Gun ownership in the US.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

I have 11 firearms in my home. I have plenty of money to buy more. If I find one I like or need for a specific task then I'll buy it. I support the right of law abiding citizens to purchase firearms if they so choose. I support their right to use those firearms to defend them self or their family from a violent attack. I also support increasing the criminal penalties from illegal possession of firearms to a 10 year minimum to be served consecutively with any other sentence and making that part of the sentence be served day for day with no possibility for parole or early release. I support increasing the penalties for gun trafficking to levels higher than that with the same conditions. In regards to the wailing and constant crying here about guns, I have to say I care not one little bit about your opinion on my gun ownership. I also don't care what you think about my other Constitutional rights. Thanks to the Heller decision, access to firearms for the law abiding won't change in the slightest and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You can whine and chew your fingernails all you want, you can post story upon story about people being shot, you can even express outrage and act like you really care about the people involved. None of it is going to change anything. I do appreciate the debate it's always fun to debate people who aren't aware they've already lost on the important stages, the Supreme Court of the United States and with the American people. So to those of you who would call me a gun nut, gun proliferator, killer, gun fetishist, etc. you really should pick a new cause that you could actually make a difference in because you have lost this one. I'll keep my guns, no one will be in any danger from them unless they break into my home. You will keep fretting that I am one argument at work away from climbing on the roof with an automatic weapon. Hope this help clear up my position on things.

David

[MUAD_DIB]

1. I have 5 computers in my home.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Me too, see how much we have in common.

[cliffordu]

3. Geat post dave - I feel exactly the same way.

I don't have a gun at this moment, but I'm moving back into town and need to pick up a little something for the abode.

I have three computers and an extremely sharp Machete.

At close range the machete is priceless. on the innerweb, my little EEEpc is the weapon of choice.

[virginia mountainman]

4. Yep, I must agree..

I feel the EXACT SAME WAY.... LOL! Except I don't even know right off the top of my head how many guns I do have.

And the value of each and everyone, goes up a little every day! Much better than the stockmarket!

[Mythsaje]

5. I believe in the right of self defense...

Which means the legal possession of whatever instruments necessary to guarantee the practice of that right. For me, at the moment, it consists of a house full of dogs, a few bladed weapons, and a multitude of small objects that I know how to use as weapons.

Works for me. For now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. I have a house full of dogs also.

[stuball111]

6. I have a wach Cat, 2 computers, and

A gun, for target shooting.. If anyone breaks into My home, (which, BTW I have a better chance of get hit by a Soviet satellite) I'll run away...The reason I bought the gun? Because I can!

[Tim01]

13. You may want to reconsider that run away plan.

Past incidents show that most people become pretty freaked out when someone is trying to get into their house and they hunker down, even if they planned on running away.
And frequently there is more than 1 badguy outside your house trying to get in to you from multiple places.If you open the door you are helping them.

Of course this is all very unlikely. I'm just saying you might want to re evaluate that plan.

[stuball111]

34. I don't live in fear..

I live by what is to be my journey here, and take things one day at a time. Fear is based on the past and dependent on the future.... and ok then, of someone does come and try to pop me...I'll deal with it then

[eqfan592]

41. Being prepared is not the same as "living in fear."

I'm not saying that YOU are saying that, or that there's anything wrong with your view point. Be simply because I prepare for my family in any situation I can doesn't mean I'm afraid of that thing happening. I have guns because I like shooting them. But I also have them for the same reason that I have smoke detectors. It doesn't hurt to be prepared. Again, I just wanted to state that for the community as a whole. :)

[stuball111]

45. There's an old saying...

What you fear, you will attract. But, that's the American way.. I bought a hand gun because in Canada, you can't have them very easily if at all. So I excersised my 2nd amendment rights here! Cool eh? I know what you are saying, and that's cool. I like the novelty of owning one, and like to target shoot with it, and also, there's the "just in case"scenario, In case the right wingers go nuts and start shootin!

[TreasonousBastard]

7. As long as you brought it up...

I don't give a big rat's ass how many guns you own-- any more than I care how many cars, cats, or cooking kettles you have.

However, since you see some need to inform us all of your need for firearms, perhaps you could also let us know why you need these arms. Is this a hobby? Do you like to shoot? Fondle them? What?

[old mark]

8. "Why" someone chooses to own or not own anything is none of your fucking business.

Who do you think you are to attempt to dictate to another adult human how they should live their lives or what they should choose to enjoy or posess?

Your post summarizes all the worst of politics, and you make my point about the lack of difference between the extreme left and the extreme right. Both sides should just shut the fuck up.


I have a lot of guns as well, but only 2 computers...
Rec the OP.

mark

[TreasonousBastard]

12. It becomes my business when they open the subject...

and won't shut the fuck up themselves.

There is a big difference between someone saying "Gee, I just bought this thing and I'm so happy with it" and "I have this thing and what the fuck are you going to do about it"

The OP was arrogant and dismissive. My post was just as arrogant and dismissive, but for some reason you approve of his and disapprove of mine.

Why is that?

[old mark]

19. Because all of the anti gun posts I have ever read here are insulting, fascist

absolutist bullshit and yours was no different.
You don't care for guns, don't own any I have NO PROBLEMS at all with that.
I am sick of being insulted by airhead spoiled children.

Go find something you enjoy and do it.



mark

[TreasonousBastard]

20. And where did I mention that I was anti-gun, or...

how many guns I do, or don't, own? I specifically avoided mentioning it.

Maybe you read some prior posts of mine on the subject and know my views. Or maybe you prefer to jump to conclusions.

Like the one that all anti-gun posts are bullshit-- whatever my own views actually are, I don't find all opinions on either side to be bullshit.

Most of them, but not all of them.

[iverglas]

30. whoa

You're going to have Dave fretting about your state of mind if you keep up this level of obnoxiousness, I think.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. Many of them were given to me.

The others I mostly use for target shooting as I don't hunt anymore. Since my parents became ill though I have very little time to shoot. So mostly they just sit there.

David

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Fair enough. I don't hunt any more and have no time for...

the range either.

I never had a problem with owning, or using, guns and there's a whole bunch of other stuff we can't own that I think we should be able to. I'm not talking about nerve gas, crystal meth, or artillery pieces, either, but stuff experimenters might find handy that the nanny regulators have decided are not good for us.

Anyway, I tend to agree with you that the gun debate gets annoying at times, I just don't think one side is particularly worse than the other.

[onehandle]

9. I wish I had 11 guns.

Then I would be more likely to have one handy when I get Really mad at someone.

[Katya Mullethov]

10. What do you suppose would happen

If you WERE able to posses a firearm . and then had someone tell you "no" ?

Would it be necassary to then force your will upon them through whatever means was available to you ?

[Tim01]

14. How often do you seriously injure people?

If you haven't already cut somebody with a kitchen knife or run over someone with a car or smashed them with a hammer, you are not going to shoot anybody.

You have lots of very deadly weapons at your disposal right now, you always have. Have you used them?

[spin]

16. I would say that attitude shows...

you would be better off not owning a firearm.

Not everyone should. People with anger management problems are one such group of people.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. Then you clearly aren't mature enough to own firearms.

[onehandle]

25. Clearly.

At least not 11.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. From the sound of it you wouldn't be safe with one.

[Tim01]

11. k&r

[iverglas]

15. I'll bet there was a point to this post

Damned if I can find it, though.

Anybody got a map I can borrow?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Post # 12 is a pretty good summation of what I was trying to accomplish.

[iverglas]

27. you're quite sure you meant post 12?

I think post 12 was more of a pretty good expansion on what I was saying.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. If you say so.

[spin]

17. K&R (n/t)

[Jester Messiah]

18. An armed populace is a safe populace.

I think it should all be open-carry, however. A concealed weapon offers no deterrent effect.

[onehandle]

26. I do agree that it should be open-carry.

When I was in London last year, all of the train stations had military personnel with automatic weapons in a sling with their fingers on the trigger.

I didn't commit one terrorist act the whole time I was there.

Cops and military should do this over here.

And for everyone else, a concealed weapon truly offers no deterrent effect.

What do they have to hide?

[Tim01]

29. I conceal all the time.

There are a couple of places I have to open carry. I don't like the way average people become all nervous when they see something they didn't see a few moments earlier.

Concealing is kind of a pain in the ass. Open carry is easy. If people didn't get hysterical for stupid reasons I would much prefer to open carry.

Feel free to blame stupid dipshits who piss their pants and call the cops every time they see something that makes them nervous.

[iverglas]

28. "A concealed weapon offers no deterrent effect."

Oh, but it just makes life that much more exciting.

[Tim01]

31. Another uneducated opinion from you. Shocked. nt

[eqfan592]

42. Not true.

A criminal that can ID everybody right away that is armed knows exactly who to avoid. Concealed carry offers a level of protection even to those who don't carry, because a criminal isn't going to be able to tell the difference. For instance, I had hear a story of how in Florida, when they allowed people to carry in their cars, the car jacking rate shot up on rental cars, as the criminals figured the vast majority of rental cars are going to be from people out of state, and thus not likely armed. This is why Florida then had rental car companies remove all the signage from the rental cars, so they look just like all the rest. The rate then declined.

I don't have a link to back this up, as it's something I heard a while back, but if somebody does have a link, or has proof that the story is bunk, feel free to post it :)

[Jester Messiah]

46. Yes, but if prospective criminals expect -most- people to be armed...

Then that's a powerful deterrent before any situation actualizes.

[burrfoot]

47. FL rentals-

I'm not certain if it was specifically tied to increased carjacking due to visitors being less likely to own guns than residents in Florida (although that does make sense to me); but you are correct about Florida removing those stickers from rental cars in order to (hopefully) reduce crime.

<http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/07/travel/travel-advisory-florida-moves-on-visitor-safety.html>

I live in Florida, I know there are a lot (comparatively) of CCW permit holders here, and I've gotta say that it doesn't concern me in the least. Obviously some CCW holders do commit crimes using their guns, and that is always a tragedy- but overall, if I spent any time worrying about this- I'd be more worried about those who own/carry illegally, or those who have lax attitudes and safety practices and might possibly shoot someone while they're drunk and pissed off. Or just pissed off. Or just drunk. Or high.
But, again, I don't feel that the high # off CCW holders around my state makes me less safe. If anything, it makes me feel a little more safe.

I have a CCW myself, though I don't carry. I may bring a pistol in the console if I'm going somewhere particularly unsafe, but I haven't felt the need to have one on my person yet.

I do, however, really appreciate that I have the option to do so should I ever feel that it has become necessary. I think that anyone who owns a gun should get their CCW, if for no other reasons than the refresher on safety rules and the fact that, if they have one, we at least know that they've demonstrated basic proficiency and are a little bit less likely to accidentally shoot someone.


edit: I just re-read that link, and I guess it's saying that the removal of stickers has been recommended. I know that I've had rental cars here that don't have the sticker so at least some places have stopped the practice, but that may just be a "best practice" kind of thing and not actually a requirement.

[eqfan592]

50. Yeah, it's hard to say on the rental cars.

I honestly can't remember seeing any rental car stickers when I was down there last, and I know none of the cars we rented ever had any. But that's not the same as conclusive proof. It could be like you said, a recommendation that many, if not all, of the rental companies when along with, but not a requirement.

[flamin lib]

32. "Thanks to the Heller decision,

access to firearms for the law abiding won't change in the slightest."

Exactly. Nothing has changed. The Second Amendment is no more a guarantee of individual right than before.

Scalia based the accenting decision on some nebulous self defense reference to guns somewhere in the 2nd. By some tortured de-construction of US vs Miller he construed that because that decision limited gun ownership to militia style weapons it didn't link gun ownership to a militia. WTF?

No, if they wanted to guarantee gun ownership as an individual right they could have, and should have, found it in the 9th or perhaps the 10th. The existence of a universal right to self defense cannot be argued and that right is held, by definition, by the self, i.e. the individual. Endowed by a creator, common law and preservation of the species all say that.

But no, the stupid MFers had to find something in the 2nd and in doing so limited the decision to the Federal Government and to DC itself which is not a state.

So, as it now stands, if you live in DC you have an individual right but if you live in a state the 10th amendment comes into play and your rights can be limited by the state in which you live. That's why the NRA was so interested in Sotomayor's take on the RKBA. Would she nationalize Heller through the 14th equal protection clause or not?

See, no justice wants to touch the 9th. It's the third rail of jurisprudence. Open that Pandora's box of individual rights held by the citizen and suddenly there is Stare decisis for every single thing not listed specifically elsewhere in the constitution. The right to abortion, the right to doctor assisted suicide, the right to use drugs of your choice or other things we haven't even thought of yet.

As a result Heller changed NOTHING outside the limits of Washington D.C.

[tortoise1956]

39. A small correction...

"Scalia based the accenting decision on some nebulous self defense reference to guns somewhere in the 2nd. By some tortured de-construction of US vs Miller he construed that because that decision limited gun ownership to militia style weapons it didn't link gun ownership to a militia. WTF?"

Not quite. US vs Miller stated that any weapon that could be found to be commonly used by military forces should be protected by the 2nd amendment. The court then found that a sawed off shotgun didn't fit that definition of a weapon commonly used in military conflict. (That was not correct, as between 30,000 and 40,000short-barreled shotguns were used in WW1 by American forces. They were called "trench brooms,", IIRC.) They overturned a lower court decision and remanded it back for further action.

In addition to this, the court stated that it was obvious that the Militia included all able-bodied men, and that they were expected to show up carrying their own firearms. Check it out, if you don't believe me:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

Thus, Scalia's finding that the second amendment was an individual right could be supported by Miller.

Little known facts: Miller was not represented in front of the court when this case was argued. Financial troubles and other irregularities prevented counsel from appearing. In effect, this case was argued by one side only-the government. Miller died before this decision was made, and his partner cut a plea deal after the remand.

[flamin lib]

43. Very good. However my assertion stands as Miller linked

militia and "acceptable guns". Scalia was really reaching to find some link between self protection and the 2nd and the idea that Miller didn't link militia to gun type is, at best, nebulous.

I appreciate, and thank you for, your response. It's good. It really is.

However, they really screwed up by hinging the decision on the 2nd when it should be clear that a right to self defense predates the constitution and the 9th serves as a catch all for such inalienable rights.

On a personal note, I agree with the outcome of Heller. Anyone who hears gunfire outside his residence deserves to be able to protect himself and his family by all means available. In the case of Heller a handgun might get close to parity. My issue is where the dumb MFers found the right. As I said, finding it in the 9th would settle it.

edit to add:

Bottom line is NOTHING CHANGED after Heller. Nada. Zero. Zip. Gun ownership is still at the whim of states and cities and local government.

[X_Digger]

48. Well, yes and no..

Heller codified what constitutional scholars, congress (in 1986, 1902, 1867), and multiple polls had asserted all along- that the second protects (not grants, protects) an individual right. That would be the first step toward incorporation- you can't incorporate a collective right of the states against the states themselves.

[Will E Orwontee]

51. "NOTHING CHANGED after Heller"??? wrong . . .

Bottom line is NOTHING CHANGED after Heller. Nada. Zero. Zip.

The one thing Heller "changed" is to extinguish all the various permutations of the "state's right" or "collective right" interpretations which were created in the lower federal courts in the 1940's.

In U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) the interpretation was hatched with the idea that the 2nd Amendment, "was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power." Literally hundreds of federal and state gun control laws have been held as legitimate over the last 60 years citing that ruling.

Well, Heller invalidated that holding and the many holdings dependent upon it. Heller's definitive statement of an individual right directly led to the 9th Circuit holding that the 14th Amendment was enforceable upon the states; I hardly would characterize that development as "Nada. Zero. Zip."

In light of Heller, the judges in Nordyke had to permit a re-visit of the case and because of the individual right determination they ruled:
". . . we must first decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclusion. . . . Thus the basis for Hickman’s holding has evaporated, and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by higher authority."

Nordyke v King, pg 4475-4476, (April 20, 2009)

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf (194KB .pdf)

When a gun control supporter looks at the judicial history of states propping up their unconstitutional laws by lazily relying on these "smoke and mirror" federal holdings, they should be nervous. This problem is very dire in heavy gun control states without RKBA provisions in their own constitutions(like California and New Jersey). As it stands right now much of Cali's gun control could actually be invalidated and with a SCOTUS ruling on incorporation (NRA v Chicago (7th Circuit) or Nordyke v King (9th Curcuit)) the entire house of cards in Cali and New Jersey could fall.

The most important thing Heller gave this nation was time . . . time to rewrite the needed laws and get them onto sound constitutional footing so when the unavoidable determinations come, (and they will), there will not be a free-for-all.

Of course nobody is taking advantage of this respite between rulings.

[Euromutt]

44. Correction to your correction

(That was not correct, as between 30,000 and 40,000short-barreled shotguns were used in WW1 by American forces. They were called "trench brooms,", IIRC.)

The shotguns used by the U.S. armed forces in WWI and after were typically pump-action models with 20" barrels, like the Winchester M1897. With that barrel length, they would have become short-barreled shotguns for purposes of the NFA of 1934. Miller's weapon was a sawed-off Stevens 311 side-by-side; definitely never used for military purposes at the time.

Moreover, the "Trench Broom" was the nickname for the Thompson sub-machine gun, or at least the underlying concept, since the Thompson never made it into service before the Armistice.

Miller was a pretty sound decision at the time, but it has been overtaken by developments in military firearm technology in the interim. When Miller was handed down, the U.S. armed forces had at most a handful of SMGs (all in Navy/Marine use), and no short-barreled rifles or shotguns. These days, the standard-issue army weapon is the M4, a short-barreled selective-fire assault rifle which can be fitted with an underslung M203 grenade launcher or a short-barreled shotgun. It can violate almost every provision of the NFA, and if the Miller decision is read as meaning that private ownership of any weapon with a legitimate military application is protected by the 2nd, the government has no business restricting its ownership.

[Will E Orwontee]

52. a very good (official) reading of Miller . . .

We have a very exhaustive analysis of Miller rendered only 3-1/2 years after Miller. Because of the Miller holding (so perfectly presented here) this lower federal court had to surmise without substantiation that the founders would have never intended such a interpretation. From this holding (and Tot) the entire perversion of "state's right" and "collective right" was hatched.

"At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called 'Commando Units' some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."

Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

Well, it is no wonder they opine that Miller formulated no rule. The reason this had to be done was that by then, it was a "well known fact" or as the Miller court said, "within judicial notice," that all guns have military usefulness.
   
The shotgun that the Miller court said, "has no reasonable relationship, . . ." could be argued to be an arm beyond the reach of the NFA '34.

Thus, all guns would be protected, including the Cases appellant's .38 caliber revolver and nearly all gun control laws would be struck down.

Well, we know that didn't happen!

[JonQ]

33. 11 guns, well we know that even a single gun in the hands

of an average citizen will force that person to commit acts of evil, so how many people have your 11 guns forced you to kill (probably while laughing manically and thinking about your genitalia)?

:sarcasm:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. None so far, but I am one step away from the crazy train.

[tortoise1956]

40. Obviously, since you refuse to drink the gun control Kool-aid...

We will have Iverglas come across the border to perform a citizen's arrest on your evil, anti-social, Bambi-killing, puppy-kicking, fascist ass. That'll teach ya!

Oh, wait - she's not a citizen. DAMNIT!!

[cslinger59]

49. I for one............

have never kicked a puppy. that is all. :D