Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/06/2011
Offline
4421 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Apr 3, 2013

Vermont, North Dakota, and New Hampshire are three States with the lowest level of firearms restrictions and laws regarding personal ownership and "type" of firearm allowed to be owned.

 

They also remain the three States with the lowest (ridiculously low) incidents of Gun Violence and Gun related Murders.  Coincidence?  Maybe, but lets look at the factors.

 

Without getting too deep into demographics and profiling; look at the population density, and population compositions of these three States.  

 

These States are among the top in Firearms owned per capita.

 

These States all have a low Population Density.

 

These States have a limited number of Metropolitan Areas.

 

These States are some of the few where people can still relatively leave their homes unlocked, with minimum "security". (Not based in statistics, but merely an overall observation)

 

Putting these factors together, let us theorize on the resultant "low" Gun Death and Crime rate.  

 

When a Populace is wide spread and less dense, the level of aggression is lower.  Psychologically speaking; the level of threat and aggression is reduced, when people are not "on top" of each other.  Coupled with the level of firearms ownership per capita, it makes sense; no one is ready to just B & E on a home without knowing what types of armament the Home Owner has at their disposal.

 

Further, metropolitan areas are more apt to house "non property owners".  When a person holds no stake in any form of substantial property, the risk:reward ratio increases the crime rate.  The ideology of using a firearm for protection changes to one of aggression, when the "want and take" outweighs the need for security and protection.

 

I think Cities like NYC and Chicago (Although failing miserably at it), have the right approach, in banning or restricting private firearms ownership in these metropolitan areas.

 

It is not demographics per say, and it really isn't profiling either.  It is common sense, over populated areas should have stricter firearms control.  Perhaps one approach, is to require purchasers to reside within a certain distance from the firearms dealer they wish to purchase from.  Limiting access, by a restricting proximity and urban level connivance may have a more proficient effect than simply banning the sale of a particular firearms, or all together.

 

It still remains; the majority of Gun Violence and Gun Murder cases are carried out by those who have obtained the firearms illegally, or through unauthorized acquisitions.

 

The Second Amendment does guarantee the Right to bear arms, but it is obvious to even me, there must be some restrictions.  I do not, however, believe banning an "assault Rifle" look alike, or the size of a magazine will have any effect.

 

The current approach being taken is seriously flawed, and does not account for the real issues behind the crimes being committed.  Population Density should be studied, with relation to Gun Violence, and not how "cool" or how nefarious a firearm appears.

 

Additionally, a firearm is just as deadly with a one shot capability, as it is with a 30 round magazine.  Reload time is not a real factor, despite what they wish us to believe.  It is merely a step, a precedence to lay the foundation for greater restrictions in the future.

 

Law Enforcement has a tough job, and I do not envy them.  This being said, restrictions on the size of magazines are only being sought for the reload factor.  Law enforcement will continue to utilize real Assault Rifles, with Automatic capabilities, and 30 round magazines.  The ideology behind the restriction; is Law Enforcement would have a distinct advantage in a possible shoot out.  I am not against Law Enforcement having an advantage over criminals, but again, it is a false notion.  Check out the video I linked before, and you will see what I am saying.

 

To get back on "topic", the Second Amendment does not specifically state which arms or how many arms for a reason.  It does not state locality either, but I believe the latter is a more pertinent issue than the previous.

 

BTW, Gun Shows SHOULD be banned.  I have never agreed with firearms tent sales, with little to no regulations or checks.  It is simply a dumb idea, which allows irresponsible people to aquire firearms.

 

Moble

 

 

Message 11 of 151 (643 Views)
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
55486 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Apr 3, 2013

Moble, after reading your posts don't be afraid to pull the 10th ammendment out too.   When you said "To get back on "topic", the Second Amendment does not specifically state which arms or how many arms for a reason.  It does not state locality either, but I believe the latter is a more pertinent issue than the previous."  the first thing that came to mind was "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

 

So if you combine the 10th with the language of the 2nd it would stand to reason that any restrictions on gun types would be a state and not a federal issue as the constitution, via the 2nd ammendment, does not delegate the power to regulate types of weapons to the United States and therefore that power is reserved for the states or to the people.   

 

 

 

Also I think all gun show purchases should follow the same background checks and limits as normal gun store purchases.   I never understood why I could go to the local gun show every other month here in Massachussettes and buy brand new, post ban, 30 round magazines legally when its normally illegal to sell any post-ban magazines larger than 10 rounds in this state.   Those loopholes need to be closed.     I hate that my State has the magazine restriction as law but, as I said above, it IS a state's issue and not one for the Federal Govt.

Message 12 of 151 (610 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/06/2011
Offline
4421 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Apr 3, 2013

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

Moble, after reading your posts don't be afraid to pull the 10th ammendment out too.   When you said "To get back on "topic", the Second Amendment does not specifically state which arms or how many arms for a reason.  It does not state locality either, but I believe the latter is a more pertinent issue than the previous."  the first thing that came to mind was "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

 

So if you combine the 10th with the language of the 2nd it would stand to reason that any restrictions on gun types would be a state and not a federal issue as the constitution, via the 2nd ammendment, does not delegate the power to regulate types of weapons to the United States and therefore that power is reserved for the states or to the people.   

 

 

 

Also I think all gun show purchases should follow the same background checks and limits as normal gun store purchases.   I never understood why I could go to the local gun show every other month here in Massachussettes and buy brand new, post ban, 30 round magazines legally when its normally illegal to sell any post-ban magazines larger than 10 rounds in this state.   Those loopholes need to be closed.     I hate that my State has the magazine restriction as law but, as I said above, it IS a state's issue and not one for the Federal Govt.


Huzzah!  State's Rights is my other biggie.  The Fed is growing exponentially every year, trying to subvert the Rights of the State Legislatures.  Of course, those Legislatures have only themselves to blame, as I said in an earlier Post regarding Earmarks and Federal Funding to States, for greater control over them.

 

Sickening really.

 

I think this is why we are seeing in the news lately, all these wingbat States passing their own gun bans.  The Fed is behind the initiative, as I said, because they know they could not Constitutionally accomplish it on a National level.  People have to speak out!

 

Great point too, about the magazines.  All these bans do, is prohibit the further manufacturing of the magazines, and in store sales of them.  I will not disclose how many I have, but it really is not hard to get a hold of them.  Dumb bans, and pointless.  Sharks with no teeth will only gum you until you give up.

 

We used to have voices, but now they are being shushed and muffled behind pundits who wield "comedy" shows, and news anchors who think they are the voice of reason.  Sad.

 

How is the People's Republic of Taxachusetts anyway.  I moved out a long time ago.  You should come to NH where we "Live Free or Die".Smiley Wink

 

Moble

Message 13 of 151 (531 Views)
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
55486 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Apr 3, 2013

havocsarmy wrote:

I love guns but I don't want to see people get hurt by them.

 

Is there a way for us to have this right to bear arms and have sensible gun laws?

 

Can we protect people from themselves?

 

You can have a person on the up and up and maybe he or she will be the one to kill someone; you don't need a mental illness to attack someone with a gun like the shootings in Conneticut

 

There has to be a way for us to come together as a people and figure this thing out

 

 


I think that we can, and do, have sensible gun laws.  We actually have some great ones on the books right now but they need to be enforced.   One change is to make gun show purchases the same as buying @ a gun store, IE normal background checks.  

You can NOT protect people from themselves.  As I say about video games "You can't program and code stupidity out of gamers" which is basically the same as when I say "You can't legislate good behavior".

 

In my opinion fewer restrictions on guns and ownership would actually help to reduce overall gun violence.  As moble touched on the 3 states with the loosest/least restrictive gun control laws also have the lowest rates of gun violence.  Then you look at Chicago which has some of the strictest and their gun violence is setting national records.  

 

This small video will help show my opinion, in a funny way, about more guns = less violence

 

Message 14 of 151 (502 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 04/18/2011
Offline
3987 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Apr 3, 2013

Irresponsible people with guns= more crime

Lawful people with guns= less crime

 

Agree or disagree?

 photo 220dee8b-5bcd-4c72-9468-b21cfc72f31f_zpsfd870647.jpg
Message 15 of 151 (377 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 03/09/2013
Offline
4945 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Apr 3, 2013
If guns were illegal, it would be hell. Cocaine is illegal in the U.S, but people still do it. What's to stop them from getting illegal guns? It would be harming the good people.
 photo sig_zpsfya567e6.jpg
Message 16 of 151 (332 Views)
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
55486 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Apr 3, 2013

havocsarmy wrote:

Irresponsible people with guns= more crime

Lawful people with guns= less crime

 

Agree or disagree?


Irresponsible gun owners are the bane of us lawful, responsible gun owners and non owners alike!

 

I can easily agree that irresponsible people with guns, just like with booze or cars, are more likely to commit a crime and harm someoneelse with their decisions.  This is why I do support extensive background checks for all gun purchases.  I DO NOT support the same checks for purchases of ammo.  You already passed when you bought the gun, no double jeapordy Smiley Wink.

 

 

 

Message 17 of 151 (276 Views)
Limit Breaker
Registered: 05/24/2009
Offline
18676 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Apr 3, 2013

This topic is so simple...Im amazed that people really dont get it. The fact that the goverment is trying to take our weapons away one small regulation at a time would raise a red flag in any sensible person's mind that, that is reason enough to have guns in the first place.

I think PLYMCO_PILGRIM is one of my favorite forum people now. Smiley Happy

RE-THINK SALAD


Message 18 of 151 (240 Views)
Survivor
Registered: 07/23/2006
Offline
2374 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Apr 3, 2013

I do believe that there can be sensible gun laws, but many of them are already on the books. As pilgrim stated, they need enforcement. Many people do crimes with guns and get probation. The probation expires and they do it again as there is no real enforcement.

 

Saying that, restrictions should always aim to prevent those with a high risk of using it with I'll intent from getting guns. However, how do we do that as a society? Do we do mental exams to everyone that walks in to buy a gun? We really can't. Do background checks stop someone with intent of killing with using it for that purpose? Nope, it only stops those that are already criminals. (That doesn't mean I oppose background checks)

 

So how do we stop the bad guys from getting guns and killing good innocent people? It's not really possible. As shown by gun bans themselves, gun crime is not something you can write into the books and it will go away. It's a personal choice of an individual to find a way to cause harm to others. As a society we have to realize that this is the problem. 

 

We ignore that despite all the laws we create to stop this violence, people are still going out and killing others for no real reason. Why? Because the mentality that our problems can be solved by violence hasn't been changed. What makes a kid in Chicago wake up and think he can shoot someone over a petty argument? Did the gun make him do it? Did the gun cause the death of the other person? Nope, it was the individual that decided to wake up that day, grab a weapon and harm someone else. This idea needs to change.

 

I think that red flags should go up, a huge horn should sound, red lights start flashing, bells start ringing, and a referee should come out of nowhere each time gun limits or restrictions are announced. Why? Because it's one of our rights. A right, not a privilege. Do guns kill? Nope. Are guns used to kill? Yes, but that's the entire purpose of them. Does that make them bad? Absolutely not. A gun does not walk out of my gun locker and start killing people or make me want to kill someone. All these attacks on guns are red herrings and detracting from the real issues that are affecting our society.  So, as long as we continue ignoring the real problems bad stuff will happen. It will happen despite the law, because the law cannot physically and mentally force you to act a certain way.

Message 19 of 151 (190 Views)
Wastelander
Registered: 01/23/2007
Offline
680 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Apr 4, 2013
Limiting the capability of said arms could be infringing on their rights. But on the other hand if the military develops something better than the minigun should civilians have the right to buy it? Way things are now it feels like an arms race. That alone is tense in my opinion. In the event of a government takeover and rebellion I think tactics play a bigger role than the weapon in your hands. Give me a pistol-caliber carbine with 12 shots and I'll make it work somehow.
Message 20 of 151 (186 Views)
0 Likes