Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Goshin said:

.I'd prefer to see every school have a few armed staff members who've had appropriate training, every aircraft have armed/trained pilots, every legitimate businessman who so desires have a Remington 870 behind the counter as an answer to robbery, etc.

Click to expand...

What you describe may be your preference but it is not realistic.
This country cannot afford to protect every flight & a good percentage of pilots do not want the added responsibility of both flying the aircraft & acting as sky marshal. I'm quite sure that an even fewer number of school teachers/personnel would want to take on the vast added responsibility of being an armed guard either.(the bad guys never know which flights are unprotected just as they would not know which schools would be. That adds a measure of safety that is affordable)

I have no problem with every law abiding citizn who wants to protect himself (& family) doing so but it is quite a different idea to act as a security force for a large group of children.
In that case, I personally want only well trained Pros doing the job.

Just a difference in opinion bewteeen us in how best to get the same job done safely.

celticlord said:

"Shall not be infringed" == no.

Click to expand...

"Well regulated" is a part of the second amendment.

Goshin said:

Note that I'm not talking about SWAT teams, Felony Warrant Service crews, and similar specialists...

Click to expand...

I guess it's my turn to ask you a question:

I am not familiar with the "Felony Warrant Service crews" that you mention in your above statement. The closest LE organization I can think of would be the U.S. Marshal Service who routinely do that kind of work. Is there such a thing as a "Felony Warrant Service "? (if so, who do they work for & are the real LEO's?)

I've never heard of such a thing????

Devil505 said:

I guess it's my turn to ask you a question:

I am not familiar with the "Felony Warrant Service crews" that you mention in your above statement. The closest LE organization I can think of would be the U.S. Marshal Service who routinely do that kind of work. Is there such a thing as a "Felony Warrant Service "? (if so, who do they work for & are the real LEO's?)

I've never heard of such a thing????

Click to expand...

We had a group, of sorts, like that at the county level; that's what I called them, but I don't think they actually had a formal name. Basically it was certain officers who were a bit tougher and rougher than most (mostly ex-mil), who handled most of the felony-warrant service calls where the perp was considered dangerous.

RightOfCenter said:

"Well regulated" is a part of the second amendment.

Click to expand...

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment.

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Click to expand...

~10 characters~

Goshin said:

We had a group, of sorts, like that at the county level; that's what I called them, but I don't think they actually had a formal name. Basically it was certain officers who were a bit tougher and rougher than most (mostly ex-mil), who handled most of the felony-warrant service calls where the perp was considered dangerous.

Click to expand...

Gotcha.

(What threw me off was the capitalized letters you used, which usually denotes a formal organization of some sort. I've actually never heard of any police group that HASN'T annointed themselves with a formal name....& usually patches, T-shirts, Baseball caps & logos!):lol:

Ethereal said:

The costs would be excessive. The same goal could be accomplished by arming competent school officials.

Click to expand...

OK...There we have it! (I guess no further discussion is in order since you have THE answer)

The only restrictions that there should be are those to keep guns out of criminals hands, and anything that is classified by our Government.

Kal'Stang said:

The only restrictions that there should be are those to keep guns out of criminals hands, and anything that is classified by our Government.

Click to expand...

Which is the problem: most gun control does little or nothing to keep guns from criminals, but only restricts or inconveniences the law-abiding.

Goshin said:

Which is the problem: most gun control does little or nothing to keep guns from criminals, but only restricts or inconveniences the law-abiding.

Click to expand...

True. But just because it does little to nothing does not mean that we shouldn't try at all.

RightOfCenter said:

"Well regulated" is a part of the second amendment.

Click to expand...

It however refers to militias not arms.

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.

Kal'Stang said:

True. But just because it does little to nothing does not mean that we shouldn't try at all.

Click to expand...

No, but we need to focus on the commission of violent crime, committed by human people, rather than the inanimate object, the gun.

Too many violent criminals get out on bond and commit more violent crimes, sometimes repeatedly getting out on bail, before ever being tried for the first offense.

We have people who have criminal records as long as your arm out walking the streets, and committing more crimes... this should not happen.

People who do certain serious felony crimes, that have a component of violence that could result in very grave bodily harm or death, or that clearly indicate no respect whatsoever for the lives of others, should never get out of prison after the first time. Ditto 3rd-time felons of lesser but still serious crimes.

If a criminal gets out on bond once, and commits another felony, he should be incarcerated until trial, held without bond, since he is a proven danger to the community.

Do these things and violent crime will decrease. Once these things are done, then maybe we can talk about whether gun control is really needed or not.

See, I've seen this pattern I don't know how many times. Teenagers commit misdemeanors, spend an hour in jail, get picked up by Momma, a judge talks to them sternly weeks later, and that's it. They graduate to more serious crimes, like grand theft, and get six months in Juvie, get out and do it again.
They grow up and continue to commit crimes of an ever-increasingly serious nature. Often they don't get caught; when they do they usually get probation or time-served. They keep pushing the envelope, and then one day they kill someone... and we act like we didn't see it coming.

If people are throwing bricks off an overpass onto the cars below, we don't need brick control, we need to stop the people doing it.

If people are committing crimes with guns (and other weapons and objects), we don't need gun control (inanimate object control), we need criminal control.

Kal'Stang said:

True. But just because it does little to nothing does not mean that we shouldn't try at all.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

IMO, because gun control limits the access law-abiding citizens have to firearms, it increases the risk of crime because non-criminals are less likely to have guns, and therefore are more likely targets.

So the argument against it is not "it does nothing, so we shouldn't use it", but "it has a negative and opposite effect from what it was intended to do, so we shouldn't use it".

Goshin said:

No, but we need to focus on the commission of violent crime, committed by human people, rather than the inanimate object, the gun.

Too many violent criminals get out on bond and commit more violent crimes, sometimes repeatedly getting out on bail, before ever being tried for the first offense.

We have people who have criminal records as long as your arm out walking the streets, and committing more crimes... this should not happen.

People who do certain serious felony crimes, that have a component of violence that could result in very grave bodily harm or death, or that clearly indicate no respect whatsoever for the lives of others, should never get out of prison after the first time. Ditto 3rd-time felons of lesser but still serious crimes.

If a criminal gets out on bond once, and commits another felony, he should be incarcerated until trial, held without bond, since he is a proven danger to the community.

Do these things and violent crime will decrease. Once these things are done, then maybe we can talk about whether gun control is really needed or not.

See, I've seen this pattern I don't know how many times. Teenagers commit misdemeanors, spend an hour in jail, get picked up by Momma, a judge talks to them sternly weeks later, and that's it. They graduate to more serious crimes, like grand theft, and get six months in Juvie, get out and do it again.
They grow up and continue to commit crimes of an ever-increasingly serious nature. Often they don't get caught; when they do they usually get probation or time-served. They keep pushing the envelope, and then one day they kill someone... and we act like we didn't see it coming.

If people are throwing bricks off an overpass onto the cars below, we don't need brick control, we need to stop the people doing it.

If people are committing crimes with guns (and other weapons and objects), we don't need gun control (inanimate object control), we need criminal control.

Click to expand...

I generally agree with this. The problem is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty for the most part. It is this belief (which I agree with) that makes it to where it is hard to regulate/prevent people from committing crimes. That and the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Amendments. This leaves pretty much the only way to try to curb violence is to regulate guns.

Tell me what would you do to stop people from committing crimes? Besides keeping those out on bond in jail instead.

Kal'Stang said:

I generally agree with this. The problem is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty for the most part. It is this belief (which I agree with) that makes it to where it is hard to regulate/prevent people from committing crimes. That and the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the Amendments. This leaves pretty much the only way to try to curb violence is to regulate guns.

Tell me what would you do to stop people from committing crimes? Besides keeping those out on bond in jail instead.

Click to expand...

Let me address the bolded statement first: it is incorrect, in fact fallacious.

First of all, many violent crimes (last time I checked I think 40%?) are committed with weapons other than firearms. Knives, clubs, hammers, bricks, bats, pipes... even swords and machetes. If you could wave a magic wand and make all guns vanish at once, you'd simply cause most criminals and crazies to switch to blades, bashers and maybe even crossbows. For an example of why no guns does not equal no violence, see Middle Ages.

Nonetheless, many studies have shown that gun control laws do little, if anything, to curb violence. Some researchers suggest they may even increase it, in cases where the law primarily interferes with the right of the law-abiding to possess weapons (ie DC, Chicago).

Criminals mainly get guns from other criminals, who mostly steal them. Laws don't affect these transactions because criminals don't obey the law.

We have been singularly ineffective in keeping marijuana-by-the-ton from being smuggled in across the borders and via the coast... there's no reason to believe guns could be kept from being smuggled in and sold on the black market.

Guns can be manufactured in a small machine shop using cheap secondhand machine tools. Ammo can literally be made in your garage.

Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is frankly impractical and unlikely, and tends not to work everywhere it is tried.

To get back on point, you're missing the point of my argument. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not the issue: If someone is convicted of a serious violent crime, keep them in prison and never let them out. If someone is out on bond under charge of one felony and is arrested for a new felony, it is within our legal system to deny them bond as a threat to the community.

People rarely become armed robbers or murderers overnight. More commonly they have a record a mile long before they go that far. If we had "3 strikes" applied in a more consistent and universal manner, got "plea-bargaining" under control, and put these habitual felons in prison for life on the 3rd felony, we'd short-circuit the process by which a habitual offender becomes a murderer.

These sorts of measures are legally do-able and would be far more effective than trying to control inanimate objects.

Goshin said:

Let me address the bolded statement first: it is incorrect, in fact fallacious.

First of all, many violent crimes (last time I checked I think 40%?) are committed with weapons other than firearms. Knives, clubs, hammers, bricks, bats, pipes... even swords and machetes. If you could wave a magic wand and make all guns vanish at once, you'd simply cause most criminals and crazies to switch to blades, bashers and maybe even crossbows. For an example of why no guns does not equal no violence, see Middle Ages.

Click to expand...

My apologies. I did not intend to single out guns per se. I should have said "arms" instead as that includes all other forms of weapons.

My post wasn't meant to defend gun laws as I believe that they are not only ineffective but also against the constitution. I was just showing reasons why the "item" is regulated instead of the people.

Kal'Stang said:

My apologies. I did not intend to single out guns per se. I should have said "arms" instead as that includes all other forms of weapons.

My post wasn't meant to defend gun laws as I believe that they are not only ineffective but also against the constitution. I was just showing reasons why the "item" is regulated instead of the people.

Click to expand...

Ah, beg pardon, I misunderstood you then.

Goshin said:

Which is the problem: most gun control does little or nothing to keep guns from criminals, but only restricts or inconveniences the law-abiding.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Gun control will never stop hard core criminals from getting them but it stops crazies/wackos from running around killing people every day.
(you know....The 18 yr old wacko son of the law abiding citizen. The kid that is suicidal & loves to pull the wings off live birds, tortures small animals & roots for Michael Vick!):lol:

Devil505 said:

I disagree. Gun control will never stop hard core criminals from getting them but it stops crazies/wackos from running around killing people every day.
(you know....The 18 yr old wacko son of the law abiding citizen. The kid that is suicidal & loves to pull the wings off live birds, tortures small animals & roots for Michael Vick!):lol:

Click to expand...

That sounds more like a parental issue than a gun control issue.

Address that part of the issue, as IMO, they will, as criminals, find a way.

The Mark said:

That sounds more like a parental issue than a gun control issue.

Address that part of the issue, as IMO, they will, as criminals, find a way.

Click to expand...

Tell me how to word legislation to make good parents?

Devil505 said:

Tell me how to word legislation to make good parents?

Click to expand...

You can't.

Many, many things in this world cannot be safely legislated.

Trying causes more issues than it solves.

This is a big problem with our current governing body.

However.

You can consult experts on the subject to determine what issues are causing poor parenting, and using the current systems in place to protect children, with appropriate modifications, as well as all the other current systems in place, address those issues.

You cannot legislate the human mind, but you can modify the situation in which the human mind develops, and by improving that, improve the results.

The Mark said:

You can't.

Many, many things in this world cannot be safely legislated.

Trying causes more issues than it solves.

This is a big problem with our current governing body.

However.

You can consult experts on the subject to determine what issues are causing poor parenting, and using the current systems in place to protect children, with appropriate modifications, as well as all the other current systems in place, address those issues.

You cannot legislate the human mind, but you can modify the situation in which the human mind develops, and by improving that, improve the results.

Click to expand...

Those ideas are great for fairyy tales & feel good movies. As far as reality is concerned, what you CAN do is make extremely lethal weapons (full auto, etc) very rare & out of reach of most suicidal teens. These type weapons have zero benefit to society outside of the military anyway.
As a society, we have much more to fear from suicidal teen crazies than we do from criminal types. Criminals wants money........Nut jobs want to kill!

Devil505 said:

Those ideas are great for fairy tales & feel good movies.

Click to expand...

No, they are applicable in the real world.

Devil505 said:

As far as reality is concerned, what you CAN do is make extremely lethal weapons (full auto, etc) very rare & out of reach of most suicidal teens. These type weapons have zero benefit to society outside of the military anyway.

Click to expand...

Incorrect as to no benefit to society. Correct as to the ability to regulate weapons.
Availability can be addressed by my previously proposed ideas. I was not specific with those ideas because I personally do not have expertise in that field. But I know it exists.

Devil505 said:

As a society, we have much more to fear from suicidal teen crazies than we do from criminal types. Criminals wants money........Nut jobs want to kill!

Click to expand...

I very strongly doubt that you are in any way correct in this statement.
But feel free to present supporting evidence.

Devil505 said:

As a society, we have much more to fear from suicidal teen crazies than we do from criminal types. Criminals wants money........Nut jobs want to kill!

Click to expand...

Please post some evidence to support this claim.

Devil505 said:

As a society, we have much more to fear from suicidal teen crazies than we do from criminal types. Criminals wants money........Nut jobs want to kill!

Click to expand...

Criminals are just more careful... take away cops and guns from lawbiding citizens, and the criminals will extort and threaten to kill anybody and everybody for that money. Just look at the Daltons and the James-Younger gangs... ordinary lawbiding citizenry took up guns and took on the most notorious gangs. Are AK47s needed in society? Ideally, no. Realisitically... I would rather know that all of my neighbors were armed instead of none of them. Look at what happened to the cops in LA during that shootout a bunch of years back, those two guys with AK's DESTROYED The cops, no amount of legislation is going to stop people from owning illegal guns, but arming the rest of us with same type of weapons gives us all equal footing...