Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Founders were revolutionaries and envisaged a society where the populace would be armed and capable of pulling down any unpopular government. That however has proven sufficiently unpopular that we have defacto modified the 2nd to read only on the use of a firearm as a self defense weapon.
Nonsense. The founders needed armed militias since there was no national standing army. Militias were to be called up by the feds as they might have been needed to do such things as quell insurrections and put down uprisings. Obviously, that concern has been overtaken by events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
Thus we will have to accept the deaths from guns as we do those from automobiles. The overall good is seen as sufficiently well served to look past a few hundred or thousand deaths in light of the overall good we perceive from gun ownership.
Oh dear. We have all sorts of safety-related restrictions on the production, ownership, and operation of automobiles. And what were those "goods" that come from gun ownership again? I think I missed those. The number of traffic and gun deaths is meanwhile above 30,000 per year in both cases, with 2010 rates of gun death being higher in Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon according to CDC. The rates were equal in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Last edited by fairlaker; 11-02-2013 at 07:33 PM..
That says it all. "So called"??? Actually, they're unalienable RIGHTS. Not granted by man, neither citizens NOR government. We are born with these RIGHTS. That cannot be abridged. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law. You are not born with any right that the state (an institution of men) does not define, assign, and defend on your behalf.
Very true, you are not born with the right to bear arms. You're guaranteed the right to bear arms by the second amendment, here in America.
Since Heller/McDonald, you are guaranteed an indiviual right to own arms appropriate to traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within your own home. Prior to Heller/McDonald, there was no individual right at all.
Nonsense. The founders needed armed militias since there was no national standing army. Militias were to be called up by the feds as they might have been needed to do such things as quell insurrections and put down uprisings. Obviously, that concern hs been overtaken by events.
Oh dear. We have all sorts of safety-related restrictions on the production, ownership, and operation of automobiles. And what were those "goods" that come from gun ownership again? I think I missed those. The number of traffic and gun deaths is meanwhile above 30,000 per year in both cases, with 2010 rates of gun death being higher in Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon according to CDC. The rates were equal in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
You need to read a little more founding father.
"The powers of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sward are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no right to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
- Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
There is lots more though unfortunately most of the gunnie quotes are phony.
But whatever...we in are wisdom have decided that an armed citizenry is in our best interest. I presume their are good rationales for this though I admit they may be difficult to find with specificity.
So given that we are going there we might as well do it right. And, in my mind, that strongly supports a relatively well armed citizenry with few limits on the rights to carry.
a poorly armed citizenry simple makes the arms available to the bad side while not spreading it widely to the good.
Florida pretty conclusively demonstrated there are no bad effects from wide spread citizen carry.
There are over 10,000 victims of firearms. That is the price for the capability. Suicides and accidents to but not really restricted to hand guns.
So we have made our choice and need to proceed. Why not do it right?
Talk about jibberish. You have any idea what you are or are not saying?
The decision to be an armed society is a heavy one that will result in deaths that would not otherwise occur. A society that fully banned hand guns would in fact end up with less deaths then we will have. But it pretty much has to be a total ban and ideally international.
That is not going to happen in the US so the next best thing is a well armed citizenry to make the unlawful gun usage and other illegal behavior more costly to the perpetrators.
That armed citizenry will take a toll. But it is the price we pay for the adopted approach. And we are not going to reduce the toll by clever training and programs anymore than the highway fatalities will be cut by cutting all speed limits by 20%.
We just need to face it. An armed society has a cost and that cost is paid in lives lost.
Ivoc I couldn't tell if you were doing a "straw man" argument in the previous discussions or not because I couldn't gage where you were coming from. The acceptance of gun violence was a bit too uncomfortable. But I will take your post at face value. I still don't agree with your argument but I do apologize with questioning the authenticity.
But anyways highway deaths were cut by improving safety technology. Now I am not saying that "safety technology" will curtail gun violence, I only mentioned it because you mentioned automobile accidents, otherwise there is no analogy.
Of course more gun regulation is not the answer, we both agree with that. And a total gun ban will never happen, nor do many want that to happen. And also, there will always be knuckleheads with guns, you can't outlaw stupidity. What I am saying is that a vast majority of gun violence is done by a very small segment of society and if we address that small segment, a certain demographic that has in common - young males, bad neighborhoods, drugs, and some mental issues, you can reduce gun violence.
There are reasons that some countries have high gun ownership and low violence (Switzerland), and restrictive gun ownership and high crime (Mexico).
Gun violence is down actually in the US, while gun ownership is up. Frankly that is because we have so many of this demographic group in jail (and by the way I am not talking about race, but the factors of poor, young, male, and drugs).
You are partially right in that social "programs" more than likely result in waste and abuse. But a combination of law enforcement focused on this demographic group, reformed mental health laws (again, focused), and education and opportunity will keep gun violence in check. And also enforce existing gun laws of course. Meanwhile, we also have to keep our eyes focused on where the problem is and not on these statistical outliers. I truly believe publicizing too much on these mass shooting incidents just promotes the next nutcase to get his name in the paper. While the score that get shot a week in Chicago's slums are not even mentioned.
Sorry to OP but I disagree completely. The kid was a nut. Also I watched the video on Youtube of the LAPD Chief of police with two men in suits behind him as he said they practiced for this scenario just three weeks ago. I would not hold this past the government to drug up those young kids and get them all violent and encourage them to shoot up everything. Your post is evidence enough that the government plan is working - to scare Americans into giving up more freedom for more security. Those who would give up some freedom for more security deserve neither freedom nor security.
I'd love to see a call for prayers for the victims before the political rants start when one of these tragedies occur.
I'd love to see the Federal Assault Weapons Ban renewed, before everybody forgets about the incident, and this country goes back to business as usual, handing out these weapons to every deranged individual who wants one. Prayers aren't working.
I have a CCW. I have not yet conceal carried but just wanted to go through the work to get it. Note people with CCWs go through background investigations. I worked in DOD for 28 years when I got the CCW and went through a lot of background investigations for even that. I fly TSA pre check and went through background investigations for those. I know people in and out of government who are staunch defenders of the RKBA themselves. We CCW types have to be super clean and have to be far more trustworthy than the gun grabber crowd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
