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.
Maybe tens of thousands of annual deaths from firearms are something of a clue...
The expression "tens of thousands" would generally infer that there are 20,000 or more firearms deaths each year. However, below is a link to the FBI statistic on murder via ALL types of firearms.
This figure only uses murder data; not including suicides (not really relevant since those are deaths by choice...as well as accidents which are deaths by negligence. Both of those stats could just as easily have involved a chainsaw, a bottle of pills, or a steak knife because they're not related to guns; they're related to the desire to die and/or an accident.)
"Tens of thousands" is actually 10,122 in 2006. So it might be more accurate to say "ten thousand".
Expanded Homicide Data Table 7 - Crime in the United States 2006 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html - broken link)
If you're interested in stats on the likelihood you'll be killed by a particular situation, here's an interesting site. It also includes the likelihood you'll commit suicide, die from an accidental firearm discharge, or die at the hands of an assailant:
Odds of Dying - NSC (http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx - broken link)
Odds of dying from Accidental Firearm Discharge
In one year (2004): 1 in 452,476
Over your lifetime: 1 in 5,808
Such Deaths in 2004: 649
Odds of dying from Being Killed by an Assailant
In one year (2004): 1 in 16,919
Over your lifetime: 1 in 217
Such Deaths in 2004: 17,357
From where I sit, my chances are MUCH higher (1 in 217) to be killed by an assailant so I want to be able to defend myself, thank you very much.
By simple facts of grammar, the first portion does not change the meaning of the rest of the amendment, it simply gives their purpose for protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
It leaves the words without meaning. There is no statement of purpose in the 1st Amendment, nor in the 3rd, nor in any other. It's authors were not struck by a sudden bout of wordiness in writing the 2nd. The words they wrote are there for a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Our second amendment was based on the English Bill of Rights, and there is a clear protection of an individual right (though not of all individuals) in that English Bill of Rights to keep and bear arms.
Assuming you mean the Declaration of Rights of 1689, it states that "the subjects which are Protestants may have arms." The language is a reaction to events of the pre- and post-Civil War era in which various factions went about disarming those of, or thought to be of, a different faction. This was done by various factions. While the language does establish an at least partial individual right, it does so in order to assure the possibility of the higher order collective right of forming a militia of the people, one that would be beyond the ultimate control of either the King or the Parliament. It is this same intent that is embodied in the 2nd Amendment. It establishes a collective right that is assured by an individual right that itself is reflected in no more than the common practice of the time. As the collective right itself no longer exists in 21st century America, the presumption of any underlying individual right can no longer be convincingly made either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
The collective/militia theory was created by gun control advocates (including FDR), merely them grasping at straws to try to enable their agenda to be "acceptable."
No, the collective right had been discussed and discussed as the superior right for centuries. See the English republican lineage that so influenced the founders, Blackstone and James Harrington in particular
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries it was accepted to be an individual right (note that there were no federal gun control laws passed in those years, anyone could buy any weapon as far as federal law was concerned, and most state laws were too). There were many references to it in those years, by Congress, presidents, the SCOTUS (read the Dred Scott case and see that Taney was against Blacks having the right to keep and bear arms among other individual rights he listed of citizens) and legal scholars.
Here we begin to agree. What began as mere common practice became, in direct opposition to Taney's views, an understood individual right that the authors of the 14th Amendment could indeed formally incorporate onto the returning states in assuring that freed blacks would have an adequate and necesary means for self-defense. It would be my view that those seeking an 'original intent' argument for individual gun rights should forget the 2nd Amendment. It is dead, and whatever its intents, they went with it. They should focus instead on the 14th Amendment, the original intent of which is clear and distinctly individual. You maybe then run into some problems with the Slaughter House cases and etc., but still it is the clearer case.
More people are killed by vehicles and by drowning in pools each year than by firearms. Go after those two things for starters if you're so concerned about innocent lives lost as you claim...
There isn't any restriction on the number of causes of needless deaths that may be addressed at any given point in time.
Well clearly you have an agenda (anti-gun) and you haven't even read the ruling so you don't even know what it says. It disproves everything you're saying. So instead, the old repeat a lie enough times trick, with some heart breaking deaths thrown in to get emotions going...sorry, it ain't working. The SCOTUS has rightfully declared it an individual right with very sound reasoning behind it, and gun control advocates are going to have to simply accept there are extreme limits to what they can do, and that many of their prized victim disarmament laws will be thrown out.
The bad guys DO mean it, though -- and they are less likely to ply their trade among a potentially armed populace. Call it Fear of the Unknown. Isn't it time some more criminals got to experience it, for a change?
For the benefit of those who want to talk, for no good reason, about breaking-and-entering, one of the things that such burglars most want to steal is your guns. They can easily get several hundred dollars on the street for a nice stolen piece. So go ahead, advertise. Put up a sign that says "WARNING THIEVES: WE HAVE GUNS AND WE KNOW HOW TO USE THEM" Your house will be hit within a week...
My NRA, ANJRPA, and ADT stickers on my doors have pretty effectively kept the bad guys at bay, even though they know we have guns. In fact I even have an NRA and ANJRPA sticker on my car...which from your point of view would be telling people "follow me home...I have guns you can steal!"
...and still, nothing.
When should I expect all those burglars who will take a chance on breaking into a home that they know is legally protected by firearms, hmm? Will they come in the middle of the night while we're all home? Or will they come in the light of day?
I don't believe they're coming to my house. You know where they're going?
They'll go next door, where there's an "Obama 2008" sign on the yard.
I certainly will get to it in due time, though according to this To-Do List, it isn't due just yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
As a plus, Scalia's writing can be quite enjoyable reading.
Hmmm. I would usually find myself joining in the opinion of a colleague who noted that Scalia's writing is invariably published in English, but his analyses seem to have been translated with some difficulty from a language that is not actually spoken on this planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
And the dangers of a tyrannical government are far from gone today I would argue...
I'm sure that an argument can be made. As with such things as Creation Science, the quality of that argument might be questioned.
No, its current federal law. All able bodied men between 18 & 45 are members of the militia. Not only didn't you read the opinions, you are not abreast of current law. Now before you go calling me out on it,take the time & look. I think the forst militia clause originated in 1799. In the early 1900's the National guard was federalized & all men between 18 & 45 became the "unorganized" militia.
Actually, it's 17 to 44. Once you turn 45, you're right out. And the "unorganized militia" is simply all those of age who are not in the actual militia. It's just like the difference between the organized ACLU (members) and the unorganized ACLU (non-members). Now if your claim is actually that the unorganized militia is a part of the actual militia, then it is under governmental control and regulation, and on this account, the feds or any state may make any restrictive law that it cares to with regard to arms, including a proscription against having any of them at all, and it may enforce that law upon everyone of age. Hmmm. Had you thought of that?
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.
