Hell yeah ! We kick ass.
We'll keep our rocking 5.7 per 100,000 average firearm homicide rate, vs. Canada' wimpy 0.7 per 100,000. And our 38% of robberies that involved firearms, compared to Canada's sorry ass 25%.
Thanks NRA !
I think you're off on Canada's. A recent study had Canada's gun-related crime rate higher than ours, including robberies. This would be a study I came across while in Toronto this summer.
Additionally, the majority of handguns used in crimes were illegally obtained, which only goes to show that bans and registries do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They will get them any way they can, thus leaving the average person defenseless when they are attacked by the criminal with the illegally obtained weapon.
Also, ever looked at the Constitution? Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment? Or are things like that just too silly for you to bother considering?
Oh the second Amendment, the one about a well regulated militia. Maybe you should read it.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about people not owning guns.
Schnook Jason, as usual, truncates things to fit his warped agenda. Here's the rest of the Amendment:
... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What's so difficult to grasp? And the Bill of Rights deal with individual rights, not group rights, y'know.
This debate always facinates me - for some reason, the same people who claim to be "strict constitutionalists" or whatever buzz word you choose to use, who always complain when "liberals" inject allegedly nonexistant rights into the constitution, are usually the same people who think an amendement written in the 1790's (or around then) when the most dangerous gun was a muzzle loader with a short range and little accuracy should now apply to all guns and all people.
I'm not necessarily referring to Ryan here, because I know he has more of a libertarian bent, but for other Conservatives who cling to this position - explain. Please...I'm genuinely curious.
Before anyone says anything, the same could be said of many liberals...why support some amendments and liberal interpretations thereof but toss aside the notion that the second amendment can be interpreted the same way?
While I think some common sense legislation is good (assult rifle ban, for instance), to pass any laws like Martin is proposing would probably require an amendment, or, ironically, judges who are true "strict constructionalist/constitutionalist."
That said, I think the NRA is about as wacky as the ACLU - while I respect them for standing up for rights they believe in, I think they do so to such a radical extent that their efforts can potentially endanger society.
How radical an extent? Because I would never equate the two...the ACLU does infringe upon people's rights. They want prayer rooms for Muslims in schools, but mention the name "Christ," and they'll hand your ass to you faster than you can say, "Amen." I have never heard the NRA argue for one amendment to the detriment of another, or rather, to one section of an amendment to the detriment of the remaining.
As for the "strict constitutionalist" question, can't really answer although liberals- or rather, liberal judges- do inject rights into the Constitution. One example would be the 9th Circuit in California arguing that parents have no express rights to control information to their children. Essentially, they claimed children are property of the state, and that schools have greater rights than parents to determine what their children are told with regards to sexuality. And I do not mean with regards to abstinence or no abstinence lessons in high school. I mean sex ed for elementary-aged children.
The real problem isn't so much the "injecting" of "special" rights as it is the stripping away of them. And don't forget Kelo- the gem of a ruling from the left side of the Supreme Court. That has to have made you SO proud.
Ah, just released today! Gun-related crime is up in Britain...where they have a handgun ban.
And Jason, you're so unorginal. Of course you would say that, unaware that the statement regarding militias could mean that average citizens should be permitted to own weapons in the event that they need to organize and revolt against the government. It does not state that a militia be established prior to owning the weapons. The intent seems to more be that people have the right to protect themselves. Additionally, define "well-organized militia?" How many members do you propose it have? Does it need to have a chain of command?
We have a second amendment. Deal. If you don't like guns, don't own one. I don't like them, and I don't have any in my home. Of course, I'm in DC, where a handgun ban has done nothing to deter thugs from getting them and committing robberies, rapes, murders, and the like. All it has done is ensure that if I meet one of the said thugs, I'm a dead girl. Thanks, liberals, for making sure I have no means to defend myself against armed thugs!
I'm not going to make any effort to defend the ACLU; I've already said I think they're a little off their rocker from time to time. However, I would argue that the NRA, in some of their lobbying efforts, makes things more dangerous. Why lobby against safety locks? Why lobby against background checks? Why lobby against an assult weapons ban? The first two don't even limit gun ownership, they just make sure the wrong people don't get ahold of them or misuse them. I guess the case could be made with the assult weapons ban, but let's face it - who is going to own an assult weapon? That's a hell of a way to go deer hunting, or even to "defend yourself" from anything except perhaps legal authoriies...
I think non-felons should be able to own all the guns they want, whatever kind they want. If I want to go buy a high-powered assualt rifle, I should be able to.
WTF does someone do with a high-powered assult rifle? By that logic, you could say that you also have a right to hold your own nuclear weapons, because they are a form of "arm" that you have a "right to bear." People don't become felons until AFTER the commit a crime - why allow there to be a free flow of weapons that are so incredibly dangerous not only to the ordinary citizen, but to those encharched with protecting us from criminals?
Technically, IMO, nuclear weapons in and of themselves are not illegal. Using them, however, may be.
I fully recognize the fact that I:
1) Don't need a high-powered assualt rifle, as this country is not yet bad enough for me to have to take a last stand
and
2) Will probably never buy one.
That being said, I am not as opposed to the Assault Weapons Ban as the NRA is, as long as armed revolution is not on the imminent horizon.
Normal household cleaners are dangerous to most people, espeically children, yet those are virtually unregulated (let's keep it that way).
My father has an assault-rifle. He looks at it, shows it off. He thinks it's cool. That's what people do with assault-rifles. Correction, that's what people who don't lead a life of crime do with them.
Besides, when people want a gun, they will find away around whatever bans are in place.
Ryan, you hit the nail on the head. There are more everyday things that pose greater threats to children than guns.
I still maintain, even if they are off on the locks issue, that the NRA cannot be in anyway compared to the ACLU in terms of lunacy.
How about a ban on assult weapons ammunition then? They would still have their "coolness" factor but the danger of them being misused is greatly reduced. That should eliminate any Constitutional questions as well. Afterall, a bullet is not an "arm," but a piece of metal.
"when people want a gun, they will find away around whatever bans are in place."
--Of course people will always break laws, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.
I'm glad you concede that they are off on the locks issue, as they are on a few other safety issues. My problem with the NRA is that they are so incredibly powerful, much more so legislativly than the ACLU. I also wonder how much of what they do is ideology and how much is funding from the gun makers and their lobby.
I believe (and I will ask the lawyer I work for, although she's not a Constitutional scholar, but I think she knows more than Harriet Miers, lol) that "arms" can be expanded (I guess that's not strict constitutionalist.) to include ammunition.
Yes, and the ACLU abuses the courts to get things done, presumably because they are so wrong that only some truly lunatic judges (primarily on the 9th circuit) would agree. At least the NRA has the guts to do things the right way- through legislation, lobby or no lobbby (and everyone has a lobby, even the gun ban people).
Commenting by HaloScan
