Second Amendment - 18th Century Wisdom in the 21st Century
The time has come to repeal the Second Amendment.
It no longer serves a valid purpose, and the harms inflicted upon our society by the sloppiness of gun manufacturers, retailers, and owners are unacceptable.
The way I see it, there are three groups of people who think they benefit from the Second Amendment - hunters, self-defendants, and crazy people who think that they're going to stave off tyranny with their deer rifles.
The first group, I'm sympatico with. I used to hunt when I was a kid, and I'd happily do it again. So, let's set this thing up where guns can be made available to them under far more secure circumstances. No more shotguns and deer rifles in closets and under beds, or WalMarts stocked with weapons waiting for the first looter to get there. For people who want to use guns for their hobbies, like hunters and skeet shooters, let's do what we can to keep them happy. Their hobby, however, doesn't strike me as one rising to a level justifying Constitutional protection. They ought to be on the same Constitutional footing as philatelists and bird-watchers.
As for the self-defendants, I can understand where they're coming from. On one occasion, when I was swept up in fear, I wished that I had a working pistol and the knowledge of how to use it. But, the fear passed, and the real root of my fear was my imagination.
That doesn't mean that there aren't times that having a pistol would do people some good. But it's a cycle. Most of the reason people think they need guns is because they think others have guns (and sometimes, they're right). But, speaking from personal experience, I've lost a lot more friends and relatives because other people had guns than because there were too few guns around. If you want to defend the Second Amendment on a cost-benefit analysis, you're going to wind up losing.
Finally, the anti-tyranny crowed blew their chance when then allowed the government to "usurp" their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons. Theoretically, these people had a point a long time ago, but, now that technology has made muskets an ineffective choice for governmental overthrow, let's not let them kid us. Private gun ownership is not going to prevent governmental tyranny, no matter how carefully you've studied Red Dawn.
posted by Dan at 9/07/2005 06:25:00 AM
101 Comments:
I think we just need sane gun regulation. The 2nd Amendment starts with, "A Well-Regulated Militia, ..." or something like that. How can anyone pretend therefore that regulations themselves violate the 2nd Amendment?
After pondering the chaos, hysteria, and utter ineffectual response of all levels of government to Katrina, I fully expect that I will buy a 12 gauge shotgun the next time a hurricane threatens my home.
b.
I think I agree with brian.
The Amendment itself isn't the problem, it's the fact that too many fanatics choose to put alot of weight in the "right to bear arms" part while completely ignoring the "well-regulated" part.
While I will NEVER own a gun in my life. I'd be opposed to an all out ban on all gun ownership (which I know is not what you're suggesting), and that's all the actual 2nd Amendment prevents (as opposed to right-wing beliefs on the issue). Why waste the money and time one repealing it?
There are actually four kinds of people who disagree with you: the three you mentioned, then the people who realize that banning things only creates a black market for them.
I hate guns. I will never have a gun in my house. I have never fired a gun - probably might never do so, unless I had to hunt.
But listen, Dan, we banned alcohol during prohibition and we got the mob. We banned marijuana and other narcotics and we now have crack gangs and columbian drug lords. Banning guns would mean that only those willing to break the law could buy a gun. "Gun nuts," rapists, murderers, drug lords - do you think they're going to go turn in their guns just because the second amendment is repealed? Most of their guns are illegal anyway!
No, I say we just make sure guns are regulated well. Completely overhaul the system, and make it as safe as possible. Banning a problem just makes people think it's going to go away, and they begin to ignore it.
I won't try to argue with you; you've obviously made up your mind. I'll just state the obvious: You're an idiot.
For authority, I'll cite:
Jefferson
Washington
Madison
Hamilton
Adams
even HH Humphrey!
etc., etc.
It's not about hunting, It never was, though I do hunt. It's about limiting government. The founders understood the 2nd amendment ultimately guaranteed all the others. Citizen-riflemen do not have to engage in set-piece combat to be effective; in fact that's exactly what they would not and should not do. But 100 million people with firearms can make any tyranny ultimately impossible - a million pinpricks.
If you were stuck in NO after Katrinia, and you did not have a firearm, you're a fool. If you choose not to own a firearm, certainly that's your right. If you do not learn basic firearms safety and handling, and teach it to your kids, you're a fool. All my boys are gun-trained(I have no girls).
I do not intend to be a fool. There is no way, under any circumstances, that any government agency will ever disarm me or my 100 million brothers. Period. I will defend your rights as well, even if you have no interest in defending your own.
As another put it well: A disarmed man is a subject; an armed man is a citizen.
End of subject. Grow up.
Gosh, while you're at it, why not repeal that troublesome 5th and 6th amendment. Think how much more efficient our police and courts could be.
And the 4th amendment as well. After all, that "a man's home is his castle . . ." What rot! no one lives in castles anymore!
And that silly first amendment - it's just the cause of much disagreement and discontent anyway. If we all just disagreed, then no one would would have any hurt feelings, and we could all have a group hug, together, forever, in the arms of loving Big Brother. I Love Big Brother . . .
We all trust the government implicitly, don't we? Well don't we?
C'mon. No part of the Bill of Rights is negotiable. Not now. Not ever.
Brian & Dolphin - you're probably right. Regulation would suffice to accomplish my goals, and is probably more politically feasible.
George - you raise an interesting point, and a valid one. Severe restrictions on guns would be difficult to enforce, but I really think they could be accomplished.
First Anonymous - I am rubber, you are glue . . . Now that I've eviscerated you with my wit, on to your points. You rely on 5 18th Century minds, and a politician who wisely chose not to take on the gun nuts. You're kind of proving my point, aren't you? Thank you. But, really, I'm not the sort to simply accept HH Humphrey's position as valid simply because he said it. Same with just about everyone you care to name.
Same thing with you calling me a fool. A gun would have been a valued security blanket in NO, but unnecessary for the VAST majority of people. Furthermore, it would have been even more unnecessary if there weren't guns already in the hands of some criminals because of decades of sloppy gun ownerships and a few irresponsible WalMart stores. It's NO that got me to post this piece.
It makes me sad that you call me a fool and tell me to grow up, especially after you already pointed out that I'm an idiot. Your condemnation cuts me to the core. Please, please stop! ;-)
Your final point is that you could prevent tyranny with your deer rifles. Sure you could. Just to prove your point, why don't you and a few buddies play out your Red Dawn delusions and take over a small state, okay?
Then you share a meaningless slogan. How about this one - "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their children"? Are we even now?
Anonymous 2 (or are you Anonymous 1 back for a second round? - if so, thanks for not calling me anymore names this time) - I disagree that the 1st, 4th, 5th or 6th amendments have outlived their usefulness, or that they reflect 18th Century thinking. They have nothing to do with what I'm talking about, other than the historical fact that they share designation as parts of the Bill of Rights. I agree that the Bill of Rights should not be tampered with lightly, but, in this instance, I don't think their common designation makes them equally valuable or worthy of retention.
Those "18th century minds" have endured well, thank you. The reasons they wrote a 2nd amendment were valid then, and are still valid now. Human beings, and human nature, have not changed one iota, and never will, this side of heaven.
I haven't seen much "21st century wisdom" that held a candle to the founders. My point remains: The other amendments exist because of the second. Eviscerate that one, and it will only be a matter of time before the others are gone. The first step in any tyranny is to disarm the population.
It's not a simple historical accident that the 2nd amendment is tucked between the amendments protecting individual liberties. It's the foundation of the other liberties. The founders understood that; you don't. That's sad. You note that just because the founders said it, you do not accept it as authority. Fine. But their ideas, for the most part, have stood the test of time. Yours? Gone and forgotten tomorrow.
The reality, of course, is that 100 million gun owners (who didn't shoot anyone last night, BTW) and even Americans who do not own guns (see your own posters) understand the importance of free men remaining free, even if you don't. Those same 100 million gun owners effectively make banning guns impossible. And I understand full well that banning guns is your ultimate goal, your words to the contrary notwithstanding. I'm at least honest in my position.
BTW: I'm anonymous simply because I have neither the time, inclination, or inflated sense of self-importance to operate a blog myself. Nor do I have a web page, nor do I want one. Anonymous is the choice left. You made the distinctions.
Les, as I acknowledged above, that's a fair point. Regulation is probably the more politically feasible route to follow.
Anonymous - first off, feel free to post anonymously. I didn't design the choices. If you want to identify yourself, you can, in the body of your post, but you're under no obligation to do so. I might mock you for hiding your identity sometimes, but you're within your rights to do so.
I agree that human nature hasn't changed much, but military technology certainly has. A bunch of muskets stood a good chance of kicking redcoat butt, but you and all your duck-hunting buddies don't stand a chance against 2 or 3 well-equipped Marines.
Your point about tyranny and disarming the population sounds nice, but it's bullshit. Iraq had plenty of guns in homes during Sadam's reign. Again, your handguns and deer rifles don't mean jack squat anymore. If you were talking about defending me with rocket launchers, stinger missiles, and a full arsenal of modern weapons, we might have something to discuss.
As I read my commentators, they all pretty much agree with me that guns ought to be subject to severe restrictions, but feel that repealing the second amendment is politically infeasible. I probably agree with them.
And I most certainly am not being dishonest in my position. I don't want guns in homes. I don't want them available for easy stealing in homes or in WalMarts. I don't mind having them available, under strict security, for people to hunt with and shoot skeet, or whatever. But I want them off the streets - a process I know will take some time, but I'm wanting to start now. Is that clear enough?
Yeah, Dan ... just like that peaceful, fun-loving, no-crime city of Washington, D.C. ... where guns are restricted.
Can you find a way to guarantee that law-abiding citizens won't fall prey to those who aren't? Because, those who aren't won't be registering any weapons with the authorities ... that much I can guarantee.
Dan - your goal is to ban the private ownership and possession of weapons. Now we're finally clear where you stand. You don't endorse "sane regulation," you endorse proscription.
You point out that "you and all your duck-hunting buddies don't stand a chance against 2 or 3 well-equipped Marines." True enough. But if it comes to that (and I am not advocating revolution; on the contrary, so far, the Bill of Rights that you has so little respect for, 18th century thinking and all, has worked pretty well), it will not be "me and my buddies," it will be 100 million plus people. Note what those "2 or 3 Marines" will be equipped with: a rifle. (My son is a Marine - and they are effective not because of amazing new technology, but simply because of training, organization, and motivation) Simple rifles are quite effective - that's why the military still issue them. And no military, no matter how well equipped, can sustain itself against a million pinpricks. Of course, it is the reality of those 100 million guns that ultimately prevents that scenario in the first place. Thank God. It certainly is not enlightenment in the halls of government.
Several posters have called for "sane gun regulation." Fair enough. Define it. What do you propose as "sane regulation?" Be specific. My guess is that whatever you call for is already in place. No one, not even a right-wing nut like me, believes that felons etc. should have firearms. But neither should they be a government monopoly, handed out at the whim of authorities.
I'lll be happy to surrender my guns when you can guarantee that all others are permanently destroyed (including the government's). That is impossible, of course. If the concern is that guns kill people, you're absolutely right. That's why they are valuable commodities to possess, and why government should never have a monopoly on their possession. Governments, given the opportunity, have always been the most prolific killers of people.
Finally, as Tony Rosen pointed out, those parts of this country with the most restrictive gun laws tend to have the most gun crime. Coincidence? I think not.
No takers on "sane regulation?" No surprise. I thought not.
Sorry, Anonymous, I think you bored the commenters to tears. And there's little use in discussing this topic with someone who argues that gun regulations are the cause of crime rates in DC.
Gosh, and I thought we lived for clear thinking, wit and lively banter. There's not much of that here.
Anonymous -
I would have emailed this to you, but I don't know who you are. Here's a first-rate article on survival of catastrophes - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/20/51253/3712
Thought you might like it.
Haven't read it all yet; seems very good. Good sense coming out of the Left Coast (Especially SF)- who'd a thunk it?
Beating up on these anti-gunners is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Those who says guns kill more often than they save are delustional. According to the Centers for Disease Control, firearms are used in self-defense over 2,000,000 times a year in this country? That's 5500 times a day; 97% of the time without a shot ever being fired; the presence of the gun is enough of a deterrant. Meanwhile, there were 10,086 murders with guns in 1998. That's a 200 to 1 ratio. You have a better chance of dying in a car crash or drowning in a swimming pool.
Those 10,086 murders were commited by criminals. Criminals whom gun laws would have no effect on since they don't obey the law anyway! The law-abiding citizen is the one who suffers when you set down gun control. In fact you make it easier for crimes to happen because you make it harder for people to defend themselves. Does that make you an enabler or an accessory to the crime? Think about it...
Washington DC has virtually no guns and the highest crime rate in the nation. Meanwhile, Switzerland is the most heavily armed nation on Earth, and crime there is virtually nil. Gun control doesn't work! Plain and simple.
Also, please don't feed us any bull about fearing the government. We must always mistrust the government. Otherwise people like Mao, Hitler and Stalin can come to power. Actually, I'm wrong. Gun control does work for it's intended purpose. Just ask the 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians or 50 million Chinese killed by their dictatorships which forbade guns. And don't say it can't happen again. It can, and it will if we allow it, somewhere. Maybe not here in the US, but gun control is a key ingredient in the recipe for dictatorships.
No. No compromise. No licensing. No registration. No bans. No one telling us what firearms we need and what we don't. Nothing!
It's time we end this debate once and for all and let the gun contro movement succumb to the death it should have met a long time ago.
Matt,
You do realize that the CDC has never said anything like that, don't you? Do you seriously believe your statistic, or are you flat-out lying? Either way, you should be ashamed of yourself.
So, scratch that whole line of argument, and write me an apology for taking up space with nonsense.
As for the murders, how many of them would have been batteries without handguns? I don't know, and you don't either. But, clearly some would have been, and that's a few lives. I would mock you by asking whether that makes you an accessory, but that argument is too stupid to type even in jest.
Then, Matt, you have the insight to compare DC with Switzerland. Think real hard now, Matt, and you might come up with some distinctions between the two situations, and you might realize you are comparing apples and oranges. But, then again, you might not, but everyone else does.
It's good to know that we have people like you to protect us from Stalin. Keep up the good work.
Then, you reveal your true colors. No restrictions at all, huh? Cop-killer bullets? Mortars? How about missiles?
You're a true piece of work, Matt, the kind of person I was hoping to hear from when I posted this. Uninformed, unthinking, illogical, and cocky.
Go ahead and shoot into a barrel, Matt. You're already all wet.
Allright, Dan-o. I'll admit I typed that post in haste and made a mistake. The CDC portion was meant to point to a study I had completely omitted in my post; it was late and I wanted to go to bed and wasn't watching what I was typing. In the future, I'll inspect my posts more carefully. You'll get a correction from me, but no apology.
Regardless, sonny boy, get your books ready; we're going to school.
The CDC has said that it can find no proof that gun laws help in crime reduction. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm. Please also note that over half of gun deaths are suicides.
The 2,000,000 gun uses a year was from a study commissioned by FSU. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html. Even if only a tenth of them actually happen, you have 200,000 defensive gun uses a year to roughly 12,000 homicides; about a 16 to 1 ratio.
Precious space...right. Because you know, people are flocking to post here. Give it a rest. No one posted here at all for 2 months until I came along; be thankful for the attenion.
We'll never know how many deaths there will be, you're right. But when you take away the right of a women to defend herself against a 200-lb man, you are an enabler to that crime. What part of "when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns" don't you understand? Gun control punishes the innocent and law-abiding. How many of those 2,000,000 would be dead or injured if you had your way and took away our guns so they couldn't defend themselves?
Apples and oranges with Switzerland? No no. By your logic, we should have a running counter watching the number of deaths going up in Switzerland. If guns cause crime, how do you explain the almost non-existant crime in Switzerland? How do you account that since 1992, the number of guns in America has literally almost doubled, yet violent crime has been decreasing since then? http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl01.xls
How do you explain away that since enacting concealed carry, Texas has seen a 33% decrease in violent crime and the other 37 states that have it have also seen crime drop?
Check out Florida for instance. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm
I'll say it once again in case you still don't get it. CRIMINALS WILL GET GUNS ANYWAY, regardless of how many laws you pass. Watch violent crime go up when you take away the RKBA, because people can't defend themselves, like in these instances. http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
The only restrictions I'm for are not allowing convicted criminals to own guns for a set period of time. That's how it is now; due process takes the right away, due process gives it back. Please explain to me what your fear of these dreaded "cop killer" bullets is? That they have better stopping power than some other bullets. Read what Officer Casey has to say about those "horrible" cop killer bullets http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html
As for mortars and missiles; well, those are artillery and missiles, respectively. Not firearms. Do you really think this is a problem? I can't tell you how many times I've been out mortar shopping at places like Gander Mountain only to go home empty-handed.
And if you really question that gun control is a key ingredient in dictatorships, I suggest you read the dinner conversations Martin Bormann had with Adolf Hitler.
In the meantime, read what none other than Mahatma Ghandi said about gun control: http://www.libertyoutlet.com//store/itemdetail.html?detailid=14
Why is it also, that Rosie O'Donnnell has armed bodyguards. Why does Diane Feinstein have a concealed carry permit? Why are there pictures of Chuck Schumer shooting a pistol at a firing range? Why don't these anti-gun liberal elitist snobs, much like yourself, practice what they preach?
I may be arrogant and cocky, but that doesn't make me any less right. But uninformed and illogical? Hardly. Take a look at the mountain of evidence in front of you; I've given you just a small sample. The lesson learned is this; no good ever comes from gun control. I may have been what you were looking for to come post here. Great. You were also exactly what I was looking for; another numbnuts who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and needs to be put in his place.
Now go ahead, say it. You know you want to. Tell me I made any of this post up. Go on, say it.
I'm only all wet because of the splashing from shooting your arguments full of holes. Now...why don't you pull your head out of your ass and learn what proper political thinking is all about?
Are you shamed yet? You should be.
From an outsiders perspective, the 2nd amm. is a load of crap that was useful in the 1800's. If the government had restricted gun control earlier in the piece, there would be no need for normal citizens to carry fire arms, apart from hunting. And for those justifing guns in case of a corrupt government coming to power, sheese do you live in America or Hatai, 2006 at that!!! If you are that paranoid about your ELECTED government officials, then America is in a worse off position than I ever imagined. That's called paranoia, not freedom.
Being an Australian, it is pretty uncommon to see a crime committed with a gun (though there are a few more these days), and it is refreshing to be able to walk around the streets not having to worry about getting shot up by a passing motorist.
HOWEVER (a big however), I don't really see how America can go back from the current point to a gun free society. You have lived off guns since day one, and god help you guys if shit like NO hit the fan in the rest of the country. In a week you would revert back to a full scale, national shoot out with each other, then onto something that resembled that crappy movie the postman. The problem is that there are two many guns out there that are not registered, the government could spend its entire defence budget into getting guns out of criminals hands, and still they wouldn't get half of them. With this being the case, it seems to be a sad fact of life that people need guns. It seems to be a case of there being no way back, unless some magical method of removing all illegal guns from the streets was thought up, along with an even more magical method of reforming the US political system to remove influence from big companies (oil and gun companies come to mind, but that is another rant for another time!).
If I ever live in the US, I have to say that I would be tempted to buy a gun for security reasons... and that I think is a really sad reflection of America; the `land of the free' label has well and truely followed the dodo.
One thing that is missed in these arguements, especially from those that would have more government control of the average life, is the use of language two hundred years ago. I am no language expert. But just from observations in reading history, particularly in that period, the use of the words "Well Regulated" referred to "well organized" or "well trained". And cetainly NOT a wellpacked volume of government paperwork regarding an issue. For those that haven't, I suggest reading the militia law passed in the first congress.
There has been an obvious attempt to re-organize the governmental power over the last century using the philosophy of loose interpretation of the Constitution rather than the respect of the specific words and definitions used at the time of those those that gave us a republic. Although, it is looking more like a democracy every day. For those that don't quite follow: France was a Democracy after it's revolt, but how long did it last?
My intent is not to be paranoid because every organism, biological or organizational, seeks to gain more power and control for itself. It is just that the generation that created this country and it's government, were probably the smartest politions we've ever seen, both since then and before in history. And they sought to LIMIT the amount of power that those who governed had access to. Our country/government is one of the oldest at present as a result of that.
For the Australian: I have visited your country. Nice place. Except for the gun laws passed. In your comparison of the US with Haiti, the main issue you miss is that the people of Haiti have no way to protect themselves from a corrupt or dictatorial government. Neither did those in Rhowanda, Cambodia, Russia (when it was), and others in the past. We still have that ability.
As Matt has said, take a good look at the history of Switzerland
First time here...Wow! There certainly are a lot of sheep flocking to the shepherd on this site. Nice to know that I have more guns than most of you combined....and they're NOT hunting rifles either. I'll bet that most gun haters here have never actually fired a gun. So far, I've never seen a newbie to guns not enjoy the first experience. Oh crap...does that make me the gun nut?
More importantly, I am not an urban, black youth....yeah...I said it...black. Anybody with eyes, ears, a brain and the local paper knows that this demographic is hands down far more responsible for illegal gun violence than any other group(s) combined and are the true "statistic makers". Hey Australia...what have you got?...probably the same minority problem as Switzerland. Oh crap...now I'm a racist.
I actually have guns and ALL of my firearms are registered and legal. Both the F'ing state and federal government know all about them and how scary looking they are. I religiously pay my taxes so that an entire government BATFE bureau can watch over me.
Funny...everybody here is talking about controlling my guns through even more government regulation, and yet I don't hear a damn thing about pounding the actual felons to dust. Why is that?
Wow...I had almost forgotten I had posted here...almost a year ago.
Danny Boy never responded to me. How about that. I guess the cat has a strangle hold on his tongue. Wait...I know. Maybe I belittled him so much he decided it was "Beneath him" to respond.
Whatever the case, nothing's changed. Gun control is wrong.
Some free advice for you Dan...you can apply this in many areas of life. Don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash.
Too bad we can't repeal the first amendment so morons like this can't have their own blog hahaha
Matt, I'm sorry if I ignored you. Your first post proved to be an outright lie, and I don't have a ton of patience for that sort of person.
In your response to my catching you on your lie, you then cite a claim that 2 million defensive gun happen in America per year, and claim it comes from a study "commissioned" by FSU. No, that number comes from a study which has been roundly discounted, that was not "commissioned' by FSU, but was produced by a nutcase at FSU who is protected by tenure from being fired for his outrageous twisting of facts. You cited the single worst study, coming up with the most absurdly high number.
How does one respond to someone like you? Should I run out and behave like you do? Should I go find a study that claims there have been 10 defensive gun uses in the history of the planet, and think I have proven anything? Maybe that's the way to handle someone like you, but, if that's the case, I think I'll stick with my strategy of ignoring you. If you're willing to engage in blatant dishonesty, what's the point in discussion?
Similarly, your attempt to tie drops in violent crime to looser gun laws is intellectually dishonest. Crime rates have dropped nationally, not just in areas with looser gun laws. And, think about it. Do you really want to make that connection? Because, when crime rates go up, wouldn't the "logical" response be to blame loose gun laws?
Last year, Kansas City got concealed weapons, and our murder rate sky-rocketed. I could make that connection, but it would be a false one. I know it, you know it, so, even though it would pass your standards for intellectual honesty, it doesn't pass mine.
Your citation of the hilarious NRA stories of defensive gun uses is much appreciated. I had a law school buddy who was a gun nut, who claimed to have used his gun defensively several times during law school. The fact that he found himself in such dire straits so often, while living in a peaceful college town in a life virtually parallel to mine, convinced me that a part of his emotional make-up made it important for him to have the level of excitement in his life, whether it really existed outside his fevered imagination or not.
Artillery and missiles are arms, are they not? Did someone amend the Second Amendment to refer to the right to carry firearms? Wny are you so willing to emasculate your favorite amendment? I'm surprised to see you justify your lack of freedom with the status quo - I didn't realize you are happy with current laws.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq allowed for widespread gun ownership. And I think your use of Hitler exposes you to a Godwin citation, but I'll let you off with a warning.
Now, I've gone and wasted a decent chunk of time responding to an intellectually dishonest liar. What is the point, really? You lied with statistics, you used illogical arguments, and you sprinkled your post with ad hominem attacks.
Crediblity is a key. It's easy to lose, and you've lost it. The NRA has lost it. The FSU professor you cite never had it.
I'm happy to listen to and learn from many of those who posted comments questioning my logic and conclusions. The ones who aren't abusive liars.
Dan:
I don't know what more you want from me on that count. I made a mistake; I corrected it and owned up to it.
Roundly discounted? Really? By whom? Please provide credible examples.
The problem is this, Dan. You don't WANT to believe that people do use guns everyday to defend themselves and others. Not just from crazy men; but from animals as well. Though I would venture a guess self-defense against people happens far more often than you are willing to acknowledge.
And let's say you do want to throw out the gun study. Are you willing and able to discount all the other sources I've alluded to. As I've said; that's just the tip of the iceberg. More than enough evidence is out there that has shown gun control to be a complete failure.
Have you ever read "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott? I think you would do well too...though I'm sure there's something wrong with that book too, right?
And please tell me how one "lies" with statistics? Numbers do not lie.
As I said...I made a mistake. That does not make me a liar. I will say, though, that I have never met an honest liberal. Never. At least not totally honest. Buying into liberalism requires altering facts or suspending reality altogether in many instances.
Ignore me if you must...we aren't getting anywhere, anyway. But things are the way they are, whether you like them or not.
Alright, You have persuaded me to give up all my firearms. I will give up ALL my firearms and never buy another one, nor will I go any longer to shoot with my friends.
There is only ONE condition. That it be You personally, Dan, to come and TRY and take them away.
Alright, and now for a history/english lesson. (mostly directed at brian and dolphin)
"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."
Not a lot of words, Just very specific and carefully thought out words. So lets break it down.
The standing Military of the US when this was writen was indeed the militia. Not to be confused with the people of the US.
So "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Ok, sure, we need some sort of organized group to protect this country.
" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Ok, this is the meat of the RKBA. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the militia, not the governemnt, not the military, but the PEOPLE. This is saying that the private ownership of firearms is not a right that the militia can take away.
The coma seporates the militiaand the state from the people making that distiction very evident.
As for those saying it is "Outdated" I guess your 1st amendement rights are "outdated" as well.
Read Mao, Sun Tzu, Che any of the guerilla texts. Look at the US in Viet Nam or the French in Algeria or the Soviets in Afganistan or the Jews in Warsaw.
Asymetric warfare is often won by a few rifles in the hands of peasants. By peasant I mean people not governments. A true Guerilla uses the streght of the enemy against it.
Swiss people are armed to the teeth. The Finns as well. They have no "Gun Crime" to speak of. Who has "Gun Crime" in Europe? Scotland and England who have the most restrictive gun laws in Europe. Gun laws and self defense is murder as in England and Scotland simply disarm the victim and embolden the criminal.
Mexicans have a similar murder rate as the US does with out the easy access to guns. They smuggle them in or use knives (Soon to be banned in Scotland as well).
Hand and feet kill as many people as guns do. Would you legislate these as well?
Why not focus our efforts on criminal activity rather than objects.
The "War on Drugs" is lost. We should legitimize the drug trade. Make the substances availible pure and criminal free at clinics and or pharmacies. We would not have one more junkie on the streets but would cut the cash off that fuels much of the "Gun" violence in the United States, Mexico, and Columbia.
By the By...Regulated in that time mean "Adjusted, working properly" as in a Regulated watch. Madison said "What sir is the militia? Why the WHOLE of the people"
Just as an aside "www.homegunsmith.com" see just how effective Gun Laws would be. If you need a gun you will have a gun. Build it, Buy it, Steal it from the police or the army. Nothing stops anyone who truly want one from having one. Google the word "Paltik". The Phillipenes had a confiscation of legal firearms and the cottage industry for copies of expensive imported firearms went into overdrive. Gun Laws just don't work.
Anonymous, Don't cloud the gun control issue with facts. that's not fair, it's for the children you know.
Time for some education you ignorant fools.
"well regulated" stems from the use of the words in the late 1700's. Basically it means "accurate"
So all of those people here (a lot of you) taking that to mean the national guard or any other government group, are uneducated ignorant people who I hope don't vote.
Another tidbit, the National guard was created in 1903. Well over 100 years AFTER the 2nd was written. Jay Madison must have been psychic.
Speaking of Jay Madison, it was he who wrote the Federalist #46. Explaining that not only is the 2nd an individual right, but that it is in place with the idea of the main threat to the citizens of the US, being the US government. It's our back up for when voting fails and tyranny takes over.
I myself have used a sidearm 3 times in self defense, thank god never having to take a life. I've yet to be killed obviously.
That goes with the national average.
Mikey Moore has gotten to far to many libtards. I suggest www.moorelies.com for a lot of information (verifiable information) showing his lies, and how he has pieced together different speaches, sometimes to the word to make people say whatever they want him to say.
I invite any antigunner to an open debate so that I may beat down your EVERY POINT WITH COLD HARD FACTS.
Wow.
How quickly you're ready to surrender your rights.
The government is in place to protect your rights. They don't "give" them to you. You need to wake up to that.
Good luck author. With that attitude and mind set, you'll need it.
Mark H.
I think it's ridiculous that everyone who owns a firearm fits so neatly into all your little categories. Everyone labels gun owners as a bunch a right wing lunatics and I for one am sick of hearing liberal think tank types like you spewing this crap. You think that gang members walk into their local Wal Mart, fill out some paperwork and walk out with a gun and go right out and commit crimes with it? Get real, retailers do not sell criminals guns. They buy them ILLEGALLY from other criminals. I have no doubt that people have bought guns and used them to do vicious things. But do you think a person determined to do harm to another human being would be deterred if he were not able to get a firearm? I don't think so, he would find some other means. How about accidents? Well if people practiced proper firearms safety accidents would be dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, and people do stupid things. Does that mean everyone should give up their rights because of a select few who are not smart enough to handle the responsibility? Self defense? Are you interested in protecting your family? I'm sure you are. Why don't you put a sign on your door that says "NO GUNS IN THIS HOME." I'd like to see just how much you believe in your cause. Because the criminals that bought them Wal Mart guns will take notice. The world is a dangerous place, and it's not getting any better. In a perfect utopian society we would not have a need for violence, and guns would not exist, but that's a fairy tale. As long as humans have free will there will be war, strife and differing opinions. I can only hope you will change your narrow mind and see things for how they really are. But I like all the other firearm owners out there will not give up my rights just so you can have a false sense of security. Call me a nutjob or whatever I don't care. I have and always will have the means to protect those whom I love. Go find another crusade, us right wing nut jobs are tired of hearing it. MOLON LABE!
Ever hear of the Athens Rebellion?
Ever hear of the multiple Supreme Court cases holding that police can't be held liable for not defending your life?
Dan wrote:
Finally, the anti-tyranny crowed blew their chance when then allowed the government to "usurp" their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons. Theoretically, these people had a point a long time ago, but, now that technology has made muskets an ineffective choice for governmental overthrow, let's not let them kid us. Private gun ownership is not going to prevent governmental tyranny, no matter how carefully you've studied Red Dawn.
Oh really? How is it that in the Middle East there are two current examples of exactly how effective a citizenry uprising can be against a well equipped well trained military?
First, lets look at the war in Iraq, that most liberals are so quick to point out is a complete failure. There are roughly 130,000 US military servicemen and women on the ground in Iraq. Very few would argue that the US military is not the finest trained military in the world. And guess what? They're not able to suppress the insurgency of a few thousand "citizens" with rifles and bombs made from regularly available materials (hence the name improvised). While the insurgency is there for all the wrong reasons, and the US military is there for all the right reasons, it still illustrates that a few thousand determined individuals with nothing more than simple weaponry can stop a well trained military force dozens of times larger with all the equipment in the world.
Second example is Israel battling Hesbollah. Again, incorrect political motivations, but if we take out the air raids and the rockets lobbed into Israel (which were pretty ineffective at dislodging Hesbollah) and focus on the ground incursion, you will see that again, some "citizens" with simple weaponry were able to defend against what is probably the most advanced middle eastern military.
Dan wrote:
Your final point is that you could prevent tyranny with your deer rifles. Sure you could. Just to prove your point, why don't you and a few buddies play out your Red Dawn delusions and take over a small state, okay?
Oh you mean like the Beltway snipers (which was only two guys, with only one pulling the trigger) oppressed the entire population with fear for weeks until they were caught? Suppressing the "population" is easy. A few dozen snipers will keep everyone indoors. And their low numbers will make a military intervention ineffective.
And before you mention that the beltway snipers used an "assault weapon", let me tell you that the death toll would have been far higher had they used a rifle more suited to the purpose, like a hunting rifle with a bolt action.
No, my friend, banning guns, or strict control, will get you nothing but more crime.
But you don't have to own any. The roughly 100 million gun owners in this country will be happy to defend your liberty for you despite you blatantly attacking their right to own firearms.
I think the country would be far better served by repealling the first amendment. What modern, sane person believes in a God? We should just white that out so those people will shut up. And, we could make them shut up. Everyone keeps running around spouting off whatever opinion they have, no matter how uninformed or just plain stupid it is. Those people should just shut up, and I think the federal government should make them shut up. If they don't shut up and keep blabbing on and on about this right or that right or this freedom and that freedom, they should go to jail. If they all get together and talk about their petty little ideas and opinions, that's even more annoying. There should be special penalties for people who assemble into some kind of group and talk about stuff. So what if they don't like it? We could send them to jail for even saying they don't like it.
Ban the First! Ban the First! I know I don't what someone shoving a bible down my kids throat, or filling his head with other hateful ideas like that... Ban the first amendment. Do it for the children.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not wisdom, this is stupidity at its finest.
What you own simply doesn't matter. All that matters is what you do with it. INTENT. Lacking criminal or aggressive intent, anyone with a truly impressive arsenal is HARMLESS. But a person with NO guns in his possession but who has the intent to do harm to others IS a threat.
Intent is everything. Hardware is just hardware.
Anyone who was awake during his high school english classes would realize, by analyzing the 2nd amendment's text, that the subordinate clause is the militia clause, while the object clause, the primary meaning and intent, is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This is the truth but some people who do not UNDERSTAND the necessity to be armed against the REAL predators within our society simply don't get it or want to believe it.
You may only need a gun ONCE in your entire life so that you can defend yourself or your family. What will you do if that moment comes and you are unarmed? Well, you will most probably come out the loser in that encounter.
Trying to say that the thing to do is disarm the criminals is purely wishful thinking at its dumbest. Nobody has EVER managed to figure out a way to get the NON-law abiding to voluntarily turn in their weapons. Not even a total ban will work, in fact, it makes things worse, because while the LAW-ABIDING citizens may comply, the criminals, who by definition do NOT obey the laws, will not do so...but will instead find themselves in a position where they can act in a criminal manner with virtual impunity as they may then reasonably expect that their victims are not armed.
Criminals want just one type of victim: An UNARMED one. When the victims are ARMED, then the criminals seek greener pastures, which are places where the citizens DON'T have guns.
In actual fact, banning guns is what criminals WANT. Gun bans work in THEIR favor and AGAINST the interests of the law abiding citizen. So it may be fairly said that laws against guns are laws that work IN FAVOR OF CRIMINALS.
Make a criminal's life easier: Ban guns.
That's so wrong I can't express it properly.
The anti-gun perspective is the viewpoint of the die-hard, true yellow LOSER. People who do not
THINK, but only REACT. People who think that wishful thinking is enough to make the world better. People who don't understand how criminals operate and think that another law against them is all it will take to make them all disappear.
We have about 20,000 gun-related laws on the books nationally, and yet there is still crime committed using guns. Would you care to guess how many MORE such laws are needed before all the shootings stop?
And finally, it is an absolute FACT that where legal access to guns is EASIEST, the crime rates are LOWEST. And yet some of these areas have a high population density.
It would be interesting if you'd do a little research. I won't do it for you, your mind is already made up.
However, if you're really an honest little blogger then you wouldn't do yourself or your readers the disservice of NOT doing said research.
Inquire (cdc has some statistics) as to all the firearms caused deaths, even suicide, how many of the perpetrators were in lawful possession of the firearm prior to the act?
Compare that to how many times (harder stat to come by) firearms are used in lawful self defense without ever being fired.
Despite your ignorance and arrogance, I will continue to own and carry my firearms concealed, and I will continue to defend your right to do likewise.
Xavier Onassis, you have your head up your ass and locked. I suggest you stop talking about things that are beyond your minimal ability to understand before you strain your brain cell beyond repair.
40 REASONS TO OWN A FIREARM:
I Own Firearms Because A Bunch Of Old, Dead, White Folks Said I Should:
1) "The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." ~ George Washington.
2) "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." ~ Alexander Hamilton.
3) "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property." ~ Thomas Paine.
4) "Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." ~ James Madison.
5) "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.
6) "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." ~ Patrick Henry.
7) "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes" ~ Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria.
8) "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." ~ George Mason.
9) "The said Constitution be never construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~ Samuel Adams.
10) "I carried it (a revolver) religiously and during the summer I asked a friend, a man who had been one of Franklin's bodyguards in New York State, to give me some practice in target shooting so that if the need arose I would know how to use the gun." ~ Eleanore Roosevelt.
11) "But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." ~ Hubert Humphrey.
12) "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." ~ John F. Kennedy.
13) "Mightn't it be better in those areas of high crime to arm the homeowner and the shopkeeper, teach him how to use his weapons and put the word out to the underworld that it is no longer totally safe to rob and murder? One wonders indeed if the rising crime rate isn't due as much as anything to the criminal's instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has any means of protection. No one knows how many crimes are committed because the criminal knows he has a soft touch. No one knows how many stores have been left alone because the criminals knew them to be guarded by a man with a gun." ~ Ronald Reagan.
I Own Firearms Because History Says I Should:
13) 1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
14) 1929: Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 40-60 million citizens, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated or starved to death.
15) 1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
16) 1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Catholics and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
17) 1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."
18) 1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
19) 1966-1976: China still has gun control. Another 50-100 million civilians, unable to defend themselves, were killed in Mao Tse Tung's "Cultural Revolution".
20) 1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
21) 1990s: Rwanda established gun control. In a span of 100 days in April 1994, 800,000 people who were unable to defend themselves were massacred to death - most by machetes. How many dead, hacked-up bodies do you think were found holding a loaded gun? (answer is less than one)
22) 1992: Los Angeles California, USA. For three days police stood by and watched, unable to stop the rioting, arson and destruction of whole neighborhoods. Yet many Korean stores were virtually untouched - protected by their well-armed storeowners who exercised their right to self-defense through their right to keep and bear arms and who did for themselves what the police were unwilling or unable to do.
23) Late 1990s: Great Britain established total gun control. Robberies, burglaries and assaults have skyrocketted making London's violent crime rate now higher than anywhere in America.
24) 2005: New Orleans hit by hurricane. Widespread catastrophe, no law enforcement across most of the city for weeks. Some citizens protected themselves with firearms - until NOLA police began confiscating them "for their own protection", leaving even the elderly unable to defend themselves against roving gangs of looters.
25) "Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." ~ Heinrich Himmler.
I Own Firearms Because It Is My God-Given Right To Self-Defense:
26) "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." ~ Exodus 22:2
27) "...he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." ~ Luke 22:36
28) "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." ~ Luke 11:21
29) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~ Declaration of Independance.
I Own Firearms Because I Have Common Sense:
30) The second amendment is not dependant on the most recent crime statistics - nor is my right to own a gun contingent on what criminals do.
31) 2 million times a year, private citizens successfully use firearms to defend themselves.
32) Criminals fear victims holding guns, not victims holding phones.
I Own Firearms Because There Are Those With Power Who, If Given The Chance, Would Force Me To Relinquish Them:
33) "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." ~ Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-CA.
34) "We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" ~ Rep. (now Senator) Charles Schumer D-NY.
35) "Senator Ashcroft is so far out of the mainstream that he has said that citizens need to be armed in order to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Our government? Tyrannical?" ~ Sen. Ted Kennedy D-MA, at John Ashcroft's Senate confirmation hearing, 2001.
36) "The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough." ~ Sarah Brady.
37) "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." ~ Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE.
38) "I don't believe that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon, built only for the purpose of killing people, in order to protect the right of Americans to hunt and practice marksmanship and to be secure." ~ Bill Clinton.
39) "I don't care about crime. I just want to get the guns." ~ Former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, D-OH during Brady Bill debates.
40) "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" ~ Rep. Henry Waxman, D-NY, 5/2001 MSNBC report on .50BMG rifles.
Xavier for a left wing guy you sure seem ignorant of the leftist past. I bet you have a Che t shirt but NEVER READ HIS BOOKS! I started off as a radical leftist with a staunch libertarian streak. I have left the leftists as they have become the totalitarians I loath.
""There is no way, under any circumstances, that any government agency will ever disarm me or my 100 million brothers. Period." Hahahaha. That just fucking cracks me up. I don't care how many deer rifles and boxes of ammo you've got stashed in your walls. A stand-off strike from an FA-18 and a follow up visit by an M1A Abrams Main Battle Tank will probably render your camoflage and woodcraft pretty ineffectual. Consider yourself "disarmed" ya redneck, cousin-bangin' bastich." Xavier
For one thing you resort to the attact the person not the message with your redneck cousin bastige remark.
F/A18's are avoided by using Mao's axiom "Guerillas are as fish in the sea. The people are the sea in wich they swim." Keep the support of the people and stay close, too close for airstikes to do anything but drive the people further to your cause.
Tank's are easy. They are thirsty, very thirsty. The crew is nearly blind when buttoned up. The infantry that accompany tanks are the problem. If a guerrilla seperates the tank from the fuel trucks they stop. The fuel trucks are soft and burn like seven hells. Once the tanks stops due to a lack of fuel a man can walk up and set a charge or even a fire and destroy the tank. During the Hungarian Uprising against the Soviets there were documented kills of tanks using soap, phone poles, and fire. The peasants armed with bars of soap applied it to the pavement causing the tanks to lose traction. the phone poles were stabbed into the tracks and removing them. Then came the fire to destroy it. Tanks are just targets.
The Jews in Warsaw held DIVISIONS of Germans at bay for weeks with a few, damn few, hunting guns and pistols. Wikipedia quote "The Ghetto fighters were armed with pistols and revolvers, few rifles and one machine guns (three heavy machine guns according to some sources). They had little ammunition, and relied heavily on improvised explosive devices and incendiary bottles; some more weapons were supplied through the uprising, or captured from the Germans." The younger fighters were
tasked with getting the guns and ammo from the fallen germans.
If every Jew, Gypsy, Homosexual and other "Undesireables" met the Gestapo with a pistol, rifle or even an axe the war and the holocuast would have been shortened by years.
Stephen - you crack me up. Tell you what - you can have all the soap you want. You're a lot less likely to stupidly kill me with it.
Well Dan:
Come take the guns, I'll just build new ones. They really aren't that hard to make. I made a working 12guage shotgun in about 5 minutes in the plumbing department at lowes to prove a point. It was UGLY Crude and lethal. It only has to be good enough to get the second gun.
Ammo you say? We could regulate it as well. Well wheel weights and match heads solve that little dilema. No prison allows staff or prisoners the use of matches as it is much too easy to make a crude firearm with them.
The technology to make firearms is within the reach of anyone with any skill at all with hand tools. 3/4 inch waterpipe is just the right size for a 12ga shell.
We can't stop the flow of TONS of cocaine into this country. Do you think for a second that these same smugglers would hesitate to bring in guns if the profit margin were as high as it is for cocaine?
I am a Radical Libertarian. I fear the Left more NOW than I do the Right, but only to a degree. I do not care that the boot on my neck is on the right or the left foot, only that it is on my neck.
Dan I am the weapon...The Gun is the tool. If I wished to rob you (I do not)and all I had was a bar of soap, I would take that bar of soap and put it in my sock. Tie the sock shut and beat you with it. I was a Marine and have seen this very thing done.
Ted Kennedy's cars have proven more lethal than Dick Cheney's guns. (J/K)
The hand that holds the item is what scares me. A motivated person with a boxknife can bring an airliner down. The people armed with forks can take it back. 9-11-2001 taught us that.
"radical libertarians" are cute when they're hysterical, which is most of the time. Let me guess - your eyes were opened by Ayn Rand, who helped you understand that you are one of the select people who are better than the rest of society.
But, back to the topic at hand. I agree that some people will have weapons. Go ahead and keep your shotgun pipe, if it makes you feel safe. I just think we need to do something to slow down the easy flow of weapons in our country.
Really, people like you are not the problem. The people who bother me are the nutcases who want to carry a gun to the mall in case someone frightens them, the people who keep a bunch of guns in a house that is easy to break into, and the morons who keep a loaded gun around so they can kill their kids when they wake them up in the middle of the night, when they've been dreaming about scary people.
I came to Ayn Rand late in life as a matter of fact. Her works were no part of my political journey. Mao Tse Tung was the genisis of my development as a radical thinker...Yes Chairman Mao taught me through close reading and crital thought on his Treatise on Guerilla War that "all (political) power flows from the barrel of a gun". The second amendment simply states that the people have the right..the duty to throw off a tyranical government.
Medgar Evers was armed, alHaj Malik alShabazz (Malcom X) was armed. I am armed.
"Finally, the anti-tyranny crowed blew their chance when then allowed the government to 'usurp' their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons"
Respectfully, sir, we've blown nothing. Miller is a farse in that it makes the claim that Americans are only allowed weapons of war - automatic rifles, short barrelled shotguns, light machine guns, etc. If you question my interpretation feel free to peruse the many scholarly works on this case.
Nukes? Why can't those opposed to freedom come clean and finally let this assinine arguement die. The founding fathers envisioned a nation of citizen-soldiers, not citizen-nations. A bit more research would would grant you insight into the founders wishes as to the extent of how Americans should be armed - "every terrible impliment of the soldier" does not translate into "every terrible impliment of the modern atomic submarine"
Fair enough, Steven, and sorry for the snotty sarcasm. I REALLY hate Ayn Rand, and it seems like 90% of libertarians I know have fallen for her crap.
But does it strike you as ironic that the two people you cite were assassinated despite their arms?
I really don't believe that a revolutionary movement against our government stands a snowballs chance in hell against our military, despite the overstated successes of the Hungarian revolution (which was a failure, as well). I think the dividing line is between people who watched Red Dawn and thought it was a crazy fantasy, and those who thought it was an inspiring guidebook.
It's ironic that the pro-gun survivalists are mostly the same people cheering on Bush's NSA program.
To paraphrase Zapata (More of my revolutionary reading) They died on their feet rather than lived on their knees.
That is the cux of this argument. They gave their lives as did Nathan Hale his to free a people.
I will die free......Maybe as an old man in bed....Perhaps as a Partisan in the mountains. But I will remain free.
Noble and stirring, and remarkably courageous for an anonymous commenter. Don't you think you ought to get started with your revolution, though? We've got feds listening in on our phones, keeping eyes on what we read, and god knows what else.
Head for the hills, my man, and godspeed to your work on behalf of freedom.
To paraphrase Zapata (More of my revolutionary reading) They died on their feet rather than lived on their knees.
That is the crux of this argument. They gave their lives as did Nathan Hale his to free a people.
I will die free......Maybe as an old man in bed....Perhaps as a Partisan in the mountains. But I will remain free.
Edited to add name oops it was late
Good design!
[url=http://ncvtvbuo.com/tuon/skrs.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://cysgavpy.com/dhsr/qsax.html]Cool site[/url]
Good design!
My homepage | Please visit
I'm not sure how well known this fact is but the amendments comprising the BoR are not subject to repeal.
Many times the BoR is cited, published and displayed separate from the rest of the Constitution and other amendments.
Many people treat the BoR the same as the body of the Constitution. This would be a mistake. The body of Constitution (and some of the amendments) is a design for framing the federal government. The BoR and some of the other amendments enumerate and protect rights that exist by virtue of man's humanity.
It is no more possible to 'repeal' a right by changing a law than it is possible to pass a law 'repealing' the number of toes on your feet.
Phil -
Interesting point, but I am not certain that you're correct. Why cannot the second amendment, or first, or any other, be subject to the same repeal process as Prohibition?
Damn, these comments started over a year ago... I just HAVE to add my two cents:
Ayn Rand sucks. If you grew up having to wait hours in line for a roll of toilet paper, you'd think unfettered capitalism was great too. All of the so-called "producers" of the world seem to forget that an idea is nothing without implementation. I once silenced an objectivist by showing that the "producers" who conceptualized the railroads wouldn't even be dusty footnotes in history without the people who actually BUILT them. The concept of setting value for effort is an ILLUSION. Doctors save lives but how good could they do their jobs without the people who clean the hospitals or sanitize the equipment? Almost all relationships are symbiotic at their most basic level. Ayn Rand is for elitist jackasses.
My politics are very left-leaning, but I DARE anyone to take my guns. I don't know how useful they'll be against the government, but should a rogue nuke go off near my city, or a MAJOR natural disaster happens and the government and economy is destabilized, gun-control people are going to WISH they had guns. The odds may be slim of that happening but you know the old saying... "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Plus, guns are great stress relief... they're basically just really high-powered slingshots. Sure they can kill people, but I don't think you'll find anyone that will say "Yeah, the killin' was pretty good before guns but AFTER... WHOOOOWHEEEEE!!!" Humans have had killing pretty much mastered from the beginning... hell, they found a 5000 year old frozen corpse that died from an ARROW wound! I don't think you would have found anyone in those villages who would have given up their bows just for the notion that no more bows and arrows would mean no more deaths. Take away guns and people will just use knives. Take away knives and people will just use sticks. Take away sticks and people will just use their hands and feet. Gun-control is a solution searching for a problem.
Having lived in DC during its worst violence period and growing up with many guys that chose a life of crime, let me tell you... criminals loved the fact that most people were "marks" because they knew they'd be unarmed (because of the strict gun laws). The gun laws made NO difference to the criminals... they were armed to the teeth and only feared other armed criminals.
Growing up with this element helped me realize the value of guns. I've been fortunate to have had them on my person in REALLY TENSE situations and having one beats the hell out of wishing for a cop any day. I'm a regular law-abiding man who makes decent money and has a family. It's been proven time and time again that most gun owners are like me... regular, law-abiding people who simply wish to protect themselves. I refuse to end up on the six o'clock news because a cop wasn't around... and if I do, I'd rather be the one in the handcuffs than the one with a blanket tossed over him.
By the way, the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it CONFIRMS them. They're yours... but only if you are willing to FIGHT for them.
(Dan: Interesting point, but I am not certain that you're correct. Why cannot the second amendment, or first, or any other, be subject to the same repeal process as Prohibition?)
> They can be, but they shouldn't be. Any law can be changed. Rights are immutable. Would you really want a law that is against your rights? Read the Declaration.
"...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
:)
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…sure you mean an organized military force within your country. But, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the People in contrast with the Militia. It doesn’t say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says the right of the people. Now why the word people? Because the people who wrote this had just fought a war for two years against a tyrannical state Militia. They knew the time might come to where they would have to do that again. So they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away. Now gun control advocates can say that the phrasing is “clumsy” and the comma separating the state from the people is just a “pause” to get your breath. Strange that they can’t seem to point out any other places where the founding fathers messed up the wording.”
Your words ring ever truer now, after the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Guns have no place in a modern America. The founders never intended weapons in the hands of citizens during peacetime. It is a long, hard battle we are now engaged in - the repeal of the Second Constitutional Ammendment, but it MUST be done. NO MORE GUNS!!!
I think Charlton Heston said it pretty well, but I can say it better; "Take it from me then, go ahead, I dare ya!"
Ahh, yes, most recent anonymous. Immature losers talking tough - that's the ticket . . .
I don't know who you are, but I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that you'd crumble like tissue paper if a man in a shiny uniform showed up on your door and told you to turn in your gun. My experience is that most people who talk tough when they are anonymous are the most gutless in real life.
If, on the other hand, you were trying to make a point about the difficulty in imposing a gun ban, I think most gun owners are fine people who would respect our democracy and comply with the law. Those that aren't would probably not pose a large problem.
There is one reason that the Second Amendment exists: the government needs to fear the people. When the government is not afraid of the people, we get big government. When the government fears the people, we get small government. Some people have said that people with firearms are incapable of staving off tyranny, but how many guns and bullets does it take to kill a legislator, or a judge, or a governor, or a president. To kill any single person, it takes one firearm, one bullet, and one marksman. The government needs to realize that fact. The people of the U.S. scared the hell our of the Founding Fathers (Whiskey Rebellion). They founded most of our rights and system from the works of the English political theorist John Locke, the father of the concept of the "right to revolt." That is why they had such a spectacular government.
Also, look at countries in which guns are banned, and in which there are no firearm restrictions. In the U.K., the people do not have the right to bear arms; not even their police carry sidearms. As a result, only criminals have firearms. Britain has one of the largest gun-related crime rates in the world. In Switzerland, there are no laws banning firearms. In fact, every male between age 18 and 45 is REQUIRED to have an assult rifle and ammunition in his home or on him at all times. In Switzerland, there were 3 murders last year. Only one of which involved firearms. If everyone has firearms, then it would be virtually impossible to commit crimes.
Lastly, the Second Amendment protects the rest of the Bill of Rights. What happens if the Second Amendment never existed and the government just decided to reapeal the Bill of Rights. In this age, the people need firearms for protection from criminals and the government.
If the Second Amendment is repealed, then it would be impossible to enfore a complete firearm ban. There would be anarchy in the streets. Those police who try to enforce that ban would be shot dead. There would only be two safe places in the U.S.: San Fransisco and Boston, but that's because no one who wants to own firearms would choose to live in those places.
For those who are saying that the founding fathers were stupid or did not know what they were saying: almost all of them wrote about why they included the right to bear arms in the Constitution. They did not trust government... or jackasses. (haha, Donkey, Liberal, get it?)
Anonymous, thank you for visiting and commenting, but, man, are you ever wrong about a lot of things!
Your unsupported suppositions about government and about man are simply blather. If we have guns, we get small government, and if we don't we get big? Really? Do you want to back that up with any real-world proof? You may recall that Iraq under Hussein was heavily armed, but he didn't exactly run a small government. Canada has more guns than we do, but they have a sensible, big-government health-care system. All I can say is that you are simply and grandly mistaken about your correlation.
Funny that you mention Britain's gun-related crime statistics. Don't you wish we in the US had such a peaceful society? Our gun-related crime rate makes Britain look like a tea party.
As for your point about the 2nd Amendment protecting the rest of the Bill of Rights, history shows that gun owners are a bunch of sissies. If they cared about anything other than their guns, they would have stood up long ago. Where were they when the government asserted the right to restrict what kinds of guns they own? Where were they when the government started warrantless domestic spying? Where were they when the government started asserting the right to lock up American citizens without the right to trial? No, my friend, we cannot expect our "brave" gun-owners to stand up for anything. You ask what would happen if the government repealed the bill of rights, and we already know the answer. Liberals would protest within the system, and gutless gun-owners would cower.
At the end of the day, guns are not the problem, people are. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't consider myself liberal or conservative and I find it funny that almost irregardless of what the arguments are, all you people want to attack the presenters of the arguments instead of the arguments themselves. And, in truth, that seems to be more so the case for the advocates of gun control. I don't like guns. In fact, I hate them. Never have owned one, probably never will. But I understand, now that we have them, they are necessary. Guns exist, and if we do away with people's rights to keep and bear them, then the only ones who will have them will be the establishment (i.e. the government, military, police, etc.). At that point, government has total control of its people.
So you think that armed Americans can't overthrow a Hitler or Stalin right? Do you have any sort of basis for this way of thinking? Well, jackass, you obviously don't have any knowledge of history. It doesn't take much to end a regime. Look at the insurgency in Iraq, that is just the most recent example, but there are other examples around the world and throughout history. I love how you just say that we couldn't stop tyranny and leave it at that...without explaining why and also how you seem okay with tyranny. your fucking crazy.
Sorry, Anonymous, but you've watched Red Dawn one time too many.
Fact is, armed citizens did not overthrow Hitler or Stalin, did they? Fact is, even though Iraq had a well-armed citizenry, they didn't overthrow Hussein, did they?
Fact is, most American gun-owners grouse about lost liberties, but we both know they're never going to stand up to a government. The NSA is wiretapping their phones, while they do nothing. They could no more overthrow a government than a kindergarten class could take over a school district.
You draw some funny conclusions from Iraq. Are you claiming that we can never win in Iraq? Fact is, we're told that the support for the insurgency is coming from other organized militaries, not from shotgun toting Iraqis.
I will die to preserve my rights. Will you die trying to take them away from me?
That's just it, anonymous. You make tough talk, but, in reality, you're just a scared, pathetic person. Or, you choose incredibly foolishly in the rights you'll protect.
The NSA is listening to your calls and reading your emails, violating the 4th Amendment, and you're sitting in the basement shining your deer rifle fantasizing about how macho you could be if the libruls came and tried to take it away from you.
Here Paul Sterne echoes the sentiment on GroundReport: http://www.groundreport.com/US/Repeal-the-Second-Amendment
Paul Sterne echoes the sentiment on citizen journalism aggregator GroundReport.com : http://www.groundreport.com/US/Repeal-the-Second-Amendment
Oh really Dan, the NSA is listening to MY calls? Bullshit. I'm not calling terrorists abroad, I'm not even making international calls, so no Dan, the warrantless wiretapping program of international calls is not listening to me. Spew bullshit propaganda and lies all you like, there is not one example of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program targeting a purely domestic call between american citizens.
What's more idiotic? Citing examples of situations where the citizenry was unwilling, unmotivated, or unable to rise up to try to suggest that there can never be any success in guerilla warefare against a modern army, ever, or citing examples of a successful insurgency to show how it CAN work in some cases. Citing failures proves nothing, you must show that there was never any success in the tactic.
Just because it doesn't work 100% of the time, doesn't mean it can't work. It's particularly difficult when guns are taken away from the victimized group prior to being victimized, as Hitler did in 1938, when he took guns away from the jews. Hussein was able stomp down rebellion in his country in 1991 because it only came from the shia minority; full uprisings from the entire citizenry are harder to control. That is why it is essential that gun rights are a fundamental right for everyone, regardless of race or creed, and it is also why we must be willing to defend the rights of others, even when we aren't the ones being targeted.
Failing to make the same logical fallacies you made does not make someone "pathetic," it just makes them better informed than you.
Um Dan, sorry to burst your bubble, but the same kind of technology that makes the government strong can be abused by ONE PERSON and ruin everything. I mean that, a single individual can bring a nation to its knees.
It is far from impossible. All the tanks, jets, and everything else mean absolutely nothing than. The more you argue with me, the more you just multiply your argument by zero.
But, go ahead and argue anyway, I would love to play internet aikido with a brain dead moron like you.
Josh -
You make the point that a single person can create a lot of mischief. My question is, so what?
The NRA types are sitting placidly while the government commits illegal searches and seizures, runs torture camps and maintains secret prisons. Don't try to claim that the NRA types will ever stand up to tyranny - they won't, and we both know it.
Hey Anonymous and Dan,
HUSH, at this point neither one of you serve your causes very well. Both of you sound like two bar maids fighting over nail polish. Sorry Dan- I am a gun owner that participates in a shooting sport twice monthly and have 2 guns designated for defensive purposes. One of those defensive guns is my wife's gun. I live in a metro area that has home invasions,rapes, and robberies daily. I have a lot of documentation that I am a well adjusted, stable, and Law abiding member of society. Both you and Anonymous should keep in mind that a person interested in this issue may well have taken an oath at some time to defend the Constitution of the USA. Don't monkey around with the Bill of Rights. I believe that gun ownership is a moral responsibility that is a far more serious matter than whether or not I have a certain cell phone. I practice "Gun Control". It is called a gun safe. If a child accidently shoots himself with one of my guns it is my responsibility and I, having accepted the moral responsibility, should be criminally responsible. Unless you teach the child how to "crack" a safe, it ain't going to happen. The US Army doesn't leave guns laying around and neither do I. How can you believe that a person doesn't have the right to defend themselves in clear and present danger? You have no right to paint responsible, patriotic citizens with the brush of "nut cases". Your idea is a dead horse and one just has to look at the results in Great Britian of their gun ban to see that responsible gun ownership, AS invisioned by intelligent and serious men, is the only answer that works here. Making me a criminal or rewriting the Constitution is just as radical as armed revolution.
Anonymous-Please don't engage in the idea of armed resisitance to gun confication. We both know that as mature men, in that instance, we would look at our wifes and families and way the costs and have to seek a different approach. Every person I have ever seen that has been in a standoff with the SWAT team has gone to the jailhouse or the morgue. Gentlemen, both of you should be careful what you wish for. I submit that it will never go down like that. When police officers that I know are ordered to confiscate guns, I suspect there will be a big pile of badges on the floor. Where will the law be then?? If people believe in the utopian idea of guns magically disappearing, what will happen then? Not much. Life will go on. Crime will go on(and up). Anonymous and I will still have access to a gun, just not legally. It is what will come next that scares me. For the first time in history the technology exists to have a "cashless society". What will you do, when the powers that be, deside they don't like you and they turn "off" your money, give your house to a "more deserving" minority, and effectively cancel your finacial exsistance. Don't know? Most will do what they are told to do. Will you Dan? I think you will. Will you Anonymous? I think you will too? Resistance is game for young men or men with nothing else to loose. Be careful how you defend or tear down rights that were the very birth of our existance. They were created by serious men in serious times and quite frankly, none of us that carry on this legacy are quite up to their standard. Nothing will be accomplished by argumentative debate(Just look at Congress)I would suggest both sides need to look at and quantify just what are the NEEDS of both sides. Now, can you work with that? Just how serious are you?? TEX
Revolutionary made an excellent point that is ignored by the NO GUNS! crowd. I have several guns, but no honest person should fear me. No gun I own will ever be used to commit a crime, because I am a law-abiding man. The anti-gun folks are jousting at windmills. Their real enemies are neither the dreaded guns nor the people who legally own them; their true enemies are criminals who would use their guns to rob, rape, kill and destroy. They should wake up and realize they are combatting the wrong adversary. -David in Calif.
Your entitled to your view Dan but I have to totally disagree with you.
If the 2nd amendment were to be repealed then that would open the flood gates to push for an all out ban on all firearms, even the ones for hunting and sports. There are plenty of politicians and groups out there that would do it without hesitation. Sorry but as a gun owner that is a slippery slope I don't want to risk. Keep the 2nd amendment what it is.
Dan,
You're completely out of line. You must know that gun control doesn't work. Never has, never will. At least not for good. It's a tool of control for governments and others to maintain power over others.
"Ideas are dangerous. We wouldn't let the people have guns, why would we let them have ideas?" -Joseph Stalin, mass murderer of at least 20 million Russians.
"All power comes from the barrel of a gun." -Mao Tse Tung, mass murderer of at least 60 million Chinese.
You think most Americans would cower in the face of having their guns confiscated? Some may. But I assure you, many won't. But I have no doubt you'd apply a double standard here. They're cowards for not standing up for their rights, but whether they do, forcefully or peacefully, they're fanatics and troublemakers, right?
Please, wake up. Gun control does nothing but harm. Please...stop promoting this and join us in protecting freedom.
By the way, I am not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian. So don't tell me I am not standing up for other rights. I am. I oppose the Republicans and Democrats alike.
Dan,
I'm not here to discuss Libertarianism as a whole. I'm here for gun control. But still, I'll touch on it a little.
My main attraction to Libertarianism is the preservation of our rights and the Constitution as the Founders laid it out. That the Bill of Rights is untouchable and necessary to preserve freedom. In my opinion, that's why the First and Second Amendments are the most important; because they are number 1 and 2 in our Constiution. Free speech must be preserved to keep society free, and that ability must be backed by the ability to use force to defend freedom if need be. Hunting, collecting and self-defense are also very important reasons for gun ownership, but they are ultimately secondary to defending ourselves as a free people.
Unfortunately, those two rights in particular are being eroded by the do-gooders and the politically correct crowds. All in the name of safety, inoffensiveness and conformity. On purpose I might add. When you promote gun control, Dan, you're using the exact same tactics the Bush Administration has done with the Patriot Act, wiretaps, not having Congress declare war, etc. You're instilling fear in others in the name of "the greater good."
Some of us also don't oppose public roads, schools, etc. It should just be left to local and state-level government entities. Hence the 10th Amendment. It's really about limiting federal government spending and power.
So I guess if you want to label me a Constituionalist instead of a Libertarian, that's OK.
Tired of Gun Violence?
To protest the gun violence, clip a local newspaper article reporting a shooting or robbery at gunpoint, save all clippings until the end of every month, and then put them in an envelope addressed to National Rifle Association. To keep your return address anonymous, do not put your return address on it. Use computer print instead of handwriting.
Do you really think criminals obey gun control laws. Here in California we pass all sorts of gun control laws but criminals are still committing murders, rapes, robbery, etc in droves. Like a gang member is really going to obey the CA law that makes it illegal for to carry a loaded firearm in your car, which also includes loaded clips and magazines. If a gang member wants to rob me and/or kill me in my car I am left defenseless. Criminals do not obey gun laws because they are criminals. It isn't rocket science.
how do u think u get info from a terrorist? ask him or her nicely? take away there tv? we have these camps for a reason, and yes torcher sucks any way you look at it. but what are we to do, you cant make a omlit without breaking some eggs man, o wait you only eat soy beans and all things white dan.
If a well armed marine will follow me and my family around with an m-4 and a grenade launcher I still wouldnt expect that individual to protect us with as much desire or ability as myself. If no crminal had a gun do you honestly think that the need to defend your life would end? When a 6'5" nut job wants to hurt me or my family, the police wont be arresting anyone... How bout we outlaw stupidity rather than regulate guns in even the slightest way. How about we even the playing field and require by law that all individuals must carry a gun at all times? Criminals would only have the element of surprise rather than likely advantage of being the only one armed. If you try to take my guns you had better steal them because they might get handed to you barrel-first...
Descent points, both sides. But aren't we a democracy? Why not put the 2nd ammendment to a vote? Yeah, sure, at this point in time, gun control will not win. But maybe the debate will go on and eventually, we'll repeal the 2nd ammendment. I don't want some politicians to decide about such a big issue. Put it to the people! Isn't that what America is all about?
The second amendment was designed to give the citizens the ability to take control of the government in the event that corruption and greed, which is almost inevitable, turned it into a tyranny. It is essential for the survival of a free nation. The founders, even in those days, understood human nature. Those who oppose the 2nd amendment are most likely corrupted.
Most recent anonymous - that's a pretty impressive accusation for people you've never met and know nothing about . . .
Do you think that the citizenry could retake the US government by force? Over the past several years, we've accepted an administration that spied on us, set up secret prisons, and endorsed torture, etc.. But I didn't see anybody spoiling for a fight with the military, and I know I never will, no matter what fresh outrage is dreamed up. It's just not gonna happen, so I have little faith in the argument that the 2nd Amendment is a shield against tyranny. And, if you do believe that, shouldn't we pass a new one that makes clear that we can bear SAMs, stealth bombers, tanks, bombs and all the weapons that the US military has? Wouldn't the founders have wanted us to have a fair fight?
I am a naturalized citizen. Where I come from, we never heard of guns. And believe me, there are no intruders, no psychos shooting friends/family or in schools, no accidental shootings. There are only very few robberies in rich people's houses. And that was a developing country. And trust me, there is no police or law and order. But, we still never feared for our lives. I still can not comprehend how the right to bear arms is a constitutional right in US. It makes me think that we are in the days of cavemen wherein one has to protect his own cave. Over the years, the situation has gone so much of out of hand. Now, everyone else around you has a gun except you. And hence you need one to protect yourself. Imagine a clean society that outlaws guns, confiscates each and every gun vehemently and one day, we'll be out of this so called personal right from medieval ages. I don't buy the hunter argument. Doesn't the hunted have a personal right to live as much as you have right to bear arms ? Which one of those rights should be superior ? I am especially troubled by the fact that so many innocent people get killed by psychos who have easy access to guns. In schools, in homes, in offices. It has become a norm now that in your screwed up mind if you think you have been insulted by someone, you can just go buy a gun, shoot them and then shoot yourself. Doesn't matter whether your thinking is right or wrong. Lives have ended already. Ofcourse, they have no criminal history and hence they get guns easily. Machettes or baseball bats won't end lives as easily as guns. So, I don't buy the argument that if not guns, something else will kill people. As per the criminals argument, why would criminals be after you unless you are one of them ? Gun controls won't work. They do exist today. Are they working ? Only solution is to completely outlaw them and cleanup each and every gun. I do know it's easier said than done. And that argument of overthrowing tyranny is just a hilarious excuse. Does anyone in their right mind think they can overthrow a state or federal govt ? I agree it could have happened when the constitution was written i.e. when horses and guns were the only weapons and the more amunition you have, more power your little army has. We boast about ultra modern civilized 21st century with such technological advancements and when it comes to guns, we go back to medieval ages argument of self-protection. Show me a civilized country where the guns are as prevelant as ours. BTW, Somalia doesn't count as civilized country nor do any African genocide countries. Damn these lobbyists, NRA and their profits. Come on guys, it's a business for them. To keep that up, ofcourse, they'll play up your personal right (to bear arms that is). At the end, whose pockets are getting filled and who is getting killed ?
I usually never post anything on internet. But, this issue has troubled me so much that I think there should be a movement against guns. Tell me why you need guns assuming no one else around you has. Dont give me "my personal right" BS. Granted, big mafia, big criminals will still have them, but what do they got to do with you unless you are one of them ? Let the police worry about them. As long as your street side gang or petty thieves don't have guns, why do you need one ?
I hope you are never in a position to take away the ability of people to defend themselves. Your ideas are as dangerous as the criminals we speak of.
It is a fact that the United Nations are the ones pushing gun control and gun confication in every country in the world so that there can be a one world government. We now have a brain washed President that agrees to a one world government and the confication of all guns. WAKE UP ALL YOU BLIND AMERICANS BEFORE WE LOOSE OUR GREAT DEMOCRACY
I love it when paranoid nutcases comment here.
I don't want to deviate from the main topic, but for the first time after Clinton, we have a common-sense driven real leader called Obama. Real leader is someone who takes the people along with him, not the one who says "my way or high way". In the last 6 months, he has almost erased all the screw ups Bush did 8 years before that. I am neither a democrat nor a republican. But, any rationale thinker can clearly see night and day difference between the two administrations. And so are the billions of people around the world who received Obama with cheers and Bush with protests/shoes.
No one still answered my question why one needs a gun when it is guaranteed no one around you has one.
Guns in the hands of good people is a good thing. The infrastructures if many parts of the world has created living conditions that allow far too many people to play in an imaginary reality. I fear ignorance more than anything else.
I do understand everybody who owns a gun legally (and didn't use for any illegal use so far) is a good person.
But, no one still provided the "good reason" why they had to own one in first place.
Ram - If I may speak for those who disagree with me, I believe the reasons that people would argue with your hypothetical are several.
First, most would reject the premise that guns could be removed from the petty criminals and street thugs. Frankly, I agree with them. Even if an absolute ban with automatic confiscation were passed, there are too many guns spread around in too many places to believe that your premise would actually become true.
Second, even accepting your premise, they would argue that they are entitled to guns for sport, such as target shooting and hunting. That argument is pretty much nonsense, though, because there aren't Constitutional protections for philately, knitting or other hobbies.
Third, and I think this gets to the reason the 2nd Amendment exists, they believe that private gun ownership is some kind of bulwark against tyranny. This argument is also pretty much nonsense, because there ain't ever going to be a private revolution in this country. Those "brave patriots" sit quietly and cheer when the government encroaches on personal liberties. Fact is, the people who cling to their precious guns and talk about protection are some of the biggest cowards in our country, afraid of big bad terrorists and dark-colored "illegals", so they buy into the whole "be afraid" message offered up by the true threats to our inalienable rights, such as the Bush administration.
Yep, like I said before, removing each and every gun is easier said than done. I don't know how it should be done. But, I believe anything is possible if we have the will. The govt should cleanup illegal ones first as they are the ones legal owners are afraid of.
Regarding the reason of sport: One could go to an organized entity, pay and play just like we do bowling or fishing today.
Third reason is outright hilarious in this day and age. I am sure it was a valid one when the rights were written as things were primitive at that point. I presume things were uncivilized, there was no law and order, no world bodies like UN, no militaries, no diplomacies, no democracies. So, only way to protect ones territory at that point was for everyone to own weapons.
"I think we just need sane gun regulation." You mean just like in the UK?
To see the effect Google "Landford pensioner Reginald Baker." And if you need a refresher "Tony Martin farmer." Now review http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html. And finally http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html.
Be careful what you wish for.
I live in the wild west where a protester carrying a loaded assault rifle recently showed up outside an appearance by President Obama. Yes, legal in Arizona as open carry has always been legal in my lifetime. But what's going on here when extremists are able to intimidate the citizenry with their display of firearms. We have always had reasonable gun laws in Arizona but in the past few years NRA dollars have been buying votes in the legislature. Recently passed legislation allows persons with concealed carry permits to carry their firearms into establishments that serve alcohol yet specify that they cannot drink. Does a bartender ask to frisk everyone to determine whether or not they can serve them? If you are so paranoid that you feel the need to carry your concealed weapon with you when you go out for a beer maybe you should stay home behind closed doors where you'll feel less threatened. This legislation was opposed by law enforcement and the hospitality industry yet driven by special interest money it easily passed.
Need a firearm fast? Attend one of our huge gun shows take your pick from thousands and bypass the waiting period that is required for licensed dealers.
It's time to reevaluate the 2nd amendment and rewrite it for the 21st century. In 1791 an assault weapon was single shot, about 5 feet long took and experienced rifleman 20 - 30 seconds to reload. How could the authors of the 2nd amendment have envisioned high capacity magazines and armor piercing ammo? What scares me most as I drive around the city streets? Not a carjacking or drive by; but some whack job who doesn't like the way I change lanes and decides to teach me a lesson with his Glock.
By the way, I'm a former NRA member; a US Army veteran; a current gun owner and a dreaded liberal.
Ken in Phoenix
Yep, exactly same here. Everytime I walk on the streets or drive, I've this gnawing feeling that some whacko will not like my race and/or the way I drive and decides to teach me a lesson.
I was thinking the other day, it is so funny that we ban prostitution (but allow lap dances and everything else except paid sex, mind you), ban drugs, but allow guns. What's the logic ? People have self control when it comes to guns but they have no self control when it comes to drugs and sex ? Or there is no such wealthy organization as NRA for hookers and smugglers ;-)
Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser.
----9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion from the court's refusal to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004)
I find it incredulous that any one bothers to even debate with this marshmellow on this!
Funny stuff. "Incredulous"? "Marshmellow"? Are you just attempting to serve as a satirical portrait of a semi-literate insecure knucklehead, or are you one?
"How can anyone pretend therefore that regulations themselves violate the 2nd Amendment?"
==========================
Uh...guy, EVERY 18 year old male in the USA is 'militia'...or did you not fill out your 'Selective Service' paperwork ?
Post a Comment
<< Home