Gun in nightstand

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
I understand your point...

But if we never enforce, does amendment mean anything?

If we never ticket/fine people for running red lights, will they then stop running them just because we amended the law?

Red light running became epidemic, until we installed red light cameras that actually enforced the law...now, I have issues with those cameras, on the presumption of innocence, etc., but even though there was no civil penalty, the monetary consequences alone caused the behavioral change...


It does mean something if the reason why it's not being enforced is because the law was written poorly.

 

[Astro14]

Mykl - the murder rate in the US varies tremendously with several factors, including location (cities), economics, and frankly, race.

So, choosing to live in the inner city of Toronto is far more risky than in rural Vermont (which, as I've pointed out, has the lowest murder rate in the US, and it's several times lower than the Canadian average). With all those variables, it's difficult to have an apples-apples comparison.

So, while the average Canadian is less likely, the individual Canadian might be more likely, and this thread was about the gun on the nightstand, which isn't to prevent invasion, or overthrow a corrupt government, it was to exercise the individual right for self-defense.

So, to get back to the gun on the nightstand, I brought up Heller v. D.C. because that right is individual, not just collective, not solely when in times of war.

I know a bit about war, I know what I would choose, too...but the right to self defense is inextricably tied to the gun on the nightstand, while war, and long guns, are a tangential discussion.

 

[Mykl]

Yes, but as a whole, with all the smaller communities considered, Canada is much better at not killing themselves than we are.

 

[Astro14]

Again, an interesting discussion. As a whole? Yes.

Removing the five worst US cities, and comparing the remainder of the US (about 280 million people) vs. all of Canada? About the same (I know, hard to believe, but true).

That's why little Vermont, my former residence, is so instructive. It's largest city, Burlington, is about 40,000...hardly a "city" with gang violence that plagues most metropolises...but they do have a heroin problem, so it isn't crime free...

So, in order to understand crime/violence rates, you really do have to look at, and control for, those variables. The gross generalization of "3x the violent crime" is unrepresentative... and uninformative to any discussion on the effects of policy on crime.

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
So guns are only beneficial in certain countries with high homicide rates? Got it.

Did you forget the ENTIRE purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is to have the ability to forcefully overthrow a tyrannical government and to discourage invasion by foreign forces? Would not these same principles benefit other nations as well? Switzerland hasn't been invaded in hundreds of years. The US hasn't been invaded since 1812.


Is this a joke or am I supposed to take this seriously?

It's so far out of context and misrepresentative of my comments that it has to be a joke.

We're talking crime and violent death rates, not revolution.


You live here. I live here. The 2nd amendment is the rule of the land. The original intent applied in 1776 the same as it applies today.

"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."

We live in a society where guns are omnipresent. They are everywhere. As intended. The fact that John Idiot kills Jane Idiot is of no concern as it relates to availability of guns. Crime and violent death rates has nothing to do with gun ownership. It has everything to do with morals, social and economic factors, income and education. These are things that cannot be legislated. Open your freaking eyes.

 

[Astro14]

Also, perhaps of interest to Al, the OP, is the language of the Pennsylvania Constitution: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Which clearly articulates an individual right...

Now, NJ, in which the original nightstand author lived, has no provision for the individual right to bear arms, that's what makes the Heller v. DC decision so significant to the residents of that state...whose rights have been severely curtailed over the years.

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: Silverado12
Good gawd I get sick of hearing the "tyrannical gov't" argument. Like that's really going to happen. Take the most armed community and all the gov't needs is just one Cobra helicopter to take care of business. No one in their right mind would use their weapons against our police, sheriffs, military, etc. We elect our gov't. here in the USA don't forget.


Glad you are sick of hearing about the "tyrannical gov't". Fact is, you live in the good ol USA. The Bill of Rights and policies put into place hundreds of years ago have benefited you greatly, so much so that even hearing about this stuff sounds a little silly in this day and age. Here you are criticizing how silly it sounds when you live in a America, home of the free. It is really simple to forget the benefits of where we live, and forget the struggles of millions of other people that dont have the benefit of a bill of rights. Don't have the guaranteed firearm ownership. Look at ISIS in Syria. Is that not a tyrannical govt? Look at North Korea. Is that not a Tyrannical govt?

Tyranical govt DO exist.