2nd Amendment(Gun Rights) Logic,Rationale, and Background

[JJ78]

Its just like drugs.

Its easier for someone under 21 to buy weed, coke , meth than it is to buy Alcohol.

There should be mandatory classes you have to take before buying guns legally. There is nothing but background checks done.

[JJ78]

No Mention of this in the National media:

On Friday, a 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot and nearly killed an armed intruder, My Fox Phoenix reported Friday.

The unidentified boy was babysitting his three younger siblings, ages 8, 10 and 12, when a woman rang the doorbell.

The young man did not open the door because he did not recognize the woman.

According to reports, the knocking turned into banging, and the boy rushed his siblings upstairs and grabbed his father's handgun.

While at the top of the stairs, he saw an armed man break into the house through the front door.

Without hesitating, he fired at the intruder, wounding him. According to authorities, the intruder never fired a shot.

[Armykid93]

No Mention of this in the National media:

On Friday, a 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot and nearly killed an armed intruder, My Fox Phoenix reported Friday.

The unidentified boy was babysitting his three younger siblings, ages 8, 10 and 12, when a woman rang the doorbell.

The young man did not open the door because he did not recognize the woman.

According to reports, the knocking turned into banging, and the boy rushed his siblings upstairs and grabbed his father's handgun.

While at the top of the stairs, he saw an armed man break into the house through the front door.

Without hesitating, he fired at the intruder, wounding him. According to authorities, the intruder never fired a shot.

Damn straight. That boy deserves a medal.

[JJ78]

Right

[thegodfather]

I have a couple of questions for The Godfather.

I personally believe that guns are so enshrined in America culture, that imposing regulations on guns does nothing but drive illegal weaponary underground. So, rather than tackling the issue of guns, you guys need to look at two other things:

Correct, the sheer number of guns, and lack of a registration system in most states makes it a moot point to consider a ban or round up of weapons.Additionally, when we in the pro 2A community object to mandatory 'registration' of firearms, it is particularly because the government having a list of who owns firearms makes it easy for them to round up gun owners if they decided to restrict gun rights. I doubt that many law enforcement offices would be chomping at the bit for that position.

The answer Flagg, is to get rid of "GUN FREE ZONES." Look, the law abiding citizen who would obey a Gun Free Zone placcard on a business/building/establishment is not going to be the one that you need to worry about going on a mass shooting spree, so prohibiting that person from carrying a firearm in those establishments nets you zero results, other then disarming what could be otherwise and possibly trained individuals in the use of deadly force with firearms. We know from experience that mass murderers and criminals do not give a flip about the "GUN FREE ZONE" signs on buildings, or laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms into certain buildings. So, knowing those facts, I see no reason to continue to disarm people who COULD make a difference, but who have a 0% chance of making a difference if we contine to uphold 'Gun Free Zones.' I am by no means saying that all mass shootings can be stopped by doing this, but my point is that at least SOME can/might/possibly/perchance/maybe could be stopped or attenuated. We aren't asking for ANYTHING NEW, we're simply advancing that people who are ALREADY permitted by their respective State and Licenscing agencies to carry concealed firearms, to be ale to do so in the places where they are currently prohibited from carrying those firearms, and where those who perpetrate mass shootings target BECAUSE of their gun free status. After 9/11 we started to allow Pilot's to carry firearms concealed, to deal with the thread of an airplane being taken over. For some reason it is just not palatable to allow teachers to carry firearms concealed if they choose to do so? Teachers are people who ostensibly we believe to be some of the most responsible in our society, yet we wouldn't trust those teachers who chose to obtain a CCW permit and carry while at school? I recently heard a news broadcast where Piers Morgan said (and I'm paraphrasing) "You think teachers should be carrying guns everyday, what if one of those teachers carrying a gun dropped that gun out of their holster and then a student got a hold of it and fired it by accident." I mean, that is just an absolutely outrageous supposition. Millions of people carry concealed firearms legally everyday, and I assure you, if they are carrying properly, their firearm is SECURED ABOUT THEIR PERSON, and there is almost no chance of it 'falling out onto the ground' and such other nonsense. People like Piers on the left are SO afraid of law abiding citizens taking responsibility for themselves, that they will take things way past thier logical conclusion into realms that are absolutely unconscienable and unfeasible. To advance such a notion is just a sophmoric reach for a reason to justify ones political and ideological stand points, without a leg to stand on really.

Case in point

Joel Myrick is a hero. In 1997 this Mississippi high school principal prevented a psychotic teenager from killing students at Pearl Junior High, potentially saving numerous lives and immeasurable grief.

But according to Federal law, Principal Joel Myrick is a criminal.

You see, in order to stop the deranged teen (who had opened fire at a high school) from leaving the high school to continue his killing spree at the junior high, Myrick retrieved a handgun from his truck, loaded it, and held it on the youth until authorities could arrive. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," Myrick said.

Myrick clearly saved lives. He also clearly violated the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act (18 US Code sect. 922(q)(1)(A)), which specifies, "It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm... at a place that the individual knows... is a school zone."

Of course, the Federal law doesn't seem to have held much sway over criminals. Perhaps Luke Woodham, the murderer in Mississippi, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine murderers, simply forgot to review the relevant Federal statutes before they went on their killing sprees.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/HeroesOutlawed.htm

Turning schools into fortresses. There's a reason a nut with a gun cannot walk into a bank, prison or military compound and do that sort of thing. Because everyone know's this wont be the last time something like this happens. But then where do you draw the line? Someone see's that they cant shoot up schools any more because of enhanced lock down procedures (steel doors, bullet proof glass), that they decide a supermarket is next best thing. So do you do the same to supermarkets? What then?

No, clearly you cannott turn every building in the world into a fortress, it is prohibitively expensive, not logical, and if you really do crunch the numbers, the actualy number of 'mass shootings' each year in the United States when compared with our population and other violent gun crimes represents less than .05% of those instances, perhaps even less then that.I believe my aforementioned comments cover your question. Indeed cost effectiveness IS a factor whether we like to admit it or not.

There has to be a reason why this happens more in the USA than anywhere else in the world. I know there's almost as many guns as people in the States, but that can't be it. Would it be unfair to say you have a higher population of mentally unstable or desperate people than any other country in the world? Is this a failing of Government, healthcare or socialcare, because if we can sniff out terrorist cells operating on home territory, how are people that are about to go bat shit crazy, not spotted sooner?

I wouldn't be able to competently respond to a question such as this without drawing upon extreme anecdotal evidence and making unfounded unresearched 'guesses' regarding whether or not the US has more mentally unstable individuals (I assume you mean per capita when compared to other countries), although my guess is that the United States number of mentally unstable individuals is on par with that of other industrialized first world nations. My own opinion is that there are systems in place witin public school systems which are extremely sensitive to the 'bat shit crazy' scenario, and that school teachers, administrators, psychologists, and counselors are sensitive to these issues and very very apt to report even the most mundane of hints that a child might be inclined towards such behavior, and becoming more apt to report even the most minute details the more fatal incidences that occur each year, hightening the alert level ever more, and I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing.

My second point is, I don't truly believe the 2nd Amendment is a right because if owning a gun is a right, then guns should be FREE. If owning a gun is a right, why don't the poor get that right? Are their rights less important than everyone elses? How will they 'defend' themselves? Plain and simple, owning a gun is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. If it was a right, everyone should be given a free gun when they're are of a responsible age. The US is already denying this right to the poor. So it's either the US is denying a fundamental right to its own citizens, or owning a gun is not a right.

That's a patently false statement. It is also a failure to understand the idea of a negative freedom as I've explained previously (please read my posts in their entirety before positing arguments or asking questions). A negative freedo is one in which the government does not give you anything, it simpyl recognizes a right given to you by god, and the Bill of Rights identifies this right as one which the government is restrained from taking away. People have a right to free speech,but not everyone has a "RIGHT" to take out advertisement time at 6:00pm on NBC, or primetime during a popular radio station. But they do have the right to speak on a public corner, or in a park, or in a public gathering. Everyone can exercise their rights, you are simply talking about a matter of RESOURCES, and the DEGREE of those resources. That is, whether a person has the access to a street corner, or prime time 6:00pm NBC advertisement space. In the same way, I own a $1,000.00 Sig Sauer handgun, a $1,500.00 AR-15 style rifle, and a $500.00 Mossberg shotgun, to name a few. I own these weapons because I enjoy them as a piece of property. I own a $50,000 high end luxury car, but that is not necessary for travel. I own these things because I like them. But that does not mean that poor people do not own vehicles as well, they own Hyundai's and Kia's, or used vehicles which are affordable to them. I find your argument to be rather trite. If the nation's poor can afford flat screen plasma TV's, cell phones, cigarettes, and other non-necessities, they can certainly afford to own INEXPENSIVE firearms. The licnesure fee's are not much more then 1 or 2 packs of cigarettes, and there are firearms which are extremely inexpensive. If you mean to tell me that our working poor cannot afford a $160 firearm, and licensure fees around $17-$100 dollars, you have a clear agenda and are not operating in reality. That is much less than the cost of an I-phone, and anecdotally, I've seen countless "Poor People" with I-phones, and other luxury items. Poor people are not denied their second amendment rights. Just as there are high end vehicles, telephones, appliances, etc, there are high end firearms and low end firearms, for all ranges of income levels.

Case in Point: This firearm costs $159.00





Do you truly not think the 2nd Amendment is out of place in the 21st Century? There isn't an evil British empire that wants your land any more, and we dont live in times when the local law enforcement was a day's ride away on horseback. It's modern America, not the Frontier.

I think the 2nd Amendment is relevant so long as there are people who accost and commit violent crimes against their fellow citizens. Your argument is quite naive, as there are a host of threats to peoples personal security which I can think of, but I advocate the personal responsible ownership of firearms more for the scenarios which I can't imagine, truely evil people who want to do heinous things. The 21st century is not one in which people joined hands and sang Kumbaya, many of the same problems from the 20th, 19th, 18th, 10th, 7th, and 1st centuries still plague human beings, that is the human condition, people who want things that other people have, are not willing to work for them, and want to take them by force. People who sleep with others husbands&wives and then try to exact revenge via violent means. So just because we dont ride on horseback anymore and the frontier has shrunk exponentially, does not mean that self-defense scenarios are any less relevance.


Comparing the Mujahadeen and the Taliban, who are trained guerilla warriors to people that own guns in the States is eroneous. Your hand gun is no match for a Reaper Drone. Your assualt rifle is nothing to a plane dropping napalm or viral bombs on whole cities and towns. What are you going to do when naval ships are blasting the shit out of you, a mile out from the coast line? So a few of you go into hiding.....does that stop the Government, once gone rogue, from doing what they want? Look how that's worked out, all over the world. The simple fact is, the Western Governments of the world will never get like the Middle East, or parts of Africa. They like things, exactly the way things are right now.

I've addressed that previously, but I'll do so again. We trained between 100,000-250,000 Mujahadeen fighters in the mountains of Scotland and Ireland in the 1980s. Many of them were killed in the 1980s, and many more killed during the civil war which last well into the 1990's in Afghanistan. We are not fighting the Mujahadeen of the 1980's in 2012, we are fighting poorly trained farmers, shepherds, and people who live to day to day on subsistence. Were the Sunni and Shiite fighters in Iraq 'HIGHLY TRAINED' as you alledge? No, you simply fail to realize that we are fighting a determined enemy, with home field advantage, and a strong support network, THE PEOPLE! You cannot wage an effective insurgency without the support of the people, and in both conflicts, they had that support. You can make your Monday Morning quarterback arguments about Reaper drones, FA-18s, F-22s, Bombs, Viral Bombs, etc, but the reality is, that if you want to control an area, you MUST PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND. You can research all of the recent conflicts throughout history, actually you can just look to Syrira right now. The Syrian government is fighting the 'Rebels' with superior weaponry, with government helichopter gunships, jets dropping bombs, etc, and yet the Syrian government is still losing cities to the rebel forces. These rebels are a hodge podge of loosely organized militia, average men from the country that occupied average jobs who are now fighting their government for freedom from oppression, and they are doing a pretty damn good job of it, the majority of which with small arms (rifles,handguns,shotguns). Indeed many defectors are from the military, but the large portion of the militia are ordinary citizens, so your argument is invalid. Boots on the ground are a must, and as I mentioned in a previous posting, taking ground is not the extremely hard part, but HOLDING ground is, and it is exponentially harder without.........................................Th e Support Of The PEOPLE!



I'm not 100% anti gun. I think I would get a blast out on a range, I just think there is a large percentage of your population that are not responsible enough to own a gun, regardless of their right. If guns can't be regulated, then more, MUCH MORE, needs to be done to protect buildings where innocents are at risk, like schools. Because the right of gun ownership should never supercede the right to live.

I'm glad you think that the vast majority of our population is not responsible enough to own a gun. However, with regard to my main argument which is the right of the people to carry firearms, only about 1%+/- of any US State with the "Shall Issue" conceal&carry permits make the choice to go through the 8+ hour training course, obtain their Conceal&carry permit, and purchase a firearm. Of those 1% of the population of each state, we don't really know how many of those people actually carry their guns on a daily basis. So I would say that the statistics dont really support your unfounded, unresearched, and uneducated argument that the majority of our population is not responsible enough to own guns. Can you tell me from where you have made those judgements? There are about 310 million firearms owned by the United States populace.

Mortality

Firearm suicides
•Number of deaths: 18,735
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1

Firearm homicides
•Number of deaths: 11,493
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7

There is your 30,000 annual US gun deaths. 18,375 of which are suicides, those are 18,375 people who could have chosen to take their lives in any number of other ways either more or less painful, the options are limitless. Then you are left with 11,493 firearm homicides. One must keep in mind that those 11,493 firearm homicides include people who are killed by police officers, people killed by self-defense, criminals killing other criminals (those are substantial). It does not denote of those 11,500 firearm deaths which are which. So if we broke down the numbers even more, on a per capita basis, I would say with 310,000,000 firearms in circulation in the United States, those are very very acceptable and fair numbers of firearms homicides. Additionally, the FBI estimates that firearms are used 1,500,000-2,000,000 times ANNUALLY to save an innocent citizens life, 98% of the time without the person needing to fire a single shot, the threat of the firearm being enough to deter their potential attacker! So my friend, please become a little more informed about the issue of gun violence before levying such heavy opinions on firearms in our country.

I have replied to your questions, concerns, and arguments in Bold in the above quoted post.

[thegodfather]

I had a dinner table discussion earlier about the shootings and potential gun bans. I was met with arguments like "People shouldn't be allowed to buy guns like that, that fire so many rounds in a minute." I then realized, that the vast majority of the people who are advancing arguments like this, do not know much about firearms at all. So then the question becomes, why should people with little to NO knowledge about firearms be voicing opinions about what firearms owners ought to have and ought not to have? Realistically, the majority of people have absolutely no idea about firearms, what they are, whether having a high capacity magazine matters or not. Many people are unaware that so called "assault weapons" are used in less than 2% of firearms crimes, simply because they are not concealable, and that the VAST majority of firearms crimes are handgun related. Additionally, with the issue of high capacity magazines, it occured to me that I can change my magazines in my handgun in roughly 1-1.5 seconds, that means releasing the magazines, pulling a new magazine from its holder, loading it into the firearm, and chambering it. Many other people who train regularly with their firearm can change magazines in a similar time frame. Once people become cognizant of such facts, is when we lead to people advocating outright bans on ALL semi-automatic weapons. When I made the point about how quickly I can re-load a firearm, the retort I got at dinner was, "So doesn't the government have a record of those kinds of weapons? Round them up." Comments such as those are the reason that those of us on the Pro 2A side of things are against registration of firearms. If the government knows who owns what types of firearms, it creates the possibility, although extremely remote, unlikely, and improbable situation whereby the government would come door to door to each firearm owner to collect their firearms. Although I'd have to do a bit more research on how the United Kingdoms firearms round up went.

[Flagg]

I have replied to your questions, concerns, and arguments in Bold in the above quoted post.

An informed, if not patronising answer.

And it wasn't me that put that mortality statistic in.

And by the way, there are some 6.4 million active iPhones in circulation throughout the U.S., compared to 300 million guns. Even if consider that a total of 85 million iPhones have been purchased in the U.S. since 2007, it still not a patch on firearm ownership. I guess all those iPhone owners were the poor people that couldnt afford a gun.

EDIT: Most people in the UK despise Piers Morgan, the guy has been embroiled in the phone hacking scandal, so anything he says is less than credible.

EDIT II: Okay TGF, let me ask you this; Have you ever been outside of the USA? Have you ever visited the UK, Europe or Australia? If you have, did you feel less protected, walking around without a gun?

[thegodfather]

An informed, if not patronising answer.

And it wasn't me that put that mortality statistic in.

And by the way, there are some 6.4 million active iPhones in circulation throughout the U.S., compared to 300 million guns. Even if consider that a total of 85 million iPhones have been purchased in the U.S. since 2007, it still not a patch on firearm ownership. I guess all those iPhone owners were the poor people that couldnt afford a gun.

You clearly missed the point that I was trying to make it, which was that there are guns available for the working poor, and even those on assistance which are so incredibly inexpensive to own, that anyone may partake in the second amendment if they so choose. It is denied to few people, save for the ones which the legislature has deemed unfit to own them.

EDIT: Most people in the UK despise Piers Morgan, the guy has been embroiled in the phone hacking scandal, so anything he says is less than credible.

EDIT II: Okay TGF, let me ask you this; Have you ever been outside of the USA? Have you ever visited the UK, Europe or Australia? If you have, did you feel less protected, walking around without a gun?

Are you aware of what a counter cyclical argument is? I make a point, in fact dozens of points, with logic, rationale, and statistics, and you respond in kind with a question, and a question which is not quantifiable. Your answer for whether or not guns should be available for private citizens to protect themselves should be based on FEELINGS? I apologize sir, but in the United States we believe that to be the hallmark of a LIBERAL, a person who advocates their positions based on FEELINGS and EMOTIONS, rather then FACTS, RATIONALE, LOGIC, and STATISTICS. I have presented arguments to you which are backed up by ALL of those things, yet you wish me to use a completely subjective metric which will vary depending on the time of day that you ask it, the location of the neighborhood that I'm in, and the person whom you ask it to.

To answer your meaningless question with regard to this debate, yes I have been out of this country, I spent two weeks at my girlfriends home in Jamaica. Did I feel safe? I suppose as safe as one would feel in a foreign country, however we did have an unarmed guard who came to the house at 6pm each day and stayed until 6am in the morning. Unfortunately though sir, 'feeling safe' does not mean that you are in anyway ACTUALLY safe. I am sure that prior to ANY of the dozens of atrocities committed by mass murderers, or even single events which barely make the news, that the victim likely FELT SAFE where they were. "There isnt a problem until theres a problem." And I sir, would much rather have a firearm and not need one, then need a firearm and not have one.

In bold Sir.

[RaginCajun]

And I sir, would much rather have a firearm and not need one, then need a firearm and not have one.

^^^^^^i like that quote!

[JJ78]

Oh and something that did not make the news, The guy who shot upo the mall in Oregon last week. He was stopped by a guy with a CCW

[cherrydrpepper]

Where do you click to rep people I can't remember. Thegodfather made rep worthy post here.

[gonebluffn]

What is reasonable forfeiture of 2nd amendment rights? Today its being a convicted felon or being found guilty of "specified misdemeanors" such as domestic violence. I don't exactly agree with that at all. You're saying take away the rights of someone whom got drunk one night at a bar and pissed on the side of building that got caught? Or someone whom bounced a check over $100.00. Or someone whom posses anabolic steroids (and gets caught) does not retain the right to own a firearm to protect themselves and their family?

Absolutely agree I was charged with a felony that probably 75% of the people on this board could be charged with just possesion not selling and they take away my right to own a firearm its ridiculous and guess what get caught with aas and a firearm in your house and you get a simultanious possesion charge which is a hefty state sentance or can be turned over to federal crime so think about how long you could do over a bottle of test in the bathroom and a handgun in the nightstand.

[gonebluffn]

If everyone thinks gun control is the answer they are wrong point blank and if some idiot wants to kill hundreds of people he doesnt need a gun for all you youngsters look up Jonestown massacre more people died in that attack than any other non terrorist attack on america 918 to be exact guess how they died .

[thegodfather]

Absolutely agree I was charged with a felony that probably 75% of the people on this board could be charged with just possesion not selling and they take away my right to own a firearm its ridiculous and guess what get caught with aas and a firearm in your house and you get a simultanious possesion charge which is a hefty state sentance or can be turned over to federal crime so think about how long you could do over a bottle of test in the bathroom and a handgun in the nightstand.

Firearm+ANY Scheduled I-III substance = 5 year MINIMUM MANDATORY SENTENCE, in most North Eastern states that have big city's.....

[Flagg]

In bold Sir.

I had a ton of facts and statistics for you, but really whats the point 'sir'? I could use this: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb...aspx?id=152273 or this: http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus...pons_used.html as a means of a counter argument, but what's the point? We can both cherry pick as many articles, reports, stats that support our own personal argument but all that is doing is comparing facts by people sharing both our views, so it just turns into this person vs that person.

And don't patronise me like I said before. You talk about being emotional, but rather answer my question you deftly completely avoid my question by bombaring me with a rabble rousing statement that a politician would be proud of. If 2 weeks in Jamaica is all you have going on, then there really isn't much more to discuss.

I finished my christmas shopping yesterday. As I went into Brighton, my initial thoughts weren't "shit, what if I get held up at gun point, what if I get held up at knife point?". I felt no urge to go and tool myself up. You can call that naive all you want, but there are other democracies beyond yours on this world that have successful gun control and we have stats to prove it. To be honest I could get hit by a bolt of lightening today. It rains a lot on England, so we have a higher probability of thunderstorms than other nations due to us being an island. Now we know rubber tipped soles will provide no protection, so I should elect to stay inside....I just cant take the risk.

If you have this much disdain for people that want to counter argument you, disdain for the police force and clear disdain for Britain, British policies, British law and I suspect, British people, then I can't carry this on.

I suggested that you guys should fortify your buildings or reassess the present violent culture. The 2nd Amendment was drawn up when your military was in its infancy and as a result, had a weak standing army and nothing in terms of funds to support a larger army. This allowed the general populace to carry guns and provide your country with a citizens militia that could be counted on in the face of a threat to national security that the Army was unable to cope with. We know that is no longer the case.

You keep championing this argument of "why wait minutes for the police when seconds matter"....well Hell, why bother having the police at all then. What a monumental waste of tax dollars.

[Flagg]

I will give you the benefit of the douby, GF, that you are interested and might actually take the time to read this and reflect on it:

History of gun control in the United Kingdom

Many laws and amendments governing possession and use of firearms have been enacted over the years; see Firearms Act#United Kingdom for a more complete list.

There were growing concerns in the sixteenth century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use.[40]

The Bill of Rights restated the ancient rights of the people to have arms by reinstating the right of Protestants to have arms after they had been illegally disarmed by James II. The bill follows closely the Declaration of Rights made in Parliament in February 1689.

"Whereas the late King James the Second, by the Assistance of divers evil Counsellors, Judges, and Ministers, employed by Him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom..(b)y assuming and exercising a Power of dispensing with and suspending of Laws, and the Execution of Laws, without Consent of Parliament....(b)y causing several good Subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same Time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to Law...(a)ll which are utterly and directly contrary to the known Laws and Statutes and Freedom of this Realm..... the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections, being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation, taking into their most serious Consideration the best Means for attaining the Ends aforesaid, do in the First Place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done), for the vindicating and asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare,....That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence, suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law.

The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, and until 1791 to the colonies in North America that became the United States. The no longer applicable right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law.

After the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745, harsh laws providing, amongst other things, for disarming the Highlands of Scotland, were enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain: the Disarming Acts of 1716 and 1725, and the Act of Proscription 1746.

The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars. The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act". This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to illegally shoot game using a firearm.

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.

Pistols Act 19O3
The Pistols Act 19O3 was the first to place restrictions on the sale of firearms. Titled "An Act to regulate the sale and use of Pistols or other Firearms", it was a short Act of just nine sections, and applied solely to pistols. It defined a pistol as a firearm whose barrel did not exceed 9 in (230 mm) in length and made it illegal to sell or rent a pistol to anyone unless they could produce a current gun licence or game licence, were exempt from the Gun Licence Act, could prove that they planned to use the pistol on their own property, or had a statement signed by a police officer of Inspector's rank or above or a Justice of the Peace to the effect that they were about to go abroad for six months or more. The Act was more or less ineffective, as anyone wishing to buy a pistol commercially merely had to purchase a licence on demand over the counter from a Post Office before doing so. In addition, it did not regulate private sales of such firearms.

The legislators laid some emphasis on the dangers of pistols in the hands of children and drunkards and made specific provisions regarding sales to these two groups: persons under 18 could be fined 40 shillings if they bought, hired, or carried a pistol, while anyone who sold a pistol to such a person could be fined £5. Anyone who sold a pistol to someone who was "intoxicated or of unsound mind" was liable to a fine of £25 or 3 months' imprisonment with hard labour. However, it was not an offence under the Act to give or lend a pistol to anyone belonging to these two groups.[43]

1920 Firearms Act
The Firearms Act of 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. "An Act to amend the law relating to firearms and other weapons and ammunition", its main stated aim was to enable the government to control the overseas arms trade and so fulfil their commitment to the 1919 Paris Arms Convention.[44] Shootings of police by militant groups in Ireland may also have been a factor as Britain and Ireland were at that time still in union with each other and the Act applied there too. It required anyone wanting to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition to obtain a firearm certificate. The certificate, which lasted for three years, specified not only the firearm but the amount of ammunition the holder could buy or possess. Local chief constables decided who could obtain a certificate, and had the power to exclude anyone of "intemperate habits" or "unsound mind", or anyone considered "...for any reason unfitted to be trusted with firearms." Applicants for certificates also had to convince the police that they had a good reason for needing a certificate. The law did not affect smooth-bore guns, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork. The penalty for violating the Act was a fine of up to £50 or "imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months", or both.[45]

The right of individuals to bear arms had previously been, in the words of the 1689 Bill of Rights, "as allowed by law". The 1920 Act made this right conditional upon the Home Secretary and the police. A series of classified Home Office directives defined for the benefit of chief constables what constituted good reason to grant a certificate. These originally included self-defence.[45]

As the 1920 Act did not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms illegally, in 1933 the Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Bill was submitted to Parliament. It increased the punishment for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime and made it an offence punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment for anyone to "attempt to make use" of any firearm or imitation firearm to resist arrest. Possession of a real or imitation firearm was also made an offence unless the possessor could show he had it for "a lawful object".[46]

1937 Firearms Act
The 1937 Firearms Act incorporated various modifications to the 1920 Act based on the recommendations of a 1934 committee chaired by Sir Archibald Bodkin. The resulting legislation raised the minimum age for buying a firearm or airgun from 14 to 17, extended controls to shotguns and other smooth-bore weapons with barrels shorter than 20 in (510 mm) (later raised by the Firearms Act 1968 to 24 in (610 mm)), transferred certificates for machine guns to military oversight, regulated gun dealers, and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual firearms certificates.[47]

The same year, the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate, and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger".[48]

Fully automatic firearms were almost completely banned from private ownership by the 1937 Act, which took its inspiration from the US 1934 National Firearms Act.[citation needed] Such weapons became restricted to certain special collectors, museums, prop companies, the military, Police Forces and anyone with the permission of the Home Secretary.

1968 Firearms Act
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, this did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, and ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[49]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[50]

Changes in public attitudes in the 1970s and 1980s changed the basis on which firearms were perceived and understood in British society. Increasingly graphic portrayals of firearms involved in gratuitous acts of violence in the mass media gave rise to concern of the emergence of an aggressive "gun culture". A steady rise in violent gun crime[citation needed] generally also became an issue of concern.

Northern Ireland
More than 100,000 people in Northern Ireland own firearms, having 380,000 among them.[51] Gun control laws in Northern Ireland are slightly different from those in the rest of the UK, being primarily affected by the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. Under the new law, first-time buyers will be required to demonstrate they can be trusted with the firearm. It will be up to firearms dealers selling the products to tell new buyers, and those upgrading their firearms, about the safety procedures. Firearm possessors in Northern Ireland must not transport their firearms to Great Britain. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where personal protection is accepted as a legitimate reason to obtain and own a firearm and is the only part of the United Kingdom where handguns and semi-automatic firearms are permitted. Also, carrying a firearm in plain view in a public place is allowed without a permit.[51] However a firearm certificate for a personal protection weapon will only be authorised where the Police Service of Northern Ireland deems there is a ‘verifiable specific risk’ to the life of an individual and that the possession of a firearm is a reasonable, proportionate and necessary measure to protect their life.[52]

Hungerford massacre
In 1987, 27-year-old Michael Ryan, armed with two semi-automatic rifles (a Type 56 sporter, and an M1 carbine), and a Beretta 92 pistol, dressed in combat fatigues and proceeded around the town of Hungerford killing 16 people, wounding fifteen and shooting himself, in what became known as the Hungerford massacre.

In the aftermath, the Conservative government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.[53] This confined semi-automatic and pump-action centre-fire rifles, military weapons firing explosive ammunition, short shotguns that had magazines, and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles to the Prohibited category.[54] Registration and secure storage of shotguns held on Shotgun Certificates became required, and shotguns with more than a 2+1 capacity came to need a Firearm Certificate. The law also introduced new restrictions on shotguns. Rifles in .22 rimfire and semi-automatic pistols were unaffected.

Dunblane massacre
On 13 March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, aged 43, a former scout leader who had been ousted by The Scout Association five years previously, shot dead sixteen young children and their teacher, Gweneth Mayor, in Dunblane Primary School's gymnasium with two Browning Hi-Power 9 mm pistols and two S&W .357 Magnum revolvers. He then shot himself. There is a memorial to the seventeen victims in the local cemetery and a cenotaph in the cathedral. The funds raised in the aftermath of the tragedy have been used to build a new community centre for the town.

Personnel of the Police Firearms Licensing Office were unaware of Hamilton's expulsion by the Scout Association, nor were they aware of allegations made against him regarding unsavoury behaviour on a number of boy's summer camps he had organised, allegations that would have exposed his poor character. The tragedy led to improvements in inter-departmental sharing of Police Intelligence and deeper background checks of firearm certificate applicants.

Cumbria shootings
On 2 June 2010, Derek Bird, a 52-year-old taxi driver, shot and killed 12 people and injured 11 others while driving through Cumbria. He then shot himself. Bird was a licensed firearms holder; his weapons were a 12 gauge double-barreled shotgun and CZ 452-2E ZKM .22-calibre bolt-action rifle.

1997 Firearms Act
Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning private possession of handguns almost completely. Exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "black powder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control. Under certain circumstances, individuals may be issued a PPW (Personal Protection Weapon) licence. Even the UK's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; shooters can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, or abroad (in Switzerland, in practice).[55]

A measure of the extent of legal firearms ownership in the UK (post-Dunblane legislation did not extend to Northern Ireland) is that the handgun bans affected an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in every 960 persons. At the time, the renewal cycle for FACs was five years, meaning that it would take six years for the full reduction of valid certificates for both large-calibre and .22 handguns bans (because certificates remained valid even if the holder had disposed of all their firearms). On 31 December 1996, prior to the large-calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the following year.[57] This represents a net drop of 24,200 certificates. Comparable figures for Scotland show a net drop of 5,841 from 32,053 to 26,212 certificates,[58] making a GB total net drop of 30,041. However, while the number of certificates in England and Wales rose each year after 2002 to stand at 126,400 at 31 March 2005 (due to a change in reporting period), those in Scotland remained relatively static, standing at 26,538 at 31 December 2005.

Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006
This act is focused around various vice type misdemeanours, including dealing with weapons. From the 6 April 2007 the sale and transfer of air weapons by mail order became an offence (they may still be purchased in person), as well as the sale of primers, and realistic imitation firearms (RIFs). The only exceptions are for the purposes of military and historical reenactment, media & theatre production, paintballing and Airsoft as a sport. This has affected Airsoft in the UK by restricting the sale, import and purchase of airsoft replicas to individuals entitled to the skirmishers specific defence, i.e. members of an organised airsoft skirmish site holding permitted activities with third-party liability insurance cover.

Yes, this is from wikipedia, but most of the links provided at the bottom of the page are from government legislative documents.

[JJ78]

Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck.

"I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Appalachia Law School, Virginia: On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, a former student from Nigeria, arrived on the campus of the school with a handgun around 1:00 p.m. and immediately killed three people, at least two of them at point-blank range. Two students - Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges - both retrieved handguns from their vehicles and confronted Odighizuwa. As former police officers, both men were trained to subdue suspects but the fact is they were on the scene and armed, and helped prevent more killings.

Muskegon, Michigan: From the Aug. 23, 1995, issue of the Muskegon Chronicle: "Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their 'gnawing hunger for crack cocaine' fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled."

Colorado Springs, Colo.: On Dec. 9, 2007, gunman Mathew Murray, 24, launched an armed attack against the parishioners of the New Life Church that ultimately left two innocent victims dead. But the toll could have been much higher, were it not for the heroic actions of former police officer Jeanne Assam from Minnesota. In an interview she said she very nearly decided not to go to church that morning but because she saw a headline on her computer indicating that two young people were murdered and a training center for Christian missionaries about 70 miles away in the Denver suburb of Arvada, she changed her mind. Murray shot a total of five people before an armed Assam shot and killed him. There were about 7,000 people at the church at the time of the attack.

"Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead," columnist Larry Elder wrote in July, following the shooting tragedy at the premier of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colo.

"We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year," adds Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles. "We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038404_ma...#ixzz2FiqePzkH