[w00t]

"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."

It says the people, which meant any men that were capable of wielding arms. I'd agree with your argument, but that was a single ruling among many others. I'd like to use a more modern example, since you seem to argue that people in our modern world don't need guns.


Source: Schmoop

Numerous similar rulings DID happen, but that doesn't negate my wrongness. Must've missed that case.

I'd still stand by that the second amendment doesn't define that right, as the argument for why personal firearms are covered is because the concept of a militia is outdated, and that the connotation of the text was that people have the right to firearms.



As for the anecdote directly above, you assume that gun owners automatically carry weapons on them, or close enough to them, in such a way that a sudden intrusion could reasonably be stopped. I'm sure some do, but I, for one, keep the one firearm I own under lock and key in my bedroom, both to prevent someone from stealing it, and because I've a sense of security in my house, so why would I keep it out in the open?

You also assume the primary goal of gun restrictions is to prevent criminal activity. The debate doesn't get renewed every time a civilian is caught in gangland crossfire, you see it when someone flies off the handle, grabs a gun, and starts shooting people. That aside, making large guns illegal, or at least highly regulated, would make it a LOT harder for criminal elements to get them.

Whereas right now, I could go on gunbroker.com and buy dozens of combat-grade rifles, if they were more highly regulated I would have to:

a) Justify the risk of arrest/seizure to my criminal enterprise
b) Pay off a few people
c) Either import them from another country, or rip off a shipment.

[Oni]

Numerous similar rulings DID happen, but that doesn't negate my wrongness. Must've missed that case.

I'd still stand by that the second amendment doesn't define that right, as the argument for why personal firearms are covered is because the concept of a militia is outdated, and that the connotation of the text was that people have the right to firearms.



As for the anecdote directly above, you assume that gun owners automatically carry weapons on them, or close enough to them, in such a way that a sudden intrusion could reasonably be stopped. I'm sure some do, but I, for one, keep the one firearm I own under lock and key in my bedroom, both to prevent someone from stealing it, and because I've a sense of security in my house, so why would I keep it out in the open?

You also assume the primary goal of gun restrictions is to prevent criminal activity. The debate doesn't get renewed every time a civilian is caught in gangland crossfire, you see it when someone flies off the handle, grabs a gun, and starts shooting people. That aside, making large guns illegal, or at least highly regulated, would make it a LOT harder for criminal elements to get them.

Whereas right now, I could go on gunbroker.com and buy dozens of combat-grade rifles, if they were more highly regulated I would have to:

a) Justify the risk of arrest/seizure to my criminal enterprise
b) Pay off a few people
c) Either import them from another country, or rip off a shipment.

The ruling from 2008 goes against what you are saying. Your interpretation of the Constitution is clearly your own. It's been ruled that it safeguards our right to bear arms and it was written in plaintext. The ruling only strengthens my statement. Clearly not everyone would be as comfortable carrying a loaded firearm around, but I think it's prudent. You wouldn't hear about these mass-shootings in other states if there were people carrying nearby.

The people that commit mass murder, are consumed with hatred and depression, and aim for places where there is little chance of intervention. They want to take lives, make other people suffer, and possibly end up on headlines. If there was a chance of intervention, there would be no mass-shooting. It would just be the death of an angsty teen that decided to carry around his dad's shotgun.

[w00t]

http://web.archive.org/web/2008100119001...07-290.pdf

The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Which is to say that, because of changing social context, the meaning of the amendment is now different.

It's a bit like how the US President can do anything but declare war. Back in the good ol' 1790s, the national army wouldn't have lasted long against another nation, and so the President would need to declare war, so as to call up the state militias. Now, though, National Guards( modern militias ) are, combined, a fraction of the size of the national armed services, making the need for a declaration of war only necessary if you need to draft.

[Imada Duty]

As for the anecdote directly above, you assume that gun owners automatically carry weapons on them, or close enough to them, in such a way that a sudden intrusion could reasonably be stopped. I'm sure some do, but I, for one, keep the one firearm I own under lock and key in my bedroom, both to prevent someone from stealing it, and because I've a sense of security in my house, so why would I keep it out in the open?

you should keep it in a place were no one else can find it(wife,kids,mother...) but is easy to access for you. Make this a place you can defend. Get a non-lethal grenade or make one. If your weapon isn't ready you might as well not have it. A law should be passed to restrict untrained firearm users like yourself. And the easiest way to get a gun is at an out of state gun show not jacking some vato's.

[w00t]

If I can find it, so can others. I'm not magical, I don't have secret compartments in the walls. This especially applies to family members, as I'm sure such an expert gun owner knows a poorly maintained gun is hardly worth having, but it's also against the law in many( most? ) places to have completely unrestricted access to a gun in a house that a child regularly visits.

Why would I bother securing my weapon with a non-lethal grenade? By the very nature of that, if the grenade goes off, the person attempting to access my gun is closer to it than I.

Yes, it would make more sense to buy a gun at a state fair in most cases. But if you're looking for a free gun, stealing one is the only way. Not to mention, as a responsible member of society, I'm going to do my best to keep my gun off the street.

[Imada Duty]

I have a drop ceiling. I slide up the tile and and theres my weapon, There's no way my kids would be up there. How about behind your water heater or under the fridge. Somewhere. The grenade is to throw out before you come out shooting. Make one out of a Quarter stick. How Quickly can you get the Gun out of your safe. Just make sure you have that much time before an intruded comes in. And its not just about in the home people get robbed at gun point on the street. That would stop the first time someone got shot in the back while trying to rob someone.

[cr33pyguy]

Switzerland is a great one to name, since a ridiculous portion of their citizens own rifles and are required to.

There is a huge difference between Switzerland and the US. For one in Switzerland military service is mandatory (as is also in where i come from). Every male of age 19 has to serve in the military. They keep their weapons at home for faster responses in case of a conflict. In other words, every male swiss of ages over 19 will have his military equipment at home, of course, what he has depends on what unit he served in. The main difference is that most gun owners in Switzerland are trained to use them, and to be responsible with them. Most of the gun owners in the US are civilians, and not trained to handle a gun, i assume.
Where i come from almost third of people have firearms. But we don't kill people with them. We use knifes
Anyhow, what i would like to see is the US somehow restricting the availability of firearms... as in at least have some sort of a test to see if the person is sane before they can own a gun. But of course this comes from me, and is my home country's policy, so please excuse me if i made arguments that don't seem to make sense to you
-Cr33py

[w00t]

The main difference is that most gun owners in Switzerland are trained to use them, and to be responsible with them. Most of the gun owners in the US are civilians, and not trained to handle a gun, i assume.
-Cr33py

To expand on this, there is no requirement for a concealed carry license to go through extensive training of how to protect your firearm from being stolen, and what a reasonable escalation of force is. Those two are the most basic requirements of any soldier that will be in possession of a firearm.