The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 26, 2012, 05:48 PM   #101
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
"I dispute your facts, particularly the 2/3 figure. Let's see your proof."

Not here to argue, will take all the help we can get. All scientific polls show the same results. Here is Pew Research:

Protect the right Control gun (VOL.) to own guns ownership
Code:
			Yes	No	Unk	Ref #
Republican		70	26	4	926
Democrat		30	67	3	1116
Independent		46	50	4	1328

PARTY WITH LEANERS

Rep/Lean Rep		67	29	4	1476
Dem/Lean Dem		31	66	3	1689

PARTY AND IDEOLOGY

Conservative Republican	75	21	4	678
Mod/Lib Republican	57	37	6	229
Mod/Cons Democrat	32	63	4	625
Liberal Democrat	25	74	1	452
I know facts hurt and facts can stand in the way of rational thinking. But not my facts, just reality. No big deal - just facts. Let's all just get along and work on solutions and not get away from what is important. Let's work together and not argue.

Last edited by Al Norris; July 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM. Reason: readibility
jmortimer is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 06:01 PM   #102
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Quote:
The difference is I would prefer to live in a society that treats me like a law-abiding citizen until I demonstrate otherwise by my actions. I don't want to live in a society that focuses in all the ways I might be a potential criminal.
The alternative is a society without laws. What are laws, after all, but the government foreseeing ways that people might misbehave and making rules in advance to disallow those actions. You might as well say that because there is a law against stealing, the government is treating you like a thief by imposing that law on you regardless of whether you are a thief or not.

Quote:
We did try it. How do you think the NICS system came about? The Brady Law as originally passed in 1994 included a 5-day waiting period for all firearms sales. This waiting period was an interim requirement while NICS was established.
My question to you is this: Can you say with absolute certainty that waiting periods do no good? How can any of us know whether some potential spree killer was disuaded from killing because he was given a few days to calm down and think things over? There is no study that can quantify this, since there is no way to count how many times something did not happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Even if the prevention methods don't work every time, who is to say that they don't work at all?

I am not, by the way, a proponent of waiting periods or background checks for ammo purchases, or any of the other restrictions being discussed. I am simply saying that these things are not violations of our rights and should not be treated as though they are.

Quote:
So, a poll tax is an infringement on the right to vote; but the laws you mention do not infringe the right to own a firearm?
Wow, now we are really off topic. Poll taxes, along with literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and quite a few other Jim Crow laws were enacted as a specific attempt to keep "undesireable" voters from excercising their rights to vote. Waiting periods, thorough background checks and paperwork do not keep you from purchasing firearms, they just add steps to the process. The end result of poll taxes and other Jim Crow laws was people being denied their right to vote. The end result of a waiting period is that you end up owining a gun a few days later than you wanted. One is a clear violation of rights, the other is not.

Quote:
You might want to qualify that by limiting your statement to this particular speech, given President Obama's past statements in support of curtailing the rights of legal gun owners.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. Since this thread originated as a discussion of the speech the President made yesterday, I was engaging in debate based on that context. The main point that I have been trying to make is simply that this particular speech makes no statements about limiting the rights of citizens to legally purchase or possess guns, and there was nothing in the speech that makes it reasonable to assume that it is a harbinger of anti-gun legislation.

Quote:
Can you define "infringed" and tell me why "shell not be infringed" was placed in the 2nd Amendment.
Gladly.

Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe )

When the 2nd ammendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means that the rights must not be taken away. It does not mean that the government can't pass laws that make it take a few extra days to get the guns which we have a right to own. It simply means that the government must allow us to own them if that is our choice. Waiting periods and background checks don't stop the legal purchase of guns, therefore they are not, by definition, an infringement.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 06:07 PM   #103
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
That is like suggesting that guns are the cure to crime.

If that were the case then crime rates in the US would, surely, be close to nil.

Guns are a defence against crime. That is all.
My friend James... good to hear from you!

Guns are of course not the end of all crime, but absence of guns is the guarantee that the weak, old and otherwise not as fit make great targets since you have a virtual guarantee that in these places the law abiding citizens do not have guns...

No different than pretending the wolf won’t eat your sheep because you now carry a baseball bat instead of a gun... Critical thinking skills are forever lacking in gun control advocates or they are ideologues with little concern for reality. Emotional pleas sell gun control, few if any facts back gun control...
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 06:11 PM   #104
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,413
Quote:
Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe )

When the 2nd ammendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means that the rights must not be taken away.
Post the whole thing, not just part of it:

Quote:
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
— in·fring·er noun
See infringe defined for English-language learners »
See infringe defined for kids »
Examples of INFRINGE
They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.
Her rights must not be infringed.
Infringed as in tresspass on: How is putting restrictions on a God Given Right not an infringement?
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 06:19 PM   #105
Young.Gun.612
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 400
BigMikey76:

Stealing is a crime. Gun ownership is not. Comparing laws against stealing to anything that impedes my ability to buy a gun or ammunition for it is absurd. I don't have a God given right to take what isn't mine. I do however have an unalienable right to own guns.
Young.Gun.612 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 06:32 PM   #106
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Quote:
BigMikey76:

Stealing is a crime. Gun ownership is not. Comparing laws against stealing to anything that impedes my ability to buy a gun or ammunition for it is absurd. I don't have a God given right to take what isn't mine. I do however have an unalienable right to own guns.
I was not making a comparison between stealing and gun ownership. I was simply providing an example of a law. Laws, by nature, work on the assumption that someone, somewhere is going to do something wrong. Otherwise, laws would be unnecessary. My point is that requiring a waiting period is not treating us like criminals, just as telling us not to steal is not the same as treating us like thieves. If the laws were denying us the ability to own guns, then they would be treating us like criminals, but they are not doing that.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 06:50 PM   #107
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,716
I guess it is pretty easy to see why we as a society have a difficult time with this issue. For instance we as gun owners have spent over 100 posts debating this topic. We can’t even seem to reach a consensus on whether the President supports more gun control or not.

Personally I prefer to err on the side of personal freedom and I just do not believe that our current systems need changing. Obviously this debate has been motivated by a very tragic incident, but I doubt any of the proposals being discussed would have prevented it.

One thing that probably needs to be discussed is our current mental health system and how we balance the issue of personal privacy and potential public safety.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 06:51 PM   #108
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
This changes nothing obama is still not interested in legislating gun control

Lots of US forces carry AK47 and 74s because they are superior to US rifles/help us blend in/use the most common ammo in the areas we are waging war. I know this from personal experience. Other then an m60 we used russian rifles the majority of the time. So saying obama does not know what our forces is using is ludicrous. He is still our president for another few months have some respect.

No obamas base is not anti gun. Anti gunners are anti gunners and come from all political ideology

Romney is still the only candidate to sign into law an assault weapons ban.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 06:58 PM   #109
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Quote:
Post the whole thing, not just part of it:


Quote:
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
— in·fring·er noun
See infringe defined for English-language learners »
See infringe defined for kids »
Examples of INFRINGE
They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.
Her rights must not be infringed.

Infringed as in tresspass on: How is putting restrictions on a God Given Right not an infringement?
Show me in the definition that you posted above where the word "trespass" is used. If you are going to ask for a definition, you need to respect the perameters that the definition provides. You can't just add words to it because the definition does not support your argument by itself. To qualify as infringement, an action must, according to the definition you posted, "violate law or the rights of another." As I stated previously, since waiting periods and background checks do not stop us from owning firearms, they are not an infringement.

As to the concept that gun ownership is a "God given right," I think there is some room for arguement there, but that is probably a topic for another time.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 07:03 PM   #110
THORN74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2010
Location: Chicago 'Burbs
Posts: 513
Mr Obama, must have missed the cspan coverage of the congressional testamony following the la riots. The Korean convince store owner who defended his shop from looters, buy standing guard on his roof with his AK47!!!!

Sounds like a perfectly legitimate reason to own one.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2
THORN74 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 07:09 PM   #111
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,601
Is it too obvious to point out that none of the mass shooters of which I am aware committed the murders within 3 days of purchasing the gun?

Also, when someone's brain goes dysfunctional to the point that killing a room full of innocent people seems like their best option, does anyone really believe that waiting 3 days is going to change their minds?

The problem here is the people committing the atrocity. The people. Not the chosen object.

Imagine, if the nut who shot Gabby Giffords had chosen a suicide vest instead of a handgun. How many would be dead? What if the Aurora shooter had decided to use nerve gas or other poison? How many would be dead?

What is 3 days going to help?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 07:27 PM   #112
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Also, when someone's brain goes dysfunctional to the point that killing a room full of innocent people seems like their best option, does anyone really believe that waiting 3 days is going to change their minds?
One thing at play here is the fact that in reality we have very little real control of the World around us. A lot of folks are very troubled by that thought. They seek answers where none exist as a way to diminish their apprehension. At the end of the day there are just certain things that cannot be controlled and wasting resources implementing useless regulation just to make ourselves feel better is irrational.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 07:39 PM   #113
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,413
Quote:
Show me in the definition that you posted above where the word "trespass" is used

Sorry I met transgress not trespass

Quote:
in·fringe   /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule
Still there is no way you can convince me that the restrictions, waiting period or what ever does not infringe on our rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment as invisioned by our founders and authors of the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 07:48 PM   #114
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
The alternative is a society without laws. What are laws, after all, but the government foreseeing ways that people might misbehave and making rules in advance to disallow those actions. You might as well say that because there is a law against stealing, the government is treating you like a thief by imposing that law on you regardless of whether you are a thief or not.
A law that says theft is punishable by fine or imprisonment is a law that holds someone responsible for their actions. A law that forbids people to own a crowbar because they used by thieves or forbids sacks of a certain size because they can be used to gather stolen goods is a law that treats all people as potential thieves regardless of their past behavior. Do you understand the distinction in the context of my original statement?

Quote:
My question to you is this: Can you say with absolute certainty that waiting periods do no good? How can any of us know whether some potential spree killer was disuaded from killing because he was given a few days to calm down and think things over? There is no study that can quantify this, since there is no way to count how many times something did not happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Even if the prevention methods don't work every time, who is to say that they don't work at all?
That is an interesting standard to apply to determine whether a law violates a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Can you imagine what our country would look like if that same standard applied to the First Amendment? Unless you could say with "absolute certainty" that a law would do no good, the law must be allowed because it could in theory prevent a crime or two. That sounds like a very scary society to me... the standard you propose is arguably even less strict than the rational basis test that is applied to most government regulation and it seems you are proposing this for an enumerated right in our Constitution?

I can say that I am not aware of any spree killer who bought his firearm within 5 days of the shooting. I can say that it didn't prevent any of the 9 school shootings from 1995-1998 (though a principal with a .45 in his car did bring one of them to an early end).

On the other hand, I can point to Wisconsin woman Bonnie Elmasri. She had a restraining order against her husband and tried to purchase a firearm. Wisconsin had a 48-hour waiting period at the time. Her and her two children were dead within 24 hours, so she never got her gun. During the Los Angeles riots, citizens also tried to buy guns but were foiled by the 15-day waiting period. In Charlotte, NC, Catherine Latta face a situation similar to Ms. Elmasri, after being robbed and assaulted by an ex-boyfriend several times, she attempted to buy a handgun - at the time North Carolina required police permission as our friend pgdion advocated, she was told the wait was two to four weeks. Ms. Latta chose to purchase a handgun illegally, which came in handy five HOURS later when her boyfriend attacked her outside her house. (See www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html for more examples of people dead due to waiting periods on firearms)

Quote:
I am not, by the way, a proponent of waiting periods or background checks for ammo purchases, or any of the other restrictions being discussed. I am simply saying that these things are not violations of our rights and should not be treated as though they are.
Waiting periods most certainly are a violation of our rights. The people in the above links were so inconvenienced they DIED. You don't get your rights violated much worse than that. Background checks for ammo purchases are just stupid - we tried it for 18 years. It wasn't like we just dabbled in it.

Quote:
Wow, now we are really off topic. Poll taxes, along with literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and quite a few other Jim Crow laws were enacted as a specific attempt to keep "undesireable" voters from excercising their rights to vote.
So in that sense, it has a great deal in common with most gun control proposals, including several you listed.

Quote:
Waiting periods, thorough background checks and paperwork do not keep you from purchasing firearms, they just add steps to the process.
A poll tax is just an added inconvenience, it wasn't like they were charging $1000 to vote. It just made it a little more difficult for people who were already in a tough spot to vote. Just like the 4 laws you described as "not completely bad" make owning a gun that much more difficult. If you want to see how that works in actual practice, read some of Emily Miller and other D.C. residents experiences in trying to get a firearm there - waiting periods, extra thorough background checks, safety lessons, all kinds of "reasonable gun control" in actual practice. This is a city that once again led the FBI UCRs in homicide - having a homicide rate 5 times that of the nearest STATE. Read those stories and tell me if you think the problems these people face are useful in keeping that rate lower.

Quote:
The end result of poll taxes and other Jim Crow laws was people being denied their right to vote. The end result of a waiting period is that you end up owining a gun a few days later than you wanted.
Bonnie Elmasri sure got hers a few days later than she wanted, eh?

Quote:
Perhaps I should have been more clear. Since this thread originated as a discussion of the speech the President made yesterday, I was engaging in debate based on that context.
Why just that context then? If I talk about guns for 20 years and say a single sentence today, is it wrong to infer meaning to that sentence based on what I have said in the past?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 08:02 PM   #115
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Kraigwy and Bartholomew Roberts:

I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on a number of topics. This is the kind of argument where no one ever wins, and opinions are very rarely changed, and if I don't put the computer away soon, my wife is going to infringe on my right to a lump-free head.

I have enjoyed the argument thoroughly, though, and I am sure there will be opportunity to take up this or another argument in the future.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 08:05 PM   #116
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,601
If pointing out that a number of law-abiding citizens have been harmed by a waiting period while no known mass shooter has committed the crime within any potential waiting period doesn't end the question, I don't know what would.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:20 PM   #117
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 2,905
^^^
This.
As I said in my earlier post, those in favor of further restrictions of our constitutional, 2nd Amendment rights ignore the facts that do not support their position, and cannot offer any that do...

I got carpal tunnel in the days following the G. Zimmerman tragedy trying to convince the ignorant anti-gun nuts calling FL the "Wild West" and "shoot first, ask questions later" state, that since becoming a "shall issue" state, Florida's violent crime and murder rate has declined by OVER 50%....

Then they counter with "justifiable homicides" having increased...
Duh. Criminals getting theirs...
Can't fix stupid.
tobnpr is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:22 PM   #118
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Meyer
Looks like the AK statement doesn't indicate push for new laws but a general look, blah, blah. Romney basically said the same thing.
I got that impression as well. To call for gun control right now would be political suicide. He's got to say something to appease folks. In this case, 1993 called, and they want their soundbite back.

Here's the thing. We're actually better off than we were four years ago when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. A lot better. Can the President take credit? No, but he can bring it up in debates. Consider this:

Quote:
I know some of you had some reservations about my record on the 2nd Amendment when I took office. [wait for laughter from crowd] However, my stance on the issue has evolved. As President, I did not support, condone, or sign one piece of legislation to restrict your 2nd Amendment rights. In fact, I signed the only piece of pro-gun legislation to cross my desk. Heck, I got an "F" from the Brady Campaign!

In contrast, my opponent signed the only permanent Assault Weapons Ban in the country. Over to you, Mitt. Do tell us who deserves the NRA's endorsement more.
I think he's smart enough to keep that advantage at hand.

Don't get me wrong: I know he'd love to institute gun control, but he also knows that support in Congress is scant at best, and that the proposal would be disastrous.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:58 PM   #119
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
Regardless of the type of gun, the real issues is that there are not enough personal freedoms, that if taken from the individual, would have made a difference in this recent tragedy or any other. Complete enslavement of a people does not remove the violent act of a violent person. It just creates slaves. I chose citizenship over serfdom. This is what the Founding Fathers spoke to with the Second Amendment.
mayosligo is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:12 PM   #120
trg42wraglefragle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2008
Location: new zealand
Posts: 831
I find it quite concerning how stupid political types can be.
Anyone who thinks that gun control will effect criminals is not living on this planet, it only effects law abiding citizens.

In the UK they made it so no one is allowed to own a pistol or a semi automatic weapon, yet every day police in London are finding those sorts of weapons in the hands or criminals.
trg42wraglefragle is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 12:10 AM   #121
Churchmouse
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2010
Posts: 11
Let me say that I DO have a God-given right to protect my family and myself. And if gun ownership is a part of that, which it most certainly IS, then I have a God-given right to own a gun. Which may not be infringed, as stated in the section of the U.S. Constitution which legally PROTECTS my God-given rights.
__________________
A constitution merely prolongs the pretense that a political government can be limited by laws that it will interpret. Eventually, every constitutional government will embrace Lenin's ruling formula -- "Power without limit, resting directly on force.” Then it is time to reset.
Churchmouse is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 01:17 AM   #122
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
With regard to BigMikey76, Bartholomew Roberts already beat me to the general concept, but anyway...

BigMikey said:
Quote:
The alternative is a society without laws. What are laws, after all, but the government foreseeing ways that people might misbehave and making rules in advance to disallow those actions. You might as well say that because there is a law against stealing, the government is treating you like a thief by imposing that law on you regardless of whether you are a thief or not.
Bart replied with an analogy involving crowbars, which I liked.

My own would have been automobiles.

The argument BigMikey put forward was akin to saying that since driving drunk is a crime, then requiring breathalyzer controlled ignitions on all cars would be reasonable since it would prevent crime.

Or, branching a different way, saying that since drunk drivers kill a lot of people while driving fast, we should ban Ferraris - they are very fast. Never mind that a drunk in a Yugo will kill you equally dead, and that there are very few Ferraris in the first place.

M
MLeake is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 01:19 AM   #123
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
With regard to BlueTrain post #55:

Yes, I know the NG was referred to as the militia at one point.

However, at the time the Constitution was written, the militias were not state-funded, nor state-equipped. In some cases, they were barely even trained. Citizens were expected to equip themselves with their own firearms, powder, and shot.

So the current analogy of the 18th century militia being the equivalent of the modern National Guard is off-base.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 01:25 AM   #124
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,740
Quote:
Our Bill of Rights are not statutes! They are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Well, I still don't think I've gone wrong on that. I would submit that this is a personal belief not a fact.

The fact is the Bill of Rights is a document agreed upon and used to structure a set of social values within particular society. It was written by men for Man, within the USA.

Quote:
Guns are of course not the end of all crime, but absence of guns is the guarantee that the weak, old and otherwise not as fit make great targets since you have a virtual guarantee that in these places the law abiding citizens do not have guns...
True enough (assuming the fit, healthy criminal isn't equally armed) but that was not the point your post was making.

You spoke of societies and their lack of guns and what happens there. You then citied how the UK has high crime in its cities. That makes a clear association which I feel is flawed, hence my response.

Mentioning crime rates is pointless unless the places being compared are identical or nearly so in every other way leaving gun ownership as the only sizeable variable.

Guns are clearly not a deterrent to criminals prior to their being faced with one. Some societies have no guns yet very low crime. Others have them, yet crime is rife.

The only connection between those two social metrics is on the possible outcomes of a percentage of those crimes. The gun may keep you alive, or may let you hold on to your wallet.

Quote:
Emotional pleas sell gun control, few if any facts back gun control...
Emotions sell guns (and pro-gun policies) just as effectively. Sometimes it is for pleasure, sometimes reassurance, sometimes fear.
Colorado sales are up 43%, despite the likely repeat of that atrocity being very, very small.

Now, I know that we've debated points before, BGutzman, and that it got me in trouble (I spent 3 hours posting and hadn't hoovered as I'd promised!!), but I'd like to reiterate that I don't think we have hugely different views, on the whole. I don't like the extent of the UK's gun policies, I enjoy shooting and I'd rather have my guns than not.

Here, I only dispute some of the perceived assertions in that post...
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old July 27, 2012, 05:56 AM   #125
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
If the original definition of the militia as used in the second amendment is obsolete, what does that mean? That you have to run around and find a new meaning? Which seems to have happened.

The bill of rights is god given? Are they engraved copper plates somewhere or chiseled in stone, as handed down on the cloud covered mountain. Really, you have to come up with something better than that. That is, unless the god was Zeus.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16817 seconds with 7 queries