High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds

[Karee 4,191]

Again, the words, "well-regulated militia...." Can you please tell me how we have any kind of well-regulated firearm ownership?

I don't know all the details, but court after court has actually strengthened people's right to bear arms. So there's something in there they see.

It's all a moot point anyway. There's 300+ million legal and illegal firearms in this country. No law is gonna put a dent in that number.

The guns aren't the problem. It's the idiots pulling the trigger. Until they start looking at the people pulling the trigger, rather than the guns, nothing is gonna change.

[RGinWA 816]

Who cares?

There will be no new federal gun control laws. I do not care if you or the doctors like it. I am through discussing "studies" with idiots. I much prefer the recall election method, the 7th circuit court "do it or else" method and the "spend 80 million on election campaigns" method to protect our rights.

As long as the fascists attempting to take our rights continue to LOSE, I am happy.

I also will not discuss Freedom of Religion or your right not to be stopped and randomly searched by Fascist police either and I do not give a flying fig if it makes anyone "safer"

You want to be safer? Carry your own gun and do it yourself. You don't believe that makes you safer because of some "study"? Then call someone else with a gun when you are threatened. I do not care.

For a guy who refuses to discuss a wide range of subjects you sure do discuss them a great deal.

Look up discussion. I think you'll find you're actually doing it.

And when a study refutes your conclusion, just refuse to discuss it and call it absurd.

Something like your wingnut pollsters did for election 2012. lmao!

[BatmanUSA 105]

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.

I believe it says; a well regulated militia is necessary..... and the right of the people.....

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

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.

I believe it says; a well regulated militia is necessary..... and the right of the people.....

The current climate is far from "well-regulated."

[Karee 4,191]

The current climate is far from "well-regulated."

Maybe. The courts seem to be shooting down firearm restrictions left and right. Especially laws restricting concealed carry and handguns.

[RGinWA 816]

The current climate is far from "well-regulated."

They've decide well regulated means "free for all".

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Maybe. The courts seem to be shooting down firearm restrictions left and right. Especially laws restricting concealed carry and handguns.

Which courts? What were the circumstances? You statement is rather broad. I would be interested to learn more.

We had assault weapons bans and other regulations that were allowed to expire. The courts didn't declare those unconstitutional while they were law.

We still have regulations. And background checks. And bans on certain weapons.

[Karee 4,191]

Which courts? What were the circumstances? You statement is rather broad. I would be interested to learn more.

We had assault weapons bans and other regulations that were allowed to expire. The courts didn't declare those unconstitutional while they were law.

We still have regulations. And background checks. And bans on certain weapons.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=court+strikes+down+firearm+

There's pages and pages.

[BatmanUSA 105]

you are centered on the first part of the sentence... you keep omitting... "the right of the people"....

the government has a responsibility of the regulated militia to maintain a free society, however, the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed..

[lostinblue 1,989]

The right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

you are centered on the first part of the sentence... you keep omitting... "the right of the people"....

the government has a responsibility of the regulated militia to maintain a free society, however, the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed..

Yet you ignore the first part of the sentence. I did not ignore the latter. I made a point. If you are going to analyze every word of that sentence, you don't get to exclude the ones you don't want.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=court+strikes+down+firearm+

There's pages and pages.

I was hoping you had more than a google search.

In the age of google, people are decently good at finding information, yet still not good at knowing what to do with it.

The first half a dozen listed are versions of news stories about the same story.

After that is the story of a gun law being upheld.

Furthermore, the google search you did is "court strikes down firearm." So you are picking and choosing what information you see, instead of the whole picture.

This sounds like one of those weird factoids that has gotten spun on Fox news.

Sorry, was hoping for a discussion of law.

[Danno 1,228]

If we subtracted the bulk of gun deaths from the total we would be on par with Belgium.

-Suicides

-Black crime.

60% of gun deaths are from suicides.

[Karee 4,191]

I was hoping you had more than a google search.

In the age of google, people are decently good at finding information, yet still not good at knowing what to do with it.

The first half a dozen listed are versions of news stories about the same story.

After that is the story of a gun law being upheld.

Furthermore, the google search you did is "court strikes down firearm." So you are picking and choosing what information you see, instead of the whole picture.

This sounds like one of those weird factoids that has gotten spun on Fox news.

Sorry, was hoping for a discussion of law.

I don't follow it too closely. Mostly what I read are stories posted here on VJ from other sources. I've seen case after case posted here where "gun rights" were upheld, and laws restricting firearms are overturned.

IMO it's a little late to be passing laws restricting firearms after there's 300+ million of them in circulation. Also, it seems like an easy way for the govt. to say "Look, we're addressing the issue" when the reality is they're not doing anything more than passing laws that get overturned.

They can pas all the laws they want, but until they address the issue of people not valuing life, it really wont do much but give people something to argue about here or on political TV shows.

Fact is, crime has gone down steadily since the early 90s to near record lows, while legal gun ownership has grown rapidly. I personally think the two are unrelated. I think the drop in crime has more to do with the "lock em up and throw away the key" mentality in the justice system.

[Karee 4,191]

If we subtracted the bulk of gun deaths from the total we would be on par with Belgium.

-Suicides

-Black crime.

60% of gun deaths are from suicides.

You wanna take another swing at that? I'm not following you.