***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (7 Viewers)

[Mr Two Cents]

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

Isn't THIS really the answer her?For one, I don't know how anyone can legitimately argue that a well regulated militia is well, not regulated. So we all agree there is some degree of regulation.

Regardless of the "conclusion" of this one piece, we can also throw in the term "Militia" as clearly the language was not a well regulated citizenry.

So, we have some sort of militia - perhaps made of up of all / any citizens, but something - that must be not only regulated, but WELL regulated.

I believe the text itself is really the answer - as is so often the case with the root of the Constitution and founding documents, is true.

Too many guns are getting into irresponsible hands. There is lack of regulation there which has not threatened the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of innocent people.

Does that mean regulation means outlawing certain weapons? Does it mean more regulation on how to buy / who can own? Does it mean that to own certain higher powered weapons there needs to be more of a "militia" body, some say, organized group who's purpose is to defend as a group of regulated citizens?

Probably a little of all of the above.

However, if you stubbornly hold onto the fact that we are a "well regulated militia" now then one of two things: you've misinterpreted the 2nd amendment to the point that the lack of regulation risks the harm of innocent people and/or we need to change the text of the 2nd amendment altogether by amending the constitution / bill of rights.

I'd hope we can figure an answer based on the first.

What would you consider a "well regulated militia". At the time every citizen was considered as part of the militia.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Magazine sales

Brownells, the world's largest supplier of guns, said that it sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in three days.

And this is just one company people. The 30 round mags are here to stay, like them or not. Let alone the millions of magazines already owned. At least the economy is booming.

Scary and depressing. All I can say is that, once the law passes, hopefully those of you who are law-abiding will turn them in or destroy them. If you're caught using them, hopefully you will be punished.

Are you aware that the AR15 is considered among the most popular hunting rifles?

 

[jafo]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

Gun freaks!these were the founding fathers, you idiot. They knew from where they came and from where they refused to go.

 

[Apes with Guns]

It seems that a lot of the debate is whether any restrictions at all should be placed on arms. Technically an anti-aircraft gun is an arm but I don't see a need for that either in my backyard. I also think the authorities would have a problem with it. I do admit it would be pretty cool to stock with tracer bullets and open up at night, but I digress. I don't view it as my right to own it.

actually, i believe anti-aircraft guns are most often classified as artillery.good news is you can get tracers in .30-06

 

[Koya]

Good luck Tim. Even if you ban new sales of 30 round magazines, there are few lifetime supplys worth out there that will be pre ban and legal. Its a futile effort. Much more would be gained focusing on criminals than everyday citizens.

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.

Molon labe

These responses are just my point that by being overly stubborn, those who irrationally hold onto the "WE WON'T GIVE AN INCH" approach risk losing a lot more gun ownership rights than if we actually look for a solution that is not based on personal selfish want/need for arms, but an objective approach that better reflects a balanced regulatory framework to prevent more disasters.

If a solution is presented that targets the criminals breaking the law I'd be happy to "give an inch". I've already stated I don't have a problem with making private sales at a gun show pass a background check. Banning the size of a magazine or a semi automatic rifle only hurts people that obey the law, so yea I won't give on that one because it has already been proven to not work.

A couple thoughts. We both agree on the access question, which is important. Well, we agree in so much that there need to be no loopholes to get around background checks.Personally, I think we need more than background checks - training, registration, ongoing check ups... you show you are responsible in both use and storage you are good to go.Depending upon how successful this can be, then we would not need to entertain banning more weapons / variations (ie mag size etc). That said, if having some weapons out there presents a reality where, even with more regulation, the guns keep getting into the wrong hands, harming innocent people, then we HAVE to look at more stringent / wide ranging bans, because the rights of innocent people to not get killed trumps the general right to own such additional weapons for additional self defense. Basically, if the cons of having the guns out there really outweigh the pros (personal freedom for self defense and ability to arm should a hypothetical over reaching gov't look to usurp the will of the people), then we need to accept wider ranging bans.For me, the more training and regulation we have, the less bans outright will be needed. But again, I think it all has to be on the table at this point.

I am 100% for gun training and safety. If someone doesn't know how to use a gun, they are a danger to themselves and those around. I am more concerned about the person who wants to be a mass murdering son of a #####..they are going to use what is available. If he can't get a gun, he is going to turn to a homemade bomb, or some other weapon capable of inflicting massive amounts of damage. At the end of the day, we really need to focus on identifying these people, what the warning signs are, and how to stop them before it happens. I can't say we as a society really know what makes these people tick yet, but we need to.

FWIW, this is the tone of conversation I think is necessary (and so appallingly absent) to help solve this problem.I agree with everything, but you point to one key potential difference. We are all concerned about the mass murderer. The ideal would be to ID a cause (stop it before the event occurs, help those who are mentally ill / unstable, stop those who are just evil). However, I think we'd all agree that some people will fall through the cracks. In this case, we have an obligation to ensure such weapons, to the best of our ability, don't get into the hands of those who will use them poorly (and to be able to defend ourselves if that happens).Perhaps better general education, training and regulation - included storage and no access for those who are mentally unstable - is part of the solution. FWIW, I think having more "good" people armed, appropriately, is also part of the solution... I just think the line has to be drawn a bit closer to handguns rather than assault rifles with what I do know on the matter.Weather that be some or many of the teachers who are armed but trained and responsible, or more guards I believe either would be a benefit - not a cure, things would still happen, but you'd minimize the impact more or less. But getting SOME of these weapons off the street / unavailable to those who will do ill will also has to be in the discussion.

 

[Dvorak]

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

Isn't THIS really the answer her?For one, I don't know how anyone can legitimately argue that a well regulated militia is well, not regulated. So we all agree there is some degree of regulation.

Regardless of the "conclusion" of this one piece, we can also throw in the term "Militia" as clearly the language was not a well regulated citizenry.

So, we have some sort of militia - perhaps made of up of all / any citizens, but something - that must be not only regulated, but WELL regulated.

I believe the text itself is really the answer - as is so often the case with the root of the Constitution and founding documents, is true.

Too many guns are getting into irresponsible hands. There is lack of regulation there which has not threatened the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of innocent people.

Does that mean regulation means outlawing certain weapons? Does it mean more regulation on how to buy / who can own? Does it mean that to own certain higher powered weapons there needs to be more of a "militia" body, some say, organized group who's purpose is to defend as a group of regulated citizens?

Probably a little of all of the above.

However, if you stubbornly hold onto the fact that we are a "well regulated militia" now then one of two things: you've misinterpreted the 2nd amendment to the point that the lack of regulation risks the harm of innocent people and/or we need to change the text of the 2nd amendment altogether by amending the constitution / bill of rights.

I'd hope we can figure an answer based on the first.

What would you consider a "well regulated militia". At the time every citizen was considered as part of the militia.

They still are, by law.

 

[Koya]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

Gun freaks!these were the founding fathers, you idiot. They knew from where they came and from where they refused to go.

And they were smart enough to say:1. Well Regulated2. MilitiaSo now we are parsing a definition, not some absolute guarantee of arming yourself to the hilt regardless of the effect on others' freedoms and liberty.

 

[Koya]

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

Isn't THIS really the answer her?For one, I don't know how anyone can legitimately argue that a well regulated militia is well, not regulated. So we all agree there is some degree of regulation.

Regardless of the "conclusion" of this one piece, we can also throw in the term "Militia" as clearly the language was not a well regulated citizenry.

So, we have some sort of militia - perhaps made of up of all / any citizens, but something - that must be not only regulated, but WELL regulated.

I believe the text itself is really the answer - as is so often the case with the root of the Constitution and founding documents, is true.

Too many guns are getting into irresponsible hands. There is lack of regulation there which has not threatened the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of innocent people.

Does that mean regulation means outlawing certain weapons? Does it mean more regulation on how to buy / who can own? Does it mean that to own certain higher powered weapons there needs to be more of a "militia" body, some say, organized group who's purpose is to defend as a group of regulated citizens?

Probably a little of all of the above.

However, if you stubbornly hold onto the fact that we are a "well regulated militia" now then one of two things: you've misinterpreted the 2nd amendment to the point that the lack of regulation risks the harm of innocent people and/or we need to change the text of the 2nd amendment altogether by amending the constitution / bill of rights.

I'd hope we can figure an answer based on the first.

What would you consider a "well regulated militia". At the time every citizen was considered as part of the militia.

They still are, by law.

I don't personally believe that to be the fact / reading (and hardly a const. scholar, granted). Which I hope is right because if we don't read more into those words than what you suggest, we may very well either need to change the words, or others will force change because the results right now are not palatable if they continue.How anyone can say well regulated means all people, not in any way associated with one another, I don't understand (not saying that flippantly, I really don't understand how that could be). These are smart writers, and I'd think if they wanted all citizens without any organization among them to be considered the militia, they'd have stated it as such - an unregulated citizenry or at the least, a regulated citizenry.

 

[urbanhack]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.

Yea..it's easy to get distracted when 20 6 and 7 year olds are shot in cold blood multiple times each.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

Gun freaks!these were the founding fathers, you idiot. They knew from where they came and from where they refused to go.

Well regulated.

 

[Slingblade]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.

Yea..it's easy to get distracted when 20 6 and 7 year olds are shot in cold blood multiple times each.

Mutiple times each week! HOLY ####!Hyperbole much? This was an isolated and extremely rare incident.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

Gun freaks!these were the founding fathers, you idiot. They knew from where they came and from where they refused to go.

And they were smart enough to say:1. Well Regulated2. MilitiaSo now we are parsing a definition, not some absolute guarantee of arming yourself to the hilt regardless of the effect on others' freedoms and liberty.

We already are well regulated and the 2nd amendment is what was written to ensure the "others" have freedoms and liberty.It is the criminals you want to stop and all that you will be hurting is responsible, legal US citizens which helps the criminals. Why do you think most of these tragedy's happen in "gun free zones"?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

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

Isn't THIS really the answer her?For one, I don't know how anyone can legitimately argue that a well regulated militia is well, not regulated. So we all agree there is some degree of regulation.

Regardless of the "conclusion" of this one piece, we can also throw in the term "Militia" as clearly the language was not a well regulated citizenry.

So, we have some sort of militia - perhaps made of up of all / any citizens, but something - that must be not only regulated, but WELL regulated.

I believe the text itself is really the answer - as is so often the case with the root of the Constitution and founding documents, is true.

Too many guns are getting into irresponsible hands. There is lack of regulation there which has not threatened the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of innocent people.

Does that mean regulation means outlawing certain weapons? Does it mean more regulation on how to buy / who can own? Does it mean that to own certain higher powered weapons there needs to be more of a "militia" body, some say, organized group who's purpose is to defend as a group of regulated citizens?

Probably a little of all of the above.

However, if you stubbornly hold onto the fact that we are a "well regulated militia" now then one of two things: you've misinterpreted the 2nd amendment to the point that the lack of regulation risks the harm of innocent people and/or we need to change the text of the 2nd amendment altogether by amending the constitution / bill of rights.

I'd hope we can figure an answer based on the first.

What would you consider a "well regulated militia". At the time every citizen was considered as part of the militia.

They still are, by law.

I don't personally believe that to be the fact / reading (and hardly a const. scholar, granted). Which I hope is right because if we don't read more into those words than what you suggest, we may very well either need to change the words, or others will force change because the results right now are not palatable if they continue.How anyone can say well regulated means all people, not in any way associated with one another, I don't understand (not saying that flippantly, I really don't understand how that could be). These are smart writers, and I'd think if they wanted all citizens without any organization among them to be considered the militia, they'd have stated it as such - an unregulated citizenry or at the least, a regulated citizenry.

Did you answer what you consider a well regulated militia?

 

[jafo]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.

Yea..it's easy to get distracted when 20 6 and 7 year olds are shot in cold blood multiple times each.

Maybe you need to step back and allow those with cooler heads to have the discussion, until you can get past the emotion of that incident. I understand you are trolling anyways, and I probably shouldn't even waste my time entertaining your little show, but I felt it needed to be said.

 

[Dvorak]

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

Isn't THIS really the answer her?For one, I don't know how anyone can legitimately argue that a well regulated militia is well, not regulated. So we all agree there is some degree of regulation.

Regardless of the "conclusion" of this one piece, we can also throw in the term "Militia" as clearly the language was not a well regulated citizenry.

So, we have some sort of militia - perhaps made of up of all / any citizens, but something - that must be not only regulated, but WELL regulated.

I believe the text itself is really the answer - as is so often the case with the root of the Constitution and founding documents, is true.

Too many guns are getting into irresponsible hands. There is lack of regulation there which has not threatened the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of innocent people.

Does that mean regulation means outlawing certain weapons? Does it mean more regulation on how to buy / who can own? Does it mean that to own certain higher powered weapons there needs to be more of a "militia" body, some say, organized group who's purpose is to defend as a group of regulated citizens?

Probably a little of all of the above.

However, if you stubbornly hold onto the fact that we are a "well regulated militia" now then one of two things: you've misinterpreted the 2nd amendment to the point that the lack of regulation risks the harm of innocent people and/or we need to change the text of the 2nd amendment altogether by amending the constitution / bill of rights.

I'd hope we can figure an answer based on the first.

What would you consider a "well regulated militia". At the time every citizen was considered as part of the militia.

They still are, by law.

I don't personally believe that to be the fact / reading (and hardly a const. scholar, granted). Which I hope is right because if we don't read more into those words than what you suggest, we may very well either need to change the words, or others will force change because the results right now are not palatable if they continue.How anyone can say well regulated means all people, not in any way associated with one another, I don't understand (not saying that flippantly, I really don't understand how that could be). These are smart writers, and I'd think if they wanted all citizens without any organization among them to be considered the militia, they'd have stated it as such - an unregulated citizenry or at the least, a regulated citizenry.

Again, I think the well-regulated part is tripping you up. The use here is not "controlled" and further reading can be found in the Federalist Papers #29:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

So, we need a well trained, disciplined militia, but that is too much to ask of the citizenry. So at very least, they should be well armed.

 

[17seconds]

I equate the gun lovers to the pot lovers in a way.

You debate the issue like it is something you need for a purpose, but you really just want it for entertainment.

 

[Slingblade]

I equate the gun lovers to the pot lovers in a way.You debate the issue like it is something you need for a purpose, but you really just want it for entertainment.

 

[timschochet]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

I have personally have no problem with #2. Close it, it does not affect me.#3 is a problem, as I stated yesterday my 61 yr old wife can change magazines in a matter of seconds on her 9mm semi-automatic handgun. So going from the full 19+1 to a 10+1 magazine would make a difference but not a huge one for someone young and trained and wanting to kill. But the most problem I have is indeed the 2nd amendment, if you read the above conclusion it states why we have the 2nd amendment and smaller/restricted magazines would indeed not help in the cause of "preserving the right of a free state". Why do you think Japan did not attack the mainland? Why do you thin China came out 2 days ago and said that the government should disarm our citizens. Not to sound heartless and uncaring but there is far more at stake here than the lives taken a week ago. Freedom of the nation itself is at stake. Please read post 3807 and think about that.

I did read it. I still don't understand what any of this has to do with the Second Amendment. Neither, BTW, does the Supreme Court.

 

[urbanhack]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.

Yea..it's easy to get distracted when 20 6 and 7 year olds are shot in cold blood multiple times each.

Mutiple times each week! HOLY ####!Hyperbole much? This was an isolated and extremely rare incident.

So was Columbine, right?

 

[timschochet]

Why do you think Japan did not attack the mainland?

I have to comment on this. It's amazing to me how pro-gun fanatics constantly re-write history. This argument is probably even more absurd than how the German Jews were armed to the teeth until Hitler got there. For the record: the reason that Japan did not attack the United States mainland was the same reason the United States did not consider attacking the Japanese mainland until 1945- distance. In order to invade, you need control of the air and sea close by. And you need landing craft by the thousands. Japan didn't have any of that. Japan did invade China, whose citizens had plenty of rifles thanks to warlords fighting each other. England was another story: after Dunkirk, England had virtually no rifles for it's army, much less it's private citizens. Yet the Nazis were unable to invade across a short body of water. I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

In 2011 there were around 300,000,000 people in the United States. There are about 9,107,814 concealed carry permits in the U.S. This does not include the fact that some states are constitutional carry and no permit is needed. When you do the math 3% of U.S. citizens have a concealed carry permit. There is no way to determine how many carry legal firearms in their vehicle where no permit is required.

We, the concealed carries, defenders of our families and communities are the true homeland security of this nation. It is our responsibility to keep our families safe. Law enforcement can not be there when they are needed, and they are not responsible to render assistance if they do respond. We are on our own. It is our duty to become a true first responder, the civilian ccw operator, and a defender of our own country.

We are the only ones that will watch each others back. We can only rely on ourselves, our family, and our friends. Our government will not protect us, only themselves. The government wants to take away our assault rifles, while their private body guards get to keep theirs.

Today you need to let your friends and family know the truth about who is going to defend them in a time of need. Encourage them to read this article and then look up the facts for themselves. Also contact your government representatives and let them know what you think about their methods of protecting the American people and your family.

 

[Slingblade]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.

Yea..it's easy to get distracted when 20 6 and 7 year olds are shot in cold blood multiple times each.

Mutiple times each week! HOLY ####!Hyperbole much? This was an isolated and extremely rare incident.

So was Columbine, right?

How many years ago was that? Yep, isolated and rare.ETA: The trolling levels are high with this one.

 

[Koya]

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

Isn't THIS really the answer her?For one, I don't know how anyone can legitimately argue that a well regulated militia is well, not regulated. So we all agree there is some degree of regulation.

Regardless of the "conclusion" of this one piece, we can also throw in the term "Militia" as clearly the language was not a well regulated citizenry.

So, we have some sort of militia - perhaps made of up of all / any citizens, but something - that must be not only regulated, but WELL regulated.

I believe the text itself is really the answer - as is so often the case with the root of the Constitution and founding documents, is true.

Too many guns are getting into irresponsible hands. There is lack of regulation there which has not threatened the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of innocent people.

Does that mean regulation means outlawing certain weapons? Does it mean more regulation on how to buy / who can own? Does it mean that to own certain higher powered weapons there needs to be more of a "militia" body, some say, organized group who's purpose is to defend as a group of regulated citizens?

Probably a little of all of the above.

However, if you stubbornly hold onto the fact that we are a "well regulated militia" now then one of two things: you've misinterpreted the 2nd amendment to the point that the lack of regulation risks the harm of innocent people and/or we need to change the text of the 2nd amendment altogether by amending the constitution / bill of rights.

I'd hope we can figure an answer based on the first.

What would you consider a "well regulated militia". At the time every citizen was considered as part of the militia.

They still are, by law.

I don't personally believe that to be the fact / reading (and hardly a const. scholar, granted). Which I hope is right because if we don't read more into those words than what you suggest, we may very well either need to change the words, or others will force change because the results right now are not palatable if they continue.How anyone can say well regulated means all people, not in any way associated with one another, I don't understand (not saying that flippantly, I really don't understand how that could be). These are smart writers, and I'd think if they wanted all citizens without any organization among them to be considered the militia, they'd have stated it as such - an unregulated citizenry or at the least, a regulated citizenry.

Did you answer what you consider a well regulated militia?

Sorry, missed that. I am not pretending to have the solution. What I know, is the solution is not one of the many ideas what whichever interests that be present. The gun lobby, anti-gun lobby, enthusiasts, pacifists, whomever. What I've realized is we need to take a lot of ideas from across the spectrum and have the first legitimate conversation about this, objectively, than I've ever encountered in my life.

Through an earnest process we need to better delineate and define what "well regulated" means, what "militia" entails. That's really all I am saying.

Because, contrary to this inane belief that our current laws / system are working (they aren't, its a disaster, and more for the countless 1-3 person murders that occur every day in our country and no one really cares, if notices), they are not, and we need to find a way to better balance gun ownership rights and the need to reduce gun violence in our country.

Being honest that we are regulated, but hardly "well" and that I don't see any "militia" as that would seem to entail, unless Im shown otherwise, SOME organization, then we need to have this conversation.

 

[Slingblade]

Why do you think Japan did not attack the mainland?

I have to comment on this. It's amazing to me how pro-gun fanatics constantly re-write history. This argument is probably even more absurd than how the German Jews were armed to the teeth until Hitler got there. For the record: the reason that Japan did not attack the United States mainland was the same reason the United States did not consider attacking the Japanese mainland until 1945- distance. In order to invade, you need control of the air and sea close by. And you need landing craft by the thousands. Japan didn't have any of that. Japan did invade China, whose citizens had plenty of rifles thanks to warlords fighting each other. England was another story: after Dunkirk, England had virtually no rifles for it's army, much less it's private citizens. Yet the Nazis were unable to invade across a short body of water.

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Wanna bet? See the middle east, afghanistan, etc...

 

[urbanhack]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.

Yea..it's easy to get distracted when 20 6 and 7 year olds are shot in cold blood multiple times each.

Mutiple times each week! HOLY ####!Hyperbole much? This was an isolated and extremely rare incident.

So was Columbine, right?

How many years ago was that? Yep, isolated and rare.ETA: The trolling levels are high with this one.

Then let's just live with these isolated and extremely rare incidents and do nothing.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Why do you think Japan did not attack the mainland?

I have to comment on this. It's amazing to me how pro-gun fanatics constantly re-write history. This argument is probably even more absurd than how the German Jews were armed to the teeth until Hitler got there. For the record: the reason that Japan did not attack the United States mainland was the same reason the United States did not consider attacking the Japanese mainland until 1945- distance. In order to invade, you need control of the air and sea close by. And you need landing craft by the thousands. Japan didn't have any of that. Japan did invade China, whose citizens had plenty of rifles thanks to warlords fighting each other. England was another story: after Dunkirk, England had virtually no rifles for it's army, much less it's private citizens. Yet the Nazis were unable to invade across a short body of water. I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

So basically you are saying you have no clue about the history and purpose of the 2nd amendment. I absolutely disagree with your 2nd paragraph.

 

[17seconds]

I equate the gun lovers to the pot lovers in a way.You debate the issue like it is something you need for a purpose, but you really just want it for entertainment.

How often do you think that guy has fired a gun defending himself vs. using it for fun?I'm 99% sure he has never killed anyone, but goes to the range every week to get a high.

 

[Slingblade]

Then let's just live with these isolated and extremely rare incidents and do nothing.

Considering the massively falling homicide rates since 91...sure.

 

[Koya]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

 

[Slingblade]

I equate the gun lovers to the pot lovers in a way.You debate the issue like it is something you need for a purpose, but you really just want it for entertainment.

I expected nothing less from you.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

I think we can all agree that Newtown was a tragedy. And while it is thankfully not a regular occurrence, nor can we chalk it up to being an isolated incident in my opinion.

What I would love is a mature gun debate in America.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

And for those who are on the other side of the discussion I ask one simple question: Do you think America has a gu violence issue?

 

[Koya]

ETA: The trolling levels are high with this one.

Then let's just live with these isolated and extremely rare incidents and do nothing.

Or the thousands of non isolated and far too common incidents that result in death involving a firearm, every year. How someone could have the gall of calling trolling here, while being obtusely narrowminded and perhaps even insensitive considering the events of late, I don't know... unless, well... fishing trip well done? really can't tell right now.

 

[urbanhack]

Then let's just live with these isolated and extremely rare incidents and do nothing.

Considering the massively falling homicide rates since 91...sure.

Noted.

 

[Slingblade]

ETA: The trolling levels are high with this one.

Then let's just live with these isolated and extremely rare incidents and do nothing.

Or the thousands of non isolated and far too common incidents that result in death involving a firearm, every year. How someone could have the gall of calling trolling here, while being obtusely narrowminded and perhaps even insensitive considering the events of late, I don't know... unless, well... fishing trip well done? really can't tell right now.

My rights are starting to be trampled on and you call me insensitive? That's rich.

 

[Slingblade]

Then let's just live with these isolated and extremely rare incidents and do nothing.

Considering the massively falling homicide rates since 91...sure.

Noted.

If the same rate continues, in 10-15 years we will be at Europe's rate.

That not good enough for you?

 

[Chaos Commish]

The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3.

Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

There's no big 3 being debated. There's several more compelling ideas than this old news. We know what you think because you've told us about 70 times in this thread. No one else has been so redundant. Your 1 and 3 are the same thing. The AWB did not ban ARs or AKs or any other rifles. It limited mags to ten rounds and made owners choose between scary accessories like pistol grips and adjustable stocks. AR/Bushmaster sales were brisk during the AWB. That is the only thing your desired legislation will accomplish. We know this because we've tried it. We know this because it is happening right now under the mere threat of another toothless mag limit.

Also, you are for an "assault weapons" ban, btw. By the definition of that term, a legal definition established by the 94 ban, assault weapons are semi automatics with greater than 10 round magazines. That was the key to the ban.

 

[Koya]

ETA: The trolling levels are high with this one.

Then let's just live with these isolated and extremely rare incidents and do nothing.

Or the thousands of non isolated and far too common incidents that result in death involving a firearm, every year. How someone could have the gall of calling trolling here, while being obtusely narrowminded and perhaps even insensitive considering the events of late, I don't know... unless, well... fishing trip well done? really can't tell right now.

My rights are starting to be trampled on and you call me insensitive? That's rich.

Well, not to mention the rights of thousands of people killed by our poor regulation of firearms. But let's worry about you being sensitive because we might have you go through more training to have firearms, make sure you are safe and knowledgeable (which, assuming you are, shouldn't be an issue), and we may have to limit some of the more powerful arms that are currently legal.None of these are set in stone, but among other things they all must be at least considered.And if you want to not consider any change to current laws or your current position regarding anything in this discussion, than I find that rather insensitive regarding the many lives that are lost, which we can / could prevent with a better regulated legal framework and enforcement regarding arms. In light of the (not so rare anymore) massacre, this time at Sandy Hook, yes, insensitive to even discuss solutions that may run counter to either current law or your current believes would seem accurate. Sorry.

 

[LTsharks]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

exactly. has anyone totaled the number of people murdered by "their governments" since our 2nd amendment was passed? it has to be in the hundreds of millions. of course that could never happen here. i'm not worried about it happening tomorrow, or even in my lifetime. but it is incredibly short sighted to think that it couldn't happen to your children or grand children. i choose to give them their god given right to defend themselves at whatever point they see fit. i'm not going to count on a government elected by those willing to steal from one group to provide for another. disagree all you want, i really don't care.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Using language like "trampled"does nothing but inflame the issue

 

[The_Burning_Bush]

Mr Two Cents is just ..... right?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

For all those that think differently, other than the families, friends and community where this tragedy happened, trust me no one hates this more than rational, responsible gun owners.

We know what will happen every time some whacko does this crap. You look to punish the wrong people and do nothing to help solve the problem.

Ask yourselves why are most of these incidents perpetrated by young people and not older people. Could it possibly be because they have become inured by the violence in video games, movies, music and on the internet. Life means nothing to these people, society has taught them well.

 

[timschochet]

Why do you think Japan did not attack the mainland?

I have to comment on this. It's amazing to me how pro-gun fanatics constantly re-write history. This argument is probably even more absurd than how the German Jews were armed to the teeth until Hitler got there. For the record: the reason that Japan did not attack the United States mainland was the same reason the United States did not consider attacking the Japanese mainland until 1945- distance. In order to invade, you need control of the air and sea close by. And you need landing craft by the thousands. Japan didn't have any of that. Japan did invade China, whose citizens had plenty of rifles thanks to warlords fighting each other. England was another story: after Dunkirk, England had virtually no rifles for it's army, much less it's private citizens. Yet the Nazis were unable to invade across a short body of water.

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

So basically you are saying you have no clue about the history and purpose of the 2nd amendment. I absolutely disagree with your 2nd paragraph.

####### unbelievable. Do you realize that, by disagreeing with my 2nd paragraph you come off with about as much credibility as a Holocaust denier?

 

[Henry Ford]

Why the 2nd amendment?

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

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

VI. Conclusion

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

I'd have to disagree, the laws we have are working and have been effective for many years now. It's easy to get distracted every time there is another shooting, but if you take a step back and look at the crime rates as a whole, you'll see its improving.

Yea..it's easy to get distracted when 20 6 and 7 year olds are shot in cold blood multiple times each.

Mutiple times each week! HOLY ####!Hyperbole much? This was an isolated and extremely rare incident.

So was Columbine, right?

How many years ago was that? Yep, isolated and rare.

ETA: The trolling levels are high with this one.

It's not like Columbine was the last one, though. He was bringing up an example. Not the example.

 

[timschochet]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

Sorry Koya, I really like you and respect your postings, but if you believe that private gun-owners in this country could prevent a dictatorship, you're dreaming. What protects us from a dictatorship is our military which would refuse to use its' sophisticated weaponry on its own citizenry. But if it wanted to, forget about it.

 

[Koya]

For all those that think differently, other than the families, friends and community where this tragedy happened, trust me no one hates this more than rational, responsible gun owners. We know what will happen every time some whacko does this crap. You look to punish the wrong people and do nothing to help solve the problem.Ask yourselves why are most of these incidents perpetrated by young people and not older people. Could it possibly be because they have become inured by the violence in video games, movies, music and on the internet. Life means nothing to these people, society has taught them well.

MTC, for context, we discussed your very comments about needing to address the cause.And for many of us, we believe in rights to gun ownership. But there have been enough incidents along with the everyday loss of life from guns that suggest we need to do better. I can't speak for others, but do believe many of us DON'T want to infringe on your, nor anyone's right to own arms. However, at some point, we must take into account the freedom of others. So, if too many guns get into bad people's hands, we must (1) get more trained people with guns in the right places (2) find ways not to let guns get into the wrong hands in the first place (regulation and registration now, looking at root causes like vid game violence, mental illness etc) and perhaps (3) make sure that if we can't prevent enough guns from getting into the wrong hands, lessen the amount of guns that can do mass damage in too short an order.

 

[timschochet]

Why do you think Japan did not attack the mainland?

I have to comment on this. It's amazing to me how pro-gun fanatics constantly re-write history. This argument is probably even more absurd than how the German Jews were armed to the teeth until Hitler got there. For the record: the reason that Japan did not attack the United States mainland was the same reason the United States did not consider attacking the Japanese mainland until 1945- distance. In order to invade, you need control of the air and sea close by. And you need landing craft by the thousands. Japan didn't have any of that. Japan did invade China, whose citizens had plenty of rifles thanks to warlords fighting each other. England was another story: after Dunkirk, England had virtually no rifles for it's army, much less it's private citizens. Yet the Nazis were unable to invade across a short body of water.

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

So basically you are saying you have no clue about the history and purpose of the 2nd amendment. I absolutely disagree with your 2nd paragraph.

####### unbelievable. Do you realize that, by disagreeing with my 2nd paragraph you come off with about as much credibility as a Holocaust denier?

Than add Koya to the same list because he disagrees with you also.

No, he disagrees about my THIRD paragraph, not about the history. You're the only person here who doubts the history.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Why do you think Japan did not attack the mainland?

I have to comment on this. It's amazing to me how pro-gun fanatics constantly re-write history. This argument is probably even more absurd than how the German Jews were armed to the teeth until Hitler got there. For the record: the reason that Japan did not attack the United States mainland was the same reason the United States did not consider attacking the Japanese mainland until 1945- distance. In order to invade, you need control of the air and sea close by. And you need landing craft by the thousands. Japan didn't have any of that. Japan did invade China, whose citizens had plenty of rifles thanks to warlords fighting each other. England was another story: after Dunkirk, England had virtually no rifles for it's army, much less it's private citizens. Yet the Nazis were unable to invade across a short body of water.

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

So basically you are saying you have no clue about the history and purpose of the 2nd amendment. I absolutely disagree with your 2nd paragraph.

####### unbelievable. Do you realize that, by disagreeing with my 2nd paragraph you come off with about as much credibility as a Holocaust denier?

Sorry I meant your 3rd paragraph, my bad.

 

[Koya]

I feel like an idiot even having to explain this. Let me make it clear: you own your private firearms for your own pleasure and because you believe it provides you home protection from criminals. That's all. Your guns will NOT protect you against an invading army. Your guns will NOT protect you if our government becomes tyrannical. You are living in a delusion, and it's preventing you from thinking rationally about this issue.

Totally disagree with you. An invading army may be tougher, but if our gov't becomes tyrannical, you better believe that a well armed citizenry would help. It's very, very tough to police your own people, and if they are by and large armed? Huge difference in such an internal-insurgent/civil war.Hardly a delusion. And even if it helps in a minor way, I'll take empowering the electorate. If in doing so, of course, you don't end up infringing on more freedoms than you wish to even protect.

Sorry Koya, I really like you and respect your postings, but if you believe that private gun-owners in this country could prevent a dictatorship, you're dreaming. What protects us from a dictatorship is our military which would refuse to use its' sophisticated weaponry on its own citizenry. But if it wanted to, forget about it.

Would it PREVENT a dictatorship? Perhaps not. Could it deter, delay, and give me the best damn fighting chance to preserve my freedom against one? Absolutely.Don't want you nor anyone taking away that right in a theoretical sense. Second, I think it is the combination of an armed forces that truly is representative of the populace AND an armed citizenry that provide the best means to deter and overcome an attempt at dictatorship.