Home More advice Politics & Law
Why are guns still legal in the states?
@filletofspam-- Sorry for the tardiness in this reply... not sure when you posted your response to hanji where you state, "The thinking of the founding fathers was more along the lines of militias putting down insurgents rather than arming insurgents" but that is what I want to respond to even if it is untimely. Your interpretation has no basis in the stated philosophies of those Anti-Federalists who demanded its creation to stay the hand of a central government they feared becoming empirical. The Bill of Rights was a compromise, [The Massachusetts Compromise to be specific] on the part of the Federalists pushing the Constitution on the Anti-Federalists who were happy to stick with the Articles of Confederation. The Bill of Rights were limitations upon the government. It is an absurd interpretation that those demanding the recognition of individual rights would have intended the 2nd amendment to only apply to the rights of states to put down insurgencies... especially considering that the Articles of Confederation already mandated state militias and gave the states the right to deal with these uprisings... as Massachusetts put to use during Shay's Rebellion. For those people who aren't familiar with the basic political philosophies of the Anti-Federalists... individual rights were front and center and we do have their recorded thoughts behind their recognition of the natural right to bear arms. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!" Patrick Henry in response to Edmund Pendleton during the Virginia Consitutional Ratifying Convention. -- "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it." Richard Henry Lee in The Pennsylvania Gazette before the same convention. -- "The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them" Tench Coxe in An American Citizen IV ahead of the Pennsylvania Constitutional Ratifying Convention. Although technically a Federalist at the time... he is espousing Anti-federalist sympathies here and would eventually dissociate himself from the Federalists. By their own words, we know the intention behind the second amendment. To pervert the expressed intention of this right is to nullify the contract of the Constitution entirely... as the codification is predicated upon the compromise agreed to. It doesn't surprise me that the so called progressives on the left are trying to subvert the will of the authors of the Bill of Rights... we've seen this many times in the past... any portion that doesnt further their political ambitions... is disregarded... though it doesn't make the attempt any less disingenuous.
As far as the 2nd amendment goes, historically it has been viewed as protecting a collective or state right to firearms rather than a personal one. This hasn't stopped the NRA or gun enthusiasts from acting like the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to firearms. Moreover, most gun laws are state and local laws so it is unclear if the 2nd amendment would apply. Now that the Supreme Court is packed with justices appointed by Republican presidents it has basically reversed about a century of what the Supreme Court has held the 2nd amendment means and ruled that it means what the NRA says it means in the "District of Columbia v. Heller" decision. If the balance of the SCOTUS changes it could go back to its historical interpretation. I know lots of gun enthusiasts. I don't believe the cherry picked statistics that the pro-gun and the pro-gun control groups present. Neither of them stand up to scrutiny and they simply don't add up. Eliminating polemic sources I still see privately owned firearms as a poor choice for self-defense. Having a gun in your home makes it more likely you or a family member will get shot instead of less. Owning a gun makes it more likely you will be shot instead of less. A gun is more likely to get you into trouble than to get you out of trouble. Yes, people do successfully defend themselves with firearms but far more often firearms are used unjustifiably. Most of the gun enthusiasts I know don't disagree with these statistics; they say that is true of "average" gun owners but since they go to the range often and know how to safely handle and store their firearm they are a lot better than average. This reminds me of Lake Woebegone where every child is above average. All that said, I'm not out to take away everyone's firearm. Our nation is awash in guns. Lots of people say that since there are so many guns in circulation and there is no way to control them and that it is pointless to make new gun regulations. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We keep flooding the market with guns because it is flooded with guns. The Mexican drug cartels are armed with guns bought in the US since there is so little gun control. While it is true that the recent school shooting may be the type that would be impossible to prevent this doesn't mean we have to just throw up our hands in despair and do nothing. If you go back to the Tuscon shooting, Jeff Loughner was as nutty as a fruitcake and never should have been able to buy guns. After he started shooting the fact that he had a 33 round clip meant that he could get a lot of lead flying before having to reload. Loughner was tackled and subdued when he stopped shooting to reload. If he didn't have a high capacity clip than he would have had to reload earlier and would probably have shot fewer people. Similarly everyone who knew the Shooter at Virgina Tech Seung-Hui Cho said he was unstable and scary. He shouldn't have been able to acquire firearms either. While people look at gun control as a binary all-or-nothing thing the truth is that there are reasonable common sense regulations that can balance public safety with gun rights. Better background checks, mental evaluations, limits on the size of clips, legally requiring gun owners to secure their weapons, etc.
Frederic Bastiat formulated an economic principle that I think applies somewhat in this case, That which is seen, and that which is not seen. In this case... what is seen, and sensationalized, is the tragedy that took the lives of these school children. Unfortunately, it will be sensationalized by those with an agenda to disarm the general public, because it is useful to this end. This is where the principle comes into play, because those with the agenda will only show what is conducive to those ends. This argument has been made time and again on this site... so I wont go into detail, but here is a brief synopsis of what is not seen.
An indiscriminate mass murderer does not need a gun to reproduce this kind of carnage, eg Timothy McVeigh, Jim Jones... or the FBI setting fire to the Branch Davidian Ranch in Waco, TX.
Schools are Gun Free Zones. This type of incident is more indicative of the folly of gun restriction, rather than the proliferation of gun ownership as it is invariably the case that these incidents happen in those areas where guns are restricted.
Guns have been an integral part of American Society since colonial times, but the rash of mass murders are a recent phenomenon and seem to have a correlation to the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors http://www.ssristories.com/index.php
We cannot know how many lives are saved through the use of lethal force by legally owned firearms. We do know that a weighty number of the gun deaths usually sited by gun control advocates are those of assailants killed in self defense.
Democide, or death by state, is far and away the greatest taker of lives on record. In the last century, states were responsible for the deaths of some 260 million people world wide, not including deaths in warfare or collaterally in warfare. Dozens of innocent children are the victims of collateral damage in warfare daily. Because these deaths are not sensationalized does not make the lives of these children any less real or important. That being acknowledged, the argument that firearms should be the sole privilege of agents of the state as a means to prevent innocent deaths cannot be supported rationally, especially considering that much of the democide tally was predicated upon gun restrictions enforced by the state, as control advocates support.
This is the rationale that sensationalism is intended to elicit. A kneejerk reaction based upon a small sampling of the facts available. It's sad, but few good decisions are made following emotional stimuli. The quagmire in Afghanistan is a good example.
The reason you have the Second Amendment is in case your government becomes tyrranical, you can use your firearms to overthrow it. Some of you people are either naive or ignorant (Americans). You've never lived under a dictator like my people have in Germany. And you may have lived under a king like my English ancestors have, but that was hundreds of years ago. You Americans don't know what it's like to live under dictators and monarchies. Maybe you should do that for several hundred years (living as peasants or slaves) so you will appreciate your freedoms when and if you ever do become free again. Criminals will always have guns in spite of the fact that you might outlaw them. You have a federal government that gives/sells weapons to other countries in the world, some of which have dictators. First, why don't you stop the flow of weapons FROM the United States? You need to stop people who are mentally ill from obtaining guns. Of the last four of these terrible shooting sprees, all four of the shooters were mentally ill, I mean, don't you think this should be a priority? Think about it. Don't you HAVE to be mentally ill to murder someone? Of course you do. That's not the act of a rational, sane person (I'm not talking about killing to defend yourself, your loved ones or your country). What about the man in China who, at the same time this was going on in CT, stabbed 22 elementary school children in China? Maybe you should outlaw all guns, all knives and everything with sharp points, clubs, baseball bats and any sort of blunt instrument and, when you're down to hands and fists, cut those off like they do in Muslim countries where the part of the body that commits a crime gets removed? You Americans are very silly people.
no not what i am saying at all- you missed the point entirely- if you have 3 weapons all with 10 shot magazines- then you have the firepower of one dreaded 30 round magazine - WITHOUT RELOADING- read it again. also with 3 weapons you would be able to always have a LOADED WEAPON at the ready while loading the other 2- not really rocket science here. as far as the second amendment goes- A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE- THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE ( THATS P E O P L E- not military, not law enforcement, not homeland security but every day ordinary P E O P L E ) TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. where does it say ANYTHING about slavery??? where does it say anything about putting down insurgents??? by the way - who makes up a militia??? perhaps common ordinary everyday people and their firearms?? i am an NRA member and i read about SUCCESSFUL people defending their lives and the lives of others every month- and as far as your math goes- according to you we would have millions of firearm accidents every year- that is simply not the case no matter how hard you try to spin it. perhaps maybe you should visit the NRA website and read about armed citizens defending themselves. i own 23 firearms so according to you i would be in a fairly dangerous place to live and surely destined to have an accident- that is simply not the case, and i am pretty sure that my assault rifle propped in the corner has not killed anyone under it s own power ( or mine for that matter). so i guess that i would stand by ALL OF MY ABOVE STATEMENTS. i am an avid outdoorsman , hunter, and bver
i don't see anything here that doesn't state that an individual person can not own or bear arms. smaller MAGAZINES are not an answer either- 3 weapons with 10 round magazines still add up to 30 rounds with no reloading, and judging and marking people as scary or unstable would be prejudice and bigotry. the statistics for your theory simply don't add up- there are millions of guns legally owned in the US- if these were so dangerous then there would be millions of accidents - that is simply not the case, about the only statement that holds water here is that you can not be accidentally shot if you don't own a firearm- just like you can't be involved in a car crash if you do not drive or ride in a car. i personally own 23 firearms and have never had an accidental discharge. the thing here is that a properly TRAINED person is LESS likely to accidentally harm someone innocent with their gun than someone who is not properly trained- you have to prove you were trained to receive a concealed carry permit. mental illness can happen after a legal gun purchase- impossible to catch- so do you stop the sales on the basis that a person may become mentally deficient in the future- or course not. it is an all or nothing thing because the libs have such a broad definition of what they wish to ban- the libs in this country will not be happy until we are all subjects of an oppressive government and all the guns are out of the hands of the common man.
I have to tell you that I am very angry about this idea that guns need to be taken away from law abiding citizens in the USA. In my home country of Germany, we don't have that right. When I was 14, my best girl friend and I went to use a public restroom. Often, they're unisex bathrooms. My father told us not to use them, but I had to go quite badly and had no other choice. While we were in there, we were attacked by a man with a knife. My best girl friend was murdered. I was raped, beaten, stabbed, and left for dead. After I had recovered from my physical wounds, my father moved us to the USA because it's safer here. One of those reasons is because you have the Right to Bear Arms. While I believe that people who are mentally ill should not have access to weapons of any kind, I do not believe that sane, law abiding citizens should have those rights curtailed. As you can see from my case, if someone is hell bent on hurting others, a knife is more than adequate. Had the other patrons in the bathroom been armed, I'm sure they would have come to our aid instead of cowering in the corner or rushing out the door, as some did. I feel safe in America, much safer than I ever felt in Europe. Every day I thank God that America is the country that it is, even though it has many flaws. I am thankful for your Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to Peacefully Assemble, and yes, your Right to Bear Arms.
i guess you should add me to the list of people who have been poisoned with the 'incorrect information" because i heard the same thing, this action by the obama minions is an attempt to make an end run around the constitution and place our 'well being' firmly in the hands of the 'all powerful' united nations who historically have sought to disarm its member countries to make them 'safer' for their citizens and place their security in the hands of the un peace keepers so their citizens can be more easily exploited. perhaps if you continue to feed at the alter of the LIBERAL media and sing kum ba yah around the campfire it makes their lies make more sense. i have very little time for the LIBERAL MEDIA and how they selectively report their version of 'the news'- i will use the trayvon martin 911 tape as a great example of the LIBERAL MEDIA editing the news to promote a different outcome- AND GETTING CAUGHT RED HANDED. and CONSERVATIVES are predominantly PRO GUN- i am sure there are a few exceptions here or there but generally speaking the republican party is the party of FREEDOM and the democrats the party of the old world british aristocracy and nobles who seek to rule and not be a representative of the people.
as far as the statement of your outcome being better without a gun than with one- i totally disagree- where is being raped or murdered better than putting up a defense with a firearm?? the dead no longer have their ability to tell you they would have wished to have had the ability to defend and preserve their life instead of being dead. i would rather run the risk of shooting myself in the foot then to leave my destiny in the hands of a crazed criminal bent on doing who knows what after i become submissive and compliant- if that is your idea of how you wish to live your life then so be it- i for one do not wish to live at the mercy of criminals - i for one have made the decision to carry a firearm for my protection and for others and to be a deterrent to the criminal element by the implied threat that the criminal may get killed messing with me instead of preying on a defenseless person and getting away with doing whatever they want- a prison apology from a murderer to a family of the victim is NEVER better than having that family member still alive and well.
gun ownership goes far beyond self protection- it encompasses self sufficiency - the ability to hunt and feed oneself and it also encompasses a check and balance of freedom against an oppressive government, which our forefathers had the wisdom to put in our constitution. taking the 'hint' from other gunless countries is that you become helpless pawns to your government and your 'safety' and the lives of your family and friends can be taken away at the simple whim of whatever criminal organization sees fit to turn you into a victim. here in america we have the option to defend ourselves against criminals and a government which seeks to act against the will of the people- our country was founded on standing our ground willing to take up arms to assure our freedom- people in other countries may be willing to sacrifice their freedom- but not here.
gun ownership goes far beyond self protection- it encompasses self sufficiency - the ability to hunt and feed oneself and it also encompasses a check and balance of freedom against an oppressive government, which our forefathers had the wisdom to put in our constitution. taking the 'hint' from other gunless countries is that you become helpless pawns to your government and your 'safety' and the lives of your family and friends can be taken away at the simple whim of whatever criminal organization sees fit to turn you into a victim. here in america we have the option to defend ourselves against criminals and a government which seeks to act against the will of the people- our country was founded on standing our ground willing to take up arms to assure our freedom- people in other countries may be willing to sacrifice their freedom- but not here.
Actually the gun control debate correlates more with rural vs urban rather than conservative vs liberal. Many rural liberals favor looser gun regulation while many urban conservatives support tighter gun regulation. The fact that you are regurgitating paranoid conspiracies leads me to believe you are being fed a lot of wrong information. There is a saying, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. It is the US that has been dragging its feet over the UN Small Arms Treaty. The President can't just sign an treaty he wants; it also requires 2/3 of the Senate to ratify. Moreover, in US law the constitution supersedes treaties ratified by the Senate not the other way around as you believe. When you start with incorrect premises you will almost always reach the wrong conclusion.
If it's not a gun, it'd be a knife. People that commit terrible crimes with guns, either will find a new resource or find a way to get a gun elsewhere. Making guns illegal sounds like a good idea, but then the people who only use them for protection would have their protection taken away. No matter what, we can all agree that these shootings have gotten out of hand, but in looking at the big picture, there is honestly nothing really that can be done about gun control since the majority of gun owners use them for protection not something like school shootings. It would also come to changing the constitution and that again would get nothing accomplished.
Yeah it sucks, but changing laws on guns won't prevent future events like this.
not paranoia it is reality spam- our freedoms spelled out in our CONSTITUTION, which if you haven't noticed has been a question asked 'whether the constitution should done away with and a new one drafted in its place' and the freedoms that being a FREE ARMED SOCIETY will GUARANTEE. the gun ban ATTEMPT is coming and are you so naive to believe it would stop with guns once we are disarmed? maybe we should begin calling each other 'comrade' now and get it over with. the tragic shootings aside- obama has stated he would push for another gun ban and it is his agenda to create an america in his image- dependent on the government instead of free and able to depend on themselves.
Remember Shay's rebellion? The thinking of the founding fathers was more along the lines of militias putting down insurgents rather than arming insurgents. The 2nd amendment was also in place to support slavery; it assured the South that they would be able to form armed posses to hunt fugitive slaves. Actually, the statistics do add up. Firearms are not very effective for self-defense. It is rather rare that having a firearm results in a better outcome than you would have without one. Gun accidents and crimes of passion are not common but they are more common than someone successfully defending themselves with a firearm.
I'm sorry, but I am informed enough on this issue to understand that there are legitimate points on both sides. I am not uninformed, as you seem to think. Liberals, on the one hand, are anti-gun and read what they want to into this treaty. Conservatives, on the other hand, are pro-gun and read what they want to into this treaty. The truth is that we have our own laws in this country and don't need to hand over our sovereignty to the U.N. whose members are mostly America haters. The USA is more than capable of passing and enforcing its own legislation on matters relating to firearms.
the answer to these horrific and sad shootings lies in the MENTAL HEALTH arena and not in banning guns. guns are merely tools being utilized to the will of the person wielding it- good or bad. the key to stopping these tragic shootings is for the american public to be more vigilant and more willing to assist someone in need of mental health care- we need to turn our family members or children in the direction of seeking mental care when they are down and depressed and truly be 'our brothers keepers' to try and catch things like this before they ahppen.
Well, Canada has very strict gun laws and we're looking at roughly 150-200 gun-related murders per year as opposed to America's 12,000+.
You can go on forever about how you need a gun to protect yourself, but the real issue here is that it is far too easy for Americans to get their hands on a gun.
If you want to stand firm for the right to bear arms, you also have to accept the consequences of that right, and incidents like Newtown, Connecticut won't ever stop, because everyone has the right to bear arms ... not just the stable people.
Without going into the Constitution and all that, please consider the following: Making them illegal will not keep them from the hands of criminals or people determined to do harm to others. It would only create a larger "black market" for them. These shootings that keep taking place here are tragic and very sad. Also sadly, no gun laws can be written to keep guns away from "those people", only the law abiding citizens would suffer and be left defenseless in the event of a home invasion or other criminal attack.
this question comes around a lot, honestly they will never ban guns, and if they do people think oh its a happy place now no one has guns! wrong. people do not think at all. we would become like Mexico, people can protect themselves because there banned, but criminals and drug dealers will have them from the black market? That would be worse, and its unfair to take away our 2nd amendment that men died for. Please you and i hope other people think about the bigger picture
~corruption
Ok, Colleen. Using your figures, the population in Canada (according to WIkipedia) is 33.5 million. The population in the USA is 340 million. 200 gun deaths in Canada is 5.97% of your population. 12,000 gun deaths in the USA is 3.5% of our population. So, you see, your gun laws are making things WORSE in your country, not better as you seem to think. Your 5.9% is definitely higher than our 3.5%. As a matter of fact, your murder rate by firearms is almost twice what ours is.
But they ARE trying to take your guns away. You need to become familiar with the U.N. Small Arms Ban Treaty. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are working with the United Nations right this minute to take away your Right to Bear Arms. Once a treaty is ratified, your Constitution states that that treaty cannot be overturned or the ratification rescinded. You would need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn treaties and that's not an easy thing to do.
Heidi, you lost a some decimal places in your calculations. Using your figures, the Canadian death rate of 200 out of 33.5 million comes out to 0.60 per 100,000. The US gun murder rate of 12,000 out of 340 million comes out to 3.53 per 100,000. Looks to me the US gun murder rate is almost 6 times higher per capita. I've seen different figures for both populations and murder rates but in every analysis the US rates are still much higher than Canada's.
Also for consideration: Many lives could be saved during these tragic events. Suppose a law abiding person with a gun permit happens to be present and "packing" when some deranged person starts shooting innocent people. Let's say the law abiding person just happens to be a war veteran...........training "kicks in" and the criminal is stopped way before police arrive and innocent childrens lives are saved.
i agree ENTIRELY and WHOLE HEARTEDLY with your post, the liberal left continue to push us towards being 'ruled' instead of being free. i for one AM a american patriot- i love this country- and when it comes time to toe the line- BEAR MY ARMS and to defend our freedoms from what is coming by this administration - I WILL BE THERE AMONGST MY FELLOW NRA PATRIOTS AND FELLOW GUN OWNERS.
You don't often hear about people defending themselves with their own firearms because the press in America has an agenda. If you belong to the NRA or any other gun rights group, you hear about these incidents all of the time. People who believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is going to help situations like what we just witnessed in CT are delusional.
Because, a ban on firearms would be unconstitutional.
Another point; If you ban guns from citizens you have a situation where criminals who have access to illegal markets are killing unarmed citizens. If you allow citizens to have firearms, you now have a situation where criminals are attacking armed citizens, which sound more viable?
Also, are you saying you don't have to stop shooting to change clips? Granted if you are well practiced and don't fumble in the heat of the moment you can slap another clip in quickly but you do have to pause to put in another 10 round clip while a shooter with a 33 round clip could just keep firing.
Where I live, if you wish to own a gun, you must participate in shooting competitons at least 6 times every 6 months, you must have your gun in one safe and a key in another. I think its silly if you want to own a gun for "safety". Im sorry but i just completely dissagree with Americas laws
I understand. It's a way of life you are accustomed to and probably don't feel your rights are being violated. Here on the other hand, why should people who have done nothing wrong have to give up their guns because of the actions of others? That would only be punishing the innocent.
If they EVER try to take our guns away! i will be VERY upset!! i support my government and especially our military but having guns is one of our VERY FIRST LAWS and i dont ever want to see our guns taken away! i am ok with it being harder for people to get one. but that it about it
Making it illegal won't stop crime. Take my country as example. The criminals have guns and brutal murder and torture occur, but us innocent citizens are not allowed to acquire them to protect ourselves. I don't see how making them illegal is going to make gun related crimes less
the wording of the second amendment is simple and to the point- " A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE ( state being utilized as a 'state of being' and not geographical) THE RIGHT OF THE 'PEOPLE' TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Heidi ... relax, your bad attitude isn't becoming. Did I say they should take away the guns? No - I simply stated that it's too easy for people to get them. You don't have to be a bitch, you know ... catch more flies with honey and all that...
Heidi, This is chain email conspiracy stuff. There is no "U.N. Small Arms Ban Treaty." There is an "Arms Trade Treaty" but this isn't taking away American's guns. It is to combat the illegal transfer of firearms from country to country.
Well, it just wouldn't be fair to those who do no harm to take away their right to bear arms, when the criminals will find a way to get guns anyway. Laws are already in place to keep criminals from buying them "legally".
Do you know Texans? I am a Texan and these people won't go without a fight. They feel as if they need to protect themselves and taking away guns won't stop anything there is a black market just saying.
And you are not left defenceless if you do not have a gun, if other countries can go to the effort of banning guns then i think that America should take the hint
And you are not left defenceless if you do not have a gun, if other countries can go to the effort of banning guns then i think that America should take the hint
But by making them illegal, you are most definitely making it harder to get a hold of one, it also drastically reduces the risks of gun involved crimes.
But you hardly see that happening. All im saying is that gun laws should be more strict therefore the chances of these events occuring is minimised.
Hanji, you are sounding rather paranoid. What freedoms are you expecting to be taken away from by the Obama administration?
Colleen, if you don't like the gun laws in America, then either STAY in Canada or GO BACK to Canada.
because thats pointless. it will nevr get enough votes for them to become illegal.
it is far deadlier to get into a motor vehicle than it is to own a firearm.
very familiar with firearms and their capabilities and uses.
Thats not what happened to my country
And what country is that?
Australia <3
as far sa
cant*
