some gun statistics:

[Lilavati]

America isn't a Democracy. We are a Republic.

When you as a lawyer say "That's what a democracy is all about" what are you refering to ? Are you refering to the US Constitution ?

I'm refering to democracy as the general principle of our leaders are elected by the people and are answerable to the people. Yes, we're a republic, not a democracy, in a technical sense. But I meant in the general sense . . . we elect our leaders, and they, presumably, carry out the wishes of the people. I'm talking about a system, whether ours or one like Britian's or Canada's, where the people chose their leaders (and thus their laws) though a system of voting. There are restraints on what the people can vote to do (which is why, you are correct, we are not a true democracy) but that's to prevent mob rule and the tyranny of the majority more than it is to deny power to the nation's citizens.

Republician and Parlimentary systems are often called, colloquially, "democracies" because they have more in common with each other than with say . . dictatorships and monarchies. Although there are very real differences between our system and that of, say, Canada, we work on the same basic principle . . . our leaders rule at the sufferance of the people, and the laws are changed (through our leaders) by the will of the people, with the contraint of a constituion, or similar binding charter.

But I do stand corrected, because technically, we're a republic. None the less, the people are the ultimate source of power, and the Constitution both grants them that power and gives them the ability, with enough consensus, to change the Constitution.

Now, to be sure, I don't like people tampering with the Constition, but they can, and the Constitution itself allows for it. There are times when this is good (see the 13th and 14th amendments) and there are times which it is not (see . . oh, which ever one Prohitibition was, I can't remember). But the power is there.

 

[blue]

Local and state representatives are elected by democratic process, but not the President. Federal leaders cannot, on their own, amend the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justices arent elected and yet they can change the intent of the Constitution to suit whatever ideal they want.

We are a Representive Republic, the best of a democracy and a republic.

 

[Lilavati]

Local and state representatives are elected by democratic process, but not the President. Federal leaders cannot, on their own, amend the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justices arent elected and yet they can change the intent of the Constitution to suit whatever ideal they want.

We are a Representive Republic, the best of a democracy and a republic.

I noted that. It takes a supermajority of both houses and 2/3 of the states to change the Constition . . I've said it at least twice

Although the original system of electing the President was not democratic, the current system is so close to democratic as to make little difference. The electors must vote as they are told . .. and they are told how to vote by the people of their state. To be sure, the winner takes all system of most states distorts the system . . . but when I cast my vote this November, I'll be voting for a candidate for President, not for an elector. I have no idea who my elector is . . . and it doesn't matter. They'll vote as they are told by the voters. Its an artifact, and frankly, one that should be abolished, because though quaint, it serves no useful purpose any more . . . and occasionally gives very weird results. But I'd call our Presidental systems democratic . . . just democratic with a strange archiac twist.

What exactly the Supreme Court can and can not do is a long and complicated discussion that I frankly don't want to have, especially since it turns nasty fast. But yes, the Supreme Court is not elected democratically, and that was intentional on the part of the Founding Fathers . . . its one of our best defenses against mob rule and tyranny by the majority. I don't always agree with the Court (who does?) but I'm really glad they are there.

To be honest, I had no intention of getting into a debate about exactly what our system of government is . . . different people use different words, and different schools of thought have different answers. It appears we all agree that we vote here, and to one extent or another chose our leaders (even the Court, in the sense we chose the person who choses them). Nor is it deniable that is is possible, and legal, to alter to Constitution through a rather rigourous and rarely used process. I was using a colloquial, not legal, or technical term when I said democracy, I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Oh, and by the way, Blue, on the topic of the DC gun ban . . . I will very surprised if the Court does not overturn it . . .or if they don't do so, that they uphold it for any reason other than the fact that it applies to the District of Columbia . . . I suspect if they uphold that law, there will be dicta saying something about the seat of the federal government needing special safety rules . .. but that other cities can't do it. They've got 4 votes to overturn the ban for sure . . . they only need one more . . . and I'm pretty sure they'll find that last vote from one of the moderate Justices.

 

[blue]

The Supreme Court interpretting the Constitution is why I cant afford a legal full auto fire arm today.

 

[Cheetah]

But you know what? All the statistics in the world will not change the UNALIENABLE right I have to protect myself. The 2nd Amendment does not GRANT a right, it affirms that unalienable right.

LIFE....LIBERTY.... Two of the unalienable rights spoken of in our Declaration of Independance. In the moment of truth, you can only rely on yourself.

Gun bans will only create MORE victims. That and remove the only tool we have to protect ourselves from tyranny.

But I am sure you would give that up, just to FEEL safe, eh? A person who is willing to sacrifice a little liberty for a little security, deserves nor shall have either.

Amen.

 

[Lilavati]

The Supreme Court interpretting the Constitution is why I cant afford a legal full auto fire arm today.

Different Court this time around. Very different Court.

And there is a HUGE difference between banning ALL handguns and banning automatic weapons . . . It can be said that handguns have a legitimate self defense purpose . . . although automatic weapons are fun . . . they are, bluntly, overkill in any situation short of a war. They are also a threat, in irresponsible hands, not only to the immediate target, but anyone in the immediate vicinity . . . indeed, if its in the open air, to everyone for several blocks. Although I don't necessarily support a total ban on the things, I fully support very, very strict controls. I've not heard of many cases, inside the US, of someone defending themselves will a fully auto weapon in a way they couldn't with a semi auto . . . but I have heard of plenty of innocent people killed with them . . . far more innocent people than would have died, perhaps, with a less devistating weapon.

And, oh, Congress didn't renew the auto weapons ban as of the last time I checked . . . you can get one now if your state allows it.

 

[blue]

The 1986 full auto ban still stands. Even with the ban I could/can get a full auto fire arm, within limits, I just cant afford any because the ban jacked up the prices due to the ban.

It was the Assult Rifle Ban that expired.

 

[Claybuster]

My bad and good catch. I meant 2.75. LOL Also, I do not purchase or use that kind of 12G ammo, I was just regurgitating something I had seen elsewhere.

But as for the light trap load. I specifically asked a guy I trust at the local shop I use for a load that would NOT penetrate interior walls. He pointed me to these 2.75 trap loads. Perhaps I should get a piece of drywall and give it a test?

I understand, but I would tread cautiously here. Many try to be helpful in the gun shops, but you would be wise to do your own tests. Shotgun ammo is powerful, even Light Target Loads. A light 'trap' load is still serious. There is 16 yard line trap and 30 yard line trap. A light target load designed for skeet would make more sense in regards to your friends advice, something like what I would reload, 1 ounce #9. Still though, at close range (room) may not penetrate wood easily, but dry wall, I wouldn't chance it. However, if anyone is really interested in this sort of thing, I have found what you are looking for right here: http://www.dakotaammo.net/products/glaser/glaser.htm

Charlie

PS: handgun ammo only.

 

[Richie12345]

A person who is willing to sacrifice a little liberty for a little security, deserves nor shall have either.

Do not use a famous quote without citing your source! lol jk

I'm sure someone has said this but if we were to ban weapons, we would just spawn organized crime (look at 20th century prohibition). Instead of encouraging gun control, let's encourage personal responsibility. People need to learn about gun safety. Also, people who commit crimes with guns should suffer the severest of penalties for the harm done to the victim.

One more thing: is anyone besides me sick of those *free ipod* sound ads?

 

[Lilavati]

The 1986 full auto ban still stands. Even with the ban I could/can get a full auto fire arm, within limits, I just cant afford any because the ban jacked up the prices due to the ban.

It was the Assult Rifle Ban that expired.

Ah, I stand corrected then . . .

My fiance told me that he thought there was some way . . .lots of liscenses and such to get a full auto . . . but frankly, I've never looked into it.


I seem to have started a debate I didn't intend to start. I DO NOT support banning all guns or revoking the seond amendment. I observed that it could be done, and that it would be the right of the people to do so. However, considering it takes only 18 states to block a Constitutional amendment, and I have no trouble thinking of more than 18 that will not cooperate, I don't think it will be a problem in the foreseeable future. If it did happen, I would vote against it, and campaign against it . . . but I wouldn't rise up against the government assuming it was done legally. Why? Because a clear majority . .. a clear supermajority, of the American people would support it . . . who am I to rise against THEM and their choices? Now, if the government did it by fiat . . . that would be a different story, though I fear I'm not much use in a fight.

My main point was that I do not begrudge the Japanese, for example, their gun ban. It works for the them. It has made their country safer. They made their choice . . . and I don't think they are much less free for it.

I do support restrictions on guns. Just as I support restrictons on cars. Because there are too many yahoos out there, who because of criminality, insanity, irresponsibility, or outright stupidity are a menace to everyone around them when given something dangerous. Cars and guns are among the most dangerour commonly available items.

However, I also know these bans can go so far . . . I'm getting very grumpy about the ever lowering blood alcohol limit, for example. Its at the point were a small woman can be DUI after one drink. I'm not a small woman. I have friends who are. In fact, as a general rule, I don't drive after even one drink . . . but that's my choice, and it shouldn't be something forced on me that any alcohol consumption makes me a criminal behind the wheel. (Note, I support laws agaisnt drunk driving and DUI ., . .but they are getting absurd) And the short lived DC zero tolerance policy was outrageous. So is the proposal that all cars be equipped with breathalizers.

The DC handgun law, a sibling of the zero tolerance DUI in many ways, looks like its on the way out. Good. But I wouldn't like the opposite either . . . everyone in DC can now walk in and get a handgun, no. questions asked.

We give up some liberty every day so we can live around other human beings. We have to decide how far is too far. We have to be VERY wary of giving up 'liberties' for completely false safety (See AG Ashcroft and vocal disagreement with the government). But, say, giving up my right to own a fully automatic weapon (at least without elaborate lisensing) do that I'm significanty safer from being an innocent bystander in a driveby shooting? I'll consider that . . . so did a lot of people. Did it work? To a large extent, yes. Was it a fair trade? That's everyones decision to make for themselves and take to the voting booth.

 

[MelissaCato]

Here's a good video from a marksman LeRoy Pyle, for those of you who would like to know the truth regarding this "auto" mess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c

 

[Puckstop31]

But there's a difference between doing a hell of a lot of damage and winning a war.

Well... If you choose the right targets, who knows what could happen.

I personally think our best defense against tyranny is the power to vote and the right to say what we please. Guns are the back up . . . and I'm not sure they'd do the job.

I agree...

A bunch of citizens with personal weapons against the most powerful army on Earth? Its working in Iraqi only because we CAN leave. If we ever had a government ruthless enough to turn the military loose on the American people (assuming the military cooperates, which I can't imagine in the near future) the destruction private citizens could wreak would not be enough. I would hail your courage and your patriotism . . . but I wouldn't give you betting odds of winning.

Well... Any soldier who actually did follow a order to operate in the US would be violating his oath. A soldier only has to obey LAWFUL orders and a order to operate against US citizens IN the US is clearly a unlawful order.

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I honestly doubt many would follow that order. Especially if it were a nation wide uprising. Heck, I bet a lot of those people would be on OUR side. LOL

 

[MelissaCato]

This is quite interesting ....

I........................DO SWEAR - THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN LADY THE QUEEN - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOUR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED - THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE - HER MAJESTY'S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENCES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER - I WILL - TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE - DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF - FAITHFULLY - ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD.

:yikes:

 

[sparks19]

whats so interesting about that?

 

[Lilavati]

Well... If you choose the right targets, who knows what could happen.



I agree...



Well... Any soldier who actually did follow a order to operate in the US would be violating his oath. A soldier only has to obey LAWFUL orders and a order to operate against US citizens IN the US is clearly a unlawful order.

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I honestly doubt many would follow that order. Especially if it were a nation wide uprising. Heck, I bet a lot of those people would be on OUR side. LOL

We seem to be in pretty much in agreement. I had a conversation with a rather left-wing friend during the 2004 election. She was scared that Bush would not leave office even if he lost. I actually laughed. "He'll leave is he loses. He'd leave even if the military loved him . . . because they love their country more. And no coup in history has ever been pulled off without the cooperation of the military. If he won't leave . . . they'll throw him out." I don't think she believed me, but I think I was right . . . We'll never know for sure.

But as long as the military stays honest and they've done a pretty good job so far, I don't think we have to worry too much about the government running amok. The worst they can do is make us all miserable for four years . . . at which point they'll be voted out.

 

[Puckstop31]

The Brady Campaigns own stats prove more gun control = MORE violent crime.

*** From the NRA-ILA website, I cannot 100% verify the Brady stats, but I have seen this news in other, less biased places.

Friday, February 01, 2008

In January, the Brady Campaign released its annual "State Report Cards," scoring the states according to their gun laws.

Once again, the Brady rankings clearly demonstrate that states that have the most gun control tend to have the most violent crime.

Brady says that a state could get a perfect "100" if it would: limit the frequency of gun purchases; prohibit private transfers of firearms; require gun show attendees to sign a ledger to be provided to the police; prohibit the sale of firearms that do not engrave a serial number on fired ammunition and require registration such firearms' purchasers; license and regulate firearm dealers at the state level; prohibit handguns that do not have "smart" gun features; prohibit detachable-magazine semi-automatics and some pump-action rifles and shotguns; allow the arbitrary rejection of Right-to-Carry permit applications; allow local jurisdictions to impose gun control laws more restrictive than the state legislature; and allow the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in legitimate self-defense.

Since most states do not have these kinds of laws -- gun control having been rolled back and rejected at the federal, state, and local levels in the last 15-20 years -- Brady gave most states "failing" scores. Forty-two states received 28 points or fewer, and only one state received a score higher than 63--California.

But, as usual, Brady's scores correlate inversely with states' crime rates. Using crime data published by the FBI for 2006, the most recent year available:

* California, the state that has the most gun control and received Brady's highest score (79), has violent crime and murder rates that are 14% and 23% higher, respectively, compared to the rest of the country.

* Brady didn't bother giving a score to Washington, D.C., which has more gun control than California and even higher crime rates.

* Most of the 38 states that Brady gave 20 or fewer points to, have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates.

* For states that have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates, Brady gave average scores of 19, 19, and 14, respectively.

* For the 10 states with the lowest total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates, Brady gave average scores of 12, 12, and 9, respectively.