Brace for impact, Mark...

Well done on a witty, astute and for the most part impartial piece. You will shortly be assailed by the usual gun nuts (on both sides) convinced that you, the government, the Republican Party, liberals and/or the UN is out to get them.

I sometimes think that the only way we're ever going to decide what the intent of the 2nd Amendment really is would be to appoint some venerable and pedantic old judge from the backwoods of Nepal, who's never heard of the United States or its Constitution, to take a good old look and give us his considered, untainted legal opinion as to what the hell it actually means. And then abide by his decision.

Dr. Dreadful, thanks for the comments & I'm keeping my head down. Alas, there have been numerous studies and books by supposedly neutral experts trying to parse the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, but no one's come close to creating consensus.

And it wouldn't matter if there was an "objective" truth: people's well-entrenched belief and value systems will reject anything that challenges it. That's why the only approach is for somewhat reasonable people to agree that a middle ground is possible. Win their hearts, then win their minds.

In Jameson Veritas

Here's my problem. I don't care about the issue at all - I've got no emotional commitment to either side. I'll never own a gun, because I'm deeply suicidal. But it's obvious to me that the gun rights nuts are right. So don't play the game where you label both sides as emotional; that's a copout. As for the particular text, we know what it says and what the authors believed it meant. And the gun nuts are just simply right. If you want a new compromise, amend the Constitution. Otherwise, you've got to go with what it says.

"Let us begin by acknowledging that the other side (whichever side you're on) has deep, powerful, often unconscious emotional reasons for their positions. And, while you're at it, admit you're in the same quandary. ..."

Actually Mark, I will 'admit' no such thing. My position is based on clear well researched scientific evidence. A gun is the safest, most effective self-defense tool available, bar none. Where 'shall-issue' laws are passed, (and controlling for other factors) crime goes down.

And for those of you who still cling to Dr. Kellerman's 'study' which shows that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the home than an intruder, I suggest you go to Guncite where you can see the flip side of the data: that in homes *without* a gun you were 99 times more likely to have someone in the home killed (without a gun) than you were to kill an intruder (without a gun).

Seems pretty straightforward to me . . .

how about we throw the 2nd Amendment into the trash heap of well-meant but stupid historical statements.

Yep. You're a gun-grabbing communist.

What did I tell you, Mark? Took all of nineteen minutes for the gun sites' bots to find your post...

So don't play the game where you label both sides as emotional; that's a copout. As for the particular text, we know what it says and what the authors believed it meant. And the gun nuts are just simply right. If you want a new compromise, amend the Constitution. Otherwise, you've got to go with what it says.

Thank you.

While we're at it, why not throw-out, or at least water down, other portions of the Bill of Rights, starting with the First Amendment. Once you establish the principal that the constitution is a buffet, where you can pick and choose which portions to honor, and which to de-legitimize and ignore, then you run the risk that some other portion of the Bill of Rights that you favor will be next on the chopping block. Surely, the Founders didn't intend for the First Amendment to protect pornography or offensive art. (They really didn't!) And of course they had no concept of television or the internet, so they couldn't have intended to protect those media. See where this leads?

And in fact, a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment is much more consistent with the original intent of the Founders, than the silly idea that it protects the rights of states to form a national guard. The Bill of Rights was specifically passed to protect the rights of the "people", which is why that word is used so frequently in it, including in the Second Amendment. The "militia" is comprised of the whole people, so said James Madison. Based on their own personal experience as armed revolutionaries, the founders understood the importance of citizens possessing militarily capable firearms to keep government reasonably honest, and to discourage tyranny. The Second Amendment was never enacted to protect hunters, but to enable the people to defend liberty in an effective way - at gun point. Like it or not, that's the truth.

Dr. Dreadful, I haven't seen anyone violently attack Mark. Maybe your lack of knowledge of words is why you might have trouble understanding the second amendment? Why do all you anti-gun people refer to us gun owners as gun nuts? Does it have anything to do with the fact that you have no data to back up your position?

If you understand English and the meaning of words with respect to their 18th century use, the second amendment isn't that difficult to understand. It also helps if you read the Federalist papers and other writings of our founding father's. The supposed misunderstanding of the second amendment didn't come about until the 20th century. Why don't ant-gun groups focus on the criminal rather than the tool. Criminals use various weapons to commit their crimes and only in the case of firearms do you focus on the tool. I don't see a call to ban knives, clubs, automobiles, etc. I live in New Mexico and we have a huge DUI problem, as does other states. We have people on their 40th and higher arrests for DUI. Not only do they not try and ban alcohol for automobiles, they don't even punish the criminal. In states that allow concealed carry, violent crime has been reduced. The anti-gun people said that blood would run in the streets like rivers. If you want the any data, post a request and I'll post some references. I'd do it now, but every anti-gun person I've ever talked to was not interested in facts.

Sorry, I made an error. I intended to say alcohol or automobiles

"Yep. You're a gun-grabbing communist."

Did "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy ever have an illegitimate grandson...?

Tony:

1. I said what I did to Mark because every time anyone posts anything on this topic to BC, the pro-gunners descend like a pack of wolves, the gun control folks rise up to counter, and pretty soon we have a full-on dogfight going on. It's strange - it's only gun control where this happens. Beats me why.
2. I'm not anti-gun.
3. If you re-read my comment, I referred to "gun nuts (on both sides)". That means pro and anti.
4. I wasn't suggesting you were a nut either. I have several friends who are very strongly pro-gun. None of them are nuts.
5. I don't have any trouble with the language, thank you. The bit about the "well-armed militia" is the qualifier; the "keep and bear arms" bit is the right, yadda yadda. The thing is that having a militia for national defense is a bit different than keeping guns for private defense.
6. My personal view, being originally from Britain, which doesn't have a gun culture, is that I would rather not have them around the house or on my person. I do enjoy shooting them, though.

Hope that clears a few things up.

This is what passes for wit?

The US has something over 20,000 restrictive gun laws, and not a one has ever been shown to reduce crime. They don't, and they were never intended to. The first gun control laws were enacted to suppress the rights of freed black slaves. The Sullivan Act in New York City was enacted to keep down immigrants and uppity tourists who didn't like being robbed, and fought back with their own handguns. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was modeled after the Nazi Weapons law of 1938, and was originally aimed to control urban blacks.

I'm not going to argue the US Constitution with you. You are incapable of parsing a simple sentence correctly. Or understand the commentary by the founding fathers on the subject.

If you mean to ban pistols, or other firearms in the US, you will have to repeal the Second Amendment.

You will have to get my State, and others to repeal their right to keep and bear arms.

You will have to repeal my state's Concealed Carry laws.

You will have to enact a Constitutional amendment to seize and confiscate personal property, previously lawfully obtained, and owned.

And then you will have to repeal the Fourth Amendment to facilitate searches of every home, business and square foot of ground in the country, and random road blocks, and searches of pedestrians on city sidewalks.

And since literally millions of "gun-nuts" will insist on their right to due process you will have to repeal the fifth amendment right to due legal process, as they will demand the right to a jury trial.

When you manage to do that...

Well, as King Leonidas said to Xerxes when he demanded the Spartans lay down their weapons...
MOLON LABE: Come and take them.

There are an estimated 300 MILLION firearms in the US.
50% of all US households have at least one firearm, 80-85 million individual gun-owners. The Clinton so-called ban put more semi-automatic rifles into Americans' hands than all the marketing by the industry ever could have done. Americans get VERY feisty when the self-appointed elitists like you tell them they can't have something.

If you suspect that we are dangerous desperados, why do you think we would comply with your new regime? Do you think I have handguns, semi-auto rifles, and scoped long-range rifles just to relinquish them?

I just have to ask, you and what army?

Perhaps you have no guns, but many anti-gun activists own guns, have carry licenses, and even have armed body guards. When your kind demands more anti-gun laws, you invariably mean for everybody else, not, of course, FOR YOU.

Either you believe that we dangerous "gun nuts" will simply comply with mass confiscation, or you believe that we harmless and cowardly folk can simply be beaten down with a handful of seizures and high profile prosecutions.

But if things do come to that point, it will be the beginning of a flat out civil war.
If you really are that foolish, do you recall that WE are the ones who have the guns?
More guns than all the combined police and military in the whole country. If you were counting just hunters in this country, it would tally more than the forces of the five largest militaries in the world, COMBINED.

Most gun-rights activists will try to reason with you and your kind, to persuade you that we are not criminals, we pose no threat to you, that we are just regular folks with jobs, and families, and love puppies. But I have had my fill of the arguing and the deliberate obtuseness of people like you.

The most hateful, hostile, violent people I have ever met are anti-gun activists. I've seen them literally shaking with RAGE when a conversation comes to guns. You wish to make me a criminal, and have your state-armed thugs put me in prison, or kill me, and you think I will simply sit here ?! Umm, No.

Come and take them.

And if you have any courage, don't send police or guardsmen to do the dirty work.
DO IT YOURSELF.

Oh, I guess that makes it a little different, doesn't it?

Do you think you can instigate a war, and remain safe in your gated community, secured by your armed employees? Hmm. How amusing.

The "reasoned approach" to gun control I would suggest, is don't go to war with me.

Just don't.

I also enjoy shooting guns for fun but that's not the issue.

In the context of the USA, the police ought to be protecting the citizenry but are doing an incredibly bad job.

Due to the easy availability of weapons in the USA, many criminals have taken to possessing and using them to give them an edge.

Due to this, many US citizens understandably want to get guns to protect themselves as the police do a bad job of protecting them.

As the citizens get armed, criminals respond by getting bigger guns such as machine guns or assault rifles.

This kicks off a stupid arms race which will probably end with domestic robberies being committed by gangsters in tanks!

The solution is simple, get the police to do their jobs properly and disarm the criminals and the gangs which are taking over ever larger tranches of the USA.

If gangs can run their areas so effectively, it shows it can be done. The police could do with learning a few tricks from the criminals.

Travis, it would be easy to get your guns off you. If I wanted to do that, I'd get an anti-tank weapon and blow you and your house to bits whilst you slept. Thanks God for the right to bear arms!

And you proved my point, Christopher,

Hostile, hateful and violent.

Why is a handgun in my possession evil, and yet your willingness to murder me with a military weapon is appropriate?

Gun laws are enforced at gunpoint.

Better get me the first time.

Good luck.

The author misunderstands the issue. It is not a fear of a general ban on all guns which causes people like me to oppose a ban on handguns.

My fear is that if handguns are banned, ordinary peaceful, law-abiding private citizens will have no ready means of shooting down robbers, rapists and carjackers.

God knows, it has been decades since we could rely on the police to do this for us.

Travis, actually I think you proved mine. I was pointing out a set of facts. Facts are not hostile, hateful or violent.

On the other hand, it seems that a significant proportion of pro gun types see threats where there are none, are dangerously intolerant and not very skilled at understanding what is happening right in front of them. These are all good reasons for disarming them...

fsilber, I hope you were being at least slightly funny. The problem is with the police force.

Of course there's a right way to interpret the Second Amendment, Mark. Just because you say there's not doesn't make it so.

Be intellectually honest and do some research before acting like you're an authority and obscuring the issue.

Start by getting a copy of attorney David T. Hardy's "In Search of the Second Amendment" DVD, which interviews leading Constitutional scholars and examines the historical record on how the amendment was developed and the intent of the Founders.

If you're going to set yourself up as an authority with credentials to negate evidence presented by figures like Kates, Polsby, Levinson, Halbrook, Malcolm, Amar, Barnett, Cottroll, Kleck, Lund, Johnson, Innes, Reynolds, Volokh, et al., then let's party.

Educating yourself so you know what you're talking about would be the "reasoned approach." Otherwise, you just come across as another self-impressed dilettante with a fashionable opinion and a following of equally shallow and uneducated sycophants.

"In the context of the USA, the police ought to be protecting the citizenry but are doing an incredibly bad job."

Since when is it the police's job to protect you? Since when do policemen walk down every street at night making sure everyone's tucked in?

"As the citizens get armed, criminals respond by getting bigger guns such as machine guns or assault rifles.

This kicks off a stupid arms race which will probably end with domestic robberies being committed by gangsters in tanks!"

The problem with this statement is that it doesn't follow from empirical evidence. In the years before right-to-carry legislation, crimes with automatic weapons were extremely rare.

However, now that over forty states allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, we would expect the use of automatic weapons in crimes to increase. Millions of people now carry concealed handguns completely legally. Crime has decreased where concealed carry is allowed.

Automatic weapons are generally no good for committing crimes, and are still almost never used. They are large, heavy, and go through ammunition at staggering rates. They are usually more difficult to conceal. They are prohibitively expensive. Their use in crime brings down extremely harsh responses from law enforcement.

I submit that no escalation has occurred on any measurable scale.

The problem really isn't the police (well other than the problem of them wanting to be the only ones with guns even after they are retired). The courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect anyone but themselves. That leaves protection of me and my family to me. That alone is enough reason for me to want the most effective means to do so, and since I am not a pro linebacker, that means a gun.

Since nearly all the police departments in the USA write "to serve and protect" (or some variation thereof) on the sides of their cars?

And if that's not their primary function, then WTF are we wasting taxpayers' money paying them for?

Chris almost has a coherent idea, but fails at the very end to falling for an emotional gambit.

A recent report indicates at least 270,000,000 firearms are owned by citizens in the US (this means non military, non police weapons). 99.7% of those weapons never see a crime. If you think that number is low, consider that even 1% would mean nearly 3 million firearm related crimes a year, and that simply is not true.

Reduction in legal gun ownership will not affect the .3% of criminal's guns. Ever. Not even a smidgen. Making 100% of handguns illegal would still see that .3% in circulation as criminals would not turn in theirs. And crime would not change.

In short, it's not the tool, it's the criminal. How many times do we read "the gunman had a lengthy rap sheet", or "was wanted for other charges"?

So, if you want to reduce crime, you focus on the criminal. If you want to look like you're doing something, you try to ban guns, knowing damned well the criminals aren't going to care about the ban in the first place.

While admitting there are two sides to every story, and both sides make very reasonable arguments, I really feel like the old bumper sticker says it best...When you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns. Statistically a high percentage of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained. But making more laws doesn't change what someone already willing to break the laws will do. I'm totally in favor of strengthening criminal control, coming down harder on anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime. How many gun crimes are committed by repeat offenders? I do like your impartiality, and I think more people need to understand the arguments of both sides. As far as the second amendment.....interpretation is the key. I know what it means to me, and back in the day when they wrote it, does anyone know how many homes had guns? I'm not sure how many in the city, but I'd bet the number is huge, as far as out of the city I'd bet that number was 99.99%. I also realize part of the story here is handguns vs rifles/shotguns. In my mind a gun is a gun, but statistics show most gun crimes are committed with handguns. So what happens after you "abolish" owning handguns? Does anyone think they'll magical disappear? Does anyone reading this think illegal drugs are difficult to get?

It's much harder to conceal an illegal weapon, which is large and made of metal, than illegal drugs, which are small and organic, so I don't think the comparison is valid.

It may be true that a high percentage of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, but, unless stolen, those guns were obtained legally in the first place so again, some degree of improved gun control would help.

It still boils down to the fact that the police are not doing their job properly.

Same ol' lies, same ol' obfuscation by a "Liberal" citiot, marxist, whatever, this time from a country full of cowards who turned their guns into their govt. So they fully deserve what's happening in merry ol' England. See my webpage.

Bottom line: I own a politically incorrect 'assault' weapon for the lowlifes who don't think I need one, whether they be lowlifes on the street or lowlifes in the govt. or lowlifes in the mainstream or nowadays, non-mainstream media.

When the Brits were told to turn their guns in they should have opened "Liberal" season.

I won't sit in my house and wait for someone to come to my home and endanger my family with a tank, an Apache helicopter, or a handgun bought from a drug dealer on a street corner. When I am threatened with confiscation and imprisonment or death for resisting it I will go hunting, and it won't be for deer, turkey or squirrel.

Have a nice police state. I don't plan on being around to enjoy it and I do plan on taking a few modern authoritarians with me.

Since nearly all the police departments in the USA write "to serve and protect" (or some variation thereof) on the sides of their cars?

And if that's not their primary function, then WTF are we wasting taxpayers' money paying them for?

Clavos,

The "Serve and Protect" is correct. To serve and protect the COMMUNITY at large. The police have no duty to specific individuals even if they call for help and the police fail to arrive in time or at all.

The police have no duty to protect YOU unless they happen to see someone committing a crime against you as they walk by. And even then, only if they aren't on their way to a crime in progress more pressing than yours.

State and Federal Court rulings are virtually unanimous on this point. The police have no duty to protect individuals. By policing the community-at-large, they are upholding their duty.

As a result, it falls to you as an individual to take responsibility for your safety. There are numerous cases where people have called the police for help, the police come late or never arrive at all and bad things happen to them. They, or their survivors, sue the city and police departments and the Courts always side with the police. (Settling out of court is not an admission of guilt, I am talking about actual cases that went to Court).

And people are shocked when they learn this. Once you understand the idea that the Police is there to protect you is a fallacy, your whole worldview will change. Mine did. I understand this idea and accept it. Since the police have no duty to protect me, it is my duty as a responsible adult to do so for myself. And I have.

And guns are the means by which I protect myself.

I understand that it's the community as a whole that their supposed to (but don't) protect.

The point is, if they really are protecting the community; if they really are doing their jobs, I don't feel a need to protect myself.

But, I live in South Florida, where the police are part of the criminal element, and, far from protecting the community, they prey on it. The sheriff of Broward county (for example) just yesterday, pleaded guilty to several counts of felony fraud.

I've lived in several third world countries in my day. The police in this country are no longer any different from the police in those countries, and down here, they are worse; it's not unfair to say that the police in Mexico, for example, are less corrupt and more competent than the police in Miami-Dade or Broward counties, these days.

But then, they don't get paid much, and you get what you pay for.

Did I now, Chris?

I gave a rather straightforward warning that the gun-grabbers had best leave gun owners ALONE.

You are the fellow who offered unprovoked violence. (As is typical)

Whose point was proven?

The only possible way to remove 300 million firearms from Americans is to establish exactly the tyrannical regime which the gun-banners assert is a paranoid fantasy.

Your gun-free utopian fantasy can only be established by mass murder.
Either you are shockingly naive not to realize this, or that is, in fact, your very PURPOSE.

Not a week goes by, that some politician, political group, or self-annointed media hack doesn't propose a new law to seize my property, make me a criminal, send me to prison, or kill me if I object.

When push comes to shove, you will find yourself outnumbered, outgunned, and surrounded.

I DEMAND only to be left alone.
And I can enforce that demand.

That's what makes you gun banners so crazy, isn't it?

In the context of the USA, the police ought to be protecting the citizenry but are doing an incredibly bad job.

This is an absolutely fundamental misconception. Ask any police officer and he will tell you that except in the most general sense of providing a high profile presence in a community it is virtually impossible for the police to 'prevent' most common crime. For them to do that their numbers would have to be so huge and their presence so intrusive that it would be unacceptable to the public.

What the police do, with a full awareness of their limitations, is try to get repeat offenders of the streets and find criminals after the fact and make sure that they get appropriately punished and removed from society. Along with this they do make a limited effort to recover stolen property and prevent certain kinds of ongoing crime like fraud.

What they just cannot do, is prevent crimes like murder and burglary and mugging - except in rare lucky cases - because they just don't have the manpower and the omniscience to do it.

Dave

Mark, good article. Very enjoyable & thoughtful, IMO, even if it DID bring the gun/anti-gun nuts out of the woodwork asap. Oh well.

As with all major bones of contention, the problem is not so simplistic as the opposing camps would have it. On the pro side, a good deal of the problem is lack of law enforcement - not by the police, but the courts; lack of some system that ensures those with criminal records don't have access to guns or at least, can't buy them as easily as they do now; lack of punishment for those who DO supply miscreants with guns, legally or illegally; a very valid fear (especially in light of this current administration, which seems intent on violating constitutional rights at will) that restrictions will lead to government being able & willing to swoop down & leave the citizenry totally unarmed & vulnerable not only to crime, but also to military coups, etc.

On the anti side, there's demonstrable stats that show that guns are used in most violent crimes, that violence is on the rise in the US; partially due to the pervasive gun culture & glorification of same by TV & Hollywood, etc.; the increasing aquisition of such stuff as Uzis & shoulder-fired mortars (?!) by private citizens - most of whom, frankly, I wouldn't want to trust to walk & chew gum at the same time, let alone trust with the judgement to handle a gun correctly or intelligently; and most of all to the utter lack of any cohesive requirements anywhere on any level for those wanting guns to have training & be certified as knowing how to handle them, which IMO is a certain recipe for disaster, especially when mixed with lack of intelligence or common sense - which is WHY most gun accidents happen in the first place: sheer stupidity.

Personally, I favor having a certain amount of gun access to everyone without a criminal record, but with a definite amount of training & demonstrated capacity to use them with a modicum of common sense if not intelligence. Therefore, no guns to people not only of criminal record, but to those who are mentally unstable (like the Blacksburg shooter this past April), underage, or "developmentally challenged" - i.e. retarded or slow. And frankly I can't see a need for ANYBODY anywhere to have automatics or such items as Uzis or launchers in their private arsenals at all for any reason. If such things were pervasively illegal & unobtainable, it's likely such situations as Waco or Ruby Ridge would not have occurred, or at least would have been on a smaller scale.

No objections to shotguns or rifles; as mentioned, it's hard to carry one concealed, unless you have a very long overcoat & it's sawed off - which I believe is illegal to begin with. Hunting firearms should be subject to the same strictures as handguns: you have to have a license, & you have to have training to show you know how to handle the damned things. Hunters should also have training, if only to make them aware that game they shoot, if they wound it, should always be followed up & finished off, instead of being left to suffer & die slowly; and that whatever they shoot, they'd better eat (with possible exceptions of coyotes, etc.). As for those idiots who do "trophy hunting" of tame animals at special hunting ranches - those should be illegal, & those who run or resort to them used for target practice by Dick Cheney.

I don't know what to do about the issue of government oversight. I can fully appreciate the conundrum of, if it's licensed, then it's too easy for the government to id it & take it away. On the other hand, how else do you ensure the owner is trained & responsible, & that illicit guns aren't being provided to inappropriate/illegal persons? I'd like to hear people's thoughts on that specific issue, because it's more than I'm capable of solving w/my current level of expertise. Any ideas?

Travis, you just can't stop digging in the pit of stupidity. It was you that said that you would be prepared to commit violence in order to keep your weapons. I mocked your attitude.

Yes, brainiac, I'm really proposing mass murder on a grand scale. Of course!

The only think that drives me crazy is exchanges like this that make taking psychedelic drugs redundant...

Dave, it is absolutely not a misconception. You yourself trip up your own flimsy argument by admitting that they don't have the manpower to do the job. That is a budgeting and management issue and that's where the inability to do their job begins.

Gangs can effectively control whole neighbourhoods with a comparatively small number of people by getting bodies on the street where they belong, something the police ought to be doing.

If you take a look at Britain as an example, it is exactly when they started taking cops off their beats and increased the amount of paperwork and number of managers that community standards plummneted and crime rates soared.

The only result of what you describe as policing is that your excessively large numbers of prison inmates are being turned into professional hardcore criminals by being sent to Convict State High, as your many jails ought to be known.

I wonder if the many pro-gun commenters who've never been seen on this site before could explain what it is about this particular issue that gets them so paranoid as to have bots alert them when anyone posts a gun-related article on the web.

Gay marriage and abortion are also highly emotive issues, but don't provoke this kind of reaction.

So what are gun advocates so twitchy about?

And why should we think guns and twitchy people are a good combo?

Travis, it would be easy to get your guns off you. If I wanted to do that, I'd get an anti-tank weapon and blow you and your house to bits whilst you slept.

I wonder if the many pro-gun commenters who've never been seen on this site before could explain what it is about this particular issue that gets them so paranoid as to have bots alert them when anyone posts a gun-related article on the web.

Nancy, Uzis and "shoulder-fired mortars" are already regulated under the same laws that sawed off shotguns and silencers are. They are all registered, and new machine guns and destructive devices (cannons, etc.) cannot be added to the registry. I believe only one crime has been committed with a machine gun on the registry since it began.

"It may be true that a high percentage of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, but, unless stolen, those guns were obtained legally in the first place so again, some degree of improved gun control would help."
This is how the majority of gun control advocates think, and what it means is limiting law abiding citizens right to own firearms because they eventually fall into the wrong hands, even though they may be stolen from that citizen.

And how do you think Say Uncle learned of it, Phelps? Bots at Say Uncle are why it was on that site,and drew your attention.

They're common; many sites, especially advocacy ones, use them, and specifically, pro gun advocacy sites use 'em.

Paul #38 - there was an interesting item on the WTOP radio this ayem about criminals increasingly targeting COPS - their cars, the stations - AND at home - to steal their weapons! Talk about brass balls! The police can't even protect themselves; how can they protect the public when the courts consistently tie their hands to coddle violent criminals?

Anyway, glad to know the heavy stuff is at least technically off limits.

The most interesting guns I've seen are the muzzle loaders. Hunting/shooting with those is a real challenge. They're pretty artistic in their own right as objects, for the most part, as well.

And how do you think Say Uncle learned of it, Phelps? Bots at Say Uncle are why it was on that site,and drew your attention.

I have a google homepage with news alerts to which I have keywords set. One of those is gun control. Thats how I found this page, and I offer my opinion. I know nothing of bots, I just try to keep current on the news.

Frankly, as an intellectual exercise (only--I do not advocate trying it on "for real", see below for explanation) you are welcome to consign the Second Amendment wherever you like. The Second (in keeping with all the other enumerated individual rights in the Bill of Rights) confers no right; it merely recognizes a pre-existing right, the right of effective self-defense of one's right to life (I trust that Locke, and Jefferson after him, are clear on this subject to everyone's satisfaction).

If there were none willing to assert and exercise the rights enumerated in the Constitution, it would indeed be "just a (redacted) piece of paper." But free people do not treat the Constitution as a magic talisman, a Scroll of Protection. It is a sort of contract, and contracts must be enforced.

One may argue that correlation may not be causation (although in this case the theoretical relationship between disarmament and genocide ought to be self-evident), but the genocides of the 20th Century were preceded in all cases by civilian disarmament. Allowing the government to disarm the citizenry is a mistake a free people only get to make once, and a mistake I don't intend to make ever.

As for "Uzis," I'm not that big a fan myself (an FN-FAL or M14 would be more to my taste), but that's not really your question. Even now, law-abiding private citizens are permitted to own "Uzis" (by which Matt means fully automatic weapons). One merely pays a $200 tax per weapon. The restrictions on import and manufacture of these weapons have priced them beyond the means of the typical citizen even without the tax, but that is another subject. The fact is that private ownership of automatic weapons is legal now and has never been otherwise.

So what arms should a free citizen be able to bear without infringement? Bearing in mind that among the weapons the King's army marched on Lexington and Concord to seize included privately owned cannon, I would submit that the list includes but may not be limited to the following:

Machine guns (such as the Browning M2)
Field artillery pieces
Mortars
Man-portable air-defense weapons
Man-portable anti-armor weapons

Of course, just as cannon were in the 18th Century, these weapons are beyond the means of many people. I can find no logical basis, however, for ruling them out. It is merely that we have been told so repeatedly, with appeals to emotion and authority, that we consider them out of bounds.

And as others have said: After those who would place free men and women in subjection have managed to get two-thirds of both houses of Congress to write and submit to the several states an amendment repealing the Second, and somehow convinced thirty-eight state legislatures to ratify same, and then put in place everything else needed to carry out the program...

...they will still have to Come And Take Them. There is no other logical conclusion.

I want an UZI, so there. :P

-Anonymous-

Of course, we have to address the automatic vs. semi-automatic issue as well as the increasing number of guns that resemble Rambo's favorite wartime toys, but once we're engaged in good faith efforts, one can hope that we can isolate the extremists on both sides. I can't believe that every pro-gunner wants an Uzi... or at least I hope not.

1) It is not "good faith" to be absolutly clueless about the subject of which you're posting

2) One cannot "rationally" discuss this issue when one is unwilling to learn even a smidgen about the issue.

So you have a choice... read and learn. Or continue in your ignorance, revel in it, and hold it to your chest like a new mamma holds her baby.

But do so knowing that those who actually know about guns easily spot you for what you are.

"Assault rifles" are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and other anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers are.

Actually, many of the national leaders in the gun banning community know they are lying to the public. Josh Sugarmann, author of the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" laid out the strategy for all to see.

"Assault weapons--just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms--are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

True automatic assault rifles such as the Sturmgewehr 44 were first developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians immediately post-war as defined by the AK-47. America's eventual version, the M16/M4, wasn't too bad either but certainly wasn't universally loved by soldiers.

They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so the weapons tended to be:

--lightweight
--of a smaller caliber
--easy to maintain
--rugged
--Shot from the hip if necessary
--fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance.
--Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full automatic.

Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn't needed it wasn't on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes against the shooter's cheek) was just a bare outline of metal, or even completely collapsible. This "look" is often consider bizarre by those who never thought about the "why" of it.

Now, being lightweight created it's own set of problems.

The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing, which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little .22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range, and a soldier didn't want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To minimize that a "shroud" was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn't add anything to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a short time.

Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier's nighttime eyesight protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.

Soldiers don't like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can never have too much ammo, but it doesn't do any good if you've left it all back at the barracks.

This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223 round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The significance of this?

Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that's about all it's powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.

The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this - you have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he's moving three miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a difference overall?

The actual .223 bullet really isn't that much larger than a fat grain of rice.

So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term "poodle killer" for the .223 and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on average four other soldiers to take care of him.

Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol (pointing downwards so you wouldn't shoot your teammate in the head) it was good to have a way to immediately bring it into play... thus the stock and grip were designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn't hit a darn thing with it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn't necessarily stick their head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.

The rifle didn't have to be super accurate and it wasn't. Especially at a distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If you can barely see the guy it's a job for artillery, not rifles.

The main distinguishing feature, though, was it's ability to "select" fire. The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty, thirty, and even a hundred.

The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto by trained troops. The reason is because they just can't hit anything. Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it's firing.

Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a months pay for these guys.

There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then one was glad they had it.

Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It's just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.

Aside from that the disadvantages of machine guns are considerable. Not least among them is the weight and space of the ammunition they consume. This is something that isn't obvious to the casual viewer of action films, since most on-screen firearms feature tardis-like ammunition capacities, capable of firing indefinitely with no magazine changes.

In fact, an M16 has a firing rate of 750 rounds per minute, so that if one were to be used as typically shown in movies (constant spray of bullets), one would go through a 30-round magazine every two and a half seconds. And a full magazine weighs a pound. So for a single minute's use in full auto, a movie-watching criminal would need to carry at least 25 pounds of magazines around (and that's about $500 worth of ammunition, which will seriously dent their bank heist operational budget).

Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say "assault weapons."

The guns sold to the civilian market that "look like" the military weapons all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the market. It's nothing special, and it's the way civilian rifles have been made for almost 140 years.

Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before 1986.

The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal transfer tax on each full auto weapon. Since 1934 there has been one (perhaps two, it's in dispute) documented cases of any licensed fully automatic weapon being used in the commission of a crime.

"Machine guns" and "automatic weapons" are simply not bought down at Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat unicorns.

Those who talk about "machine guns" blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.

What the anti-gunners mean when they say "assault weapons" are guns that are made to "look like" the real ones. And that's it. There are a number of variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them would be found on a battlefield.

The real soldiers would laugh at them.

One can take a little .22 rifle, a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn't do any great damage to a armadillo, and for a couple of hundred dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable (from the outside) to an "assault rifle." Yet, internally it would be the same little ol' .22.

What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad's Oldsmobile you can take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.

Many people complain that the semi-autos sold today are easily converted to full automatic weapons. They have no understanding of either the mechanics of firearms or the laws prohibiting even the whiff of an full auto.

Federal law declares that any gun that is easily converted to an automatic weapon IS an automatic weapon for the purposes of the law, even if not actually converted -- (National Firearms Act as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986). That NON-automatic pistols or carbines that fire from an open bolt are Title 2/Class III restricted under Federal law, because they can be converted by filing the sear.

It is a crime to even ATTEMPT to convert a legal semi-auto to fully automatic fire even in the absence of a conversion kit. The attempt is the same thing as possessing an illegal, unregistered machine gun. If you possess even a single PART from a full auto gun and attempt to fit it to a semi-auto, you've just tried to assemble an illegal machine gun. That is a 10 year prison sentence and/or a $250,000 dollar fine.

The semi-auto versions of any military-type rifle have to be specifically designed so that CANNOT accept parts from their full auto cousins without requiring major alteration to the gun itself. As a result, the presence of the alteration is prima facie evidence that you were, in fact, intending to manufacture an illegal machine gun.

This is difficult to explain to someone who isn't familiar with the internals of firearms. I can tell you it is not easy to convert any semi-auto rifle to full-auto. It requires a machine shop in many cases and a machinist used to working to very precise specs. And manufacture of a conversion kit would be considered manufacture of a machine gun under the law. Hence why you don't see the kits.

Books do exist on how to build machine guns or make the necessary conversions. That's legal. It's protected under the 1st Amendment. You can even buy the book and own the corresponding gun. Questionable judgement but still legal. You become a criminal the moment you attempt to go from the abstract words on a page and turn them into steel reality. Then you're breaking the law. Not until.

Many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do, but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It's certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob's deer hunting rifle fires.

And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes, small feral hogs, and other destructive pests, and it's even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so. Since almost all states limit the number of rounds that can be carried in a longgun while hunting to only five the issue of someone shooting a deer thirty times is simply not even reasonable.

Would they be used to take elk or mule deer out west where the animals are much bigger and the shooting distance is measured by hundreds of yards? No, that takes a much bigger gun and caliber bullet. But just because you don't use a hammer in place of a screwdriver doesn't mean that both hammers and screwdrivers have their proper uses.

These types of rifles are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. They shoot a common and inexpensive cartridge. They're customizable, with only a few moving parts, easy to find spare parts for, and don't have a lot of recoil.

You can drop it in a swamp, pull it out and it will still shoot. Not a lot of expensive hunting rifles could take the abuse a typical sports uitility rifle could shrug off.

Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for these same reasons.

A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough to pierce the 'dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the M-4, is perfect for his use.

These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That's a pretty impressive reason for wanting any weapon.

The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It's a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can maintain the most accurate rifle. At Camp Perry, where the National Shooting championships have been held each year for decades, the AR-15 has dominated the short to medium length accuracy competition for many years.

Go to most outdoor ranges and you'll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.

Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days. Others just want to look cool, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. A lot of them consider the military as "heroes" and want to emulate them.

Are these guns being used to specifically target police officers for death? No, of course not. David Kopel examined the evidence stretching over years and years and found that they are far from any major cause of harm to our police officers.

Again, these guns may "look" like a military weapon but they are the farthest thing from one... they fire just one bullet at a time the way every other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob's hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.

An excellent ten minute video about this subject can be found here.

You'll get to see a normal, everyday hunting rifle change to an "evil black rifle" right before your very eyes. And when you realize that it is fundamentally no different from you going from suit and tie with combed hair to bluejeans and a tee shirt with unkempt hair then you'll understand the lies the gun banners have been trying to foist off on the public.

Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their opinion about something they know nothing about.

I assure you, I'm no bot.

Well, unless, of course, my bot is smart enough to come here and defend its non-botness. I mean, I am a member of the Triangle Of Death and we are sneaky like that.

The basic meaning of the 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear to anyone who can read English, it would seem. The author just doesn't LIKE what it says, and therefore manages not to get the point. The military (and their bosses) have to be kept in line, so it's imperative that the people have to have guns.

I suppose that for the sake of making the point undeniable even to those not wanting to get the point, it would have been better if they'd included a "therefore," making it "therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms... But if someone is determined not to get the plain meaning of the words, it doesn't much matter.

Now, the US Constitution isn't the revealed word of the living God, so it can be changed. It's perfectly reasonable to say that the founders weren't counting on automatic weapons when they came up with those words. Perhaps that merits re-considering the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment.

But if the author wants to start grabbing guns (and he clearly does - in a moderate and reasonable manner of course), he needs to in fact get a constitutional amendment to repeal or severely modify that pesky 2nd Amendment.

They built that stuff right into the constitution exactly to make it difficult to change or get around, because it was perceived as critically important to a free nation. You don't get to start screwing with people's basic rights in this country just because you can get 51% of this year's crop of congressional hacks to vote for it.

Personally, as a 2nd Amendment extremist and general right wing nutjob, I'm still more worried about the abusive powers of government with guns than random criminals with guns. But I'd take it that we need to have guns in order to protect ourselves from both.

Mr Schannon says "We pretend to argue logic and reason, but what's driving those arguments are perceived threats to important personal values." It's not logical and reasonable to argue against threats to your personal values?

In conclusion, I mock the author's fake call for a "reasoned approach." What he means isn't really a reasonable discussion about the issues and merits, but mostly just that us gun nuts should give up our guns, and accept that we only have a right to have them if him and this year's crop of congress critters say it's ok.

You asked:

"So what are gun advocates so twitchy about?

And why should we think guns and twitchy people are a good combo?"

I've never been on this blog before and I'm never coming back. I'll just answer this.

We are "twitchy", to use your loaded term, because gun control is literally an existential threat. If you think that getting between a person and his job is dangerous, try getting between a person and his life! Gun ownership means "life" in many respects:
1) Lifestyle -- shooting is a very enjoyable hobby and some folks like hunting (not me)
2) Wealth -- folks have thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars wrapped up in their hobbies. For some "twitchy" hoplophobes to insist that they just surrender this investment, without compensation, is an outrage.
3) Pure physical existence -- for all the reasons mentioned above, each individual is responsible for his own protection. Those of use who are old/frail/female have to rely on something other our powerful physiques. Guns are EQUALIZERS.

As for your "twitchy" citizen owning a gun, why don't you go to a gun range and get some training? Find out that these folks you consider twitchy are generally very level-headed. Go beyond static range training and look into practical shooting. And most important, really examine all of the recent data from sociologists and economists that clearly demonstrate that guns in the hands of good people are good things.

Bye...

Personally. I think all pro-gun nuts should be shot on the grounds of terminal boredom. Except for SayUncle's Bot, he's funny.

Or, to answer the question posed by the author of this article, no!

Chris, his question was answered within 20 minutes of his post being published.

The pro-gun people who've been commenting on this thread don't even want to acknowledge the other side may have legitimate concerns. As for compromise... it probably won't be long before the words 'cold', 'dead' and 'hands' get used in the same sentence yet again. Zzzzzzz.....

That Al "Twitchy" Barger should be the first to go. Not only does he think that a bunch of lightly armed civilians could keep a professional army in line and that determining the meaning of the people who wrote the constitution centuries ago through the prism of contemporary thinking is possible, he's got rubbish taste in music too! Up against the wall with him!!

*Looks around nervously as he realises that most people here are heavily armed and humourless* That's a joke, folks!

#45, Jack - THANKS! Good explanation. Maybe you should make this info a series of articles? I'd enjoy them. You don't mention tho, that a .22 (albeit a handgun) can make an awful mess in a body, because it just bounces around & tears everything up. In some ways, I'd rather be shot with a .45 than a .22, if I had to be shot at all. So they're not quite as "plinking" & insignificant as you indicate.

Whenever I scratch the surface of an anti-gunner I find the same murderous impulse underneath their high-falutin' jibber jabber about crime, and safety, and "the children."

The truth is that they would rather see a woman raped, and strangled, than with a gun in her hand having just shot her attacker, dead.

The truth is they would rather have law abiding citizens terrorized on the streets, or in their homes by gangsters, and other predators, than with the means to protect themselves and their families.

You notice the antis never tell you HOW they mean to disarm "gun-nuts" like me, while leaving our (relatively) free and benign society as it is?

When we say NO, they mean to kill us.
When you object to the police prying up your floorboads in order to find your "hidden" guns, they will be quite happy to take you to jail, or they will kill you.

It really is that simple.

Sarah Brady has guns, Diane Feinstein has a carry permit, Rosie O'Donnell has armed bodyguards. Teddy (woman killer) Kennedy has bodyguards armed with sub-machineguns. Steven Spielberg is said to have one of the largest gun collections this side of the NRA museum. Will they be disarmed under the new regime? HA!

"Gun control" is not about crime.
It's not even about guns, it's about CONTROL.

The fact is that without gutting the Bill of Rights, without instigating a full on shooting war, the anti gun fanatics can't force America to disarm, and a disarmed populace is NECCESSARY for them to accomplish what they ultimately want to do.

It took mere minutes before Chris threatened me with murder. If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else.

Anti gunners ALWAYS proclaim their benign, and peaceful motivations, and they ALWAYS follow up rapidly with the threat of murder.

Chris and his kind actually seem to believe that when the mass confiscations begin, gun-owners will just be all hanging out in a compound watching American Idol.

You just go on thinking that, guys.

"I wonder if the many pro-gun commenters who've never been seen on this site before could explain what it is about this particular issue that gets them so paranoid..."

Most gun owners are passionate about owning guns. Is that hard to understand?

What happened here with this article and comments is nothing new. I became quite aware of the phenomenon a few years ago when looking at the Seattle Intelligencer online. Since then without fail a theory of mine is proven correct without exception.

An antigun article is written. The article is rebuked with extreme prejudice by an overwhelming number of progun comments. Happens everytime. The reason is simple.

A lot of people care deeply about gun ownership. Care enough to scour the internet for articles like this one. Care enough to voice their opinion. Care enough to debate with the opposition. Care enough to write, call, email, and fax their congresspersons, their local officials, their local newspapers, etc. etc. etc.

Gun control cannot gain traction because it cannot attract enough passionate, fanatical supporters. Soccer moms are nice for a photo, but in the end they go back to the mall, turn on American Idol, making sure the kids get to school, and all that good stuff, like the rest of us do.

The difference is that for gun owners, the guns are another big piece of our lives. We argue about gun control and stick with it because it's OUR guns that people are arguing about.

Keep digging that hole, Travis. All you're convincing me of is that you lack the discrimination to understand events clearly.

The thought that in a real life situation someone so "loaded" would actually be able to shoot at people is not a reassuring one. Neither is knowing that you are unable to distinguish between parody and reality. You should be the first to be disarmed, simply because you can't distinguish betwen friend and foe.

"As for compromise..."

I'll compromise. I'll meet you half way. We have 20,000 gun control laws on the books. I'll let 10,000 stand, you get to choose the 10,000 that get taken away.

*That's* compromise. But somehow I'm willing to be you're not up for that because you don't gain anything and yet expect us to lose everything instead.

Brother Rose [comment 51]- I may be heavily armed, but I'm certainly not humorless, otherwise there'd be a lot more open seats in the next congressional elections.

Of course, as a top Enemy of The People, you'd be among the first to go - right after Mariah Carey and the Dixie Chicks.

Oh Alienboy, I see a trip to Camp Mimi in your future.

Also, if you think US crackers are "lightly armed civilians," then you just don't know. Ha!

"The pro-gun people who've been commenting on this thread don't even want to acknowledge the other side may have legitimate concerns."

Dr. Dreadful,

I understand you have concerns. Gun violence is deplorable.

What do suggest? Can you give me a couple of suggestions you think would be effective in alleviating your concerns?

I see I'm late to Mark's party, and Mark is long gone - probably snoozing under an empty bottle of Jameson's.

I used to live in the States and don't any longer. So the second amendment to the US constitution of 1787 means little to me personally.

So, I'll make this kind of simple. I happen to feel that the culture of a society dictates how violent it will be. Jews are swindlers and rapists, not killers. So for a bunch of us to carry around guns here is no big deal. The murder rate is remarkably low in Israel. But Americans are murderers. The blazing gun is the next step after the blazing temper.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I think that gun ownership should be legal in the United States, and that the second amendment should be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee its leqality and existence, in spite of the cost of lives it entails due to the violence inherent in American culture.

An armed populace is the only thing separating you from a dictatorship. Period.

Sure Chris

I have no difficulty differentiating between friend and foe.

I don't think for a minute that you have the wherewithal to do me harm....

But if you could , without personal risk to yourself, ah, yes.... I think you'd be just tickled for someone ELSE to kill me.

I have been vetted by State police of two states and by the FBI four times when I applied, and received concealed carry permits. My legal history, or rather the lack of it, is checked by the NICS two or more times a year when I fill out a 4473 form at a gun dealer.

(do you know what that is, bunkie?)

If I chose, I could obtain the licensing for a full auto firearm.

Would you qualify to buy a firearm, legally?
I wonder.

Somehow, your opinion about who is, or is not "fit" to own a firearm does not especially impress me.

I have found that often, someone who means you harm you will quite plainly announce that intention. Calling it "parody" is weak camoflage.

Would you like to disarm me?

You will have to change constitutional amendments, and enact new laws in order to do so.

And I STILL will not comply.

And that just terrifies you.

That fact that I can say NO... and make it stick.

Yes, a reasoned approach to compromise is possible with gun control, but only with people who are willing to sacrifice something on both sides of the debate. Both sides have to reach common ground, which means no one is taking away all the guns, but we may have to agree to do without some of them, which we already have. Also one side has to know crimes with guns will always happen, but we can lessen the quantity, and severity of such crimes. That we also have done. As with any system, there are problems, and loop holes and we each have to agree to deal with, and solve those problems. We have more gun control laws today than ever before. The High-Cap law that fell off the books a while back was found to have truly changed nothing, for instance if you want more bullets just carry more clips...Virgina Tech maniac proved that point. But he also proved another point, that regardless of the gun laws we currently have, gun crimes persist. As far as I'm aware all his guns were purchased legally. We all know he should have been identified and not allowed to purchase a gun, but a what expense to our privacy? His medical records were kept private so as not to break any privacy laws. That debate is seperate to the one we're having, but its related. I think everyday people fight for both sides, and slowly we are all creating a system that will work as good as any can.

Al, lol!

can't you all feel your brains being sucked out through your eyeballs?

yeesh.

Like immigration and gay marriage, this topic brings out the crazies. The resulting pile of ridiculous rhetoric scares off [or bores] the potentially reasonable contributors, on either side.

And this, in effect, answers the question posed in the article's title: No, it's not possible, as long as hyperbolic rhetoric is the currency most commenters insist on dealing in.

Americans have far more guns than in any other rich Western democracy. Yet paranoia about their being taken away remains rampant.

Should someone tentatively suggest government regulation of, say, military-style automatic weapons, they are immediately accused of being unconstitutional, anti-American, and threatening the very existence of all gun owners.

And politicians go along with this absolutist stuff [even Democrats bring up the issue at their peril], so that there hasn't been any real public discussion of the issue in years.

But the paranoid yelling continues.

You don't mention tho, that a .22 (albeit a handgun) can make an awful mess in a body, because it just bounces around & tears everything up. In some ways, I'd rather be shot with a .45 than a .22, if I had to be shot at all. So they're not quite as "plinking" & insignificant as you indicate.

"Could" is the key word, Nancy. Even a BB gun can kill someone which is why an assualt with one is considered deadly force by most states.

A .22 has to hit the bone just right to ping pong thru the body as you describe. When that happens, yes, it can make a mess in there. But that really is the exception than the rule for being shot with a .22.

Absolutely fascinating discussion which simply reinforces one of my points which is that people cannot separate rational from emotional. It's not a matter of how smart or well-informed, it's fact that the brain pathways that deal with emotion are inextricably tied to those pathways that deal with logic.

Rationalism is a myth. Look behind the so-called "rational arguments" of both sides of the debate and the raw emotion and fear is right below the surface.

As for the canard that the 2nd Amendment is easy to understand, read all the historians on the subject, not just the ones who agree with you. There is no concensus. Parse the sentence, and it makes no sense grammatically--or rather it can be read two ways.

My suggestion is for people to recognize how emotionally engaged they become, ask themselves why, and how that distorts their logic. The two winners of the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics won because they shattered the myth that people act rationally when making economic decisions.

The same is true for all human interaction--which is why we never seem to be able to resolve anything.

In Jameson Veritas

Paranoid yelling? Maybe some see any attempt at gun control as an attempt to abolish all guns....and given some attitudes of those in favor of gun control I can understand it to some degree. Call it like you see it, people still gonna argue.

'You don't mention tho, that a .22 (albeit a handgun) can make an awful mess in a body, because it just bounces around & tears everything up. In some ways, I'd rather be shot with a .45 than a .22, if I had to be shot at all.

Where do you find this stuff ?? Rolling Stoned ???

A .22 make a very small hole ( in a human body or anything else ) and had NO WHERE NEAR the energy of a .45.

If you want to take your chance with a .45 insted of a .22 go ahead but not me. I KNOW what each one does and don't rely on movies for my information.

"read all the historians on the subject, not just the ones who agree with you."

Simple challenge then: find any document from the time of the founding (+/- 20 years, if you like) that supports the collective rights mythology. Go ahead. I'll wait. For a while.

"Parse the sentence, and it makes no sense grammatically--or rather it can be read two ways."

Only by disregarding the rules english language. (link)

This topic has been done to death, and the results are pretty conclusive. There's no rational wiggle room on this issue. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not in doubt. The founding fathers explicated on it at endless length. The statistical evidence is equally clear. Guns save lives. Plus there's always simple common sense, which obviously tells us that we're safer with the means to defend ourselves.

Nice to see you posting again, though, Mark.

Dave

Where did I find it? On an autopsy table, that's where. Helluva mess, so I guess that one in a million hit just right on bone happened, except it seems to be fairly common in carcasses I see w/.22 holes in them. Just my experience, of course, but what do I know?

The misuse of firearms by criminals in this country is deplorable. So you want to pass new laws to further restrict access to guns by law abiding citizens. WTF? Can't seem to follow your logic there.
Compromise? The gun owning community has been played for fools for a good 40 years by that bogus canard. Prior to 1968 anyone could buy a gun by mail or at just about any hardware store. Today I must fill out and sign a federal form on which it is a felony to lie. Then I must wait while a background check with authorities is made and cannot take delivery of a firearms purchase until I pass. Now add on state and local laws that impose waiting periods and police permits to purchase and outright bans on guns of certain caliber or with unapproved cosmetic features. That's why we're so touchy, we have compromised to the tune of 20,000 plus laws which per an official CDC study have done nothing to reduce crime. And yet you have the gall to say "you won't compromise, it's your fault for not giving in." Yeah, right. If we were a tenth the bloody minded misfits you paint us to be you wouldn't dare open your yaps. It's because we have been so patient and willing to give and give and give yet again that you come back to the well one more time. This time if you only give up (insert sliver of freedom here) this time it will work and we can all live happily ever after.
And before you call me a paranoid fool, supply proof that you have gotten rid of your spare tire, fire extinguishers, and any insurance you own, or admit you are just as paranoid only about other things equally likely to occur as an armed confrontation. In some 55 years I have needed a spare twice, insurance three times, extinguisher never, and a firearm on four occasions to prevent my physical harm.

Whether or not guns save lives, they could be sensibly regulated without the constitution being jeopardized. Unless, of course:

"The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not in doubt."

Eminent legal scholars may still disagree on this point. But for Dave, it's all settled.

In this as in so many other matters, Dave is all-knowing and favors this sort of discussion-ending statement. Those who hold other opinions than his own are simply irrelevant fools. It's just possibly not the optimal stance for an editor of a web site about opinions.

Christopher,

That Al "Twitchy" Barger should be the first to go. Not only does he think that a bunch of lightly armed civilians could keep a professional army in line...

Last I checked, that's how the founding fathers became the founding fathers...Now if that professional army had gun control the founding fathers would have just been terrorists.

I think that point goes to the intent of the founding fathers.

T.

Compromise yes. We may not like jumping through hoops to get a gun, but that doesn't change the fact we both still own guns, and can buy more if we see the need(or the want). Despite all the gun control laws on the books, I STILL HAVE GUNS. Compromise is helping everyone make sure we are all safer, without violating our basic rights. I have never needed a gun to protect me or mine, and yet in the future I may, and if I do need it, I have it. So do you. So does any law abiding citizen. In some cities gun control has gone to far I think, so yes I'm against gun control, but only unreasonable gun control. I don't mind calling the FBI to ask for a gun, I have nothing to hide. The last one I bought, a 1911 springfield 45, I had to wait a whole two days. It made me mad waiting because I'm perfectly legal to buy it, but I realize that systems stops sales to people who aren't legal. Compromise is needed, as is rationality.

Good thing they don't have a gun culture in England, as gun crime is said to be out of control, with 10 people being shot everyday.
And hey it's an island & they cannot keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys how would they ever do it in the US of A?

I'm wondering...

How many people on this thread have actually killed another human being with a weapon.

In my experience, most who have done so (like the police, and many combat veterans), while usually not eager to ban weapons, are equally reluctant to allow just any jerkoff to carry them around town, which is pretty much the way it is these days; particularly here in Florida.

Mark!!

Here I thought you were snoozing under an empty booze bottle! Welcome back.

Guess I was as stupid as everybody else here, talking about guns instead of rationality.

As to the second amendment, it was written this way for a reason, just like all law. In this instance, it was put there to reflect the political reality of needing something to deal with the idea of a state militia and making sure that citizens had some right to bear arms.

In today's world, it makes no sense at all. But, as I said in my irrational comment, better to have an armed populace than a dictatorship....

When I WAS carrying a gun on a regular basis as law enforcement, I spent a good deal of time being awfully nervous, because carrying a gun legally in that manner seemed to me to be a direct invitation for every macho shithead & coked-up asshole & wannabe Whatever to try to see if he (invariably it was a 'he') was better/faster/more aggressive than the other person with the gun. It was like a goad or an irritant or a pheromone to them.

At the same time, until there's some way to control gun ownership, yet ensure the government can't step in & appropriate them in some vague, self-proclaimed "emergency" such as BushCo would be apt to do, I oppose gun control or banning them. I myself can't see a way to do both, however, kind of like the universal ID: you either become subject to Big Brother, or you leave the cracks wide open for the cockroaches to slip in.

I only have one thing to say..

" Guns don't kill people!!!!! People kill people!!"

It takes 'someone' to pull a trigger.

Whether or not guns save lives, they could be sensibly regulated without the constitution being jeopardized.

Now Handy, when did I say that guns couldn't be regulated?

Unless, of course:

"The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not in doubt."

Eminent legal scholars may still disagree on this point.

Any disagreement on this on a constitutional basis would be pure bullshit. They may disagre with the amendment and the idea of gun ownership and they may have many fine arguments, but Constitutionally there's nothing to support them.

But for Dave, it's all settled.

In this as in so many other matters, Dave is all-knowing and favors this sort of discussion-ending statement. Those who hold other opinions than his own are simply irrelevant fools. It's just possibly not the optimal stance for an editor of a web site about opinions.

I can fully support your right to hold an opinion and to express it no matter how foolish and unfounded it may be without that having any impact on my role as editor.

An article like this is an opportunity for those who are better informed to come to the site and disabuse the gun control nuts yet again of their erroneous claims.

The fear of guns is irrational and directly counter to the best interests of individuals and the nation as a whole. The facts are o√erwhelming as is the legal and constitutional history of the issue. I don't mean to shut down conversation on the subject, but is there really anything new to say?

The gun-grabbers are fanatics and can only back their position with emotional arguments and statements which are patently false. We've seen that demonstrated here and many times before. Going through the same dance yet again is fine with me, but doesn't it seem awfully futile?

Dave

" Guns don't kill people!!!!! People kill people!!"

EXACTLY!!

So people should be outlawed; not guns.

Now there's an idea with some real merit.

Mark, nice of you to show up.

Since you kicked this off with your misreading of the Second Amendment, and your stated desire to trash it, I think the burden is upon YOU to justify it.

It is up to YOU to explain how "the people" in the Second Amendment is entirely different than in the First, fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

It is not for me to justify my right to my property, or my right to self defense, but it is up to YOU and YOUR side to justify your attack on it.

It is up to you to explain why a woman who has to walk dangerous streets at night should not be "allowed" to use a pistol against a rapist twice her mass, or hunting in packs.

It's up to you to explain why individuals should not be "allowed" effective self defense against gangs of human predators.

I've seen your kind lie, distort, and prevericate in order to hoax the fence sitters into thinking that gun control is about crime.

Your side reached your high water mark with the Clinton ban and the Brady Act.

The Clinton Ban expired 3 years ago, and now 38 states have shall issue concealed carry laws, and Vermont and Alaska have no license requirements at all.

It will take years, but we will take our rights back, just the way your side stole them. One law at a time, one state at a time, one election, and one politician at a time.

And if your side should happen to luck into legislative majorities, and repeal the Bill of Rights.... Well, you'll just have fight in Congress and statehouses every step of the way.

On the day that you make me an outlaw, not for anything that I have done, but for my possession of things.

Come and take them.

If you think you can.

Clavvie, don't get macho. I can't see Handy or anybody else trying to wrestle your guns away from you. Now if it were your yachts....

Dave, as I imagine you know but are choosing to ignore, statistics are just like photographs, they just capture an aspect of a particular place at a particular time.

Your continued use of them to support your case this way and to do your typical elitist pig flipoff of those with whom you disagree yet again makes a mockery of your frequent bleating about being impartial.

There is no direct relationship between disliking guns and wanting them controlled.

I really like guns but want to see them controlled because I am not persuaded that the vast majority of people can conduct themselves responsibly at all times. Soldiers can't do it, policemen can't do it, so why should we think that the less disciplined and trained population at large can?

Hmmm,

I guess there are aren't any cops or combat vets on this thread; at least, not any willing to disclose they've killed someone, however legally it was done.

Too bad. Their perspective could add a new (and much more realistic, as opposed to theoretical) element to the discussion.

"I really like guns but want to see them controlled because I am not persuaded that the vast majority of people can conduct themselves responsibly at all times. Soldiers can't do it, policemen can't do it, so why should we think that the less disciplined and trained population at large can?"

I think you mean there have been instances where soldiers didn't do it, or policemen didn't do it, however they like the general population of people who do own guns very much conduct themselves reponsibly at ALL times. Like anything else on the planet there are those few who will abuse anything. It bothers me to think you truly believe cops shouldn't have guns?

Nancy #84,

What????

Paul, it bothers me far more that people like you, who presumably owns weapons, have such poor reasoning abilities.

I didn't say that I think the cops (in the USA) shouldn't have guns, it's way too late for that.

I did say that professionals can't conduct themselves appropriately at all times so why should we imagine that the population at large should be able to.

What concerns me is that people will make errors of judgement and weapons will be deployed inappropriately. The fact that you, for example, can't even follow the written word properly doesn't make me feel confident that you could properly assess a real life situation happening in real time.

I can say that again in shorter words if you need more time to process the information...

I do own several guns, and other weapons. I've never found an occasion to use them other than practice. However the kind of situation that would require me to respond with deadly force is one anyone can recognize. It happens to people all over the world by the second. Everyday, all day and all night. I'm here only to offer my opinion on such things, not to play word games. Were you to be in a situation that required you to use deadly force in order to save yourself, or your loved ones, could you respond? Would you be successful? I don't know the answer myself were if posed to me, I would respond: I have the proper equipment, and training, and practice to properly defend me and mine. Can you say the same?

Nancy [comment 79] sez: When I WAS carrying a gun on a regular basis as law enforcement, I spent a good deal of time being awfully nervous, because carrying a gun legally in that manner seemed to me to be a direct invitation for every macho shithead & coked-up asshole & wannabe

Really? Now, I'll be inclined to take your word regarding your personal experience, but this seems highly counterintuitive to me. My conventional wisdom would be the exact opposite of that, as summed up by the famous Robert Heinlein quote that "An armed society is a polite society." I would generally expect most folks to take someone having a gun as a sign that they shouldn't be getting stupid.

Ponder a bi