Without getting into the Second Amendment, which is a legal wrangle, philosophically, morally:

Should The United States ban all guns?

Would it be the right thing to do?

Would it end crime as we know it?

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?

Try, please, to forget the US Constitution for this debate - try to think on a "gut" "heart" level

I would like to preface by stating that I do not own nor have ever fired a gun in my life. My father does have a gun in our home but thats because he is a Corrections Officer for the City of NY. Now that that is out of the way...

Should The United States ban all guns?

Would it be the right thing to do?

Would it end crime as we know it?

No, the US should not ban all guns even from a philosophical standpoint. From a practical viewpoint, banning all guns would do nothing to curb violence and instead may create more problems. Not allowing the populace the ability to purchase a firearm puts them in danger. The opposing logic is that if all guns were banned, it would stop or atleast minimize gun-related crimes. But the truth is that many criminals, especially gangs, obtain their firearms illegally. The case study for this issue should be Washington DC:

Less Guns, More Crime



If the prevailing logic that banning guns results in less crime...then why hasn't it worked in DC? Is it possible that those who are willing to break the law through violent crime are equally likely to steal the firearms used to committ the act?

I mean the real question is if we could actually ban/destroy all guns if that was our true intention. Are we going to start going into the homes of private citizens who have done nothing wrong and arrest them for owning a gun when they have not harmed anyone? The idea of no guns may be a wonderful fantasy for some, but here in the real world, there needs to be a better policy for dealing with violent crime.

Should The United States ban all guns?
No.

Would it be the right thing to do?

No and it would be practically and politically impossible – especially since it would violate the Constitution. The right" thing to do would be to enforce existing gun laws. Don't hold you breath.

Would it end crime as we know it?

Of course not. Other weapons can be used and guns would just come in form outside the US as is happening in other countries that “ban guns”. “If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” – is still very true.

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?

We have a tradition going back to the Revolution. Call it a cowboy mentality if you like. In fact until the late 60s when Black Panthers started doing it – it was legal in California for any citizen to wear a (non concealed) sidearm.

Should The United States ban all guns?

No- absolutely not. I believe in reasonable regulation- but NEVER gun confiscation.

Would it be the right thing to do?

No- goverment confiscation of property when a crime has not been commited involving violence or theft (including through fraud) is wrong, always has been.

Would it end crime as we know it?

If you could wave a magic wand and "poof" they are actually all gone- I am sure fatalities in crimes would go down, but you have a constant number in any society of a certain percentage of criminals- and I mean REAL criminals- not, oh, prostitutes or druggies- but murderers and thieves- they will never go away.

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?

A bit, no doubt about that- we are a profoundly ignorant and violent society when compared to other western societies- so the cowboy mentality is there whether there are guns present or not.

You want to rid the country of crime, or at least, a good portion of it- enforce the weapons laws we already have, and make only real crimes criminal- instead of minor "sins" like prostitution, gambling etc.

I don't get a chance to say this very often, but I completely agree with Ted in the first three answers.

Gun ownership is and should be an opportunity for all Americans. While some of the reasons for armed militias have been eroded by federal power and the tremednous power of modern state monopolized weapons, giving away the ability of citizens to arm themselves would only increase our feeble-ness in standing up against tyranny if that occasion comes about.

While practically banning weapons might bring us back to the good old days when people stabbed each other when they are mad at each other, philosophically, the United Staes liberties were secured by gun owning citizens and we should continue to have gun owning citizens.

I agree that we have some good legislation on the books that is not well enforced. I would add stronger penalties for using a gun and particularly an unregistered gun while committing a crime.

I also would like to have better supervision for gun show gun sales. But mostly vigorous enforcementr of existing legislation would be more effective than politicking for someone's vote glomming new spin program that's been done before.

There is nothing that would end crime as we know it.

Gun play has often been glamorized in the United States. But most dangerous use of guns is done by people illegally using guns and/or using illegal gun. People who follow all of the rules with guns are usually extremely responsible gun owners.

As fo the black panthers, while I might lean for tradinghandguns fro shotguns and rifles as a gun reform, I would rather have people wearign guns that carrying concealed weapons. Concealed gun wearing always seems dangerous to me. Only when things escalate to confrontation does one find out that their is a gun toting opponent. But I seem to be in the minority on prefering not to havehandguns concealed.

Should The United States ban all guns?
No, if we ban all guns, then how will the police and military function?


Would it be the right thing to do?
No, it would be a foolish thing to do.


Would it end crime as we know it?
Well, yes. Crime as we know it would be a wistful memory of the "good ol' days." Crime would skyrocket, especially since the police would be totally outgunned.


Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?
No. I'm a biker, yet the "biker mentality" doesnt' compel me to own a Harley. Except in a very few cases, nothing compels anybody to own a firearm. I'm firmly of the belief that any weapon the government feels is appropriate to use on its own citizens the citizens should have access to, yet aside from the some Buck knives, I don't own any weapons. So much for compulsion.

Should The United States ban all guns?

I don’t see how such is really possible. I would like to live in a society free of WMD's but to me the idea is we have had a war on drugs and a ban on them for just about forever now and they have ceased to exist in the mainstream. So to me, the idea is many people would still be able to obtain firearms illegally simply because the world has so many of them and people that want to sell them. I could not agree selling that to America even if the murder rate in the states consumes more lives the a lot of previous war zones we have been in the past 40 or 50 years. its a larger problem that deals with a lot of issues that in themselves I don’t think will ever allow America to be safe until resolved, illegal firearms or not.

Would it be the right thing to do?

I don’t think so, see above.

Would it end crime as we know it?

Absolutely not.

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?

Actions movies aside, I don’t think anyone in America would care to be shot at or hit with a weapon. Its one of those things that exist in a state of duality overall, I mean we put forth this bad boy scenario but I truly doubt its something people really want, I mean I would think our recruiting rates during a war would skyrocket if everyone wanted to be Rambo, so maybe its just people not being honest with themselves overall.

Hey eeyor I am truly glad when we can agree on some things! Guess we should remember we are all American after all is said and done.



The real benefit IMO of concealed carry laws is it makes the potential criminal uncertain about the saftey of attacking ANY citizen even when that person is in the perfect isolated spot – like coming home late at night after work in a city as many women (and men) have to do. This IMO is why this type of crime drops when theses laws are passed. Thus everyone benefits and is safer – armed or not. The other reality is that most folks who have concealed carry permits don’t carry often. Still the benefit is there even without a lot of guns carried on the street.

I doubt that you will find very many people here on who will say anything but "no" to the first three questions. That leaves the last question, which is worthy of discussion.


Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?

This is worded more strongly than I might put it; also, as Bikerdad has pointed out, the word "compel" is not quite correct.


(There have been some odd exceptions to this, as certain American communities have tried to pass laws making ownership of firearms mandatory.)

Link



(I have deliberately taken this information from a pro-gun website, to show that this is not anti-gun propaganda.)

Although this law has not, apparently, been actively enforced, it disturbs me to think that I would be a criminal if I lived in the city of Kennesaw.)

One might, instead, ask if there is something about the American culture which seems to make violence (and, therefore, gun-related violence) more prevalent. This is a huge question. Here is one essay which addresses the issue.

Link



(This last paragraph is from a source quoted by the author of this essay, which he seems to accept.)

The author makes a case that these differing rates of violent crime are not due to gun control laws. I can accept this. However, there must be some explanation.

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?

I don't think it's a "cowboy mentality" per se. Americans tend to not like to rely on government to the extent that our European brethren do. This is true of a lot of things., to include self defense and the defense of one's property. When I lived in Italy, it was basically a foregone conclusion that I would be robbed during the night as I slept if I left any window open. Theft was that rampant, and there was no air conditioning so it really sucked in the summer. The gypsies would actually mark property with spray painted symbols indicating things like "woman home alone". I'm not embellishing at all. I was alone more than half the time because it was a high deployment base, and it was unsettling. No, I was never robbed, but about one out of five people I knew were. I prefer the way things are here. I think if I lived in Italy permanently I'd invest in a couple of bull mastiffs.

Edited to add: Victoria, the link you cited gave those explanations. Rape rates don't reflect gun rates, as guns are almost never used in those types of crimes. Ask a convicted rapist if he thinks women should carry guns.

Nationmaster link on rape rates

What you missed here is the fact that these communities did this in response to others that had BANNED gun ownership.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.
The gun ban prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and makes it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5110900365.html

Typical SF!
Needless to say this would never stand up to challenge. And it didn't

A judge struck down San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handgun possession Monday, saying local governments have no such authority under California law.
Proposition H, which passed with a 58 percent majority in November, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who need guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of guns and ammunition in San Francisco.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...06/13/SFGUN.TMP

Mrs. P
Edited to add: Victoria, the link you cited gave those explanations. Rape rates don't reflect gun rates, as guns are almost never used in those types of crimes. Ask a convicted rapist if he thinks women should carry guns.


Exactly and in fact Lott has documented that the “rape rate” drops after concealed carry laws (allowing concealed carry). Needless to say some rapists are not keen on getting shot. In general women are significant beneficiaries of liberalized concealed carry laws.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html

Should The United States ban all guns?
Yes definitely, from a moral and Philosophically point of view.

Would it be the right thing to do?
Yes!

Would it end crime as we know it?
No, but it´ll certainly bring down the number of deaths due to firearms.


Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?
Why else this obsession with guns?
Or are you just a more ill-tempered, intolerant, inhuman, violent, neurotic, psychopathic people than the rest of the world?

No, we're just not as fatalistic about the rest of the ill-tempered, intolerant, inhuman, violent, neurotic, psychopathic people as the rest of the world. We know that such people are out there, and are less willing to be sheep for them.

btw, its curious that you rank "ill-tempered" and "intolerant" ahead of violent and psychopathic.

Actually, its scary

1. Hunting has long been a part of the American lifestyle...moreso or at least much more recently in our history than Europe, for example.
2. Our Constitution guarentees the right to keep and bear arms. There is a reason for this (besides the one you mentioned)...an armed citizenry can easily overthrow the government if the need arises. This was fundamental to our country gaining our independence, and prevents tyranny in the future.

I've found that a well-armed population tends to make things more polite myself. Of course, I suppose it depends on your definition of polite. Thieves coming into one's home in the middle of the night and rummaging through your stuff seems the epitome of rudeness to me.

As for "tolerance", I don't think it's a coincidence that the first place where women got the vote in the world (asside from a couple of remote islands) was on the American frontier. The standard academic argument is that women in Wyoming (and Utah) obtained the vote because the state was thinly populated and wanted to qualify for statehood by raising the number of voters. This really explains nothing because other thinly populated frontier states had sought and been denied stathood earlier without enfranchising women. It was only when cheap effective pistols became available after the Civil war that women got the right to vote. Frankly, when you review what guns have done historically for the power equation throughout the world, I think this power equalizer is the most "moral" weapon ever produced. Or were things better with families at the mercy of the strongest sword?

I agree. Think of recent history. One faction in a country decides to murder the other – Rwanda – and kills 800,000 in just a few weeks. Would this have been possible if those being hunted could “shoot back” – I think not. What did Hitler do when he came to power? Pass tough gun control laws. What did he do next? – collect all the guns!

The US was, in a way, started over a gun control dispute right here in New England. Seems that in 1775 the Brits heard that some colonists might have firearms – can’t allow that can we. They sent a few hundred troops to Boston who marched toward Concord Mass in the early morning. On the way they crossed a little bridge in Lexington and came face to face with a group of “Minutemen” and their guns. Well when ordered to drop the weapons they did not comply – subsequently someone fired the “shot heard round the world” and the American Revolution had begun.
We still reenact the event every year here. Worth seeing if you are near in mid April (April 19th) and don’t mind getting up early. And yes this is the day of the Boston marathon.

Every civilized nation has banned guns, resulting in lower gun deaths. Banning guns is the only way to prevent the rising tide of gun massacres, which are usually carried out by "legal" guns -- ie. guns supplied to criminals by NRA and gun nut policies.

But just as important, the weaponizing of a country is the first step fascist always take to overthrow or stifle democracy. Democracy can't function when armed militias threaten and kill people -- as in Iraq. Both Hitler and Mussolini armed thugs to sow disorder in the streets, and then got into power promising to restore order. It's the basic fascist tactic to arm thugs. Conservatives are sowing the same type of fear and are, not conincidently, for policies that result in armed thugs on our streets. So banning guns is not only good policy, it is a good way to protect our way of life.

-and extend the bloody path of human history? One guy in here said something like you (Americans) would not be the sheep (killed). Strange coming from a country proclaiming to be "God´s own country". I mean, turning the other cheek, and loving your enemies, where has all that gone? And Christianity is so hysterical in the US, it is strange they fare as they do in the world today, and how little regard they show for human life
(death penalty, gun legislation..).
P.S. Just wondering, does my views on the US policies these days automatically make me a terrorist (though I´m not an Arab), or am I free to go?

You have it backwards sir. Certainly communists and fascists and their “thugs” but this is not nearly enough – you see they really don’t want to face “armed” resistance. This is why the fist thing Hitler did coming to power was pass very strict “gun control” laws. He knew where every gun was – then he went and collected them ALL. Thus his “tHugs” had nothing to fear from the disarmed populous.

You have that backwards. The first thing the fascists do is ban the weapons and then make sure THEY ( the fascists) have the weapons. The Founding Fathers saw the armed citizen as a check against tyranny.

Should The United States ban all guns?

Yes, but a ban at this point won’t accomplish much. It would be virtually impossible to round up all the guns in this country. To some of us, it is disquieting how little control there really is over these deadly weapons.

Nobody knows precisely how many guns there are in the U.S. , but there are 3 new handguns produced in this country every minute. The DOJ estimates there are 223 million firearms in this country. That’s almost one gun for every man, woman and child in the entire country! Source I don't see how it is possible to justify these numbers.

BATF’s latest report states 815,475 pistols and 275,323 revolvers were manufactured in 2005, but 21% of gun manufacturers did not even file a report! Geez louise, if no one even knows how many are being made in a given year, how in the world could we effectively ban them?

Would it be the right thing to do?

Yes

Would it end crime as we know it?

End, no. Cut down on it, certainly. Make it more difficult, definitely. And most importantly, it would cut down on the number of successful suicides, and the murder/suicides we see so often when a marriage turns ugly.

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

Criminals are generally cowards. It is much easier to shoot a person from a distance than it is to get up close and personal with a knife or a club. If the easy way weren’t readily available, it is likely the crime would not occur.

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?

Our original 13 colonies were not heavily armed. Guns at that time were expensive, unreliable, and impractical. It took Sam Colt to make people fearful enough to buy his products.


Successive generations have bought into the myth, and here we are.

The reason we have the second amendment, really, is so citizen soldiers, rather than standing professional armies, would defend the nation, and so that if our govt got out of line, we could resist it.

Whether our Const contains a second amendment or not, these are both good motives, and for these reasons, no, we should not ban guns.

In addition, the most fundamental of rights is the right to be safe and secure in one's person and property. Without weapons, the most physically gifted will usually win. The young, the old, women, and the small and less athletic lose. Guns or similar weapons level the playing field and therefore are necessary to make this most fundamental of rights a reality. Police usually clean up the messes and gather evidence--they are not bodyguards and do not prevent crime, except under the tenuous theory of deterrence.

Hunting was so fundamental to life in 18th C America that no one would have deigned to insert a "right to hunt" into the Const--that is NOT why the 2d amendment exists, nor does it exist to address sport shooting, with all due respect.

As an aside, guns are used to prevent many more crimes that they commit--read Point Blank: Guns and Crime in America by Professor Gary Kleck. Groundbreaking research and very well-documented.

Actually, the second amendment was written by George Mason (or rather Madison cribbed it from Mason's rendition in the Virginia constitution). Mason was a slave holder who was petrified at the prospect of a slave revolt. Accordingly he didn't want the federal government interfering with armed death squads (i.e., militias) to suppress slave revolts and various other threats to landowners.

Thus the first use of a state militia after the passage of the second amendment was to SUPPRESS the Whisky Rebellion, which according to our tortured logic, was a militia that was supposted to be armed by the second amendment. Washington thought otherwise and used the second amendment to arm a militia to disarm the Rebelion.

So the second amendment has a sordid history and not the not the phoney history you and the NRA attribute to it.

Read "the Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment."

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

Also read Washington's proclamation on using the Pennsylvania militia to put down the "militia" of the Whiskey rebels.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden...ns/gwproc03.htm

In short you are propagating a falsified historyy of the 2nd Amendment

Should The United States ban all guns?
No, they are tools, like cars, and we have the duty and responsibility to use them correctly and safely. No one tells us we can't use "tools of necessity", which tguns might well be at some times.

There is a great change of heart that comes to one when he first meets terror. It very consistently makes either rapid gun advocates or "shutins" of almost everyone who has been there. Please be as prepared to help me and my kids, as I will be for you and yours.

Would it be the right thing to do?
No, it would be the wrong thing. Bad folks exist and they do bad things. A well educated and trained pistol user, for justone example, can respond "effectively" in less than .3 sec with his sidearm. In contrast, the Cops' response times are said to be 40+ minutes nationally, if they respond at all.

Would it end crime as we know it?
It would greatly change it for sure. The majority of studies I am aware of correlate gun ownership and reduced crime very positively.

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?
"Them's loaded words thar podner." (But I know what you mean.) I am not greatly impressed with my fellow citizens and their images of self. However, I would like to think that there are good guys willing and capable of coming to the aid of their fellows in times of need, with appropriate action. And unfortunately the most needed aid is for the most dire of situations. That's the use of strong effective force, when and as needed, and that in turn equates to facile firearms use by all, for all.

After we successfully ban ignorance, stupidity, sloth and venality in the citizenry, we can revisit the problem.

Your boy Bogus (why should I believe anything a man named Bogus has to say?) has, shall we say, a "unique" interpretation of many known sources. It is revisionist and designed to be controversial. Whether it is designed to be accurate is another story.

I do not have the time to do a point-by-point rebuttal of a law review article he surely took months to write, but I will say this: In a time before the existence of police forces, the first US police force being formed in NYC about 1853 (not in the slaveholding South, as might follow from Bogus' note), and in light of the disbanding of the Cont Army as soon as the Rev War ended, to think that states and locales wanted a militia and the right to arm one is no great surprise.

And, in light of the great fear of federal and centralized power by sovereign states, many of whom adopted the Const with great reservations, it is also not stretch to see how these states wanted power retained at their level, for a number of reasons.

Slave control may have been one of them, but I doubt it was the primary one, and even so does not refute any of my arguments. Slavery was the law of the land at the time--if Bogus is arguing that the provision exists to make sure states and locales could draw upon an armed citizenry to execute its laws, I would agree. That slavery itself is no longer legal is irrelevant.

"AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

In his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar and later a U.S. District Court Judge wrote:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualifications as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British Government."

In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."


"In the Federalists Papers, No. 29, Alexander Hamilton clearly states membership in a well-regulated militia is not required for the right to keep arms:

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen…The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution…Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.""




http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn/history-201...d-amendment.htm

That's the best gunnutz can do: make fun of a man's name in lieu of arguing the merits. Thanks for the admission.



Yep, the wanted an armed militia alright -- to protect themselves agaisnt slave revolts and people that might take their land. The point is the sure didn't want slaves and Whiskey rebels armed. So much for the citizen soldier nonsense.



You need to actually read George Mason's writings, and his preoccupation with slaves.



None of this is relevant to the intent or interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, since Mason, not Hamilton or Tucker wrote the words, and dozens of guys in wigs adopted it, and the first use of the milita, by Washington, was to DISARM citizens. So try again.

In any case, your interpretation would give you the right to own a gun (actually only a blunderbus or a breechloader) if you joined a milita that couldn't afford to issue one. Know any of those?

Reading some of the modifications to the amendment tells us it was to be applied to people “in the militia”. Clearly the right was given to all citizens so as to- “In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty”. See below. No mention of any particular weapon of course.


The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker, also known as The American Blackstone. He authored a set of law books in 1803 that annotated Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
On the Second Amendment, he wrote, in two footnotes: "[fn40] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." "[fn41] Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England

Further, Tucker writes of the English Bill of Rights, that,
The bill of rights, 1 W. and M, says Mr. Blackstone, (Vol. 1 p. 143,) secures to the subjects of England the right of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree. In the construction of these game laws it seems to be held, that no person who is not qualified according to law to kill game, hath any right to keep a gun in his house. Now, as no person, (except the game-keeper of a lord or lady of a manor) is admitted to be qualified to kill game, unless he has 100l. per annum, &c. it follows that no others can keep a gun for their defence; so that the whole nation are completely disarmed, and left at the mercy of the government, under the pretext of preserving the breed of hares and partridges, for the exclusive use of the independent country gentlemen. In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm..._and_compromise

Another one of the most important early commentaries on the Second Amendment was the 1833 book Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution authored by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Joseph Story. Both sides in the modern gun debate have excerpted parts of this commentary to support their particular points of view:
§ 1890[27] of the book describes the Second Amendment:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers…… The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them

Since you want to argue with law review articles, Landru, here you go. (This was drawn from Lexis, so you cannot view it unless you have an account. The hard copy cite is below.)

What part of

didn't you guys understand?

Why can't the gun people come up with any other justification for their lust for firearms than the 2nd Amendment? Why can't any of them admit "I like shooting the crap out of things" or "I like to kill small animals" or "It gives me a tingle in the naughty place when I let off a round from an AK"????

Should The United States ban all guns?

No. A ban on guns leaves everyone defenseless except criminals. Mandating that everyone who owns a gun join the national guard for a few years might be a good idea, if we're discarding the Constitution.

Would it be the right thing to do?

No. A gun ownership and training subsidy for law-abiding residents of high crime communities would be the right thing to do, if it could be done without raising taxes. Gun safety and marksmanship should be taught as a mandatory part of high school kinesiology curricula.

Would it end crime as we know it?

Nothing will end crime, but banning guns has dramatically increased crime everywhere it's been tried, because there's little that violent criminals like more than a defenseless victim, except, perhaps, a defenseless population of potential victims.

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?

Absolutely. The only ones who fear the cowboy mentality are those who don't understand it and those who couldn't continue to prey on the weak or avoid hard work in the presence of cowboy justice. The cowboy mentality is not "shoot first, ask questions later." That's a direct violation of the first provision of the Cowboy Code.

Cowboys are among the smartest, wisest people on the planet. If the world were ruled by cowboys, all justice would be fast and fair. We'd have no environmental crises. Neighbors would help each other. The welfare state would be a distant memory, because poverty would end via the generosity of the wealthy and the industry of the poor. Women and parents would be among the most respected people in society. Racial and religious intolerance would cease. Yes, the world would be a much better, cleaner place if we all had the cowboy mentality.

Its amazing the propensite of people to put forward absolute lies without ever bothering to check them when it suits their needs.

I'm not going to even get into the debate itself, just correct one of the most iritating and aggregious myths that was invented by some idiot somwhere and now INEVITABLY comes up in every single gun debate.

"The first thing Hitler and Stalin did when they came to power was ban all the guns!!!"

Wow.

GREAT argument there, drawing a link between Hitler and Stalin and claiming the people would have been able to rise up if only those men had not confiscated all the guns. Too bad it is COMPLETE fiction.

Germany had very restrictive gun laws, passed NOT by Hitler, but by the Weimar republic, the democratic state that existed long before he got close to power. They passed gun laws because at the time there were huge mobs of armed thugs wandering th country wreaking havok and waging massive gunfights, leagues like the 'Stahlhelm' and others, mostly formed of demobilised soldiers. It worked too, the mobs were brought under control by gun laws and increased police activity. Hitler kept pre-existing gun laws, he did not put them into place.

Stalin is even worse, the USSR had VERY lazy gun laws throught Stalin's entire reign (effectively crushing the 'armed populace would have stopped tyranny' argument). The gun laws on the books were limited, gun ownership in several major cities was restricted, but in the countryside there was almost no gun law at all. This is actually part of the reason the Russian Soldier-peasant did fairly well with limited training, EVERYONE in the countryside had guns.


But little things like 'truth' dont seem to stop those who care more for the impact of an argument than its accuracy.

1) You like in a wonderfully beautiful country full of gorgeous women ... just thought you should know ( at least Aalbourg in 1991 was that way...)

2) Extend the bloody path of human history? Dafur.... no legal guns ... Congo ... no legal guns ...

I have yet to see the streets run red with blood in the US... it is NOT as violent and wild a place as you europeans dream it to be , our counrty was started by those you sought to kill and oppress. My family is a perfect example... ( we were driven from our home in central germany in the late 1700s because we were protestant. ) So you will have to forgive us if we come accross as a bit paranoid about someone stepping on our freedom, besides the REAL reason for gun ownership in the US is to PREVENT tyrannys rebirth on this continent.

3) This statement is SOOO misguided ... First i dont remember there being much in the way of christianity in europe... sure you had the huge churches and the pomp and the window dressing but the church is DEAD in europe... and many people think that is a good thing.


read the WHOLE passage it is about forgiveness... turning the other cheek and loving your enemies is about not letting hate destroy you. and treating people fairly.

Just to tweak the point christ was not against defense...




See the disciples carried swords with them, and Jesus told them... "hey guys if you havent got one yet sell everything you have to get one"



Maybe, but the 1938 Waffengesetzt effectively eliminated all weapons from those who were not known and "Trustworthy" members of the Nazi party and enabled the holocaust.


http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_...entwaffnung.pdf

On a gut, heart level, come to my house with Ill-will, I and Mr. Glock will greet ya. VERY unlikely to have any crime here, and God forbid there should be, I stand a better than 50-50% chance of defending myself as opposed to 0%.

But not slaves or Whiskey rebels? The idea that this rhetoric really meant all citizens is naive. The last thing Mason wanted was a bunch of riff raff armed to the teeth and threatening his land and his right to won other human beings and work them to death;and the first use of the militias was to DISARM the Whiskey Rebels. So was the Pennsyvania militia the militia or where the Whiskey Rebels the miltia? Did Madison cheer on the Whiskey rebels against Washington and hope they would shoot him?



Like I say, he didn't write it and didn't ratify it. Now, Washington was around at the time and what did he use the militia to do -- TO DISARM THE WHISKEY REBELS. So much for the notion that the 2nd Amendment was to arm the populace against the federal government.

Who is more likely to have understood the intent of the 2nd Amendment -- Washington or Tucker?

Should The United States ban all guns?

Would it be the right thing to do?

Would it end crime as we know it?

No. Nothing will ever end crime. It would change the nature of crime, however.

To begin with, making guns illegal in a country with a long and complex relationship histroy with firearms, such as the USA, would create a lot of criminals out of people with an emotional or ideological attachment to their guns. (Just as Prohibition did to drinkers, or late 19th and early 20th Century bans on narcotics have done to drug users and addicts.)

This isn't a reason not to ban them if the case can be made to do so - it doesn't stop narcotics from being illegal, even if libertarians might disagree with that law.

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?

Not so much cowboy, I'd say - I enjoyed Seamus links to Cowboy Codes of various kinds; it's not hard to see where Ivy Leaguer GW Bush gets his fetish for down-home simplicity from - but "frontier".

By this I mean that, despite almost a century of bestriding the globe, and almost a generation of doing it with no serious opposition or competition, America still seems to have the chippiness of a confident underdog.

While Americans are among the politest people I've ever met - even New Yorkers would make the average Brit ashamed of themselves if shame hadn't been banned by the "I am special" crowd - there's a sense that it's a veneer, condiditioned from birth out of fear of, rather than respect for, strangers.

The frontier mentality, I think, treats everyone unknown with suspicion first - trust and respect have to be earned.

Thinking about it, it's not as harsh as that.

I remember a quote from the Lawrence Kasdan film Silverado



The character goes on to imply that both options are viable, and both have their disadvantages. Being open and friendly let's you get taken advantage of, and being closed and suspicious keeps you safe, but you never have any friends.

I think this is closer to the truth, and fits the national American preference for simple, black-and-white, dualistic analyses of all kinds of situations over shades of grey. (Again, I'm only saying "preference" here - Americans are just as capable of nuance as they are of irony, they just prefer simplicity more than, say, we Brits do).

I'm not an especially huge Michael Moore fan - I find his film-making style overly manipulative for a documentarian (I'd prefer him to stay off camera and just show the facts, rather than do all the stunts) - but one thing that has stayed with me since watching Bowling for Columbine was that, compared to Canada, gun ownership levels were broadly similar, but gun crime levels were dramatically different, and to America's demerit.

He asked whether maybe Americans just didn't like each other as much as people in other countries. I wonder if this doesn't hold a nugget of truth, and perhaps advances a pragmatic argument that while, in principle, guns should be freely available to all citizens but, in practice, they can't be trusted with them.

I believe that Brits like each other, if anything, somewhat less than Americans. At least when we've indulged our national passion for getting hog-whimperingly drunk. When I contemplate what might happen in Britain at pub kicking-out time if we were all armed, I'm rather relieved our government takes a less principled, more hypocritical and paternalistic, nanny-state stand on this issue than that taken in the USA.

I've argued the merits quite a bit in this thread--and I have not called you names or been ad hominem abusive to you. Watch it.






Your have repeated this and just don't seem to get it: whether the purpose was to enforce slave holding laws, conversion laws, or anti-smoking laws, one of the intentions was to provide for an armed citizenry to aid in protection of property. Get it? That is a perfectly valid reason for individual gun ownership. That slavery has been outlawed is completely, utterly, and totally, irrelevant. That the Second Amendment may have had as one of its background motives the enforcement of property rights in slaves is completely, utterly, and totally, irrelevant. As long as a citizen owns legal property, he has a right to defend it, regardless of the nature of the property. This is beyond fundamental in our culture and jurisprudence.





I suspect I have read more about George Mason then you ever will. George Mason favored no importation of slaves and the gradual emancipation of slaves, as did many leading lights of Virginia at the time.

"...Yet now he withheld his support from the document he had played so large role in crafting, because the Constitution did not end the slave trade, and there was no Bill of Rights.

Mason had told his colleagues that slavery was a moral error that would bring "the judgment of heaven on the United States. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects providence punishes national sins by national calamities." He could not get his fellow delegates to accept his point. "

http://stephanaschwartz.com/HTML/George%20Mason.html

Of course, Mason's views on slavery are irrelevant to our discourse, but you keep bringing it up. Although a slaveholder, he was in favor of gradual abolition.







The Const was debated and agreed upon by many, and sincerely interpreted by many. Trying to say Mason's views, who didn't even sign the Const, are the only relevant views is patently ridiculous.

The right to use arms, intrinsically, is to use them for justice--sometimes that will be to put down an uprising, sometimes to fulminate one. The self-same George Washington who put down the Whisky Rebellion led the Cont Army against the British, because to his mind one cause was unjust, and one was just--the tools he used were the same in each case, in great part--the armed citizen.

You last two sentences make no sense at all.

-- edited to fix quotes.

This question for me goes back a long time ago to somewhat of a turning point in my life. I was wondering why more countries were not communist. At the time it seemed like such a good idea of having equal pay and treatment for everyone, seemingly the most fair system of them all.

Then I realized, and have learned time and time again since that point that humans are not the same. Some people are lazy, some people are addicted to working, some people want to take what they can get and don't care how they get there. Ultimately for the communism I would have liked to exist there would have to be people immune to corruption and everyone willing to put in what they can. Since this would never happen I quickly moved away from the idea into a more realistic viewpoint that over time has solidified.

The only person I can depend on is myself and a small few others I have learned to trust. I dont expect the government to put an invisible barrier of protection around me that's impervious to the cruelty of the world nor could they ever. The thought of banning guns is simply a false sense of security. Humans should be able to decide for themselves wether or not they would like to own a firearm, not the big brother... then again I think prostitution should be legal so my ideals aren't always the most popular ones, but they are mine alone and the less will that other's impose on me short of simply enforcing the after effect of harm on others or access to doctors after that harm I am all for.

You will never stop people from killing each other, taking away freedoms for a false sense of security is just a bad idea. Do things yourself and don't rely or hope that others will do them for you because if you do you'll end up being sadly mistaken and very disappointed.

Some differences between Canada and America. We have a far larger organized crime and drug culture. I read one est. of 54 billion as the size of the US market and needless to say this kind of money, and people who deal in it consumes lots of guns and gun deaths. The other major facto IMO is that gun crime in our inner cities (where most of it is) is not taken as seriously as it should be in the US. In Canada I am sure a criminal who uses a gun in a crime goes away for a long time. In the US cities it is so common that it is assumed if you pick up a gang member or petty criminal he will be armed. Thus our attitude is part of the problem.

We know that about ½ the people in the US have a guns(s) in the home. Yet “gun crime” is not distributed as guns are but concentrated – usually in areas where citizens have, for one reason or another, fewer guns to protect themselves. You should also know that people who live in (always dangerous) federally subsidized housing are prohibited from owning guns!

Should The United States ban all guns?
Hell no.

Would it be the right thing to do?
Hell no.

Would it end crime as we know it?
Hell no. Aside from the fact that criminals can get ahold of guns whether they are legal or not there is the fact that guns are an equalizing force. Guns allow a weaker person to defend themself against a stronger person if they have to.

Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?
The real world has violent crime that compels citizens to own guns.

You watch it. You spent a whole post making fun of the name of Ph.D scholar who wrote an article on the history of the 2nd Amendment. You couldn't address the merits of his case (because it is irrefutable) so you attacked -- his name.

This is how gun nutz argue.



Since Madison didn't write the 2nd Amendment, but rather George Mason did, and since about 60 other guys ratified it, thanks for the irrelevancy.

Since the first use of the 2nd Amendment was by Washington to arm the Pennsyvania militia and takes guns AWAY from some guys that according to this weak article were the militia, I'd say your article is pretty useless.

Deal with Washington's use of the militia to disarm the Whiskey Rebels. If you can't say so. The debate is leaving you behind.






Since Mason wrote the words borrowed by Madison, the idea that his veiws aren't relevant is very strange indeed.

As to Mason's views, he was (like most Southern slaveholders of his time) obsessed with slave revolts. The 2nd Amendment arose out of this fear and insecurity. It had nothing to do with justice. Read the article and the evidence will convince you.

Your "argument" about Washington being a good guy so he couldn't have thought about the 2nd Amendment other than what you think belies logic. But I'll just repeat: Washington -- who presumably knew more about the intent of the 2nd Amendment than you -- used it to DISARM the Whiskey rebels, who according to your strained and rhetorical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, were a militia that the founders wanted to arm.

So which is it, did the 2nd Amendment intend to arm the Whiskey rebels, as you seem to claim, or was it intended to disarm them, as Washington claimed (and acted upon)?

“Presumably” is right sir. Perhaps Washington used it incorrectly. It certainly seems that way based on all the other statements posted – which you dismiss for this one event. Good luck.

The reality, for gun grabbers like you, is that this is a right you will not strip from us. Even your Dem buddies now run from it in abject fear. The Dems that allowed the Party to take Congress do not favor “gun control”. As we have seen – those politicians stupid enough to run on a gun grab agenda or try it after being elected usually end up out of office – unless they are in SF of course.


I will be willing to bet that the Dem candidate for ’08 goes out of her/his way to say they will protect our gun rights from the grabbers. They will do this because to do otherwise is to lose the vote from millions of Americans.

So Washington didn't know the intent of the 2nd Amendment but the NRA and gun nutz do. Great argument.



NRA backed candidates in the last election fell like flies. About an 80% failure rate. Keep whistling in the dark.



I know you can't debate the merits of the case and have to speculate about what some politician will support. But the facts rebut all your claims about the 2nd Amendment. I don't blame you for avoiding a discussion of them and calling Washington a gun grabber.

Whether George Mason or James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment and why is of little importance at this point in time. Nor is Washington's use during the Whiskey Rebellion, since he was a staunch supporter of the right for an armed citizenry.

My view is that I served this country for 9 years, I have a daughter currently in the service. My brothers all served, as well as my father and father-inlaw. The long and short of it, if this government does not trust me with a weapon, then i have real fear of the government. To those that will endeavor to disarm us they have a task worthy of Ondine.

I have and you have ignored them – preferring to post one liners about Washington. Do you have a statement form Washington (or any of the Founding Fathers) that tells us they are against an armed citizenry? No you don’t because as I and others have posted there are reams of evidence to the contrary as well as court decisions. You have noticed that the right to bear arms, including concealed carry has expanded over the past few years to nearly every state. Now why do you think that is?

I guess the key word here is “usually”. Just yesterday in my area, a 67 year old man took his legally registered 9mm Beretta to his workplace and shot 3 of his co-workers (luckily, they all survived) before killing himself. Why? He was upset because his work hours had been cut. Yes, I realize this is just one anecdote, but it is emblematic of the problems with legal gun ownership by so-called law-abiding citizens. My question is this; if the man hadn’t owned a gun, or obtaining one would be impossible or at least difficult, would he have gone to his workplace and shot people?

Then there is this insanity:

What the hell are these people thinking???

Edited to correct factual error - the shooter wasn't killed by police.

Whiskey Rebellion Wiki

The purpose was to enforce tax law on distilled liquor to pay off the debt from the revolutionary war...

not to disarm the populace of western pennsilvania.

sorry it doesnt hold up

DaffyGrl, that's a very skewed article. "Take your guns to work" doesn't mean the NRA is demanding that workers be permitted to keep guns on their person in the workplace, or bring them in to the buildings. They are trying to permit gun owners to keep the guns locked in their cars. So, for example, if someone has a long drive to work and must traverse some dangerous areas, and/or go home late at night alone they can keep a gun in their glove compartments.

Does anybody here really think that more guns in glove compartments of cars won't lead to more road rage shootings, more work place shootings, more general mayhem - not to mention more weapons stolen by criminals who will use them to rape, kill and steal?

I for one do not want the guy in the car next to me to have the ability to pull out a gun and shoot me because he had a bad day at the office. What possible benefit is there to arm people in public places?





It sure does hold up. Read the proclamation. It states that the rebels had armed themselves and flouted the law. The argument of the NRA is that the 2nd Amendment was instituted to allow "militias" (which they tendentiously define as everybody, quoting some rhetorical language of Hamilton and Madison and Jefferson) to arm themselves and stave off the tyranical effects of the federal government.

Well, that's exactly what the Whiskey Rebels said they were doing. But Washington disagreed and used the PENNSYVANIA MILITIA to disarm the people that the NRA claims