2nd Amendment--applicable how?

[Schiavona]

More misconceptions

Originally Posted by jBirch

I think you're coflating freedom of speech (which is provided by the government in the form of community forums, access to your representive and the ability of disabled persons to speak officially) with freedom of the press. The freedom of the press applies specifically to the press, while the right to bear arms applies specifically to the militia. The militia, being supplanted by the US national guard, doesn't seem to be Bob, the sales broker at Best Buy, in my world. Unless everyone in the US is automatically part of the militia then?

I'm pretty sure that my government (at least where I live) dosen't provide community forums and access to my representive isn't a right.

Every male in the US, 16-45, is in the milita.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Australia has gun control very similar to Canada: semi automatic weapons of specific cartridge capacity, most handguns, fully automatic weapons, and some shot guns. Plus, you can still own them if you can show that you've passed a safety course, are of reasonably good character and have a requirement to own them. Long guns are still just fine to own. Hardly "taking away all your guns".

Australia used its registration lists to take away the guns its last round of stricter gun control legislation deemed 'bad'. Same in England.

Originally Posted by jBirch

On that subject, the concept is that some guns are bad and some are useful. Would you consider your neighbour to have the right to a howitzer pointed at your house? Or a M1A1 tank in the driveway? How about armaments on aircraft? Should a domestic 747 have the right to carry AIM-9 missiles "in case of a terrorist attack?" Or a quad of .50 cals on your speedboat? Why is a pistol any different?

Matter of degree? Some absoultists argue that we should be able to have any weapon.

Originally Posted by jBirch

No, but you do have a constitutional right to a freedom of mobility.

No, actually we don't.

Originally Posted by jBirch

It could reasonably be argued that if you were denied the use of a car, and lived in the sticks, that it constituted an infringement on your rights. *grin*

It can be argued that if we have the right to self defense and are denied acess to the tools of self defense then we really DON'T have the right of self defense.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Or they might be more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later. Like I said, small guns make a bad situation worse. Big guns make a horrible situation slightly better. So yes, I do advocate every citizen the right to carry a concealed howitzer 2000m behind them at all times.

What if my expirence is that small guns make a bad situation better? Does that cancel your arguement? Opinions are not fact.

[Epee_Pox]

Many excellent responses to jBirch.

jBirch's misconceptions are commonly held by those who see the state as something that governs them, rather than government as simply a tool of the citizenry. This results in a strange perception of what "rights" mean.

The right to be able to do something does not mean that the state has to give citizens the means to do it.

Freedom of speech is not "provided by the government." No rights are provided by the government. They are separate from the government, belonging to the individual, and the Constitution & Amendments specify those which the government cannot infringe. Free speech basically means you are free to express your ideas in any way you can, anywhere you can, any time, so long as doing so does not endanger others or otherwise infringe on others' rights. It is not at all defined or limited as jBirch put it.

You cannot reasonably argue that taking away a drivers' license from someone living in a remote area infringes on their rights -- so long as due process was followed -- because there is no right to drive, no right to mobility. If you choose to live in a remote area, that's fine. But if you want to drive, you have to comply with statutes and regulations (and buy your own car).

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Whoah man. Why the arsenal? What could possibly be so scary that requires that much firepower? And on the topic of gun control, what's so bad about the registration requirement?

Whoah, man! Why all that insurance on your house? Why that fire extinguisher in your car? Why would you ever need such things?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Still, seems a fundamental breakdown of society. Where did law and order go? Did it finally get cancelled?

I know Canada is Paradise, but somehow I suspect that you still have criminals up there...

The law is only of help punishing the guilty after the fact. It doesn't protect you from anything. Neither does the police officer who isn't there at the moment...

By that logic, why hasn't every American citizen been given a gun? If it's a right, then everyone should have it, no?

That's "right", not "obligation". You many rights which you are not compelled to exercise.

This ( in all seriousness ) is one of the things which separate pro- from anti-gun people: the former only ask to be able to choose for themselves, the latter want to choose for everyone...

What country? I am aware of no other country on the planet that this has applied to.

England? Australia? Canada?

Registration is a prerequisite to confiscation. It does not itself ensure that the latter will occur, but it makes it much easier to accomplish. In a country like the US, with an estimated 200 million privately-owned firearms, of which at least 40% are thought to be owned anonymously, the only way for a government to remove guns from private hands at the moment is to conduct a house-to-house and business-to-business search. With registration, it only needs to send out letters to owners of record ordering that they be turned over under penalty of prosecution. The number of those who would be able to resist such a confiscatatory policy would be greatly reduced by effective registration.

What registration does is ensure that, like cars, those who own and operate them have a minimum level of proficiency so they don't hurt themselves or others by accident and that the weapons themselves are kept up well enough that they don't pose a societal danger.

Uh...how does it do that? Registration alone does not do that---it is merely a record-keeping function. You're thinking of licensing, I believe...though even that does not always imply proficiency requirements.

Again, a lot like cars. In order to purchase ammunition, you have to be proficient enough that you can be reasonably expected to store and use the ammunition in a responsible manner.

So---do you have to demonstrate driving proficiency before you can buy gas for your car, where you live? Do you have to show your registration or driver's license at the gas station every time you fill up?

If you don't have a gun, why are you buying ammuntion?

Because, in a free society, you can?

If you don't have a car, can you still buy gasoline?

I also like the idea that certain weapons, notably automatic weapons and handguns, are really not needed for any rational reason beyond hurting another person and so should be restricted.

Why? On what logical grounds?

And laws that allow you to carry weapons concealed on the street are just a recipe for someone to get shot due to a misunderstanding.

Well---much better that people get shot by criminals intentionally, I suppose?

Why people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon is beyond me. My apologies to Rogue and Inq, but I truly don't understand the rationale.

And this is why there's such an enormous divide on the issue: you can't fathom why we we believe as we do, and we can't fathom why you believe as you do...

Finally, pray tell, give me one reason why anyone should own a fully automatic AK-47 beyond someone who collects them or museums? What positive purpose does an AK-47 hold?

Why, pray, does anyone have to offer you a reason? Why do they need to justify the right to own a given object, any more than you have to justify your right to own a dog or a skateboard or a computer to me?

I see no rational reason why anyone would want or need to own or use a cigar; does that mean none exists and therefore cigars should be prohibited, merely because my preferences trump those of my neighbor? How is this liberty, when we must submit ourselves to the "give me one reason why" of others?

[lochinvar]

Just a question:

England, Australia, and Canada are three of the oft-cited places in which registration has led to confiscation, as defined by the Pro-Gun crowd. This is the first step on their "slippery slope" arguement that the government is just itching to take our guns away so it can become a tyranny.

Is there anyone on these boards that seriously believes that England, Australia, and Canada are tyrannies, or in process of becoming tyrannical?

[jBirch]

Hmmmm, tough crowd.

The argument that I'm hearing is twofold.

First, a free society is one in which anyone can own anything provided that they use it in a manner which is responsible, correct? That the ownership isn't punishable, but the use is. That a machine gun is an object no different then a sandwich.

Second, that the second ammendment is read as being exclusive of "a well run militia" and applies to all citizens. As a right it is merely something that the state can not prevent you from obtaining rather then something which is provided to you. It implies self defense is a right.

I'm also hearing a difference between registration and licensing. That only licenced persons can own firearms though those firearms should not be registered.

The other analogy I'm hearing is that a firearm is a personal safety device, like insurance, a fire extinguisher or a seat belt.

To start adressing these, I'm not anti-gun per se, I am pro-registration. I compete in long gun competitions, trap shoot, and hunt. I live in a rural community in a redneck province. Besides being a fencing instructor, I'm also a certified riflry instructor. I'm a former soldier and qualified expert marksman in machine guns, sub-machine guns, mortars, bazookas, pistols and rifles. I own a number of firearms, both for use and for collecting. I used to live below a drug dealer, used to shovel the walk for the local Hell's Angels chapter and walk to school by a crack house. I've got a buddy who used to get dressed up in his father's flak jacket and a welder mask and get his brother to shoot him with dad's service pistol. I've shopped for pistols out of the back of a van. So, if you like, I'll talk to anyone you like who feels that they need a gun to be safe.

What I have issues with is the gun as a citizen's weapon of self defense. This is the only rationale for owning assault weapons and pistols besides merely collecting them or shooting them competitively. Though how an assault rifle is a tool of effective self-defense rather then defense of one's property from hordes of invaders, is, frankly, beyond me.

Conversely, with long guns there are valid reasons to keep them around as tools. Specifically in the realms of animal control and sustenance hunting. Carrying for "self-defense" seems to me to significantly endanger police officers, loved ones and other ordinary citizens and increase danger rather then mitigate it.

When it comes to handguns specifically I have two problems: first, that most handgun owners do not keep their weapons in a responsible manner. Because they believe that they need the firearm for personal safety, there is no point in keeping it locked up away from the kids, and so the weapon is often negligently left around the house (under the pillow, in the top drawer, etc...), or carried during their day to day lives. As someone who has picked a pocket or two in my youth, this is not a good thing. Nor is there any point in keeping it unloaded and made safe, since, again, when they need it, they don't have time to put it together. At the best they'll say that they keep it "on safe" which, if anyone has used firearms regularly, is pretty much only safe on the range. Certainly not much help under your pillow.

Because of this, most owners have either experienced a Negligent Discharge or do not clean, store or maintain them properly and so risk substantial injury from accident. That it hasn't happened to you is luck. And guns are perhaps the coolest things possible for the kids to play with.

The statistical fact is that a handgun is 43 times more likely to kill or injure a family member then it is to kill or injure an invader. Part of the reason for this is that, when you have a fight with the missus (or the moody teenager), it's often all too easy to pick up the gun and point it. That it is carried for "self-defense" often means that it is loaded and ready to fire. From there, it's just one minor mistep to disaster. So the stats say that if you own a gun you are more likely to be involved in a firearm related injury (d'uh!). I disagree strongly with the logic that says that you increase your chance of hurting your loved ones significantly while marginally increasing your personal safety, since the only time the gun validates it's existence is when you use it sucessfully for "self-defense".

The second issue I have with handguns specifically is that their mere presense is provocative. So you get mugged and pull out your firearm. Where does the conflict go from there? Either they go away or you start firing. Adding a gun to a crime definitively increases the chances that someone will die or be seriously injured. Yes, if you have a gun and are mugged, showing it or using it reduces your chances of getting injured during that crime. However, it increases the chances that someone else will be hurt (either your assailant or some innocent passer-by). I've seen what bullets do to drywall and cinderblock.

Restricting the ability of everyone to have handguns reduces the number of handguns in the system which further reduces the number of handguns in the criminal element and increases their "on the street" price. Yes, determined criminals will still get arms, but there will be generally fewer weapons in the system, so you have less of a need to "own a gun to protect against a gun". Two-bit thugs don't have as easy a time getting weapons in the first place. Muggers don't feel a need to own a gun or use a gun because most of their victims do not either.

On the issue of rights, the full right reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This is specifically in the context of "a well regulated militia" which is one that serves the best interests of the state, though not necessarily the best interests of the government. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not the whole right. It does not say anything about self defense, but rather that owning arms is specifically to allow them the opportunity to be a well-regulated militia. And like all rights, this right has limits. Just as the freedom of speech requires that you exercise that right in a responsible manner (for example, not screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre), so too does this right.

On the topic of Australia, England and Canada "taking guns away", the specific firearms that were confiscated were pistols, automatic weapons, and weapons beyond a specific cartridge capacity. Those people that carry for "self-defense" were hardest hit, while those that use their firearms for other purposes weren't much effected. Since I totally disagree with the rationale (unless someone can come up with some good reasons to carry) that advocates carrying a firearm for self-defense, this barely effected me and I totally support it.

On the concept of gun registration, I agree totally with it. It is partially on the slippery slope of confiscating all weapons only so much as some weapons are confiscatable. I think that the analogy between motor vehicle registration, as seperate from driver licencing is apt. When you drive to the gas station to fill up your car, the attendent has a reasonable belief that you are able to drive (have a license) and have a registered motor vehicle, by the mere fact that you *DROVE* up in *YOUR* car. Further, ammunition has one purpose: to be fired from a firearm. There is no other conceivable benign purpose to owning ammunition except to fire it from a gun. Gasoline has multiple uses that are independent of driving a car. Generators for example. Like you have yearly automotive inspections, so too should you have yearly firearm inspections, to ensure that your firearm is safe and functional.

Inq, you mentioned that "one of the things which separate pro- from anti-gun people: the former only ask to be able to choose for themselves, the latter want to choose for everyone...". And I would have to say that this is true. I want ensure that you operate your firearm in a way that is not going to hurt me or mine while you want to be free to risk my life. I am at danger from your deficient weapon and ammunition, even if you are a highly proficient marksman and responsible operator. Registration helps to ensure that you have purchased proper ammunition (though, admittedly, it doesn't guarentee it) and that your weapon is legal and well manufactured. I am doubly at danger if you choose not to operate your firearm in a responsible manner. Licensing helps to ensure that you are trained to a minimal level and that the danger to me is as low as it can be. So there are two things that should infringe your right to do as you please: the object's ability to hurt me through deficincies in it (solved through registration) and your ability to hurt me through deficincies in your knowledge (solved through licensing).

Take it easy.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Just a question:

England, Australia, and Canada are three of the oft-cited places in which registration has led to confiscation, as defined by the Pro-Gun crowd. This is the first step on their "slippery slope" arguement that the government is just itching to take our guns away so it can become a tyranny.

Is there anyone on these boards that seriously believes that England, Australia, and Canada are tyrannies, or in process of becoming tyrannical?

Tyranny takes many forms. The best one is the one that manages to convince people that all will be given to them if they just worship and believe in me, that there is no need for such things, things being highly subjective.

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by jBirch

First, a free society is one in which anyone can own anything provided that they use it in a manner which is responsible, correct? That the ownership isn't punishable, but the use is. That a machine gun is an object no different then a sandwich.

I agree with most of that, but not the last sentence. A machine gun is an object with a lot more externalities than a sandwich.

Second, that the second ammendment is read as being exclusive of "a well run militia" and applies to all citizens. As a right it is merely something that the state can not prevent you from obtaining rather then something which is provided to you. It implies self defense is a right.

Not exactly. The right to bear arms is independent. The need for a militia -- a citizenry independent of standing armies that can defend itself -- is the justification for the government not being allowed to infringe that right.

The "right" of self-defense is not implied by the amendment. Self-defense is a statutory exception to culpability when one commits an otherwise criminal act.

I'm also hearing a difference between registration and licensing. That only licenced persons can own firearms though those firearms should not be registered.

I think most of your opposition would disagree vigorously with that. I would take that position, however.

The other analogy I'm hearing is that a firearm is a personal safety device, like insurance, a fire extinguisher or a seat belt.

Not exactly. It is a means of disabling an attacker and thereby preventing harm. It is not analogous to the "personal safety devices" you mention.

What I have issues with is the gun as a citizen's weapon of self defense. This is the only rationale for owning assault weapons and pistols besides merely collecting them or shooting them competitively. Though how an assault rifle is a tool of effective self-defense rather then defense of one's property from hordes of invaders, is, frankly, beyond me.

Depending on how you define "assault rifle," it really isn't much use for self defenes. It is of excellent use in combat. For self defense, I would recommend a large-caliber, low-velocity weapon whose rounds are absorbed by the body, thereby shocking the attacker's system and more likely to disable with an off-target hit. Or a shotgun.

Conversely, with long guns there are valid reasons to keep them around as tools. Specifically in the realms of animal control and sustenance hunting. Carrying for "self-defense" seems to me to significantly endanger police officers, loved ones and other ordinary citizens and increase danger rather then mitigate it.

The danger of unintended harm is of course a reality, and anyone who denies it is fooling themselves. The trick is for society to decide how much potential harm it is willing to accept in return for the benefits of a given activity. And anyone who says any unjust death is unwarranted is likewise fooling themselves, because we accept hundreds of activities that result in unintended deaths every year, such as driving and medical treatments.

The conflict of ideas here is between those who think the potential harm is outweighed by the good, and those who think the benefits do not warrant the potential harm. That is, I think, the crux of the debate. And, as it is a very subjective position usually based on very different presuppositions and values, it is most difficult to debate effectively.

When it comes to handguns specifically I have two problems: first, that most handgun owners do not keep their weapons in a responsible manner. Because they believe that they need the firearm for personal safety, there is no point in keeping it locked up away from the kids, and so the weapon is often negligently left around the house (under the pillow, in the top drawer, etc...), or carried during their day to day lives. As someone who has picked a pocket or two in my youth, this is not a good thing. Nor is there any point in keeping it unloaded and made safe, since, again, when they need it, they don't have time to put it together. At the best they'll say that they keep it "on safe" which, if anyone has used firearms regularly, is pretty much only safe on the range. Certainly not much help under your pillow.

Those who keep them irresponsibly are, I think, just as deserving of prosecution as someone who endangers the population through negligent maintenance of his car. We fine people for not keeping their car in appropriate condition, but not for neglecting their guns.

Those who keep them unloaded aren't really delaying their effective use, so long as you keep the loaded clip or speedloader nearby. Doesn't take long to slam a clip in.

Because of this, most owners have either experienced a Negligent Discharge or do not clean, store or maintain them properly and so risk substantial injury from accident. That it hasn't happened to you is luck. And guns are perhaps the coolest things possible for the kids to play with.

I don't know where you get stats to back up your "most owners" claim.
Yes, guns are cool and kids will want to play with them. An owner who keeps their weapons and raises their kids in such a manner that the children can play with the weapons is as much a fool as someone who keeps cleaning fluids in an unlocked cabinet at toddler height. But that does not mean you ban cleaning fluids, nor is that a reason to prohibit guns.

The statistical fact is that a handgun is 43 times more likely to kill or injure a family member then it is to kill or injure an invader. Part of the reason for this is that, when you have a fight with the missus (or the moody teenager), it's often all too easy to pick up the gun and point it. That it is carried for "self-defense" often means that it is loaded and ready to fire. From there, it's just one minor mistep to disaster. So the stats say that if you own a gun you are more likely to be involved in a firearm related injury (d'uh!). I disagree strongly with the logic that says that you increase your chance of hurting your loved ones significantly while marginally increasing your personal safety, since the only time the gun validates it's existence is when you use it sucessfully for "self-defense".

Without arguing your statistics, again this is an example of a difference of opinion with respect to the level of acceptable risk. Hard to debate intelligently unless we first agree on underlying principles.

The second issue I have with handguns specifically is that their mere presense is provocative. So you get mugged and pull out your firearm. Where does the conflict go from there? Either they go away or you start firing. Adding a gun to a crime definitively increases the chances that someone will die or be seriously injured. Yes, if you have a gun and are mugged, showing it or using it reduces your chances of getting injured during that crime. However, it increases the chances that someone else will be hurt (either your assailant or some innocent passer-by). I've seen what bullets do to drywall and cinderblock.

If you pull out your gun, you'd better be prepared to use it. If not, it's going to get taken from you and you'll be killed. Plenty of cops are killed with their own weapons because the bad guy called their bluff.

It is a big deterrent to the continuation of the assault. And if you have to use it, it certainly ends it.

Yes, stray bullets do kill innocent people. Usually, though, these stray bullets are fired by gang members in shootouts. Armed citizens protecting themselves are a minuscule proportion of such injuries.

Restricting the ability of everyone to have handguns reduces the number of handguns in the system which further reduces the number of handguns in the criminal element and increases their "on the street" price. Yes, determined criminals will still get arms, but there will be generally fewer weapons in the system, so you have less of a need to "own a gun to protect against a gun". Two-bit thugs don't have as easy a time getting weapons in the first place. Muggers don't feel a need to own a gun or use a gun because most of their victims do not either.

I see. That's why restricting access to crack has made it almost vanish from our streets.

No, there is a demand, and the demand will be filled. Criminals and gang members need to protect themselves, usually against other criminals and not innocent people. They also need them to enforce their criminal activities. Nearly zero of their guns are lawfully owned. Adding additional restrictions will not affect the underlying demand, which is ably supplied by black markets.

This is specifically in the context of "a well regulated militia" which is one that serves the best interests of the state, though not necessarily the best interests of the government. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not the whole right. It does not say anything about self defense, but rather that owning arms is specifically to allow them the opportunity to be a well-regulated militia. And like all rights, this right has limits. Just as the freedom of speech requires that you exercise that right in a responsible manner (for example, not screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre), so too does this right.

Of course having rights has limits. You have the right to possess a weapon. You do not have the right to use it in such a manner as to unjustifiably harm another. We have laws already in place that deal with such misuse.

[Soldier]

I'll save some length by not responding to all of jBirch's post, especially since some of that has already been done.

1. You continue to ignore the alternate reason for owning large weapons - not personal self-defense, but rather for combat, in the eventuality of needing to overthrow the government, or hold off an invader. This is the whole reason for having a militia. You point to the National Guard, but tell me - if the government were to require overthrowing, which side do you think the National Guard will be on?

2. Guns are cool toys to kids because they're the forbidden fruit. Try putting heavy regulations on everything but butter knives; see how many kids will start playing with the butcher knife, if they can get it from the locked drawer. Wait, you don't lock up your butcher knife? Horrid! How come there haven't been a dozen deaths? Because it's not fun. It's an everyday kitchen implement. Education, not restriction, is the answer. You can do everything you want to try to lock up your gun, and it will be the forbidden fruit to any kid in your house. But take it out regularly, teach them about it, how to use it, and the dangers of it, and I'll trust your kid with that gun more than I would your average senator.

3. If it's so easy to pull a gun on a teenager or spouse in a household disagreement, there's already issues. If these kind of issues are already present, what makes a kitchen knife any safer?

4. The amendment does not mean that only people in the militia need to own guns. It refers to the people in general, and the reason is that a militia is necessary. See my first point on why I don't consider the National Guard adequate for this militia role.

5. Cars are not the best analogy - again, because there aren't significant political lobbies out there trying to get the government to take away my car, since a Hummer is obviously more than your average person needs to get to WalMart.

6. Yes, handguns are provocative. Which is why your average criminal would be a lot more hesitant if he thought that there was a decent chance any given victim on the street might be armed. The idea that if you're going to pull it out, you'd better be ready to use it, should be part of basic firearm education.

7. Licensing is a good idea. Registration is not (see above arguments).

[miyamoto]

Originally Posted by Soldier

2. Guns are cool toys to kids because they're the forbidden fruit. Try putting heavy regulations on everything but butter knives; see how many kids will start playing with the butcher knife, if they can get it from the locked drawer. Wait, you don't lock up your butcher knife? Horrid! How come there haven't been a dozen deaths? Because it's not fun. It's an everyday kitchen implement. Education, not restriction, is the answer. You can do everything you want to try to lock up your gun, and it will be the forbidden fruit to any kid in your house. But take it out regularly, teach them about it, how to use it, and the dangers of it, and I'll trust your kid with that gun more than I would your average senator.

This is the same argument people use about sex education. Well, maybe they don't advise the family to take it out regularly, and teach their kids how to use it, but...

It's interesting that this argument surfaces here, while most conservatives are against sex education.

Then again, the reverse is true. Liberals are for sex education and gun control.

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by miyamoto

It's interesting that this argument surfaces here, while most conservatives are against sex education.

Really? I know a ton of conservatives, not a single one of whom is against sex ed. I acknowledge that my circle of acquaintance may not be a representative sample, but it has been my experience that those opposed to sex ed are a small minority of conservatives.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I'll save some length by not responding to all of jBirch's post, especially since some of that has already been done.

1. You continue to ignore the alternate reason for owning large weapons - not personal self-defense, but rather for combat, in the eventuality of needing to overthrow the government, or hold off an invader. This is the whole reason for having a militia. You point to the National Guard, but tell me - if the government were to require overthrowing, which side do you think the National Guard will be on?

I ignore it because it is absurd. Do you honestly advocate keeping a well stocked arsenal in the event that the police show up to haul you off to jail?

2. Guns are cool toys to kids because they're the forbidden fruit. Try putting heavy regulations on everything but butter knives; see how many kids will start playing with the butcher knife, if they can get it from the locked drawer. Wait, you don't lock up your butcher knife? Horrid! How come there haven't been a dozen deaths? Because it's not fun. It's an everyday kitchen implement. Education, not restriction, is the answer. You can do everything you want to try to lock up your gun, and it will be the forbidden fruit to any kid in your house. But take it out regularly, teach them about it, how to use it, and the dangers of it, and I'll trust your kid with that gun more than I would your average senator.

The key difference between a butcher knife and a handgun is that a butcher knife is not likely to go off accidently or kill someone through a wall.

3. If it's so easy to pull a gun on a teenager or spouse in a household disagreement, there's already issues. If these kind of issues are already present, what makes a kitchen knife any safer?

None, if we're talking potentiality for harm. But a butcher knife has an alternative benign use. What do you use your guns for besides shooting people?

4. The amendment does not mean that only people in the militia need to own guns. It refers to the people in general, and the reason is that a militia is necessary. See my first point on why I don't consider the National Guard adequate for this militia role.

Again, this is absurd. Your argument is that the citizenry needs to be armed so that the government has no power over them. See the point above about the police coming to your door.

5. Cars are not the best analogy - again, because there aren't significant political lobbies out there trying to get the government to take away my car, since a Hummer is obviously more than your average person needs to get to WalMart.

That there is or is not a lobby is irrelevent.

6. Yes, handguns are provocative. Which is why your average criminal would be a lot more hesitant if he thought that there was a decent chance any given victim on the street might be armed. The idea that if you're going to pull it out, you'd better be ready to use it, should be part of basic firearm education.

So the average criminal now needs more firepower then a handgun. Seems like a wise social policy to me.

7. Licensing is a good idea. Registration is not (see above arguments).

You've said nothing in the above arguments about why registration is bad except that all registered firearms will be taken away by the evil government so you can't stop the cops from hauling you off to jail.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

(snip) Do you honestly advocate keeping a well stocked arsenal in the event that the police show up to haul you off to jail?
(snip)
Your argument is that the citizenry needs to be armed so that the government has no power over them. See the point above about the police coming to your door.
(snip)
You've said nothing in the above arguments about why registration is bad except that all registered firearms will be taken away by the evil government so you can't stop the cops from hauling you off to jail.

Two words: Ruby Ridge.
And another: Waco.

Having a mini-arsenal doesn''t seem to have helped either Randy Weaver or David Koresh much...

In actual fact, the only real protection we have against tyranny is the inherent respect in which Americans hold their Constitution--or did you actually think that in the event of an attempted coup your Colt Python would do anything besides piss the army off?