People who own weapons aren't responsible for combating or preventing crime in general. Gun ownership doesn't commit us to becoming default cops. What ownership does is allow us to protect ourselves in the event of an armed criminal attack. So the basis for your articles thesis is fallacious in expecting armed people to somehow become extensions of law enforcement in order to justify being armed.

Therefore, the only rational response to your premise is to encourage more law abiding people to be armed and trained so as to outnumber the armed criminals so they will have no unarmed citizens to victimize. That is the most effective way to intimidate the lawless criminals into never using their weapons for violence for fear that their intended victim may actually be better armed then they are.

Good observation! He is very good at presenting fellatious viewpoints and lack of knowledge and content. He is one of the more fellatious people I know and you won't find him taking notice of the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land either.

Well what do you expect?! Everytime gun owners try and do anything to combat crime, you liberal sissies yell and scream about vigilantism and foam at the mouth as you talk about how we're taking the law into our own hands and that we'll be administering death sentences without trials for matters as trivial as jaywalking!

You want us to combat crime, but you don't want us to actually do anything. Make up your mind already!

Evidence of this statement. Right now.

Can you present anything to support your claim that we're suggesting "throwing more guns at the problem"? I haven't seen any such claims on the side of conservatives. We support letting people who already have guns actually being allowed to carry them, but I haven't seen anyone saying that we have to get hundreds of thousands of more guns bought up and distributed.

Have you?

It's quite simple really. We as gun owners aren't violating the rights of anyone. The criminal element isn't connected with us, and taking away our gun rights isn't going to stop them. And since we support criminals being locked up, or just plain killed, we're not the source of the problem. Nor are we supporting the criminal misuse of firearms.

Just because criminals steal and use cars for high speed chases doesn't mean that we should ban car ownership, does it? Just because arsonists burn down entire buildings and kill families with a book of matches, doesn't mean that we should ban them either, does it?

Instead of focusing exclusively on legal gun owners, and harassing us like it's all our fault, like we're the source of all evil in the world, why don't you instead go after the criminals who're actually breaking the laws repeatedly, because they were given a plea bargain that kept them out of prison?

__________________
[QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

[QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
He should practice what he preaches.

The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.

See, that's your problem. You lack a fundamental knowledge of firearms. You don't "throw guns at the problem", you squeeze off a few rounds and watch them fall.

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

Where would I draw the line? I answer that question in the post you responded to; I would attempt to draw it in a place which maximises neither freedom nor security, but instead focuses on maximising the quality of life of the population as a whole.

Personally, I think that the UK system is too prohibitive (sporting-wise). However, it does have several good features. The end result I would probably go for (skipping details of how it was introduced, which would be incredibly tricky to do) would be:
1. In order to buy a gun (or, possibly, ammo), you must have a license.
2. In order to get a license, you must provide a 'valid' reason for owning one, and proof that you are unlikely to misuse one.
3. A 'valid' reason for owning a gun would be: sport, work or 'other' (must be specific). In general (with some exceptions), 'self-defence' should not be considered a valid reason for owning a gun. 'Sport' or 'work' motives must include evidence that they actually are using their firearm for the stated purpose.
4. Possible further requirements for a license: A practical/theory test similar to a UK driving test, to show that the owner is not entirely incompetent and likely to only harm others or themselves.
5. Licence holders may, on private property, allow non-licensed individuals to handle and use guns. However, any harm that results from this is considered to be directly caused by the license owner.
6. Set up a gun registry database, to contain: Make, model, current owner, id number and date of purchase/sale - nothing more. Gun thefts to be reported on discovery, lest the individual be suspected of selling on guns illegally.

Yes, this would (likely) involve drastically changing the 2nd amendment. Precedent for changing (or, rather, removing) amendments has already been set by the 21st, however.

Incidentally, thanks for responding. No-one else seems to have managed.

__________________
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.

What kind of quality of life can you have when the government has full authority to infringe on any right they choose, in any manner they choose, and you have no legal recourse in challenging their decision because due process is no longer applicable?

You don't need a license to exercise a true right. Nor should you need one for that purpose.

Nobody should have to provide reason for why they wish to exercise a right; that's one of the thing that separates a right from a privilege.

And furthermore I demonstrate plenty of proof that I'm unlikely to misuse a gun when I buy one; I pass the background check without a hitch, meaning I have a spotless record. To suggest that people with spotless records are likely to randomly commit crimes is to adopt the mindset that absolutely everyone is guilty, they just haven't been caught yet.

This adjustment you support would be illegal to try, because of the Heller ruling. The Supreme Court has determined that the Second Amendment is directly linked to personal defense, not anything like hunting, and therefore a "sporting only" prerequisite for owning a firearm would never pass constitutional muster.

Besides that, such a standard is just outright stupid. It would be akin to telling someone that their First Amendment rights exist only so they can see movies, not petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And how exactly would you carry something like that out in a practical manner, even if there was legal wiggle room to do it?

Unacceptable. That's akin to saying that if somebody broke into my garage, stole the car and ran over 10 people then it would be directly my fault since the car was registered in my name.

Why should we be held responsible for the actions of criminals when we didn't do anything?

Another illegal proposal by you. Under federal law no such database can be implemented or maintained. And besides that point, such a database would be too cumbersome to use, and nothing more than a giant money sink hole, wasting valuable resources that could be better used elsewhere.

Canada learned this lesson already.

Changing? More like eviscerating. What you're talking about is the gutting of the concept of fundamental rights, and replacing them with government permitted privileges; things that can be taken away with no due process.

I don't care if you don't believe in the concept of rights, that's not important here. The concept of rights is part of established American law, meaning that it's something actually enforceable and tangible.

Sorry but you're dead wrong. The 21st Amendment was created to remove the 18th Amendment. The 18th Amendment was nothing more than a ban on something; this is unique because no other Amendment banned anything, because they were designed for protecting the rights of the people, not taking away the rights of the people.

__________________
[QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

[QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
He should practice what he preaches.

The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.

The UK?

So still having to do this shouldn't be an issue for you then. I'm not suggesting much more than background checks (in that area)

More or less exactly how the driving test is carried out? Theory test, basic accuracy test, handling test. Simple.

Try reading the point again? You would only be charged if you had let the criminals take your car.

Canadas firearm database is considered by the Canadian police force - the police, not their bosses - to be a useful investment. Make of that what you will.

So 'the people' have the right to make, transport, import or export alcohol?

That's a mighty specific right. Where does it say that one?

__________________
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.

Not a very shining example there, what with remote controlled spy drones, banning knives and the whole ASBO program that's currently in place.

Nobody should have to be required to prove that they're innocent and not likely to commit harm to others, it goes against the basis of our court system.

So you're telling us that a one time only, 15 minute follow along by a licensed safety instructor, will prove conclusively that somebody who owns a gun isn't likely to commit harm or misuse a gun?

And what is the definition of "let" here? If somebody examines your gun in your presence, but they then turn and shoot you and steal it, did you "let" them take it from you?

Exactly how many cases have been solved because of the long gun registry?

I never said the use of alcohol was a right, I said that the 18th Amendment was about the banning of something; a concept that is shared by no other amendment in the constitution. Therefore there's no precedent set by the 21st Amendment.

__________________
[QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

[QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
He should practice what he preaches.

The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.

Somehow, I think I'm better qualified to judge quality of life in the UK than you, seeing as I actually live here.

How do 'remote spy drones' affect me in my everyday life?

So you're against background checks for guns in the US? How about background checks for working in schools? How about driving tests?

You seem to be going for the 'blow statements out of proportion' tactic, but - it would cut down the likelihood, yes. If you ask someone to put the safety back on and they pull the trigger instead, that's a fairly good sign they shouldn't own a gun yet.

If you've deliberately allowed them to get to the gun, and had the opportunity to prevent them from doing so but deliberately failed, then I would say it's pretty much your own fault you got shot, yes?

Not a clue. I would guess it's played a role in a great many cases, or the police wouldn't have recommended it like that. It's unlikely to have been the deciding factor, but it may well have saved lots of those resources which you were talking about.

Not directly, no. The implication was there, however.
Regardless, you're using the fallacy of special pleading here. Precedent has been set for reversing an Amendment; the contents of the amendment which was reversed are irrelevant.

__________________
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.

GOOD GOD! why not just hand them in?because that is basically what your saying! drastically changing the 2nd amendment?sounds like it would be just #### canned!

Yup! Well, part of it, at least. Over 380,000 gun homicides in the years from 1976 - 2005, over a quarter of a million of those committed by handguns, suggests that easy access to lethal force is not something that should be considered a 'right'.

__________________
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.

I lived in England with my family for the most of my life. My family lived in the UK going as far back as my great, great grandparents. I have plenty of experience with how like in England was.

You're hardly the best one to make judgments about the quality of life over there. You can't tell how black the darkness is when you're standing three feet away from a 100 watt light bulb.

The fact that the government can now watch you everywhere you go, and actually follow you through the city without your knowledge.

Of course it's unlikely that this fact will have a lasting impression on you. Everytime I point out this fact to anyone from Britain they just brush it off and refer to me as paranoid. You're so ingrained in the Orwellian world that Britain has become, you can't notice the forest through the trees.

No I have no problem with standard background checks. But when you start suggest that that's not enough, I draw the line at that point. If I can pass the background check then I see no reason why I should be subjected to any further hoops to jump through before I can exercise my rights that you don't believe in.

This is off topic though. Passing the background check means having clean records. Clean records mean, in the eye of the law, you're not likely to commit harm or misuse with a firearm. This is the rule, not the exception.

Undergoing a background check to obtain a position of employment is not the same thing, and it's not comparable in this matter either. Also, driving is a privilege, not a right so it's not comparable either.

So you're telling us that what amounts to a 15 minute interview can prove conclusively that a person either will or won't, at a later point in time, prove their own stupidity while armed? How can you guarantee this?

Even the stupidest, most incompetent people ever born, can prove capable enough during a driving test to get a license, but these are the same people who later get wasted and try to drive home from a party, or drag race in the streets because they thought somebody was challenging their masculinity by passing them on the road.

What you're proposing has no crime fighting potential, no method of guaranteeing people would be less accident prone, and sounds like nothing more than an intentional inconvenience to those who wish to live differently than you.

How exactly is that a sign of anything conclusive?

What you're talking about; knowingly supplying a weapon to an individual you had reason to know was prohibited from possession, is already a felony offense.

Well then it won't be hard to dig up some cases of the long gun registry proving itself to be an indispensable crime fighting tool.

No, no such precedent for what you're suggesting exists, and no matter how much you say it, it won't come true. There's no precedent for using the addition of a constitutional amendment to erase another constitutional amendment, when said amendment talks about the protecting of an individual, fundamental right.

__________________
[QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

[QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
He should practice what he preaches.

The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.

There are far too many facts missing for such a conclusion to be reached. All we have is a number and a type of tool, but everything else is missing.

How many of those 380,000 killed were members of rival gangs fighting over turf? How many were criminals killed by police? How many were killed by home owners in a home invasion gone wrong? How many were killed in the process of carjacking a driver? How many were innocent bystanders accidentally shot by the police? How many were shot but didn't die until years or decades later, but the cause of death was still ruled as a gunshot?

For that matter, how many of the guns were legally owned? How many were police weapons? How many were stolen on the route to delivery? How many were illegally smuggled into the country?

You need to provide more information than just a number and the tool used.

So since there's criminal misuse, we should declassify something as being a right?

Exactly how violent of a mob riot does something have to become, before it's determined that the First Amendment no longer protects a person's right to assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances?

How many people have to be found guilty of manufacturing child porn before a license is necessary to own a camera? How long before the government is allowed to carry out random in-house inspections to ensure your children haven't been abused or molested?

__________________
[QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

[QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
He should practice what he preaches.

The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.

Anti gunners, which number for DGUs per year do you accept? From what study? That'll make this much clearer.

__________________
My imaginary friend left me. He said his other friends didn't believe in me.

Spending our way out of the recession is like drinking our way out of alcoholism.

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
~ Thomas Jefferson

Lets see,rounding off at 250,000 handgun deaths, thats what ah 8,333 per year
at 166 per state per. year.O.K.so how many of those are accidental and how many by criminal intent?

Moving right along and dragging out the old: how many drunk drivers killed how
many in the last,say 30 years?I'm not gonna bother.