Stand Your Ground

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Miss Deetective

Ahhh but where do those criminals get many of the guns?? They steal them from the good guys!!!
Imo the only guns we should be entitled to own ...are rifles. Hard to conceal them and hunters should be thoroughly checked out....yearly to make sure they still own their rifles. All private sales must be reported. It should be handled much as the Dept of Motor Vehicles operates!!!
Handguns and assault rifles should both be banned...imo.

Could you say what's wrong with handguns, MD? (They seem relatively compact/light for a firearm, well suited for home protection, fit in a woman's handbag(!), if I were an American I certainly would consider this type of weapon.)

Also how do you feel about legislation (varies state by state I hear), allowing for carrying concealed handguns, under a legal permit? Isn't this what caused Zimmerman to be operating ARGUABLY within the law: both concealed carrying and use in self-defense were laid down in Florida statutes.


orangekea

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

However, the figures themselves are astounding for Brits used to around 600 murders per year. In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms

Ahem, murders aren't caused by firearms. Guns don't sneak out of the house at night to discharge themselves at some hapless victim.

Murders, Wu, are caused by MURDERERS.

[Miss Deetective]

Originally Posted by orangekea

Could you say what's wrong with handguns, MD? (They seem relatively compact/light for a firearm, well suited for home protection, fit in a woman's handbag(!), if I were an American I certainly would consider this type of weapon.)

Also how do you feel about legislation (varies state by state I hear), allowing for carrying concealed handguns, under a legal permit? Isn't this what caused Zimmerman to be operating ARGUABLY within the law: both concealed carrying and use in self-defense were laid down in Florida statutes.


orangekea

The problem with handguns, imo, is that too many people are irresponsible and there are no follow ups when you purchase a handgun. I would prefer that gun owners must all have a license to own a gun and yearly tags be issued with a fee involved...like we do to own a vehicle.
At least that way guns are kept track of and ownership is monitored.
When I owned my own business and had to make late night deposits, I did have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and I had a Baretta .22 pistol. Thankfully I never had to use it and when the business was sold, I pawned the gun and have not had one since. I do not need to own a gun just because I have the right to do so.....I wish more people felt that way.
States here vary...some are lenient and it is very easy to get a permit....other states are more stringent and it is harder.
My personal opinion is that not everyone should have the right to bear arms in this day and age. I think the laws and the Constitution need to be updated and revised.
Most of all....as it stands now...we need stricter ways to keep track of guns.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Miss Deetective

The problem with handguns, imo, is that too many people are irresponsible and there are no follow ups when you purchase a handgun. I would prefer that gun owners must all have a license to own a gun and yearly tags be issued with a fee involved...like we do to own a vehicle.
At least that way guns are kept track of and ownership is monitored.
When I owned my own business and had to make late night deposits, I did have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and I had a Baretta .22 pistol. Thankfully I never had to use it and when the business was sold, I pawned the gun and have not had one since. I do not need to own a gun just because I have the right to do so.....I wish more people felt that way.
States here vary...some are lenient and it is very easy to get a permit....other states are more stringent and it is harder.
My personal opinion is that not everyone should have the right to bear arms in this day and age. I think the laws and the Constitution need to be updated and revised.
Most of all....as it stands now...we need stricter ways to keep track of guns.

Updating a constitution imo must be considered a last of last of last resort, Miss Deetective, because it (in nations of laws) constitutes the fundamental Rights of the People. Change stuff in there, and each time you risk living in less free a country! And your 2nd Amendment already has sensible limits, ensuring there is no literal, absolute right for every US citizen to bear arms: if you're an ex-con, a psychiatrict patient with violent history, or simply living in inner city areas where local restrictions apply, such limits may prevent you from getting a concealed weapons permit, or any gun permit. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I learn this from US media !)

But thanks for explaining, I agree things have gone some ways out of control in your country. Personally I don't like the connection between gun ownership and revolutionary ideologies (militias). Also I agree with strict licensing, regular checks on licenses, and ESPECIALLY training requirements. One of the things George Zimmerman did wrong (not necessarily a crime under US law) is that he switched to Watch Captain mode while carrying, and that he risked a confrontation while apparently lacking necessary gun retention skills. This is the reason why with 20-20 hindsight he should have remained seated in his SUV, talking to Sanford police.

I'll tell you why I feel so positive about the US 2nd Amendment, Miss Deetective. Decades ago my family home was burglared with all of us inside (asleep at an upper level) with only a young dog sounding the alarm, fortunately no violence against persons involved. In my area home robberies, including firearms and even shooting the homeowners are on the rise. Police always come too late. So in the Netherlands citizens need law American style, as a basic protection and deterrent. (Once home invaders know they can get shot at, they'll reconsider!)

Sorry for longwinded post !


orangekea

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by orangekea

Ahem, murders aren't caused by firearms. Guns don't sneak out of the house at night to discharge themselves at some hapless victim.

Murders, Wu, are caused by MURDERERS.

I don't mean to be rude but that's a typical right wing nonsensical talking point and always has been.

[Miss Deetective]

Imo, the Constitution can be updated and revised without losing our freedoms. If we had stricter laws about gun owndership....people could still have that right.
I have to register my car...pay yearly fees....pass written tests and eye tests just so I have the freedom to own and operate my car.....the same should be true for anyone who wishes to own a gun.
When I got my concealed weapon permit....I wasn't asked to take a safety course...no one tested my abilitiy to use a gun. All they did was fingerprint me and run a criminal background.
Just because someone doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean they won't flip out one day and go postal!!!

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by Miss Deetective

Imo, the Constitution can be updated and revised without losing our freedoms. If we had stricter laws about gun owndership....people could still have that right.
I have to register my car...pay yearly fees....pass written tests and eye tests just so I have the freedom to own and operate my car.....the same should be true for anyone who wishes to own a gun.
When I got my concealed weapon permit....I wasn't asked to take a safety course...no one tested my abilitiy to use a gun. All they did was fingerprint me and run a criminal background.
Just because someone doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean they won't flip out one day and go postal!!!

I agree and it's far far too easy to get and own a gun in this country. This retro idea, all from the right (and so-called libertarians who are just righties in sheeps clothing) btw, that gun ownership is some inalienable right is simply false. Any Constitutional scholar that knows what he or she is talking about will tell you that the 'right to bear arms' was about people hunting for food and the early militia in case it was needed again in the struggle for independence in the very early days ...it had nothing to do with all the hand guns and other automatic weapon nonsense that the NRA and other radical righties push in todays world.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

I agree and it's far far too easy to get and own a gun in this country. This retro idea, all from the right (and so-called libertarians who are just righties in sheeps clothing) btw, that gun ownership is some inalienable right is simply false. Any Constitutional scholar that knows what he or she is talking about will tell you that the 'right to bear arms' was about people hunting for food and the early militia in case it was needed again in the struggle for independence in the very early days ...it had nothing to do with all the hand guns and other automatic weapon nonsense that the NRA and other radical righties push in todays world.

The 2nd Amendment right basically concerns 'bearing arms', not merely ownership (a matter of who pays) or sensible legal limits like Dee proposes. Here's a fairly balanced text:

"...the amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun. The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?

Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different — it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.


The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."
Source




orangekea

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by orangekea

The 2nd Amendment right basically concerns 'bearing arms', not merely ownership (a matter of who pays) or sensible legal limits like Dee proposes. Here's a fairly balanced text:

"...the amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun. The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?

Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different — it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.


The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."
Source




orangekea

A quote from a right wing web site..what a surprise....but then it's just another opinion........isn't it?

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

A quote from a right wing web site..what a surprise....but then it's just another opinion........isn't it?

I have no wish to tire you out, or take you away from polishing your spectacles or the like, but could you answer on content, please? It is clear historically the right to bear arms involved militias, which now are (=should be) a thing of the past in 'freed from Brit tyranny' America. But they definitely are not hunting rights, which are regulated separately. Just saying US gun owners have a point, the Constitution backs them up.


Amendment 2

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.
The Amendments