More "rights" for you

[liberty]

So do you have the right to bear your own personal rocket launcher? Armoured tank? Atomic weapon?

No those weapons are not included in term arms as used by the founders. By the word arms they were referring to personal weapons. They had in the military of the time cannons and bombs (hand grenades) but neither were or are militia weapons.

[Scooter]

And could you point to any statute and/or case law which defines "personal weapon" in the way you choose to define it, and excludes rocket launchers, tanks and atomic weapons?

Militias didn't use cannons and bombs? Must have been news to just about every soldier in the Revolutionary War.

I can easily carry a rocket launcher around on my shoulder, ready to use. I can drive a tank as easily as a personal motor vehicle, and I can wheel my personal atomic bomb behind me in a cart. They are as much "personal weapons" to me as a handgun is to you. Why should mine be prohibited to me by law, but not yours?

[loCAtek]

Off the top my head, a 'personal arm' was worn or used to defend your 'person' and historically could be used to describe a light sword, or dagger.

With the advent of 'pistols', who's accuracy was limited to short-range; they were originally thought to only be good as weapons, as 'personal firearms'. Most commonly, in their early form of 'blunderbusses', they were carried by ship's captains to prevent mutiny of their highly conscripted crews.

A long gun, rifle, or greater, isn't as effective for close range due to the proximity of the attacker. IOW They can reach you before you can ready yourself to respond if your personal arm is too large and unwieldy.

Therefore, historically a personal firearm's primary purpose is to defend, not aggress.

Defense is best done by small arms; and aggression by heavy artillery.

[Gob]

Ah brilliant, a cup of tea, a frosty morn, and all my American chums arguing over their right to shoot each other. Brilliant.

What does "well regulated" mean?


Gun murders.
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

# 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people

# 27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people

# 28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people

# 31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people

# 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

[Jarlaxle]

And there is the further fact that the 'gun-nut' red states hive by far the highest rates of gun deaths.

The bees have gone to your brain.


Indiana has one of the highest if not the highest number of gun permits in the country. Gun ownership is through the roof and sky high. Yet, oddly enough, we are no where near Chicago and DC for gun violence.




Love from the red state gun nutters.

Don't forget that the state with some of the LOOSEST gun laws is consistently near the BOTTOM of the list. (That being: Vermont.) And, of course, DC bans guns completely and is essentially a war zone.

[dales]

The O.T. which was started by Gob is strictly an exercise is the realm of the absurd.

There is no RKBA in Oz, which begs the question: why should the Good Mr. Gob care about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, since it does NOT affect him one iota. Nor does this portion to the US Bill of Rights affect Scooter who I believe is a Canadian citizen.

It seems to me that the persons who are most hostile to the RKBA are not even citizens of the United States!

Why is that?

I delight in the fact that I can legally purchse handguns, rifles, and shot guns along with a plethora of ammunition for these firearms.

I will continue to support organizations that ensure that any law-abiding citizen can do the same.......YOU BETCHA!

[dales]

Ah brilliant, a cup of tea, a frosty morn, and all my American chums arguing over their right to shoot each other. Brilliant.

What does "well regulated" mean?


Gun murders.
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

# 20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people

# 27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people

# 28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people

# 31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people

# 32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

Are the above stats inclusive of suicides?

(which I believe they probably are)

[dales]

Defense is best done by small arms; and aggression by heavy artillery.

And world-domination is best carried out by scores of MIRV's in synchrnous orbit.

[Lord Jim]

Apologists for the gun related homicide rate in DC frequently like to point to the laxer gun regulation laws in neighboring Virginia, and attempt to put the blame on that...

However, there' a problem with this theory:

Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state

# 1 District of Columbia: 31.2
= 24 Virginia: 11.1

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mu ... er-100-000

Of course I suppose it should also be pointed out that Virginia has the Death Penalty, and a Court approved appellate procedure for imposing it that actually allows executions to be carried out in a reasonable time frame.

As do Florida and Texas, states with firearms death rates similar to Virgina's....

[Andrew D]

I think that you're missing their point. It is not that Virginia's laxer gun laws result in more deaths by guns in Virginia. It is that Virginia's laxer gun laws result in people's being able to obtain guns in Virginia and then bring them into DC and kill people there. (I am expressing no view about the merits of their point; I am merely observing that that is what their point appears to be.)

[Gob]

Are the above stats inclusive of suicides?

(which I believe they probably are)

Nope, they are gun murders..

So despite you having guns to "defend yourself" (though I've yet to see a gun capable of stopping a bullet) you still have the highest rate of murder per capita by gun of all the first world by a factor of lots...

[Timster]

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious. But Why cannot we (the US of A) just put a firearm to the temple of a perp [AFTER A FAIR TRIAL BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS!] that used a firearm to kill someone in the commission of a crime and just pull the trigger?

Really. We can house these vicious and calloused bastards for millions of dollars and that is after we (the tax payer) have already footed the bill for long and lengthy trials and appeals costing more untold millions? I am strictly against the DP. However, if there is unequivocal video or otherwise evidence squarely placing the blame? Shoot the fuckers. Dead.

Make an example. The price of a Bullet would be far more inexpensive... Grrr.

[dales]

Are the above stats inclusive of suicides?

(which I believe they probably are)

Nope, they are gun murders..

So despite you having guns to "defend yourself" (though I've yet to see a gun capable of stopping a bullet) you still have the highest rate of murder per capita by gun of all the first world by a factor of lots...

And your answer to this lies where, Gob?

Banning guns?

You're 250 years too late!

Don't lose any sleep over it, I sure as h#ll don't

[Lord Jim]

I think that you're missing their point. It is not that Virginia's laxer gun laws result in more deaths by guns in Virginia. It is that Virginia's laxer gun laws result in people's being able to obtain guns in Virginia and then bring them into DC and kill people there.

Andrew, I realize that's the argument...

My point is, that if the argument is that higher gun homicide rates in one jurisdiction, could be explained simply and solely by the easier availability (legal availability...availability per se is another question) in an adjoining jurisdiction, than one should logically expect the gun homicide rate in that more lax jurisdiction to be at least as high as that of the adjoining jurisdiction....

But the statistics do not support this. In fact, the rate is two thirds lower.

That suggests, fairly conclusively, that the mere fact of laxer gun regulation laws in an adjoining jurisdiction can not be the explanation.... that there must be some other explanation, or constellation of explanations that account for this....

Without doing any formal research into it, a few come to mind as possibilities....

DC, unlike Virginia, is a 100% urban environment , and urban environments tend to have greater instances of violence in general...for a whole panoply of reasons...

Urban environments tend to have greater concentrations of gang activity, higher levels of youth unemployment, higher school drop out rates....

Perhaps our efforts and resources as a society would be better spent addressing those issues, rather than trying blame "lax" gun laws....

[Gob]

And your answer to this lies where, Gob?

In not living in the USA.

Don't lose any sleep over it, I sure as h#ll don't

Damn, I was planning on staying up all, just night fretting over it.....

[liberty]

unqualified communist /fascist.....Kagan is no better she is just another Communist.

Well, you're entitled to say whatever you want to Lib, but I have to tell you that in my opinion, that type of verbiage and those sorts of characterizations are another good example of what I was talking about in my post in rube's "failed ideology" thread.

I just don't find that kind of rhetoric helpful or illuminating....

As for her equating the NRA with the Klan, I'd really like to see a quote on that...

I've followed a little of the hearings, and from what I've heard and read, if I were in the Senate, I would at this point probably be leaning against voting for her. (Though I've learned nothing so far that would lead me to think a filibuster on the nomination would be called for.)

But a "communist"?

Please....

Come on....

[liberty]

Unless I referred to a person as a card carry member of the communist party. I am using the term to mean a person that thinks like a communist. A couple of examples are: Might makes right. And the truth is what I say is.

[Andrew D]

On the whole, Lord Jim, I agree. I do not agree, however, that if "higher gun homicide rates in one jurisdiction, could be explained simply and solely by the easier availability (legal availability...availability per se is another question) in an adjoining jurisdiction, than one should logically expect the gun homicide rate in that more lax jurisdiction to be at least as high as that of the adjoining jurisdiction...." On the contrary, that expectation does not logically follow at all.

You have pointed out some reasons why people in DC might well be more inclined to kill people with guns than are people in Virginia. (I would add that living poor and powerless in a cesspool such as Anacostia while wealth and power parade by every day probably makes at least some people really, really angry.)

But the argument is not that the relative ease of obtaining guns in Virginia can "be explained simply and solely" by the relative ease of lawfully obtaining guns in Virginia. It is that the relative ease of lawfully obtaining guns in Virginia is one of many things which substantially contribute to the prevalence of murder by guns in DC.

Merely being inclined to kill people with guns does not enable one to kill people with guns. For that, one needs to have the guns.

So what happens when we put the fact that many people in DC apparently want to kill each other with guns together with the fact that it is a half-hour (give or take) drive to where one can legally obtain guns with relative ease? That relative ease becomes a substantial factor -- though by no means the only factor -- contributing to the result that many people in DC actually do (rather than merely want to) kill each other with guns.

[liberty]

[quote="Gob"]Ah brilliant, a cup of tea, a frosty morn, and all my American chums arguing over their right to shoot each other. Brilliant.

What does "well regulated" mean?

Basically it mean one can not use membership in the militia to run amok.

[Timster]

So. A high level government official still cannot navigate the quote function on a simple BBS? Or is that just an affect?