Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Right to bear arms (Split Duh!)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Right to bear arms (Split Duh!)

Old 2nd Apr 2003, 03:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 88
Posts: 601
I'm surprised at the resistance they are showing. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz swore they would be throwing garlands of flowers at us.

Many Americans do not realise that Baghdad has 45 Gunshops selling automatic weapons for about $250 apiece to just about anyone.

Makes one wonder if Hussein is really the Devil we make him out to be.

I can't even get a permit to carry my .38 despite our Second Amendment.
I. M. Esperto is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2003, 14:48
  #2 (permalink)  
Lupus Domesticus
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
IME, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 2nd Ammendment (from memory) state that:

"A well regulated militia being essential to the maintenance of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."?

How the hell do they manage to sneak a permit requirement past that one?! Sad days for freedom, my friend.
BlueWolf is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2003, 17:17
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Doesn't the existence of the UK (a free state py anyones judgement) prove the fatuousness of the second ammendment then.
Just a thought
Tourist is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2003, 19:08
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 88
Posts: 601
A series of court decisions were the reason I can't carry a pistol.

The Bard was right.
I. M. Esperto is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2003, 20:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Down the field!
Posts: 323
I M E,

just out of interest, why would you want to carry a pistol while going about your day to day business? Is life in the USA really so dangerous that you need a gun with you while you go about your daily business? It’s not a criticism… Just a question!

Cheers

Grob Driver
Grob Driver is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2003, 21:53
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 88
Posts: 601
Grob - First of all, it is a matter of principle. We have the Second Amendment, but in NJ, we are not allowed to carry weapons for self protection. That's wrong.

Secondly, how can you be sure I don't need it for self defense?

Life threatening attacks can happen at any time, and having a pistol on you can save your life.
I. M. Esperto is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2003, 22:09
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Down the field!
Posts: 323
I M E, that’s fair enough me old friend… I really was just wondering what it was that made Americans feel the need to carry a firearm with them… It most defiantly wasn’t a criticism. Just out of interest, can you legally use it as a method of self-defence? Sorry, we’re going off the issue here!

Iraq, I think we should fly a Herc over the Iraqi’s and drop white flags for them! (and enclose a little message…. “This is your last chance! – The B52’s are on their way”!)
Grob Driver is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2003, 22:43
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 88
Posts: 601
Grob - If I shoot someone in self defense in NJ with a weapon which I have no permit to carry, I'm alive, but in big legal trouble. It is all but impossible to get that permit unless you are a guard, or that sort of thing.

"Commit a crime with a gun, and get 5 years" is the rule.

Other states are different. I have sons in VA and UT where carrying a gun is considered very normal. The crime rates are highest in the states which do NOT allow citizens to carry arms, and LOWEST in states that do. This logic seems to escape many lawmakers.



Rumsfleld and Wolfowitz said our troops would be met with thankful people throwing garlands of flowers at them.

Ed, unless you can keep to topic I will start deleting all your posts. You have an acute problem sticking to the topic you start and end up increasing my and my mods workload every time you stray. I have deleted the subsequent replies from muppets who are unable to resist straying from topic after your little diversions.

Last edited by Danny; 8th Apr 2003 at 20:42.
I. M. Esperto is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2003, 05:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wilmington
Age: 43
Posts: 133
uh. hmm. Yes, it seems to my admittedly foggy memory that one of the reasons that we got the second ammendment over here was the erm "enlightened" rule of the "undeniably" free Great Britian. Also, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc.

As to garlands. They'll come. The Iraqis are still trying to figure out whether we're going to bail on them like we did last time. I'm sure they'd like nothing better than to send out their heartfelt thanks to the "World Community" for pressuring the US to leave them twisting in the wind last time around!

Incidently, this bit of phrase doesn't apply to the British, who have managed to become our one true ally after getting their toshes kicked by us twice. But y'all oughta get your guns back.
TRF4EVR is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2003, 08:11
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,923
Blue Wolf:

You summarise the 2nd as saying:

"A well regulated militia being essential to the maintenance of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's broadly how I remember it too.

Back in frontier days, the only way in which a militia man could 'effectively bear arms' was by keeping his weapons at home. But the constitution saw the right to bear arms as being part and parcel of maintaining 'a well regulated militia' and explicitely gave the people that right in order to maintain a free state (which implicitely meant against British or foreign aggression). That right was NOT granted in order that the citizens could take the law into their own hands, nor even so that they could protect themselves against criminals. There was no individual right to bear arms granted outside the framework of this 'well regulated (people's) militia', though the NRA would like us to believe otherwise.

One could argue that the maintenance of the National Guard and Reserve (and indeed America's maintenance of a standing Army, not envisaged when the Constitution was being framed) gives the people the right to bear arms under the auspices of those organisations, and thereby fulfills the requirements of the 2nd Ammendment.

I don't believe that the UK's outright ban on handguns (even within a sporting environment) has made us safer, and I'm not convinced that citizens should necessarily be prohibited from keeping a non-automatic, relatively small calibre handgun in the home in order to protect their property and family. But the right to carry concealed weapons in public is plainly insane, while the right of ordinary people to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons seems similarly barking.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2003, 13:23
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 730
I was brought up in the West Country where guns (all long arms - shotguns and rifles) were common and looked on as essential tools in a farming community. The American fascination with handguns still makes me wonder and often has tragic consequences.

Just today, in sleepy ICT, there was an arguement between an ex-husband and the current boyfriend. In the UK there might have been a fistfight - possibly some GBH - but this is the US. Boyfriend grabs his trusty 38, chases down the ex & shoots him. Five minutes later, in a fit of remorse, he commits suicide in full view of the local cops. This is just one of many such occurrences that the NRA won't report in the "Armed Citizen".
ICT_SLB is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2003, 05:11
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
I came across this thread and had to take a look.

ICT_SLB
Please define "many", we are a nation of 200 million people, roughly 80% gun owners is my guess. I see death by hand guns occur, but most times there are firearm reg violations occuring that if enforced would have forestalled the death that resulted. What I mean is felons with hand guns, stolen handguns, minors with handguns, etc.


Jacko


This is not a windup, I am asking these questions straight up.
Did I read that violent attacks on citizens is rising in England sine the ban on handguns? Do criminals still use hand guns in crimes?
T_richard is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2003, 06:57
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,923
I think that gun control may have gone too far in the UK. Gun ownership was so tightly controlled and restricted that legitimately held 'on ticket' guns were seldom a danger to anyone. (The school shooting which provoked the eventual total ban was by someone who should never have been given a ticket had the Police followed their own guidelines). It was never the case that UK gun owners could carry handguns in public, nor could they store a loaded handgun in the home. There was no culture of keeping loaded pistols in the bedside drawer or the car glove pocket. Handguns were for sport, for use on the range, and not for 'self protection' or bearing arms. I think this was a good compromise, personally. Unfortunately, the way in which all guns were banned outright led to much easier availability of weapons as 'off ticket' handguns were sold off, and guns are now much easier to acquire than they were.

Actually armed crime has decreased in most police areas, as a matter of fact.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2003, 07:20
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 359
Couple of points, from a Brit who spends a lot of time in the USA...

1. The way the 2nd amendment is interpreted is wierd. I spend a lot of time in New York city, here it is *impossible* for an ordinary citizen to legally own a handgun, never mind carry one. You just can't get a permit.

Long guns can be legally owned, but the process of getting a permit to do so is complicated and expensive, and takes a long time - many months. In fact, it's at least as hard to get a legal gun in New York as it is in the UK. I can't square this with 'shall not be infringed' but the courts seem to have managed to do so.

If the first amendment (free speech) was screwed-around the way the second has been, there would be hell to pay!

2. In response to posters who question the 'need' to own a gun - think of it like the crash axe or fire extinguisher: you really really hope *never* to 'need' it, but if you ever do, you will need it very very badly!

R1, unarmed and moderately dangerous
Ranger One is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2003, 13:18
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,445
Personally I thought the post-Dunblane over-reaction to be totally ridiculous and over the top. What if the swine had used a golf club - would golf have been banned?

Many years ago I shared a house with a few others, one of whom had a legal permit to own a Colt Python .357 Magnum. He was also permitted to make his own ammunition. But that was quite acceptable back then - he was a competition shot in any case. I had a go with his weapon on the range once - truly impressive! His sport was terminated by the government's over-reaction along with that of many other quite lawful and disciplined weapon owners.

Don't think that we'll ever be permitted to own Mr Desert Eagle Point Five Oh and his friends in the UK, no matter who gets to run the country!
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2003, 20:08
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: I have no idea but the view's great.
Posts: 1,221
I'd always understood that the second amendment was merely put in to the constitution due to the hotter weather in many parts of the New World compared to cold old Blighty. It was originally intended to allow the citizens of this new land to wear short sleeved garments and was "the right to bare arms", a spelling mistake which has led to a lot of confusion and loss of life.
J.A.F.O. is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2003, 22:55
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,923
Beagle:

"What if the swine had used a golf club - would golf have been banned?"

This would be a bad thing???

JAFO:

Is skin cancer a joke to you? Bare arms in the scorching sun could mean malignant melanoma - there should be no right to bare arms, except in a well-regulated militia where they issue shirts with adequate sleeve length.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2003, 00:08
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 69
Although I often go shooting in the UK, own several weapons and always make a point of going pistol shooting in the States when I'm there, the 2nd amendment argument does seem slightly warped.

If you want a pistol or revolver, let the police give you the thumbs up. It should not be a right to own a lethal weapon and I think it's mad to want to carry a concealed weapon.

There has always been a weapon of some kind within reach in my house from when I was very young and I'm not convinced that's normal or sane. But thats what living in Northern Ireland does for you.

(just had to spend a lot on a new gun cabinet too...not happy)
Foss is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2003, 03:16
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Hi Foss

"If you want a pistol or revolver, let the police give you the thumbs up. It should not be a right to own a lethal weapon and I think it's mad to want to carry a concealed weapon.

I assume that you are aware of the background checks required before any gun can be bought in the US. The "right" is only there for people who aren't felon, mentally challenged, etc.

The "right" to carry a concealed weapon varies from state to state, some states are wide open for their residents only, other states are very restricted or not at all. As far as it being "mad" to want to carry, well there are many forms of madness in the world, personally I think bungie cord jumping is complete madness. to each his own
T_richard is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2003, 09:08
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,542
From the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics website:
  • The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms
  • The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.
Compare this with the UK stats:
  • Guns were used in only 4.7% of robberies in 1999 and 4.4% in 1998 so the crime problem is to a very large extent one of non-firearms crime. The UK's tight gun laws are undoubtedly responsible for the relatively rare use of guns in crime.
  • Handgun homicide figures are very low and since 1980 have fluctuated from a low of 7 in 1988, through to 35 in 1993 and a previous high of 39 in1997. So 42 gun murders in 1999 does not represent a statistically significant increase.

So - guns all over the US, population 290,681,151, 10,241 gun murders. Private guns virtually banned in the UK, population 58,789,194, gun murders around seven to forty. Now my maths may not be the best, but the US has five times the population yet two hundred and fifty-odd times more murders! That seems statistically significant to me!

Other states are different. I have sons in VA and UT where carrying a gun is considered very normal. The crime rates are highest in the states which do NOT allow citizens to carry arms, and LOWEST in states that do. This logic seems to escape many lawmakers.
From the US Bureau of Justice Statistics website:
Code:
Percentage of homicides committed with a gun
 Year    New Jersey         Utah       Virginia  
 1996        49.2           55.6        65.4 1997        53.8           66.2        71.2 1998        45.5           59.7        68.1 1999        52.6           61.2        67.9 2000        51.6           40.4        67.4
So is it the lawmakers who ignore the stats, or the gun nuts?

Last edited by Checkboard; 10th Apr 2003 at 09:32.
Checkboard is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.