|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 29 2012 09:57 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 09:54 Reason wrote:On December 29 2012 09:49 sunprince wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 26 2012 05:13 J_Slim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:49 sunprince wrote:On December 26 2012 04:46 J_Slim wrote:On December 26 2012 04:21 sunprince wrote:On December 26 2012 04:15 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:
[quote]
Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars.
Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Yeah but..why? Most civilized countries in the world with proper gun laws doesn't live in fear of a tyranic government. There is no way the government is going to suddenly change to a dictatorship. And its not because you have a gun in your home. Historically, plenty of governments have "suddenly changed to a dictatorship". And while widespread availability of firearms is not the sole deterrant of tyrannical government, it does contribute to said deterrence. And a lot of governments have been overthrown by armed rebels only to become more violent, controlling governments. While your point is true, how does it have any relevance to the main point that armed populaces deter tyrannical governments? When someone makes the argument that they're protecting themselves from the government by having guns, it sounds to me like they are rebel insurgents, waiting for a chance to "take back the country," as I keep hearing them say. I don't remember hearing anything anywhere near as bad back when we got the patriot act compared to when we got the healthcare changes. One was actually a move towards a move invasive government, taking away rights, while the other was an attempt to help fix the healthcare situation in the country. So it sounds to me like people are more concerned about having guns to 'take back the country' when they don't like who the country voted for. Which is essentially what rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever you want to call them are. Strawman. No one here has made the argument that the purpose of firearms is to "take back the country". You're simply making shit up by saying what "it sounds to you like". I believe it was an attempted reference to the 2nd amendment. Read the whole conversation. J_Slim is trying to smear proponents of gun ownership as ultraconservatives who only want firearms in order to rebel because they don't like Obama.
I read the whole conversation and posted my response accordingly. If you disagree with my guestimation then perhaps J_Slim can explain his response better for you since I am incapable of telepathy.
Reading over it again "is trying to smear proponents of gun ownership as ultraconservatives who only want firearms in order to rebel " is complete and utter nonsense actually.
|
|
|
So, gee, if only Sacco and Vanzetti had some guns, they could've fended off the federal government from unjustly executing them for anarchism, right?
Is that really what the argument against gun control boils down to? Protecting yourself from the government?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms
This is an egregiously stupid form of "reasoning" that the author of this article uses. Of course governments have a monopoly on violence -- and this author thinks that assault rifles are the equalizer? Are we living in the 1920's? Assault rifles are what's going to save you from your government? If we are to be equal to our government's potential to commit violence, we need total arms. Not just guns. We need tanks, and fighter jets.
So why don't we? Why did we all just agree to give up our constitutional rights to own high-grade military equipment? How did we give the government the total upper-hand over us, with their modern military, while we are relegated to owning only small fire-arms? Should we not all own high-explosives, and maybe even atomic weaponry? Surely, an atomic bomb will ensure that no government, including your own, will be able to tread on you.
But we gave up on the concept that a militia could be a proper army a long time ago. It was a relevant concept at our country's foundation. It isn't any more.
Rather than talk on ideological terms, debating an archaic one-sentence constitutional amendment written in the 1700's, we should be looking at the costs and benefits of guns in a practical sense. Is our country safer from the 300 million guns it has manufactured and imported into its borders?
Guns are not knives, trucks, alcohol, or any of those things. Unlike all those things, guns were designed as instruments/tools of death. I do not respect the opinion, at all, of someone who despite being a fan of modern weaponry, refuses to acknowledge the entire purpose behind their creation. Guns kill, and if they didn't kill, they wouldn't exist because they have no other purpose. "Guns don't kill people," has to be the dumbest popular phrase ever created. That phrase highlights the real problem behind this country's gun-control debate, the ideology of "freedom" over common sense and public good.
The same day a grade-school in Connecticut was terrorized by two handguns, a man in China assaulted a school with what weapon he had available: a knife. No one in that school in China died. This is the cost we pay in America, that guns are so widely available that their use in any heinous person's actions is entirely anticipated, and for what? For your freedom? For your cool toys? It's pathetic.
No one in our government has ever seriously suggested eliminating gun-ownership completely. What's suggested is taking measures to curb the influx of guns in this country. Instead of starting from the basis that everyone can and should own a gun, we should be starting from the opposite viewpoint. Instead of looking for "bad apples" to restrict from owning a gun, we should be asking who actually really needs a gun. We should make gun ownership the biggest bureaucratic headache in the world.
We should do whatever it takes to decrease the amount of guns in this country. The argument that it's "too late" because there is "too many" guns already is so short-sighted. Guns have a shelf-life. Our generation might be surrounded by these weapons (and the pathetic ideology that values these weapons), but it certainly doesn't have to stay that way. We can take steps to curb the creation and mass-distribution of further weapons, further tragic deaths. So why don't we? Because you fear the government? Our government is a reflection of its people, so... maybe it's you that we should be afraid of?
Guns kill people. Guns do not defend against bullets. Those 3 fire-fighters that were ambushed and killed on Christmas Eve would still be dead if they had guns. A gun is a purely offensive weapon, and it's design was purely made on the purpose of tearing through bodily flesh.
So stop your stupid political ideology, get over how "cool" you think they are, and get rid of them.
|
Or, beyond the unfair tyranny of our government that treacherously executed Sacco and Vanzetti, let's look at African Americans. Did guns win them their freedom? We've had people, in this country, who actually HAVE been persecuted by their government.
And guns were not their answer. Did the post-slavery African-Americans of the early 20th century not suffer in this country? Did they not lack basic freedom under our government? Democracy and civility won them their civil rights, not guns.
Even if you want to go back to the Civil War (back when a militia actually had some potential meaning), what gave the slaves their freedom from slavery wasn't the guns, it was the Emancipation Proclamation and an act of Congress, backed by the true military of the American North. You can't do it alone -- you could've given every slave a gun, and it just would've been a catastrophe. The only way to protect yourself form your government is to elect the right government.
|
He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement.
|
One of the worst written articles I've seen full stop. At least attempt to look at it from both sides. With the exception of the quality in the language, it looks like any hardcore redneck from the south could have written it.
|
It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.
I believe this so much that it's on my bumper... "Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control"
|
posted twice, sorry , read post below this one.
|
On December 30 2012 02:22 dronesss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 02:19 dronesss wrote:
I am not saying we should own 30 rifles, but I believe we should atleast own a revolver or small hand gun....maybe 1 rifle but I am not for us being 100% gunless. Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote: I was 100% in support of you.. even after your mistake about Japan... you were close though.. they did invade several Island in our possession.. so you could tech be right.. but as soon as you said this you might have lost me..
Why only handguns? What's truly the difference between a gun in the possession of a law abiding citizen.. or 30 guns in the same citizens possession? When I said that, I was not referring to not being able to own 30 guns. My household has a pretty collection of them, the point I was getting across is that when a intruder breaks into your home, I rather that citizen have a hand gun then nothing. If there would ever be some sort of weapons "ban", don't take the hand guns away. Sorry for confusing you. Also, for folks who say "why not get a taser", bring a taser to a gun fight and see who wins. Also, love the quote "I rather have a gun and not need to use it, then to not have a gun and need it"
|
On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement.
that's just flat-out untrue.
edit: + Show Spoiler +"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
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession(sic) of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
The Founding Fathers on Arms
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"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
American Patriot (this one is VERY important)
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45. (their DUTY to be AT ALL TIMES armed)
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
individual rights are not a modern interpretation...
|
[QUOTE]On December 30 2012 02:24 dronesss wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 30 2012 02:22 dronesss wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 24 2012 02:19 dronesss wrote:
I am not saying we should own 30 rifles, but I believe we should atleast own a revolver or small hand gun....maybe 1 rifle but I am not for us being 100% gunless. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]On December 24 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote: I was 100% in support of you.. even after your mistake about Japan... you were close though.. they did invade several Island in our possession.. so you could tech be right.. but as soon as you said this you might have lost me..
Why only handguns? What's truly the difference between a gun in the possession of a law abiding citizen.. or 30 guns in the same citizens possession? [/QUOTE]
When I said that, I was not referring to not being able to own 30 guns. My household has a pretty collection of them, the point I was getting across is that when a intruder breaks into your home, I rather that citizen have a hand gun then nothing. If there would ever be some sort of weapons "ban", don't take the hand guns away. Sorry for confusing you.
Also, for folks who say "why not get a taser", bring a taser to a gun fight and see who wins.
Also, love the quote "I rather have a gun and not need to use it, then to not have a gun and need it"
I also would like to point out to people that believe cops should only hold weapons...think about it, when a intruder breaks into your home and has a gun, do you call the police? Are you going to take out your taser and hope you tase him before he shoots you? "When seconds count, police are a few minutes away" (Forgot where I got that quote from)
Another thing, why are positive and responsible gun owners being bashed for owning guns? It is not the guns fault, it is the person behind the trigger....for years we owned guns and had no problem, but when a sad event such as this happens, the finger gets pointed at responsible gun owners and their guns. Cruel, but that's our society.
If you guys want to know my opinion, if the majority wants no weapons, let them have their wish.....I say give them what they want, why you ask? Well, when they are in a life and death situation or need to protect their family.....told ya so, not stating that something like that will happen....but in today's world anything can happen, be prepared.
|
United States42957 Posts
dronesss, the Connecticut shooter had been out of jail for 12 years and hadn't killed any firefighters. Everyone is law abiding until they break the law, every gun owner is responsible until they're irresponsible.
|
On December 30 2012 02:55 KwarK wrote:
dronesss, the Connecticut shooter had been out of jail for 12 years and hadn't killed any firefighters. Everyone is law abiding until they break the law, every gun owner is responsible until they're irresponsible.
So, if I am not mistaken. You are saying everyone is guilty with a firearm, because they haven't killed anyone "YET"?
That is wrong for someone to sit here and say that.
This reminds me of that movie when they catch the killer before he kills the person.
|
On December 30 2012 02:57 dronesss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 02:55 KwarK wrote:
dronesss, the Connecticut shooter had been out of jail for 12 years and hadn't killed any firefighters. Everyone is law abiding until they break the law, every gun owner is responsible until they're irresponsible. So, if I am not mistaken. You are saying everyone is guilty with a firearm, because they haven't killed anyone "YET"? That is wrong for someone to sit here and say that.
that's not what he's saying.... at all.
I mean, I probably agree with you on the actual laws and what-not, but come on, that isn't even close to what he said.
|
On December 30 2012 02:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 02:57 dronesss wrote:On December 30 2012 02:55 KwarK wrote:
dronesss, the Connecticut shooter had been out of jail for 12 years and hadn't killed any firefighters. Everyone is law abiding until they break the law, every gun owner is responsible until they're irresponsible. So, if I am not mistaken. You are saying everyone is guilty with a firearm, because they haven't killed anyone "YET"? That is wrong for someone to sit here and say that. that's not what he's saying.... at all. I mean, I probably agree with you on the actual laws and what-not, but come on, that isn't even close to what he said.
Listen, you can not point fingers at gun owners and say "Hes responsible, but he could snap"
Why cant I just point my finger at every driver and say, hes a good driver....but what if he started to drink and drive! Oh no! take his license and car away before he does drink and drive......does that sum up on what hes trying to say?>
|
On December 30 2012 03:01 dronesss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 02:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 02:57 dronesss wrote:On December 30 2012 02:55 KwarK wrote:
dronesss, the Connecticut shooter had been out of jail for 12 years and hadn't killed any firefighters. Everyone is law abiding until they break the law, every gun owner is responsible until they're irresponsible. So, if I am not mistaken. You are saying everyone is guilty with a firearm, because they haven't killed anyone "YET"? That is wrong for someone to sit here and say that. that's not what he's saying.... at all. I mean, I probably agree with you on the actual laws and what-not, but come on, that isn't even close to what he said. Listen, you can not point fingers at gun owners and say "Hes responsible, but he could snap" Why cant I just point my finger at every driver and say, hes a good driver....but what if he started to drink and drive! Oh no! take his license and car away before he does drink and drive......does that sum up on what hes trying to say?>
I agree that you can't do that. he is not suggesting that.
I'm pretty sure the point is that you can't screen out criminals and insane people from getting guns, because a lot of criminals and insane people don't advertise this fact, and some of these mass murderers have no priors at all. so when you allow easy access to guns, you necessarily open yourself up to those types of people getting guns.
you and I might think that it is a worthy trade-off. that our rights as non-criminals and perfectly sane people to own and possess guns outweighs the potential security risks. but it is perfectly valid to lean the other way, and you can argue that on it's merits without strawmanning his point.
|
On December 30 2012 03:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 03:01 dronesss wrote:On December 30 2012 02:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 02:57 dronesss wrote:On December 30 2012 02:55 KwarK wrote:
dronesss, the Connecticut shooter had been out of jail for 12 years and hadn't killed any firefighters. Everyone is law abiding until they break the law, every gun owner is responsible until they're irresponsible. So, if I am not mistaken. You are saying everyone is guilty with a firearm, because they haven't killed anyone "YET"? That is wrong for someone to sit here and say that. that's not what he's saying.... at all. I mean, I probably agree with you on the actual laws and what-not, but come on, that isn't even close to what he said. Listen, you can not point fingers at gun owners and say "Hes responsible, but he could snap" Why cant I just point my finger at every driver and say, hes a good driver....but what if he started to drink and drive! Oh no! take his license and car away before he does drink and drive......does that sum up on what hes trying to say?> I agree that you can't do that. he is not suggesting that. I'm pretty sure the point is that you can't screen out criminals and insane people from getting guns, because a lot of criminals and insane people don't advertise this fact, and some of these mass murderers have no priors at all. so when you allow easy access to guns, you necessarily open yourself up to those types of people getting guns. you and I might think that it is a worthy trade-off. that our rights as non-criminals and perfectly sane people to own and possess guns outweighs the potential security risks. but it is perfectly valid to lean the other way, and you can argue that on it's merits without strawmanning his point.
Ok, then why do we not just enforce our current gun laws better? Instead of just taking them away, just make it harder to get a gun, plain and simple. when you get rid of guns, people will still find ways to kill people so don't expect peace. Just when I or anyone else on this forum is attacked by a criminal and he has a knife, I am sure you and I both would want to be on the end with a gun. Just saying.
|
On December 30 2012 03:11 dronesss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 03:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 03:01 dronesss wrote:On December 30 2012 02:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 30 2012 02:57 dronesss wrote:On December 30 2012 02:55 KwarK wrote:
dronesss, the Connecticut shooter had been out of jail for 12 years and hadn't killed any firefighters. Everyone is law abiding until they break the law, every gun owner is responsible until they're irresponsible. So, if I am not mistaken. You are saying everyone is guilty with a firearm, because they haven't killed anyone "YET"? That is wrong for someone to sit here and say that. that's not what he's saying.... at all. I mean, I probably agree with you on the actual laws and what-not, but come on, that isn't even close to what he said. Listen, you can not point fingers at gun owners and say "Hes responsible, but he could snap" Why cant I just point my finger at every driver and say, hes a good driver....but what if he started to drink and drive! Oh no! take his license and car away before he does drink and drive......does that sum up on what hes trying to say?> I agree that you can't do that. he is not suggesting that. I'm pretty sure the point is that you can't screen out criminals and insane people from getting guns, because a lot of criminals and insane people don't advertise this fact, and some of these mass murderers have no priors at all. so when you allow easy access to guns, you necessarily open yourself up to those types of people getting guns. you and I might think that it is a worthy trade-off. that our rights as non-criminals and perfectly sane people to own and possess guns outweighs the potential security risks. but it is perfectly valid to lean the other way, and you can argue that on it's merits without strawmanning his point. Ok, then why do we not just enforce our current gun laws better? Instead of just taking them away, just make it harder to get a gun, plain and simple. when you get rid of guns, people will still find ways to kill people so don't expect peace. Just when I or anyone else on this forum is attacked by a criminal and he has a knife, I am sure you and I both would want to be on the end with a gun. Just saying.
oh, don't get me wrong. I 100% agree with you, and that's why I'm arming myself as soon as possible, and kick myself for not doing it sooner. and I actually think that gun laws should be tightened up (in non-invasive ways).
but it is valid to bring up the point that access to guns for the general populace means access to guns for freak-bags who do fucked up shit.
of course, my counter argument would be that the way to stop freak-bags with guns is to have them yourself. but that opens up a whole new can of worms. I'm just saying that we should try to respect the fact that both sides have valid, logical arguments and both sides need to be seriously considered in any debate about gun-control.
|
On December 29 2012 16:48 Keldrath wrote:He's an idiot. It's for states rights in establishing militias, not individual rights to gun ownership, it was always collective rights, not individual rights. Individual rights is a new interpretation movement.
You're completely and utterly wrong. We discussed this already and all you had to say was "the supreme court is stupid, so and so professor says they are misunderstanding the comma." Ignoring the facts because you don't agree with them won't change anything.
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
District of Columbia v. Heller
|
On December 29 2012 16:29 Leporello wrote:So, gee, if only Sacco and Vanzetti had some guns, they could've fended off the federal government from unjustly executing them for anarchism, right? Is that really what the argument against gun control boils down to? Protecting yourself from the government? Show nested quote +http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms This is an egregiously stupid form of "reasoning" that the author of this article uses. Of course governments have a monopoly on violence -- and this author thinks that assault rifles are the equalizer? Are we living in the 1920's? Assault rifles are what's going to save you from your government? If we are to be equal to our government's potential to commit violence, we need total arms. Not just guns. We need tanks, and fighter jets. So why don't we? Why did we all just agree to give up our constitutional rights to own high-grade military equipment? How did we give the government the total upper-hand over us, with their modern military, while we are relegated to owning only small fire-arms? Should we not all own high-explosives, and maybe even atomic weaponry? Surely, an atomic bomb will ensure that no government, including your own, will be able to tread on you. But we gave up on the concept that a militia could be a proper army a long time ago. It was a relevant concept at our country's foundation. It isn't any more. Rather than talk on ideological terms, debating an archaic one-sentence constitutional amendment written in the 1700's, we should be looking at the costs and benefits of guns in a practical sense. Is our country safer from the 300 million guns it has manufactured and imported into its borders? Guns are not knives, trucks, alcohol, or any of those things. Unlike all those things, guns were designed as instruments/tools of death. I do not respect the opinion, at all, of someone who despite being a fan of modern weaponry, refuses to acknowledge the entire purpose behind their creation. Guns kill, and if they didn't kill, they wouldn't exist because they have no other purpose. "Guns don't kill people," has to be the dumbest popular phrase ever created. That phrase highlights the real problem behind this country's gun-control debate, the ideology of "freedom" over common sense and public good. The same day a grade-school in Connecticut was terrorized by two handguns, a man in China assaulted a school with what weapon he had available: a knife. No one in that school in China died. This is the cost we pay in America, that guns are so widely available that their use in any heinous person's actions is entirely anticipated, and for what? For your freedom? For your cool toys? It's pathetic. No one in our government has ever seriously suggested eliminating gun-ownership completely. What's suggested is taking measures to curb the influx of guns in this country. Instead of starting from the basis that everyone can and should own a gun, we should be starting from the opposite viewpoint. Instead of looking for "bad apples" to restrict from owning a gun, we should be asking who actually really needs a gun. We should make gun ownership the biggest bureaucratic headache in the world. We should do whatever it takes to decrease the amount of guns in this country. The argument that it's "too late" because there is "too many" guns already is so short-sighted. Guns have a shelf-life. Our generation might be surrounded by these weapons (and the pathetic ideology that values these weapons), but it certainly doesn't have to stay that way. We can take steps to curb the creation and mass-distribution of further weapons, further tragic deaths. So why don't we? Because you fear the government? Our government is a reflection of its people, so... maybe it's you that we should be afraid of? Guns kill people. Guns do not defend against bullets. Those 3 fire-fighters that were ambushed and killed on Christmas Eve would still be dead if they had guns. A gun is a purely offensive weapon, and it's design was purely made on the purpose of tearing through bodily flesh. So stop your stupid political ideology, get over how "cool" you think they are, and get rid of them.
By far the most coherent and comprehensive post here. Just sticky it to the start, then choose a "pro" post that seems good to you and we can lock this thread :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
