2nd Amendment--applicable how?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Rogue

And the other sources that were specificaly written by the authors of the Constitution to argue for the Constitution are?

The adams-jefferson letters are good reading, but, I shall repeat, the Federalist papers are biased towards one group of signers.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

This in fact would be my real answer to Loch's line of reasoning. One likes to have a go at parrying the usual arguments for gun control, but in the end the reply to the position that "guns are made to kill" is simply: yes, and sometimes people need killing, and the means for doing so therefore need to be available to the people who might justly and legitimately need to DO that killing. ( And that doesn't mean only the police and other agents of the state. )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the police and other agents of the state are by definition the ONLY people who are authorized to "justly and legitmately" kill someone. That power is conferred upon them by the "mandate of the masses" as expressed through our laws and courts.

Or are you advocating that anyone can "legitimately" determine for him- or herself whether he or she can "justly" kill another person? (The fabled "He needed killing" defense?)

That, simply spelled, is the rule of Right by Might, otherwise known as Anarchy. Is that seriously what you are espousing?

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the police and other agents of the state are by definition the ONLY people who are authorized to "justly and legitmately" kill someone. That power is conferred upon them by the "mandate of the masses" as expressed through our laws and courts.

Or are you advocating that anyone can "legitimately" determine for him- or herself whether he or she can "justly" kill another person? (The fabled "He needed killing" defense?)

That, simply spelled, is the rule of Right by Might, otherwise known as Anarchy. Is that seriously what you are espousing?

IIRC
OK has the "Make my day law" (corny I know) In a nut shell, if anyone is in my home without invitation I can kill them.
If I have a concealed carry permit and I defend myself or others in public from an attacker by killing them, it's justified.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

The adams-jefferson letters are good reading, but, I shall repeat, the Federalist papers are biased towards one group of signers.

I realize that the Constitution had its share of detractors those who apposed parts or all. Even those that apposed adding the Bill of Rights because of the precedent they set. But the fact of the matter is The Constitution is what was adopted, the authors used the Federalist papers to further explain and promote the document. And I shall repeat, the best source for the intent of the Constitution lie in The Federalist Papers.

[lochinvar]

[quote=lochinvar]it could be argued that easy availability of guns for everyone actually makes it more rather than less likely that any confrontational situation you find yourself in will devolve into a "kill or be killed" scenario--with you just as likely to be on the losing end as the other guy.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It could be so argued, but not sensibly. Follow the logic to its conclusion and you get the odd position that we would all be safer if we disarmed the police, too. After all, their having guns is just going to escalate confrontations with armed criminals, and the officers are "just as likely to be on the losing end" of any such escalation, no? Ergo, cops without guns makes everyone safer?

You misunderstood the arguement--deliberately, I suspect. I specifically mentioned any confrontational situation you find yourself in...not police action, but confrontations between civilians. If neither person has a gun, then the confrontation may become ugly but will have less chance of turning lethal than if both parties are armed. And easy availability of guns for all renders it just as likely that they have a gun as it is that you have a gun--and who's to say when they might take the notion that they or theirs are being threatened and so decide to draw down on you?

(requote)After all, [the police] having guns is just going to escalate confrontations with armed criminals,

It already does--but it needn't, if the armed criminals weren't allowed easy access to guns...an access insisted upon by the pro-gun advocates. Ironic, no?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by prototoast

So now you're saying that the safety of police officers is more important than my safety or yours?

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't claim that police officers carry firearms for their safety. In fact, I believe police officers carry firearms to enforce their authority over the lawbreakers. Though that may make them safer, I don't think safety is the primary reason why police officers are armed.

What if we need to protect ourselves from a police officer (disclaimer: I believe most police officers to be good people, however bad cops do exist, and future for more bad cops also exists, even in very small numbers).

Are you seriously suggesting that we all should get guns to protect ourselves from the police? What sort of paranoia is that? If you distrust the police to that extent, why not simply abolish them altogether? Let's all just buy a Glock and take our chances...or is that what you would like to see?

Everyone has a right to protect themselves. We will never eliminate 100% of the guns in the world, and so long as there are guns out there, it is wrong to restrict their use to the elite and to criminals.

You are putting words in my mouth again. It would be wrong to restrict guns to the elite and criminals, but that's not what I advocated, nor do I see where that position can be construed from my statements. Please refrain from extending my arguements into areas they didn't originally cover.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

I was addressing one branch of your analogy(automobiles as apples) in trying to point out that we, as a society, are willing to put up with a great number of deaths for convience sake.

Agreed--but what "convenience" does gun ownership provide? Automobiles provide the convenience of transportation, while guns provide the convenience of...what?

The intended use of a firearm is to kill.

Well, at least you acknowledge that much.

Being shot, even with a caliber/bullet designed to kill people dosen't mean you will be killed.

But it increases the chances of your dying by orders of magnitude, yes?

...I can kill some one with a pipe wrench...I can kill some one with my car. Ball bat, kill people. Knives, kill people.

You continue to argue a point that has already been conceded, namely that people can kill other people with any number of things. Again, that is not the point. The point is that those objects were not designed to kill people, nor purchased with that intent, but rather to do some other practical job. Guns were not designed or purchased to do any other practical job. In fact, there is no other practical job they can do but kill. Therefore, those other things and guns cannot be equated.

Apples and oranges.

So, it's bad that a thing designed as a weapon functions as it is supposed to while it's alright that other things kill people because they weren't designed to?

I almost suspect you of being deliberately obtuse. The difference to be delineated is that the other objects cited kill people when they are used as they are not intended, while guns kill people when they are used as they are intended. Don't confuse the issue.

Do you believe that we, as a society are so advanced that there is no need for personal protection? The police protect you by arresting somebody who has already victimized somebody else. That's all.

So, you are advocating that they arrest people who haven't victimized anyone? Help me out here...

By the way, if any and all objects within reach can be rendered into fatal weapons, why even bother with a gun? Why not just use the television remote or Aunt Polly's teapot if everything is so dangerous?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

this population then might be (in addition to the police) a population with the "training and responsibility" you alluded to - in which case it's not "law enforement only" but "law enforcement plus known individuals trained and validated".

Some of it, anyway---no system is perfect. I have seen people come in to get concealed-carry permits who....well, I shudder at the prospect of some of them carrying guns. But they have somehow successfully completed the training courses, including qualification. ( OTOH some of the cadets with whom I went through the academy also made me look askance. )

Let's see...as of June 2003 there were just under 68,000 CCW permit holders in my state. More than that have been through the courses, since about another 2,200 permits had been suspended, revoked or returned. Then there were about another 1,200 instructors ( presumably there's some overlap ). There are 13,000+ sworn peace officers in the state, plus an unknown number of retired officers, all of whom are still allowed to carry weapons if they choose. Call it 100,000, out of a total adult population of around 4 million.

I believe they're talking about biometric means that recognise the owner. Or it could be baesd on a combination (low-tech). Principle first, design and engineering second.

The most sophisticated system I've heard of uses a ring worn by the user which must be in close proximity to the weapon before the latter can be fired. Which brings up the problem of battery failure, electronic malfunctions, etc. Every design thus far has flaws I consider to be too daunting to make them practical.

Of course, as one multiplies options one creates complexity, which people in stressful siruations tend not to handle very well. Modern handguns for the most part have done away with mechanical safeties for this very reason; the 1911-type pistol is considered by many to be a gun best left to "experts", because it has a thumb safety that has to be pushed off before it can be fired. That can be problematic if it isn't made automatic by enormous amounts of practice, since a second or two of delay can be fatal in a shooting situation.

For that matter I have watched police officers being introduced to new situations in training---like coping with having a bystander who has to be pushed aside---forget to break retention on their holsters when trying to draw their weapons. Complexity is not your friend when the adrenaline is flowing, and I am dubious of any measures which increase that in the name of making the weapon harder to use.

Why? (And just for the heck of it: imagine this in the context of Patriot Act)

It's a pre-requisite to any future confiscation program. And there's really no point to it. Criminals are criminals because they don't comply with laws...like registration laws. The only effect of registration would thus be to put legal gun-owners into another federal database. Criminals who generally steal the guns they use, or buy them stolen, will be unaffected---but recovered weapons used in crimes would be traceable back to their legal owners, who'd then be the only possible focus of any investigation. Net result: the police will waste their time sweating the legal owner who sold it or had it stolen years before, and the trail dead-ends there. The criminal user cannot be traced. So what does it accomplish? Nothing much, as far as I can tell.

Unlike some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, which are at least conceivably of some use in solving crimes or hindering terrorist groups in return for giving the government more data-gathering powers, registration has no such conceivable payoff. It is of use only as a prelude to future gun-control measures.

Glad to hear it - and I hope no police officers ever are hit with them. What were they

One hopes they are never hit with any bullet, but these were really nothing special, apart from a design feature and their black color, which were largely marketing gimmicks.

They were a handgun round made by Winchester. After an office shooting in San Francisco the media ran with the "scary" brand name and hyped the supposedly horrific wounds they produced---which were in fact no more horrific than those made by other hollowpoint bullets. They were not designed to defeat body armor ( there are AP handgun rounds made which are sold only to law enforcement and are illegal for civilian possession, but the Black Talon isn't one of these ) and tests have been made which shows that they are stopped pretty easily by level IIA vests. The idea that they WERE intended to go through ballistic vests is what earned it the name "cop-killer bullet", but the idea was erroneous from the beginning.

It's still made and sold in several versions, and even the version made for law enforcement is not restricted if a civilian can get it. The current civilian version is the Ranger Talon. At base it's a fairly unremarkable hollowpoint round.

Last part: (a) it's uncommon, and (b) let the good guys have the armor-piercing stuff, no?

Pretty rare, yes, but not unheard of...and darned dangerous when it happens, inasmuch as virtually all police ( and civilian ) training emphasizes body shots.

I would prefer to attribute better motivation to police chiefs - that they're actually concerned about the public and their officers

I have to say that the it's actual officer on the street who is most concerned with officer safety, since it's his own. Yet he is not by and large a supporter of gun control. At the practical level most proposed control measures are of small use, and the officer, being most familiar with the practical side of gun use by criminals, is aware of that. Gun control is more a political football than anything beneficial in real life.

- rather than assume they're dishonest about such an important subject.

Not dishonest as such, just following a different set of rules and imperatives. They are usually political appointees or in some cases themselves elected officials, answerable to those who do not understand or care about the practicalities of the issue so much as they do about appearances. In fact I suspect that they are probably not great personal supporters of gun control themselves, many of them...but they have lines to toe which are different than those which working officers face.

IIRC, most PBAs also support gun-control.

The leaders do; again, there's a disjunct between the organizational position and that of the rank and file.

Sort of like the difference between the views of Rene Roche and those of rank and file fencers, I suspect.

Then - for the purist - unabridged rights to bear arms no longer exist anyway. In which case, all we're talking about is matters of degree.

Pretty much. Alas, IMO.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the police and other agents of the state are by definition the ONLY people who are authorized to "justly and legitmately" kill someone. That power is conferred upon them by the "mandate of the masses" as expressed through our laws and courts.

No. Most states ( and I presume the US Code ) include specific statutes authorizing the use of deadly physical force under certain circumstances, such as self-defense, defense of a third party, preventing certain sorts of felonies, and so on. Peace officers have a bit more latitude, but not much more.

Or are you advocating that anyone can "legitimately" determine for him- or herself whether he or she can "justly" kill another person? (The fabled "He needed killing" defense?)

No, the power is restricted by the law, of course, and the bar is fairly high. When I say that there are people who need killing, I mean those doing things which would meet the legal requirements for the use of deadly force: if they can be stopped no other way than by deadly force, they are in need of killing...or more accurately society or their individual victims need them to be killed.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Agreed--but what "convenience" does gun ownership provide? Automobiles provide the convenience of transportation, while guns provide the convenience of...what?

The convenience of.......self defence. American law reconises the right of self defence, but you seem to be arguing against having the tools to accomplish it.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

The point is that those objects were not designed to kill people, nor purchased with that intent, but rather to do some other practical job. Guns were not designed or purchased to do any other practical job. In fact, there is no other practical job they can do but kill. Therefore, those other things and guns cannot be equated.

Apples and oranges.

I guess I was trying to get you to smell the juice.
Yes, the intended function of most guns is to kill living creatures, some big and some small. I'm not clear on what you're trying to argue about that. I was trying to point out that as a society we are willing to accept death in return for other things. Quite frankly, from a philosophic view point, I'm more willing to accept deaths in society from having the tools to protect myself from preadators than from ease of transportation.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Don't confuse the issue.

I'm not sure what is your issue

Originally Posted by lochinvar

So, you are advocating that they arrest people who haven't victimized anyone? Help me out here...

Now who's being obtuse? The point is that the police don't protect you, lochinvar, personally. The police protect society collectively after some one is made a victim, but that really dosen't help the victim.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

By the way, if any and all objects within reach can be rendered into fatal weapons, why even bother with a gun? Why not just use the television remote or Aunt Polly's teapot if everything is so dangerous?

Most everything can be dangerous. Most people lack the ablity or strength or training to use Aunt Polly's teapot to defend themselves. This is why guns are often referred to as 'equalizers' and the existence of the phrase, "God made Man, but Sam Colt made them Equal".

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Well, considering that the initial post mentions a long standing debate, and then links to a lengthy examination of the 2nd Ammendment by the Office of the Attorny General, it's safe to say that it is open to some different interpretations.

Adding an Ammendment could clear things up, but really, I think the discussion really lies in 'Does the US currently need gun control? Why? And to what level?' Some people don't think it does, some do. To me, the only relevant (and interesting) arguments are based on the now and the future.

The US currently has gun control laws varying in degree depending on where you live.

I believe that some regulation of our basic rights as citizens is necessary, people being as they are.

I guess, "What level?", really is the heart of the matter. My problem is that most of the measures I've seen are just cosmetic and won't reduce crime.

Now, as things stand, the ablity to resort to deadly force when being attacked is still the last, most effective option. The future may give us really effective non-leathal protection devices, but for now they're really iffy.

Having the tools to rebel against an oppressive government is a last resort proposition, sort of the nuclear bomb of citizenship-no one wants to use it, but it's there just in case.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

While we mull that over, how about some choices other than "remove them all": personalized key locks so only the gun's legal owner can fire them.

I would LOVE to have the biometric locks one reads about in science fiction, sadly I think they'll show up about the time when half the cars on the road use hydrogen as fuel

Originally Posted by jeff

Legal provisions to target gun dealers who sell weapons that wind up used in crimes (which today is a repeat performance of a major conduit to firearms used in crimes) by not practicing due diligence on who they are selling to

Already have such. The ATF has to get off their butts and start revoking licences, the same way states do with liquor licences

Originally Posted by jeff

(coupled with weapon registration)

I'm not sure what you think weapon registration would accomplish. Now, when you buy a gun, you have to furnish a valid id with your place of residence listed. I don't know how long gun dealers are required to keep the forms, but I've gone to gunshops years after buying a gun and they still had the form.

A funny thing about gun registration in this country, in the late 60's the Supreme Court decided that a criminal didn't have to register any guns because doing so was a violation of their 5th Amendment rights-self imcrimination. Pretty funny, no?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't claim that police officers carry firearms for their safety. In fact, I believe police officers carry firearms to enforce their authority over the lawbreakers. Though that may make them safer, I don't think safety is the primary reason why police officers are armed.

Safety really is the primary reason. A cop will get in just as much trouble as you or I (at least according to the law he or she should) if he shoots someone who is not a threat. If say, I robbed a store, and the police came, and I just completely ignored the cop and calmly walked away (with my hands visible), if the cop were to shoot me, he'd get in a lot of trouble. They cannot kill someone without a justifiable threat.

Are you seriously suggesting that we all should get guns to protect ourselves from the police? What sort of paranoia is that? If you distrust the police to that extent, why not simply abolish them altogether? Let's all just buy a Glock and take our chances...or is that what you would like to see?

I like police, and I trust most police officers. We need people whose job it is to enforce the laws, and keep the peace. However, we should not be at the mercy of the police. Police certainly aren't going to be in a position to protect everything. If armed robbers break into my house, should I just have to hide in a closet and call the police and hope they arrive before anything bad happens? And if the police are the only ones with guns (or their guns are far superior to my available guns), what if some crooked cop decides he wants to collect some protection money. Maybe he's got a grudge against me and decides he wants to arrest me for no good reason. Either way, simply because police do and should exist doesn't mean the rest of us must be at their mercy.

You are putting words in my mouth again. It would be wrong to restrict guns to the elite and criminals, but that's not what I advocated, nor do I see where that position can be construed from my statements. Please refrain from extending my arguements into areas they didn't originally cover.

As it is, many guns already are restricted to the elite and criminals (such as automatic weapons). We will never be able to remove guns completely from the hands of criminals (see our attempts to remove illegal drugs). If a criminal wants a gun, he'll find a way. The more guns are restricted, the more of a premium goes on them, which makes it more desirable for a criminal to obtain and use a gun in a crime. Imagine you are a criminal, and you knew that statistically speaking, say 80% were carrying guns. Wouldn't you be a lot less likely to rob someone than if you knew that only 5% of the people were carrying? Criminals aren't stupid (well, some of them are, but they're not necessarily stupid).

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I acknowledge that a case can be made for security officers and police requiring guns for their work.

However, the fact that "many people use guns as tools for their jobs" isn't a relevant argument here, since that is not what we are talking about. We are talking specifically about the right of ordinary civilians to own guns--guns which often rival or surpass those carried by public safety officers.

Of course one can ALWAYS trust the police, just ask the Civil Rights marchers down in Selma...

Originally Posted by lochnivar

Bringing the police and military into the conversation is merely a red herring...."everyone" presumably including the Bad Guy who feels it necessary to kill you to preserve his life?I'm sure the Bad Guy feels the same way--force is needed to separate you from your property, and a gun is therefore the obvious tool of choice to do that job in the most efficient manner.

That would be fine if only the bad guy wasn't the one who initially violated my rights.

Originally Posted by lochnivar

As attractive as the arguement appears to be on its surface, making firearms readily available for everyone's protection can't make you safer because the very same firearms are just as readily available to anyone who wishes to harm you.

In fact, it could be argued that easy availability of guns for everyone actually makes it more rather than less likely that any confrontational situation you find yourself in will devolve into a "kill or be killed" scenario--with you just as likely to be on the losing end as the other guy.

In my line of work I talk with people who do bad things for a living. ALL of them say the thing that worries them most in their chosen avocation, is that they might run into an armed CITIZEN. Not police, but a regular citizen who happens to have a gun.

Speaking only for myself, I would rather have the same use of force options that any would-be attacker has. My dealings with those type of induhviduals, has led me to the conclusion that the majority of them are abject cowards and bullies (the same thing?). When confronted, they usually take "the better path of valor", leaving a watery trail to follow...

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

Restrictions prohibiting cop-killer armor piercing bullets (the chiefs of police tend to sign up for that one).

They are restricted. Teflon coated bullets are illegal to possess. I'd hate to be the guy found with them loaded in a gun... Other bullets are "armor piercing". Any rifle round will go through any body armor typically used by law enforcement. Rifle resistant armor is available, but usually only to military and specialized law enforcement units.

Originally Posted by jeff

Restrictions against automatic weapons. Still leaves plenty of room for law abiding citizens to defend their homes and cap Bambi. Don't like these ideas? suggest your own so we can discuss rather than retreat to absolute positions

Plenty of restrictions on automatic weapons. Any semi-automatic can be converted to full auto by a halfway competent machinist.