Interesting Legal Opinion regarding Firearms

a reply to: FyreByrd

you know what they say about Opinions, along with a certain body part everybody's got one.
i tend not to listen to ones that have a financial interest, where they get 25% percent of the settlement.

a reply to: Answer

What an ignorant comment, this is an international forum.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: Answer

What an ignorant comment, this is an international forum.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, but thank you for your comment.

You are right that this is an international forum but people with no actual understanding of the issues could politely refrain from commenting instead of spouting off an opinion.

I did not say "you aren't allowed to post that." If I had, your comment might be warranted. Instead, you just wanted to post something.

I don't go around sticking my nose in the politics of other countries because I don't live there... but several of the UK members do it all the time with U.S. gun laws because of what they think they know about the situation. They're always 100% wrong, but they do it anyway and the thread devolves into an anti-gun vs pro-gun debate for absolutely no good reason. It has happened in nearly every firearm-related thread.

They live in an anti-gun culture. It would be akin to a fundamentalist Muslim living under sharia law lambasting everyone and turning every thread into an argument because our women don't wear the proper clothing, or we have sex outside of marriage, or any of the other nonsense that they believe because of where they live.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: Answer

What an ignorant comment, this is an international forum.

You are right that this is an international forum but people with no actual understanding of the issues could politely refrain from commenting instead of spouting off an opinion.

Opinion? No offence, but seems your the one "spouting off an opinion".

Fact is, claiming more guns makes for a safer society is a completely flawed opinion. Its not just my "opinion" either, its backed up with solid stats. The UK has a population of about 64 million, yet only had 33 gun related homicides in 2010. Where as Texas (for example) has a population of about 26 million and had 801 gun related homicides in 2010.

UK gun violence stats
US gun violence stats by state

I don't go around sticking my nose in the politics of other countries because I don't live there... but several of the UK members do it all the time with U.S. gun laws because of what they think they know about the situation. They're always 100% wrong, but they do it anyway and the thread devolves into an anti-gun vs pro-gun debate for absolutely no good reason. It has happened in nearly every firearm-related thread.

Just because you may choose to only know about whats happening in your own little box, doesn't mean everyone else does.

Personally, I don't even care how lax the gun laws are in the US, if people want to have easy access to guns, well good for them. It just irritates me when I read these ignorant flawed arguments people use about how it makes a safer society, when the facts clearly show the opposite.

I'm not even "anti-gun", nor do I come from an "anti-gun"country, we just have stricter regulations on owning them. Our laws weren't much different than the US until 97 and most rural people own rifles and love hunting.

Anyway, sorry to burst your bubble mate. But you can't expect me not to respond, when you accuse me of being ignorant for stating basic fact.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Opinion? No offence, but seems your the one "spouting off an opinion".

Hardly, I have facts to back up everything I say.

Fact is, claiming more guns makes for a safer society is a completely flawed opinion. Its not just my "opinion" either, its backed up with solid stats. The UK has a population of about 64 million, yet only had 33 gun related homicides in 2010. Where as Texas (for example) has a population of about 26 million and had 801 gun related homicides in 2010.

UK gun violence stats
US gun violence stats by state

Yeah, the folks from the UK love to talk about "gun violence" and ignore the other crime statistics. In a country with 310,000,000 guns where every police officer carries a gun, people are more likely to be shot than in a country where gun ownership is MUCH less prevalent and the police don't carry? Imagine that...

Just because you can point at one aspect and say "we got rid of guns and now we don't have as much gun violence" doesn't mean that any crime problems were solved in your country. The rates of violent crime, robbery, property theft, auto theft, and (according to some sources) murder are higher in the UK than in the U.S.

Getting rid of guns didn't make the UK safer than the US so I don't know why you seem so proud of that "accomplishment."

So you're less likely to be shot in the UK? That's all well and good but you're still just as likely to be stabbed, bludgeoned, or beaten.

Source

Also, you might want to pay closer attention to the Wiki article you used as a source.

Here's the stats for Washington D.C.:

Gun Murder Rate: 16.5
Gun ownership percentage: 3.6%

Every other state in the U.S. has a gun ownership percentage at least double that in D.C. but the gun murder rates in those places don't come anywhere near double digits.

It's not hard to determine from that data that more guns do not equal more gun murders... interesting, huh?

I really appreciate you sharing that link. I'll be sure to use it as a reference the next time someone tries to claim that more guns lead to more crimes and if we'd just pass some laws against guns, it would solve the problem.

I wonder if that is why over the last few years i have seen a few "no guns allowed" signs that said except LEOs and CCW holders.

This gives a business the protection from these lawyers and at the same time puts the fear of armed people in the mind of criminals.

These lawyers are just pushing the public that they should sue businesses any time there is a gun crime on there property.

These are also know as Frivolous litigation lawyers that do Frivolous Lawsuit shakedowns.
lawsuits.ultratrust.com...
There are businesses that will settle out of court rather then take a chance on a jury giving a big settlement.

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Americas lax gun laws and the arguments people come up with for why there is some sort of logic to them are just stupid, its as simple as that. Wish there was a more intelligent way to put it, but there just isn't. The fact there's over 10,000 gun related murders a year in the US speaks for itself.

Yeah, shooting off a few rounds is fun and having a locked & ready semi-automatic hand gun under your bed would give the perception of being safer, but it doesn't make you safer in reality. Not when everyone else also has easy access to guns.

So you're safer if you don't have a gun? Even though you just said that its so easy for everyone to get one?

Logic is hard.

What logic is that? What does 'being easy to get a gun' proceed to 'safer with a gun' or the otherway around for that matter.

Please look up the word.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: FyreByrd

Building owners should also post "no raping" signs for the same reason. After all, this is about lawyers, not safety.

In fact rape victims can sue commercial building owners for rapes that occur on their premises:

www.crimevictimlawyerusa.com...

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Thats priceless, the nra offices are gun free.

No, they aren't.

It's been repeated by a bunch of online articles and blogs but people have called the NRA headquarters and confirmed that A) employees with permits can carry and B) visitors with permits can carry.

I've had to use this line several times lately but: the anti-gun side pushes nothing but lies. Every single "fact" that they present does not hold up under scrutiny.

Can you offer any verifiable evidence to the contrary? Hear-Say is not something rational people based opinions or decisions on.

originally posted by: DAVID64
Surely their stance on guns is not connected to politics or profit.
m.mayerbrown.com...

The Chicago office's record of public service is well known. Our attorneys have held a range of political offices-including Assistant US Secretary of State, Attorney General for the State of Illinois, Counsel to the Governor of State of Illinois, Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party and, currently, US Representative for Special Political Affairs to the United Nations-and represent both major parties. Several of the City of Chicago's recent corporation counsels and the Mayor's Chief of Staff came directly from Mayer Brown.

If you read the OP you would have seen that it's clearly stated that the 'opinion' was sought by a Gun Victims Advocacy group.

originally posted by: TheBlackTiger
The guns aren't the problem. Man, it's sad that I even need to say that.

.

Fundamentally, I agree with you. However, we see today weapons in the hands of people, law abiding (at least mostly, I've my doubts about compliance with taxes, traffic and business laws and regulations) that have no business with weapons in the home or at work. No safety training, no common sense, and most importantly, anger management skills, thereby they don't mean, IMO, the definition of "well regulated' militia or otherwise.

It would be fine to let people self regulate in this area if - and it's a huge one - their lack of sanity in a given moment can hurt others. I believe there are a lot of 'trained' people that don't have the emotional maturity to carry weapons as demonstrated by the raise in police killings.

When your freedom has the potential to effect others, it's no longer a freedom but a responsibility. I don't see the needed responsibility displayed in many weapon owners - legal or not.

Anger and aggression kill. I acknowledge that; however, the outcome of gun violence is more horrific and deadly in most cases.

And no one, in a civil society has the need for military grade weapons. If you think to protect yourself and your loved ones from a determined military force, you are delusional.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Thats priceless, the nra offices are gun free.

No, they aren't.

It's been repeated by a bunch of online articles and blogs but people have called the NRA headquarters and confirmed that A) employees with permits can carry and B) visitors with permits can carry.

I've had to use this line several times lately but: the anti-gun side pushes nothing but lies. Every single "fact" that they present does not hold up under scrutiny.

Can you offer any verifiable evidence to the contrary? Hear-Say is not something rational people based opinions or decisions on.

You mean like the hear-say that prompted the statement in the first place? Double-standards much? Where is the proof in the OP that the NRA's headquarters are a gun-free zone?

Source 1

The simple fact is, the OP's article uses hearsay to make the claim about the NRA headquarters and there is no official information anywhere. There is only the statement from people who have called the NRA headquarters and asked the question.

You can call them yourselves and verify, if you'd like.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TheBlackTiger
The guns aren't the problem. Man, it's sad that I even need to say that.

.

Fundamentally, I agree with you. However, we see today weapons in the hands of people, law abiding (at least mostly, I've my doubts about compliance with taxes, traffic and business laws and regulations) that have no business with weapons in the home or at work. No safety training, no common sense, and most importantly, anger management skills, thereby they don't mean, IMO, the definition of "well regulated' militia or otherwise.

Who gets to decide the appropriate level of "common sense" and who should or should not have weapons in their home or at work? You? That's not the intent of the Second Amendment. It has been held as an individual right and the statements from our founding fathers confirm that it was not solely intended to guarantee a well regulated militia.

It would be fine to let people self regulate in this area if - and it's a huge one - their lack of sanity in a given moment can hurt others. I believe there are a lot of 'trained' people that don't have the emotional maturity to carry weapons as demonstrated by the raise in police killings.

When your freedom has the potential to effect others, it's no longer a freedom but a responsibility. I don't see the needed responsibility displayed in many weapon owners - legal or not.

I'm going to guess you don't spend enough time around "weapon owners" to make such a statement. While there are some people who are not completely responsible, just like with any dangerous item, their numbers are few and far between. I would know, trust me.

Anger and aggression kill. I acknowledge that; however, the outcome of gun violence is more horrific and deadly in most cases.

The outcome of knife violence is also horrific and deadly. If someone is angry and aggressive enough to murder another human being, they'll find a way.

And no one, in a civil society has the need for military grade weapons. If you think to protect yourself and your loved ones from a determined military force, you are delusional.

This is nonsense. The Second Amendment was written explicitly to recognize people's right to self-defense and to guarantee the ability of people to take up arms against a tyrannical government if needed. Our founding fathers used military grade weapons to protect themselves and their loved ones from a determined military force. They were outmanned and outgunned. The British had superior training and technology. If another "people vs. government" fight ever broke out, a large portion of the military would side with the people and both sides would have control of military equipment... so the oft-repeated idea that "there's no way the people can fight the military" is an ignorant way to look at the hypothetical scenario.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Americas lax gun laws and the arguments people come up with for why there is some sort of logic to them are just stupid, its as simple as that. Wish there was a more intelligent way to put it, but there just isn't. The fact there's over 10,000 gun related murders a year in the US speaks for itself.

Yeah, shooting off a few rounds is fun and having a locked & ready semi-automatic hand gun under your bed would give the perception of being safer, but it doesn't make you safer in reality. Not when everyone else also has easy access to guns.

There's more than 300 million people in the US with the knowledge that, if everyone is packing, Don't mess with them.

Dr.s and the Pharmaceutical Industry Kill WAY more people daily than Isolated gun incidences, which happen to be in cities that have complete Gun Bans and its mostly Black Gang members settling Scores over Territory.....I would be more worried about Big Pharma killing me, than some crazed nuttball with a gun...We just don't go around shooting each other...its not Civil

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Thats priceless, the nra offices are gun free.

No, they aren't.

It's been repeated by a bunch of online articles and blogs but people have called the NRA headquarters and confirmed that A) employees with permits can carry and B) visitors with permits can carry.

I've had to use this line several times lately but: the anti-gun side pushes nothing but lies. Every single "fact" that they present does not hold up under scrutiny.

Can you offer any verifiable evidence to the contrary? Hear-Say is not something rational people based opinions or decisions on.

You mean like the hear-say that prompted the statement in the first place? Double-standards much? Where is the proof in the OP that the NRA's headquarters are a gun-free zone?

Source 1

The simple fact is, the OP's article uses hearsay to make the claim about the NRA headquarters and there is no official information anywhere. There is only the statement from people who have called the NRA headquarters and asked the question.

You can call them yourselves and verify, if you'd like.

I wasn't making the statement, just quoting from an article. You, on the other hand, stated it as fact with no support.

Two entirely different circumstances. Had I said "The NRA bla bla bla" then you could compare the two situations as they would be correctly analogous.

a reply to: Answer

I will refer you to:

www.constitution.org...

Where usage of the phrase, from the appropriate time period are listed

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

As to who sets the standard, well that would be the will of "WE THE PEOPLE" as encoded into law by our elected representatives. And as members of the Union we are responsible for adhering to that WILL whether we agree or not.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Opinion? No offence, but seems your the one "spouting off an opinion".

Hardly, I have facts to back up everything I say.

Fact is, claiming more guns makes for a safer society is a completely flawed opinion. Its not just my "opinion" either, its backed up with solid stats. The UK has a population of about 64 million, yet only had 33 gun related homicides in 2010. Where as Texas (for example) has a population of about 26 million and had 801 gun related homicides in 2010.

UK gun violence stats
US gun violence stats by state

Yeah, the folks from the UK love to talk about "gun violence" and ignore the other crime statistics. In a country with 310,000,000 guns where every police officer carries a gun, people are more likely to be shot than in a country where gun ownership is MUCH less prevalent and the police don't carry? Imagine that...

So we're on the same page then big fella, more guns equals more murders. Thanks for recognizing the only point I was trying to make in the first place.

You could go further and see at gunpolicy.org that us Aussies have double the amount guns than in the UK, on a per 100 person basis and as a result have 3 times the amount of homicides with guns, on a per 100,000 person basis. Point proven.

Getting rid of guns didn't make the UK safer than the US so I don't know why you seem so proud of that "accomplishment."

I'm not "proud" of the UK or any of there "accomplishments". I'm just a person who likes to make the facts clear in the face of ignorant opinions.

So you're less likely to be shot in the UK? That's all well and good but you're still just as likely to be stabbed, bludgeoned, or beaten.

Yes anyone can go to nationmaster and compare the crime rates and you'll see that the crime rates a fairly relative all around in the UK as to the US, which if anything just proves that more guns causes more murders, but has little effect on over all crime rates. Plus both Australia and Canada seem to usually have less crime over all as the US. So there's little evidence to suggest more guns keep people safer in general.

I'm sure firing off a semi-automatic you purchased without the need to be licensed, then be allowed to freely carry it around the streets, is very therapeutic. But don't try to claim it makes a society as a whole safer, or less prone to crime. Because the facts don't support that "opinionated" claim.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Answer

I will refer you to:

www.constitution.org...

Where usage of the phrase, from the appropriate time period are listed

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

As to who sets the standard, well that would be the will of "WE THE PEOPLE" as encoded into law by our elected representatives. And as members of the Union we are responsible for adhering to that WILL whether we agree or not.

Thanks for making my point. Did you do that on purpose? It seems to go against what you've been trying to say...

When one actually reads the founders' words from that time period, it becomes impossible to claim that the 2nd Amendment is anything but a protection of an individual's right to own firearms for self defense and defense against tyranny.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Tom Jefferson obviously had common sense.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn’t Jefferson’s proposal of ‘No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms’ adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755

"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

When you read what all the patriots were saying during that time period, the intention of the 2nd Amendment is painfully obvious. The right doesn't only extend to organized militias and it doesn't only pertain to people and organizations that are "well-regulated."

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Opinion? No offence, but seems your the one "spouting off an opinion".

Hardly, I have facts to back up everything I say.

Fact is, claiming more guns makes for a safer society is a completely flawed opinion. Its not just my "opinion" either, its backed up with solid stats. The UK has a population of about 64 million, yet only had 33 gun related homicides in 2010. Where as Texas (for example) has a population of about 26 million and had 801 gun related homicides in 2010.

UK gun violence stats
US gun violence stats by state

Yeah, the folks from the UK love to talk about "gun violence" and ignore the other crime statistics. In a country with 310,000,000 guns where every police officer carries a gun, people are more likely to be shot than in a country where gun ownership is MUCH less prevalent and the police don't carry? Imagine that...

So we're on the same page then big fella, more guns equals more murders. Thanks for recognizing the only point I was trying to make in the first place.

You could go further and see at gunpolicy.org that us Aussies have double the amount guns than in the UK, on a per 100 person basis and as a result have 3 times the amount of homicides with guns, on a per 100,000 person basis. Point proven.

Getting rid of guns didn't make the UK safer than the US so I don't know why you seem so proud of that "accomplishment."

I'm not "proud" of the UK or any of there "accomplishments". I'm just a person who likes to make the facts clear in the face of ignorant opinions.

So you're less likely to be shot in the UK? That's all well and good but you're still just as likely to be stabbed, bludgeoned, or beaten.

Yes anyone can go to nationmaster and compare the crime rates and you'll see that the crime rates a fairly relative all around in the UK as to the US, which if anything just proves that more guns causes more murders, but has little effect on over all crime rates. Plus both Australia and Canada seem to usually have less crime over all as the US. So there's little evidence to suggest more guns keep people safer in general.

I'm sure firing off a semi-automatic you purchased without the need to be licensed, then be allowed to freely carry it around the streets, is very therapeutic. But don't try to claim it makes a society as a whole safer, or less prone to crime. Because the facts don't support that "opinionated" claim.

More available guns lead to more GUN-RELATED ISSUES. That's common sense.

More guns do not cause more crime or more overall murders. That's the whole point.

Your statement is akin to saying "countries with more motorcycle riders have more motorcycle deaths." Well... thanks Captain Obvious.

You're unable, however, to say "more guns lead to more overall crime" because it's simply not true. If guns were banned tomorrow, crime rates and murder rates would still be insanely high. Your point is moot. Crime is crime and murder is murder... guns have nothing to do with either. There are 300,000-500,000 cases of guns used defensively (almost all of those cases do not end with someone being shot) in the U.S. every year so removing guns from the picture would turn those people into victims of crime.

The availability of guns does not affect the overall crime rate. That's my point that apparently went over your head because you only want to focus on "gun murders" since the rest of the statistics go against your agenda. Remove guns and those become "knife murders" or "strangling murders" or "bludgeoning murders." The victim is still dead, regardless the method. In a nation where criminals often carry guns, it only makes sense that an honest and law-abiding person carry a gun for defense from those criminals just like police officers. Again, common sense.

You stated:

which if anything just proves that more guns causes more murders,

Murder rates in the UK, according to some sources, are higher than the U.S. Violent people are the problem, not guns. Even in a society where guns are outlawed, people will find a way to kill each other.