Fewer guns mean fewer killings. We want a handgun ban.

[sharedvalues]

It’s sunday, so it’s a good time to ask again:

Why haven’t we banned handguns and other guns designed to kill people?

Despite the chaff the right loves to throw in the air*, it is very clear that fewer guns in a society means fewer gun crimes. Kids in cities like Chicago, DC and NYC get killed regularly because of handguns. If you don’t live in those cities, it’s hard to relate — but handguns get people killed in cities.

In 2018 let’s commit to getting guns off our streets. Support a #handgunban.

Happy new year!


[*] if you haven’t seen it, watch Merchants of Doubt. It describes the tobacco lobby, but the techniques tobacco used are now being used to sow doubt about gun crime. Don’t get distracted. Fewer guns means fewer deaths. It’s widely agreed upon by serious people and has been shown across societies.

[thbobby]

1. Stop open carry and

make background checks mandatory is an obvious and needed first step. I have little problem with handguns in the home. A small gauge shotgun is really best home defense weapon for those who feel they need it. Some have difficulty handling a shotgun.

Really, the entire I need a gun culture is a vile cancer in America. I look at countries where guns are prohibited with envy and respect.

[Marengo]

27. What is a small gauge shotgun?

[thbobby]

29. Gauge refers to the diameter of

the shell and barrel. 12 gauge is fairly standard with hunters. The gun has a substantial kick when fired. 16 or 20 gauge are smaller with less kick. Smallest gauge I know of is referred to 4/10. When shot, the gun has a small kick. At short range, even a 4/10 has more "stopping power" than a handgun or even a rifle. Most people can easily use a 4/10. A 12 gauge will be difficult for some older people. The diameter of a 12 gauge barrel is about the size of a quarter (maybe slightly larger, not sure). A 4/10 diameter is more like a dime.

[Marengo]

30. A .410 has more stopping power at short range than .30-06 or .44 Mag? Based on what criteria?

What loads are you comparing?

[The Polack MSgt]

31. Sorry to be "that guy" but - no

Caliber is the diameter of the projectile, gauge refers to how many standard loads make a pound -

12 gauge = 1.25 ounces of shot, 16 gauge = 1 ounce of shot, etc..

A .410 shotgun is a 28 gauge, and the projectile is .41 inches in diameter

The concept of stopping power is a much more complex than just pound feet of energy at impact, and so is the concept of how America deals with gun ownership.

Banning things that are scary without a solid grasp of the reality of the situation, is nonsense.

If bans worked there would be no heroin addicts or weed smokers in he whole wide world. Bans are authoritarian knee jerk reactions

"Don't just stand there do something now" is not a valid strategy

Edited to correct obvious errors. A .410 shotgun would be a 67 gauge - if that was a thing.
Also, the .410 designation used as the name refers to the inside diameter of the shell. A slug would be smaller than that.

[thbobby]

37. Thanks

My explanation was just based on having been around many hunters and seeing shotguns. My dad used to load his own shells, but I have had little interest in hunting (except I love venison, dove, etc).

I do believe I am correct that a 4/10 shot at close range has more stopping power. You are very knowledgeable. Are you a Master Seargent?

Again, thanks for the clarification.

[The Polack MSgt]

43. I am a Master Sergeant, although I retired in 05

I was not in combat arms though. I worked on electronics, mainly communication systems.

I've been shooting since I was 8 years old, and except when my son battled depression as a teen (he's fine now, a healthy 25 yo) kept firearms in my home.

I even taught my wife, a native of Tokyo who never even saw a firearm in her life how to shoot.

I support the 2nd amendment, and pushing for firearm bans hurts Democrats in almost every area, except in large cities - cities that are already voting Democratic.

I've written about this before:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172202959

I maintain that preventing gun violence is complicated and options are limited by constraints that gun banners simply do not wish to acknowledge or account for.

Also, a 15% reduction in suicide rates would cut gun fatalities more than preventing every mass shooting - And as a father who fought to keep his son alive through in resident care, medication and outpatient therapy for years, well that is a hard but POSSIBLE goal.

Waving a magic wand and making millions of pistols and revolvers disappear is fantasy and pushing for that fantasy to become real is unhelpful - in fact it is harmful to Democrats seeking a majority in Congress

[thbobby]

45. I received a 22 caliber single shot rifle

For Christmas when I was 7 years old. My dad was an avid hunter and extremely diligent about gun safety. A gun is always loaded. Never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.

I am against outlawing guns entirely. But I do support mandatory background checks and a waiting period. I believe a clip containing more the 3 rounds is useless to a hunter. Many hunters I know prefer bolt action because it encourages slow, deliberate shots. If a hunter takes time to aim, a second shot is often useless against say deer. In addition, I am against unrestricted open carry. My dad always had a 22 in the gun rack on his pickup. Except when he went to town (we lived in the country). Having open carry on campus or in bars seems ludicrous to me.

I am curious about how you feel about this?

[The Polack MSgt]

46. I favor universal background checks. I do not believe that mechanical function bans are...

Workable. Ugly gun laws - laws that ban weapons because of cosmetic factors such as polymer rather than wood furniture or pistol grips - those are nonsense

Magazine capacity restrictions are an issue where we can argue. Perhaps low capacity mags could hinder mass shooters, maybe.

I will point out that the Vegas shooter had so many rifles that his reloading time with high versus low capacity magazines seems moot. With a dozen loaded rifles on hand he would still pump out a lot of rounds before having to reload any of them. It may help in other situations though, I believe that is an area where compromise is possible

I have several issues with conflating gun rights with hunting though.

The vast majority of gun owners do not hunt.

Defending hunter's rights exclusively will put two thirds of gun owners on alert that they are not protected - and that means the "DEMS ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!!!!!" propaganda will find a ready audience

ETA: Bump stocks need to go. I am in favor of maintaining the heavy restrictions already in place regarding automatic weapons and bump fire stocks circumvent those statutes

[thbobby]

47. Banning assault rifles

makes no sense. There is not a good definition of what an assault rifle is. Even if there was a good definition, it could be sidestepped. As you say, a cosmetic definition makes no sense.

Concerning the Vegas Shooter and bumpstocks, if he only had 3 round magazines it would make the bumpstock much less lethal. Changing magazines or rifles does take time and that is what an automatic weapon minimizes. I agree that any automatic weapon should be illegal. We had an old 22 semi-automatic rifle when I was a kid. The mechanism was worn and it would fire like an automatic. I suspect mechanical manipulation of a semi-automatic could achieve the same. Perhaps not, I am not sure. I do not know how a workable law could function.

I understand your concern about non-hunting gun owners. A high power rifle is a dangerous weapon for self-defense. The round will go through your wall, and be lethal in the home of your neighbors. To drive a car, one needs to prove they can safely drive. Perhaps mandatory safety training and testing for gun purchases would be a workable idea.

[Marengo]

50. Hunting is not the only legitimate use of a firearm, and the opinion of some hunters...

Last edited Tue Jan 2, 2018, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Regarding magazine capacity for the purpose of hunting deer is not not the only legitimate viewpoint. From a self defense perspective, a 3 round magazine limit is absurd. I am an occasional hunter, and have noticed a increasing number of AR platforms in the field. I used an AR-10 type in my last hunt and am likely to do so again. As there are no magazine capacity limits in my state of residence, I used the factory 20 rounder loaded with 5 cartridges. Is my opinion any less legitimate than those of the hunters you cited?

[Docreed2003]

128. Excellent post Msgt...

As a mere Squid Navy Surgeon, before I deployed to Afghanistan I qualified on pistols and rifle through the USMC standards. I grew up around weapons my whole life and I truly appreciate your post. I can’t imagine the struggle you went through with your son. My heart goes out to you for that struggle and I truly appreciate your thoughts shared here!

[oneshooter]

39. "Guage" is a rference of how many round ball, of cast lead, could be cast from a pound of lead.

Last edited Tue Jan 2, 2018, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

12Ga=12 round balls per pound =.729"
16 Ga= 16 balls per pound = .670"
20 Ga= 20 per pound = .615"
28Ga = 28 per pound = .550"

Only the 410 is a reference to caliber size. The bore is .410 in diameter

10ga.= 10 balls per pound= .77"

[thbobby]

40. Thanks for info!

I had never understood the terminology of 410 vs say 20 gauge. Also, I now understand exactly what gauge refers to.

[ClarendonDem]

2. Absolutely opposed to a handgun ban

As are the vast majority of Americans. Not to mention the fact that even if popular it would be unconstitutional. Let's work on addressing the root causes of violence -- poverty, drug addiction, etc.

[sharedvalues]

3. Guns are a cause of deaths.

Like every other advanced society has done , let’s get handguns off our streets.

[ClarendonDem]

4. Lots of things are a cause of death

Let's get handguns out of the hands of folks who aren't allowed to own them in the first place, and our streets would be much safer places.

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. No constitutional protection for any gun let alone hand guns outside of a

militia.

Scalia - Heller are wrongly decided.

[ClarendonDem]

7. There's lots of pre-Heller case law

To the contrary. But Heller resolved the issue for once and all. Setting Heller aside, there's nothing in the 2d Amendment itself that suggests the right to own a firearm is limited to members of the militia. In fact, the 2d Amendment protects the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms, wouldn't you agree?

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. Once and for all?

That isnt how it works, for instance the SC is about to outlaw abortion, birth control, etc.

Not tomorrow but soon, and why?

emails

[ClarendonDem]

15. Sure, once and for all

Unless (1) the 2d Amendment is revoked, which won't happen in our lifetime or (2) the Supreme Court overrules Heller, which almost never happens, and probably never in the context of limiting civil rights. I doubt the Supreme Court outlaws abortion, and it certainly won't outlaw birth control.

Do you agree that the 2d protects the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms?

[Eliot Rosewater]

17. Post the language, and yes I agree within the restriction of a militia

It is plain English

[ClarendonDem]

19. Here's the language

"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."

On its face, this language doesn't limit gun ownership to militia members. For instance, it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it says the right of the "people."

And by the way, thanks for the civil discussion.

[Eliot Rosewater]

20. Not only does it go out of it's way to limit to a militia, it was clearly the intent of the

law and intent is everything in the law.

Capitalism is why Heller happened and probably why it will never be overturned.

ur welcome

[ClarendonDem]

21. I guess we'll agree to disagree

I read the first clause the way Heller does -- it states a reason for the 2d, but not the only reason, and doesn't limit the 2d's protection to militia members, but to the "people." I could see a future SC overturning Heller, and limiting the 2d Amendment, but that just pushes the issue down to the states, and I'm not sure that makes anyone happy.

[Pope George Ringo II]

33. I don't think this argument works from a couple of perspectives

1) Given the use of the word "right" we know they can't have intended to limit it to a formal militia. Governments--and by extension their formal militias--don't have "rights". Governments have responsibilities, authorizations, prohibitions, and so forth, but never rights. We may get sloppy about that now, and we may have genuine philosophical disagreements about that now, but there's no doubt about how the Founders viewed the concept of "rights." That word is a big hurdle to clear when examining the Founders' intent.

2) The "intent" argument really flounders when considering that the Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights. When we're talking about the ten Amendments passed as a bloc at basically the same time as the Constitution and which were added purely to make people feel better about the Constitution explicitly by putting limits on government power, it's functionally impossible to argue that any part of the Bill of Rights exists to give the government the authority to limit the rights of the people.

I'm not necessarily opposed to some kind of ban on philosophical grounds at this point, so don't misunderstand me. I do think it's a net negative politically, and I don't think it's actually legal short of a Constitutional Amendment. If you want to argue that saving lives is worth a political cost, I can deal with that even if I'm not as convinced of the math. But I believe your goal should be that Amendment if you want to actually accomplish anything.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. "It is plain English" So is the Federal law that governs militias:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

In your opinion, does the above mean that men over 45 and women not in the National Guard don't
have the right to keep and bear arms?

[Eliot Rosewater]

23. So you acknowledge the requirement the "militia" stipulation be satisfied for this blanket right?

Also ask yourself why four brilliant, highly educated experts on the constitution disagree with you.

And why he justices who do agree with you are clearly connected to the NRA in one way or another.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. Not at all- I merely pointed out that your view of 'the militia' isn't the legally binding one

Also ask yourself why four brilliant, highly educated experts on the constitution disagree with you.

Because they're wrong, as was Roger Taney in his opinion in Dred Scott. USSC opinions are not handed
down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets

And why he justices who do agree with you are clearly connected to the NRA in one way or another.

Mere association fallacy, and if you're going to go that route I'd like to ask your opinion of the following,
where the ACLU and NRA agreed on a subject:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1948863

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027947454

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027947454#post28

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"

I remember when that phrase was all the rage on Free Republic... And we openly mocked the Freepers for spouting it. 9/11 9/11 Terror Terror Terror and God Bless America.

My how DU has changed in these last 8 years. Where did the integrity go?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way?redirect=blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america

The Use of Error-Prone and Unfair Watchlists Is Not the Way to Regulate Guns in America

[tortoise1956]

57. Here are some documents concerning the 2nd amendment, written much closer to the time it was drafted

By two leading constitutional scholars of the 19th century - Joseph Story (who served on the Supreme Court for 24 years) and William Rawle:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/amendIIs9.html

In these writings, they both stress that the 2nd amendment describes a right of the people, and is not limited to militia members.

The brilliant legal minds you talk of did not even consider these in their decision, mainly because they contradicted the "Collective Right" theory that they ascribed to. However, the plain truth is that two of the most brilliant legal minds of the early years of our country, both stated that this is an individual right that is not limited by the militia clause.

In any event, thanks for an enjoyable debate on teh subject. While we may never agree on this, it is important that it be discussed in a rational manner.

[jimmy the one]

86. truth twisting rawle & story into individual rkba

tortoise: By two leading constitutional scholars of the 19th century - Joseph Story (Supreme Court for 24 years) and William Rawle: In these writings, they both stress that the 2nd amendment describes a right of the people, and is not limited to militia members.

Readers above can see the second amendment mythology in glory, an adherent twisting about the meaning & intent of two early 1800 constitutional scholars; Both Wm Rawle & Joseph Story supported a militia based or centric interpretation of 2ndA, despite what tortoise tries to spin otherwise.

tortoise: However, the plain truth is that two of the most brilliant legal minds of the early years of our country, both stated that this is an individual right that is not limited by the militia clause.

Pray tell, & copy & paste, where Rawle & Story posted the baloney you allege above. It cannot be done.
For those readers who can comprehend English better than tortoise, here is what Story wrote about the 2ndA:

Jos Story, circa 1820, tortoise's link: 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.

Interpretation for tortoise: Without 'organization', ie militia, the people could not be duly armed. This destroys the inidividual RKBA theory right there, how'd you miss it? The intent of 2ndA is to keep the people 'duly armed' in militia.
Then Story asserts that without the people being 'duly armed' in a militia organization, the 'state security' protection of the miilitia clause would be undermined.

Maybe tortoise clings to this quote: Story: The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers....
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;

Above Story was being redundant in the same paragraph, since both the militia & citizens (synonymous here) offer essentially the very same check against usurpation & power grabs by tyrannical rulers. Duh, Story assigns the same protective qualities to both the militia & the people in the same paragraph, he is equating them, & to single one out is invalid in context.

On to Wm Rawle, for tortoise. Cite where Rawle declared for an individual RKBA. Was it here?, where he wrote:

In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Rawle clearly refers to the 2nd clause as a COROLLARY to the militia clause, and a corollary is something which is derived from a higher rule or law. Rawle in his 'domestic half' of his treatise, refers to 'the militia' about 7 times, yet does not mention any individual.

Tortoise throws his lot in with truth twisting scalia, who also manipulated both rawle & story into backing an individual rkba, with specious sophistry & casuistry & strained & fractured reasoning. The only way they win. Best climb into your shell.

[tortoise1956]

93. Nice job of selective editing...

I see that in my absence (getting ready for my upcoming retirement, something I've looked forward to for what seems like a bazillion years) jimmy the one is once again carefully picking and choosing which words to use and which to ignore, in an attempt to convince others to agree with his faulty argument. I'll take it one at a time:

1. Story's writings discuss the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, NOT the subset of a militia:

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;

Normally that would be 'nuff said - not all citizens were members of the militia, but all citizens were considered to have the right to keep and bear arms. However, I bow to the ability of my opponent to corkscrew this phrase into meaning that only members of the militia are citizens, and, like any good Jesuit-trained debater would do, ignore the Fallacy of Appeal to Wishful Thinking and move on to his most egregious example of pretzel logic.

2. Here is the argument he presents as proof of Rawle believing in the collective rights:

In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Rawle clearly refers to the 2nd clause as a COROLLARY to the militia clause, and a corollary is something which is derived from a higher rule or law. Rawle in his 'domestic half' of his treatise, refers to 'the militia' about 7 times, yet does not mention any individual.

There are two problems here. The first is that a corollary is not something which is derived from a higher rule or law, at least not in any online dictionary I found. However, I do have a definition from the online 1828 Webster's dictionary here:
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/corollary

As you can see, in the language of Rawle's time, it meant simply a conclusion or inference drawn from a preceding premise or proposition. Thus, his "definition" falls down rather quickly, since it depends upon the militia clause being the main clause, instead of simply a proposition (Rawle's words, not mine - he defined it as a proposition in the first sentence of his section on the second amendment).

However, the main crux of his argument - that it is simply a militia right - falls on its face when one looks at the entire quote:

The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to 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.

Notice that Rawle states in no uncertain terms that neither Congress, nor the states, have the right to disarm the people. (BTW, the word flagitious has the first meaning of "deeply criminal" in the same 1828 dictionary - that should explain how he felt about even TRYING to disarm the people...)

As a side note, Rawle states that this is not an unlimited right, and discusses two scenarios where bearing arms could be illegal. One of them is a single armed person, who gives just reason to fear he will use them unlawfully. There is an implication that carrying them lawfully is fully acceptable. However, that is simply implied, so I won't add that to my argument.

So there you have it. Rawle says clearly that the constitution does not give ANY government the power to disarm the people, as long as the arms are not used unlawfully.

Standing by to see the response to this. I'm sure that the logical structure of any reply will bear close resemblance to an Escher painting...

[jimmy the one]

95. tortoise' twisted pretzel logic

Jimmy cited Justice Story (~1825): 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;

tortoise replied, with malice & without being fully up to speed: Normally that would be 'nuff said - not all citizens were members of the militia, but all citizens were considered to have the right to keep and bear arms. However, I bow to the ability of my opponent to corkscrew this phrase into meaning that only members of the militia are citizens, and, like any good Jesuit-trained debater would do, ignore the Fallacy of Appeal to Wishful Thinking and move on to his most egregious example of pretzel logic.

One wonders how tortoise inserts 'jesuit trained debater' into this; Tortoise evidently does not realize that women were not considered full citizens circa 1800, and tortoise would have been wise, while he had the 1828 webster's online dictionary open, to have checked the word 'citizen':

webster's 1828 dictionary: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/citizen
Citizen 5. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

Women could not vote circa 1800, were considered second class citizens, and did not possess any right to keep & bear arms. Any women who wanted to usurp the family firearm against her husband's wishes, claiming her 'right to bear arms', might well get smacked across the face.

The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out. Women were second-class citizens, essentially the property of their husbands, unable even to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment... https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history

Furthermore, of the approx 3 to 4 million americans living in the US circa 1790, regarding the presidential elections for george washinton: b) Less than 0.5% of the population voted: the 1790 Census counted a total United States population of 3.9 million with 3.2 million free population and 700 thousand slaves. Only 13,332 people voted out of that 3.9 million. http://mrkash.com/vote.html

That's what they considered full 'citizens', and in part what joseph story was referring to. Not women, not slaves, not children - the only other group not being part of 'the militia' would've been white american male landed gentry over 45. Also recall the avg life expectancy back then was ~50 years, so this group would've been a small proportion.

So take your own pretzel logic and crawl back into your tortoise shell.

[jimmy the one]

96. pretzel logic take II

Jimmy wrote: Rawle clearly refers to the 2nd clause as a COROLLARY to the militia clause, and a corollary is something which is derived from a higher rule or law.

tortoise replied: There are two problems here. The first is that a corollary is not something which is derived from a higher rule or law, at least not in any online dictionary I found. However, I do have a definition from the online 1828 Webster's dictionary here:
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/corollary

Yes a corollary is generally derived from a higher rule or law. The higher proposition - rule or law - comes first, the corollary comes later, either as an inference or a consequence or result.

tortoise' pretzel logic: As you can see, in the language of Rawle's time, it meant simply a conclusion or inference drawn from a preceding premise or proposition. Thus, his "definition" falls down rather quickly, since it depends upon the militia clause being the main clause, instead of simply a proposition (Rawle's words, not mine - he defined it as a proposition in the first sentence of his section on the second amendment).

Well, inanely, you are both right & wrong. The millitia first clause is indeed a proposition, and what else is there in the 2nd amendment to qualify the individual clause to be a corollary to? One wonders if tortoise is drinking 'alternate facts' trumpian kool aid.

oxford corollary: proposition that follows from (and is often appended to) one already proved.
A direct or natural consequence or result.
Forming a proposition that follows from one already proved.
Associated or supplementary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/corollary

cambridge corollary: something that results from something else: Unfortunately, violence is the inevitable corollary of such a revolutionary change in society. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/corollary

thesaurus synonyms for corollary: Synonyms for corollary noun conclusion, deduction
analogy upshot aftereffect consequence culmination effect end induction inference issue precipitate
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/corollary

Tortoise cites webster's 1828 dictionary, coyly only posting the link without citing the definition, since the actual 1828 definition of corollary reinforces MY argument, not his:
A conclusion or consequence drawn from premises, or from what is advanced or demonstrated.
If it is demonstrated that a triangle which has equal sides, has also equal angles, it follows as a corollary that a triangle which has three equal sides, has its three angles equal.
A corollary is an inference from a preceding proposition.

webster's 1828 def of INFERENCE: IN'FERENCE, A truth or proposition drawn from another which is admitted or supposed to be true; a conclusion. Inferences result from reasoning, as when the mind perceives such a connection between ideas, as that, if certain propositions called premises are true, the conclusions or propositions deduced from them must also be true. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/inference

Note above, webster uses the word 'deduced' from propositions. Note webster's 1828 def of derive, which I previously used to define corollary: 3. To deduce or draw, as from a root, or primitive word.

[jimmy the one]

98. secession, invalid; states appeal to 2ndA, invalid;

Rawle wrote: The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to 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.

tortoise: Notice that Rawle states in no uncertain terms that neither Congress, nor the states, have the right to disarm the people. (BTW, the word flagitious has the first meaning of "deeply criminal" in the same 1828 dictionary - that should explain how he felt about even TRYING to disarm the people...)

This argument by tortoise is valid, in that the 2ndA was not a restriction on states (but rather a right), but only shows Rawle being incorrect in this particular paragraph, since the state could not appeal to 2ndA on something the state itself had taken away from its citizens. Rawle might've been thinking 2ndA could be appealed to the states as being under federal jurisprudence.

Rawle was incorrect on occasion, as when he thought this:
It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union.
To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/05/david-dieteman/three-views-of-the-constitution/

Obviously the civil war of 1861 proved rawle wrong, & he was quickly, after 1825, called out on this.
However, any incorrrectness does not negate the vast preponderance of accuracy & prevailing thought in his 'View of the Constitution', 1825, 1829.

[jimmy the one]

99. pretzel logic take III

tortoise writes: As a side note, Rawle states that this is not an unlimited right, and discusses two scenarios where bearing arms could be illegal.
One of them is a single armed person, who gives just reason to fear he will use them unlawfully. There is an implication that carrying them lawfully is fully acceptable.
However, that is simply implied, so I won't add that to my argument. So there you have it. Rawle says clearly that the constitution does not give ANY government the power to disarm the people, as long as the arms are not used unlawfully.

The passage tortoise refers to is printed below, since tortoise evidently is loathe to do the work himself, leaving readers to simply 'believe me', ala trumpism.

Rawle, 1825, on right to keep & bear arms: In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances.
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.

Tortoise argues, citing rawle above: One of them is a single armed person, who gives just reason to fear he will use them unlawfully. There is an implication that carrying them lawfully is fully acceptable.

Tortoise uses dialectic reasoning to turn his implication into a corollary, ha.
Rawle is saying that an individual who comes from a country where arms can be carried legally, and then carrying arms abroad, as could be a frenchman in england, or a german in the USA, should provide surety to the country (sheriff or town) he is in, that he does not intend to do harm by carrying his firearm.
In plainer words, an american circa 1800 could not go visit england or france or any country where arms could NOT be carried thusly, and claim that he has a right to keep & bear arms since he is part of the virginia militia, and thus must provide surety to the foreign town or sheriff.
So tortoise is wrong once again, since a single person carrying a firearm ABROAD in a country which does not allow that practice, would have to provide surety to the town, whether he had unlawful intent or peaceful intent.

tortoise: Standing by to see the response to this. I'm sure that the logical structure of any reply will bear close resemblance to an Escher painting...

Quite the opposite, it is you who thinks he is ascending, when you only dig your hole deeper & deeper.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

105. look what you started

[tortoise1956]

168. Hey, it's been informative!

Replying to J1's twisted logic has resulted in my becoming much better informed on the beginnings of the United States, as well as broadening my knowledge of common law. not only that, I have found that this knowledge has been invaluable in discussions with family, friends and strangers, because it has allowed me to show the historical record behind this and other amendments, as well as the constitution.

Hell, I even owe him some thanks. Because of J1, I have added William Rawle and Joseph Story to my bookshelf, next to the Federalist Papers, Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and my annotated copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. (They're all sitting next to my Simon R. Green Nightside books, but we won't go into that...)

Edited to take out an egregious spelling error that I completely missed...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

169. I enjoyed the Escher reference

I get the "owe him some thanks" idea and I was in that position with our only blocked member not also in FFR land.
It is truly attempts to teach that teach the teacher best.

[tortoise1956]

94. Some addiotional information:

I ran across an 1840 edition of Story's commentaries. This is called an expanded version of an earlier, brief exposition of the constitution:
https://ia801403.us.archive.org/23/items/afamiliarexposi02storgoog/afamiliarexposi02storgoog.pdf

On page 264, section 450, it has some amplifying information that isn't in the edition that is normally quoted. Here is the entirety of section 450:

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." One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.

Surely this is stated clearly enough, even for j1 - the people have the right to be armed, and this right needs to be diligently protected.

Once again, waiting to see what path will be taken to show that black is, indeed, white, no matter what yer lyin' eyes see...

[jimmy the one]

100. pretzel logic take IV

tortoise posted story: 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." One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.

The argument tortoise makes proves nothing. I don't have the time today at libary to go in detail.

[tortoise1956]

167. Jeez, it's hard to figure out where to start

with so much smoke and mirrors placed in the way of the facts. J1 seems to have a good command of the English language, so I have to believe his obtuseness is deliberate.

I guess I'll take it one at a time:

1. According to J1:
"Women could not vote circa 1800, were considered second class citizens, and did not possess any right to keep & bear arms. Any women who wanted to usurp the family firearm against her husband's wishes, claiming her 'right to bear arms', might well get smacked across the face.

The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out. Women were second-class citizens, essentially the property of their husbands, unable even to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment..."

This is complete and unmitigated bullshit. So women didn't have the right to a trial by jury, or not to incriminate themselves, or to peacefully assemble, to name a few? I don't care who your source is, that is an inane and untrue statement on its face. Hell, women carried firearms quite often in the past without being jailed for it, especially in the so-called "Wild West." That was in many cases their only protection in a place where might often equaled right. Can you can come up with 1 historical reference to a woman not being allowed to carry firearms in a place where men could? If this statement of yours was correct, it should be easy to shower me with dozens of examples.

BTW, Story didn't say that the right was limited to citizens of the United States, and my use of the word wasn't meant to imply the limitation either. The second amendment applies to the people - the same people that are mentioned in the 1st, 4th and 10th amendments. If those amendments identify individual rights (and they do, according to pretty much every constitutional scholar I have found), then the use of the people in the second was meant to identify an individual right as well, not a collective right.

2. Corollaries are inferred from the the proposition they are drawn from. That doesn't mean they are limited by that proposition - as a matter of fact, they generally expand upon that proposition. Thus, the prefatory militia clause advances the proposition that a well-regulated militia is a essential to the security of the state, and the second clause expands upon that statement by saying that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If Rawle had meant to limit that to simply the militia, he would have certainly written something along those lines. He didn't - as a matter of fact, he stated very clearly that this right is a general right:

The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to 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.

Isn't this clear? "No clause in the constitution" includes the prefatory clause that J1 is so enamored of...

3. Rawle on secession (from J1's own link):

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/05/david-dieteman/three-views-of-the-constitution/

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express pro- vision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.

But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case — as in the case of an unconditional secession — the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power.

So, Rawle believed that the state legislatures themselves didn't have the right to call for secession incorporated into the state constitutions - only the people of a state. With that in mind, Rawle would have seen the decision of the confederate governments to secede as unconstitutional. Not quite what J1 said.

Also, states can (maybe) secede with permission of the federal government, according to modern scholars:

http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/does-the-constitution-permit-the-blue-states-to-secede.html

I leave it to you, Gentle Reader, to peruse the link yourself. Way too much information to copy here. Decide for yourself

4. On carrying a weapon abroad:

Once again, J1 demonstrates his ignorance of the language of the 19th century. According to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

ABROAD, adverb abrawd'. [See Broad]
In a general sense, at large; widely; not confined to narrow limits. Hence,

1. In the open air.
2. Beyond or out of the walls of a house, as to walk abroad
3. Beyond the limits of a camp. Deuteronomy 23:10
4. Beyond the bounds of a country; in foreign countries - as to go abroad for an education. We have broils at home and enemies abroad
5. Extensively; before the public at large.
He began to blaze abroad the matter. Mark 1:45.
Esther 1:17.
6. Widely; with expansion; as a tree spreads its branches abroad

The most common definition of "abroad", in the language of the times, was outside, as in outside of your house. This invalidates all the fancy language J1 used while talking about traveling armed in foreign countries, like a Frenchman in England, or a German in the United States, or an Englishman in New York (Hey - good title for a song!). If Rawle had been using the word to mean something other than what common usage dictated, he would have explained it further. In the absence of anything that points to an uncommon definition, the most common definition is the one that should be used to interpret his statement.

BTW, I said Rawle's writings could be said to imply the right to bear arms outside the house. I also said that it was not stated as such in his writings.

5. When I posted a more recent edition of Story that went into more detail on why the people should not be disarmed, J1's response was (to paraphrase it), "Piffle! Words, words, words! I don't have the time to explain why they don't mean what they say!" I guess I have to wait on his pretzel logic.

Whoever instructed you in the fine art of debate owes you a refund, J1 - your skills are clearly underdeveloped...

[jimmy the one]

174. pretzel logic take V

tortoise, changing the goalposts: This is complete and unmitigated bullshit. So women didn't have the right to a trial by jury, or not to incriminate themselves, or to peacefully assemble, to name a few? I don't care who your source is, that is an inane and untrue statement on its face.

You put words in my mouth. I did not contend women didn't have basic rights as per your above, I just countered your invalid contention that women had a right to keep & bear arms - when tortoise wrote this:

tortoise: - not all citizens were members of the militia, but all citizens were considered to have the right to keep and bear arms. However, I bow to the ability of my opponent to corkscrew this phrase into meaning that only members of the militia are citizens, and,..

To which I replied that women did not have a right to keep & bear arms, 2ndA applied only to predominantly white males. I did not say women were not citizens, I said they were considered 2nd class citizens as per the narrow definition of citizen as cited by webster's 1828 dictionary:

webster's 1828 dictionary: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/citizen
Citizen 5. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

womenhistory: When the new U.S. Constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789, concern over individual liberties gave rise to the adoption of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments), but those rights did not pertain directly to women. However, state courts and legislatures began to vary in the interpretation of Person in the Constitution; in some jurisdictions narrowing the meaning to cover only people with property, only men or only white men.
Over the years, many claimants asserted that discrimination against women in voting, in property ownership, in occupational license and other matters was unconstitutional given the Constitution’s use of the term Person, but the all-male courts did not give this a fair hearing... http://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2013/06/womens-rights-after-american-revolution.html

tortoise: Hell, women carried firearms quite often in the past without being jailed for it, especially in the so-called "Wild West." That was in many cases their only protection in a place where might often equaled right.

Of course women could carry firearms, even hunt & varmint plink, but they could not bear arms as per militia or in common defense, disallowed, with or without the militia clause dictate. So obviously the 2ndA did not apply to women either way, which says the right to keep & BEAR arms.

tortoise: Can you can come up with 1 historical reference to a woman not being allowed to carry firearms in a place where men could? If this statement of yours was correct, it should be easy to shower me with dozens of examples

I could with unlimited time provide many, but here is one, albeit ~50 years after the fact, so by then the country had split into the individual - militia dichotomy:

Aymette v. State, 21Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), In Aymette, the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.’ Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment, the court wrote: "The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment."

[jimmy the one]

176. pretzel logic take VI, plus footstick alert

tortoise, sticking his foot in his mouth: On carrying a weapon abroad: Once again, J1 demonstrates his ignorance of the language of the 19th century. According to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
ABROAD, [See Broad] In a general sense, at large; widely; not confined to narrow limits. Hence,
1. In the open air. 2. Beyond or out of the walls of a house, as to walk abroad 3. Beyond the limits of a camp. Deuteronomy 23:10
4. Beyond the bounds of a country; in foreign countries - as to go abroad for an education. We have broils at home and enemies abroad
5. Extensively; before the public at large. 6. Widely; with expansion; as a tree spreads its branches abroad

tortoise, cont'd: The most common definition of "abroad", in the language of the times, was outside, as in outside of your house. This invalidates all the fancy language J1 used while talking about traveling armed in foreign countries, like a Frenchman in England, or a German in the United States, or an Englishman in New York If Rawle had been using the word to mean something other than what common usage dictated, he would have explained it further. In the absence of anything that points to an uncommon definition, the most common definition is the one that should be used to interpret his statement.

Rawle did indeed 'explain it further', it's just tortoise inexperience with rawle that made him footstick.
The problem tortoise has in his footstick above is that wm rawle in context was indeed speaking of foreign countries, thereby rendering definition 4 from 1828 websters, the apt definition.
In his treatise on the 2nd amendment, rawle has two segments, one a 'domestic half' of the treatise, & the other a 'foreign' half. I paste the 'foreign half' of rawle's treatise below:

rawle's foreign half of his 2ndA treatise: In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs9.html

Tortoise makes the same ignorant fallacious claim that scalia did in heller, that rawle was singling out the 2nd amendment in his foreign affairs half of his treatise, when he was NOT. It is clear rawle was referring back to the 'right' in 'any govt', that is 'most of the countries of europe', and not just america's 2ndA.
Tortoise also, incredulously, uses strained & convoluted reasoning that rawle was NOT referring to abroad as being abroad in a foreign country, when in context rawle was clearly referring to foreign govts.

tortoise with his foot sticking out at an awkward angle from his mouth: Whoever instructed you in the fine art of debate owes you a refund, J1 - your skills are clearly underdeveloped...

This underdeveloped skill just rammed your pathetic arguments past your foot & down your throat. Get a napkin & wipe the egg off your face too.

[jimmy the one]

178. chapter 13, A View of the Constitution, 1825 or 1829

wm rawle, ~1825: The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to 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.

tortoise: Isn't this clear? "No clause in the constitution" includes the prefatory clause that J1 is so enamored of...

I repeat, rawle was wrong on this, since 2ndA did not apply to the individual states but to the federal govt.
Rawle perhaps thinking of militia clause & wrm being necessary, dunno, hard to say.

You are obviously not well versed on Wm Rawle. I have been studying rawle, & story & tucker to less extent, the past 15 years, & I wrote a 40 page paper entitled 'Justice Scalia's fraudulent portrayal of Wm Rawle' in 2009 after heller & sent it to maybe 6 of the supreme court justices, for what little good it did. I've read 'A View of the Constitution' by Wm Rawle, albeit mostly skim through.

Rawle mentions the militia again in chapter 13 (xiii) of his 'View', which concerns itself with the military; here is excerpt which I will first let you hang yourself with in anticipation of your misinterpretation. There are other tidbits you might find, go fetch. Hint, chapter 29, levying.

rawle: In a people permitted and accustomed to bear arms, we have the rudiments
of a militia, which properly consists of armed citizens, divided into
military bands, and instructed at least in part, in the use of arms for the purposes
of war. Their civil occupations are not relinquished, except while they
are actually in the field, and the inconvenience of withdrawing them from
their accustomed labours, abridges the time required for military instruction.
Militia therefore never amount to perfect soldiers, unless the public exigencies
shall have kept them so long together as to absorb the civil, in the military
character.
The human mind is of a nature so flexible, that it may by
http://www.portagepub.com/dl/causouth/rawle.pdf

[jimmy the one]

87. pro gun fallacies on this thread

eliot: And why {the} justices who do agree with you are clearly connected to the NRA in one way or another.

It certainly was a political verdict, 5-4, and a subversion of the 2nd amendment by rightwing demagogue scalia.

In 1939 the supreme court previously 'last' ruled on the 2ndA, a unanimous 8-0 ruling (1 recusal since new arrival) and offered this interpretation:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia] forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

also in 1939 ruling: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument

This 1939 supreme court ruling on miller was UNANIMOUS. Not one justice felt the above wording to be wrong or misleading about any individual rkba, they clearly called it for the militia interpretation. Not one justice thought 'whoa fellow justices, look how we worded that, future generations are gonna think we're ruling for a militia interp' Nope, all thought it was proper wording. Note I believe the 9th justice later wrote a book supporting militia interp or slt - maybe famous olliver whatsisname.

Tack on amicus brief by justice dept in 1938 to the 1939 supreme court re miller: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of the Second Amendment, the contention was summarily rejected as follows:
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. http://www.guncite.com/miller-brief.htm

Scalia kicked stare decisis (scotus bound by previous interpretations handed down thru the years), in the ass & the rightwing put him a pedestal praising his deceitful greatness. Trump one.

Icon below posts the militia code as it somehow proves an individual rkba:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, .. et cetera:
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Note in class 2, the unorganized militia does not meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment, in that, by definition, an unorganized militia is NOT well regulated. It could not possibly be what madison intended in 1791. Sheesh, how many times is icon gonna repeat this ridiculous canard & stand behind it? get a napkin & wipe egg off face.

[Marengo]

28. Ill ask you yet again, where has this interpretation been enforced?

[J_William_Ryan]

52. Careful with that...

Conservatives say the same about Roe.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. The "militia" of the 2A is everyone n/t

[sharedvalues]

120. So true. Scalia was an idealogue and a tool of billionaires. Koches funded his law school at GMU.

[shenmue]

51. Not true

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. Which part is not true? N/t

[samnsara]

152. amen! I dont hunt but I like target shooting in my own back yard (the forest)..

...and I'm not giving mine up. ( even if Hillary or Obama asked me

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. won't happen - gun owners love their guns more than life itself.

[ClarendonDem]

9. It won't happen

Because it is unpopular and unconstitutional. Something like 70+% of Americans oppose a handgun ban.

[NRaleighLiberal]

10. sometimes, the majority is simply wrong.

[ClarendonDem]

11. Of course

And the Constitution protects the minority when the majority is wrong. But in this instance the only way to change the status quo is to convince the majority they are wrong, because a constitutional amendment is required if there is going to be a handgun ban.

[Timewas]

13. Hopefully not happen

It would come under the heading of "one down 9 to go"

[hack89]

8. Because there is no public support for a handgun ban? Nt

[Chemisse]

12. No. And it's this kind of sentiment that allows the NRA to flourish.

People have a right to own weapons, including handguns. I don't own one, but I don't begrudge any sane and noncriminal citizen the right to do so.

But there is a line between what is reasonable and fair, and what is ridiculous and a danger to all.

That line is automatic and/or semi-automatic weapons (forgive me if I am not well-versed in guns). Nobody should be afforded the ability to take out hundreds of people in a matter of a few minutes.

Saying that all handguns should be banned will keep people up in arms (pun intended) and actively resisting ANY common-sense adjustments to gun laws.

[ClarendonDem]

16. Very good point

There's a lot of distance between reasonable gun control laws and a handgun ban.

[Pope George Ringo II]

34. I've got some ranchers in the family

They've got a genuine need for firearms as legitimate work tools right there with trucks and welding gear.

Not one of them will ever do anything but walk into a voting booth, hold their nose, and vote Republican, and this is the single issue behind it.

[Chemisse]

35. Interesting. It seems the fear of losing one's guns is a powerful driving force.

We Dems need to make sure we are seen as fully supporting the 2nd amendment, even as we push for sensible gun laws.

[sharedvalues]

65. No way. Ban guns that are designed to hurt people.

Semiautomatics.

Like Australia.

The real gun nuts are dead to America. We need to have sensible policies and leave the 10% of crazies to their own devices.

[yagotme]

82. Question:

Are semiautomatics the "only" gun that is "designed to hurt people"? Or is that just a first step on a total ban? Arguments have been made here to the point that ALL firearms are designed to kill.

(BTW, Australia also banned some pump shotguns. Just in case you didn't know.)

[sharedvalues]

64. Single shot weapons only

Takes care of hunting enthusiasts and ranchers.

[Pope George Ringo II]

80. Snakes sometimes take more than one shot to hit them, bears sometimes more than one to kill

Then there are the packs of javelinas in certain parts of the country...

[better]

36. First off, thanks for acknowledging the limitation of your knowledge of the terminology

And on that note, please allow me to explain the difference, so that you will be more adequately informed whenever measures come before us to decide whether or not to support.

(Fullly) Automatic means what we think of as a machine gun.
Once the first round has been manually chambered, bullets fire until you either release the trigger or run out of ammo.

Semi-Automatic means that one round is fired each time you pull the trigger, with the action of chambering the next round being performed using the energy expended by firing the last. In other words, no secondary action (cocking a lever/pump) is required between firing rounds.

To put that into sharper focus, consider also that but for the nuance of the round being chambered prior to it being fired and by the same mechanical action of pulling the trigger, rather than after the previous round is fired and by the energy of that round being released, a standard revolver is, in essence of operation, a semi-automatic.

It is this difference that accounts for gun enthusiasts (an not just gun nuts) being opposed to a ban on semi-autos.

It should also be noted that while gun enthusiasts oppose banning semi-automatics, they overwhelmingly support banning modifications like bump fire stocks that allow them to behave more like fully automatics.

[sharedvalues]

66. Ban semi-automatics

And this idea that you have to know all kinds of gun lingo to contribute to discussion is a dumb and dangerous idea.

Are you an expert on heroin? Can you give a detailed discussion about all kinds of opiates, synthetic and natural? Do you need to know that to support a heroin ban. Of course not. Same with gun nut lingo.


The idea is simple. Allow single shot hunting rifles. Ban all other guns.

[Straw Man]

83. No.

And this idea that you have to know all kinds of gun lingo to contribute to discussion is a dumb and dangerous idea.

What's dumb and dangerous is the desire to ban something that you don't understand and can't define.

Are you an expert on heroin? Can you give a detailed discussion about all kinds of opiates, synthetic and natural? Do you need to know that to support a heroin ban.

No. But you do need to know the difference between, say, heroin and marijuana. Otherwise you might conflate the two and craft a law that overreaches. See how that works?

Same with gun nut lingo.

No -- same with gun-ban ignorance.

[better]

84. I can't help but appreciate the irony that this

classic example of a strawman fallacy was so eloquently addressed by someone with the username "Straw Man".

But to more precisely address the problem with your suggestion, yes the idea is simple.
However, it is also wrong, as simple answers to complex issues very frequently are.

You don't need to be a firearms expert to contribute to the discussion. But you might do well to listen to Democrats who use the same lingo (and basic grasp of the facts) that gun nuts will use to tell people why they shouldn't vote for Democrats, to instead tell you why what you propose will shoot us all in the foot, because they will have the benefit of their arguments that we don't know what we're talking about and that we're over-reaching actually being correct.

Personally, I'd rather we not paint that target on our own heads, because they're pretty good at hitting their targets.

We've been down this road of over-reaching with gun control, with the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
The immediate result was that Democrats lost their control of the House that they'd had for forty years.
It took 12 years and Bush the Lesser lying us into the war in Iraq and nearly crashing the global economy to get it back.

And that was back before the Bully Pulpit was used relentlessly to reject objective reality.

Not adequately understanding something we vote to support can have catastrophic consequences even for those who did know better. Like Dems losing both Congress and the White House because so many supported repealing Obamacare despite not understanding it.

[jimmy the one]

90. cowpoo baloney

better: We've been down this road of over-reaching with gun control, with the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
The immediate result was that Democrats lost their control of the House that they'd had for forty years.

This is so much cowpoo baloney. To ascribe the loss of the house in 1994 to clintons assault weapon ban is misinformation.

US News, jan 2013: The vote for gun control mattered, but the vote for the tax increase and healthcare were more important," says Gary Jacobson, who has done a statistical analysis of what votes affected the outcome of the 1994 election.
You had a soft economy, and you had large Democratic majorities built in congressional districts that for years had gone to Republican presidential candidates," Klinkner says.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/17/gun-control-laws-werent-primary-reason-dems-lost-in-1994

better: Not adequately understanding something we vote to support can have catastrophic consequences even for those who did know better.

Indeed. Now practice what you preach, and retract your nonsense above, since right now you fit in with the propaganda charlatans below (NRA):

He adds that the groups like the NRA have perpetuated the narrative that gun laws were responsible for the 1994 loss to frighten future incumbents and warn them that gun control is a loosing issue.
"They have a few trophies and this is one of them," Jacobson says. "They don't have to win every time, but if they can show that a well-entrenched opponent got knocked off because the NRA opposed them, it makes a congressman living in an uncertain world nervous."

Provide a reputable source to back up your claims. Dems support gun control upwards of 80%.

[Straw Man]

91. So Bill Clinton was wrong?

And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress.

“I’ve had many sleepless nights in the many years since,” Clinton said. One reason? “I never had any sessions with the House members who were vulnerable,” he explained — saying that he had assumed they already knew how to explain their vote for the ban to their constituents.

--https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-086443?o=1

Or are you suggesting that he was spreading "misinformation" or "cowpoo baloney"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. Bear in mind the name 'NRA' is to some people what 'George Soros' and/or 'Saul Alinsky' is to others

It's difficult (if not impossible) for these sorts of people to acknowledge that a political situation isn't
what they've decided it is, or that others may have judged the political zeitgeist better than they have.

Thus we get intimations of some vast, protean conspiracy thwarting their goals.

Sadly, it's not just the Trumpists that fall prey to this mindset- conspiracy theories happen on the Left as well as the Right.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is an attributional type of cognitive bias whereby people tend to overestimate the extent to which their opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are normal and typical of those of others (i.e., that others also think the same way that they do).[1] This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a "false consensus".

This false consensus is significant because it increases self-esteem (overconfidence effect). It can be derived from a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment. This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way. The false-consensus effect is not restricted to cases where people believe that their values are shared by the majority, but it still manifests as an overestimate of the extent of their belief. For example, fundamentalists do not necessarily believe that the majority of people share their views, but their estimates of the number of people who share their point of view will tend to exceed the actual number.

Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way.[2]

https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

ARCHIVE / 1964 / November

The Paranoid Style in American Politics

By Richard Hofstadter

It had been around a long time before the Radical Right discovered it—and its targets have ranged from “the international bankers” to Masons, Jesuits, and munitions makers.

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.

Of course this term is pejorative, and it is meant to be; the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good. But nothing really prevents a sound program or demand from being advocated in the paranoid style. Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content. I am interested here in getting at our political psychology through our political rhetoric. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent...

...In the history of the United States one find it, for example, in the anti-Masonic movement, the nativist and anti-Catholic movement, in certain spokesmen of abolitionism who regarded the United States as being in the grip of a slaveholders’ conspiracy, in many alarmists about the Mormons, in some Greenback and Populist writers who constructed a great conspiracy of international bankers, in the exposure of a munitions makers’ conspiracy of World War I, in the popular left-wing press, in the contemporary American right wing, and on both sides of the race controversy today, among White Citizens’ Councils and Black Muslims. I do not propose to try to trace the variations of the paranoid style that can be found in all these movements, but will confine myself to a few leading episodes in our past history in which the style emerged in full and archetypal splendor.

https://www.amazon.com/Paranoid-Style-American-Politics/dp/0307388441

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. "We" meaning "Me and the three others that recc'd my OP"? Gonna need more than that...

[sharedvalues]

67. We that care about the lives of kids in cities

Because Americans get killed by handguns all the time in cities, and most people outside of cities don’t realize that and selfishly want guns even if it means others get killed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Moral panic-mongers have always used children in their propaganda

Last edited Mon Jan 8, 2018, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

You are merely the latest in a very long line:

[ileus]

89. I bet sharesunited would have recc'd it, if he/she were here.

[kelly1mm]

24. Who us this "we"? Not those of us who want to pick up seats in 2018

In red and purple areas. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so you can have your pony.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. And do we want a pony or sailboat to go with that?

What is wanted isn't always correct.

They are called the Bill of Rights for a reason.
There will never be an instance where any of those 10 articles are repealed.
At least not any instance that doesn't also dissolve the Union.

[samnsara]

26. I LIKE my gun..

[sharedvalues]

68. Yes but you are complicit in kids deaths by gun

Gun lovers - sadly - are part of the problem.

All other advanced societies greatly restrict guns. Why? Because guns kill people. America has accepted a lot of deaths in exchange for the gun pleasure of people like you. We shouldn’t stand for it any longer. Our lives are worth too much.

[Lurks Often]

32. You may want a handgun ban, but you aren't going to get it

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. It's Monday, a new year and a good time to answer again

Why haven’t we banned handguns and other guns designed to kill people?

~ Because using the powers of the government to force people to get along is not only unconstitutional but just basically wrong.
~ Because there will always be a tool which can be characterized as the most common one used to murder. No matter how many are banned, this is not a justification.
~ Because a handgun is one of the most efficacious tools to use for personal defense, why is self-defense wrong?


Chicago, DC and New York: from what I've read NYC is doing much better and it was a ban of any kind that turned things around. I'm Philly native. I still live in the area. I'm not far from Camden, NJ. Look up that town crime and murder. It's easier to find chickens with dentures than it is to legally get a handgun in NJ. If you want a carry permit, just get hired by police department as a cop or the county as a deputy sheriff and you're all set. Getting a permit as a civilian is as easy as becoming Sly Stallone.


There are over 600,000,000 privately held firearms in the world today. More than half of those are here in the US.
Why is it, if murder is proportioned to firearm ownership, that we don't have half the world's murders?
Why don't we have even half the firearm murders?
The UK is often mentioned as an example of a country with a lower murder rate and lower rate firearm ownership than the US.
Why is the US NON-FIREARM murder rate is higher than the UK OVERALL murder rate?


If you're considering advocating for a federal law, consider:
- Federal laws need to work everywhere, not just in areas like Southeast DC and Anacostia. Federal laws need to work in Central Park and in the Katmai National Park. If that's too difficult of a problem and you don't want guns near you, you will have to pick a new country or create your own compound here in the US.

Don't be shy now. New Jersey might just be just what you need. Getting a gun here isn't easy. Maybe consider taking a walk around Virginia and Atlantic in Atlantic City after you drop a little cash at the tables. AC should be one of the safer places in the state as it is rather removed from both Philly and NYC by about 90 minutes.

I'm a consultant and I've worked in lot of places. Folks say that California has some really tight gun laws so maybe you might like hangin' out where I used stay when I was there. It's called Inglewood. It's very convenient being only a mile East of LAX.


You have a wonderful New Year

[sharedvalues]

69. Inglewood is a great example of who is hurt by guns

Kids in Inglewood get killed because we have lax gun laws.

America is better than that.

And real men are strong enough to feel manly even without a gun.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. Thanks for the reply

Most sincerely I appreciate any thoughtful and respectful dialog.

Is there a reason you failed to answer even one of my questions?
Please reply again and answer something.

[sharedvalues]

73. Handguns kill people

Questions are important and getting answers is important es.

Which is why I ask you: is it ok that thousands of Americans get killed each year by guns because gun manufacturers pay politicians? Why is it ok that kids die, like at Sandy Hook?

Why is it ok that cities like DC and NYC and Chicago desperately want to ban guns and the rest of the country won’t let them?

Last question:
For guys that really love guns (not just hunting deer with rifles, real gun lovers) do you think they ALL have small penises or just the majority of them? Do you think it’s depressing those gun lovers are so insecure they need guns to feel manly?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. I do respect the pro-restriction folks...

...that answer what I ask and maybe some others that don't.

I answered your question:

Why haven’t we banned handguns and other guns designed to kill people?

What is wanted isn't always correct.

They are called the Bill of Rights for a reason.
There will never be an instance where any of those 10 articles are repealed.
At least not any instance that doesn't also dissolve the Union.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. Real men and women answer questions...

...and are respected as they respect others.

[oneshooter]

41. And if you do get a ban,

How are you going to collect and pay for them?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. Easy, the same way the ban will be passed into law...

...magic wand.

[oneshooter]

48. I really do not expect an answer to this question.

Which goes to show that gun banners only think of 1/4 of the problems they "solve".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. You really don't catch the "ban them all drift" do you?

Let me explain my take: there are 2 groups of people in the world of privately held firearms. Group 1 are regular folks with no ill intentions. Group 2 vary from maybe folks with newer non-violent felonies (like embezzling, fraud...) who don't divest themselves of guns they used to legally own but now are prohibited from keeping to active rapists, drug dealers and gang members. We all know that most of group 2 won't be simply handing in their guns because Uncle Sam said so. I think that a some banners would like to see the 30 year old auto mechanic with a felony for something relating to pot possession locked up for 10 years after inheriting his family's house and contents (including a hunting rifle).

Now group 1, they expect will mostly comply with the law and do whatever they need to do. (This assumes this crazy scheme actually becomes law which it won't.) But to continue their dream, that maybe 5% of group 1, who never broke the law for more than parking tickets or late library books, there are folks who are just not okay with registering their private property or storing it at a secured protected government facility or whatever new hoops have been established. Those folks opposed this expensive (and useless) ban and left a bad taste in the mouth of those who worked so hard to make the world safer and should also, as examples, spend a decade thinking about their crimes in the state pen.

I believe that almost no one resorts to violent crime when other options are there. I believe that investing in building the options for people rather than backing them into a corner with laws that protect the non-desperate "good" folks are the direction for freedom and progress. The other option is basically elitist.

The idea of non-violent folks spending time in prison while the violent remain free sickens me.

[oneshooter]

55. They lso have no iea how much the cost will be.

Both in political capitol and hard cash.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. You should be ashamed of yourself...

...putting a price on human life.

[oneshooter]

58. Not really.

Everything has a price, just not necessarily a price in gold.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. Well, of course...

...therefore the sarcasm tag.

[aikoaiko]

60. I haven't seen any guns on the streets. Have you?

Where does one find guns on the street?

[yagotme]

61. I'd sure do my part.

If I saw a gun on the street, I'd make my best effort to get it off. Maybe, if it's a nice one, it'll follow me home.

[oneshooter]

62. Of course you will insist on a full 3 generation background check with fingerprints and blood sample

and a 45 day "cooling off" period.

[yagotme]

63. Pretty "cold" outside now.

Would have to handle it with gloves, as it is.

[sharedvalues]

71. Nah. Id take a ban.

Single shot hunting rifles only.
Ban all others.

And people who need a gun to feel manly because they have a small penis will suffer, I grant you, but sometimes America has to do the right thing.

[oneshooter]

77. And how would you enforce and PAY for it?

[sharedvalues]

157. Gun manufacturers can pay. Like tobacco companies did.

Since both products kill people.

[oneshooter]

161. Not how it works.

If you own a legal item, and the Government decides that item is now illegal, the Government MUST pay "fair market value" to the owner before it can be confiscated.

[sharedvalues]

173. Asked question. Got good answer. Didn't like answer. Changed question.

Also the GOP just blew a $1.5 TRILLION hole in the budget. So there's lots of room to pay for things like this.

Not to mention, if handguns are banned, their fair market value will drop quite precipitously.

Also, how do you feel about handguns being used to kill children in American cities? It's a scourge. Guns hurt and kill people. Americans who live in cities know this. That's why cities want gun bans.

I appreciate that guns can be fun; but American deaths take precedence.

[oneshooter]

175. " if handguns are banned, their fair market value will drop "

Again, not how it works.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

154. Well, take it then, take it somewhere else

Somewhere that rights exist by capricious whim of government officials.
Take it to a dark place where freedom is redefined.


Come to think of it, there are places in the US where guns exist only in the hands of law enforcement.
Here's a few I can list:
United States Penitentiary, Allenwood Pennsylvania
United States Penitentiary, Atlanta Georgia
United States Penitentiary, Atwater California
United States Penitentiary, Big Sandy Kentucky
United States Penitentiary, Beaumont Texas
United States Penitentiary, Canaan Pennsylvania
United States Penitentiary, Coleman Florida
United States Penitentiary, Florence ADX Colorado
United States Penitentiary, Florence High Colorado
United States Penitentiary, Lee Virginia
United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg Pennsylvania
United States Penitentiary, McCreary Kentucky
United States Penitentiary, Pollock Louisiana
United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute Indiana
United States Penitentiary, Tucson Arizona
United States Penitentiary, Victorville California

All of these places are very secure.

[sharedvalues]

70. Yup. A street gun in Chicago shot a kid a few months ago

Street guns in DC and NYC and Boston kill hundreds of people a year.

NYC and DC desperately want gun bans.

How selfish is the rest of the country to impose their gun-loving values on cities, when cities are where people get killed,

[aikoaiko]

79. Oh. You don't really mean "guns on the streets", you mean...

...guns possessed illegally by criminals.

Why is it that so many in Boston, DC, and NYC are so desperate to kill people that they import guns illegally to do it?

Seems to me that is the real problem that you need to address.

[Kajun Gal]

76. Ummm, NOOOO!

The smarter thing to do would be to enforce background checks. Perhaps ban assault rifles? I mean, who needs to blast a deer to mulch?

[oneshooter]

81. What is your definition of an " assault rifles "

[bearsfootball516]

78. Lol. Good luck with that.

[ileus]

88. Simple, because self defense firearms are actually designed to save lives.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

97. "We want a handgun ban."

Who the hell is "we"? You and your handful of grabbers? Sorry, it'll never happen.

[SoCalMusicLover]

102. Something Else That Will Never Happen

Gun Humpers like yourself, will never really feel remorse Every Time there's a mass shooting.

Yesterday's school shooting was the 11th this year. THIS YEAR!

Thoughts & Prayers are all you gun humpers are good for.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

103. "Gun humper"?

What the hell is a gun humper? I'm certainly not, I've never humped a gun in my life. Is name calling the best you can do?

[oneshooter]

104. It is ALL he can do. n/t

[sharedvalues]

107. You started the name calling (gr****er) And you apparently love guns

Love guns enough to not care much about Americans getting killed. That’s not right. Think of the Sandy Hook kids and then think of a semiauto ban.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

109. I'm not American

I'm Northern Ute. I don't love guns, but they are useful tools that are perfectly safe when used properly and responsibly. I love my people. We stay armed because we can't depend on anyone else to protect us. Do you have a problem with that?

[sharedvalues]

118. Yes, sorry to say. That position gets Americans in cities killed. Ban semiautos and handguns.

You can have all the single shot rifles you want. Bolt-action, whatever.

But semiautomatics, assault rifles, and handguns get lots of Americans killed. If there was a kind of car that was incredibly powerful but blew up 0.001% of the time and got other drivers killed, we'd ban that kind of car. Same with guns. Semiautos get people killed and need to be banned.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

130. Do you support...

...tribal sovereignty? Are you comfortable allowing us to make our own decisions as sovereign nations?

[sharedvalues]

134. Now this is about 'sovereignity'? Please. Guns kill Americans. We must stop that.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

135. Because we...

...indigenous First Americans are overwhelmingly in support of our right to keep and bear arms. Our primary reason for that is our own defense, not for hunting. Do you support our right to make that decision for ourselves?

[sharedvalues]

141. Guns kill people. Do you support people and kids getting killed?

That’s what it boils down to.

Supporting guns means supporting deaths of Americans, like those who are killed in cities.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

146. My guns...

...have never killed anyone. Would you mind answering my question? Do you support indigenous tribes as sovereign nations making decisions on firearms ownership for ourselves?

[EX500rider]

165. Does owning a car mean you support drunk drivers killing people?

Having a pool mean you are pro-kids drowning?
Owning a ladder mean you are pro-falling deaths? (which happens MUCH more then gun deaths)
Or does that all sound stupid?

[sharedvalues]

106. Me and those who care about American lives. Which you apparently do not.

If you support handguns and semiautomatics, you are complicit in American gun deaths.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

110. My legally...

...and responsibly owned firearms are not the problem. If you cannot understand this simple concept, there is no help for you.

[sharedvalues]

116. Yes, if you reject gun control, you are complicit in gun deaths. Single-shot rifles only.

If you reject gun control, you help the gun lobby. That helps get Americans killed.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

131. You are a great gift...

...to Republican politicians

[sharedvalues]

133. Gun lovers are complicit in American shootings.

Real men shoot with single-shot rifles. Only weak people need assault rifles to kill animals.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

136. "weak people"

Like older folks or those like my wife who are most often in a wheel chair. It would be helpful for anyone and especially the weaker and sicker to be armed with a semi-auto when in a self-defense situation.

However, please continue dreaming out loud.

[sharedvalues]

140. Correct. Semiautos are designed to kill people.

And our government and laws should protect our citizens. Like in Australia. Like in Canada. Like in most American cities where few carry guns legally.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

142. Please get past the idea that laws protect anyone n/t

[yagotme]

144. Laws are used to define the legal/illegality of a thing/activity.

And, to set punishment limits. They offer no "protection", per se, unless you want to pick a printed copy of it up and hold it in front o you, as a ballistic shield.

[Straw Man]

145. Real men.

Real men shoot with single-shot rifles. Only weak people need assault rifles to kill animals.

Double-barrels are for wusses, then? Single-barrel shooters are twice as manly?

Back in the Mesolithic Era, they used to say that bows were for weak men. Real men used atlatls.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

147. I am primarily...

...a bowhunter. I don't own semi-auto rifles as a primary hunting weapon, I own them for self defense. I live in a remote area of N.E. Utah, and in the event of an emergency, law enforcement response time is at LEAST 45 minutes on a good day. Granted, an intruder isn't very likely, but it does happen occasionally even out here on remote ranches and I'm pretty much on my own. I also own firearms in the event I need to protect my people, as do most men (and quite a few women) of my people. Do you have a problem with Natives protecting ourselves?

[Puha Ekapi_2]

150. By your extreme...

...and immovable position on gun control, you are complicit in getting Republicans elected

[Marengo]

148. Would you support a government mandate restricting the amount of meat consumed by Americans?

[OU65802]

101. Less gun deaths only if we get them from people that shouldnt have them

Otherwise more death

[sharedvalues]

108. False on both. Fewer guns, fewer deaths.

You make two statements that are fallacies.
1. If we can’t get all guns we shouldn’t try. Of course not. Any little bit helps.
2. On gun numbers. Fewer guns means fewer seatha period. The best data we have shows this. The gun industry had banned govt from collecting more data while they argue this point — that’s clear evidence they know they are wrong. Fewer guns, Fewer deaths. It’s simple.

[gejohnston]

111. there is no such data

if you actually read the "studies", you will find that they are not peer-reviewed, done by scientists, nor follow the scientific method.
the claim that the industry banned the government to do anything is a lie, like most gun control activists' claims. The ban is only on advocacy.

[sharedvalues]

113. Yup- gun industry is AFRAID of the data. They know what it will show. So they banned govt gun data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years

Why gun violence research has been shut down for 20 years

But one reason the positions are so intractable is that no one really knows what works to prevent gun deaths. Gun-control research in the United States essentially came to a standstill in 1996.

After 21 years, the science is stale.

“In the area of what works to prevent shootings, we know almost nothing,” Mark Rosenberg, who, in the mid-1990s, led the CDC's gun-violence research efforts, said shortly after the San Bernardino shooting in 2015.

In 1996, the Republican-majority Congress threatened to strip funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention unless it stopped funding research into firearm injuries and deaths. The National Rifle Association accused the CDC of promoting gun control. As a result, the CDC stopped funding gun-control research — which had a chilling effect far beyond the agency, drying up money for almost all public health studies of the issue nationwide.

The National Institute of Justice, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, funded 32 gun-related studies from 1993 to 1999, but none from 2009 to 2012, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The institute then resumed funding in 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting the year before. Researchers in search of private funding say they know to avoid the word “gun” or “firearm” in the titles of violence-prevention studies to avoid blowback.

[sharedvalues]

119. Ban handguns, semiautos. Donald Trump is the racist authoritarian and you are losing credibility.

Bloomberg is the racist authoritarian? This is a lie. Bloomberg and Menino did great work. Moreover THEY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF AMERICANS in cities. Why? Because Americans in cities get killed by those guns.

[sarisataka]

121. Are you familiar with the CDC's report

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3
Ordered by President Obama in 2013?

It is interesting reading, although fair warning- I don't think you will like it.

[sharedvalues]

122. Yes. But the point is the gun industry was SO SCARED, they stopped research for 21 years

Give the Obama-ordered studies 5-20 years to show results. If they're not stopped by the NRA/GOP.

Point is : we know the GOP and the gun lobby are scared of data on gun control. Because they threatened the CDC. So we know the GOP believes what is obvious: fewer guns, fewer deaths.

[sarisataka]

123. You are not familiar with the report then

As it had several points on gun control that could be summed up with the word "ineffective"

Still I am 100% in favor of conducting unbiased research. I would accept whatever results come. I'm not so sure those who are zealously committed to a pre-determined conclusion would accept anything that doesn't fit their position.

[sharedvalues]

125. The report shows data is missing. Because GOP is afraid and banned data.

Quote from article.

There is limited research on the effectiveness of interventions and strategies to prevent firearm violence, and where there has been research, stakeholders often disagree about its implications. Two of the most challenging and important issues are the inadequacy of or lack of access to data (Weiner et al., 2007) and the use of study designs that have limited ability to establish causality.

Summary: we have no clear view of the best gun control measures, because data is limited [because gun lobby banned gov't data].

[sarisataka]

126. Simple question

If the CDC were funded to study the issue fill in the gaps and continues with the conclusion that gun control is not the most effective way to reduce gun violence would you be willing to change your position and support whatever the report determined was more effective?

[sharedvalues]

127. Of course, if multiple studies with high levels of evidence (Canada shows handgun laws work)

I would back whatever the studies found.

The goal is to prevent gun deaths in America, which happen in mass shootings but also on a daily basis largely via handguns in cities. That's why Menino and Bloomberg were so strong on gun control - their citizens are getting killed.

So the goal is to prevent gun deaths. We know that reducing guns does that. For example Canada has strict handgun laws (https://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7047547/canada-gun-law-us-comparison). And their rate of gun death is much lower, even though many Canadians own rifles. So that's why a handgun ban is a good idea -- we know people get killed in America by handguns, and Canada shows very strict handgun laws (can only rarely legally take handguns outside the home) work to reduce gun deaths.

[sharedvalues]

124. It nicely summarizes how the GOP has stopped gun research they are afraid of.

However, the scarcity of research on firearm-related violence limits policy makers’ ability to propose evidence-based policies that reduce injuries and deaths and maximize safety while recognizing Second Amendment rights. Since the 1960s, a number of state and federal laws and regulations have been enacted that restrict government’s ability to collect and share information about gun sales, ownership, and possession, which has limited data collection and collation relevant to firearm violence prevention research. Among these are the amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968,17 which prohibits the federal government from establishing an electronic database of the names of gun purchasers and requires gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms.

In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection, congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advocate or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar restrictions affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.19 The net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and effects of firearm violence.

[sharedvalues]

115. Also, if you reject gun control, you're complicit in gun deaths. Sorry. Americans die due to guns.

nm

[yagotme]

138. If you reject drug control/bans, you're complicit in drug deaths. Sorry. Americans die due to

drugs.

Add any noun into above sentence you desire.

You're welcome.

[sharedvalues]

139. Guns kill people. Heroin kills people. Both should be banned

Are you saying you want to flood the country with guns and heroin just because some people enjoy them and a small fraction can use them safely?

[yagotme]

143. Swimming pools kill people. Cars kill people.

Running with scissors kills people. You missed the gist of my post, which is any and all things can be deadly, some more than others. Firearms misuse (discounting suicide, don't know where you stand on assisted/nonassisted suicide) falls pretty low on the list compared to a whole mess of other things. Priorities, you know.

[Marengo]

149. Heroin IS banned!

[sarisataka]

153. And there is your proof

There is no heroin abuse in this country, there are no deaths from heroin overdoses, heroin is unavailable on every street in the entire country because Bans WORK!






Oh btw...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

155. But it would be different with guns because...

...guns are designed to kill.

[Marengo]

164. Yep, all it takes is one law and POOF, problem eliminated entirely and for forever.

[sharedvalues]

158. GOP and NRA BANNED data. They are afraid of it.

That’s all you need to know. The data is bad for the NRA.


See my reply above quoting the CDC study which explains the NRA/GOP data ban nicely.

[Puha Ekapi_2]

112. Show the data

Put up, or shut up.

[sharedvalues]

114. See above Washington Post article - GOP threatened CDC, who stopped funding gun research.

Gun lobby is AFRAID of the data. They know what it will show.


Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. It's simple for anyone who gives it a passing thought and doesn't have an agenda.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

156. Possibly a case of reading comprehension

OU65802:

Less gun deaths only if we get them from people that shouldnt have them... Otherwise more death

sharedvalues:

You make two statements that are fallacies.
1. If we can’t get all guns we shouldn’t try. Of course not. Any little bit helps.

Nowhere in the reply by OU65802 was it stated, "If we can’t get all guns we shouldn’t try."

sharedvalues:

On gun numbers. Fewer guns means fewer seatha period.

Without a link to some proof, this is an assertion. (I could be wrong but I inferred that "seatha" should be deaths.)

sharedvalues:

The best data we have shows this.

Again, no link.
sharedvalues:

The gun industry had banned govt from collecting more data while they argue this point — that’s clear evidence they know they are wrong.

Possibly you have either a link to show that the gun industry is in charge of the CDC or that there is a law about a data collection prohibition. Once again, provide a link to support some of these claims.


Now, correct me if I am wrong but I infer, since you say OU65802 is wrong, that it is of no importance which guns are confiscated first. Correct what he/she wrote with your belief.

[sharedvalues]

159. Selective quoting. Source for GOP/NRA data fear is above.

Check out my post quoting CDC report for source. No data because GOP and NRA are afraid of data. That’s all you need to know.


Remember gun groups like the NRA are not just pro-death and pro-violence, they are an arm of the GOP. I know what side I want to be on in this debate.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

163. Here's a bit of "selective quoting" for you

https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3610/text

...That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:...

Funding programs that advocate for gun restrictions do not equate to data collection and statistics.

Of the 232 Democratic members of Congress, name some that support a complete ban on semi-autos, both handgun and long gun.

[EX500rider]

166. "False on both. Fewer guns, fewer deaths." Actually, no.

The number of guns in a country is not at all tied to the number of murders.

[RainCaster]

129. Dump the Russia sponsored NRA

If you really are a patriot, you need to avoid the NRA.

[Lokilooney]

160. Wow!

The Russians sure are behind allot these days!

Why, just the other night I burned my rice, shaking my fists in rage my neighbors hear me scream into the night PUUUTIIIIIIIIIIIIINNN!

[X_Digger]

132. Fuck that shit. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

137. I often include a persuasive or eloquent quote in a post

Yours does kind of say it all.

[samnsara]

151. I LIKE and plan on keeping my handguns....

..we need to make sure they aren't sold to the wrong ppl.

[sharedvalues]

172. If you are not for handgun restrictions (like Canada)-you're complicit. Sadly.

[Alea]

162. Thanks, but I'll be keeping mine

along with 30 percent or more of our Party.

Here's an idea though. Lets get all our Senators and Representatives to quit pandering to gun owners around election time and come right out and announce they are running on a Hand Gun Ban Platform or Total Gun Ban Platform. Then we can sit back and watch ourselves never win another election in the foreseeable future.

[hack89]

170. After some thought - don't think so. nt

[oneshooter]

171. Who are "We"? n/t

[TwistOneUp]

177. Instead...

I want a criminal ban.

Every time I read the SFPD blotter I see people stealing other people's phones, purses, etc. using a knife or a screwdriver, because SF is so liberal wrt sentencing laws. I like liberal for social things, but if someone commits a crime, Lock The MoFo Up!

And let's stop the war on drugs, *please*! 90% of crime is from peeps trying to keep that buzz going. Stop trying to cure peeps by denying them their shit. They're going to get it one way or the other so by making it legal the prices will drop and there will be less crime.