The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

north country dude · February 1, 2013

The second point really doesn't make much sense at all.
Pistols and rifles are no match against Predator drones (controlled by a US Armed Services volunteer) and Abrams tanks (each one manned by 4 US Armed Service volunteers). In your opinion these citizens will actually fire on their friends, relatives and loved ones??? really?
The riot police has no qualms with charging down protesters and using quite a bit of force to break up such a protest. Hell, the riot police has no qualms about spraying pepper spray into a peaceful student sit in protest on an university campus. And the army has already demonstrated that it has no problem with firing on unarmed civilians of other countries. So do you really think that the army won't open fire on American protesters, especially if they are armed with guns?

Pepper Spray, CS gas, and batons are not firearms. The police were found to be in the wrong and were brought to justice. The officer in question was fired after being suspended for several months. It seems the system, while not perfect, did work. Thankfully, we have the First Amendment which brings such egregious actions to the public's attention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/uc-davis-pepper-spraying-settlement_n_1916803.html

As for the US military actions against US citizens on US soil, the Insurrection Act of 1807 and Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, were designed to limit or delay the President's ability to use the military in such a fashion. BUT, you are correct in the assumption that the latest changes to these Laws is quite troubling. These changes also make it more important to make the US public aware of the steady erosion by the Federal government of the US Bill of Rights.

Interesting read: http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

To me, these events only make a stronger case for upholding the Second Amendment and not "laying down our arms and rolling over to be boinked by good 'ol Uncle Sam'.

Realistically, our armed services are not made up of automatons who will blindly follow any order given them. Realistically, should such drastic events occur, there will be a lot of desertions and theft of state-of-the-art military equipment and munitions. Consider this, it can go both ways, we lay down and apply the cream, or there will be a Second American Civil War, televised on cable, satellite, and internet.

Another 'weapon' not considered: the cell phone with built in camera.

[ncd crosses fingers and remembers his training and service in the Army]

Civil war is just terminology applied by the eventual victor of the conflict.

True, the Confederates used the terminology "War of Secession" or "War between the States". The American Civil War was a traumatic event for the American people, but the country as a whole survived, even though the Bill of Rights was ignored and even suspended by the Federal government during that time.

Some info: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1428&context=wmborj

side note: Did the Confederate States draw up a new constitution for itself? Yes, in Montgomery, Alabama on February 4, 1861.

No? Then what would you call the NDAA or the Patriot Act I and II? All that stands between a government that respects the rights of its citizens and actively works to secure and strengthen them and a government that is out for control is what the people vote for. You saw how it worked in Germany in the 20's and 30's. They voted for Hitler, he used one little terrorist act as an excuse to declare the state of emergency and suspend all civil liberties and impose his rule on the rest of the country. That can happen in every democratic country around the world, just vote for the wrong guy and before you know it, you are no longer a democratic country.

True, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and the USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act as there is no Patriot Act II, unless you are referring to the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 ), and Presidential Executive Orders, are not constitutionally legal. These actions also make a stronger case against disarming US citizens and reinforces the absolute need for the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution, if not all 27.

Again, it is still illegal for the US Federal Government to infringe on the rights of its citizens as given in its Constitution. As seen above, it doesn't mean that it won't try. These Acts as voted on by Congress can still be legally challenged in court. It is still my opinion that the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are even more important safeguards against Tyranny. Are they the absolute and only recourse?, no, just a place to start.

While the Federal government is and will always try to erode our rights in the name of expediency and security, the all pervasive nature of current media technology makes this difficult to carry to the extreme, not impossible, just difficult. But again, the US Federal Government will continue to chip away at the rights of its citizens as long as it thinks it can get away with it. [read as: American public remains apathetic and ignorant of what is going on within its own government as it devolves into an oppressive regime.]

Am I paranoid?, hmmm, ... probably not enough.

Side note to outside readers:

I don't want people to think that I dislike or have anything against LexusInfernus, quite the contrary. I admire him/her for presenting cogent discussion regarding the rights of US citizens versus the US Federal Government and how easily they can be taken away from them unless they are willing to fight for them. The Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights are important to the survival of the US as a Free Democracy and serious discussion is needed about whether or not US Citizens should or should not be armed.

It is my hope, however unrealistic it may be, that what I say about this issue here and elsewhere, does have some effect, even if it is only to get people to think.

People following this debate/discussion should take the time to use the links provided by both sides, use their brains, and make up their own minds as to whether or not they should be concerned or apathetic. If the latter, I can only recommend the KY brand.

With that, I leave you with a short little video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oI5EoWBRYmo

"They will get my scissors when they pry them from my cold, dead hands" :dead:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For those who are interested, some further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act <- check out the flowchart for how it's supposed to work and how the recent changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Cooperation_with_Civilian_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

http://www.thedailycrux.com/Post/42152/outrageous-video-footage-captures-recent-military-action-on-u-s--soil

http://www.utne.com/2008-10-13/Politics/Assigning-U-S-Troops-to-U-S-Soil-and-Other-Presidential-Power-Grabs.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act <-very scary, too many ambiguous terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act <-not as scary, but take note of the changes made by our current President.

A Nonny Moose · February 1, 2013

<snip>

So how exactly is making it more difficult for me to get a handgun going to have a significant impact on drug organizations with ties to a paramilitary organization with access to the international arms market?

A rhetorical question. Kind of like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" conundrum. The situation is so severe that only a world-wide military action will produce any kind of solution, and we all know just how possible it is to get that. All nations do not belong to the UN debating society, and it has its hands tied by vested interests with a veto on the Security Council.

Perhaps a biological solution is the only one. I read a science fiction story years ago called "The Swan Song of Dame Horse" in which a virus was developed that infected all opium fields. The result was that opiates stopped having any effect on human physiology. What if the human race became immune to the main line hard drugs?

Duke87 · February 2, 2013

And then this happened.

Wasn't a mass shooting attempt, but an armed guard did nonetheless stop a gunman.

Dewm · February 2, 2013

And then this happened.

Wasn't a mass shooting attempt, but an armed guard did nonetheless stop a gunman.

Won't be mentioned by U.S. mainstream media, that's for sure. But non the less glad more people weren't hurt.

AcmeSigns · February 2, 2013

No, although the US government may want to, it cannot infringe on the rights of its citizens. It has tried to do so in the past and has failed.

And let us not forget Randy Weaver and the Ruby Ridge incident.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ruby_Ridge

The Government falsely claimed that Randy had sold an informant two shotguns that were shortened beyond the legal limit. My opinion at the time (and still is) was that the Government (the Clinton Administration) was attempting to see just how far they could push the law enforcement limits that society would accept. They had already learned their lesson from Waco as they kept the media just far enough away so that the media could only report on what they were being told and not by what they viewed 1st hand. While the Government's actions at Ruby Ridge led to 4 unnecessary deaths, my favorite part of this whole disaster has always been what Jerry Spence (Randy's attorney) said when the Prosecution had rested their case...'Defense rests'. Jerry did not need to call one single person to testify for Randy. The Government, in their prosecution, made Jerry's case for him that Randy Weaver was innocent of all charges.

Dewm · February 2, 2013

No, although the US government may want to, it cannot infringe on the rights of its citizens. It has tried to do so in the past and has failed.

And let us not forget Randy Weaver and the Ruby Ridge incident.
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ruby_Ridge
The Government falsely claimed that Randy had sold an informant two shotguns that were shortened beyond the legal limit. My opinion at the time (and still is) was that the Government (the Clinton Administration) was attempting to see just how far they could push the law enforcement limits that society would accept. They had already learned their lesson from Waco as they kept the media just far enough away so that the media could only report on what they were being told and not by what they viewed 1st hand. While the Government's actions at Ruby Ridge led to 4 unnecessary deaths, my favorite part of this whole disaster has always been what Jerry Spence (Randy's attorney) said when the Prosecution had rested their case...'Defense rests'. Jerry did not call one single person to testify for Randy. The Government, in their prosecution, made Jerry's case for him that Randy Weaver was innocent of all charges.

From what I had understood (which at this point it doesn't really matter) it was a single shotgun that was 1/2" to short. Which the agent had asked Randy to cut.

Which is why later Randy was acquitted because it was entrapment.

But that didn't change the fact that his wife, and son and dog were dead. *shakes head*

LexusInfernus · February 2, 2013

Pepper Spray, CS gas, and batons are not firearms. The police were found to be in the wrong and were brought to justice. The officer in question was fired after being suspended for several months. It seems the system, while not perfect, did work. Thankfully, we have the First Amendment which brings such egregious actions to the public's attention.
http://www.huffingto..._n_1916803.html

They are not as deadly as real firearms, true, but they still hurt quite a bit. The point was that law enforcement officers have no trouble being violent against fellow Americans. In case of riots, they will hurt you if you happen to be standing in the middle of the riot, because it is their job to hurt you. The fact that the officer and you are from the same country is irrelevant.

As for the US military actions against US citizens on US soil, the Insurrection Act of 1807 and Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, were designed to limit or delay the President's ability to use the military in such a fashion. BUT, you are correct in the assumption that the latest changes to these Laws is quite troubling. These changes also make it more important to make the US public aware of the steady erosion by the Federal government of the US Bill of Rights.

Sure, but those laws only mean something to law abiding presidents, but what do the laws mean to tyrants? Nothing, right?

And I thought of something you may find interesting. The fact that the second amendment protects 'well armed militia' can actually be used against the citizens of the United States. To draw a parallel with Nazi Germany, Hitler had the support of his own paramilitary organization. Now imagine that a tyrant is born in America and wants to run for office. He could start out by creating his own militia no? And by law, he would be allowed to arm them. Assuming that the ban on assault weapons doesn't pass congress, he could arm them with civilian versions of military rifles. Assume that he builds up enough support, such a person could effectively create his own little private army. He wouldn't need the real army to intimidate and repress the people, and he could do it almost legally.

Interesting read: http://dmc.members.s...nel/gvcon5.html

To me, these events only make a stronger case for upholding the Second Amendment and not "laying down our arms and rolling over to be boinked by good 'ol Uncle Sam'.

How is being armed with guns going to protect you if an actual tyrant stands up and takes control? Wouldn't it be more effective and much safer to you know...vote for the right candidates? As it says at the end of the article: "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it"

Vote for someone who has good character and won't abuse his power in times of crisis seems like the more common sense thing to do, rather than vote for the bad guy and then try to kick him out through an armed revolution.

Realistically, our armed services are not made up of automatons who will blindly follow any order given them. Realistically, should such drastic events occur, there will be a lot of desertions and theft of state-of-the-art military equipment and munitions. Consider this, it can go both ways, we lay down and apply the cream, or there will be a Second American Civil War, televised on cable, satellite, and internet.

Oh really? The US army is a professional army, most of its soldiers consist of people who made it their job, their career The US army is trained to follow orders, not to question them, though that might happen after the facts have occurred. And in all likelihood, the army would be worked over before they would be deployed against American citizens. Political opponents would be removed, and the propaganda machine would spin events in such a way that to the soldiers it would look that they are fighting 'terrorists' or something, rather than citizens. Now, it would be much easier to make these people look like actual terrorists if they are also armed. And one can only imagine if one these people was stupid enough to loose his nerve and start shooting at the army. You can be sure that the army would have no trouble shooting back. Not that it would be completely necessary to make it look like that. Quite a few people didn't believe that they were invading Iraq because of WMD's or because of some vague link with Al-Queda, but that didn't change their opinion of the war. They wanted to fight.

Also, consider this. In case the army comes rolling over, who presents a valid target? Unarmed civilians hiding in their houses, or armed people at roadblocks? And who will look good or bad in the international media? The army that is using precision firepower against armed targets, or the army that is using firepower indiscriminately against everyone? Being armed as a citizen is more likely to make you a target and makes your cause look bad.

Another 'weapon' not considered: the cell phone with built in camera.

[ncd crosses fingers and remembers his training and service in the Army]

Ah the media. Any smart tyrant would make sure he had absolute control over the media first. And freedom of speech and freedom of press are things that don't mean much to tyrants. And in case of military operations, the tyrant would employ signal jammers in order to cut the people off from the rest of the world. Divide and conquer. The only problem might be the internet, but as China demonstrated, its perfectly possible to censor the internet.

However, I agree with you, I believe a cell phone with a camera is a potentially far more useful weapon against tyranny than all the firepower in the world.

True, the Confederates used the terminology "War of Secession" or "War between the States". The American Civil War was a traumatic event for the American people, but the country as a whole survived, even though the Bill of Rights was ignored and even suspended by the Federal government during that time.

Which shows that sometimes, for the greater good of the country, individual rights and freedoms need to be suspended. The important thing is that the person who suspends them has a good character and will reinstate those rights the moment the crisis is over.

True, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and the USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act as there is no Patriot Act II, unless you are referring to the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 ), and Presidential Executive Orders, are not constitutionally legal. These actions also make a stronger case against disarming US citizens and reinforces the absolute need for the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution, if not all 27.

Again, it is still illegal for the US Federal Government to infringe on the rights of its citizens as given in its Constitution. As seen above, it doesn't mean that it won't try. These Acts as voted on by Congress can still be legally challenged in court. It is still my opinion that the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are even more important safeguards against Tyranny. Are they the absolute and only recourse?, no, just a place to start.

No, if anything it makes a case for US citizens to take a more active interest in what their chosen representatives are doing. Why is it that something like ACTA/PIPA or a ban on very large drink containers creates a massive negative response from citizens, to the point where ACTA and PIPA were stopped right in their tracks, while the Patriot Act's and the NDAA go virtually unopposed and are also constitutionally illegal? And why are there no Supreme court cases running against those things, while Obama care was taken almost immediately to the supreme court?

And, as the ACTA and PIPA cases showed, if there is a large enough negative backlash from the population, legislation can be stopped. Isn't it far better to prevent bad or illegal legislation through massive citizen protest rather than letting it all happen and everyone hoarding guns for the moment the government becomes a tyranny? If you do that the government doesn't even need to take away your constitutional rights because no one uses them anyways.

With that, I leave you with a short little video:

"They will get my scissors when they pry them from my cold, dead hands"

I find it interesting that the video makes absolutely no mention of 'grab a gun and try to kill the shooter'. In fact, that the video stresses to hide or evacuate rather than try to be a hero. And it make sense, if citizens start trying to shoot the original shooter, it only gets more confusing for the police, and it increases the chance that it all goes horribly wrong because people are nervous and stressed and accidentally kill each other rather than the shooter.

The only mention it makes of weapons are scissors to be used when the shooter is practically standing next to you as a last resort measure.

Anyways, interesting discussion

A Nonny Moose · February 2, 2013

You don't need a gun to go on a deadly rampage.

Fortunately, no one was killed, only one critically injured.

north country dude · February 3, 2013

Oh really? The US army is a professional army, most of its soldiers consist of people who made it their job, their career The US army is trained to follow orders, not to question them, though that might happen after the facts have occurred. And in all likelihood, the army would be worked over before they would be deployed against American citizens. Political opponents would be removed, and the propaganda machine would spin events in such a way that to the soldiers it would look that they are fighting 'terrorists' or something, rather than citizens. Now, it would be much easier to make these people look like actual terrorists if they are also armed. And one can only imagine if one these people was stupid enough to loose his nerve and start shooting at the army. You can be sure that the army would have no trouble shooting back. Not that it would be completely necessary to make it look like that. Quite a few people didn't believe that they were invading Iraq because of WMD's or because of some vague link with Al-Queda, but that didn't change their opinion of the war. They wanted to fight.

Also, consider this. In case the army comes rolling over, who presents a valid target? Unarmed civilians hiding in their houses, or armed people at roadblocks? And who will look good or bad in the international media? The army that is using precision firepower against armed targets, or the army that is using firepower indiscriminately against everyone? Being armed as a citizen is more likely to make you a target and makes your cause look bad.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Remember, I served in our nation's military and know with certainty that the statement "The US army is trained to follow orders, not to question them,..." is conditionally false. It falls under the "I was only following orders." defense if given a illegal order. I remember the training in boot camp and advanced studies regarding the UCMJ and what constitutes a lawful order and an unlawful order. Although this is a sticky situation to be in, it shows that every person in the US Military is taught to consider the legality of his/her orders, ie., "taught to question the order in the light of legality, but, in the final analysis, the individual is responsible for his/her actions, lawful or not.

"So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime." -from http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

Further reading:

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-1.pdf

http://www.armytimes.com/community/ask_lawyer/offduty-askthelawyer-following-orders-not-automatic-defense-083012/

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

P.S. My current health situation prevents me from debating this issue for prolonged periods, so I will be absent from time to time from this discussion. Remember to follow the links, read as much as you can, and form your own opinions,...while you still can.

LexusInfernus · February 3, 2013

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Remember, I served in our nation's military and know with certainty that the statement "The US army is trained to follow orders, not to question them,..." is conditionally false. It falls under the "I was only following orders." defense if given a illegal order. I remember the training in boot camp and advanced studies regarding the UCMJ and what constitutes a lawful order and an unlawful order. Although this is a sticky situation to be in, it shows that every person in the US Military is taught to consider the legality of his/her orders, ie., "taught to question the order in the light of legality, but, in the final analysis, the individual is responsible for his/her actions, lawful or not.

"So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime." -from http://usmilitary.ab...eyingorders.htm

Further reading on this issue:
http://www.ndu.edu/p...king-ranks.html

Indeed, but what consists of a criminal order? To shoot unarmed civilians? But what if they are armed? What if they are designated hostile by high command? What if the order to shoot on US civilians becomes lawful? Especially if they are armed with guns, and are actively opposing the US state because they believe it to be 'tyrannical', its probably not so difficult to send troops after them and make them lawful targets.

Also, a soldier is trained to follow orders. Imagine if every soldier would be questioning their orders? Nothing would get done, an army depends on its hierarchical structure. While some deviation now and then is possible, generally speaking, you want your soldiers to listen to their officers and doing what they tell you to do. Even with this unlawful order business, it simply comes down to recognizing valid order and invalid orders. Much like a computer who wont work when you give it an invalid order.

But, the actual argument is whether every single person in the US Military will act on its own population without question.

The hypothetical scenarios given here: http://www.forbes.co...arty-rebellion/
shows that such military planning exists, while in the very first comment given by a reader asks: "...what if a substantial number of American police and military choose sides?"

That is the main point. Will the average US Military Service member follow his/her orders blindly without question? As I questioned in the previous post, in reality, would they? And if given that a substantial number police and military do choose sides, does this mean that an insurrection will always fail?

This is an interesting question, however it would heavily depend on the circumstances and who is doing the insurrection. Say it is done by radical Muslims, or illegal immigrants who banded together, no doubt the military will pick the side of the government. The immigrants aren't real US citizens and the Muslims are well...Muslims. The Tea Party might be different, as it has much more popular support. Though even they might be a little to extremist to really split the army.

I think that it eventually comes down to how well the government can paint the people doing the insurrection as the bad guys, and how well they can sell that pitch to the army.

The second question is also very interesting. Even with all the firepower, is the US army capable of defeating an insurrection? The army's track record on this is rather poor, so far the US army always lost from insurrectionists. Having overwhelming firepower is useless if you don't know where to aim it at. And that is what always went wrong when the army was up against insurrectionists. They never really had the support of the local population, who often was actually supporting the insurrectionists, by giving them supplies, shelter and information. So the answer to this question then depends on the support of the locals for the insurrectionists and the US government. While the Tea Party or some other extremist organization might gain enough people willing to take up arms and start shooting at the US government, do they have the support of the locals to hide them when the US army comes visiting? Or will the locals sell them out to the army the moment they roll into town, giving the army a clear target to aim all that firepower at.

Now, given the unpredictable results of how every single American in the Police and Military will react during an insurrection, the question about the validity of the Second Amendment as a defense against tyranny becomes: Which is easier?; A tyrannical government taking control away from an unarmed population versus a tyrannical government taking control from an armed population.

In the situation where the population is unarmed, logically, the tyrannical government has the highest probability of success. But, in the situation of an armed population, the answer to the question then becomes dependent on these subsequent questions: 1) how well armed is the population? and 2) How many police and military will desert to the civilian side?, finally 3) Will the general population support or be against those in power?

No, if the population is armed, there are only two subsequent question you have to ask. First question is, how much firepower remains under the control of the government in relation to the firepower in control of those who oppose you. The second question is, how far does the government dare to go to stamp out resistance. The reason why the US always lost the fight against insurrections is because they were always tied down because they had to play the good guy. They had to be nice to the villagers who were secretly hiding insurrectionists and giving them information, they couldn't burn down villages or mass execute everyone in a given area because they might kill innocent people. A tyrannical government does not have such a problem. They don't have to care that much about looking good, they can be ruthless. And that means that in an area where the insurrectionists are strong, they might employ extreme measures to smoke them out and destroy them.

So then we come back to the question, will US soldiers support a tyrannical government? Again, my answer remains that it depends on how well the US government can sell its actions to the army.

So, given those qualifications to the question, can such an extreme action by a oppressive government succeed? Hmm, ... too many variables to say with certainty.

This is the actual study quoted in the above mentioned hypothetical scenario: http://smallwarsjour...-the-future

Pay attention to the comments by the readers and especially: tpeterson1959

Given the responses to the articles presented it becomes apparent that the entire military as a whole will not blindly follow orders to fire on its own citizens.

Again, Id say that depends on who they are shooting.

How about characterizing the members of American police and military as being without morals and actively wishing to hurt the population it has been tasked with protecting? Those who are protesting a social issue are just as emotionally charged as the officers ordered to do their job. That job is to protect the life and property of civilians and to apprehend and detain those individuals behaving unlawfully. Punishment is purview of the Courts.

Here we are assuming how the military and police would react if a tyrannical government would come into power tomorrow and the insurrection the day after that. But how likely is such a scenario?

It would likely take time, and the army and its willingness or unwillingness to engage certain groups of people could be altered. For example, take WW2. Only a minority of the US soldiers aimed and fired their weapons with the actual intention to kill Germans. The majority just fired in the general direction of the Germans. Today? You can bet that the professional soldiers aim and shoot to kill.

Given human nature in such cases, what is the probability of individuals from both sides reacting unlawfully?

Seems the media has plenty of anecdotes that show the bad behavior of individuals within our police and military, but what about the actions of police and military acting for the public good or stories that show how the police and military are defending the Constitution and doing their jobs?

Probably not as sensational as the stories about individual members crossing the line into unlawful behavior.

Actually, I think the amount of incidents with US troops doing unlawful things is rather low, given the amount of troops in the field over the time of what? 12 years now in 2 different battlefields?

P.S. My current health situation prevents me from debating this issue for prolonged periods, so I will be absent from time to time from this discussion. Remember to follow the links, read as much as you can, and form your own opinions,...while you still can.

Thank you, that operating concept is very interesting. Its a little large for me to read in one evening, but I'll definitely take some time to study it more. Also, I understand, your health takes priority, I will wait patiently until you have the opportunity to post again. I wish you the best of luck with your health.

Duke87 · February 5, 2013

An interesting interview a friend shared on Facebook.

Ocram's Razr · February 9, 2013

Now that an innocent little girl who performed at Obama's inauguration has been killed in a drive-by, it should be easier to crack down on gun violence. --Ocram

AcmeSigns · February 10, 2013

Now that an innocent little girl who performed at Obama's inauguration has been killed in a drive-by, it should be easier to crack down on gun violence. --Ocram

Let me guess...Chicago? One of the cities with some of the toughest gun restrictions in the nation?

Yeah...more gun laws will certainly help to alleviate Chicago's woes.

north country dude · February 13, 2013

How is being armed with guns going to protect you if an actual tyrant stands up and takes control? Wouldn't it be more effective and much safer to you know...vote for the right candidates? As it says at the end of the article: "Since
the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it"
Vote for someone who has good character and won't abuse his power in times of crisis seems like the more common sense thing to do, rather than vote for the bad guy and then try to kick him out through an armed revolution.

Wouldn't it be great if that was all there was to do? Just vote for the right person to lead us and there will be no worries. If only we could trust that person to not be corrupted by all that power.

This was the other thought I wanted to answer. The historical purpose of the Second Amendment was two-fold: 1) provide an armed population able to defend itself in the case of war, and 2) give the citizens a way to defend their home and liberty from any threat. Having a well equipped Police force, or even a Sheriff is nice too, but they can not be everywhere.

In the case of outside groups wishing to do us harm(terrorists, jihad bent radicals, etc.) the Military will be fighting alongside the population. In the case of a clever tyrant gaining control of the Federal Government, a civil war may ensue.

The Second Amendment as a tool to overthrow a tyrannical government? No. It is merely a deterrent. The people rising up against a tyrannical Federal Government is a very extreme case. Given current weapon technology and the all pervasive character of the Internet, there are still too many variables to determine what the outcome of such an extreme situation would produce, except to say that everyone will be involved in it.

Again, wouldn't it be great if we could all just turn in our guns and trust the politicians to do the right thing? To not have to worry if some armed criminals are going to kick down my door and take everything I have and cause harm, injury, or death to me or my family?

Okay, so statistics say that I have very little to worry about on that account, I mean, how likely is that type of event going to affect me personally? I wonder if these people thought the same thing?

http://www.wptz.com/news/vermont-new-york/plattsburgh/Four-arrested-in-NY-home-invasion/-/9277622/18283274/-/jt9uxiz/-/index.html

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/State-Police-on-the-scene-of-Home-Invasion-182122031.html

http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/194318/1/Colvin-Blvd-Home-Invasion

http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/home-invasions-rarely-happen-in-connecticut-not

Phew!, luckily those were just "statistics" and not real people. :uhm:

This brings us to the second part of the purpose of the Second Amendment: "Give the citizens a way to defend their home and liberty from threat."

Let us do an experiment. We will take all firearms away from all the law-abiding citizens. We now have complete control of all firearms. Only the Law Enforcement agencies and Military forces can legally posses firearms. We will model this reform on the great city of Chicago, except, we make it national.

Then we tell the people this.

We now have to increase the funding and manpower requirements for our Law Enforcement agencies, which means we have to raise even more taxes, because, the citizens are now helpless and need even more protection than before.

Yea! Nancy Pelosi gets her wish! Violent crime has been eradicated in our lifetime! Only the elite have the power now!,..._{ooo, did she really just say that last part out loud?}

No, not really, but she did make these:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/27/top-10-most-outrageous-quotes-from-nancy-pelosi/

Let's continue. Suddenly a mega-storm devastates the entire eastern seaboard. Power is out up and down the coast. Flooding is causing people to evacuate inland. Emergency services are crippled. Looting and lawlessness becomes widespread in the affected areas.

You are a person whose home was spared from some of the effects of the mega-storm and could not evacuate. A small group of armed* criminals walks up your driveway looking to loot your home, and if they find anyone home, who knows what will happen, more than likely, it will not be good...where'd they get those weapons?,...why aren't the police arresting them??,... and where are my scissors???

^{*any type of weapon. They are criminals, why would a law stop them from using firearms?}

Okay, a nationwide ban on civilians owning firearms is in effect. So, where would the criminal or a mentally aberrant person with violent intentions get a gun? The Black Market?, well the nationwide ban has made the price of these weapons very expensive, almost cost-prohibitive to the average thug. But what does that matter to someone who has every intention of "committing suicide by cop" and taking as many people with him in the process?

Who says they have to use a gun to commit a violent crime? Timothy McVeigh didn't use firearms to kill 168 people and injure 800. He used motor fuel and fertilizer derivatives. 168 people!, including women and children!

How could a ban on guns have prevented that?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Firearms are tools, period. They have been used to commit violent crimes and they are designed to kill. They are a tool used to attack an opponent, and to defend against an opponent. Sorry, but firearm technology can not just be "forgotten", legislated away, wished away, or even controlled reliably with absolute certainty.

"Criminals aren’t stupid. They are shrewd and they know how to take advantage of a population that has become complacent and vulnerable. The surest defense against an armed criminal is to be armed yourself. In the end, we the people are responsible for our own safety and that of our families, neighbors, and loved ones – and we have a constitutionally-protected right to the tools necessary to secure that safety."

-from http://www.americanclarion.com/17286/2013/02/12/defending-self-defense/

True. That right is protected. The Supreme Court ruled on it in 2008. American Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. So, why is there an all out attack on that right? What could be the real motive?

"This debate has nothing to do with stopping gun violence, though. Instead it’s about the political class in Washington chipping away at our ability to protect our families and preserve our property. Make no mistake: These proposed restrictions will do nothing to prevent future school shootings — or any other kind of shootings — but they will go a long way toward disarming law-abiding citizens."

-from

http://www.americanclarion.com/16668/2013/01/23/the-real-target-of-gun-control/

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” – Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938

-from http://www.americanclarion.com/16084/2013/01/09/gun-control-dictator-style/

(Consider reading the article as it contains some relevant points.)

Paranoid, right-wing extremist thinking? You could make that case except for this study conducted by advocates for gun control:

http://www.americanclarion.com/16859/2013/02/01/liberal-study-gun-control-laws-do-not-reduce-crime/

Here is a quote from a review of the study.

The Wright/Rossi/Daly team exploded scores of other gun control myths. They discussed the data showing that gun owners-rather then being a violent, aberrant group of nuts-were at least as psychologically stable and morally sound as the
rest of the population. Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored "more gun control" were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun laws already are. As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their research as gun control advocates, and had
been forced to change their minds by a careful review of the evidence.
Review by Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, http://i2i.org.

Oh!, now here's a radical idea: Why don't we focus on the causes of violent crime and address those issues? Wouldn't that cause a drop in incidents of violent crime?,...what? that's not what you're trying to accomplish? Oh, you're only doing it for my own welfare and I should just trust that my own government is acting out of altruism?

okay, I be a good sheeple and not question anything it does. But seriously, I do trust my government to try and do the right thing, I just don't trust the people in the government to do the right thing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

On that, I leave with a interesting video(unrelated topic?) not generally covered in the mainstream media:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/07/prayer-breakfast-speaker-praises-jesus-gets-political-calls-political-correctness-dangerous-hammers-fiscal-irresponsibility/

And this story is just plain sad: http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/02/12/no-mention-of-american-sniper-from-president-obama/

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

To all: thank you for the opportunity to give some viewpoints about this issue. I have learned a lot and I hope that you have too. I think that a person should keep an open mind regarding all controversies and apply critical thought to issues instead of answering with emotionally charged rhetoric or parroting what others tell them to say.

Don't pick only one side of an argument and believe only that. Research both sides and make up your own mind.

I will not be continuing on this thread topic on a regular basis, as I need to concentrate on other things. One thing is serious(health) and the other is frivolous(game design).

Hopefully I have made friends here instead of enemies.

I give over to LexusInfernus for rebuttal.

NCD

AcmeSigns · February 13, 2013

I always find the, '___% of people polled are in favor of more guns laws' to be humorous. I personally believe it all depends on not just what the question is but where it is asked (or which political parties members it's asked of).

Try asking, 'Are you in favor of more gun control' outside a gun show and I feel fairly safe in saying that the results will be entirely different than what the national media publicizes.

Anyone else notice that there was no call for more gun control when the ex-LAPD officer went on his rampage? Was it because they are the ones that are supposed to be 'trusted' and 'responsible'? No huge outcry when the Los Angeles Police in Torrance, California opened fire on two women delivering newspapers or a male going to surf. Their actions were summarily written off as, “Tragically we believe this was a case of mistaken identity by the officers,” said LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck.

Where is the outrage over the fact that seven, yes...seven, LAPD officers found it necessary to open fire on the two women in their pickup truck, firing as many as perhaps 60 rounds, hitting not only the truck but innocent resident's homes & vehicles? And, excuse me...these are the people that are 'trained'? 60 shots and three hits? If I acted this irresponsibly I'd be languishing in prison for years and years and years.

If the guns really are to blame maybe they should be taken away from law enforcement first.

LexusInfernus · February 13, 2013

Wouldn't it be great if that was all there was to do? Just vote for the right person to lead us and there will be no worries. If only we could trust that person to not be corrupted by all that power.

Thats why the government has build in checks and balances. The President doesn't have supreme authority over everything, he has to share power with congress, which also consists of elected officials, and the courts who have the power to overturn pretty much anything the government legislates if they feel it is incompatible with the constitution. Then there is also the media who report everything the government does and who keep the people informed. And in their turn, the people make informed decisions when they vote, and also keep a watchful eye on the government to ensure that it does not overstep its mandate. Even if someone goes corrupt with power, he or she would still have a hard time establishing a tyranny. But it requires vigilance from everyone, and Im sad to say that such vigilance is lacking in the US.

Even so, without such vigilance, even being armed to the teeth is pointless. Once a tyranny is established its hard to get rid of, even with pistols and shotguns, but more importantly, if no one could be bothered to check on the government when it was still a normal democracy, how high is the chance that they will bother to risk their lives in a civil war to get rid of a tyranny?

Again, wouldn't it be great if we could all just turn in our guns and trust the politicians to do the right thing? To not have to worry if some armed criminals are going to kick down my door and take everything I have and cause harm, injury, or death to me or my family?

Okay, so statistics say that I have very little to worry about on that account, I mean, how likely is that type of event going to affect me personally? I wonder if these people thought the same thing?

http://www.wptz.com/news/vermont-new-york/plattsburgh/Four-arrested-in-NY-home-invasion/-/9277622/18283274/-/jt9uxiz/-/index.html

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/State-Police-on-the-scene-of-Home-Invasion-182122031.html

http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/194318/1/Colvin-Blvd-Home-Invasion

http://wilton.patch.com/blog_posts/home-invasions-rarely-happen-in-connecticut-not

Phew!, luckily those were just "statistics" and not real people.

This brings us to the second part of the purpose of the Second Amendment: "Give the citizens a way to defend their home and liberty from threat."

Then why are the crime statistics in the US not significantly lower than in countries that do not have an armed populace? Only the UK and Australia are gun free countries with significantly higher crime rates, all other Western nations have crime rates that are similar or slightly lower to that of the US?

Let us do an experiment. We will take all firearms away from all the law-abiding citizens. We now have complete control of all firearms. Only the Law Enforcement agencies and Military forces can legally posses firearms. We will model this reform on the great city of Chicago, except, we make it national.

Then we tell the people this.

We now have to increase the funding and manpower requirements for our Law Enforcement agencies, which means we have to raise even more taxes, because, the citizens are now helpless and need even more protection than before.

A country that spends 700 billion annually on its military could surely move some of that money to the police? Or it could spend that money on those 40+ million Americans that live in poverty in the form of education and job programs or giving them small loans so they can start up businesses. After all, higher educated people with jobs or businesses themselves are far less likely to commit crimes. Preventing crimes without having to increase police funding. Will it totally eradicate crime? No, but neither does an armed population. In all likelihood, nothing will ever eradicate crime completely.

Yea! Nancy Pelosi gets her wish! Violent crime has been eradicated in our lifetime! Only the elite have the power now!,..._{ooo, did she really just say that last part out loud?}

No, not really, but she did make these:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/27/top-10-most-outrageous-quotes-from-nancy-pelosi/

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/culture_war/the_american_taliban.html

As you can see, both sides say stupid things. Anyways, I digress, lets leave politicians out of this discussion. I agree that the majority of them these days are incompetent or worse.

Let's continue. Suddenly a mega-storm devastates the entire eastern seaboard. Power is out up and down the coast. Flooding is causing people to evacuate inland. Emergency services are crippled. Looting and lawlessness becomes widespread in the affected areas.

You are a person whose home was spared from some of the effects of the mega-storm and could not evacuate. A small group of armed* criminals walks up your driveway looking to loot your home, and if they find anyone home, who knows what will happen, more than likely, it will not be good...where'd they get those weapons?,...why aren't the police arresting them??,... and where are my scissors???

^{*any type of weapon. They are criminals, why would a law stop them from using firearms?}

Which is why there is the National Guard.

But okay, would civilians shooting at civilians 'out of self defense' make the situation there any safer?

I grant you though, in such a situation having a gun would be great. However, how big is the chance on a mega-storm devastating any particular area to such a degree that it would take the government days if not more to restore order? And does it justify having a nation wide access to firearms, some of those firearms being military assault rifles whose select fire option has been removed? Any kind of law should be proportional to the problem it seeks to solve or prevent, and having access to so much firepower just to protect yourself from looters in the unlikely event of a total collapse of order after a big disaster seems rather disproportional.

Okay, a nationwide ban on civilians owning firearms is in effect. So, where would the criminal or a mentally aberrant person with violent intentions get a gun? The Black Market?, well the nationwide ban has made the price of these weapons very expensive, almost cost-prohibitive to the average thug. But what does that matter to someone who has every intention of "committing suicide by cop" and taking as many people with him in the process?

Who says they have to use a gun to commit a violent crime? Timothy McVeigh didn't use firearms to kill 168 people and injure 800. He used motor fuel and fertilizer derivatives. 168 people!, including women and children!

How could a ban on guns have prevented that?

How did a populace having access to fire arms stop Timothy McVeigh?

Actually, how often did armed citizens stop a crazed gunman by shooting him? And how often was it the police that ended up stopping a crazed gunman?

Firearms are tools, period. They have been used to commit violent crimes and they are designed to kill. They are a tool used to attack an opponent, and to defend against an opponent. Sorry, but firearm technology can not just be "forgotten", legislated away, wished away, or even controlled reliably with absolute certainty.

I agree, you cannot get absolute certainty. But no one who opposes these relaxed gun laws in the US claims it will magically stop crime completely, because no single law or program ever will. What it will help to prevent are gun accidents, little children accidentally shooting themselves or someone else because daddy left his gun laying on the table, by preventing such daddies from procuring guns in the first place, and it will make using guns cost prohibitive for a lot of small time gangsters. Why pay thousands of dollars for a 9mm gun on the black market, risk going to jail for much longer just to rob a liquor store for 40 dollars and a pack of gum? Will it prevent all crime? No, but it makes working in a liquor store a little safer, it makes gang territories a little less dangerous and it reduces the accidental death rate a bit. It even might make it harder for people to go crazy and shoot up a mall or a school.

"-from

"This debate has nothing to do with stopping gun violence, though. Instead it’s about the political class in Washington chipping away at our ability to protect our families and preserve our property. Make no mistake: These proposed restrictions will do nothing to prevent future school shootings — or any other kind of shootings — but they will go a long way toward disarming law-abiding citizens."

http://www.americanclarion.com/16668/2013/01/23/the-real-target-of-gun-control/

Just saying, but most of these school shootings are done by what were thought off as 'law abiding citizens'. Subsequently, disarming them should make it rather hard for them to shoot up a school. "

"-from http://www.americanclarion.com/16084/2013/01/09/gun-control-dictator-style/

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” – Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938

(Consider reading the article as it contains some relevant points.)

Paranoid, right-wing extremist thinking? You could make that case except for this study conducted by advocates for gun control:

http://www.americanclarion.com/16859/2013/02/01/liberal-study-gun-control-laws-do-not-reduce-crime/ "

Only 6 million people died in the Holocaust, not 13 million. And obviously, if you just conquered a territory, would you want the native populace that hates your guts to carry guns? That's like arming the partisans with your own guns. It should further be noted that Hitler was a great a fan of arming Germans citizens, and people who were in the Hitler Jugend got shooting practice. It was seen as pre-training for kids who would afterwards all join the Waffen-SS or the Wehrmacht. Furthermore, they are comparing white collar criminals with ruthless dictators, making the comparison a little off.

Im glad you realize the site is run by right-wing extremists though

"Here is a quote from a review of the study.

The Wright/Rossi/Daly team exploded scores of other gun control myths. They discussed the data showing that gun owners-rather then being a violent, aberrant group of nuts-were at least as psychologically stable and morally sound as the

rest of the population. Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored "more gun control" were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun laws already are. As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their research as gun control advocates, and had

been forced to change their minds by a careful review of the evidence.

Review by Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, http://i2i.org.

Oh!, now here's a radical idea: Why don't we focus on the causes of violent crime and address those issues? Wouldn't that cause a drop in incidents of violent crime?,...what? that's not what you're trying to accomplish? Oh, you're only doing it for my own welfare and I should just trust that my own government is acting out of altruism?

okay, I be a good sheeple and not question anything it does. But seriously, I do trust my government to try and do the right thing, I just don't trust the people in the government to do the right thing."

Did anyone ever claim then that gun owners are violent psychologically unstable nuts? But there are a number of things I could remark on the study. First of all, they are asking people who bravely followed all the rules to get their guns like the good law abiding citizens that they are. Those aren't the problem, the problem lies with the gangbangers, the people with a criminal record, the people who legally should not be in possession of a gun but still have a 9mm somewhere under the couch. Are they psychologically unstable? Probably not, but that doesn't stop them from shooting at rival gang members or robbing a store. As for the guys that go crazy and shoot up a school, well there aren't that many of them. 2 or 3 a year on a population of several hundred million? I doubt you'll find those represented in a study like this. Still, these people do go crazy and end up killing quite a few people.

As for people favoring or not favoring stricter gun control, yeah that depends on how the questions are framed, but that works both ways. Ask the right questions and you'll get the right answers.

As for solving the cause of violent crime, that would be great. However, poverty reduction programs are generally seen as 'entitlements' to people who do not deserve it by a lot of Americans. Generally, most money that is spend on social programs is seen as a form of socialism/communism and can expect just as much resistance from the right as stricter gun laws. It be great if you could pull it off though, lower crime rates while keeping the easy access to guns. I would totally wanna move to the US just for that.

"On that, I leave with a interesting video(unrelated topic?) not generally covered in the mainstream media:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/07/prayer-breakfast-speaker-praises-jesus-gets-political-calls-political-correctness-dangerous-hammers-fiscal-irresponsibility/

And this story is just plain sad: http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/02/12/no-mention-of-american-sniper-from-president-obama/"

Should the government give the death of one soldier special treatment just because he was such a damn good marksman? Seems to me that Obama's political opponents are just using that guy's death to score political points, which I find rather distasteful. The death of someone should not be used like that.

Good luck with your health and your game design! I'm sure I'll notice it when you had time to write a reply

EDIT sorry for the lack of fancy quote boxes at the end of my reply, but I exceeded the maximum of quote boxes that was allowed.

A Nonny Moose · February 13, 2013

You guys can share the grunt cup. All that verbiage doesn't change anything. The Second Amendment and the abuse and license that has arisen from it is embedded in the American culture. Any attempt to change it in the immediate future will fail. Presently there is a great outpouring of hot air, ink, and electrons about this issue, but it really is a non-starter.

astronelson · February 13, 2013

Request for information, where are you getting the statistic that crime is significantly more prevalent in the UK and Australia than it is in the US, and indeed what kinds of crime and what time periods are considered in these statistics? Guns (or indeed arms of any kind) have little to no bearing on credit card fraud, tax evasion, providing false census information, arson, counterfeiting, perjury, or public drunkenness, for example, and it's really not going to be accurate if you take Australian criminal history all the way back to the First Fleet in 1788.

LexusInfernus · February 13, 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burglaries_per_1,000_pop.svg

Burglaries rate should be significantly lower if the idea that guns protect you from burglars is true.

This is also interesting, a comparison between all OECD countries.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

Look at the position of the US. The US could be doing much much worse, but its not exactly doing great either. But if the argument that an armed population is better protected against crime, it would have to show in the statistics. The US should be doing much better than average in terms of burglary and assault, but it doesn't. With Robbery its 8th, with Assault its 15th and with burglary its 11th from 34 countries listed.

Duke87 · February 14, 2013

Look at the position of the US. The US could be doing much much worse, but its not exactly doing great either. But if the argument that an armed population is better protected against crime, it would have to show in the statistics. The US should be doing much better than average in terms of burglary and assault, but it doesn't. With Robbery its 8th, with Assault its 15th and with burglary its 11th from 34 countries listed.

The problem with this approach is that it assumes we are comparing a society with high gun ownership to a society with low gun ownership, which is not the case. The argument in favor of owning a gun does not happen in a vacuum - it is not better to own a gun as an absolute fact. The real logic is more along the lines of "if you own a gun, it's better if I have one too than if I don't". In other words, given the fact that we have a society with lots of armed bad guys, the good guys are safer if they have them too.

So, drawing comparisons to other countries is not fair since the reality in other countries is simply different. Different solutions for different problems. America needs guns because it has guns. Not because having them is a universally better situation (it's not).

AcmeSigns · February 14, 2013

Irrespective of whatever the item it is, I've always found that it's better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it.

I have a shop full of woodworking tools yet I'm not a carpenter or furniture maker (although I have been known to do both) and I don't use them every day...yet there they are.

I have a toolbox full of tools yet I'm not a mechanic by trade nor do I use them on a daily basis...yet there they are.

I look at guns as being no different than any other tool that I have at my disposal. When I need it, I'm certainly glad that it's there.

And guns, believe it or not, are quite good as a stress reliever. Shooting / plinking is just fun! And it improves / maintains good hand-eye coordination.

north country dude · February 14, 2013

Should the government give the death of one soldier special treatment just because he was such a damn good marksman? Seems to me that Obama's political opponents are just using that guy's death to score political points, which I find rather distasteful. The death of someone should not
be used like that.

Seriously?...just a soldier?, special treatment?

The deadliest sniper in American history is just a damned good marksman? During the debate over gun control in the US, just acknowledging his service to our country and mentioning his tragic death at the hands of a another veteran is considered special treatment? Why is acknowledging a war hero considered special treatment? Even a simple thank you and condolences to his family is special treatment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/chris-kyle-death-obama-ignores/2013/02/13/id/490179

And why is the President and his Cabinet treating our military so badly?

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/benghazi-cia-operators-told-to-stand-down-fallen-navy-seal-dad-the-president-hillary-did-not-tell-me-the-truth/

et tu Facebook?

http://rt.com/usa/news/facebook-obama-sos-meme-699/

But then, why is it okay for our President to use these stories for political points?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/hadiya-pendleton-charges_n_2665602.html

or this

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/obama-s-appeal-for-gun-vote-is-emotional-high-point-of-state-of-union-speech.html

and this

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/kids-write-letters-to-obama-on-gun-control/

My questions:

When a mentally aberrant person who is legally not supposed to be owning a firearm goes on violent rampage, we take the rights of law abiding citizens away?? Why? What did the law abiding citizen do wrong and why must they be punished?

Are we using emotionally charged arguments to deny the law abiding citizen their rights because they can not be trusted by the politicians they elected?

...And obviously, if you just conquered a territory, would you want the native populace that hates your guts to carry guns? That's like arming
the partisans with your own guns.

I guess this is why 9 out of 10 dictators recommend gun control for their citizens.

But seriously, Many US States* have strict gun control laws, some do not. If the stated purpose of gun control is to "prevent gun violence", why haven't these laws worked?

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

-from http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

-the actual study http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

further reading on this topic

http://askville.amazon.com/Federal-law-trump-state-laws/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=71233779

http://www.ehow.com/about_6306886_federal-law-vs_-state-law.html

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia

a rebuttal to the above link

sometimes it gets confusing when trying to determine who is cherry picking who's data.

Q: Is it true that 85 percent of all the children killed by guns in the world are killed in the United States?

A: No. This statistic, misused by the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, refers to a study of 23 high-income countries in 2003 that made up less than 14 percent of the world’s population. A coauthor of that study says the percentage of children killed in the world who lived in the U.S. is “well, well, well under 85 percent.”

-from http://factcheck.org/2013/01/child-homicides/

Im glad you realize the site is run by right-wing extremists though

Why is presenting information that contradicts left-leaning viewpoints considered "extremist"?

"The far right is commonly associated with persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views. The most extreme-right movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority"

-from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

The links I provided are considered "right-wing conservative", not "extremist".

"Used pejoratively[ultra-left-wing], the term generally identifies and criticizes positions, especially by those in the mainstream historical Marxist parties, to describe a position which is adopted without taking notice of the current situation or of the consequences which would result from following a proposed course—leftist positions that, for example, overstate the tempo of events, propose initiatives that overestimate the current level of militancy or which employ a highly militant tone in their propaganda."

-from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-leftism

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the preceding posts, I have tried to point out the reasons why The Second Amendment exists, how it affects the issue of Gun Control in the US, and how firmly entrenched it is within American culture. Hopefully, I have shown that removing or changing it will cause a great deal more problems than it will solve.

But these facts remain:

1) The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

-from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

2) Gun control laws and policy vary greatly around the world. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, have very strict limits on gun possession while others, such as the United States, have relatively modest limits. In some countries, the topic remains a source of intense debate with proponents generally arguing the dangers of widespread gun ownership, and opponents generally arguing individual rights of self-protection as well as individual liberties in general.

-from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control

3) A misuse of statistics occurs when a statistical argument asserts a falsehood. In some cases, the misuse may be accidental. In others, it
is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator. When the statistical reason involved is false or misapplied, this constitutes a statistical fallacy. -from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics

This is the reason why I view opinions based on statistical data with much skepticism. Caveat: I use statistical data in my posts to show that it can be misused to give weight to a certain viewpoint. Both sides of the gun control debate are guilty of this. I have already pointed this out in a previous post.

see this http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/statabus.htm

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Again, this indisputable fact: firearms are an inanimate tool for attack and defense. The term "gun violence" suggests that guns are the root cause of violent crimes against people. Take them away from the people and the problem goes away, right?

Not quite. While there will be a slight decrease in the total amount of all violent crime, there will be an increase in the amount of violent crime against unarmed people. Seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Criminals prefer unarmed victims, I mean, why wouldn't they, it makes for a safer job environment.

"My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones due to gun violence -- but the guns did not shoot themselves. Guns are inanimate objects. The guns as well as manufacturers who make guns and dealers who sell guns did not kill.

The people holding and firing the guns are the ones who are guilty of the murders of those innocent people. They are responsible. It is the same if
someone has a knife and kills another person, or an axe, or even a car. The object used is not guilty of the crime -- the person using it is. It is ludicrous to look at it in any other way.

We have so many laws on the books that control the purchase, ownership, and use of guns that are not being enforced. We do not need more gun control laws. More laws will not prevent the massacres at Paducah, Littleton, Conley or other places. Those people committing crimes are not interested in laws or in keeping existing laws. They ignore them as if they do not exist. If we do not enforce existing laws we give them "permission" to break the laws because there are no bad consequences for them when they do. We have more laws restricting guns on the books now than at any other time in history. We also have more crime and more mass shootings. More laws don't stop the violence. We need to enforce the existing ones. We need to start accepting responsibility for our actions and not blame them on inanimate objects. We need to see that our ability to protect ourselves, to "keep and bear arms" is no longer infringed with more and more restrictive laws."

-from http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/gun_facts.html

Seriously, what is wrong with enforcing the current laws? Why don't the politicians talk about that? Heck, forget the talk, do the job you were elected to do! We already voted for these laws in our State and Federal governments, why aren't you enforcing them!!!

This isn't just an American issue either:

Considering the fact that there are an estimated 9 million illegal firearms in South Africa, more than double the amount of registered, legal firearms, it would appear both illogical and unethical to focus on disarming the registered firearm owners, who by definition are law abiding. Even the Minister of Safety and Security himself has testified in Parliament that the percentage of crimes committed by legal firearm owners is “statistically insignificant.” So, considering that legal firearm owners are not the problem, why should the government be focusing so much attention and expense on disarming the potential victims through more rigid firearm control laws, rather than re-instating the death penalty as a deterrent for violent crime?

-from http://frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=786:criminals-prefer-unarmed-victims-incomplete&catid=28:gun-control-self-defence-cat&Itemid=195

In 1974, three Arab terrorists broke into an Israeli school and killed 31 children and faculty. Did Israel respond by self-righteously asserting "Firearms have absolutely no place in our schools"? No. Instead, they armed and trained their teachers and even parent chaperones, with the result that in the past 38 years, terror-beset Israel has not lost a single child within a school.

"In Israel, teachers and parents who serve as school aides go armed at all times on school grounds, with semi-automatic weapons. Since this policy was put into effect, terrorist attacks in Israeli schools have dropped to zero. The only recent exception was the tragic case of a group of schoolchildren
who were murdered by an Arab gunman as they visited the 'Zone of Peace' on the Jordanian border. The Jordanians specifically requested that the Israeli teachers and chaperones leave their weapons behind ... which they did. American schools are, on the other hand, 'gun free zones.'" -Editorialist Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review Journal

-from http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/everybody-crazy-bout-a-gun-free-zone-184600801.html

further reading: http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=140

And guess the country from this quote:

Instead of harassing and penalising responsible, law abiding, licensed firearm owners, the government should concentrate on improving our criminal justice system, trying to help the correctional services keep the convicts in jail, stop mollycoddling the criminals and handcuffing the police, crack down on pornography, prostitution, gambling, violent videos, alcohol and drug abuse, and re-institute the death penalty for
murder.

As it is impossible for any police force to always guarantee the safety of every citizen, no hindrances should be placed upon the right of law
abiding citizens to obtain and use firearms for self-defence. As the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by criminals with unlicensed weapons it is clear that restricting the right of citizens to own, carry and use legal firearms cannot prevent crime. Disarming the potential victims of crime can only serve the purposes of the criminal.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Armed citizens save lives. No matter what, make sure that no one takes away your right to obtain, carry and use
firearms for the protection of your wife and children. -Dr. Peter Hammond

Answer: South Africa

Seriously, what is so freaking wrong about addressing the causes of violent crime irregardless of the weapon used? Taking away the rights of law abiding citizens "for their own good" to address the bigger problem of violent crime doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the venue.

Let's look at these issues first:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5141992_causes-violent-crimes.html

http://www.ehow.com/info_8145821_root-causes-crime.html

Then let's look at the gun control laws we already have on the books!

Seriously, let's have a look.

Federal Laws and State Laws

Gun Control laws do exist, but the current laws didn't stop the crimes, seems there are loopholes from State to State. Let's fix the loopholes in the current laws then. Adding more and more restrictive laws just opens the door to abuse by those in elected and appointed offices. You have to have a check on that,...oh wait, there's a law for that too!

But seriously, the main reason why people are afraid of stricter gun control in this country is simply the historical fact that it has been abused so many times before. There is historical evidence that shows how a simple "public safety" legislation was used to eventually commit horrible acts of violence against the citizens who enacted these laws.

So tell me, what exactly are the checks and balances that would prevent a repetition of the historical events we have seen before? Exactly what will prevent a tyrannical, oppressive, and genocidal government from using these "public safety" laws against its citizens? Good will?, Trust?, the moral character of those in charge?

What is going to prevent a criminal with illegal firearms from killing me or my family?

And why did these historical figures say these things? What were they thinking?

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." - George Washington in address to the 2nd session of united States Congress.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 “Commentaries on the Laws of England.", Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court & U.S. Dist. Court of Virginia

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"For the first time in history does a nation have complete gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead in the future." - Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sadly, simple answers don't address such a complex problem. During this back and forth discussion with LexusInfernus I have learned a great deal but still have no clear definition on how "we the people" can solve these issues without causing more problems in the future. Looking at the viewpoints from both the political right and left and applying commonsense to the issue leads me to these conclusions.

There is a serious problem with violent crime and a well thought out solution that both sides can agree on is not yet evident.
The average American citizen does not want to relinquish the Second Amendment due to historical precedent.
Criminals and aberrant individuals are getting firearms legally because of loopholes in our current laws and lack of enforcement of the existing laws.
The law abiding citizen is not to blame for violent crime, nor the cause of it, but, some of our politicians may be.
Inner-city gang violence is a serious problem and accounts for a significant portion of all reported gun violence in the US.
The cell phone is an underrated tool for democracy.
Unless there is a world-wide change in basic human nature, criminals and tyrants will prefer to victimize unarmed people over armed people.
Checks and balances on US State and Federal government abuse of its citizens must be maintained while commonsense approaches to violent crime and gun control are tested and put into action.

And finally, I leave you with Jefferson's comment in an 1825 letter to William Short: "Some are whigs, liberals, democrats, call them what you please. Others are tories, serviles, aristocrats, &c. The latter fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society; the former consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent."

AcmeSigns · February 14, 2013

Are we using emotionally charged arguments to deny the law abiding citizen their rights because they can not be trusted by the politicians they elected?

No. That would never happen.

A Nonny Moose · February 14, 2013

Irrespective of whatever the item it is, I've always found that it's better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it.

I have a shop full of woodworking tools yet I'm not a carpenter or furniture maker (although I have been known to do both) and I don't use them every day...yet there they are.

I have a toolbox full of tools yet I'm not a mechanic by trade nor do I use them on a daily basis...yet there they are.

I look at guns as being no different than any other tool that I have at my disposal. When I need it, I'm certainly glad that it's there.

And guns, believe it or not, are quite good as a stress reliever. Shooting / plinking is just fun! And it improves / maintains good hand-eye coordination.

Best argument pro I've seen so far. Nothing like good old peer pressure, eh?

When I was a house owner and maintainer I too had a varied collection of tools. In fact, when I broke up my house, I was surprised at the number of them. I am now down to a basic tool box that I haven't opened more than a couple of times in three years.

LexusInfernus · February 14, 2013

Seriously?...just a soldier?, special treatment?

The deadliest sniper in American history is just a damned good marksman? During the debate over gun control in the US, just acknowledging his service to our country and mentioning his tragic death at the hands of a another veteran is considered special treatment? Why is acknowledging a war hero considered special treatment? Even a simple thank you and condolences to his family is special treatment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/chris-kyle-death-obama-ignores/2013/02/13/id/490179

And why is the President and his Cabinet treating our military so badly?

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/benghazi-cia-operators-told-to-stand-down-fallen-navy-seal-dad-the-president-hillary-did-not-tell-me-the-truth/

et tu Facebook?

http://rt.com/usa/news/facebook-obama-sos-meme-699/

But then, why is it okay for our President to use these stories for political points?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/hadiya-pendleton-charges_n_2665602.html

or this

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/obama-s-appeal-for-gun-vote-is-emotional-high-point-of-state-of-union-speech.html

and this

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/kids-write-letters-to-obama-on-gun-control/

He served his country with distinction, but so do all soldiers who gave their lives while on a combat mission. After all, they paid the highest price for their country. And they actually die serving their country. The president doesn't acknowledge them personally either, so no offense, but why should the president specially mention this guy who didn't even die while serving his country? Just because he shot a lot of people?

Besides, you served in the army right? You should know that America does not look after its veterans properly. The guy that shot Bin Laden can't even get a job now that he retired. His teammate is making millions with his book, even though he broke the rules by doing so, this guy sticks to the rules, can't cash in on the fact that he killed Bin Laden and the best the government can give him is becoming a truck driver for a beer company or something. Way to treat your hero's.

As for the little girl, you are comparing the death of a child to the death of someone who has been around death his entire life. This may sound harsh, but 15 year old girls are not supposed to die from gunshots, but a sniper on a shooting range? Play with fire and you might burn yourself badly, that is the inherent risk of being around guns and people with guns.

And appealing to emotions, meh, everyone does it. Obama uses children, the NRA uses the emotion of not wanting to give up something and the distrust against the government. Its a cheap shot I agree, but if it helps you win your case, history may judge you to be correct in using it.

My questions:

When a mentally aberrant person who is legally not supposed to be owning a firearm goes on violent rampage, we take the rights of law abiding citizens away?? Why? What did the law abiding citizen do wrong and why must they be punished?

Are we using emotionally charged arguments to deny the law abiding citizen their rights because they can not be trusted by the politicians they elected?

The problem here is simply that you cannot predict the future and distinguish potential psychopaths from law abiding citizens until after they have gone crazy and killed a bunch of people. You must make a choice. Either you keep your rights as they are, and every year one or two people go crazy and kill a lot of people in theaters or schools or shopping malls, you keep your high death by gun rates and that will be the price you must pay for this particular freedom. Or you decide that this particular freedom is not worth the cost in human lives, and take action against it, which means slightly less freedom at the one hand, but people will be safer. But sadly you cannot have both.

Either way, the choice is yours, and I do understand both sides of the argument.

I guess this is why 9 out of 10 dictators recommend gun control for their citizens.

.

But seriously, Many US States* have strict gun control laws, some do not. If the stated purpose of gun control is to "prevent gun violence", why haven't these laws worked?

9 out of 10 dictators recommend gun control for the people they oppress with violence. But why would an American tyrant have to use violence against its citizens if these citizens are generally apathetic towards politics and are more interested in the next scandal involving some dimwitted celebrity? Any reasonably smart tyrant would simply overload the citizen with irrelevant information to the point where they cannot distinguish between important things and superfluous nonsense. In fact, some will claim that is already happening.

As for these laws, I can only assume here, since there is no research that actually looks into this. In any case, I assume it is the case because the US has no internal borders. Yes, there are state borders, but no one checks those. Furthermore, Americans can move around from state to different state pretty easily. So they can buy their guns in one state with easy laws, and then move to the state with less easy laws, circumventing their state laws. Also I have to ask, say you buy your gun parts on the internet, do state laws apply? I mean, say you have to show you have a gun permit when you buy a gun in the gun store, do you have to show your permit to the website where you buy your parts as well?

Finally, because in general, there are a lot of guns in circulation in the entirety of the US, the price on the black market is not that high. Criminals won't go to a legal gun dealer because the law says they can't get a gun there. Fine, so they go to some black market dealer and they can get those guns for a relatively cheap price there. Stricter gun laws indeed won't stop criminals from getting guns as long as there are so many guns in circulation.

Why is presenting information that contradicts left-leaning viewpoints considered "extremist"?

Im glad you realize the site is run by right-wing extremists though

"The far right is commonly associated with persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views. The most extreme-right movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority"

-from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

The links I provided are considered "right-wing conservative", not "extremist".

"Used pejoratively[ultra-left-wing], the term generally identifies and criticizes positions, especially by those in the mainstream historical Marxist parties, to describe a position which is adopted without taking notice of the current situation or of the consequences which would result from following a proposed course—leftist positions that, for example, overstate the tempo of events, propose initiatives that overestimate the current level of militancy or which employ a highly militant tone in their propaganda."

-from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-leftism

Its not that they do not coincide with my own (admittedly rather leftish) views. Its more the excessive use of slandering terms they use against everyone who they consider 'liberals', combined with the picture they paint of liberals as trying to destroy the fabric of American society with their godlessness and all that. I hope you see how that makes them from just right wing conservative to extremely right wing conservative.

Again, this indisputable fact: firearms are an inanimate tool for attack and defense. The term "gun violence" suggests that guns are the root cause of violent crimes against people. Take them away from the people and the problem goes away, right?

Not quite. While there will be a slight decrease in the total amount of all violent crime, there will be an increase in the amount of violent crime against unarmed people. Seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Criminals prefer unarmed victims, I mean, why wouldn't they, it makes for a safer job environment.

-from http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/gun_facts.html

Seriously, what is wrong with enforcing the current laws? Why don't the politicians talk about that? Heck, forget the talk, do the job you were elected to do! We already voted for these laws in our State and Federal governments, why aren't you enforcing them!!!

Actually, the term gun violence just suggest violence which involved a gun.

And of course, the guy pulling the trigger is responsible. And as you said, guns are just a tool, a tool that can kill people. A tool that is designed to kill people. A tool which has the sole purpose of killing people. So why do people 'blame' guns. Because while the guy pulling the trigger is a murderer, he had access to a tool which made murdering people a case of pointing and making a very simple finger movement. What if he did not have such a tool? What if he had to stab someone with a knife? Well, his victim would have had a better chance to defend against the attacker and had a better chance to survive the attack.

The root of the problem is not that law abiding citizens have guns. The problem is that it creates a lot of demand and as a response to that, a lot of supply. This supply is the problem, as it invariably finds its way into the hands of people who by law should not have those guns. And the more supply, the easier it is for these people to get those guns. So the best solution would be to tackle the supply issue, decrease supply thus making it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns. If you can think of a way to effectively decrease the supply on the black market, but at the same time leave the supply for law abiding citizens, you would have found the perfect solution. Law abiding citizens could keep their guns, while at the same time you disarm the majority of the criminals. But I don't think such a thing is possible, I fear that if you go after the supply for the black market, you also hit the supply for the normal citizens and they loose their access to guns as well.

But seriously, the main reason why people are afraid of stricter gun control in this country is simply the historical fact that it has been abused so many times before. There is historical evidence that shows how a simple "public safety" legislation was used to eventually commit horrible acts of violence against the citizens who enacted these laws.

So tell me, what exactly are the checks and balances that would prevent a repetition of the historical events we have seen before? Exactly what will prevent a tyrannical, oppressive, and genocidal government from using these "public safety" laws against its citizens? Good will?, Trust?, the moral character of those in charge?

What is going to prevent a criminal with illegal firearms from killing me or my family?

And why did these historical figures say these things? What were they thinking?

Let me ask you this. How is a 9mm pistol going to help you prevent the government from blowing you up with a Predator drone? How is a Bushmaster rifle going to defend you from a M1 Abrams tank 120 mm gun? Once tyranny has taken hold and consolidated its power, armed citizens are going to impress no one, least of all the most technologically advanced army with the most firepower the world has ever seen. So, preventing tyranny from happening in the first place is probably the most effective way of dealing with this problem. And I do not believe, nor have I seen any kind of evidence that suggests that an armed population prevents tyrants from being born and rising to power. And really, you do not even need guns to prevent tyrants from rising. Just have an open mind, take political promises with a grain of salt, inform yourself on the consequences of a suggested policy, and pay attention to what your elected representatives are doing in your name is more than sufficient to keep tyrants out of your government.

As for defending yourself against criminals, well, again preventing crime from happening in the first place is probably best. And if that fails, what odds do you prefer? Defending yourself from a criminal armed with a gun, while you also have a gun, or fighting an unarmed criminal, while you are armed with a baseball bat or a kitchen knife? Personally, I think the odds in the second scenario are more in my favor than in the first scenario. Oh, added bonus, in the second scenario, your family is also safer because its a lot harder to play with a baseball bat and accidentally shoot yourself or someone else than it is with a gun.

A Nonny Moose · February 14, 2013

All very well, but the main point is prevention. The major cause of violent crime is usually poverty or just plain avarice. Someone wants what you have and will do anything to get it.

However, we can't all be like St. Francis of Assisi. We cannot distribute all our worldly goods and live in poverty dependent on the charity of others. If everyone did that, the others would be in the same condition. It would be a perfect communism, and no one would have or own anything.

Then there is instinct. Home sapiens is a predator, and when young is driven much more by the sexual imperative than any amount of reason he may have understood at that age. So called maturity is really just a drop in hormone levels.

Every wonder why Avarice is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, along with Lust, and Murder?

hym · February 14, 2013

I recently took the time to read through the Supreme Court's opinion in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, and I thought I would share some, IMO, interesting but unmentioned tidbits:

Though not specifically addressing the issue, the Supreme Court throws cold water on the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as a living document.
The right to self-defense is "god-given," meaning it is above the authority of the state to take it away. The Second Amendment exists, in part, to legally codify this.
The state does not possess a monopoly on violence. The individual may employ violence as a means of defense if he reasonably believes that society will be unable to come to his aid in a sufficiently timely manner.
Although there may be no contest in power between an assault weapon and a B-2 bomber, that does not negate the right to own the assault weapon.
Despite the fact that the Founding Fathers may not have expected a particular weapon to be available, that does not mean the weapon is not protected under the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the government's right to ban "dangerous and unusual" weapons ends when the public can reasonable expect the right to own such a weapon.
Although the government retains the right to regulate weapons for the common good, the fact that a regulation is "for the common good" does not permit it to infringe on the guarantees of the Second Amendment.

A Nonny Moose · February 14, 2013

Good old SCOTUS. You understand they have to come down on the side of the angels, eh?

A Nonny Moose · March 8, 2013

After a couple of weeks of quiet, here is the latest development in South Dakota.

This falls into the doctrine of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I hope the training program is thorough.

Larks2242 · March 11, 2013

I am glad to see South Dakota is making progress, lets hope the rest of the country follows suit.

The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

1,564 posts in this topic Last Reply June 13, 2016

Highlighted Posts

north country dude 202

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A Nonny Moose 8,261

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Duke87 1,070

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dewm 177

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AcmeSigns 97

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dewm 177

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

LexusInfernus 908

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A Nonny Moose 8,261

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

north country dude 202

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

LexusInfernus 908

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Duke87 1,070

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ocram's Razr 963

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AcmeSigns 97

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

north country dude 202

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AcmeSigns 97

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

LexusInfernus 908

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A Nonny Moose 8,261

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

astronelson 339

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

LexusInfernus 908

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Duke87 1,070