not have been murdered were there a different policy. This is a small number, once you exclude suicides, gangland slayings, etc.... And you then have to factor in the fact that the gun ban won't work. So the positive EV as to the reduced murder of innocents is very low, as is demonstrated in countries that try for gun bans. The price we will pay is extreme however. This is why the underpinnings of the 2d Amendment as a check on totalitarianism, not a guarantee of deer hunting are important.

[ACPlayer]

I agree with what you say. I started the thread by saying I was opposed to banning it. Bans dont work on anything from guns, to dope, to abortions, to you name it.

However, there appears to be no interest in acknowledging that this freedom is contributing to (along with other factors) negative effects on our society.

[brad]

what about benefits?


what about livea saved, property saved, crime deterred?

[ACPlayer]

Factor them in.

Dont ban them, find a way to improve their use and availability in society in a responsible way.

[Ray Zee]

you dont hear about all the times someone chased away a criminal with their gun. or all the places that didnt get robbed because they knew the owner wasnt to be messed with. so what really happens is that those that sit in the corner scared of lifes negative sides, get the most downside of it as they become the prey. it is a personal choice to huddle in the corner afraid, or to confront your attacker directly and ward him off.

[ACPlayer]

[Ray Zee]

oh by the way. remember the world trade center. it would be standing today if they allowed people with conceled weapons permits to carry them on a plane. the terrorists didnt need guns, just little box cutters to terrorize a whole plane load of people. think about the costs to society of having unarmed people in environments which put them totally in the hands of any wacko. any time you make laws taking something away from the people you really end up taking something away.

[brad]

academic john lott documenrs guns' societal benefits.

[ACPlayer]

any time you make laws taking something away from the people you really end up taking something away

Perfect.

[brad]

or, 2 b realistic, the pilots(armed)

[ACPlayer]

I will once again say: I am not for banning the stupid things!

I am for making them legal, safe, and finding ways to make misuse rare and less costly to society.

[brad]

well one of the unintended consequences of anti-gunners was 911.

had the pilots been armed, it wouldnt have happened.

israeli airline pilots are armed and theres no hijackings.

[ACPlayer]

El Al also has and has had a very stringent program of screening of passengers. That may be a much bigger factor in preventing undesirables from getting on the plane.

Post 9/11 if we let pilots carry guns, but have an inept screening mechanism, we will not be preventing many tragedies.

As usual, the gun advocates, have their eyes on the wrong ball.

[brad]

well how r the guys gonna take over plane with boxcutters if pilots have guns?

btw it probably took a moment or two to beat in cockpit door.

what , u say it was open maybe? well it wouldnt be if pilots had guns (even in an automatic gun safe which takes 5 - 10 seconds) , for various reasons.


so youre saying a lone nut (2 say nothing of conspiracy) could never slip through even the most thorough screeening? heh

[ACPlayer]

Incidentally, the carrying of guns by pilots is, not by itself, contractictory to my position on guns in this thread. This is really a separate subject line, on which I dont have a well defined position. To really follow the original thought with respect to airlines -- the gun nuts would argue that if the entire plane load of citizens had guns on the plane we would be safer. THat the restrictions placed by the FAA on carrying on board is threatening to our security.


Regarding airline pilots, well, you may be right, that airline pilots with guns will prevent hijackings. Perhaps you can find some facts to help convince me. The first question that comes to mind is how often have the El Al pilots prevented a hijacking by using the guns they carry?

[brad]

seriously, you have to realize that the anti-gun agenda wants to (is) demonize(s) guns.

the logical outcome is for people not to have guns.

as for el al, (and this really goes to heart of debate), do u think the pilots need to use their guns for the policy to be effective?

and as for science, the scientific method tells us we should compare gun toting pilots with non gun toting pilots with regards to hijacking rates, not how often pilots have to pull the trigger.

[ACPlayer]

as for el al, (and this really goes to heart of debate), do u think the pilots need to use their guns for the policy to be effective?

It would be an interesting data point of significant relevance to the discussion.

and as for science, the scientific method tells us we should compare gun toting pilots with non gun toting pilots with regards to hijacking rates, not how often pilots have to pull the trigger.

As for science -- we need to examine all the factors and then prioritize them. Your opinion is that the gun toting el al pilots prevent hijackings, my opinion may be that the El Al security screenings may be a more important factor. A positive correlation by itself does not establish a causal relationship. It could be that El Al on a typical flight serves more Kosher meals than any other airline has led to their lower hijacking rates.

[brad]

'As for science -- we need to examine all the factors and then prioritize them. Your opinion is that the gun toting el al pilots prevent hijackings, my opinion may be that the El Al security screenings may be a more important factor. A positive correlation by itself does not establish a causal relationship. It could be that El Al on a typical flight serves more Kosher meals than any other airline has led to their lower hijacking rates.
'

its my understanding that israeli planes were subjected to terrorism, and that arming pilots and secure cockpit doors were designed as a counter to that, and that because of that the terrorism in the form of hijackings were stopped.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
the scientific method tells us we should compare gun toting pilots with non gun toting pilots with regards to hijacking rates

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method would have all other factors the same. You might very well be right that arming pilots leads to fewer hijackings, but your way of proving it is way off. El Al does many different things than United or American Airlines...arming the pilots is just one of the things that it does differently. If all El Al pilots ate oranges during their flights, we wouldn't conclude that eating oranges leads to fewere hijackings.

[MMMMMM]

elwoodblues: "If all El Al pilots ate oranges during their flights, we wouldn't conclude that eating oranges leads to fewere hijackings."

What about eating beans?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
It should be a privilege, duly regulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

And who decides what are privileges and how to regulate them? Your statement is the underpinnings of an over regulated society (we already have that in the US) and police state. Do you understand the inherent tyranny implicit in such policies? There is a very old adage "Any excuse for a tyrant."

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

You are right in your understanding except for one thing, which may be true but you have offered no evidence for the same, and that thing is the one word "because" in your statement.

All you have established is a correlation and not a causal.

[elwoodblues]

I hadn't even considered the bean-factor!!

[MMMMMM]

"Your opinion is that the gun toting el al pilots prevent hijackings, my opinion may be that the El Al security screenings may be a more important factor."

El Al security screening involves intensive use of profiling. The screeners are also very competent at interrogating prospective passengers and asking questions designed to elicit emotional responses so they can "get inside the head" of the person and decide if that person might have terrorist sympathies. They know that people hijack planes, weapons don't, and they are good "readers", psychologically speaking.

M's take on all of this is that we could benefit from more aggressive profiling, especially of Middle Eastern and Muslim males aged 18-48. Also, everyone from the Politically Correct Crowd should be forced to spend a week in closed quarters with a couple of radical Islamists, a typical Saudi imam, and a few hip-hop LA gang members /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

The congress and the legistlatures unfettered by the cynical Gun manufacturers spending millions to ensure that their bonuses are not effected by even a single slight restriction on the sales of their products.

The debate has been so skewed by these manufacturers equating child locks on guns to an attack on the the ability of the Americans to take back their country. The citizens even armed to the teeth cannot kick Bush out of office. Gun manufacturers want you guys to believe that a gun in your pants makes you more of a man.

The money driven polarization on this subject is criminal and sick.

[Zeno]

Thanks for the reponse.

I now fully understand your positions.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

"Gun manufacturers want you guys to believe that a gun in your pants makes you more of a man."

It doesn't make you more of a man, but it does make you less of a victim. And nobody should have the right to tell you that you have to be a victim (if someone decides to attack you).

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it is my opinion. Who's did you think it was anyway? I am not deciding anything

[/ QUOTE ]

But you want to; you or your designate, at least from reading your posts you seem to want to decide who can and can't own guns.

[ QUOTE ]
boy the paranoia of the gun owners is overwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Liberal mantra #1 In the face of facts or logic, resort to name calling.

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of your post reflects a closed minded viewpoint that refuses to recognize even a single downside to easy gunownership in our society. I should probably change my mind and say that the things should be banned rather than regulated, given that gun owners are so adamant in closing their minds to the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again Mantra #1; So far you haven't demonstrated any downside to gun ownership, you've just made abunch of refuatable statements and resorted to name calling.

[ACPlayer]

Liberal mantra #1 In the face of facts or logic, resort to name calling.

We are learning from Rush and Coulter.

Is anyone who is for some level of gun control a liberal? Why?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Is anyone who is for some level of gun control a liberal? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarly, but in my experience people who spout emotional arguments instead of looking at facts tend to be liberals, and you qualify on that count.

PS I know who Rush is but who is Coulter?

[ACPlayer]

Oddly enough there has not been a single factual argument in this thread. Mostly it has been a reiteration of entrenched positions. Guns are good, guns are bad. Anti-gun folks are victims and sissy's. Gun carrying people are trigger happy loons.

I still have not heard any gun advocate who is willing to accept that guns may have social costs as well as benefits or that it may make sense to at least have an honest debate on where reasonable restrictions on gun ownership make sense. I assume from that the pro-gun advocates dont believe that there is a down side to rampant gun ownership and any suggestion of a restriction is "liberal" crap.

[HDPM]

There were references to factual materials like Lott's studies, etc... The pro gun people are familiar with them. The gist of such studies is that guns are used about 500,000 times per year in self defense, usually in cases where nobody is physically hurt. So how do you weigh the number of crimes that didn't happen? And you have presented little in terms of social cost. You allude to it, but don't back it up with numbers about innocents hurt by firearms, let alone the numbers of innocents hurt with firearms who wouldn't have been hurt otherwise. Also, I look at it as a collection of individual harms, not a "societal" cost. I do tend to ignore the costs that anti-gun people tout, because I don't think they are advanced in the proper context, as I have argued elsewhere.

[ACPlayer]

LOL.

Gun advocates know this so it makes it right.

We all know about Lott:
On Lott's study. (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/lott.asp)

[ACPlayer]

I refer you to Ray's post for "liberal" emotional thinkng and imposition of views on others:



all can and should own and know how to use a gun. by everyone being capable other countries as well as our own will have second thoughts about using power in bad ways. that is the reason behind our framers, and still holds today.

[elwoodblues]

I'm not really up on all of the gun control research, but if your link is correct, the oft cited Lott research is pretty funny. The biggest claim that you hear is that shall issue states had their violent crime rates lowered. What is unstated in the Lott study (revealed in your link( is that all states had lower violent crime rates and states with stricter gun control laws had greater reductions in violent crime rates.

Lott: Look, violent crime rates dropped 5% in states with shall issue gun permit laws.
Article: Yes, but overall the violent crime rate dropped 10%.

Funny stuff.

[ACPlayer]

The article comes from the Brady gun control group.

Lets see, which president did he work for?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see, which president did he work for?

[/ QUOTE ]

James Brady worked for Regan, but he is nothing more than a drooling poster boy for his wife's group. Sahra Brady is the ultimate limousine liberal - She's made herself a rich woman off of her husband's blood.

[ACPlayer]

More "liberal" emotional statements.

[MMMMMM]

But ACPlayer, Ray said "all can and should own and know how to use a gun..."--he didn't say all should be required by law to do so. Yet the position of many anti-gun folks is to bring force of law into the equation. See the vast difference?

[ACPlayer]

He is saying that in his opinion, I SHOULD be doing something that he is advocating. He sounds like a liberal, advocating some PC position, when he says that.

I have never said he SHOULD give up his guns. Even Sarah Brady does not say he SHOULD give up his guns.

I have said, that we SHOULD, as a society consider some restrictions on gun sales.

Gun owners think that what they think is how we SHOULD all think.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I still have not heard any gun advocate who is willing to accept that guns may have social costs as well as benefits or that it may make sense to at least have an honest debate on where reasonable restrictions on gun ownership make sense. I assume from that the pro-gun advocates dont believe that there is a down side to rampant gun ownership and any suggestion of a restriction is "liberal" crap.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK You have aroused my curiosity.

Please start a new thread, or I will if you like and list specifically what you feel are reasonable firearms restrictions that should be in place in this country. I’m not talking about abstract social “costs” I mean we all woke up tomorrow and you were the undisputed “gun Tsar” in the US.

The only restrictions I’ll place on you are A) you can’t violate the Constitution – this means that the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment stands as is based on Ill vs Jones. (No wishful redefinitions of the 2nd – black letter law only please); and B) your restrictions have to be enforceable within real time and space. (not I wish all guns were gone and poof! they were)

This is a serious request.

[HDPM]

I tried to read some of that HCI stuff, I really did. You can't take that Q&A as any serious criticism, although it does contain some fair critiques.

[MMMMMM]

You are only arguing for restrictions, Ray is only stating his opinion of what would be good for people to do; but the gun-control fanatics want to pass laws to get their "SHOULD" position forcibly adopted by all. Therefore the gun control fanatics have adopted a fascist position.

[ACPlayer]

OK. I will start a new thread.

Give me a day or so to marshall some facts and arguments.

[elwoodblues]

Do you have a cite for Ill v. Jones, I couldn't find any case with that title dealing with the second amendment?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a cite for Ill v. Jones, I couldn't find any case with that title dealing with the second amendment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood,

the only reference I found was in a death penalty case in 1983.

[slamdunkpro]

Sorry, I swiped the wrong line. I ment to say US vs Miller

[Ray Zee]

if i had said all should stay in shape and eat right. i guess that is an emotional liberal thing too. and is that imposing a view on someone. it is more just presenting a personal view, which btw in our country can be taken with a grain of salt partly because we have a well armed militia.

[brad]

sarah brady and handgun control inc. is on record as saying they will eventually get a total gun b an in usa

[brad]

well that was original 1996 study.

further study has solidified his research.

but they only attack the preliminary research.

[ACPlayer]

Thanks for the tip.

I just sent them a $100 donation. You cant too at:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/donate/index.asp

[brad]

why do u say that?

[elwoodblues]

Thanks...for anyone else interested in reading it, it is a relatively short Supreme Court decision. Below is a link to the decision found on Findlaw.


US v. Miller; 307 US 174 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=307&page=174)