Freedom of speech and guns [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of speech and guns


iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 17:06
Freedom of speech is very important and I think that people should be open minded. Freedom of speech goes toward listening and allowing the conversation of ideas that don't reflect your own. On Independence Day I think it is important to acknowledge that we have freedom of speech - in written, spoken form, etc.

In exercising mine I'm going to offer a counter viewpoint on guns and question some common pro-gun arguments.

1. Guns are a constitutional right:

Well the second amendment says the right to bear arms... well regulated militia. The question becomes as to how to define arms. What is the definition of "arms" Could have the framers guessed fully and semi-automatic weapons? At the times arms meant long rifles and muskets that were singleshot muzzle loads. I wonder if the founding fathers would have seen the necessity in having AR-15s and AK-47s? Also what is the purpose to having the right to bear arms... to protect the people against a tyranical government? In this case should the amendment pretain to whatever weapons the government has. Should people have nuclear bombs and fighter jets?


2. Guns are needed.

A. Guns are needed to hunt: Hunting is a hobby not a necessity... in our culture today we can find food at the grocery store. Hunting is recreation which is a contradition to the word "need."

B. Guns are needed for protection: Actually if someone wants to hurt us, we are likely going to be hurt whether we have a gun or not. Since we are not the aggressor we do not have the knowledge of the attack and guns make attacks very quick. 99.9999 percent of the population will go through life without ever having to use a gun for protection or needing to.

C. Guns are a right: But really why? Why does one human being have a right to own an item that is purely designed to take the life of another?

D. Guns are a hobby: True. Can't argue this... which is why I have guns, but still I could find other hobbies.

3. Criminals get guns illegally.

Most guns used by criminals are from lawful purchases. Whether they are stolen from people who bought them legally or are gotten through the straw-purchase. Firearms companies do not manufacture guns for criminals, but law obiding citizens. The fact is that any gun used in a crime was ORIGINALLY purchased in legal fashion. Also more demand for guns by people like us at Glocktalk, help criminals have easier access to them.

4. If not guns, the bad guys will kill with other weapons.

True, but what other weapon can give a 150 pound man an advantage over a 300 pound man. What other weapon can give 1 man an advantage over 30 men? Guns do not make people able to kill, they make it EASY and ACCESSABLE to kill.

5. If everyone had guns the badguys wouldn't dare commit crimes or murder.

Well most gun deaths are self-inflected. Suicide is the most common form of gun death in America. And in most shootings the perpetrator is suicidal, so fear of death (or other guns) is not a factor. For a law-abiding citizen that logic would make sense, but criminals don't always use logic.


6. A gun is a tool.

True, but what other tool has a sole purpose in taking the life of a human being? Yes a car can kill, a chainsaw can kill, and a hammer can kill. A car has the purpose of transportation. A chainsaw has the purpose of sawing through lumber. A hammer has the purpose of driving in nails. A gun has the purpose of killing or the threat of killing.

7. If guns were made illegal, only the criminals would have guns.

True, but only a very very small percentage of them would, as 99-percent of guns used in crime are originally purchased legally. Most criminals would not have guns because guns would not be in circulation. It's common sense.


Just a few thoughts.




By the way I'm probably going to go shoot my new Colt series 70 1911 with some friends next weekend. :tongueout:

Happy Independence Day!

tous
07-04-2011, 17:09
How long have you been channeling Josh Sugarman?

iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 17:13
How long have you been channeling Josh Sugarman?

What do you think of my points? I'm a gun owner, but honestly deep down I cannot find a good reason why I should be entitled to them. To me it's really a hobby, an interest, and appreciating them as someone might appreciate a muscle car than can go 150 mph and 0-60 in one second, but would not have a real practical reason to do so.

G-Lock808
07-04-2011, 17:20
malarkey, but you're entitled to your opinion.

TheJ
07-04-2011, 17:40
Freedom of speech is very important and I think that people should be open minded. Freedom of speech goes toward listening and allowing the conversation of ideas that don't reflect your own. On Independence Day I think it is important to acknowledge that we have freedom of speech - in written, spoken form, etc.

In exercising mine I'm going to offer a counter viewpoint on guns and question some common pro-gun arguments.

1. Guns are a constitutional right:

Well the second amendment says the right to bear arms... well regulated militia. The question becomes as to how to define arms. What is the definition of "arms" Could have the framers guessed fully and semi-automatic weapons? At the times arms meant long rifles and muskets that were singleshot muzzle loads. I wonder if the founding fathers would have seen the necessity in having AR-15s and AK-47s? Also what is the purpose to having the right to bear arms... to protect the people against a tyranical government? In this case should the amendment pretain to whatever weapons the government has. Should people have nuclear bombs and fighter jets?
IMO it's about the people having the right to defend themselves against others, the government and/or a SHTF type of situation. This doesn't mean everyone needs to have access to nuclear arms but the government isn't suppose to have anything even approaching a monopoly on deadly force.

2. Guns are needed.

A. Guns are needed to hunt: Hunting is a hobby not a necessity... in our culture today we can find food at the grocery store. Hunting is recreation which is a contradition to the word "need."
Just because many may see hunting as recreation doesn't mean everyone does or that everyone should be made to. The government should NOT be able to make things illegal based on the fact that it could be sourced from others.

B. Guns are needed for protection: Actually if someone wants to hurt us, we are likely going to be hurt whether we have a gun or not. Since we are not the aggressor we do not have the knowledge of the attack and guns make attacks very quick. 99.9999 percent of the population will go through life without ever having to use a gun for protection or needing to.
False premise. 99.9999% of the protective value of firearms is that they are present and could be used not they they necessarily are "used" (fired) to protect. There are no statistics kept as to how many crimes were prevented because the possibility of the perspective victim possessing a firearm.

C. Guns are a right: But really why? Why does one human being have a right to own an item that is purely designed to take the life of another?
See protection reason stated previously.

D. Guns are a hobby: True. Can't argue this... which is why I have guns, but still I could find other hobbies.
The government should not deny it's citizens ANY pursuit of happiness without a ridiculously compelling reason.

3. Criminals get guns illegally.
Most guns used by criminals are from lawful purchases. Whether they are stolen from people who bought them legally or are gotten through the straw-purchase. Firearms companies do not manufacture guns for criminals, but law obiding citizens. The fact is that any gun used in a crime was ORIGINALLY purchased in legal fashion. Also more demand for guns by people like us at Glocktalk, help criminals have easier access to them.

Chances are anything used in a violent crime was originally obtained legally.. I don't understand the point of saying that. However, your logic is an example of what economists would call a fallacy of composition. If your logic held water then prisons would be nice safe places where there are no murders and violent crimes minimal...


4. If not guns, the bad guys will kill with other weapons.

True, but what other weapon can give a 150 pound man an advantage over a 300 pound man. What other weapon can give 1 man an advantage over 30 men? Guns do not make people able to kill, they make it EASY and ACCESSABLE to kill.
Incorrect, all they do is equalize things. You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. How would a 110lb woman defend herself against a 300lb male aggressor? Without guns her options are very limited. Should she have the right to not live in fear?

5. If everyone had guns the badguys wouldn't dare commit crimes or murder.

Well most gun deaths are self-inflected. Suicide is the most common form of gun death in America. And in most shootings the perpetrator is suicidal, so fear of death (or other guns) is not a factor. For a law-abiding citizen that logic would make sense, but criminals don't always use logic.
Again... See my previous statement on the fact that we have no idea how many crimes were prevented because the perspective victim was armed or thought to be armed. My guess is the figure would dwarf the gun suicide rate.


6. A gun is a tool.

True, but what other tool has a sole purpose in taking the life of a human being? Yes a car can kill, a chainsaw can kill, and a hammer can kill. A car has the purpose of transportation. A chainsaw has the purpose of sawing through lumber. A hammer has the purpose of driving in nails. A gun has the purpose of killing or the threat of killing.
Again, you are looking at this the wrong way. As a tool, it's a tool for defense. It's typically take few lives compared to how many lives it does/has saved.

7. If guns were made illegal, only the criminals would have guns.

True, but only a very very small percentage of them would, as 99-percent of guns used in crime are originally purchased legally. Most criminals would not have guns because guns would not be in circulation. It's common sense.
Again, guns save untold lives and prevent untold crimes. So you are only looking at one small sliver of the equation and seeing what you want to. Guns primarily don't take lives and cause crime the actually saves lives and prevent crimes.

BailRecoveryAgent
07-04-2011, 17:54
What do you think of my points? I'm a gun owner, but honestly deep down I cannot find a good reason why I should be entitled to them.

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s174/z-6-a-6-c-6-h/Theories.jpg

A6Gator
07-04-2011, 18:00
“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.”

Rights come from God.

I guess it's too bad you can't ask the folks under the Nazis in Germany or Stalin or the Warsaw Ghetto how that "no Second Amendment" thing worked out for them.

G36's Rule
07-04-2011, 18:02
Don't feed the troll people.

Baba Louie
07-04-2011, 18:18
While I disagree with that which you say, I'll defend your right to say it.

You and I have not lived thru a govt that has stripped the arms from the people, kept them cloistered within their own seiged city (or without) and actually fired upon them killing more than a few. I hope.

Others within this land have had that joy. That sorrow.

T'was determined that shall never happen again, so the govt was expressly limited in that regards, and yet, they cannot help themselves to determine that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means reasonable regulations. A $200 tax stamp here, only govt agents can own these or those, the plainly stated "fact" that it's the US citizens fault bad things happen across the border...

Your hobby. My passion. Better men and women than I (and you?) have died protecting same.

Feel free to speak your mind, your beliefs, even tho I cannot see why you feel entitled to them...:supergrin:

Have a safe Independence Day.

RYT 2BER
07-04-2011, 18:22
Freedo

1. Guns are a constitutional right:

Well the second amendment says the right to bear arms... well regulated militia. The question becomes as to how to define arms. What is the definition of "arms" Could have the framers guessed fully and semi-automatic weapons? At the times arms meant long rifles and muskets that were singleshot muzzle loads. I wonder if the founding fathers would have seen the necessity in having AR-15s and AK-47s? Also what is the purpose to having the right to bear arms... to protect the people against a tyranical government? In this case should the amendment pretain to whatever weapons the government has. Should people have nuclear bombs and fighter jets?


!

I must admit I hate these threads but I'll just throw in my two cents on this issue.

I have heard this lame argument over and over and it is always put forth by people with conveniently short memories. Beyond the Constitution itself, there is a significant amount of writing by the framers that details much of what they had in mind..

Now when it comes to the infamous "oh well back then they had flintllocks and blackpowder guns, they never would have supported an AK47" , that is completely incorrect.

Attempt for a moment to understand that this country... the USA was BORNE out of a revolutionary WAR. The people who fought and died for freedom did so from what they perceived to be an oppressive government. The 2nd Amendment isnt for a moment, about what KIND of gun or arms you can own, it is the basis that those who crafted the language knew that a government could only be kept in check and people could only be free when the people themselves were armed. That arming by definition would technically be at whatever level was necessary to keep a governement in check and not oppress the people. So the answer is.. the framers simply wanted the people to be as powerful as the government.. be it with a revolver, an AR15 or a nuclear sub.. That is the nature of the amendment and that is what it stands for.

This stupid gibber gabber about what "kind of weapon" is ok or isnt, isnt something that the Bill Of Rights contemplated since it doesnt/didnt matter to the founding fathers. Its a freedom from oppression thing.. not a "what kind of gun/arms are you allowed" thing. The "kind of weapon" argument is simply for those that would attempt to limit others and garner power (antis).

To elaborate on this issue, I have had the debate also that the founders couldnt have possibly imagined what modern weaponry is, and if they did, theyd do things differerntly.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this, as do others who read the Constitution.. The founding fathers were amazingly forward thinking... If you dont think so, read the 9th Amendment of our Bill Of Rights. It basically says "People will retain unenumerated rights". What that means is that the founding fathers were so cognicent of the fact that they couldnt anticiapte everything and anything, that they wanted to say "anything we've missed gets caught up in this catch all". They KNEW they didnt know everything and or could have thought of everything the future held so they basically said that people have rights beyond what they anticipated in the Constitution itself. This goes to the thinking of the 2nd Amendment.. the founding fathers werent dumb enough to believe that they could anticpated or know everything in the future as the 9th Amendment details... and as such they didnt make the 2nd Amendment, "The Right To Bear Arms, as long as they arent too dangerous, shall not be infringed"

NeverMore1701
07-04-2011, 18:25
What do you think of my points? I'm a gun owner, but honestly deep down I cannot find a good reason why I should be entitled to them. To me it's really a hobby, an interest, and appreciating them as someone might appreciate a muscle car than can go 150 mph and 0-60 in one second, but would not have a real practical reason to do so.

I think they're made and shared by idiots. You've been spouting this crap for a while now, and you're not in the most receptive board on the 'net to such nonsense. You're either trolling or just plain silly, and either way no one here takes you seriously.

Bren
07-04-2011, 18:30
Obviously, others will respond to each of your faulty or false premises. Ignoring the facts to create a liberal dreamworld seems to be your central theme.

As to your constitutional righht argument, you should probably be aware that the constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court (the final say on the subject) says you are wrong.

The obvious flaw with your 150 lb. man/300 lb. man argument about alternative weapons is clear on its face - it only has merit if the guy with the gun is the bad guy. Otherwise, it becomes "what is the only weapon that allows your 100 lb. grandmother to defend herself againsty a 300 lb. male criminal.' Obviously, not a good argument for your side.

Read over that again and see if you really think any of those arguments has merit. They aren't even internally consistent - recognizing in 1 argument that a gun can be used in self defense, yet claiming in another that it is only useful for hunting, then in yet another saying its only purpose is to kill people.

Finally, if you believe what you have written, and you own guns, as you say, you seem have a serious, serious psychological issue from a layman's perspective (i.e., "I own guns but I believe they are only useful for killing people and I label the person with the gun a criminal"). In short, are you a liar, or a nutcase?

If you really can't think of a reason to own guns, I guess everybody from Thomas Jefferson to Ronald reagan to the majority of the supreme court must not be as smart as you. Having seen many of your posts, I am well aware that isn't the case.

NeverMore1701
07-04-2011, 18:34
Obviously, others will respond to each of your faulty or false premises. Ignoring the facts to create a liberal dreamworld seems to be your central theme.

As to your constitutional righht argument, you should probably be aware that the constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court (the final say on the subject) says you are wrong.

The obvious flaw with your 150 lb. man/300 lb. man argument about alternative weapons is clear on its face - it only has merit if the guy with the gun is the bad guy. Otherwise, it becomes "what is the only weapon that allows your 100 lb. grandmother to defend herself againsty a 300 lb. male criminal.' Obviously, not a good argument for your side.

Read over that again and see if you really think any of those arguments has merit. They aren't even internally consistent - recognizing in 1 argument that a gun can be used in self defense, yet claiming in another that it is only useful for hunting, then in yet another saying its only purpose is to kill people.

Finally, if you believe what you have written, and you own guns, as you say, you seem have a serious, serious psychological issue from a layman's perspective (i.e., "I own guns but I believe they are only useful for killing people and I label the person with the gun a criminal"). In short, are you a liar, or a nutcase?

If you really can't think of a reason to own guns, I guess everybody from Thomas Jefferson to Ronald reagan to the majority of the supreme court must not be as smart as you. Having seen many of your posts, I am well aware that isn't the case.

:cheers:

Rizzo
07-04-2011, 18:36
Films, between this thread and that bravado thread (I'm not using my CCW, I'd just do exactly what a BG wants)... have you ever considered moving to England? Serious question. That whole country pretty much sides with your, um, views about guns.

DARKSHADOW
07-04-2011, 18:38
Imagine if commiting crimes was illegal, then criminals would stop commiting crimes. Genius!!! :rofl:

RYT 2BER
07-04-2011, 18:51
What do you think of my points? I'm a gun owner, but honestly deep down I cannot find a good reason why I should be entitled to them. To me it's really a hobby, an interest, and appreciating them as someone might appreciate a muscle car than can go 150 mph and 0-60 in one second, but would not have a real practical reason to do so.

Really? You can't find why your entitled? Try the Second Amendment .. that's what entitles you.. the people who fought and died to protect that right were doing it long before you were a sperm, and long before you lived under the blanket of freedom that allows you to write your foolish drivel.

The Bill of Rights doest talk about hobbies or material diversions like sports cars and the fact that you lump them together speaks volumes about your respect for our Bill of Rights, Constitution or the USA.:whistling:

iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 19:30
Films, between this thread and that bravado thread (I'm not using my CCW, I'd just do exactly what a BG wants)... have you ever considered moving to England? Serious question. That whole country pretty much sides with your, um, views about guns.

No I have not considered moving to England. I own guns, but besides that moving to a country based on one voting issue seems ridiculous. Perspective.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 19:45
IMO it's about the people having the right to defend themselves against others, the government and/or a SHTF type of situation. This doesn't mean everyone needs to have access to nuclear arms but the government isn't suppose to have anything even approaching a monopoly on deadly force.



Good point, but isn't the most basic fundamental purpose of any government of human beings - in theory - is to protect the citizens? In this case while a government may not have a monopoly on deadly force, shouldn't they at least regulate it in protecting citizens from each other?


Just because many may see hunting as recreation doesn't mean everyone does or that everyone should be made to. The government should NOT be able to make things illegal based on the fact that it could be sourced from others.

True, I agree.


False premise. 99.9999% of the protective value of firearms is that they are present and could be used not they they necessarily are "used" (fired) to protect. There are no statistics kept as to how many crimes were prevented because the possibility of the perspective victim possessing a firearm.

This is the same principal in countries keeping nuclear weapons. The Cold War idea... not violence, but the threat of violence. I have a problem with that in that it shows that there is a need to use the threat of violence. Of course I'm also realistic and understand some people will not respect your right to life. That would be nice if there were statistics that showed how many crimes are prevented because of legal civilian gun ownership... sadly a statistic like that would almost be impossible to come up with.

The government should not deny it's citizens ANY pursuit of happiness without a ridiculously compelling reason.

So the fact that America has the highest incident of gun deaths and crimes is not a compelling reason? What would be a compelling reason then?

Chances are anything used in a violent crime was originally obtained legally.. I don't understand the point of saying that. However, your logic is an example of what economists would call a fallacy of composition. If your logic held water then prisons would be nice safe places where there are no murders and violent crimes minimal...

So you're saying that all criminals who use guns in their crimes either steal them directly from the manufacterer or the dealer? WRONG.

Incorrect, all they do is equalize things. You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. How would a 110lb woman defend herself against a 300lb male aggressor? Without guns her options are very limited. Should she have the right to not live in fear?
Again... See my previous statement on the fact that we have no idea how many crimes were prevented because the perspective victim was armed or thought to be armed. My guess is the figure would dwarf the gun suicide rate.

True, it's a double edged blade in that the gun can be used to make things unequal or equal depending on the situation. Good point.

Again, guns save untold lives and prevent untold crimes. So you are only looking at one small sliver of the equation and seeing what you want to. Guns primarily don't take lives and cause crime the actually saves lives and prevent crimes.

Guns increase the capacity to kill. Period. But as we both know a statistic about how many lives are saved because of guns will never exist, but we do know how many deaths occur each year in the US at the hands of firearms or those who wield firearms.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 19:48
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Compare the US gun death rate per 100,000 people to other countries.

We are in the top 10 and this includes many third world countries. Also notice how the death rate was 15.22 in 1993 a year before the assault weapons ban. Then in 2004 10 years during that period the rate went down to 10.2 That's a third decrease of gun deaths. I hate to say it, but based on those statistics the Brady Bill Assault weapons ban could be seen as effective in preventing firearms deaths. Of couse I know there are other factors.

TheJ
07-04-2011, 20:25
Good point, but isn't the most basic fundamental purpose of any government of human beings - in theory - is to protect the citizens? In this case while a government may not have a monopoly on deadly force, shouldn't they at least regulate it in protecting citizens from each other?
The government CAN'T protect us from everything and in trying to do so would only further endanger us. The whole "I carry a weapon because carry a cop is too heavy" concept...




This is the same principal in countries keeping nuclear weapons. The Cold War idea... not violence, but the threat of violence. I have a problem with that in that it shows that there is a need to use the threat of violence. Of course I'm also realistic and understand some people will not respect your right to life. That would be nice if there were statistics that showed how many crimes are prevented because of legal civilian gun ownership... sadly a statistic like that would almost be impossible to come up with.

Seriously.. Prisons are a prime example, no guns will NEVER mean no murder or violent crimes. To believe otherwise is fantasy. You may not like the fact that weakness invites attacks but it is a truth as old as life on earth. You're going to have to get over it.

So the fact that America has the highest incident of gun deaths and crimes is not a compelling reason? What would be a compelling reason then?
There isn't one. Again, you are completely dismissing the lives saved and violent crimes prevented by the presence of guns in the possession of good guys. Additionally, go back and see my prison example.. gun deaths are practically zero and yet murder and violent crime is still very common.


So you're saying that all criminals who use guns in their crimes either steal them directly from the manufacterer or the dealer? WRONG.
No in fact it said just the opposite. And that practically any thing used in violent crime was likely originally legally purchased. So what? Should we stop selling kitchen knives because they have been used to kill so many? Using your logic you stated previously, we could just buy stuff precut.


Guns increase the capacity to kill. Period. But as we both know a statistic about how many lives are saved because of guns will never exist, but we do know how many deaths occur each year in the US at the hands of firearms or those who wield firearms.
You completely dismiss the fact that Less guns may equal less gun crime but that doesn't equal less murder/violent crimes/etc. People who want to kill and commit violence will still be perfectly capable of doing so. Additionally though, less guns and less legal access means many law abiding citizens will be less equipped to defend themselves from the violence. Also bad guys knowing the good guys don't have guns means there is far less deterrent to prevent crimes. You talk as if no gun deaths mean no deaths. That just isn't so.

TheJ
07-04-2011, 20:29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Compare the US gun death rate per 100,000 people to other countries.

We are in the top 10 and this includes many third world countries. Also notice how the death rate was 15.22 in 1993 a year before the assault weapons ban. Then in 2004 10 years during that period the rate went down to 10.2 That's a third decrease of gun deaths. I hate to say it, but based on those statistics the Brady Bill Assault weapons ban could be seen as effective in preventing firearms deaths. Of couse I know there are other factors.

We have already been through how half-ass those statistics are. Besides the fact that you are dismissing the lives saved and violence prevented because of legal gun ownership, those half-ass stats are far from showing causation.

Jerry
07-04-2011, 20:36
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Compare the US gun death rate per 100,000 people to other countries.

We are in the top 10 and this includes many third world countries. Also notice how the death rate was 15.22 in 1993 a year before the assault weapons ban. Then in 2004 10 years during that period the rate went down to 10.2 That's a third decrease of gun deaths. I hate to say it, but based on those statistics the Brady Bill Assault weapons ban could be seen as effective in preventing firearms deaths. Of couse I know there are other factors.

:laughabove:

Your statistics are FUBAR. As more and more states pass CCW/CWP/CHGP, firearms death rates, not to mention violent crimes have decreased. While other countries have decreased civilian firearms ownership violent crime has increased.

Just to show you how misinformed you are… All the AWB did was stop the combination of accessories such as bayonet lug, folding or collapsible stock and a detachable magazine and etc. You could have any two but not three. The AWB increased sales rather the decrease them. It did absolutely nothing to lower crime rates that’s why it was allowed to sunset. So-much for your theory of how the AWB decreased firearm deaths.

You want to give your guns away go ahead. As for the rest of us you’re barking up the wrong tree.

RYT 2BER
07-04-2011, 21:14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Compare the US gun death rate per 100,000 people to other countries.

We are in the top 10 and this includes many third world countries. Also notice how the death rate was 15.22 in 1993 a year before the assault weapons ban. Then in 2004 10 years during that period the rate went down to 10.2 That's a third decrease of gun deaths. I hate to say it, but based on those statistics the Brady Bill Assault weapons ban could be seen as effective in preventing firearms deaths. Of couse I know there are other factors.

Note to self: "stay out of threads initiated by anti American, anti Constitutional socialists"

Gotta remember that

iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 21:26
Call it whatever you want, but the death rate due to guns is exceptionally high in the United States, why is this?

And I would like a linked source to statistics that show once CCW permits are issued crime rates go down. I think that's a myth and you think it's not. Regardless there's the "think" not "know"

Show me stats please.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 21:28
Note to self: "stay out of threads initiated by anti American, anti Constitutional socialists"

Gotta remember that

Well I hate to rain on your right winged wet dream but like it or not I am an American every bit as much as you are even if I hold viewpoints not popular at Glocktalk or other gun forums.

And I'm exercising my first amendment by saying that most people misread the second amendment. If that isn't American I don't know what is.

caviteno_loco
07-04-2011, 21:32
Don't feed the troll people.

This!

RYT 2BER
07-04-2011, 21:49
Well I hate to rain on your right winged wet dream but like it or not I am an American every bit as much as you are even if I hold viewpoints not popular at Glocktalk or other gun forums.

And I'm exercising my first amendment by saying that most people misread the second amendment. If that isn't American I don't know what is.

BINGO! you're one of those jackwads that thinks the founding fathers were serious when they wrote the 1st and 4th Amendment but they were "just joking" when the wrote the 2nd.

So "freedom of speech" meets your "reasonableness test" but the right to bear arms must have "meant something else". Sorry Iowa liberal, but the writing of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton , Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court of the United States disagree entirely with you.

"You say you "believe most people misread the 2nd Amendment ".. Good Lord I've seen some incredible audacity on this gun board but "you" feel you're more informed than the SCOTUS ... unreal.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 22:45
Did the founding fathers intend for each person to have a gun? Is that what is in the constitution? This is debated by historians, so stop pretending you have the answers because you don't.

We really don't know what is meant by that term because it can be interpreted many different ways.

It's all about context.

and since you're playing BINGO


BINGO!

You're one of these people who misread the Declaration "All men are created equal" as meaning all people are created equal when Jefferson meant all white land owning men.

See what I mean. This is a danger of putting contemporary understanding of language and applying it to past written language.

NAC
07-05-2011, 02:18
Show me stats please.


HAHA.. pot calling the kettle black? You want stats but you cite Wikipedia? Sorry, Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed source, it's merely an aggregate of sources submitted by god knows who and that ANYONE can edit.

If you want to play that game, the onus is on you. Show real stats please.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-05-2011, 02:28
HAHA.. pot calling the kettle black? You want stats but you cite Wikipedia? Sorry, Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed source, it's merely an aggregate of sources submitted by god knows who and that ANYONE can edit.

If you want to play that game, the onus is on you. Show real stats please.


This arguement went out of fashion in 2005.

Wikipedia has a staff that corrects articles, and contrary to what our 10th grade English teacher's told us, wikipedia CANNOT just randomly be edited by anyone. But you are correct in that it being a conglomoration of sources, just as any source outside of first hand research is.

Again, show me your source.

TheJ
07-05-2011, 03:07
Call it whatever you want, but the death rate due to guns is exceptionally high in the United States, why is this?

And I would like a linked source to statistics that show once CCW permits are issued crime rates go down. I think that's a myth and you think it's not. Regardless there's the "think" not "know"

Show me stats please.

Please explain why you think less guns would mean less murder and how less guns would mean less violent crime.

Would you be willing to live with more people living in fear constantly, more death by other means, more stabbings, more rapes, more muggings, more home invasions, etc for a few less gun deaths? Of course less guns means somewhat less worry about being shot but that is a false sense of theoretical safety because you would still have to worry about violent people and violent crime but then would less able to protect yourself from it. Less guns does not equal less violence or less murder. In fact it would invite more of it.

Challenging the fact that crime drops as legal gun ownership/ possession goes up is as silly as challenging the fact that more guns statistically leads to more "gun" deaths. (and for the record, legal gun ownership is not the exact same thing as legally purchased guns)

NAC
07-05-2011, 04:09
This arguement went out of fashion in 2005.

Wikipedia has a staff that corrects articles, and contrary to what our 10th grade English teacher's told us, wikipedia CANNOT just randomly be edited by anyone. But you are correct in that it being a conglomoration of sources, just as any source outside of first hand research is.

Again, show me your source.

Valid arguements don't go out of fashion as you put it, and red herrings are a poor attempt at rebuttal. Show me one accredited university that allows Wikipedia to be used as a source in a valid paper or thesis and your statement may have some merit. You clearly know of valid research databases as you've mentioned SIRS and EBSCO elsewhere.

RYT 2BER
07-05-2011, 07:27
Did the founding fathers intend for each person to have a gun? Is that what is in the constitution? This is debated by historians, so stop pretending you have the answers because you don't.

We really don't know what is meant by that term because it can be interpreted many different ways.

It's all about context.

and since you're playing BINGO


BINGO!

You're one of these people who misread the Declaration "All men are created equal" as meaning all people are created equal when Jefferson meant all white land owning men.

See what I mean. This is a danger of putting contemporary understanding of language and applying it to past written language.


Yes I see the dangers.. however you and people like you cant have it both ways. In other words by your definition, freedom of religion and freedom of the press may not be real at all. I mean the founders certainly didnt know what the internet was and coudnt contemplate it therefore the internet should be heavily censored, since freedom of the press doesnt apply to this method of disseminating news across the globe instantaneously.

And the founding fathers didnt know what Scientology was or many other religions around the world, so when they said "freedom of religion" it really didnt apply to modern day religions.

Here is what I will give you since you love quotes and citings.. One of my favorite is the following.. It is a quote from Alan Dershowitz the famous Constitutional Educated Attorney (and for the record I believe he is quite liberal in fact)... Suck on this for a while:

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." — Alan Dershowitz (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/59717.Alan_Dershowitz)

Jerry
07-05-2011, 11:22
Some day I’m going to follow my own advice and stop arguing with left wing loons.

As typical of said lefties you herald your First amendment right while denouncing our Second Amendment right. The first gives you the right to speak truth it doesn’t give you license to spread untruths or protect you from the consequences of doing so. The second states that a militia IS necessary to a free state. (It IS still legal to farm militias.) It does not say a militia is necessary to bear arms. It states ”The People” have a right to bear arms (That would be ALL of The People INDIVIDUALLY. It never ceases to amaze me how some cannot understand SIMPLE phrases. Perhaps this might help you understands the meaning of the Second Amendment.

“When the constitution was finished many of the founding fathers refused to sign it. They said it did not go far enough in protecting the rights of the individual, from the power and authority of the government. Madison had to write the first 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) in order to get the constitution signed and ratified.
So anything in the Bill of Rights is by definition a individual right. Governments have powers and authorities, they do not have rights. Rights are reserved for the individual.”

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and
include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is
essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...” Richard Henry Lee

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the
people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."--John Adams

If not for the Second you couldn’t practice the First.

You own words prove why we NEED firearms…. we live in a violent culture.

Jerry
07-05-2011, 12:51
Originally Posted by iluv2viddyfilms
Call it whatever you want, but the death rate due to guns is exceptionally high in the United States, why is this?

And I would like a linked source to statistics that show once CCW permits are issued crime rates go down. I think that's a myth and you think it's not. Regardless there's the "think" not "know"

Show me stats please.

Link? Get off your but and buy a book. More Guns Less Crime by John Lott, Jr. The reason you’re ignorant is you listen to the left wing loons rather than research facts.

OldCurlyWolf
07-05-2011, 13:40
What do you think of my points? I'm a gun owner, but honestly deep down I cannot find a good reason why I should be entitled to them. To me it's really a hobby, an interest, and appreciating them as someone might appreciate a muscle car than can go 150 mph and 0-60 in one second, but would not have a real practical reason to do so.

Every one of your "Points" are actually invalid. :tongueout:

The two main reasons to own arms are as valid today as they were in 1787.

Protection of self and others from criminals and tyranny.:cool:

iluv2viddyfilms
07-05-2011, 15:08
Link? Get off your but and buy a book. More Guns Less Crime by John Lott, Jr. The reason you’re ignorant is you listen to the left wing loons rather than research facts.


I've listened to him a bit and agree with many of his views. I do agree with his views on guns.

Understand I'm a gun owner and am playing the devil's advocate because I think too many people do not want to look at the other side. I'm simply saying the anti-gun crowd do have legitimate viewpoints and arguments.

I agree if people are armed they are probably more safe from an outside threat, but the more demand for weapons, the more supply will likely be, which means it will be easier for the criminal to also get ahold of weapons.

RYT 2BER
07-05-2011, 15:48
I've listened to him a bit and agree with many of his views. I do agree with his views on guns.

Understand I'm a gun owner and am playing the devil's advocate because I think too many people do not want to look at the other side. I'm simply saying the anti-gun crowd do have legitimate viewpoints and arguments.

I agree if people are armed they are probably more safe from an outside threat, but the more demand for weapons, the more supply will likely be, which means it will be easier for the criminal to also get ahold of weapons.

Sorry but "NO". You no longer get to make that argument. "Im a gun owner playing devils advocate". Too late pal.

You've made it clear through this thread repeatedly that as far as your concerned you own firearms at the pleasure of the state/governement. You said "you cant think of a logical reason you should be allowed to".

Your just an anti who owns a gun so you think that makes you a 2nd Amendment advocate. You're not. You're not even close. You're the worst kind as a matter of fact. You're a hypocrite. At least your average anti is just that.. an anti, and their bumbled logic is their own problem. You however want to project yourself as a "gun owner" (whoppie) but you think its a "hobby" like fast cars and you dont see the legal or Constitutional basis for it which means to most of us that you dont vote to support the issue(s).... By not voting to support all your rights your just another grabber. What I cant ever understand is why your kind wastes time on boards like GT? Just to annoy people? If thats the case youve succeeded and I can say that from personal experience.

I also noted when hit with hard truths like the Alan Dershowitz quote I posted above about getting "cute" with Constitutional interpretation you havent got a comment.... except that you agree with John Lott?? Whereas John Lott disagrees with everything you are saying...

Another internet genius heard from....

Jerry
07-05-2011, 16:31
I'm simply saying the anti-gun crowd do have legitimate viewpoints and arguments.

:rofl:

You/they absolutely do not have legitimate viewpoints or arguments. What you/they do have is openions based on emotion not logic.

TheJ
07-05-2011, 17:38
You/they absolutely do not have legitimate viewpoints or arguments. What you/they do have is opinions based on emotion not logic.

This.

OldCurlyWolf
07-06-2011, 04:27
Well I hate to rain on your right winged wet dream but like it or not I am an American every bit as much as you are even if I hold viewpoints not popular at Glocktalk or other gun forums.

And I'm exercising my first amendment by saying that most people misread the second amendment. If that isn't American I don't know what is.


You have my condolences on the loss of your mind. Hopefully some one will find it and return it to you or place you in a place where you cannot hurt yourself or others.

:wavey:

Bren
07-06-2011, 04:55
A troll for over 400 posts and will continue to be a troll if he posts 4,000. And, most likely, at 4,000 he still will not be able to make one intelligent, logical arghument to support anything he posts. I sometimes think it is more frustrating to argue against bad, poorly constructed, factually unsupported arguments than against real ones, so maybe he is a master troll.

engineer151515
07-06-2011, 05:01
:rofl:

You/they absolutely do not have legitimate viewpoints or arguments. What you/they do have is openions based on emotion not logic.

Emotion and, I would add, ideology.




Good point, but isn't the most basic fundamental purpose of any government of human beings - in theory - is to protect the citizens? In this case while a government may not have a monopoly on deadly force, shouldn't they at least regulate it in protecting citizens from each other?
...

With some naivety thrown in.

TheJ
07-06-2011, 06:52
Did the founding fathers intend for each person to have a gun? Is that what is in the constitution? This is debated by historians, so stop pretending you have the answers because you don't.

We really don't know what is meant by that term because it can be interpreted many different ways.

It's all about context.

and since you're playing BINGO


BINGO!

You're one of these people who misread the Declaration "All men are created equal" as meaning all people are created equal when Jefferson meant all white land owning men.

See what I mean. This is a danger of putting contemporary understanding of language and applying it to past written language.

Interpretations? You are really reaching.

Look you are ALL over the place..... It's like you are trying to just thow as much poo on a wall as you can to see what you can make stick... That is troll-like behavior. You haven't responded to practically any of the valid points I've made recently that effectively and logically counter every one of your quams with guns and our freedoms to own/posses them. And although I have treated you with relative dignity and respect, you also have left several of my questions unanswered... This is also is very troll like behavior. Please convicne me that you are not just placing a flaming bag of poo on the GT doorstep, ringing the door bell and running.


You can't have it both ways.. Either you're saying that the constitution says something different then what most of here beleive it says or you're saying it's impossible to tell.. Which is it?

Has far as I'm concerned the constitutional arguement is not even up for debate.. because not only is it obvious to me but it is literally settled law. So even bringing it up for debate is relatively pointless since it is literally a nonstarter.

As far as the constitutional arguement you have made... ONLY a person with agenda based on emotion or driven by ideology could possible interpret the bill of rights as anything other than a list of rights for individuals. So, regardless of how many people have sought in the past to find different interpretations, argueing over the term "people" etc. it pointless.

Did the founders use the word "gun" no. So what? It is obvious to anyone who isn't driven by antigun ideology that it is a protection for citizens individually, to be able to defend themselves with arms cabable of deadly force from whatever they need to defend themselves from (bandits, the governemnt, foriegn invaders, etc.) and for the Government to not be too pwoerful or have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. As has been stated previously, it is completely illogical to interpret the second amendment as being a protection for the people collectively because the people collectively would be the state/govenment... Again the government doesn't need constitutional protections from it's citizens and even if in some warped world it did, they wouldn't be laid out in the bill of rights because, again, that is a list of protections for citizens so that they are protected FROM the government...


IF your argument is "let set aside the constitution for a minute and debate whether we are better off with guns being legal or not" then just say so. As far as I'm concerned everyone of those points you've made has been effectively counter answered but you seem to just choose not to accept them. You chose to only see that less guns means less gun deaths... Instead of the facts that less guns means less lives saved/protected, MORE violent crime, NO cessation of murders, a completely unchecked government, and servely reduced ability for citizens to protect themselves from aggression. Is it a trade off? YES just like we make a trade off of having thousands of people die every year in car accidents because cars serve a greater good. If you just think the trade off is not worth it then say so and be done with it rather then trying to throw all the poop up to see what may stick.

You seem to simple dismiss the entire other side of the argument out of hand. If that is what you are going to choose to do then starting threads like this is a completely ridiculous exercise. And again is very troll ike behavior.

Jerry
07-06-2011, 11:11
Interpretations? You are really reaching.

Look you are ALL over the place..... It's like you are trying to just thow as much poo on a wall as you can to see what you can make stick... That is troll-like behavior. You haven't responded to practically any of the valid points I've made recently that effectively and logically counter every one of your quams with guns and our freedoms to own/posses them. And although I have treated you with relative dignity and respect, you also have left several of my questions unanswered... This is also is very troll like behavior. Please convicne me that you are not just placing a flaming bag of poo on the GT doorstep, ringing the door bell and running.


You can't have it both ways.. Either you're saying that the constitution says something different then what most of here beleive it says or you're saying it's impossible to tell.. Which is it?



Ah Grasshopper, that is the way of the liberal and in particular the anti gunner. They can’t win an argument with fact and logic so the try to confuse the issue and baffle people with BS. Don’t expect a logical, truthful or a factual answer. What you will get is spin straight out of Sara Brady’s play book.

TexasFats
07-11-2011, 11:59
If the Second Amendment only applies to muzzleloading muskets, then the First Amendment only applies to hand-operated printing presses like Ben Franklin used, to the religions that were present in the US at the time that the constitution was ratified, and to individuals standing on soap boxes with no electronic amplification.

Without the right to keep and bear (modern) arms, none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights are safe from the totalitarians pretending to be "liberal".

TheJ
07-11-2011, 16:58
Ah Grasshopper, that is the way of the liberal and in particular the anti gunner. They can’t win an argument with fact and logic so the try to confuse the issue and baffle people with BS. Don’t expect a logical, truthful or a factual answer. What you will get is spin straight out of Sara Brady’s play book.

I have gathered that. I noticed that although I asked him to explain why his behavior shouldn't be seen as anything other then troll-like, he has gone silent. I like to think his silence is only because he is in deep reflection over the many valid points I've made... but I suspect I may be overly optimistic.
:wavey:

Lawmaker
07-20-2011, 08:19
If the Second Amendment only applies to muzzleloading muskets, then the First Amendment only applies to hand-operated printing presses like Ben Franklin used, to the religions that were present in the US at the time that the constitution was ratified, and to individuals standing on soap boxes with no electronic amplification.

Without the right to keep and bear (modern) arms, none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights are safe from the totalitarians pretending to be "liberal".

Good points.

Also our high rate of violence most likely would be associated with society.

Also your argument of less guns would equal less deaths... Well less pools would equal less children drowning in them. Less cars would equal less deadly crashes. Less planes could equal less hijacking deaths etc etc.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-20-2011, 15:17
Interpretations? You are really reaching.

Look you are ALL over the place..... It's like you are trying to just thow as much poo on a wall as you can to see what you can make stick... That is troll-like behavior. You haven't responded to practically any of the valid points I've made recently that effectively and logically counter every one of your quams with guns and our freedoms to own/posses them. And although I have treated you with relative dignity and respect, you also have left several of my questions unanswered... This is also is very troll like behavior. Please convicne me that you are not just placing a flaming bag of poo on the GT doorstep, ringing the door bell and running.

I know the right enjoy witch and commie hunts, but stop applying that mentality to message boards and claiming that ideas you disagree with are trolling behavior.


You can't have it both ways.. Either you're saying that the constitution says something different then what most of here beleive it says or you're saying it's impossible to tell.. Which is it?

I'm saying that yes it is impossible to determine exactly what the second amendment means. Whenever reading literature - legal/recreational/essay or governmental it is important to understand the context and time under which it was written. Like it or not, anyone who's taken a basic English class can tell you this. The document sets out basic human rights for citizens under its government - yes, but when it comes to technology and the second amendment is a unique amendment in that it refers to a technology, it is difficult to know what exactly is meant or how far that amendment goes. What is meant by arms? Singleshot rifles? Muskets? AKs and ARs? Nuclear weapons? SCUD missles? My point is what is the dividing line between what the citizens can own under the second amendment "arms" and what is not allowed. Answer this... how do you define "arms?" Technically I should be able to buy a nuclear arm under that amendment if your interpretation goes that far. Yes it's hyperbolic and flippant, but it's the same logic that says I should own a military rifle.

Has far as I'm concerned the constitutional arguement is not even up for debate.. because not only is it obvious to me but it is literally settled law. So even bringing it up for debate is relatively pointless since it is literally a nonstarter.

Where is it settled? It is not settled. The courts, the lawmakers, the ATF, still disagree on the second amendment. While it may be settled for you and the NRA, understand that those two entities are not the entire USA.

As far as the constitutional arguement you have made... ONLY a person with agenda based on emotion or driven by ideology could possible interpret the bill of rights as anything other than a list of rights for individuals. So, regardless of how many people have sought in the past to find different interpretations, argueing over the term "people" etc. it pointless.

Again this is where historical context comes into play. The founding fathers had no clue as to how language might evolve and what it would evolve into. People, for all we know, is a plural noun not singular. Does the individual have the right to bear arms, the township, the county, the state? No one really knows... not even historians. It's a bit arrogant for a person to say they know exactly what is meant.

Did the founders use the word "gun" no. So what? It is obvious to anyone who isn't driven by antigun ideology that it is a protection for citizens individually, to be able to defend themselves with arms cabable of deadly force from whatever they need to defend themselves from (bandits, the governemnt, foriegn invaders, etc.) and for the Government to not be too pwoerful or have a monopoly on the use of deadly force.

Well if you look at the context of the day, a "master-at-arms" would be a person to train naval seamen in the art of hand-to-hand defense with swords and such if boarded. So maybe we can interpret arms to be swords not guns. Yes I'm being flippant but only to point out that WE DONT KNOW WHAT ARMS means as applied to today's firearms.

As has been stated previously, it is completely illogical to interpret the second amendment as being a protection for the people collectively because the people collectively would be the state/govenment... Again the government doesn't need constitutional protections from it's citizens and even if in some warped world it did, they wouldn't be laid out in the bill of rights because, again, that is a list of protections for citizens so that they are protected FROM the government...

Militia is not the government. Militia is the people collectively having the capacity to fight for or against the government.




You seem to simple dismiss the entire other side of the argument out of hand. If that is what you are going to choose to do then starting threads like this is a completely ridiculous exercise. And again is very troll ike behavior.

I'm not ignoring any side of the argument and again you've been hanging around forums or right-winged extremists too much if you really think I am a troll. Is everyone who disagrees, argues, or engages in general discourse with you, a troll?

iluv2viddyfilms
07-20-2011, 15:22
Good points.

Also our high rate of violence most likely would be associated with society.

Also your argument of less guns would equal less deaths... Well less pools would equal less children drowning in them. Less cars would equal less deadly crashes. Less planes could equal less hijacking deaths etc etc.

Exactly and I agree with you on all points. The freedom of being allowed guns comes with the inherent fact that it will be easier for criminals to function. This however is a sacrifice American makes in order to have her guns, just as we have made the sacrifice that people will die in car crashes and drown in pools.

But don't tell me that more people having cars will make the roads safer because people will be more conscious of others and drive safer. That tends to be the same type of failed logic applied to the "More guns make the country more safe" argument, when in all likelyhood it is the opposite.

It always baffles me how so many statistics about homicide rates, and death by gun rates are ignored. The USA has the highest homicide rate and gun death rate - yet no right-wing-minded person has yet to give any explanation and instead changes the subject to "the left! the left!"

Jerry
07-20-2011, 17:32
I'm saying that yes it is impossible to determine exactly what the second amendment means. Whenever reading literature - legal/recreational/essay or governmental it is important to understand the context and time under which it was written. Like it or not, anyone who's taken a basic English class can tell you this. The document sets out basic human rights for citizens under its government - yes, but when it comes to technology and the second amendment is a unique amendment in that it refers to a technology, it is difficult to know what exactly is meant or how far that amendment goes. What is meant by arms? Singleshot rifles? Muskets? AKs and ARs? Nuclear weapons? SCUD missles? My point is what is the dividing line between what the citizens can own under the second amendment "arms" and what is not allowed. Answer this... how do you define "arms?" Technically I should be able to buy a nuclear arm under that amendment if your interpretation goes that far. Yes it's hyperbolic and flippant, but it's the same logic that says I should own a military rifle.


Only the moronic and ignorant.. those that have not read the words of the founding father fail to understand what is meant by the Second Amendment. It means the same arms issued to and used by the military. The right of the people holds the same meaning in the Second that is does in the First, Fourth and Ninth.

Here are a few clues as to what the second means.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

“No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"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, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779

“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

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and
include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is
essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...” Richard Henry Lee

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the
people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

"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 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

The atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all good men. [George Washington]

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights
that cannot be repealed or repealed by human laws; rights
derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Juhn Adams


It is perfectly clear to anyone with half a brain what is meant by the Second Amendment. All citizens have the RIGHT to be armed and should be armed. They should be armed with the same armament possesed by the federal government. Now you want to argue the Nuke argument? Plutonium is a compound not an arm and is illegal to possess without a license so that takes that argument off the table. It IS legal to own full auto firearms. It IS legal to own cannon. It IS legal to own a tank. It IS legal (if you can afford it) to own a jet fighter, helicopter and event a SR-71 Black Bird.

PawDog
07-20-2011, 19:25
Only the moronic and ignorant.. those that have not read the words of the founding father fail to understand what is meant by the Second Amendment. It means the same arms issued to and used by the military. The right of the people holds the same meaning in the Second that is does in the First, Fourth and Ninth.

Here are a few clues as to what the second means.



It is perfectly clear to anyone with half a brain what is meant by the Second Amendment. All citizens have the RIGHT to be armed and should be armed. They should be armed with the same armament possesed by the federal government. Now you want to argue the Nuke argument? Plutonium is a compound not an arm and is illegal to possess without a license so that takes that argument off the table. It IS legal to own full auto firearms. It IS legal to own cannon. It IS legal to own a tank. It IS legal (if you can afford it) to own a jet fighter, helicopter and event a SR-71 Black Bird.


:goodpost: Thank you.....I get so tired of reading what the liberal Fudds consider the 2nd Amendment is in their twisted interpretation. :faint:

Hef
07-20-2011, 19:35
Good point, but isn't the most basic fundamental purpose of any government of human beings - in theory - is to protect the citizens? In this case while a government may not have a monopoly on deadly force, shouldn't they at least regulate it in protecting citizens from each other?



No, government does not exist to protect the citizens. It exists to protect the liberty of the citizens. Big difference but I doubt you'll be able to understand it.

Hef
07-20-2011, 19:50
I've listened to him a bit and agree with many of his views. I do agree with his views on guns.

Understand I'm a gun owner and am playing the devil's advocate because I think too many people do not want to look at the other side. I'm simply saying the anti-gun crowd do have legitimate viewpoints and arguments.

I agree if people are armed they are probably more safe from an outside threat, but the more demand for weapons, the more supply will likely be, which means it will be easier for the criminal to also get ahold of weapons.

Anti-gun folks are entitled to their opinions, and I support their right to exercise their First Amendment right to complain about me exercising my Second Amendment right. They are not entitled to their own facts. facts are what they are, and the facts are overwhelming in support of a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Anti-gun arguments are weak, often based upon nothing more than lies or distorted interpretations of statistics. Lying by omission is another common factor in anti-gun arguments.

To address your last point:

You must understand that you cannot legislate prohibition on anything effectively, whether it's alcohol, drugs, or guns. The vast majority will handle them responsibly, no matter how little they are regulated, but there will always be the small segment of society for which no measure will go far enough to keep them from acquiring and abusing the contraband. To think that prohibiting the citizenry from having anything will stop it's criminal misuse is foolish and naive, and when the "anything" in question is a tool for which our Bill of Rights specifically enumerates a God-granted and inalienable right AND a timelessly relevant civil cause, such a notion is insulting.

You should be ashamed of your ignorance.

Hef
07-20-2011, 19:56
I know the right enjoy witch and commie hunts, but stop applying that mentality to message boards and claiming that ideas you disagree with are trolling behavior.




I'm saying that yes it is impossible to determine exactly what the second amendment means. Whenever reading literature - legal/recreational/essay or governmental it is important to understand the context and time under which it was written. Like it or not, anyone who's taken a basic English class can tell you this. The document sets out basic human rights for citizens under its government - yes, but when it comes to technology and the second amendment is a unique amendment in that it refers to a technology, it is difficult to know what exactly is meant or how far that amendment goes. What is meant by arms? Singleshot rifles? Muskets? AKs and ARs? Nuclear weapons? SCUD missles? My point is what is the dividing line between what the citizens can own under the second amendment "arms" and what is not allowed. Answer this... how do you define "arms?" Technically I should be able to buy a nuclear arm under that amendment if your interpretation goes that far. Yes it's hyperbolic and flippant, but it's the same logic that says I should own a military rifle.



As was commonly understood in the 18th century, "arms" were what we refer to today as "small arms" - handguns, rifles, knives, shotguns, swords, bats, clubs, axes, hand grenades, incendiary devices, etc. If it's man-portable, capable of being deployed by an individual, useful as a defensive weapon (i.e. - no suitcase bombs or other omnidirectional weapons), and commonly available, it fits the definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment.

Lawmaker
07-20-2011, 20:43
It always baffles me how so many statistics about homicide rates, and death by gun rates are ignored. The USA has the highest homicide rate and gun death rate - yet no right-wing-minded person has yet to give any explanation and instead changes the subject to "the left! the left!"

Staying statistics, many of the European countries have compulsory military service. And many of those require that they retain their military issue weapons in their homes for quick deployment. So every male (some females) ages 18 to 30-40 (depending on country) have most likely battle rifles in their homes.You compare the US to the rest of the world. How about we narrow it down to these "western" countries. They have weapons but crime rates are lower than the US. Why? Societal differences. I hate to say it but American are more likely to kill other Americans. Whether it be guns or not.


Lets compare/contrast some societal differences. Hurricane Katrina hits the Gulf Coast. Mass lawlessness of civilians and government officials. Now look at the even worse disaster of the tsunami and meltdown of Fukshima Daiichi plant. Orderly evacuations, calm in shelters etc. That can only be accounted to societal differences.

Jerry
07-20-2011, 21:04
As was commonly understood in the 18th century, "arms" were what we refer to today as "small arms" - handguns, rifles, knives, shotguns, swords, bats, clubs, axes, hand grenades, incendiary devices, etc. If it's man-portable, capable of being deployed by an individual, useful as a defensive weapon (i.e. - no suitcase bombs or other omnidirectional weapons), and commonly available, it fits the definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment.

WRONG! :honkie: Arms in the 1700's (1776 remember that?) had the same meaning as is does today. Whatever the military had were arms and The People have a God given RIGHT, a Constitutionally recognized RIGHT to bear the same arms as the military. :brickwall:

janice6
07-20-2011, 21:27
I believe this has been "re-hashed" to death.

Jerry
07-20-2011, 22:27
I believe this has been "re-hashed" to death.

And yet the anties keep spewing their BS.

TheJ
07-20-2011, 22:45
I know the right enjoy witch and commie hunts, but stop applying that mentality to message boards and claiming that ideas you disagree with are trolling behavior.

I call posting knowingly provocative comments and then choosing not to respond to those who logically and courteously challenge the knowingly provocative assertions or answer the counter questions, troll like behavior.



I'm saying that yes it is impossible to determine exactly what the second amendment means. Whenever reading literature - legal/recreational/essay or governmental it is important to understand the context and time under which it was written. Like it or not, anyone who's taken a basic English class can tell you this. The document sets out basic human rights for citizens under its government - yes, but when it comes to technology and the second amendment is a unique amendment in that it refers to a technology, it is difficult to know what exactly is meant or how far that amendment goes. What is meant by arms? Singleshot rifles? Muskets? AKs and ARs? Nuclear weapons? SCUD missles? My point is what is the dividing line between what the citizens can own under the second amendment "arms" and what is not allowed. Answer this... how do you define "arms?" Technically I should be able to buy a nuclear arm under that amendment if your interpretation goes that far. Yes it's hyperbolic and flippant, but it's the same logic that says I should own a military rifle.
I think well reasoned people can disagree with you that it is impossible to tell what it means. No?



Where is it settled? It is not settled. The courts, the lawmakers, the ATF, still disagree on the second amendment. While it may be settled for you and the NRA, understand that those two entities are not the entire USA.

I believe the scotus has weighed in and made it clear that the 2nd amendment does in fact refer to an individual's right to bear arms. Do you honestly find their arguements false, unsupported or without merit?


Again this is where historical context comes into play. The founding fathers had no clue as to how language might evolve and what it would evolve into. People, for all we know, is a plural noun not singular. Does the individual have the right to bear arms, the township, the county, the state? No one really knows... not even historians. It's a bit arrogant for a person to say they know exactly what is meant.
Again, the scotus has weighed in and made it clear.


Well if you look at the context of the day, a "master-at-arms" would be a person to train naval seamen in the art of hand-to-hand defense with swords and such if boarded. So maybe we can interpret arms to be swords not guns. Yes I'm being flippant but only to point out that WE DONT KNOW WHAT ARMS means as applied to today's firearms.

Never mind the fact that firearms were already around and common when the constitution was written... In a sense you're right, that there was no way for them to know what arms would come to be in the future but that practically speaking it doesn't matter... It seems obvious to most that are not trying to find justification for restricting this freedom that the point is the people have the right themselves as they see fit.


Militia is not the government. Militia is the people collectively having the capacity to fight for or against the government.

I find it curious that you repeatedly say it's impossible to tell what they meant because of context and changing meanings and yet you have no problem making this pronouncement... If it's not the government then it is the people.. So you're saying that it's a guaranty for groups of people to bear arms but not individuals???

I'm not ignoring any side of the argument and again you've been hanging around forums or right-winged extremists too much if you really think I am a troll. Is everyone who disagrees, argues, or engages in general discourse with you, a troll?
You have not been hanging around forums long enough if you honestly can not understand how people making obviously provocative posts and then not sticking around much to support their position and/or ignoring well reasoned questions/explanations is seen by most as troll like behavior.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-20-2011, 23:52
You say I am a troll. You are wrong as I'm not a troll. It's the culture of some posters on these message boards that perceive me as a troll. I'm not saying the second ammendment shouldn't be defended, but I'm not going to rule out the other side of the issue because of pride or ignorance.

Both sides need to be heard. Right wing extremists are everybit as deaf to rhetoric as their left wing extremist targets.

Like most things in life the truth is in the middle ground.

But here's another thought.

Most people believe in the Bill of Rights, but could there be a chance that the Bill of Rights has faults? Is there a perfect human government?

Could the second ammendment be obsolete? Are the Bill of Rights beyond questioning, and are the United States beyond reproach?

Just a few ideas.

How do people group themselves? By family? By race? By state, county? By country? By species, by world? By solar system, by galaxy?

The point is most Americans would follow their country instead of their humaness. Very few other countries have a second amendment and many of these countries have every bit as good of standard of living as we do, if not better, without the insanely high crime rates.

Again, I'm just throwing ideas around that are up for discussion.

engineer151515
07-21-2011, 06:06
Could the second ammendment be obsolete?



Easy answer.

NO.

It is based on the fundamental right of self defense in light of the weaknesses and failures of human nature. The human tendency to corruptly control and wage war upon each other, which has existed a lot longer than the US Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is an assertion that these fundamental flaws in human behavior exist.

TheJ
07-21-2011, 07:10
You say I am a troll. You are wrong as I'm not a troll. It's the culture of some posters on these message boards that perceive me as a troll. I'm not saying the second ammendment shouldn't be defended, but I'm not going to rule out the other side of the issue because of pride or ignorance.
I don't believe I have actually called you a troll. I have simply said that you have displayed troll like behaviors. Presenting another side to a debate doesn't make somebody a troll. Posting incendiary/controversial stuff while ignoring logical supported contrary information, legitimate questions/challenges or appearing to take off.. are troll like behaviors.


Both sides need to be heard. Right wing extremists are everybit as deaf to rhetoric as their left wing extremist targets.

Like most things in life the truth is in the middle ground.
You don't seem to have discussed much of the middle ground yourself. Sometimes there isn't much of a middle ground though.


But here's another thought.

Most people believe in the Bill of Rights, but could there be a chance that the Bill of Rights has faults?

Funny you should say that. Although the bill off rights and the constitution commands such respect because of the especially deliberative process, it is possible for to need to be changed. We have a process for that and that would be to pass new amendments. If you feel strongly enough about your position opposing any part of the constitution then begin/support your own especially deliberate process to make a change.
. Is there a perfect human government?
No there is not. Which is exactly why we need and value our bill of rights. To protect us from the government and the fickle winds of political change and government that doesn't fear it's people.

Could the second ammendment be obsolete?
Again, you not go ing to find practically anybody on this site that would agree the the second is obsolete but there IS a process to make changes already. If you feel strongly enough about it that use that avenue.

Are the Bill of Rights beyond questioning, and are the United States beyond reproach? bill of rights questions are for the courts or again amendment proccess... But yes we give huge deference to the especially deliberate process that created the constitution.


Just a few ideas.

How do people group themselves? By family? By race? By state, county? By country? By species, by world? By solar system, by galaxy?[quote

The point is most Americans would follow their country instead of their humaness. Very few other countries have a second amendment and many of these countries have every bit as good of standard of living as we do, if not better, without the insanely high crime rates.

Again, I'm just throwing ideas around that are up for discussion.

How people group themselves is already pretty self evident.

The US is a sovereign nation though. And yes we all put LOTS of things above our humanness, all the time. So that is a completely separate discussion. However, every second of everyday there are people who are suffering and dying in the world that we are all choosing not to help. As an example you could be somewhere right this second saving a life or helping the suffering but you are not. So what exactly is your point? It seems like you are throwing out stuff to confuse people.

OldCurlyWolf
07-21-2011, 08:20
Only the moronic and ignorant.. those that have not read the words of the founding father fail to understand what is meant by the Second Amendment. It means the same arms issued to and used by the military. The right of the people holds the same meaning in the Second that is does in the First, Fourth and Ninth.

Here are a few clues as to what the second means.



It is perfectly clear to anyone with half a brain what is meant by the Second Amendment. All citizens have the RIGHT to be armed and should be armed. They should be armed with the same armament possesed by the federal government. Now you want to argue the Nuke argument? Plutonium is a compound not an arm and is illegal to possess without a license so that takes that argument off the table. It IS legal to own full auto firearms. It IS legal to own cannon. It IS legal to own a tank. It IS legal (if you can afford it) to own a jet fighter, helicopter and event a SR-71 Black Bird.

Have you NOT yet discovered why I have put the OP on my ignore list. I have a very hard time dealing with a reasonably intelligent person who ACTS SO STUPID.
:steamed:

Jerry
07-21-2011, 17:50
Have you NOT yet discovered why I have put the OP on my ignore list. I have a very hard time dealing with a reasonably intelligent person who ACTS SO STUPID.
:steamed:

Since I’m a moderator I can’t put someone on ignore. God knows sometimes I’d like to. I keep telling people not to argue with idiots and then I find myself doing exactly that. I keep thinking just a few more facts and logic will show them the light when I know in my heart it’s hopeless. :dunno: :brickwall: :faint:

RYT 2BER
07-21-2011, 19:34
Since I’m a moderator I can’t put someone on ignore. God knows sometimes I’d like to. I keep telling people not to argue with idiots and then I find myself doing exactly that. I keep thinking just a few more facts and logic will show them the light when I know in my heart it’s hopeless. :dunno: :brickwall: :faint:

That be the truth... you can't teach someone who "wants" to be stupid, when stupid is the only way to stay in the debate. Guys like the troll in this thread will simply keep "analyzing" something so that they imply it isn't clear.

100s of years of talk and legal debate has gone on with the constitution.. all this chatter about what they "meant" and what it "means".. all just "progressive jabber" the framers didn't do 1/10000th of the analysis that all these morons go through... it was a group of guys who fought a war with an oppressive government and sat down and banged out what they wanted the country to look like. The wrote a document and included everything they wanted the country THEY founded to look like (not what some people 200 yrs down the road wanted)....one thing was they believed was free people were defined by having the right to have weapons.

Trolls like the op would say, if the constitution protected your right to look at a "blue" sky, "they don't know if they really meant blue, or light blue, or dark blue, or greenish blue or bla bla bla. The same d-bag however would never question the first, or fourth amendment cause ultra liberals only think the founding fathers were joking when they wrote the second