Number of anti's on THR?

[Titan6]

Go back and read what ''regulated'' means in 18th century English. You may be surprised.

You also need to look up the word ''right'' again as well. You are confusing laws with rights. Rights exist even if there are no laws. Laws are agreements that people abide by.

No one has a ''right'' to health care. Only a law can be made to force people to provide it. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and fight tyranny.

Again I blame the education system, not you. It is only your fault if you stay that way.

The DOI is a statement of principal and not the law of the land. The fact that the country had to have a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people to work out the 3/5 of a person question pretty much settled that people have rights, regardless of the laws.

 

[budney]

It's quite sad how much you distrust your fellow citizens because they are, after all, the people that elect legislators at all levels of government.

Non-sequitur. When I say that nobody has the right to assault me--no matter how many people vote in favor of assaulting me--I'm not expressing "distrust in my fellow man." I'm asserting a right to be secure in my person.

By your conception of rights, young women in some countries have no "right" not to be raped: in those countries, it's perfectly legal for a judge to sentence a woman to be raped. It may be legal, but it ain't moral--and it doesn't matter how many people say different.

--Len.

 

[RPCVYemen]

The last time I checked Great Britain wasn't a hot bed of either.

This fits what I actually hear from most antis. They will argue the Great Britain has much stricter guns laws than the US, and a much less violent crime. Sometimes they name other European countries, but it's usually GB.

I thknk the argument is incorrect - there are a lot of other cultural factors that may make the US a more violent place. But it's not an irrational argument.

Mike

 

[JWarren]

"Who is the militia? YOU ARE."

What about the "well regulated" part? Often, as now, the ignored part of the amendment. Unless you're a member of the National Guard your regulation might consist of laws to restrict what firearms you may possess.

Wrong. Again, you have ignored the supporting documents that framers of the Consitution wrote. Their writings made it PERFECTLY clear what their position on gun ownership and militias were. When a person goes back to arguing the phrases and commas, all they are doing is attempting to get their way on a technicality. This goes against the intentions of the framers and the spirit of law itself.



Because the use and epitomology of a word changes with time, it DOES NOT change the intent of the law. The law must be interpreted according to the USAGE of the day.

How do you address this from my above post? :

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

OR

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

When you write

It's quite sad how much you distrust your fellow citizens because they are, after all, the people that elect legislators at all levels of government.

I find it sad that people in our country-- included our officials-- distrust THEIR fellow citizens with the ability to protect themselves.


Madison said it well.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

What about the "well regulated" part? Often, as now, the ignored part of the amendment. Unless you're a member of the National Guard your regulation might consist of laws to restrict what firearms you may possess.

Considering the National Guard wasn't established until 1903, you will have a VERY difficult time asserting this.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903



Again, the framers made it OBVIOUS what their intent was.


-- John

 

[Titan6]

Yemen- Violent Crime in GB is much higher than the US but the poster was talking about the government transitioning to authortarian regime not crime.


If you look at the way Blair has structured the entry into the common market against the will of the people one could make the argument that it has already happened.

 

[Byron Quick]

The militia was defined by act of Congress in 1792 as consisting of free, white males ages 16 to, I believe, 60 in accordance with the beliefs in vogue at the time.

To keep the same spirit of that law today the militia would be defined as all citizens upon reaching the age of 16, NOT as the National Guard. Look it up and read it, omahaew. While your at it, look up the meaning of 'well-regulate' in the 18th century. It does not mean what you think it does which appears to be 'many regulations.' Also look up the regulations in force at the time for the militia...the weapons regulations for militia members stated their arms were to be suitable for military use. Bringing it forward to today, an equivalent regulation would require members of the militia(everyone) to own fully automatic weapons.

 

[SuperNaut]

But I have read them.

Excellent, so now that you have read that the framers knew that gun ownership was/is an individual right, what would you like to talk about?

One question you may want to consider is why do people who are in favor of a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to some things (Freedom of Speech) get a dose of the "Let's consider other sources" when it comes to other things (the Second Amendment)?

Who dismisses supporting documents again? The only person I see doing that in this thread is you. Let's save the 1A conversation for another time, right now we are talking about the 2A.

Since you have read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers and the many quotes from the Founders in this thread; continuing to pretend that the meaning of the 2A is mysterious at this point would be disingenuous, if not prevaricative. Why would you do that?

 

[HiroProX]

Why is it that when someone brings up the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd someone else starts waffling on about the Federalist papers? If you read the actual amendment it seems clear that the right to bear arms is contingent on there being a well regulated militia which would mean some sort of armed force organized and regulated by the government (representatives of the people after all). Do you distrust your fellow voters that much?

Hmmm... upon reading it, it looks like the "well regulated militia" part is an explaination of reasoning. That reasoning led them to the whole "shall not be infringed" part.

And sorry, but the NG is NOT the militia reffered to by the 2nd. The NG is at best, a federal select militia, and the founders had nothing but contempt for any select militia, considering them a standing army by another name.

 

[BHPshooter]

"confiscation has always led to tyranny or genocide or both"

The last time I checked Great Britain wasn't a hot bed of either.

Wait for it.
What you're essentially saying right now is that Summer does not necessarily lead to fall, and that fall won't necessarily lead to winter. Great Britain is simply an early-stage test case. Wait for it. (And I'm not even going to waste breath on the tyranny argument.)

We know this from SEVERAL other test subjects that led to the same thing:

• Turkey under Ottoman rule
• USSR under Stalin
• Nazi Germany and their occupation of Europe
• Nationalist China
• Communist China
• Guatemala
• Uganda
• Cambodia
• Rwanda

The total for those little social experiments cost over 100 million people their lives.

Canada, the UK, and Australia are just in the blossoming stages.

The Declaration of Independence is a glorious statement of principle, not the law of the land. It contains discrepancies, one of which is the statement "that all men are created equal." Someone of the time could have talked to any one of those "3/5ths" of a person for an alternative point of view.

That was settled almost 150 years ago with the blood and lives of several hundred thousand Americans. You have no point here.

"there are people like you that don't know the difference between a God-given right"

You're confusing religion with the rule of law and governments instituted by men.

Negative. You like talking about insurance, so I'll put it in a way that you'll understand. Rights are a "pre-existing condition" that aren't covered by the governmental policy. Simply talking about God doesn't mean I'm talking about religion. For the umpteenth time, have you read the founding documents? ANY of them? They talk about God a lot too, and those documents aren't transcripts of religious observances.

Which is ALSO why the DOI says (in a different place):

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

(Emphasis mine.)

They put that in, showing great forethought, to cover people who can't stand to hear anyone mention God. If you don't like the term "God-given rights," then replace it with this one: "Natural rights." Same thing, it just makes religio-phobic people feel a little bit warmer and fuzzier.

"Who is the militia? YOU ARE."

What about the "well regulated" part? Often, as now, the ignored part of the amendment. Unless you're a member of the National Guard your regulation might consist of laws to restrict what firearms you may possess.

What would it mean if I said that the speedometer in my car was "well-regulated?" What if I said your wristwatch was "well-regulated?" Even though the language has changed some over the last 250 years, the root meaning of this term survives. That is the same thing that well-regulated in the 2A means. So, to put it in context, I would consider myself well-regulated in the use of a pistol, rifle, and shotgun, but that I still need to become well-regulated in the tasks of marching, small unit tactics, etc.

You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down.
Wes

 

[taliv]

If you start ranting about "tyrannical government" to antis, you have lost not only the battle, but the war. This may be a shocker but I would guess that less than .5% of Americans would list "fear of tyranny by our government as a concern."

who's ranting, Mike? I just said what the right to own arms was about.

I'd say you're out of touch with the American public. Several minority groups in this country have practically institutionalized fear of the police/government as part of their culture. they're far more than .5%

Heck, gun nuts are more than .5% of the population.

Ron Paul's supporters are at least 3% of the population and they're probably unanimous in their fear of tyranny.

It really depends on how you ask the question. If you say, "do you think the federal government has habitually or flagrantly violated the rights of innocent American citizens in the past? and are they likely to do so in the future?" I'd bet you'd get 80-90% 'YES"

 

[Cosmoline]

One question you may want to consider is why do people who are in favor of a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to some things (Freedom of Speech) get a dose of the "Let's consider other sources" when it comes to other things (the Second Amendment)?

You should stick around here for awhile. You'd be surprised how many of us are in favor of all civil liberties, not just the RKBA. I think a lot of folks on the other side of the fence view gun owners as uniform red state Republicans, all marching in lockstep on Chuck Heston's orders. You don't have to do too many thread searches to see how many of us feel about the Patriot Act, unlimited detention, and other positions of the current administration.

 

[Cosmoline]

Those "rights' can be modified, or eliminated, by Constitutional amendment.

That's actually not at all certain. While the Constitution can be amended, the SCT has never held that the core rights in the BOR and 14th can be undone by amendment. At some point the amendment cuts so deep into the core of the document as to undo it. Could our representatives pass an amendment banning all free expression or instituting a national church? That's not at all clear.

 

[buzz_knox]

One question you may want to consider is why do people who are in favor of a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to some things (Freedom of Speech) get a dose of the "Let's consider other sources" when it comes to other things (the Second Amendment)?

It's the normal method of statutory interpretation. If a statement (regardless of its clarity) is disputed, you go to the legislative history to determine what it was intended to mean. If the legislative history is not helpful (or existent), then supporting contemporanous documents can be examined to determine intent.

Here, the supporting documents are being offered only to prove that the "qualifier" was nothing more than a subordinate clause. This disproves the recently created collective right argument.

A question for you: why do antis have to ignore the original intent, the common constructions of language both then and now, the language itself, and centuries of usage?

 

[Mannix]

They're some here that are trying to split the Republican vote so as Osama or the Hildabeast gets in. Some, not all of the Ron Paul supporters are pretty obvious in their little plan. Some of them are right from the DUmp. One of them is from Illinois and I haven't figured out his DU name yet. They get a high post count in a short time frame. Post mostly in L&P. No mention of owning any guns.

Them's fightin' words! My intention is not to try and split the vote, but to try and not resort to picking the lesser of two evils, which is how we have had our rights slowly eroded away over time, IMO. Ron Paul is the only candidate I've seen so far who doesn't seem like he would use the constitution to wipe his arse with after being elected. Aside from Ron, the only one I would even consider voting for come November would be Thompson, if he gets the nod.

As for the never talking about owning guns, call me paranoid but I don't like announcing online, let alone on a PUBLIC FORUM what I do or do not have, it kinda ties in with the whole fear of government thing. Frankly some of the policies put into place post-9/11 scare me senseless and the mass confiscation post-Katrina only adds to it. Having a pretty good understanding of computers just reinforces my "paranoia".

Bottom line: everything on the internet can be tracked, everytime you send a packet it has your IP in it, and that IP can be tracked down to your ISP by anyone, the ISP knows who has what IP when, and the government can force your ISP to tell them who had that IP when a post was made. Guess what? The government now knows you own so many guns and their type, not that all that is really necessary, as they probably keep a record of every NICS check preformed and already know .

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Distrust? Elect?

Bans are not enacted by "citizens" but rather by a stratum of self-appointed nannies masquerading as legislators, arrogantly overriding both the spirit and the letter of the Bill of Rights.

It's quite sad how much you distrust your fellow citizens because they are, after all, the people that elect legislators at all levels of government.

It is, nowadays, practically axiomatic that (a) all politicians are lying thieving scoundrels who will dissemble through their teeth to fool the electorate into voting for them, and (b) the electorate comprises a body of people poorly educated and mis-educated and indoctrinated to the point where they are pre-disposed to believe the bilge spewing from the oral cavities of those who would rule regardless of glaring inconsistencies in their assertions and their equally glaring failures to perform in accordance with past promises.

What is sad is that there are so few of us remaining with the mental acuity necessary to comprehend this.

Socialists have lied to "disadvantaged" folks for decades, promising to help them "throw off their chains" while instead forging newer and better shackles in the name of "fairness" and then blaming the resulting inequities on their political opponents.

Distrust my fellow citizens? I trust my son to drive my car. Why? Hundreds of hours of demonstrated competence. I don't trust my daughter in that same venue. Why? Graphically and expensively demonstrated incompetence.

Trust can be extended where (a) no hazard is extant and no harm will necessarily result from demonstrated incompetence, (b) there is a hazard and yet competence has been demonstrated, (c) in an enterprise whose success depends on faith and loyalty, such faith and loyalty are manifest by virtue of conduct over time.

I trust my fellow citizens where such trust does not place me or those I cherish in jeopardy should such trust fail. The greater the risk attendant upon a failure of such trust, the more caution is used in extending it.

So far, over a period of several decades (more than a century, actually) the incompetence and dishonesty of legislatures has become both trite and legend. "To err is human, but to truly mess things up takes government."

I have seen nothing in my life that would encourage me to extend trust to those who formulate the laws nor to those who elect them.

With the reinstatement of morality as a foundation in our culture, that could change.

 

[Titan6]

Arfin, I would argue that government has always been corrupt by it's very nature hence the way the constitution was written to restrain it. I would say that the congress of 1807 was no more or less moral than that of 2007. What has happened is that our restraint of government has slipped steadily through the last century to bring us to the point we are now.

 

[Fosbery]

Thought I'd chip in:

I'm from the UK. I've lived here all my life, I've worked here and I've served to defend it.

It's true that the UK has a low rate of gun crime and half the murder rate of the US. However, it's also true that we have 900% the violent crime rate.

The main point I would make about the UK is that before 1920 we had no gun laws. Guns were everywhere. They were in highstreet shops, in ironmongers, in department stores, in bicycle shops, garages etc etc. And we're not just talking the classic image of the farmer with his shotgun (as common as that was). The biggest sellers were pocket pistols. Small revolvers sold to be carried by ordinary people for use in self-defence. Colt even opened a showroom in London, selling Peacemakers and other pistols which were then carried by Londoners everyday. Yet, despite (or perhaps because of) this, Britain had a low rate of murder, of violent crime and indeed of gun crime.

Since 1920, gun laws have gradually become tighter and tighter. Today, defensive shootings in the UK are extremely rare (though not unheard of). Indeed, with the exception of politicians, police and military, it is illegal to acquire a gun for the purpose self-defence. At the same time (since 1920) the rates of murder, violent crime and gun crime have been steadily rising. For instance, since the Big Ban in 1986 (many types of gun were banned and it became a LOT harder to get a gun), gun crime has increased by 1,000%. Since handguns were banned in 1997, handgun crime has doubled.

It is true that the rates of murder and gun crime are still lower than the USA, but to attribute these to gun control would be foolish: Britain has always had a low murder and gun crime rate than the USA, even when we had the same laws as regards firearms.

It once was, in Britain, that our right to arms was an envied and jealously guarded right, fiercly defended by all and enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Prime ministers expressed their wish for a rifle in every home and a well equipped target range in every village. MPs called a proposal to ban the general carrying of pistols in public "monstrous" and threw it out. The right of even an Irishman to carry a pistol in public was defended by the courts as late as 1916. Yet all that has gone. In its place have come CCTV cameras, flying spy robots, electronic tagging, the recording of all car journeys, hundreds of ways for the state to enter your home without a warrant, the end of trial by jury, the end to innocent until proven guilty, the end to the right to protest, the end to free speesh, the end to the right to remain silent... the list goes on, and while all this is happening the state is taking 40% of everything you earn. Not all tyrannies have gas chambers.

 

[benEzra]

I continually see this claim from folks like you. Yes there are GOP antis, and I do what I can to ensure they know my concerns. If what you claim is true, why are not more of you pro2A dems in office? The dems you have leading your cause most certainly do not share your pro2A point of view.

Maybe instead of hammering on the pro2A GOP or other pro2A types you ought to straighten out your own. Some of that "common ground" I keep hearing about but never see.

Working on it...

Webb, Tester, and Reid are steps in the right direction...also Ted Strickland in the Ohio governor's mansion and Bob Casey in PA. The rest of the party leadership is getting it, very slowly.

Don't forget that the repubs were heading down the same road after Reagan (don't forget who enacted the first Federal AWB, by executive order, and the "czar" who dreamed it up). They thankfully woke up after Bush the Elder lost the election in '92 and a number of anti-gun repubs went down in '94.

The Dems have been slower getting it, but it's moving in the right direction.

BTW, this poll was a bit of a shocker to some DU'ers:



And that's not a fluke; most polls on the subject posted in General Discussion come close to a 50/50 split.

And as with gun owners in general, most DU gunnies are nonhunters. There are quite a few CHL holders, AR and AK aficionados, etc. and we are making our presence known to the ivory-tower elitists. The most vicious anti's got themselves tombstoned for personal attacks against gun owning DU'ers, and more gunnies are coming out of the woodwork and speaking out since they're gone.

Are the Dems going to turn out OK? Who knows; the populists and the authoritarians are currently fighting for the soul of the party, and who knows which side will win. But some of us on the freedom side are fighting hard--and for those of you who are Repubs, keep in mind that the less hostile to gun ownership Dems become, the harder it is for anti-gun Repubs to hide behind the "lesser of two evils" copout.

There are progun dems but they are viewed as the DINOs of their party just as RG and Romney are the RINOs over here. Just that on the other side of the fence the true dems are the party leadership while over here the RINOs are.

Jim Webb isn't viewed as much of a DINO by most DU'ers, but Dianne Feinstein is (zillionaire totalitarian elitist that she is...). And the repub party leadership is pushing a bunch of gun-grabbers this year, so methinks the repub leadership doesn't understand the issue as clearly as the repub rank and file do either.

We've got work to do in both parties regarding recognition of basic civil rights--not just the 2ndA, either (Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Clinton were all pretty lousy on the 4th Amendment, and W is atrocious on that score; Gonzales is the Janet Reno of the 4th Amendment, nor is he a friend of the 2ndA).

FWIW, I'm not wedded to any party label, Dem or otherwise. I care more about issues than what letter somebody has after their name.

 

[Titan6]

Well said Fosberry. It is this that I rail against. I do not want this future for my children. I fear it may be inevitable but I shall fight it to the last.

 

[Art Eatman]

Once again, I'm disappointed. I offer some points and ask some questions and I don't get answers. Are my questions too difficult?

Ref. Page 4, Post #92, questions for omahanew.

Anyhow, I've been involved in these arguments since 1967. I've yet to hear any convincing pro-gun-control argument. I guess part of my problem is that I've only been in this "gun bidness" since Christmas of 1941; maybe I need to learn more about it all. But, like a lot of Certified Old Pharts, it's hard for me to cede much credibility to somebody who's come late to the party.

Art

"Absent facts, sincerity of opinion does not create truth." -- Me.

 

[Jason_G]

I fear it may be inevitable but I shall fight it to the last.

Molon Labe.

This is a nation that was founded by common folk with muskets. They fought for the right to establish a free and armed nation. If folks don't like the fact that the common citizen has the freedom to own firearms, they should move to a more restrictive nation.

Here's a link to look at:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

Jason

 

[anygunanywhere]

Thank you, benEzra.

Anygun

 

[Beatnik]

Once again, I'm disappointed. I offer some points and ask some questions and I don't get answers. Are my questions too difficult?

No, they just are too rational for a response.

I've taken up the sport of writing to anti editorialists. They usually respond, but they always follow the exact same pattern of argument as we've seen here.

Pro 2nd arguer: Actually, I'd like to take polite umbrage with what you just said. It's fallacious to begin with, and even if it wasn't, your facts are either absent or demonstrably wrong: here's the link (from a universally respected authority such as the FBI) to prove it.

Anti: You silly little hillbilly, I will now proceed to make the exact same argument you just refuted completely, and therefore consider myself the victor.

Pro 2nd: Uh.... yeah.... can you please address my initial argument?

Anti: ( chirp.... chirp..... chirp..... )

 

[hso]

There are no facts that support prohibiting gun ownership for a population. Simply look at violent crime rates, gun crime rates, accidental shootings reports at the FBI, CDC and BLS and you see states with few to no restrictions on gun ownership have no higher (and usually lower) rates of shootings than states with very restrictive gun ownership laws. You even see this when the low/no restriction states are physically adjacent to the more heavily restricted states. No correlation exists between liberal firearms regulations and criminal or accidental shooting. In other words, restrictive firearms laws don't prevent crime or accidents. They serve no real public health/safety purpose.

President Clinton ordered the CDC to conduct a study to determine if gun prohibition laws had an effect on crime (presumedly with the assumption that they would find a correlation supporting gun prohibition laws). The study was completed at the end of the Clinton administration and issued. The results from the well funded study by the Task Force on Community Prevention Services were that there was no supporting evidence that "gun control" legislation lead to lower crime rates.

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

This ties in with what we see in the UK and AU, where firearms are all but banned, but violent crime rates have climbed and even firearms crime rates have climbed. While it would be difficult to argue that fewer guns in the hands of the law abiding citizenry resulted in climbing gun crime and violent crime rates it certainly highlights that few guns do not equate to lower rates (which is the goal espoused by gun-prohibitionists).

If lower crime rates aren't achieved through gun prohibition then what is the purpose of continuing with efforts to enact gun prohibition laws?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf

 

[stevekl]

Just because a lefty owns a gun doesn't make the rest of his opinion system better. People who vote for Nader and frequent DU are still dumb wether or not they like guns or not.

(This is in response to that poll image from DU)