How you do you feel about gun rights?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

at the least well regulated would refer to operational, which would tend to imply some level of organization in the militia to defend and protect the state. all of which is limiting language to the middle clause of the right. likewise, i don't dispute the right, but i don't believe that the right is as broad as the nra type groups claim.

Like I said, go educate yourself on the original intent.


Here's a pretty good explanation.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You guys surprise me with how much you abhor fundamentalism when it comes to the Bible but you take that approach with the constitutution. Times change. The second ammendment is outdated. We need a new perspective on guns.

The second ammendment is outdated? There's no danger of governments oppressing their own citizens or turning a democracy into a police state? Good ta know, thanks!

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Venkman

The second ammendment is outdated? There's no danger of governments oppressing their own citizens or turning a democracy into a police state? Good ta know, thanks!

Theory behind second ammendment we hold dear. And the principles are still important. But the practicality has changed. I doubt you, Waters, and Archaea would be very successful in a war with your guns vs a military of bombs, tanks, and Apache helicopters. Violent crime is a much more serious problem than it was 250 years ago.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Theory behind second ammendment we hold dear. And the principles are still important. But the practicality has changed. I doubt you, Waters, and Archaea would be very successful in a war with your guns vs a military of bombs, tanks, and Apache helicopters.

Better chance than if we were a bunch of defenseless puppies.

Originally Posted by jay santos

Violent crime is a much more serious problem than it was 250 years ago.

Which is why we need guns more than ever - to defend ourselves against armed thugs. Deterrence. Criminals will always have guns. The only way you can keep them from having guns is to implement a police state, then the gov't would be the criminals. Freedom has it's downside, but it's better than the alternative.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Theory behind second ammendment we hold dear. And the principles are still important. But the practicality has changed. I doubt you, Waters, and Archaea would be very successful in a war with your guns vs a military of bombs, tanks, and Apache helicopters. Violent crime is a much more serious problem than it was 250 years ago.

I think thousands of American soldiers would disagree with you, if they could. But they can't, because the Iraqis killed them.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Better chance than if we were a bunch of defenseless puppies.



Which is why we need guns more than ever - to defend ourselves against armed thugs. Deterrence. Criminals will always have guns. The only way you can keep them from having guns is to implement a police state, then the gov't would be the criminals. Freedom has it's downside, but it's better than the alternative.

There are two issues here.

1. Does the concept of a standing militia ready to overthrow a tyrranical gov't make sense in today's world with technological differences and how wars are fought today?

2. Regardless of the answer to #1, how do we change gun laws to reduce violent crimes and maximize public safety?

If gun lovers can make either (either or--both are not necessary) of these two cases seperately to me, then I could be swayed.

Where the gun lovers lose me is when they try to mix the two. Like saying the right to shoot an intruder in your house is constitutionally protected.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by jay santos

There are two issues here.

1. Does the concept of a standing militia ready to overthrow a tyrranical gov't make sense in today's world with technological differences and how wars are fought today?

tyrannical governments are concerned about it, otherwise why would they disarm their people?

Originally Posted by jay santos

2. Regardless of the answer to #1, how do we change gun laws to reduce violent crimes and maximize public safety?

We do have laws to address this. More vigorous enforcement is needed.

Originally Posted by jay santos

Like saying the right to shoot an intruder in your house is constitutionally protected.

Sure you have the right? Why do you disagree?

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Theory behind second ammendment we hold dear. And the principles are still important. But the practicality has changed. I doubt you, Waters, and Archaea would be very successful in a war with your guns vs a military of bombs, tanks, and Apache helicopters. Violent crime is a much more serious problem than it was 250 years ago.

Tell that to the Afghan soldiers when they fought the Soviets to a standstill.

[MikeWaters]

who says gun laws are the culprit when it comes to violent crime?

The causes of violent crime are myriad. Banning guns does not take guns away from criminals--it takes guns away from good people that want to protect their families.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

who says gun laws are the culprit when it comes to violent crime?

The causes of violent crime are myriad. Banning guns does not take guns away from criminals--it takes guns away from good people that want to protect their families.

MW, I think the best empirical work on the subject is,

More Guns, More Crime

Mark Duggan

The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109, No. 5. (Oct., 2001), pp. 1086-1114.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002...3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993.

This paper is in response to the empirical work done by Lott. Maybe in the long run Lott will be vindicated but his empirical work back when I paid attention to this issue was poor.