A Case for Gun Control (Angering Barf Alert)

It's been awhile. I got to see if I still have it.

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

Wrong. Emerson.

There are a few reasons why this is not a good argument. First and most important, the Constitution was a document intended to create a government that could be changed by the people through peaceful means, and it has succeeded for over 200 years to that effect.
True, but we can't assume it will always be that way. We want to make sure of it. Federalist 46th addresses this.

Other democratic means exist to change, or even overthrow, the government. One counter-argument sometimes heard here is that if the government disarms the populace, the populace is ripe for a dictatorial takeover, and cannot fight back. My response to this is simple: America has over 270,000,000 citizens at last count. No dictator could "take over" without popular support of these citizens.
True, but what is there to say that there will not be popular support of these citizens. Look how quick people were and are to give up their rights for a perceived notion of security after 9/11.

But not only can we elect our leaders, we can un-elect them as well.

I want to keep it that way. I can imagine an arguement in a few years similar to WWII. We are at war and can not change a leader during war. It can be a convincing arguement....25 year later...

We have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and we have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years.

But we can not take it for granted.

we have at least ten thousand a year dying from guns, and countless more injured. We must weigh this certainty against the infinitesimally small chance that our well-constructed checks and balances will suddenly all fail. No. We have 9000 dying from PEOPLE.

The response here is quite simple-when as many people die of gun related incidents as do every year, you are already a slave. You are a slave to a system in which you feel you need to carry a gun for self-protection.

No, I don't think so. I don't NEED to carry a gun. I do need THE RIGHT to carry.

You are a slave to the chaos that mankind has worked for millennia to civilize.

What is your definition of civilization?

Perhaps we are all violent beasts at heart, and that will never change. But evidence of peaceful, relatively violent-crime-free societies such as Japan indicate that perhaps we can "all just get along."

The Japanese are a different culture, with much submissiveness to authority. It's good for them, but it is not the type of society I live in. I'm nobody's robot.

Damn. This is amateur stuff. I debunked this without even having to look up anything.

Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.)

And as many as 2.5 million use a firearm in self defense. Lowest count I've seen is 180,000.

As for sucide, it is unrelated to this, and adding suicides to inflate 'gun deaths' is dishonest.

Kellermann admitted faults in his study(I posted it a LONG time ago). This guy is making the mistake of depending on one study for most of his article.

As for women's self defense, that is the most idiotic arguement I've heard yet here. What about Women against gun control?

This collective self-defense thing is also idiotic with no facts to back up an opinion. Two words. Federalist 46th.

As for the Lott report, Stephen Teret's study was funded by the gun grabbers at the JOYCE FOUNDATION.

As for other weapons, Kellermann again?

First, a national system would prevent this by scaring those "friends" into not buying the guns legally and selling them illegally, for if the guns are used in an illegal crime, that person can be held accountable.
WTF??? Scaring them? C'mon. Michigan has registration. Nuff said.

. Hand grip ID tagging. This is technologically probably still in the future, but it would be a good goal to work for. The theory is, each gun is "registered" to one's person palm prints (the legal purchaser of the gun), and only that person can fire that gun. If another person tries, the gun simply will not fire. Thus, stolen guns become useless, and cannot be used to harm anybody in the course of a crime.

I don't trust technology on this stuff. Gimme the old fashion Mossberg.

Still amateur stuff.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.