Your Thoughts? Before I give mine. I'd like to know yours.
D
D
I think that the most notable thing is that the event happened & is bad. A lot of people are hurting & a lot of people are not sure that they should send their kids to school tomorrow. This needs to be fixed.
I think that the second most notable thing is that there is a lot of information manipulation going on. The changing stories could be from inept reporting in the early hours after the event, or it could be bending of the truth after the fact. I wasn't there, so I can't tell you which it is.
It seems strange that we keep hearing about the 26 people that the guy killed, rather than the 27. The first victim (his mom) is not included in the vigils & is seldom mentioned in the media. The fact that she was killed with a .22 & not the "evil black rifle" that politicians are now trying to ban, makes me wonder if the pro gun control spin masters are burring that info to build support for the idea that the black rifle made it possible for this tragedy to occur. I think that is a ludicrous perspective to take. A healthy 20-year-old male is capable of killing 6-year-old kids with a .22, a knife, a pencil or his bare hands. The nut case was the root problem here. If you took away that one piece of hardware from him, he could have found something else to use.
It seems that every time there is a big emergency of any sort, the politicians use it as an excuse for a power grab. In this case they are going after the 2nd Amendment. In other cases they have gone after the 1st (free speech zones), the 4th (patriot act) & many others. The bill of rights is being systematically dismantled & at the same time, the systems of checks & balances in our government are being restructured. I don't see how any of this can possibly be good for the public at large. To steal a line from Ronald Regan, More government is not the answer. More government is the problem.
I don't own one of those funny looking black rifles & I probably never will, but I don't think that going after them with more laws will improve our situation. It will just be one more incremental step towards an even larger government, which is the last thing that we need.
I mean really, this guy already committed a serious crime to get his hands on that rifle (murdered his mom). It's not like having another law on the books would have stopped him. He is a law breaker.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's not one of the ones that's being talked about now. We need to have a big discussion about this situation & not include the people that already have a predetermined agenda to push. This is a real problem. We should not let the politicians play politics with it. We need to find a real solution.
I think that the second most notable thing is that there is a lot of information manipulation going on. The changing stories could be from inept reporting in the early hours after the event, or it could be bending of the truth after the fact. I wasn't there, so I can't tell you which it is.
It seems strange that we keep hearing about the 26 people that the guy killed, rather than the 27. The first victim (his mom) is not included in the vigils & is seldom mentioned in the media. The fact that she was killed with a .22 & not the "evil black rifle" that politicians are now trying to ban, makes me wonder if the pro gun control spin masters are burring that info to build support for the idea that the black rifle made it possible for this tragedy to occur. I think that is a ludicrous perspective to take. A healthy 20-year-old male is capable of killing 6-year-old kids with a .22, a knife, a pencil or his bare hands. The nut case was the root problem here. If you took away that one piece of hardware from him, he could have found something else to use.
It seems that every time there is a big emergency of any sort, the politicians use it as an excuse for a power grab. In this case they are going after the 2nd Amendment. In other cases they have gone after the 1st (free speech zones), the 4th (patriot act) & many others. The bill of rights is being systematically dismantled & at the same time, the systems of checks & balances in our government are being restructured. I don't see how any of this can possibly be good for the public at large. To steal a line from Ronald Regan, More government is not the answer. More government is the problem.
I don't own one of those funny looking black rifles & I probably never will, but I don't think that going after them with more laws will improve our situation. It will just be one more incremental step towards an even larger government, which is the last thing that we need.
I mean really, this guy already committed a serious crime to get his hands on that rifle (murdered his mom). It's not like having another law on the books would have stopped him. He is a law breaker.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's not one of the ones that's being talked about now. We need to have a big discussion about this situation & not include the people that already have a predetermined agenda to push. This is a real problem. We should not let the politicians play politics with it. We need to find a real solution.
Allow me to play the devil's advocate. The first amendment clearly says "Arms". It's not very definitive for a good reason. It allows us to interpret it. The supreme court has established it as "fire arms". Further state legislation is required to define exactly what firearms should be allowed to be possessed. For obvious reasons, there needs to be some regulation as to what is allowed and where. For instance, courthouses, airports etc. The 2nd Amendment states that you have the right to "keep and bear" and it also says "shall not be infringed". Obviously, you have to "infringe" to a point, because times have changed. The "forefathers" could not have possibly predicted aircraft.
If we read the 2nd Amendment verbatim and take it at black and white face value, like the rightwing NRA gun fans seem to, when defending their position, then every citizen should be allowed to have Rocket Launchers, Anti-tank Missiles, Tanks, Attack Helicopters, Heavy Machine guns, etc. When this is brought to their attention, they then contradict their earlier assertions and say well the Supreme Court holds that "arms" means hand-held firearms etc. Meaning they are twisting the definition, when it suits their purposes. If we allow the supreme court to "infringe" by defining that arms means "fire arms" then it stands to reason that a general definition can be used. Since we are a republic. States can further sanction which "fire arms" are suitable to be owned by the public, as they did with Title II (Class III) firearms.
I personally believe the evolution of our species and technology requires that the 2nd Amendment be interpreted in a manner, as I believe, it was intended. Every citizen should have the right to defend their home and family on their own property. In other words, you should be able to have guns in your home to protect your family. No citizen, in my opinion, needs semi-auto or fully-auto weapons. Bolt-action hunting rifles and shotguns are just fine to defend your home. With respect to the street, that's what our police are for.
We Americans have the highest murder rate and gun murder rates out of all the other G3 developed countries. So, the amount of civilian gun ownership IS NOT making our streets safer. Contrarily, more innocents die by lawful gun ownership, than "bad guys" are killed. These stats are all over google. The numbers don't lie. Many countries (Canada, Japan, UK) all of these countries have either banned all guns or restricted them to bolt-action rifles and shotguns for hunting and home defense and their crime rate is a fraction of ours.
I would also like to say that you have about as much chance of getting involved in an instance where a gun is need, than you do being struck by lightning. It's about as reasonable to carry a gun around in public as it is walk around in a suit of armor to avoid skinning your knee. I've lived nearly 40 years and have never "needed" a gun to feel safe. I think most people that carry them, are insecure and need to carry them to feel that sense of power they bring.
I'd like to end this saying that I don't "hate" guns. I just don't think the average paranoid joe/jane with a gun is the person I would trust to protect my streets with a semi-automatic assault rifle or handgun. I'd rather trust a trained pro. The average joe/jane is not. The math is simple. More semi-autos = More murders in a shorter time. It also means an endless supply of guns to bad guys. If you ban them from public it'll drive up the black market price as well, making it more difficult for the crazies to get them. Murder will always exist, but this would make one less way for it to happen. Just another perspective.
D
P.S. Also consider that this guy was a law abiding citizen prior to these murders. Meaning he could have easily bought that rifles himself, because of the current guns laws.
If we read the 2nd Amendment verbatim and take it at black and white face value, like the rightwing NRA gun fans seem to, when defending their position, then every citizen should be allowed to have Rocket Launchers, Anti-tank Missiles, Tanks, Attack Helicopters, Heavy Machine guns, etc. When this is brought to their attention, they then contradict their earlier assertions and say well the Supreme Court holds that "arms" means hand-held firearms etc. Meaning they are twisting the definition, when it suits their purposes. If we allow the supreme court to "infringe" by defining that arms means "fire arms" then it stands to reason that a general definition can be used. Since we are a republic. States can further sanction which "fire arms" are suitable to be owned by the public, as they did with Title II (Class III) firearms.
I personally believe the evolution of our species and technology requires that the 2nd Amendment be interpreted in a manner, as I believe, it was intended. Every citizen should have the right to defend their home and family on their own property. In other words, you should be able to have guns in your home to protect your family. No citizen, in my opinion, needs semi-auto or fully-auto weapons. Bolt-action hunting rifles and shotguns are just fine to defend your home. With respect to the street, that's what our police are for.
We Americans have the highest murder rate and gun murder rates out of all the other G3 developed countries. So, the amount of civilian gun ownership IS NOT making our streets safer. Contrarily, more innocents die by lawful gun ownership, than "bad guys" are killed. These stats are all over google. The numbers don't lie. Many countries (Canada, Japan, UK) all of these countries have either banned all guns or restricted them to bolt-action rifles and shotguns for hunting and home defense and their crime rate is a fraction of ours.
I would also like to say that you have about as much chance of getting involved in an instance where a gun is need, than you do being struck by lightning. It's about as reasonable to carry a gun around in public as it is walk around in a suit of armor to avoid skinning your knee. I've lived nearly 40 years and have never "needed" a gun to feel safe. I think most people that carry them, are insecure and need to carry them to feel that sense of power they bring.
I'd like to end this saying that I don't "hate" guns. I just don't think the average paranoid joe/jane with a gun is the person I would trust to protect my streets with a semi-automatic assault rifle or handgun. I'd rather trust a trained pro. The average joe/jane is not. The math is simple. More semi-autos = More murders in a shorter time. It also means an endless supply of guns to bad guys. If you ban them from public it'll drive up the black market price as well, making it more difficult for the crazies to get them. Murder will always exist, but this would make one less way for it to happen. Just another perspective.
D
P.S. Also consider that this guy was a law abiding citizen prior to these murders. Meaning he could have easily bought that rifles himself, because of the current guns laws.
Please cite the source of the number that you refer to. Obviously you & I have different opinions. I would like to find out of that is because we have seen different data or because we interpret the same data differently.
Please also let me know if the shooter lived in an area where AR pattern rifles are legal to purchase. I don't know where he lived. I am fairly certain that he could not legally have purchased the two handguns that he was carrying, since he is below the federal minimum age for handgun purchase.
Also, the part about needing a gun to feel safe varies depending on where you live, where you travel & what you do for a living in my opinion. Please let me know if you disagree with that.
Thanks,
Jim
Please also let me know if the shooter lived in an area where AR pattern rifles are legal to purchase. I don't know where he lived. I am fairly certain that he could not legally have purchased the two handguns that he was carrying, since he is below the federal minimum age for handgun purchase.
Also, the part about needing a gun to feel safe varies depending on where you live, where you travel & what you do for a living in my opinion. Please let me know if you disagree with that.
Thanks,
Jim
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
The first amendment clearly says "Arms".
I'll assume that was just a typo.
FLJIM wrote:SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
The first amendment clearly says "Arms".
I'll assume that was just a typo.
No. It wasn't a typo. It doesn't say fire arms. It doesn't say nuclear arms. It simple says "arms".
FLJIM wrote:
Please cite the source of the number that you refer to. Obviously you & I have different opinions. I would like to find out of that is because we have seen different data or because we interpret the same data differently.
Please also let me know if the shooter lived in an area where AR pattern rifles are legal to purchase. I don't know where he lived. I am fairly certain that he could not legally have purchased the two handguns that he was carrying, since he is below the federal minimum age for handgun purchase.
Also, the part about needing a gun to feel safe varies depending on where you live, where you travel & what you do for a living in my opinion. Please let me know if you disagree with that.
Thanks,
Jim
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
"There are 270,000,0001 legally owned in the US. In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1. In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1"
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
We are # 4 in the world for "murder with firearms". We are also #1 in developed G3 countries. As Thailand, Columbia and South Africa are not G3 countries. That makes us #1 and this is by a landslide.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
We are also number 1 for "total crime" over ALL nations.
Looks like all those guns allegedly "making people safe" are not really "making people safe. Instead, they are stolen and either used by the thief or sold on the over-saturated black market for an inexpensive price. A ban/heavy regulation, would drive these prices up, because of simple supply and demand. We'd take and endless supply from the "bad guy" and the numbers would dwindle over time, as more and more were confiscated and destroyed.
Here are some more interesting articles:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/
This totally proves my point.
chartsbin.com/view/1454
Canada has 1.67 homicides by firearm per every 100K people. We have 5.22. That means we have 3.12 times the amount of murders per capita, than they do. They have VERY strict firearm laws. I think the real propaganda comes from the NRA and gun fantatics.
Let me finally say again, that I have no problem with gun ownership. I think you should be able to have hunting rifles and shotguns. Just keep them in your home when you're not hunting. There is no need for any of it on the streets. These guns aren't keeping anyone "safe". It's an illusion.
Here's another interesting article I will leave you in parting:
http://prospect.org/article/ten-arguments-gun-advocates-make-and-why-theyre-wrong
D
The typo I spoke of was your reference to the 1st Amendment. I'll assume that you had intended to reference the 2nd.
The total number of guns in the US sounds a little higher than I have seen other sources estimate, but I'll go with it, even though gun policy dot org appears to be an agenda driven organization. Also, that reference cites number of private firearms per country, not per capita. A country of 300 million people (US) is naturally going to have more guns than than a country with a much smaller population.
Your murder with firearms stat appears to be based on 2002 UN report, but it does not specify the source of raw data or the time periods covered in each location. I will need a little more information before I will be able to evaluate the accuracy of that chart.
Your next reference comes from a blog in the Washington Post, a notoriously left leaning publication. The chart that is included is again said to be based on UN numbers, but no real source of raw data is given. Again, they don't even list what time period is covered in each case.
The link that "totally proves your point" comes from an originator that appears to be attempting to develop a sense of hysterical fear that they can cash in on. I notice that they are asking for donations to help their cause. The chart that you reference here shows at least 30 or 40 other countries with higher murder rates, even by their (possibly slanted) estimation. This sort of conflicts with the spirit of one of your earlier points.
Your last example comes from the same suspect source that I just spoke of. It is full of incorrect information.
I see that we have reached different opinions because we have been given different information upon which to form those opinions. If I was forming my opinion based only on the information that you gave, my opinion would be different. That is precisely why I am concerned about the apparent manipulation of information in this case. I think that we (the general public) are being sold a bad bill of goods by people that this country's founders described as "ambitious men".
At least one of us is in possession of bad information. It would probably behoove each of us to reexamine our sources of information.
That's my take on it anyway.
The total number of guns in the US sounds a little higher than I have seen other sources estimate, but I'll go with it, even though gun policy dot org appears to be an agenda driven organization. Also, that reference cites number of private firearms per country, not per capita. A country of 300 million people (US) is naturally going to have more guns than than a country with a much smaller population.
Your murder with firearms stat appears to be based on 2002 UN report, but it does not specify the source of raw data or the time periods covered in each location. I will need a little more information before I will be able to evaluate the accuracy of that chart.
Your next reference comes from a blog in the Washington Post, a notoriously left leaning publication. The chart that is included is again said to be based on UN numbers, but no real source of raw data is given. Again, they don't even list what time period is covered in each case.
The link that "totally proves your point" comes from an originator that appears to be attempting to develop a sense of hysterical fear that they can cash in on. I notice that they are asking for donations to help their cause. The chart that you reference here shows at least 30 or 40 other countries with higher murder rates, even by their (possibly slanted) estimation. This sort of conflicts with the spirit of one of your earlier points.
Your last example comes from the same suspect source that I just spoke of. It is full of incorrect information.
I see that we have reached different opinions because we have been given different information upon which to form those opinions. If I was forming my opinion based only on the information that you gave, my opinion would be different. That is precisely why I am concerned about the apparent manipulation of information in this case. I think that we (the general public) are being sold a bad bill of goods by people that this country's founders described as "ambitious men".
At least one of us is in possession of bad information. It would probably behoove each of us to reexamine our sources of information.
That's my take on it anyway.
Wow,
I kind of wish that I had not responded to this at all in the first place. I don't think that this is the proper forum for this kind of debate. It's not what I came here for.
I think that I'll choose not to engage in any further political conversations here.
Regards,
Jim
I kind of wish that I had not responded to this at all in the first place. I don't think that this is the proper forum for this kind of debate. It's not what I came here for.
I think that I'll choose not to engage in any further political conversations here.
Regards,
Jim
These are number reported by ATF, Bureau of Justice etc. I can provide .gov and .edu links. You can't escape the numbers. Even if they were off a little, it still proves the larges point of all. An armed populous doesn't stop these murderers from committing these crimes. It only allows these murders to commit more heinous crimes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
You can add it up if you like.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
Education Links:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
Media Reports:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politifact-us-has-more-gun-deaths-than-other-large-countries/1145669
This is a political forum.
Saying everyone is "left leaning" because they show proof, is ridiculous. All the numbers are correct. We have lots of gun deaths, lots of guns. Taking some of the fuel from a fire makes it burn dimmer. It's simple logic. It says it right on the Title for this forum. It doesn't show up on the main page for that reason. These discussions are usually very intense and people get heated. haha! It's ok though. I understand you not wanting to talk about it. Though I think people that disagree to find a compromise, else the killings will continue to climb. Society's getting pretty shitty.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
You can add it up if you like.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
Education Links:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
Media Reports:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politifact-us-has-more-gun-deaths-than-other-large-countries/1145669
This is a political forum.
Saying everyone is "left leaning" because they show proof, is ridiculous. All the numbers are correct. We have lots of gun deaths, lots of guns. Taking some of the fuel from a fire makes it burn dimmer. It's simple logic. It says it right on the Title for this forum. It doesn't show up on the main page for that reason. These discussions are usually very intense and people get heated. haha! It's ok though. I understand you not wanting to talk about it. Though I think people that disagree to find a compromise, else the killings will continue to climb. Society's getting pretty shitty.The media sources that you cite show a mixture of correct & incorrect information. I expect that the ATF numbers are probably good. I don't see how they prove your point. Your assertion that an armed populous does not prevent these kinds of events is not supported by this terrible new event. It happened in a gun free zone. There are documented cases that support the opposite position that you claim does not exist.
I agree that saying everyone is left leaning because they show facts would be ridiculous. Please show me where I did this?
As you noted earlier, numbers don't lie, but as you may have failed to notice, the people who interpret & present the numbers sometimes do. That is not a poke at you. That is a poke at some of the people who post the numbers that you reference.
Mark Twain once noted that "There are 3 kinds of lies, 1)lies, 2)damn lies & 3)statistics. He seemed to understand that statistics are only as good as the frame of reference within which they are presented. Again, this is why I am concerned about the apparent manipulation of information in this case.
I am not a member of the NRA & I am not trying to support their position. I view them as another agenda driven organization, & I put them in the same category as some of the sources that you cite.
I do however believe that the US Federal Government has outgrown it's proper size & we the people will not benefit if it continues to grow further. That is the point of my position. I am not a rabid supporter of the Second Amendment alone. I am a firm believer in the entire bill of rights & the entire balance of the US Constitution
As I said before, I do not think that this is the best forum within which to continue this discussion. If you would like to continue to debate the topic with me, I will gladly do so in another place. I don't wish to continue to stain the beauty of this forum with continued banter on this topic.
Regards,
Jim
I agree that saying everyone is left leaning because they show facts would be ridiculous. Please show me where I did this?
As you noted earlier, numbers don't lie, but as you may have failed to notice, the people who interpret & present the numbers sometimes do. That is not a poke at you. That is a poke at some of the people who post the numbers that you reference.
Mark Twain once noted that "There are 3 kinds of lies, 1)lies, 2)damn lies & 3)statistics. He seemed to understand that statistics are only as good as the frame of reference within which they are presented. Again, this is why I am concerned about the apparent manipulation of information in this case.
I am not a member of the NRA & I am not trying to support their position. I view them as another agenda driven organization, & I put them in the same category as some of the sources that you cite.
I do however believe that the US Federal Government has outgrown it's proper size & we the people will not benefit if it continues to grow further. That is the point of my position. I am not a rabid supporter of the Second Amendment alone. I am a firm believer in the entire bill of rights & the entire balance of the US Constitution
As I said before, I do not think that this is the best forum within which to continue this discussion. If you would like to continue to debate the topic with me, I will gladly do so in another place. I don't wish to continue to stain the beauty of this forum with continued banter on this topic.
Regards,
Jim
Wrong. All the media sources I provided match the numbers from the .gov websites. Don't put up strawman arguments to avoid the issue. The facts have been presented. It's the NRA and the gun fanatics that are doctoring numbers. It's such an issue that even countries from abroad are jumping on the bandwagon encouraging us to outlaw semi-automatic weapons.
Furthermore with respect to "statistics" and Mark Twain, that's irrelevant. Why? Because the numbers provided are not a control group (20,000 people) that have been averaged. These are actual totals not statistic of the entire country that have been compared with totals of others. Statistics have nothing to do with it. Nice try though.
With respect to the shootings in "gun free zones", like with Sandy hook. It doesn't matter if a teacher was armed. He snuck in the school and started shooting. He would've still killed students. In fact, a teacher, not trained in tactical use of a fire arm would've most likely killed students with a firearm than save them with one. So again, I have to call bullshit.
In fact, far more often than not, legal guns carried by citizens, kill innocent people through accidental discharges, than they do saving someone from a life or death situation.
The size of the government has nothing to do with this. It's the size of our automatic weapons number. Less guns = less gun-related deaths which = less deaths over all.
This topic is perfectly suited for this forum. This is a "political forum". That is the point. No offense, I think you have an a slight issue with reading comprehension. That's not a stab at you personally, but it's something that seems to cloud your view.
Most people that carry guns, think that their gun will somehow protect them from a violent crime. It's actually not the case. It's like people that say that an armed person in the Aurora, CO theater shooting could've prevented some deaths. That could be the the rare case, it could also be very likely an armed person could've killed more in a cross fire and been killed themselves. Most gun owners aren't trained in police tactics etc. They're more likely to get people killed than save anyone. More often than not, that is the case. You wrote, "There are documented cases that support the opposite position that you claim does not exist." I never claimed once that there aren't instances where an armed citizen has been lucky enough to get a clean shot. There are plenty of people that have been lucky enough to survive bear attacks, lightning strikes, etc. They are the exception not the rule. I don't want some johnny nobody, with no training, patrolling my neighborhood like fucking rambo, because he thinks his pea shooter makes people safe. No thanks! I totally disagree.
I had a feeling no matter how many facts you were represented with, you'd have some excuse to ignore them. Again, the numbers don't lie. There is no need for civilians to be carrying semi-auto or fully auto weapons in public. Bolt action rifles and shotguns are perfectly ok for home defense. The police are perfectly capable of patrolling the streets. Many would argue and say, "they take forever to respond." Well, why don't we take the billions spent on weapons and spend it to hire more police?
Regards,
Don
P.S. The only agenda the pro ban people have is to ban semi-autos. There's no need for them. Having a bolt-action rifle or shotgun is in good keeping of your 2nd amendment and a fair compromise. It sure as hell isn't adding more guns to the equation.
Furthermore with respect to "statistics" and Mark Twain, that's irrelevant. Why? Because the numbers provided are not a control group (20,000 people) that have been averaged. These are actual totals not statistic of the entire country that have been compared with totals of others. Statistics have nothing to do with it. Nice try though.
With respect to the shootings in "gun free zones", like with Sandy hook. It doesn't matter if a teacher was armed. He snuck in the school and started shooting. He would've still killed students. In fact, a teacher, not trained in tactical use of a fire arm would've most likely killed students with a firearm than save them with one. So again, I have to call bullshit.
In fact, far more often than not, legal guns carried by citizens, kill innocent people through accidental discharges, than they do saving someone from a life or death situation.
The size of the government has nothing to do with this. It's the size of our automatic weapons number. Less guns = less gun-related deaths which = less deaths over all.
This topic is perfectly suited for this forum. This is a "political forum". That is the point. No offense, I think you have an a slight issue with reading comprehension. That's not a stab at you personally, but it's something that seems to cloud your view.
Most people that carry guns, think that their gun will somehow protect them from a violent crime. It's actually not the case. It's like people that say that an armed person in the Aurora, CO theater shooting could've prevented some deaths. That could be the the rare case, it could also be very likely an armed person could've killed more in a cross fire and been killed themselves. Most gun owners aren't trained in police tactics etc. They're more likely to get people killed than save anyone. More often than not, that is the case. You wrote, "There are documented cases that support the opposite position that you claim does not exist." I never claimed once that there aren't instances where an armed citizen has been lucky enough to get a clean shot. There are plenty of people that have been lucky enough to survive bear attacks, lightning strikes, etc. They are the exception not the rule. I don't want some johnny nobody, with no training, patrolling my neighborhood like fucking rambo, because he thinks his pea shooter makes people safe. No thanks! I totally disagree.
I had a feeling no matter how many facts you were represented with, you'd have some excuse to ignore them. Again, the numbers don't lie. There is no need for civilians to be carrying semi-auto or fully auto weapons in public. Bolt action rifles and shotguns are perfectly ok for home defense. The police are perfectly capable of patrolling the streets. Many would argue and say, "they take forever to respond." Well, why don't we take the billions spent on weapons and spend it to hire more police?
Regards,
Don
P.S. The only agenda the pro ban people have is to ban semi-autos. There's no need for them. Having a bolt-action rifle or shotgun is in good keeping of your 2nd amendment and a fair compromise. It sure as hell isn't adding more guns to the equation.
Yes, this is a political forum, but it is the political forum on a swing site. I had expected the political discourse here to be focused upon subjects that are related to how legislation affects an individual's right to freedom of expression in the form of the social behavour that they choose to engage in. I had expected to find people here that believed in personal freedom rather than increased governmental control. I had expected to discuss subjects like the police raid at Trapeze in Ft. Lauderdale or the closing of the Cherry Pit in TX or the closing of Club Chamelion in Phoenix. I had expected to find people who wanted to work together to share ideas on how our subset of society might work together to peacfully coexist with the rest of the population that chooses to live a more traditionally acceptable lifestyle. That is what I would have hoped to find here.
When you first asked for the opinions of others regarding the subject at hand here, I had expected that you were looking to gather a variety of perspectives from other people in this comunity. Had I expected that I would encounter a closed mnded perspective that wishes to matastisize itself upon others, I would not have responded in the first place.
I only ask of you what I wouold ask of any other person. Please look at all the information that is available to you & then look around you & use your personal life experiane to make an educated decision. Please do not allow yourself to be pushed to believing something by an agenda driven group from either side of any given debate.
From the single sided nature of what you have posted above, it looks to me like you may have been fed information from an agenda driven group, which you are now regurgitating & purveying here. If that assesment is incorrect, then I apologize. If it is correct, then I ask you to please open your eyes & look around a little more. I am not asking you to change your opinion. I am only asking you to be sure that you have collected a fair & ballanced collection of information upon which to base your opinion. Action upon partial information can be dangerous. It can result in very bad things happening.
When you first asked for the opinions of others regarding the subject at hand here, I had expected that you were looking to gather a variety of perspectives from other people in this comunity. Had I expected that I would encounter a closed mnded perspective that wishes to matastisize itself upon others, I would not have responded in the first place.
I only ask of you what I wouold ask of any other person. Please look at all the information that is available to you & then look around you & use your personal life experiane to make an educated decision. Please do not allow yourself to be pushed to believing something by an agenda driven group from either side of any given debate.
From the single sided nature of what you have posted above, it looks to me like you may have been fed information from an agenda driven group, which you are now regurgitating & purveying here. If that assesment is incorrect, then I apologize. If it is correct, then I ask you to please open your eyes & look around a little more. I am not asking you to change your opinion. I am only asking you to be sure that you have collected a fair & ballanced collection of information upon which to base your opinion. Action upon partial information can be dangerous. It can result in very bad things happening.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
Well, why don't we take the billions spent on weapons and spend it to hire more police?
The funny thing there is - that's what the NRA just suggested. It seems that you are now supporting the NRA perspective.
There is a huge difference between personal freedom of expression and social issues and anarchy with everyone toting guns like the old west. The logic the NRA and you are using to justify semi-autos can be applied to any armament, ie. Tanks, Helicopters, Nukes etc. If "freedom" is what you're using as an argument we should make everything legal. There should be no accountability. Every person for themselves. That's anarchy, it doesn't work. The flaw in that philosophy is that we do not live alone with no boundaries. We live in society, a community and as such, we need to have law and order. Chaos doesn't work. This is a straw man argument. It, like most of your argument is ridiculous.
Social issues like personal choices that affect you and other consensual parties are an entirely different beast. Guns don't affect just consensual parties. They affect entire communities. I personally don't think the average American should be patrolling our streets with guns.
You wrote, "When you first asked for the opinions of others regarding the subject at hand here, I had expected that you were looking to gather a variety of perspectives from other people in this comunity" I was trying to gather perspectives. I also said I would give my opinion. I would expect that you could validate your position. After all to hold on to guns for no good reason or to argue for the sake of arguing, is a waste of everyone's time.
You wrote, " Had I expected that I would encounter a closed mnded perspective that wishes to matastisize itself upon others, I would not have responded in the first place." If differing in opinion from you is close-minded, you are by your own definition close-minded. You've provided no data or sources to refute what I've said. You've provided vague disagreements and accused me of buying propaganda etc. I presented facts. When you didn't like my source, I provided you with governmental unbiased sources. Still, you were unable to defeat my position. All I got was.. more of the same from you. The truth is, It is you that is close-minded because despite being presented a very solid argument, you still hold your position, stubbornly, I might add. This fact, also takes care of the ridiculous paragraph, that followed that quote, as well. It's you, my passive aggressive friend, that needs to let go of the NRA's perspective, because they, like you, cannot make those numbers (facts) go away. I welcome a solid counter argument, persuade me from my opinion.
The facts remain, more guns = more innocent deaths by guns. The legalization of guns (esp. semi-autos) has done nothing to make those numbers shrink. Contrarily, the numbers have grown. All a massive amount of semi-autos do is give law-abiding citizens a false sense of security, increases the chances of children or irresponsible adults getting a hold of them and accidentally killing themselves or someone else, criminals stealing them and using them in a crime or selling them for cheap on the black market, because of the over-saturation. The supply is so countless, anyone can get one for very little on the street. The answer to solving this problem isn't to introduce more of them to the street. It's ridiculous. All I ask is that you qualify your "logic".
With respect to your last paragraph on your first post, again, the sources I provided were not of an agenda but hard numbers from our governments public safety. The FBI, ATF. It is you that has been regurgitated NRA propaganda. With no foundation for your position. Not one link in fact. No sources. You've provided no data to back your claims. Where is it?
I think you should research more before you decide to engage in a debate. You should practice what you preach. 
When you come back with something other than empty claims, I will take your position seriously. Until then, you're just spouting off NRA agenda and then pointing a hypocritical finger as though your word alone is enough.
The NRA's position IS NOT to ban semi-autos and take the money that would be spent on them on more police. Come now. You're not even being honest now. The NRA is actually fighting to get less and less control/restriction over weapons and even fighting for full-autos in states that don't allow them. Again, provide unbiased sources that back your position, as I have and we'll continue. Until then.. I just can't take you seriously. This isn't a personal stab at you. It's just fact. Happy New Year.
Regards,
D
Social issues like personal choices that affect you and other consensual parties are an entirely different beast. Guns don't affect just consensual parties. They affect entire communities. I personally don't think the average American should be patrolling our streets with guns.
You wrote, "When you first asked for the opinions of others regarding the subject at hand here, I had expected that you were looking to gather a variety of perspectives from other people in this comunity" I was trying to gather perspectives. I also said I would give my opinion. I would expect that you could validate your position. After all to hold on to guns for no good reason or to argue for the sake of arguing, is a waste of everyone's time.
You wrote, " Had I expected that I would encounter a closed mnded perspective that wishes to matastisize itself upon others, I would not have responded in the first place." If differing in opinion from you is close-minded, you are by your own definition close-minded. You've provided no data or sources to refute what I've said. You've provided vague disagreements and accused me of buying propaganda etc. I presented facts. When you didn't like my source, I provided you with governmental unbiased sources. Still, you were unable to defeat my position. All I got was.. more of the same from you. The truth is, It is you that is close-minded because despite being presented a very solid argument, you still hold your position, stubbornly, I might add. This fact, also takes care of the ridiculous paragraph, that followed that quote, as well. It's you, my passive aggressive friend, that needs to let go of the NRA's perspective, because they, like you, cannot make those numbers (facts) go away. I welcome a solid counter argument, persuade me from my opinion.
The facts remain, more guns = more innocent deaths by guns. The legalization of guns (esp. semi-autos) has done nothing to make those numbers shrink. Contrarily, the numbers have grown. All a massive amount of semi-autos do is give law-abiding citizens a false sense of security, increases the chances of children or irresponsible adults getting a hold of them and accidentally killing themselves or someone else, criminals stealing them and using them in a crime or selling them for cheap on the black market, because of the over-saturation. The supply is so countless, anyone can get one for very little on the street. The answer to solving this problem isn't to introduce more of them to the street. It's ridiculous. All I ask is that you qualify your "logic".
With respect to your last paragraph on your first post, again, the sources I provided were not of an agenda but hard numbers from our governments public safety. The FBI, ATF. It is you that has been regurgitated NRA propaganda. With no foundation for your position. Not one link in fact. No sources. You've provided no data to back your claims. Where is it?
I think you should research more before you decide to engage in a debate.
You should practice what you preach. When you come back with something other than empty claims, I will take your position seriously. Until then, you're just spouting off NRA agenda and then pointing a hypocritical finger as though your word alone is enough.FLJIM wrote:SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
Well, why don't we take the billions spent on weapons and spend it to hire more police?
The funny thing there is - that's what the NRA just suggested. It seems that you are now supporting the NRA perspective.
The NRA's position IS NOT to ban semi-autos and take the money that would be spent on them on more police. Come now. You're not even being honest now. The NRA is actually fighting to get less and less control/restriction over weapons and even fighting for full-autos in states that don't allow them. Again, provide unbiased sources that back your position, as I have and we'll continue. Until then.. I just can't take you seriously. This isn't a personal stab at you. It's just fact. Happy New Year.
Regards,
D
I have no fear of my good neighbors guns what so ever. The violent criminal or off balance sociopath having antidepressant roulette played with their brain outside a clinical setting is the one I'm worried about.
What's so bad about legal full automatics anyway? Since 1934, there appear to have been only two
homicides committed with approx. 240,000 legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988,(two years after the ban on further new legally transferable automatics) a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
I wonder how may bullets all those machine guns fired over the last 80 years without hurting anyone. They are notoriously inaccurate...HAHA
As a side note, The fact that he only got 18 years is a sad statement in itself. The average murder sentence served is 15 years. Sometimes released to kill more innocents such as the Firemen who's job is to save life and property.
It's more complex than JUST the gun issue.
---
What's so bad about legal full automatics anyway? Since 1934, there appear to have been only two
homicides committed with approx. 240,000 legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988,(two years after the ban on further new legally transferable automatics) a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
I wonder how may bullets all those machine guns fired over the last 80 years without hurting anyone. They are notoriously inaccurate...HAHA
As a side note, The fact that he only got 18 years is a sad statement in itself. The average murder sentence served is 15 years. Sometimes released to kill more innocents such as the Firemen who's job is to save life and property.
It's more complex than JUST the gun issue.
---
Again, as with the other figures with semi-automatic, I showed you... It's not the legally-owned heavily regulated title II guns in the hands of title two dealers and the small populous of legal owners, but those that are stolen and used by the criminals, from those legal owners. The benefit of owning is shadowed by the risk of them being stolen and used. You failed to mention the massive amount of them that have been used in crimes by criminals, because they are available.
Title II guns are hard to obtain because of HEAVY regulation. You have to go through an extensive FBI background check, you have to pay a $200 transfer tax, you also have to sign an ATF form 5 in which you GIVE UP your 4th amendment right to search and seizure. Let's also add that these weapons are also very limited on the black market. While they are very expensive to obtain legally, they are 3+ times more expensive on the black market, making them very hard to obtain. There is a huge difference as to why far less legal owners have murdered with them. There is no good reason a citizen NEEDS to own them that justifies the risk of them being stolen and used in a crime. Simple math. Again, the risk far outweighs any benefit.
Let me also say that the credit for an over all violent crime decrease isn't given to gun ownership, because while over all violent crime is on a decrease, those committed with firearms have been steadily increasing. I've shown you multiple links that have supported this. I've also shown you links that show that data supports the fact that you have more of a chance of killing an innocent with your "legally owned" firearm, than preventing your own death or the deaths of others. I've also shown that having a gun on your person will heighten your chances of getting killed than had you not been carrying one.
I agree that it's not just guns that are the issue. However, they are a huge part of it. The biggest catalysts should be addressed. I do think we should address pharmaceuticals, background checks. I think current guidelines for Title II firearms should be applied to title 1 firearms. However, the one thing that hasn't been addressed is a country-wide ban of semi-autos. There is absolutely no need for them. The philosophy used to keep them can be used to have anti-tank rockets/missiles and many other heavy weapons and explosives. Legal, "sane" owners would never fire a rocket into a crowd of people. However, that legal, "sane" owner doesn't have the 100% accountability/security that is required to keep such a mass-killing weapon out of the hands of a criminal. The same can be said for semi-autos. We have a flooded market on both the legal and black markets (seemingly endless supply) which allows these weapons to be purchased cheap or stolen from legal owners and used in a crime. This is why we lead the developed world per capita in gun-related deaths, injury and crime. We can stop murder totally, but we sure as hell can do something about those numbers.
With respect to pharmaceuticals, I agree that this is an exacerbating factor in some of the gun related crime, but not all, by any means. The biggest catalysts are availability and capability of the killing tools.
So in essence we are creating our perceived "need" for firearms. We are arming our criminals and then buying more guns to feel protected against them. This "logic" doesn't work. If we take a huge amount of guns out of the pool. A huge amount of death will be prevented.
Title II guns are hard to obtain because of HEAVY regulation. You have to go through an extensive FBI background check, you have to pay a $200 transfer tax, you also have to sign an ATF form 5 in which you GIVE UP your 4th amendment right to search and seizure.
Let's also add that these weapons are also very limited on the black market. While they are very expensive to obtain legally, they are 3+ times more expensive on the black market, making them very hard to obtain. There is a huge difference as to why far less legal owners have murdered with them. There is no good reason a citizen NEEDS to own them that justifies the risk of them being stolen and used in a crime. Simple math. Again, the risk far outweighs any benefit. Let me also say that the credit for an over all violent crime decrease isn't given to gun ownership, because while over all violent crime is on a decrease, those committed with firearms have been steadily increasing.
I've shown you multiple links that have supported this. I've also shown you links that show that data supports the fact that you have more of a chance of killing an innocent with your "legally owned" firearm, than preventing your own death or the deaths of others. I've also shown that having a gun on your person will heighten your chances of getting killed than had you not been carrying one.I agree that it's not just guns that are the issue. However, they are a huge part of it. The biggest catalysts should be addressed. I do think we should address pharmaceuticals, background checks. I think current guidelines for Title II firearms should be applied to title 1 firearms. However, the one thing that hasn't been addressed is a country-wide ban of semi-autos. There is absolutely no need for them. The philosophy used to keep them can be used to have anti-tank rockets/missiles and many other heavy weapons and explosives. Legal, "sane" owners would never fire a rocket into a crowd of people. However, that legal, "sane" owner doesn't have the 100% accountability/security that is required to keep such a mass-killing weapon out of the hands of a criminal. The same can be said for semi-autos. We have a flooded market on both the legal and black markets (seemingly endless supply) which allows these weapons to be purchased cheap or stolen from legal owners and used in a crime. This is why we lead the developed world per capita in gun-related deaths, injury and crime. We can stop murder totally, but we sure as hell can do something about those numbers.
With respect to pharmaceuticals, I agree that this is an exacerbating factor in some of the gun related crime, but not all, by any means. The biggest catalysts are availability and capability of the killing tools.
So in essence we are creating our perceived "need" for firearms. We are arming our criminals and then buying more guns to feel protected against them. This "logic" doesn't work. If we take a huge amount of guns out of the pool. A huge amount of death will be prevented.
So by your logic All those good and honest people should not be allowed certain guns because they might get stolen by criminals? Talk about a failure in logic!
Brainstorming for ways to reduce firearm deaths...
How about the mandatory "proof of ownership" of a Gun Safe before any firearm can be purchased? Difficult maybe, but not impossible.
I would have to imagine that "dramatically increasing" the number of households that have their firearm(s) securely locked up, out of immediate sight, and inaccessible would have a significant impact on firearm related deaths in every community.
How about the mandatory "proof of ownership" of a Gun Safe before any firearm can be purchased? Difficult maybe, but not impossible.
I would have to imagine that "dramatically increasing" the number of households that have their firearm(s) securely locked up, out of immediate sight, and inaccessible would have a significant impact on firearm related deaths in every community.
And if they're all locked up and unloaded it will take longer to access them than it would take for the cops to show up. In the mean time what ever violent crime has been committed and it's all over except the investigation. Then it can be claimed guns don't save anyone from violence as well as conflict with the term to keep AND BEAR arms.
SLOWHAND311 wrote:
So by your logic All those good and honest people should not be allowed certain guns because they might get stolen by criminals? Talk about a failure in logic!
That's exactly what I am saying. It's the same logic behind drunk driving. While some people can react and drive a car perfectly fine at 0.1 some of show impairment at .08 so laws cover everyone. That is why we don't allow the average joe to own a battle tank that's fully armed with ammunition. That's why we don't allow the average joe to privately own massive amounts of C-4 etc. However, by your logic, good and honest people should be allowed to own rocket launchers, fully armed tanks, grenades, attack helicopters etc. After all honest people should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and the would-be criminal that steals a bulldozer or M1A1 Abrams from the local National Guard Armory (It has happened). We might need a TOW Launcher on our car for that. After all "certain" arms in the hands of honest people... blah blah. The truth is, we have to draw a line on weapons that kill massive amounts of people in a short amount of time. Like... DING DING DING!!! WMD'S, military grade explosives, missiles, hell even large fireworks...WHY?? PEOPLE ARE STUPID!!! DANGEROUS! That and guess what? You don't need them. There's no purpose for the public to own them. The logic fails when you try to justify owning something that is a DIRECT threat to the public just for the sake of owning it. There's no benefit. This is the same logic we use to deny WMD's to other countries. Not every country would use nukes to commit terrorist acts (unlike us in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but we try to prevent others from having them because the risk is too high if they get in the hands of who???? THE BAD GUY! There's no failure in my logic. It's you that's not seeing the big picture. The logic is simple and common sense. The risk to public safety is too high. That is why we lead the world by 4 times in gun violence.
ADVENTRSNGHTYCPL wrote:
Brainstorming for ways to reduce firearm deaths...
How about the mandatory "proof of ownership" of a Gun Safe before any firearm can be purchased? Difficult maybe, but not impossible.
I would have to imagine that "dramatically increasing" the number of households that have their firearm(s) securely locked up, out of immediate sight, and inaccessible would have a significant impact on firearm related deaths in every community.
I have to agree partially with slowhand. In homes, I think you should be able to keep and bear them how you choose. No safe is needed. I just think that they don't need to be semi or fully-automatic. The constitution 1) doesn't guarantee what type of arms. A supreme court ruling states small arms, meaning firearms. It doesn't state semi-automatic. As such, it is perfectly within legislative means to define and ban semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms as they have with explosive artillery shells, missiles etc. Citizens don't need semi-autos anymore than they need anti-tank missiles. The risk to public safety is too great to justify the misconceived notion that one is safer owning them, or worse still, that they make the person look cool and they're fun to shoot. etc. All at the cost of innocent lives. 2) The constitution also doesn't state that the arms are to be loaded or "condition 3". It just means that you have the right to keep them and bear (carry them). If we use court rulings, you'll find that constitutionality is constantly under fire in all of the amendments. Again, I think it's ok for a person to have bolt-action rifle or shotgun in their home. What we don't need is a bunch of insecure armed idiots thinking they need to police our streets or get into shoot outs with bad guys in schools, malls or movie theaters etc. All their doing is giving the criminals a steady supply of death tools.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
provide unbiased sources that back your position, as I have and we'll continue. Until then.. I just can't take you seriously. This isn't a personal stab at you. It's just fact. Happy New Year.
Regards,
D
All right, You've sucked me in. I'll give you what you ask for. My position is still that people should do their own research, look at all available information, & then make decisions based on their own personal life experience, but since you seem to want me to respond more directly as you have, I'll have a go at it.
I'll take on your responses in the order in which you presented them. I'll start with your assertion that the gun fans suggest "every citizen should be allowed to have Rocket Launchers, Anti-tank Missiles, Tanks, Attack Helicopters, Heavy Machine guns, etc. " This seems to be a fantasy of yours that you have now brought up more than once. Repetition of a weak argument fails to strengthen it. I am aware of nobody that is suggesting we issue anti-tank missiles to the general public in response to the recent shooting or any other reason. I found no sources to post anywhere that I looked.
What I did find was the Militia Act of 1792. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm. It requires for most all male citizens between the ages of 18 & 45 to equip themselves with - "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed". Now,obviously, the founders of this country did not foresee things like guided missiles, but they did require the average Joe to have arms that were equivalent to those carried by the infantry of every standing army in existence at that time. If we stay on a direct parallel, then I think that the "evil black rifle" has to be included. Since Cannon were not held by the average Joe back then, I think we can rule out tanks & missiles today.
You say " No citizen, in my opinion, needs semi-auto or fully-auto weapons. Bolt-action hunting rifles and shotguns are just fine to defend your home. With respect to the street, that's what our police are for." With all due respect, the last time I called 911 to report a break in, the cops took over 45 minutes to arrive. I was less than a mile from the local police station. In addition, the courts have repeatedly found that the police have no duty to protect the citizens. An example would be the SCOTUS case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html Also, if we stick to your logic & get rid of all semi-autos, that would get rid of a lot of classic hunting arms, like Browning A-5 shotguns, Remington 1100 shotguns, Winchester 100 rifles, etc. Many of these are turn of the century designs that have been used by sportsmen for over 100 years. Even if the Second Amendment were about hunting, which it is not, then an outright ban on semi-autos would still not make sense. As for your comment about full-auto weapons, again, I need to point out that nobody is suggesting that we start handing out machine guns for any reason at this time. As far as I know, that notion only comes from you. It seems that you may be trying to over-sensationalize reality in order to create a non-existent basis of logic to support your position.
You then talk about murder rates. You throw in some scary numbers. This is a good example of cherry picking which "facts" to present. It is very easy to present a false premise by presenting cherry picked "facts". To put this into perspective, I'll do the same thing with a different subject. Lets look in the Bible. I can look in Ecclesiastes & find a statement where God commends mirth, because man hath nothing better under the sun than to eat drink & be merry. I can look in Genesis & find a passage where God gives to man all living things as meat. I can then cite those two passages & say that I'm going out drinking & shooting because that is doing the lords work. Obviously, any rational person who had read the whole book would realize that this is completely ridiculous. That is far from being the message that the Bible purveys, but it is the kind of twisted logic that can be derived from cherry picking facts. Next, I'll do the same sort of thing using your "facts".
You say that "There are 270,000,0001 legally owned in the US". They are owned by about 70-80million people in the US according to this pro gun control source - http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership. According to the source you cite, there are 9,369 firearm murders in the US each year. There are 195,000 hospital deaths from from medical errors in the US each year according to this source - http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php. There are 5,754 registered hospitals in the US according to this source - http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml. Now lets do some simple math. 9369 gun murders divided by 270,000,000 guns = 0.0000347 murders per legally owned gun. (I'll assume that 270,000,0001 was a typo). 195,000 hospital deaths divided by 5754 hospitals = 33.889 average deaths per year from medical mistakes in each hospital. 33.889/0.0000347 = 976,628.24. Therefore, according to statistics, you are more than 900 thousand times more likely to be killed by mistakes that are made in hospitals than a gun murder with a legally owned gun. That statistic would seem to indicate that we need to get rid of hospitals, don't you think?
You say quite a bit about how people are very likely to get killed by guns at home, but that defensive uses of firearms is not so common. You say "I would also like to say that you have about as much chance of getting involved in an instance where a gun is need, than you do being struck by lightning. It's about as reasonable to carry a gun around in public as it is walk around in a suit of armor to avoid skinning your knee. I've lived nearly 40 years and have never "needed" a gun to feel safe" I guess that you have never hiked in remote areas of the Arizona Dessert. I have. I guess that when the rabid bobcat showed up in the bar in Cottonwood, shooting it was a bad move. I guess that Gabby Giffords was more likely to get struck by lightening than what actually happened to her at a Safeway. ...just saying.
You say "Let me finally say again, that I have no problem with gun ownership. I think you should be able to have hunting rifles and shotguns. Just keep them in your home when you're not hunting. There is no need for any of it on the streets. These guns aren't keeping anyone "safe". It's an illusion." You also say "You can't escape the numbers. Even if they were off a little, it still proves the larges point of all. An armed populous doesn't stop these murderers from committing these crimes. It only allows these murders to commit more heinous crimes." Not being an NRA member myself, I haven't read any of the NRA magazines in many years, but I do seem to remember that each one always had a page or two devoted to news stories of people using firearms for personal defense, so I thought that there might be some instances of that happening. A little bit of googling turned up this - http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/gunclock_index2.html. According to that source, we see about a quarter million defensive uses of guns each year here in the US. Some more lite reading for you - http://www.nraila.org/search.aspx?s=armed%20citizen
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
You say " It's such an issue that even countries from abroad are jumping on the bandwagon encouraging us to outlaw semi-automatic weapons." Well, yea, of course. I guess that you never came across the concept that the reason the Japanese didn't invade mainland US during WWII was because they feared finding "a rifle behind every blade of grass".
You say "With respect to the shootings in "gun free zones", like with Sandy hook. It doesn't matter if a teacher was armed. He snuck in the school and started shooting. He would've still killed students. In fact, a teacher, not trained in tactical use of a fire arm would've most likely killed students with a firearm than save them with one. So again, I have to call bullshit." You call BS? you think that an armed teacher, even an inept one, would not have shot that lunatic before all 26 other people in that school got shot? I find that notion hard to rationalize.
You say "Most people that carry guns, think that their gun will somehow protect them from a violent crime. It's actually not the case. It's like people that say that an armed person in the Aurora, CO theater shooting could've prevented some deaths. That could be the the rare case, it could also be very likely an armed person could've killed more in a cross fire and been killed themselves. Most gun owners aren't trained in police tactics etc. They're more likely to get people killed than save anyone. More often than not, that is the case." Again, I have to ask - Do you really believe that if someone in the theater had a pistol & returned fire, the defensive shooter would have killed more people than he would have saved, even if he was a bad shot & hit one or two people by accident? I continue to find your examples hard to rationalize.
You say "The size of the government has nothing to do with this. It's the size of our automatic weapons number. Less guns = less gun-related deaths which = less deaths over all." I'm going to go out on a limb here & say things that might really frighten you, just to expand your realm of thinking a little. You might want to take a look at what's been happening around you. Order of events - Obama makes a speech about how the US is the source of crime guns in Mexico & therefore US gun laws need to be tightened. This claim is then rebuked by a number of sources as the numbers don't add up. The ATF then floods Mexico with illegal guns as they instruct AZ gun shops to sell thousands of military style weapons to straw purchasers who buy for drug cartels via ATF operation Fast & Furious. The guns are allowed to walk across the Mexican border with no tracing. These guns then get counted as guns from the US that are part of the Mexican crime wave & support the push for more gun control. It is only after one of these ATF guns gets used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry that people at the ATF blow the whistle on what is being done. Obama then claims executive privileged when AG Holder gets called to task for the operation & the whole thing gets swept under the rug as "mistakes were made". Is it the law abiding "average Joe" gun owners in this country that are the problem? Or is it perhaps someone else?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/barack-obama-gun.html
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/flashback-obama-blames-us-guns-for-war-in-mexico-then-starts-running-guns-to-mexico-5-months-later-video/
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/mexico-comes-knocking.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico
http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fastandfurious/
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/things-operation-fast-furious/story?id=17362933#.UOAOlmewV3w
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/19/nation/la-na-fast-furious-20121220
You may also want to look at the book More Guns Less Crime by John Lott - http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636 I think that you would like that book. It cites a lot of statistics.
You say "There is a huge difference between personal freedom of expression and social issues and anarchy with everyone toting guns like the old west. " I guess that you never lived out west. I think that places like Wickenberg & Prescott are nice towns. It doesn't bother me one bit when I see one of the locals walk into Walgreens or CVS with a sidearm strapped to his hip. It's just kind of normal in places like that...& the crime rate is low there too. You might find it surprising to learn that you don't even need a permit to carry in those towns. I do seem to remember that when I went into the Crystal Palace Saloon in Tombstone, they required you to check your guns at the door though. What have you got against the old west anyway? Don't you like John Wayne? ;-)
You say "The NRA's position IS NOT to ban semi-autos and take the money that would be spent on them on more police. Come now. You're not even being honest now. The NRA is actually fighting to get less and less control/restriction over weapons and even fighting for full-autos in states that don't allow them." I read that the NRA response to the Newtown thing was that additional police should be hired to cover all schools. I did not find any indication that the NRA is trying to get full-auto guns made available to the general public in places where they are now banned. Who is not being honest now? http://www.c-span.org/Events/NRA-News-Conference-in-Response-to-Newtown-CT-Shooting/10737436772/
If high rates of gun ownership cause gun murders & other crimes, then why does Kennesaw GA not have an overabundance of these problems? That town has a law that requirres its citizens to own guns. http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
I have to agree partially with slowhand. In homes, I think you should be able to keep and bear them how you choose. No safe is needed.
Wow, here I have to take the opposite view & actually say that I favor more gun control than you do. I think that a gun safe is required if you are going to own any guns. Any guns that you are not carrying, cleaning or otherwise using at the time should always be locked up. I'm not saying that the government should regulate this, but I am saying that I would not own a gun if I did not have a way to secure it when it is not in use.
FLJIM wrote:SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
I have to agree partially with slowhand. In homes, I think you should be able to keep and bear them how you choose. No safe is needed.
Wow, here I have to take the opposite view & actually say that I favor more gun control than you do. I think that a gun safe is required if you are going to own any guns. Any guns that you are not carrying, cleaning or otherwise using at the time should always be locked up. I'm not saying that the government should regulate this, but I am saying that I would not own a gun if I did not have a way to secure it when it is not in use.
Ah so you're in favor of telling someone how to store a weapon in their home. hahaha!!! You want them to be able to have them for protection, but make them have to tell the burglar to wait while they unlock a safe. I picked this one for response first, because it'll take awhile for me to sift through your personal opinion and wikipedia and hypocritical media links to see if there are some actual NRA-free thoughts in your previous reply. I am not seeing a lot of logic in this reply, so forgive my skepticism.
"All right, You've sucked me in. I'll give you what you ask for. My position is still that people should do their own research, look at all available information, & then make decisions based on their own personal life experience, but since you seem to want me to respond more directly as you have, I'll have a go at it."
It's funny you say this, because I've shown you unbiased sources that have shot down nearly everything you've argued so far. From the likelihood of gun ownership causing death of innocence rather than prevent it, to the United States being the leader of the developed world in gun ownership/crime/death. Also, that the 2st Amendment does not clarify type of arms. It simply states "arms". I've addressed every point with unbiased raw information backed with .gov and .edu links. You have not. In fact, hypocritically, you've provided wikipedia links (which ANYONE can edit) to media links of which you claim are biased.
"I'll take on your responses in the order in which you presented them. I'll start with your assertion that the gun fans suggest "every citizen should be allowed to have Rocket Launchers, Anti-tank Missiles, Tanks, Attack Helicopters, Heavy Machine guns, etc. " This seems to be a fantasy of yours that you have now brought up more than once. Repetition of a weak argument fails to strengthen it. I am aware of nobody that is suggesting we issue anti-tank missiles to the general public in response to the recent shooting or any other reason. I found no sources to post anywhere that I looked."
Again, you've failed to comprehend what you've read or you skimmed my post and only presumed the message out of what you actually read. The argument made by gun fans, that semiautomatics should be allowed to be owned and carried by "lawful citizens", despite their capability of dealing a large amount of death in a short amount of time, because they will allow the gun-toting citizen a safer and more expedient means to "protect" oneself from a would-be killer or to stop a tyrannical government, could be used to legalize tanks, rocket launchers, missiles etc. It is the same philosophy and a very valid point. At least on man has stolen a tank from a National Guard Armory and driven down a neighnorhood trying to kill people with it. It was televised. Now, small arms fire is not going to stop a tank, so what is the average citizen suppose to do with respect to stopping the threat of a tank? A missile? A rocket? Explosives? After all, this is a direct threat to public safety and police response, according to NRA morons, is not adequate. What about the North Hollywood shootout?? Or the Aurora Colorado theater shootings Body armor!!! Should we also allow citizens to carry armor-piercing rounds? So that when they are stolen by criminals now our fucking police have to worry about massive amounts of armor-piercing ammo that'll be everywhere? So if your normal law-abiding citizen is ok and not a lunatic, they should be able to have them, according to your logic. RIIIIGHT??? You're using this same logic, to justify an extremely rare occurence, where a semi-automatic rifle or pistol would be needed to defend someone's life on the street. Your argument is weak.
"What I did find was the Militia Act of 1792. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm. It requires for most all male citizens between the ages of 18 & 45 to equip themselves with - "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed". Now,obviously, the founders of this country did not foresee things like guided missiles, but they did require the average Joe to have arms that were equivalent to those carried by the infantry of every standing army in existence at that time. If we stay on a direct parallel, then I think that the "evil black rifle" has to be included. Since Cannon were not held by the average Joe back then, I think we can rule out tanks & missiles today."
Actually, you are failing to see the beauty of our constitution. It's vague for a reason. They knew things would change, so they left the language vague. This is not 1792, so that requirement is now obsolete. We're not just getting over a revolutionary war on our own soil and taking measures to prevent another invasion. We have a well-established militia in all states.
USC Title 32 of our Federal law covers that.http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/2011/2011usc32.pdf
Title 32 reads:
"(4)
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:FLJIM wrote:
[quote=SHUTTERBUGS]
I have to agree partially with slowhand. In homes, I think you should be able to keep and bear them how you choose. No safe is needed.
Wow, here I have to take the opposite view & actually say that I favor more gun control than you do. I think that a gun safe is required if you are going to own any guns. Any guns that you are not carrying, cleaning or otherwise using at the time should always be locked up. I'm not saying that the government should regulate this, but I am saying that I would not own a gun if I did not have a way to secure it when it is not in use.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
Ah so you're in favor of telling someone how to store a weapon in their home. hahaha!!! You want them to be able to have them for protection, but make them have to tell the burglar to wait while they unlock a safe.
That's a pretty solid misinterpretation of what I said, as are other things you have posted. You put many words in my mouth that I did not say. ...& you're still trying to drudge up tanks & artillery class weapons as if they have anything to do with gun control laws. Wow.
Title 32 reads:
"(4)
"(4)
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
[quote]
This is not really a debate. this is you doing exactly what you said, one should not do. You've been regurgitating NRA lobbyist propaganda.
This was me trying to balance the scales in light of what you had posted. If you feel that my references were not adequate to support my views, please list the points that you feel were insufficiently supported & I'll see if I can find other references that you might find more acceptable.
SLOWHAND wrote:
Now add the full context that defines the unorganized militia! That's the militia that ultimately protects freedoms and liberty. Either by vote or revolution. Read the full Militia Act of 1792 and subsequent revision in 1910 for clarity of who constitutes the militia.
The second amendment reads, "A well regulated (organized) militia". It doesn't say unorganized militia. I'd love to see the 1910 revision, that's not Georgia's own revisions to their militia.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/regulate
definition: "organize" or "manage"
The Militia Act of 1792 reads:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
"That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion..."
Nowhere does it speak of an unorganized militia. In fact, the source reads further to say...
"An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States."
Please feel free to send a quote from that link showing the unorganized militia point to valid.
In the root meaning of "arms" when the constitution was drafted did very much include rifle, pistol,cannon, musket, mortar, rocket, shell and shot. Yes today that would be Tank, stinger, and F-16. Got 60-80 mill to blow on an M-1 Abrams? 5-10 grand a pop if you want to take it out to the range? Not very economically feasible to obtain by most and not a good choice for self or home defense. Neither would be a grenade or nuke. Speaking of nukes, what keeps one country from dropping on another? Another nuke might come back.
Whether economically viable or not, the language would allow for it to be legal to own. If you are to say that this would be an over exaggeration for this time, because civilians shouldn't be allow to have it, I would ask why. The logical response would be... Well if it got into the wrong hands.. etc.. Well that's what I am saying about semi-automomatics. We are now defining what arms should be allowed to be possessed.
The 1933 U.S. vs. Miller decision against sawed off shotguns etc., was based on it(the shotgun) not being a suitable weapon for war which the arms the constitution guaranteed without infringement.
Now the anti gun groups are saying there's no need for such things we have the National Guard. Who controls the guard? In theory, the governor of each state. In practice it's the federal Government.
In the case of US v Miller, the argument was "The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization." This was not stating that it could not be used, that it "was not" used. Also these are shotguns with barrels of less that 18 inches. There are shotguns used by our militia today. 12 Gauge to be exact.
I also addressed the National Guard issue above. You are not constitutionally guaranteed. The militia was always available to the U.S. Government to control at the presidents order. Read your Militia act source again.
Let me ask, during that 14 years of service, if you had been ordered to engage U.S. citizens, would you have? If your answer is anything short of an instant, no pause, HELL NO! Then who protects us from you if orders were given?.........US! and to do that it requires what? Equal means.
I have never been ordered to engage U.S. citizens. However, if a militant group made of us citizens were to organize and become a domestic enemy and I was ordered to engage them. I would. You are sworn, as a service member to protect the constitution and the United State from enemies both foreign and domestic.
The whole sporting weapon argument simply does not hold water.
Please clarify. I am not sure as to what you refer to.
Your all worried that all these guns will all get stolen and all end up killing someone. By that logic, yes if 100% of guns eventually get stolen then everyone would be harmed with illegal guns that were originally legally owned. So we better not let anyone have them in the first place right? or was it the legal ones that did more harm? (Accidental shootings are an educational issue) "Get rid of them" is a very nice and maternal approach but hardly realistic. Even with a ban and confiscate law do you think guns would just go away? or that crime and homicide would go down? The tool would change but the society and culture determine those rates not the item.
I never once claimed that all legally owned weapons were stolen. I said that of the criminally used weapons, are 100% made up of legally owned firearms. They were either stolen from or used criminally by a legal owner.
I never said guns would go away. I said that reducing the number available would reduce the number that are used in crimes.
I bet there's nothing you hate more than an unlocked foot locker too....lol We all know they cause thieving
Indeed. I like that you brought that up.
If you are comparing an unlocked foot locker to a gun, that it's not the foot locker that facilitates the thief because it's the thief that actually decides to open it. Then by all means, leave the door to your home open. After all, good law abiding citizens wouldn't walk in uninvited. We'll just bust those that do. In fact, everyone should leave their door open according to this logic. hahaSo if tomorrow we ban all guns you don't like and only keep those YOU think we should have, what do you suggest be done with those in circulation now? If you say round them up... the cost would be so high you think the 17 trillion debt is bad now imagine having to BUY yes buy them from all those who own them at current value? (AR-15= $1500-$1800 ea.) Or is "no property shall be taken without due compensation" as antiquated as you think the 2nd amendment is?
Actually, the amendment you speak of (The 5th), reads, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This isn't public use, it also doesn't protect you against something that is illegally owned. In other words, if drugs are made illegal, you can't ask that they compensate you for your property, because you cannot legally own them. Nice try though. I like the way you think.
FLJIM wrote:
[quote=SHUTTERBUGS]
This is not really a debate. this is you doing exactly what you said, one should not do. You've been regurgitating NRA lobbyist propaganda.
This was me trying to balance the scales in light of what you had posted. If you feel that my references were not adequate to support my views, please list the points that you feel were insufficiently supported & I'll see if I can find other references that you might find more acceptable.
Please see the entire post directed to you above.
It's all there.The second amendment reads, "A well regulated (organized) militia". It doesn't say unorganized militia. I'd love to see the 1910 revision, that's not Georgia's own revisions to their militia.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/regulate
definition: "organize" or "manage"
The Militia Act of 1792 reads:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Please feel free to send a quote from that link showing the unorganized militia point to valid.
Title 10 USC subsection 311 part B number 2
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
further more:Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."[39] Section 313 of Title 32 refers to persons with prior military experience. ("Sec. 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitation (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must - (1) be a citizen of the United States; and(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64."
I have never been ordered to engage U.S. citizens. However, if a militant group made of us citizens were to organize and become a domestic enemy and I was ordered to engage them. I would. You are sworn, as a service member to protect the constitution and the United State from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Lets take this one step further. What if that group were engaging in a truly just cause? Would you fire upon them then? If so, YOU would have made a great Nazi, and YOU would be the domestic enemy from within not the alleged militant group.
Please clarify. I am not sure as to what you refer to. The constitution and subsequent Militia acts spell out nothing in regard to sporting weapons and specifically states weapons to be suitable for military use to be possessed by militia members. As of today an AR-15 falls short due to not being full auto capable but it's as close as most Americans can get.
I never once claimed that all legally owned weapons were stolen. I said that of the criminally used weapons, are 100% made up of legally owned firearms. They were either stolen from or used criminally by a legal owner.
I think you mean previously legally owned.
I never said guns would go away. I said that reducing the number available would reduce the number that are used in crimes.
You could eliminate every gun in America and criminals would still get or make them. The war on drugs approach simply doesn't work. It doesn't work with drugs, it doesn't work with terrorism and it doesn't work with guns.
Indeed. I like that you brought that up. If you are comparing an unlocked foot locker to a gun, that it's not the foot locker that facilitates the thief because it's the thief that actually decides to open it. Then by all means, leave the door to your home open. After all, good law abiding citizens wouldn't walk in uninvited. We'll just bust those that do. In fact, everyone should leave their door open according to this logic. haha
My example was to illustrate the fallacy of argument. Unlocked lockers do not cause the thief to steal. Just as the gun does not cause the criminal to use one.
Of course you could make claims such as the Australian anti gun folks who ,after they got rid of all their guns claimed a 50% reduction in suicides by guns. Yet a closer look shows a 10% increase in the total number of suicides. Less guns less liberty, no one saved humm? result.. negative gain.
Actually, the amendment you speak of (The 5th), reads, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This isn't public use, it also doesn't protect you against something that is illegally owned. In other words, if drugs are made illegal, you can't ask that they compensate you for your property, because you cannot legally own them. Nice try though. I like the way you think.
Such things as food, medications and some other things are not considered "property". Real estate, clothing, furniture, tools, etc. ARE property by definition and sorry, guns are included in that list and thus are very much subject to 5th amendment protections.
You also failed to answer the question of what to do with the 270-300 million guns out in the U.S. now? What say you about that?
http://thesaurus.com/browse/regulate
definition: "organize" or "manage"
The Militia Act of 1792 reads:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Please feel free to send a quote from that link showing the unorganized militia point to valid.
Title 10 USC subsection 311 part B number 2
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
further more:Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."[39] Section 313 of Title 32 refers to persons with prior military experience. ("Sec. 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitation (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must - (1) be a citizen of the United States; and(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64."
Let me ask, during that 14 years of service, if you had been ordered to engage U.S. citizens, would you have? If your answer is anything short of an instant, no pause, HELL NO! Then who protects us from you if orders were given?.........US! and to do that it requires what? Equal means.
I have never been ordered to engage U.S. citizens. However, if a militant group made of us citizens were to organize and become a domestic enemy and I was ordered to engage them. I would. You are sworn, as a service member to protect the constitution and the United State from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Lets take this one step further. What if that group were engaging in a truly just cause? Would you fire upon them then? If so, YOU would have made a great Nazi, and YOU would be the domestic enemy from within not the alleged militant group.
The whole sporting weapon argument simply does not hold water.
Please clarify. I am not sure as to what you refer to. The constitution and subsequent Militia acts spell out nothing in regard to sporting weapons and specifically states weapons to be suitable for military use to be possessed by militia members. As of today an AR-15 falls short due to not being full auto capable but it's as close as most Americans can get.
Your all worried that all these guns will all get stolen and all end up killing someone. By that logic, yes if 100% of guns eventually get stolen then everyone would be harmed with illegal guns that were originally legally owned. So we better not let anyone have them in the first place right? or was it the legal ones that did more harm? (Accidental shootings are an educational issue) "Get rid of them" is a very nice and maternal approach but hardly realistic. Even with a ban and confiscate law do you think guns would just go away? or that crime and homicide would go down? The tool would change but the society and culture determine those rates not the item.
I never once claimed that all legally owned weapons were stolen. I said that of the criminally used weapons, are 100% made up of legally owned firearms. They were either stolen from or used criminally by a legal owner.
I think you mean previously legally owned.
I never said guns would go away. I said that reducing the number available would reduce the number that are used in crimes.
You could eliminate every gun in America and criminals would still get or make them. The war on drugs approach simply doesn't work. It doesn't work with drugs, it doesn't work with terrorism and it doesn't work with guns.
I bet there's nothing you hate more than an unlocked foot locker too....lol We all know they cause thieving
Indeed. I like that you brought that up.
If you are comparing an unlocked foot locker to a gun, that it's not the foot locker that facilitates the thief because it's the thief that actually decides to open it. Then by all means, leave the door to your home open. After all, good law abiding citizens wouldn't walk in uninvited. We'll just bust those that do. In fact, everyone should leave their door open according to this logic. hahaMy example was to illustrate the fallacy of argument. Unlocked lockers do not cause the thief to steal. Just as the gun does not cause the criminal to use one.
Of course you could make claims such as the Australian anti gun folks who ,after they got rid of all their guns claimed a 50% reduction in suicides by guns. Yet a closer look shows a 10% increase in the total number of suicides. Less guns less liberty, no one saved humm? result.. negative gain.
So if tomorrow we ban all guns you don't like and only keep those YOU think we should have, what do you suggest be done with those in circulation now? If you say round them up... the cost would be so high you think the 17 trillion debt is bad now imagine having to BUY yes buy them from all those who own them at current value? (AR-15= $1500-$1800 ea.) Or is "no property shall be taken without due compensation" as antiquated as you think the 2nd amendment is?
Actually, the amendment you speak of (The 5th), reads, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This isn't public use, it also doesn't protect you against something that is illegally owned. In other words, if drugs are made illegal, you can't ask that they compensate you for your property, because you cannot legally own them. Nice try though. I like the way you think.
Such things as food, medications and some other things are not considered "property". Real estate, clothing, furniture, tools, etc. ARE property by definition and sorry, guns are included in that list and thus are very much subject to 5th amendment protections.
You also failed to answer the question of what to do with the 270-300 million guns out in the U.S. now? What say you about that?
[quote
This just proves my point. Thank you for finding this. This just proves that an unorganized (unregulated) militia are non-members. The 2nd Amendment clearly reads "WELL REGULATED" meaning well organized. The words are synonymous. In other words. The Amendment only guarantees the National Guard. They have arms.
It does not cover anything that is illegal or contraband. Why do you think they can confiscate drugs? Because they're illegal! If guns are made illegal, they are no longer your property to own.
Just like arming everyone in public to the teeth will never stop it. It will only add to the problem by flooding, like now, the streets with weapons to be stolen and used in crimes. The amount of innocent death legal possession prevents, is greatly over shadowed by the number off innocent deaths they cause.
Furthermore, the gun bans in England prove that. They had 35 gun deaths in the UK this year. Far less than we do. Even per capita they are a fraction of ours. Your philosophy doesn't hold true.
Lets take this one step further. What if that group were engaging in a truly just cause? Would you fire upon them then? If so, YOU would have made a great Nazi, and YOU would be the domestic enemy from within not the alleged militant group.
[/quote]
What is a "truly just" cause? That is subject to beliefs. Are you referring to the Davidian compound? Please explain what just cause you speak of? What the Christian right believes? How about the Liberal left? We already disagree on the 2nd Amendment, just like many disagree about others. So please explain JUST CAUSE.
Yes but the true numbers on the previous links show that Australia had a much higher violent crime rate in the 80's and before when guns we legal. The current trend of a higher crime rate began before the ban as well. So again, there is a failure on the fearmongering the NRA has been spreading. More and more propaganda. It doesn't hold water.
That's exactly my point! Regulated Militia members. There is no specification and as such, it is open to LEGISLATION! Which means we can indeed BAN them.
SLOWHAND311 wrote:
Title 10 USC subsection 311 part B number 2
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
further more:Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."[39] Section 313 of Title 32 refers to persons with prior military experience. ("Sec. 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitation (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must - (1) be a citizen of the United States; and(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64."
This just proves my point. Thank you for finding this. This just proves that an unorganized (unregulated) militia are non-members. The 2nd Amendment clearly reads "WELL REGULATED" meaning well organized. The words are synonymous. In other words. The Amendment only guarantees the National Guard. They have arms.
Such things as food, medications and some other things are not considered "property". Real estate, clothing, furniture, tools, etc. ARE property by definition and sorry, guns are included in that list and thus are very much subject to 5th amendment protections.
You also failed to answer the question of what to do with the 270-300 million guns out in the U.S. now? What say you about that?
Report
It does not cover anything that is illegal or contraband. Why do you think they can confiscate drugs? Because they're illegal!
If guns are made illegal, they are no longer your property to own.
You could eliminate every gun in America and criminals would still get or make them. The war on drugs approach simply doesn't work. It doesn't work with drugs, it doesn't work with terrorism and it doesn't work with guns.
Just like arming everyone in public to the teeth will never stop it. It will only add to the problem by flooding, like now, the streets with weapons to be stolen and used in crimes. The amount of innocent death legal possession prevents, is greatly over shadowed by the number off innocent deaths they cause.
Furthermore, the gun bans in England prove that. They had 35 gun deaths in the UK this year. Far less than we do. Even per capita they are a fraction of ours. Your philosophy doesn't hold true.
Lets take this one step further. What if that group were engaging in a truly just cause? Would you fire upon them then? If so, YOU would have made a great Nazi, and YOU would be the domestic enemy from within not the alleged militant group.
Lets take this one step further. What if that group were engaging in a truly just cause? Would you fire upon them then? If so, YOU would have made a great Nazi, and YOU would be the domestic enemy from within not the alleged militant group.
[/quote]
What is a "truly just" cause? That is subject to beliefs. Are you referring to the Davidian compound? Please explain what just cause you speak of? What the Christian right believes? How about the Liberal left? We already disagree on the 2nd Amendment, just like many disagree about others. So please explain JUST CAUSE.
Of course you could make claims such as the Australian anti gun folks who ,after they got rid of all their guns claimed a 50% reduction in suicides by guns. Yet a closer look shows a 10% increase in the total number of suicides. Less guns less liberty, no one saved humm? result.. negative gain.
Yes but the true numbers on the previous links show that Australia had a much higher violent crime rate in the 80's and before when guns we legal. The current trend of a higher crime rate began before the ban as well. So again, there is a failure on the fearmongering the NRA has been spreading. More and more propaganda. It doesn't hold water.
Please clarify. I am not sure as to what you refer to. The constitution and subsequent Militia acts spell out nothing in regard to sporting weapons and specifically states weapons to be suitable for military use to be possessed by militia members. As of today an AR-15 falls short due to not being full auto capable but it's as close as most Americans can get.
That's exactly my point! Regulated Militia members.
There is no specification and as such, it is open to LEGISLATION! Which means we can indeed BAN them.OK I can see this is going to be like explaining evolution to a born again christian.
Read your constitutional references. Or better yet, The Federalist Papers, which is more the users manual for the constitution than any other document. The term "The People" means one, two, a group, or the whole of the citizens. It doesn't say the right to free speech is just for a select group such as the press or those that are sanctioned by the government it applies to ALL! This holds true in every place the term "The People" is used in the constitution. The militia clause you keep trying to use is only a reason for the second Amendment not the only intended application of it. You can't say that there is a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a militia and then disbar the keeping and bearing of the exact (well they look the same) type required for said militia. The collective right approach fell apart with the Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia vs Heller in 2008.
By the way big wake up here, the national guard is integral with the standing army. Hell! it IS the standing army! And who can defend against a standing army I ask? A bunch of colonists with guns? Na, it would never happen.
Never under estimate the actions of an ambitious man with an agenda. And believe me, we have probably the most ambitious progressive president in history and he has an agenda and time frame. A very socialist agenda and about a three year time frame. If his plans can't be accomplished with legislation he'll use executive order to get what he wants and to hell with the legislature and constitution. Do you really think Barry would have pushed this gun thing during the campaign? Hell NO! Even he knew that he would have cost him the election. Why didn't he call for all this after the Colorado shootings? Because it was not politically advantageous. Now he's in and free to reign. One good national emergency whether real or contrived and see what happens.
As to the "just cause"... Lets apply one that YOU personally feel or believe is just and righteous not one decided by others.
You still haven't addressed the question I asked about the 270-300 million in circulation now.
Confiscate them? Tell that to the guy with a $25,000 hand engraved, gold inlayed, one of a kind hand built AR10 rifle that took a year or more to create...lol And ask yourself if it's right to steal from someone (100+ million actually) so you can feel a greater false sense of security?
"Yes but the true numbers on the previous links show that Australia had a much higher violent crime rate in the 80's and before when guns we legal. The current trend of a higher crime rate began before the ban as well. So again, there is a failure on the fear mongering the NRA has been spreading. More and more propaganda. It doesn't hold water."
So because the crime rate started to rise before, during, and after the ban it should be rather clear the gun ban had little if any effect on the violent crime rate. So the failure is on the part of gun bans to lower violent crime. Just as the 1994 U.S Ban failed to chance a damn thing violent crime wise. Just as any ban now wouldn't do much except make millions of criminals out of what are now honest citizens.
I haven't read any NRA literature in years. Their "Arm all schools" idea was plain stupid on their part and shall we say... they shot them selves in the foot on that one. Looking at SSRI's and antidepressant use/abuse would have and should be of greater importance. Because frankly I don't want someone on Zoloft or Fanapt with thoughts of suicide or homicide on their mind getting a gun, do you? Though anyone hell bent on destruction will find a way and no law can prevent them. See your example of the deranged tank thief or the guy with the armor fortified bull dosser.
Read your constitutional references. Or better yet, The Federalist Papers, which is more the users manual for the constitution than any other document. The term "The People" means one, two, a group, or the whole of the citizens. It doesn't say the right to free speech is just for a select group such as the press or those that are sanctioned by the government it applies to ALL! This holds true in every place the term "The People" is used in the constitution. The militia clause you keep trying to use is only a reason for the second Amendment not the only intended application of it. You can't say that there is a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a militia and then disbar the keeping and bearing of the exact (well they look the same) type required for said militia. The collective right approach fell apart with the Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia vs Heller in 2008.
By the way big wake up here, the national guard is integral with the standing army. Hell! it IS the standing army! And who can defend against a standing army I ask? A bunch of colonists with guns? Na, it would never happen.
Never under estimate the actions of an ambitious man with an agenda. And believe me, we have probably the most ambitious progressive president in history and he has an agenda and time frame. A very socialist agenda and about a three year time frame. If his plans can't be accomplished with legislation he'll use executive order to get what he wants and to hell with the legislature and constitution. Do you really think Barry would have pushed this gun thing during the campaign? Hell NO! Even he knew that he would have cost him the election. Why didn't he call for all this after the Colorado shootings? Because it was not politically advantageous. Now he's in and free to reign. One good national emergency whether real or contrived and see what happens.
As to the "just cause"... Lets apply one that YOU personally feel or believe is just and righteous not one decided by others.
You still haven't addressed the question I asked about the 270-300 million in circulation now.
Confiscate them? Tell that to the guy with a $25,000 hand engraved, gold inlayed, one of a kind hand built AR10 rifle that took a year or more to create...lol And ask yourself if it's right to steal from someone (100+ million actually) so you can feel a greater false sense of security?
"Yes but the true numbers on the previous links show that Australia had a much higher violent crime rate in the 80's and before when guns we legal. The current trend of a higher crime rate began before the ban as well. So again, there is a failure on the fear mongering the NRA has been spreading. More and more propaganda. It doesn't hold water.
"So because the crime rate started to rise before, during, and after the ban it should be rather clear the gun ban had little if any effect on the violent crime rate. So the failure is on the part of gun bans to lower violent crime. Just as the 1994 U.S Ban failed to chance a damn thing violent crime wise. Just as any ban now wouldn't do much except make millions of criminals out of what are now honest citizens.
I haven't read any NRA literature in years. Their "Arm all schools" idea was plain stupid on their part and shall we say... they shot them selves in the foot on that one. Looking at SSRI's and antidepressant use/abuse would have and should be of greater importance. Because frankly I don't want someone on Zoloft or Fanapt with thoughts of suicide or homicide on their mind getting a gun, do you? Though anyone hell bent on destruction will find a way and no law can prevent them. See your example of the deranged tank thief or the guy with the armor fortified bull dosser.
SLOWHAND311 wrote:
OK I can see this is going to be like explaining evolution to a born again christian.
Read your constitutional references. Or better yet, The Federalist Papers, which is more the users manual for the constitution than any other document. The term "The People" means one, two, a group, or the whole of the citizens. It doesn't say the right to free speech is just for a select group such as the press or those that are sanctioned by the government it applies to ALL! This holds true in every place the term "The People" is used in the constitution. The militia clause you keep trying to use is only a reason for the second Amendment not the only intended application of it. You can't say that there is a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a militia and then disbar the keeping and bearing of the exact (well they look the same) type required for said militia. The collective right approach fell apart with the Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia vs Heller in 2008.
Ahhhh another supreme court ruling, that can be overturned. The attorney fighting the case and the money behind it are what decide those findings. Legislation is what truly decides my friend.
Constitutionality will always be back and fourth with the supreme court, as long as the pockets fighting it are deep. That's what I am talking about. It is up for interpretation. The language of the 1st Amendment is clear. It establishes a regulated militia to protect the people. It doesn't say, It is the right of all citizens of the united states, to protect themselves, to bear arms. It says in order to form A REGULATED militia. The regulated militia has been established, it's called the national guard. You're talking about one man's decision/interpretation of a document. This will be challenged again and again. The more the people get sick of the violence caused by the guns, the decision will be booted by a liberal judge. That's how it goes. So supreme court rulings are often only temporary. See the 1986 assault weapons ban. By the way big wake up here, the national guard is integral with the standing army. Hell! it IS the standing army! And who can defend against a standing army I ask? A bunch of colonists with guns? Na, it would never happen.
Speaking of not reading your federal papers hahaha! The are title 32, not title 10 of the USC. This means they are state funded and regulated. As per that same document you presented the MILITIA act, they can be called, as they always have, by the president, during a time of war. They ARE NOT federal. They are state.
I know you desperately want it to be so, but it just isn't. No matter how many GOP appointed supreme court justice rulings you throw in there, it'll always be shot down by the other side, because it just isn't what the constitution said. Possession of a firearm by people is a privilege not a right, unless you're militia. You wanna serve and use a gun.. By all means.Never under estimate the actions of an ambitious man with an agenda. And believe me, we have probably the most ambitious progressive president in history and he has an agenda and time frame. A very socialist agenda and about a three year time frame. If his plans can't be accomplished with legislation he'll use executive order to get what he wants and to hell with the legislature and constitution. Do you really think Barry would have pushed this gun thing during the campaign? Hell NO! Even he knew that he would have cost him the election. Why didn't he call for all this after the Colorado shootings? Because it was not politically advantageous. Now he's in and free to reign. One good national emergency whether real or contrived and see what happens.
As to the "just cause"... Lets apply one that YOU personally feel or believe is just and righteous not one decided by others.
Give me an example.
What war-causing "righteous" cause (which by the way is subjective to beliefs.) are you speaking of?
You still haven't addressed the question I asked about the 270-300 million in circulation now.
Confiscate them? Tell that to the guy with a $25,000 hand engraved, gold inlayed, one of a kind hand built AR10 rifle that took a year or more to create...lol And ask yourself if it's right to steal from someone (100+ million actually) so you can feel a greater false sense of security?
I've addressed it many times. Australia did it. It would take time, but the law-abiding citizens will come around when facing the law.
The criminals would take more time, because they'd be confiscated in raids, crimes etc. The false sense of security comes from owning the gun.
So because the crime rate started to rise before, during, and after the ban it should be rather clear the gun ban had little if any effect on the violent crime rate. So the failure is on the part of gun bans to lower violent crime. Just as the 1994 U.S Ban failed to chance a damn thing violent crime wise. Just as any ban now wouldn't do much except make millions of criminals out of what are now honest citizens.
No the ban would prevent a good majority of the crime committed because of ready availablity of guns to the criminal.
I haven't read any NRA literature in years. Their "Arm all schools" idea was plain stupid on their part and shall we say... they shot them selves in the foot on that one. Looking at SSRI's and antidepressant use/abuse would have and should be of greater importance. Because frankly I don't want someone on Zoloft or Fanapt with thoughts of suicide or homicide on their mind getting a gun, do you? Though anyone hell bent on destruction will find a way and no law can prevent them. See your example of the deranged tank thief or the guy with the armor fortified bull dosser.
So then we should all be able to carry rocket launchers as well. I mean hell a law-abiding responsible citizen, would use it only when need it and for elephant hunting. hahaha!! Grasping at straws again.
Ahhhh another supreme court ruling, that can be overturned. The attorney fighting the case and the money behind it are what decide those findings. Legislation is what truly decides my friend. Constitutionality will always be back and fourth with the supreme court, as long as the pockets fighting it are deep. That's what I am talking about. It is up for interpretation. The language of the 1st Amendment is clear. It establishes a regulated militia to protect the people. It doesn't say, It is the right of all citizens of the united states, to protect themselves, to bear arms. It says in order to form A REGULATED militia. The regulated militia has been established, it's called the national guard. You're talking about one man's decision/interpretation of a document. This will be challenged again and again. The more the people get sick of the violence caused by the guns, the decision will be booted by a liberal judge. That's how it goes. So supreme court rulings are often only temporary. See the 1986 assault weapons ban.
It's the 2nd Amendment not the 1st DA. First, The Militia Acts establish the organized militia not the Constitution. Second, you're saying Supreme Court rulings are irrelevant? and that I don't have a right to protect myself? perhaps a right to health care instead? I have an absolute right to protect myself through what ever means is available and which I deem necessary to quell what ever threat is at hand just as you do. The weapons Ban was in 1994 and it had a 10 year sunset provision written in to it and had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. unless your referring to the 1986 Gun Owners Protection Act (which has not been repealed) and other related NFA legislation passed in 1986.
Tell the 93 year old lady who used her .38 to hold thieves from stealing from her farm she had no right. Tell the old man recently who was physically unable to handle the recoil should he have fired and was only able to aim the rifle at the serial burglars until police arrived, that he had no right. I can find hundreds of cases. I can recount two of my own to you, so don't even say we have no right.
"Possession of a firearm by people is a privilege not a right, unless you're militia. You wanna serve and use a gun.. By all means."
What part of THE RIGHT ( says right, right there right...RIGHT? or do you have a different copy than I) OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS are you not understanding?????? Here's a clue.. All Guardsman are people but not all people are active Guardsmen. therefore the term THE PEOPLE includes all of us not just Guardsmen... git it?
Your points are starting to sound like that born again christian I mentioned trying to deny evolution and empirical evidence on the grounds that if it were real then why aren't there 6 legged deer or new species from mixing one with another. or that the reason there are no dinosaurs is because they didn't fit on the ark.
Do you or anyone in your household have one? Oh wait you served so it's OK for you right?
If the National Guard is here to protect us then why is it mainly employed abroad to try resolve foreign affairs that can't be solved through diplomatic channels? How many wounded and killed since desert storm?
Constitutionality will always be back and fourth with the supreme court, as long as the pockets fighting it are deep. That's what I am talking about. It is up for interpretation. The language of the 1st Amendment is clear. It establishes a regulated militia to protect the people. It doesn't say, It is the right of all citizens of the united states, to protect themselves, to bear arms. It says in order to form A REGULATED militia. The regulated militia has been established, it's called the national guard. You're talking about one man's decision/interpretation of a document. This will be challenged again and again. The more the people get sick of the violence caused by the guns, the decision will be booted by a liberal judge. That's how it goes. So supreme court rulings are often only temporary. See the 1986 assault weapons ban. It's the 2nd Amendment not the 1st DA. First, The Militia Acts establish the organized militia not the Constitution. Second, you're saying Supreme Court rulings are irrelevant? and that I don't have a right to protect myself? perhaps a right to health care instead? I have an absolute right to protect myself through what ever means is available and which I deem necessary to quell what ever threat is at hand just as you do. The weapons Ban was in 1994 and it had a 10 year sunset provision written in to it and had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. unless your referring to the 1986 Gun Owners Protection Act (which has not been repealed) and other related NFA legislation passed in 1986.
Tell the 93 year old lady who used her .38 to hold thieves from stealing from her farm she had no right. Tell the old man recently who was physically unable to handle the recoil should he have fired and was only able to aim the rifle at the serial burglars until police arrived, that he had no right. I can find hundreds of cases. I can recount two of my own to you, so don't even say we have no right.
"Possession of a firearm by people is a privilege not a right, unless you're militia. You wanna serve and use a gun.. By all means."
What part of THE RIGHT ( says right, right there right...RIGHT? or do you have a different copy than I) OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS are you not understanding?????? Here's a clue.. All Guardsman are people but not all people are active Guardsmen. therefore the term THE PEOPLE includes all of us not just Guardsmen... git it?
Your points are starting to sound like that born again christian I mentioned trying to deny evolution and empirical evidence on the grounds that if it were real then why aren't there 6 legged deer or new species from mixing one with another. or that the reason there are no dinosaurs is because they didn't fit on the ark.
Do you or anyone in your household have one? Oh wait you served so it's OK for you right?
If the National Guard is here to protect us then why is it mainly employed abroad to try resolve foreign affairs that can't be solved through diplomatic channels? How many wounded and killed since desert storm?
Research the meaning of what the terms regulated, well regulated, and regulated troops in their historic context really were and still are. Not what you or most liberals think or want it to mean.
Orderly and well disciplined with proper accoutrement is an good example.
Well Regulated
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:
One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.
What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.
And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated.
Orderly and well disciplined with proper accoutrement is an good example.
Well Regulated
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:
One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.
What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.
And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated.
What's funny is that the very document that you first touted to define what the militia is and was is the Militia act. hahaha!! You've also given more proof here. Regulated means National Guard. It's also plainly written in the Militia act that was updated in the early 20th century, It's plainly spelled out in the words of Alexander Hamilton above. " A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice." Which is WHY the militia act was written to give a ORGANIZATION (REGULATION) to the militia. You're just proving my point, not your own. It's us "liberals" as you put it that are correct. Thank you for providing more proof. I've proven with my own dictionary definition and thesaurus definition that Regulated and organized are synonymous in this context. You've proved my point once again. The regulated or militarized militia which is known as the National Guard today, are the citizens that are those ARMED men and women the 2nd Amendment covers. Not every citizen, but the REGULATED militia. The Guard. So by all means, join the guard and get your M4 today.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/regulate
"control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations"
This means organized in this case militarize. Hence the Militia act. This means the average joe in his house with a gun isn't militarized, nor is he organized. He's just a joe in his house with a gun. You've done nothing but prove my point.
It's us "liberals" as you put it that are correct. Thank you for providing more proof. I've proven with my own dictionary definition and thesaurus definition that Regulated and organized are synonymous in this context. You've proved my point once again. The regulated or militarized militia which is known as the National Guard today, are the citizens that are those ARMED men and women the 2nd Amendment covers. Not every citizen, but the REGULATED militia. The Guard. So by all means, join the guard and get your M4 today. http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/regulate
"control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations"
This means organized in this case militarize. Hence the Militia act. This means the average joe in his house with a gun isn't militarized, nor is he organized.
He's just a joe in his house with a gun. You've done nothing but prove my point.OK I see now what I'm dealing with. Funny part is you keep saying the National Guard is the militia yet it didn't even exist prior to it's formation in 1903.
Who was the militia before that?
Show me anywhere the militia is SPECIFICALLY and ONLY defined as the NATIONAL GUARD and ONLY the National Guard and no other. Since you seem to ignore the unorganized militia stated in the Militia Act and deny it exists.
Or show me anywhere in the Constitution where the term "The People" is only applied to a select group and not all of us.
See I think you are like most who fear honest people with guns and would love to see them all confiscated wouldn't you? Except yours of course.
I personally have zero fear of an honest citizen with a gun. Why could that be? Hell I'm not even afraid of the criminal with a gun, Why? because chances are it a cheap POS gun and the criminal is probably not well regulated in it's use.
Read the history of gun control in any country through time and look at the results in ALL cases. Not some or most but ALL.
The framers of this country knew that when they granted the right to keep and bear arms to protect against tyrants, dictators, despots,invaders or totalitarian government who would attempt to usurp our liberty, as well as for self preservation of life and property.
You go ahead and surrender your liberties but you have no right to make me give up mine.
I remember a National Guard ad years ago with the motto "protecting the United States as long as there has been a United States" Which was blatantly False. Oh wait I forgot, my government would never lie or put a spin on anything to mislead it's citizens.
Who was the militia before that?
Show me anywhere the militia is SPECIFICALLY and ONLY defined as the NATIONAL GUARD and ONLY the National Guard and no other. Since you seem to ignore the unorganized militia stated in the Militia Act and deny it exists.
Or show me anywhere in the Constitution where the term "The People" is only applied to a select group and not all of us.
See I think you are like most who fear honest people with guns and would love to see them all confiscated wouldn't you? Except yours of course.
I personally have zero fear of an honest citizen with a gun. Why could that be? Hell I'm not even afraid of the criminal with a gun, Why? because chances are it a cheap POS gun and the criminal is probably not well regulated in it's use.
Read the history of gun control in any country through time and look at the results in ALL cases. Not some or most but ALL.
The framers of this country knew that when they granted the right to keep and bear arms to protect against tyrants, dictators, despots,invaders or totalitarian government who would attempt to usurp our liberty, as well as for self preservation of life and property.
You go ahead and surrender your liberties but you have no right to make me give up mine.
I remember a National Guard ad years ago with the motto "protecting the United States as long as there has been a United States" Which was blatantly False. Oh wait I forgot, my government would never lie or put a spin on anything to mislead it's citizens.
Just as a side note, I do believe that all able bodied U.S. citizens both male and female should go through at least 6-8 weeks of boot camp after high school and then on to life in the U. S. of A. That would resolve your "sophisticated collective right" BS as well as benefit the country in many other ways. . But that's a different discussion all together.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
[quote]
This is not really a debate. this is you doing exactly what you said, one should not do. You've been regurgitating NRA lobbyist propaganda. Everything from a Fast and furious report by a REPUBLICAN here. It's even titled, "Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation", as if that's not unbiased, to the Just Facts website a known rightwing sympathetic website. Seriously... Be honest with yourself and me. I think you had the right idea the first time around. Perhaps it's best you pass this subject by.
Sincerely,
D
This is a dot-gov report on that program -
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/10-29-12-Fast-and-Furious-The-Anatomy-of-a-Failed-Operation-Part-II-of-III-Report.pdf
It seems to support everything that was posted in the "NRA lobbyist propaganda". It comes from the house oversight comity. I don't know how much better than that you would hope to get. C-span covered the Congregational testimony for several days. You can go back & look that up yourself if you want to hear the actual testimony first hand to test the accuracy of that report. I watched it for several hours. Nothing I read in that report conflicts with what I saw on C-span.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
[quote]
Your examples are laughable. Let's educate you about your little town of 30,000 or so. The median income for the city is $61,000 dollars and the median income for a family was $ 75,465. That means it's predominately UPPER MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE!!! hahaha! The law you speak of was passed in 1982. The crime rate didn't decline in your example town until between 2003 and 2008. Research into your claim, that was shared by another man named David Kopel, found that there was no correlation between the law past in 1982 and the decline that didn't come about until 2003. It was most likely do to the wealth of the city.
So then, what is your point? Are you saying that the number of guns in Kennesaw GA is not responsible for the low crime rate there? Are you saying that other socioeconomic factors are responsible for the crime rate, rather than the number of guns?
FLjim wrote:
[quote]
"You say that "There are 270,000,0001 legally owned in the US". They are owned by about 70-80million people in the US according to this pro gun control source - http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership. According to the source you cite, there are 9,369 firearm murders in the US each year. There are 195,000 hospital deaths from from medical errors in the US each year according to this source - http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php. There are 5,754 registered hospitals in the US according to this source - http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml. Now lets do some simple math. 9369 gun murders divided by 270,000,000 guns = 0.0000347 murders per legally owned gun. (I'll assume that 270,000,0001 was a typo). 195,000 hospital deaths divided by 5754 hospitals = 33.889 average deaths per year from medical mistakes in each hospital. 33.889/0.0000347 = 976,628.24. Therefore, according to statistics, you are more than 900 thousand times more likely to be killed by mistakes that are made in hospitals than a gun murder with a legally owned gun. That statistic would seem to indicate that we need to get rid of hospitals, don't you think?"
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
[quote]
Now I think 1) you have resorted to childish fits because you're failing to pass your bullshit off as fact or 2) you're actually that inept. You tell me?? This has to be the most foolish thing I've seen you write. How about this little bit of Math.. It'll clear things right up.
His math actually works. He even used your numbers. Why are you resorting to name calling & personal attacks rather than addressing the issue?
Here are a few more numbers for you to ponder -
According to FBI stats, rifles of any description account for less than 4% of all firearm murders.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls
Of 8,583 firearm murders in 2011, rifles were used in 323 of them. Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc) accounted for 726 murders in that same chart & cutting instruments (knives) accounted for 1,694 of them.
That 4% was for ALL types of rifles combined. I therefore expect that "assault rifles" only accounted for a fraction of that 4%.
If the goal is to reduce the number of gun murders in the US, then going after the instrument that is used less than 4% of the time makes little sense. The numbers don't lie. The logic does not support going after rifles.
I_TI wrote:
[quote=SHUTTERBUGS]
This is not really a debate. this is you doing exactly what you said, one should not do. You've been regurgitating NRA lobbyist propaganda. Everything from a Fast and furious report by a REPUBLICAN here. It's even titled, "Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation", as if that's not unbiased, to the Just Facts website a known rightwing sympathetic website. Seriously... Be honest with yourself and me. I think you had the right idea the first time around. Perhaps it's best you pass this subject by.
Sincerely,
D
This is a dot-gov report on that program -
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/10-29-12-Fast-and-Furious-The-Anatomy-of-a-Failed-Operation-Part-II-of-III-Report.pdf
It seems to support everything that was posted in the "NRA lobbyist propaganda". It comes from the house oversight comity. I don't know how much better than that you would hope to get. C-span covered the Congregational testimony for several days. You can go back & look that up yourself if you want to hear the actual testimony first hand to test the accuracy of that report. I watched it for several hours. Nothing I read in that report conflicts with what I saw on C-span.
It's simple one only need see what party posted the report. HMMMMMMM. One would easily guess that it was a member of the GOP that signed that report.
I don't take documents like that seriously, because they are biased to the constituency. "According to FBI stats, rifles of any description account for less than 4% of all firearm murders."
All the more reason to also outlaw automatic handguns. Thanks for helping prove that point.
The murders caused by weapons of any kind isn't the issue. It's the amount of murders that take place in a short amount of time, is the issue with automatic rifles and handguns.
ridding our society of them will reduce the overall murders, which can also be proven by other societies that have strict laws and bans. See Canada, Japan etc.4% is 4% we don't need.
I agree, going after just the automatic rifles isn't the key. We need to also get rid of the pistols and disallow them to be carried in public. Ban concealment as well.
SLOWHAND311 wrote:
OK I see now what I'm dealing with. Funny part is you keep saying the National Guard is the militia yet it didn't even exist prior to it's formation in 1903.
Who was the militia before that?
Show me anywhere the militia is SPECIFICALLY and ONLY defined as the NATIONAL GUARD and ONLY the National Guard and no other. Since you seem to ignore the unorganized militia stated in the Militia Act and deny it exists.
Or show me anywhere in the Constitution where the term "The People" is only applied to a select group and not all of us.
See I think you are like most who fear honest people with guns and would love to see them all confiscated wouldn't you? Except yours of course.
I personally have zero fear of an honest citizen with a gun. Why could that be? Hell I'm not even afraid of the criminal with a gun, Why? because chances are it a cheap POS gun and the criminal is probably not well regulated in it's use.
Read the history of gun control in any country through time and look at the results in ALL cases. Not some or most but ALL.
The framers of this country knew that when they granted the right to keep and bear arms to protect against tyrants, dictators, despots,invaders or totalitarian government who would attempt to usurp our liberty, as well as for self preservation of life and property.
You go ahead and surrender your liberties but you have no right to make me give up mine.
I remember a National Guard ad years ago with the motto "protecting the United States as long as there has been a United States" Which was blatantly False. Oh wait I forgot, my government would never lie or put a spin on anything to mislead it's citizens.
It's easy.
The militia has been called the militia and was dubbed the National Guard later. They were still an organized lot with rank and organization since the original act. I don't think you have a rank and company that you report to. You're not part of the militia. hahaha. You're not organized or regulated. So if it's not the National Guard, who is it? hahahaha!! Just because it wasn't referred to as the guard in 1792, doesn't mean that it's not now. Read title 32 of the USC. You'll get it sooner or later. The Guard is the Militia. SLOWHAND311 wrote:
Just as a side note, I do believe that all able bodied U.S. citizens both male and female should go through at least 6-8 weeks of boot camp after high school and then on to life in the U. S. of A. That would resolve your "sophisticated collective right" BS as well as benefit the country in many other ways. . But that's a different discussion all together.
This is exactly why they are not the militia. In fact, the can decide to join the militia and be observed as such. Join the guard as I've said. The Guard will furnish you with a weapon.
I_TI wrote:
[quote=FLjim]
"You say that "There are 270,000,0001 legally owned in the US". They are owned by about 70-80million people in the US according to this pro gun control source - http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership. According to the source you cite, there are 9,369 firearm murders in the US each year. There are 195,000 hospital deaths from from medical errors in the US each year according to this source - http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php. There are 5,754 registered hospitals in the US according to this source - http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml. Now lets do some simple math. 9369 gun murders divided by 270,000,000 guns = 0.0000347 murders per legally owned gun. (I'll assume that 270,000,0001 was a typo). 195,000 hospital deaths divided by 5754 hospitals = 33.889 average deaths per year from medical mistakes in each hospital. 33.889/0.0000347 = 976,628.24. Therefore, according to statistics, you are more than 900 thousand times more likely to be killed by mistakes that are made in hospitals than a gun murder with a legally owned gun. That statistic would seem to indicate that we need to get rid of hospitals, don't you think?"
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
[quote]
Now I think 1) you have resorted to childish fits because you're failing to pass your bullshit off as fact or 2) you're actually that inept. You tell me?? This has to be the most foolish thing I've seen you write. How about this little bit of Math.. It'll clear things right up.
His math actually works. He even used your numbers. Why are you resorting to name calling & personal attacks rather than addressing the issue?
Here are a few more numbers for you to ponder -
According to FBI stats, rifles of any description account for less than 4% of all firearm murders.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-11
Of 8,583 firearm murders in 2011, rifles were used in 323 of them. Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc) accounted for 726 murders in that same chart & cutting instruments (knives) accounted for 1,694 of them.
That 4% was for ALL types of rifles combined. I therefore expect that "assault rifles" only accounted for a fraction of that 4%.
If the goal is to reduce the number of gun murders in the US, then going after the instrument that is used less than 4% of the time makes little sense. The numbers don't lie. The logic does not support going after rifles.
Actually, if you bothered to read the entire conversation, rather than singling out my reply, you will see that the personal attacks and name calling started with the person I was replying to. So rather than single me out, because you don't agree with me. Use your judgement and apply your standard to everyone.
Also, if you are going to post links to your claim, try to provide working links. Your numbers mean nothing if they cannot be verified. So please update your link and I will reply.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
Also, if you are going to post links to your claim, try to provide working links. Your numbers mean nothing if they cannot be verified. So please update your link and I will reply.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
It's simple one only need see what party posted the report. HMMMMMMM. One would easily guess that it was a member of the GOP that signed that report.
If you don't trust the report from the house oversight comity, then please watch the C-span coverage of the Congregational testimony for yourself. That is what I based my opinion on. The report just paraphrases what was said there.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
"According to FBI stats, rifles of any description account for less than 4% of all firearm murders."
All the more reason to also outlaw automatic handguns. Thanks for helping prove that point.
What about hands & feet? They were used as murder weapons much more than rifles were according the the FBI numbers. Shall we ban them as well?
In Phoenix, we are allowed to carry sidearms without even having a permit. We can carry open or concealed. I see people at CVS with a 1911 strapped to their hip sometimes & it's no big deal. We don't have a lot of trouble with that here. Most people, that I see carry, seem to have chosen semi-automatics. What's the problem with that?
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
It's easy.
Actually the National Guard is the organized militia & a larger group of private citizens is the unorganized militia. The two combined together constitute the militia. Please look up the definition in current US Federal Code.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
Actually, if you bothered to read the entire conversation, rather than singling out my reply, you will see that the personal attacks and name calling started with the person I was replying to. So rather than single me out, because you don't agree with me. Use your judgement and apply your standard to everyone.
I did read your entire conversation. I replied to it in small parts because you write such a lot. It becomes unwieldy to deal with all of it at once. I am not singling you out. I am just asking that we stick to the issues and not degrade to name calling.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
The murders caused by weapons of any kind isn't the issue. It's the amount of murders that take place in a short amount of time, is the issue with automatic rifles and handguns.
I fail to see how riding our society of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will reduce the overall murders. I see that you have claimed this several times, but I do not see the proof of it. Phoenix is one of the safer places that I have lived. We have lots of guns here. I've seen people bringing a hand cart to buy their ammo because they buy so much at one time. Guns get shot a lot here, but people don't get shot a lot here. It's not the number of guns that is the problem. It's the number of criminals.
I have looked at Canada. I used to live there. I lived there back when the NDP was still in charge. That was before the ban. Guns weren't a problem. I was there. I saw it first hand.
The above debating points are only of limited value anyway. The purpose of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with protection from criminals or hunting. It has to do with the preservation of a free state. My eloquence is limited, so I will simply quote federal district court judge Alex Kozinski. He is much better at stating what I want to say. His words are below.
the simple truth
the simple truth
SO... Don... No one should have guns except you because you have been in the Guard? Where did you learn this ? In the National Guard? Kind of like cop school teaching that there are cops and assholes and if your not one your the other. It helps dehumanize the public therefore making it easier to treat them as less. Like I said you would be s great national socialist party member in 1939 Germany.
Typical progressive socialist democratic rhetoric and totally hypocritical just like Diane Feinstein who is rabidly anti gun yet has her own concealed permit and secret service men to protect her but doesn't want us to be able to protect ourselves. I believe it's called an AGENDA. and it doesn't involve freedom or liberty.
You want to keep yours but don't want anyone else to have one. Now THAT is insecure. But if I've learned anything as to your nature of debate, if you want to call it that, is do claim victory no mater what evidence is to the contrary. someone make a solid counter and you just claim it proves your point when it clearly does not. Claims of other sources being biased while your's (Brady campaign I suspect) are not.
However it does show deep need to be right at all cost on your part and makes you look foolish. But you go ahead and keep thinking the sky is green after everyone correctly informs you it's blue.
The right is individual not collective so deal with it.
Typical progressive socialist democratic rhetoric and totally hypocritical just like Diane Feinstein who is rabidly anti gun yet has her own concealed permit and secret service men to protect her but doesn't want us to be able to protect ourselves. I believe it's called an AGENDA. and it doesn't involve freedom or liberty.
You want to keep yours but don't want anyone else to have one. Now THAT is insecure. But if I've learned anything as to your nature of debate, if you want to call it that, is do claim victory no mater what evidence is to the contrary. someone make a solid counter and you just claim it proves your point when it clearly does not. Claims of other sources being biased while your's (Brady campaign I suspect) are not.
However it does show deep need to be right at all cost on your part and makes you look foolish. But you go ahead and keep thinking the sky is green after everyone correctly informs you it's blue.
The right is individual not collective so deal with it.
During times of draft, what group of citizens do they draw from? THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA consisting of all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 46 and up to 64 as provided.
It's that simple dude.
It's that simple dude.
SLOWHAND311 wrote:
SO... Don... No one should have guns except you because you have been in the Guard? Where did you learn this ? In the National Guard? Kind of like cop school teaching that there are cops and assholes and if your not one your the other. It helps dehumanize the public therefore making it easier to treat them as less. Like I said you would be s great national socialist party member in 1939 Germany.
Typical progressive socialist democratic rhetoric and totally hypocritical just like Diane Feinstein who is rabidly anti gun yet has her own concealed permit and secret service men to protect her but doesn't want us to be able to protect ourselves. I believe it's called an AGENDA. and it doesn't involve freedom or liberty.
You want to keep yours but don't want anyone else to have one. Now THAT is insecure. But if I've learned anything as to your nature of debate, if you want to call it that, is do claim victory no mater what evidence is to the contrary. someone make a solid counter and you just claim it proves your point when it clearly does not. Claims of other sources being biased while your's (Brady campaign I suspect) are not.
However it does show deep need to be right at all cost on your part and makes you look foolish. But you go ahead and keep thinking the sky is green after everyone correctly informs you it's blue.
The right is individual not collective so deal with it.
I am saying that according to the 2nd Amendment. Those PEOPLE in the regulated militia are guaranteed the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. It's not the right of ever American. Furthermore, even if we applied your standard, and ignored the language that stating "regulated militia", the fact remains that later interpretation only gives the right to MEN between the ages of 18-45 and even then, they would have to muster in regular intervals for military training (like the guard). What's hilarious about Conservative Christian Right (not that all republicans are christian) is that most of them will read only what they want and apply it, like they do with their bibles and you get a bastardized version of the intent.
I whole-heartedly agree with I_TI's comment above that stated that the intent of the second amendment was to protect the states from the tyranny of the Federal government. It's also to assist the United states as a whole to protect our borders from invasion. This is exactly why it says "REGULATED MILITIA" Meaning state military. This is why musters for training and accountability are necessary. Where we differ is that every person is afforded the right. It only covers those that are part of the militia. It's just like having police. The police are representives of the people to protect them. The militia (National Guard) are the citizens that are volunteers of the state that are armed protectors of our state. It's simple. We as the people (the body) are not guaranteed individually. Gun ownership is a privilege now afforded to the people through misinterpretation throughout the years.
I think the original language is pretty clear. It has been like, all the other moral debates, such as abortion, stem cell research, etc gay rights, womens rights etc. a hot topic for many many years. Until a new Amendment is drafted and ratified by all the states (atleast 38), we will continue to see, for many years to come, Supreme Court rulings and legislation, that will redefine most of the amendments over and over again, depending on which party has control. See the Brady Bill for a testament to that fact or Roe v. Wade, Lawerence v. TX etc. etc. etc.
My personal belief and interpretation or rather, "the stance I am taking", is that citizens for the most part, in this country are uneducated, fat, lazy and irresponsible and as such do not need the right to possess a firearm. It's a false sense of security, that more often than not, ends up in the hands of a criminal. I don't trust 98% of the gun owners of this country to protect me in a life and death situation. They're more likely to kill innocents or get someone killed trying to get in a shootout with a bad guy, because they've been watching too many action movies on TV, and they think the gun makes them invincible. Fuck that, I'd rather have a trained LEO on my side, thank you.
One way to look at is this. A violent criminal/mentally deranged killer, like a toddler, is a person that cannot, without control, live on their own without causing harm, whether it's to themselves or others. You would no more give a criminal a gun, than you would a toddler. Though it's not the gun that actually goes off on it's own, it's an instrument, it is the person that causes it. Who would you blame for allowing a toddler into a room full of loaded guns? Who would be to blame? The toddler? You blame the person that provided the toddler with access to a room full of guns. A criminal, like the toddler doesn't possess a normal mature and responsible outlook on society and as such, needs to be controlled through society. Toddlers, granted, are much easier to control. Since we can't know who will all snap and kill someone, what can we do to control would be killers?? We restrict them access to guns. By reducing the amount and type of guns available, we reduce the amount the guns are used to kill. We spend the money spent on guns and put it on police.
During times of draft, what group of citizens do they draw from? THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA consisting of all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 46 and up to 64 as provided.
It's that simple dude.
I am not trying to condescend to you. But think about what you just wrote.
The draft enables the government to select men to from those age group, to be enlisted into the organized militia. That means they will then be allowed to possess the firearm. The guard assigns you a weapon, when you join. So when they become active members of the REGULATED Militia and they are given a rank, as set forth in the Militia act, they will then have the right to keep and bear arms. You're getting it, I think.I_TI wrote:
The above debating points are only of limited value anyway. The purpose of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with protection from criminals or hunting. It has to do with the preservation of a free state. My eloquence is limited, so I will simply quote federal district court judge Alex Kozinski. He is much better at stating what I want to say. His words are below......
Please see the text above. I addressed your points above.
I am saying that according to the 2nd Amendment. Those PEOPLE in the regulated militia are guaranteed the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. It's not the right of ever American. Furthermore, even if we applied your standard, and ignored the language that stating "regulated militia", the fact remains that later interpretation only gives the right to MEN between the ages of 18-45 and even then, they would have to muster in regular intervals for military training (like the guard). What's hilarious about Conservative Christian Right (not that all republicans are christian) is that most of them will read only what they want and apply it, like they do with their bibles and you get a bastardized version of the intent.
What your failing to grasp is the term "the people" Is not and cannot be a select sub group in one case and not in another. I doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms it says the right belongs to the people. HUGE HUGE difference. You don't think if the framers had intended it only for the militia they would have said so?
I whole-heartedly agree with I_TI's comment above that stated that the intent of the second amendment was to protect the states from the tyranny of the Federal government. It's also to assist the United states as a whole to protect our borders from invasion. This is exactly why it says "REGULATED MILITIA" Meaning state military. This is why musters for training and accountability are necessary. Where we differ is that every person is afforded the right. It only covers those that are part of the militia. It's just like having police. The police are representives of the people to protect them. The militia (National Guard) are the citizens that are volunteers of the state that are armed protectors of our state. It's simple. We as the people (the body) are not guaranteed individually. Gun ownership is a privilege now afforded to the people through misinterpretation throughout the years.
then that "misinterpretation" you like to call it has been around for 230 odd years since it's ratification.
I think the original language is pretty clear. It has been like, all the other moral debates, such as abortion, stem cell research, etc gay rights, womens rights etc. a hot topic for many many years. Until a new Amendment is drafted and ratified by all the states (atleast 38), we will continue to see, for many years to come, Supreme Court rulings and legislation, that will redefine most of the amendments over and over again, depending on which party has control. See the Brady Bill for a testament to that fact or Roe v. Wade, Lawerence v. TX etc. etc. etc.
The Brady bill for background checks is still in place with very little noise since it was put in effect. and I'm not familiar with any Supreme Court reconsideration of Roe v Wade. People debating an issue does not a Supreme Court case make.
OH and BTW the bullet pulled from Brady's head was a 9mm Not a .22 that Hinkley used hmmm? where did that come from? Can you say friendly fire? I knew you could. You won't hear that from Hand gun control inc. or whatever the Brady Campaign has had to change and repackage it's name to to foster more support.
My personal belief and interpretation or rather, "the stance I am taking", is that citizens for the most part, in this country are uneducated, fat, lazy and irresponsible and as such do not need the right to possess a firearm. It's a false sense of security, that more often than not, ends up in the hands of a criminal. I don't trust 98% of the gun owners of this country to protect me in a life and death situation. They're more likely to kill innocents or get someone killed trying to get in a shootout with a bad guy, because they've been watching too many action movies on TV, and they think the gun makes them invincible. Fuck that, I'd rather have a trained LEO on my side, thank you.
But because your so much smarter, trim and responsible your OK to have one aren't you?
Admit it you want us all to give up ours and you keep yours. I believe it's call narcissistic elitism. Now if you care to turn yours in first..... Or is it OK to have one set of rules for you and the rule makers and another set for the rest of the unwashed untrustworthy masses. Such as shitty health are for the masses and the best money can buy free of charge for the rule makers.
The ones I don't trust are the ones who would attempt to strip me of a right or liberty in the name of "safety" or security. or in the name of lowering crime which is doesn't.
Here's a tid bit, Utah's homicide rate is lower than Scotland and only 1 person per 100,000 higher than England's And I would have to say that Utah gun ownership is about a 1000% higher than England's. So show me again how more restrictive gun laws means less homicide?
Trying to get in a gun fight? really? Do you know of any gun owner who goes looking for gun fight? I sure as hell don't. Show me some numbers or cases where gun owners who stopped or attempted to stop criminals inadvertently injuring someone other than the criminal. Otherwise your just talking out of your ass.
You mean like the "trained" LEO's (more like law enforcement soldiers) that busted in the wrong door last week in Ogden?
One way to look at is this. A violent criminal/mentally deranged killer, like a toddler, is a person that cannot, without control, live on their own without causing harm, whether it's to themselves or others. You would no more give a criminal a gun, than you would a toddler. Though it's not the gun that actually goes off on it's own, it's an instrument, it is the person that causes it. Who would you blame for allowing a toddler into a room full of loaded guns? Who would be to blame? The toddler? You blame the person that provided the toddler with access to a room full of guns. A criminal, like the toddler doesn't possess a normal mature and responsible outlook on society and as such, needs to be controlled through society. Toddlers, granted, are much easier to control. Since we can't know who will all snap and kill someone, what can we do to control would be killers?? We restrict them access to guns. By reducing the amount and type of guns available, we reduce the amount the guns are used to kill. We spend the money spent on guns and put it on police.
Well then we better ban and restrict all knives, bats, clubs, sling shots, rocks, and all other sharp or potentially dangerous things. Because one MIGHT get in the wrong hands. Are you suggesting that the violent criminal/ mentally ill, like the toddler isn't responsible for their actions? Or that they wouldn't choose any of a hundred other ways to kill beside a gun? The answer is that we CAN often tell when one of these people is going to go off but absolutely ignore the signs. We just put them on or change their Meds. and then wonder after that fact, how such a tragedy could happen and blame it on the gun.
I am not trying to condescend to you. But think about what you just wrote. The draft enables the government to select men to from those age group, to be enlisted into the organized militia. That means they will then be allowed to possess the firearm. The guard assigns you a weapon, when you join. So when they become active members of the REGULATED Militia and they are given a rank, as set forth in the Militia act, they will then have the right to keep and bear arms. You're getting it, I think.
NO you get drafted into the standing army, air force or marines not the militia you don't get drafted into the National Guard. However you do get drafted from the unorganized militia into the regular standing forces.
Please see the text above. I addressed your points above.
And if the military, police, and NG are used against the citizens, who protect the people from them? and with what?
[/quote]
What your failing to grasp is the term "the people" Is not and cannot be a select sub group in one case and not in another. I doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms it says the right belongs to the people. HUGE HUGE difference. You don't think if the framers had intended it only for the militia they would have said so?
I whole-heartedly agree with I_TI's comment above that stated that the intent of the second amendment was to protect the states from the tyranny of the Federal government. It's also to assist the United states as a whole to protect our borders from invasion. This is exactly why it says "REGULATED MILITIA" Meaning state military. This is why musters for training and accountability are necessary. Where we differ is that every person is afforded the right. It only covers those that are part of the militia. It's just like having police. The police are representives of the people to protect them. The militia (National Guard) are the citizens that are volunteers of the state that are armed protectors of our state. It's simple. We as the people (the body) are not guaranteed individually. Gun ownership is a privilege now afforded to the people through misinterpretation throughout the years.
then that "misinterpretation" you like to call it has been around for 230 odd years since it's ratification.
I think the original language is pretty clear. It has been like, all the other moral debates, such as abortion, stem cell research, etc gay rights, womens rights etc. a hot topic for many many years. Until a new Amendment is drafted and ratified by all the states (atleast 38), we will continue to see, for many years to come, Supreme Court rulings and legislation, that will redefine most of the amendments over and over again, depending on which party has control. See the Brady Bill for a testament to that fact or Roe v. Wade, Lawerence v. TX etc. etc. etc.
The Brady bill for background checks is still in place with very little noise since it was put in effect. and I'm not familiar with any Supreme Court reconsideration of Roe v Wade. People debating an issue does not a Supreme Court case make.
OH and BTW the bullet pulled from Brady's head was a 9mm Not a .22 that Hinkley used hmmm? where did that come from? Can you say friendly fire? I knew you could. You won't hear that from Hand gun control inc. or whatever the Brady Campaign has had to change and repackage it's name to to foster more support.
My personal belief and interpretation or rather, "the stance I am taking", is that citizens for the most part, in this country are uneducated, fat, lazy and irresponsible and as such do not need the right to possess a firearm. It's a false sense of security, that more often than not, ends up in the hands of a criminal. I don't trust 98% of the gun owners of this country to protect me in a life and death situation. They're more likely to kill innocents or get someone killed trying to get in a shootout with a bad guy, because they've been watching too many action movies on TV, and they think the gun makes them invincible. Fuck that, I'd rather have a trained LEO on my side, thank you.
But because your so much smarter, trim and responsible your OK to have one aren't you?
Admit it you want us all to give up ours and you keep yours. I believe it's call narcissistic elitism. Now if you care to turn yours in first..... Or is it OK to have one set of rules for you and the rule makers and another set for the rest of the unwashed untrustworthy masses. Such as shitty health are for the masses and the best money can buy free of charge for the rule makers.
The ones I don't trust are the ones who would attempt to strip me of a right or liberty in the name of "safety" or security. or in the name of lowering crime which is doesn't.
Here's a tid bit, Utah's homicide rate is lower than Scotland and only 1 person per 100,000 higher than England's And I would have to say that Utah gun ownership is about a 1000% higher than England's. So show me again how more restrictive gun laws means less homicide?
Trying to get in a gun fight? really? Do you know of any gun owner who goes looking for gun fight? I sure as hell don't. Show me some numbers or cases where gun owners who stopped or attempted to stop criminals inadvertently injuring someone other than the criminal. Otherwise your just talking out of your ass.
You mean like the "trained" LEO's (more like law enforcement soldiers) that busted in the wrong door last week in Ogden?
One way to look at is this. A violent criminal/mentally deranged killer, like a toddler, is a person that cannot, without control, live on their own without causing harm, whether it's to themselves or others. You would no more give a criminal a gun, than you would a toddler. Though it's not the gun that actually goes off on it's own, it's an instrument, it is the person that causes it. Who would you blame for allowing a toddler into a room full of loaded guns? Who would be to blame? The toddler? You blame the person that provided the toddler with access to a room full of guns. A criminal, like the toddler doesn't possess a normal mature and responsible outlook on society and as such, needs to be controlled through society. Toddlers, granted, are much easier to control. Since we can't know who will all snap and kill someone, what can we do to control would be killers?? We restrict them access to guns. By reducing the amount and type of guns available, we reduce the amount the guns are used to kill. We spend the money spent on guns and put it on police.
Well then we better ban and restrict all knives, bats, clubs, sling shots, rocks, and all other sharp or potentially dangerous things. Because one MIGHT get in the wrong hands. Are you suggesting that the violent criminal/ mentally ill, like the toddler isn't responsible for their actions? Or that they wouldn't choose any of a hundred other ways to kill beside a gun? The answer is that we CAN often tell when one of these people is going to go off but absolutely ignore the signs. We just put them on or change their Meds. and then wonder after that fact, how such a tragedy could happen and blame it on the gun.
During times of draft, what group of citizens do they draw from? THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA consisting of all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 46 and up to 64 as provided.
It's that simple dude.
I am not trying to condescend to you. But think about what you just wrote.
The draft enables the government to select men to from those age group, to be enlisted into the organized militia. That means they will then be allowed to possess the firearm. The guard assigns you a weapon, when you join. So when they become active members of the REGULATED Militia and they are given a rank, as set forth in the Militia act, they will then have the right to keep and bear arms. You're getting it, I think. NO you get drafted into the standing army, air force or marines not the militia you don't get drafted into the National Guard. However you do get drafted from the unorganized militia into the regular standing forces.
I_TI wrote:
The above debating points are only of limited value anyway. The purpose of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with protection from criminals or hunting. It has to do with the preservation of a free state. My eloquence is limited, so I will simply quote federal district court judge Alex Kozinski. He is much better at stating what I want to say. His words are below......
Please see the text above. I addressed your points above.
And if the military, police, and NG are used against the citizens, who protect the people from them? and with what?
[/quote]
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
I whole-heartedly agree with I_TI's comment above that stated that the intent of the second amendment was to protect the states from the tyranny of the Federal government.
I think that you are putting words in my mouth.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
I am saying that according to the 2nd Amendment. Those PEOPLE in the regulated militia are guaranteed the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. It's not the right of ever American.
Then why does it say that the right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, rather than the right of the militia to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed?
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
The militia (National Guard) are the citizens that are volunteers of the state that are armed protectors of our state. It's simple. We as the people (the body) are not guaranteed individually. Gun ownership is a privilege now afforded to the people through misinterpretation throughout the years.
Please look at the definition of "militia" at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment & again, please look up the current definition as stated by US Code. It is not what you describe here. It never was.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
I don't trust 98% of the gun owners of this country to protect me in a life and death situation. They're more likely to kill innocents or get someone killed trying to get in a shootout with a bad guy, because they've been watching too many action movies on TV, and they think the gun makes them invincible. Fuck that, I'd rather have a trained LEO on my side, thank you.
The last time that I called 911, they told me that they didn't have anyone available to send & advised me to call the crimestoppers phone number to see if they could help me. After I placed that call, it took about 45 minutes before the first patrol car showed up. I can usually get to a firearm a little faster than that.
When bad things are happening, cops are a good plan "A", but when the cops aren't available, I'd like to still have a firearm available to me as plan "B". I think that it beats begging for mercy at the hands of a criminal with superior force.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
The guard assigns you a weapon, when you join. So when they become active members of the REGULATED Militia and they are given a rank, as set forth in the Militia act, they will then have the right to keep and bear arms.
What guard were you in???? That's not the way that it works around here.
You are also confusing the regulated militia with the organized militia. They are not the same.
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
My personal belief and interpretation or rather, "the stance I am taking", is that citizens for the most part, in this country are uneducated, fat, lazy and irresponsible and as such do not need the right to possess a firearm. It's a false sense of security, that more often than not, ends up in the hands of a criminal.
I thank you very much for posting this & making your position clear.
My position differs significantly from yours & I expect that it always will. I think that about sums it up for me.
Allow me to play the devil's advocate. The first amendment clearly says "Arms". It's not very definitive for a good reason. It allows us to interpret it. The supreme court has established it as "fire arms". Further state legislation is required to define exactly what firearms should be allowed to be possessed. For obvious reasons, there needs to be some regulation as to what is allowed and where. For instance, courthouses, airports etc. The 2nd Amendment states that you have the right to "keep and bear" and it also says "shall not be infringed". Obviously, you have to "infringe" to a point, because times have changed. The "forefathers" could not have possibly predicted aircraft.
They could have, they did, you
And how many bystanders did the police shoot in front of the Empire State Building? So your so called trained LEO's shoot plenty of innocents themselves. The difference is they just get paid leave instead of prison.
SLOWHAND311 wrote:
And how many bystanders did the police shoot in front of the Empire State Building? So your so called trained LEO's shoot plenty of innocents themselves. The difference is they just get paid leave instead of prison.
Very true, there's a huge difference between shooting at silouettes and shooting at someone who's shooting back, has a face, and bleeds.
I have looked people in the eye and pulled the trigger, most have not. It is not an easy thing, most officers and soldiers alike PURPOSELY miss the intended target because they'll have to live with that the rest of their lives.
For those that think guns are just for killing...... you really think this will ever even be loaded, cocked, and fired?
Current bid, $42,000 and climbing
Current bid, $42,000 and climbing
SHUTTERBUGS wrote:
Bolt action rifles and shotguns are perfectly ok for home defense.
Actually, speaking from a public safety perspective, the average bolt action hunting rifle is about the worst choice for home defense against a burglar or other common criminal. In addition to being unwieldy & slow to get off a second shot in the event that the first misses, There is the problem of over-penetration. All of the common hunting cartridges like .270, .30-06, .308, 30-30, 7mm, .243, etc. will almost always go completely through a person, then penetrate the wall behind them, then hit something outside of the house (like maybe the neighbor's kid). The "assault rifles" were intentionally chambered for medium power cartridges, rather than high power hunting calibers so that it would be more likely for the bullet to dump all of it's energy in the intended target.
A large caliber handgun is a much safer choice, especially if it is loaded with hollow points. Hollow points are designed to limit penetration depth. With the handgun, especially a semi-auto, you have an opportunity to get off a quick second or third shot, which reduces the probability that the criminal will be able to get the gun away from you.
A semi-automatic hand gun loaded with hollow points is actually a safer choice for home defense than a bolt action hunting rifle.
A closer look.
Geeze, that's not selective fire & it looks like it has a 5-round mag. If I were to load it with soft points, I could take it coyote hunting here in AZ.
That's some nice hand etching, by the way.
That's some nice hand etching, by the way.
Hey Don. try reading some of Gary Klecks work. Even gun haters have a hard time disputing his methodology and results.
I_TI wrote:
Geeze, that's not selective fire & it looks like it has a 5-round mag. If I were to load it with soft points, I could take it coyote hunting here in AZ.
That's some nice hand etching, by the way.
Yes, color case hardened 8620 steel, hand engraved with 50" of gold inlay by Adams and Adams.
Non scary 10 rd mag
Even racking or getting finger prints on it is a sin...lol
Just jumped to 50K with 4 days left. Still cheaper than that attack helicopter.
Update, Over 200,00 views with a final selling price of... $136,024
8620 sounds a bit wild for a receiver, even in it's annealed state. If it's case hard on top of that, it should be darn rugged. I can't imagine that racking it would make much of a mark.
I guess that everyone needs to have their wall hanger trophy though.
That's a nice piece of steel you have there.
I guess that everyone needs to have their wall hanger trophy though.
That's a nice piece of steel you have there.
Aw hell I wish it were mine! It's currently on display at the Shot Show.
I'll never get to own such a beautiful piece. Maybe if I sold that Ferrari I don't have either..HAHA
I'll never get to own such a beautiful piece. Maybe if I sold that Ferrari I don't have either..HAHA
By the way, for anyone that wants to only trust the cops with guns & thinks that citizens only shoot themselves with private guns, here are a few news clips & home movies for you to look at -
oops -
not so bad -
This is how the law works in AZ -
Second Amendment aside, guns do have other proper uses in the hands of law abiding citizens.
oops -
not so bad -
This is how the law works in AZ -
Second Amendment aside, guns do have other proper uses in the hands of law abiding citizens.
And that's just 33 examples that ended up on video or in the news. Most are never even reported. These few examples here equal more people SAVED by gun owners than those lost in Sandy hook. But most only count the dead, not the saved. Fewer to count for those who have difficulty with big numbers I guess.
I can come up with plenty more. I just didn't want to waste anymore bandwidth.
Food for thought
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
Abraham Lincoln
"The House of Representatives . . . can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. . . . If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. ....If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty." (James Madison Federalist Papers #57)
Special healthcare for them and mediocre health care for the rest of us? Just one of hundreds of examples.
A strong body makes the mind strong As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a 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 the constant companion of your walks."[Thomas Jefferson]
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
Abraham Lincoln
"The House of Representatives . . . can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. . . . If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. ....If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty." (James Madison Federalist Papers #57)
Special healthcare for them and mediocre health care for the rest of us? Just one of hundreds of examples.
A strong body makes the mind strong As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a 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 the constant companion of your walks."[Thomas Jefferson]
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
This must be how Don views people with guns -
That reminds me. Where did Don go? He had been pretty fast to respond here in the beginning.
That reminds me. Where did Don go? He had been pretty fast to respond here in the beginning.
Personally, I prefer the perspective of Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp.
I believe that this testimony before Congress was before she became a member of the Texas legislature, but I'd have to do a little checking before I could swear to that.
I believe that this testimony before Congress was before she became a member of the Texas legislature, but I'd have to do a little checking before I could swear to that.
I_TI wrote:
This must be how Don views people with guns -
[video]
That reminds me. Where did Don go? He had been pretty fast to respond here in the beginning.
I think perhaps his arguments got shot down?
This was just forwarded to me. It was supposedly written by a 14 year old girl. I think that she seems to understand reality pretty well.
Gun Control: Betraying the Law Abiding Citizen
With the recent shootings, it
Gun Control: Betraying the Law Abiding Citizen
With the recent shootings, it
If it did happen, it will probably be perpetrated by someone who at a young age was placed on behavioral ssri drugs or other meds because some teacher along the way saw a bright student who is easily distracted or has trouble sitting still or didn't pay attention to her in class the way she thought they should so off to the school counselor to be diagnosed by someone with no medical or psychiatric training with recommendations of SSRI's, Ridalin or other drugging. Or someone who was placed on these drugs and decided to take themselves off and the resulting mental, emotional firestorm that most go through, only to crack as the boundaries between drug time and reality collapse and usually just kill themselves, but often include others along with themselves. I HAVE WATCHED IT HAPPEN!! And more than once. I would truly like to see real numbers on what percentage of homicides and especially suicides involved SSRI's . Sadly the big drug companies will NEVER let that info out or to be collected even. Frankly, I think SSRI's should be banned just like any other drug we have found to be more detrimental than beneficial. Oh but they help some you say? I personally haven't met anyone yet that was better off on them than compared to those who understand life's struggles and deals with them. I'll put it this way... THEY ARE FUCKING WITH THINGS THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FOR ONE REASON.... MONEY!!!!!!! AND, if the guinea pig kills itself or others it's blamed on the cash cow/guinea pig. Ah poor person was beyond help right? "we did all we could" "we tried everything". Could it be "trying everything ei. luvox, prozac, fanapt, paxil,etc. alone or more often in cocktail form with several others CAUSED the tragic result????
So if your worried about mass shooting (very rare as they are) then you should be more afraid of the person on SSRI meds than the neighbor with a black scary looking firearm.
And if it did happen I certainly wouldn't blame the weapon used to do it. That's just STUPID.
So if your worried about mass shooting (very rare as they are) then you should be more afraid of the person on SSRI meds than the neighbor with a black scary looking firearm.
And if it did happen I certainly wouldn't blame the weapon used to do it. That's just STUPID.
Guns of anykind do not commit crimes. People commit crimes and have done so eversince civilization was started. Stop trying to put the tool in jail and put the person or persons who use them in jail. If people have only been commiting murder since guns were invented than please explain all those killed before guns came along.
all of theses new laws are insane. all they do is stop people that follow the law have a harder time getting a gun. Obama and the rest of the idiots in Washington dont have a clue and waste their time on shit like this instead of more important things like fixing the budget. as chris rock sayed WHAT HAPPEN TO CRAZY???
I think you need to understand what the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the amendment and what the background was. The 2nd amendment states (in the original Congressional version, which varies slightly from the copies ratified by the states as authenticated by Thomas Jefferson), "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Academic inquiry into the purpose, scope, and effect of the amendment has been controversial and subject to numerous interpretations.
In a letter to William Johnson dated June 12, 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote; "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
I believe the answers to almost any question about the background of the constitution and its amendments can be found in the Federalist Papers. So here are some quotes from the founding fathers about how they developed the arguments for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in particular the 2nd Amendment.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist Paper No. 29.)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
Additional quotes of the Founding Fathers abound, but here are a few that help to make it clear:
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])
Clearly then, the Founding fathers were cognizant of not only the need for people to protect themselves form an unjust and corrupt government, but also to protect their homes and property from ruffians and invaders.
There
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Academic inquiry into the purpose, scope, and effect of the amendment has been controversial and subject to numerous interpretations.
In a letter to William Johnson dated June 12, 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote; "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
I believe the answers to almost any question about the background of the constitution and its amendments can be found in the Federalist Papers. So here are some quotes from the founding fathers about how they developed the arguments for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in particular the 2nd Amendment.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist Paper No. 29.)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
Additional quotes of the Founding Fathers abound, but here are a few that help to make it clear:
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])
Clearly then, the Founding fathers were cognizant of not only the need for people to protect themselves form an unjust and corrupt government, but also to protect their homes and property from ruffians and invaders.
There
SEXPERIMENTORS wrote:
Mr. Sexperimentors (Constitutionalist and Libertarian)
Thank you for that Sir.
You're welcome.
My thoughts on gun control?
I have lots of guns. And as such, I welcome you to come and take them....
But you won't, you'll call for another man with a gun to come and take my gun.....
I have lots of guns. And as such, I welcome you to come and take them....
But you won't, you'll call for another man with a gun to come and take my gun.....
That in my honest opinion is the really truth of this debate. The gun control side really wants a ban on semi-auto firearms. Hell new zealand just pushed it after their one church shooting. And the fact is that here in the united states, you'd never pull that off. For most gun orders it would take force to take our weapons. And we'd rather die than surrender our rights or more saddly kill the mother fucker who came for them at my door. To do this is to start and engage in civil war. No one wants to lead that charge on the left they know whats on that road at the end. A civil war
Fact, when they ban guns or if they try, bad people who want guns will get them after you turn yours in. I sleep comfortably at night with a gun next to my bed for the unknown and one one my hip for the same reason. When I invite one of you horny fuckers over to my house, rest assured there is one close by as well. Eases my mind and the mrs.
Look up what the militia was the people. We did not have standing army just valenteers.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
The Right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
NOW MY QUESTION IS WHO ARE THE PEOPLE?
My next question tonthe anti gunners is what part of shall no be infringed dont you understand? James Madison made it cut and dry should not be that hard to understand..
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
The Right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
NOW MY QUESTION IS WHO ARE THE PEOPLE?
My next question tonthe anti gunners is what part of shall no be infringed dont you understand? James Madison made it cut and dry should not be that hard to understand..
The 2nd was not put in the Constitution for hunting or target shooting. Its was put in there so we the people could protect our Republic from forgien or demestic Invaders or a tyranical government. Not to mention to protect ourselves family and friend from bad guys with guns.
Ben Franklin said it best..
And i quote " An armed society is a polite society"
And i quote " An armed society is a polite society"