• 

Pro and Con: 'Does the United States need more gun regulation?'

Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Dances with Redwoods

Henry Evers, gets my thumbs up!

David Bates

Mr. Evers, suppose you were still serving in the Air Force today. Let's say that while you're on duty, a few hundred, or even a few thousand American citizens decide that the President of the United States is acting like a dictator who wants to "enslave" the people and needs to be removed from office. These citizens decide to take up arms against the U.S. government.

1) In your opinion, are these citizens committing a crime?

2) As an active member of the U.S. Air Force, would you fire on them?

3) Most importantly (for the purpose of considering the usefulness of the Second Amendment in the 21st century) how effective do you think those citizens will be against just the Air Force? (In answering, exclude from the equation the considerable firepower available to the Army, the Marines and the Navy, along with the government's fleet of armed drones, nuclear weapons, etc. Also exclude the resources of all municipal, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies, which presumably would be the first responders before the military was involved.)

troy prouty

Of course I think Semi-Auto is not needed or clips that cotain mass amounts of Ammo. But let me steal something from Japan..

"Applicants first must go to their local police station and declare their intent. After a lecture and a written test comes range training, then a background check. Police likely will even talk to the applicant's neighbors to see if he or she is known to have a temper, financial troubles or an unstable household. A doctor must sign a form saying the applicant has not been institutionalized and is not epileptic, depressed, schizophrenic, alcoholic or addicted to drugs.
Gun owners must tell the police where in the home the gun will be stored. It must be kept under lock and key, must be kept separate from ammunition, and preferably chained down"

The fact is that if guns are suppose to protect people and property, how come most guns used in crimes are stolen? Isn't that property. also.. 5 cops with guns couldn't stop a gun attack ny surprise, what makes others so sure they can?

Guns are meant for one purpose to fire at something.

troy*

Dances with Redwoods

The wonderful thing about the Internet is that it allows people here in America to see how fast societal change is playing out all across our planet. People are more worried about life as we've come to know it, devolving into anarchy right here in our own country.

People have every right to defend themselves, their families and their neighbors against those that couldn't care less about any rule of law, much less our Constitutional rights. If you feel uneasy about owning a firearm and don't wish to own one, that is your Constitution right, right on up to the very moment your government... places one in your hands, trains you how to use it, then orders you to use it on anyone your government orders you to use it on.

That is how it is in the real world.

fmtko

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that the military uses. Fully automatic rifles are highly regulated, in that to own one, you have to pay a yearly tax and your home can be inspected and any time by the BATF. An assault rifle was not use to kill the children at Sandy Hook. A semi- automatic rifle that looks like the military's assault rifle like the one that is being blamed for this massacre, but in fact, It the weapons used were four handguns that Adam Lanza took from his Mother's firearms collection. The Semi-auto being called an assault rifle was found in the trunk of Adam Lanza's Mom' car that evening. All of the old arguments that have been used are being regurgitated and re-used for the same old argument. The second amendment was not put into place to protect the right to hunt. It was put in place to protect you and your family against any threat up to and including tyranny and no, a few people who feel the president needs to be removed from office does not equate to responding to a threat of tyranny. Lets stay on the topic and refrain from using opinions to make our points.

treefarmer

http://vs.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-01-31/story/fact-check-misinformation-over-sandy-hook-shooting-wont-go-away

There was/is a lot of misinformation about the weapons used in the Newtown massacre, this link provides one source for fact-checking.

troy prouty

posted "The second amendment was not put into place to protect the right to hunt. It was put in place to protect you and your family against any threat up to and including tyranny and no, a few people who feel the president needs to be removed from office does not equate to responding to a threat of tyranny"

Actually I think it had more to do with the people being the army of that time. The U.S. certainly wasn't outspending the next 17 countries military budget combined.

They aren't banning guns. They are banning certain guns with certain clips/magazines, working on requiring better back ground checks and hopefully in my opinion will increase penalties for "accidents" from careless gun owners.

Just because it's in the constitution does not mean it is limitless. Speech is a prime example, it's allowed to a point.

Is gun control going to end murder. No.. Could it help stop high death tolls in a single incident. Ask Australia.

troy*

Dances with Redwoods

Our first amendment has been stretched and contorted to encompass and include so much in terms of what actually constitutes 'Free Speech', yet, when it comes to interpreting the words that describe our second amendment right to self defense, the term 'right to bear arms' some how is meant to be interpreted to mean or encompass so much less.

Why do you think that is, Troy?

David Bates

If I might jump in ... that's an interesting question. I don't think one could provide a definitive answer without having a comprehensive understanding of both First and Second Amendment law, and I doubt anyone here does.

However, my view is this: The conception of the Second Amendment was written to address the legal requirement 18th century American males had to fulfill their civic obligation of serving in a militia, which was more integrated into social and cultural life at the time than any other institution, and certainly more so than any today. Today, the role of a 17th century militia is served by the U.S. military and local law enforcement agencies, both of which are under civilian control.

Dances with Redwoods

Thank you for a thoughtful response, David. In my own view, I see a big difference between what is defined as a requirement and what is conferred or defined as any individuals right of choice.

This same argument is or has been made in arguments for or against abortion.

David Bates

Yes, there is a difference, but I think the issue that we're grappling with today is that the legal requirements and civic obligations that provided the "subtext," if you will, of the Second Amendment were completely bound up with the "right" it spells out. The book I've cited elsewhere, "A Well-Regulated Militia," by Saul Cornell, goes into this issue with a lot of detail and historical context. Once you've removed the "subtext," it follows that the conversation -- and the law -- must change.

fmtko

Well, I am glad that the Supreme Court agrees with the wording, in that the individual is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. To understand the 2nd amendment, you must also understand England's "Bill of Rights1689", considering the fact that we were under British rule previously. The right to have arms was a long established natural right in England in it's time and you can't eliminate it's influence on the writing of the 2nd amendment, since it was written after the Revolutionary war when it was fresh in the minds of the fore fathers that without arms, they would not have had the ability to declare their independence and back it up. As far as the opinion of one man who wrote a book goes, well, it is just his opinion and not the law of the land.

fmtko

So, according to treefarmer, I guess NBC was wrong when it announced this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo

fmtko

In any case, the rifle retreived from the car Adam Lanza took to the school was not an AR 15. It looks to be another form of semi-auto rifle with a dragunov style stock. AR 15's do not have this style of stock.

troy prouty

Dave is right on the two main priorities it appears the 2nd amendment was applied. Law enforcement by citizens and military both being citizens at that time. Now we have Military and now we have police.

It also doesn't say anything about felons not being allowed to have a gun or a person that is mentally unstable, and yet one of those are already done and the other in process.

Freedom of speech is allowed unless it affects others freedoms and liberties under the law (ever changing) or the threat of affecting it.

The supporters behind guns have often said it violates life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. At the same I think it fails to recoginize the victims that die because of guns; didn't that affect their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness at a far greater level?

I'm asking for change with semi-automatics and clips and requiring a class (like Japan), and background checks. I would prefer a national popular vote.. but that won't happen, so all I can do is email my reps.

troy*

troy prouty

in the article..

"The passenger jets hijacked on 9/11 could have been saved by armed pilots"

Could have been saved by a secure door which ralph nader attempted to do prior and was never done because (it added cost).

troy*

David Bates

Fmtko: The opinion that the law must evolve is my own; the author of the book is one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, and he does in fact address the British law to which you refer.

troy prouty

Can someone help me?

I can't find the mention of the internet in anything they wrote in the constitution.. Do you know what page I can find it, I'm sure it must be there, after all they had totally thought out the future of America, they wouldn't forget the internet.

troy*

David Bates

Typo in my 8:24 a.m. post: Should be "an 18th century militia." I hate typos.

sbagwell

The Sandy Hook children were shot with a Bushmaster .223 rifle, a semi-automatic manufactured in an assault style. A a knockoff of the assault rifle the military uses, it looks absolutely nothing like a hunting rifle.
Yes, there were some early false reports — several of them. The shooter was even misidentified in the early confusion.
However, the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy pulled bullet after bullet out of the kids, and they came from the Bushmaster.
He was also carrying two handguns. The only weapon in his trunk was a Russian-made semi-automatic shotgun with a high-capacity drum magazine.
Steve Bagwell
Managing Editor

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS