Gun owners are the happiest people in the US

[Lucidvizion]

(snip)

According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.

The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.

Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner.

Many studies over the years have shown that a belief in one's control over the environment dramatically adds to happiness. Example: a famous study of elderly nursing home patients in the 1970s. It showed dramatic improvements in life satisfaction from elements of control as seemingly insignificant as being able to care for one's plants.

A bit of evidence that self-reliance is at work among gun owners comes from the General Social Survey. It asked whether one agrees with the statement, "Those in need have to take care of themselves." In 2004, gun owners were 10 percentage points more likely than nonowners to agree (60% to 50%).

That response is not evidence that gun owners only care about themselves, however. In 2002, they were more likely to give money to charity than people without guns (83% to 75%). This charity gap doesn't reflect their somewhat higher incomes. Gun owners were also more likely to give in other ways, such as donating blood. Are gun owners unsentimental? In 2004, they were more likely than those without guns to strongly agree that they would "endure all things" for the one they loved (45% to 37%).

None of this is to dictate what gun policy should be in our nation and its communities, let alone whether gun owners deserve to be happier than those of us without firearms. Guns are an important area of debate about freedom and security, not to mention constitutionality. What we do know, however, is that contrary to the implication of Mr. Obama's comments, for many Americans, happiness often does indeed involve a warm gun.

http://mobile2.wsj.com/device/html_article.php?id=77&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB120856454897828049.ht ml%3Fmod%3Dopinion_main_commentaries

[notacon]

As usual, you are missing the point.

It is not the owning of guns that makes anyone unusual or a right wing nutjob.

It is the fanatical and absurd fight against ANY reasonable restriction to ANY weapons from dopes like Ted Nugent (as covered on another thread) that attracts the fear mongering demagogues that poison the debate with nonsense, lies, misrepresentation and bullshit.

This "happy" nonsense is just more of the same bullshit that is not only meaningless but profoundly inane.

[Lucidvizion]

lol - what the **** are you talking about?

I do not recognize or recall any particular "point" that you and I are discussing. Is this the splatter from some other thread you shit on?

[anEinherjer]

Hey now, no reason to accuse nottie of pooping on you.

Happiness research is an interesting topic these days, since much of what seems to drive public policy is driven by a sense of "fairness" - meaning those who are on the wrong end of things are unhappy because something is "unfair" to them.

I'm not sure what this study is really saying - or why it's interesting. Care to comment, Lucid?

[pmoon6]

I love the smell of gun oil in the morning.

[nehemiah]

anEin is currently a very reasonable poster and that's freaking me out a little bit.

bring back anAneurysm!!!!

[35Pete]

As usual, you are missing the point.

It is not the owning of guns that makes anyone unusual or a right wing nutjob.

It is the fanatical and absurd fight against ANY reasonable restriction to ANY weapons from dopes like Ted Nugent (as covered on another thread) that attracts the fear mongering demagogues that poison the debate with nonsense, lies, misrepresentation and bullshit.

This "happy" nonsense is just more of the same bullshit that is not only meaningless but profoundly inane.

Read the goddamned constitution.

....shall not be infringed.

[dilbert]

Read the goddamned constitution.

....shall not be infringed.

I wonder is reasonable restrictions on speech or freedom of religion are permissable as well?

[anEinherjer]

Well yes, more or less.

You can't sacrifice your fellow man even if it's a religious belief (I doubt any human sacrifices would be allowed.... though I guess you never know). You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

So yeah, there are /reasonable/ restrictions. Like, I don't see the Supreme Court okay'ing ownership of fully functional tanks, military jets, and the like. I also don't see a huge outcry that M50's and other fully automatic military guns be sold over-the-counter...

(Sorry nehe. Must be all the stress of moving and incoming poop-machine, this place is like sweet relief :))

[pmoon6]

Well yes, more or less.

You can't sacrifice your fellow man even if it's a religious belief (I doubt any human sacrifices would be allowed.... though I guess you never know). You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

So yeah, there are /reasonable/ restrictions. Like, I don't see the Supreme Court okay'ing ownership of fully functional tanks, military jets, and the like. I also don't see a huge outcry that M50's and other fully automatic military guns be sold over-the-counter...

(Sorry nehe. Must be all the stress of moving and incoming poop-machine, this place is like sweet relief :))Reasonable restrictions are already in place.

[gebobs]

Read the goddamned constitution.

....shall not be infringed.

And prefaced by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Probably the most muddled amendment written.

So, just for fun, what constitutes an "arm" that would be protected under the 1st Amendment? Be specific.

[pmoon6]

And prefaced by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Probably the most muddled amendment written.

So, just for fun, what constitutes an "arm" that would be protected under the 1st Amendment? Be specific.Any one that I own that is legal under the current laws.

But, I believe you mean the 2nd Amendment.

[pmoon6]

And prefaced by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Probably the most muddled amendment written.

So, just for fun, what constitutes an "arm" that would be protected under the 1st Amendment? Be specific.That is the crux of the argument.

Some people believe that the first part is linked to the second.

Some people believe that they are exclusive and the "Well Regulated Militia" was just a preface and doesn't pertain to the right to keep and bear.

It doesn't matter to me. I am compliant with both parts, even though there isn't a criteria for what constitutes a well regulated militia.

If the Court decides that both parts of the Second are inclusive, you will see State Militias everywhere.

Then the government can regulate us.

[35Pete]

Well yes, more or less.

You can't sacrifice your fellow man even if it's a religious belief (I doubt any human sacrifices would be allowed.... though I guess you never know). You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

So yeah, there are /reasonable/ restrictions. Like, I don't see the Supreme Court okay'ing ownership of fully functional tanks, military jets, and the like. I also don't see a huge outcry that M50's and other fully automatic military guns be sold over-the-counter...

(Sorry nehe. Must be all the stress of moving and incoming poop-machine, this place is like sweet relief :))
Fire in a crowded theatre is an outlier.

Less than .000001% of all speech. Yet because it's emotionally powerful, it gets a lot of attention.

Shame on you anEin. You should know better.

[35Pete]

And prefaced by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Probably the most muddled amendment written.

So, just for fun, what constitutes an "arm" that would be protected under the 1st Amendment? Be specific.

Read the Federalist Papers and other writings by Franklin, Madison and Co. and find out the intent.

It's in the historical record Gebobs.

Go check it out.

[coryjd]

I'm happy, because my 12-gauge sits loaded, under my bed. :)

[notacon]

lol - what the **** are you talking about?

I do not recognize or recall any particular "point" that you and I are discussing. Is this the splatter from some other thread you shit on?

If one starts a thread with an opinion piece, I can only assume that they agree with the point being made in that piece.

Even though you snip out the some parts, I took the time to read the whole opinion and it is nothing more that a typical right wing attack on Obama.

What Obama tried to say (and admittedly mangled it up....or at least it was mangled by being taken out of context) is that some people are distracted by hot button issues away from issues that are legitimate in their lives.

The gun issue is one of the most demagogued issues around with the right wing's blatantly false assertion that national politicians want to "take away" their guns.

I don't own any guns but recognize the right for every citizen to own one.

I also have the common sense to realize that reasonable limitations are essential for the greater populations safety.

The opinion piece you presented is just another in the twisting of what Obama actually meant and the issue as framed by the reactionary right wing.

[Meathead]

anEin is currently a very reasonable poster and that's freaking me out a little bit.


lmao i noticed the same thing

but they come out with new meds every day you know

[Lucidvizion]

If one starts a thread with an opinion piece, I can only assume that they agree with the point being made in that piece.

Even though you snip out the some parts, I took the time to read the whole opinion and it is nothing more that a typical right wing attack on Obama.


I snipped out the beginning because I didn't intend this to be yet another thread about the democratic primary candidates.

I just wanted to point out that the popular perception of gun owners being a bunch of angry hillbilly loners couldn't be further from the truth.

[dilbert]

If one starts a thread with an opinion piece, I can only assume that they agree with the point being made in that piece.

Often that is an incorrect assumption.

Even though you snip out the some parts, I took the time to read the whole opinion and it is nothing more that a typical right wing attack on Obama.



What Obama tried to say (and admittedly mangled it up....or at least it was mangled by being taken out of context) is that some people are distracted by hot button issues away from issues that are legitimate in their lives.
"Typical right wing attack" - nice DNC talking point.

So now what we are supposed to do is listen to these people and try to guess what they meant and not actually what they said? And we can change what they said to make it seem better than it actually was?

Isn't that twisting one's words? Can't we take him at his words and assume he meant what he said?

The gun issue is one of the most demagogued issues around with the right wing's blatantly false assertion that national politicians want to "take away" their guns.

I don't own any guns but recognize the right for every citizen to own one.

I also have the common sense to realize that reasonable limitations are essential for the greater populations safety.

Except there a number of politicians who want to ban all handguns. So yes, that is taking away people's guns. Look at Washington, DC for example.

And who decides "reasonable limitations" Their are many that already exist. Do we also place "reasonable limitations" on speech? Or freedom of religion? Or the right to protest? Or the right to not self-incriminate? Or maybe allow torture sometimes, if it is deemed "reasonable"? (OK, we already do that. Bad example)

The opinion piece you presented is just another in the twisting of what Obama actually meant and the issue as framed by the reactionary right wing.

Ah, yes the reactionary right-wing. Because no reasonable person would ever criticize Obama.

People are reacting to what he said. Which is an attitude displayed by some (NOT ALL) far lefties - that guns and religion are some type of security blanket only used by people that are angry, dumb, desperate or bitter. They definitely are not reasonable and well thought out if they own guns or are religious.

He said something incredibly stupid that could alienate a number of voters. He would do better to admit to his mistake, instead of trying to rationalize his idiocy.

[notacon]

Read the goddamned constitution.

....shall not be infringed.

Sigh!

I HAVE read the constitution...to suggest otherwise is insulting and demagogic.

Interesting that you have to snip the actual 2nd amendment. Let's read the whole thing, shall we...

"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."

I know you would like to ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment...right wingers always do.

But, I am not arguing that the right to "keep and bear arms" is limited to their participation in militias.

I am saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the right is NOT absolute and can NOT be taken literally.

Interesting that the word "gun" is nowhere to be found in the constitution. The word "arms" is used. As I have argued elsewhere, if one wants to take the phase "shall not be infringed" literally than it follows that the word "arms" has to too.

That means that ANY weapon possession can not be "infringed"...machine guns, bazookas, land mines, biological and chemical weapons, missiles, flame throwers and yes, even atomic bombs.

Absurd? No...what is absurd is that the "shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation.

Additionally, the amendment does not stop at the right to possess these weapons it also includes the right to "bear" those arms. Which means that, if taken literally, the use of ANY "arm" or weapon...the actual use of those weapons cannot be "infringed".

That means that you must believe that it is not only should be legal for anyone to bring ANY weapon aboard an airplane...from guns to bombs to chemical weapons...everyone has the right to use those weapons during flight.

A 5th grader should have the right to possess and use ANY weapon they choose in and around a school.

Absurd? No...what is absurd is that the "shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation.

Thankfully, the constitution, and with the help from Mr. Marshall, one of the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, allows for the courts to interpret the various amendments and laws of this nation.

I believe that this includes limitations on possession and use or weapons...guns included...just like the other rights enumerated in the constitution are limited like the freedom of speech.

Specifically I would like to see the gun show loophole closed. Every person wanting to purchase a gun should go through a background check. Certain people should not be allowed to purchase guns like convicted felons and mentally unstable.

I would like to see every single gun registered and the ballistic signature of each gun in a federal database so law enforcement would have a solid lead for every single crime commited with a gun.

I would like to see limits on the number of guns purchased...or at least a questioning of someone who has bought, let's say more than 10 guns per month.

I would like to see the same for ammunition.

Too much "infringement"?!?!? That is what the debate is really about. The "infringement" that exists now is not very great and not very effective since 34% of the people in this country own guns right now and the number of guns owned for personal use is well over 200 million, making Americans the most heavily armed citizens in the world.

I have no problem with those statistics. I do not begrudge any law abiding sane American to own a reasonable number of weapons. Many, many of my friends and relatives are gun owners and are the most respectful of the responsibility of weapons use.

My common sense provisions should not concern them a bit.

But, they do. Because right wing radical organizations, like the NRA, has distorted and demagogued ANY common sense limitations to "arms" possession and use.

Are there some left wingers that want to abolish guns and confiscate the same? Of course there are a few nut cases out there. There are also some nut cases out there that would love to see the US use nukes on all of our enemies and turn half of the world into a wasteland.

With all of that said...please Pete, don't attempt to reduce the issue to cherry picking some of the words in an amendment and suggest that each and every word must be taken literally.

It really is pretty ignorant of reality and is beneath you.

[notacon]

I snipped out the beginning because I didn't intend this to be yet another thread about the democratic primary candidates.

I just wanted to point out that the popular perception of gun owners being a bunch of angry hillbilly loners couldn't be further from the truth.

The point of what Obama said...and the subject of the piece that you presented...is nowhere NEAR the idea that "gun owners being a bunch of angry hillbilly loners".

That perception is NOT "popular". The ONLY place I hear crap like that is from right wingers that misrepresent the opinion of those that want some kind of control over weapons.

[Lucidvizion]

I know you would like to ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment...right wingers always do.



The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

--

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

[anEinherjer]

Fire in a crowded theatre is an outlier.

Less than .000001% of all speech. Yet because it's emotionally powerful, it gets a lot of attention.

Shame on you anEin. You should know better.

Give me a break, Pete. There are libel laws. I threw the "fire" example in there as (gasp!) an example.

There are reasonable restrictions on speech and religion. Just as there are already reasonable restrictions on "arm" ownership.

I don't even know what the argument is in this thread, but I do know that I hear tell that nehemiah has a "great body of the yeomanry", at least according to him.

[notacon]

Often that is an incorrect assumption.

Then that person should never start a thread with a opinion piece. If they do not agree with the premise presented by the piece that THEY link to, they should state it.


"Typical right wing attack" - nice DNC talking point.


Yes, typical. We have seen the same kind of shit from the GOP for decades. Some are just gullible enough to believe it.


So now what we are supposed to do is listen to these people and try to guess what they meant and not actually what they said? And we can change what they said to make it seem better than it actually was?

Isn't that twisting one's words? Can't we take him at his words and assume he meant what he said?


What he said was taken out of context. Take the time and try to read more than the few sentences that are bludgeoned to death.

He has corrected what he was trying to say...it is out there for the understanding if you want to understand.

If all one wants to do is berate a candidate that is what they are going to do.


Except there a number of politicians who want to ban all handguns. So yes, that is taking away people's guns. Look at Washington, DC for example.


A twisting and misrepresentation. I said "national politicians" and in the context of right wing attacks on presidential candidates. The NRA wants us to believe that ALL Democrats want to "take your guns aways". That is far from the truth.

Most gun laws are local. I do not agree with DC's banning of handguns. It won't work.

It also does not square with the right wing demagoguing. One type of "arm" being banned does not mean that ALL of the arms are banned. Does not someone in DC still have the right to go into Walmart and buy a rifle?!?!

You are being obtuse. Read what I wrote above.


And who decides "reasonable limitations" Their are many that already exist. Do we also place "reasonable limitations" on speech? Or freedom of religion? Or the right to protest? Or the right to not self-incriminate? Or maybe allow torture sometimes, if it is deemed "reasonable"? (OK, we already do that. Bad example)


The people, by who they elect. This is why the debate is important and why I believe that right wing organizations like the NRA are doing all they can to distort and demagogue the true debate.


Ah, yes the reactionary right-wing. Because no reasonable person would ever criticize Obama.


Oh please. Can we dispense with the absurd generalities. If you have a substantive criticism to make concerning Obama's policy stance, I am all ears.

I have not seen one yet...mainly because almost every attack is obtuse and absurd.

It is the "McCarthy" commie pinko "who did you associate" with attack that means nothing and distracts from meaningful debate and issues.


People are reacting to what he said. Which is an attitude displayed by some (NOT ALL) far lefties - that guns and religion are some type of security blanket only used by people that are angry, dumb, desperate or bitter. They definitely are not reasonable and well thought out if they own guns or are religious.

:rofl:

Nonsense. People react to whatever they conjure up to react to.

I really love the attacks on Rev. Wright's "patriotism"...when he gave up almost everything and joined the Marines and fought in Vietnam.

These attacks by right wingers come from those (for the most part) that would never think of fighting to defend this country. Cheney and Bush are just two glaring examples. Limbaugh...Hannity...O'Reilly...Savage...etc...etc ...etc...


He said something incredibly stupid that could alienate a number of voters. He would do better to admit to his mistake, instead of trying to rationalize his idiocy.

He DID admit his mistake. If you open your ears you would know it.

[anEinherjer]

"Does not someone in DC still have the right to go into Walmart and buy a rifle?!?!"

Not really, no. DC is seriously ****ed up, no doubt about it.

Stop beating on others telling them how stupid they are and how they're all just part of the GOP machine, man. :)

[notacon]

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

--

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Interesting that you should quote Hamilton.

Just finished watching John Adams on HBO...a series I recommend to EVERYONE to watch.

In the last three episodes, the relationship and differences between Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams were explored.

Fascinating.

Many fail to remember that political disagreements have been in play since more than two people occupied this land.

[notacon]

"Does not someone in DC still have the right to go into Walmart and buy a rifle?!?!"

Not really, no. DC is seriously ****ed up, no doubt about it.

Stop beating on others telling them how stupid they are and how they're all just part of the GOP machine, man. :)

I forgot that the actual area of DC is quite limited. Certainly the Walmarts in Bethesda, MD...or...Alexandria, VA (I was just there a couple of weeks ago)...or...Laurel, MD...or...Vienna, VA...have a full stock of rifles and bullets? :D

[notacon]

BTW...Hamilton thought the militias were quite ineffective to defend the young United States and was the biggest backer of a standing federal army.

Indeed the "Federalist" Party he helped form was the forefather of today's strong central government and the exact opposite of what Jefferson and the "Democratic-Republicans" wanted.

[anEinherjer]

And you could buy hunting rifles, but it's illegal to carry them in your car. So good luck gettign them TO your home in DC. And they can't be loaded. And they have to be locked up. And the bullets can't be stored in the same place.

DC is a mess. :)


And Hamilton with his strong federal gov't was a tit.

[pmoon6]

I forgot that the actual area of DC is quite limited. Certainly the Walmarts in Bethesda, MD...or...Alexandria, VA (I was just there a couple of weeks ago)...or...Laurel, MD...or...Vienna, VA...have a full stock of rifles and bullets? :DActually, the WalMart here stopped selling firearms and this is no metropolitan area. They still sell ammunition.

The Sporting goods store in town stopped selling handguns.

Target stopped selling ammo after Michael Moore put them on the spot.

Retailers are being pressured from anti gunners to stop selling everything.

Just goes to show you the squeaky wheel gets the grease. All's it takes is a few big mouthed buffoons to complain.

After "Bowling For Columbine", my friends and I anticipated this and bought a Blue Press. We load our own ammunition because it's better, cheaper and pretty soon you may not be able to buy it, thanks to the abolitionists.

[notacon]

Actually, the WalMart here stopped selling firearms and this is no metropolitan area. They still sell ammunition.

The Sporting goods store in town stopped selling handguns.

Target stopped selling ammo after Michael Moore put them on the spot.

Retailers are being pressured from anti gunners to stop selling everything.

Just goes to show you the squeaky wheel gets the grease. All's it takes is a few big mouthed buffoons to complain.

After "Bowling For Columbine", my friends and I anticipated this and bought a Blue Press. We load our own ammunition because it's better, cheaper and pretty soon you may not be able to buy it, thanks to the abolitionists.

Seems like the gun buyers are not as important to big retailers as the other shoppers that think the proliferation of guns is not safe.

Don't worry moonie...there are still plenty of places to buy your little toys. :)

[35Pete]

Sigh!

I HAVE read the constitution...to suggest otherwise is insulting and demagogic.

Interesting that you have to snip the actual 2nd amendment. Let's read the whole thing, shall we...

"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."

I know you would like to ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment...right wingers always do.

But, I am not arguing that the right to "keep and bear arms" is limited to their participation in militias.

I am saying that the "shall not be infringed" part of the right is NOT absolute and can NOT be taken literally.

Interesting that the word "gun" is nowhere to be found in the constitution. The word "arms" is used. As I have argued elsewhere, if one wants to take the phase "shall not be infringed" literally than it follows that the word "arms" has to too.

That means that ANY weapon possession can not be "infringed"...machine guns, bazookas, land mines, biological and chemical weapons, missiles, flame throwers and yes, even atomic bombs.

Absurd? No...what is absurd is that the "shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation.

Additionally, the amendment does not stop at the right to possess these weapons it also includes the right to "bear" those arms. Which means that, if taken literally, the use of ANY "arm" or weapon...the actual use of those weapons cannot be "infringed".

That means that you must believe that it is not only should be legal for anyone to bring ANY weapon aboard an airplane...from guns to bombs to chemical weapons...everyone has the right to use those weapons during flight.

A 5th grader should have the right to possess and use ANY weapon they choose in and around a school.

Absurd? No...what is absurd is that the "shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation.

Thankfully, the constitution, and with the help from Mr. Marshall, one of the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, allows for the courts to interpret the various amendments and laws of this nation.

I believe that this includes limitations on possession and use or weapons...guns included...just like the other rights enumerated in the constitution are limited like the freedom of speech.

Specifically I would like to see the gun show loophole closed. Every person wanting to purchase a gun should go through a background check. Certain people should not be allowed to purchase guns like convicted felons and mentally unstable.

I would like to see every single gun registered and the ballistic signature of each gun in a federal database so law enforcement would have a solid lead for every single crime commited with a gun.

I would like to see limits on the number of guns purchased...or at least a questioning of someone who has bought, let's say more than 10 guns per month.

I would like to see the same for ammunition.

Too much "infringement"?!?!? That is what the debate is really about. The "infringement" that exists now is not very great and not very effective since 34% of the people in this country own guns right now and the number of guns owned for personal use is well over 200 million, making Americans the most heavily armed citizens in the world.

I have no problem with those statistics. I do not begrudge any law abiding sane American to own a reasonable number of weapons. Many, many of my friends and relatives are gun owners and are the most respectful of the responsibility of weapons use.

My common sense provisions should not concern them a bit.

But, they do. Because right wing radical organizations, like the NRA, has distorted and demagogued ANY common sense limitations to "arms" possession and use.

Are there some left wingers that want to abolish guns and confiscate the same? Of course there are a few nut cases out there. There are also some nut cases out there that would love to see the US use nukes on all of our enemies and turn half of the world into a wasteland.

With all of that said...please Pete, don't attempt to reduce the issue to cherry picking some of the words in an amendment and suggest that each and every word must be taken literally.

It really is pretty ignorant of reality and is beneath you.

I'd like you to read the DC Court of Appeals majority opinion. It's far better a rebuttal than anything I could offer. I was deeply impressed. I gave it to moonie. He read it.

Basically it takes your statist bullshit reply above and tears it to shreds.

[notacon]

And you could buy hunting rifles, but it's illegal to carry them in your car. So good luck gettign them TO your home in DC. And they can't be loaded. And they have to be locked up. And the bullets can't be stored in the same place.

DC is a mess. :)


And Hamilton with his strong federal gov't was a tit.

The writers of John Adams certainly made him look that way.

Actually he came off as almost every Republican today.

Particularly interesting was his rational for a strong national bank and incurring debt when he was Secretary of the Treasury under Washington.

He thought that the strengthening of America as a world power would come through trade and the ability to borrow as a means to finance the same.

The best way to establish credit was to borrow, so he thought the best way to achieve credibility in the world was to produce a national debt.

[notacon]

I'd like you to read the DC Court of Appeals majority opinion. It's far better a rebuttal than anything I could offer. I was deeply impressed. I gave it to moonie. He read it.

Basically it takes your statist bullshit reply above and tears it to shreds.

You produce it and I will read it.

The reality is that I am right and you don't have a reasonable answer to what I wrote.

Cherry picking a few words like "not be infringed" and acting like they exist in a vacuum and void of interpretation is just plain ignorant.

[pmoon6]

Seems like the gun buyers are not as important to big retailers as the other shoppers that think the proliferation of guns is not safe.

Don't worry moonie...there are still plenty of places to buy your little toys. :)The retailers are pussies and bow to the crybabies that don't know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of.

They aren't "toys", they are tools. With food prices soaring, they are more like investments.

You can rant on about the proliferation of guns and you can seek tighter and tighter controls and even total confiscation. The truth of the matter is even if firearms are outlawed, the criminals and nutjobs will still get them on the black market.

[gebobs]

Any one that I own that is legal under the current laws.

Come on...that's evading the question and circular reasoning.

But, I believe you mean the 2nd Amendment.

Complete utter brain fart.

[gebobs]

Read the Federalist Papers and other writings by Franklin, Madison and Co. and find out the intent.

I have read the Federalist papers and I'm not about to go back again just for argumentation purposes. Regardless, those guys are dead. They were not gods. They were fallible too. Of all the amendments, this one is utterly worthless since it is overly vague.

So...is anyone going to tell me what "arms" are protected under by the 2nd Amendment and why?

[gebobs]

Interesting that the word "gun" is nowhere to be found in the constitution. The word "arms" is used. As I have argued elsewhere, if one wants to take the phase "shall not be infringed" literally than it follows that the word "arms" has to too.

That means that ANY weapon possession can not be "infringed"...machine guns, bazookas, land mines, biological and chemical weapons, missiles, flame throwers and yes, even atomic bombs.

This is what I've been trying to get out of the folks here. The right to bear what "arms" is protected by the USC?

Your examples are absurd, but only in illustrating how absurd the amendment is in today's context and how utterly arbitrary the NRA and their ilk choose to interpret it.

[Lucidvizion]

So...is anyone going to tell me what "arms" are protected under by the 2nd Amendment and why?

Light infantry small arms: Rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

That's what the militia arms were back in the 18th century, and that is what they are today.

And as for the composition of the militia:

US CODE
TITLE 10
Subtitle A
PART I
CHAPTER 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[gebobs]

Retailers are being pressured from anti gunners to stop selling everything.

Just goes to show you the squeaky wheel gets the grease. All's it takes is a few big mouthed buffoons to complain.


Since none of the examples you cite involve the government, it's completely up to the retailers if they want to respond to citizen action. Apparently, they feel that this is good for business. What are you going to do about that? Make a law requiring them to sell arms and ammunition?

It's sort of like the Imus thing. People were up in arms, figuratively, saying his right to free speech was infringed. Not at all. He was free to continue saying any of the useless garbage that he spews. His employer was just exercising their prerogative to not pay him. Right or wrong, they made a decision that they did not want to be associated with his antics further.

[gebobs]

Light infantry small arms: Rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

That's what the militia arms were back in the 18th century, and that is what they are today.

Good point, but the Constitution does not limit which arms for which the right to bear is protected.

Furthermore, if you're going to limit the arms to 18th century weaponry, you can forget about rifles. They weren't developed until the beginning of the 19th century and weren't commonly in use by military or militia until later.

On the other side of the coin, military and militias both had artillery. Is the possession of a howitzer or a grape-shot cannon a protected right?

[gebobs]

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate,"...
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

Interesting! I think that this one probably was the usage intended. So is any bozo that cares to own a gun constitute a "properly disciplined" militia?

FWIW...and I'm not directing this at anyone in particular...there's no point bringing up anything casting the liberal position as abolitionist. For sure, there are plenty on the fringe that want that, but I think most people are reasonable enough to understand that this would never happen nor is it desirable to do so.

[pmoon6]

Since none of the examples you cite involve the government, it's completely up to the retailers if they want to respond to citizen action. Apparently, they feel that this is good for business. What are you going to do about that? Make a law requiring them to sell arms and ammunition?

It's sort of like the Imus thing. People were up in arms, figuratively, saying his right to free speech was infringed. Not at all. He was free to continue saying any of the useless garbage that he spews. His employer was just exercising their prerogative to not pay him. Right or wrong, they made a decision that they did not want to be associated with his antics further.The retailers are bowing to pressure from the fringe blockheads.

[pmoon6]

Interesting! I think that this one probably was the usage intended. So is any bozo that cares to own a gun constitute a "properly disciplined" militia?

FWIW...and I'm not directing this at anyone in particular...there's no point bringing up anything casting the liberal position as abolitionist. For sure, there are plenty on the fringe that want that, but I think most people are reasonable enough to understand that this would never happen nor is it desirable to do so.That's good to know.

[gebobs]

The retailers are bowing to pressure from the fringe blockheads.

Their prerogative. Why don't the fringe blockheads on the other side mobilize their own citizen action?

[anEinherjer]

Uh, they do. It's called the ****ing NRA.

[ticatfan3]

If americans were not so horny about guns,that the sight of one makes you *** in your pants is why anti gun people are gaining. You guys embarress your selves with ''your right to bear arms'' Does it make you feel like a man to go grocery shopping with a pair of 6 guns strap to you. Do americans have small dicks or something.

[pmoon6]

If americans were not so horny about guns,that the sight of one makes you *** in your pants is why anti gun people are gaining. You guys embarress your selves with ''your right to bear arms'' Does it make you feel like a man to go grocery shopping with a pair of 6 guns strap to you. Do americans have small dicks or something.There are very few places where you can open carry. Most cities and towns have ordinances against it.

The size of American's dicks are the same size as Canadian's brains.

[pmoon6]

Their prerogative. Why don't the fringe blockheads on the other side mobilize their own citizen action?Like I said, I don't need the retailers.

I load my own ammo and if I want another weapon there's a wonderful website called gunbroker.com.

The funny thing about it is I rarely patronize those retailers. They don't get my business.

[35Pete]

Uh, they do. It's called the ****ing NRA.

Gun Owners of America is the true non-corrupt defender of the 2nd.