It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Second Amendment and urban violence

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I know no one that carries that want to be a hot rod vigilante.

They just don't want to become a victim.

Roper




posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   


posted by Roper
I know no one that carries that want to be a hot rod vigilante. They just don't want to become a victim. Roper



So, instead of working to reduce the climate for crime, instead of trying new policing tactics, instead of more manpower, all of which takes time and taxes, the good guys elect to "carry" their own protection and I suppose let the rest of the public go to . . . ? More of “self” less of community? Enclaves. As in Bosnia. And Baghdad.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
did prohibtion of alcohol work?
is it working with marijuana?
or does it make a more dangerous environment?

Banning our right to bear arms is the age old band aid for a bullet wound.

Lets just say we can't buy guns anymore!
just like we can't buy drugs right? Millions are spent consuming illegal substances every year. So we can't go to the store and buy a gun. This sounds like business oppertunity for some outside group our country to take advantage of. Guns are registered now not all but many are. This helps in solving crime and maybe even prevents some since people know the repercussions. Banned we will have no idea who bears arms and who that murder weapon belonged to. Forensic data can tell buy the bullet what type of gun it was shot out of. What good will that be if we can't search to see who has one.

This is kind of a oxymoron in the sense that i have no problem with there be no privacy to who has a gun or not and what type it is. However i will fight to the death there right to have one.

Besides that guns dont kill people and for that matter neither do people. bullets do. I mean what would happen if a robber was holding a gun to your head and says, "bang bang!" ouch that hurt my feelings please don't do that. lets tax the hell out of bullets, maybe even register those purchases as well. Use the tax money to help educate and give aid when bad things do happen.

Lastly education is by far the most underlying issue here. Along with the parental responsiblity to keep their guns safe.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
I disagree. You just said that anyone carring a firearm is a criminal.

..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Roper


No, I did not say that anyone carrying a firearm is a criminal. I said anyone carrying it in a manner consistent with the intent to commit a crime is a criminal.

The right to keep and bear shall not be infringed, but use may be infringed. If the circumstances constitute prima facie evidence of intent to commit a crime, it's not the gun itself which is the subject of the law but the actions of the armed individual.


Let us consider "tire thumps"- you know, those little sawed off baseball bats that they sell at truck stops for quickly checking tire pressure?

They're perfectly legal to have in your truck, but if the police find you carrying one down the street and you're not on your way back to your big rig, you've got a problem on your hands, because you've got this thing that has no practical use in this context except as a baton.


So let's take it back to guns. The police stop you and you've got a gun hidden in your waistband. You've got a round chambered, no long, its not safetied, you can't give the name of a safe place to practice that you're on the way to, you can't give good reason why you have to transport it...

The conditions have eliminated any legitimate use- the only thing you could have that weapon on you for under those circumstances is to be ready to shoot somebody on short notice. And guess what? You aren't allowed to shoot in public, especially at people. So you pop somebody for deadly conduct everytime they do it and it's case closed.

I expect you to run the self defense angle but there is no constitutional guarantee of justifiable homicide, so it's a small matter to incorporate that into a gun control law, thus defeating that objection.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America…by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States....

Mr. V, See above and then tell me who has the "Right" to take away my 'Unalienable Rights"?

There are plenty of IWB holsters and that secenerio don't fly! OR are you saying it's alright for the police to profile and the police may stop any one who may look the part of a criminal?

PAPERS PLEASE!!!


HEY Don, Your ideas on stopping urban violence, please. KISS method please.



Roper
...and the beat goes on...



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

The law can make carrying a concealed handgun evidence of intent to commit assault with a deadly weapon- end of problem.

A guy has the right to own a weapon, he has the right to safely bear it in practice, legally defined, self defense, etc... but if you're running around town with a live weapon in your waistband it doesn't take a detective to figure out what you're up to and you can and should be arrested. That's no affront to the 2nd.


I hope you see these paired statements are incompatablie.

How am I supposed to be able to use a firearm for defense when walking home from work at 2:30 AM through the wonderful ghettos surrounding Yale U. if having a concealed weapon is, to you, a criminal act?

I guess you want me to be free to defend myself as long as I am in my home or business but should I be on the street Ill just have to trust the government and the oh so wonderful police to protect me and mine?



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Look no matter where you stand on the gun control debate, the presence of guns is *ONE* variable of many in determining how much violent crime is commited. Guns by themselves do not lead to a large number of crimes, but must be coupled with other factors like widespread poverty, widespread unemployment or under employment, widespread lack of morality, etc.

If you could take away all the guns tomorrow, many of the people commiting gun crimes would be stabbing people or using other weapons instead. A million hoodlums with knives will cause less mischief than a million hoodlums with guns, so eliminating guns would eliminate a lot of the death and destruction.

I see the crime that comes *partially* as the result of the second ammendment is one of the prices we pay for living in a free society. If you do not want to be exposed to anything that is sacriligious, pornagraphic, offensive, or dangerous, go live in a totalitarian society. If you want freedom, be prepared to pay for it.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
This thread has gotten so off-topic, it's not even funny. Let's stick to the original topic.

Knowing that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, how do we cut down on the violence perpetuated in urban areas?

[edit on 1/8/2007 by supercheetah]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Roper, you'll have to draw my attention to the part that I'm missing. I see life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Bustin' a cap in yo' butt... that I don't see. I don't care if you've got a holster or if you're carrying "Mexican", one way or another there is no guarantee of the right to vigilantism, so that can and should be outlawed in order to facilitate the effective removal of these instruments of tyranny from our public. If you're carrying a weapon for the purpose of killing somebody, you go to jail.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I hope you see these paired statements are incompatablie.

They are not patently incompatible. Their compatibility is contingent upon properly formed laws. There is no constitutional guarantee of any specific definition of justifiable homicide, therefore it is possible for laws to be inacted which make public use of firearms illegitimate for self defense. Afterall, if we're all going to be running around like we're Wild Bill, what are we spending all of this money on law enforcement for?

Bottom line, the constitution doesn't promise you the right to carry a weapon around for self defense. The right to keep and bear arms is given in the context of the militia. That leaves it at the discretion of our legislative process. Since it is clear that civilian weapons in public kill more innocent people than they save, there is no doubt where the law should come down on this subject.


I guess you want me to be free to defend myself as long as I am in my home or business but should I be on the street Ill just have to trust the government and the oh so wonderful police to protect me and mine?


So you'd rather that everyone in that ghetto be armed rather than unarmed, because you think that you're some kind of cowboy who's gonna drum his fingers on ol' peacemaker and send a whole gang running?

I know more about shooting people than most; it was a big part of my job description for a while. I also know a little more than a thing or two about rough neighborhoods. My knowledge in these two areas tells me that my best chance of not getting shot is not having my own gun, but being unarmed having a whole police department full of armed men routinely insuring that everybody else is unarmed too.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by supercheetah
This thread has gotten so off-topic, it's not even funny. Let's stick to the original topic.

Knowing that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, how do we cut down on the violence perpetuated in urban areas?

[edit on 1/8/2007 by supercheetah]


In order to solve the problem that surrounds gun violence, you have to tackle the other factors that surround it. The conservatives will say gun crimes occur because of a widespread lack of morality, and that criminals are too lazy, ignorant, or stupid to live an honest life, so they resort to a life of crime to make their way in this world. Liberals say that gun crimes occur because of a widespread lack of opportunity, and that people resort to a life of crime because they feel they have no other opportunities in this world. I think they are both correct, and not necessarily mutually exclusive. We are talking about a complex phenomena here, involving thousands of people, each individual's behavior being influenced and determined by varying factors, and each individual in and of himself acting for complex reasons.

I think a fundamental problem towards crime is crime will subside when criminals feel they can and must live an honest law abiding life, rather than a life of crime. This involves fusing both the conservative and liberal viewpoints. Would be criminals must feel they can make a good living for themselves by providing them with lawful opportunities for success. At the same time, they must be inculcated with values and morality so they see the value in these opportunities, which will certainly involve hard work and drudgery that a life of crime does not necessarily involve. Pulling this off is a major undertaking, that involves overhauls on many levels. Millions of parents will need to get better at being parents. At the end of the day, it seems easier to just eliminate the factor of gun ownership to solve the problem.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Bottom line, the constitution doesn't promise you the right to carry a weapon around for self defense. The right to keep and bear arms is given in the context of the militia.


What about us hunters? Do I have to give up one of my favorite activities because there are people out there that misuse firearms? There are plenty of responsible firearm owners in this country. Do we need to penalize them for something they would never think of doing?



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
What about us hunters? Do I have to give up one of my favorite activities because there are people out there that misuse firearms?

While the right to hunt is not constitutionally protected, it is not automatically proscribed. Hunting is not in conflict with the laws necessary to keep guns out of public. I've never advocated confiscating guns. I've only said they shouldn't be carried in public in a manner consistent with the intent to shoot a human being.

Transporting a locked deer rifle, shotgun, etc to a place where you can legally hunt poses very little threat, because I don't think I'm in nearly as much danger of a road rage shooting if somebody has to pull over, get out of their car, unlock their rifle, and load it before they can blow my head off.

In so many words, I've got no problem with hunters. I don't have a problem with guns. I like weapons, I believe in the right to own them, I believe they are a vital check against the development of tyranny. I just don't want every joker in public to have a loaded weapon on his person. I trust that you've noticed some of the goofy people running around in our country, right? I wouldn't sell a potato gun to some of them, much less do I want them to have a 9mm within easy reach every time they feel like they have to defend their honor.


So I absolutely do not believe in penalizing responsible firearm owners. I just don't believe that the definition of a responsible firearm owner includes the majority of people who are carrying handguns in public, and therefore I believe that we are all safer if we all agree not to be armed in public and empower our police to rigidly enforce this agreement on those who do not respect the law.

So great is my respect for responsible firearm owners that I do not believe they should have to live their lives with a finger on the trigger, constantly assessing who around them might be a threat and who they will have to shoot first if things get ugly.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   


I know more about shooting people than most; it was a big part of my job description for a while. I also know a little more than a thing or two about rough neighborhoods. My knowledge in these two areas tells me that my best chance of not getting shot is not having my own gun, but being unarmed having a whole police department full of armed men routinely insuring that everybody else is unarmed too.


Your stance on this subject is pure in heart but How many "attemped shootings are stoped? " For most part I agree with you but i'm not currently ready to put my faith nor security in the hands of a reactive police force. There are far to many cops devoted to traffic and drug issues for them to protect me.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoknew
reactive police force. There are far to many cops devoted to traffic and drug issues for them to protect me.


I agree with you as far as reactive police forces go. A big part of my approach to political issues is refusing to be trapped into one of two imperfect camps. I look for the third option, and the third option means finding creative ways to alter indirectly related factors, such as the reactive nature of police intervention.

In order to rule out carrying for self defense purposes, you'd have to provide proactive police protection. This can be done in a number of ways, ranging from basics to more involved measures.

First and foremost, the police need to get out there and do their job. They have to be well trained in establishing probable cause and conducting legal searches, and they have to be committed to getting into the problem areas of their city and establishing a presence and observation so that they intercept these people who are carrying guns around in their day to day before they reach the day where that gun finally gets used. With this needs to come a strong penalty.

Federal programs targeting high crime neighborhoods in major cities offering businesses low or no interest long term loans to install high quality metal detectors (there are kinds out there which can distinguish between car keys and a gun) which could be networked to police stations would be a more ambitious idea but perhaps worth investigating. Afterall, these business owners stand to make money if their neighborhoods become safer- you'd be surprised how many of them might take advantage of the offer.

Requiring proof of gun registration to buy ammo would be simple and effective- if a 19 year old kid in a city with a high rate of gun violence is buying ammunition when he doesn't own a registered weapon, that's what you call a clue.

And of course I don't claim to have all the answers. There are quite likely other steps that would have to be taken as well. However if there are sound ways to empower the police force to be proactive rather than reactive so that private citizens do not have to feel compelled to arm themselves just to go outdoors, then it would serve us well to enact those measures, and as they prove themselves, begin redefining our laws to be tougher on irresponsible/illegal carrying of weapons.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   
too true vagabond!!!


A proactive or preventive work force would help ease the situation! However should people be allowed to have a gun in their house? (you may have already answer this somewhere, sorry if I overlooked it.)

I mean we already have corrupt cops and officals, what would stop them on intruding upon our homes now defenseless. I'm merely playing devils advocate here but it is a fear. Not saying I'd shoot a cop who threating me in my house? not sure really, but i'd have to have a gun first.

By the way I've seen you (vagabond) on tons of posts, good stuff man. Your bring great stuff to every forum I've seen you in. see ya around.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoknew
However should people be allowed to have a gun in their house? (you may have already answer this somewhere, sorry if I overlooked it.)


Obviously so. Since we have the right to keep and bear arms, there are very few ways around the fact that people must be able to have them in their house. I stand by my belief that this right is protected in the context of the militia, but I also acknowledge the both under the laws of the united states (which make virtually everyone a member of the "unorganized militia") and the implications of the circumstances of the revolution, it is intended that anyone be able to have them regardless of militia membership, so that militias may be raised when necessary.
This means that one doesn't necessarily have a constitutionally protected right to self defense by firearm inside their home, but it does leave the matter subject to the law, and I believe that there is absolutely no reason why the law should ever fail to acknowledge the right to self defense in your home, since there is little if any drawback to this beyond what already must exist as an unfortunate but worthwhile price of our second amendment rights.


I mean we already have corrupt cops and officals, what would stop them on intruding upon our homes now defenseless.

This is of course the very core of the second amendment and why we are allowed to have them in our homes- so that the ultimate recourse against tyranny is not reserved soley to the organs of government, which more often than not will fall under the influence of a tyrant.


Not saying I'd shoot a cop who threating me in my house?

I would. Not a question in my mind. My mother was raped by a police officer when I was about 10. Unfortunately I was 10 and all I could do about it was beat up the cops son (which I did). My mom went to the press and internal affairs. The police department protected the offender, got him assigned to a neighboring force, which promptly put him in a PR position and made him into a community hero while threatening to reveal embarrassing details from my mom's past to the press if she continued. Several years later we had to leave the area because my mother was being followed and recieving death threats- she did a little checking and found out that people who cross our police department are very accident prone.

Sorry to give you my life story, but yeah, I'm saying that I see your point and I'd absolutely defend my family against a threat, no matter what color his car is.


By the way I've seen you (vagabond) on tons of posts, good stuff man.


Thanks very much. I've enjoyed your input here too and I'll have an eye out for you.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoknew


I know more about shooting people than most; it was a big part of my job description for a while. I also know a little more than a thing or two about rough neighborhoods. My knowledge in these two areas tells me that my best chance of not getting shot is not having my own gun, but being unarmed having a whole police department full of armed men routinely insuring that everybody else is unarmed too.


Your stance on this subject is pure in heart but How many "attemped shootings are stoped? " For most part I agree with you but i'm not currently ready to put my faith nor security in the hands of a reactive police force. There are far to many cops devoted to traffic and drug issues for them to protect me.


Ive always warned people against putting their life and safety in the hands of some high-school jocks being paid 35K a year to show up once a crime has already been committed and only stand in the citizens way when defense of property and person comes into play. So kudos to you, whoknew.

How about as part of being permitted to carry a concealed weapon the citizen must complete local academy training and pass. He must also agree to regular training and drills. In exchange for this the citizen becomes a certified peace officer and can act in such a capacity when opportunities arrive. If training is missed permit is revoked. If any crime is committed permit is revoked permanently.

I think if any plain clothes individual out there could be a cop at any time of any day sooner or later the criminal element would become paranoind and forced back into the shadows even further.

Ive always wanted a well trained citizenry to care for itself rather than trusting a few working class thugs with badges to keep the peace.

I cant believe I said "kudos."



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
A proactive police force? This will become the largest, most brutal gang.

Police are human with human frailties. How many time have you heard of corrupt police being caught? Give the cops more power and we as a nation are doomed. A police state is the answer? Not no my watch!

I have caught Law enforcement offices breaking traffic laws by the dozen. Highway patrol, Sheriff deputies, City Cops, and DA.

There are a lot of people committed to crime, there is a lot of money in it. More than working at Wal-Mart.

Now someone will say ,"raise the minimum wage"! "Minimum wage would need to to 100,000 $/ year. Inflation would be so high that 100,000 $ would be the new poverty line.

No, we have criminals because THEY like it. They like the power over people.


Roper



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Roper, nobody said anything about a police state. As a matter of fact, what I described is not substantially different from what most people live with right now, because we do have police with guns who are allowed to conduct searches and most people don't carry guns. All I'm suggesting is that we enact standards requiring police to do their bloody job and catch criminals who carry weapons.


Thisguy, that's a really interesting idea. There are a lot of details to think over, but at a glance I think I could be persuaded towards the idea of establishing volunteer peace-officer programs like the one you are describing.

One of the critical considerations however is accountability. If somebody is going to be a peace officer, they are going to have to conduct themselves like it. This means very specific rules on use of force and conflict of interest- we can't have a bunch of civilians with badges and guns that they never use for the public good but pull out every time they get into an argument over a parking space. With the right checks in place however, that could be a nice step towards striking a balance between the benefits of deterrence and the benefits of an unarmed public environment.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   


posted by supercheetah

I think the Second Amendment is an extremely important part of the US Constitution, and it's abysmal the constant attacks upon it, but...

There's something that irks me about defenders of the Second Amendment (for all you non-US-peoples, that's the right to keep and bear arms around here) . . “ [Edited by Don W]



I have demonstrated elsewhere that it is a mis-conception of the reasons behind the FFs writing the Second Amendment in 1790, and how the courts have treated it. A serious disconnect that causes endless problems. You can review it for yourself at Articles of Confederation, via Google, Avalon Project, Article 6, Paragraph 4. Then you should review the 4 references to the militias found in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 and various clauses. There are no militias in the US in 2007. The 2nd Aamendment relates only to militias, as any straightforward reading will demonstrate, and the best you can say for it today is, it is archaic. Finally, there are 100s of laws restricting the “right” to keep and bear arms, so while I concede the NRA is enamored with the 2nd Amendment, the legislatures and courts are not so much impressed by it.



I know people in the prison system . . most of these inmates have lived with violence all their lives . . Many have lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc. to gun violence . . One thing from these stories of inmates is that violence is the only way most of them know how to solve their problems . . now they're in environments with other violent people.


Three is good evidence indicating 10% to 15% of the people in prison are innocent. Illinois was found to have 7% of death row inmates innocent. A very large and very vocal part of the American population is mean spirited about prisons and prisoners. Americans are simplistic about criminal laws. “If you don’t like something, make it against the law; if that does not stop it, double the penalty.” 25% of black males under 40 years of age have some kind of criminal “record.” Racism is alive and well in America. Justice on the cheap.



“ . . the root of the problem is that people grow up in neighborhoods filled with violence. Violence begets violence. Therefore, the influence of violence must end . .



Who owns those neighborhoods? I do not believe it is the people who live in them. Not all those neighborhoods are public housing projects. Why do not many of the good people who do live in such neighborhoods stay in those neighborhoods? There must be some reason for this. This whole thing smells like Apartheid North to me.

Nothing happens by accident. Banks practiced “Blue Lining” and still do although now it is more subtle. A line drawn on a city map. People living inside that area could not borrow money to buy their own homes. Most of the rental property inside the Blue Line was owned by people living outside the area.

Absentee landlords. Almost invariably white and members of the so-called “movers and shakes” of the community. People we whites call “Good People.” Yes, there are some blacks who are also exploiting other blacks and poor whites. But this underlies the problem.



A federal group ought to be organized to study the psychology and networks of gangs - both in prisons and in neighborhoods.



Every person who obtains a PhD writes a dissertation. Upon acceptance and approval, these papers are deposited in the school’s achieves. Public libraries maintain an index with synopsis of every PhD document. If you find one that appeals to you, the library will solicit a copy from the school in possession. The charge is nominal. Almost every topic under the Sun has been studied methodically and intelligently. I used this service one time. It was so long ago, I’ve forgotten the name of the index, but surely any one can find this at a large central library. The index of doctoral dissertations.



The prison system needs to start doing psychological evaluations of all inmates to evaluate their propensity for violence and manipulation, and then sent off to appropriate prisons that can handle those particular individuals. We also need to invest in programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism . . “



I’m from Ky. You will be pleased to know this is being done. In Ky there are 9 different categories of inmates. Old. Young. Passive. Aggressive. Gay. And etc. I expect this is a practice in most states and the Federal system. It is done for 2 reasons. 1) to make it safer for staff. 2) trial lawyers have sued prisons for neglectful care of inmates. Keep this in mind when you hear the Republican’s mantra of “controlling” lawyers. Any socially conscious person who votes GOP is shooting himself or herself in the foot. That’s a fact.



City Suffers 8 Slayings In 12 Days
Just 12 days into the new year, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is investigating eight murders and numerous other shootings and stabbings The latest shooting - a dozen or more bullets sprayed in the North Shore neighborhood of North Pearl Street Thursday evening -- sent four teenagers to the hospital. The three boys and one girl aged 14 to 18 were recovering from relatively minor injuries, but the quadruple shooting shook the neighborhood and has at least one family talking about finding a safer place to live. "We've got to go after the young thugs that carry guns," Jacksonville Sheriff John Rutherford said on Friday. Rutherford said last year's violence shocked the community and motivated neighbors, churches, and even businesses to help police and try to reach kids before their crimes turn deadly. "You can't arrest your way out of a murder problem because the arrest is based on a murder that's already occurred," Rutherford said. "We've got to prevent the murders, and that is a long-term fix."

In New Orleans, where nine people have died by violence this year, thousands of protestors marched to City Hall on Thursday and called on the federal government to step in.Rutherford said he's not sure what the issues are in New Orleans, but, "I know what's going on here and this community is engaged." The sheriff said he's going to lobby for more drug and mental health rehabilitation to also help combat violence. Jacksonville AP.



[edit on 1/14/2007 by donwhite]







 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join