2d Amendment thread

[DealMonkey]

As I've stated numerous times here, I'm liberal and I am also for gun rights and upholding our 2nd Amendment. I don't own guns personally, but would actively defend a citizen's right to do so.

As for the reason why the ACLU doesn't as aggressively defend the 2nd as much as the other amendments, I think it's a complicated issue for the organization. From what I understand, the ACLU is internally conflicted on the issue of guns. I suspect a great percentage of ACLU members and attorneys that work with the organization DO support gun ownership, however I think because of the internal schism they purposely stay away from 2nd amendment cases. Furthermore, as others have suggested, the 2nd amendment is already well-defended via the NRA. To a certain extent, having both the ACLU and the NRA defending the 2nd amendment would be redundant.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
As far as I can tell, taking "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", without the "well regulated Militia" part is taking the whole thing out of context. It seems very clear that the reason for the bearing Arms was to provide a Militia and not just simply Gun Ownership. Of course for those who support the concept of Gun Ownership as a Right in itself, the Militia part of the statement throws a monkey wrench into the position and must be made into its' own context.

Not at all. Who is the militia? Taken into context with the rest of the Constitution, the militia is all men capable of fighting. The common man. The people. Hence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

If you look at the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 "POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS" (I just did this for another thread so I have it open right in front of me), you will find:

The Congress shall have Power:
[12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[13] To provide and maintain a Navy;
[16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The intention is clear. The US was not to have a standing regular army (but it was to have a standing navy, for obvious reasons of internation defense), and there was to be a militia constantly ready that could be drawn upon at need (hence, "well-regulated"). The regular army was to be raised only in times of war.
There is no question but that the framers of the Constitution intended for every household to have a gun. Hell, they encouraged it, as "being necessary to the security of a free State." And why not? Outlawing guns does not prevent or curtail crime, or solve any actual problem, it just disarms the populace to make the path easier for a tyrannical government (and subsequent abuses).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
As far as I can tell, taking "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", without the "well regulated Militia" part is taking the whole thing out of context. It seems very clear that the reason for the bearing Arms was to provide a Militia and not just simply Gun Ownership. Of course for those who support the concept of Gun Ownership as a Right in itself, the Militia part of the statement throws a monkey wrench into the position and must be made into its' own context.

Not at all. Who is the militia? Taken into context with the rest of the Constitution, the militia is all men capable of fighting. The common man. The people. Hence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

If you look at the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 "POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS" (I just did this for another thread so I have it open right in front of me), you will find:

The Congress shall have Power:
[12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[13] To provide and maintain a Navy;
[16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The intention is clear. The US was not to have a standing regular army (but it was to have a standing navy, for obvious reasons of internation defense), and there was to be a militia constantly ready that could be drawn upon at need (hence, "well-regulated"). The regular army was to be raised only in times of war.
There is no question but that the framers of the Constitution intended for every household to have a gun. Hell, they encouraged it, as "being necessary to the security of a free State." And why not? Outlawing guns does not prevent or curtail crime, or solve any actual problem, it just disarms the populace to make the path easier for a tyrannical government (and subsequent abuses).

You stated it, then went beyond it. It was for a Militia. Your explanation beyond that goes beyond what was written.

 

[Worlocked]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
As far as I can tell, taking "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", without the "well regulated Militia" part is taking the whole thing out of context. It seems very clear that the reason for the bearing Arms was to provide a Militia and not just simply Gun Ownership. Of course for those who support the concept of Gun Ownership as a Right in itself, the Militia part of the statement throws a monkey wrench into the position and must be made into its' own context.

Not at all. Who is the militia? Taken into context with the rest of the Constitution, the militia is all men capable of fighting. The common man. The people. Hence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

If you look at the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 "POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS" (I just did this for another thread so I have it open right in front of me), you will find:

The Congress shall have Power:
[12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[13] To provide and maintain a Navy;
[16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The intention is clear. The US was not to have a standing regular army (but it was to have a standing navy, for obvious reasons of internation defense), and there was to be a militia constantly ready that could be drawn upon at need (hence, "well-regulated"). The regular army was to be raised only in times of war.
There is no question but that the framers of the Constitution intended for every household to have a gun. Hell, they encouraged it, as "being necessary to the security of a free State." And why not? Outlawing guns does not prevent or curtail crime, or solve any actual problem, it just disarms the populace to make the path easier for a tyrannical government (and subsequent abuses).

You stated it, then went beyond it. It was for a Militia. Your explanation beyond that goes beyond what was written.

]No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
-Thomas Jefferson

the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-James Madison

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

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
-George Mason

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
-Zacharia Johnson

The whole of that Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
-Albert Gallatin

Please try and debate the meaning now. Go ahead, just try.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
You stated it, then went beyond it. It was for a Militia. Your explanation beyond that goes beyond what was written.

militia
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

It was for everyone. The intent was a gun in every household.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Worlocked

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
As far as I can tell, taking "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", without the "well regulated Militia" part is taking the whole thing out of context. It seems very clear that the reason for the bearing Arms was to provide a Militia and not just simply Gun Ownership. Of course for those who support the concept of Gun Ownership as a Right in itself, the Militia part of the statement throws a monkey wrench into the position and must be made into its' own context.

Not at all. Who is the militia? Taken into context with the rest of the Constitution, the militia is all men capable of fighting. The common man. The people. Hence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

If you look at the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 "POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS" (I just did this for another thread so I have it open right in front of me), you will find:

The Congress shall have Power:
[12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[13] To provide and maintain a Navy;
[16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The intention is clear. The US was not to have a standing regular army (but it was to have a standing navy, for obvious reasons of internation defense), and there was to be a militia constantly ready that could be drawn upon at need (hence, "well-regulated"). The regular army was to be raised only in times of war.
There is no question but that the framers of the Constitution intended for every household to have a gun. Hell, they encouraged it, as "being necessary to the security of a free State." And why not? Outlawing guns does not prevent or curtail crime, or solve any actual problem, it just disarms the populace to make the path easier for a tyrannical government (and subsequent abuses).

You stated it, then went beyond it. It was for a Militia. Your explanation beyond that goes beyond what was written.

]No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
-Thomas Jefferson

the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-James Madison

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

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
-George Mason

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
-Zacharia Johnson

The whole of that Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
-Albert Gallatin

Please try and debate the meaning now. Go ahead, just try.

Hmm, never seen those quotes before. They make the best case against my view yet.

 

[Worlocked]

Best case? What, are you going to tell the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Tenche Coxe, Zacharia Johnson, Albert Gallatin, and other founders they were wrong?

That's not an argument, that's a case closer.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Vic
The definition of a "well regulated Militia" is irrelevent. The amendment reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I sometimes think it would have best if the 2nd Amendment said only that. Then people would understand.
However, the purpose of the militia clause was that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the US federal government to have a standing army (the navy OTOH was intended). The militia was the common people from each state, the so-called "citizen soldiers," who could be called to duty to defend the country should the need arise. It was naturally expected that they would provide their own guns (enlisted personnel still provide their own sidearms, while their rifles are issued) and that they would already be at least partially trained in their use. Our current military, huge war budget, and imperialistic policies were not the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

WTF?? Enlisted personnel still supply thier own sidearms??

This is absolutely wrong, with very, very few exceptions.

 

[themusgrat]

So that is it. No matter what kind of standing army, whatever it is called, our founders built into law and government the place for every American to have a weapon. So how is it that we keep making that more difficult each year? Now, many politicians want to register every bullet and weapon, and what a pain. I bet 95% of Washington, not just the politicians, have never shot a gun...

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
So that is it. No matter what kind of standing army, whatever it is called, our founders built into law and government the place for every American to have a weapon. So how is it that we keep making that more difficult each year? Now, many politicians want to register every bullet and weapon, and what a pain. I bet 95% of Washington, not just the politicians, have never shot a gun...

LMAO

I think the vast majority of the republicans and a large majority of democrats have. You must realize that our politicians don't vote their own views most of the time, but rather the views of the people who finance their campaigns.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Worlocked
Best case? What, are you going to tell the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Tenche Coxe, Zacharia Johnson, Albert Gallatin, and other founders they were wrong?

That's not an argument, that's a case closer.

I would tell them they were wrong. The Proof is in the Murder rate. What that's the Best Case for, just to clarify, is the intention of the Amendment.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Worlocked
Best case? What, are you going to tell the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Tenche Coxe, Zacharia Johnson, Albert Gallatin, and other founders they were wrong?

That's not an argument, that's a case closer.

I would tell them they were wrong. The Proof is in the Murder rate. What that's the Best Case for, just to clarify, is the intention of the Amendment.

That's not proof. Israel and Switzerland have some of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership on earth and near the lowest per capita rates of murder.
OTOH, Mexico, Brazil, and Russia have some of the strictest gun control laws on earth and near the highest per capita murder rates -- all more that double the US (Russia's murder rate is more than 4 times that of the US, despite a complete prohibition of private handgun ownership).

Proof? You were saying?...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Worlocked
Best case? What, are you going to tell the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Tenche Coxe, Zacharia Johnson, Albert Gallatin, and other founders they were wrong?

That's not an argument, that's a case closer.

I would tell them they were wrong. The Proof is in the Murder rate. What that's the Best Case for, just to clarify, is the intention of the Amendment.

That's not proof. Israel and Switzerland have some of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership on earth and near the lowest per capita rates of murder.
OTOH, Mexico, Brazil, and Russia have some of the strictest gun control laws on earth and near the highest per capita murder rates -- all more that double the US (Russia's murder rate is more than 4 times that of the US, despite a complete prohibition of private handgun ownership).

Proof? You were saying?...

What happens elsewhere is moot. If Gun Ownership lead to an Orderly and Peaceful society automagically, why are US Gun Violence rates so high? Gun Control/a Gun in every hand doesn't lead to any foregone conclusion, but the benefit of either varies from Society to Society and Place to Place.

The error of the FF in this case was to miss the possibility of a negative result of such Gun Proliferation in Society. Their idea's and arguements defending their position were sound, but time has not born out either the benefits or the Need that they envisioned.

Re some of the Nations you mentioned:

1) Switzerland doesn't have the Individualism that the US has. Every Able Bodied Citizen may have Military Equipment in their homes, but they also belong to a greater organization, a Well Regulated Militia if youu will. This varies greatly from the US situation where there's little to no similar organization, just the Right for Individuals to own Weapons.

2) Can't comment much on Israel, but from what I've seen they are structured very close to the Swiss model.

3) Mexico/Brazil/Russia are all Societies with serious problems that go way beyond Gun Control/Gun Ownership. None of those 3 even come close to comparable to the US, why not use more comparable Nations for comparison?

Hell, if we're going to just pull names for effect, I submit Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia as reasons why Gun Proliferation is just a bad idea! 😉

Does the US need Gun Control? I don't think it's necessarily the only solution, but what is not the solution is to just yell "Gun Rights!" then go home as if nothing happened. Perhaps the US needs to adopt the Swiss model where Organnization and Obligation goes hand in hand with Gun Ownership? The status quo doesn't work too well at any rate, completely removing Gun Control from the table seems stupid, especially if no alternatives are proffered(sp).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
What happens elsewhere is moot. If Gun Ownership lead to an Orderly and Peaceful society automagically, why are US Gun Violence rates so high? Gun Control/a Gun in every hand doesn't lead to any foregone conclusion, but the benefit of either varies from Society to Society and Place to Place.

The error of the FF in this case was to miss the possibility of a negative result of such Gun Proliferation in Society. Their idea's and arguements defending their position were sound, but time has not born out either the benefits or the Need that they envisioned.

Re some of the Nations you mentioned:

1) Switzerland doesn't have the Individualism that the US has. Every Able Bodied Citizen may have Military Equipment in their homes, but they also belong to a greater organization, a Well Regulated Militia if youu will. This varies greatly from the US situation where there's little to no similar organization, just the Right for Individuals to own Weapons.

2) Can't comment much on Israel, but from what I've seen they are structured very close to the Swiss model.

3) Mexico/Brazil/Russia are all Societies with serious problems that go way beyond Gun Control/Gun Ownership. None of those 3 even come close to comparable to the US, why not use more comparable Nations for comparison?

Hell, if we're going to just pull names for effect, I submit Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia as reasons why Gun Proliferation is just a bad idea! 😉

Does the US need Gun Control? I don't think it's necessarily the only solution, but what is not the solution is to just yell "Gun Rights!" then go home as if nothing happened. Perhaps the US needs to adopt the Swiss model where Organnization and Obligation goes hand in hand with Gun Ownership? The status quo doesn't work too well at any rate, completely removing Gun Control from the table seems stupid, especially if no alternatives are proffered(sp).

So people ARE different? Wow, you sound like a racist...

 

[CallMeJoe]

As the OP, I thought I should contribute my own thoughts on the "Well Regulated Militia". From the Congressional Research Service thread:

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: BBondHave you ever read the Second Amendment?

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.

Why do the gun nuts choose to ignore the first half of the amendment?
Does America still need a well regualted militia to secure our free state? And if so, isn't that the National Guard? (Well, at least before Bush turned the NG into a front line fighting unit in his unnecessary, unprovoked attack against Iraq.)

Go watch the Mel Gibson movie, the Patriot. When Mel and Heath Ledger (I forget the character names) rally the common citizens of South Carolina to take arms against the government's organized military, that is the militia to which the founders referred. The citizens have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government. Hardly a job for which we can trust the government-controlled National Guard.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
What happens elsewhere is moot. If Gun Ownership lead to an Orderly and Peaceful society automagically, why are US Gun Violence rates so high? Gun Control/a Gun in every hand doesn't lead to any foregone conclusion, but the benefit of either varies from Society to Society and Place to Place.

The error of the FF in this case was to miss the possibility of a negative result of such Gun Proliferation in Society. Their idea's and arguements defending their position were sound, but time has not born out either the benefits or the Need that they envisioned.

Re some of the Nations you mentioned:

1) Switzerland doesn't have the Individualism that the US has. Every Able Bodied Citizen may have Military Equipment in their homes, but they also belong to a greater organization, a Well Regulated Militia if youu will. This varies greatly from the US situation where there's little to no similar organization, just the Right for Individuals to own Weapons.

2) Can't comment much on Israel, but from what I've seen they are structured very close to the Swiss model.

3) Mexico/Brazil/Russia are all Societies with serious problems that go way beyond Gun Control/Gun Ownership. None of those 3 even come close to comparable to the US, why not use more comparable Nations for comparison?

Hell, if we're going to just pull names for effect, I submit Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia as reasons why Gun Proliferation is just a bad idea! 😉

Does the US need Gun Control? I don't think it's necessarily the only solution, but what is not the solution is to just yell "Gun Rights!" then go home as if nothing happened. Perhaps the US needs to adopt the Swiss model where Organnization and Obligation goes hand in hand with Gun Ownership? The status quo doesn't work too well at any rate, completely removing Gun Control from the table seems stupid, especially if no alternatives are proffered(sp).

So people ARE different? Wow, you sound like a racist...

A Racist? 😀

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlieThe NRA was founded when?

Founded in 1871 in reaction to the uniformly poor weapons skills of Union army recruits in the War between the States. The aim was to improve marksmanship of U.S. troops for future conflicts. Protection of 2d Amendment rights came later.

Rhetorical question😉

Just in case zendari ever comes back though, the ACLU was founded in 1920, long after the NRA had established itself.

Very true, but would it exist in its form today if the ACLU defended gun rights? Or is it filling a void that "civil rights" groups tend to neglect?

It has a long history as an advocacy group - do you feel that it does a poor job, and the ACLU should step in and do a better job?

If a handgun ban can pass in San Fransisco it needs to do a better job.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
As the OP, I thought I should contribute my own thoughts on the "Well Regulated Militia". From the Congressional Research Service thread:

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: BBondHave you ever read the Second Amendment?

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.

Why do the gun nuts choose to ignore the first half of the amendment?
Does America still need a well regualted militia to secure our free state? And if so, isn't that the National Guard? (Well, at least before Bush turned the NG into a front line fighting unit in his unnecessary, unprovoked attack against Iraq.)

Go watch the Mel Gibson movie, the Patriot. When Mel and Heath Ledger (I forget the character names) rally the common citizens of South Carolina to take arms against the government's organized military, that is the militia to which the founders referred. The citizens have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government. Hardly a job for which we can trust the government-controlled National Guard.

Bingo, the whole idea of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from the US government.

People who argue for gun control just dont see the big picture in my humble opinion.

One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was outlaw firearms in the hands of civilians, for very obvious reasons.

 

[Worlocked]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Worlocked
Best case? What, are you going to tell the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Tenche Coxe, Zacharia Johnson, Albert Gallatin, and other founders they were wrong?

That's not an argument, that's a case closer.

I would tell them they were wrong. The Proof is in the Murder rate. What that's the Best Case for, just to clarify, is the intention of the Amendment.

That's not proof. Israel and Switzerland have some of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership on earth and near the lowest per capita rates of murder.
OTOH, Mexico, Brazil, and Russia have some of the strictest gun control laws on earth and near the highest per capita murder rates -- all more that double the US (Russia's murder rate is more than 4 times that of the US, despite a complete prohibition of private handgun ownership).

Proof? You were saying?...

What happens elsewhere is moot. If Gun Ownership lead to an Orderly and Peaceful society automagically, why are US Gun Violence rates so high? Gun Control/a Gun in every hand doesn't lead to any foregone conclusion, but the benefit of either varies from Society to Society and Place to Place.

The error of the FF in this case was to miss the possibility of a negative result of such Gun Proliferation in Society. Their idea's and arguements defending their position were sound, but time has not born out either the benefits or the Need that they envisioned.

Re some of the Nations you mentioned:

1) Switzerland doesn't have the Individualism that the US has. Every Able Bodied Citizen may have Military Equipment in their homes, but they also belong to a greater organization, a Well Regulated Militia if youu will. This varies greatly from the US situation where there's little to no similar organization, just the Right for Individuals to own Weapons.

2) Can't comment much on Israel, but from what I've seen they are structured very close to the Swiss model.

3) Mexico/Brazil/Russia are all Societies with serious problems that go way beyond Gun Control/Gun Ownership. None of those 3 even come close to comparable to the US, why not use more comparable Nations for comparison?

Hell, if we're going to just pull names for effect, I submit Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia as reasons why Gun Proliferation is just a bad idea! 😉

Does the US need Gun Control? I don't think it's necessarily the only solution, but what is not the solution is to just yell "Gun Rights!" then go home as if nothing happened. Perhaps the US needs to adopt the Swiss model where Organnization and Obligation goes hand in hand with Gun Ownership? The status quo doesn't work too well at any rate, completely removing Gun Control from the table seems stupid, especially if no alternatives are proffered(sp).

I'm sorry, maybe you have no respect fo inalienable rights and what our forefathers fought and died to protect, but I and many others do. I'd make a longer post but I'm really irate right now at your post, I'll return to this thread later, but I will leave you with this quote;

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

This society was built around freedom and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY you punish the criminal for the crime, not society. Toughen gun crime penalties, and I mean real gun crimes; violence, brandishing, etc.... not stupid victimless "crimes" like owning a supressor without a tax stamp and other such bulls**t. Don't take away the INALIENABLE RIGHT of the honest citizen for the actions of CRIMINALS.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

It has a long history as an advocacy group - do you feel that it does a poor job, and the ACLU should step in and do a better job?

If a handgun ban can pass in San Fransisco it needs to do a better job.

Grow up already - any legislative body can pass any law it wants to - this one in S.F. is highly unlikely to holdup to a challenge, and I'm willing to be the NRA has a number of people working right now to bring that challenge to a head as quickly as possible.

 

[Chiller2]

"I would tell them they were wrong. The Proof is in the Murder rate. What that's the Best Case for, just to clarify, is the intention of the Amendment."

So hyis is it the cities with the most restrictive gun laws (NY, Washington DC,LA,Chicago) have the highest gun violence?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Chiller2
"I would tell them they were wrong. The Proof is in the Murder rate. What that's the Best Case for, just to clarify, is the intention of the Amendment."

So hyis is it the cities with the most restrictive gun laws (NY, Washington DC,LA,Chicago) have the highest gun violence?

As long as guns are available nearby or even nation wide local Gun Laws have little effect.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
You stated it, then went beyond it. It was for a Militia. Your explanation beyond that goes beyond what was written.

militia
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

It was for everyone. The intent was a gun in every household.

So what exactly are you advocating? The Army be disbanded and just allow people to buy RPGs and m60's at the local Ammunation?

Aside from the huge jump in healthcare expenses due to gunshot wounds and increased police spending, this plan could save taxpayers a $trillion a year. Whoo hoo! $$$$$$$

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Chiller2
"I would tell them they were wrong. The Proof is in the Murder rate. What that's the Best Case for, just to clarify, is the intention of the Amendment."

So hyis is it the cities with the most restrictive gun laws (NY, Washington DC,LA,Chicago) have the highest gun violence?

NYC is one of the safest (if not #1) big cities in the US. All the cities you mention are the largest cities in the country. Perhaps violence is more a function of population than laws?

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: Worlocked

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Worlocked
Best case? What, are you going to tell the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Tenche Coxe, Zacharia Johnson, Albert Gallatin, and other founders they were wrong?

That's not an argument, that's a case closer.

I would tell them they were wrong. The Proof is in the Murder rate. What that's the Best Case for, just to clarify, is the intention of the Amendment.

That's not proof. Israel and Switzerland have some of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership on earth and near the lowest per capita rates of murder.
OTOH, Mexico, Brazil, and Russia have some of the strictest gun control laws on earth and near the highest per capita murder rates -- all more that double the US (Russia's murder rate is more than 4 times that of the US, despite a complete prohibition of private handgun ownership).

Proof? You were saying?...

What happens elsewhere is moot. If Gun Ownership lead to an Orderly and Peaceful society automagically, why are US Gun Violence rates so high? Gun Control/a Gun in every hand doesn't lead to any foregone conclusion, but the benefit of either varies from Society to Society and Place to Place.

The error of the FF in this case was to miss the possibility of a negative result of such Gun Proliferation in Society. Their idea's and arguements defending their position were sound, but time has not born out either the benefits or the Need that they envisioned.

Re some of the Nations you mentioned:

1) Switzerland doesn't have the Individualism that the US has. Every Able Bodied Citizen may have Military Equipment in their homes, but they also belong to a greater organization, a Well Regulated Militia if youu will. This varies greatly from the US situation where there's little to no similar organization, just the Right for Individuals to own Weapons.

2) Can't comment much on Israel, but from what I've seen they are structured very close to the Swiss model.

3) Mexico/Brazil/Russia are all Societies with serious problems that go way beyond Gun Control/Gun Ownership. None of those 3 even come close to comparable to the US, why not use more comparable Nations for comparison?

Hell, if we're going to just pull names for effect, I submit Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia as reasons why Gun Proliferation is just a bad idea! 😉

Does the US need Gun Control? I don't think it's necessarily the only solution, but what is not the solution is to just yell "Gun Rights!" then go home as if nothing happened. Perhaps the US needs to adopt the Swiss model where Organnization and Obligation goes hand in hand with Gun Ownership? The status quo doesn't work too well at any rate, completely removing Gun Control from the table seems stupid, especially if no alternatives are proffered(sp).

I'm sorry, maybe you have no respect fo inalienable rights and what our forefathers fought and died to protect, but I and many others do. I'd make a longer post but I'm really irate right now at your post, I'll return to this thread later, but I will leave you with this quote;

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

This society was built around freedom and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY you punish the criminal for the crime, not society. Toughen gun crime penalties, and I mean real gun crimes; violence, brandishing, etc.... not stupid victimless "crimes" like owning a supressor without a tax stamp and other such bulls**t. Don't take away the INALIENABLE RIGHT of the honest citizen for the actions of CRIMINALS.

You do realize he is canadian?