Gun Control, Facts Vs Liberals

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You sound enormously tolerant of other viewpoints.

 

Thanks, I try!

[Donald Trump]

 

Still looking for connection between homocide and guns. 

 

Seems non exist, bit like the non existent money liberals try to very much give to leaches via their socialism. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

 

Still looking for connection between homocide and guns. 

 

Seems non exist, bit like the non existent money liberals try to very much give to leaches via their socialism. 

 

Plot this as a scatter plot and draw the regression line.

[WISD0MTREE]

I agree banning guns won't help anything since people will just start buying them illegally or just kill people with other weapons. The real issue I believe is mental health where if we can ensure that people have proper background checks and improved mental health treatments I think that gun violence will go down 

I'm all for increasing mental health treatments. However, there was systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, based on the interpretation of political opposition or dissent as a psychiatric problem. It was called “psychopathological mechanisms†of dissent. During the leadership of General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, psychiatry was used to disable and remove from society political opponents (“dissidentsâ€) who openly expressed beliefs that contradicted the official dogma. The term “philosophical intoxication,†for instance, was widely applied to the mental disorders diagnosed when people disagreed with the country’s Communist leaders and, by referring to the writings of the Founding Fathers of Marxism–Leninism -- Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin -- made them the target of criticism. Article 58-10 of the Stalin-era Criminal Code, “Anti-Soviet agitation,†was to a considerable degree preserved in the new 1958 RSFSR Criminal Code as Article 70 “Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.†In 1967 a weaker law, Article 190-1 “Dissemination of fabrications known to be false, which defame the Soviet political and social system,†was added to the RSFSR Criminal Code. These laws were frequently applied in conjunction with the system of diagnosis for mental illness, developed by academician Andrei Snezhnevsky. Together they established a framework within which non-standard beliefs could easily be defined as a criminal offence and the basis, subsequently, for a psychiatric diagnosis. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

I can't cite any data because no two nations have the exact same circumstances.

 

The point was that guns, naturally, are more destructive than other forms of weaponry and thus making assaults & accidents more lethal & more likely - for multiple people. It actually goes beyond that, too. Suicide prevention in the US is reliant on gun control, the reasons of which could be found here:

https://www.armedwithreason.com/suicides-the-missing-movement/

 

I don't support gun prohibition, I support gun control - permits, training, licenses, health requirements, title and tagging at each sale, liability insurance & inspections. In other words, they'll be as regulated as cars. If you feel like the car regulations are infringing on your rights, then perhaps you should start there since

 

cars are much more common than guns.

 

Yes, it has. It also caused the deaths of the person carrying from gun failure or misuse. It also caused the deaths of others through gun failure or misuse.

 

It also caused the death of the assaultee since, regardless of what you think, defensive gun uses are very often illegal. Illegal in the sense that they were unwarranted, overactive, and so on.

 

If someone threatens you by looking at you weird and you go on and shoot them that's not self defense, which is what happens with open carries.

 

Studies, some of which are linked in posts previous, have all shown that defensive gun usage is rare and ineffective, and it's statistically more likely to end up hurting more people than it saves. I can point to 13 cases where people were killed by vending machines, is that a valid argument against vending machines? No, these are rare occurrences. 

 

The thing most people don't realize is that these cases where people have defended themselves would have guns regardless of gun control. In most cases, these people would be able to obtain their weapon in legal ways.

So you can't logically come to the conclusion that more guns leads to more deaths. 

 

Once again, you’re confusing the tool with the motive, the symptom with the disease. Let’s get one thing straight from the start. Suicide is a tragedy. We should do everything reasonable to reduce the number of suicides. That said, let’s not make an illogical leap and restrict a fundamental civil liberty in the process! The gun is not the problem. It’s the mental frame of the person who’s morbidly depressed. You want to blame guns for suicide? Go check out Japan and South Korea’s suicide rates-they are astronomically higher than ours. No guns needed. If you'd like to exclude Asians, fine. Go look at the U.K. Their suicide rate is 50% higher than ours. 

 

You don’t need a background check to buy a car. And none of those things you mention are needed if I keep my car on private property. How about I just keep my firearm on my private property? That means I won’t have to have any of those things, right? 

Actually, car laws are pretty lax. 

You are not required to register and tag a vehicle at the point of purchase. You could back up a flatbed to the dealership and drive off with it that way. (Unlike guns which need in some states to be registered, and all need serial numbers.)

Lots of states don't require actual drivers education. (Unlike states where you need to pass a course to get a firearm owner’s card.)

I'm not required to inspect or insure a car that I operate on private pieces of land. I'm not even required to get my car inspected before use on public roads in 48 states.

Felons can own cars.

There are incredibly few restrictions on car designs and models.

There are practically no limits on what I can do to modify my car, at least compared to firearms.

There is no waiting period or background check for buying a car.

Cars can be freely bought and sold by almost anyone any time.

Most of that actually doesn't sound too bad. It would certainly make owning a gun easier if guns were more like cars.

 

Wrong. 

320,000,000 million people in the US

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

1126 guns per 1,000 people

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

797 cars per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

 

Driving has caused the deaths of people from failure or misuse. They have also caused the deaths of others through car failure or misuse. 

 

If you are carrying and shoot someone, even if it is clear-cut self defense, you will still go to court. If it is unwarranted, then you will be charged with murder or manslaughter. 

 

[citation needed]

 

The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

 

Under your proposed gun "control," felons could obtain weapons. And you already said that "defensive gun uses are very often illegal." Which one is it? 

[Beatrix]

I'm all for increasing mental health treatments. However, there was systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, based on the interpretation of political opposition or dissent as a psychiatric problem. It was called “psychopathological mechanisms†of dissent. During the leadership of General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, psychiatry was used to disable and remove from society political opponents (“dissidentsâ€) who openly expressed beliefs that contradicted the official dogma. The term “philosophical intoxication,†for instance, was widely applied to the mental disorders diagnosed when people disagreed with the country’s Communist leaders and, by referring to the writings of the Founding Fathers of Marxism–Leninism -- Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin -- made them the target of criticism. Article 58-10 of the Stalin-era Criminal Code, “Anti-Soviet agitation,†was to a considerable degree preserved in the new 1958 RSFSR Criminal Code as Article 70 “Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.†In 1967 a weaker law, Article 190-1 “Dissemination of fabrications known to be false, which defame the Soviet political and social system,†was added to the RSFSR Criminal Code. These laws were frequently applied in conjunction with the system of diagnosis for mental illness, developed by academician Andrei Snezhnevsky. Together they established a framework within which non-standard beliefs could easily be defined as a criminal offence and the basis, subsequently, for a psychiatric diagnosis. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

So you can't logically come to the conclusion that more guns leads to more deaths. 

 

Once again, you’re confusing the tool with the motive, the symptom with the disease. Let’s get one thing straight from the start. Suicide is a tragedy. We should do everything reasonable to reduce the number of suicides. That said, let’s not make an illogical leap and restrict a fundamental civil liberty in the process! The gun is not the problem. It’s the mental frame of the person who’s morbidly depressed. You want to blame guns for suicide? Go check out Japan and South Korea’s suicide rates-they are astronomically higher than ours. No guns needed. If you'd like to exclude Asians, fine. Go look at the U.K. Their suicide rate is 50% higher than ours. 

 

You don’t need a background check to buy a car. And none of those things you mention are needed if I keep my car on private property. How about I just keep my firearm on my private property? That means I won’t have to have any of those things, right? 

Actually, car laws are pretty lax. 

You are not required to register and tag a vehicle at the point of purchase. You could back up a flatbed to the dealership and drive off with it that way. (Unlike guns which need in some states to be registered, and all need serial numbers.)

Lots of states don't require actual drivers education. (Unlike states where you need to pass a course to get a firearm owner’s card.)

I'm not required to inspect or insure a car that I operate on private pieces of land. I'm not even required to get my car inspected before use on public roads in 48 states.

Felons can own cars.

There are incredibly few restrictions on car designs and models.

There are practically no limits on what I can do to modify my car, at least compared to firearms.

There is no waiting period or background check for buying a car.

Cars can be freely bought and sold by almost anyone any time.

Most of that actually doesn't sound too bad. It would certainly make owning a gun easier if guns were more like cars.

 

Wrong. 

320,000,000 million people in the US

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

1126 guns per 1,000 people

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

797 cars per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

 

Driving has caused the deaths of people from failure or misuse. They have also caused the deaths of others through car failure or misuse. 

 

If you are carrying and shoot someone, even if it is clear-cut self defense, you will still go to court. If it is unwarranted, then you will be charged with murder or manslaughter. 

 

[citation needed]

 

The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

 

Under your proposed gun "control," felons could obtain weapons. And you already said that "defensive gun uses are very often illegal." Which one is it? 

 

 

 

So you can't logically come to the conclusion that more guns leads to more deaths. 

That is a statistical fact.

 

 

 

Once again, you’re confusing the tool with the motive, the symptom with the disease. Let’s get one thing straight from the start. Suicide is a tragedy. We should do everything reasonable to reduce the number of suicides. That said, let’s not make an illogical leap and restrict a fundamental civil liberty in the process! The gun is not the problem. It’s the mental frame of the person who’s morbidly depressed. You want to blame guns for suicide? Go check out Japan and South Korea’s suicide rates-they are astronomically higher than ours. No guns needed. If you'd like to exclude Asians, fine. Go look at the U.K. Their suicide rate is 50% higher than ours. 

Debunked in the article. They're not mixing things up, you just didn't read it. I'm not going to bother talking to you about why you're wrong if you're going to ignore the article I presented that completely debunks, scientifically, your position.

 

 

You don’t need a background check to buy a car. And none of those things you mention are needed if I keep my car on private property. How about I just keep my firearm on my private property? That means I won’t have to have any of those things, right? 

Actually, car laws are pretty lax. 

No backround checks because cars are not a tool of killing, but transporation. 

Also, it depends on the state for other laws.

 

 

Wrong. 

320,000,000 million people in the US

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

1126 guns per 1,000 people

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

797 cars per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

 

Only because some people own like 100 guns.

 

 

 

I'm not going to post anymore since you've clearly not read many of the articles I posted. I can copy paste them here, but that would be disengenious. You're welcome to read all of them(I posted about ~5ish) that debunk about 90% of what you claim. I'm done with you until then.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Beatrix

[Beowulf the Second]

Did I fail to mention that all able-bodied citizens are required to own some sort of firearm in this hypothetical environment? If not then that is what the whole pro gun argument is about. If everyone has a gun, and there is mandated training, then there should be no mass killings. "armed society is polite yada yada" and all that. If everyone in a country had a gun then there should be no worries, and that's kinda the point of my whole argument.

 

If everyone in pulse had a gun, and the correct training, there'd be almost no deaths.

 

I'm going to ignore the scenario where EVERYONE in the nightclub has a concealed firearm and correct training. I find it slightly amusing that you even brought such a scenario up; as I'm sure you understand, many people have zero interest in gun ownership. The Second Amendment is great and all, but mandating that everyone has a gun + training is an almost satirically extremist way of twisting it.

 

On to Pulse though. The thing about your argument: there WAS a guy besides the shooter with a gun at Pulse. An off-duty police officer was on the scene when the first shots were fired, and was able to do nothing. Why? A 'good guy with a gun' has to:

1. Overcome the element of surprise and think on his feet
2. Locate an active shooter, or sometimes multiple active shooters
3. Sight/isolate a target, often in terrible conditions (such as the dim/distracting lighting found in a club like Pulse, or such as any crowd-panic situation caused by an active shooter)
4. Avoid shooting civilians at all costs

Meanwhile, the shooter has to:

1. Shoot anything that moves

The active shooter is in a vastly advantageous situation and will be able to kill many people, every time. It's not surprising that even though there was a 'good guy with a gun' at Pulse, the death toll was 49; unacceptable, and shows the futility of such an approach to gun-related crime.

[WISD0MTREE]

That is a statistical fact.

 

Debunked in the article. They're not mixing things up, you just didn't read it. I'm not going to bother talking to you about why you're wrong if you're going to ignore the article I presented that completely debunks, scientifically, your position.

 

No backround checks because cars are not a tool of killing, but transporation. 

 

Also, it depends on the state for other laws.

 

Only because some people own like 100 guns.

 

I'm not going to post anymore since you've clearly not read many of the articles I posted. I can copy paste them here, but that would be disengenious. You're welcome to read all of them(I posted about ~5ish) that debunk about 90% of what you claim. I'm done with you until then.

Then give proof. You can't say that it is impossible to compare any two countries, then compare (unnamed) nations without a source. 

 

The article says

"Suicide attempts are not significantly associated with firearm ownership rates.  If it were the case that gun owners had stronger suicidal proclivities than non-gun owners we would expect the suicide attempt rate to be positively associated with the firearm ownership rate, but it isn’t.  This means that the primary way through which firearms influence the suicide rate is by making each attempt comparatively more lethal than other methods."

Which completely ignores the fact that Japan and South Korea’s suicide rates-they are astronomically higher than ours. No guns needed. If you'd like to exclude Asians, fine. Go look at the U.K. Their suicide rate is 50% higher than ours. Remember that when a family member is robbed, beaten, raped or killed without a way to defend themselves. 

 

If a gun's only purpose is to kill, then the vast majority of the approximately 350 million guns present in the U.S. must be design failures, because the vast majority will never kill anyone or anything.

Imagine if you had another product--say, a washing machine--that failed in 99.99 percent of its intended function. You would absolutely say that the product was a failure. But since manufacturers still produce and sell guns, and there’s plenty of people who want to buy them, it follows that those guns must be used for  purposes other than killing. 

 

Thank you for bringing up state laws. Some places in the U.S. have even stricter gun regulations than Europe. Take New Jersey, for example. In New Jersey, you need to submit a form for a FID (Firearms Identification Card). To do this you have to answer a bunch of questions, supply three references, specify as to where you work, your home address and phone number. There is also a form called "consent to mental health check." This is a check to ensure have never been on any psychiatric drugs. The local police in your township will call your boss, as well as two people for references (form sts-033). Roughly 80% of townships require an interview with a police officer. The police officer is there to judge you and will deny you at that stage. If they trust you, you have to give fingerprints. They run three state as well as federal background checks. If you are able to pass you can now purchase a BB gun, muzzle-loader long arm, approved shotguns and rifles. (Yes, that’s right. You need a FID for a BB gun in New Jersey.) Now, there hasn't been a single town in New Jersey where the FID has been approved in less than three months for 20 or so years (according to http://njhunters.com). So if you want a BB gun rifle the general wait is 6-8 months, even though it is explicitly stated in NJ law it can not take more than 30 days. Now say you want a handgun. It is the same exact process over again, and you can apply for three at a time. However, there is a one firearm per month law in NJ, and NJ is notorious for letting people who apply for pistols stamps know they have them late. In New Jersey hunting with a rifle is illegal. Sling-shots are prohibited weapons. When you have a firearm in NJ you can transport it to up to four places, your work, the range, your home, the gun shop, and where you are “known to hunt.†Any deviation is a mandatory minimum 5 years in jail. These are stricter laws than are found in Switzerland and Germany. 

Despite all of this, New Jersey's murder rate is still in the middle. 

 

Yes. Those would be called collectors. Some people own more cars. Those are called car collectors. However, 113/100 > 77/100. 

 

I'm not interested in reading all of that. You can post the parts relevant to what I said, since you have apparently read those. I still have some points standing from above. 

 

On to Pulse though. The thing about your argument: there WAS a guy besides the shooter with a gun at Pulse. An off-duty police officer was on the scene when the first shots were fired, and was able to do nothing. Why? A 'good guy with a gun' has to:

1. Overcome the element of surprise and think on his feet
2. Locate an active shooter, or sometimes multiple active shooters
3. Sight/isolate a target, often in terrible conditions (such as the dim/distracting lighting found in a club like Pulse, or such as any crowd-panic situation caused by an active shooter)
4. Avoid shooting civilians at all costs

Meanwhile, the shooter has to:

1. Shoot anything that moves

The active shooter is in a vastly advantageous situation and will be able to kill many people, every time. It's not surprising that even though there was a 'good guy with a gun' at Pulse, the death toll was 49; unacceptable, and shows the futility of such an approach to gun-related crime.

Any concealed training class will tell you that your gun is there only for you. Searching for the shooter(s) is where people/police could get confused and shoot you. Your fourth point is taught in said classes. 

 

There are countless documented instances of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun before the bad guy could kill a lot of innocent people. These are not difficult to find, a simple Google search will reveal them, or I can give you some examples. However, since you are so eager to ignore these cases and instead insist on repeating your misguided view, I can only assume that there is some deeper motivation residing inside you that makes you insist on disarming your fellow citizens even when facts run contrary to your claim. I suspect you simply don’t like the idea of private citizens allowed the responsibility and authority to legally carry weapons. 

[Beowulf the Second]

Any concealed training class will tell you that your gun is there only for you. Searching for the shooter(s) is where people/police could get confused and shoot you. Your fourth point is taught in said classes. 

 

I'll reply to you + clarify my position: I don't think I expressed it clearly enough as you seem to have missed it.

 

I indeed admit that I have never taken such a class and thus have no clue about what is taught inside them. If the principle of 'only for you' is indeed taught and followed, then I would be happy in dropping the subject--

 

 

There are countless documented instances of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun before the bad guy could kill a lot of innocent people. These are not difficult to find, a simple Google search will reveal them, or I can give you some examples. 

 

--except that in your OWN successful examples of 'good guy with a gun', many of them involve this principle not being followed. In these cases, good guys with guns actively sought out the shooter, which led to a good result but will have inevitably risked the lives of everyone around them. So my point still stands: it seems that a 'good guy with gun' in any non-personal defense case still juggles all four issues when fighting the shooter (Just 'Avoid shooting innocents at all costs' puts you at a severe disadvantage anyways). I don't have to tell you that the good guys have been misidentified and shot before.

 

 

However, since you are so eager to ignore these cases and instead insist on repeating your misguided view, I can only assume that there is some deeper motivation residing inside you that makes you insist on disarming your fellow citizens even when facts run contrary to your claim. I suspect you simply don’t like the idea of private citizens allowed the responsibility and authority to legally carry weapons. 

 

Or you could stop insinuating things about my character, and we have a reasonable, topic-based discussion on this subject. I get that it's a polarizing subject, but at the very worst we can agree to disagree.

 

 

Anyways, I only brought up Pulse because Solaire did, and I had specific knowledge of that incident. He argued that there'd be 'almost no deaths' in his scenario, and I was trying to refute that.

[Beowulf the Second]

If a gun's only purpose is to kill, then the vast majority of the approximately 350 million guns present in the U.S. must be design failures, because the vast majority will never kill anyone or anything.

Imagine if you had another product--say, a washing machine--that failed in 99.99 percent of its intended function. You would absolutely say that the product was a failure. But since manufacturers still produce and sell guns, and there’s plenty of people who want to buy them, it follows that those guns must be used for  purposes other than killing. 

 

This line of reasoning fails because I can say that about anything that isn't often used, or is used preventively. For example, fire extinguishers quite literally have the sole purpose of extinguishing fires, no? But (thankfully) most of them will never have to complete this task--yet they are not 'failures'. They are only failures if they fail to extinguish fires when they need to; it follows that guns are only failures if they fail to kill when they need to. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are nitpicking his point to say 'guns have a purpose separate from killing and they achieve that purpose through killing/wounding/rapid kinetic energy deliverance', but your argument is not really saying that at all.

 

But now that you've got me thinking about this purpose stuff, I remembered a conversation I had a while back. What do pro-gun people think are the legitimate purpose of guns? There are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Personal defense
2. Recreation (I'll include hunting here too)
3. 'Second Amendment-ish' guarantee against tyranny?

#2 is trivial when compared to the bigger issues at hand, I hope we can agree. If recreation is the only thing standing in the way, then the added death toll is not worth having. Aaaaand I gtg right now, but please add anything more to the list so I can understand your side better

Edited October 12, 2016 by Beowulf the Second

[Donald Trump]

That is a statistical fact.

Prove it. 

[Beowulf the Second]

It's funny you liken guns to fire extinguishers because they're both used to prevent an emergency. The number 1 reason there. You are legit making a case against yourself here.

 

Friend, I have no doubt that one of the uses of guns is to help prevent an emergency. Actually, quoted:

 

But now that you've got me thinking about this purpose stuff, I remembered a conversation I had a while back. What do pro-gun people think are the legitimate purpose of guns? There are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Personal defense

 

No one's telling you that there's zero point to having a gun and that they don't do anything in emergency cases; they're weighing the cost/benefits of having guns. In fact, you're not only misinterpreting the entire point, but you're misinterpreting that little sidenote (I was criticizing the logic Wisd0m used, but offered an alternative explanation of his point that worked).

 

Anyways, no reply on the actual substance of the discussion? Gotta give me something to work with if we're going to Socratic discussion this lol

[WISD0MTREE]

I indeed admit that I have never taken such a class and thus have no clue about what is taught inside them. If the principle of 'only for you' is indeed taught and followed, then I would be happy in dropping the subject--

 

--except that in your OWN successful examples of 'good guy with a gun', many of them involve this principle not being followed. In these cases, good guys with guns actively sought out the shooter, which led to a good result but will have inevitably risked the lives of everyone around them. So my point still stands: it seems that a 'good guy with gun' in any non-personal defense case still juggles all four issues when fighting the shooter (Just 'Avoid shooting innocents at all costs' puts you at a severe disadvantage anyways). I don't have to tell you that the good guys have been misidentified and shot before.

 

Or you could stop insinuating things about my character, and we have a reasonable, topic-based discussion on this subject. I get that it's a polarizing subject, but at the very worst we can agree to disagree. Anyways, I only brought up Pulse because Solaire did, and I had specific knowledge of that incident. He argued that there'd be 'almost no deaths' in his scenario, and I was trying to refute that.

I know for sure it is taught in both Carolinas, Texas, Utah, and in all NRA cary courses. 

 

Many cases of self defense in general aren't in public places, such as people's' houses. Anyone who hunts the shooter is taking a risk and should be told not to do so. However, like you stated, many times it still leads to good results. 

 

Alright, cool. I'll try to lay off. Sorry about that. 

 

This line of reasoning fails because I can say that about anything that isn't often used, or is used preventively. For example, fire extinguishers quite literally have the sole purpose of extinguishing fires, no? But (thankfully) most of them will never have to complete this task--yet they are not 'failures'. They are only failures if they fail to extinguish fires when they need to; it follows that guns are only failures if they fail to kill when they need to. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are nitpicking his point to say 'guns have a purpose separate from killing and they achieve that purpose through killing/wounding/rapid kinetic energy deliverance', but your argument is not really saying that at all.

 

But now that you've got me thinking about this purpose stuff, I remembered a conversation I had a while back. What do pro-gun people think are the legitimate purpose of guns? There are a few I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Personal defense
2. Recreation (I'll include hunting here too)
3. 'Second Amendment-ish' guarantee against tyranny?

#2 is trivial when compared to the bigger issues at hand, I hope we can agree. If recreation is the only thing standing in the way, then the added death toll is not worth having. Aaaaand I gtg right now, but please add anything more to the list so I can understand your side better

Yes, that's where I was going with that. Firearms have a purpose aside from killing. The only reason for a sword is to kill, and yet fencing is an accepted sport. The purpose of a bow is to kill, yet archery is a respected and noble sport. The original purpose of an object does not confer a permanent purpose. Purpose is determined by intent. 

 

4. Defense against foreign invasion. (Probably not needed for the foreseeable future)

5. Many people don't live/own guns and still support the Second Amendment because it could potentially make the Bill of Rights vulnerable. Removing the 2nd could set a very strong precedent to remove part (or all) of other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. 

6. Not exactly a purpose for guns, but mandatory gun collection/extreme control would be nearly impossible to accomplish. 

 

Yes, if #2 was the only reason, then I'd agree. However, as long as people are cruel, hateful, and greedy, then the first point stands. If crime was non-existent, then there would be no murders and the second point would be acceptable. 

[Beowulf the Second]

I know for sure it is taught in both Carolinas, Texas, Utah, and in all NRA cary courses. 

 

Many cases of self defense in general aren't in public places, such as people's' houses. Anyone who hunts the shooter is taking a risk and should be told not to do so. However, like you stated, many times it still leads to good results. 

 

Alright, cool. I'll try to lay off. Sorry about that. 

 

Gotcha gotcha. Personal defense is a use I can respect, but I find that 'good guy with a gun' incurs risks to those around us and so I'm much more iffy about it. We've found common-ish ground here

 

 

Yes, that's where I was going with that. Firearms have a purpose aside from killing. The only reason for a sword is to kill, and yet fencing is an accepted sport. The purpose of a bow is to kill, yet archery is a respected and noble sport. The original purpose of an object does not confer a permanent purpose. Purpose is determined by intent. 

 

4. Defense against foreign invasion. (Probably not needed for the foreseeable future)

5. Many people don't live/own guns and still support the Second Amendment because it could potentially make the Bill of Rights vulnerable. Removing the 2nd could set a very strong precedent to remove part (or all) of other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. 

6. Not exactly a purpose for guns, but mandatory gun collection/extreme control would be nearly impossible to accomplish. 

 

Yes, if #2 was the only reason, then I'd agree. However, as long as people are cruel, hateful, and greedy, then the first point stands. If crime was non-existent, then there would be no murders and the second point would be acceptable. 

 

I've never thought of #4! Interesting, I suppose a pre-armed populace would be very nice in the case of foreign invasion, as improbable as that case might be as you've noted. I will try to factor that into my future thoughts.

 

#5 I'm not sure will happen? As far as I know, the Second Amendment is in a class all its own when being challenged, and I don't see which amendment would be next to go. I will also note that I am not above removing an amendment if I find it to cause harm

 

Then your point about the collection of guns. I agree, it'd be really hard to accomplish in totality. I would still try if I thought the end goal was worth it, but perhaps the public response would alone make it not worth it. I think it'd be super hard to even enforce an assault-weapons ban.

 

ANYWAYS so given our list of things that guns do that are useful (with footnotes here and there), what impact do you guys believe increased background checks will have? I am in support of them, because I don't think they infringe upon the practical uses of guns too much (#3 maybe, if you believe that the government may turn on you?), and they seem to provide a decent benefit. I will also note that I recognize assault weapons have been vilified a lot, but since they are not practical for self-defense they can only be used for #3 and #4, which is meh to me

[WISD0MTREE]

#5 I'm not sure will happen? As far as I know, the Second Amendment is in a class all its own when being challenged, and I don't see which amendment would be next to go. I will also note that I am not above removing an amendment if I find it to cause harm

 

I think it'd be super hard to even enforce an assault-weapons ban.

 

ANYWAYS so given our list of things that guns do that are useful (with footnotes here and there), what impact do you guys believe increased background checks will have? I am in support of them, because I don't think they infringe upon the practical uses of guns too much (#3 maybe, if you believe that the government may turn on you?), and they seem to provide a decent benefit.

 

I will also note that I recognize assault weapons have been vilified a lot, but since they are not practical for self-defense they can only be used for #3 and #4, which is meh to me

It's all about precedent. According to the courts, the police are under no Constitutional obligation to keep you safe. See Warren v. District of Columbia. The court ruled, “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.†In a more recent case, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that the city of New York could not be sued after NYPD officers failed to stop a man from being brutally stabbed on a subway, even though the officers were present when the attack occurred. The court again found that the police had “no special duty†to protect citizens as individuals. From now on, it's very possible that courts rule in favor of the police under this precedent. Now, think of the Third Amendment. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." We have military bases almost everywhere through the country. This arguably doesn't apply to today's standards. One of the biggest argument that I see for banning firearms is something along the lines of "The 2nd Amendment is a relic, no longer relevant in modern society." If the Second were to be repealed, I doubt that they would repeal the First or one of the more important ones the next day. However, they could maybe get by with repealing the Third eventually and then use that as an argument to repeal others. Just a possibility, like #3 and #4. 

 

Just out of curiosity. Are you going by the current ATF definition of assault rifle or by what the media calls assault rifles? (Either way, I'd say you are right. I'm just curious what definition most people use. I used "rifle" because "assault weapon" isn't defined by law. “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms.†-Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review)

 

Just so I can see where you are going with this, what do you mean by "increased background checks?" We already have NICS checks for buying from FFL dealers. Do you mean making them stricter or expanding them to private sales? 

 

The Department has a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm because it’s, “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.†The only differences are that their version gets to shoot multiple shots per trigger pull, unlike anything available to most U.S citizens.

[Comrade Christ]

If were going to base all our arguments simply by combining very large trends with multiple factors for non obvious reasons — we might as well point out the % of Americans who own guns has gone down (http://www.researchscape.com/images/charts/NHHQRFB.png) & crime has as well (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1231/5152086572_fa31258847_d.jpg) — therefore gun ownership has no correlation with safety so what's the point of having them? Plus OP's data was about international gun ownership — but if you're going to talk about America, talk about America. Less Guns = Less Crimes. As usual, the Conservative obsession with guns is just a repressed phallic attachment to metal bang-sticks, not a position based on safety or science.

Edited October 19, 2016 by CmdChrist

[Frederick]

If were going to base all our arguments simply by combining very large trends with multiple factors for non obvious reasons — we might as well point out the % of Americans who own guns has gone down (http://www.researchscape.com/images/charts/NHHQRFB.png) & crime has as well (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1231/5152086572_fa31258847_d.jpg) — therefore gun ownership has no correlation with safety so what's the point of having them? Plus OP's data was about international gun ownership — but if you're going to talk about America, talk about America. Less Guns = Less Crimes. As usual, the Conservative obsession with guns is just a repressed phallic attachment to metal bang-sticks, not a position based on safety or science.

This topic was kind of dead, but I'll reply anyways.  Regardless of what the hell you think we Americans are so "obsessed with guns" for is irrelevant.  Even the crime statistics are irrelevant (though they show that more gun control typically correlates with more crime).  The fact is that the 2nd Amendment's very fundamental purpose is to act as a check against the federal government; not self-defense against criminals.  It is meant so that the people-the citizens-will have the means to resist if the government becomes tyrannical.  Without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights is fair game for the government to play with and so all this debate about crime rates amounts to nothing in the end.  If you bastards think you can take away someone's rights guaranteed by the constitution, then you should be the first in through the door.  If you aren't willing to be the one risking your neck when the government decides to go after the guns, then you have no place telling anyone what their rights are and what they aren't.  You may be a sheep, but the gun-owning American people are not.  As put by Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace.  May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

[WISD0MTREE]

If were going to base all our arguments simply by combining very large trends with multiple factors for non obvious reasons — we might as well point out the % of Americans who own guns has gone down (http://www.researchscape.com/images/charts/NHHQRFB.png) & crime has as well (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1231/5152086572_fa31258847_d.jpg) — therefore gun ownership has no correlation with safety so what's the point of having them? Plus OP's data was about international gun ownership — but if you're going to talk about America, talk about America. Less Guns = Less Crimes. As usual, the Conservative obsession with guns is just a repressed phallic attachment to metal bang-sticks, not a position based on safety or science.

Let's talk about your signature. 

 

1. The hammer and sickle 

The first time a hammer and sickle was used as a symbol was during the Russian Revolution where the Bolsheviks, a branch of the Marxist Russian Social Democracy, replaced the government. This leads me to believe you either support Marxism or totalitarianism under Stalin. In the latter case, enjoy being committed or killed for disagreeing with your government. 

"To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising." -Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League 

 

2. The Bible verse

[shortly before Jesus is crucified] Luke 22:35-39: And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.

[Comrade Christ]

This topic was kind of dead, but I'll reply anyways.  Regardless of what the hell you think we Americans are so "obsessed with guns" for is irrelevant.  Even the crime statistics are irrelevant (though they show that more gun control typically correlates with more crime).  The fact is that the 2nd Amendment's very fundamental purpose is to act as a check against the federal government; not self-defense against criminals.  It is meant so that the people-the citizens-will have the means to resist if the government becomes tyrannical.  Without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights is fair game for the government to play with and so all this debate about crime rates amounts to nothing in the end.  If you bastards think you can take away someone's rights guaranteed by the constitution, then you should be the first in through the door.  If you aren't willing to be the one risking your neck when the government decides to go after the guns, then you have no place telling anyone what their rights are and what they aren't.  You may be a sheep, but the gun-owning American people are not.  As put by Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace.  May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

 

1. I don't think one week old is "dead", and the actual controversy of gun control certainly isn't. Though, I guess we could make a new thread.

 

2. Ah, yes, "The Second Amendment protects us from the government." This is completely correct. It was made as "a check against the federal government; not self-defense against criminals." Fine. I accept that. Even though most people, including myself, say guns are necessary for self-defense, it's true you could say there is a right to revolution — truly, the first "right" exercised by this country in a poetic sense.

 

But as a matter of law, the Second Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms is "necessary to the security of a free State", not the security of a free man. The state is presupposed — you're not entitled to be a gun-wielding vigilante citizen soldier under the Constitution. The distribution of arms is regulated for the security of a free state — and the Supreme Court has already ruled before that the individual states have the right to regulate the sale and trafficking of sawed-off shotguns (as one very specific example among many others), it is a right reserved to the states. 

 

And unfortunately, the supreme law of the land is not written in cherry-picked Samuel Adams quotes or the Declaration of Independence or the blood of tyrants and patriots. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any weapon to anyone who wants it — just enough weaponry as is necessary for the security of a free state. Not destroying one.

 

Let's talk about your signature. 

 

1. The hammer and sickle 

The first time a hammer and sickle was used as a symbol was during the Russian Revolution where the Bolsheviks, a branch of the Marxist Russian Social Democracy, replaced the government. This leads me to believe you either support Marxism or totalitarianism under Stalin. In the latter case, enjoy being committed or killed for disagreeing with your government. 

"To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising." -Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League 

 

2. The Bible verse

[shortly before Jesus is crucified] Luke 22:35-39: And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.

 

I am in America, not the Soviet Union. And there is no God.

 

(You sound like you're giving my signature a palm reading or something)

Edited October 20, 2016 by CmdChrist

[WISD0MTREE]

But as a matter of law, the Second Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms is "necessary to the security of a free State", not the security of a free man. 

 

The state is presupposed — you're not entitled to be a gun-wielding vigilante citizen soldier under the Constitution.

 

And unfortunately, the supreme law of the land is not written in cherry-picked Samuel Adams quotes or the Declaration of Independence or the blood of tyrants and patriots.

 

The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any weapon to anyone who wants it

 

 

just enough weaponry as is necessary for a free state. Not destroying one.

 

I am in America, not the Soviet Union.

 

And there is no God.

Not according to Heller. And it’s the Supreme Court’s opinion that matters. Unless, "an individual right" means something else. 

 

Even Barack Obama, a Constitutional scholar and a leading proponent for gun control by his own admission, conceded that it’s an individual right (although at the same time, in the same statement, he couldn’t resist calling for restrictions on the 2nd). Here is what he said at the time of the Heller decision: “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.â€

 

individual

adjective  in·di·vid·u·al 

of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group

intended or designed for one person

right

noun

something that a person is or should be morally or legally allowed to have, get, or do

 

Unlike arms “in normal use†(see Heller), like handguns and rifles, ordinance is strictly controlled. Even there, ordinary citizens can own some types of ordnance if they get permission from the government in the form of an NFA stamp. (Ordinance is/are arms, but not all arms are ordinance.) 

 

Key word here: Free

What did the White Guard try to do in Russia? They tried to protect a free state. There is a difference between a state and a free state. Familiarize yourself with The Battle of Athens. This is a pretty good historical example of the value of the 2nd Amendment in fighting tyrannical authority. This was a rebellion led by armed citizens in McMinn County, Tennessee against local government in 1946, against what was essentially political corruption and voter intimidation. Basically they didn't have the freedom to choose local officials. As one of the rebels said at the time, “The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.†There was also the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921. For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired. 

 

Where did I claim you lived in the Soviet Union? It doesn't even still exist. However, the hammer and sickle in your signature does. 

 

But the Bible quote in your signature does. Why is it there, then? 

[Comrade Christ]

Where did I claim you lived in the Soviet Union? It doesn't even still exist. However, the hammer and sickle in your signature does. 

 

I see you're the observational type!

 

 

Not according to Heller. And it’s the Supreme Court’s opinion that matters. Unless, "an individual right" means something else.

 

Unlike arms “in normal use†(see Heller), like handguns and rifles, ordinance is strictly controlled. Even there, ordinary citizens can own some types of ordnance if they get permission from the government in the form of an NFA stamp. (Ordinance is/are arms, but not all arms are ordinance.) 

 

 

Correct, the Supreme Court upheld in Heller that the individual's right to possessing firearms is necessary to the security of a free state — that's still the overriding concern of the Second Amendment, and the Court in Heller also said that the Constitution still permits bans on weapons for people who pose a risk to society (like violently mentally ill, criminals, etc.) because the overriding concern is still the security of a free state. That authorizes the individual right to possess firearms.

 

But the Bible quote in your signature does. Why is it there, then? 

 

 

The Bible doesn't actually have a brain, so it can't believe in God. It's a piece of writing (or many writings), like all other literature. It's there because I think it's an interesting quote from the most-read book in history, and pop culture is always interesting for what it reflects.

[Frederick]

1. I don't think one week old is "dead", and the actual controversy of gun control certainly isn't. Though, I guess we could make a new thread.

 

2. Ah, yes, "The Second Amendment protects us from the government." This is completely correct. It was made as "a check against the federal government; not self-defense against criminals." Fine. I accept that. Even though most people, including myself, say guns are necessary for self-defense, it's true you could say there is a right to revolution — truly, the first "right" exercised by this country in a poetic sense.

 

But as a matter of law, the Second Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms is "necessary to the security of a free State", not the security of a free man. The state is presupposed — you're not entitled to be a gun-wielding vigilante citizen soldier under the Constitution. The distribution of arms is regulated for the security of a free state — and the Supreme Court has already ruled before that the individual states have the right to regulate the sale and trafficking of sawed-off shotguns (as one very specific example among many others), it is a right reserved to the states. 

 

And unfortunately, the supreme law of the land is not written in cherry-picked Samuel Adams quotes or the Declaration of Independence or the blood of tyrants and patriots. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any weapon to anyone who wants it — just enough weaponry as is necessary for the security of a free state. Not destroying one.

 

 

I am in America, not the Soviet Union. And there is no God.

 

(You sound like you're giving my signature a palm reading or something)

The 2nd Amendment also states(as you neglected to mention) that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The people as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment does not mean the government nor the state.  By using the term people, the founding fathers were separating the American people from any abstraction(such as a state) and putting forth clearly that it is the American people-the citizens of this country-that have a inalienable right to bear arms.  Also note that the "militia" as stated, is comprised of the people(different from the standing army) and thus all American citizens with a firearm can be part of this unorganized militia.  I think it is you who is cherry picking here buddy.  It's easy to talk about the greatness of communism when you're sitting in your college dorm room masturbating to Das Kapital.  Those who have actually lived under the Soviet Union would beat you to a pulp if you even suggested bringing it back in their countries.  You can also be sure the same thing will happen if you start trying to take away the constitutional rights of Americans who believe in American values and not those of failed civilizations.  Now silly boy go back to fantasizing about your Marxist Utopia and the plights of the Proletariat.

[Comrade Christ]

The 2nd Amendment also states(as you neglected to mention) that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The people as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment does not mean the government nor the state. 

 

No, I didn't "neglect" to mention the rest of the Second Amendment, I was simply reading the actual text of the Amendment according to the rules of English grammar. It's not a word cloud, you know — just because "people" is mentioned in the sentence doesn't import it any special value. You have to read the sentence, which makes clear that the people shall have the right to bear arms because (an important word! Words!) it is necessary to the security of a free State. And while the grammatical structure of the Constitution may be a mystery to you, I assure you it wasn't to the founding fathers. 

[Frederick]

No, I didn't "neglect" to mention the rest of the Second Amendment, I was simply reading the actual text of the Amendment according to the rules of English grammar. It's not a word cloud, you know — just because "people" is mentioned in the sentence doesn't import it any special value. You have to read the sentence, which makes clear that the people shall have the right to bear arms because (an important word! Words!) it is necessary to the security of a free State. And while the grammatical structure of the Constitution may be a mystery to you, I assure you it wasn't to the founding fathers. 

You seem to not know what the 2nd amendment is.  Wording is, in fact, very important when twats like yourself think you can simply interpret the constitution however you wish regardless of how it was intended by the founding fathers.  The word, "because" is not present in any part of the 2nd amendment so you are changing it for your own designs.  If we are to interpret the constitution of the United States as the founding fathers intended, then we must absolutely analyze it as it is presented.  I will reiterate, since it seems hard to get through your head, that the word "people" does in fact have special value.  If they had used "military" or "government" or "state", the meaning would be vastly different.  America was founded on the idea of a citizen republic where every man had the right to defend his home and property.  That is why the wording was so important in formulating the constitution.

[Comrade Christ]

You seem to not know what the 2nd amendment is.  Wording is, in fact, very important when twats like yourself think you can simply interpret the constitution however you wish regardless of how it was intended by the founding fathers.  The word, "because" is not present in any part of the 2nd amendment so you are changing it for your own designs.  If we are to interpret the constitution of the United States as the founding fathers intended, then we must absolutely analyze it as it is presented.  I will reiterate, since it seems hard to get through your head, that the word "people" does in fact have special value.  If they had used "military" or "government" or "state", the meaning would be vastly different.  America was founded on the idea of a citizen republic where every man had the right to defend his home and property.  That is why the wording was so important in formulating the constitution.

 

When you say "the wording was so important", you're actually saying "word association is important!" (People! Home! Property! Guns!) I'm just treating the Second Amendment, as presented, as a sentence, with conditional clauses. That's not my "interpretation", I'm pretty sure that's just English:

 

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. Just read, left to right.

Edited October 20, 2016 by CmdChrist

[WISD0MTREE]

Correct, the Supreme Court upheld in Heller that the individual's right to possessing firearms is necessary to the security of a free state — that's still the overriding concern of the Second Amendment, and the Court in Heller also said that the Constitution still permits bans on weapons for people who pose a risk to society (like violently mentally ill, criminals, etc.) because the overriding concern is still the security of a free state. That authorizes the individual right to possess firearms.

 

The Bible doesn't actually have a brain, so it can't believe in God. It's a piece of writing (or many writings), like all other literature. It's there because I think it's an interesting quote from the most-read book in history, and pop culture is always interesting for what it reflects.

1. Felons can't own guns. 

2. I take it you support mental health to be included on NICS checks? That won't happen because of HIPAA regulations. This is something the semi-left-wing ACLU supports. The fact that both conservatives and liberals are wary points to the fact that changes to privacy laws are complex and controversial. Any rational person agrees that the mentally ill should not be able to legally purchase firearms. But just try to share that data with the FBI and see how many attorneys come out of the woodwork. 

 

Interesting.