Quote:

---

Wouldn't we say the liquor store stickup man obtained his gun through the "black market?"

---

Yes we would, but if you make guns illegal for people to buy, they would still make guns, and those guns (as well as the ones already out there) would find there way to the black market.

Where there is a demand, someone will find a way to feed it.

Quote:

---

Wouldn't we say the liquor store stickup man obtained his gun through the "black market?"

---

To some extent yes. A large number of guns are sold by "petty" criminals but there are still those who deal in large amounts of guns. In the neighborhood i grew up in it was common knowledge that most of the coke dealers often had a handful of guns they would be willing to sell. Most weren't actively trying to sell them but if asked they would generally sell one. A total ban on guns however isn't really going to make it more difficult to get one illegally though. With the number of guns already in circulation, both legal and illegal, it's impractical to think we could take them all off the market or even put a big enough dent in the numbers to make it difficult to get one. It will just turn into a larger market due to the new demand. Now not only those with criminal intent want one, some otherwise good citizens would be willing to purchase an illegal gun for their protection, making them law breakers in the process. Unless it was possible to remove guns from the world completely a total ban on civilian possession is not going to work. Even military weapons find their way onto the market.

I prefer education, strict policy on purchase and registration of firearms. If you have thought through your intentions of buying a firearm and taken the time to get educated and qualified with one then there is no reason you can't wait a week or two for a background check prior to sales.

I think your point about the number of guns already in circulation is critical. With tens of millions of guns already in circulation, it is difficult to see what good a ban would do--at least for a long, long time.

The problem is not with guns, it's with people.
There are other countries where there is gun ownership and they do not have the violence we face here.

In Israel they have more guns per capita than the U.S. and no where near the murder rate.

The problem here is not that guns are part of our culture. It is that murder is a big part of our culture.

We kill babies we don't want. We use drugs, rape and murder as forms of entertainment. Then when kids who grew up being indoctinated towards violence go and and kill as adults, we are shocked and puzzled as to why they did that and then blame it all on the gun.

Even if you could ban guns and round them all up we would just find other ways to kill each other. Then what would we do? Start to ban knives, bats, cars, ropes and all the other things people use to kill others?

Unless people are going to get serious and address the real issues, then there is no way to solve the real issue.

If we, as a culture, return to thinking of human lives as having real value, then perhaps something can be done about violence.

Quote:

---

Even if you could ban guns and round them all up we would just find other ways to kill each other

---

True, but then I have never heard of a drive by knifing

America is a very violent place compared to other 1st world countries, I am not sure why that is but I have some hunches.

JAMJTX,

I agree with your inciteful view.

Initially, the British began tying to prohibit the colonials (future Americans) from owning guns so that it would be more difficult for the colonials to resisit British control.

This is the 2nd amendment, Bill of Rights:

"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"

This amendment was implemented because it was fresh in the Founding Fathers minds the attempt of the British to control the colonials.

Although some will argue the word "militia" in the amendment is directed at state created bodies (National Guard, local and state LEO etc) and not the common citizen.

I disagree with this assumption because colonial "militias" back then were nothing more than an "all call" to able bodied men who grabbed their rifles and just showed up.

As was the 4rth amendment (along with Am.2, one of the most important amendments ever crafted, IMHO):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 4rth Am. in my mind not only restricts police powers, but also augments it. It allows for citizens that are the victim of an overly aggressive police "presence" (believe it or not, THIS DOES HAPPEN! to seek an (hopefully) impartial decision or clarification by the judicial branch, but also gives the police or any LEO guidelines in which to perform their duties.


I think "gun control" is a good thing. I don't think criminals should be allowed to own them, I do think otherwise responsible, law abiding citizens should.

Kel

Quote:

---

I disagree with this assumption because colonial "militias" back then were nothing more than an "all call" to able bodied men who grabbed their rifles and just showed up.

---

So because the Militia turned out NOT to be well regulated we can just redefine the 2nd amendment?

The 2nd Amendment does not say people can own guns, it has been distorted by people in order to support that belief.

That said, the society has in effect amended the consitution by defacto action and policy. Therefore the right to bear arms is the law of land, even though it's not actually the law of the land.

Again, back in the day, the "militia" was nothing more than people showing up to defend against the British.

I believe the part that says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, " is the part that is considered the defining idea in the passage.

Like I wrote tho, there is some discussion as to this determination.

BUT, as of yet, the judicial branch has decided that the above passage IS the determinant idea.

K
(nice try tho)

Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

United States v. Miller