2nd Amendment: the poll!

[11B4V]

You don't need to change the constitution (though I suppose changing the constitution was a place holder for doing some gun control) to do this. Everybody has a right to join the state militia, now, limit gun ownership to hunting and sporting weapons, secure those guns in hunting or marksmanship club houses and limit the owners to people who actually participate in these activities. This is how all of the above examples regulate guns.

Sometimes there are multiple state militias.

Typical euro bs

[CountDeMoney]

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

[mongers]

I would certainly be in favor of repealing it - I don't think the right to own a weapon is in any way fundamental for human freedom, and would much rather be able to discuss and make decisions about appropriate private gun ownership without the basic concept having some special protection placed around it.

All well and good, but as others have alluded to isn't the genie now out of the bottle, the number of guns in circulation perhaps makes that an impractical policy route.

I haven't found any definitive figures for total small arms worldwide, but there seem to be some ball park figures that suggest an estimated 875million small arms world wide, police forces/internal security have 25million, the worlds militarys have 200 million and there's around 650 million weapons in civilians hands.

So if what 11BV4 and others are estimating is correct, the US population is now approaching owning every other civilian weapon in the world.

I don't see how you can reverse that huge accumulation of material without provoking a major crisis.

Looking at US domestic gun production, it seems to have topped 5 million a year, I don't suppose US military requirements are more than 5% of that and export seems low, so most of that is for replacement of and growth in the domestic stock levels. 

I don't know anything about US small arms imports, but is that a significant amount ?

[Eddie Teach]

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

Used in this context, it sounds like he's suggesting accidental discharges kill the owner more often than intruders get shot. Suicide numbers shouldn't really enter into the discussion at all.

[11B4V]

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

I want him to back that statement up. Next.

[Admiral Yi]

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

Your mother.

[DGuller]

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

Used in this context, it sounds like he's suggesting accidental discharges kill the owner more often than intruders get shot. Suicide numbers shouldn't really enter into the discussion at all.

Except they should.  Without guns there would be less suicide attempts, and way less successful suicide attempts.

[mongers]

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

Used in this context, it sounds like he's suggesting accidental discharges kill the owner more often than intruders get shot. Suicide numbers shouldn't really enter into the discussion at all.

I think it part it should, as it's such a successful method that requires very little planning.
An imperfect analogy is with the 19th century poison laws, introduced not to limit the number of murders(in truth a sensational few), but to cut down on the number of suicides.

[Syt]

Used in this context, it sounds like he's suggesting accidental discharges kill the owner more often than intruders get shot. Suicide numbers shouldn't really enter into the discussion at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html

Gun murders grab headlines, but more Americans die every year from gun suicides than gun homicides. In 2009, for example, almost 11,500 Americans were killed by someone else with a gun, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but more than 18,000 killed themselves with a firearm.

Some may shrug and say that suicidal individuals without guns would simply turn to another method. This is wrong. Not only do numerous studies link the presence of guns to elevated suicide rates, but suicide by gun is far more lethal than other methods. The "success rate" of gun suicide is about 90 percent, compared with less than 30 percent for poisoning, for example. Firearms also require the least amount of persistence and effort; the ease of pulling a trigger makes a gun more appealing to those who act on impulse. And studies of suicide survivors find that only about one in 10 makes a second attempt.

[Josquius]

Of course it should. Its ridiculously outdated, it is useless for its original purpose and has been for many many years, the only purpose it serves these days is standing in the way of sensible laws by letting people play the patriotic 'lets all worship the 200 year old piece of paper' card.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course it should. Its ridiculously outdated, it is useless for its original purpose and has been for many many years, the only purpose it serves these days is standing in the way of sensible laws by letting people play the patriotic 'lets all worship the 200 year old piece of paper' card.

I'm just a little curious what you think it's original purpose was.

[Josquius]

Of course it should. Its ridiculously outdated, it is useless for its original purpose and has been for many many years, the only purpose it serves these days is standing in the way of sensible laws by letting people play the patriotic 'lets all worship the 200 year old piece of paper' card.

I'm just a little curious what you think it's original purpose was.

National defence?
Your post confuses me.

[Admiral Yi]

Your post confuses me.

It wasn't intended to.  What can I do to alleviate this confusion?

[Josquius]

Your post confuses me.

It wasn't intended to.  What can I do to alleviate this confusion?

Give me pie.

I'm curious about why you're curious about that. Its common knowledge isn't it? Or are the folks who believe something different?

[Admiral Yi]

I wouldn't say it's common knowledge that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for the national defense.

For example, if it's purpose was to provide for the national defense, why include it as a right that the federal government cannot infringe upon, rather than part of Congress' warmaking powers?