Why Gun Control Doesn't Work In The USA

[Rucker61]

Yes, the individual right is there, as long as it is deemed that there is a military need for armed citizens.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

In US v Miller, Miller's appeal to his conviction was based solely on his individual right to keep and bear arms, as he was not in a militia. The appellate court recognized that right, the Circuit Court recognized that right and SCOTUS recognized that right, else he would not have had standing on that reason for his appeal.

The Senate recognized it as a right in 1982.

...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

The intent was military, and there is no question about it.

You can believe what you want, but the evidence says otherwise. If it was only a collective right, then the Second protects nothing as the Constitution gives Congress the right to infringe without limitation the arms and organization of the Second Amendment.

Here's some study on the SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases

Here's a list of states that include an individual right to keep and bear arms in their Constitution, which could not happen if the right was solely collective.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

 

[Media_Truth]

In US v Miller, Miller's appeal to his conviction was based solely on his individual right to keep and bear arms, as he was not in a militia. The appellate court recognized that right, the Circuit Court recognized that right and SCOTUS recognized that right, else he would not have had standing on that reason for his appeal.

The Senate recognized it as a right in 1982.

That's about the time when the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment started.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.

What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.

People are so confused. Nobody knows what's up and what's down anymore. Assault weapons, Concealed carry, blah, blah, blah... What people do know is that the US sucks for gun violence. Older people remember better days (back when the NRA was a markmanship organization). They don't put it together. Oh - People should have a right to defend themselves - sounds plausible. It's BS. The Constitution has been hijacked by the radical NRA and LIbertarian lawyers. They ignore the entire Militia reference.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

 

[TurtleDude]

That's about the time when the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment started.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.

What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.

People are so confused. Nobody knows what's up and what's down anymore. Assault weapons, Concealed carry, blah, blah, blah... What people do know is that the US sucks for gun violence. Older people remember better days (back when the NRA was a markmanship organization). They don't put it together. Oh - People should have a right to defend themselves - sounds plausible. It's BS. The Constitution has been hijacked by the radical NRA and LIbertarian lawyers. They ignore the entire Militia reference.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

remind me what writing by any founder even hints at a federal power to limit what sort of arms honest Citizens could keep and bear.

and after you fail to find one-tell us what founder believed that the commerce clause was a gun control power

 

[Media_Truth]

remind me what writing by any founder even hints at a federal power to limit what sort of arms honest Citizens could keep and bear.

and after you fail to find one-tell us what founder believed that the commerce clause was a gun control power

Citizens can bear whatever Arms they want, as long as it is discerned that the military requires them to be armed, for the security of the United States. I don't know why you have trouble reading English.

 

[TurtleDude]

Citizens can bear whatever Arms they want, as long as it is discerned that the military requires them to be armed, for the security of the United States. I don't know why you have trouble reading English.

you don't have any support for that stupid claim. you fail to understand that the second amendment guarantees a right that pre-exists society or the existence of a military. Thus, claiming the right is dependent upon the military shows you haven't a clue about this subject. I see this often from gun banning lefties who try to rewrite the second amendment so as to claim their gun banning desires aren't treasonous or contrary to the constitution. Sadly for you, you don't understand the natural rights framework that the founders based the bill of rights upon, and thus you fail miserably

 

[TurtleDude]

another reason why the "whatever the military determines" claim is idiotic is because the person saying such a thing is saying that the second amendment would be delegating more power to the government rather than restricting the power of government. A sure sign that someone hasn't a clue about the purpose of the bill of rights, is to claim that the bill of rights was created to give the federal government MORE power than that was delegated to it in Article One Section 8. That sort of claim is so completely wrong, it dams anyone who makes such a claim to be seen as completely ignorant about constitutional theory.

 

[Media_Truth]

you don't have any support for that stupid claim. you fail to understand that the second amendment guarantees a right that pre-exists society or the existence of a military. Thus, claiming the right is dependent upon the military shows you haven't a clue about this subject. I see this often from gun banning lefties who try to rewrite the second amendment so as to claim their gun banning desires aren't treasonous or contrary to the constitution. Sadly for you, you don't understand the natural rights framework that the founders based the bill of rights upon, and thus you fail miserably

That's exactly what Amendment 2 says. Anybody who thinks this wasn't strictly related to the Military, should read the original House version:

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

 

[TurtleDude]

That's exactly what Amendment 2 says. Anybody who thinks this wasn't strictly related to the Military, should read the original House version:

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

you are either lying or you are ignorant of the entire framework that the founders worked upon.

The original version doesn't support your claim

Do you deny that the purpose of the second was to guarantee a right the founders assumed was endowed upon man by the creator?

if you say yes, you brand yourself clueless about the bill of rights

if you say no, then you are stuck saying that a pre-existing right requires membership in a governmentally run and created entity to vest-which again is impossible to square with an admission that the right so guaranteed pre-existed government.

pick your poison-you lose either way.

 

[Media_Truth]

another reason why the "whatever the military determines" claim is idiotic is because the person saying such a thing is saying that the second amendment would be delegating more power to the government rather than restricting the power of government. A sure sign that someone hasn't a clue about the purpose of the bill of rights, is to claim that the bill of rights was created to give the federal government MORE power than that was delegated to it in Article One Section 8. That sort of claim is so completely wrong, it dams anyone who makes such a claim to be seen as completely ignorant about constitutional theory.

That's beyond ridiculous. If the Military needs help from it's citizenry, for something like an invasion, they can arm citizens (or appeal to Congress to fund arming of citizens). That's not delegating more power. That is strictly for the security of the United States, just like the Amendment states. You really should stop putting extra words into the Constitution. It's simply stated, and anybody with half-a-brain can understand.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's beyond ridiculous. If the Military needs help from it's citizenry, for something like an invasion, they can arm citizens (or appeal to Congress to fund arming of citizens). That's not delegating more power. That is strictly for the security of the United States, just like the Amendment states. You really should stop putting extra words into the Constitution. It's simply stated, and anybody with half-a-brain can understand.

you are claiming people can own what the military says they can own which is different than the military supplying private citizens with arms. Your stupid interpretation has

1) zero support among leading (or even second string) legal scholars

2) zero support among the prevailing opinions of the USSC

3) Zero support among the first wave of legal scholars (St George Tucker, Rawls etc)

4) zero support from the notes and letters of the founders

in other words, its a classic case of a gun banner working backwards to reinterpret the second amendment to support his gun banning desires

 

[Media_Truth]

you are either lying or you are ignorant of the entire framework that the founders worked upon.

The original version doesn't support your claim

Do you deny that the purpose of the second was to guarantee a right the founders assumed was endowed upon man by the creator?

if you say yes, you brand yourself clueless about the bill of rights

if you say no, then you are stuck saying that a pre-existing right requires membership in a governmentally run and created entity to vest-which again is impossible to square with an admission that the right so guaranteed pre-existed government.

pick your poison-you lose either way.

You just keep on overcomplicating Amendment 2. There is no reference to a creator in Amendment 2. Here is the text.

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.

You want to add words to the statement. That's as bad as the NRA, who omitted the entire first half of the statement, relating to MILITIA. What blatant dishonesty! Why are you all so afraid to let the amendment stand as it is?

 

[TurtleDude]

You just keep on overcomplicating Amendment 2. There is no reference to a creator in Amendment 2. Here is the text.

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.

You want to add words to the statement. That's as bad as the NRA, who omitted the entire first half of the statement, relating to MILITIA. What blatant dishonesty! Why are you all so afraid to let the amendment stand as it is?

you just don't get it do you? of course there is no reference to a creator in the bill of rights. but it was something the founders all believed endowed natural rights upon man. You want to pretend that the first half of the second amendment serves as a LIMITATION upon the second. that is moronic, and as I have set forth, is a fail since it conflicts with the entire belief system that the founders BASED the bill of rights upon

 

[PleasantValley]

• What, in the context of the thread title, constitutes "working" in your mind?
• In my mind "working," in the context of the thread's title is this: the incidence of involuntary gun-related deaths and injuries decreases in a statistically and pragmatically significant manner/degree and doesn't subsequently increase in a statistically and pragmatically significant manner/degree.

I don't much care what public policies we enact to realize "working" -- it could as well be gun control, birth control, rubbing Buddha's belly, or anything else -- so long as "working" be what we realize.

Stop it!
I am trying to have some Oreos and milk and you made some of the milk come out my nose.

 

[Media_Truth]

you are claiming people can own what the military says they can own which is different than the military supplying private citizens with arms. Your stupid interpretation has

1) zero support among leading (or even second string) legal scholars

2) zero support among the prevailing opinions of the USSC

3) Zero support among the first wave of legal scholars (St George Tucker, Rawls etc)

4) zero support from the notes and letters of the founders

in other words, its a classic case of a gun banner working backwards to reinterpret the second amendment to support his gun banning desires

This is ridiculous as well. Throughout the history of the US, the 2nd Amendment has been contentious. And the Militia reference has been cited.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

Until recently, the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on the Second Amendment since U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

 

[PleasantValley]

"Hardly any guns"? This is a relative term. Hardly any guns compared with America? That would seem to be true, but then America owns HALF THE CIVILIAN-HELD GUNS ON THE PLANET! Somewhat of an anomaly there.

We never know if the British might want to come back and burn our White house down again.
Some posters here would revel at that sight.
...and have.

 

[Media_Truth]

you just don't get it do you? of course there is no reference to a creator in the bill of rights. but it was something the founders all believed endowed natural rights upon man. You want to pretend that the first half of the second amendment serves as a LIMITATION upon the second. that is moronic, and as I have set forth, is a fail since it conflicts with the entire belief system that the founders BASED the bill of rights upon

Well perhaps you should rewrite the text of the 2nd Amendment, and submit it to your Congressman. Maybe they'll go to bat for you. You can add words like "endowment", "natural rights", and "creator". It's plain and simple English, as it is, and it's about bearing arms for Military purposes.

 

[PleasantValley]

I've seen some blame this in part on the NRA, claiming that organization is paid by the gun manufacturers to sell guns - people buy more guns because they fear they'll be taken away or something.

Don't know how credible that is myself, but it seems at least plausible.

It is plausible, and you are correct.
I have been to scores of gun shows and have yet to hear anyone say they are buying a gun because the NRA told them to.
I HAVE HEARD many say they are buying them because they fear they might be banned.

but then again, I have also heard and seen gun hawkers inflate their prices for the same reason. Trying to capitalize on the fear.

There are internet meme pics of both Clintons and Obama saying they should be the gun salesperson of the year.

I took advantage of the panic and got two nice Remington .22s really cheap because they were not selling.
They were not painted black and did not have a 30 round magazine, so they were largely ignored.
Snagged them both up for $100 each.

 

[CLAX1911]

Here is why the kind of gun control that you find in much of the rest of the developed world doesn't work in the USA. The USA is isolated in its gun culture. Just how some people like to say how Japan is isolated in its suicide culture and that's why its got such a higher rate of suicide than the USA despite having such strict gun control, and as a matter of fact there are other countries that have much higher suicide rates than the USA, developed ones too, but that is a different discussion, the USA is isolated in its number of guns and in its gun culture.

Really strict gun control works in Japan because there are hardly any guns in Japan. It works in most of Europe for much the same reason, there are hardly any guns in Europe. Any other developed country that has strict gun control you can say the same thing, no country, developed or not with perhaps the exception of western Pakistan has a gun culture and the number of privately owned guns that the USA has. In the USA there are roughly 300 million privately owned guns or roughly one gun per person if they were all equally distributed and the number is only going up. In the USA you've got the NRA which aside from the ARP is the strongest grassroots organization there is. I can think of no country that has such a strong gun rights organization and aside from the NRA there is also the GOA, NAGR, and JPFO, other very strong gun rights organizations. So people who want the kind of gun control in the USA that they've got in Japan, Australia, or Cyprus are living in a pipe dream.

I think you are missing the biggest issue. Japan and many countries in Europe have a very homogeneous culture. The United States also has a vastly larger number of gangs than most other developed countries.

 

[Media_Truth]

I think you are missing the biggest issue. Japan and many countries in Europe have a very homogeneous culture. The United States also has a vastly larger number of gangs than most other developed countries.

The problem in the US is that our Constitution is not being adhered to... This wasn't always the case.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution.

Obviously the above ruling was racial, but the "right of each individual to bear arms" reasoning is sound. And this statement shows that they are entitled to make these decisions.

They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally ...

And then there's the case of the sawed-off shotgun in 1939...

a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

The Supreme Court was much wiser then. They recognized that a gun that is only used for slaughtering people, and inflicting the most severe pain, is not necessary in our society.

 

[DebateChallenge]

I think you are missing the biggest issue. Japan and many countries in Europe have a very homogeneous culture. The United States also has a vastly larger number of gangs than most other developed countries.

Be that as it may the USA has roughly 120 guns for every 100 people. No other country has even half that. In Europe the country with the most guns is Montenegro in Southeastern Europe and it has 39.1 guns per 100 people, much less than the USA. Japan has 0.3 per 100. So the USA has the most guns by far.

 

[DebateChallenge]

The Supreme Court was much wiser then. They recognized that a gun that is only used for slaughtering people, and inflicting the most severe pain, is not necessary in our society.

I've never heard of such a gun.

 

[Rucker61]

The problem in the US is that our Constitution is not being adhered to... This wasn't always the case.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution.

You didn't include the rest of the statement. The decision says, "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress"

Obviously the above ruling was racial, but the "right of each individual to bear arms" reasoning is sound. And this statement shows that they are entitled to make these decisions.

They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally ...

Cruikshank in no way stated this.

And then there's the case of the sawed-off shotgun in 1939...

a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

The Supreme Court was much wiser then. They recognized that a gun that is only used for slaughtering people, and inflicting the most severe pain, is not necessary in our society.

The M1897 trench gun was used extensively in WWI, and the claim by the court that "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon" is simply incorrect. There is no language in the decision about "slaughter" or "most severe pain". I am curious why you think a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18" would cause more pain or slaughter than a shotgun with an 18" or longer barrel? With regards to their use in society, a shorter barreled version of the M1897 was popular after the war with police and agents of American Express. I guess it's okay for the authorities to have firearms that are only used for slaughtering people and that inflict the most pain if they are to be used on the citizenry.

Interestingly perhaps the military now issues a short barreled shotgun, to be used primarily for breaching doors rather than causing most severe pain: the M26. Most interesting is that when no-nothings pass laws based on firearm features not understood by those making the laws, an engineer somewhere says "hold my beer". These two firearms are legal to purchase without a tax stamp.




With Black Friday deals either can be purchased for under $300.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well perhaps you should rewrite the text of the 2nd Amendment, and submit it to your Congressman. Maybe they'll go to bat for you. You can add words like "endowment", "natural rights", and "creator". It's plain and simple English, as it is, and it's about bearing arms for Military purposes.

you keep proving you haven't a clue about the bill of rights. did the supreme court rule that militia duty was a requirement for the right to vest?

 

[CLAX1911]

The problem in the US is that our Constitution is not being adhered to... This wasn't always the case.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution.

Obviously the above ruling was racial, but the "right of each individual to bear arms" reasoning is sound. And this statement shows that they are entitled to make these decisions.

They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally ...

And then there's the case of the sawed-off shotgun in 1939...

a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

The Supreme Court was much wiser then. They recognized that a gun that is only used for slaughtering people, and inflicting the most severe pain, is not necessary in our society.

Well it's still illegal to have a sawed-off shotgun. As far as any other type of gun like that I can't think of one.

 

[CLAX1911]

Be that as it may the USA has roughly 120 guns for every 100 people. No other country has even half that. In Europe the country with the most guns is Montenegro in Southeastern Europe and it has 39.1 guns per 100 people, much less than the USA. Japan has 0.3 per 100. So the USA has the most guns by far.

If the issue is violence which that's what I keep hearing then it isn't attributed to guns.