Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Now, before you think im some gun crazed freak, hear me out. in the constitution the sixth article is called the supremacy clause, in which what is in the constitution is the law of the land, and nothing made, either state, or local laws, can over rule it. yet many states are putting restrictions to down right bans on guns, when the second ammendment, which is in fact part if the constitution, states everyone has a right to bear arms. Now, dont look at this as a political issue that people can debate on. it is simply stating a huge unconstitutional event going on. Its like nebraska not allowing any news except for its state run news. that wouldn't stand, but apparently not having the ability to own a gun, which is a constitutional garuntee is.

Proof?

things on the constution and ammendments have been broken so many times. This doesnt make a diffrence.

"Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing - or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago. "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles." - Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1990

At 10/9/09 05:12 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: yet many states are putting restrictions to down right bans on guns, when the second ammendment, which is in fact part if the constitution, states everyone has a right to bear arms.

No it doesn't.

"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're making this up untill you give an example of the event you're trying to prevent.

The Constitution Needs To Be Rewritten.

At 10/9/09 06:59 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: The Constitution Needs To Be Rewritten.

To what extent? To what ends?

Banning firearms is a bad idea. It raises crime levels because criminals will still carry them, leading to them having the upper hand in a robbery or mugging.

The UK is worse though, you cannot own a handgun under any circumstance only a shotgun is legal and you need permission of two highly trusted referrers and permission from the local head of police. This still limits you to only a shotgun and thats only for hunting.
To say honestly you cant even defend your home here as the perpetrator can sue for assault.

Its quite funny if I must say, haha

At 10/9/09 09:10 PM, nicksmithy wrote: Banning firearms is a bad idea. It raises crime levels because criminals will still carry them, leading to them having the upper hand in a robbery or mugging.

The UK is worse though, you cannot own a handgun under any circumstance only a shotgun is legal and you need permission of two highly trusted referrers and permission from the local head of police. This still limits you to only a shotgun and thats only for hunting.
To say honestly you cant even defend your home here as the perpetrator can sue for assault.

Its quite funny if I must say, haha

Really if there breaking in there not really planning on hurting you, there taking your stuff. It doesnt become a defense problem untill that person threatens your life. Also whats the point of taking a gun to the bank? You think your going to take down a number of armed enemys with anything from a handgun to a assault rifle? Really many people think this sound stupid but your more likely to get hurt carrying a weapon around in public at the chance of being mugged then to just let him take your wallet. You trying to hurt him just gives him a good reason to hurt you. I highly doubt if he has the weapon pointed at you that A the first thing he thinks about is shooting you and B even if you do have a weapon by the time you pull it and turn off the saftey you probebly would have been shot already.

At 10/9/09 06:33 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 10/9/09 05:12 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: yet many states are putting restrictions to down right bans on guns, when the second ammendment, which is in fact part if the constitution, states everyone has a right to bear arms.

No it doesn't.

"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."

Translation:
-If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, then the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
-A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
-Therefore, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So technically Hatter's right, insofar as the Second Amendment is not extended to non-citizens. With that out of the way, I agree with Shotgun; what is needed is not restrictions, but proper oversight.

yeah i agree
guns dont kill people
people kill people

At 10/9/09 10:17 PM, Freedomblades wrote:

I hate to bother you with the facts, but...

Really if there breaking in there not really planning on hurting you, there taking your stuff. It doesnt become a defense problem untill that person threatens your life.

You don't really know the first thing about using a gun defensively, do you?

If you are in your house and someone breaks in you retreat to your bedroom and lock the door. One does NOT go hunting for the perp. You get your gun and call 911. If they touch your door you yell: "I've got a gun!" and chamber a round so the person knows you're telling the truth.

Now, if they are not planning on hurting you they will leave. If they keep trying to get through then they mean you harm. At this point by attempting to gain access to you, it can reasonably be assumed that they are meaning to do you harm.

Now you may be thinking by letting them know you have a gun this will only escalate the situation. If you're thinking this...you are wrong. The reason is you have the advantage. If you are in your own room, you can be anywhere. The perp is only going to come through one space. Then there is the door: you can shoot through it if they keep trying to gain entry.

Also whats the point of taking a gun to the bank? You think your going to take down a number of armed enemys with anything from a handgun to a assault rifle?

You do realize an assault rifle is not all that, don't you? A self-defense round in a handgun is capable of producing more damage than a military round. To bring up assault rifles is an appeal to emotion.

Now one thing about banks and schools is that by and large they are places which most states with concealed carry do not allow you to carry in these places. I know several cops from my Lodge and in my Guard Unit. One of the things they've been telling me is one of the things they're seeing with school shootings is there is an incentive to shoot them up because the perps know the people there are unarmed.

Really many people think this sound stupid but your more likely to get hurt carrying a weapon around in public at the chance of being mugged then to just let him take your wallet. You trying to hurt him just gives him a good reason to hurt you.

First of all, gun accidents are exceedingly rare. In fact there are only about 600 fatal gun accidents a year. More people die from choking, drowning, falling and even walking than die in a gun accident. Linky

On the other hand, what about the effect of guns as defense? Various studies put defensive gun use (DGU) between 800,000 and 2.5 million times a year. Clicky

Then there is the drop in overall crime rates where you have Concealed Carry law...whereas the most violent locales are those which are most restrictive on gun rights.

The numbers are not on your side.

I highly doubt if he has the weapon pointed at you that A the first thing he thinks about is shooting you and

One of the things you forget is that a criminal is very self-centered. They are not worried about the well-being of their victim, or they would not be mugging you in the first place. Secondly, laws which are tougher on the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime provides an incentive for the perp to kill the victim. Afterall, if you don't have a witness it is hard to prosecute.

B even if you do have a weapon by the time you pull it and turn off the saftey you probebly would have been shot already.

Not every gun has a mechanical safety, but instead use a decocking mechanism to safeguard against unintentional firing. These guns are typically double-action which means pulling the trigger with the hammer down (de-cocked) will fire a round.

At 10/9/09 05:29 PM, michelinman wrote: "Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing - or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago. "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles." - Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1990

He obfuscates here. Nothing about the Second Amendment is about protecting the right of hunters to hunt. Instead, it is because the Founders understood that the only civilizations that have been free are those that allowed its citizens to keep military arms.

Also in 1990 machine guns were already heavily regulated. Furthermore, what is the justification for extra regulation on semi-auto assault rifle "clones"? They are not good for the commission of crime. High capacity magazines add to the profile of the rifle...which (combined with length) makes it harder to conceal. They are also heavier and more unwieldy in tight spaces than hanguns or shotguns.

As a result they are used in 1% (or less) of firearm crime in the United States.

Burger makes a very unconvincing case. Especially when you compare guns to cars.

I am a strong supporter of guns rights and think guns should be allowed in more places than they usually are. So just in case a person decides to try to shoot up a place you have people who will be able to fight the crazed gunman. The 9-11 hijackers smuggled guns onto the planes. Even though Surviving Disaster showed you how to take down hijackers without a gun, if you had sane people with guns on the plane they could take it out and kill the hijackers, thus saving lives. I honestly don't believe the state, local, or federal government should restrict that ability.

At 10/12/09 04:24 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: IThe 9-11 hijackers smuggled guns onto the planes.

Actually it was box-cutters and fake bombs.

While I believe that we should have reasonably lax gun control, it should be noted that the second amendment has not been incorporated against the states, IE the supreme court is as of yet undecided if this amendment should apply to indavidual state government as well as the federal government.

At 10/12/09 04:32 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/12/09 04:24 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: IThe 9-11 hijackers smuggled guns onto the planes.

Actually it was box-cutters and fake bombs.

actually there's been survalence tapes that show one of the hijackers having a gun in his back pocket.

I am for guns. Guns are awesome, they are fun to play with. Its the stupid pinheads that kill people that are making us suffer. Yes Iam a redneck so what. My guns need to stay with mes and mes only.

I'm all for owning guns. I love to shoot, and although I haven't been hunting, I would like to go some day. But we need tighter regulations on guns, not more restrictions.

As of now, anyone can walk into a gun show and buy whatever gun they want, no background check necessary. If they have cash, and a dealer has it, it'll be bought. this practice needs to be stopped. Why can't there be an official from the ATF there? Or force anyone selling guns at a gun show to be a licensed dealer?

We need to impose stricter penalties for providing a gun to someone. Currently, most gun crime is committed with an unregistered gun or a gun that was given to them by a friend or the gun is stolen. With harsher penalties, it'll deter many possible providers, and at the very least keep the providers off the streets longer.

Other than that, just keep the waiting periods and we should have a safer nation.

The Constitution of the United States is merely a piece of paper to the entire Left-wing. The are completely against all of it's values and is their goal to do away with it. I don't care what anybody says.

They shouldn't ban guns they should ban people with criminal records with guns. I only have a tazer but, i feel its right to have a gun. The agreement to get a gun law is one sentence:Do not use this weapon against the law, you will be prosecuted. Have you noticed people come to Florida even with high taxes and over priced theme parks(trust me I live there,)? We are the only state where you can get guns for the cheapest price,proven. I sometimes wonder if the contitution was ment to be followed -_-.

At 10/9/09 10:17 PM, Freedomblades wrote: Really if there breaking in there not really planning on hurting you, there taking your stuff. It doesnt become a defense problem untill that person threatens your life. Also whats the point of taking a gun to the bank? You think your going to take down a number of armed enemys with anything from a handgun to a assault rifle? Really many people think this sound stupid but your more likely to get hurt carrying a weapon around in public at the chance of being mugged then to just let him take your wallet. You trying to hurt him just gives him a good reason to hurt you. I highly doubt if he has the weapon pointed at you that A the first thing he thinks about is shooting you and B even if you do have a weapon by the time you pull it and turn off the saftey you probebly would have been shot already.

If a person breaks into a residence with you in it, they are planning to harm you. No person will ever or has ever kicked in a door having no knowledge as to wether the place is ocupied saw a person there and tried to steal their stuff without harming the person. If a person enters a house and finds a person there they will either run or attack. The laws do say that you can only use deadly force against a threat to life or serious injury. If the person is running away then there is no threat and deadly force is considered excesive, but if they don't then they plan to hurt you. you have every right to defend with deadly force. you have no need to wait and see if they will actually hurt you, it is implied that they intend to hurt if they attack you in your home. And for the record not all firearms have a safety. My .38 special has no such thing as a safety. If it's loaded you only need pull the trigger. there is no way to "make the weapon safe."

At 10/12/09 10:21 AM, TheMason wrote: Also in 1990 machine guns were already heavily regulated. Furthermore, what is the justification for extra regulation on semi-auto assault rifle "clones"? They are not good for the commission of crime. High capacity magazines add to the profile of the rifle...which (combined with length) makes it harder to conceal. They are also heavier and more unwieldy in tight spaces than hanguns or shotguns.

Tell that to the people that robbed that bank in LA. Sure they're not concealable, but if you want to start a straight up fucking war, assault rifles are the way to go. People use them less, but when someone does use them, you best believe it's going to be the story of the day on CNN.

As a result they are used in 1% (or less) of firearm crime in the United States.

That's because when you bring an assault rifle into the equation, you're taking it to the next level. As far as strategics go for robbing a bank or anything like that, I can't think of any weapon I'd rather use then an M-4 or an AK, the problem is that when you've got an assault rifle and you're committing a crime, cops aren't going to be like "You there! Freeze!" They will straight up kill your ass. Assault rifles are not something to fuck around with.

Burger makes a very unconvincing case. Especially when you compare guns to cars.

I didn't post that quote to make a "case." Whether or not he makes a convincing case is irrelevant. He made that ruling as a Supreme Court Justice, and therefore, that is the law. Just showing people his argument for making things the way they are.

At 10/12/09 10:14 AM, TheMason wrote: You don't really know the first thing about using a gun defensively, do you?

If you are in your house and someone breaks in you retreat to your bedroom and lock the door. One does NOT go hunting for the perp. You get your gun and call 911. If they touch your door you yell: "I've got a gun!" and chamber a round so the person knows you're telling the truth.

Now, if they are not planning on hurting you they will leave. If they keep trying to get through then they mean you harm. At this point by attempting to gain access to you, it can reasonably be assumed that they are meaning to do you harm.

Now you may be thinking by letting them know you have a gun this will only escalate the situation. If you're thinking this...you are wrong. The reason is you have the advantage. If you are in your own room, you can be anywhere. The perp is only going to come through one space. Then there is the door: you can shoot through it if they keep trying to gain entry.

Your textbook answer is pretty good, but what do you do if you have kids or other people living with you, and they are elsewhere in the house? How do you know the robber will try one of their rooms first and not even find you? The law is the law, you can only shoot if you feel they are threatening your life. But as far as I'm concerned, if some mother fucker steps foot in your house, they left their right to life at the doorstep.

At 10/13/09 09:50 AM, amaterasu wrote: ... if some mother fucker breaks in to your house, they left their right to life at the doorstep.

fixed, haha

People who carry guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens.

And the NRA say gun control doesn't work...

At 10/13/09 10:01 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: People who carry guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens.

And the NRA say gun control doesn't work...

"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates."

If you are a dumbass with a gun of course you are going to get shot.

At 10/13/09 09:29 AM, michelinman wrote:

At 10/12/09 10:21 AM, TheMason wrote: Also in 1990 machine guns were already heavily regulated. Furthermore, what is the justification for extra regulation on semi-auto assault rifle "clones"? They are not good for the commission of crime. High capacity magazines add to the profile of the rifle...which (combined with length) makes it harder to conceal. They are also heavier and more unwieldy in tight spaces than hanguns or shotguns.

Tell that to the people that robbed that bank in LA. Sure they're not concealable, but if you want to start a straight up fucking war, assault rifles are the way to go. People use them less, but when someone does use them, you best believe it's going to be the story of the day on CNN.

Ah the 1997 North Hollywood Shoot-Out...one of my favorite cases to bring up to demonstrate that assault rifles are not anything special. For several reasons:

1) What the AWB of 1994 "banned" were semi-auto clones of AKs, M-16s, etc. What these guys used were illegally modified firearms. This shows just how useless the 1994 was.
2) Does the fact that it will make CNN make them more effective...or to use your verbage: "taking it to the next level". Assault rifles are "sexy" from a news producer perspective, but are they effective? The answer is: no.
a) Look at "spray & pray". A fully automatic rifle is not going to be accurate. These two guys spewed 3,000 rounds indiscrimately. They hit 17 people. Now I know you may argue this was suppressing fire, but if that was the case why did they not make an escape? Why the "long walk" down the street? Their intent was to kill.
b) But they picked the wrong weapon. Military grade ammo is not lethal. It's armor piercing capabilities make them less effective against flesh.

Now compare this to the VT Massacre. Cho used a 9mm and a .22 pistol with hollowpoints. He took aim with every shot. He used 99 rounds. He killed 33 and wounded 23 in the bloodiest mass shooting in American history by a lone gunman. On the other hand two nuts with assault rifles only injured 17.

As a result they are used in 1% (or less) of firearm crime in the United States.

That's because when you bring an assault rifle into the equation, you're taking it to the next level. As far as strategics go for robbing a bank or anything like that, I can't think of any weapon I'd rather use then an M-4 or an AK, the problem is that when you've got an assault rifle and you're committing a crime, cops aren't going to be like "You there! Freeze!" They will straight up kill your ass. Assault rifles are not something to fuck around with.

You're not really making an argument here. Yes assualt rifles have a stigma, they are scary looking and intimidating...by design. But the reality is the ammo is the least dangerous on the market. The weapons themselves are not conducive to the majority of crime committed.

No matter what CNN says nor how sensationalized very, very rare events such as the North Hollywood Shoot-out are...this does not mean assault rifles are a scourage that requires more regulation.

In fact that would be bad public policy. To further restrict assault rifles would have, statistically speaking, zero effect on crime. If anything it would provide an incentive for those morons who think assault rifles are the weapon choice to choose a firearm that is more capable of inflicting serious injury. If anything it would result in more deaths.

Not to mention how much money, resources and manpower would be taken away from the real cause of crime? Education level, economy and other social factors have proven time after time to be more responsible for crime rates than availability of any firearm.

In short, how CNN sensationalizes something is not an argument for further regulation.

And I agree with you that an AK or M-4 would be a good choice for robbing a bank if my goal was to make off with the money. It would keep the crowd compliant. However, if I were to rob just the teller drawer (best chance for a getaway) I'd use a handgun. In the absence of assault rifles (for crowd control) I'd choose a shotgun...which would be far more dangerous for the victims.

Thus from a public safety perspective I'd prefer bank robbers to use a M-4...less serious casualties.

Burger makes a very unconvincing case. Especially when you compare guns to cars.

I didn't post that quote to make a "case." Whether or not he makes a convincing case is irrelevant. He made that ruling as a Supreme Court Justice, and therefore, that is the law. Just showing people his argument for making things the way they are.

Sorry but you're wrong. I looked that up and it was not part of a Supreme Court ruling but rather an article he penned for Parade magazine. Furthermore, it was written in 1990...four years after he retired from the SCOTUS.

So it is not a ruling which means it is NOT the law. It was his personal argument...therefore whether or not he makes a convincing case is in fact relevant.

At 10/13/09 10:01 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: People who carry guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens.

And the NRA say gun control doesn't work...

D2K this does not really argue that gun control works. In fact the links prove otherwise. Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the US...yet some of the most strict gun control laws.

But one group is doing something about it. CeaseFire is actively working to change the norms and behavior of the people involved in the shootings. One of the things the article mentions is they are using ex-shooters to mediate disputes which is important because it tackles the issue of recidivism...or criminals becoming repeat offenders.

We have to break what have become socio-economic norms and modes of behavior, not waste time and money on gun control. All that will do is take guns away from people who are not using them in crime and not do anything to stem the flow to law-breakers.

As for the increased chance of getting injured carrying a gun...well duh! Guess what? People who ride in cars are ten times more likely to get injured in a car accident than someone who rides a horse.

It is really a useless study that does not really tell us anything about gun violence in the US. It doesn't change the fact that socio-economic factors are the underlying cause of crime. It doesn't change the fact that there between 800,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year. It doesn't change the fact that crime rates drop when concealed carry goes into effect. It doesn't change the fact that fatal gun accidents are more rare than drowning, falling or walking accidents.

But anyway, nice work making a semi-pithy comment using the NRA to make an emotional argument.