|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/26/2005 : 22:37:19
|
To, I hope, take the beginnings of an argument and turn it to a more calm debate.
H.H. said:
quote:
I don't understand how you can admit that both sides have extremists but then state that the democrats are moreso.
Look, as far as I see it, the majority or democrats are for private gun ownership as well, it's just that they advocate certain safety laws which the republicans would like to abolish. That's the way I'm looking at it. Most Americans favor private gun ownership. Ok, but most Americans also favor responsible gun ownership, do they not? The question has never been guns or no guns, but rather laws regulating guns or no laws regulating guns. Were the republicans for or against such gun safety laws as gunlocks? Does that make them more or less extreme than the democrats?
And why are there any assault rifles sold at all? I really would like to hear why there is any percentage of crimes associated with those weapons that is considered acceptible. I mean why not outlaw the paramilitary stuff? Just asking.
And sorry if you think I'm attacking straw-men. I really have no desire to ban guns, but I do think there should be certain gun legislation in place that limits their sale, caliber, rate of fire, etc. The common "slippery slope" argument always offered by republicans is that such laws will inevitably lead to a "ban on guns." To me that's the real fallacy.
You do make a good point about private sales though. That's a point I had not considered. And sorry for comparing you to Rush. That was heat of the moment.
To adress some of the points individually, let me quote them again.
quote:
Look, as far as I see it, the majority or democrats are for private gun ownership as well, it's just that they advocate certain safety laws which the republicans would like to abolish.
I am unaware of republicans wanting to abolish any "safety laws" concerning firearms. In FL people are required to demonstrate basic firearms knowledge, including safety and a basic understanding of the associated laws, before being issued one of the "shall issue" concealed carry permits.
FL also has laws that require gun owners to maintain their firearms securely. If you own a gun and a minor gets ahold of it, you can be held liable (crininally so) for anything done with that gun.
For the concealed carry of guns, there are a string of rules and regulations that very explicitly lay out where and when you are allowed to carry, and under what circumstances the use of your weapon is going to be legal.
quote:
Most Americans favor private gun ownership. Ok, but most Americans also favor responsible gun ownership, do they not? The question has never been guns or no guns, but rather laws regulating guns or no laws regulating guns.
Yes. Responsible gun ownership is advocated by any credible group in favor of gun ownership. The issue has never been, to my knowledge, one of laws or no laws. Personally I think that all states should have a "shall issue" law for the concealed carry of weapons, and require a minimum safety training class and a breifing on the legalities involved.
quote:
Were the republicans for or against such gun safety laws as gunlocks?
Against mandatory use of trigger locks. When a reliable biometric lock that can be programmed to release the trigger of a gun only to specific individuals hits the market, then nobody will be against mandatory trigger locks. Until then, a trigger lock is useless. It defeats the purpose of having a loaded firearm at your side. People are already required by law to maintain their firearms securely. See my above statements about crininal liability for not keeping your guns secure.
quote:
And why are there any assault rifles sold at all? I really would like to hear why there is any percentage of crimes associated with those weapons that is considered acceptible.
There is no logic in that statement. No percentage of any violent crime is acceptable. Regardless of the tools used. In the 93% of violent crimes (the % committed WITHOUT the use of any firearm) should we be seeking to restrict or ban the weapons used? Ban or regulate knives? Bats? Cars? Tree branches? Canes? Chrochet needles? Fists? People who are over 6feet tall and weigh 250+?
My point about assault weapons is very simple. They are virtually non existant in the world of crimes commited with firearms. The alledged threat to personal safetly from assault weapons is tremendously exagerated. Why waste your enegry trying to ban them, when it is the handguns that are used in the VAST majority of gun crimes? Answer: Because it is slightly more difficult to defend the ownership of assault style weapons, making them an easier target for the anti-gun people.
But the argument that they (assault style weapons) are a greater threat to personal or public safety is just blatantly false. As demonstrated by their extremely low % of use in crimes commited.
quote:
I mean why not outlaw the paramilitary stuff? Just asking.
Why outlaw it? What is the basis of a reasonable argument to outlaw assault style weapons? Violent crimes and personal/public safety are out, so what is left? They look scary? It is unreasonable to restrict the second ammendment without a damn good justification. Same for altering any of the first 10.
quote:
I really have no desire to ban guns, but I do think there should be certain gun legislation in place that limits their sale, caliber, rate of fire, etc.
Well, you'll be pleased to know that such laws already exist! You must have a class 3 federal liscense to own any weapon that has a rate of fire greater than one round per pull of the trigger. There are limits to the caliber of weapon that can be owned by citizens. There are very strict limits to the type of ammunition that can be owned by citizens, no explosive or armor piercing ammo is even remotely close to legal. (out of the possible types of ammo, only a handfull are legal to own privately) And so on and so on.
You make it sound as if there were no laws of this type in place! Nothing could be further from the truth.
quote:
The common "slippery slope" argument always offered by republicans is that such laws will inevitably lead to a "ban on guns." To me that's the real fallacy.
Yes, that type of thinking is flawed. More appropriately it should be stated that those who want to further regulate/restrict guns are seeking a total ban on guns. And, as my original point in the other thread was about the misplaced political power weilded by the parties, it comes right back to that. The left may be more moderate on this issue than the party, but the party line is very anti-gun.
From an anti-gun site I read earlier today, who I cannot find now (curse my paraniod nature that has my system set to flush internet history and cookies on shutdown) so I'll have to rely on memory... 48% of men and 15% of women in the US own atleast one firearm. That would make the majority of Americans gun owners. That is why I think the left is closer to the extremists on this issue than the right is.
quote:
And sorry for comparing you to Rush. That was heat of the moment.
My original response was also overly heated. Apologies.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 00:38:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I'll have to rely on memory... 48% of men and 15% of women in the US own atleast one firearm. That would make the majority of Americans gun owners.
quote:
If you own a gun and a minor gets ahold of it, you can be held liable (crininally so) for anything done with that gun.
What happens if a gun owned by you end up being used in a crime? Under what circumstances can you be held liable?
|
 |
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 02:15:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
48% of men and 15% of women in the US own atleast one firearm. That would make the majority of Americans gun owners.
Check your figures again. Lets us assume that pop. men~= pop. women, so each makes up 50% of the total population (of men and women). 48% of men is thus 48% of half the population.
So percentage of gun owners WRT the total population is 0.48*0.5 + 0.15*0.5 = 0.315, or 31.5%
Edited to add "0"s and "." |
| Edited by - woolytoad on 04/27/2005 02:16:46 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 04:45:19 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
It is unreasonable to restrict the second ammendment without a damn good justification.
You mean restrict this clear-as-muddy-water amendment--"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?!?
Before restricting it, I wish someone would tell me what it means! |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 05:33:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Dude wrote:quote:
It is unreasonable to restrict the second ammendment without a damn good justification.
You mean restrict this clear-as-muddy-water amendment--"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?!?
Before restricting it, I wish someone would tell me what it means!
If you belong to a well regulated militia your right to bear nuclear/biological/chemical/(your choice) arms should not be infringed!
It's as clever as using the bible as a science book. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 06:26:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
If you belong to a well regulated militia your right to bear nuclear/biological/chemical/(your choice) arms should not be infringed!
It's as clever as using the bible as a science book.
True-- so you figure that, say, the Militia of Montana is probably pretty well regulated, so they should probably think about getting a gun or two. You know, just in case. (Their newsletter is called "Taking Aim." How cute. Taking aim. At, like, government officials and all.)
Well regulated, indeed. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 04/27/2005 06:27:33 |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 08:03:57 [Permalink]
|
Dude
quote:
My point about assault weapons is very simple. They are virtually non existant in the world of crimes commited with firearms.
However when they are used they do produce very dreadful results (Columbine comes to mind). It allows a fairly untrained and unhinged individual to walk into a crowded place and start sprayin' and prayin' often with many casualties (hey evidence of the power of prayer >:-D). A semi-automatic pistol with limited clip capacity, however would typically result in a lot less casualties in the hands of a typical individual. That I think is one of the main argument for controlling assault weapons.
I would say that the statistics do support our your claims though that such weapons are minimally used when it comes to violent crimes:
Some statistics from between 1993 - 2001 (all emphasis mine):
quote:
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10% of the violent victimizations involved a firearm.
However this # applies to all violent crimes so would include domestic disputes, fist fights, etc. which are typically conducted without firearms.
% for type of crime committed with a firearm:
Homicide: 70%
Rape/Sexual Assault: 3%
Robbery: 27%
All Assaults: 8%
quote:
U.S. residents were victims of crimes committed with firearms at a annual average rate of 4 crimes per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Of the average 847,000 violent victimizations committed with firearms, about 7 out of 8 were committed with handguns.
This is compared with 3 per 1,000 for knives, 2 per 1,000 for blunt objects, and around 3 per 1,000 for other weapons.
However these above rates appear to be only for non-leathal confrontations.
Further down in the report we have the following regarding homicides:
% and Rates / 100,000 persons: <- Note the different rate then from above
Total homicides: 100% 8.1
Any Weapon: 90.9% 7.3
Any Firearm: 70.1% 5.7
Handgun: 56.4% 4.6
Shotgun: 4.3% 0.3
Rifle: 3.4% 0.3
Other gun: 0.2% 0.0
Unknown Type: 5.6% 0.5
Note however these statistics are all after the gun control laws were enacted and I have yet to find pre 1993 statistics. They also all show trends in declining gun violence, but these seem to follow trends in declining crime altogether. I would wager that many other factors including a roaring economy, more focus on inner cities, etc. have more to do with this decline than the gun control laws.
Source for above statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf (PDF)
However you get some slightly different numbers when you look at the weapons used in a survey of inmates from 1991 and 1997:
% of inmates who discharged a gun during their crime: (State/Federal prisons)
Among all inmates: 9%/2%
Violent offenders: 18%/9%
% of inmates by crime possessing a firearm during the crime (State/Federal)
Violent: 30.2%/35.4%
Property: 3.1%/2.9%
Drug: 8.1%/8.7%
Public Order: 19.1%/27.3%
An interesting side-statisic is the source of the firearm for inmates possessing a firearm (1997/1991)
All Purchased 13.9% / 20.8%
Retail: 8.3% / 14.7%
Pawnshop: 3.8% / 4.2%
Flea Market: 1.0% / 1.3%
Gun Show: 0.7% / 0.6%
Friends/Family: 39.6% / 33.8%
Street/Illegal Source: 39.2% / 40.8%
Further down in the report from the 1997 study we have:
Among inmates who reported carrying a gun for the offense they are incarcerated for we find the following percentages for types of gun carried (note some could report carrying more than one weapon so total % do not add up to 100) (State/Federal)
Total # inmates who were packing during their crime: 190,383 / 12,936
Single Shot: 53.9% / 49.2%
Conventional Semi: 43.2% / 51.8%
Military Style Semi: 6.8% / 9.3%
Fully Auto: 2.4% / 3.8%
Source for the above statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf (PDF)
Its hard to tell if I'm comparing apples and oranges between the two reports, but the second report seems to indicate a higher percentage of use of military style weapons than the first. Sadly the first never gives us a good breakdown and I'm assuming other weapons covers assault style weapons which may be a false assumption.
Using the second report we can see that roughly 10% of all crimes involving a firearm include the involvement of a military style weapon. Extrapolating the numbers from the 2 reports we have the following:
8.9 million annual violent crimes.
10% involve firearms: 890,000
10% were packing a military style weapon: 89,000 / year.
2.5% were packing a fully auto: 22,000 / year
These numbers seems pretty high, but there are some factors involved in their definition of military style. A military style pistol is a semi-automatic pistol with an exposed clip and over 19 round capacity. A military style rifle is a semi-automatic "hunting style" rifle with some feature such as a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount. A military style shotgun is similar in definition to a military style rifle but includes the feature of a detachable clip. Other than pistols there appears to be no distinction based on round capacity and there appears to be no distinction on caliber for any type. So my .22 with 15 round cap. could be considered a military style semi if I added a pistol grip or foldable stock.
Having given these statistics I have to say I agree with Dude. There are better ways to reduce crime than outlawing weapons. Obviously outlawing weapons won't stop an outlaw from owning one. The high percentage of illegal guns obtained combined with the low percentage of assault weapon use seems to indicate that little would be achieved by outlawing them. All assault weapons purchased prior to 1994 were grandfathered in, so the Mac-90 (AK-47 clone) my dad bought in 1993 is legal, so there is a huge supply of these grandfathered weapons already out there. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 08:12:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
If you belong to a well regulated militia your right to bear nuclear/biological/chemical/(your choice) arms should not be infringed!
It's as clever as using the bible as a science book.
True-- so you figure that, say, the Militia of Montana is probably pretty well regulated, so they should probably think about getting a gun or two. You know, just in case. (Their newsletter is called "Taking Aim." How cute. Taking aim. At, like, government officials and all.)
Well regulated, indeed.
Pretty sad when you have freaking misspellings on your Statement of Purpose
quote:
Along with being physsically prepared to withstand the onslaught which will erup no matter where we end up.
 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 09:04:07 [Permalink]
|
| This archived debate on Gun control might be of some interest to you all. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 10:22:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
This archived debate on Gun control might be of some interest to you all.
Thanks for reminding me of this one.
To continue on from the original thread that started this whole exchange, there are some states which allow infrequent sellers of firearms to dispose of aforementioned firearms at flea markets and gun shows without criminal background checks or waiting periods. Texas and Missouri are examples of such states. Florida has taken it upon themselves to restrict sellers of firearms at gun shows and flea markets to be from authorized gun dealers only. Texas and Missouri have not. Under federal law (and I fully acknowledge a misstatement in a previous post), gun dealers must perform background checks and enforce waiting periods at gun shows and flea markets. "Infrequent sellers" do not. While anti-gun sites do point to this and include all private sales of firearms, it is the presence of these infrequent sellers at gun shows and flea markets that I object to. Why should an infrequent seller be able to duck a law that a licensed gun dealer is beholden to.
Regulating the sale of firearms by indivduals outside these settings is inappropriate. If Joe Sixpack wants to sell his buddy Beuford a 12 gauge shotgun, I don't have a problem with it.
I likewise have a problem with classing whole sections of firearms as assault weapons based on magazine capacity and whether or not it has a bayonette fixture. By that classification, Civil War reinactors are carrying assault weapons when they have Springfield bolt action rifles or blunderbuss flintlocks with bayonette fixtures when they take the field.
I can see no problem with banning fully automatic weapons or anti-tank weapons.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 11:14:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What happens if a gun owned by you end up being used in a crime? Under what circumstances can you be held liable?
If the gun in question should have reasonably been in your control, then you can be held liable for acts commited with it. If somebody breaks in and steals your gun, you're not going to be criminally laible, but if (for example) a minor grabs your gun from the bedstand and shoots his/her friend with it... you could be in a world of hurt.
quote:
"Infrequent sellers" do not. While anti-gun sites do point to this and include all private sales of firearms, it is the presence of these infrequent sellers at gun shows and flea markets that I object to. Why should an infrequent seller be able to duck a law that a licensed gun dealer is beholden to.
"Infrequent seller" is a vague phrase. If it is applied to an individual who is wanting to sell a gun or two owned by that person, then I disagree with the idea of trying to regulate it. If it means people who stock up and then sell "infrequently" to avoid the expense of a liscense and the fees of doing the background checks, then yes, I agree. I think that most people would agree that there is an issue with the ones who sell "infrequently" to avoid regulation and expense.
quote:
I can see no problem with banning fully automatic weapons or anti-tank weapons.
Well, since they are already banned....
quote:
Check your figures again. Lets us assume that pop. men~= pop. women, so each makes up 50% of the total population (of men and women). 48% of men is thus 48% of half the population.
So percentage of gun owners WRT the total population is 0.48*0.5 + 0.15*0.5 = 0.315, or 31.5%
gah.... I love statistics. Yes, you are correct. My bad.
quote:
You mean restrict this clear-as-muddy-water amendment--"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?!?
I would agree that this ammendment isn't crystal clear, not by a long shot.
quote:
If you belong to a well regulated militia your right to bear nuclear/biological/chemical/(your choice) arms should not be infringed!
It's as clever as using the bible as a science book.
Don't be ridiculous.
quote:
True-- so you figure that, say, the Militia of Montana is probably pretty well regulated, so they should probably think about getting a gun or two. You know, just in case. (Their newsletter is called "Taking Aim." How cute. Taking aim. At, like, government officials and all.)
Most of these "militia" groups are amazingly stupid. Filled with the stereotyipical redneck morons. Most of them couldn;t muster a rational argument in support of anything if their lives depended on it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 11:28:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
"Infrequent sellers" do not. While anti-gun sites do point to this and include all private sales of firearms, it is the presence of these infrequent sellers at gun shows and flea markets that I object to. Why should an infrequent seller be able to duck a law that a licensed gun dealer is beholden to.
"Infrequent seller" is a vague phrase. If it is applied to an individual who is wanting to sell a gun or two owned by that person, then I disagree with the idea of trying to regulate it. If it means people who stock up and then sell "infrequently" to avoid the expense of a liscense and the fees of doing the background checks, then yes, I agree. I think that most people would agree that there is an issue with the ones who sell "infrequently" to avoid regulation and expense.
"Infrequent seller" does apply to those who stock up to sell at gun shows to avoid regulation such as firearms dealer licenses and background checks as well as people who want to sell a gun or two. I'm only advocating this kind of strictures to flea markets and gun shows, not personal sales from the home. I'd like a level playing field for legit gun dealers. Also, finding the difference between the two in a gun show setting is difficult for authorities as a non-gun dealer is only required to report cash value sold to the IRS and not the composition of sales.
At this point, I am unaware of the protocol needed to report the sale of a personal firearm in a personal setting. To my knowledge, you don't have to report a personal sale to any authority who might keep records of number and frequency of gun sales. Do you have any knowledge of such a reporting requirement? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 11:34:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
You mean restrict this clear-as-muddy-water amendment--"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?!?
I would agree that this ammendment isn't crystal clear, not by a long shot.
No kidding! And quite frankly, I'd have no problem if it said simply "citizens and own certain types of weapons"-- I just wish it were clear. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that the phrasing made sense even in late 18th century Philadelphia! It almost looks like someone was copying from another piece of paper, started to write the Second Amendment, then looked back at the original but skipped a sentence or something--"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, is somethign every state should have. People should be a part of a militia. But you're crazy if you think that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Maybe.
quote:
quote:
If you belong to a well regulated militia your right to bear nuclear/biological/chemical/(your choice) arms should not be infringed!
It's as clever as using the bible as a science book.
Don't be ridiculous.
I think he was kidding!
quote:
quote:
True-- so you figure that, say, the Militia of Montana is probably pretty well regulated, so they should probably think about getting a gun or two. You know, just in case. (Their newsletter is called "Taking Aim." How cute. Taking aim. At, like, government officials and all.)
Most of these "militia" groups are amazingly stupid. Filled with the stereotyipical redneck morons. Most of them couldn;t muster a rational argument in support of anything if their lives depended on it.
Right. I read through a few of the on-line stuff for the above and other "militias." It really appears that they suffer from borderline certifiable paranoia! And that's just the whacko stuff that's online! Imagine what else is out there! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 11:44:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To my knowledge, you don't have to report a personal sale to any authority who might keep records of number and frequency of gun sales. Do you have any knowledge of such a reporting requirement?
I don't believe there is any requirement to report the personal sale of a firearm in FL. Some states may require this (my dad lives in IL, and I think I recall him mentioning something about this), but I'm not totally sure.
quote:
Right. I read through a few of the on-line stuff for the above and other "militias." It really appears that they suffer from borderline certifiable paranoia! And that's just the whacko stuff that's online! Imagine what else is out there!
There are some real loons out there, no question. I even know a few. The inevitable result of being a gun enthusiast and a good shot.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 11:59:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
If you belong to a well regulated militia your right to bear nuclear/biological/chemical/(your choice) arms should not be infringed!
It's as clever as using the bible as a science book.
Don't be ridiculous.
Using the second amendment to motivate that private citizens should be allowed to own and or carry firearms is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 12:39:50 [Permalink]
|
Cuniform
quote:
You mean restrict this clear-as-muddy-water amendment--"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?!?
Before restricting it, I wish someone would tell me what it means!
and
Starman
quote:
Using the second amendment to motivate that private citizens should be allowed to own and or carry firearms is ridiculous.
Well allowing citizens to own firearms was the main intention of the 2nd amendment. We should remember historically what a militia meant. It wasn't just a small group of volunteers training on weekends under state or federal control. Also it wasn't a small group of "separatist" or anti federal government loons either. We must remember that for the federalist a small national army was considered desirable. One that could be defeated by its own citizenry in a united and armed effort. A militia was to be organized as needed from the entire citizenry as needed.
Hamilton in Federalist #8 (bold emphasis mine)
quote:
The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an overmatch for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights.
So much for support the troops eh? I don't see how a citizenry can "stand ready to resist" without being armed.
Later in the same Federalist paper:
quote:
The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.
Again we must understand that they saw a large standing military and even reverence of the military as threats to our liberty. The only defense against such threats considering we still needed at least a small military (and that was all they wished to see) was to allow the citizens to bare arms.
Madison wrote similar notions in #46
quote:
To these [a federal army of an allowable size] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
Again these militias composed of armed citizens were intended to resist our own federal troops. Now many may argue this means National Guard, but its obvious it was intended to extend even beyond this. A militia of half a million at this time would far outnumber any state national guard even today AFAIK. Notice how Madison's note of self organizing militias choosing their officers and uniting under a government they trust and have confidence in. This is different than a regularly training militia such as today's National Guard.
I seem to recall something from Jefferson mentioning that it was every man's duty (not just right, and yes he said man, it was the 1700's after all) to train and own a weapon to resist tyranny in all its forms. Sadly I can't find the reference.
As a side note I want to share this from #46 by Madison.
quote:
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
While Madison was saying this seemed preposterous to him, does it seem so preposterous now? It seems downright damn spine chilling to me, almost prophetic. Since the turn of the last century and especially since WWII we have allowed our military with few exceptions to grow to unprecedented levels and power. We are the people patiently and silently beholding the gathering storm. Obviously aided by technological improvements we have allowed our military to grow to unprecedented levels of power. Is this a real threat to our liberty? Damn, what's the # to that Montana militia again :( |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
