A NATION OF COWARDS....

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,145
47,347
136
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: K1052
Our drug laws cause the violence problem, not the guns.

Every time that a carry law is considered in a state the anti-gun lobby comes out and touts the exact same "streets run red with the blood of innocents" bs that you just posted. Such a situation never actually materializes when the laws are passed though.
In fact, the opposite is true. Everytime a carry law is passed, violent crime goes DOWN. And everytime a gun control law is passed, violent crime goes up. And why not? Laws do not stop criminals, but they do stop law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

Two more things:

1) Will the gun nuts please stop arguing this point like it's relevent? The 2nd amendment was designed to ensure the MILITIA (not jim bob cooter & his AK-47) was able to keep and bear arms so a despot leader couldn't use the armed forces to enforce his will on the citizenry, and in effect, become a tyrant. It has nothing to do with "crime" as discussed in millions of these debates, and it most certainly has nothing to do with every redneck owning a small arsenal in his garage for "self defense & deer hunting".

2) P&N. Seriously. NOW. (pls move/lock it mods)

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

The idea that the founders would EVER have prohibited the use of firearms for self defence is laughable in the extreme.

Nice redneck jabs by the way. I guess a person as small minded as you can't get by without them.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Two more things:

1) Will the gun nuts please stop arguing this point like it's relevent? The 2nd amendment was designed to ensure the MILITIA (not jim bob cooter & his AK-47) was able to keep and bear arms so a despot leader couldn't use the armed forces to enforce his will on the citizenry, and in effect, become a tyrant. It has nothing to do with "crime" as discussed in millions of these debates, and it most certainly has nothing to do with every redneck owning a small arsenal in his garage for "self defense & deer hunting".

2) P&N. Seriously. NOW. (pls move/lock it mods)
militia

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.

Not only are you wrong on definition, but your argument is contradictory. How is the citizenry to defend themselves against a possible tyrant if citizens like Jim Bob Cooter don't have their AK's?

BTW, way to be a fsckin' racist bigot. If you had read the article, you would have seen where this issue was addressed. Gun owners, on average, have a higher level of education than non-gun owners. My range, for example, is typically filled mostly with high-priced professionals (doctors, lawyers, real estate, etc.) plus the occassional off-duty law enforcement official. Guns aren't cheap.
In addition, it takes a higher level of maturity to recognize the reality that you are responsible for your own safety and the safety of those around you and that, if you are able-bodied, you have a duty to faithfully uphold this responsibility. Some people, it seems, never reach this level of maturity, and forever believe that other people should always be there to protect them, just like how mommy and daddy was when they were a child.
 

GhettoPeanut

Senior member
Feb 9, 2005
696
0
0
seems to be a stupid essay on why it is the victems fault for being victemized and uses it as an excuss to justify arming ones self because if you dont, your dont care about your life. i'll finish when i'm not at work, but it would seem to me this guys a prick.
makes me think of canada....
"In 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population-triple the Canadian rate of 1.8."
yet canadians have almost 2 timas as many guns per person then the US, see, this post belongs in PN.

god damn, this article pisses me off, you damn Wubba lover
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,455
19,924
146
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Will the gun nuts please stop arguing this point like it's relevent? The 2nd amendment was designed to ensure the MILITIA (not jim bob cooter & his AK-47) was able to keep and bear arms so a despot leader couldn't use the armed forces to enforce his will on the citizenry, and in effect, become a tyrant. It has nothing to do with "crime" as discussed in millions of these debates, and it most certainly has nothing to do with every redneck owning a small arsenal in his garage for "self defense & deer hunting".

The Second Amendment was clearly intended as an individual right. One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard (it's not, and does not fit the original intent of a "militia"), the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.

To those who would take the 2nd to an illogical extreme; In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.

The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" They were not, as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment which clearly separates the individual "people" from the "state."

In fact, here is my challenge:

Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.

The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"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."
---George Mason

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29

"The said Constitution [shall] 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; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774

"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... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? 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."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
 

Ilmater

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2002
7,516
1
0
P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N! P&N!
 

Yossarian451

Senior member
Apr 11, 2002
886
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
go to p&n now. no ones gonna read that. i hate authors who are more concerned with filling pages iwth fluff than actual meaningful content.

and you know what? f*ck the gun nuts. until they start really supporting personal rights in all spheres they are just a bunch of loons cozying up with fundamentalist christians who spend every waking moment trying to oppress the personal freedoms of women and homosexuals.

Thats not true of all gun supporters. I strongly support the role of the individual and their ability to defend themselves and the abilitly to protect themselves against a police state. In fact these were things passed down to us through the building of our nation. But to assume that supporting gun ownership makes everyone a fundamentalist christian is wrong, I do admit that there are a considerable amount of the them that support guns but that doesn't make it the standard.
I strongly oppose the govenments attmpts to regulate personal freedoms of all individuals including gays and women. It should not be the government's role to choose a persons sexuality or the limit of their personal freedoms based on their status. But then that would make me a libreatarian, about as far from the right as you get, huh?
 

myusername

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2003
5,046
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: myusername
Exactly what the hell would a rightwinger do if the left suddenly embraced gun ownership? Based on this article I can only assume the shock would cause them to curl into a little ball and suck their thumb while the entire fabric of their reality turns to dust.

Actually, as a libertarian, I would be very pleased. It has always confused me as to why the American left is labled as "liberal" when they are anything but.

Well, it's kind of lose/lose with the current political arena. I was going by the tone of the article - it makes it sound as though guns are the only thing separating the right and the left, and specifically goes out of the way to make snide "liberal" remarks... page after page after ...

It struck me that if the left were to endorse gun ownership (which really I can't understand why they are so vehemently opposed, except to be contrary), the author would have nothing to say...

Which, of course, started me wondering how everyone who voted republican would react if the democrats embraced personal armament.

My instinct is that they would still vote republican ... just to be contrary.
 

Proletariat

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2004
5,614
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Dynamite
People are free to carry guns for protection in the USA and yet, they have the highest crime rates in the world. A gun is not an "equalizer".

Crimes: Homocide (per capita)

Crimes: Rape (per capita)

Crimes: Robbery (per capita)


Take your "highest crime-rates in the world" and shove it up your know-nothing ass before you attempt to pull any more 'facts' from it.
LOL all those countries in the top 25 for homicide are certainly not places we want to be in any list with :)

As for the European robberies most of those are petty. We are very high up there in rape as well.
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Nice article.

I used to be very pro gun control, but as I get older, I find myself siding more and more with people such as the article's author.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,455
19,924
146
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: myusername
Exactly what the hell would a rightwinger do if the left suddenly embraced gun ownership? Based on this article I can only assume the shock would cause them to curl into a little ball and suck their thumb while the entire fabric of their reality turns to dust.

Actually, as a libertarian, I would be very pleased. It has always confused me as to why the American left is labled as "liberal" when they are anything but.

Well, it's kind of lose/lose with the current political arena. I was going by the tone of the article - it makes it sound as though guns are the only thing separating the right and the left, and specifically goes out of the way to make snide "liberal" remarks... page after page after ...

It struck me that if the left were to endorse gun ownership (which really I can't understand why they are so vehemently opposed, except to be contrary), the author would have nothing to say...

Which, of course, started me wondering how everyone who voted republican would react if the democrats embraced personal armament.

My instinct is that they would still vote republican ... just to be contrary.

Oh come now. If Republicans suddenly took on a pro-choice platform, do you believe any significant number of Democrats would suddenly convert?

Obviously not many people are single issue voters. Only the loud, obnoxious ones. :p
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PING
Does that mean individual can bear arm or the _State_ armed forces only?
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Originally posted by: Dynamite
People are free to carry guns for protection in the USA and yet, they have the highest crime rates in the world. A gun is not an "equalizer".

If people learn forms of self defense, don't go out at night and stay in groups, the crime rate will drop significantly.

Although the media portrays these crimes as happening so very frequently, the truth is that < 10% of all violent crimes happen randomly from a random stranger. 90% of the time, the crimes occur because of situations that the person put themself in, through the places they go, the people they associate with and the activities they engage in.

Letting people carry guns is not the solution.
Pure ignorance. Way to go blaming the victims... "just stay home like a good citizen should." :roll:

And the USA does not have the highest crime rates in the world. That's pure bullsh!t.

Letting people carry guns IS part of the solution. And the highest law of the land. Deal with it.

It's part of the solution, education should always come first when it comes to lower violent crime rates, IMHO.
 

JACKHAMMER

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,870
0
76
Someonr find the stat that shows if you have a gun in the house, it is several times more likely to be used on oneself or a family member than a criminal. Personally, I WOULD NOT feel any safer (in fact less so) if gun laws were more lax. You want guns, fine keep them at home (see 1st part of post), but please do not carry them around. We are uch a gun obsessed country it is sickening.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Tab
It's part of the solution, education should always come first when it comes to lower violent crime rates, IMHO.
Education is (and should be) a part of every solution. But you cannot force people to learn. They either do or they don't, by their own choice. How many people here demanded cliffs?
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: K1052
Our drug laws cause the violence problem, not the guns.

Every time that a carry law is considered in a state the anti-gun lobby comes out and touts the exact same "streets run red with the blood of innocents" bs that you just posted. Such a situation never actually materializes when the laws are passed though.
In fact, the opposite is true. Everytime a carry law is passed, violent crime goes DOWN. And everytime a gun control law is passed, violent crime goes up. And why not? Laws do not stop criminals, but they do stop law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

Two more things:

1) Will the gun nuts please stop arguing this point like it's relevent? The 2nd amendment was designed to ensure the MILITIA (not jim bob cooter & his AK-47) was able to keep and bear arms so a despot leader couldn't use the armed forces to enforce his will on the citizenry, and in effect, become a tyrant. It has nothing to do with "crime" as discussed in millions of these debates, and it most certainly has nothing to do with every redneck owning a small arsenal in his garage for "self defense & deer hunting".

2) P&N. Seriously. NOW. (pls move/lock it mods)

Just thinking out loud, how did the militia work back then? IIRC, any male of fighting age could/did belong and they brought their *own gun*.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,455
19,924
146
Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Someonr find the stat that shows if you have a gun in the house, it is several times more likely to be used on oneself or a family member than a criminal. Personally, I WOULD NOT feel any safer (in fact less so) if gun laws were more lax. You want guns, fine keep them at home (see 1st part of post), but please do not carry them around. We are uch a gun obsessed country it is sickening.

That "stat" is one of the largest frauds from the gun control camp.

Read this to understand why:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html