Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: "Right To Bear Arms"  (Read 56433 times)

CoxlessPair

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2007, 07:13:14 PM »
This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

Hahahahahaha. The cat is out of the bag!
Air Force JAG Corps

tortfeasor111

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2007, 07:26:15 PM »
This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

First of all I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.  We're talking about GUN CONTROL. Secondly, how do you know that GUN CONTROL won't help solve violent crime problems?  Since it is so easy to inflict mass harm with a gun, how do you know that regulatig them won't help the matter.  Most gun deaths are not thought out and planned like the ones at VT or Columbine; most times people just snap and shoot somebody.  So wouldn't taking such an easy way to kill someone out of a criminal's hands help a little?  I mean honestly, budless, please don't make generalizations.  I'm not saying that it will help or it won't, I'm just saying there is no way that YOU could possibly know what would happen.  

xferlawstudent

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2007, 07:50:23 PM »
I'm a card carrying ACLU member and I strongly support the right to bear arms.  I do think however we should examine our control laws.  I agree that everyone just needs to relax and take a deep breath.  It is a bad idea to react to this tragedy with a sweeping ban on guns.  I think we should try to come up with a better system for regulating who can get guns, but we need to be very careful of the possibility that heavy regulation will only keep guns away from the good guys.

I just wanted to respond to Budlaw and let him know that some ACLU members support the second amendment.  I believe the ACLU itself is neutral on the issue.

So in sum, I think it is a mistake to completely ban weapons and likewise it is a mistake to have no restrictions whatsoever.

This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)
This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

adrenaline

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Is the right to bear arms worth the death of 33 innocent people?
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2007, 02:51:04 AM »
When you can't send your son or daughter off to college without worrying about someone coldly killing them in the midst of enriching their lives, something is morbidly wrong with the nation in which you live.

As a US citizen currently living abroad, and with a child, I face none of the fears that I faced living in the states. Yes, there are psychos, wack jobs and disgruntled high-school dropouts all over the world. However, the rest of the world is somehow smart enough to not give them easy access to guns. Why, in one of the richest and most "advanced" (I use that word with great reservation) societies on Earth are we not smart enough to realize this?

Just moments after the attack, our White House, in its infinite wisdom and compassion, stated, "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. Abhorrent! With the blood of the crime not yet dried, the President is already thinking of this in terms of an issue rather than a travesty, and in effect, supporting the rights of the killer. Will the United States government forever be an ostrich with its head in the sand on this issue?

As much as the White House's response to this was pathetic and unconscionable, the government is not the only one to blame. We the people need to stop thinking about this problem as a foregone conclusion. Across Europe and Asia they have no such problem because you cannot easily purchase a gun -- certainly not pistols and automatic weapons. There is no reason that US citizens cannot live in communities like this one day. When are we going to start caring more about the gun catastrophe in the United States, than we do about next years taxes, which judges were fired last month, or who wins on American Idol?

We need to stop accepting the premise of guns as a necessary part of US society. In Virginia's shooting, several students are already trying to lay blame on the university for not getting the word out about the shooter -- as if this is something the university should have a ready contingency for. Press a red button and alert the school another lunatic is shooting people. These students shouldn't be blaming the reactions of the school; they should be blaming the actions of the government, the NRA, the gun makers, and any of their family or friends who support the easy purchase of guns.

So what can you do? The same thing we've always had the opportunity to do. Write an email or letter to your Congressman, Senator and President and tell them that enough is enough. The US needs stricter, much stricter, gun controls. The tragedy of these college students' deaths is far too monumental to truly take meaning on this page. Nor will it mean anything after countless hours on CNN. The only way to give this horror the gravity it deserves is to do something about it. Please join me in letting the US government know that they are wrong supporting the companies who manufacture guns, organizations who proliferate gun use and people who use guns to kill.

http://poppoliticos.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/is-the-right-to-bear-arms-worth-the-death-of-33-college-students/

Budlaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2007, 11:11:07 AM »
Uh...we already have PLENTY of gun control. So what if this guy followed the correct channels into getting a gun? I gaurantee that if he would have been disqualified for getting a gun because of his past mental status, he would have just bought the gun illegally. And there ar no "gun control" laws that would have stopped him.

My point is: if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they're going to commit a crime with a gun. If you're determined to do it, then it's going to happen.

You know it's illegal to commit murder right? Well it happens everyday, and our "murder control" laws don't stop it. I guess that we need more strict "murder" laws too now.

There's no law that will stop someone from being a psychopath.

However Torty, since you're mad about me making generalizations, I'd like to see what kind of "gun control" laws that you can come up with that will reduce gun crimes. Give some specifics, and stop being like Crazy Michael Moore and making your own generalizations about how stricter gun controll will fix everything.







This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

First of all I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.  We're talking about GUN CONTROL. Secondly, how do you know that GUN CONTROL won't help solve violent crime problems?  Since it is so easy to inflict mass harm with a gun, how do you know that regulatig them won't help the matter.  Most gun deaths are not thought out and planned like the ones at VT or Columbine; most times people just snap and shoot somebody.  So wouldn't taking such an easy way to kill someone out of a criminal's hands help a little?  I mean honestly, budless, please don't make generalizations.  I'm not saying that it will help or it won't, I'm just saying there is no way that YOU could possibly know what would happen.  

tortfeasor111

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2007, 12:39:28 PM »
Uh...we already have PLENTY of gun control. So what if this guy followed the correct channels into getting a gun? I gaurantee that if he would have been disqualified for getting a gun because of his past mental status, he would have just bought the gun illegally. And there ar no "gun control" laws that would have stopped him.

My point is: if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they're going to commit a crime with a gun. If you're determined to do it, then it's going to happen.

You know it's illegal to commit murder right? Well it happens everyday, and our "murder control" laws don't stop it. I guess that we need more strict "murder" laws too now.

There's no law that will stop someone from being a psychopath.

However Torty, since you're mad about me making generalizations, I'd like to see what kind of "gun control" laws that you can come up with that will reduce gun crimes. Give some specifics, and stop being like Crazy Michael Moore and making your own generalizations about how stricter gun controll will fix everything.







This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

First of all I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.  We're talking about GUN CONTROL. Secondly, how do you know that GUN CONTROL won't help solve violent crime problems?  Since it is so easy to inflict mass harm with a gun, how do you know that regulatig them won't help the matter.  Most gun deaths are not thought out and planned like the ones at VT or Columbine; most times people just snap and shoot somebody.  So wouldn't taking such an easy way to kill someone out of a criminal's hands help a little?  I mean honestly, budless, please don't make generalizations.  I'm not saying that it will help or it won't, I'm just saying there is no way that YOU could possibly know what would happen.  

Oh man, first of all, I didn't say gun control laws WOULD OR WOULD NOT help, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from?  I just aked how can you be so sure that gun control laws would not affect the murder rate at all?  I mean, aren't murder rates extremely low in countries with gun control laws?  What makes you think the same wouldn't happen here?  Anyway, I suppose I'm just sick of children being able to get guns (more children have been murdered by guns from 2004-2006, thean the number of troops who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan).  I mean if you really don't think gun violence is a problem in this country, and you want to keep things exactly the same, and you don't want to give something new a chance, then that's your perogative.  But, I'm willing to try something new, because I'm tired of immature children being able to get their hands on a deadly weapon so easily and causing so much harm.  And no, I don't have a comprehensive plan, I don't even know if one would work, but I think we need to try SOMETHING.  Maybe you can tell me, what is America's obsession with owning a gun anyway?

JohnnyAwesome

  • Guest
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2007, 02:31:25 AM »
one of my friends at school cuts the sleeves off all his shirts. is that what the 2d. amendment is talking about?


sorry i had to do it.

johns259

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
    • GW Law
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2007, 02:49:35 AM »
I highly doubt that kid could've easily gotten those guns on the black market, considering he didn't know anybody. Based on the fact that he tried to remove the serial numbers, he would've gotten them off the black market or stolen them if he could have. Guns aren't the easiest things to find on the street, though that's not to say he wouldn't have eventually gotten them from somewhere, probably Richmond or DC was his best bet unless he found somebody local through the internet.

Uh...we already have PLENTY of gun control. So what if this guy followed the correct channels into getting a gun? I gaurantee that if he would have been disqualified for getting a gun because of his past mental status, he would have just bought the gun illegally. And there ar no "gun control" laws that would have stopped him.

My point is: if someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they're going to commit a crime with a gun. If you're determined to do it, then it's going to happen.

You know it's illegal to commit murder right? Well it happens everyday, and our "murder control" laws don't stop it. I guess that we need more strict "murder" laws too now.

There's no law that will stop someone from being a psychopath.

However Torty, since you're mad about me making generalizations, I'd like to see what kind of "gun control" laws that you can come up with that will reduce gun crimes. Give some specifics, and stop being like Crazy Michael Moore and making your own generalizations about how stricter gun controll will fix everything.







This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now?  I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.

Oh and Coxless Pair - nice quote in the National Jurist. ;)

First of all I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.  We're talking about GUN CONTROL. Secondly, how do you know that GUN CONTROL won't help solve violent crime problems?  Since it is so easy to inflict mass harm with a gun, how do you know that regulatig them won't help the matter.  Most gun deaths are not thought out and planned like the ones at VT or Columbine; most times people just snap and shoot somebody.  So wouldn't taking such an easy way to kill someone out of a criminal's hands help a little?  I mean honestly, budless, please don't make generalizations.  I'm not saying that it will help or it won't, I'm just saying there is no way that YOU could possibly know what would happen. 

Bob D

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2007, 12:06:43 PM »
The 2nd Amendment is clearly a federalism clause. The federal government has no power to prevent state governments from having militias.

Because none of the first eight Amendments were intended to apply to the States, this doesn't prevent states from enacting gun control if they wish.

Virginia, having a lot of redneck types who love owning guns, doesn't wish to have any gun control.

Why isn't anyone at least asking why people who AREN'T EVEN AMERICAN CITIZENS are allowed to buy a gun?

philibusters

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2007, 02:58:47 PM »
The 2nd Amendment is clearly a federalism clause. The federal government has no power to prevent state governments from having militias.

Because none of the first eight Amendments were intended to apply to the States, this doesn't prevent states from enacting gun control if they wish.

Virginia, having a lot of redneck types who love owning guns, doesn't wish to have any gun control.

Why isn't anyone at least asking why people who AREN'T EVEN AMERICAN CITIZENS are allowed to buy a gun?

Even if it is a federalism clause at heart, the amendment seeks to promote its structural goals by a particular means-giving citizens the rights to bear arms.  What motivated the framers to pass the amendment is irrelevant in terms of how we interpret the amendment, if the amendment clearly sets out the parameters of the means, and the rights it gives.  If you disagree with the means the framers used on that federalism issue, change the amendment, it might have been a stupid amendment to begin with.

I agree with the rest of what you posted, though I will note that whether a state allows non-citizens to buy guns is a state issue and "Virginia, have a lot..."
2008 graduate of William and Mary Law School