If only more politicians felt this way...

[Phoenix Rising]

Now if only we had someone like this running for president...

If you liked that, you might want to check out this guy as well:

 

[seddy-0]

i am the furthest from conservative. gun rights.. well too many stupid people are getting them.. what needs to be done is we need to make it harder for guns to get into the hands of the wrong people. has to be a way to tag a gun.. not just a serial number that can be filed off, but put a s/n somewhere else on the gun.. inside the handle somewhere. so when you arrest that gang banger on illegal gun charges. you can also take apart that gun, run the serial and go after who had that gun originally. over here in the states, we have the highest death rate among guns than anywhere in the world. and its because kids can get guns so freaking easily. i don't think we need to ban guns, because that is harming the responsible people who deserve to have guns.

as for the second guy. he speaks very well. comparing us over here in the states to the people in europe. the gist of what he is saying that we over here in the states have it a lot better than we really see. over in europe they are having problems, and so are we, but not on the scale that's going over there. even comparing our constitutions, how the united states' talks of the more complex and major issues, and the EU's has little things that should not really be righted to the people.(i may have worded that wrong) right to affordable health care and things like that really need to be done per country to choose, not forced. he says it best the freedoms we enjoy here all go back to the constitution, because of how our country was founded. and the EU's was founded on almost the opposite.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

too many stupid people are getting them.. what needs to be done is we need to make it harder for guns to get into the hands of the wrong people.

Too many stupid people have cars too. If you want to live in a free society, you have to accept that sometimes people are going to say hateful things, sometimes stupid people might get their hands on a gun, and sometimes bad things might happen. Even with the most strict gun laws in the world, these things still happen; take for instance the massacre in Norway last year or the Dunblane and Hungerford massacres in the United Kingdom. Even here in the United States, guns were banned in the District of Columbia for around 20 years and crime shot up massively, it got so bad that even the Democrats agreed that gun control didn't work and the law was overturned (DC vs Heller). When the law was overturned and gun sales soared in DC, the crime rate shot down drastically.

has to be a way to tag a gun.. not just a serial number that can be filed off, but put a s/n somewhere else on the gun.. inside the handle somewhere. so when you arrest that gang banger on illegal gun charges. you can also take apart that gun, run the serial and go after who had that gun originally.

What would be the purpose of that? If I sell you a gun or a car or a plane or a knife or anything, and you just so happen to use that for nefarious purposes, am I to blame?

over here in the states, we have the highest death rate among guns than anywhere in the world. and its because kids can get guns so freaking easily. i don't think we need to ban guns, because that is harming the responsible people who deserve to have guns.

Wrong. In fact, European countries have HIGHER murder than the US. In fact if all of the guns in the world magically disappeared right now, murder rates wouldn't drop, in fact all of the evidence suggests that they would go up. Take for instance the United Kingdom, where guns are virtually banned, not even police officers are allowed to own or carry guns, save for special weapons teams (the British equivalent to SWAT), and they have a far higher murder rate than the US. If you ban guns, then only criminals have guns, and even if those criminals magically had all of their guns disappear, the violence would just switch to another tool, in the case of Britain, that tool was knives. Guns don't cause crime, just the opposite in fact, the more gun owners there are, the less crime there is.

Some sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-england-and-wales-worse-than-us-2042216.html

as for the second guy. he speaks very well. comparing us over here in the states to the people in europe. the gist of what he is saying that we over here in the states have it a lot better than we really see. over in europe they are having problems, and so are we, but not on the scale that's going over there. even comparing our constitutions, how the united states' talks of the more complex and major issues, and the EU's has little things that should not really be righted to the people.(i may have worded that wrong) right to affordable health care and things like that really need to be done per country to choose, not forced. he says it best the freedoms we enjoy here all go back to the constitution, because of how our country was founded. and the EU's was founded on almost the opposite.

Indeed, he is a good speaker. That's Dan Hannan, he's a pretty stand-up politician, which is rare, especially in the European Union. I don't know why he hasn't left the Tories and joined UKIP yet, him and Nigel Farage have very similar views.

 

[seddy-0]

i don't think you are getting the gist of what i am saying.. you get a gun.. you register that gun. when you sell that gun.. you change registration. thus passing the responsibility over to that person. when you sell a gun out of the back of your car to some one. that is what i am talking about. you don't sell black market cars. lol there needs to be a way of making it harder to get guns illegally.
i grew up in a crappy part of pittsburgh where there were a lot of gun violence. so many people shooting each other.. i knew people who were killed by guns.. guns that were obtained illegally. as much as i would love to see some form of strict gun control to help stop or severely curb the sale of illegal guns.. unfortunately, illegal fire arms has grown further out of control than internet piracy.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

I just want to clarify something, are you suggesting that there be some sort of "registration" system for guns? Or what are you trying to say exactly? Additionally, what would you consider an "illegal" gun?

If you are trying to suggest some sort of horrible "registration" system or something to that extent, then you're going to have to back up that statement. Why should I need a "permit" to exercise my basic human rights? Additionally, I already have a permit, it's called the Second Amendment. History has shown that registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation, even today in countries like Canada where there is registration, the lefties are still pushing for tighter gun laws, including a recent attempt by the authoritarian left at a complete and total gun ban. Might I recommend this documentary:

 

[seddy-0]

all guns are "supposed" to be registered when sold.. there needs to be some sort of way to prevent sales of unregistered guns.. but like i said. its become a run away train.. look at LA. there are more street gangs than anywhere else in the united states. i am about 95% certain that the ones that own guns surely didn't go down to the local gun shop.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

Registered? No.

Legally vendors are required to perform a background check on buyers though.

 

[coffeecup]

Well...

1) "For me," I don't really care much about gun rights. Personally, I feel that the "right to bear arms" is an oudated provision that is no longer essential towards a properly working democracy. If the Second Amendment wasn't in existence today, I wouldn't be offended if Congress proposed to tighten gun control. Again, if the people want to restrict access to guns, then I would not be opposed to it. And on the flip side, if people wanted to broaden the access to guns, then I wouldn't be opposed to it as well (well to an extent...it might be going a bit too far to allow people to own RPGs and the like).

I have yet to buy any compelling arguments demonstrating its importance as an individual right. In the end it seems to end as a preference. I don't buy the argument that it is integral to a democracy given the other important individual rights like "freedom of expression" and "equal protection" that you've got in comparison. Even basic education isn't an individual right (and is arguably one of the most important necessities of a properly working democracy). But there is not such requirement in the U.S. Constitution. All mandates for primary education are done at the State level. I just don't buy any of the arguments purporting the right to bear arms so important to be an inalienable individual right. Right to freedom of expression. Right to freedom of Religion. Right to be free of unreasonable search and seizures. Right to due process of law. Right to equal protection.
...and right to own a glock 27... doesn't really fit and there are more important things I'd deem an individual right above that...but that's just me.

2) As a practical matter, it doesn't matter in the context of voting. Not because my vote will have a minor impact, but that whoever is elected (President, senator, governor, district rep, etc...) ultimately has very little power as to alter the current landscape of gun control. Local, state, and federal legislation will ultimately hinge upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And right now, it's leaning towards a broad interpretation. The only real way that I see some substantive change arising by some elected individual is via the President's power to appoint Supreme Court Justices. Right now it's a 5-4 slant in favor of a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment (by the conservatives of the court), so a lib president that appoints a lib justice in place of a retiring conserv justice might just shift everything in the opposite direction. But there are a lot of factors there...that are both unforeseeable and unpredictable.


Edit: Actually I want to qualify my (1) answer. To clarify, it's a right in the sense that it is embodied in the U.S. Constitution and was probably an important individual right as seen by the Framers of our Constitution. But times have drastically changed. If it was possible to recreate the U.S. Constitution, I would not be surprised if a provision like the 2nd Amendment just disappeared. This doesn't mean it's not important to regulate gun ownership (probably makes more sense to do it by federal regulation), but just that it should not be interpreted as an inalienable individual right.

 

[The Illusive Man]

The only thing the UK may have a higher rate of is knife related crimes, but this only saw an increase over the last 10 years with the "rise of the hoodie hooligans" and the disaster that was opening all the gates and allowing just about anyone into the country.

It is possible for a person in the UK to possess a firearm (no handguns, no semi-automatics, no automatics only shotguns and air rifles for hunting and pest culling purposes) but the licence requirements are extremely strict and costly narrowing down the group of legal firearms registrars to a minority.

Personally I don't trust any politicians and see them all as a bunch of liars that are in it for themselves and to hell with the common everyday Joe (or Joeline) there track record speaks for itself and the amount of dirt the media uncovers everyday on these individuals often makes me ask the question..."What qualifies these people to be fit to run for office in the first place?"

Politics needs a drastic overhaul, but most of all...it needs a dose of reality.

 

[Dee]

Can we focus on things like education instead? Then maybe if folks had adequate funding to be educated about weapons, they wouldn't be as inclined to leave them lying around unlocked, use them for injury or killing and so on and so forth. I think this should be the least of our worries; in American anyway.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

Can we focus on things like education instead? Then maybe if folks had adequate funding to be educated about weapons, they wouldn't be as inclined to leave them lying around unlocked, use them for injury or killing and so on and so forth. I think this should be the least of our worries; in American anyway.

They used to have gun safety classes in high schools here, but the liberals removed them in order to push their gun control agenda.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

What are you trying to say? Because all you're doing is ignoring the facts, the UK is a far more violent nation than the US, all of the facts point to this. That's what happens when you trade your freedom for "security."

 

[Shaissa]

What are you trying to say? Because all you're doing is ignoring the facts, the UK is a far more violent nation than the US, all of the facts point to this. That's what happens when you trade your freedom for "security."

To say United States is safer than Europe I think is a total farce, your "facts" didn't list any creditable sources, didn't really support what you were saying anyways...
I think that is what DragonByte Tech was getting at, when he had a site that listed creditable sources (yes the wiki page had creditable sources,) that said that the US has more deaths with guns than most countries in the world.

In fact the countries that beat the US with that are countries that have had geneside and warlords kill the citizens.... Now that is sad...



But on a side note about the "right to bear arms"


The "right to bear arms" was made when The United States had no real national army and had a war with the greatest country in the world at the time, England, won because the citizens had fought with them, so they wanted militia to be called upon to help defend there country in a minute notice. Now that we have a strong military, navy, air force, etc. I don't think we need citizens going around carrying guns left and right, only other people that should have guns are true hunters in my opinion, which they should have that as a job skill instead of a fun drinking time hunting...

 

[Phoenix Rising]

To say United States is safer than Europe I think is a total farce, your "facts" didn't list any creditable sources, didn't really support what you were saying anyways...

Oh really? The facts indicate otherwise. In Europe everyone is a victim and incapable of defending themselves, in America we have freedom and can defend yourself.

The "right to bear arms" was made when The United States had no real national army and had a war with the greatest country in the world at the time, England, won because the citizens had fought with them, so they wanted militia to be called upon to help defend there country in a minute notice.

European kid, trying to lecture Americans on American history; OH YOU! The right to bear arms was created as the SECOND AMENDMENT in the bill of rights, because the Founding Fathers realized just how important of a right it is. They realized how important it was for:
1. Citizens to be able to overthrow a corrupt and/or tyrannical government (such as the one you, "Sixty," would like to live in)
2. Individuals be able to defend themselves in self-defense.

I don't think we need citizens going around carrying guns left and right, only other people that should have guns are true hunters in my opinion, which they should have that as a job skill instead of a fun drinking time hunting...

Phoenix Rising Don't start with the insults. One of the tenets of American liberty is the right to an opinion, and the right to voice it. No need to belittle those who have differing opinions than your own.

 

[coffeecup]

No need to start insulting people…

Actually Phoenix, your view on the framer's purpose is only partially correct. I don't believe (contrary to the majority view of the Supreme Court, but in line with the dissenting view) that the 2nd amendment was ever envisioned as an "individual" right. If you just look at the language of the 2nd Amendment and read some of the treatises of some of the framers' opinions, the second Amendment right to bear arms is intertwined with the State's interest in keeping a well-regulated Militia. This Militia was supposed to be a counterbalance against the national army to ensure that State sovereignty would be protected (fear of the national army arose via historical concerns with the crown's uninhibited use of the army for his beck & call). So technically, the 2nd Amendment wasn't originally envisioned as an "individual" right but rather a "State" right to ensure that the Federal gov't couldn't encroach on the State's ability to keep up a programmatic Militia. John Adams himself decries against the uninhibited ability for individuals to freely own guns due to the potentiality of leading to a rule by angry mob situation. It was always meant to be pointed towards a programmatic purpose for the State. If the State wants to restrict it, then the State should be free to do so.

Now the above opinion is at both times contrary and in keeping with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the Supreme Court. I actually did some research on the issue, and it looks like my prior belief was incorrect. The current landscape of 2nd Amendment law is comparatively much more narrowly interpreted than I believed. This narrow interpretation is why all the federal regulations and State restrictions on gun ownership have been held constitutional. However, conservatives on SCOTUS have been able to keep a slim hold on the "individual" right perspective.

Also purely from a 2nd Amendment standpoint, the idea of self-defense or violence is really a moot point because it was a minimal (or nonexistent) consideration by the framers of the Constitution. Personally, I feel that the evidence supports the view that the 2nd Amendment was never intended to be an "individual right" (like free speech), but solely a limitation placed on the Federal Government to prevent encroachment in an area of State interest. It really should never have been incorporated as an "individual" right if you look at the history. The States should be free to regulate in the area of gun control, and the Fed should be able to do so as well so long as it doesn't impede the state militia interest (as has been the mode of analyzing a lot of the federal regulations up to this point).

Coincidentally, this is in keeping with my basic opinion that the State legislature should be able to regulate gun control how they seem fit. If the people of the State wants to restrict, restrict; if the people of the state want to broaden, then broaden. Then the Fed can kick in for any policy reasons such as uniformity.

From a general policy perspective, you are free to consider self-defense and violence; however such considerations are irrelevant unless you can bring up evidence that demonstrates the framers (or ratifiers) of the Constitution agreed that this was an intrinsic purpose of the 2nd Amendment. And as an additional point, I believe that self-defense issues shouldn't even be within the purview of the Federal government but limited for the discretion of each State. There might be some uniformity concerns that may mandate federal regulation (like it's wouldn't be wise to have bordering States have diametrically opposed regulations on gun control), but it takes a lot more than this to bump it up from just federal regulation to an "individual" right. I hold with my prior view that the 2nd Amendment is a nickel and dime compared to things like free expression, due process, and equal protection.

I seriously believe that the conservative stance of the Supreme Court on the issue just pulled that "individual" right stuff out of legal artistry. History and a common-sense reading of the entire 2nd Amendment dictate almost the opposite conclusion. I don't have any sources to link because this is basically a conglomeration of my knowledge based on reading a wide array of things such as the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and documents written by the framers. If you want to find the answers, you just need to have the incentive to go search online. Everything is available and pretty much free. I write this not really to persuade (because it's almost impossible to persuade someone on an internet forum) but just to widen people's perspective on the issue.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

@coffeecup
I'm going to stop you right there, why do you think that the Second Amendment is some kind of "sacred cow?" The other rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, so what makes you think that this is some magical right that is fundamentally different from all the other rights?

And if what you say is true, then why is it that every single state constitution also has the right to bear arms in them?

Speaking of which your argument was already proven wrong by both the Supreme Court AND the vast majority of the American people. In fact if you go back to look at the history of the right to bear arms, it dates back to the English Bill of Rights, in which it was an individual right. The Founding Fathers would be disgusted, if they saw these so-called "liberals" attempting to violate such a massively important fundamental right. There's nothing "liberal" about opposing gun rights, not if you use the original definition of the term.

 

[coffeecup]

@coffeecup
I'm going to stop you right there, why do you think that the Second Amendment is some kind of "sacred cow?" The other rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, so what makes you think that this is some magical right that is fundamentally different from all the other rights?

You may need to touch up a bit on how the US Constitution works and its relation to State sovereignty. The Bill of Rights was originally a restriction ONLY on the Federal Government, not the States. This was changed when the Supreme Court decided to interpret the 14th Amendment as incorporating most (not all) of the amendments in the Bill of Rights as a restriction against the States as well. They did this amendment by amendment, they didn't incorporate the entire Bill of Rights. So the question is why should incorporation be applied to the 2nd Amendment, because the presumption is against incorporation. Thus the issue of whether or not it is an "individual" right as seen by the drafters/ratifiers.

And if what you say is true, then why is it that every single state constitution also has the right to bear arms in them?

Okay, now you may need to touch up on the concept of Federalism. It is very important to recognize the relationship between the State and Federal government when talking about the United States. This goes hand in hand with talking about State Constitutions v. Federal Constitutions. I dont have a problem with States creating a right to bear arms in the State Constitution, but this is a wholly different matter from the creation of an "individual" right in the Federal Constitution that is mandated upon the States. The United States is supposed to be a collection of States. And if each individual State wishes to grant the right to bear arms for its citizens, then that runs in line with the US conception of democracy. The problem is where the States become restricted from their ability to make this decision due to the Federal Constitution. So even if there is no practical difference if the 2nd Amendment were gone, there is a very important theoretical one hinging on whether the States have the power to self-regulate themselves as a matter of principle. And right now, the US Constitution places such a restriction on that particular aspect State sovereignty.

Speaking of which your argument was already proven wrong by both the Supreme Court AND the vast majority of the American people. In fact if you go back to look at the history of the right to bear arms, it dates back to the English Bill of Rights, in which it was an individual right. The Founding Fathers would be disgusted, if they saw these so-called "liberals" attempting to violate such a massively important fundamental right. There's nothing "liberal" about opposing gun rights, not if you use the original definition of the term.

Most controversial supreme court decisions are split 5-4 decisions. In other words, they are very close. Also, I would hope that you wouldn't just acquiesce to whatever the majority thinks. It's good practice to look at all the angles of an issue then decide the matter using your own mind. There are always different views that are just as justifiable as the status quo. It's important to learn to appreciate an issue from all different perspective, even those that are opposed to your own.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

There is absolutely no evidence to support your claim that the Bill of Rights (including the right to bear arms) only apply to federal laws, and not individual rights. In fact every single time in history that there has been a "right to keep and bear arms" it has ALWAYS referred to an individual right, including where the phrase originated, in the English Bill of Rights in 1688. The Tenth Amendment (also part of the Bill of Rights) ensures federalism in the United States, and it states that "rights and powers NOT set forth in the Constitution are delegated to the states or the people," which by it's very definition implies that state and local governments CANNOT violate the federal Constitution.

 

[coffeecup]

…you don't seem to be reading anything I'm writing…so I'm just going to keep this one short.

a) The Bill of Rights originally only limited the federal government. Only after the "incorporation doctrine" (that's an actual legal term), did the Bill of Rights apply to the States as well. The 2nd Amendment was one of the last amendments to be incorporated. Ever wonder why?

b) You are begging the question with the Amendment X bit. Yes, States cannot violate the federal Constitution but that assumes the entire issue of whether the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as applying to only the federal government or the State.

c) Why do you keep relying on polls? Why do you just follow the majority? When is 57% majority enough to ever make the other 43% keel over? It almost seems like if most of the population supported the "liberal" side of the debate, you'd switch sides.

*I really can't emphasis this point enough if it's the only thing you get from my post: Look at ALL the evidence yourself (even those opposing your own position), then decide the matter from using YOUR OWN mind. Please stop relying so heavily on popular opinion. You are not a politician, but a human individual. I would hope you have enough self-respect to hold fast to your own opinion over those of others.*

d) Genocide, racism, homophobia …and… gun control. How you are able to group those things together is a bit beyond me… This point explains much more about your bias on the issue than anything else. It's hard to talk with someone about gun control when he equates it to genocide, racism, and homophobia.

Edit: I'm glad you edited your initial response to cut out the part that (c) and (d) refer.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

Yeah, no. I'm not sure where you're getting this nonsense from, but apparently as of about 10:37 AM yesterday, I am incapable of forming a conclusion and/or opinion of my own, according to you.

I am beginning to think that you are intentionally putting words in my mouth, just so you can attack a straw-man. What I was asking was, 'Why do Democrat politicians insist on pushing their gun control agenda, when the vast majority of Democrats (57% of Dems and 90% of Republicans) are opposed to gun control?' Which has absolutely nothing to do with my views or opinions or interpretation of evidence.