Forums

[-Alex]

You are correct. You can ban felons and the mentally ill as well as restrict where weapons can be carried.

And more. So, we're on the same page.

You are correct, in Heller, the decision stated you couldn't ban a commonly used weapon ( so banning RPGs is OK) but you can't ban hand guns, and that any weapon must be used for lawful purposes.

And the decision did not weigh in on assault weapons specifically, so this could be an area of regulation. Again, we understand.

To bear arms, is to carry arms.

So there are technically two rights. 1) The right to keep arms, and 2) the right to carry them (with you). This doesn't mean your right to keep is limited to those you can carry, or that your right to carry means you must carry all that you keep. It doesn't explicitly state what kind of arms that are allowed because it doesn't have too, that's up for the government to decide, and limits on certain weapons is not infringing upon that right, as the Heller decision reiterated. That sets the bar pretty medium height.

No - they are still arms. The question is whether fully automatic weapons are considered common, which personally I don't think they are, so fully automatic weapons IMO, fall out side the common use test.

So the question isn't whether the 2nd Amendment protects these arms, because the 2nd Amendment protects arms and is clear that the right shall not be infringed. So we go to the Heller decision to find out more about regulations that don't infringe.

Both are fine with the 2nd Amendment, both are "Arms".

And assault weapons can potentially be regulated consistent with the Heller decision or even other court decisions without abridging the 2nd Amendment.

So you don't think that an armed population is a deterrent to a would be tyrant, or tyrannical government? Why is that?

Because our military strength is immeasurable compared to our population. The deterrent to a would be tyrant or tyrannical government is in and of itself our system of government, our voting system, our three branches.

[mafeki]

This isn't a direct reply to anyone, and I've been reading up on a lot of guns debates and I think when it comes down to it if I could be shown that they can specifically get guns out of the hands of criminals first then maybe we can go from there. Once criminals don't have guns then we can consider banning guns but why would we want to take guns out of the hands of non criminals? If criminals don't have guns, would we still want to start banning access to certain* guns such as assault rifles?

[-Alex]

From what I understand, the entire discussion is about how to get guns and dangerous weapons out of improper hands - which includes criminals and those who pose a risk to themselves and others. Nobody generally has a problem with responsible gun owners, if guns were ONLY in those hands. But, since we don't have that, it's all about how we can reduce the availability of weapons of danger and reduce the availability to criminals - because both help when neither is 100% effective.

[mafeki]

So are they talking of banning assault rifles or having tougher restrictions? I guess a complete ban would be a pretty tough restriction.. hah

[-Alex]

I think they are talking about both, as well as other approaches - that's up to Congress about what specifically they pass. And also individual states can take action. New York strengthened their assault weapons ban, which is good for a state where 74% of the people including 71% of Republicans supported stronger laws (though they weren't polled on Cuomo's specific legislation.

[Grandma Lynn]

Thanks EasyGoin! You answered questions
so fully and intelligently. Stick around.

[mafeki]

I think they are talking about both, as well as other approaches - that's up to Congress about what specifically they pass. And also individual states can take action. New York strengthened their assault weapons ban, which is good for a state where 74% of the people including 71% of Republicans supported stronger laws (though they weren't polled on Cuomo's specific legislation.

I hope they make a good researched and informed decision, not sure how much effort members of Congress take to make sure a good decision is made. I support stronger gun restrictions also, I personally know someone who's bought a lot of guns at guns shows and pretty much anyone can buy guns there. Good thing he's pretty responsible.

[-Alex]

It's especially hard to make a good researched and informed decision in our current system because the NRA's lobbying efforts have been successful at quelling research on firearms and keeping true data quiet.

The CDC had for about a decade from the 1980s to 1990s done research on gun violence, and found such information like homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without. The NRA and Congressional leaders fought in 1996 to block federal research and suppress this information, which was successful - and the CDC had not been allowed to perform any studies until Obama's recent executive order allowing that.

[EasyGoin]

The CDC had for about a decade from the 1980s to 1990s done research on gun violence, and found such information like homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without.

You wouldn't happen to have a url to that research would you? It would be interesting to see if the CDC research made a distinction between homes with guns that were there legally vs homes with illegal guns.

[-Alex]

You wouldn't happen to have a url to that research would you? It would be interesting to see if the CDC research made a distinction between homes with guns that were there legally vs homes with illegal guns.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0073291506

From what I can see, it didn't separate homicides performed with illegal weapons from homicides performed with legal weapons. It did find that, when you control for different factors so that rent vs buy and drug usage don't affect your numbers, virtually all of increased risk due to guns involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.