Okay, I'll say it. I'm liberal, against unregulated personal gun ownership and very proud of it.

[eeyore]

How hard is that? Not difficult at all.

There is no reason to carry a pistol around an urban area. Should be illegal in every city in every state.

You want to hunt? Fine. Go to the local armory where your guns should be stored, check out your guns and go have fun. Just remember to check them back in on your way into town.

You want to target shoot? Fine. Again, go to the local armory, check out your guns and go have fun. Just remember to check them back in on your way into town. Want to rent a gun at the shooting range? Fine. They can be allowed, under serious regulation, to have a small stock of guns for that sole use. If they are found in violation of gun safety regulations they are shut down under federal law.

You live out in the boonies and feel you need a gun for your protection or for the protection of your livestock? Fine. Just remember to register everything you have, adhere to a to be determined maximum gun ownership, andkeep your guns in a locker in your home so your 6 year old doesn't shoot your 2 year old accidentally. If you are found in violation of any of these regulations you lose your right to have guns at home after one warning.

Our society is sick, and I can see absolutely no reason for guns to be more available in our society beyond what's stated above. We are not the western frontier any longer. We are a vastly urban society, and there is no reason for a private citizen to have guns in such an environment.

Sadly, any politician who took this stand, if elected, would be assassinated by a terrified gun nut willing to go down in a blaze of glory, happily fulfilling the dream of his guns being taken from his cold, dead hands.

Our society is sick. What will it take for us to seriously seek a cure? So far multiple school shootings, public mass shootings and Presidential shootings have done nothing but desensitize our society from the effects of guns.

What's it going to take?

[WeDidIt]

1. Monday, I would have vociferously opposed your position

Today, I wholeheartedly support it.

[appal_jack]

75. Nice convictions there...

Yup, the whole point of inalienable liberties is that we ought to toss them out the minute they become even slightly uncomfortable. Right?

:eyes:

Right?!?

:sarcasm:

No. Wrong.

I support vigorously upholding our civil liberties, while also vigorously protecting our President. The fact that you are so ready to shred the 2nd Amendment means that you were never much of a supporter of this liberty. Will you feel the same way about the 4th Amendment when the (future, hypothetical, Repub) Government tells you that scary criminals are hiding unfairly, and a few more warrantles searches will keep us safe?

-app

[bossy22]

100. wow

jump to extremes dont we?

and this over one idiot who decided to make a political statement

[Deja Q]

2. President Obama to tell everyone about what "change" is and getting people to make that change.

[eeyore]

9. You think the racists are out now? Oh, man!

Just imagine what would happen if our illegitimate Kenyan president decided to take away the guns. Our country would never be the same. It would be a civil war to put the last one to shame. Absolutely terrifying proposition.

[scheming daemons]

3. Their stock refrain is "What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?" My response....

What part of "WELL-REGULATED" do YOU not understand?


2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Interesting how they only remember the last four words but forget the first four.


Americans have a right to own guns. They don't have a right to own guns without regulation.

[tridim]

10. And they don't have a right to scare the crap out of everyone else.

Our communities are OURS not YOURS. We have the right to not be intimidated by YOU in public places.

Leave your fucking guns at home.

[proteus_lives]

90. No.

I have the right to carry my weapon and I intend exercise that right. I'm not taking away anything from you. I'm not trying to scare anyone, that's the CONCEALED part of CCW.

BTW asshole, it's my community too. I'm a citizen with the same rights as you. Only I'm not trying to destroy yours. So if you're scared then gather up your skirts and go home.

[Matt 6_5]

204. Thank you.

:toast:

[fedupinhouston]

95. You absolutely do NOT have the right...

...to not be intimidated.

The feeling of intimidation is just that - a feeling. As such, it is utterly subjective. Your feelings do not negate my rights.

Too bad, so sad...now leave your fucking fears at home.

[TPaine7]

118. Precisely !!!!!!! +1

No one has a right to a feeling. Or to the absence of a feeling.

I wish more people understood that!

[oneshooter]

97. If you don't see it

how can you be intimidated by it? Concealed means CONCEALED, you can't see it.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[paulsby]

107. there is no such right

if you are so cowardly that open carry makes you fearful, then stay the fuck out of WA state.

we have open carry here. it's a right and NO city or county or other jurisdiction can infringe on it.

a few have tried- an failed.

you have no right to FEEL any particular way.

if you are a racist, intimidated by a black man in your neighborhood, it doesn't affect his right to walk there.

same thing.

[vincna]

108. A very good analogy - nt

[SteveM]

132. You want a "right" not to be bullied. Bullshit...

If you don't won't to be bullied, then do something about it. The reason the GOP far-right is carrying on in this manner is they know us better than we know ourselves. They know that the Democratic Party has run from most every progressive philosophy and policy since McGovern, and will continue to run from stands once the far-right "frames" that stand. They know that "liberals" are easily cowed, especially those who are elected. They dance with what brung 'em and it works.

Wanna do something? Demand Obama answer this question: If I'm over 60 and out of work, and cannot get health coverage, will the $900,000,000 in planned health care spending cover me? I've asked. I can't get an answer.

How am I supposed to fight for something when I don't know what it is?

Obama is no liberal gut-fighter in the mold of FDR, LBJ or even JFK. He is a centrist who readily dodges labels to the GOP's frustration. But now the far-right is calling him out with the tactics that have worked so well for them in the past.

So, if your blood is worked up by the teabaggers, find a way to counter them. Don't waste your juice on the one issue designed to utterly smash Democrats: gun control.

BTW, FDR, LBJ & JFK were ALL strong defenders of the Second Amendment.

[DrCory]

163. That's Right, OURS...

Yours and mine. As long as the law permits me to carry in public, I shall, regardless of your feelings on the issue.

Would you care to point out to me where in the BOR the "right to not be intimidated" is mentioned?

[Critters2]

12. Exactly. Well-regulated...that's pretty clear. nt

[rd_kent]

13. With more laws than one can know

regarding the control of guns, how is that not "well regulated"? There are PLENTY of gun laws now. Lets enforce those and see if it has any effect.

[eeyore]

21. Current regulation is a JOKE!

See my OP. That, my friend, is what gun regulation looks like. Look at the least violent societies in the world and you will find similar. Thanks to insane, irrational and terrified pro-gun lobbies, what passes for regulation in this country is pathetic.

[rd_kent]

33. I tend to agree with you, but enforement of current laws is key.

Nearly all gun crime is committed by those who obtain guns illegally. In Canada, for example, where handguns are essentially banned, all major metro areas are having unprecedented violent gun crime rates. I guess it shows that keeping gund out of the hands of law abiding citizens does little to curb gun crime.
I would be in favor of maximum penalties for any crime that uses a gun. It is an emotional issue for many, but it pains me to think that the vast majority of gun owners that use them legally would lose their right to own guns because of those who use the guns illegally.

[paulsby]

109. you will also find "similar" in some of the most violent nations

mexico (and god forbid mexico city and ciudad juarez) has strict gun regulation

switzerland has full auto rifles and usually ammo in every militia members HOUSE.

and they are far LESS violent than the UK or france.

correlation =/= causation, and the correlation itself only exists if you cherry pick

[jmg257]

24. I am well-trained, so I have 'well-regulated' covered, thanks!

What part of 'well-regulated' do YOU understand? Surely not the correct one.

Interesting that someone who posts about the meaning of a word doesn't even know what that word meant as used in the 2nd.

Here's a clue:

"..to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia.."

[zipplewrath]

38. Well, actually

The thing about that is that it does discuss a well regulated militia (as we all know meaning basically a well trained and organized). However, almost any reading of the amendment will leave one with at least the minimum assumption that the authors thought there was "the right". Now, exactly what that right is of course is still a bit open to argument. Even in Heller the 5 vote majority really didn't want to go into that much. But as I say, at a minimum one can read the 2nd to say, "there is this right and you won't mess with it in a way that will screw up the needs of the militia". And as I say, that is at a minimum. Some, even the majority in Heller, suggest that the 2nd actually and specifically was intended to give voice to the concept of individual ownership. Again, the court didn't really want to go into what those specifics are.

Really, the next battle ground on this issue is going to be more to the original posters concept. The next battle is whether the STATES can "infringe" on this right. Originally the BoR and the constitution were seen as a limit on the federal government. The 14th attempted to some degree to extend the protection of individual rights over the states as well. The states can't infringe on their own militia rights and needs. So then the question becomes, if there is this "right of the people", what is it and what limits on STATE authority exists. I don't think even the most active SC will take as hard line as some of the gun rights advocates would hope for. There are a wide variety of regional needs on this issue. The states can easily assert a wide variety of needs across the country. North Dakota doesn't have the same considerations as Delaware. Furthermore, Manhattan doesn't have the same needs as Buck Snort, Tennessee.

I'm fairly sure at this point, based upon Heller, that we'll never get to a point where the courts, or the states, will decide there is no "individual" right of some sort. At that point the questions will boil down to exactly what "the right of the people" is referring, and the states role. Registration SEEMS like a relatively reasonable request, but the gun rights advocates do have the point that the correlation between registration and "confiscation" is fairly high over history. Furthermore, considering the governments willingness to do things like violate wire tapping laws, it's a hard case to make that they'd never want to abuse the power given to them through registration (Richard Jewel on line 2). Licensing is similar, although I think a harder case to make. As long as they are as available as a driver license, the courts might not be a strident as some gun rights advocates.

That leaves the other two dominant issues in this discussion. Type of weapon and "carry" laws. I think the gun rights folks might have the weakest cases yet in these areas, in terms of state level restrictions. As you allude, the amendment specifically mentions "well regulated" and although that doesn't mean "regulations", it does imply that the state government, as part of its militia authority, can make some demands upon the owners of such weapons, and in fact possibly to the point of determining just what weapons its militia will own. The only limits the courts implied in Heller were somewhere between "nothing" and "everything". Similarly I suspect for "where" the states will be given some latitude between "everywhere" and "nowhere".

[jmg257]

47. 'Well-regulated' is a simple thing=effective/well-trained. And THIS was the state's responsibility

according to federal guidlines (originally Van Stueben's Blue Book). The feds handled organization (the Militia Acts), and...

the FEDS come up with guidlines for weapons for militia duty (only), not the states. And NEITHER can infringe on the right of the people to effective arms, because to do so would not only deny the other gov't entity a well-regulated, well-armed - i.e. effective - militia, but also deny the people effective arms for all other lawful purposes - like defense.

All constitutionally speaking, of course.

[zipplewrath]

51. State level definition of "effective"

The question will be whether the state can define a level of "effectiveness". As I said, even this court would probably say that the power was somewhere between "everything" and "nothing". Quite honestly, they'd even probably allow the feds to make such limits, although they might lean a bit more towards the "everything" side with the feds than the states.

[jmg257]

56. Ahh - good point. And these days just how effective does a citizen militia have to be?

In reality - not too.

[BuyingThyme]

58. The amendment was written specifically in the interest of providing for militias.

The writers of the amendment were more concerned with people being forced to bear arms than with people being forced not to bear arms. And there was no individual right intended.

They would not have been concerned with people being forced to carry arms were they debating individual rights, as it would not make sense to debate whether or not individuals have some kind of right to force others to bear arms.

The gun lobby has made Americans stupid.

[jmg257]

61. The amendment was to protect a right of the people, primarily so

the militias of the several states, composed of the people, would always be effective. The congress had the new power to come up with guidelines for the arms the people MUST HAVE for mandatory militia duty. Many saw this as a possible way to DISarm the people, to render the militia ineffective, and so leave room for that bane of liberty - a large standing army.

It was also feared that the original religious exemption clause would allow the govt to declare who is 'religiously scrupulous', and so deny THEM the right to bear arms. That clause was removed (as was "for the common defense") from the article which was eventually ratified.


It is EXACTLY about ensuring the people would be always be (effectively) armed, for miltia duty and personally, and so their pre-existing right to arms was secured explicitly.


"The Congressional Register, 17 August 1789

The house went into a committee of the whole, on the subject of amendments. The 3d clause of the 4th proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows; "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person, religiously scrupulous, shall be compelled to bear arms.

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures ith respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

[X_Digger]

78. That why the right was protected.. NOT..

.. the extent of the right, nor a limit on it.

"Because pizza is important to late night study sessions, the right of the people to keep and bear tomatoes and dough shall not be infringed." In this example, is pizza the only 'approved use' of tomatoes?

From a larger perspective, the Bill of Rights is not a 'the people can..' document, it's a 'the government can't..' document. Limiting what the government can infringe on does not inversely limit what the people can do.

[SteveM]

135. "Stupid Americans": Don't volunteer for duty...

You should read Laurence Tribe (I have since the late 60s when he first popularized the "militia clause" which was cited by gun-controllers for more than 30 years). Tribe in 1999 admitted his error when he re-read the record and determined that Americans DO IN FACT have a INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms. In fact, most constitutional scholars who have written on the subject also agree, including many liberals and gun-haters. Alan Dershowitz, no "gun lover," said that if you won't to keep people from owning guns, repeal the Second.

Now, your sources for this: "And there was no individual right intended."

Please, also define what the "gun lobby" is in detail.

[SteveM]

134. The 14th Amendment debate was dominated by RKBA for blacks...

Please read:

www.georgiacarry.org

Do a local search of court cases in find the Heller brief submitted by that organization. It is an excellent summary on the blatant, full-scale racist gun-control laws in the South (from Colonial era to the 20th Century), and how the various southern states enacted them. The 14th Amendment was passed in large measure to establish a definition of citizenship in the U.S. and to prevent the states from infringing on the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens. The right to keep and bear arms figured most prominently in the debate. (I think the weakening abolitionist movement and the lack of stomach for further federal occupation of the South signaled Northern politicians that they better do SOMETHING to help blacks -- and that was to at least protect their right to bear arms.)

Not until the mid-20th Century did the 14th begin using its "incorporation" power to override the various states' discriminatory laws.
Blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, the accused were all further protected by the Civil Rights movement in this century due chiefly to the incorporation powers of the 14th. There may be a battle over whether or not this applies to firearms, but if incorporation is NOT used, it will be a stick in the eye for the Civil Rights movement and a "peculiar" exception to the use of the Fourteenth.

[joeybee12]

68. A well regulatedmilitia was the intent...not personal ownership...there was great fear

of a central federal government by the constitution's founders, and they wanted to make sure the states could protect themselves...nowhere is there a right to individual gun ownership.

[jmg257]

70. SO who made up the militia? Who are 'the people' whose right is being secured if not individuals?

BTW, the right to arms existed long before the Bill of Rights secured it.


There was not only a desire for the states to be able to protect themselves (which was important), but also to have the main military force of the central government be composed of the people themselves. People who could & would arm THEMSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY, and when in accordance with certain guidlelines, for militia duty. THEY, THE PEOPLE, could keep and bear arms INDIVIDUALLY...a fundemental, inherent right....for defense. For the taking of game. For defense of the State. This right, when combined with proper organization & training, allowed for an effective militia to secure our freedoms, and helped limit the power of any would-be tyrant.

And THIS was thought to be the best security for a free state.

[paulsby]

110. the people MEANS individuals

if it was a "right" of the state , then it would say so. it doesn't. "people" doesn't equal state government. everywhere else, and here, it means... wait for it.. people.

[fedupinhouston]

177. If you think the well regulated militia was the intent...

..then you obviously did not pay attention in English.

[Abq_Sarah]

208. Do you understand the definition

Of "well regulated" in the context of the 2nd amendment? Do you really think the FF wrote the bill of rights to put restrictions on individual rights?

Wow.

[Statistical]

71. "Well regulated" = "well trained" or "capable" circa 1776.

Of course even that is a strawman because firearms are already one of the most regulated industries.

[Caliman73]

76. I actually think that "the right of the People" is the most important part.

Just like it is in all of the other amendments. People always being interpreted to mean individual citizens.

"Regulated" mean well equipped and trained in the language of the time the 2nd was written. It has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be an individual right for self defense, sport, or other legal purposes.

I have no problems with attempts to keep firearms out of the hands of people who by their actions (crimes) or mental status (hospitalizations for violence) would be a demonstrated danger to others. Otherwise people should be presumed to be capable of exercising rights and freedoms.

[rl6214]

119. Well regulated back then, does not mean

the same as well regulated means today.

The clear meaning of the term in earlier texts was generally meant to mean "properly operating or in ideal condition"

[guardian]

179. You are wrong.

GunCite Home
Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
Introduction

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

Evidence of an Individual Right

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.

"Because 'reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)

(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)

Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.

(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)

Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

The next amendment is: "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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."

Story adds:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (See Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)

The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.

More Evidence Supporting an Individual Right

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

"A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

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

The Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Here, like Story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.

The Federalist Papers Continued – "The Original Right of Self-Defense"

The Founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort.

"The original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction. We now examine Hamilton's Federalist No. 28. Hamilton begins:

That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.

Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.

Hamilton continues:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:

he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the Second Amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (For more on militia see: http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html.)

Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:

When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.

Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."

Connecting the Dots...

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

Although the Federalist Papers were written prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (but after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.

The Purpose of the Militia Clause

"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read " well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))

For more information about justification clauses see: Volokh, Eugene, The Commonplace Second Amendment, (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998)). (See also, Kopel, David, Words of Freedom, National Review Online, May 16, 2001.)

Parting Shots

There are 3 ways the Second Amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:

* It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.
* The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.
* The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.

Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period (see Guncite's Is there contrary evidence? and Second Amendment challenge).

Instead of the "right of the people," the Amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, see GunCite's page here showing evidence that the term, "people," as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals.)

It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the Founding period is the one interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.

Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a Second Amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.

(The assertion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right should not be confused with the claim that all gun control is un-constitutional. However, to read why many gun rights advocates oppose most gun controls, today, please see GunCite's, Misrepresenting the Gun Control Debate.)

[Tejas]

206. Sounds like a troofer that loves to rant about

out how the SCOTUS got Heller wrong. It's absolutely loony how y'all will beat a horse that's been dead so long :rofl:

[YOY]

4. Generally I'm for it...but the stupid folks of this world make me regret that I am.

Silly me thinking most folks would be responsible about these things.

[Voltaire]

44. Aye, and there's the rub

You see, we do not have a mature enough society to have as many guns as we do. I don't give a FUCK about the 2nd Amendment and what it says, this society is not mature enough to handle guns. PERIOD. Way too many people don't have enough sense in this country to pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel. Its a damned good thing that I am not the black man that won the presidency, because I would confiscate every fucking gun and lock up anyone who tried to keep theirs.

America is too stupid for guns. And a lot of other things too, but ESPECIALLY for guns.

[YOY]

49. If anyone tries to lock them up

Then every redneck idiot with big gubmint fantasies is gonna think that their paranoid fantasies have come true. They'll be in their own little heaven in causing a ruckus and a revolt.

Don't even think about that...it's beyond a horrible idea.

Honestly...the best way is to try and remove all the fear and disinformation within our media (and certain politically motivated media especially) to stem the paranoia.

[SteveM]

137. You realize, of course, the "media" is the strongest component of...

gun-control organizations? Studies have indicated that the vast majority of newspapers, networks and magazines favor gun-control. I mean, if the gun-control lobby has them on the side, how can "fear and disinformation" ever occur?

(sarcasm thingy that goes up)

[paulsby]

112. nice defense of fascism

from a person posting as 'voltaire". i could cut the irony with a ladle.

i am referring to your statement: I would confiscate every fucking gun and lock up anyone who tried to keep theirs.



iow, if YOU were president, you would violate people's civil rights with impunity and as you admit, you don't "give a FUCK" about people's rights.

well, at least you are honest.

[SteveM]

136. Your disappointment with our society is OK. As long as you don't outlaw...

firearms and "...a lot of other things, too." I hope that progressives can count on your good judgment to not do anything unconstitutional and illegal in order to assuage your feelings about U.S. society, even when you say "...I would confiscate every fucking gun and lock up anyone who tried to keep their." I don't take this seriously because I know you are not slobbering at the bit for civil war.

As for the "black man." I would only point out that the gun-control laws we have now are based on the antebellum and Jim Crow models first "perfected" in the South. Even an early gun-control advocate, journalist Robert Sherrill, said this upon the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968: " to shut off weapons access to blacks... while leaving over-the-counter purchases to the affluent." Other gun-control advocates at the same noted this trend as well. Ironic, isn't it, that the Civil Rights movement that strengthened the rights of minorities and the accused, seems to have "gone to far" (in the words of the old segregationists) when it comes to the Second Amendment? Ironic, too, that the greatest defenders of minorities owning the means to protect themselves seems to be chiefly more conservative -- heavens! -- white males. But that is changing.

I suggest reading www.georgiacarry.org

Search locally in court cases for the Heller brief.

[TPaine7]

180. It is good you weren't elected, but not for the reason you think...

Its a damned good thing that I am not the black man that won the presidency, because I would confiscate every fucking gun and lock up anyone who tried to keep theirs.

There is no chance that you, as president, could pull that off. None. You would be impeached (or assassinated) long before you reached your goal. The best you could hope for would be a long stay in a cushy insane asylum.

[raimius]

185. An interesting view

Here's my problem. If people are stupid/can't be trusted, why would we want to give massive power to a small group of people in government? The notion that people are inherently bad/dumb/whatnot would argue that no one should be given any serious amount of power, because they are bound to misuse it. On the other hand, if everyone keeps their little bit of power, they are bound to misuse it as well.

Frankly, I agree that there are many people who should not have guns, and some of them do. However, I don't trust other potentially bad/stupid/greedy/power-hungry people to have the power to restrict all of our rights. If you don't believe in the strength/wisdom of people, you really face two bad options. You can concentrate power in the hands of a few, and hope they don't screw up too badly and damage everyone, OR you can distribute power to everyone and hope that the good decisions counter the bad decisions. I side with the second idea. Do I trust that the average person will make the correct decision? Not really, but I would rather let people make poor decisions on their own, than have those in the government enforce bad decisions on everyone.

...does that make me a pessimistic libertarian?

[one-eyed fat man]

191. Who

do you think would enforce your edicts, oh mighty dictator for life?

Despite your fervent desires to confiscate every non-government firearm were you really the grand poobah, there is a pretty good case for thinking the military might just do you like the Pakis did Bhutto. (Long drop with a short rope if you don't remember 1979)

There was an interesting little episode involving a survey done by a student at the Navy War college. The very scenario you propose, the military being ordered to go from house to house to confiscate guns would result in wholesale mutinies.

Question 46

Hang on to your delusions. After all, how are all the well-hung, urbane, blue state, sophisticates WITHOUT those hateful, evil, GUNS, take them away from those paranoid, dickless, rednecks out in flyover country who have them?

[NYC_SKP]

5. You lost me at, "Go to the local armory where your guns should be stored"...

Fine, as long as the home invasion folks and corrupt police and soldiers PROMISE to give me 15 minutes to get there and back.

AND, they have to PINKY SHAKE on it.

[eeyore]

17. You need a gun often in NYC Skip?

You have common interactions with home invaders, corrupt cops and soldiers? Sounds like you may need to go out to the country and build yourself a compound to stay safe from the interlopers. Seriously. You have no reason to possess a gun in a major metropolitan area. I live in a city, and there have been shootings a block away from my home. Keeping a gun next to my bed would do nothing to help me stay safe.

[NYC_SKP]

36. I live in an unincorporated area of central California. Not that it matters.

During my years in NYC, Lower East Side (Houston and B), I did not keep a gun in my apartment.

It's a big country.

We can't be all keeping our firearms at a local armory.

That's silly.

[HALO141]

111. And just who

the fuck are you to tell other people what they "need?"

[paulsby]

113. ah. the "need canard"

take 1,345,232

god, this illogical argument never grows old with civil rights opponents like you.

nobody has to justify their exercise of ANY civil right (speech, religion, right to remain silent) by justifying their NEED to do so.

the idea is utterly anti-constitutional

[SteveM]

138. Don't "need" one in Texas, either. But it's insurance...

Peruse this forum long enough and you will see many, many instances of where keeping a gun nearby DID "help to stay safe." And in most cases, the gun was never fired.

I can't think of a better place to own a firearm for self-protection than in "...a major metropolitan area." I live in one, and I own one.

[stray cat]

6. It is certainly an opinion

and we all have them even those on Free Republic

[loyalkydem]

7. I'm rec

this because I know the freepers will come in here and unrec like crazy.

[SteveM]

139. Who are the "freepers?" Those with whom you disagree? (nt)

[Matt 6_5]

205. I'm learning fast...seeing that anyone, especially a newbie, will be subjected to the most

vile and scatological accusations for merely disagreeing with certain privileged DU members...especially those who have posted thousands of messages and donated money. If they dare to do it a second time, they trot out the dreaded 'tombstone' and everyone gets a tingling in the loins waiting for him to get the 'pizza' (how juvenile)
:shrug:

[Doctor_J]

8. Well, "unregulated" is a little hyperbolic

Gun ownership is regulated, just very poorly.

But allowing people to carry guns at political discussions is pretty stooopid.

[Recursion]

15. Some parts of gun regulations are working well, eg, you can't buy an assault rifle

That regulation has worked pretty well for 80 years or so now.

The background check system more or less works well, though it would be nice if private sellers could access it through some means that would protect buyers' privacy.

[zipplewrath]

64. You might want to edit that

I think you probably meant "automatic" rifle. And you can, you just need to be federally licensed. I know more than a few people who have legally owned them.

[Statistical]

73. An assault rifle is automatic and are heavily regulated.

An "assault WEAPON" on the other hand is scary looking gun and is more lethal in the same way a spoiler on the back of a 1984 civic makes it go fast.

[HALO141]

114. hahahahahha

Thanks. I needed the laugh. ;)

[SteveM]

141. Took the hubcapt off my '94 Safari van: Zoom, Zoom Zoom! (nt)

[Recursion]

79. Nope. Assault rifles are automatic rifles

They *can* be owned, but for all practical purposes they are banned for private civilian ownership, and have been since the 1930's.

[SteveM]

140. Excuse me, but a small correction is in order...

Full-auto weapons (which include true Assault Rifles) ARE legal, but are highly regulated. They are also very expensive which explains in part why probably fewer than 300,000 own them.

I think you have something on opening up the NICS system. This has been discussed here for some time, what are your ideas?

[paulsby]

115. it may be "stoopid" but

it's been the law (legal to carry) at "political discussions) for centuries/

of course, specific regs, especially at discussions held at private venue have always been discretionary.

[RandySF]

11. I'm a 2nd Amendment liberal

For some reason many NRA members don't get that the NRA is just a Republican front group and on the fringe of American society. We need responsible, progressive groups for those of us who believe that the 2nd preserves the right to bear arms in a responsible way.

[silverback]

42. Agree.

Whoops, agree.

[raimius]

186. NRA

They seem to support whoever supports their views. They (actually the NRA-ILA) do give money to Democrats every year. The problem for most Democrats who support gun-rights is that the DNC usually sides with the Brady Campaign and VPC. Therefore, gun-rights supporters who are not Democrats have a bit of trouble supporting "pro-gun" Democrats when the national party takes a different view.

Some would accuse the ACLU of being the same as many here claim the NRA-ILA is. Frankly, I think the work that both organizations do to preserve our rights is good, but both organizations have serious flaws.

[PVnRT]

14. Community armories?

Great idea, especially since the NRA True Believers are the ones shouting about Obama "taking their guns away."

It's especially funny since New Hampshire and Vermont are two of the most gun-friendly states we have, and how have they voted the past two Presidential elections?

[Recursion]

18. Legally I can understand the armory idea

I personally think the 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a full-fledged M16 or AK47, but that your community or state can make it be kept in an armory (though not the Federal government) when you are not bearing it.

The 9th amendment, meanwhile, protects your right to keep and bear roughly what you currently can keep and bear: sub-.50-caliber, semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

[Mrs. Overall]

16. I agree with you.

[jmg257]

19. It will take a vast majority of the people to think like you. So far, they don't.

It isn't difficult at all.

And it is simple to understand that just because YOU don't see a reason for something does not mean that the reasons don't exist, and that many others do see them.

[Call Me Wesley]

20. I checked into the gun laws of my country,

then checked the gun laws of the U. S. I guess I feel safer here. ;)

And yes, I own guns, but I have no carry permit at all and don't see any reason why I should have to have one. I'm not endangered, and, to be honest, walking around with a gun would make myself a creep. Besides, it'll get me arrested here. You can have a concealed weapon if you can prove that your in imminent danger and need to self-defense yourself. If you get it, you have to undergo training in the Swiss Capitol (that's like everyone of the gun carriers would have to go to Washington, D. C.,) and it's only issued for five years and can be taken away from you at any minute.

I think I like it that way, though.

[imdjh]

25. As a rule, I don't feel the need to carry a weapon at Disney World.

[Call Me Wesley]

29. Strange, because that's the place

I'd carry mine! ;) Mickey Mouse scares me.

[raimius]

187. WDW

You would get banned from Disney World, if you carried a gun there (privately, not as a LEO).
WDW is private property, and they are very strict about their firearms policy.

[eeyore]

27. I'm with you, Wesley!

I spent some time in Canada recently, and I was really amazed at how many people wanted to talk to me about how violent our society seems to Canadians. They sit across the border from us, watching shows like Cops, and honestly believe that most people in the US are carrying concealed weapons. They are absolutely terrified of our society. We're like drug addicts - everyone else can see how fucked up we are, we just can't see it ourselves.

[Call Me Wesley]

32. Fun fact is

that Switzerland has one of the highest gun per capita rations in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland. Drawback is we have around 300 deaths by them by year, mostly suicide and domestic violence.

[imdjh]

39. Canada's high crime areas are rural.

The darker the zone on the map, the more violent crimes per 100,000 people.

[rrneck]

101. Something you might look into.

I'm not a statistics guy but I ran across this in NationMaster:

Assaults (per capita) (most recent) by country

# 1 South Africa:----12.0752 per 1,000 people
# 2 Montserrat:------10.2773 per 1,000 people
# 3 Mauritius:--------8.76036 per 1,000 people
# 4 Seychelles:-------8.62196 per 1,000 people
# 5 Zimbabwe:---------7.6525 per 1,000 people
# 6 United States:---7.56923 per 1,000 people
# 7 New Zealand:------7.47881 per 1,000 people
# 8 United Kingdom:---7.45959 per 1,000 people
# 9 Canada:--------7.11834 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

Looks pretty close to me.

edited to fix screwup

[SteveM]

143. It might be advisable to cut back on the Cop shows...

Even this "true-life" series gives a crappy impression of American life, just like the fictional shows. Given the size of this country, and the concentration of crime in relatively small areas, this society is pretty safe.

Get outside more, turn off the T.V., find out what people really are like.

[SteveM]

142. The 2nd Amendment keeps the government from taking away guns...

from civilians. That's the way I like it. I also feel rather safe, even in a fairly large city. I don't carry concealed because I, too, don't have a reason for it. Around the house, I have a firearm ready for quick use. I also sleep very well at night.

Welcome to the forum.

[jody]

22. "no reason to carry a pistol around an urban area" but violent crime is much higher in urban areas

than others.

Over 800,000 law enforcement officers carry handguns for self-defense, most in urban areas, and law-abiding citizens exercise their right to keep and bear arms for self-defense for the same reason.

Government is not obligated to protect an individuals so self-defense is a personal responsibility.

[sui generis]

23. amen

Collecting and selling cocaine is a hobby too, but that's illegal for some reason.

I have yet to meet any male, without exception, who is pro gun and has an ass that can fit in a single zip code. Certainly none on DU. That says something for sure - the fatter the ass the more likely to own a gun for reasons of personal paranoia. Some dude was on here years ago talking psychotically about the "gang bangers", although he'd never actually seen real one except in an outline on a target clip.

Absolutely correct about cities - in fact I have a bullet hole in the back of my right leg from a "good samaritan" shooting in NYC. When everyone's pulling out a gun to take out the crazy shooting at the hospital main entrance, nobody knows who the crazy is. Fortunately I was able to stop the bullet from harming anyone else using nothing but an old pair of jeans with my leg in it. go figure.

And I still don't have the faintest urge to get a gun to "defend" myself.

[imdjh]

28. Good for you baby. You're so superior, physically and morally.

[sui generis]

40. snork

:P

[eeyore]

30. Wow!

Thank you for your perspective.

:toast:

[jmg257]

34. You should check out my ass, pretty nice actually!

[sui generis]

48. wouldn't want you to shoot me

;) you know, stalking, gang banging (some kind of banging), criminal intent with mutual consent, etc.

Actually, responsible gun owners who aren't obsessed with their guns are the extreme minority. It's almost as if gun ownership changes people's personal identity. If they were scared shitless before, now they're mostly still just scared shitless, and with a gun. And with a stronger understanding of exactly how damaging a gun can be in the wrong hands, people who believe their hands are the right hands are even more scared and trigger happy. It feeds itself.

It's not a comforting thought. Having a gun does not make anyone "feel" safer, it just makes them feel like they have more options, but being overly aware of gun presence tends to bend your mind in the direction that guns are at the center of all human interaction and the only thing keeping humans from being animals. It's boopdeboop crazy with a fine coating of batshit on top.

In fact it's quite liberating not to have a gun and rely on your common sense and self.

I lived in Spanish Harlem at 185th between St. Nicholas and Amsterdam, then at Sickles, then down in Hell's kitchen before it was regentrified, down in the east village, the west village and finally moved on up to the East Side to a deeeluxe apartment, before over to west 75th between Columbus and Amsterdam. This was all in the early eighties. I have never worried about criminals - perhaps because I don't look or act like someone who could be easily rolled either.

I personally think most people are too stupid to carry a gun, and I'm an out and proud elitist liberal so I don't give a shit if that hurts anyone's feelings. You can train a monkey to shoot a gun, but why would you.

[jmg257]

54. Seems you really don't know too many gun owners. At least the right ones anyway.

There are a LOT more of us responsible un-obsessed gun owners then you think. In my experience, obviously different then yours, the vast majority are just fine people, with good families, normal lives, no trouble, a normal grasp of reality, etc. etc. etc.

Whether you think most people are stupid is another matter, but if they are, then forget owning guns, they shouldn't be doing REALLY dangerous things like driving cars and raising kids.

[sui generis]

57. My Dad's side of the family

are all gunjeon bully wannabe's. I guess I get more entertainment than satisfaction out of riling them up, and mostly the sane reasonable people aren't in the gunjeon anyway precisely BECAUSE they're not obsessed with their proxy-penises. Sorry, I am unable to help myself when I smell gun oil in the water.

You're okay - thanks for the cool head! :hi:

[jmg257]

59. Cheers! It was a pleasure! nt

[raimius]

188. Why?

Why does this forum seem to constantly lower itself to genital comparisons?
Do we believe people who use wide pens are trying to compensate too? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! (to quote Freud)

I think a lot of gun-rights supporters get riled up because they see the same 2+2=22 logic presented over and over. I'm not saying there are not reasonable ideas for gun-control, but there is a TON of misinformation on the "controller" side, WRT to firearms and current law. Granted, the gun-rights side is prone to exaggeration (I stopped reading most NRA-ILA mailings because of this).

[SteveM]

145. Seems you are a bigot hiding behind a convenient definition...

"Actually, responsible gun owner who aren't obsessed with their guns are the extreme minority. It's almost as if gun ownership changes people's personal identity."

Out of some 80,000,000 civilian U.S. gun owners, how many do you reckon are obsessed/not obsessed? Still elitist? Definitely still bigoted.

Why don't you "monkey" around with your reasoning on how people's personalities change, then take that banana.

[sui generis]

159. why don't you learn some new insults

do you really think you're scoring?

I realize by not talking to the sharpest marble in the bag I'm becoming marble-like myself (you become an idiot when you argue with idiots, or however the latin translation goes), but come on. Bigot? Is that all you got?

[TxRider]

157. Ohh Baloney

There are about 65 million gun owners, and most are far from obsessed.

Most also have no intention of carrying with them anywhere, or ever shooting anyone for any reason.

[sui generis]

160. and most aren't posting franticly in defense

of not being a stereotype. I'm not talking about them.

[One_Life_To_Give]

43. 36 Waist, think thats still a single zipcode

I would call myself pro-second ammendment. Although personnally I only own a vicious BB Gun my parents bought me decades ago.

Last I checked there are ten square miles of land for every persson in the country. Which means some people live in more remote areas where they have to be self reliant. Can't wait 20 minutes for the county cop to put his pants on and come deal with a Rabid Coon going after your Dog. Or just to deal with Varmits around the premisis. But most of all I don't like penalizing millions of responsible people for the actions of the few.

on edit P.S.
I know I put on a few pounds in the ten years since my last cigarette. But really is 5'10" 210# really two zipcodes?

[sui generis]

50. too funny

thanks for the humor - :P

seriously though - grizzlies and coyotes and methlabs oh my, in the country. Fine - I get it. My partner's family lives in the deep country, and they have various firearms for a number of reasons out on a cattle farm, none of which include protection from criminals.

But in the city - I don't need to see a paranoid person playing open carry at the grocery store, fer cryin' out loud. It just looks stupid, and uncivilized. I'd laugh just as hard if I saw someone carrying a Roman sword in a sheath. What is the difference?

[One_Life_To_Give]

55. True Story

My College Police force confiscated a Short Sword back in the late 70's. Apparently it wasn't illegal to walk the streets of Boston with one as long as the Sword was not hidden in a Scabbard, etc. However it was not allowed to be carried on Private, University, property.

I do recall the older generation buisinessmen didn't use/trust plastic and carried conciderable sums of cash. Hence some of them had concealed carry permits. (e.g. Garage Owner/Tow Truck Operator, Long Haul TT Driver)

[Name removed]

86. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tess I Guess]

198. I'm a prochoice lady democrat who supports 2nd amendment, too

My gun mostly sits in the closet gathering dust. Kinda like my right to choose, heh heh. I just like knowing if I ever had to make use of it, it wouldn't be a crime.

I used to work for the police, and lemme tell you--if the citizens of our city had known how short-handed we were some nights, they've wouldve been really dismayed.

[fedupinhouston]

85. Wow...just wow....

So because your scope of knowledge is so minimal, the rest of us should lose our rights?

You may want to get out of whatever little subculture you inhabit and see the rest of the nation. You'll discover your perspective on gun owners is woefully skewed.

[sui generis]

122. I repeat

statements like that qualify you as an idiot. my scope of life? Please tell me about my scope of life. I'm very interested to know who wrote the biography. Oh and about your telepathy and clairvoyance - am I wearing boxers or briefs? Let me edit to add I have lived or worked nearly everywhere on this damn planet at one point or another in my life. I've seen things you wouldn't believe, or at best would convince you of nothing more than life is unremittingly inherently unfair and ugly, and that when push comes to shove most people are not heroes, mostly people fear violence and pain and loss and that informs every decision they make.

So silly little American, tell me about your extensive life experience and how that sets you apart. Tell me how having your silly pop gun makes you a better person, how you now don't fear violence and pain and loss, how you're a hero because you know who you are now that you have a gun.

I'll bet you're still just as miserable and scared of your shadow as you ever were.

[fedupinhouston]

126. And I repeat...

YOU are the one demonstrating that you know nothing about the average firearms owner. You make snap judgments and assumptions about others based in nothing but your own fear and prejudices.

I have said NOTHING to indicate I do not fear violence or pain or loss or to indicate that I am a hero. These are assumptions YOU have made.

My ass does not encompass multiple zip codes. My guns do nothing to make me a better person. I am neither miserable nor scared.

What I am is simply someone who has made the rational choice to use the tools available to be in an effort to be prepared for what life throws my way. Nothing more. I wear my seatbelt when I drive a car, leathers and helmet when I am on my bike, have fire extinguishers and first aid kits in the house, cars and bikes, and i carry a gun. To me - they are all just tools.

You are free to choose to believe that guns are bad or that they cause any manner of things. This belief does not make it so.

[sui generis]

127. welcome to DU

:P

you've grown since yesterday.

[fedupinhouston]

131. I grow daily...

A day without some form of personal growth is a day wasted.

I see you have chosen to waste another day.

You feel free to live with your bigotry and ignorance. That is your decision and I support your right to do so. My only hope is that one day you'll stop seeing gun owners through such a narrow lens. After all, I'm sure you do not appreciate being seen as a stereotypical homosexual, and rightly consider those who see you that was as nothing more than fools.

[sui generis]

133. hey everyone I'm a bigot according to this poster

bigot? :rofl: oh you poor victim of oppression.

and, oh my feelings are so hurt.

You can call me a drag queen or whatever else you think is a stereotype all you want. Might as well call me a tomato. I'm not going to get all huffy on behalf of tomatoes everywhere.

There's your lesson for the day.

[Tejas]

201. No, you're being a hypocrite

Looking at post #23 and then your generalizations/personal attacks/snide comments in the later posts by you in this thread, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out where to look you up in Websters.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

102. 5'10" 165lbs. nt

[Spoonman]

124. I'm 44 years old,

and I'll bet a dollar to a stale donut I look better than you naked!
I am 6' 1" and weigh 186lbs.
I run 2-5 miles a day, and work out 3 days a week.
I hunt, fish, backpack and snow ski.
I have a bachelors and masters degree.
I drink scotch and vodka (not mixed) and I hate beer.
I listen to all types of music.
I am a veteran who served five years.
I have never been arrested.
I own multiple firearms.

ALL of my friends that I shoot with are pretty much the same.

Turn off the computer and TV and try getting out in the real world a little more often.

[sui generis]

128. I'll bet you don't

computer and TV? that was lame dude. Not going to swap dick pics, but I'll take you to Whistler and see if you can keep up - only you better be up early and stay up late because that's when I'm on the mountain; no territory is off limits. Apres? not for me; it's time to eat by the time I get back down. I work out 6 days a week, two of those in full contact sparring a top tier professional fighter. I'm 6'1", five miles a day, 32" waist, drink scotch AND vodka straight out of the bottle. Glasses, ice cubes and water are for sissies. I have been arrested and will probably be arrested again if it serves me to do so. I don't hunt or fish, but I do shoot a mean camera, and there is no place I won't go to get a layout. I am not a military veteran but I have worked extensively for the government. I don't own a single firearm right now, and I'm possibly older and meaner, but not much older if months count.

why are alla you who are the exception taking exception here? You know you aren't representative.

If you're the exception you are not who I was targeting.

[vincna]

129. Somebody get a ruler - nt

[sui generis]

130. dahling it's my ego that requires two zip codes

:P

[Matt 6_5]

207. Not good enough to measure the unit of Mister sui

need a yardstick at least...

[Name removed]

148. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

147. Ha! LOL!

[SteveM]

144. Your hatefulness is duly noted. At least you dealt with "ass" and not "penis." (nt)

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

154. Hatefulness stands. Brush up on your own skills...

'Been tomb stoned lately? Try to stay stoned only. Big difference.

[sui generis]

155. huh?

I think one of the rules is you're supposed to at least make some kind of sense.

[SteveM]

162. Heh?

If making sense were a rule, you would have been bounced long ago.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

178. Congratulations sui generis, you have earned the gun-grabber beetle award for blissful thinking.

[spin]

26. There is a lot of reasons to carry in an urban environment...

they are called criminals.

[jmg257]

37. We have a winner!!!

[imdjh]

46. +1

[YOY]

53. You know I'm all for the 2nd Amendment...but how many criminals have you had to foil in urban areas?

Personally.

I'm in a major urban area and I find it wise to leave the weapon at home...locked up and out of the way.

[spin]

88. Fortunately none...

and hopefully, I will never have to use a firearm for self defense either in my house or on the street.

Since I live in Florida and have enjoyed shooting at ranges for years, I know a large number of people who carry concealed legally. I only know two or three who ever had to use their concealed weapon for self defense. No shots were fired and no one was injured.

In one instance, two of my co-workers were in downtown Tampa on a Sunday morning. They were using metal detectors to explore the site of a building that had recently been torn down and removed. An individual walked up, pulled a knife and suggested they hand over their money. One of my co-workers smiled and pulled back his jacket to reveal a .45 auto in a shoulder holster. The knife wielding man turned and walked away muttering obscenities.

But the fact that concealed weapons are legal in a state may cause a reduction in crime without being used. Statistics on this assertion are often controversial and criticized. However, I do remember one situation in Florida which does seem to support the assertion.

Some commentators have cited evidence of increased likelihood of vicitimization of people in Florida driving marked rental cars following the passage of the Florida concealed carry law as further evidence that concealed carry discourages crime. <43> Florida responded to a crime wave against tourists by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#cite_note-suprynowicz-42

Obviously the criminals (largely in the Miami area) were targeting rental cars because they suspected that tourists would be unarmed. The problem basically disappeared after the criminals found themselves unable to distinguish rental cars from the vehicles owned by Florida residents. But to be fair, this may not prove the value of concealed carry laws as Floridians can legally carry loaded firearms in their vehicles.

Vehicle carry without a permit is allowed either in a snapped holster in plain view, or when the firearm is concealed if the firearm is "securely encased". "Securely encased" means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.<44> (Note: this legal condition is not the same as "encased securely.") Vehicle carry without a permit is permitted when concealed even if it is not "securely encased" if the firearm is not "readily accessible". Vehicle carry on one's person inside a vehicle without a permit is not allowed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Florida

But the bottom line is that criminals stopped attacking tourists because they were unable to distinguish them from armed Floridians.

It's quite possible that the knife armed mugger I mentioned will decide that bringing a knife to a gun fight is a bad idea. Of course, he may just obtain a firearm. In all probability he uses a weapon as a means to an end. He doesn't really want a violent confrontation, all he wants is money. If so, he will change his approach to his chosen profession and perhaps concentrate on home robberies when the home owners are not present.

I have no problem with you leaving your weapon at home locked up. I don't advocate more guns on the street. For those who take concealed carry seriously and are willing to devote time and effort to becoming proficient with their firearm, I see no problem.

The people I know with carry permits don't wander around bad areas flashing rolls of money and looking for confrontation. They tend to be situationally aware. You don't often catch them at ATMs at midnight or driving around with unlocked doors and the windows down. If they drive to a convenience store late at night and the parking lot is filled with suspicious characters, they just drive to the next store to do their business. They avoid confrontation and often will walk away from an obnoxious individual who is busy insulting them, rather than act macho.

But the criminal who does manage to confront them may find himself in for a serious surprise.

[HALO141]

116. More than one. n/t

[vincna]

31. Fortunately, the SCOTUS sees it very differently...

and the current congress won't go near your position. Look at what happened after the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban - many Democratic congressmen were defeated in the 1994 mid-term election and we lost control of both the House and the Senate. This issue is radioactive for Democrats and the leadership won't touch it.

The second amendment is about the right to self defense. There is no reason why urban dwellers should have any less civil rights than ones living in the boonies. Would you like a geographical standard applied to your other civil rights?

Suggestion: Read up on the Heller decision (June 2008) and spend some time in the Gungeon. Better yet, transfer this thread to the Gungeon and see what you get in the way of responses. This issue is regularly discussed there by people who know what they are talking about. The level of ignorance regarding RKBA in this thread is unbelievable.

[Doctor_J]

62. Yes, the SCOTUS also believes corporations are people,

that Bush's ascendence to the White House shouldn't be subject to a count of the votes, that Miranda is not very important, and that the 4th amendment and 5th amendments are invalid.

You're not exactly on the side of the angels here, vincna

[vincna]

65. Because I'm unwilling to give up my civil rights?

This discussion is about RKBA only - that other stuff is irrelevant to this. Classic debate technique: When you can respond with substance, attack credibility. Doesn't work with me (or anyone else with a brain)

Taking away people's civil rights is angelic? Good grief.

[Doctor_J]

69. You have already given up your 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendment rights

this SCOTUS took them away. So why should I trust their thinking on the 2A? They have demonstrated themselves to be reactionary and anti-American.

If you don't want your credibility questioned, try being more credible.

By invoking THIS court's sagacity on 2A, you are de facto approving of their stripping of the rest of the BoR

[vincna]

80. That's a crock

Assuming your characterization of the SCOTUS's rulings on those amendment were accurate, then all the more reason to celebrate that they got one right for a change. I've taken no position on the other amendments; I'm not sure which rulings you are refering to and I don't want to muddy the water by discussing anything but 2A.

Unless our form of government is radically changed, the SCOTUS has the last word when it comes to the constitution. They spoke loud and clear with Heller. RKBA is an individual right. My suggestion: Get over it or amend the constitution.

[fascisthunter]

72. Yeah... that Pro-rightwing, pro-gun lobbyist, pro-gun manufacturing

Supreme COurt....

The Constitution says nothing about carrying... but it does spell out for the simplest of folks that there should be a well REGULATED MILITIA.

[vincna]

84. See response No. 82 - nt

[fedupinhouston]

87. Um, read it again...

It also doesn't say a thing about what I may have for dinner on Tuesday, and I guess you missed that whole "...keep AND BEAR...." part.

However, as others have pointed out, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not define what the PEOPLE may and may not do. The Constitution defines what GOVERNMENT may do, and the Bill of Rights places additional restrictions and clarifications upon those permissions. Anything which government is not specifically granted the authority to do is retained by the people or the states. That last little tidbit is restated for the edification of those who refuse to accept plain English in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Now, with that in mind, would you like to rethink YOUR position? Do TRY to keep in mind that ALL of the USSC Justices held that the 2nd protects an individual right. That is "PROTECTS" mind you - not grants. The right predates the US Constitution.

[bigbass]

35. So are the criminals going to store their guns at the armory too?

Just wondering.

[bertman]

41. One right-wing nut carries a visible gun to a public event with police and Secret Service

EVERYWHERE, nothing happens except the guy wears the gun, and the anti-gun crowd gets apoplectic. Who would've ever thought that could happen?

It's the ones with the concealed weapons we need to worry about. Not the ones who lawfully wear a holstered firearm.

[silverback]

45. There's nearly as many guns in the US as people...

There's no putting the genie back in the bottle, there'll always be guns.

Nor should we want to, IMO. Arms put a limit on oppression I would not wish to live without.

"Well regulated", in this context, does not mean what you'd think it means, we can't make the BOR subject to the whim of popular (or deliberately altered) usage or we risk losing all of them, the intent of the 2nd amendment is quite clear, the meaning of "well regulated" the meaning of "militia", the meaning of every word.

It isn't a matter that's up for debate, the 2nd amendment is what it is, and the only remedy under the law is to amend it.

You try to abridge peoples ability to defend themselves there'd be a war, a real war, even if only one in a thousand gunowners took up arms, even one in ten thousand, it'd be catastrophic, we DO NOT want that.

Keep them away from the politicians, make them keep them locked up when kids are around, that's doable. Every time there's even a whiff of a new restriction firearm sales go through the roof, gun control advocates have sold more guns than anything else I can think of.

[Tess I Guess]

200. """"" There's no putting the genie back in the

in the bottle, there'll always be guns""

You got that right! What are we up to now, 200 million guns in a nation of 300 million people? Hell
if control was the idea, they lost that a long time ago!

I think in a country like ours, with some 200 mill. guns around, all our social, class, racial and political tensions, to only have 80 people out of 300 million shot dead at the end of the day--that's not horrible, that's pretty damn good!

Do the anti-gun folks think they're going to get that figure down to zero? Hell, they'd have to outlaw impulsiveness, anger, hot tempers, despair--how they think they're gonna do that?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

52. I am there with you.

I think the 2nd Amendment as it stands was one of the biggest mistakes the Founders made in our Constitution. :shrug:

All of our other freedoms guaranteed by the Constituion are still regulated in ways. Why the 2nd can't be, is beyond me.

[vincna]

60. It already is

There are thousands of gun laws on the books now. The only regulation that would satisfactory to most gun control advocates are ones that would either totally disarm law abiding citizens or make access to firearms so onerous that they would be useless in a self defense situation.

[YOY]

63. and then how would you be able to stop Kingpin, Frank?

I mean I'm walking down the street and those black guys would be TOTALLY mugging me every five seconds if I wasn't packing!

[vincna]

66. I'd pack my own heat, of course. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. Don't bother them with the facts.

[raimius]

189. 22,000 gun laws and counting

IMO, 22,000+ laws is quite a bit of regulation!

I don't think that includes actions that can be taken with guns (i.e. murder is a crime, but there is usually no reference to firearms in the law banning murder).

[NeedleCast]

67. Urban areas tend to have the highest violent crime rates

I can think of few better places to carry a gun.

[fifthoffive]

74. I'm with you all the way.

I and my entire extended family have managed quite nicely without owning a gun or relying on someone who does. I won't enter a house where I know there are guns.

[X_Digger]

83. "or relying on someone who does" -- you do..

.. they're called the police and military.

As long as you're removed from those icky guns and don't have to see them, it's okay? (That's okay, people feel the same way about meat- Where does it come from? From the market, of course.)

[SteveM]

149. Good for you. I enter the houses of unarmed and armed folks all the time (nt)

[MidwestRick]

77. I do not own any fire arms...

but have no issue with law abiding citizens who wish to keep firearms. I do believe regulations should be stringent, but at the same time, if someone will follow the laws in place, I do believe they should be able to own those weapons.

[eeyore]

81. Moved to the Gungeon? Really??

You never think it's going to happen to you, then BAM! Your topic gets sent to the place where controversial conversations go to die. Well, I guess I accomplished something today.

:7

[vincna]

82. I have a suggestion (and don't take this personally)

There are a number of pretty articulate, well informed, pro-RKBA people in the Gungeon. Hoopla Phil, Fire Medic Dave and Virginia Montain Man come to mind, but there are many others. Your OP really comes off as whining and you seem to be pretty uninformed about the issue, so they may just ignore you. Learn something about the history of 2A - the historical context in which it was drafted, what the term militia meant to the Framers and then read the Heller decision. You'll be in a position to discuss the matter intelligently with people who have an in depth knowledge of the issue and you won't be posting ideas that look ridiculous when considered against the facts.

[Spoonman]

123. "controversial conversations go to die"

I beg to differ,
It is where the authors of such HORSESHIT are handed their ass on a platter!

Read the constitution and bill of rights.
Afterwards, if you don’t agree with them, move to fucking Canada or any country of your choice.

I for one am sick of misinformed, uneducated sheep that believe criminal activity can be controlled by imposing more regulations on the law abiding citizens.

[SteveM]

150. Frankly, you can post them anywhere you want....

in this manner, folks with sound arguments in favor of the Second Amendment can better educate and persuade those who are of a different opinion.

And it's working.

[SteveM]

153. By the way, I forgot this...

If you ever get to Austin, Texas, take part in Eeyore's Birthday. This is a big party in the park (some 25,000) for counter-culture types, young and old. We've celebrated our bastion of radical and liberal thought since 1963. All the organizers are left-of-center and most are armed, though not at the party. We hire liberal-thinking armed security for that. No problems. Paint-on clothes, vulgar costumes, great fun, great local beer. And it's FREE!

BTW, I'm 61, and never considered the 2nd Amendment as a lib-con issue. It has only been since the 1970s that some gun-controllers have tried to force-fit their prohibitionist ideology into the "liberal" pantheon of civil rights. Of course, that notion is baloney, but culture war being what it is, the battle is now the thing for gun-controllers.

Eeyore's Birthday is the last Saturday in April.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. Fortunately for you there is no unregulated personal gun ownership.

[proteus_lives]

91. Well, that's a silly idea.

Thank goodness it would never happen in the United States.

Oh and you're not acting like a liberal, wanting to restrict and destroy the 2nd Amendment.

"We are a vastly urban society, and there is no reason for a private citizen to have guns in such an environment."

Wow. :rofl:

[lovecanada56035]

92. Agree completely

People should not have a "right" to bear arms. It is a privilege.

[vincna]

93. It might be a privilege in Canada,...

but in the USA, it's an individual right. What is unfortunate is how many people get outraged about some real or perceived abridgement of their other civil rights, but demonize those who value and/or choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Talk about double standards.

[fedupinhouston]

94. Maybe its a privilege to you...

..down here in that really big nation to your south we have not chosen to allow government to decide our privileges. We have rights - and our government is obligated to protect and enforce them.

Hey - if you ever want to find out what its really like down here, come on over. Assuming you have some beneficial skill or another it should not be too difficult for you to immigrate. Then you could actually VOTE in our elections rather than simply whining about them.

[SteveM]

152. Correction...

Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, as you state. It is a recognized right. The only way you conceptualize the right to keep and bear arms as a "privilege" in the U.S. is within the 14th Amendment. It reads in part: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Of course, one of these "privileges or immunities" is the right to keep and bear arms. This is the incorporation power of the 14th and is the foundation for civil rights laws and court decisions since the 1950s. When it was passed in 1868, the debate was chiefly about how to secure for black people the right to keep and bear arms, so that they may defend themselves from marauding gangs and even state militia. The Fourteenth was the result.

[Tim01]

96. And I say you are wrong. nt

[jeepnstein]

98. Locked up in the Armory?

So every time I choose to exercise a Constitutional Right I have to ask someone in a position of authority to unlock the door? "Please kind sir, may I have my rights?" No thank you. I don't have to "register" in order to enjoy the freedoms of a Citizen of the United States.

Far and away the bulk of gun owners in this country are quite safe and responsible. Those who are lawless and irresponsible would be less of an issue if the criminal justice system took the problem of violent crime seriously.

[bossy22]

99. your logic is questionable

a person in the boonies is much less likely to be a victim of a violent crime in their own home....rural areas on average have much lower crime rates than urban areas....so why do they need guns over urban homeowners, who live in crime ridden areas? The police response in places like NYC for priority calls (calls in which life and health are in immediate danger) the average response time is about 2 minutes....2 minutes....thats alot of time when someone is attack you in your own home....you can easily be beaten to death in 2 minutes.

and any politician who would take your stand would be seriously out of touch with the majority of americans. Polls have consistently held that people self defense is a legitimate reason for owning a gun and that the american public generally supports law abiding Americans having access to firearms for self defense.

[raimius]

190. Different home, different rights

I don't like that logic either.
I don't care whether someone lives on a farm or in a loft in the city, they should have the same rights.

[rrneck]

103. Okay.

What remedy do you offer thousands of people that defend themselves with firearms before the police can save them?

[Israfel4]

104. So how do you plan to keep firearms out of the criminals hands??? n/t

[HALO141]

105. Not gonna happen.

Thanks for playing, though. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

[vincna]

106. I think he's already gone.

He got pissed off when his thread was moved here from GD. Must be something about having to deal with people who look at an issue logically rather than emotionally.

[HALO141]

125. Yeah

you're probably right.

[sui generis]

170. well his thread got hijacked by a bunch of emotional

gun rights supporters, so your statement does not make sense. At all.

As vigilant as you are about shooting down ANYONE who disagrees with you in tiniest bit, and then claiming the rest of us are bigots and you are merely poor persecuted victims I have to wonder whether there is anything BUT emotional ninnyism in this crowd.

buncha wannabe ninnies, defending your gawd given right to carry guns so's the gangbanger boogeyman won't try to come up behind you and snatch your murse.

:rofl:

[HALO141]

171. wha... What?

Whutever, dewd.

[Scout]

172. don't forget....

they also must protect their wimminfolk from RAAAAAAAAAPE!

[slackmaster]

117. I think you have what would be described in '90s psychobabble as "control issues"

Please see a therapist before you fret yourself into physical illness.

[Howzit]

120. Very generous of you to allow us

to keep some guns in an armory. Why not just demand a complete ban?

Carrying concealed guns is already illegal in most cities without government approval, yet criminals persist in ignoring these laws and do it anyway. Do you expect those who rob and murder for a living to keep their guns in the armory too? Are you going to demand that city cops and all politicians' body guards also give up their handguns as a model of civility?

[sui generis]

156. I've always thought this would make a great advertisement

Take the number of kids shot every day across the U.S. (what is it, something between 13 and 17 per day), lead them out on a playground, line them up against a brick wall and execute them.

Have the narrator say every day we don't do something to keep kids apart from guns and gun violence is day we may as well have executed 13 more kids.

Yes, I'm pushing emotional buttons, but hell if the gun lobby and gun loons don't do the same absurd shit every second of the day.

Thing is, the worst cases (low posters who only post in gunjeon and are clearly trolls) is they really don't want a fair fight. And the funny thing is they think it's open season on anyone who doesn't agree with them down the line.

Now I realize there are two kinds: one kind will actually have read this far and understand that I'm talking about rational and reasonable gun owners and probably go check out something more interesting. The other kind's head exploded at the end of the first paragraph and they are busy stabbing some stupid shit into their keyboard punctuated with a bunch of !!!!!11!!'s. As if anyone outside of gunjeon gives a half a happy shit what they think.

:rofl:

[spin]

158. How do you define children?

A common tactic to inflate the number of deaths of children is to include teenage gangbangers.

Youth homicides represent the greatest proportion of all firearm deaths. Each day in the U.S., firearms kill an average of 10 children and teens, even though the number of teens killed by firearms in the U.S. has dropped by 35% in the past four years. In 1999, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey reported that almost one-fifth of the 10th and 12th graders indicated that they had carried a firearm within the previous 30 days for self-defense or to settle disputes.

Youth homicide is a serious problem in large urban areas, especially among black males. Homicides are the number one cause of death for black and Hispanic teens. Yet when socio-economic status is held constant, differences in homicide rates by race become insignificant. Major contributing factors in addition to poverty include easy access to handguns, involvement in drug and gang activity, family disruption and school failure. These homicides usually occur in connection with an argument or dispute. They almost always are committed by casual acquaintances of the same gender, race and age, using inexpensive, easily acquired handguns.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesHF.htm

If you're old enough to be involved in a drug gang, I would not define you as a child.

[sui generis]

161. you said gangbanger

:rofl:

and a typical counter tactic is to recharacterize facts. so on facts, I didn't quite get exactly how many teenage gangbangers to take off the top.

Okay, all stop.

Not that anyone will actually read or comprehend this: I think that more people own guns and are licensed to use guns than should be. I don't believe everyone operates from the same level of sanity and rationality that I would like to see. I'm not for "gun grabbing". I'm not against gun regulation. I'm a pretty middle of the road guy, (and a pretty guy for those two stalkers upthread) but you can almost always ferret out the crazy ones by how hard they try to stick to you if you disagree. The funny part is that the harder people try to prove they're NOT the stereotype, the more they prove it, and the ones that aren't, aren't obsessed enough to wage war on the topic at the slightest provocation.

Yeah, on gangbangers vs. kids who felt unsafe enough to think they had to carry, what exactly qualifies the difference?

[spin]

164. To me the age is a distinguishing factor...

Gangs use a variety of methods to recruit new members, targeting in recent years younger and younger members because of the less stringent penalties for juvenile offenders. Gangs actively recruit youngsters age 15 and younger to carry out risky assignments or carry the weapons or drugs. Females are also recruited and influenced into similar activities.
The profile of a typical gang member is a male school dropout or truant, who is unemployed or has no employable skills. The gang member is usually in trouble with the police and does not receive adequate family attention. The gang provides identity and status and, in return, the member develops a fierce loyalty to the gang and nation.
Virtually all gangs have oaths, pledges, mission statements, etc., and a set of rules known as "laws" which each member must memorize and adhere to. Loyalty is demanded in every aspect of the gang philosophy. Respect for the gang as a "nation" is taught. The gang founders and past and present leaders are glorified in many of these oaths and rituals.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/Communities/Gang%20Awareness

I'm not sure where to draw the line between children and young adults. Perhaps 10 or 12 years old. This use of under aged individuals leads to many different crimes.

January 11, 2007 (WLS) -- Arrests were announced Thursday in what the Cook County Sheriff describes as an operation involving internet prostitution and the sale of weapons and drugs. Investigators say the prostitutes were underage girls. Authorities say two women used a popular web site to sell sex with girls as young as 14.

The underage prostitution investigation also led authorities to weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition and drugs.

Cook County Sheriff police have arrested three adults and made a significant gun and drug seizure as part of ongoing surveillance of a popular internet classified advertising site easily accessible to the public on the web.

"Some of these girls turn 10, 12 tricks a day resulting in tens of thousands of dollars for the pimps. It is very lucrative," said Sgt. Mike Anton, Cook County Sheriff police.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=4928094

It is difficult to access specific statistics on youth gangs in Georgia, due to the under ground nature of their activity. Statewide data is not available, but national data indicates that around half of all gang members are under age 18. Estimates indicatemore than 24,500 different youth gangs around the nation, with more than 772,500 teen and young adult members.3
http://www.georgiavoices.org/storage/voices/documents/1-gang_activity_in_georgia.pdf

Obviously we have a serious problem with the exportation of underage people in our country to commit serious crime.

But do you lump these individuals in the same category as a child who finds a loaded firearm and by mistake or accident manages to shoot himself or another individual?

We have some really major problems in our country. One is criminal gangs and their exploitation of of underage children. The anti-gun advocates often paint this as a problem of children being accidentally being killed that could be solved by draconian gun laws that only effect responsible firearm owners. Such "feel good" laws fail to address the basic problem. Criminal gangs are quite possibly a far more serious problem to our country than Al-Qaeda. If we treated criminal gangs as terrorists (which they are) we might help to solve some of the violence problem in our country.

I appreciate the fact that you are a "middle of the road" individual and are not for "gun grabbing". I also agree that many people "own guns and are licensed to use guns than should be". The driving factor is a fear of criminal attack and the desire for protection.

I grew up in the late 50's and 60's. None of the people I knew owned firearms for self protection. Some owned rifles or shotguns for hunting. I can remember only one handgun owned by my step father and brought back from WWII as a German souvenir. He didn't have any ammo for it.

In order combat the violence in our society that has grown over the years we need to first seriously enforce existing gun laws. We need to find anyone who is a straw purchaser of firearms and sentence them to MANY years in prison. We need to also incarcerate anyone caught illegally carrying a firearm to an extensive prison term.

We also need to vastly improve education and provide meaningful jobs to people that enable them to live a decent life. We need to continue to combat racism. We also need to treat our citizens as CITIZENS rather then mere serfs whose sole purpose to slave for the big international corporations.

The first step may be as simple as providing real healthcare similar to the far superior systems in most other advanced nations. To do this we must convince those we elect that they serve us rather than the special interest groups that provide them with campaign contributions. But if we are to succeed, also need to overcome the biased media who will never report that our heathcare system sucks compared to many other nations. I doubt if the average citizen will take the time to understand the issue. Instead he/she will waste time mindlessly watching American Idol.

It's very easy for politicians to pass "feel good" laws which accomplish nothing but also cost little. One example that involves firearms is the assault weapons ban. Totally based on lies and misconceptions, it accomplished absolutely nothing and in fact made the evil looking military style semi-auto weapons extremely popular and consequently increased sales dramatically.

I also want to prevent children from accidental death or injury involving firearms. I lock my firearms up and I train my grandchildren to use them responsibly only under my or another adults supervision.

But when some young adult wants to impress his gang with his ability to use a firearm to murder some other gang member, I don't view the loss of life as an accident.

View this statistic:

Children Killed by Guns: In 1999, there were 3,385 firearms-related deaths for children ages 0–19 years. They break down as follows: 214 unintentional, 1,078 suicides, 1,990 homicides, 83 for which the intent could not be determined, and 20 due to legal intervention. Source: 2002 edition of Injury Facts.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922329.html

Is an 18 or 19 year old a child? He can join the military and learn how to shoot, travel to foreign nations and engage in warfare. In fact, with parental consent he can join at 17.

[Euromutt]

165. Beware of generalizations

Not that anyone will actually read or comprehend this: I think that more people own guns and are licensed to use guns than should be.

I think plenty of people are perfectly capable of comprehending it. And it's not that I disagree. Frankly, I think there are people in this country (every country, in fact) who are too damn stupid to be entrusted with the right to vote, too.

The problem is this: I wouldn't trust anyone in government with the power to decide who does and who does not get the vote, or gets to own firearms; I don't think such restrictions would be applied fairly, all the time, but less than that is unacceptable. And historical evidence abounds that when a government official is granted the power to deny certain people the right to vote or keep firearms, that power gets abused. Certain demographic groups will be excluded due to bigotry (blacks in the South, recent immigrants in the North-East, Asians on the West Coast), or the privilege will be extended (or not withdrawn) only in exchange for certain favors (e.g. in Contra Costa County, California, holders of CCW permits who aren't retired law enforcement are almost to a man contributors to the sheriff's campaign fund).

Yeah, on gangbangers vs. kids who felt unsafe enough to think they had to carry, what exactly qualifies the difference?

Why would you make that distinction? Why do "kids who felt unsafe enough to think they had to carry" (in violation of the law) get a pass in your book, when people like myself (38 year-old CCW permit holder) get characterized as "boopdeboop crazy with a fine coating of batshit on top"?

[sui generis]

168. I guess when you don't have an enemy you can draw a gun on

taking a swing at me will suffice. Okay, I'm the bad guy, and worse, not afraid or backing down. that's been the nature of this upthread.

Really, I did ask a bona fide question in good faith. If you read a couple of the attacks on me upthread those are definitely from low IQ protoplasm.

It's odd that carrying a gun qualifies you to speak on behalf of all gun owners everywhere, even to take offense on behalf of all gun owners everywhere. Face it, own it, some gun owners are obsessed, DO exhibit pathology and are nothing like a rational human that I would trust to have a gun around me.

Gangbangers, the term, is like a red flag. Y'all must have gotten the same cue cards to read from is what it makes me think every time I hear someone in TEXAS say gangbangers. I live in the city, on the bloody bleeding pioneering edge of urban pioneering. My zip code has the highest number of reported gunshots in the state. I don't want to hear about gangbangers from some asshole who lives on a farm in the sticks, or lives in a gated community in Frisco. Just shut the fuck up, you don't know what you are talking about ("you" figuratively, not you personally).

So yes, I have a qualified opinion that doesn't come from a cue card. And when I ask about kids willing to break the law to carry for their own safety and how that is different from someone who just carries, it's a real question. Are kids really in fear for their lives? As I recall I got in to fight after fight in highschool over being queer (also cause I like to kick ass) but fear for my life is different than fear of a little pain (of which I have none).

I think most people are kind of wimpish in that regard. It irritates me to hear someone say that three kids a day are qualitatively better than ten. That seems a bit more amoral than even I'm willing to accept. And it's being said by people who believe their lives are in constant danger and that they need to carry a gun for their own personal safety. And you wonder why some people think those kinds of people are kooks?

I wish there was a wild wild west we could send those types back to (cue theme from the Good the Bad and the Fugly). The rest of the more reasonable gun owner crowd - well mostly they're not posting here.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

181. So you post an insult in your first response to the OP and then are bothered when people respond...

negatively.

[Euromutt]

182. Concerns regarding "gang bangers" are valid in this context

We're not talking about someone in a suburban neighborhood or rural area who justifies his gun ownership by invoking the dreaded "gang member." We're talking about the statistic that, supposedly, 13 "children" a day die from GSWs. Where you live, and what the violent crime rates are there, doesn't disqualify you from pointing out that that much-touted statistic includes individuals we don't necessarily think of as "children," because we're talking about a nation-wide statistic; it doesn't matter where you (general "you") live, but where and how those statistics are gathered.

Let's not pretend the statistic that "13 children a day are killed by GSWs" is not intended to evoke an emotional reaction based on the impression that the "children" in question are defenseless innocents. The fact is that this number is arrived at by including the CDC stats for the age group 15-19, and this age group supplies a number of deaths that is a multiple of those in the age groups 14 and under. For example, according to the CDC's WISQARS (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html), in 2006 almost 7 times as many 15-19 year-olds (2,809) died from gunshot wounds than under-15s (404). In 2000, the ratio was about 6 to 1 (2,606 to 436). So on average, something like 11 or 12 of those "13 children a day" are 15 or over; an unspecified number are 18 or 19!

Let's also not pretend there aren't individuals aged 15-19 active in the illegal drug trade, and its attendant violent crime, such as turf battles. So obviously, there exist teenagers who die from GSWs who were not merely carrying for defensive purposes only.

And when I ask about kids willing to break the law to carry for their own safety and how that is different from someone who just carries, it's a real question. Are kids really in fear for their lives? As I recall I got in to fight after fight in highschool over being queer (also cause I like to kick ass) but fear for my life is different than fear of a little pain (of which I have none).

I don't know the answer to the question whether "kids <are> really in fear for their lives." Either way, though, I don't think the answer supports your position.

If "no, kids packing heat in school are not, in fact, in fear for their lives," then that removes the justification for any such kid being found in possession of a firearm. Conversely, if some of them are in fear of their lives, there has to be somebody they're mortally afraid of. Either way, it means there have to be kids carrying firearms for offensive purposes, and yes, any of those who get killed are included in that "13 children a day" stat.

It irritates me to hear someone say that three kids a day are qualitatively better than ten. That seems a bit more amoral than even I'm willing to accept.

I don't believe you, for the very simple reason that you're the one who whipped out that "13 children a day" statistic. In point of fact, you said "between 13 and 17 per day," inflating it by up to 30%. So evidently, you felt that even 13/day wasn't quite sufficient to support your argument. A minimum of research in WISQARS would have provided you with a statistic that 8 or 9 children under the age of 15 succumb to GSWs every week (on average), or well over 1/day; that statistic would, moreover, have been significantly more solid than the intentionally misleading "13 children a day" one, and if your point were that "even one is too many," it would have more than sufficient for your purposes.

But evidently, it wasn't.

Well, guess what? When you start whipping out numbers, and then get it pointed out to you that your numbers are bogus, you don't get to then pretend that the exact numbers don't matter. You sure as fuck don't get to pretend that it's a moral failing on your interlocutors' part to point out that your numbers are bullshit. That's just rank hypocrisy.

It's odd that carrying a gun qualifies you to speak on behalf of all gun owners everywhere, even to take offense on behalf of all gun owners everywhere.

It doesn't, and I'm not pretending I am. But a number of the insults you've tossed out happen to apply to me, and I'm certainly qualified to speak for myself.

I have to say that I find your posts remarkably insubstantial. If we strip away the ad hominems and the red herrings, all we've got left is lot of chest-thumping about how fucking fantastic you think you are. From where I'm standing, there's not a whole lot to support that belief, by the way. Are sure the reason you got into fights in high school as much (you say) you did wasn't simply because, not too put too fine a point on it, you're an asshole? See, when you say "I got in to fight after fight in high school <...> cause I like to kick ass," that translates to me as "I like to provoke fights so I have an excuse to hurt people." In my book, that particular trait would make you an asshole. And I for one certainly wouldn't want to see you owning a firearm. But just because you're a violent moron with poor impulse control doesn't mean the rest of us are.

[westerm]

166. i'm a pretty middle of the road guy

...but ban all guns now! For the children! Your "13 kids are killed each day zomg" stat counts everyone from 1-18 as a "child". Most people don't count a 17 year old as a "child".

Also, I love how you call everyone who disagrees with you on an issue "obsessed" with said issue.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HALO141]

173. oh come on.

Quit playing the tough guy an calm down.

If you want to dispute someone's point the do so and please stop acting like someone is unworthy because their post count is lower than yours.

[sui generis]

174. I was once one of them

Seriously Halo, the most condescending tones appear to be inversely proportionate to post count, and I'll admit, I was once one of those myself.

It's just a little tiresome after a while.

Now I have a high count and I'm still condescending . . . :P

I also actually have a sense of humor too though so as likely to skewer myself as anyone around me. Realistically, I think a lot of people have strong emotional responses to certain topics, so strong that they're busy stereotyping the people they're complaining about who they think are stereotyping them.

The "ass in two zipcodes" thing does refer to a segment of the population who fits a whole range of criteria. I am surprised that people who do NOT fit that rather silly stereotype are as offended as they are. If you call me a tomato, I will not be offended on behalf of tomatoes everywhere.

[HALO141]

175. heheh

Fair enough.

I've pretty much given up on the debate - mostly. Yes, I still pop in now and again, if I'm back home for a while, just out of curiosity but I really don't think anyone's mind is getting changed by anyone else.

People with deeply held convictions often make very strident arguments. Unfortunately, firm beliefs do not a gifted speaker make and the validity of one's argument has nothing to do with the volume with which it is delivered. Lord knows, I do NOT want William Kostric to become the poster child for gun rights any more than I want the Brady Campaign advising anyone on policy issues. The waters have been so muddied by emotion, propaganda and rhetoric that I fear there is little room for truth or reasoned debate anymore and I find it annoying when the best argument people can come up with is derision.

[westerm]

176. what

Yeah, you sure "wiped the floor" with my ass. You're pretty dumb, dude. Your opinions on guns are not middle of the road, they're fairly extreme as far as I can tell. I was contrasting your "i'm a middle of the road guy" statement with your "rarrgh for the children" statement that came right after it. You need to level up your internet arguing skill, it seems like you've only managed to get to level 2 and unlock "ad hominem".

Can you actually argue your point without calling anyone names? And why does my post count matter, again?

[Euromutt]

183. Hyperbole much?

Sadly, any politician who took this stand, if elected, would be assassinated by a terrified gun nut willing to go down in a blaze of glory, happily fulfilling the dream of his guns being taken from his cold, dead hands.

Actually, historical evidence (like the 1994 mid-terms) indicates that any such politician would simply be voted out of office at the next election. It's not like the American political landscape is littered with the corpses of anti-gun politicians themselves; it is, however, littered with the carcasses of their careers.

If your intention is to persuade anyone of the correctness of your opinions, it helps to retain a grasp on reality.

[DissedByBush]

184. I'm liberal, against unregulated speech and very proud of it.

You want to talk? Go to the government office where your permission to speak card is stored. Just remember to check it back in on your way back into town.

You haven't purchased the card? No problem, you can go to a local "speech zone" and pay for a temporary card to speak while you're there.

You'll need a card to post on DU. You'll need a card to blog. Just remember to check out your card before you post.

Seriously, if we're going to be treating constitutional rights like this, speech should be no exception.

[Euromutt]

193. Yeah, and pens, typewriters, computers etc. will be kept at a government-controlled repository

If you want to write something, you can apply at the repository between the hours of 0900 and 1630 and ask the nice man at the desk if you can please take possession of your personal property. Then you can write whatever it is you want to write in a designated area, where the general public won't be exposed to whatever it is you're writing. Remember to check your writing implements and your output back at the repository before close of business. And if you want to publish your writings, you will of course need a government-issued publishing license, which can be acquired at any local public library, subject to your being able to demonstrate a valid need to publish to the satisfaction of the head librarian. Who will be a political appointee.

[Abq_Sarah]

209. Don't forget the background checks

In order to get your license to free speech, you need to submit to a background investigation, be 21 years or older and submit fingerprint cards.

[AlinPA]

192. re:"unregulated personal gun ownership " - to me that means anyone, no exceptions

can possess guns. Mentally ill people, felons, small children included. I'm not for that either. (I know a lot about a gun in the hands of a mentally ill person, it is not a nice story)

[fedupinhouston]

197. Unregulated does not mean..

...rights cannot be taken away through due process.

Mentally ill people, who are considered unable to be held accountable for their own decisions typically do not run around free. Of course they dont have access to firearms.

Felons? Their rights can certainly be curtailed post conviction. No problem there.

Small children? Their parents are responsible for them. You know many 5 year olds who could scrounge up the cash for a gun AND go buy it without mom or dad around?

We both know the OP hardly meant what you are implying. Try to stay on topic and stop trying to be like another poster around here.

[fedupinhouston]

194. Takes a special kind of person...

..to be proud of his ignorance and unwillingness to respect the rights of others.

[Tejas]

195. Yep, probably leave their houses unlocked at night too.

After all, they have a cell phone if Police are needed eh?

:rofl:

[Tejas]

196. "against unregulated COMPUTER ownership and very proud of it."

Watson, let's see what a search for .jpg and .mpeg brings up. Hmm, seems to be a problem, this civilian is blocking remote access to his hardrive. That's a serious violation, pull up his registration and send a squad to that address.

[quiller4]

199. There is nothing that could happen that would make me

support your position. I have a right to own a gun and keep it in my home. As a concealed carry permit holder, I have a right to carry a weapon concealed.

If you want to live in a gun-free society move to Great Britain.

[Tess I Guess]

202. amazing, you have to keep your own property locked up somewhere

and get permission to use it.

We wouldn't get far, proposing this kind of crackdown on cars, which are also deadly weapons in the hands of an idiot.

[Matt 6_5]

203. Exactly. Only police should have guns, they are the only trustworthy

and deserving people in our country. They never do anything wrong or dangerous.

[fedupinhouston]

210. Please tell me that was intended to be sarcastic.. n/t

[Matt 6_5]

211. It was. Sorry, it seemed obvious at the time but there seem to be a lot of broken

sarcasmometers around here. :D

(You may have noticed how many DUers hate cops with a passion...until it comes to the gun question. It's more than weird) :shrug:

[fedupinhouston]

212. Oh I've noticed...

And thats a question anti-gun people repeatedly refuse to answer. Why do they trust cops to be armed but not the general public?