A well regulated Militia

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 19:29
VIEWED: 8360
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Thursday, May 11, 2006 7:46 PM (P)

The meaning of the Right to Bear Arms

Hello all,

The Constitution was written with a rather interesting provision. It says "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."

Now, most people who pay attention to my posts know that I am an advocate of gun (and other) weapon ownership. They know that I have carried a weapon for sport and defense. They know I feel strongly about the right of the individual to protect themselves.

However, given all of these facts... I also must admit that the Constitution appears to grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms only by an accident of wording. I do not believe the federalists intended to protect the right of individuals to have armaments or firearms. I also do not believe it occurred to them that such a right would need protecting. I honestly think they were referring to actual state-run militias when they wrote the second ammendment.

Now, I can't believe very many (if any) of the Federalists who wrote the constitution thought that a man ought to be disallowed to carry a rifle for hunting, or a dirk or pistol for defense. But because the idea of completely disarming the population was so far from their minds, I really feel the 2nd ammendment only protects this right entirely by accident. Because of this, I fear for our right to keep and bear arms, because we are one interpretation ruling away from losing it.

What do you all think?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Thursday, May 11, 2006 7:58 PM (P)

I think the right to bear arms entails a lot of personal responsibility, and that also means a level of awareness that would heighten intelligent thought to a degree.
That's never a good thing in your subjects.

So yeah, they'll take away the right first chance they git.

Semi-facetious Chrisisall

KHYRON

Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:41 PM (P)

On principle, I'm opposed to gun ownership, but having grown up in a country that's ripe with violent crime and senseless murder (South Africa), I have to admit that my principles on this are a bit detached from reality. Banning personal gun ownership just gives the people who will then own guns illegally (which will mostly be criminals) an even clearer advantage.

Plus, if one as an ordinary, usually law-abiding citizen still keeps guns (illegally), and then uses a gun to defend oneself against burglars that have malicious intent, then one will be in even more trouble later on. Just look at how many rights criminals already have these days, as was already dicussed in another thread - defending oneself with an illegal weapon will just result in the victim of the crime being locked up and the criminal being let off the hook.

I'm reminded of the sketch Family Guy did on this:
Founding fathers around a table, one of them is holding up the Bill of Rights
FF1: "Alright, we're done!"
FF2: "Do you think the language in the second Amendment is clear enough? You know, about the right to bear arms?"
FF3: "Of course it's clear! Every Amercian has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall, how can that possibly be misconstrued?"
FF1: "Alright, fantastic then. Wait, you know what? Before we send this to the printer, let's take that abortion thing out..."

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

CHRISMOORHEAD

Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:00 PM (P)

I'm all for the "natural process" interpretation of this. In the end, anyone who doesn't know how to operate a firearm will die, and only the best of those that do will live. See? Everyone's happy.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:33 PM (P)

"I'm all for the "natural process" interpretation of this. In the end, anyone who doesn't know how to operate a firearm will die, and only the best of those that do will live. See? Everyone's happy."

Actually, the use of firearms is quite the opposite of Darwin's Natural Selection.

One might argue that in the past, when the weapon of choice was a dagger or sword or club or even bare fists, that the strongest or most skilled would absolutely dominate the weaker and less skilled.

The reason some called the Peacemaker the 'Equalizer,' and the reason that they said 'God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal' is because you no longer had to be stronger or have superior martial training in order to protect your rights. Anyone with basic instruction could operate a firearm with an even chance of success at close range.

I recall one such encounter from my youth, reported in the Miami Herald. An elderly wheelchair-bound lady was beset by a burglar who was wheeling her about her house, demanding that she point out the locations of items of value, on pain of death. At an opportune moment, the lady produced a firearm from under the blanket in her lap, and dispatched the burglar. It is almost certain that she was in no physical condition to persevere against her aggressor had she not been armed with a firearm.

I wish I had a clipping of that article. It gave me a gratifying sense of justice.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:18 PM (P)

I agree, gun control is one of the few issues that I have a Conservative view of. The fact that so many lawmakers and whiners seem to forget is that criminals by definition do not adhere to the law so making a law that says no one can have guns just means that only criminals will have guns.

"Gun control means using both hands" - Bumper Sticker

"When guns are outlawed my sword collection will make me feel safer" - random text file I found on the 'net

CHRISMOORHEAD

Friday, May 12, 2006 6:18 AM (P)

Not that I'm taking offense, but I don't recall saying anything about Darwin. Obviously, the confusion is in the fact that I used a term like "natural process", but I'm more than aware of the ability of firearms to make people equal.

My point is that in the long run, it is the people who have better discipline with the weapon who will be left, and anybody that those people decide are worth keeping alive. Wow, it sounds so harsh saying it like that, but isn't that the reality of any nation? If we as a people didn't provide services for the incapable, they would die, right?

Well, I'm going further into this than I really want to. As tounge and cheek as my first response was, I'm an avid supporter of the freedom to bear arms. Usually, the big argument I hear in opposition is about innocent people dying, and I suppose I was trying to make an extreme statement to sum up a sad life fact: Those who don't prepare, die.

HERO

Friday, May 12, 2006 2:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What do you all think?

Who needs the 2nd Amendment? Most state Constitutions, like mine here in Ohio...the best of all the States, 'have a right to bear arms' clause that is not so poorly worded. Ohio's leaves out the frilly language and is essentially just 'right to bear arms'. Then there's Texas, which is essentially 'have gun, will travel'. So who needs the stupid 2nd Amendment anyway?

I did recently notice that the Federal law prohibiting weapons within 1000 yards of a school makes nearly the entire City of Cleveland a gun free zone. Not that most people noticed. It'll be overturned on those grounds alone.

H

ZISKER

Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:28 PM (P)

I believe that they'll come and take our books away ala Fahrenheit 451 before they take our guns away. Why?

1. The NRA and other gun lobbyists are very powerful. Never underestimate the sway of cold hard cash in a politician's pocket. Librarians make far less in terms of funds.

2. The logistics of removing every gun from every home. Books don't shoot. People do.

3. If you really want to get paranoid, most people (not all, but many) in the military love their guns. LOVE their guns. And know how to operate them. And wouldn't take kindly to someone saying they couldn't have their toys at home. This would be a problem. Not so many are as fond of literature (or, such has been my experience).

So I don't think the Second Amendment is going away any time soon.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/
http://forum.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

CAUSAL

Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:40 PM (P)

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, 1786

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 14, 2006 10:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, 1786

So the Constitution prevents amputation?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

CAUSAL

Monday, May 15, 2006 1:54 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So the Constitution prevents amputation?

Exactly!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

PIRATENEWS

Monday, May 15, 2006 2:20 AM (P)

Quote:
Tennessee Constitution

Section 24. That the sure and certain defense of a free people, is a well regulated militia; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to freedom, they ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and safety of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority.

Section 25. That no citizen of this State, except such as are employed in the army of the United States, or militia in actual service, shall be subjected to punishment under the martial or military law. That martial law, in the sense of the unrestricted power of military officers, or others, to dispose of the persons, liberties or property of the citizen, is inconsistent with the principles of free government, and is not confined to any department of the government of this State.

Section 26. That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Section 27. That no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.

Section 28. That no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law.

Constitutional Law terrifies most judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers, apparently because it's so powerful in overruling Communist laws in USSA. I quoted the state and fed Constitutions in my defense brief to a traffic ticket for safe driving at 5mph, so the prosecutors dismissed their own case and paid all court costs. Read the successful defense arguments, plus a link to Deals Gap Militia at bottom of page:
www.dealsgapdragon.com

Democratic Militias know how to treat their elected representatives...

Quote:
"These militia covenants were voluntary associations, explicitly founded to defend a way of life. Most agreed to elect their officers by majority vote, and to be bound by 'equal laws' of their own making. Professional soldiers smiled indulgently at the sight of the New England militia on its training days. They laughed contemptuously at the awkward drill, hooted the clumsy marching, and howled with laughter at the bizarre Yankee custom of saluting an officer by discharging a blank-loaded musket at his feet."
—David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere's Ride
www.amazon.com

US citizens own modern muskets firing 6,000 bullets per second

Well why don'tcha put HER in charge?!
-Bill Paxton, Aliens

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, May 15, 2006 7:12 PM (P)

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.

The Milita, as Constitutionally expressed, means every person in the country old enough to pick up and use a firearm.

EVERYONE
Period.

Thus, it was exactly intended to ensure that the state and/or FedGov never, ever outgunned "the people" and in fact the intention as expressed in the Federalist/AntiFederalist debates and papers was that the citizens should OUTGUN any standing army raised.

So read The Federalist Papers, and The AntiFederalist Papers (easy enough to google em, I've posted the links a couple times already) for more details on this issue.

WE, are the milita, We-The-People, that means us, when it says militia.

Just so ya know,
-F

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:31 AM (P)

Hey, PirateNews, where'd you get that awesome picture?

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 7:19 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Hey, PirateNews, where'd you get that awesome picture?

Yeah, that's a winner. I bet everyone screams like that the first time they shoot one.

No website, just an index to pirate:
http://home.nc.rr.com/shayden/

Do a Google image search for "miniguns". I used to work on those things in USAF, and now I'm starting to at least look at them again. They aren't too expensive, either, so far as men's toys go. Bullets, however, can get pricey after a few seconds, unless you have a 22 rimfire Gatling Gun.

The psychos in Gangsta Govt have hijacked most of the guns. Now it's time for sane people to defend themselves, one way or another.

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

LANCER

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:52 PM (P)

I am very pro-gun, esspesally being Libritarian i belive someone should be able to own a gun if they want, (unless under specific circumstances) Guns are vital to self defense, and if guns where outlawed, only outlaws would own them and crime rates would SKYROCKET!

Well, here I am

ANTHONYT

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:35 AM (P)

Citizen and I had an interesting conversation about this on another thread.

Apparently the British system results in MORE CRIME but with FEWER DEATHS while the American system results in MORE DEATHS but with FEWER CRIMES. Essentially, their crimes are more numerous (per capita), but our crimes are more lethal.

After discussing it with him, I now finally understand the British view. They are not unlike Ghandi or Christ, willing to take an individual whallop if it reduces the number of people slain in society at large.

I am, sadly, not very Christ-like. I don't want to disarm. I'd rather make an attempt to defend myself.

So, for those that agree with my point of view, here are some random heartwarming anecdotes of successful self-defense, collected from 1990-2000. This is part of a list of 1080 recorded cases of firearms being used in self defense collected by the Healy Law Office in Tyler, Texas:

***********

Bill Hazen was in his cabin near Bakersfield, Calif., shortly after midnight when an intruder forced a sliding glass door. The Los Angeles minister was armed and ordered the man outside. During an ensuing scuffle the attacker ran, but an accomplice appeared in a pickup truck and tried to run down Hazen. The minister fired at the advancing truck and when the vehicle stopped, its occupant got out and said, "I counted six shots; you're out and now I'm going to get you." Hazen fired his large-capacity semi-automatic once more, dropping his adversary. Both men were taken into custody by sheriff's deputies. (The Californian, Bakersfield, Calif. 10/25/89)

Wilson Brown, 84, and his wife were watching television in their Pittsburgh, Pa., home when a man climbed through their apartment window. The intruder wanted money, and Brown gave him $2--all he had. But the robber wasn't satisfied, and he put a knife to the wife's throat and demanded more. Brown went to the bedroom, returned with a revolver and fired on his wife's assailant. He let go of her and jumped out the window. (The Press, Pittsburgh, Pa. 9/22/89)

New York, N.Y., businessman Richard Rand was walking from his car to his house when a man ran up behind him and tried to grab his money bag. The robber hit Rand over the head and threw ammonia in his face, but Rand managed to draw his licensed revolver and fatally shoot his attacker. (The Post, New York, N.Y. 9/28/89)

Paul Green was on his way to buy cigarettes at a Hot Springs, Ark., gas station when he spotted the flash from a large knife in the attendant's cubicle. Armed with a handgun, Green investigated and found a knife-wielding thug stealing money. He told the man to freeze, but the robber tried to stab him. Green fired once, killing the masked would-be thief--a parolee with a long record of violent crime. The female station attendant was not injured. (The Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock, Ark. 10/28/89)

"Give me all you got, buddy," a knife-wielding robber ordered Anderson, Ind., resident Link Oliver as he walked down the street. The 61-year-old man responded by drawing a handgun. Oliver tried to lead his adversary to a nearby store, but the man dropped the knife and ran away. (The HeraldlBulletin, Anderson,lnd. 10/10/89)

Bruce Paquette and a friend were hunting in the vicinity of Merrimack, N.H., when they came across a group of vandals ransacking a car. The hunters ordered the foursome to stop and held them at gunpoint until police arrived to take them into custody. (The Monitor, Concord, N.H. 10/16/89)

A pregnant Weverton, Md., woman was washing the dishes when she heard a doorknob rattling. She saw a ski-masked man trying to break in, and she raced to a bedroom to grab her husband's revolver. While she was on the phone to police, the prowler broke out a kitchen window to gain entry. The 23-year-old woman fired a shot into the floor; the man fled. (The Morning Herald, Hagerstown, Md. 11/2/89)

Joseph Mills' wife awoke when she heard noises outside their Ashland, Va., home. She alerted her husband, and they watched a man who'd been standing on their porch go to a

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:37 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am, sadly, not very Christ-like. I don't want to disarm. I'd rather make an attempt to defend myself.

I'd rather succeed but to each his own

KWICKO

Thursday, May 18, 2006 4:19 AM (P)

My philosophy on guns is this:

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

And to me, "gun control" means hitting what you're aiming at! :)

Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...

LANCER

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:31 PM (P)

their is nothing unChristlike about defending yourself

Well, here I am

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 4:12 PM (P)

These took some digging folks, but it's well worth it.

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 government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
-Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

The word 'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the saber, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.
-English v State, Texas 473, 476 (1871-2).

That means, yes, the 2nd Amendment means durn well that if you wanna mount a 105mm in your front yard, by all means, be our guest.

Still think our Gov gives a damn about that document?

-F

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:27 PM (P)

So you can have a musket, but a 9mm auto loader is right out. That's good to know, only 18th century weapons are constitutionally protected, everything else can be taken away.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:03 PM (P)

I could be happy with a brace of pistols and a cutlass. Arr!

Will you concede the percussion cap? I like an all-weather ignition system. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FLATTOP

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:00 PM (P)

The wording of the 2nd ammendment was no accident. Further reading from the period in which it was written indicates that every able bodied (capable of lifting, loading, discharging a weapon) male (sorry ladies, we are talking about 1700's (even today women are not permitted in front line combat positions (which is not to say they do not see combat))) constituted the malitia.
Every time the U.S. Constitution uses the word Power, it is referring to the State. When it uses the word Right, it is referring to "The People".
"The People" mentioned in the 2nd ammendment are the same "the People" from the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th ammendments. Unless you are willing to propose that the entire Bill of Rights lists only things the State may do, we all get to keep our weapons.
The 2nd ammendment was put into the Constitution specifically to provide the People with the means to overthrow the Government, should it prove to be tyranical. Our right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting for food. It has to do with each of us possessing the means to take human life. It is intended to make the government fear the people.
From the Declaration of Independence, "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes desttructive of these Ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
There is an ancient Roman (or is it Greeek?) law that reads in effect, "All citizens must be armed. No subjects may ever bear arms."

Walt Disney said it quite eloquently, "K-K-K-Blam! Elimination. Lack of education."

As an aside:
The Star Trek Next Gen movie where they rescued the really old (near immortal) folk from wherever it was contained the following exchange:
Capt. Picard, "We can beam down sufficient weapons to arm all of you."
Woman, "We will not fight. It would mean abandoning everything we stand for."
And then the STNG crew get them selves shot at trying to save them.
It is my opinion that if you are unwilling to fight for your own survival, you do not deserve protection. Unable to fight, even being a liability if you try to help those who defend you, I can forgive. Being able, and unwilling... you have chosen death.

Do you know what your sin is Captain?
Aww Hell. I'm a big fan of all seven.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:13 PM (P)

Personally, I support the right to own guns, but I also think they should be registered, and that ownership should involve proper education.

The problem is, there are too many loons on either side of the debate (which is true in any issue these days, it seems). On the one hand, you have those who want all guns banned, which is impractical and a violation of our rights. On the other, you have the people who think they need several machine guns or assault rifles for personal defense, many of whome are just flat-out gun fetishists.

I thought things were doing pretty well for a while - then Bush decided to (against the advice of just about every agency but the NRA) let assault rifles off the banned list. Since then, I know at least 3 guys (who, though friends, I'd class as gun-fetishists) have bought assault rifles, which were unregistered, and converted them illegaly to fully-automatic. Now, these are guys I trust not to use them dangerously, but if I persoanlly know of 3 people to do this in the span of a few months, I shudder to think of who else might be working on simmilar projects.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WORKEROFEVIL

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:54 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Lancer:
their is nothing unChristlike about defending yourself

In regards to this statement, defending yourself kind of its unChristlike. He says if someone hits you, turn the other cheek. If someone tries to take your shirt give your coat, too. Supposedly you'll be provided with the riches you deserve in Heaven. Meanwhile, you'll be cold and bruised here on Earth, but too bad.

As to the gun issue, I think we need more regulation on who can get guns. In order to purchase a gun, you should first be required to take a training course in gun safety and proper use. Someone included a list of cases of people defending themselves with guns. The list of accidental shootings is much, much longer. Safety is vital when it comes to guns. Also, a handgun is sufficient for defending yourself. There's no rational reason to own an assault rifle. People just want them because they think they're fun and cool and oh so destructive. Personally, I'd love to see ALL guns completely eradicated. Also all bombs and missiles and such. Seeing as I'm not an idiot, I know that won't happen so I'd at least like to see more control over the sale of guns. Mandatory training courses (as said above), background checks, and registration that needs to be updated every year. This is so people can't shoot someone and then claim that there gun was stolen months ago they just hadn't gotten around to reporting it. There's my two cents.

PIRATEJENNY

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:01 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

The meaning of the Right to Bear Arms

Hello all,

The Constitution was written with a rather interesting provision. It says "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."

Now, most people who pay attention to my posts know that I am an advocate of gun (and other) weapon ownership. They know that I have carried a weapon for sport and defense. They know I feel strongly about the right of the individual to protect themselves.

However, given all of these facts... I also must admit that the Constitution appears to grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms only by an accident of wording. I do not believe the federalists intended to protect the right of individuals to have armaments or firearms. I also do not believe it occurred to them that such a right would need protecting. I honestly think they were referring to actual state-run militias when they wrote the second ammendment.

Now, I can't believe very many (if any) of the Federalists who wrote the constitution thought that a man ought to be disallowed to carry a rifle for hunting, or a dirk or pistol for defense. But because the idea of completely disarming the population was so far from their minds, I really feel the 2nd ammendment only protects this right entirely by accident. Because of this, I fear for our right to keep and bear arms, because we are one interpretation ruling away from losing it.

What do you all think?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I think fire arms does more harm then good, if your a hunter you should only be able to borrow a gun, and return it after your finished using it for hunting purposes only.

As for the country having an armed Milita, its useless, actually it could be considered a joke and everytime I hear someone make a statement that they need a gun because they might have to protect themselves from the government I laugh, maybe back in the 17 and 1800's that would have worked, but lets say a pistol or a shot gun going up against a tank or a machine gun its just not going to do much good.

PDCHARLES

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:59 AM (P)

Quote:

My philosophy on guns is this:

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

god speak
It is about personal power. Someone threatening you can have the power to take away your life and others you may love. I have no belief system which makes me think this person has that right. You can stay sober and not drive drunk but that doesn’t prevent someone else from plowing into your car after a few martinis. Using tools to protect ourselves is ancient and guns are just another form. We shouldn’t strip ourselves of civil power, it has been done enough.

Quote:

As for the country having an armed Milita, its useless, actually it could be considered a joke and everytime I hear someone make a statement that they need a gun because they might have to protect themselves from the government I laugh, maybe back in the 17 and 1800's that would have worked, but lets say a pistol or a shot gun going up against a tank or a machine gun its just not going to do much good.

and for those FOR banning guns:

“We the people” is right Fremd. If there is truly a need to bear arms and use them against the government. Wouldn’t it be a majority rule situation? Weren’t they imagining the majority of people in the country disagree with the minority that’s in power.

Serious evidence of a tyrannical gov’t would result in public outrage, followed by civil unrest. ...and could possibly be solved without countrymen firing upon one another. But just the government itself. Wouldn’t a gov’t divide into different factions and break apart depending on the degree of tyranny and the number of people involved. How many members of the military do you think are gonna run raids into neighborhoods and execute bombing missions against towns if the majority disagrees. The entire military is not brainwashed. Our military is so privatized citizens have key knowledge of many systems. Yes, third world countries are still having governments run wild in recent times. Well for one, MOST of the citizens don’t have guns…. money, knowledge, and sometimes food. Not the case here.

So... if it was balanced opposition, it would be a civil war. There again a need for personal protection. Say the demos and repubs just started a war for some unknown reason. It seems then in a case of civil war, resources would then divide, maybe unevenly. This includes defense. I highly doubt that neighborhood enthusiasts are gonna have to suit up and defend themselves against tanks. But face-to-face personal confrontations are likely to happen in a multitude of scenarios involving a breakdown of a gov’t. U either have the power or you don’t.

I don’t even want to imagine that ever happening and it IS real hard sitting in AC and on the PC. I just would hate to legislate something that could prevent a future generation from having personal protection.

Now there are possible scenarios for extreme needs for personal firearms. Any major catastrophic natural disaster (pick your favorite) could warrant the need. 10 cases of food 80 people to feed. Etc etc etc……

Oh… I am a liberal and have one gun.

Wha?!?... *sniff sniff* OH.... IM ON FIRE!!!

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:25 AM (P)

Quote:
"I thought things were doing pretty well for a while - then Bush decided to (against the advice of just about every agency but the NRA) let assault rifles off the banned list. Since then, I know at least 3 guys (who, though friends, I'd class as gun-fetishists) have bought assault rifles, which were unregistered, and converted them illegaly to fully-automatic. Now, these are guys I trust not to use them dangerously, but if I persoanlly know of 3 people to do this in the span of a few months, I shudder to think of who else might be working on simmilar projects."

***THE ASSAULT RIFLE BAN***

Here's the thing about assault rifles... They weren't banned by the Assault Rifle Ban. Rifles that bear a physical resemblance to certain Assault Rifles were banned from import, and native Rifles that bore a physical resemblance to certain Assault Rifles were required to look less like certain Assault Rifles and have smaller magazines.

I'll stop here to educate the public. ;-) Any semiautomatic weapon can be modified to fire in fully automatic mode by someone who knows what they are doing. This includes ordinary pistols which were NEVER designed for that purpose. You can take a Colt Pistol manufactured in 1911 and modify it to be fully automatic. However, that doesn't make all semiautomatic weapons assault rifles. If you gave a Brady Bill 'assault rifle' to any military organization on the planet and called it an Assault Rifle, you'd get laughed at. As an example of the ludicrousness of the Assault Weapons Ban, look at the Mini-14. The Ruger company makes a rifle called the Mini-14 (and Mini-30) which is frequently used for hunting. But if you change the styling of the stock and put a large magazine on it, it looks more threatening and becomes banned. The common man now thinks of it as an 'Assault Rifle,' some mythical weapon of war designed to smite the masses. A rifle is a rifle. Only a weapon manufactured as a fully automatic rifle can be classed as an Assault Rifle, and only a human being can choose to make any rifle dangerous. 'Scary' appearance and magazine size have nothing to do with it.

The only practical restriction placed by the Assault Rifle Ban was the limit of weapons magazine manufacture and import to magazines with a 10 cartridge capacity. This made sense from the point of view that a maniac with a rifle who opened fire in a public place was limited to killing 10 people before having to reload. Except that maniacs with rifles who open fire in public places have been known to reload, even with high capacity magazines. The limiting factor on armed maniacs in public places is armed non-maniacs in public places.

***THE TRUE NATURE OF GUN CONTROL***

I used to be an advocate of gun control. I used to think that people should have to take classes and pass tests on gun safety before being allowed to own guns. I also used to think that certain guns should be withheld from the public. Fully automatic weapons don't seem necessary for the common citizen (though I can attest to firing legal automatics, and they are a lot of fun to shoot... Just darned expensive.)

But it became clear to me that gun-control advocates were not interested in achieving safe gun use. They were rather interested in eliminating gun use entirely. This forced me to abandon my reasonable position on the subject and stand on the opposite end of the spectrum. A gun safety test could be engineered in such a way as to make it difficult to pass, as opposed to making sure the test-taker knew gun safety. A limit on one type of firearm could begin the slippery slope to banning them all.

If I believed that gun-control advocates wanted to protect my right to be armed, then I would support them. But that is not their interest. They want to 'chip away' at gun ownership until it is impossible to own guns. They want to be sure that only criminals are armed. They cite as a perfect model the United Kingdom, where violent crime is up, but murders are down. A country where it is consider

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:34 AM (P)

Well I'm not reading any of this thread (I need sleep), but since I was asked what I think in the first post, which I did read, I shall answer.

The United States Supreme Court held that a certain type of weapon was not protected under the Second Amendment because it could not be shown to be necessary or indeed helpful in the maintenance of the militia.

The only interpretation I can take from that is that a weapon is only protected if it helps the militia, and the Supreme Court has never overturned that ruling. Since the Militia is dead and gone it seems like the Second Amendment is as dead and gone as the 3/5ths compromise.

However lesser courts have gone in all kinds of directions.

Personally I think we have to, first and foremost, remember what "arms" means. If we say that we simply have the flat out right to bear arms we have a problem, because "arms" covers everything from sharp sticks to ICBMs.

No one I know of thinks we should all walk around with a suitcase nuke or be able to take out Paris at a moments notice with just the push of a button. Similarly I doubt that there is a strong movement to do away with forks and steak knives just because they happen to be deadly weapons in even the least experienced hands.

So there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the question is where.

I, personally, like guns, I really do. I love the way they feel in your hands and the satisfaction of actually destroying what you were aiming at, but I'm not sure I see the use of some of the bigger ones.

You can go out hunting and kill anything that lives without a gun, if you are so incompetent as to need a firearm I fail to see the sport in killing it, if you're doing it for food you still don't need a gun to do it.

But what I really don't understand is why someone would want some of the arsenals they take with them to kill something that can't hurt them except at very close range. A bow will do the trick nicely, a simple rifle even better, enough firepower to clear a hamlet is overkill.

I see the same thing with self defense, if you're getting into a position where you need a semi-automatic rifle and a hell of a lot of bullets I don't think you'll make it out even with the gun because if you can't get them all in 50 shots what makes you think you'll live to see 200?

So it seems to me that there is a level of gun where it really isn't needed for civilians. I still like those guns, but I'd be quite content to keep all of the ammunition for such guns safely locked up in firing ranges and other such regulated places and have it be illegal to take any of the ammunition out of the place.

You don't need any kind of gun to feed yourself, and there is a level of gun that you don't need to defend yourself, so the only reason to have it (other than the less than honest ones) is sport, and for that you don't need the ability to carry the ammo with you anywhere other than a range or competition.

-

I have a feeling an animal rights activist will want to kill me for saying that you don't need to use guns, and I do agree that blowing an animal's brains out is probably more polite than killing it in any other way, but it doesn't change the fact that some people hunt very effectively with bows and enough people do it that there is a bow season. Yeah, the things they kill, deer mostly I think, probably do suffer more, but that's a complexity I'll think on another time.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:02 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by pdcharles:
It is about personal power. Someone threatening you can have the power to take away your life and others you may love. I have no belief system which makes me think this person has that right. You can stay sober and not drive drunk but that doesn’t prevent someone else from plowing into your car after a few martinis. Using tools to protect ourselves is ancient and guns are just another form. We shouldn’t strip ourselves of civil power, it has been done enough.

So it's okay to drink and drive because someone else might? Excuse me for thinking thats a little insane.

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisTheCynic:
Yeah, the things they kill, deer mostly I think, probably do suffer more, but that's a complexity I'll think on another time.

I doubt it. A bow would cause no more suffering than a bullet if used correctly, and it's just as easy to incorrectly operate a gun to cause a slow and painful death.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

PDCHARLES

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:21 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by pdcharles:
It is about personal power. Someone threatening you can have the power to take away your life and others you may love. I have no belief system which makes me think this person has that right. You can stay sober and not drive drunk but that doesn’t prevent someone else from plowing into your car after a few martinis. Using tools to protect ourselves is ancient and guns are just another form. We shouldn’t strip ourselves of civil power, it has been done enough.
So it's okay to drink and drive because someone else might? Excuse me for thinking thats a little insane.

An interesting take...
To elaborate... No matter how good YOU are, someone else does not have to be. Does not mean YOU have to reduce your own level of civil responsibility. Just like I will not reduce my level of funds in my savings account, but Johnny crack-head on the street just might. So, I won't drink and drive 'cause I have a hunch someone else is. But, I'll prepare myself for a bad confrontation with another person. Why should we prevent someone from doing that?

Since u cannot control others actions, you must take control of what you can. No, not alliance type control... But maybe some other human being's actions and how that may affect you living or NOT. U may be able to prevent someone from shooting you by having a gun. Without having a gun you might get shot. Just like driving there are no guarantees when dealing with guns. But people buy Volvos to prepare for the worse.

Wha?!?... *sniff sniff* OH.... IM ON FIRE!!!

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:26 PM (P)

Volvos aren't particularly safe, actually, so maybe it's the false illusion of safety they want, not the safety itself.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:26 PM (P)

Hi all,

I'm not so sure about this 'hunting with a bow' argument. Sure, you can hunt with a bow, a spear, or even a blunt stick.

But while I am not a hunter, I have to believe that there is a practical reason the western world switched to firearms as far back as 200 years ago. These were people who hunted for food and pelts. They preferred a musket. I have to believe there were some inherent advantages to the firearm, and I'm not prepared to call these people incompetant because they abandoned the bow.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:34 PM (P)

"if you can't get them all in 50 shots what makes you think you'll live to see 200?

So it seems to me that there is a level of gun where it really isn't needed for civilians."

I have to agree on principle here. I think the purpose of defense does not require anything more advanced than a single-action revolver. I've often believed that it is almost always the first couple of bullets, and almost never the last couple of bullets, that make the difference in a firefight.

That having been said, I still oppose all these sound and logical proposed limits on firearms. This is because gun control isn't about safe gun use. It's about no gun use. If the gun control advocates wanted to give me a guaranteed minimum level of gun ownership, I'd be more keen to support them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:44 PM (P)

I have no problem with people owning rifles or shot guns. But no one can convince me that there is any reason to own a handgun or an automatic weapon.

You do not hunt for food with either. The only thing you would kill with these types of weapons ia another human being. (Oh I grant you, a snake-as my brother used to do with his handgun)

And when the writers of the constituion gave us the "right to bear arms" I am certain they were not referencing ICBM or bazookas.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:16 PM (P)

"I have no problem with people owning rifles or shot guns. But no one can convince me that there is any reason to own a handgun or an automatic weapon."

Well, it's pretty ungainly to carry a double-barrel shotgun everywhere to ward off muggers, but hey, people used to carry three-foot-long swords everywhere they went, so I'm game.

Is this the minimum level of gun ownership you're prepared to grant?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:21 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
[B
Is this the minimum level of gun ownership you're prepared to grant?

I am not sure one should be carrying a gun to ward off a mugger. Sounds like a recipe for the stupid leading the stupid.

And yes, at least until I can be convinced there is a reason for a civilan to own anything else.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:28 PM (P)

Well, seems to me I'm less likely a target of a mugging if I've got a shotgun slung over my shoulder. (Or a revolver on my hip, but it seems you prefer ungainly weapons.)

Well, I can shoot man and beast with a shotgun, as necessary. I can also clobber with the stock. It's pretty versatile.

If you want to lobby for a constitutional ammendment to secure my right to own and carry a shotgun wherever I go, I'll get behind you.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:33 PM (P)

I am not going to lobby for your right to carry anything.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, June 1, 2006 4:59 PM (P)

And that's why I don't support gun control, however reasonable.

The goal is never to limit the weapons I can carry. It is to eliminate the weapons I can carry.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CAUSAL

Thursday, June 1, 2006 9:38 PM (P)

Haven't the time to read all the posts, but I thought I'd throw this in to stir the pot.

Quote:

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/specialreports/79388.php

From the Arizona Daily Star

Tucson, Arizona

Published: 06.12.2005

They're pulled from backyard pools and bathtubs each year, tiny limp bodies, blue and not breathing.

A young life can vanish quickly under water. A survivor can endure a lifetime of disabilities. Either way, families are torn apart by an almost always preventable tragedy.

Standard summer companions in our desert climate, swimming pools can be deadlier for children than guns. A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gunplay, writes Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago economics professor and best-selling author.

Levitt analyzed child deaths from residential swimming pools and guns and found one child under 10 drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. By comparison, one child under 10 each year is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns, according to his research, outlined in a new book "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything," which he co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.
In part because they are so familiar, swimming pools are less frightening than guns, Levitt writes.

But the danger is clear - drowning is the leading cause of accidental death for children younger than 5 in Arizona and the second-leading cause of injury-related death nationally among children younger than 15.

Water kills an average of three children each year in Tucson and, even with proper fences, swimming lessons and caution, danger lurks.
"Living with a swimming pool in your back yard is like living next to the Grand Canyon," said Dr. Bob Berg, a pediatric intensive specialist at University Medical Center and a UA professor. "You should never feel comfortable there."

So where's the drive to ban backyard swimming pools? They kill more kids than guns!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

EMMARIGBY

Thursday, June 1, 2006 9:50 PM (P)

Hhhm, I see where you're going with this. And yet, call me crazy but I'm not as afraid of being attacked by a back-yard swimming pool!

________________________________
Hisssssss!

CAUSAL

Thursday, June 1, 2006 10:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
Hhhm, I see where you're going with this. And yet, call me crazy but I'm not as afraid of being attacked by a back-yard swimming pool!

So were you planning to respond to the article's argument? Because it didn't ref attacks, it talked about danger to children. One of the key components of the gun-control/ban argument is the danger that firearms pose to children. This article points out that backyard pools are far more dangerous. My point: people accept the risk of the pool (even though it may kill their kids), but not the risk of a gun in the home.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

EMMARIGBY

Thursday, June 1, 2006 10:14 PM (P)

My apologies, you are right, I have not read the whole of this thread, just jumped in at the end because I spotted a post in the linear thread that leapt out at me. I'm sorry if I went off your original topic. I shall now butt out. However, I still don't think (after reading the thread) that my comment was entirely inapproprate. You cannot really only consider the danger of guns to children and disregard the threat to everyone else.

Sorry, that was supposed to be me shutting up. I'm off to bed now.

________________________________
Hisssssss!

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:00 PM (P)

It's okay to let nutters have guns so they can kill children in school because negligent parents let their kids die in swimming pools.

Yeah there's some sort of logic there.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

CAUSAL

Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's okay to let nutters have guns so they can kill children in school because negligent parents let their kids die in swimming pools.

Yeah there's some sort of logic there.

Well, I love how you ascribed advocacy of gun ownership to me, when I didn't even mention a position one way or the other. And I like how you sensationalized the issue while completely missing the point I was making. My point was simply this: people kick up a fuss over guns because they kill kids, but don't over pools, which are statistically more likely to kill kids. Now why would that be? I was trying to prompt discussion of that phenomenon, not make a case for or against private firearms ownership. How about next time you think about what I'm actually saying, instead of reacting emotionally to what you think I might be saying.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:18 PM (P)

Well twisting another person point of view into something it's not because then you can denigrate it is very right wing of you. You pick one of the many facets of the argument and say "yeah but swimming pools!"

Well frankly m'dear I think hunger kills more children than guns and swimming pools combined, as does disease, as does war, mainly through the use of guns, which is entirely irrelevant just like your 'point'.

And your bias is fairly self evident so how about you get off that high horse yeah. You want everyone to play your game, sorry no.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

PDCHARLES

Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:24 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's okay to let nutters have guns so they can kill children in school because negligent parents let their kids die in swimming pools.

Who is LETTING nutters have guns?

I am sure someone can find the facts on what type of incidents result in nutters killing kids in school. Was it a drive by? drug deals gone bad? ...or negligent parents again... are these black market guns or did the kids/nutters go buy them?

It seems most every vision of the future including Joss's (yes it is fiction) have weaponry and people acting the same old way... some good, some bad.. some bad killing the good and some good protecting themselves from the bad. Is this because authors are just so used to guns being around they cannot imagine a world without them or is it they understand human nature?

oh wait a minute "Demolition Man", vote now for Eutopia

Take a look at this thread... doesn't take much for people to go off today.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=21154

Wha?!?... *sniff sniff* OH.... IM ON FIRE!!!

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:33 PM (P)

Is this for or against? I've seen that thread, the guys unhinged and shouldn't be allowed near a plastic fork let alone a knife. That's the problem with weapons, they make people feel invincible and let them go around threatening people on the street, and it's often legal owners that do it too.

The nutter argument was based around the incident that spurred the British banning of concealable weapons, where some guy brought his legal weapons into a primary school and started shooting up the place.

I find it rather amusing that some people can't tell the difference between an accidental death and a murder.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

GUNRUNNER

Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So you can have a musket, but a 9mm auto loader is right out. That's good to know, only 18th century weapons are constitutionally protected, everything else can be taken away.

I don't know a Minié ball can do a lot of damage to a man.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

PDCHARLES

Friday, June 2, 2006 12:16 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Is this for or against?

For...

When I was a freshman in high school there was a police raid executed and they found two pistols in lockers. Both were legal guns under the law. But, they were obtained on the street and were stolen. Just not sure if we made laws to ban guns completely we would be any better off. Yeah, take the existing guns and try to dispose of them. I’m sure thousands would somehow slip through the cracks into the wrong hands. (not saying that is your stance)

So, in the thread he used a knife... if we banned all guns what would be the next solution... he could of rammed him with his car. In fact, he could have come up with a lot of creative ways to damage the car. Anything short of becoming the Borg is not gonna change all of our ways in regards to violence. Believe me, I am all for a less barbaric society. I just think the people lobbying for gun bans could focus on some of the hotpoints you pointed out earlier like famine and disease. Ban the gun, here comes the laser

Are the majority of children dying from guns in the age range (mentioned in the article) murders or accidental deaths due to negligence?

The other part about "visions of the future" was just an attempt to expand the topic. So if we DID or DID NOT ban personal weapons, how would the future look?

Wha?!?... *sniff sniff* OH.... IM ON FIRE!!!

CAUSAL

Friday, June 2, 2006 12:39 AM (P)

Citizen--

Shoot--I was hoping I could get the left-wing thing out of there before you saw it. That was just plain a low blow, and for that I apologize.

Honestly, though, I wish that you would hear what I am actually saying: I'm curious as to what people think of the whole swimming pool thing. Myself, personally, I think only a fool would use that to advocate in favor of private gun ownership (and that's not what I'm doing by putting it up there). Obviously, no one is going to lobby to make private swimming pools illegal (even though they are clearly dangerous). So what I'm wondering is, why do people use the "it's dangerous for kids" argument against guns (in view of the fact that there are other, more dangerous things out there)? Anybody have any thoughts on that? Seriously; what do you think?

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CAUSAL

Friday, June 2, 2006 12:43 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well twisting another person point of view into something it's not because then you can denigrate it is very right wing of you. You pick one of the many facets of the argument and say "yeah but swimming pools!"

Also, I thought I'd point out--AGAIN--that I was trying to prompt discussion of a phenomenon, not make an objection based on the swimming pool statistic. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about that--I'm honestly just curious to hear what people think about that, not use it to weigh in on one side or the other.

Quote:

And your bias is fairly self evident...

So it's a well-informed opinion when it agrees with you, and "bias" when it doesn't? Is that how that works? Speaking of high horses...

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

ANTHONYT

Friday, June 2, 2006 2:21 AM (P)

Hey guys,

Proponents for and against gun guntrol use vivid imagery and anecdotal evidence to support their positions.

Banning Guns Argument? A couple of kids stole their grandpa's rifles, took them to school, and drilled their classmates full of holes. Or Gangstas drove past a mark and peppered the sidewalk with Tec-9 gunfire, killing 3 innocent bystanders and paralyzing an eight year old girl.

Tragedies.

Pro-Guns Argument? 30 year old woman shoots a man as he breaks down the front door of her home and advances on her. 60 year old man shoots a punk who threatened to carve him up with a knife. 28 year old man uses a gun to detain a naked home invader who broke in through his kids' bedroom window.

Victories.

We can imagine ourselves in any number of anecdotal situations. What father of a child shot dead wouldn't wish for guns to go away? What rape victim wouldn't wish for a revolver in their hand as they're being savaged?

It comes down to a tradeoff, apparently.

In a prolonged argument with Citizen, it was eventually shown that England has a higher rate of crime, including violent crime, than the US. But the US has a higher murder rate.

The United Kingdom has chosen to trade lives for crime. In the US, we seem to be trading crime for lives.

More people die here. More people are accosted there.

It is reasonable for someone to say, "It's worth having a higher risk of violent crime, in order to avoid more overall deaths." That is a fair and reasonable argument, and I am very glad that I finally understand the British position. There can be no doubt that their banning of guns (and all weapons, really) has reduced the number of lives needlessly lost.

But it is also reasonable for someone to say, "I don't want to be completely at the mercy of criminals. I want a chance to defend myself and my family if threatened."

I think these are both reasonable positions. Right now, my country allows me to hold the second position legally, and I am glad for it. Chances are I won't need to use a gun in my defense for the rest of my life. Chances are, if I was attacked unexpectedly, I wouldn't have the opportunity to defend myself before being subdued. But it's still an option. It's still a chance, if even only one chance in ten, that I can respond to a threat. That's the kind of option I want in my life.

As to the most recent question posed... Why do anti-gun activists always mention the threat of guns to children? Because it's the most effective anecdote possible. It's an anecdote that wrenches the heart, and changes minds. You're likely to hear pro-gun activists mention protecting their family for the same reason. The same gun that shot Billy could save Jane. And so it is the anectode that touches your heart more closely that will sway your opinion.

Perhaps the reason I advocate guns (and most weapons, really) is because I was accosted so often in my youth. I no longer desire to be powerless at the whim of a criminal. I suspect that the anti-gun crowd has similar feelings. They don't want to be powerless at the whim of a criminal...who is armed with a gun.

I believe that the anti-gun and pro-gun arguments share one thing in common. At their core, they are about retaining a degree of control and security in our lives. They are diametrically opposed paths to achieve the exact same result.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Friday, June 2, 2006 2:43 AM (P)

"Why do anti-gun activists always mention the threat of guns to children?"

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CAUSAL

Friday, June 2, 2006 2:48 AM (P)

[ sincerity ] Whoa. Anthony. Good post. [ /sincerity ]

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

RUE

Friday, June 2, 2006 2:55 AM (P)

A second argument - the second amendment is the only provisional one.

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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

The framers knew how to write unequivocal language, but chose not to. So, rather than assume those men didn't know what they were doing, rather than sliding over the words or reinterpreting them, we might attend to their meaning.

(PS I'm not anti-gun. But the arguments for 'arms' ownership are twisted by reflexive dogma.)

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CITIZEN

Friday, June 2, 2006 8:33 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Casual:
I'm curious as to what people think of the whole swimming pool thing. Myself, personally, I think only a fool would use that to advocate in favor of private gun ownership (and that's not what I'm doing by putting it up there). Obviously, no one is going to lobby to make private swimming pools illegal (even though they are clearly dangerous).

Why didn't you say something like this in your original post?

Quote:
So what I'm wondering is, why do people use the "it's dangerous for kids" argument against guns (in view of the fact that there are other, more dangerous things out there)? Anybody have any thoughts on that? Seriously; what do you think?

Because there’s a big difference between accidental death and death at the 'hands' of a deadly weapon.

Quote:
I'm honestly just curious to hear what people think about that, not use it to weigh in on one side or the other.

Yet despite your protestations you're phrasing your posts like a for argument...

Quote:
So it's a well-informed opinion when it agrees with you, and "bias" when it doesn't? Is that how that works? Speaking of high horses...

Bias merely means you have a side. True it's often used as a slur or insult ("your bias prevents you seeing the evidence") but in these circumstances I used it to point out that your phrasing and what you were bring to the table were obviously down from a pro-gun position, not a neutral one.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

CITIZEN

Friday, June 2, 2006 8:56 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
In a prolonged argument with Citizen, it was eventually shown that England has a higher rate of crime, including violent crime, than the US. But the US has a higher murder rate.

The United Kingdom has chosen to trade lives for crime. In the US, we seem to be trading crime for lives.

This is getting tiresome. This was not shown, you SAID that it was the case I disagreed and asked you to back it up, something you still have not done despite re-iterating your original statement several times since, often alluding to some sort of endorsement from me.

The following statement brings us closer to what we agreed:

Quote:
More people die here. More people are accosted there.

[[]EDIT[]]
I.e. people have fights here, people are murdered there.
[[]/EDIT[]]

I'd like to see some evidence that we really do have more people (per capita) accosted than in the states before I completely sign off on it, but until then I'm confident that 'violent crime' over here means most often someone gets a few bruises and in the US it means someone gets a wake.

Murders involving guns here are so rare they always make the national papers, in fact most non-domestic knife murders do to, something that leads people who read the Sun's sensationalist news to believe that murder using deadly weapons is on the increase, something which couldn't be further from the truth.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

ANTHONYT

Friday, June 2, 2006 3:52 PM (P)

Quote:
The following statement brings us closer to what we agreed:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More people die here. More people are accosted there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which would actually indicate that the UK is trading crime for lives and the US lives for crime, not vice versa.

I'd like to see some evidence that we really do have more people (per capita) accosted than in the states before I completely sign off on it, but until then I'm confident that 'violent crime' over here means most often someone gets a few bruises and in the US it means someone gets a wake.

Murders involving guns here are so rare they always make the national papers, in fact most non-domestic knife murders do to, something that leads people who read the Sun's sensationalist news to believe that murder using deadly weapons is on the increase, something which couldn't be further from the truth.

Citizen, I fail to see where you are disagreeing with me? We both agree that we have more death from crime here, and that you have more crime there.

We trade crime for lives (give up quantity of crime in exchange for receiving larger quantity of lives lost.)

You trade lives for crime (give up quantity of lives lost in exchange for larger quantity of crime.)

Perhaps you misunderstood me, since we are in agreement over the facts?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Friday, June 2, 2006 3:57 PM (P)

Here is the article we discussed before:

Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

By Joyce Lee Malcolm

On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article’s battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America’s Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world’s gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England’s low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England’s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard re

CITIZEN

Friday, June 2, 2006 4:13 PM (P)

No we're not, I thought I stated that clearly now, then and a number of times in between, which is why I am asking, I have asked and I continue to ask for some sort of corroborating evidence that proves there is more violent crime in Britain.

I’m not talking about some article in the tabloid press; I’m talking about the actual figures.

The agreement came in that in Britain confrontations are less likely to end in death, it did not come in the way your spinning it that in Britain there is more violent crime.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

ANTHONYT

Friday, June 2, 2006 7:45 PM (P)

Sorry, Citizen.

I thought we were in agreement on the basic idea that you had more crime and we had more death.

Unfortunately, not being a statistician, I don't have access to raw data. I can only find articles about the data, like this one:

Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 2, 2001
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:

The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.
Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

Advoc

ANTHONYT

Friday, June 2, 2006 8:00 PM (P)

Here's another one I found:

Crime and Justice in the United States
and in England and Wales, 1981-96
Highlights
Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Dept of Justice

Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England. (All references to England include Wales.) According to 1995 victim surveys -- which measure robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft -- crime rates are all higher in England than the United States (figures 1-4 of the report beginning on page 1). According to latest (1996) police statistics -- which measure incidents reported to police of murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft -- crime rates are higher in England for three crimes: assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft (figures 5-10). The 1996 crime rate for a fourth crime (robbery) would have been higher in England than the United States had English police recorded the same fraction of robberies that came to their attention as American police (figure 15).

The major exception to the pattern of higher crime rates is murder, although the difference between the two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years (below, and figure 5 of the report).

Firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the United States than in England. According to 1996 police statistics, firearms were used in 68% of U.S. murders but 7% of English murders, and 41% of U.S. robberies but 5% of English robberies.

Since 1981, an offender's risk of being caught, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration has risen in the United States for all six measured crimes (murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft) but has fallen in England for all but murder (figures 43-48).

U.S. crime rates -- whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics -- generally fell in the early 1980's, rose thereafter until around 1993, and then fell again (figures 1-10). For most U.S. crimes (survey estimated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft; police-recorded murder, robbery, and burglary), the latest crime rates (1996) are the lowest recorded in the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996. By comparison, English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. For half of the measured English crime categories, the latest crime rates (1995 for rates from victim surveys; 1996 for rates from police statistics) are the highest recorded since 1981 (figures 1-10).
As a result of different crime trends in the two countries --

the U.S. robbery rate as measured in the victim survey was nearly double England's in 1981, but in 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times America's (figure 1)

the English assault rate as measured in the victim survey was slightly higher than America's in 1981, but in 1995 the English assault rate was more than double America's (figure 2)

the U.S. burglary rate as measured in the victim survey was more than double England's in 1981, but in 1995 the English burglary rate was nearly double America's (below, and figure 3 of the report)

the English motor vehicle theft rate as measured in the victim survey was 1.5 times America's in 1981, but in 1995 the English rate for vehicle theft was more than double America's (figure 4)

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Friday, June 2, 2006 8:14 PM (P)

Repeat after me ... google is my friend, google is my friend ....

the International Crime Victim Survey
http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/

Criminal Victimisation in Eleven Industrialised Countries; Key findings from the 1996 International Crime Victims Survey
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/summary162.PDF

AUTO THEFT
The risk of having a car stolen was highest in England and Wales (3% of owners had a theft), Scotland (2.2%), and the USA (2.1%).

Thefts from cars (luggage, radios, car mirrors etc) were highest in England and Wales (10% of owners had one or more theft), Scotland (9%), France (8%) and the USA (8%).

BURGLARY
The proportion of households who had a completed or attempted burglary was highest in England and Wales (6%), Canada, the Netherlands, and the USA (all 5%).

CONTACT CRIME
Contact crime comprises here robbery, assaults, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in England and Wales and the USA: over 3% were victimized

OTHER
There was a residual category of other crimes: vandalism to cars, thefts of motorcycles and bicycles, theft of personal property, offensive sexual behaviour, and threats. They are pooled together since most are seen as not very serious.
Taken as a whole, those in the Netherlands were hardest hit (26% experienced one or more incident in 1995), followed by those in England and Wales (23%) and Switzerland (21%).

In Scotland, France, Northern Ireland and England and Wales, half of the crimes reported in the ICVS were targeted at cars.

In the USA and Canada, burglaries comprised a bigger proportion of all crimes than elsewhere.

Contact crime, together with threats and offensive sexual behaviour, made up nearly a quarter of crime incidents on average. But proportionately more (contact) crime incidents in Finland, the USA, and Austria were of this type.

-----------------------------

In sum, 'crime' rates doesn't equal violent assaults. Much of the 'crime' in England is petty vandalism of autos. (Citizen, maybe the loss of your mirror was no accident!)

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, July 25, 2025 7:29 PM (P)

Elon Musk indicates his new political party will be pro-gun, pro-bitcoin: 'The Second Amendment is sacred'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-indicates-his-new-political
-party-pro-gun-pro-bitcoin-second-amendment-sacred