Gun Control In The United States

[Tesclo]

To start out, let's view the U.S. 2nd amendment (as passed by congress):

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.
If the term inalienable human right wasn't enough, let's take a look at the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And now, let's make a note of some state laws where gun control is already in place:

New York
The Sullivan Act:

The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed.

Let's quickly then look up the definition to the word license:

In particular a license may be issued by authorities, to allow an activity that would otherwise be forbidden.

Meaning that, In New York (under this act), it is illegal to possess firearms small enough to be concealed as a license is required to allow, by it's very definition, "an activity that would otherwise be forbidden". That would also mean that hunting, fishing, and driving are also illegal activities in the United States which, in a sense, are unconstitutional in their own right, but we'll save that for another thread. Continuing on...

In Illinois, not only must you have a permit to purchase and carry a firearm, but you must also ask permission from the police and be searched through an FBI database. FOID:

FOID is an acronym for Firearm Owners Identification. To legally possess or purchase firearms or ammunition, residents of the state of Illinois are required to have a FOID card.[1] (The term is alternatively pronounced "a foid card" or "an F.O.I.D. card".) The law has been in effect since 1968.[2]

The FOID card is issued by the Illinois State Police, who first perform a check of the applicant on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), an electronic database maintained by the FBI.

Just as a reminder:

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.

It seems to me that some states have over stepped their boundaries considering that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I wonder why the Federal Government doesn't step in and do the job that it was put into place to do (protect the rights of the people)? I guess because the ATF is too busy running guns to Mexican drug lords:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gun walking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders."

So let me get this straight, we the people can't be trusted to be responsible with guns, but the ATF is?

Guns tracked by the ATF have been found at crime scenes on both sides of the Mexico–United States border, and the scene of the death of at least one U.S. federal agent, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Who was in charge of this operation?
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley sent Holder a letter in May 2011 asking for details about Operation Fast and Furious, a botched federal firearms sting operation that allowed weapons to reach Mexican drug gangs.

Eric Holder. I think I remember him. Wasn't he the guy that said something about brainwashing people? Eric, I'm curious, do we "really change the way people think about guns" by running them across the Mexican border to drug lords? Is that how we "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way"? Remember, we the people can't be trusted with guns, but this guy can. Continuing on...

Let's quickly look at what our President has said and done about this "problem". Let's just completely ignore the UN gun control treaty (that Obama seems to support), and move towards what the President has actually said:

Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban (ABC NEWS)
Debate answer on assault weapons ban could cause problems for Obama (FOX NEWS)
What President Obama Says He'll Do To Your Gun Rights (FORBES)
Obama Assault Weapons Ban (YOUTUBE: 2ND DEBATE)
Obama hints at handgun restrictions too (WASHINGTONEXAMINER)

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

Take it for what it's worth folks. I've done the legwork here to bring you something more than a youtube video and a smile. At the end of the day, the 2nd amendment is not only the law of the land, but an inalienable human right. And there are obvious attempts to restrict that right as covered here.

Obama Still Thinks the Second Amendment Is About Hunting

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation—that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

Just for a bit of comic relief, let's see what rapper Ice T thinks about that.

...I guess it wasn't really that funny.

[Themius]

It seems to me that some states have over stepped their boundaries considering that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I wonder why the Federal Government doesn't step in and do the job that it was put into place to do (protect the rights of the people)? I guess because the ATF is too busy running guns to Mexican drug lords:

States already overstep their boundaries by saying I can't marry. The supreme court has treated marriage as a civil liberty and no civil liberty can be denied to anyone unless that state denies it to EVERYONE in their state; however, states still find a way to just do away with us gays. I was just speaking to someone about this, he touted off about how gay marriage is wrong and went on about his love of god and the constitution even though if anyone knows anything about the founding fathers....

[Deleted]

I'm just going to put this here as a reminder TO EVERYONE, before you decide to post.

I want a gun control thread that is going to address both sides of the issue. I want a thread that is intelligent and doesnt use some crappy youtube diatribe as its source for bad information.

If someone wants to create a balanced and respectable thread then I'm game. The OP of this is just... not up to snuff for this serious topic.

[Deleted]

the second amendmend was adopted 200 years ago. it wasnt written to fit the current state of the USA (urbanization, global economic ties etc).
secondly in 1791 handguns were so unbelievably rare the handgun as we know it appeared somwhere between 1800-1900, so the second amendmend was coined at rifles(more or less) so why shouldn't you ban handguns!?

[Tesclo]

the second amendmend was written 200 years ago. it wasnt written to fit the current state of the USA (urbanization, global economic ties etc).
secondly in 1791 handguns were so unbelievably rare the handgun as we know it appeared somwhere between 1800-1900, so the second amendmend was coined at rifles(more or less) so why shouldn't you ban handguns!?

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.

It doesn't state which arms. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If it meant only rifles it would have said only rifles.

[Spectral]

Obama Still Thinks the Second Amendment Is About Hunting

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation—that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

I have to conclude that anyone that reads a statement that says "hunting and shooting" and then says, "he thinks it's all about hunting!" is either being dishonest or willfully obtuse.

[Tesclo]

I'm just going to put this here as a reminder TO EVERYONE, before you decide to post.

I spent the last 3 hours doing research to respond with a balanced and respectable thread that doesn't use some crappy youtube diatribe as it's source for bad information. Why is it that anyone else can walk onto this website and create a thread about mayonnaise and the mods leave them alone, but the second I want to talk about a real issue it gets locked down and silenced. I've done enough leg work to have this thread remain open. Kindly, leave me alone.

[Deleted]

It doesn't state which arms. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If it meant only rifles it would have said only rifles.

do we create laws about teleporting devices and/or phasers , alien technology... i don't think so.

the problem is most us people seem to think that the amendments are something like the ten commandments.
but politics is no religion, it has to be "state of the art" you can't rely(atleast without modification) on very old documents which aren't in touch with the current world

[Duronos]

States already overstep their boundaries by saying I can't marry. The supreme court has treated marriage as a civil liberty and no civil liberty can be denied to anyone unless that state denies it to EVERYONE in their state; however, states still find a way to just do away with us gays. I was just speaking to someone about this, he touted off about how gay marriage is wrong and went on about his love of god and the constitution even though if anyone knows anything about the founding fathers....

Benjamin Franklin would like to have a word with these judges.

[Spectral]

It doesn't state which arms. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If it meant only rifles it would have said only rifles.

I assume you disagree with Scalia about original intent then, yes? That the 14th Amendment really does apply to all people, not just the ones that the authors originally intended?

[Duronos]

I spent the last 3 hours doing research to respond with a balanced and respectable thread that doesn't use some crappy youtube diatribe as it's source for bad information. Why is it that anyone else can walk onto this website and create a thread about mayonnaise and the mods leave them alone, but the second I want to talk about a real issue it gets locked down and silenced. I've done enough leg work to have this thread remain open. Kindly, leave me alone.

Reason being is mayonnaise is harmless, who's going to argue about it (I'd probably be surprised). When you make a political thread, it has to be monitored quite extensively as for it not to get derailed.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 10:16 AM ----------

do we create laws about teleporting devices and/or phasers , alien technology... i don't think so

Not yet we don't, just you wait if we get technology like that.

[Deleted]

I spent the last 3 hours doing research to respond with a balanced and respectable thread that doesn't use some crappy youtube diatribe as it's source for bad information. Why is it that anyone else can walk onto this website and create a thread about mayonnaise and the mods leave them alone, but the second I want to talk about a real issue it gets locked down and silenced. I've done enough leg work to have this thread remain open. Kindly, leave me alone.

This is a reminder to everyone, not just you. I typed the word "everyone", in case you didn't see it.

[Faroth]

the second amendmend was adopted 200 years ago. it wasnt written to fit the current state of the USA (urbanization, global economic ties etc).
secondly in 1791 handguns were so unbelievably rare the handgun as we know it appeared somwhere between 1800-1900, so the second amendmend was coined at rifles(more or less) so why shouldn't you ban handguns!?

That logic equates to suggesting the American Revolution should have required the Americans to use only renaissance era swords against the British firearms. The concept of the people being armed was tied to the prevention of tyranny, for the people to be able to fight against their own government. The founding fathers were actually concerned with the government, even the one they were establishing, becoming the exact thing they were seeking to be free of.

However, I think across the board, we've allowed the government to become so heavily bloated that it's far beyond what was envisioned and we continue to offer more control to the government.

[SirRobin]

I have to conclude that anyone that reads a statement that says "hunting and shooting" and then says, "he thinks it's all about hunting!" is either being dishonest or willfully obtuse.

I would go with the later. We've already had him in there for four years and we still have guns. So suddenly the second four is going to be when he springs his diabolical trap? They've vilified Obama for years and he just isn't living up to their demonization. So if they have to wrap their epistemic enclosures a little tighter so even less reality can get through in order to continue justifying all the effort they've put in to building these mental oubliettes? Then that is what they do. Its a hell of a lot easier for some to do that instead of admit that they were wrong.

[Deadvolcanoes]

I wonder if people will still cling to the 2nd amendment in 100 years when we have nuclear powered plasma guns that shoot through 10 feet of steel and fit in your pocket.

[Spectral]

I would go with the later. We've already had him in there for four years and we still have guns. So suddenly the second four is going to be when he springs his diabolical trap? They've vilified Obama for years and he just isn't living up to their demonization. So if they have to wrap their epistemic enclosures a little tighter so even less reality can get through in order to continue justifying all the effort they've put in to building these mental oubliettes? Then that is what they do. Its a hell of a lot easier for some to do that instead of admit they were wrong.

What's going to be weird, for me, is to see what logical contortions are produced to explain the presence of everyone's weapons, whole and in tact, come 2016. Will they still be insisting that Cuomo, O'Malley, or whoever the Dem candidate is wants to take all your guns? I suspect they will, and the predictions of doomsday for gun owners will just be washed completely down the memory hole.

[Zulakbar]

Anyone supporting gun control should be left to slavery in a dictatorship. You are fighting against the right to defend oneself, you are against freedom.

Please, volunteer yourself to North Korea. Trust your infallible human leaders to guide you in the right direction.

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." -Ludwig von Mises

[Deleted]

Anyone supporting gun control should be left to slavery in a dictatorship. You are fighting against the right to defend oneself, you are against freedom.

Please, volunteer yourself to North Korea. Trust your infallible human leaders to guide you in the right direction.

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." -Ludwig von Mises

theres a reason i don't live in a monarchy/dictatorship but in a democracy but after your comment i doubt you'd understand that

[Faroth]

The problem I have with lack of gun control is I fear it no longer serves a purpose. Allowing citizens to own firearms to defend against criminals, sure I can see the reasoning and other countries would argue they have less violent crime from criminals with guns.

Defending against tyranny? It feels like that's not feasible. Handguns, rifles, even semi-automatics against full assault rifles, tanks, helicopters, and just for kicks, missile capabilities?

If the US government went sci-fi level apeshit alien mind control crazy tyrranical, armed citizens would be hard pressed to stand against its own military might.

WTB Magneto powers, plz.

[SirRobin]

What's going to be weird, for me, is to see what logical contortions are produced to explain the presence of everyone's weapons, whole and in tact, come 2016. Will they still be insisting that Cuomo, O'Malley, or whoever the Dem candidate is wants to take all your guns? I suspect they will, and the predictions of doomsday for gun owners will just be washed completely down the memory hole.

Not really, they just ignore the fact that the last guy they loudly proclaimed was going to take their guns... didn't. While confidently proclaiming that the next, "not conservative or white enough for their tastes," liberal wants to take their guns. Since they are the only ones who believed it in the first place. Its not like anyone else is going to even bother calling them on it. There will just, again, be eye rolls galore and we'll get on with the business of making ends meet.