Conceal-Carry Passes Handgun Bill in Minnesota
POSTED BY: Channain
UPDATED: Friday, January 23, 2004 19:20
VIEWED: 24375
PAGE 3 of 11
I have mixed emotions about our country's gun laws.
I highly recommend that everyone watch Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." It's great food for thought.
http://www.michaelmoore.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
I highly recommend that everyone watch Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." It's great food for thought.
Is it just me or does Michael Moore look like he needs to put his dentures in most of the time?
Gun legislation has been a family topic as of late. I have a relative moving to Michigan soon and other family members have been encouraging him to take advantage of as many Alabama guns laws as possible, since even if they aren't laws in Michigan, that state has some kind of "honor" clause.
I can't actually see him doing this, since he didn't grow up around them. Plus, how much self-defense does one need in Ann Arbor, unless the communism has gotten really out of control?
I live right around the corner from a gun store and have often wanted to go in and see if there were classes. More so since the non-English speaking grace-citizens that live around me have started using them on each other.
Sarah
I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I fear I'm about to deviate from the thread's title a bit, but them's the breaks....
The Second Amendment reads as follows: "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."
My understanding of the Second Amendment (based on the notion of a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is that it was intended as the 'final check' in our system of checks and balances: the government would have a hell of a time oppressing an armed populace against its will. Back in the 18th century. Currently, any legal firearm is pretty damned close to useless against modern military hardware (has anyone else seen the footage of that nutjob in LA who stole an Army Reserve tank a few years back? An obsolete tank?); this being the case, the 'final check' has been technologized into irrelevance.
Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that people have the right to bear arms to defend themselves or their property against their fellow citizens. The "keep and bear arms" bit is predicated on the "well regulated militia" bit, which is for the stated purpose of "the security of a free state," and that would seem to be at odds with the concept of individual protection.
On the other hand, the right to own and carry guns "shall not be infringed," which makes for a bit of a legal conundrum. In short, the Second Amendment is in desperate need of an overhaul to reflect both modern society and technology.
As our foreign friend Switchy indicated, the problem of an armed criminal populace has more to do with availability than legality, and the more guns that America produces and sells legally, the more guns there are available to be stolen or 'lost' (by individuals, licensed dealers, shippers, or manufacturers). Consequently, anything that increases the domestic demand for firearms increases their availability to criminals, which we can all agree is a bad thing (I hope...). According to the ATF, there were more than 3 million firearms manufactured in 2001, of which around 6% were exported, leaving more than 2.8 million firearms for sale in the US. In 2001.
At this point, there are simply too many firearms in circulation (among both criminals and law-abiding folk) for the benefits of outlawing guns to have any noticeable positive effect for a really, really long time. On the other hand, doing nothing to reduce the number of firearms America produces is simply going to land us deeper and deeper in the metaphorical hole. There is no easy answer to this problem, which is probably why most politicians seem reluctant to address it.
All of which gets us where, exactly? I'm not sure, but getting back to the actual subject of the thread, let me relate a brief interlude from my own life. Twelve years ago, I had a gun pulled on me and pointed in my face, which was both an uncomfortable and unforgettable experience. I had walked to a supermarket to buy a sandwich, and as I was walking back to work, this miserable psycho started screaming at me and proceeded to pull out a gun. Fortunately for me, a cop car was driving by at the time, and they were able to stop the 70-year-old grandmother from shooting me. Apparently she had decided that because I was a big guy with long hair and a trenchcoat, I must be the guy who broke into her house last week. In a similar vein, there have been at least two cases where nice, law-abiding soccer moms have killed people because they got cut off on the freeway.
Although these are isolated incidents, they reflect an aspect of reality that seems to get overlooked in the whole 'concealed carry' debate. If citizens want to have a shootout with the neighborhood mugger, that's their business (although hopefully it'll be in an alley far away from bystanders...), what concerns me more is the people who grab for their guns when they get pissed off. Not to be paranoid or anything, but I don't feel particularly comfortable betting on the stability of the gene
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's all I can take, I can't takes no more.
I'm gonna address a number of arguments here from different posts, so excuse me jumping around.
As the 'final check and balance', our civil/commercial firearms are not 'useless' against modern military hardware. The cops may not have been able to stop that rampaging tank, but if they'd called on local gangs, the tank would have been stopped in short order. Firebombs, barricades, and even small arms are sufficient to kill most heavy armor that is without infantry support. Don't take just my word for it, ask any tank vet from Vietnam to Bosnia. It's a question of how bad do you want to kill the tank, and how much you are willing to lose to do it. Our, the citizens of the USA, rights to bear arms as a revolutionary militia DO NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE EFFECTIVE against modern military, anyway. The balance remains important, despite becoming a smaller part of the entire check and balance system.
Some European countries require all males of service age to keep, maintain, and regularly train with, military grade firearms. Murder by firearm, accidental deaths by firearms, and crimes with firearms, are not a problem in these countries, yet there are guns in every closet. If availability equals crime, these should be among the most crime-ridden countries in the world, but they are not. Other European countries ban private ownership of firearms, and even, for a long time, did not allow the civil police force to carry sidearms. Crime is noticably more prevalant in these countries, and despite forbidding private gun ownership, crimes with firearms are common. While these are extreme examples, it seems clear: training, responsibility, and LEGAL ownership of firearms are good for a country; bans, ignorance, and ILLEGAL ownership of firearms are bad.
The right to defend self, family, and property is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and anyone who indulges in such silly thinking should be ashamed. Everything else revolves around the basic need and right for your security, and no government should exist without the basic duty to encourage and help provide that security. Since no government can supply a personal bodyguard for each citizen, the responsibility for self defense must be assumed by the citizen. I don't know about you, but nobody is allowed to threaten my children, my wife, my house, my friends, or me, without risking my response in SELF DEFENSE. That response will be measured, certain, and equal to the threat offered, meaning any threat of deadly force will be met with deadly force. It's my right and responsibility.
I'm an Oklahoma boy, born and raised. As one quarter Cherokee, I am tall and dark, somewhat hooked of nose, massive(my private term for very overweight, haha), and long of hair. No one has yet felt the need to pull a gun on me in all my 46 years. I have never had to weild a firearm in self defense (tho there have been the occaisional threats with toolhandles). The only shooting I've ever been involved with was during my time in the Army (which bans the possession of private firearms on base); one fella brought in a shotgun and shot another in barracks while I was on weekend guard duty. I personally feel support for the registration of legally owned firearms, although I'm very against this as a tool to ban or unfairly restrict legal ownership. As a Mailcarrier for the US Postal Service, I am forbidden to carry any weapon except my dog spray ( haw )while on duty.
Yet, despite not carrying myself, despite having not experienced some of the risky things others have, I FULLY SUPPORT THE LISCENSED CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS. Training, responsibility, and legal support is gooood. Some folks get it in their heads that they are predators, that what others have can be taken, that others are prey. When the predators KNOW, for certain, that some of us folks are able and willing to defend ourselves and others, it's good. When the predators k
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
The right to defend self, family, and property is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America.
That was very well written, Wulf. I'd like to comment on this section, and also on what Gaebolga had to say about it.
While there is no clause in the constitution that specifically says that people are entitled to defend themselves, family and property, the preamble to the constitution does say that the document is set forth to, among other things, insure domestic tranquility.
To enumerate the facets of domestic tranquility, look to the Declaration of Independence which says that humans are guaranteed certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These and the pursuit of them comprise domestic tranquility, in addition any other amorphous concepts or ideologies (peace, prosperity, etc).
Jefferson took this bit of phraseology from John Locke, who said that humans should never be denied life, liberty or property. The most fundamental piece of property is your physical person. In this manner, any and all force expended in the DEFENSE of your life and property is justifiable.
The second ammendment reinforces our inalienable right to defend our lives and property. The phrase "well-regulated militia" could mean an army of citizens defending their state as much as it could mean a father and son defending their farm.
Sarah
I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
In this manner, any and all force expended in the DEFENSE of your life and property is justifiable.
While you would probably be justified in using 'any and all force' to defend your life, I don't believe that applies to property.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
In this manner, any and all force expended in the DEFENSE of your life and property is justifiable.
While you would probably be justified in using 'any and all force' to defend your life, I don't believe that applies to property.
Your life is your most fundamental property. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Sarah
I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks, Sarah.
Shiny, did I hear you say 'probably'? I truly hope that anyone who tries to end your life will be met with 'any and all force' in your defense. Just think of it as 'pro-active evolution' and do your damnedest, ok?
As for property, that can be a swampy subject. How many thousands of dollars stolen equate to finacially deadly assault? If someone snatches your purse, should you be allowed to blaze away with your .357? If you discover an armed stranger in your house late one nite, should you shoot first and call 911 later?
Kinda muddy. However, let's be clear: Thieves, invaders, and other criminals are breaking the law, preying on us, taking what they want. This behavior is a mental violence, ignoring the limits we place on ourselves. Make no mistake; when someone is stealing from you, they are assaulting you. Furthermore, they are usually aware of this, and often arm themselves ... to 'defend' themselves from their victims! It might not be ok to shoot down a purse-snatcher, but don't turn your back on him.
Don't be a victim, be a scout. Be prepared.
tanstaafl
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hooooooookay. This is what I get for sleeping.
Quote:
Switchy
I know this may be an unpopular posting but I have for a long time felt blessed to live somewhere where I didn't fear shootings on my block. Don't get me wrong, there are shootings here but per capita It's nothing comparable and I honestly believe our gun controls are largely responsible.
To each their own. The laws of your nation are the business of you and your government. For my own preferences, I will take the risk associated with civilian firearm ownership balanced against the increased security offered to those near and dear to me. I have yet to see a single shootout in the streets of Odessa Texas in all the years I've been living here. I have had an aunt working at the hospital when some local animals were making sport of the nurses on down in the parking lot on a regular basis. I had an acquaintance who got stabbed during a robbery while he was delivering donuts to a convenience store that the robbers knew was disarmed by policy.
The lesson is that when you take away the equalizers (i.e., guns) then brute force and brutality will be able run roughshod over the common person.
Polite commentary and honest questions certainly won't make you unpopular with me.
Quote:
Gaebolga
I fear I'm about to deviate from the thread's title a bit, but them's the breaks....
C'mon. The discussion was inexorably bound in this direction from the minute it was posted. A gun debate can't occur without a good "well-regulated millita" vs. "shall not be infringed debate" going down.
The primary purpose of civilian firearm ownership as a means of warding off tyranny is well established in the Federalist Papers. Additionally, to the Founders firearms were a means of livelihood, ranging from acquisition of meals to defense of homestead in the face of Indian attacks and the like.
The phrase is poorly constructed, agreed. I've heard arguments from both sides, from a Harvard semanticist issuing the analysis that the structure of the statement does not make the right to keep and bear subordinate to well-regulated militias. That's the interpetation I favor, given my bias on the issue.
As for the 'standing up to the government' bit, the whole concept has been oversimplified for some time now. Open opposition would of course be squashed flat. But in the unlikely event (at least at present) of the gov being able to field a large force of troops against the common public of this nation, they would bog down in the sheer scale of the task. Tanks are not good civil-control items.
Add to that the fact that a large portion of our military strength consists of reservists and the National Guard, and we're actually in pretty good shape vis a vis the threat of military domination. The majority of these boys and girls would be very disinclined to take up arms against their own countrymen on a wide-scale basis. Lincoln (who was a racist, fed the Constitution through a paper shredder and endorsed an atrocity-laden style of modern warfare in order to bring the Confederacy to heel.)and his successors set in motion the concept of eliminating the state-based military structure in order to prevent the War of Northern Aggression from ever recurring. Given the state of our military expenditures and the increased reliance on reserves and the Guard, we're right back where we started. To my mind, a good thing.
Quote:
All of which gets us where, exactly? I'm not sure, but getting back to the actual subject of the thread, let me relate a brief interlude from my own life. Twelve years ago, I had a gun pulled on me and pointed in my face, which was both an uncomfortable and unforgettable experience. I had walked to a supermarket to buy a sandwich, and as I was walking back to work, this miserable psycho started screaming at me and proceeded to pull out a gun. Fortunately for me, a cop car was driving by at the time, and they were able to stop the 70-year-old grandmother from shooting me. Apparently she had decided that because I waNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME