Need some information and data for gun rights

[Dr. HK]

So I have liberal friends and they talk about gun rights and their intreptation of the constitution and state things like yearly mental health checks, gun registrations etc. give me some ammo so to speak to counter this nonsense

 

[SMS]

Ask them if they'd submit to the same for their 1st Amendment rights or the right to vote.

I actually no longer have the energy to argue and debate these people anymore though.

 

[colb]

So I have liberal friends and they talk about gun rights and their intreptation of the constitution and state things like yearly mental health checks, gun registrations etc. give me some ammo so to speak to counter this nonsense

For starters, FOPA forbids the federal registration of non-NFA firearms, and background checks are supposed to be destroyed after 24 hours (paperwork for the sale is kept by FFL).

But one might ask, how would crime rate benefit from a national registry? Ask for a detailed explanation. A registry doesn't help after the fact. Unless the criminal actually registered the weapon to himself, didn't file off the SN, AND left the weapon at the scene of the crime.

Universal Background Checks? This would have minimal effect, if any. There are 2 major flaws with this idea (aside from infringing on our rights). First, logistics. Assuming everyone followed the law, NICS would be overloaded with checks. It's bad enough during the holidays. Second, no logical way to enforce.

I mean, think about it. How do you enforce universal checks? Stop every person with a gun and ask them? Even with a federal registry, and universal checks, the bad guys are still going to be carrying illegally as they do now. Street sales are still going to continue, etc. It would be more of a PITA for law abiding than the criminal.

As for the 2nd amendment itself, there's always the arguments about it being for a militia only. Ignore those people, or refer them to several quotes by our founding fathers who stated otherwise.

 

[Dr. HK]

I just state the latest supreme court findings in 08' 10. Constitutionally we have a leg to stand on. That we don't have to agree with the ruling but just like gay marriage and such we all have to follow it.

 

[farmerbyron]

The mental health evaluations have tremendous potential to deny rights to many people whom are not violent. Another drawback to the mental aspect, especially for drugs like anti-depressants. Is that people whom need help will be less likely to seek it out if it were to effect their right to own a firearm. Thus deteriorating our mental health problem even more.

There is no reason that a veteran with mild PTSD or widow whom needed anti-depressants should be denied their right to self defense. To debate leftists you need to think a little like them and appeal to emotion and their progressive nature.

 

[dennishoddy]

In response to a post on here about an Enid Newspaper editorial, I sent the following response hoping it will be in the letters to the editor. It was limited to 300 words, so there was a whole lot more that could be said. (The bullet points I made, didn't align with this forums format evidently, so they are scrambled.)

The Umpqua Community College shooting is about mental health issues, not gun control. It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner. Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:•Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.•At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent•Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Examiner.http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847This shows the US is #6 in mass shootings.http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and DC have the strictest gun laws. They also have the highest murder rates. Criminals only prey on the weak. The biggest proponents of gun control have armed security guards. What does that tell you?

 

[TerryMiller]

Ask if they would agree to submit to a mental health exam to own and drive an automobile or motorcycle. After all, a lot more people are killed by autos than by firearms.

I remember a discussion with some Mom's Demand Action people, and one said that the 2nd amendment would only apply to weapons available at the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I asked her if the same philosophy also applied to the 1st amendment. In other words, would free speech only apply if one was using one of the old screw type presses or speech by mouth only and no bull horns, phones, or other speech aids.

 

[farmerbyron]

Ask if they would agree to submit to a mental health exam to own and drive an automobile or motorcycle. After all, a lot more people are killed by autos than by firearms.

I remember a discussion with some Mom's Demand Action people, and one said that the 2nd amendment would only apply to weapons available at the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I asked her if the same philosophy also applied to the 1st amendment. In other words, would free speech only apply if one was using one of the old screw type presses or speech by mouth only and no bull horns, phones, or other speech aids.

I wish I could remember where I read it but the "well regulated militia" part of the 2A is referring to a "properly functioning" or "well equipped" militia and not the contemporary meaning of the term "regulated".

One very basic, logical argument in support of this line of thought is that every single one of the Bill of Rights was a restriction on govt. Also the fact that it is called the Bill of RIGHTS should be a clue as well. It would be tremendously out of place to have a restriction on the citizenry on a list of restrictions of govt. and rights of citizens. Not to mention the fact that the 2A specifically uses the terminology "right of the people". The only other amendment that uses that terminology is the first amendment and I think we can all agree that is undoubtedly an individual right.

Yet more empirical evidence of the intent of the second amendment is the fact that it is the second amendment and not the 9th or 10th. Clearly the founders had strong views on the importance of an armed citizenry to place it right next to the right of free speech. Remember that the BOR was necessary to get the states to sign on to the constitution as well.