Makes you think...

As a Brit, I couldn't possibly comment.

http://www.oregonlive.com/data/2015/10/gun_deaths_other_causes.html

Ethel, if you take Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, and a couple of others, you have a better chance of being killed by a shark than dying of a gunshot. The cities strictest on gun control have out of control gun problems. We, as a US culture, refuse to show the problem for what it really is.

WE AS AMERICANS , HAVE A BILL RIGHTS THAT STATES WE CAN PROTECT OUR SELVES BY ARMING OUR SELVES...IF WE SO CHOOSE TOO......SORRY MATE YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY DO NOT HAVE THAT .!THAT IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US... :nonono:  SO UNLESS YOU ARE A AMERICAN , I PERSONALLY DO NOT SEE WHY YOU CARE SO MUCH ?

GypZ, some people will never understand that criminals will have weapons no matter what the rules and laws are. More importantly, people outside the US sometimes do not have the basic grasp of rule by the people, and the right to be armed applies as much as protection against the government as against criminals.

Austrailians are not allowed to keep and bear arms, only the 'Gestapo',which is a sad state of affairs- That's exactly where this country will end up if ya'll don't wake up and smell the communism.........

GypZ wrote:WE AS AMERICANS , HAVE A BILL RIGHTS THAT STATES WE CAN PROTECT OUR SELVES BY ARMING OUR SELVES...IF WE SO CHOOSE TOO......SORRY MATE YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY DO NOT HAVE THAT .!THAT IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US... :nonono:  SO UNLESS YOU ARE A AMERICAN , I PERSONALLY DO NOT SEE WHY YOU CARE SO MUCH ?

Sort of.  The 2nd amendment states no such thing as far as personal protection goes.  Its all about allowing state militias for protection against the federal government (which may have made sense to folks back then but makes no sense now).  The SCOTUS has in the past few decades interpreted the 2nd amendment to include personal firearm ownership (though not unlimited).  Many constitutional scholars few such rulings as classic "legislation from the bench", what the right usually rails against but not when they approve of the outcome it seems.  The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what the constitution means, so at least for now thats that.

Mission1st wrote:GypZ, some people will never understand that criminals will have weapons no matter what the rules and laws are. 

True. And no law is going to change things overnight or eliminate the random nut ball shooting folks.  But, over time stricter gun laws can (all be it slowly) reduce the number of guns in the country which would be a good thing.  Indeed this is largely a cultural thing and it will take a couple generations to change that significantly, but placing strict controls on who can buy a gun is a start.

terbo56 wrote:Austrailians are not allowed to keep and bear arms, only the 'Gestapo',which is a sad state of affairs- That's exactly where this country will end up if ya'll don't wake up and smell the communism.........

Can you provide the slightest justification for calling the Australian police "Gestapo"?  

Can you provide any evidence of some sort of government abuse stemming from from less guns in private hands?

I use gestapo to explain any law in any country [Germany,Russia, etc, etc} because this is what these countries call it, and in Austrailia or not, ALL countries have gestapo, OR for a better word, 'POLICE', the end result IS in fact the same- For more info, look up gun laws in Aussieland { Austrailia} and see what you find- Sorry for the confusion, but Austrailia DOES NOT ALLOW private citizens to have fire arms of any sort-Don't ask me why, I didn't write the laws down there- Next time 'AlleyRose' or 'Purpleskyz' comeon this site,ask her and she'll tell you the same thing, as a matter of fact, I do believe SHE was the one that mentioned it to me- Research does abound- So, check it out- Again, sorry I blew your cap-

jrg wrote:

GypZ wrote:WE AS AMERICANS , HAVE A BILL RIGHTS THAT STATES WE CAN PROTECT OUR SELVES BY ARMING OUR SELVES...IF WE SO CHOOSE TOO......SORRY MATE YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY DO NOT HAVE THAT .!THAT IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US... :nonono:  SO UNLESS YOU ARE A AMERICAN , I PERSONALLY DO NOT SEE WHY YOU CARE SO MUCH ?

Sort of.  The 2nd amendment states no such thing as far as personal protection goes.  Its all about allowing state militias for protection against the federal government (which may have made sense to folks back then but makes no sense now).  The SCOTUS has in the past few decades interpreted the 2nd amendment to include personal firearm ownership (though not unlimited).  Many constitutional scholars few such rulings as classic "legislation from the bench", what the right usually rails against but not when they approve of the outcome it seems.  The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what the constitution means, so at least for now thats that.

Yes and no, the text of the 2nd Amendment reads  "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." What most people do not realize is that Federal law defines 2 types of militia, first a formal militia that consists of the National Guard, and second an informal militia consisting of all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 (Might be 40, I don't remember for sure.)

In reality, the Federal government has no place regulating firearms or many of the other things they do, as they are powers not enumerated as being given to the Federal in the Constitution and this reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. The "Interstate Commerce' and/or the "Common Good" clauses of the Constitution, but both are a stretch, and not used in the manner the founders intended.

enjoy the freedom  of weapons because once Hillary  becomes pres its over. and yes there are  enough people that cannot under stand that all the corrupt things she has done she should be in jail

jrg wrote:

Mission1st wrote:GypZ, some people will never understand that criminals will have weapons no matter what the rules and laws are. 

True. And no law is going to change things overnight or eliminate the random nut ball shooting folks.  But, over time stricter gun laws can (all be it slowly) reduce the number of guns in the country which would be a good thing.  Indeed this is largely a cultural thing and it will take a couple generations to change that significantly, but placing strict controls on who can buy a gun is a start.

Funny how the violent crime rate goes up in the cities with the strictest controls .... oh BTW, did you read the article in the British Papers where the British Police are now asking people to voluntarily turn in large sharp knives as they are not needed by the average person? What's next, baseball bats and hammers?

how about power nail guns

Cattleprods are great, especially when they are soaked in pig fat- It intensifies the 'ZAP'-And it will poach their pork-

Kevind53 wrote:

jrg wrote:

GypZ wrote:WE AS AMERICANS , HAVE A BILL RIGHTS THAT STATES WE CAN PROTECT OUR SELVES BY ARMING OUR SELVES...IF WE SO CHOOSE TOO......SORRY MATE YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY DO NOT HAVE THAT .!THAT IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US... :nonono:  SO UNLESS YOU ARE A AMERICAN , I PERSONALLY DO NOT SEE WHY YOU CARE SO MUCH ?

Sort of.  The 2nd amendment states no such thing as far as personal protection goes.  Its all about allowing state militias for protection against the federal government (which may have made sense to folks back then but makes no sense now).  The SCOTUS has in the past few decades interpreted the 2nd amendment to include personal firearm ownership (though not unlimited).  Many constitutional scholars few such rulings as classic "legislation from the bench", what the right usually rails against but not when they approve of the outcome it seems.  The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what the constitution means, so at least for now thats that.

Yes and no, the text of the 2nd Amendment reads  "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." What most people do not realize is that Federal law defines 2 types of militia, first a formal militia that consists of the National Guard, and second an informal militia consisting of all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 (Might be 40, I don't remember for sure.)

But were these two definition of militia present when the 2nd amendment was wirtten?  I'm thinking they were referring to the common practice of towns maintaining a small armary etc. as this was a key factor in the start of the revolutionary war, the British trying to seize some caches of weapons.

terbo56 wrote:I use gestapo to explain any law in any country [Germany,Russia, etc, etc} because this is what these countries call it, and in Austrailia or not, ALL countries have gestapo, OR for a better word, 'POLICE', the end result IS in fact the same- For more info, look up gun laws in Aussieland { Austrailia} and see what you find- Sorry for the confusion, but Austrailia DOES NOT ALLOW private citizens to have fire arms of any sort-Don't ask me why, I didn't write the laws down there- Next time 'AlleyRose' or 'Purpleskyz' comeon this site,ask her and she'll tell you the same thing, as a matter of fact, I do believe SHE was the one that mentioned it to me- Research does abound- So, check it out- Again, sorry I blew your cap-

My only point as that for most folks "Gestapo" is a very loaded word.  The Aussies VOLUNTARILY gave up their weapons.

Mission1st wrote: The cities strictest on gun control have out of control gun problems. 

This is indeed true, but I think is very misleading due to different laws in the surrounding area and not that much time passing.

If you look at countries with very strict gun laws the correlation is the other way, i.e. strict gun laws OO correlate with low gun violence even when guns per capita is pretty high e.g. Switzerland.

Anyone who want to take my guns can come and pull them from my dead cold hand.  Just saying...

I remain,
Just4Tom74 

jrg wrote:

Kevind53 wrote:

jrg wrote:

GypZ wrote:WE AS AMERICANS , HAVE A BILL RIGHTS THAT STATES WE CAN PROTECT OUR SELVES BY ARMING OUR SELVES...IF WE SO CHOOSE TOO......SORRY MATE YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY DO NOT HAVE THAT .!THAT IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US... :nonono:  SO UNLESS YOU ARE A AMERICAN , I PERSONALLY DO NOT SEE WHY YOU CARE SO MUCH ?

Sort of.  The 2nd amendment states no such thing as far as personal protection goes.  Its all about allowing state militias for protection against the federal government (which may have made sense to folks back then but makes no sense now).  The SCOTUS has in the past few decades interpreted the 2nd amendment to include personal firearm ownership (though not unlimited).  Many constitutional scholars few such rulings as classic "legislation from the bench", what the right usually rails against but not when they approve of the outcome it seems.  The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what the constitution means, so at least for now thats that.

Yes and no, the text of the 2nd Amendment reads  "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." What most people do not realize is that Federal law defines 2 types of militia, first a formal militia that consists of the National Guard, and second an informal militia consisting of all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 (Might be 40, I don't remember for sure.)

But were these two definition of militia present when the 2nd amendment was wirtten?  I'm thinking they were referring to the common practice of towns maintaining a small armary etc. as this was a key factor in the start of the revolutionary war, the British trying to seize some caches of weapons.

More or less, yes. First you have to understand that there was a great distrust, even fear of a large standing army in those days. In that context, the "Well regulated militia" is better understood. In the words of David I Caplan, "In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"

So then we can conclude that regulated equates disciplined which equates trained, and indeed that meaning was understood in that day. But how did they define militia? Richard Henry Lee, one of our founders and an anti-federalist writing under the pen name "The Federal Farmer" said this: "A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…." (Emphasis mine) But that still does not exactly define militia as the founders understood it. Let's go to a modern expert.

Second amendment expert John Kates writes: "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."

So in those days it was understood that if you were able bodied, you were in the militia, further, there was in general, an imposed duty to keep arms at the ready in every house. In addition, many of the individual states had a clause similar to Article 16 of Vermont's Constitution: "Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." I chose Vermont because A) itis my state, and B) the wording of the article has never been amended.

Clearly then the founders understood militia to refer to what is codified in Federal Law as the "Informal Militia," and in fact at the time, understood that arms were not just to be allowed, but expected to be owned.

jrg wrote:

Mission1st wrote: The cities strictest on gun control have out of control gun problems. 

This is indeed true, but I think is very misleading due to different laws in the surrounding area and not that much time passing.

If you look at countries with very strict gun laws the correlation is the other way, i.e. strict gun laws OO correlate with low gun violence even when guns per capita is pretty high e.g. Switzerland.

Switzerland is actually a lot closer to US in that regard than to countries with strict gun control. Permits (acquisition permit) are required for most guns,(single shot and bolt action excepted) but administered locally and easy to obtain. Also everyone is expected to serve as a part of the militia as Switzerland has no true standing army. BTW, they have the option at the end of their service to retain their personal weapons. Since the acquisition permits were only recently added, the exact number of guns is unknown but estimates place it somewhere around 30 -60%

Given the above, I would suggest that the difference in crime rates has more to do with training, discipline, and perhaps more to the point, lack of cities like St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit, Flint, Camden Gary .....

Kevind53 wrote:

jrg wrote:

Mission1st wrote: The cities strictest on gun control have out of control gun problems. 

This is indeed true, but I think is very misleading due to different laws in the surrounding area and not that much time passing.

If you look at countries with very strict gun laws the correlation is the other way, i.e. strict gun laws OO correlate with low gun violence even when guns per capita is pretty high e.g. Switzerland.

Switzerland is actually a lot closer to US in that regard than to countries with strict gun control. Permits (acquisition permit) are required for most guns,(single shot and bolt action excepted) but administered locally and easy to obtain. Also everyone is expected to serve as a part of the militia as Switzerland has no true standing army. BTW, they have the option at the end of their service to retain their personal weapons.  Since the acquisition permits were only recently added, the exact number of guns is unknown but estimates place it somewhere around 30 -60%

I'd say its stricter than the US. Every transfer must be documented and sent to the government.  Indeed soldiers may keep their personal weapon at the end of their service, but not the military amo. The same permit for buying a gun applies to buying amo.

Given the above, I would suggest that the difference in crime rates has more to do with training, discipline, and perhaps more to the point, lack of cities like St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit, Flint, Camden Gary ..... 

Yea I agree with that, its more of a cultural difference