[1ViciousGSX]

First off, thank you for being open minded and civil. I love these kinds of discussions.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

This discussion is causing me to hit the limits of my thoughts and knowledge on 2nd amendment rights, so I'm doing some research into what the 2nd amendment actually means.

And that's understandable considering all the mis-information flying around about the subject. Knowledge is power.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

The first legal case I've come across that set a precedent for the 2nd amendment was United States v. Cruikshank on March 27, 1876. Relating to the 2nd amendment, in a nutshell the Supreme Court interpreted it as limiting the federal government's powers on our right to bear arms. According to the ruling, it does not affect states rights to restrict gun rights.

This is a fine example of politics as we know it today. “Interpretation” is code for “We know it says one thing, but we want it to mean another”. It’s a purposeful manipulation to make you believe it means something else. The 2nd Amendment is really very clear. It reads exactly as follows:

“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.”
Notice it doesn't say "A well regulated military".

So what is to “Interpret”? It’s really very clear, don’t you think? It doesn’t give the states additional rights does it? Nowhere does it say, “Unless you’re a state government, then you can do as you please”. The Bill of Rights is the document all laws for the people are supposed to be checked against.

Origins of the 2nd Amendment:
“Having been oppressed by a professional army, the founding fathers of the United States had no use for establishing one of their own. Instead, they decided that an armed citizenry makes the best army of all. General George Washington created regulation for the aforementioned "well-regulated militia," which would consist of every able-bodied man in the country”.

Just to be clear, you and I are the militia.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

I'll look into the CCP crime rate data to see what I can find. I'm open to
shift my opinion if I can find solid data.

Please do let us know what you find.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

Guns came into existence as a result of a drive to win wars with a more efficient weapon. They are more efficient, with the exception of bombs.

True and they’re also your best weapon for self defense from an attacker because you can take down a threat before it enters your “dead zone”. Dead zone referring to the 5-ft radius around your body that is close enough for an attacker to physically harm or kill you before you can react.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

But, guns are much more readily available and usable than bombs. Nobody is arguing for the right to carry bombs.

Of course nobody would call for the right to carry bombs. Bombs are considered weapons of mass destruction. Add to that, bombs can be placed by an individual that can be long gone before it detonates.

As far as "readily available" goes, you can buy everything you need to build a pipe bomb at your local hardware store, with no background checks. Not that I'm promoting it either, just in case you were wondering, LoL.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

I just randomly pulled up the 2011 CDC Homicide data and firearm homicides accounted for 68% of all homicides that year.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

So if we took away your and my right to a firearm, would that stop 68% of all homicides or would the stat move to other items like baseball bats, hammers, knives, pipe bombs, etc.?

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

To get into what is happening with the protests and race, we should probably start a different thread lol.

Agreed. But I’m making the point that if only law enforcement should have guns, why are we allowing race baiters to stir up the populous about police using guns when justified?

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

On your other point though, I am not for having all guns banned, but I still believe in some level of gun control that is above the current levels.

So where do you draw the line that allows infringing on a law abiding citizen’s protected rights?

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

Gun control laws will not get guns out of the hands of criminals.

So what were we talking about again? Not trying to be funny, just trying to make a point.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

The idea is to minimize opportunities for criminals to get guns that are not currently in their hands while allowing the lawful public to still have guns. The idea of disarming the public is a scare tactic to get people fired up.

So how does infringing on a law abiding citizen’s rights achieve that goal? Why should the law abiding citizen be made to jump through hoops and undergo all kinds of back ground checks and scrutiny? When does it go from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent”?

In the end, how will that stop criminals from getting guns?

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

I will give it serious thought. I haven't quite figured out yet whether you are for no gun control whatsoever though, or for no more than there already is.

Here’s my thought on the whole situation:
If we want to live in a free society that believes you are innocent until proven guilty, we’re going to have to put trust in our fellow man until given reason not to trust him anymore, but on an individual basis. I believe that if you’re convicted of a felony in this country that involved the use of a firearm you should lose you right to vote and possess firearms because you have proven that you can’t be trusted to uphold your end of the deal.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

I understand your argument about punishing lawful folks for a few bad apples. I'm not even unsympathetic to the argument. I just don't believe there's a cut and dry answer.

There is a cut and dry answer; you come down as hard as possible on the bad apples making examples of them for the rest to see.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

On the subject, Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world along with strict gun control laws.

In looking at Japan, is the low homicide rate due to strict guns laws? Or a citizenship brought up to believe in respect for another person's well being, and personal property, along with the value of human life?