Firearms yes or no

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It is a bitterly sarcastic summary, or conclusions from the main texts as I had linked them. If you want to deal with him, pick the main texts, not the 30 items on that list. His arguments and references to lawsuits have more substance than yours.

Are you kidding? It is similar to this which is why I don't buy his arguments:

40 Reasons for Gun Control
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

[Kapitan]

I fight only when and where i need to, as for fire arms i do have weapons but use them on proper ranges and sites, i have in the past just done it for the sheer hell of it but looking back i dont think it was a wise choice.

Fire arms for firing in a range but for every day use as defence then no.

[Skybird]

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997.
TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent." (from Chapter 6- "Violent Crime in England and Wales" of Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002- pdf file)
Here is a graph from the British Crime Survey. You can see that the gun lobby's claim that violent crime skyrocketed in the England after their 1997 handgun ban is clearly false.

Source: Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003 (pdf file) (page 3)
Between 1997 and 2002, the overall UK crime rate fell by 27% (source). The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. "Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source). Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source). Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association didn't let the facts get in the way of its claims that stricter gun laws had caused an increase in crime in Australia. Attorney-General of Australia, Daryl Williams, pointed out in letter to Charlton Heston that "firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997." He also stated in his letter, "The 54 firearm-related homicides in Australia in 1998 equate to a rate of only 0.28 per 100,000 people. I have been advised that this compares to a rate which is in the order of 4 per 100,000 in the United States. Now that you have the facts, I request that you withdraw immediately the misleading information from your latest campaign."
MYTH: Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.
TRUTH: Obviously, self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide. Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.
MYTH: Guns don't kill.
TRUTH:Guns make it easier to kill people. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source). Guns simply make it easier to kill. Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." (source- PDF File).
MYTH: Guns are used defensively 2.5 million times each year in the US.
TRUTH: Gary Kleck conducted a survey which concluded that 2.5 million people in the US each year use guns to defend themselves. One percent of the US population is between 2 and 3 million. So if only one percent of the survey respondents had answered the survey dishonestly that would make the results of the survey inaccurate by millions. According to the NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey) guns are used defensively less than 100,000 times each year (source). The NCVS surveyed over 90,000 people. In contrast, Kleck only surveyed about 5,000 people. Thus it would be reasonable to conclude that the NCVS provides a more reliable estimate of the number of defensive gun uses in the US. An article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)87 (1997): 1430 revealed that using methods similiar to Kleck's, it could be concluded that nearly 20 million Americans have seen aircraft from another planet and that one million Americans have had contact with aliens.
"Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias. Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. [34] One question asked: 'Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?' [Page 1438] Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, 'Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?' and 6% answered 'Yes.'By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news--but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists."(source)
MYTH: People in Switzerland are heavily armed. There is an assault weapon in every Swiss home.
TRUTH: It's true that Swiss soldiers are required to keep their assault rifles at home. How big is the Swiss Army? 400,000 (source). There are about 3 million Swiss households (source). 400,000/3,000,000= 0.133. Therefore, there is a military assault rifle in about 13% of Swiss homes. Switzerland also has rather strict gun control laws. In Switzerland a permit is required in order to purchase a weapon (The permit shows that you are at least 18 and don't have a criminal record). A permit is also required to carrry a weapon. Such a permit is mostly issued to people who work in security-type occupations. To obtain this permit, you have to demonstrate that you need to carry a weapon and that you know how to handle a gun safely and have knowledge of the law regarding firearms use(source). Soldiers in the Swiss Army are required to store their military weapons at home under lock and key and to undergo regular training. Strict gun laws in Switzerland minimize the dangers of gun ownership. However, such dangers can not be completely eliminated as illustrated by the case of Friedrich Leibacher who rushed into a session of parliament in the Swiss town of Zug. He used his Swiss Army assault rifle and a grenade to murder fourteen people. Eleven of these people were lawmakers (source) .
MYTH: The 1976 handgun ban in Washington D.C. caused an increase in crime.
TRUTH: The handgun ban has prevented 47 deaths each year (source) Gun control has saved lives. Let's look at a graph that displays information about the homicide rate in the District of Columbia a decade before the ban and a decade after. There are random fluctuations in the crime rate from year to year so it's best to look at homicide data from many years. In the decade preceding the ban, the homicide rate exceeded 35 per 100,000 4 times. In the decade following the ban this happened only once. The average homicide rate of the ten years that followed the ban was lower than the homicide rate of the previous decade. Was this part of a general decrease in homicide that would have happened without the ban? If that were so you would expect the non-gun homicide rate to have declined as well as the gun homicide rate. However, there was only a statistically significant decrease in the number of homicides that involved firearms.



MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns.
TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other (source). So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns? The answer is obvious.
MYTH:Gun ownership is a protection against political tyranny.
TRUTH: Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime (source).It certainly didn't protect the Iraqi people against political tyranny. Gun control laws were enacted in Germany to disarm Hitler and those in the Nazi militia. In that case, gun control was a protection against political tyranny.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

There is a serious mistake in your considerations. Armies and weapons of mass destructions result in fear, which itselfs may result in backing down (look at the US and North Korea). But this is not the case with guns, is the exact opposite. Your owning of a gun does NOT (repeat: does NOT) deter criminals of commiting crimes against you. It just increases the chance that you become not just a victim of robbery, but of murder.
Neither one nor a hundred armed students at Virginia Tech would have deterred that madman from his killing rampage.
The only 'response' you can make this way is setting an exclamation point that will just further provoke others .

Incorrect again. Having guns has been proved time and again that it lowers crime through deterrance. Removing them, and you crime goes through the roof - just examine the UK as a model on that one. That logic follows the #7 from my list above:

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

Anyway, if everyone would have been armed, this crazy would have been dropped, and no one would pay attention to it just like the guy who got shot in Seattle by a Concealed Pistol Permit holder. Hardly made the news, when if he were not carrying, he would have been guaranteed have been killed by the crazy. It is only when no one is able to stop the madman that it makes the news like this one did. People seem to foget this. Sad, but I think your country has brainwashed you into this idea. I in turn choose to look at it from a logical perspective.

A mans gun in home is no different from an army that protects ones country from outside aggression. And we all know what happens when one does not have a way to defend oneself in history - their country gets over-run. Happened time and time again.

-S

[Skybird]

And more:

MYTH: The second amendment is a barrier to gun-control.
TRUTH: In US history, no gun-control law has ever been invalidated by a federal court ruling on second amendment grounds. Furthermore, the courts have upheld numerous gun laws as being constitutional. For example, Washington D.C.'s handgun ban has been in effect for over a quarter century and has survived every court challenge that has come its way.
MYTH: The modern day militia includes every adult citizen.
TRUTH: In US v. Miller the Supreme Court, explained that historically "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." In more recently rulings the Supreme Court has made clear what the modern day militia is. "The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution....The passage of the National Defense Act of 1916 materially altered the status of the militias by constituting them as the National Guard." Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 46 (1965). And in 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that "Notwithstanding the brief periods of federal service, the members of the state Guard unit continue to satisfy this description of a militia." Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 355 (1990)
MYTH: The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez establishes that the second amendment protects an individual right.
TRUTH: This was actually a fourth amendment case. In the case the court commented on the meaning of the word people as used in the Constitution. "While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." (United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 1990) Notice that the above quotation starts with "While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive....". So the Supreme Court is admitting it can't be sure about its analysis.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals explained the truth about United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez- "Citing dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), Hale argues that the Second Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or collective entities like militias. This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818; United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Cody, 460 F.2d 34. Whether the 'right to bear arms' for militia purposes is 'individual' or 'collective' in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia." (U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)
The court correctly points out that this passage from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez is dicta (an opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding) so it's not the law. The court also pointed out that whether the second amendment protects a collective or an individual right the important thing is it's still right that exists only in connection with a well regulated militia.
Let's analyze the word "people" in the second amendment. It has been claimed that this word necessarily means each adult citizen in America. Let's look at how the word "people" is used in the preamble of the Constitution. "We the People of the United States....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It clear that the word "people" in this context is being used in a collective sense. Obviously, not every adult citizen in America was involved in writing the Constitution. Likewise, saying that the Russians have nuclear weapons does not necessarily mean that each Russian owns a nuclear weapon. The word Russians is being used here in a collective sense. Saying that the people have the right to bear arms does not necessarily mean that each adult citizen has a right to bear arms.

Akhil Reed Amar, a leading scholar of constitutional law and author of The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, explains that the word people is used in a collective sense in the US Constitution. "But the libertarian reading must contend with textual embarrassments of its own. The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.'....The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of 'the people'--in essence, voters--to 'assemble' in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to 'the people' in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically. The Fourth Amendment is trickier: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' Here, the collective 'people' wording is paired with more individualistic language of 'persons.'" (Source)
MYTH: All rights are individual rights.
TRUTH: In US v. Cruikshank (1875) the Supreme Court recognized that there are both collective and individual rights. The court stated, "Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights." MYTH: The second amendment protects a right to bear arms outside the context of a well regulated militia.
TRUTH: The second amendment starts off with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Notice the word "being". The word "being" implies that the idea is not complete as in the following sentence- "The door being locked..." So you have to read the 2nd amendment as a whole. When the second amendment is read as a whole, it is clear that it protects the right of the people to bear arms within the context of an organized militia.
In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court explained that the purpose fo the second amendment was to "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia spoken of in Article 1 of the Constitution. "The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." (United States v. Miller).
Examining the meaning of the term bear arms further supports this conclusion. James Madison's first draft of the second amendment was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." It is clear from this that the phrase "bear arms" refers to militia service and not to guns intended for personal use.
The American Bar Association has explained how the second amendment does not interfere with regulating weapons intended for private use. "Since today's 'well regulated militia' does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment...As lawyers, as representatives of the legal profession, and as recognized experts on the meaning of the Constitution and our system of justice, we share a responsibility to the public and lawmakers to 'say what the law is.'" (Source)

[Skybird]

And finally:

"....In this case, we must decide whether this amendment grants constitutional protection to an individual whose possession or use of machineguns and pipe bombs is not reasonably related to an organized state militia. We hold that it does not.... As a member of Georgia's unorganized militia,[fn12] Wright claims that he has a constitutional right to possess machineguns and pipe bombs because these weapons are used by contemporary militia fighting forces....A careful reading of Miller, however, strongly suggests that only militias actively maintained and trained by the states can satisfy the 'well regulated militia' requirement of the Second Amendment. As the Miller Court emphasized, the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment was to 'render possible the effectiveness of' the governmental militia described in the Militia Clauses of the Constitution.[fn16] Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Thus, the Second Amendment 'must be interpreted and applied with that end in view....'" U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)
"Appellant was convicted in the district court for the District of Kansas of knowingly possessing an unregistered machine gun in violation of 26 U.S.C. ?5861(d)....The second constitutional argument that appellant advances is that the prosecution here violated his right to bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment.[fn1] Defendant presents a long historical analysis of the amendment's background and purpose from which he concludes that every citizen has the absolute right to keep arms. This broad conclusion has long been rejected. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206....The purpose of the second amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, supra at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia. The Court stated that the amendment must be interpreted and applied with that purpose in view. Id. To apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy. This lack of justification is even more apparent when applied to appellant's membership in 'Posse Comitatus,' an apparently nongovernmental organization. We conclude, therefore, that this prosecution did not violate the second amendment...." U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977)
"Appellant, Peter B. Thomas, argues that the City of Portland, Maine, and various city officials infringed his constitutional rights by denying him a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Established case law makes clear that the federal Constitution grants appellant no right to carry a concealed handgun. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (second amendment applies only to weapons that have a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.')...." Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41
"Douglas Ray Hickman appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees, who denied Hickman a concealed weapons permit. He complains, among other things, that the appellees' permit issuance policy violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. We have jurisdiction over his timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1291, and affirm on the basis that Hickman lacks standing to sue for a violation of the Second Amendment...We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. We conclude that Hickman can show no legal injury, and therefore lacks standing to bring this action...." Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)
"Wilbur Hale appeals his conviction of thirteen counts of possession of a machine gun pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. ?922(o) (West Supp. 1992) and three counts of possession of unregistered firearms pursuant to 26 U.S.C. ?5861(d) (1988). He argues....that the indictment violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms....we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons....The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,' the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818....After carefully examining the principles and implications of the then recent Miller decision, the First Circuit concluded that the existence of any 'reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia' was best determined from the facts of each individual case. Id. Thus, it is not sufficient to prove that the weapon in question was susceptible to military use. Indeed, as recognized in Cases, most any lethal weapon has a potential military use.[fn4] Id. Rather, the claimant of Second Amendment protection must prove that his or her possession of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia. See id. at 923. Where such a claimant presented no evidence either that he was a member of a military organization or that his use of the weapon was 'in preparation for a military career', the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of the weapon. Id. Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's possession of a military weapon to be 'reasonably related to a well regulated militia.' 'Technical' membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an 'unorganized' state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the 'reasonable relationship' test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or 'sedentary' militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin, 530 F.2d 103...." U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992) U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)
"This appeal concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Morton Grove's Ordinance No. 81-11,[fn1] which prohibits the possession of handguns within the Village's borders. The district court held that the Ordinance was constitutional. We affirm....The second amendment provides that '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.' U.S. Const. amend. II. Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia....Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.[fn9]" Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982)
"A jury convicted[fn1] James Cody of making false statements to a licensed firearms dealer in connection with the purchase of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. ?922(a) (6)....We find no merit in the contention that ?922(a) (6) violates appellant's Second Amendment right to bear arms. Since United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), it has been settled that the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms. The Second Amendment's guarantee extends only to use or possession which 'has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' ....We find no evidence that the prohibition of ?922(a) (6) obstructs the maintenance of a well regulated militia...." Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.)
"Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, William H. Becker, Chief Judge, for, inter alia, failure to make appropriate entries and to properly maintain records as required of a federally-licensed firearms dealer, and he appealed....With respect to a possible infringement of Second Amendment rights, we need only look to the rationale of the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939): 'In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of (the weapon) at this time 167 has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument'....Thus, in light of the defendant's failure to present any evidence indicating a conflict between the requirements of "922(m) and 923(g) and the maintenance of a well regulated militia, we decline to hold that the statute violates the Second Amendment...." U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)

"Defendant was convicted before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Miles W. Lord, J., of violating the omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968...The next contention raised is that ' 1202(a)(1) violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. We do not agree.... ....Although ' 1202(a) is the broadest federal gun legislation to date, we see no conflict between it and the Second Amendment since there is no showing that prohibiting possession of firearms by felons obstructs the maintenance of a 'well regulated militia.'" U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971)
"By virtue of 1996 amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968 which prohibit persons convicted of domestic violence offenses from possessing firearms in or affecting commerce, Jerald Gillespie can no longer carry a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. ?922(g)(9). As a result, he has lost his job as a police officer. Gillespie filed suit against the City of Indianapolis[fn1] seeking to have the statute declared unconstitutional and his employment with the Indianapolis Police Department preserved. The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the statute....The Second Amendment provides that '[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.' U.S. Const. amend. II. The link that the amendment draws between the ability 'to keep and bear Arms' and '[a] well regulated Militia' suggests that the right protected is limited, one that inures not to the individual but to the people collectively, its reach extending so far as is necessary to protect their common interest in protection by a militia...." Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999) "This case requires a determination of whether certain provisions of the National Firearms Act as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 26 U.S.C. ?5801 et seq., are an invalid infringement on the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution...It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right....It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the States or that defendant's automatic membership in the 'sedentary militia' of Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees...." U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.)
"According to her complaint, in September, 1990, April Love tried to purchase a handgun at a shop in Prince George's County, Maryland.... On September 21, Corporal Ernest Pletcher reviewed the application and a computer printout from Maryland police and Federal Bureau of Investigation files. He discovered that Ms. Love had been arrested on four occasions....Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an individual federal constitutional right to 'keep and bear' a handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right....She is wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1876).[fn5] Moreover, even as against federal regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right...." Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)
"Major Henry Johnson was convicted by a jury of transporting a firearm in interstate commerce after having been convicted of a felony, 18 U.S.C. ?922(g). He appeals, challenging the district court's instructions and contesting the constitutionality of section 922(g). For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with Johnson's arguments and affirm the conviction....The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Johnson presents no evidence that section 922(g) in any way affects the maintenance of a well regulated militia...." U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
“Appellant Raymond Rybar, Jr. was convicted following a conditional guilty plea to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. Section(s) 922(o), which makes it 'unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.' On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in rejecting his challenge to that provision as beyond Congress' commerce power and as violating the Second Amendment. Neither challenge is persuasive....In support, Rybar cites, paradoxically, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a firearms-registration requirement against a Second Amendment challenge. Rybar draws on that holding, relying on the Miller Court's observation that the sawed-off shotgun in question had not been shown to bear 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' Brief of Appellant at 24-25; Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Drawing from that language the contra positive implication, Rybar suggests that because the military utility of the machine guns proscribed by Section(s) 922(o) is clear, a result contrary to that reached in Miller is required, and the statute is therefore invalid under the Second Amendment....We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its 'possession or use' and militia related activity....Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to 'the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,' as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. " U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)
"At stake in the present appeal is the vitality of several key provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968,[fn1] a statutory program which restricts the right to bear arms of convicted felons and other persons of dangerous propensities.[fn2]....U.S.Const. amend. II states: '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' Arguably, any regulation of firearms may be violative of this constitutional provision. Nevertheless, the courts consistently have found no conflict between federal gun laws and the Second Amendment, narrowly construing the latter to guarantee the right to bear arms as a member of a militia...." U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)
"Appellant, here petitioned the district court to enjoin the City of Philadelphia from enforcing its ordinance which regulates the purchase of firearms and transfer of same. Appellant's theory in the district court which he now repeats is that by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution he is entitled to bear arms. Appellant is completely wrong about that. As long ago at least as 1939 the United States Supreme Court held that there must be "* * * some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". There is nothing whatsoever of that kind in this appeal. It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)...." Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973)
"Appellant Dennis E. Friel was indicted by a federal grand jury with two counts of possession of firearms by a person convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. "922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). [FN1] Appellant was convicted, after a jury trial, on both counts. He raises six issues on appeal, all of which we reject....Appellant argues generally that ' 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. Specifically, he asserts that the limits imposed by ' 922(g)(1) violate the constitutional right to bear arms. The Supreme Court plainly has held that the Second Amendment-'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'-applies only to firearms having a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia....'" U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
....These holdings, when considered within the broad intent of the Act, highlight the established principle that there is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)...." U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975)
"In 1999, the State of California enacted amendments to its gun-control laws that significantly strengthened the state's restrictions on the possession, use, and transfer of semi-automatic weapons popularly known as 'assault weapons.' Plaintiffs, California residents who either own assault weapons, seek to acquire such weapons, or both, brought this challenge to the gun-control statute, asserting that the law, as amended, violates the Second Amendment....The district court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims. Because the second amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that consitutional provision....'Militia' appears repeatedly in the first and second articles of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the second of two government-established and -controlled military forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and navy which were subject to civilian control shared by the president and Congress, and, second, the state militias, which were 'essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to "federalization" at the command of the president.'...."Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002)(PDF file)
"....After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license, D.C.Code ' 22-3204 (1981), possession of an unregistered firearm, id. ' 6-2311, and unlawful possession of ammunition, id. ' 6-2361....We now hold that D.C.Code '' 6-2311, 6-2361, and 22-3204 (1981) do not violate the second amendment. We affirm appellant's convictions....We agree with numerous other courts that 'the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.'....The purpose of the second amendment is 'to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia.'.... Appellant cannot show that possession of a handgun by an individual bears any relationship to the District of Columbia's desire and ability to preserve a well regulated militia...."(Sandidge v. United States)

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

MYTH:

Please post a link. THis did not format right.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Please post a link. THis did not format right.

I gave the link before, you don't get it, and when i quote the text - you complain of not beeing given a link?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I gave the link before, you don't get it, and when i quote the text - you complain of not beeing given a link?

Are you talking the liberal biased whacko that made the 30 reason list? Whya re you reposting it?

[SUBMAN1]

Here is some info on the UK gun problem for your own reading - not a leftist whacko who has his own opinions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/0,,178412,00.html

Seems to me they have more shootings than the US!

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Incorrect again. Having guns has been proved time and again that it lowers crime through deterrance. Removing them, and you crime goes through the roof - just examine the UK as a model on that one. That logic follows the #7 from my list above:

Crime goes through the roof without gun control? That's hilarious, especially if an American tells this to a German. There's been very strict gun control in Germany since 1945, and our crime rates are WAY below American crime rates in just any aspect. Even though our population density is about 8 times higher than the American... Where would our crime rate be if we had no gun control at all? According to your theory there wouldn't be any crime here any more...

Sad, but I think your country has brainwashed you into this idea. I in turn choose to look at it from a logical perspective.

This is something I'm used to hear from Americans who have never been to my country. So full of themselves, so 'We are the world'. And to argue with brainwashing is again quite hilarious - this is something your media and your politicians can do far better and do far more than over here.

A mans gun in home is no different from an army that protects ones country from outside aggression. And we all know what happens when one does not have a way to defend oneself in history - their country gets over-run. Happened time and time again.

Like France in 1940, eh? Strongest defensive army in the world, supported by British Expiditionary Forces. Overrun within six weeks.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Crime goes through the roof without gun control? That's hilarious, especially if an American tells this to a German. There's been very strict gun control in Germany since 1945, and our crime rates are WAY below American crime rates in just any aspect. Even though our population density is about 8 times higher than the American... Where would our crime rate be if we had no gun control at all? According to your theory there wouldn't be any crime here any more...

Try with gun control. Google it, you'll be surprised. Our lowest crime rates in our entire country happen to be the same areas with the highest gun ownership. You might best rethink that idea.

This is something I'm used to hear from Americans who have never been to my country. So full of themselves, so 'We are the world'. And to argue with brainwashing is again quite hilarious - this is something your media and your politicians can do far better and do far more than over here.

This is coming from the same people that listened to the Nazi's.

Like France in 1940, eh? Strongest defensive army in the world, supported by British Expiditionary Forces. Overrun within six weeks.

Hahaha? What British? Hardly many there at the time to even make a difference. And then you are talking about the French - they are known for throwing out their white flag. Tell me something better. I like the Russians better. They had every last boy out there armed with their pathetic rifles and they stopped you dead in your tracks.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

This is something I'm used to hear from Americans who have never been to my country. So full of themselves, so 'We are the world'. And to argue with brainwashing is again quite hilarious - this is something your media and your politicians can do far better and do far more than over here.

I'm an American. I've been to your country. I lived there for three years. I have (at last count) 57 German cousins, 10 sets of German Aunts and Uncles and one set of German Grandparents (now deceased). So believe me when I say this, for a German to complain that Americans are so full of ourselves is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

As for "We are the World", that part is true. Name one country that has a more extensive cultural and racial mix than the US. If you do manage to come up with one it sure ain't gonna be Germany.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This thread is tzzzzz.

Firearms are tools of death, and exclusively so. they are designed to hurt and to kill, nothing else. This is what they excel in, they are of no other use. Like a Katana is optimized to cut only one material: human flesh, firearms are optimized to bring as much death as often and quickly as possible.

america makes a fetish of weapons, but this idol is a cruel god, and from time to time it demands your first-borne as a sacrifice.

If it is argued that a problem caused by firearms - can be healed by even more firearms and easy access to them, then the debate is beyond any hope. If the problem is compared to drug abuse, and Iraq war, then it has already dissappeared in the swamps of irrationality. - As expected.

the part of the bill of rights (I think the weapons thing is anchored in that, right?) that allowed citizens to carry weapons - was written in a different world, and time, when the young US where under threat by the British, and huge parts of the wilderness still were a "non-civilised" country. but these threats are gone. The Queen does not demand the submission of amerian citizens anymore. Would the bill of rights, if written today, include this part on weapons, too? I don't think so. Those minds authoring it were no idiots, and were considering the situation and it's future developement only so far, and not beyond. This passage today - is abused only. Or better: it's content and context gets perverted.

Violance is omni-present in media, film, TV, computer games. It serves as en example for social learning by example-setting. It influences thinking, and behavior patterns, especially of young ones still developing. But be assured that it has no effect on the minds of people and especially young ones.

Weapons are a very lucratice business in the the US. We all know that this has nothing to do with lobbying for less gun control laws.

I can assure you that none of the things anyone of you may grew fond of has anything to do with these events. So don't worry, none of you have to change his habits, and everything can happily stay as it is.

Seen that way, the shooting event has it's good sides. It tells us that everything is good.

Firearms... every idiot can use them and cause havoc at short range without training. No quality in character is needed. No education. No self-discipline or self-restraint. Some very clever even are stupid enough to hurt themselves with them. Go on, sell them even more. See where it will lead you. - Probably straight to hell.

You arm yourself as if you expect to fight wars in your streets and cities, homes and living rooms? Guns, rifles, even automatic rifles, ha!: even explosives? Well, yesterday the fruits of your deeds have found you again. Stop complaining, these events are results of your very own society you have built. Welcome to the jungle. Both perpetrator and victims are your sons and daughters. They are no Martians who just fell down from the sky.

On the level of individual fates I express my condolences.

On a national, community-wide level I say: you got what you deserved. If you play with fire, you get your fingers burned.

Great post Skybird!

[Fish]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I did. Why have armies? Why have any sort of defense? I see nothing different. I did answer your question because there is no difference. The analogy is identical.

The key word is deterrence. ANother is response. More come to mind.

You want to compare a lunatic with your army? :hmm: