Bernie Sanders wants assault weapons ban but knives used more to kill (regular, solution)

[leebeemi]

Originally Posted by chadgates

Read any of the founders additional writings on the matter and you will understand what the 2nd Amendment means.

It isn't ambiguous at all when you understand how the founders felt about the right of private citizens owning firearms.

Only if you CHOOSE not to can you possibly think it is somehow ambiguous and unclear.

What makes you think I haven't? Your interpretation is not the only one.

Actually, in most colonies, if you were considered a member of the militia, in the loosest terms every free white adult male, you could be fined up to 10 shillings if you didn't have a gun. This was considered necessary for the Crown to defend the Colonies in the cheapest way possible--it was up to "us" to defend ourselves and our interests. At the same time, those deemed "disloyal" could be banned from owning weaponry. Eventually, even free blacks & Indians were considered unable to manage owning firearms, so they were eventually "exempted" from being considered militia (especially if your local militia had "enough" of them on roll). Catholics, too, were often considered "untrustworthy." Many Colonies also had programs to sell guns to the poor. It was at the start of the Revolution that this arming began to make the Crown nervous--they had, after all, required that every able party have a gun. So, there began requests to sell privately-owned guns to the government (still the Crown at this time). Once the Revolution was under way, things flipped--now the "government" was the Patriot rabble, and THEY began to confiscate weapons from Loyalists. But all through this complicated time, there were regulations, from all sides--regulations for carrying (or NOT carrying) to church; how to be armed while traveling; how to conduct hunting, etc. We have NEVER been without gun regulations at any point in the history of the United States, nor should we be.

I support reasonable gun ownership. But I cannot fathom that the right to a regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms was ever, EVER, intended to be ownership without governance, without consequence, and without rules. We are trying to apply a narrow view of history to a radically changed world. Our FFs could not have imagined the weaponry our world now possesses. How can we imagine we can take such a narrow view of their meaning?

I imagine you & I disagree. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Not by a long shot. And don't blame my opinions on not knowing facts. I know a lot of facts. But people have been arguing this particular subject for over a century. Much of what we take for fact these days is 50's era rhetoric, and does nobody any good. In an argument over intent, it is well to not get bogged down in semantics.

[chadgates]

Originally Posted by xsthomas

" The problem with the OP's thesis is that total numbers killed does not equal the potential of an assault weapon. The majority of mass shootings are from assault weapons and semiautomatic handguns--and that is the problem. Here you have the capability to kill or wound dozens upon dozens of victims without the need to stop & reload. So controlling this type of weapon would impact this type of crime. It is a niche area, but one that needs to be addressed. When you look at the numbers and see HOW assault weapons are used and on WHO--I don't understand how anyone can say it's okay. It's not. Not in any way "

The public should be allowed to defend themselves. But if you need an assault weapon to do that, maybe you need to move to a safer neighborhood. After owning more than a few of AR's, AK's and an HK91, I can say, they should not be allowed to be sold to the public. These were designed for wartime, even though they are only semi-automatic, you can empty a clip in about 3 seconds. I have no problem with them being banned. But heaven forbid, the NRA wont allow that to happen.

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?

[chadgates]

Originally Posted by leebeemi

In an argument over intent, it is well to not get bogged down in semantics.

In order to determine intent, semantics would be very meaningful.

Unless I don't understand the definition properly.


EDIT:

Nope.

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

[leebeemi]

Originally Posted by chadgates

In order to determine intent, semantics would be very meaningful.

Unless I don't understand the definition properly.


EDIT:

Nope.

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

What the what? Dude, you are in love the sound of your own fingers typing.

Yes, semantics can have a direct impact on understanding. But your insistence that certain parts of a sentence or phrase mean something independent of the others is futile. You pull out the following:

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;

and highlight "TO PROVIDE FOR ARMING THE MILITIA" and want to apply it to everyone. Okay, but here's the thing: You completely ignore the part that says "...To provide for calling forth the militia to EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS and REPEL INVASIONS." Oh, and that little bit about "...according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Pesky, pesky details.

Let me ask you this: Why, oh, why, oh, why would ANY government want to have a fully armed citizenry without the power to regulate it? Really, think about it. Why? When you have a calm, cogent, reasonable answer, I would love to hear it. I've asked this question a LOT, and have yet to hear something convincing. Go to it.

[mike1003]

Originally Posted by Year2525

Another goofball gun controller.

Knives are used more often to kill people than so called assault weapons. You'd think somone with intelligence would see that and not prove how uninformed they are. Sanders can't help himself.

Proof:https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...#disablemobile

Numbers don't lie so why do gun control people?

I am pro-gun (big surprise ) but looking at the statistics, I see 6.8k firearm deaths vs 1.6k knives or cutting instruments in 2012. I want to stop the anti-gun nuts, but misleading thread title does not help our cause

BTW, 6.8K is just a small fraction of legal guns owned. I am willing to bet that a high % of the guns used for murders were obtained illegally

[Tyster]

Originally Posted by Railman96

Hypothetically speaking: If that "police state" really came into fruition do you think the average gun owner would really have a fighting chance against the government?

And since we're making blanket statements here, aren't the "Right" the ones who invaded other countries to steal natural resources?

Most people in the military and law enforcement community would refuse to carry out anything a police state government ordered against it's citizens. They don't want to arrest neighbors and friends and they don't want to encounter anyone with a rifle that is willing to use it.

The rest of your comment is dreck. We haven't stolen anything. Where is all that Iraqi oil we 'stole'?

Total nonsense.

[chadgates]

Originally Posted by leebeemi

What the what? Dude, you are in love the sound of your own fingers typing.

Yes, semantics can have a direct impact on understanding. But your insistence that certain parts of a sentence or phrase mean something independent of the others is futile. You pull out the following:

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;

and highlight "TO PROVIDE FOR ARMING THE MILITIA" and want to apply it to everyone. Okay, but here's the thing: You completely ignore the part that says "...To provide for calling forth the militia to EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS and REPEL INVASIONS." Oh, and that little bit about "...according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Pesky, pesky details.

Let me ask you this: Why, oh, why, oh, why would ANY government want to have a fully armed citizenry without the power to regulate it? Really, think about it. Why? When you have a calm, cogent, reasonable answer, I would love to hear it. I've asked this question a LOT, and have yet to hear something convincing. Go to it.

You greatly misunderstand the point here.

This WHOLE THING is relevant.
I highlighted what I did to make sure it is crystal clear that in Article I Section 8 they had ALREADY addressed the issue quite comprehensively of a militia. Which is very important when trying to understand the context of the 2nd Amendment. Why would they add an amendment to cover something ALREADY COVERED SO COMPREHENSIVELY?

As to your last question:

I don't have to have a calm, cogent, reasonable answer because the founders gave MANY:

They JUST won their independence due to the very fact that they, themselves were armed and able to resist an unjust government.

Read the Federalist Papers.

Here is quite a good start:

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
- George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment.



What would they say to those who would try to abolish the 2nd Amendment?

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

[eok]

Originally Posted by littlemissrock

There is something deeply wrong with American society itself.

All the more reason to ban all guns. Americans should not be allowed access to guns because they aren't sane enough to be able to handle them safely. Especially the gun nuts.

[stevek64]

Remember, this is politics. Logic, common sense, and reality need not apply. All one has to do is pose an emotional "solution" (non) and lots of the herd buys into it hook, line, and sinker out of desperation.

Next.....how to "ban"/control the underground black market that inevitably arises that creates an even uglier mess when said device is "banned" and demand is still strong. I'm still waiting for the "solution" on this one.......

[eok]

Originally Posted by stevek64

Next.....how to "ban"/control the underground black market that inevitably arises that creates an even uglier mess when said device is "banned" and demand is still strong. I'm still waiting for the "solution" on this one.......

The first step is to ban all guns. Then possession of a gun is prima facie evidence of a felony. A trained dog alerting to ammo is probable cause for a police search. Rewards can be given more reasonably, because mere possession of a gun is all the person has to show to claim the reward, without complications of whether the person has a right to the gun. We can confiscate all guns if they're all banned. Anything less, there would be too many complications.

The whole idea that the founding fathers wanted us to have guns for defense against a bad government, that idea being used by the gun nuts now to try to support their position, is absurd. It's a very different world now. Unjust governments use chemical and biological weapons to subdue armed resistance. The guns that would be used for such armed resistance, are instead used for keeping our country barbaric, with bloodshed everywhere. Street gangs started by children use their parents' guns to intimidate other children into joining the gangs. Their parents drink and do drugs, and leave their guns lying around. Neighborhoods deteriorate till everyone has metal bars on their windows, and children getting hit by the crossfire almost constantly. And gun nuts support that kind of society. I'm still waiting for the "solution" to that insanity.