NRA: Don't ban gun sales to suspects (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/04/ap/politics/main2762108.shtml)
NRA Says Banning Gun Sales To Terror Suspects Infringes On Civil Liberties

WASHINGTON, May. 4, 2007

(AP) The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

[More...] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/04/ap/politics/main2762108.shtml)

Suspected terrorists should not be banned from buying guns. EVERYONE should be banned from buying guns, or at least handguns and semiautomatic weapons.

If the ban is not going to apply to everyone, it shouldn't be selectively applied to individuals on Bush's personal shît list.

Presumably foreign nationals aren't sold guns already.

Terrorists are convicted in courts. It's quite hard to see any judicial process than will find enough evidence to make a US citizen into a suspected terrorist and yet be unable to decide that they're a terrorist. So how is this proposed law supposed to work?

Presumably foreign nationals aren't sold guns already.They are.It's quite hard to see any judicial process than will find enough evidence to make a US citizen into a suspected terrorist and yet be unable to decide that they're a terrorist.Because one involves proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a panel of jury members, while the other just involves a hunch, guess, or rumor.

Every person who travels by airliner, is a suspected terrorist right now.

With universal profiling, we are all suspected terrorists.

And are treated as such.

Every person who travels by airliner, is a suspected terrorist right now.

With universal profiling, we are all suspected terrorists.

And are treated as such.

*grins*
Then I would think this is actually a good law as it seems to ban weapon sales to everybody ...


Eri

You and Tudamorf agree?!


Which might be a great idea if bad guys did not already have guns.
But they do.

It would turn the whole US into a VT shooting gallery for bad guys.

You and Tudamorf agree?!


Which might be a great idea if bad guys did not already have guns.
But they do.

It would turn the whole US into a VT shooting gallery for bad guys.

*shrugs* I have the suspicion that what you call 'good guys' collectively have plenty of fire arms already.
I also have my personal doubt that the possibility of the victim possessing fire arms has stopped all that many burglaries and robberies.
But it is not my decision, nor my concern really


Eri

Which might be a great idea if bad guys did not already have guns.
But they do.As do the good guys. Your point escapes me.

Oh I see, you are playing definitional games, since the good guys with guns are going to automatically become bad guys once we change the law, and therefore will be no good guys with guns.

Interesting, but irrelevant, sophistry.It would turn the whole US into a VT shooting gallery for bad guys.It already is a shooting gallery, even though the "good guys" have access to guns.

Your theory has been proven false, time and time again, in every first world country with strong gun control laws. The U.S. is no exception.

As do the good guys. Your point escapes me.

Oh I see, you are playing definitional games, since the good guys with guns are going to automatically become bad guys once we change the law, and therefore will be no good guys with guns.

Interesting, but irrelevant, sophistry.It already is a shooting gallery, even though the "good guys" have access to guns.

Your theory has been proven false, time and time again, in every first world country with strong gun control laws. The U.S. is no exception.

Unless there is some check in place to keep future sales of guns from badguys this would never work. If there is then kudo's, otherwise this is just going to make it so you have to become a "bad guy" to own a gun.

Unless there is some check in place to keep future sales of guns from badguys this would never work.Why does it work in every other first world country with strong gun control laws? Why isn't Fyyr's apocalyptic vision of bad guys buying huge arsenals and mowing down unarmed innocents happening in those countries, and why should I believe it will happen here?

Why does it work in every other first world country with strong gun control laws? Why isn't Fyyr's apocalyptic vision of bad guys buying huge arsenals and mowing down unarmed innocents happening in those countries, and why should I believe it will happen here?

Its hard to judge such, becuase other countries do not have an amendment that supports guns. We are a nation that grew up around guns and more desensitized to them then other nations, so its harder to ween away from.

Since the guns are already in circulation, all heightened restrictions will accomplish is a high black market value on them, and once again, it'll be criminals or law abiding citizens doing criminal acts in order to get them.

And if we get rid of all guns then mutated stewies will take over the US.

Since the guns are already in circulation, all heightened restrictions will accomplish is a high black market value on them, and once again, it'll be criminals or law abiding citizens doing criminal acts in order to get them.
Is that true in countries that ban guns? My impression was they're relatively rare, even amongst criminals.

We are a nation that grew up around guns and more desensitized to them then other nations, so its harder to ween away from.No one said it would happen overnight. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen at all.Since the guns are already in circulation, all heightened restrictions will accomplish is a high black market value on them, and once again, it'll be criminals or law abiding citizens doing criminal acts in order to get them.Your point?

Is that true in countries that ban guns? My impression was they're relatively rare, even amongst criminals.

I can only speak for the Netherlands and the UK, and in both cases fire arms are rare even amongst criminals. If one is determined they probably could find one, but it is unusual even for them to bother.


Eri

October 19, 2005
Myths About Gun Control
By John Stossel

Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.

"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."

"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."

Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.

And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html

The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.Putting aside the more obvious fact that this is a lie, it's irrelevant. We're not talking about the effects of minor waiting periods or other nonsense, but of banning guns altogether.Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily.From whom? Think, Fyyr.Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally.<img src=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.gif>

Even assuming your 700,000 figure is true, explain to me how 700,000 is more than twice 400,000 (the new libertarian math?).

Also note the sharp slope downward after the Brady Bill. I guess the libertarians immediately dismiss that as a coincidence.The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right.Wrong. Almost every circuit court of appeal has held exactly that: that it is NOT a personal right. If you want the case citations, look at Post #122 here (http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/showpost.php?p=224558&postcount=122). The only "myth" here is the one in the article you posted.As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."Alex Kozinski's court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is one of the courts that has explicitly, and repeatedly, stated that the Second Amendment is not a personal right.

Incidentally, do you consider the U.K. or the Scandinavian countries tyrannical?

Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally

Turn that round. As soon as you say that a third of all gun use is criminal it sounds very dangerous. It would probably sound even worse if that two thirds includes gun use by the military and police.

Putting aside the more obvious fact that this is a lie, it's irrelevant. We're not talking about the effects of minor waiting periods or other nonsense, but of banning guns altogether.

Alex Kozinski's court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is one of the courts that has explicitly, and repeatedly, stated that the Second Amendment is not a personal right.


Banning guns altogether? Would you agree, then, with this quote?
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun control. The street will be safer, the police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."

If you don't like that example, World History offers many other examples of what can happen when citizens are stripped of the means to defend themselves.

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million defenseless Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents bereft of means to fight back, were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

He Who Should Not Be Named fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, without anything more complicated than spears and slings, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, predictably, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.

Am I saying that all gun control will result in death of innocent civilans? No, but if those citizens had firearms, I suspect they would not have all gone quietly into the night, meekly bowing their heads like Tudamorf apparently would have them do.

If government authorities are the only ones to have guns, then if the government abuses its power, to quote a famous movie,
"What are we gonna use on them? Bad language?"

Gun seizure, in most cases, will lead to government tyranny. The more powerful the government, the quicker the tyranny gallops behind the gun control acts.

There will never be full gun seizure in the US. There will never be full gun control in the US. Any attempt to do so, in the spirit of the Founding Fathers, should lead to the tree of liberty getting fresh rain.

If I had to take long odds within my lifetime of one of the following two extremes occurring: Either all guns are confiscated peacefully, or all guns are made legal to acquire, I'd bet on the latter.

But feel free, O Don Tudamorf, to continue to tilt that gun control windmill.

Banning guns altogether? Would you agree, then, with this quote?
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun control. The street will be safer, the police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."Do you think the war would have turned out differently if he had not passed that law?

I don't think so either.

Just because tyrannical governments enact gun control laws to ensure their tyranny, does not mean that every government that enacts such laws is tyrannical.

For every one of your examples, I can easily give you several examples of first world countries that enact gun control laws yet remain free, fair, and most importantly, safe, more so than countries without gun control (e.g., the U.S.).

I've always found the idea of a complete ban of Guns within the US unrealistic, not from justa political standpoint (good luck) but from a practical standpoint, at least in the short/medium term. (Too many are out there)

At the same time I've also found that its stupid to say much about the effectiveness of state gun control laws when most are patchwork. (What good is a gun control law, if you can go to the next state or town over and get 50 pistols without anyone looking at you) Thats not an indictment against gun control laws, its an indictment about having vastly different laws in close proximity to eachother.

I dont doubt that a fair amount of guns used by Criminals are imported from abroad. (if 12 million illegals are in the country, it cant be too hard to get a few guns in)

However, I also dont doubt that many guns used for illegal purposes are gained through legal ways, and then laundried to criminals.

So it seems to me that the smartest approach would be federal laws that do things such as

A) Limit clip size - Dont need 17 bullets for self defense, nor for target practice; leave extended clips to law enforcement/military only
B) Limit amount of guns purchased per month, with decent waiting period. If someone really needs a gun quickly for self defense - waiting period can be waived by local authorities - otherwise no need to have guns immediately for self defense purposes/keeping king of england out of your house/preventing tyranny of government
C) Limit amount of ammo purchasable in a given time period. Allow exceptions for shooting ranges, but require all ammo (except for legally purchasable amount) to be used, or stay at range - Revoke target ranges licenses if they do not adequately regulate this policy.
D) Any weapon that is not a hunting rifle/pistol/normal shotgun, require special firearms licenes to legally purchase. (Mental health check, background check, etc etc)
E) Create national Firearm database where every gun purchase goes into.
F) Prevent local governments from making extending any gun free zone to outside government property, Prevent laws that prevent law enforcement agents from not having guns on said above property.

These would allow those who wish to have gun for self defense purposes as well as any potential george (king or President) from doing crap, but also try to reduce the amount that criminals have access too, as well as letting law enforcement agents try to have more of an edge firearm wise against criminals.

I doubt anything like this will happen for a while, simply because people who are for gun control, dont care enough about it to base their vote on it, compared to people who are against gun control. Although I think it betrays their intention to just be against any form of gun control, and using the issues of government tyranny and self defense as cover.


Related: Increase border patrol.

A) Limit clip size - Dont need 17 bullets for self defense, nor for target practice; leave extended clips to law enforcement/military onlyOr ban handguns and semiautomatic weapons together, since neither are necessary for home defense.C) Limit amount of ammo purchasable in a given time period.This would be practically impossible to implement. Best to ban the ammo altogether.Allow exceptions for shooting ranges,Shooting ranges can carry their own weapons, physically (or electronically) chained to the range.simply because people who are for gun control, dont care enough about it to base their vote on it,You must not have heard of the NRA.

Of course I know about the NRA, but a large part of the reason the NRA is powerful because people who are against gun Control, are abled to be mobilized by the NRA, and are willing to vote the issue; while people who are for gun control, dont vote the issue. (Hence, if you try to do gun control legilisation a sizable portion of the population will *not* vote for you, but if you are either against gun control, or for the status quo, very few people will vote against you because of that)

As for all your other comments, although I dont predict anything close to them happening in the foreseeable future, it could happen (or something close to it, of course would have to kink out details)....

Yours however, have zero political chance of happening short of a major change in opinions on gun control in the US, most people I know who are for gun control, are for more sensible policies, not a complete lockdown/ban

Banning guns altogether?
If you don't like that example, World History offers many other examples of what can happen when citizens are stripped of the means to defend themselves.

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million defenseless Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

more examples snipped


You are missing the point Gunny in all your examples that with or without gun control the outcome would not have been much different.
Banning the sale of guns does not do anything about the guns already sold. The people murdered by those regimes were already poor and defenseless prior to the ban. Even if there had been weapons for sale, they could not have afforded one anyway.
Not to mention that exactly the same would happen in the USA should its government decide to round up all, say, Mexicans and put them in labour camps. Individuals with guns do not successfully stand up against armies with bigger guns, tanks and the ability to quickly relocate more soldiers to any target they wish to defeat.

I do agree with you that the social and political realities in the USA make it highly unlikely that effective gun control laws are established within the next several generations (at least not until the point that their quality becomes so that a single madman can threaten an entire city).
But contrary to popular belief, society will not go down in flames, nor will tyranny be inevitable, when guns are banned.


Eri

Of course I know about the NRA, but a large part of the reason the NRA is powerful because people who are against gun Control, are abled to be mobilized by the NRA, and are willing to vote the issue; while people who are for gun control, dont vote the issue.Ah I misread your post, I thought you were saying the opposite.Yours however, have zero political chance of happening short of a major change in opinions on gun control in the US, most people I know who are for gun control, are for more sensible policies, not a complete lockdown/banWashington D.C. banned handguns for some years. San Francisco recently banned ownership of all handguns and sale of any guns, but it was overturned because state law preempted it.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htmPolls over the past 20 years have consistently shown that one out of three Americans support a ban on handgun possession (except by law enforcement officers).27

Several polls taken in 1999 show this level of support reaching as high as 44 percent to 50 percent.28Public opinion is not as pro-gun ownership as you think (outside of Texas). A handgun/semiautomatic weapon ban is quite reasonable and possible in the progressive states, and with enough of Congress behind it, in the nation. It just takes a little motivation, and a little persuasion, and maybe a few blond haired, blue eyed poster girls who were killed by mean men with handguns.

San Francisco and Washington DC are not average cities in any sense of the word.

Citywide, or even statewide gun bans are not too effective because if the state that is adjacent has more liberal (not that kind!) of gun control laws, any potential effect if the leglistation is going to be substantially negated. (as one can cross the state line and purchase a gun more easily)

Real meaningful gun control laws would need to be at the federal law, and at the federal level, one would need to take a much more moderate approach than the one you outlined.

Even if a majority of people supported such an action, they would either need to put their vote where their mouth is, or it would have to be a super majority. (To counteract the ones who vote the issue who are against gun control)

While public opinion can rally unexpectedly, I don't see gun control being a primary issue for most American voters in the forseeable future.

Washington D.C. banned handguns for some years.

And has the highest gun murder rate in the country.
Highest gun related crime rate in the country.

And has the highest gun murder rate in the country.
Highest gun related crime rate in the country.Because banning guns in just one city is fairly meaningless, when someone can hop in their car and buy guns next door.

That much should be obvious, and was not my point.

My point was, there is more support for gun control and MadroneDorf seems to think.

Now apply that support to the entire nation, and you'll see some real results.

By the way, while NRA zealots like point to Washington D.C.'s murder rate from 1975 to 1990, they conveniently ignore the period after that, where it dropped dramatically, despite continuing gun control. Crime rates are a function of many different variables.

Why does it work in every other first world country with strong gun control laws? Why isn't Fyyr's apocalyptic vision of bad guys buying huge arsenals and mowing down unarmed innocents happening in those countries, and why should I believe it will happen here?

And drug laws stop people from having access to illegal drugs.

Just like prohibition stopped people from having access to illegal alcohol.

/yawn.

get a new argument.

Also note the sharp slope downward after the Brady Bill. I guess the libertarians immediately dismiss that as a coincidence.

There was a sharp slope downward of all major crime in the US during the early '90's...its directly related to the economic boom which was happening. Its the same reason why all major crime was on the rise during the earlier years of this decade...because we were going through an economic regression.

The Brady Bill had no part in it. The largest influence on crime rates for most given geographical areas is wealth. When people are frustrated over financial troubles, they commit more crimes. When people cannot find jobs sufficient to support their families, they commit more crimes. These are well known and understood sociological effects.

Wrong. Almost every circuit court of appeal has held exactly that: that it is NOT a personal right. If you want the case citations, look at Post #122 here (http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/showpost.php?p=224558&postcount=122).

Oh for ****s sake, Tudamorf, you cited 3 cases...not "almost every circuit court of appeal". Most of them have not addressed the issue directly. Three have...2 say it is, 1 says it isn't. The Supreme Court will have to rule, eventually, on the issue...though it will be loathe to do so.

Incidentally, do you consider the U.K. or the Scandinavian countries tyrannical?

Its too early to tell. I consider the Soviet bloc nations to have been tyrranical...and the populace wasn't permitted weapons (and still aren't). They have a higher violent crime and murder rate in Russia than in the US...signficantly higher. I consider the Sudan tyrranical, and the Black African tribes there were not permitted weapons (they're the ones being slaughtered and raped by the Arabs in the Sudan).

By the way, the UK gun crime almost doubled in England and Wales from 98/99-02/03 after they banned handguns in 97.

For every one of your examples, I can easily give you several examples of first world countries that enact gun control laws yet remain free, fair, and most importantly, safe, more so than countries without gun control (e.g., the U.S.).

These nations had less crime, across the board, than the US before they enacted strict gun control laws. That they still have less crime, across the board, after enacting strict gun control laws means nothing.

Not to mention that exactly the same would happen in the USA should its government decide to round up all, say, Mexicans and put them in labour camps. Individuals with guns do not successfully stand up against armies with bigger guns, tanks and the ability to quickly relocate more soldiers to any target they wish to defeat.

Heh. There are more Mexicans in Texas, alone, than there are members of the United States Armed Forces. If the Mexicans are armed...the military will be unable to round them up.

As for your suggestion that individuals with guns do not successfully stand up against armies with bigger guns, tanks, and the ability to quickly relocate soldiers...allow me to proffer a few examples to the contrary: Israel, 1948. Afghanistan, 1980 (hello, they were mostly armed with WWI and WWII era bolt action rifles...against the Soviet military. Yes, they got some aid from the US via stinger missles for taking out Soviet helicopters, but their main armament were bolt-action rifles). Iraq, right now.



I do agree with you that the social and political realities in the USA make it highly unlikely that effective gun control laws are established within the next several generations (at least not until the point that their quality becomes so that a single madman can threaten an entire city).
But contrary to popular belief, society will not go down in flames, nor will tyranny be inevitable, when guns are banned.


Eri

Gun control over free citizens is too new of a phenomenon to tell, really. Overwhelmingly, however, the historical evidence would suggest that it is immeasurably more difficult to oppress an armed people, than it is to oppress a dissarmed people.

No, if we took away all the guns in the US tomorrow, we may very well not sink into tyranny...on the other hand, we may not. I can assure you, however, that we won't if the population is armed.

Washington D.C. banned handguns for some years.

And we all saw how well that went. The murder rate in DC increased somewhere around 200% during that period.

By the way, while NRA zealots like point to Washington D.C.'s murder rate from 1975 to 1990, they conveniently ignore the period after that, where it dropped dramatically, despite continuing gun control. Crime rates are a function of many different variables.

Yes, they are...but relaxed gun control laws is not one of them.

Indeed, the evidence is fairly overwhelming...states with "shall issue" conceal carry permits (necessarily permitting the ownership of handguns), enjoy lower violent crime after they enacted the laws, than before.

These nations had less crime, across the board, than the US before they enacted strict gun control laws. That they still have less crime, across the board, after enacting strict gun control laws means nothing.It means that your/Fyyr's apocalyptic vision of criminals suddenly killing off the good guys is wrong.

As for your suggestion that individuals with guns do not successfully stand up against armies with bigger guns, tanks, and the ability to quickly relocate soldiers...allow me to proffer a few examples to the contrary: . . . Afghanistan, 1980 . . . Iraq, right now.No, if we took away all the guns in the US tomorrow, we may very well not sink into tyranny...on the other hand, we may not. I can assure you, however, that we won't if the population is armed.And you're using Afghanistan and Iraq as your examples of gun ownership preventing tyranny? In Iraq, the commonplace ownership of weapons is causing the tyranny.

And you're using Afghanistan and Iraq as your examples of gun ownership preventing tyranny? In Iraq, the commonplace ownership of weapons is causing the tyranny.

?

No, they were examples of people with rifles standing up against militaries which were much more modernized and capable.

Though your characterization is flawed, as usual.

Afghanistan 1980, yes, weapon ownership permitted them to stand against invading tyrrany.

As for Iraq, I'm reasonably certain its illegal to own guns in Iraq...and was during Hussain's reign as well.

It means that your/Fyyr's apocalyptic vision of criminals suddenly killing off the good guys is wrong.

No, it doesn't.

It means that Western and Northern European nations have always had significantly less violent crime than the US..and unsurprisingly, continue to do so.

It probably has to do with the fact that fewer people live in extreme relative poverty in those places.

Oh for ****s sake, Tudamorf, you cited 3 cases...not "almost every circuit court of appeal".I hope your shooting skills aren't as bad as your counting skills, or else you're going to be missing some toes soon.

I cited you cases from NINE courts of appeal, not 3. They all directly address the issue. It is even the law in your own state.

Give up the NRA propaganda, Aidon, I'm not buying.

No, it doesn't.

It means that Western and Northern European nations have always had significantly less violent crime than the US..and unsurprisingly, continue to do so.Let's see, according to you:

Western Europe + guns = low crime
Western Europe - guns = low crime

Therefore the effect of guns = ?

I'll leave it as a logic exercise for you.

As for your suggestion that individuals with guns do not successfully stand up against armies with bigger guns, tanks, and the ability to quickly relocate soldiers...allow me to proffer a few examples to the contrary: Israel, 1948. Afghanistan, 1980 (hello, they were mostly armed with WWI and WWII era bolt action rifles...against the Soviet military. Yes, they got some aid from the US via stinger missles for taking out Soviet helicopters, but their main armament were bolt-action rifles). Iraq, right now.


But the examples you give are not individuals with guns. In all cases we are talking about coordinated groups, sometimes highly so. Everybody who studies military history (or even watched some documentaries on Discovery History :)) knows that the quality of the weapons is not the deciding factor in the outcome of a war. Training and picking your targets smartly is. For that you need, well, an army.
No matter the size of their arsenal, an individual can fairly simply be isolated and overwhelmed. Until they start coordinating their actions, but at that point we are talking about either an army or at the least about guerilla warfare. But in either case they need regular supply lines, support structures and bases, all of which can be attacked. And that is assuming they have the time to get that organised.

Not that any of this matters for the discussion at hand. In the end the people of the USA have to decide for themselves if the disadvantages of freely (or easily) available weapons (more gun related accidents and more deadly violent crime) outweigh the benefits (hunting, I guess, and being able to defend yourself should the government suddenly turn tyrannical). The question should really be posed in these terms and not hidden behind the smokescreen of constitutional amendments and appeals to emotions rather than rational thought.


Eri

It probably has to do with the fact that fewer people live in extreme relative poverty in those places.

I think this factor is often overlooked in the gun debate.

It doesn't surprise me that crime, including gun crime, went down dramatically in the 90's - overall we had prosperity accross the board. (and that its still, low, for the US now - albeit a little higher then the best of the 90's - probably cause although we are still doing well ecnomically, more people of the population arnt)

Don't they have mandatory gun ownership in Austria or Switzerland?

I wonder what their gun crime rate is.

Or the crime rate in general.

Don't they have mandatory gun ownership in Austria or Switzerland?Switzerland. And that's in connection with their military service; it's just that they keep it at home.

I have no problem giving weapons to our soldiers, either.

And if you want to play the N=1 game, let's look at Japan. The strongest gun control of any democratic country, and the lowest homicide and gun-related homicide rates in the world. (The U.S. has 3.72 gun homicides per 100,000 population. Japan has 0.02.)

For contrast, here is the situation in Japan:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.htmlThe only type of firearm which a Japanese citizen may even contemplate acquiring is a shotgun. Sportsmen are permitted to possess shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure. Without a license, a person may not even hold a gun in his or her hands.

The licensing procedure is rigorous. A prospective gun owner must first attend classes and pass a written test. Shooting range classes and a shooting test follow; 95 per cent pass. After the safety exam, the applicant takes a simple 'mental test' at a local hospital, to ensure that the applicant is not suffering from a readily detectable mental illness. The applicant then produces for the police a medical certificate attesting that he or she is mentally healthy and not addicted to drugs.

The police investigate the applicant's background and relatives, ensuring that both are crime free. Membership in 'aggressive' political or activist groups disqualifies an applicant. The police have unlimited discretion to deny licenses to any person for whom 'there is reasonable cause to suspect may be dangerous to other persons' lives or properties or to the public peace'.

Gun owners are required to store their weapons in a locker, and give the police a map of the apartment showing the location of the locker. Ammunition must be kept in a separate locked safe. The licenses also allow the holder to buy a few thousand rounds of ammunition, with each transaction being registered.

Civilians can never own handguns. Small calibre rifles were once legal, but in 1971, the Government forbade all transfers of rifles.

Gun crime does exist, but in very low numbers. There were only 30 crimes committed in 1989 with shotguns or air rifles. With no legal civilian handgun possession, Japan experiences in an average year less than 200 violent crimes perpetrated with a handgun, of which almost all are perpetrated by Boryokudan, organised crime groups.

Because gun crime still exists in tiny numbers, the police make gun licenses increasingly difficult to obtain. The test and all-day lecture are held once a month. The lecture almost always requires that the licensee take a full day off from work--not a highly regarded activity by Japanese employers. An annual gun inspection is scheduled at the convenience of the police, and also requires time off from work. Licenses must be renewed every three years, with another all-day safety lecture and examination at police headquarters.

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo. Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000. The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan. The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur. Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9. People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.That's what we should be striving for.

Large amounts of that is cultural - as well as that they are on an island.

Of course they commit suicide like no one else too. [also cultural?] (or maybe they are just better at it then we are)

I'd still favor my proposals as a happy medium

as well as that they are on an island.What?Of course they commit suicide like no one else too.What?

I fail to see what their geography, and higher than average suicide rate has to do with, well, any topic in this thread.

Geography: makes it a hell of a lot harder to get guns on said island.

Suicide Rate: My point about suicide rate is that a good portion of the reason why japanese dont kill eachother, is because of their culture, but that same culture, also makes them kill themselves a hell of a lot more too. (Admittedly sort of a tangent)

Geography: makes it a hell of a lot harder to get guns on said island.You've heard of boats, right?

I hope your shooting skills aren't as bad as your counting skills, or else you're going to be missing some toes soon.

I cited you cases from NINE courts of appeal, not 3. They all directly address the issue. It is even the law in your own state.

Give up the NRA propaganda, Aidon, I'm not buying.

The law in my state is shall issue concealed carry permits. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state contitution clearly included the right to bear arms and, thus, the state must provide some means for the people to so bear them. Since Ohio doesn't want people carrying weapons openly, they enacted a concealed carry law.

The 6th Circuit, on the other hand, did, indeed, come to a flawed conclusion back in the '70's and has not since ruled. Fortunately the 9th, 5th, and DC Circuit Courts of Appeal have all but ensured that the Supreme Court will have to render an opinion...though the Supreme Court will, with certainty, do everything in its power to refrain from rendering a decision one way, or another, on the issue.

Yes, that's right, I said 9th Circuit...the 9th circuit court of appeals has split with itself over the 2nd amendment, where in Nordyke v. King (2003) the court of appeals issued an opinion which explicitly states the opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer was inappropriately contrived.

(For those who are confused over how this could be...normally a case heard before a circuit court of appeals is not heard by the entire court, but by a panel of judges. The 9th Circuit might have 12 justices, but only three may hear and decide any given case. An intermediate appellate step after an appellate ruling, but before filing for cert in the Supreme Court is to ask the Circuit Court of Appeals to listen to the appeal again en banc, where the entire bench hears arguments and votes. This didn't happen here, but merely two different 9th Circuit Court of Appellate dicisions which contradict each other, explicitly).


The other circuits have varying degrees of interpritations, Tudamorf, most of them hinging on how they view Miller...

One thing, however, is fairly clear...the 2nd Amendment is applicable to the federal government, not the state governments (though this opinion, also, has begun to ring falsely amongst legal scholars, which may signify a shift in the landscape, as it were, in the future).

Let's see, according to you:

Western Europe + guns = low crime
Western Europe - guns = low crime

Therefore the effect of guns = ?

I'll leave it as a logic exercise for you.

If you are attempting an exercise in logic, then you need to brush up on your logic, Tudamorf.

Western Europe + guns = less crime than the US.

Western Europe - guns = less crime than the US.
________________________________________
Western Europe = less crime than the US.

No more, no less. Unlike your supposition that Western Europe has less crime than the US because it has strict gun control.

Far more telling is the crime increases I noted above in England and Wales in the four years immediately after the handgun ban in '97...further the lack of increased criminal activity in those US states which have enacted shall issue concealed carry permits (actually, crime has dropped in all of those states, but one cannot really assert that there is a causative link...there are far too many other factors).

For contrast, here is the situation in Japan:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.htmlThat's what we should be striving for.

Japan also has a cultural history where the average person is barely human and exists solely to provide for the empowerment of the nobility...they are used to allowing their "superiors" undue control and influence.

Myself...I'm born of a land founded by free men who used evil wicked guns to ensure their liberty and to fend off oppression.

You, on the other hand, are a ****ing fascist.

But the examples you give are not individuals with guns. In all cases we are talking about coordinated groups, sometimes highly so. Everybody who studies military history (or even watched some documentaries on Discovery History :)) knows that the quality of the weapons is not the deciding factor in the outcome of a war. Training and picking your targets smartly is. For that you need, well, an army.
No matter the size of their arsenal, an individual can fairly simply be isolated and overwhelmed. Until they start coordinating their actions, but at that point we are talking about either an army or at the least about guerilla warfare. But in either case they need regular supply lines, support structures and bases, all of which can be attacked. And that is assuming they have the time to get that organised.

Coordinated groups were formed of individuals....the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the population is armed so that they might, during times of conflict, be able to form coordinated militias and units. The 2nd amendment does not require, nor expect, that the states maintain a constant militia. It was, rather, assumed that every man able to carry arms would be part of any militia formed, as needed.

It was the ultimate check on the power of a federal government with a standing military...the presumption that no standing military could possibly overcome an armed population with the ability to form a militia with officers of their own choosing.

What the gun control proponents conviently ignore is that the National Guard fails to meet the purpose of a state militia. It is armed and controlled by the federal government, explicitly (as witnessed by the fact that there are National Guard units serving overseas in a foreign war). It is not a state militia, by any stretch of the imagination, and is inappropriate for either of the two purposes intended. It cannot possible withstand foreign invasion, nor mount any counter to the federal government.



Not that any of this matters for the discussion at hand. In the end the people of the USA have to decide for themselves if the disadvantages of freely (or easily) available weapons (more gun related accidents and more deadly violent crime) outweigh the benefits (hunting, I guess, and being able to defend yourself should the government suddenly turn tyrannical). The question should really be posed in these terms and not hidden behind the smokescreen of constitutional amendments and appeals to emotions rather than rational thought.


Eri

rational thought is the last refuge of a barren soul.

Some things are more important than "rational thought". Rational thought would dictate that the rights of the individual, in any and all circumstances, should be subjugated for the well being of the whole. Rational thought would dictate that a homogenous society will have less waste and strife than a diverse society.

Rational thought should be used when it is of benefit, and abandoned when it unduly hinders the individual rights of men.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state contitution clearly included the right to bear arms and, thus, the state must provide some means for the people to so bear them.We're talking about the Second Amendment, not a state constitution. The gun zealots on this thread have claimed that the Second Amendment creates some sort of personal right to carry handguns. It does not, and I'm glad you've finally conceded that.Japan also has a cultural history where the average person is barely human and exists solely to provide for the empowerment of the nobility...And I suppose Western Europe and Scandinavia do, too?

It is an interesting argument, that they are socially superior and therefore they no longer need guns to keep the peace.Far more telling is the crime increases I noted above in England and Wales in the four years immediately after the handgun ban in '97That's because the statistics defined injury as including threats with a gun, and because there was a dramatic increase in the use of imitation firearms and air weapons after the ban.

You've heard of boats, right?

Its a hell of a lot easier to sneak in weapons via land with a porous border, then it is to sneak guns upon boats and onto an island.

Its a hell of a lot easier to sneak in weapons via land with a porous border, then it is to sneak guns upon boats and onto an island.I don't know about that. I can't imagine Japan could be guarding every meter of coastline all the time, and with even a small boat you could smuggle a crapload of guns.

On land, you'd need a vehicle to carry any significant quantity, which means passing through a checkpoint.

because we catch so many of vans of immigrants going accross the border?

because we catch so many of vans of immigrants going accross the border?It's easier to tell that a gun is a gun than to tell whether a Hispanic-looking person presenting a birth certificate or green card is really legal.

We're talking about the Second Amendment, not a state constitution. The gun zealots on this thread have claimed that the Second Amendment creates some sort of personal right to carry handguns. It does not, and I'm glad you've finally conceded that.

The Second Amendment never claimed to create the right for the citizens to own and carry arms peaceably. The Second Amendment's creators never claimed that it created any rights at all. The Second Amendment only prohibits Congress (and by extension any government) from impinging on the pre-existing natural right of American citizens to carry guns.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87To John Cartwright, 1824: We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; . . .
Source: Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and BerghAs civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

It is an interesting argument, that they are socially superior and therefore they no longer need guns to keep the peace.

Sounds like this quote by He Who Shall Not Be Named
"In reality, the more primitive a people is, the more it resents as an intolerable restraint any limitation of the liberty of the individual." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 424. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke. If you look for this quote in other editions or printings, focus on the date of the talk to locate the correct page number.

Both quotes have an air of "only inferior primitives would object to having their firearms removed for the peace of all. Truly civil and superior beings would see the greater good that would be achieved by removing all the firearms."

I leave you with this quote by a great commentator, Walter Williams.

Every time there's a school shooting, there are demands for greater gun control measures that range from longer waiting periods and mandated gun locks to stricter licensing and restricted sales. With all the political posturing and demagoguery that follows, a hysterical public buys into the seeming plausibility that reduced availability of guns, especially to children, will reduce gun violence.
The facts of the matter are just the opposite.... The fact of the matter is that gun accessibility in our country has never been as restricted as it is now.
Today's liberals wish to disarm us so they can run their evil and oppressive agenda on us. The fight against gun ownership is just a convenient excuse to further their agenda. I don't know about you, but if you hear that Williams' guns have been taken, you'll know Williams is dead. -- Walter Williams, "Kids And Guns,"

You can lay me down next to Williams, for you will not take my guns while I'm alive.

The Second Amendment only prohibits Congress (and by extension any government) from impinging on the pre-existing natural right of American citizens to carry guns.Ok, if you want to get technical: the Second Amendment does not prohibit the federal government from forbidding citizens to bear handguns individually, in a manner not connected with a state militia.

Happy?

Oh, and there is NO "pre-existing natural right" to do anything.Sounds like this quote by He Who Shall Not Be NamedSo because Hitler said it, it must be wrong? <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

It's easier to tell that a gun is a gun than to tell whether a Hispanic-looking person presenting a birth certificate or green card is really legal.

Thats for employment, or for being the driver and going accross the roads.

Not being put in the back of vans and either driving over unpatrolled/low patrol areas or putting them in a back of trucks.

Thats for employment, or for being the driver and going accross the roads.

Not being put in the back of vans and either driving over unpatrolled/low patrol areas or putting them in a back of trucks.What?

Not every immigrant walks accross border. Many are taken on backs of trucks, or in vans.

If its easy to do that, its easy to ship guns too.

We're talking about the Second Amendment, not a state constitution. The gun zealots on this thread have claimed that the Second Amendment creates some sort of personal right to carry handguns. It does not, and I'm glad you've finally conceded that.

Who conceded anything? You just love to invent ****, dont you?

The second amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the the People to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has, quite clearly, ruled that the People are the people of the nation and not the states.

It is not a universal right, hence why convicted felons and those ajudicated mental unfit, are not entitled to bear arms, however that doesn't give the government free reign to ban weapons across the board.

And I suppose Western Europe and Scandinavia do, too?

None of those nations, with the possible exception of France, place the importance on individual rights which the US does. Its the basis for our very foundation. I realize that in your mind individual rights are evil concepts, but you can go move to Japan if you so desire.

It is an interesting argument, that they are socially superior and therefore they no longer need guns to keep the peace.That's because the statistics defined injury as including threats with a gun, and because there was a dramatic increase in the use of imitation firearms and air weapons after the ban.


Therein lies the difference between you...and the Founders, and indeed, the average Americans. Somehow you believe that its social superiority to extinguish individuality, anti-authoritarianism, a healthy scepticism of Governmental intereference in the lives of its citizens, and then to compound it by ensuring that the people can never resist the government.

Whereas, those are the very principles upon which our nation was founded and is supposed to protect.

I don't know about that. I can't imagine Japan could be guarding every meter of coastline all the time, and with even a small boat you could smuggle a crapload of guns.

On land, you'd need a vehicle to carry any significant quantity, which means passing through a checkpoint.

You're simply wrong, for a myriad of reasons.

It is much easier to smuggle goods overland than via sea in an era of radar, sonar, and aerial patrols.

Regardless, the primary reason why Japan can enact such a ban is because culturally the Japanese are willing to submit to authority (of other Japanese...anyways).

It's easier to tell that a gun is a gun than to tell whether a Hispanic-looking person presenting a birth certificate or green card is really legal.

Just like we're able to keep illegal drugs out of our nation, right Tudamorf? Noone ever managed to smuggle cocaine or marijuana or heroin into the US!

****ing moron.

Ok, if you want to get technical: the Second Amendment does not prohibit the federal government from forbidding citizens to bear handguns individually, in a manner not connected with a state militia.

Happy?

You're wrong.

Oh, and there is NO "pre-existing natural right" to do anything.

Once again, you're wrong. Actually the right to keep arms has been existant in common law since before the United States was a nation. The right to defend your home and family is a natural right of all men...and that defense includes against foreign invader and tyrranical government.

Our nation was premised on "certain unalienable rights", if you'll recall, the truths of which were supposedly self-evident. Again, might I suggest, Tudamorf, that you'd be better suited to living in Japan, perhaps?

Again, might I suggest, Tudamorf, that you'd be better suited to living in Japan, perhaps?

You doing the "love it or leave it" bs again?

You doing the "love it or leave it" bs again?

At a certain point, it is not BS. When your disagreement is with the basic fundamental principles and ideals upon which the Republic was founded, than perhaps it is not the place for you...

This isn't a discussion over agreement or disagreement of our foreign policy, or whether we should embrace pure capitalist ideals...this is disagreement on the bedrock ideals which birthed America. The concept that there are certain inalienable rights of men which pre-exist and transcend government, which as a nation we seek to protect and nuture. It is an argument about the basic concept of individual freedom and the benefits of individuality.

Tudamorf isn't disagreeing with our tax scheme or our policy of military force projection. He's in disagreement with the basic underpinings of the American nation...that there is an inherent essential import to individuality, that men are not supposed to live privy to the absolute whim of government or even to the tyrrany of a majority, that men hold certain rights, innately, and they are not privledges doled out by some superior class of people. If a person disagrees with these essential American ideals, then perhaps they are not suited to a nation of individualist rebels and should go live someplace where it is expected for the individual to suppress his wants, needs, and desires for the good of "society" or his social betters.

At a certain point, it is not BS. When your disagreement is with the basic fundamental principles and ideals upon which the Republic was founded, than perhaps it is not the place for you...

Or perhaps the principles are outdated. (Mind you, I'm not saying they ARE, but one "maybe" is as good as the other)

The concept that there are certain inalienable rights

If the rights are TRULY inalienable, and not just something someone wrote on a paper and can be equally unwritten, then you've got nothing to fear from those who seek to take them away.

Of course it's not so. The rights CAN be taken away, just as they were given in the first place. The wording of the US constitution isn't the god given eternal truth, the rights are not inalienable. As long as you as a nation think they SHOULD be inalienable, they are. The minute you change your minds, they're not. This, of course, is a GOOD thing. Any society needs to be able to change with the times, and cannot survive if it isn't willing to examine - and if need be, change - it's principles. Up to, and including, the basics.

If you exile those willing to do so to Japan or wherever, your society is doomed.

(Again - mind you - this is a generic observation. I'm not saying that the basic principle(s) SHOULD change in THIS case.)

You're wrong.*sigh*

I covered this in Post #122 here (http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/showpost.php?p=224558&postcount=122). The Second Amendment does not grant individuals the right to bear arms, it grants individuals the right to form state militias with appropriate arms.

You might not like the law, but it is still the law, and the word of the overwhelming majority of federal courts (including the federal court covering your state).Actually the right to keep arms has been existant in common law since before the United States was a nation. The right to defend your home and family is a natural right of all men...and that defense includes against foreign invader and tyrranical government.There are no "natural rights of men," only those rights those men in power give those men who aren't. They're just opinions, as to what people should and shouldn't do, and like all opinions, are subject to change.

Nature grants you no rights, whatsoever.Our nation was premised on "certain unalienable rights", if you'll recall, the truths of which were supposedly self-evident.Yes, said by the founders in the same breath as "all men all created equal." But all men weren't equal in 1776, were they? All men didn't have those "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

However, over time, that opinion changed, and today, all men (and even women) are almost equal in some respects, and most have the rights specified.

Neither Nature, nor your fictional "Creator" did this, it was ordinarily people, and ordinary opinions.

In the same way, any traditional opinions on gun ownership can change, for the better, so that we might build a superior society (as Japan has done).

Or perhaps the principles are outdated. (Mind you, I'm not saying they ARE, but one "maybe" is as good as the other)

If the principles are outdated, then America has failed. I do know that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is so that people like me don't have to let people like Tudamorf attempt to disenfranchise us of our rights without a fight.



If the rights are TRULY inalienable, and not just something someone wrote on a paper and can be equally unwritten, then you've got nothing to fear from those who seek to take them away.

Of course it's not so. The rights CAN be taken away, just as they were given in the first place. The wording of the US constitution isn't the god given eternal truth, the rights are not inalienable.

By this preposterous logic, there is no rights, ever, anywhere. I presume then, that you disagree that people have a right to life...that women have a right to not be raped...that children have a right to not be sexually molested? Because, by your logic, these rights exist only so long as someone doesn't grab a big stick...

As long as you as a nation think they SHOULD be inalienable, they are. The minute you change your minds, they're not. This, of course, is a GOOD thing. Any society needs to be able to change with the times, and cannot survive if it isn't willing to examine - and if need be, change - it's principles. Up to, and including, the basics.

No, I disagree, entirely. Nations can be formed based on ideals...a society does not need to be able to change the very formative essential ideology of a nation. As an example...Israel is a Jewish nation for Jews. If you do not want to live in a nation for Jews and run by Jews, then perhaps you should move to one of the plethora of nations which are not.

America is a nation founded on individualism and the premise that there are certain natural rights of men which neither the government, nor society as a whole, should infringe upon. If you do not want to live in a place where people have innate rights to disagree with your totalitarian visions, perhaps you should move to one of the plethora of nations where indivdiual rights are severely curtailed.

Some nations are founded on basic ideals...our nation was founded on certain self-evident inalienable rights of men. Should the people of America ever find that those rights should be suppressed, then the answer is the dissolution of these United States and the formation of some other nation which is not founded on such lofty ideals. Of course, they'll have a difficult time with that if they don't take away all of our guns.first.

If you exile those willing to do so to Japan or wherever, your society is doomed.

Who said anything about exile? I'm merely suggesting that his authoritarian views may not be particularly well suited for a nation of free thinking liberals who don't believe that some vegan nutbar in San Francisco should be able to dictate overbroad and harsh national agendas upon the rest of the nation.

*sigh*

I covered this in Post #122 here (http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/showpost.php?p=224558&postcount=122). The Second Amendment does not grant individuals the right to bear arms, it grants individuals the right to form state militias with appropriate arms.

You're wrong.

Boy. You can keep repeating your bull****...but, like, you know, you're still ****ing wrong.

You might not like the law, but it is still the law, and the word of the overwhelming majority of federal courts (including the federal court covering your state).

Too bad the federal courts are in disagreement and that the most recent decisions handed down on the issue have all three been that you're ****ing wrong. Thus, it will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Of course...in Ohio, the state is clear that we're allowed to own guns...thus even if its a state right..the state has said "You shall allow the People to carry handguns", and thus the Federal Government would be overstepping its constitutional authority. Moot point, however, in that, you're ****ing wrong.


There are no "natural rights of men," only those rights those men in power give those men who aren't. They're just opinions, as to what people should and shouldn't do, and like all opinions, are subject to change.

Tell that to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc. etc. etc. Or just move somewhere else, you fascist ****.

Nature grants you no rights, whatsoever.Yes, said by the founders in the same breath as "all men all created equal." But all men weren't equal in 1776, were they? All men didn't have those "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What a asinine argument. "Because the founders were unable to fully implement their vision, at the time, we should ignore the fundamental principles upon which they formed the basis of our nation".

You're a ****tard, through and through.

oh..and good luck forming your "better society", because guess what...I have guns and I know how to hit what I aim for and I will, by God, raise up arms to defend the liberties our nation has repeatedly fought for.

You're wrong.

Boy. You can keep repeating your bull****...but, like, you know, you're still ****ing wrong.Well, if you're unable to read and comprehend court decisions, we're at an impasse. I'll leave it as an exercise to anyone who's interested to read the post, and see for themselves how just about every federal circuit court has held that the Second Amendment does not bestow any personal right to carry handguns or any weapons not related to a state militia.Tell that to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc. etc. etc.They are all dead, and they do not lead this country. Our values don't have to mirror theirs.

For example, those people owned slaves, and considered them sub-human. (Except, they were human enough to be f*cked, and Jefferson was particularly fond of this.) That doesn't mean I have to do the same, or that our nation should, today, be led by those own-people-and-rape-them principles.What a asinine argument. "Because the founders were unable to fully implement their vision, at the time, we should ignore the fundamental principles upon which they formed the basis of our nation".Unable to fully implement their vision? What, did someone grab Jefferson's dick and force it into his slave's vagina repeatedly? No, he just thought people should be unequal, and owned by others.

Their vision back then was very different from our vision today. Just as your vision is different from mine. "Vision" is just another word for opinion, and just as opinions change, so do visions.Or just move somewhere else, you fascist ****.Like it or not, as our society progresses, we will become more and more like those "fascist" societies. It's inevitable, because there can be no progress if we are mired in archaic notions. Soon it may be you who will have to move somewhere else.

[Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison] are all dead, and they do not lead this country. Our values don't have to mirror theirs.

For example, those people owned slaves, and considered them sub-human. (Except, they were human enough to be f*cked, and Jefferson was particularly fond of this.) That doesn't mean I have to do the same, or that our nation should, today, be led by those own-people-and-rape-them principles.

Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and considered them sub-human? Why then did he start an anti-slavery society in 1774 with Benjamin Rush? And why did James Madison, admittedly a slaveholder, also start an anti-slavery society and speak for the abolition of slavery time and time again? Why was John Jay president of a similar society in New York? Why did William Livingston, a Constitution signatory, when he heard of the New York society starting up, write:

"I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke."

Why did other prominent Founding Fathers become members of anti-slavery societies or even found them if there was not one in their local area? Constitutional Convention delegates such as Richard Bassett, Gouverneur Morris, George Mason, Rufus King, Luther Martin, William Livingston, among others.

You have not actually read original founders' writings, have you? Here's a few quotes, that would convince you, if your hermetically sealed mind could be opened. Sadly, you are willfully ignorant of the actual history of this great nation. Every one of these Founding Fathers was present for the creation of this nation. Without all of them, not just the mere 6 that everyone seems to know, there would be no United States.

"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan [B][I]adopted for the abolition of it [/I][/B][slavery]."
-George Washington

"[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known... [N]ever in my life did I own a slave."
-John Adams, [B]Signer of the Declaration of Independence [/B]and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

"[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil."
-Charles Carroll, [B]Signer of the Declaration of Independence[/B]. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.

"As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they ...[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]."
-John Dickinson, [B]Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania.[/B] Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.

"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part."
-John Jay, [B]President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. [/B]Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.

"Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts... by agreeing to this duty."
-Richard Henry Lee, [B]President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence.[/B] Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.

"[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master."
-Luther Martin, [B]Constitutional Convention Delegate[/B]. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.

"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."
-Benjamin Rush, [B]Signer of the Declaration of Independence[/B]. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four... (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. "To the Citizens of the United States."

"Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law... The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all."
-James Wilson, [B]Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. [/B]James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.

"It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others...and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force."
-John Witherspoon, [B]Signer of the Declaration of Independence[/B]. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, "Lectures on Moral Philosophy."

Now, there is no question that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. But this admitted slave owner, or using your terminology,racist rapist, introduced a bill that would have completely ended slavery*. A doppleganger surely must have been the one to introduce that bill, because your so-called racist rapist, Thomas Jefferson, wouldn't want slavery to end.

*-The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. I, p. 4.

Going right on down the line, the most overwhelming error you made was one of the Founding Fathers you directly referred to in Aidon's list, Thomas Paine, the most secular of secular Founders, was an ardant [I]anti-slavery crusader[/I], and wrote this:
http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/afri.html, in 1774.

Strange, what a little actual historical research produces, instead of a poorly articulated regurgitation of liberal professors' manifestos.

In most cases, the Founding Fathers abhored slavery and opposed it at every turn. Hell, even some of the Founding Fathers that did own slaves, opposed slavery at every turn. Either they were all schizophrenic, or they really did want slavery abolished, but wanted it to be codified before they did. Many Founding Fathers released their slaves anyway when America won its independence, men like George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, and John Randolph.

Were the Founding Fathers perfect beings, incapable of hypocrisy? No. That's why their stances on slavery varied to the point of some of them owning slaves themselves. However, it is telling when even slaveowners want their slaves freed, which you could have found easily had you delved into the historical records.

Somehow, I don't think you put a lot of historical research into your statements.

Make no mistake. There is an agenda being put forward to attack the Constitution's principles, and it is an essential prong of that attack, to smear the authors of that Constitution in order to reduce its revelance in American eyes.

Yes, several Founding Fathers did own slaves, but yet, they still spoke for the complete and total abolition of slavery in the US, considering it to be at odds with both the principles of the United States, and Christianity.


Unable to fully implement their vision?

Yes, if you would listen to what history actually transpired 220 years ago that has already been posted on this thread and others like it, you would realize that without the compromise on slavery, the nascent United States would have died before it ever began. The compromise had to be made to get the Colonies to agree to a more perfect Union.

But immediately after the USA was formed, the states immediately began abolishing slavery, state by state. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began abolishing slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; Vermont in 1786; New Hampshire in 1792; New York in 1799; and New Jersey did so in 1804.

Additionally, the reason that the Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa territories all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, the Northwest Ordinance, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King and signed into law by President George Washington, which prohibited slavery in those territories.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=bdsdcc&fileName=22501//bdsdcc22501.db&recNum=1&itemLink=r?ammem/bdsbib:@field(NUMBER+@od1(bdsdcc+22501))&linkText=0
(Article 6, bottom of page, underlined)


Of course, your purpose for stating your original caustic comments above, is that you can only be baiting people that still agree with the founding principles that made this nation great, and thus, You. Are. A. Troll.

Good day, sir!

Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and considered them sub-human?Yep.

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.htmlFranklin owned two slaves, George and King, who worked as personal servants, and his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, commonly ran notices involving the sale or purchase of slaves and contracts for indentured laborers.

Like most people of his period, Franklin initially believed that African slaves and their offspring were inferior to white Europeans and that they couldn't be educated.Now, there is no question that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.I'm glad we agree. And there's also virtually no question that he fathered children with his slave Sally Hemmings, as proven by DNA and other evidence.In most cases, the Founding Fathers abhored slavery and opposed it at every turn.Then why did they own slaves and f*ck them to make more slaves? They may have wanted society to change, but they didn't truly believe that slavery was inherently evil, or they would not have owned slaves themselves. It's not as if anyone was forcing them to own slaves.There is an agenda being put forward to attack the Constitution's principles, and it is an essential prong of that attack, to smear the authors of that Constitution in order to reduce its revelance in American eyes.It is not a smear. It is a statement of fact, an example to Aidon as to why our values need not mirror theirs.

No doubt, centuries from now our descendants will look back at us as crude barbarians, who, among other things, regularly wielded and killed one another with weapons. That doesn't mean we're evil men today; just different men. And just as our descendants centuries from now will adopt different values, so too should we feel free to adopt values that are different from those of the founders.

You and Aidon may be stuck in the past, but the rest of us are looking towards the future.

Oh, one other thing.You have not actually read original founders' writings, have you?The high-sounding words in the founders' books and speeches are all well and good, but if you want historical accuracy, you have to look to accounts of their actions, in their homes, and in their bedrooms.

The founders were just politicians, after all, and only a fool would take a politician's speech at face value.

By this preposterous logic, there is no rights, ever, anywhere. I presume then, that you disagree that people have a right to life...that women have a right to not be raped...that children have a right to not be sexually molested? Because, by your logic, these rights exist only so long as someone doesn't grab a big stick...

The rights exist, legally, as long as we decide they do. They are results of laws, not "natural" "inalienable" rights. They NEED to be protected, because if we don't they can and will be taken away. A "natural" right by definition cannot be lost, and therefore, arguing about them would be an excercise in futility and a bloody waste of an otherwise good key board.

No, I disagree, entirely. Nations can be formed based on ideals...a society does not need to be able to change the very formative essential ideology of a nation.

Historically, no society has survived unless it was willing to adapt. Disagree all you like, them's the facts of life.

Well, if you're unable to read and comprehend court decisions, we're at an impasse. I'll leave it as an exercise to anyone who's interested to read the post, and see for themselves how just about every federal circuit court has held that the Second Amendment does not bestow any personal right to carry handguns or any weapons not related to a state militia.

And yet, the three most recent decisions by the federal circuit courts expressly contradict your assertation.

They are all dead, and they do not lead this country. Our values don't have to mirror theirs.

Certain values do have to mirror theirs...for they were the foundational premise of this great experiment called the United States. Perhaps you are ready to call the experiment a failure and acquiesce to the notion that people must be firmly ruled by a strong central government; however, I am not.

For example, those people owned slaves, and considered them sub-human. (Except, they were human enough to be f*cked, and Jefferson was particularly fond of this.)

That they were unable to meet their own lofty goals does not innate discredit the value of them.

Of course...here (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/slavery.html) are some examples of their views on slavery.

Slavery was a complex issue. They believed in abolition, but were unable to attain it. They railed against it and, indeed, did much in attempts to weaken slavery in the US.

This (http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/slavery.PDF) is an excellent paper I came across regarding Thomas Jefferson, in particular.

Regardless, it is a particularly narrow and uneducated mind which decides that the Founders should be ignored, whole cloth, merely because of the dichotomy between their goals and stated desires, and what they were actually able to accomplish, regarding Slavery.


[/quote]That doesn't mean I have to do the same, or that our nation should, today, be led by those own-people-and-rape-them principles.Unable to fully implement their vision? What, did someone grab Jefferson's dick and force it into his slave's vagina repeatedly? No, he just thought people should be unequal, and owned by others.[/quote]

No, he very clearly didn't...but, once again, rather than actually exhibit education, or any desire to so educate yourself, you merely spout the arguments which you've been told to spout by your ideological masters in this debate.

I must, however, take umbrage at your characterization of Jefferson.

I will leave it up to you to go and educate yourself regarding the veracity of claims of Jefferson having sexual relations with Sally Hemmings. Hint: Only one of her children has a DNA link with Jefferson's family and the testing had to be done with Jefferson's paternal uncle's descendents, since Jefferson has no direct male line. Her youngest son was likely fathered by a Jefferson...there were 25 male Jeffersons at the time, many of them of appropriate age and location to have been the father. Jefferson may have been the father of Ernest Hemmings, he may not have been, but before you start accusing arguably the greatest mind of the American Revolution, and arguably the most important person in American history of being a rapist, you need to proffer some proof, not rank supposition promulgated soley to discredit the man in some disjointed attempt to discredit the very concepts of liberalism and individual freedom.

Their vision back then was very different from our vision today. Just as your vision is different from mine. "Vision" is just another word for opinion, and just as opinions change, so do visions.Like it or not, as our society progresses, we will become more and more like those "fascist" societies. It's inevitable, because there can be no progress if we are mired in archaic notions. Soon it may be you who will have to move somewhere else.

No, Tudamorf, their vision back then was not very different from our vision today. Perhaps it is different from your vision of a nation where the whims of the majority overrule individual freedoms, but that is not what our nation was founded on.

The notions which form the foundation of our national aspirations are not archaic, they are the premise behind modern democracy. They are still very relevant today and, indeed, at times the writings of Jefferson and Madison seem almost prophetic in their suggestion of consequences in area's where we have, since, abandoned their ideals.

We do not have to accept all of their opinions and ideals whole cloth, but certain aspects were and continue to be of such great import to the very fundament of their philosophies, that they must never be abandoned. Amongst these are the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, the right of the People to bear arms for their own defense, rather than to be subjugated to and dependant upon the good faith and will of the government, the freedom from unreasonable intrusion of the government into private life and affairs, the presumption that a man is innocent until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is not, and the freedom to bring grievances before a jury of peers.

These are the very core ideals of America, they are what makes the United States what it is, and while we may not always live up to the ideals we should always strive to do so, rather than attempt to fence and limit those freedoms.

Tudamorf, if I ever leave these United States, it will be because I have chosen to live in Israel. It will never be in flight from tyranny.

We do not have to accept all of their opinions and ideals whole cloth, but certain aspects were and continue to be of such great import to the very fundament of their philosophies, that they must never be abandoned.Agreed. The debate can then be narrowed down to what falls under the former category, and what falls under the latter.

The right to bear arms necessary to form a state militia isn't even remotely one of the rights of "great import," and there is scarcely a record of any debate on the topic. It was obviously not foremost in the founders' minds, and it is an insult to compare it to truly fundamental rights like freedom of speech and religion.And yet, the three most recent decisions by the federal circuit courts expressly contradict your assertation.Show me the three recent decisions which say that the Second Amendment creates a personal right to own handguns.

Yep.

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.htmlI'm glad we agree.

Once again, you leave me wondering if you've actually read what you've linked.

Such as that while Benjamin Franklin (much like Thomas Jefferson), held beliefs that blacks were inferior to whites in many respects, during his life, as he became more exposed and educated himself more, his opinion changed.

Further, it is not fair to judge their beliefs in the context of our morality. We have the benefit of a few centuries of social evolution and immeasurable advancement in sciences which permit us to realize that the differences between races are superficial on a physical level and that what differences there are are almost purely cultural.

These were enlightened men...they based their opinon upon observation and when their observations later in life contradicted what they had beleived, they changed their opinions, coming to realize that the seeming intellectual inferiority they obvserved in blacks was not as a result of them being blacks, but as a result of the conditions under which they were forced to exist in America.

And there's also virtually no question that he fathered children with his slave Sally Hemmings, as proven by DNA and other evidence.

I'm willing to bet you've never actually looked at the evidence you claim for there being "virtually no question". As I posted above...the evidence is not conclusive at all. The male-line descendents of one of her children (just one) had Y chromosome commonalities (distinctive ones) with the male-line descendents of Jefferson's paternal uncle (Jefferson has no direct male-line descendents). DNA evidence merely suggests that one of some 25 Jefferson males at the time was likely the father of Sally Hemming's youngest son. There is plenty of question regarding whether or not he did, though frankly, the entire question is immaterial.

Then why did they own slaves and f*ck them to make more slaves? They may have wanted society to change, but they didn't truly believe that slavery was inherently evil, or they would not have owned slaves themselves. It's not as if anyone was forcing them to own slaves.

Actually, in some ways, yet, they were forced. They advocated varying stances of abolition at great political risk. Further, manumission of slaves was not so simply as merely saying "Ok, you're free to go". For instance, under Virginia law (which Jefferson worked at relaxing, even while attempting to push the idea of emancipation), a manumitted slave had to leave the state within one year...and his former owner was legally responsible for him during that year. In Jefferson's specific instance, his financial situation may have literally prevented him from freeing his slaves. He inherited his slaves from his mother as well as his father-in-law, along with significant debt. He would not have been permitted to free slaves, as opposed to using them against outstanding debt.

It is not a smear. It is a statement of fact, an example to Aidon as to why our values need not mirror theirs.

No, its a statement of propaganda with very little foundation in fact.

No doubt, centuries from now our descendants will look back at us as crude barbarians, who, among other things, regularly wielded and killed one another with weapons. That doesn't mean we're evil men today; just different men. And just as our descendants centuries from now will adopt different values, so too should we feel free to adopt values that are different from those of the founders.

You and Aidon may be stuck in the past, but the rest of us are looking towards the future.

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (George Santayana)

In the future our descedents will look back at us and hopefully view us in proper context for our time...one thing, however, will be certain even in the future. If our descendants retain and value personal liberty, they will have arms. Humans will never cease to regularly wield weapons and kill one another with them. All that ever changes is the weaponry itself. Unless the future brings about a hive mind for humanity, there will always be conflict and violence amongst humans. There will be those who attempt to force their will upon others or attempt to take that which belongs to others by force. These men will not care about law or righteousness, for they have already forgone such ideals, thus laws or moral reprehension against weapon ownership will mean nothing to them, other than making their desires easier.

As much of a believer as I try to be in the ultimate altruism of man...we are flawed beings. We can strive, all we like, to create utopian societies...but in the end, there will always be despots, criminals, advantage takers, and those who attempt to take altruism too far and enforce their specific brand of "enlightenment" on the unenlightened.

People, individually and on all levels of social interaction from the municipal to the national, must have the means to defend themselves against those who would oppress them. They must not be reliant upon the good faith of their government to protect their safety, for when one is reliant upon the magnimosity of government, one is enslaved to that government's whims..whereas a government should serve its people, not master them.

Further, it is not fair to judge their beliefs in the context of our morality.I'm not judging. I'm stating facts. (I believe I went out of my way to explain why they weren't evil, just different.)

My conclusions from the facts is, opinions change, and society must change with them. And that those who are stuck in the past will be cast aside to make way for a new society.I'm willing to bet you've never actually looked at the evidence you claim for there being "virtually no question".I did, and it's a case for Occam's Razor, if I've ever seen one.

Oh, did you know there's compelling evidence that he had Jewish (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/28/MNGG7OCIFQ1.DTL) ancestry too?

Fascinating how you can untangle past lives with DNA.They advocated varying stances of abolition at great political risk.Since when do a politician's speeches have anything to do with his personal actions?If our descendants retain and value personal liberty, they will have arms. Humans will never cease to regularly wield weapons and kill one another with them. All that ever changes is the weaponry itself. Unless the future brings about a hive mind for humanity, there will always be conflict and violence amongst humans.The future has already brought about a "hive mind for humanity," we call them societies. They didn't exist long ago, when humans were just as you described, all armed and killing one another.

The thought of millions of people living in harmony in a vast landscape was likely unimaginable 10,000 years ago. No doubt an Aidon from back then would have explained how large societies are impossible, and the only way for humans to survive is through family-centered warring tribes.

We no longer need to be individually armed to defend our liberty. On the contrary, more and more it suppresses our liberty.They must not be reliant upon the good faith of their government to protect their safety, for when one is reliant upon the magnimosity of government, one is enslaved to that government's whims..whereas a government should serve its people, not master them.This can be achieved without shooting one another in the streets. Hello, democracy, economics, and organization.

Agreed. The debate can then be narrowed down to what falls under the former category, and what falls under the latter.

The right to bear arms necessary to form a state militia isn't even remotely one of the rights of "great import," and there is scarcely a record of any debate on the topic. It was obviously not foremost in the founders' minds, and it is an insult to compare it to truly fundamental rights like freedom of speech and religion.

This statement demostrates your woeful lack of understanding or knowledge of the historical context, discussions, beliefs, and understanding of the times.

Show me the three recent decisions which say that the Second Amendment creates a personal right to own handguns.

They are decisions which say the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and the most recent one, out of the DC Court of Appeals, specifically struck down DC's handgun ban

Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, 478 F.3d 370

US v Emerson (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/emmerson-appeal.html) which goes into detailed examination of the 2nd Amendment and how the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals finds that it is an individual right.

In Nordyke v. King, No. 99-17551 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2003), out of the 9th Circuit, the panel was focusing on how the Silveria court exceeded its mandate in attempting to examine an issue which didn't need to be examined and further attempting to overturn previous 9th circuit precendence on its own. It goes into some detail, however, regarding how the Silveria Court's reasoning on the 2nd Amendment was further unpersuasive in its reasons and assertions that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, and not individual, and openly invited the entire 9th Circuit, en banc to affirm that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, 478 F.3d 370Yes, that's one.US v Emerson which goes into detailed examination of the 2nd Amendment and how the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals finds that it is an individual right.Yes, I already quoted the Fifth Circuit view, when we first discussed this matter in the other thread. Are you counting this as one of the new recent cases?In Nordyke v. King, No. 99-17551 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2003), out of the 9th Circuit, the panel was focusing on how the Silveria court exceeded its mandate in attempting to examine an issue which didn't need to be examined and further attempting to overturn previous 9th circuit precendence on its own.The court held -- and I quote -- "we have squarely held that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective right for the states to maintain an armed militia and offers no protection for the individual's right to bear arms" -- and affirmed in favor of the government.

Which has been the law in the Ninth Circuit all along, arguably the most anti-gun circuit there is.

Despite the view of the D.C. Circuit (which covers just one city) and the Fifth Circuit (which covers mostly, and unsurprisingly, Texas), the majority view in the rest of the country is that there is no such personal right. That's the view that covers my region, and yours.

I'm not judging. I'm stating facts. (I believe I went out of my way to explain why they weren't evil, just different.)

My conclusions from the facts is, opinions change, and society must change with them. And that those who are stuck in the past will be cast aside to make way for a new society.

That may be, but the Founder's, in their wisdom, emplaced a system for making changes to the very Constitution itself...but there is a reason why gun controlists don't attempt a constitutional amendment...they know it won't succeed. This is telling.

If you disagree with one of the fundamental rights enumerated for emphasis in the very bill of rights itself...and can't get a constitutional amendment repealling that right, then perhaps you should rethink where society actually wants to go.

I did, and it's a case for Occam's Razor, if I've ever seen one.

It can be a case. Myself, I view the evidence as insufficient to prove he was or wasn't the father.

On the other hand, I don't use debatable evidence as excuse for calling one of the three greatest men in American History a rapist, which you did, outright.

The rest of your post is little more than senseless prattle.

That may be, but the Founder's, in their wisdom, emplaced a system for making changes to the very Constitution itself...but there is a reason why gun controlists don't attempt a constitutional amendment...they know it won't succeed. This is telling.
Couldn't the same argument be made for an amendment explicitly guaranteeing gun rights for individuals?

Yes, that's one.Yes, I already quoted the Fifth Circuit view, when we first discussed this matter in the other thread. Are you counting this as one of the new recent cases?

I said the three most recent...

The court held -- and I quote -- "we have squarely held that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective right for the states to maintain an armed militia and offers no protection for the individual's right to bear arms" -- and affirmed in favor of the government.

Wrong case, Tudamorf. You're thinking of Silviera. This is Nordyke, the case the 9th Circuit ruled on the next year where that panel explicitly lambasted the Silveira court as I mentioned.

The three most recent federal appellate rulings on the 2nd amendment have all stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

The circuits are split...and one circuit, the 9th, is split amongst itself.

Modern legal scholarship, over the past twenty years, has increasingly embraced the understanding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right...and it should be noted that the two professors who are credited with pioneering this shift in legal thought are both liberals.

If DC appeals to the Supreme Court, they almost have to take it up, in order to settle the differing opinions between the Circuits (though they will very much want to simply deny cert and try not to make any ruling on the issue).

The Supreme Court, but a few years ago, ruled unanimously that the phrase "The People" was indicative of the citizenry, not the states, in its usage in the Constitution.

There is little doubt that Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas would affirm the individual right. It is very likely Ginsberg and Stevens would, as well, as both have written opinions which tangentially, yet fairly clearly, catagorize the 2nd Amendment as an individual right (Thought Stevens, on the other hand, has a history of supporting gun control when it appears before him).

Who knows how Kennedy or Souter would interprit it.

You can, however, be sure of this..if DC appeals the decision and the court grants cert (a strong probability), whatever their decision is will be as narrowly contrived as possible.

Wrong case, Tudamorf. You're thinking of Silviera. This is Nordyke, the case the 9th Circuit ruled on the next year where that panel explicitly lambasted the Silveira court as I mentioned.No, maybe you have the wrong case. I have the right case (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/FCCA5E5E7F2EBF2088256CD1005B853B/$file/9917551.pdf?openelement). The quote is from page 2226.The circuits are split...and one circuit, the 9th, is split amongst itself.The Ninth Circuit is not split (read your own case, which I linked for you). And while the courts overall are technically split, you have one city and one out of the 11 other circuit courts agreeing with you, and the rest (and around 90% of the nation, geographically and demographically) agreeing with me.Modern legal scholarship, over the past twenty years, has increasingly embraced the understanding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right...and it should be noted that the two professors who are credited with pioneering this shift in legal thought are both liberals.When those professors have force backing up their opinions, I'll listen. Now, I can safely ignore them, because the ones with the force are saying the opposite thing. Where I live, where you live, and where most of the members of this board live.

Couldn't the same argument be made for an amendment explicitly guaranteeing gun rights for individuals?

We don't need an amendment...its already there in plain sight, for all to see.

No, maybe you have the wrong case. I have the right case (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/FCCA5E5E7F2EBF2088256CD1005B853B/$file/9917551.pdf?openelement). The quote is from page 2226.

Read the footnote.

Read also Gould's concurring opinion.

Read the footnote.

Read also Gould's concurring opinion.Ok. It's still just rambling, not the law.

We don't need an amendment...its already there in plain sight, for all to see.
If it was really that plain, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

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.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Seems pretty clear to me.To me, too. The right of the people to bear arms in order to form a well regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

It hasn't been, and isn't being, by handgun control.

Do you interpret all of the comma'ed Bills of Rights that way?

That they are all or nothing clauses?

That the second parts of the Amendments apply only if and to the first parts of them.

That the second parts of the Amendments apply only if and to the first parts of them.The first half ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") is a dependent clause, and cannot be read alone. Therefore, it must be modifying the last half, the independent clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."), or else it wouldn't be there.

Unless you are suggesting that the drafters of the Bill of Rights didn't understand basic English.

The first part is not really even a grammatical clause.

There is no real predicate in it. Being is a gerund, a noun essentially, or part of an objective clause. A state of being.

And then I also have the Ninth Right; if you were to try and argue that the predicate(shall not be infringed) in that sentence has the whole first 'clause' as it's object over the explicit use of the word right in the second clause.

You have not explained why if, as you claim, the whole first half is superfluous, it is even there, and separated by a comma.

It is not superfluous in intent.

It is superfluous in execution, though.

No governmental body, either Federal or State, has set up a well regulated militia. And while a bunch of Idaho boys may get together on weekends, drink beer, dress in camos, and target practice, and call themselves a militia; that is/or was hardly the intent.

It is like the 3rd Amendment. It just does not really matter anymore. The explicit Right part does matter, of course.

You can probably blame that on Ethan Allen, btw.

The reason is...
The Framers wanted citizens to own guns like this guy, and be readily rally-able to fight if needed, even if they were to fight their new Democracy if it went bad.
http://www.alpacavista.com/lhs1965/images/Lexington/Minuteman%20Statue.jpg

It is like the 3rd Amendment. It just does not really matter anymore.I agree. Since militias are unnecessary today, we might as well do away with the Second Amendment altogether.

Try it.



But I guess you are, of course. One degree down a slope at a time, one can of Crisco at a time.


It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom that it must steal in upon them by degrees and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes in order to be received.
-David Hume, 1742

You conveniently left out the second sentence to that sentiment, as well.

But I guess you are, of course. One degree down a slope at a time, one can of Crisco at a time.More like, one federal appeals court at a time. The Second Amendment is practically meaningless where you live, right now, as well as in most of the nation.You conveniently left out the second sentence to that sentiment, as well.Because it doesn't logically follow from the first.

You still have the Right that keeps the government from lodging troops in your home when they want to.

You still have the Right that keeps the government from lodging troops in your home when they want to.And you still have the right to bear arms reasonably related to the maintenance of a state militia.

Not that it means much any more (thankfully).

It does not state a state militia, does it?

I just formed one, btw.

A militia, that is.

Because there is not a requirement of how large one needs to be, I just started one, with one. You could join if you like, but you will have to pass a test, it needs to be regulated, ya know.

The First Regiment of Fyyr Freepersons, Local 1.

It does not state a state militia, does it?A well regulated Militia, <b>being necessary to the security of a free <u>State</u>,</b> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Not a free Fyyrdom. Sorry, nice try.

It's a strange coincidence at the moment that the cherished right to form a militia and bear arms is exactly what the Iraqis have done. These militias are opponents of democracy and are dragging the country into civil war. US troops are actively trying to disband the militias.

I dunno, Fyrr's militia can work to guarantee the state of wherever he lives remains free.

My interpretation of that is that the people have the right to bear arms and form militias such that the government can't get too out of control and start unnecessarily removing freedoms. Should it come to that. I'd rather exhaust all other options before having to resort to a militia against the government.

My brother-in-law is in a militia too... a scottish one. They parade around in their kilts with their sporran's swinging. I think they have a cannon, but that's about it for arms.

Ok. It's still just rambling, not the law.

The "ramblings" of Federal Court opinions are more than mere ramblings, even when they are not explicitly precedential.

They do hold influence with other courts.

Its moot, however. The USSC will eventually rule on the matter..and I, for one, have little doubt how that will come out, since the notion that its a collective right was the misguided products of a limited period of time during the late 60's and 70's.

Even the liberal left wing professors realize that the notion of it being a collective right rather than individual is..foolish.

If you want gun control, push for it in California, if you can. The standard is fairly clear, still, that the 2nd Amendment is not incorporated via the 14th and is a prohibition against the Federal Government only (though opinion on that is slowly changing, as well).

If you want broad federal gun control...you'll have to pass an Amendment.

It's a strange coincidence at the moment that the cherished right to form a militia and bear arms is exactly what the Iraqis have done. These militias are opponents of democracy and are dragging the country into civil war. US troops are actively trying to disband the militias.

Such is the risk of freedom and why it is not necessarily beneficial to us, as a nation, to attempt to bring freedom to everyplace on the globe.

I don't wan't democratic free Arabs...they inevitably decide to use their freedom to enact Muslim law and oppress everyone. Its their particular brand of madness.