Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=================================================

The first I had ever heard of 2nd being spoke of for use of slave/Indian militias was last night when I saw a post about Danny Glover espousing these thoughts at Texas A&M sponsored event.
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4582

My first thoughts mirrored Draconian Fist's reaction and I quickly dismissed the idea.

Then today I see LIL post a more in depth article on the same subject, and I thought maybe I should put on my "Objective Hat" and look into it, which I have. I thank LIL for posting the story as I found it to be educational.

Although I do not necessarily agree with the premise and the conclusion of the article.

This is what I have learned/concluded.

I think we can all agree that the slaves of the post Revolutionary War did not live in servitude of there master of there own free will for the most part. And I am aware that there were attempts to escape or revolt and these were counter with armed force. I had never given much thought as to what form that armed force took, I assumed it was made of posse"s and the white slave owners and free men. Which is what they were, they were known as Slave Militias. This I believe to be accurate

The article references Georgia law of the 1750's that required Plantation owners are there male white employees to serve in these Slave Militias and check monthly to quell revolt, capture slaves and to check that they were not acquiring arms or planing revolt. This I believe to be accurate.

It goes on to speak to how the original version of the 2nd was worded as below.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The southern states were not happy with this. They felt that this would give the Federal Govt. the ability to call up and more or less redeploy the southern militias somewhere where they would leave the southern states unable to defend them selves against a slave uprising, thus losing there property and way of life. The south was well aware the north as a whole did not support slavery. This was a legitimate fear of the southern states. I believe this to be accurate.

So under Southern pressure the 2nd was rewritten to read as below.

"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."

So it seems to me that it is indeed true that slavery influenced the 2nd amendment.

The changing of the wording to me in hindsight had little effect on slavery as we all know it was later abolished anyway. And the meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms seems the same even with the revision. And I continue to believe the meaning of the 2nd was to allow the people a mechanism to fight against tyranny, a way to defend themselves, and a way for the country as a whole to defend itself.

Trust me, it was news to me. But thank you for your level headed response. I felt the same way... seems far fetched, but let me at least check into it further. When somebody quotes the versions, there appears to be something to it. And indeed there was. But I also agree with you wholeheartedly that the establishment of the Second Amendment is quite a bit broader than the protection of slavery and it does indeed enumerate a right to keep and bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. I have said repeatedly that I believe that the idea of individual gun ownership was so fundamental in this period of history that the purpose of the Second Amendment was something more pressing... the fear of standing armies and hired mercenaries establishing a power base that could indeed become tyrannical and dangerous to the liberty of the state and country. The Second Amendment is actually enhancing the political purpose of bearing arms, not just conveying the individual right to them. I can only mention Eisenhower's famous speech questioning the virtues of the "military-industrial complex" to show how far we have come from the concerns of Jefferson and Madison. The original meaning of the Amendment has been frankly buried under the weight of a modern defense establishment that would be beyond all imagining for the founders.

[Sports]

I found this to be a good article and something our government should consider (bold letters).

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...deaths/260189/


A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths
By Max Fisher

In part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership, Japan has as few as two gun-related homicides a year.

A Tokyo "gun" shop owner, who mostly sells air rifles, displays one of Japan's relatively few licensed rifles. (Reuters)

I've heard it said that, if you take a walk around Waikiki, it's only a matter of time until someone hands you a flyer of scantily clad women clutching handguns, overlaid with English and maybe Japanese text advertising one of the many local shooting ranges. The city's largest, the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club, advertises instructors fluent in Japanese, which is also the default language of its website. For years, this peculiar Hawaiian industry has explicitly targeted Japanese tourists, drawing them away from beaches and resorts into shopping malls, to do things that are forbidden in their own country.

Waikiki's Japanese-filled ranges are the sort of quirk you might find in any major tourist town, but they're also an intersection of two societies with wildly different approaches to guns and their role in society. Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.

But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan -- one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it's not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel's landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Even the most basic framework of Japan's approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America's. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that "No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords," later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.

Of course, Japan and the U.S. are separated by a number of cultural and historical difference much wider than their gun policies. Kopel explains that, for whatever reason, Japanese tend to be more tolerant of the broad search and seizure police powers necessary to enforce the ban. "Japanese, both criminals and ordinary citizens, are much more willing than their American counterparts to consent to searches and to answer questions from the police," he writes. But even the police did not carry firearms themselves until, in 1946, the American occupation authority ordered them to. Now, Japanese police receive more hours of training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty, and invest hours in studying martial arts in part because they "are expected to use [firearms] in only the rarest of circumstances," according to Kopel.

The Japanese and American ways of thinking about crime, privacy, and police powers are so different -- and Japan is such a generally peaceful country -- that it's functionally impossible to fully isolate and compare the two gun control regiments. It's not much easier to balance the costs and benefits of Japan's unusual approach, which helps keep its murder rate at the second-lowest in the world, though at the cost of restrictions that Kopel calls a "police state," a worrying suggestion that it hands the government too much power over its citizens. After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.

[Warfish]

If all Guns were made illegal, are you all ok with thereby making Hunting illegal as well, with the reduction in State Fees and Business that would result in (as well as a few tens of millions of really angry Hunters)?

And how long after that will Fishing alse be made illegal?

Just want to plan ahead.

You will take my G-Loomis Fishing Rod from My Cold Dead hands!

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Sports

I found this to be a good article and something our government should consider (bold letters).


To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
.

================================================== =====

Seems to me it would be difficult to defend you and yours if you have to keep your firearm and ammo locked separately in a time of great need.

And I would point out the the citizens of Japan would be at the mercy of there government if it went all tyrannical on them.

What is the point of having the police inspect your gun every three years? Or knowing specifically where your guns and ammo are?

Drug testing, mental health evaluations, seem a little presumptive of guilt.

I'm fine with the background check, I think any responsible gun owners needs to learn basic firearm safety and understand when and when not you are able to defend with deadly force, I am not in favor of mandatory training, for several reasons.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Warfish

If all Guns were made illegal, are you all ok with thereby making Hunting illegal as well, with the reduction in State Fees and Business that would result in (as well as a few tens of millions of really angry Hunters)?

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly know as the Pittman-Robertson Act, was approved by Congress on September 2, 1937, and began functioning July 1, 1938.

The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation and improvement of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the distribution of information produced by the projects.
The Act was amended October 23, 1970, to include funding for hunter training programs and the development, operation and maintenance of public target ranges.

Funds are derived from an 11 percent Federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the States and Territorial areas (except Puerto Rico) by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas set forth in the Act. Appropriate State agencies are the only entities eligible to receive grant funds. Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derived from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment.

You will take my G-Loomis Fishing Rod from My Cold Dead hands!

==========================================

LOL

[24]

Originally Posted by MCBNY

Why is it never gonna happen? All it takes is a simple law to be passed which will change the culture.

Violence WILL decline if better laws are passed and enforced. Will gun violence completely disappear? Hell no. There will always be a way to get around the system and get a gun. But it would be much harder, and the result would be NOT having one of these massacres every other year.

People said the same thing about abolishing slavery and giving women rights. "It's never gonna happen."

Banning guns won't reduce crime, it will increase crime. Criminals would prefer to commit a crime knowing you are unarmed.. This is proven. Ask Chicago what happened when they banned the right to concealed carry.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

If all Guns were made illegal, are you all ok with thereby making Hunting illegal as well, with the reduction in State Fees and Business that would result in (as well as a few tens of millions of really angry Hunters)?

And how long after that will Fishing alse be made illegal?

Just want to plan ahead.

You will take my G-Loomis Fishing Rod from My Cold Dead hands!

Ah yes, the G-Loomis. The last defense against tyranny.

[cr726]

I hope we install the majority of these, there is zero presumption of guilt, gun ownership is a big responsibility and regulations would def help.

Originally Posted by gunnails

================================================== =====

Seems to me it would be difficult to defend you and yours if you have to keep your firearm and ammo locked separately in a time of great need.

And I would point out the the citizens of Japan would be at the mercy of there government if it went all tyrannical on them.

What is the point of having the police inspect your gun every three years? Or knowing specifically where your guns and ammo are?

Drug testing, mental health evaluations, seem a little presumptive of guilt.

I'm fine with the background check, I think any responsible gun owners needs to learn basic firearm safety and understand when and when not you are able to defend with deadly force, I am not in favor of mandatory training, for several reasons.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by cr726

You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never.

It would appear the ban was lifted. Might be time for a new sig, eh?

Welcome back.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It would appear the ban was lifted. Might be time for a new sig, eh?

Welcome back.

LOL, that sig is for the TFY Draftinsider site, you know the site I have never posted in.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by cr726

I hope we install the majority of these, there is zero presumption of guilt, gun ownership is a big responsibility and regulations would def help.

==========================================

So which ones do you oppose, and which do you favor?

2000 federal gun regulations currently exist, I woulld argue that we should put our focus on enforcing those before creating new ones.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by cr726

LOL, that sig is for the TFY Draftinsider site, you know the site I have never posted in.

Ah, read fail on my part.

Thats CBTNY's site (in partnership with Sean), isn't it? Are you really suprised?

[cr726]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Ah, read fail on my part.

Thats CBTNY's site (in partnership with Sean), isn't it? Are you really suprised?

Kinda I hit the link by accident and there was the ban statement thing.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by 24

Banning guns won't reduce crime, it will increase crime. Criminals would prefer to commit a crime knowing you are unarmed.. This is proven. Ask Chicago what happened when they banned the right to concealed carry.

And in Last Week’s Gun News ...

By JOE NOCERA

Published: January 28, 2013

Eleaquin Temblador had plans. He was working to earn his high school diploma and wanted to join the U.S. Marine Corps and marry his girlfriend. ... Instead, family members are planning Temblador’s funeral. For reasons no one can explain, gunmen in a light-colored, older-model vehicle gunned down the 18-year-old ... as he rode his bicycle home from his girlfriend’s house.

— Dailybreeze.com, Los Angeles

Relatives of a teen who was shot while playing basketball at a local park said the 16-year-old is now paralyzed from the waist down. ... Police said the shooter, a 17-year-old boy, had a gun stuck in his waistband. While he was playing basketball, someone bumped into him and the gun went off. ...

— Click Orlando.com

Tuesday, Jan. 22:

A Baton Rouge man who authorities said was playing with a gun was booked ... in the accidental shooting of his 2-year-old brother. ... [The man’s uncle] said the teen had armed himself due to “environmental pressure” from neighborhood friends.

— The Advocate, Baton Rouge, La.

The New Mexico teenager who used an assault rifle to kill his mother, father and younger siblings told police he hoped to shoot up a Walmart after the family rampage and cause “mass destruction.” ... Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old son of an Albuquerque pastor ... “stated he wanted to shoot people at random and eventually be killed while exchanging gunfire with law enforcement,” the [police] report said.

— ABC News

Wednesday, Jan. 23:

Kansas City police arrested a 16-year-old Ruskin High School student accused of shooting at a school bus after the driver refused to allow him to board on Wednesday.

— The Kansas City Star

A 4-year-old boy has died after being shot in the head Wednesday. ... The deputy [sheriff] located the child’s body inside of a Ford Taurus. There was a bullet hole in the roof of the car. ... “Jamarcus loved Batman, Spider-Man and football and was looking forward to starting kindergarten,” [his mother] said.

— Newsnet5.com, Akron, Ohio

Thursday, Jan. 24:

The estranged husband of a woman found dead in her Madison apartment Thursday was found dead in his home ... of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. ... “We can’t really believe it; I mean, these things happen on TV, they don’t happen to us,” [her stepmother] said. “We’re middle class, normal Americans, and she was a nice girl.”

— WISC-TV, Madison, Wis.

Police said an 11-year-old girl is in critical condition after being shot in the face by her father in a New Jersey home on Thursday night. Investigators said 27-year-old Byaer Johnson apparently entered the home to visit his young daughter. ... He was asked to leave, then picked up a handgun and shot his daughter.

— CBS News

Friday, Jan. 25:

An Oakland police officer was shot and wounded Friday evening, the second officer in the city to be injured by gunfire this week. ... The shooting happened after a man in a car ran a stop sign, crashed into another car ... and ran off. Shortly thereafter, an uncle and his nephew reported that they were shot a block away by a man who tried to steal the uncle’s bicycle.

— SFGate.com

A man has been charged with murder for fatally shooting his brother during a “domestic” dispute outside a South Side Englewood home Friday afternoon. ...

— Chicago.CBSlocal.com

Saturday, Jan. 26:

A party in Salem that spilled outdoors ended in drive-by gunfire that hit at least two people and riddled a car and nearby homes. ...

— KOINlocal6, Salem, Ore.

A 55-year-old man has been released from custody after allegedly shooting and killing his own dog. Police say Gordon Lagstrom was drunk Saturday night when he pulled a .38 caliber handgun and shot to death his 4-year-old Australian terrier, Lena.

— Boston.CBSlocal.com

The city broke a nine-day murder-free streak last night when a man was found dead in the basement of a Queens apartment complex, police said. The 20-year-old victim, whose name was not released, had been shot in the head.

— New York Post

Among those killed Saturday was a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings. Police say Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother’s youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a car. Police say two separate double-homicide shootings also occurred Saturday about 12 hours apart. ... Chicago’s homicide count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time since 2008.

— CBS News

The carnage continues...

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

The carnage continues...

News without any context or circumstances is always fun and enlightening, right?

Maybe I should start listing every local car accident, and claim that supports a cause of banning cars.

[stanner]

Originally Posted by Warfish

News without any context or circumstances is always fun and enlightening, right?

Maybe I should start listing every local car accident, and claim that supports a cause of banning cars.

...and, how many of those guns used were legally owned or lawfully possessed? How many would have been off the streets if a gun ban was in place?

ps: not a gun guy, just trying to be realistic.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by stanner

...and, how many of those guns used were legally owned or lawfully possessed? How many would have been off the streets if a gun ban was in place?

ps: not a gun guy, just trying to be realistic.

By definition, a gun used to shoot someone (as in Winston's List) illegally is an illegal act.

Punish the criminal who performed the illegal act. Don't punish everyone. That my take on this, and most, issues of crime. Those who do not break the Law should not suffer penalty for those who do.

Given the "ban" is almost 100% ineffective, I'd venture the vast majority of the guns used in that list would be either A. illegal to start with, hence nothing changed, or B. Handguns that would remain legal under the ban, hence nothign changed, and C. Acts by people who would not have been stopped in their illegal killing.shooting of others because the gun they used might have also been illegal, hence nothing changed.

But if thats the barrier, I'll only post car accidents where the driver was "illegal", i.e. no licence, suspended licence, or an illegal immigrant or the car was illegal, i.e. not registered, not properly inspected, etc.

Did you know, more people are killed each year by the actions in total of illegal immigrants than are murdered by guns (excluding suicides, of course).

[cr726]

Originally Posted by Warfish

News without any context or circumstances is always fun and enlightening, right?

Maybe I should start listing every local car accident, and claim that supports a cause of banning cars.

Not a good comparison, although maybe it could be, the operation of a vehicle is a privilege and vehicles are a well regulated by the govt.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by cr726

Not a good comparison, although maybe it could be, the operation of a vehicle is a privilege and vehicles are a well regulated by the govt.

A point which serves to further my view.

Owning a gun is a right, like voting. Rights can only be taken away in extreme circusmstances, and usually via extensive due process on an individual, not societal, basis.

Further, I think many would support "regulation", i.e. registration, safety requirements and more. What they tend to tolerate less is outright bans (that are almost entirely ineffective) and de facto bans.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by Warfish

A point which serves to further my view.

Owning a gun is a right, like voting. Rights can only be taken away in extreme circusmstances, and usually via extensive due process on an individual, not societal, basis.

Further, I think many would support "regulation", i.e. registration, safety requirements and more. What they tend to tolerate less is outright bans (that are almost entirely ineffective) and de facto bans.

Regulation needs to be updated and nationalized. It will never be banned.