Jump to content
csbrown28

Let's Have An Honest Discussion About Guns

Recommended Posts

Though it's a statistical fact that semi-automatic "military style" weapons are statistically speaking used in few crimes (I've seen numbers as low as 2% and as high as 8%), what we really fear is the potential efficiency with which these weapons can be used to cause a large number of fatalities and injuries by a single person during a single indecent. I wouldn't suggest that this is justification for doing nothing, The point if the comment is simply that it makes little sense to start with weapons that clearly aren't the problem.

 

So what should we do, if anything? What should be the realistic goal of gun safety?

 

What sorts of things could be considered "low hanging fruit" (small changes that make a proportionality large difference)?

-Enforcing laws we already have?

-Creating new laws to close "loopholes"?

-Require greater responsibility for gun owners?

 

Who believes an outright ban on so called "assault weapons" is a good idea?

-What is an assault weapon?

-How would you counter the argument that the people who are likely to give up their guns are people who are less likely to commit crimes with them, thus those that are more likely to commit crimes will keep them?

-Do you really believe that with more guns then people, that a gun ban is an effective way to deal with fatalities caused by guns?

With regards to the second amendment, most of us interpret it in a way that fits our opinions of it. Clearly the founders recognized that a citizens right to own a gun should be protected, but to what extent that protection extends is debatable (to some anyway). The other question is, should changing societal conditions over the last 250 years be reflected in the second amendment?

Instead of trying to argue why our interpretation is the correct one let's just discuss what the negatives vs the positives of personal gun ownership in society. If we had a chance to alter the Constitution, how would we write the law today?

-If we ban guns of all kinds, do you think this will make criminals more brazen?

-Do you think an armed population is integral in maintaining the balance between the people and government?

-Should gun bans extend to all federal and state agencies (Police, border patrol, security, Diane Feinstein's personal body guards(sorry couldn't help myself))?

-

 

If you ask for concessions from gun owners, what kinds of guaranties (if any) do you think gun owners should have? In other words, why should gun owners feel that concessions on their part aren't simply part of the long term goal of of the total elimination of weapons?

 

When people like Obama and Feinstein are willing to disregard the Constitution, why should gun owners concede to anything? Why shouldn't the anti-gun folks expect that people will attempt to flee to the other extreme to protect their rights? Isn't a moderate approach to this problem the most sensible one? By way of example, the recent threats of bans have ensured that virtually every magazine over 10 rounds and millions and millions of semi auto rifles have been scooped up off of store shelves. Try to buy a semi-auto rifle right now.... AR15's, AK'47's to all varieties of 9mm carbines and pistols. Here is a seller that has over 100 models of semi-auto rifles and semi-auto sub machine guns, ALL sold out.

 

Let's say an outright ban is impossible, what are some things that you think would help decrease the number of people using guns to commit crimes?

 

Ok, I've posted a lot and I sort of rambled...But I'm curious, if we have an honest conversation, what kinds of ideas we could come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have several handguns, and rifles. My honest thoughts are this: I really think if there is some kind of a ban, the criminals, or criminal wanna be's, will still get whatever weapon they want. They may have to pay more, but they'll get it. So I think very extensive background checks, along with maybe a 30 day wait. I went into a gun shop here last year, I filled out the questionaire, they made the call, I paid. Twenty minutes total, and I walked out with a gun.

A little too easy.

That's my honest 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an answer to my own question....

 

I don't think that gun bans are effective way to keep people from using guns to harm or kill other people, period. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your argument, facts please.

 

In light of that fact (I'm going to call that a fact), the question becomes, what justification, if any, is there for firearm ownership in society?.

 

When you disagree with someone, you have two, and only two ways to compel them to do what you want. Reason and force. Neither of these attributes are given to people in equal measure, but only one causes harm and death.

 

Having said that, a firearm is a force equalizer, as an example, it is the only way that, a woman (generally speaking) that finds herself in a compromising position, that she could protect herself from three attackers who intend to do her harm. Even if the attackers have guns, she has a better chance with the gun then without.

 

The same could be said of Government. The Government can attempt to employ reason to persuade the population to adhere to rules that it creates, but when that fails the Government has the ability to employ force with the consent of the people. If the force is justified, then virtually the entire population does nothing and the Government continues, but what happens if the Government enacts rules that a vast number of people within the population disagree with, especially those that strip rights that we, as a society, have agreed are inalienable. The answer would, of course be to attempt to persuade Government though reason. What if the Government refuses to listen to the people?

 

The answer is, when enough people stand up against their Government because they feel that the Government no longer represents their interests and no longer respects their rights as has been outlined by the Constitution, then terrorists become freedom fighters (though history may not reflect this depending on who wins). If the population is denied access to firearms, this will NEVER EVER happen. The people will never be able to defend themselves from a malevolent Government.

Now this speaks to the deeper issue of where rights come from and the simple answer is, the group. The Constitution is a set of rules that has no meaning or authority if the majority no longer sees the value in it. Let's remember that the people that created it were pretty smart. They had learned hard lessons of their past and poured the knowledge and experience of that past into the Constitution, so I hope everyone will take care to consider it's wisdom. When it fails for our time, there is a clearly defined way to fix it (the amendment process). A way that the founders understood would allow the Government and the people it represents to adapt or fix rules. Unfortunately this process has been evaded to our own peril as a nation. This goes for principles and ideas that I support as well as those I don't. I dislike when rules are made that I agree with, but forgo the process, but I digress.

 

Firearm ownership is a civic duty and the simple fact that millions of people own them protects everyone in society from a Government that would impose force as a way to take rights away from it's citizens. Firearms are the one any only force equalizer between Government and the people. This fact has been demonstrated over and over again throughout history and if we forget it, we are all doomed to repeat it.

 

All other considerations are subordinate....

 

Having said all of that, not everyone that supports firearm ownership will agree with my opinion of why they should be allowed to own them. For me, if it could be shown that the Government could never take my rights away, I'd consider giving up my firearms. if in addition to that it could be shown that firearms could not be obtained by people willing to use them to project force against the innocent, then I would give my guns up in a heart beat, as much fun as I have shooting them.

 

So, if the goal of firearms ownership, is, at it's core, about maintaining the balance power and authority as it's first priority, between government and the people, does that mean that we can't do anything from preventing people from unjustifiably using guns to harm other people?

 

Of course not!

 

First, I want to point out that Governments willingness to subvert the Constitution and the general public's apathy toward this, is the number one reason why gun owners are willing to support organizations like the NRA.

 

In other words, gun safety starts with the population understanding that the Government MUST follow it's own rules, even when the Government bends the rules in a way that favors your opinion. If you support a gun ban, which is at odds with the second amendment (even if you believe it's debatable), you should oppose the way the actions are being taken and ask demand that a Government follow it's own rules as a Government willing to subvert it's own rules endangers EVERYONE!

 

Gun owners are unwilling to submit to actions intended to increase gun safety because they (generally speaking) fear that, based on past experience, Government will abuse it's authority and the public will sit apathetically by and do nothing.

 

So the first best way to protect people from other people using firearms to harm others is demand that our Government follow it's own rules and procedures. Then and only then will firearm owners have any faith that common sense gun safety rules won't be abused in the future.

 

I have some other ideas, but this post is already getting to long. I will revisit tomorrow.

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have several handguns, and rifles. My honest thoughts are this: I really think if there is some kind of a ban, the criminals, or criminal wanna be's, will still get whatever weapon they want. They may have to pay more, but they'll get it. So I think very extensive background checks, along with maybe a 30 day wait. I went into a gun shop here last year, I filled out the questionaire, they made the call, I paid. Twenty minutes total, and I walked out with a gun.

A little too easy.

That's my honest 2 cents.

 

What would be the primary purpose of a 30 day wait (let's assume like yourself that already has handguns and rifles)? With today's technology, a background check can complete as quickly as a few minutes (or even less).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What would be the primary purpose of a 30 day wait (let's assume like yourself that already has handguns and rifles)? With today's technology, a background check can complete as quickly as a few minutes (or even less).

 

The point of a waiting period is that if you should be driven to anger to the point you want to kill someone that you can't go to a gun store on a whim and use your new gun to kill someone. After the 30 days, the theory is that you will have cooled down to the point and had time to think about what you were going to do.

 

For example you come home and find your woman with another man. Might a person be pushed into a rage, where a few days might be the difference between a person seeking revenge with a gun. I don't think this is an impossibly likely scenario, though I think it's pretty unlikely.

 

30 days might be a bit long, 7 days might be enough, but I don't think a short waiting period violates the 2nd amendment, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a complex issue with no clear fix. Statistically, Gun control laws have no demonstrable impact on crime. However, Places without gun control have similar issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The point of a waiting period is that if you should be driven to anger to the point you want to kill someone that you can't go to a gun store on a whim and use your new gun to kill someone. After the 30 days, the theory is that you will have cooled down to the point and had time to think about what you were going to do.

 

For example you come home and find your woman with another man. Might a person be pushed into a rage, where a few days might be the difference between a person seeking revenge with a gun. I don't think this is an impossibly likely scenario, though I think it's pretty unlikely.

 

30 days might be a bit long, 7 days might be enough, but I don't think a short waiting period violates the 2nd amendment, do you?

 

No I don't think it affects the 2nd amendment. In fact, here in California.....there is a 10 day wait period. Most pro-gun folks here actually agree with that legislation for a first purchase. I personally will be a hypocrite if I say I support it as a libertarian...but let's say I do and this is a good compromise. In California, there is a 10 day waiting period even if I have 100 guns. There is also a 30 day waiting period before you can buy another handgun. Let's say I have two that I fancy. I can't buy both on one day and wait 10 days. I buy one....wait 10 days. Then I won't be able to buy another starting 30 days after the first gun's 10 day wait.

 

It's funny you say 30 days is a bit long. Most of us on the side of being pro-gun actually get frustrated with a 10 day wait. I've known people to spend hundreds dollars on accessories during the 10 day wait........30 days......hmmm. Might do good for the economy? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a idea, let's put a 10 day waiting period on "speech", it is not like that would "infringe" upon one's freedom to speak, it would simply allow the Rulemakers to entangle the Grace of Liberty with unprincipled Laws.

 

In the following clip about the

, a small Tennessee town that in 1946 that stood up the against the seed of corruption, kewl story. But for the ROL suckers, "and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a idea, let's put a 10 day waiting period on "speech", it is not like that would "infringe" upon one's freedom to speak, it would simply allow the Rulemakers to entangle the Grace of Liberty with unprincipled Laws.

 

In the following clip about the

, a small Tennessee town that in 1946 that stood up the against the seed of corruption, kewl story. But for the ROL suckers, "and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

 

I hear you. I don't agree with the waiting period. You see I personally don't believe that you should restrict one's rights just because a few people evil people. I know a bunch of conservatives that want to enact laws where you can't protest at or near funerals because of the Westboro Baptist Group's work in the past.

 

While I hate their disrespect for those that have passed, if I supported legislation that restricted them from speech, I would be a hypocrite in the stance for liberty. Because I stand to defend the 1st Amendment along with the others, I will not pick and chose those I support...and those I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you own an assault rifle, you can sell it only to a licensed dealer. You also have to account for it annually, just like a car. No more problem. Gun owners don't care about gun rights; what they care about is being able to buy and sell on the private seller market. Make owners responsible for harm caused by negligent ownership, just like drivers. Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you own an assault rifle, you can sell it only to a licensed dealer. You also have to account for it annually, just like a car. No more problem. Gun owners don't care about gun rights; what they care about is being able to buy and sell on the private seller market. Make owners responsible for harm caused by negligent ownership, just like drivers. Problem solved.

If someone breaks into my house and steals my car, that person then drives that car into a group of kids and kills all of them. Who is at fault? The driver inflicting evil or the owner of the vehicle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone breaks into my house and steals my car, that person then drives that car into a group of kids and kills all of them. Who is at fault? The driver inflicting evil or the owner of the vehicle?

 

 

 

When was the last time you read in the paper about someone stealing a car, then uses the car to run over over a group of people?

Edited by anukulardecider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every simi or resembling an automatic rifle or gun should be taken away and replaced with these.

 

anix%20french%20flintlock%20pistol%201.j

 

 

 

And for hunting.....

 

Pennsylvania_Long_Rifle_circa_1780._Penn

 

 

 

 

Whoever hunts with an automatic weapon is an asshole anyway. Plus, the founding fathers weren't thinking about automatic weapons when they wrote the Constitution. This is what they guaranteed people the right to have. (above)

 

Actually, that's debatable too. A well regulated militia, the first four words implies they wanted a militia armed. And we've already got a well regulated melitia....it's called the National Guard.

Edited by anukulardecider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone breaks into my house and steals my car, that person then drives that car into a group of kids and kills all of them. Who is at fault? The driver inflicting evil or the owner of the vehicle?

 

Cars are designed to transport people from one place to another, firearms primary function is force projection. The sooner we're honest about this fact, the sooner we can, as a society, recognize that gun ownership must come with responsibility, and that responsibility includes accountability.

 

The answer to your hypothetical, has to do with negligence. If a child gets into your sock drawer and takes your pistol and harms himself or another, it's because you failed to protect that child and any potential victim resulting from your failure to secure your arms. If you get out of your car leave it running and the door open and a child gets inside and runs someone over, again you are negligible.

 

That doesn't mean that you'd be held responsible for a crime committed with your gun or car, you'd be charged with negligence. Does that mean you MUST lock your weapon up, nope, it just means that if you don't and someone takes it, and harms themselves or others you could be found negligent. If you take reasonable precautions to secure your arms and they are taken, then your not negligible.

 

Let's think about this. Lets say you had dynamite Are you telling me you don't think you should have to secure it and that in the event of your failure to do so that you think you shouldn't be held accountable? What about poisons (like pesticides). If those were taken and a child (or adult) ingested it, or took it home and poisoned his family, you don't believe that your failure to secure it should have consequences?

 

You say your a Libertarian and my experience is that Libertarian's want complete freedom without expectation of responsibility....

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every simi or resembling an automatic rifle or gun should be taken away and replaced with these.

 

anix%20french%20flintlock%20pistol%201.j

 

 

 

And for hunting.....

 

Pennsylvania_Long_Rifle_circa_1780._Penn

 

 

 

 

Whoever hunts with an automatic weapon is an asshole anyway. Plus, the founding fathers weren't thinking about automatic weapons when they wrote the Constitution. This is what they guaranteed people the right to have. (above)

 

Actually, that's debatable too. A well regulated militia, the first four words implies they wanted a militia armed. And we've already got a well regulated melitia....it's called the National Guard.

 

 

Ooops, too late to correct that. "militia" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cars are designed to transport people from one place to another, firearms primary function is force projection. The sooner we're honest about this fact, the sooner we can, as a society, recognize that gun ownership must come with responsibility, and that responsibility includes accountability.

 

The answer to your hypothetical, has to do with negligence. If a child gets into your sock drawer and takes your pistol and harms himself or another, it's because you failed to protect that child and any potential victim resulting from your failure to secure your arms. If you get out of your car leave it running and the door open and a child gets inside and runs someone over, again you are negligible.

 

That doesn't mean that you'd be held responsible for a crime committed with your gun or car, you'd be charged with negligence. Does that mean you MUST lock your weapon up, nope, it just means that if you don't and someone takes it, and harms themselves or others you could be found negligent. If you take reasonable precautions to secure your arms and they are taken, then your not negligible.

 

Let's think about this. Lets say you had dynamite Are you telling me you don't think you should have to secure it and that in the event of your failure to do so that you think you shouldn't be held accountable? What about poisons (like pesticides). If those were taken and a child (or adult) ingested it, or took it home and poisoned his family, you don't believe that your failure to secure it should have consequences?

 

You say your a Libertarian and my experience is that Libertarian's want complete freedom without expectation of responsibility....

 

 

 

This reminded me of a story last month not far from where I live.

 

A 3-year-old boy who accidentally shot and killed himself with a gun has been identified as the nephew of a state trooper — and the weapon belonged to the lawman — authorities said.

 

 

But here's the comment that really got me. This is from a trooper that showed up at the scene.

 

“Accidents happen when you leave any kind of tool lying around that can cause injuries.” Stephen said. “Whether it’s a hammer left on the shelf or a chainsaw or a knife left out in the kitchen, any type of tool can cause damage. In this particular case, it was a hand gun.”

 

 

 

WTF? No, tools lying around don't blow a childs head off. If he had found anyone of those "tools" he would probably be alive today. This is the mentality we are dealing with. The gun love is so strong, they can't even admit that it was a gun that killed the baby. They must protect the gun and call it a tool instead of what it really is. Wow. Anyone else find that mind-boggling?

Edited by anukulardecider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cars are designed to transport people from one place to another, firearms primary function is force projection. The sooner we're honest about this fact, the sooner we can, as a society, recognize that gun ownership must come with responsibility, and that responsibility includes accountability.

 

The answer to your hypothetical, has to do with negligence. If a child gets into your sock drawer and takes your pistol and harms himself or another, it's because you failed to protect that child and any potential victim resulting from your failure to secure your arms. If you get out of your car leave it running and the door open and a child gets inside and runs someone over, again you are negligible.

 

That doesn't mean that you'd be held responsible for a crime committed with your gun or car, you'd be charged with negligence. Does that mean you MUST lock your weapon up, nope, it just means that if you don't and someone takes it, and harms themselves or others you could be found negligent. If you take reasonable precautions to secure your arms and they are taken, then your not negligible.

 

Let's think about this. Lets say you had dynamite Are you telling me you don't think you should have to secure it and that in the event of your failure to do so that you think you shouldn't be held accountable? What about poisons (like pesticides). If those were taken and a child (or adult) ingested it, or took it home and poisoned his family, you don't believe that your failure to secure it should have consequences?

 

You say your a Libertarian and my experience is that Libertarian's want complete freedom without expectation of responsibility....

 

Ok. At least we are progressing in this discussion, there currently are existing laws for negligence. I do agree....if you are negligent, you need to be punished for it. Before you think that is not very Libertarian of me, know that just because we believe in liberty doesn't mean it is without the expectation of responsibility.

 

A republican friend of mines who loathes the Libertarian idea for the support of gay marriage, pro choice, etc. said to me pretty much the same thing (about freedom without expectation of responsibility) which is false. We want freedom and expect responsibility. We believe that the government does not need to dictate that responsibility and that individuals need to be responsible themselves in order for a society to have maximum freedom. I know, not everyone will be....and that is a bit utopian. However, it is what it is.

 

My republican friend said that a truly free libertarian society would mean that murder is a freedom that we'd support. In actuality, it wouldn't be. If you think about it, murder is a tyrannical action. The murderer (or tyrant) takes the liberty of life from one individual.

 

WTF? No, tools lying around don't blow a childs head off. If he had found anyone of those "tools" he would probably be alive today. This is the mentality we are dealing with. The gun love is so strong, they can't even admit that it was a gun that killed the baby. They must protect the gun and call it a tool instead of what it really is. Wow. Anyone else find that mind-boggling?

 

So if someone left a pair of tweezers accessible for a child and that child stuck it in a socket....would the child probably be alive today? I don't think so. There are many ways a child can be killed by stuff we leave around the house. It isn't exclusive to guns.

 

I also don't support irresponsible gun owners. Freedom and irresponsibility DO NOT go hand in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if someone left a pair of tweezers accessible for a child and that child stuck it in a socket....would the child probably be alive today? I don't think so. There are many ways a child can be killed by stuff we leave around the house. It isn't exclusive to guns.

 

I also don't support irresponsible gun owners. Freedom and irresponsibility DO NOT go hand in hand

 

 

Is that a serious question? If your 3 year old were to dig through your dresser, would you prefer him to find a pair of tweezers or a loaded gun? I bet if that baby had found a pair of tweezers that day, they'd be going to his graduation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is that a serious question? If your 3 year old were to dig through your dresser, would you prefer him to find a pair of tweezers or a loaded gun? I bet if that baby had found a pair of tweezers that day, they'd be going to his graduation.

 

You know that isn't what I was saying. I was making a point that a gun isn't the only thing a child could find that could kill them. Please tell me you don't think that a gun is the only thing in a house that could kill a child.

 

Mike Tyson's daughter: Death by cord.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/2009-05-26-tyson-daughter_N.htm

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ooops, too late to correct that. "militia" :D

 

You were close enough....I knew what you meant.

 

Not to sound like a broken record, I know you guys heard it time and time again. I'll stress it one more time. Our founders didn't specify muskets. Our founders at that time was looking to match small arms force with the respective small arms force. In fact, our founders were evolving firearms technology. Guess who had better technology when it came to rifles? Guess what happened with that introduction of technology? It helped our founders get the advantage over a better trained and organized military. This technology was rifling. Rifling allowed the bullet to spin (like a football) resulting in the ability for sharp shooters to take out targets from further out.

 

Our founders were seeking the people to be armed to match force with force. If you were to ask the founders what would be acceptable they would say....who would be attacking the people of the United States of America (and with what). Our founders would want (at the very least) the same technology....or even better.

 

So the musket argument....if you really think about it. Isn't accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every simi or resembling an automatic rifle or gun should be taken away and replaced with these.

 

anix%20french%20flintlock%20pistol%201.j

 

 

 

And for hunting.....

 

Pennsylvania_Long_Rifle_circa_1780._Penn

 

 

 

 

Whoever hunts with an automatic weapon is an asshole anyway. Plus, the founding fathers weren't thinking about automatic weapons when they wrote the Constitution. This is what they guaranteed people the right to have. (above)

 

Actually, that's debatable too. A well regulated militia, the first four words implies they wanted a militia armed. And we've already got a well regulated melitia....it's called the National Guard.

I don't actually think the guard cou.ts because it is an arm for the state that might be the thing we "need to resist againts"

Who knowz what they meant. I'm sure they didn't forsee a militia of backwoods racist reactionaries just waiting for any excuse to kill any politicial who disgrees with them.

It's almost a laughable situation if it weren't real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't actually think the guard cou.ts because it is an arm for the state that might be the thing we "need to resist againts"

Who knowz what they meant. I'm sure they didn't forsee a militia of backwoods racist reactionaries just waiting for any excuse to kill any politicial who disgrees with them.

It's almost a laughable situation if it weren't real.

 

Its funny....but that is an accurate description of the militia at that time (remove the racist part of it....although I'm betting that racism was apparent as well). Also, before we organized as a nation....there were no politics or Constitution to defend against.....the militia at that time were a bunch of backwoods people who just didn't want to be pushed around (by anyone). They were localized as the concept was imported from the British. When the governing body couldn't provide forces to defend a community, normal farmers, hunters, etc. (who were able and willing to fight) stepped up to defend a community against any attackers, The early colonists had their own militia local to their towns etc. with very autonomous command structures (nothing like today's National Guard).

 

The second amendment was written for two reasons.

 

1) Have an organized military

This is pretty obvious. A government must establish a general security force to free the people from having to always worry about watching their backs.

 

2) Ensure that it would forever be the right of the people to keep an bear arms

The founders wanted to ensure that we created a government that it could manage to protect the people. BUT.....It also knew that the local militias (by colonial definition) would always have the power to defend their localities. The local militia was made up of ordinary people. Anyone willing and able to defend. Today's version of that militia is bound to the constitution. Some are willing to kill any governing body that steps outside the law of the land. However, that isn't again a view of all of them. Just the extreme parts of the militia (yes I've done research).

 

 

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment

Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

 

  • "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

  • "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

    -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

  • "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

    -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

  • If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

    -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

  • "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "

    -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

  • "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

    --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

  • "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

    --John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

  • "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

    --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

  • "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

    --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  • "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."

    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  • "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

    -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

  • "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

    -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

  • "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."

    -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

  • "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

    -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

  • " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

    -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

  • " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."

    -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

  • "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

    -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

  • "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."

    -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

  • "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."

    -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

  • "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."

    -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

  • "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

    -- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

  • "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

    -- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

  • " ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."

    -- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

  • "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."

    -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

  • "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "

    --Samuel Adams

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You know that isn't what I was saying. I was making a point that a gun isn't the only thing a child could find that could kill them. Please tell me you don't think that a gun is the only thing in a house that could kill a child.

 

Mike Tyson's daughter: Death by cord.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/2009-05-26-tyson-daughter_N.htm

Of course not, but when there are 23,237 accidental tweezer or cord injuries in one year, you come see me.

 

 

 

Its funny....but that is an accurate description of the militia at that time (remove the racist part of it....although I'm betting that racism was apparent as well). Also, before we organized as a nation....there were no politics or Constitution to defend against.....the militia at that time were a bunch of backwoods people who just didn't want to be pushed around (by anyone). They were localized as the concept was imported from the British. When the governing body couldn't provide forces to defend a community, normal farmers, hunters, etc. (who were able and willing to fight) stepped up to defend a community against any attackers, The early colonists had their own militia local to their towns etc. with very autonomous command structures (nothing like today's National Guard).

 

The second amendment was written for two reasons.

 

1) Have an organized military

This is pretty obvious. A government must establish a general security force to free the people from having to always worry about watching their backs.

 

2) Ensure that it would forever be the right of the people to keep an bear arms

The founders wanted to ensure that we created a government that it could manage to protect the people. BUT.....It also knew that the local militias (by colonial definition) would always have the power to defend their localities. The local militia was made up of ordinary people. Anyone willing and able to defend. Today's version of that militia is bound to the constitution. Some are willing to kill any governing body that steps outside the law of the land. However, that isn't again a view of all of them. Just the extreme parts of the militia (yes I've done research).

 

 

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment

Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

 

  • "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

  • "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

    -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

  • "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

    -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

  • If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

    -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

  • "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "

    -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

  • "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

    --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

  • "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

    --John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

  • "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

    --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

  • "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

    --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  • "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."

    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  • "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

    -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

  • "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

    -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

  • "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."

    -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

  • "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

    -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

  • " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

    -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

  • " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."

    -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

  • "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

    -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

  • "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."

    -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

  • "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."

    -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

  • "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."

    -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

  • "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

    -- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

  • "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

    -- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

  • " ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."

    -- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

  • "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."

    -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

  • "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "

    --Samuel Adams

 

Yeppers, and on the web site, where you got this, it's showing this pic.

 

 

image032.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of gun they were talking about.

 

 

 

It does not say people have the right to own simi automatics for the purpose of killing more people faster. Nowhere does it say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not, but when there are 23,237 accidental tweezer or cord injuries in one year, you come see me.

 

Yeppers, and on the web site, where you got this, it's showing this pic.

 

 

image032.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of gun they were talking about.

 

 

 

It does not say people have the right to own simi automatics for the purpose of killing more people faster. Nowhere does it say that.

 

Do you seriously think our founders meant the right to bear muskets?

 

Do you think maybe they were so short sighted as to maybe think that free speech would only be spoken and written on pen and paper? So if the government banned speech on the internet, would we give up and say....yah...ok.....you are right.....they never mentioned computers.

 

Forget the right to defend against tyranny for a second. Would you think the best way to defend a home or self is really through a musket? Take some time to watch the video below. The woman in the first 911 call was brutally murdered. The second 911 were made up of survivors. If you could hand the woman in the first video a weapon (a choice between a semi-auto gun and a musket) what would you give her?

 

WARNING: Graphic Audio

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went into a gun shop here last year, I filled out the questionaire, they made the call, I paid. Twenty minutes total, and I walked out with a gun.

A little too easy.

That's my honest 2 cents.

When you follow the laws and don't run afoul of them, it should be this easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...